Environmental sustainable development goals in Central American public universities: the vision of the rectors

One of the main challenges currently facing public universities is achieving long-term sustainability. To achieve this objective, such organisations generally follow the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; Flórez‐Parra et al., 2024; Leal Filho et al., 2020). These goals provide 169 specific targets to guide institutional efforts. The implementation of the SDGs in universities varies significantly depending on contextual factors such as geography, whether the universities are in developed or developing countries, institutional priorities and resource availability (Heleta and Bagus, 2021; SDSN, 2020). The overarching goals of the universities themselves, including their positioning in academic or other rankings, are also an important factor (Garde-Sánchez et al., 2020). In the context of Central America, biodiversity and environmental wealth can be considered a determining element in organisational strategies.

University rankings, such as the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE ranking) and the Quacquarelli Symonds World University Ranking (QS), generate great controversy due to their methodologies and how their indicators are structured (King et al., 2018). Increasingly, these rankings not only consider research-related indicators but also evaluate sustainability-related aspects due to an increased awareness of the social role of higher education institutions (Di Nauta et al., 2020). Ranking systems with sustainability indicators, such as the UI GreenMetric, represent another method of positioning universities internationally, taking environmental sustainability criteria into account (Atici et al., 2021; Abo-Khalil, 2024). Both the THE ranking and the QS ranking have incorporated into their metrics the progress made by universities in implementing the SDGs. The THE ranking’s sustainability evaluation methodology is structured in four blocks (research, administration, dissemination and teaching). This ranking highlights the three SDGs in which the entity stands out, so it is not possible to compare between organisations because each entity strategically chooses which of the 17 SDGs it wants to prioritise. The QS ranking covers multiple aspects that are weighted as follows: sustainable education (40%), sustainable institutions (35%) and sustainable research (25%). It analyses an organisation’s social impact through the following indicators: employment and opportunities (20%), equality (30%), quality of life (10%), impact of education (20%) and knowledge sharing (20%; QS World University Rankings, 2021), as shown in Table 1. Such metrics assist universities in adjusting their strategies to meet the demands of their stakeholders.

The SDGs are being implemented across diverse university functions, mainly teaching and research. In particular, within the field of teaching, sustainability is being promoted through the content of the curricula (Leal Filho et al., 2019a; Sawani et al., 2025), and universities are increasing funding for sustainability-related research projects (Caputo et al., 2021). Such methods are increasingly integrated into university strategies (Villagra and Campos, 2019). The measures are designed to address the demands of all university stakeholders and ensure their involvement (Leal Filho et al., 2018; Leal Filho et al., 2019b). In terms of organisational management, the implementation of the SDGs is usually linked to two major themes: infrastructure (buildings, energy, materials and waste), and community (governance, leadership, mission, investments, funding, welfare and services; Longarela-Ares et al., 2021; Marrone et al., 2018).

Undoubtedly, the preservation of the environment is one of the most crucial aspects of the SDGs. University initiatives to achieve this goal are characterised by actions such as reducing carbon output, promoting energy conservation, reducing water consumption, complying with environmental legislation, improving waste management through recycling, reducing campus operating costs and developing green infrastructure (Leal Filho et al., 2021a; 2021b; Flórez-Parra et al, 2021; Saha et al., 2021).

Sustainability reports, the standards for which are set by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), are a globally used instrument for assessing SDG implementation; however, they remain insufficient and non-uniform when evaluating SDG management in universities compared to other sectors (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2014). Sustainability reports issued by universities primarily focus on indicators related to the environment and social issues (Caputo et al., 2021). While the commitment of American and European universities to the SDGs could be considered optimal, the situation in other geographical areas, such as Latin America, is less promising (Cavalcanti-Bandos et al., 2021). Data on the incorporation of various SDG-related declarations by Latin American universities remains scarce (Cavalcanti-Bandos et al., 2021). In Latin America and the Caribbean, universities’ pioneering attempts to incorporate an environmental dimension began in the 1970s (Sáenz, 2024). Later, four Latin American universities were signatories to the 1990 Talloires Declaration, a ten-point action plan for incorporating sustainability and environmental literacy at colleges and universities composed at an international conference in Talloires, France. Among the signatory institutions were the Autonomous University of Central America, Costa Rica; the College of Mexico; the Federal University of Mato Grosso; and the State University of Campinas, Brazil (Hernandez et al., 2018).

