From Impact Rankings to Ratings

Times Higher Education (THE) is relaunching its Impact Rankings as the Sustainability Impact Ratings next month. Because environmental sustainability and societal impact are increasingly critical factors for prospective students, donors and for faculty recruitment, institutional leaders must ask: Are you ready for the change?

Disclosure: An Insider’s Perspective

Before diving into the details, I must share my personal history with the THE Impact Rankings. My perspective is shaped by years “under the hood”: I led the development of the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings for five years, later advised the University of Toronto on their Impact Rankings strategy, and serve on the Impact Rankings Advisory Board.

While I maintain close professional ties with the senior team at THE, my goal is to provide an objective analysis of where these rankings stand and where they are headed.

How Impact is Measured

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the UN in 2015, represent a universal call to action to end poverty and protect the planet. While governments lead the charge, the THE Impact Rankings (launched in 2019) were the first to measure how universities contribute to these 17 goals.

The rankings methodology relies on three primary data pillars:

Research Output: Mapping scholarly papers to SDGs utilizing Elsevier’s machine learning algorithms, focusing on volume and citations.
Quantitative Metrics: Hard data on university operations, such as CO₂ emissions, gender ratios, and SDG-specific graduates.
Policy & Evidence: Evaluating institutional actions (e.g., equity policies) through a 3-point system that rewards public transparency.

THE calculates scores for each SDG, then combines a university’s top three performing SDGs with their SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) score to create the overall ranking. See details of the methodology here.

The Opportunity: A Different Kind of Excellence

Traditional rankings are often criticized for being “research-heavy” and favouring wealthy, established institutions. The Impact Rankings broke this mold by:

Highlighting Real-World Value: They reconnect the university’s mission to its local and global community.
Global Diversity: The top of the table looks remarkably different, with institutions from Indonesia, Malaysia, and Denmark standing alongside the usual powerhouses from the US and UK.
Strategic Data Collection: They push universities to think critically about how they measure and communicate their societal contributions.

The Challenges: Reliability and Participation

Despite their value, the Impact Rankings face significant headwinds that institutions must navigate:

The “Elite” Gap: Most of the world’s top institutions have never participated, and the few that did have mostly withdrawn over time. We must ask: Can a university truly claim to be the best if the top institutions aren’t in the room?
Volatility: The methodology (combining the top 3 SDGs) creates “crowding” at the top with little difference in scores. Tiny shifts in data can result in massive swings in rank, which can erode trust in the results.
Mis-alignment: Not all the SDGs are well aligned with university missions and the data used in the rankings are not always a good fit. In particular the indicators often focus on intensity measures rather than the scale of impact.
Data accuracy: The Impact Rankings are a closed system without public disclosure of the data, we rely on THE to police the data quality and make decisions on criteria interpretation. This does not always work to plan.

The 2026 Shift: From “Rankings” to “Ratings”

THE have been very open about the shortcomings of the Impact Rankings and undergone a lengthy consultations (including with myself) to address the concerns.

They are currently transitioning from Impact Rankings to “Sustainability Impact Ratings” This name change is subtle but significant; it acknowledges that this is a self-selecting membership network rather than a comprehensive ranking.

Starting in 2026, participation moves to a subscription-based model. While this promises data dashboards and networking for members, it also creates a potential pay-to-play barrier that may further change the landscape of who is represented. Thus far THE have declared that more than 1,600 universities have joined the Sustainability Impact Network, a very impressive start but down from the 2,318 that were ranked in the 2025 Impact Rankings.

The launch of the Sustainability Impact Ratings will be on June 23rd at the THE Global Sustainable Development Congress. Although THE promises continuity from the Impact Rankings it will be interesting to see what the changes are and which universities have decided to continue to participate.

I wish THE luck with the re-launch and hope this is the beginning of something bigger and better that delivers on the original promise and ambition of the Impact Rankings.

How PRAXIMA Can Help

Whether your university is looking to participate for the first time or is reconsidering its membership in light of the new fee structure, navigating this data requires a nuanced approach.

At Praxima, we help universities:

Audit their SDG data to ensure accuracy and maximum impact.
Strategize which SDGs to prioritize for the greatest reputational gain.
Interpret methodology changes to brief senior leadership effectively.

Are you ready ? contact me to discuss how we can align your impact story with the new Sustainability Impact Ratings.