The role of higher education institutions networks in shaping SDG agendas: mapping types, scales and priorities Open Access

Since the UN Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, higher education institutions (HEIs) have progressively engaged in sustainability initiatives through declarations (Bekessy et al., 2007; Lozano et al., 2013), curriculum redesign (Qian, 2013), partnerships (Michelsen, 2015) and the implementation of sustainable campus initiatives (Dan Beveridge et al., 2016). This engagement intensified after 1987 and culminated in 2015 with the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which frames global challenges through 17 interconnected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Dlouhá et al., 2018; Sonetti et al., 2020).

Despite the urgency of these challenges, nearly a decade after their adoption, global progress remains critically off track. According to the Sustainable Development Report 2025, only 17% of SDG targets are projected to be achieved by 2030 (Sachs et al., 2025). Corroborating this stagnation, global challenges are becoming increasingly acute, with the latest Planetary Health Check report indicating that seven of the nine planetary boundaries have now been transgressed (Sakschewski et al., 2025).

In this context, the role of HEIs must extend beyond the provision of inclusive and equitable education emphasized in SDG 4 (Kiehle et al., 2023; McCowan, 2020; Withycombe Keeler et al., 2016). HEIs can be seen as dynamic learning communities, comparable in scale and complexity to small cities, where sustainability principles can be both tested and implemented in practice (Kaldis, 2008; Kohl et al., 2021; Sonetti et al., 2020; Arias et al., 2021). Moreover, their relative autonomy allows HEIs to adopt innovative solutions and foster sustainability awareness across generations (McCowan, 2020). To fully express this transformative potential and effectively respond both to the SDGs and to emerging global challenges, many HEIs have formed networks and partnerships with other HEIs and a range of stakeholders, from local communities to government agencies (Corazza and Saluto, 2021; Inês et al., 2025). These networks have emerged as key drivers of sustainability transitions within higher education and beyond, encouraging their members to meet shared goals through deadlines, indicators, regular reports and coordinated efforts (de la Vega-Leinert et al., 2009). Furthermore, as environmental challenges and climate change demand insights that cut across disciplinary boundaries (Jørgensen, 2016; Schipper et al., 2021), HEI networks play a vital role in fostering collaboration among diverse fields and actors (Popowska and Sady, 2023). This cross-cutting engagement is especially valuable for tackling the interlinked nature of the 17 SDGs, helping to surface the complex interdependencies across environmental, social and economic domains (Le Blanc, 2015; Thiam et al., 2021). Despite the significant potential of HEI networks, most of the existing literature has focused on a limited number of case studies or specific geographical contexts (Dlouhá et al., 2018; Leal Filho et al., 2023; Sonetti et al., 2020) Other contributions have primarily explored the historical evolution of HEI networks (Alghamdi et al., 2017; Kohl et al., 2021). This leaves a gap in understanding their current landscape, particularly in terms of geographical dispersion, network types and the SDGs they address. This research addresses this gap through a content analysis of all the websites of all HEI networks identified in the literature, mapping their structural characteristics, geographic distribution and thematic focus. By revealing not only dominant patterns but also overlooked regions and SDGs, the study sheds light on the evolving role of HEI networks in shaping more inclusive and balanced approaches to sustainability.

Contemporary global challenges, such as climate change, digitalization, globalization and the fragmentation of public spheres, have placed HEIs under pressure to redefine their identity and demonstrate societal relevance (Mehling and Kolleck, 2019). In response, HEI networks have emerged as a strategic mechanism to strengthen social, political and economic impact through external collaboration. By engaging diverse stakeholders, HEIs can leverage complementary expertise to codevelop inclusive, sustainable solutions (Leal Filho et al., 2023). Broader stakeholder engagement also distributes responsibility, empowers collective action and increases the likelihood of durable change through legitimacy and community support (Leal Filho et al., 2025b). Local, national and international partnerships also foster alignment with societal needs, enhance communication and increase policy influence (Eweje et al., 2021; Fowler and Biekart, 2017).