Implementing the SDGs in universities located in developing countries, such as those in Central America, requires the establishment of concrete measures that address the social, economic and environmental dimensions of these goals. Given the complexity of this task, it is relevant to conduct studies that explore these dimensions in greater depth. In this sense, our work aims to analyse and evaluate the level of implementation of the SDGs, specifically those related to environmental issues, in universities belonging to the Central American University Superior Council (CSUCA). This study contributes to the limited literature and may serve as a reference for other emerging countries. Central America covers only 1% of the planet’s landmass but contains 7% of global biodiversity (Díaz et al., 2022); much of its population lives in natural areas (Imbach et al., 2017; Vivero and Porras, 2025). As well as safeguarding biodiversity, Central American universities play a critical role in regional development and preserving ancestral cultures, including those of indigenous and Afro-descendant communities (Mato, 2016).

Although several studies have documented progress and challenges in SDG implementation at the university level (Leal Filho et al., 2019a; Caputo et al., 2021), there remains a lack of understanding of the phenomenon from a managerial perspective in the context of countries in the Global South, including Central America. This study aims to analyse the differences in the implementation of SDG strategies in universities through the perceptions of rectors, as they are the ones who, together with their governing bodies, ultimately define universities’ institutional and strategic policies. Through their perceptions, we will analyse the degree of and the possible differences in the implementation of the SDGs, especially those related to the environment, among Central American universities. Our goal is to answer the following question:

Are there significant differences between groups of universities based on the country in which they are located or their international standing?.

The paper is structured as follows: in the next section, we address the importance of the SDGs in Central American universities. Section 3 presents the methodology used in the paper. In Section 4, we present the study’s results. Finally, in the Section 5, we draw conclusions based on these results.

The integration of the SDGs into the university sphere in Latin America is becoming more widespread. In the 1980s, universities in Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela were pioneers in their concern for environmental issues. In the case of Central America, environmental analysis in universities began in Panama in 1994, followed by Costa Rica in 2000 (Sáenz, 2015; Muñoz, 2006).

Numerous national and international organisations and networks (approximately 34) are analysing and monitoring SDG implementation in the Central American university environment, which shows the interest in the subject at the institutional level (CRES, 2018; ARIUSA, 2018; Sáenz, 2018). Table 2 lists these organisations.

There is little research in terms of papers related to this study’s topic, although some studies have analysed universities’ environmental policies by country. Calles (2020) identified Salvadoran universities as having the strongest focus on SDG-related research, training, knowledge and social protection. The Observatory for Sustainability in Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (OSES-ALC, 2019) conducted a study of universities in Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama, measuring environmental indicators across five aspects: governance, training, research, extension and management (OSES-ALC, 2019). Noteworthy case studies have been performed by the University of Costa Rica (UCR) and the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, Managua (UNAN-Managua). The UCR analysed the impact of the student training process and its connection with equity policies in Costa Rica (Salas et al., 2020), while the UNAN-Managua charted compliance with the SDG targets through the use of colours, with green indicating 8–10 targets were met, yellow meaning 4–7 were met and red denoting that only 1–3 targets were met (Villagra and Campos, 2019).

Since the United Nations resolution of 25 September 2015, by which the General Assembly approved the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Central American universities have been gradually including various SDG indicators in their performance metrics (Volunta and National Review, 2017). Figure 1 shows the legal frameworks driving the implementation of the SDGs and the year of their adoption.

