Accessibility Tools
Green rankings have had a real positive impact on universities, but a major agency’s recent change in model may signal a worrying shift towards further commercialisation, writes Sarah Spiegel.
One long-standing criticism of university rankings is their consolidation of existing inequalities, favouring well-resourced institutions in the Anglo-American world. However, green rankings seemed to break with this tradition through their broader, more inclusive approach. This allowed for the meaningful inclusion of institutions from the Global South, as new rankings focused on societal impact over traditional criteria such as publication output and research funding.
When the first international sustainability ranking – Greenmetric – appeared in 2010, only ninety-six universities participated worldwide. Greenmetric was established by the University of Indonesia to promote sustainability in higher education institutions. Universities were seen as role models for societies.
In response to the emerging importance of climate and environmental action, especially among the younger generation, Times Higher Education (THE) launched their Impact Rankings in 2019, followed by QS (Quacquarelli Symmonds) in 2022 with their Sustainability Ranking. No other approach to a global benchmarking – e.g. in areas such as employability, interdisciplinarity or teaching – has motivated so many universities to participate in a ranking. The opportunity to gain visibility in a global competition was unmissable for many in our sector.
Since their launch in 2019, the Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings have provided a valuable framework for evaluating universities based on their contributions to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Indeed, as a former member of the Impact Rankings’ advisory board I shared the original enthusiasm of THE to make global rankings more participatory and equitable.
With a strong link to the framework of the SDGs, the Impact Rankings became a trusted resource and a real catalyst for the commitment of universities. From my own experience as an expert on rankings, I observed the rare effect that a ranking – and the ensuing reflection on data, ecological footprint or research on SDG topics – had a positive and lasting impact. It led to intense discussions and a commitment to sustainability issues within the German university landscape. Reporting systems were updated and curricula were adapted. Existing engagement or excellent research in little-known disciplines became more visible and appreciated.
However, a recent announcement signalled a fundamental change in how this prominent sustainability ranking operates. At their Global Sustainable Development Congress in June 2025, THE announced the shift of the former Impact Rankings to a subscription- and membership-based participation model, renamed as ‘Sustainability Impact Ratings’.
As the German Rectors’ Conference expressed at the time, this decision threatens the very idea of inclusiveness. The relationship between THE and participating universities will be changed into a client-based one, undermining the core principle of equal access. Moreover, it will favour well-funded higher education institutions and systems.
To be fair and transparent, rankings must offer the same conditions and opportunities to all participants. This is even more true when a ranking claims to promote the SDGs in higher education worldwide.
To explain the reasons behind the changes to the Impact Ratings, THE cite the challenge of data and evidence evaluation against the background of the rapid growth of participating universities. The huge amount of policy documents, publications and data would be difficult to process and ‘a high-costly undertaking’. The annual subscription charge would cover the access to THE’s expert team, which now would be able to support universities in the validation process. Moreover, the members of the exclusive network of paying universities would be provided access to powerful data and marketing assets to facilitate strategic benchmarking. All members would receive official certification of their rating scores.
Although, entry into the new Sustainability Impact Ratings will be priced with reductions to poorer countries, whether these rankings will serve as credible global benchmarks is highly questionable. What message will the rating convey, if position and visibility depend on a financial contribution rather than performance? A rating position might no longer be a valuable marketing tool if the main competitors are missing or the competition is not considered relevant.
The big ranking agencies are often criticised for the increasing commersialisation of the ranking system and their data-driven business models. Why should institutions be charged for benchmarking data, given that they submit it themselves? The portfolio of consultancy services by THE and QS includes a wide range of services. For a long time, THE tirelessly explained that participation would always be free and optional. In this sense, the relaunch suggests a broader strategic shift towards further commercialisation. It raises the question of whether participation charges will be established for other rankings in the future.
Green rankings have been quite a success story in recent years, but their popularity should not be misused. We must protect the values of fairness, transparency and global inclusiveness, which are core to a sustainable future and made the former Impact Rankings meaningful.
