Beyond the Number: What Sustainability Rankings Can and Can't See

University rankings are often read as a reflection of institutional performance. A higher position on the ranking scale can easily be interpreted as evidence that one university is doing more, achieving more, or creating greater impact than another.

This issue is particularly relevant when looking at the 2026 Times Higher Education (THE) Sustainability Impact Ratings, previously known as THE Impact Rankings. The ratings assess participating universities against the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) across four broad areas, namely research, stewardship, outreach, and teaching. Universities can submit all the relevant information for as many SDGs as they are able to. According to the 2026 Sustainability Impact Ratings methodology, a university must provide data for SDG 17 and at least three other SDGs to be eligible for the overall ranking. Where a university provides data for more than three other SDGs, THE uses the three in which the university has performed most strongly to calculate its overall score. As explained by THE, SDG 17 accounts for 22% of the total score, while each of the three selected SDGs accounts for 26%.

What is particularly intriguing is that these rankings have revealed considerable differences between institutions. While LUMS’s position does not yet reflect the breadth of its work, several Pakistani universities score more strongly in the THE Impact framework. The THE Sustainability Impact Ratings 2026 provide further context on how universities compare across the SDGs.

This difference raises a crucial question:

Does a ranking position always reflect the full extent of a university’s work, or can the way that work is measured, evidenced, and presented also influence what a ranking can recognize?

What does THE actually measure?

The Sustainability Impact Ratings are not simply a measure of how many sustainability initiatives a university has.

THE uses different types of metrics. Some are based on bibliometric data from Elsevier's Scopus, while others measure continuous metrics, such as the number of students receiving financial aid. Other metrics require evidence-based reporting to assess policies and initiatives by universities, giving credit for both the evidence and whether it is publicly available.

For example, SDG 4 includes indicators related to research, teaching, and access to education, while SDG 5 includes indicators related to research, policies, and measures addressing gender equality. SDG 8 includes indicators related to research, employment, and initiatives addressing decent work and economic growth. SDG 17 measures areas including research, partnerships, SDG reporting, and education on the SDGs.

This creates an important distinction between doing work and having that work captured through these ranking indicators.

In other words, only working towards an SDG does not translate into a higher ranking score. The work must also align with the specific indicators used by THE and be supported by the required evidence.

Looking beyond the ranking

LUMS has done significant work across several areas that align with the SDGs, including research, educational access, employment, social impact, and gender equality.

LUMS reports that it has received 320 research grants from international sponsors to date, with 214 successfully completed and 71 involving international collaborative partners. The university also reports PKR 6.7 billion in funding from national and international donors, including PKR 2 billion from international donors. These figures are reported by LUMS on its Research Highlights page. LUMS has also consistently invested in expanding access to higher education through financial assistance. According to the LUMS Giving Report 2025, PKR 13.32 billion has been disbursed as financial aid since inception. The report also notes that LUMS students come from over 160 cities, towns, and villages across Pakistan. 

The university has reported a 94% placement rate in its 2025 Academic Report. Beyond graduate outcomes, LUMS also focuses on broader social impact and community engagement. Through the Centre for Business and Society, LUMS works across community, academia, and industry through research, policy discussions, training, conferences, and community engagement. For example, through its #BridgingTheGap initiative, CBS conducted four digital literacy and life skills trainings for over 150 female artisans from across Punjab between October 2024 and January 2025, in partnership with Kaarvan Crafts Foundation. The initiative focused on digital marketing, catalogue photography, life skills, customer negotiation, climate resilience, and live selling, and was linked to SDG 5, SDG 8, and SDG 10.

LUMS also undertakes several initiatives to promote gender equality and inclusion. For example, the Saida Waheed Gender Initiative funded eight student-led research projects during 2024-25, addressing topics including gender, technology, inequality, work, and health.

All of this demonstrates LUMS’s work across areas relevant to multiple SDGs. However, the work alone does not determine how it is reflected in a ranking. THE evaluates specific indicators within each SDG, requiring particular types of data, outcomes, or supporting evidence. For example, LUMS’s financial aid initiatives are relevant to SDG 1, but THE specifically assesses the proportion of low-income students receiving financial aid. Similarly, while LUMS’s placement rate relates broadly to SDG 8, THE’s indicators focus on specific areas such as employment practices, labour rights, and workplace policies. International research collaborations may also contribute to areas covered under SDG 17, but THE assesses particular forms of collaboration and evidence.

From Institutional Activity to Ranking Recognition

The key question, then, is not whether universities are doing SDG-relevant work, but how that work is captured by the ranking indicators.

This is consistent with how THE assesses evidence across its ranking indicators. Universities may be doing similar work across areas such as research, employment, and sustainability, yet their performance in the ranking can differ depending on the indicators used and how the required evidence is documented and presented.

For LUMS, this could mean that institutional activities and their supporting evidence are not always easily identifiable or directly connected to the indicators against which they are assessed. The issue, therefore, may not be the absence of relevant activities, but how clearly they are documented and mapped to the ranking indicators.

The gap, then, is less about doing the work than about evidencing it and making it visible in the form the ranking requires. It is therefore important to see whether the existing institutional information is properly mapped to the relevant indicators and supported by the evidence required by the ranking methodology.

Moving Towards Better Reporting

Improving ranking performance does not only imply the need to develop additional initiatives. It also includes optimizing the use of the activities that are already underway at the university. A more coordinated reporting practice can include:

• Maintaining a central repository for SDG-related evidence.

• Assigning focal persons to coordinate information for different SDGs.

• Ensuring that relevant policies and initiatives are publicly documented where required.

• Preparing an annual record of the university’s SDG-related activities and outcomes. 

These practices can help in recognizing activities addressing different goals, linking them to the relevant indicators, and establishing the availability of the evidence needed for scoring each indicator. Moreover, they can help in prioritizing the areas in which the university needs to intervene.

For LUMS, this means systematically documenting existing activities and treating evidence collection as a year-round process, rather than a one-off exercise at submission time.

Better reporting can help improve the university’s ranking scores by ensuring that relevant activities and evidence are properly documented and mapped to the ranking indicators. It can also help the university identify activities undertaken, recognize gaps in evidence, and report its impact more efficiently.

Putting the Ranking in Perspective

University rankings can be a useful tool in comparing institutions, but a ranking position does not necessarily reflect the extent of work that is being carried out by a university. As the example of LUMS shows, significant work is taking place across areas that are relevant to several SDGs.

As LUMS works to improve its ranking position, it must also ensure that the university’s work is properly documented and captured. Better reporting enables universities to showcase their efforts, identify gaps in evidence, and highlight areas that may need further attention.

Looking beyond the ranking means looking beyond the number. The ranking provides one measure of institutional performance, but the work, outcomes, and impact behind that number provide a much broader picture. For this reason, departments and centres can play an important role by sharing relevant SDG-related activities, outcomes, and supporting evidence with the Office of Programme Enhancement (OPE) to help ensure that the university’s work is properly documented and captured.

Note: AI tools were used to help refine grammar and improve readability in this blog.