There are 29 public universities in Central America: 10 in Nicaragua, six in Honduras, five in Costa Rica, five in Panama and one each in Guatemala, El Salvador and Belize. Of these, 23 are members of the Central American Higher University Council (CSUCA; Link to a PDF of the cited article.Link to a PDF of the cited article.). We created our sample from the universities in this group; we also included the University of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, which is not located in Central America but belongs to the CSUCA. Thus, the sample comprises 24 universities, all of which are public institutions (Table 3).

Data were collected through closed-question surveys addressed to the rectors of each institution. Two of the questions in the questionnaire were dichotomous (1 / 0), and the others used a seven-point Likert scale (1 lowest, 7 highest) to indicate to what degree the university engaged with, mainstreamed, was aware of, implemented, was satisfied with and prioritised the SDGs (Solomon et al., 2003). The survey was conducted using Google Forms from 25 June 2021 to 30 January 2022. Institutional support was provided by the CSUCA secretary general, who sent a letter to rectors endorsing the survey. We received a total of 14 responses (58.33% of respondents). This methodology has been used in previous research to assess universities’ sustainability practices (Abo-Khalil, 2024). It is worth noting that the rectors of the highest-ranked Central American universities in the QS World University Rankings (QS World University Rankings, 2021) participated in the survey.

The questionnaire consisted of 68 items. The questions were selected based on previous research (Ferguson and Roofe, 2020; Leal Filho et al., 2019b) and the SDSN’s guide for implementing the SDGs in universities (SDSN Australia/Pacific, 2017). The questionnaire had ten sections, as detailed below and in Table 4:

1. The first section (questions 1 and 2) consisted of two dichotomous questions related to environmental certifications or declarations (SDSN Australia/Pacific, 2017).

2. The second section (questions 3–5) covered the degree of involvement of various stakeholders in designing environmental sustainability planning in universities (Flórez-Parra et al., 2021).

3. The third section (questions 6–17) addressed the extent to which environmental sustainability actions were incorporated into institutional policies, plans or programmes (Villagra and Campos, 2019; Leal Filho et al., 2021a; 2021b).

4. The fourth section (questions 18–24) comprised questions on financial allocations and the search for funding sources for environmental sustainability activities across various university areas (SDSN Australia/Pacific, 2017; Sawani et al., 2025).

5. The fifth section (questions 25–30) contained questions regarding environmental sustainability training for stakeholders (Leal Filho et al., 2019a; Sawani et al., 2025).

6. The sixth section (questions 31–41) dealt with the degree of implementation of environmental actions (SDSN Australia/Pacific , 2017).

7. The seventh section (questions 42–49) assessed the degree of internal satisfaction with the programmes developed (Ferguson and Roofe, 2020).

8. The eighth section (questions 50–58) analysed campaigns or actions aimed at raising awareness of various environmental-related aspects (Leal Filho et al., 2019b).

9. The ninth section (questions 59–65) focused on the university’s degree of commitment to various SDG-related aspects (Longarela-Ares et al., 2021; Marrone et al., 2018).

10. Finally, section 10 (questions 66–68) inquired about which aspects of the three axes (economic, social and sustainable) that comprise the SDGs were prioritised by the university (Leal Filho et al., 2019a; Marrone et al., 2018; SDSN Australia/Pacific, 2017).

Table 4 presents the mean score of every questionnaire item for each of the universities in the sample. These values were calculated by taking the average value of the universities’ responses to each question. Except for the first two questions, which were dichotomous (1 / 0), all questions were measured using a seven-point Likert scale, where the maximum score for each question was 7.

We conducted a cluster analysis to analyse differentiated patterns in Central American universities in the implementation of the environmental SDGs and explore possible groupings among universities with similar characteristics. This technique allows for the identification of homogeneous subsets of institutions based on multiple variables related to their degree of commitment to, implementation of and satisfaction with the SDGs. The purpose of this analysis was not only to describe overall implementation levels but also to understand whether distinct institutional profiles existed within the sample.

First, a hierarchical method (Ward’s method; Ketchen and Shook, 1996) was used to determine the number of groups with homogeneous characteristics. Two clusters emerged through the application of this technique.

Next, a non-hierarchical analysis, the K-measure, was conducted to identify the components of the clusters. The first consisted of eight universities, and the second contained six. We used SPSS 23.0 for the analysis. Table 4 shows the results obtained for each cluster.

The results show two distinct university profiles in relation to the implementation of the environmental SDGs, reflecting different governance models and strategic priorities. Figure 2 presents the overall percentages for the 10 sections, allowing us to analyse the differences between the clusters. The percentages have been calculated by dividing the average score obtained in each section by the maximum possible score and multiplying by 100. Except for section 1, cluster 1’s scores are higher than those of cluster 2. The results show that while universities take the SDGs into account, more effort is needed to ensure sustainability (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2014), especially in cluster 2 universities.

Table 4 shows the results of the items for every cluster.

The aspects for which cluster 1 scored the highest were the incorporation of policies, plans or programmes to reduce an institution’s ecological footprint (Table 4, question 11; Villagra and Campos, 2019); the implementation of environmental sustainability training (Table 4, question 25; Leal Filho et al., 2019a; Sawani et al., 2025); and commitment to the development of green infrastructure (Table 4, question 59), green facilities (question 60) and the pedestrianisation of campuses (Table 4, question 62; Longarela-Ares et al., 2021; Marrone et al., 2018). In terms of the three axes of the SDGs (economic, social and sustainable), cluster 1 prioritised the social sphere (Table 4, question 67).

The aspects for which cluster 2 scored highest were waste management (Table 4, question 6; Leal Filho et al., 2021a; 2021b; Flórez-Parra et al., 2021; Saha et al., 2021); reducing the risk of natural disasters (Table 4, question 41); promoting environmental awareness and education (Table 4, question 54); and integrating the SDGs into the three areas of corporate social responsibility – economic (Table 4, question 66), social (Table 4, question 67) and environmental (Table 4, question 68; Longarela-Ares et al., 2021; Marrone et al., 2018).

Cluster 2 contains the highest-ranked Central American universities in the QS World University Rankings. This cluster’s scores are lower than those of cluster 1 for all sections except the first, which referred to standards and sustainability certifications. Universities in this cluster may be trying to ensure their competitiveness by improving their sustainability and academic rankings (Atici et al., 2021; Abo-Khalil, 2024). This cluster scored the highest on the section related to the three aspects on which corporate social responsibility is based; this was to be expected, since the universities in the cluster follow the sustainability assessment guidelines of the GRI, which provide corporate social responsibility indicators. This cluster also had relatively high scores for the section related to the incorporation of environmental actions in plans and strategies (Sáenz, 2024), perhaps due to THE’s international benchmark for universities (THE, 2021).

In general, the results derived from the rectors’ perceptions are encouraging; at the same time, they show the difficulties faced by public universities in developing countries (Muy, 2019). The sections in which universities from both clusters achieved the lowest scores were those related to the implementation of environmental actions and the satisfaction of stakeholders with the actions carried out. This result could be due to universities having limited resources to devote to these aspects, which means that they cannot implement their plans, stakeholders feel the plans fall short of the required standards or that stakeholders do not receive information about what is being done (Flórez-Parra et al., 2021; Leal Filho et al., 2018; Leal Filho et al., 2019b).

Cluster 1 is made up of eight universities, of which three are in Costa Rica, two are in Nicaragua, two are in Honduras and one is in Panama. Cluster 2 contains universities from five countries: two in Nicaragua and one each from Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic. The latter group is characterised by the fact that three of the universities are very well positioned in the QS ranking, and two of them (the University of Costa Rica and the University of San Carlos, Guatemala) score highly in the UI GreenMetric Ranking (Figure 3). These universities’ high positioning in the rankings is consistent with theoretical frameworks of legitimacy and stakeholder theory (De Iorio et al., 2022; Flórez-Parra et al., 2014; Sawani et al., 2025).

It is worth noting that the sample is composed solely of public universities, and the highest-ranked Central American universities in the QS World University Rankings are part of cluster 2. These universities’ commitment to environmental issues is lower than that of the universities in cluster 1. Our results show that concern for environmental issues is not linked to geographical location, as each of the clusters contains universities from different countries. The best-ranked institutions in each country prioritise certifications and planning, while the worst-ranked institutions show a higher degree of commitment to sustainability and stakeholder involvement. Cluster 2 universities may be focused on meeting ranking indicators, neglecting other sustainability-related aspects that are not included in the standards (Atici et al., 2021; Abo-Khalil, 2024).

Cluster 1’s scores for section 1, which relates to environmental certifications and adherence to climate emergency declarations, are low. This lack of certifications or declarations of solidarity with climate emergency pacts may be a missed opportunity for greater visibility in the international arena. Although these universities aspire to reduce their carbon footprints and become institutions of reference for society in their adaptation to climate change, in general, they do not certify their environmental commitments. Certifications are important insofar as they act as impartial evidence of an institution’s commitment to climate mitigation goals, since they are granted by external entities upon an institution’s proof of compliance with specified standards (Leal Filho et al., 2021).

In relation to section 2, which dealt with the degree of stakeholder involvement in universities’ sustainable design planning, cluster 1 scores highly. This finding aligns with the literature on different models of university management and could be associated with a collegial, stakeholder-oriented management model (Flórez-Parra et al., 2014). In addition, we found that cluster 1 institutions had a high level of interest in their staff, who are largely responsible for sustainability teaching (including curricular, extracurricular and co-curricular teaching) and research; this finding is also consistent with the literature (Leal Filho et al., 2019a).

Regarding section 3, which examined the degree to which institutions incorporated environmental sustainability actions into their policies, there is a pronounced difference between clusters 1 and 2. The data show that cluster 1 universities place a higher priority on reducing their ecological footprint, reducing CO₂ emissions and saving energy, actions that are typical of institutions focused on climate change education (Busch et al., 2019). These commitments are of particular relevance in countries such as Costa Rica (universities that are the majority in this cluster) that have specific legislation in this regard (Muñoz, 2006).

The results for section 4, which covered financial allocation, show that cluster 1 allocates more resources for setting up offices to promote best practices in environmental management, searching for new external financial sources and for research programmes related to sustainability. Universities in cluster 1 place more importance on sustainability programmes, which differentiates them from other institutions and positions them as pioneers. Furthermore, we found that universities with higher capital expenditure, that is, financial resources for research and infrastructure, are more committed to sustainability (Blasco et al., 2020).

Section 5, which contained questions related to training carried out to achieve competence in environmental sustainability, shows that the priorities of the cluster 1 universities are focused on stakeholders (students and the teaching and administrative staff). These findings confirm that these institutions operate based on the collegial model proposed in the literature (Flórez-Parra et al., 2014). Studies have shown that universities with greater stakeholder support gain greater legitimacy (Bautista Chamizo et al., 2024; Chatelain-Ponroy and Morin-Delerm, 2016).

Section 6, which focuses on the degree to which universities implement environmental actions, shows that cluster 1 institutions score highly in reducing energy expenditure on lighting, increasing recycling and reuse practices and natural disaster risk mitigation. Although such findings are very common in the literature, universities in general are leaning towards actions designed to save water and energy or reduce waste (Zhu et al., 2020). The results for natural disaster preparedness are unsurprising, as Central America is very prone to such occurrences, which makes it vital for universities to take action to reduce the negative consequences (Díaz et al., 2022).

Section 7 covered institutions’ internal satisfaction with the environmental programmes that are being developed; scores were higher in cluster 1 than in cluster 2, with the difference between the clusters being most pronounced in this section. Countries in the study region have a high biodiversity potential, which helps to explain why universities located there are more inclined to promote environmental protection programmes (Díaz et al., 2022).

Section 8’s questions inquired about campaigns and actions aimed at raising awareness of various environmental-related aspects. Universities in cluster 1 were most likely to prioritise awareness-raising actions related to promoting environmental education, energy saving within university facilities and combating climate change; these aspects received mean scores of 6.5, 6.0 and 6.0, respectively (Table 4). Our findings align with previous research, as most universities have implemented energy-saving measures, such as reducing water consumption, increasing waste management and recycling and reducing campus management costs (Flórez-Parra et al., 2021).

Section 9 assessed universities’ commitment to sustainable infrastructure development. The results show that cluster 1 gives the highest priority to green space facilities and infrastructure that mitigates environmental impact, followed by campus pedestrianisation and green and accessible campuses for all levels of mobility. Cluster 1’s scores are higher than those of cluster 2. These findings support previous research, insofar as the development of sustainable university infrastructures and “green campuses” is an international trend (Anthony Jnr, 2021).

Finally, the results for section 10, which investigated the degree to which universities prioritised the three axes (economic, social and environmental) that comprise the SDGs, indicate that cluster 1 universities tend to lean more towards the social sphere. The average score for cluster 1 institutions was 6.62, compared to 5.16 for those in cluster 2 (Table 4). This finding partially coincides with the literature, insofar as some studies show that universities place considerable emphasis on the SDGs related to health and the quality of education, while the remaining SDGs receive less attention (Villagra and Campos, 2019). The results could be explained by the importance placed on the protection of indigenous communities in Central American countries, where universities play an important role (Mato, 2016). Figure 4 shows the results for each of the universities in cluster 1.

The universities that make up cluster 2, in general, achieved lower scores than those in cluster 1. These universities may place greater emphasis on action plans aimed at increasing the number of students. This group establishes basic parameters in the implementation of the SDGs in universities (see Figure 5). Cluster 2 universities show greater interest in international standards and, specifically, environmental certifications, as indicated by the results for section 1, where cluster 2 scores higher than cluster 1. The results partially coincide with the universities’ positions in the QS and THE rankings, in which the universities of Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic score highly in metrics aimed at evaluating the implementation of the SDGs (QS World University Rankings, 2021; THE, 2021).

In section 2 about participation of stakeholders in the design of sustainability (students, teaching and administrative and service staff), the group of universities that form part of cluster 2 obtains a very low score compared to cluster 1. These findings partially respond to previous research, as there are universities in this group that are very well positioned in the rankings and others that follow their guidelines. These universities are very inclined towards a management competitiveness model compared to cluster 1 whose management was more stakeholder-oriented. Management competitiveness model is more prone to international positioning in the academic rankings (Flórez-Parra et al., 2019).

Cluster 2’s average score for section 3 (the degree to which environmental sustainability actions are incorporated into institutions’ policies, plans or programs) was 5.33 for initiatives aimed at waste management and recycling, the promotion of non-polluting means of transport on campus, and the pedestrianisation of the university. Our research results coincide with recent studies that indicate that a university’s geographical location influences its implementation of the SDGs; each institution chooses which indicators it wants to prioritise according to its mission and institutional strengths (De la Poza et al., 2021).

Regarding section 4, which addresses the budgets allocated by universities for environmental sustainability, cluster 2 universities have low scores for question 20, which deals with research training contracts related to sustainability, and question 18, which refers to scholarships assigned to sustainability programs, with average scores of 2.00 and 2.16, respectively. These results are consistent with the idea that these universities depend on international funds, donations, or strategic alliances to finance sustainable initiatives, given the lack of government support (Leal Filho et al., 2019b). Many Central American countries, such as Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras, have a high poverty rate (Vivero and Porras, 2025), which means that their governments cannot allocate substantial resources to address sustainability issues.

In section 5 (training to acquire competence in environmental sustainability), cluster 2 scored highest on training students at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels (questions 29 and 28) and providing training activities to administrative and service staff (question 27). The priority of these universities may be to develop a culture more inclined towards sustainable development, which aligns with research analysing the incorporation of the SDGs into university curricula at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels (Aleixo et al., 2020).

In section 6 (the implementation of sustainable actions), cluster 2 scores similarly to cluster 1 (with mean scores of 5.16 and 5.25, respectively) in only one aspect: programmes to mitigate natural disaster risk. This result is logical, as the universities operate in the same geographical area. Cluster 2’s lowest scores are for the implementation of renewable energy sources, such as solar power, wind generation, geothermal systems and biomass boilers. Perhaps the implementation of these measures is too costly, and these institutions place greater emphasis on recycling systems, water saving and energy reduction (Visa and Moldovan, 2022); the universities in cluster 2 score significantly higher in these areas.

Section 7 (internal satisfaction with sustainability measures) covers eight aspects. This section is where universities in cluster 2 achieve the lowest scores. Their highest score in this section is for biodiversity conservation programmes or projects, with a mean of 3.50. Biodiversity is a crucial element in Central American countries, so it is to be expected that great efforts are focused on its care and protection (Sáenz, 2015).

Cluster 2 universities demonstrate considerable interest in promoting environmental education, climate change awareness and recycling, as indicated in section 8, in which cluster 2 scores the highest in these three areas. Climate change affects institutions worldwide, and universities are no exception; this issue results in the creation of support networks to facilitate the implementation of SDG-related environmental measures (Berchin et al., 2021).

Regarding section 9 (the commitment to infrastructures aimed at sustainability), universities grouped in cluster 2 score highest on three aspects (questions 60, 61 and 62) related to providing ecological campuses: creating gardens or green areas, carrying out measures to pedestrianise campuses and promoting the use of bicycles or the use of public transport. These results align with other studies that show a trend towards “green” campuses designed to create ecological awareness among their users (Filho et al., 2024). This approach is consistent with theoretical frameworks of legitimacy and stakeholder theory (De Iorio et al., 2022; Flórez-Parra et al., 2014; Sawani et al., 2025). Central American universities’ environmental commitments are similar to those of universities in other geographical areas that are using the concept of a “green” campus to promote sustainable development (Ribeiro et al., 2021; Fissi et al., 2021).

Finally, we will consider the results for section 10, which investigated the degree to which universities prioritised the three aspects (economic, social and environmental) linked to the SDGs. The results for cluster 2 are very encouraging. Cluster 2 universities place the most value on the SDGs related to the social and environmental spheres. This finding suggests that these universities are incorporating the SDGs independently of any political ideology in accordance with the national development plans of their home countries, and are gradually integrating the SDGs into their training agendas. These findings are consistent with the existing literature, which indicates that universities have been implementing the SDGs only belatedly and sparsely (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2014; Leal Filho et al., 2019a).

Finally, according to the results obtained from the cluster analysis, different groups of Central American universities have implemented the SDGs at two clearly identifiable levels, which we will refer to as advanced and basic. Cluster 1 universities have implemented the SDGs to an advanced degree, likely due to a high level of stakeholder participation, as is typical with a stakeholder-oriented management model. Cluster 2 universities have implemented the SDGs at only a basic level. The universities in this group have adopted a competitiveness management model based on marketing that seeks high positioning in international university rankings. Such institutions follow the guidelines of international benchmark universities in implementing the SDGs. Therefore, it should be noted that the SDGs related to environmental issues are being developed in universities on the basis of specific measures implemented by the countries in the region and their impetus is mainly due to the policies and regulations established in these countries, which are more widespread in those universities with greater prestige in the region.

This study has some limitations. We have only analysed public universities, specifically those belonging to the CSUCA. In addition, the analysis was based on surveys reflecting the rectors’ perceptions of the degree to which their institutions had implemented the SDGs, which are inherently subjective. In addition, these results may be influenced by the targets set in the indicators and/or management reports to be submitted by the heads of institutions. The study could be extended to analyse the perceptions of other stakeholders, such as students, teachers and/or administrators. This could help to further assess the status of the SDGs at the university level. We also see it as important to look at the defence of indigenous communities and the preservation of ancestral cultures (Mato, 2016).

This study demonstrates that different Central American public universities implement the environmental SDGs at two levels: an advanced level, linked to stakeholder participation and attention to their demands and a basic level, associated with a competitiveness management approach oriented towards high positioning in international university rankings. The implementation of the SDGs is determined by the national regulatory framework and is most visible in universities with greater regional prestige.

Data analysis reveals a clear structural differentiation between the two clusters of Central American universities in terms of the implementation of actions linked to the SDGs. Universities in cluster 1 obtained higher scores in almost all evaluated sections. This was particularly pronounced in the section related to the integration of sustainability into institutional plans and programs and in the section focused on the prioritisation of the three axes of the SDGs (economic, social and environmental), with cluster 1 universities placing greater emphasis on the social axis. This result indicates that institutional leadership is a determining factor in the implementation of sustainable policies.

On the other hand, cluster 2, which comprised universities with lower overall scores on environmental sustainability indicators, exhibited a more limited and fragmented approach to SDG integration. Despite these institutions scoring relatively well in the section related to the prioritisation of the SDGs (economic, social and environmental), their low scores in key areas such as the implementation of environmental actions and the allocation of financial resources indicate inadequate sustainable development. This limited SDG implementation may be due to structural constraints, such as limited budgets or a lack of government support. However, some of the universities in this group score highly in international university rankings. If these institutions adopt strategies focused on external positioning, such as seeking greater visibility in the international context, it may represent an opportunity for them to adjust their agendas to become more sustainable.

The research also finds that the SDGs are driving changes in university management and in the development of strategic plans. The institutions belonging to the CSUCA are gradually integrating some SDG-related targets, primarily those related to the environment. In addition, the CSUCA’s guidelines for integrating SDG management are boosting the implementation of programmes aimed at achieving SDG targets at all levels: teaching, research and outreach.

Although the results are encouraging, the development of the 17 SDGs set out by the UN in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the university level requires greater attention from the bodies that administer universities and allocate budgets so that universities can implement programmes to achieve these SDGs. The differences between universities located in developed and developing countries will continue to increase due to the limited budget allocations available in poorer nations, placing Central American universities at a constant disadvantage.

Our work indicates that the fact that Central American universities are located in a high-biodiversity environment tends to encourage the implementation of environment-related SDGs. As well as sustaining biodiversity, Central American universities can also play a valuable role in the protection of indigenous communities and ancestral cultures.

Our findings provide empirical evidence to advance our understanding of how university governance models (stakeholder-oriented vs competitiveness management) influence the implementation of the SDGs. We suggest exploring how these institutional logics affect other areas (such as social or economic) of the 2030 Agenda in future studies.

Universities with more participatory models appear to achieve greater internal integration of the SDGs. This implies that strengthening mechanisms for participation and collaboration with internal stakeholders can be an effective way to improve institutional environmental commitment.

Given the strategic role that universities play in regional sustainability, our results illustrate the need for national policies that promote and fund actions aligned with the SDGs, especially in institutions with less international visibility.

The practical implication of this study is that universities in developing countries should enhance their understanding of the SDGs, especially those in nations with high biodiversity and a strong presence of indigenous communities that require protection and recognition. The results also indicate how higher education institutions can progressively advance towards meeting the goals established by the SDGs at all levels of management. The adoption and implementation of the SDGs are emerging as a crucial element of differentiation and positioning for universities in sustainability rankings, by which they can demonstrate their commitment to social responsibility and sustainable development.

In terms of social implications, the study highlights the growing relevance of sustainability in the university environment and its impact on the perceptions and practices of management teams. The increased implementation of the SDGs within universities will promote an institutional culture oriented towards change, innovation and environmental and social responsibility.