The global spread of the SDGs has further supported HEIs networks. HEIs increasingly view the SDGs as an opportunity to intensify cooperation and networking both internally, between departments, programs and research units, and externally, with NGOs, communities, businesses and other universities (Leal Filho et al., 2023). In particular, SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) explicitly promotes multistakeholder collaboration and recognizes the role of HEIs in target 17.6, which calls for “knowledge sharing and cooperation for access to science, technology and innovation.”(UN, 2025a). Similarly, SDG 4 (Quality Education), implicitly supports the need for academic collaboration in target 4.7, which emphasizes the need for prepare all learners to acquire the knowledge and skills required to promote sustainable development (Bowser et al., 2024).

The ways in which HEI networks address contemporary societal challenges, particularly those framed by the SDGs, have been conceptualized in multiple forms across the literature. Despite terminological differences, they can be grouped into two broad categories:

1. Collaborative governance and co-creation approaches: This cluster includes participatory action research, community-based research, sustainability science partnerships, urban living labs, service learning and cross-sector partnerships that co-design solutions with societal stakeholders. Here, HEIs act as communication hubs and laboratories for testing new collaborative practices (Knight and Motala-Timol, 2022; Mehling and Kolleck, 2019).

2. Institutional evolution models: A second strand interprets the transformation of HEIs through the lens of institutional change. Within this group fall the Hybrid University (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000), which portrays HEIs as increasingly entrepreneurial and interconnected with industry and community systems to enhance economic and social impact (Etzkowitz and Viale, 2010; Martini, 2023), and the Helix models, from the Triple Helix (university–industry–government), to the quintuple versions that incorporate civil society and the environment (Cai and Etzkowitz, 2020; Inês et al., 2025; Martini, 2023). Also aligned with this category are the Whole Institutional Approach, which promotes a holistic transition to sustainability by embedding it in teaching, operations, governance and stakeholder interaction and the Sustainable University proposed by the UNEP, which builds upon this approach (Kohl et al., 2021; UNEP, U.N., 2021; UNESCO, 2012). In all these models, collaboration is not peripheral but constitutive: HEIs evolve by formalizing cooperation with external actors and integrating sustainability into institutional structures.

Despite their public-interest mission, HEIs engaged in multistakeholder networks may become vulnerable to the influence of dominant economic and political actors. Scholars have warned that such collaborations can blur institutional boundaries and shift priorities away from democratic and civic mandates (Calhoun, 2006; Mehling and Kolleck, 2019). In addition, broad or superficial commitments to the SDGs, may reflect symbolic rather than substantive engagement, the so-called “SDG washing” (Costa et al., 2025). These dynamics underscore the importance of building HEI networks on transparent, inclusive and accountable foundations.

In light of the arguments presented above, and to encompass the wide range of collaborative arrangements through which HEIs contribute to the 17 SDGs, this study uses a broad and inclusive conceptualization of “network” (Dlouhá et al., 2018). This definition includes both collaborative governance models and institutional evolution frameworks through which HEIs contribute to the 17 SDGs.

This study combines a two-step research design to explore how HEI networks engage with the SDGs: a systematic literature review followed by a content analysis of the identified networks’ websites. The systematic review (Ahn and Kang, 2018) is conducted to collect all relevant review articles addressing HEIs, sustainability and collaborative network arrangements. Focusing on review articles enables capturing how the literature conceptualizes the topic at an aggregated level, rather than through individual case studies (Munn et al., 2018). Review articles are therefore used as structured documentary sources to systematically identify HEI networks and ensure a comprehensive and representative final sample.

The study is conducted in Web of Science and Scopus, widely used in bibliometric studies due to the standardized structure of their records (Bukar et al., 2023). The search string used in both databases is structured in three main levels to ensure that the retrieved articles simultaneously contained synonyms of HEIs, synonyms of networks and references to sustainability or the SDGs:

(TITLE-ABS-KEY (“universit*” OR “higher education” OR “college*” OR “academ*” OR “campus” OR “polytechnic*” OR “school*”)

AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“network*” OR “allianc*” OR “coalition*” OR “association*”))

AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“sustainab*” OR “SDG*”) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBSTAGE, “final”))

AND LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “re”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)).

The search returns 1,652 articles, which are screened according to the PRISMA protocol (2020) as illustrated in Supplementary Materials Figure S1. Articles are excluded if they did not address HEI networks in the context of sustainability or, in the case of empirical case studies discussed within the reviews, if they studied inactive networks. Networks are classified as inactive when their websites stated that the initiative had ended, had not been updated in several years or were no longer accessible. After three rounds of screening, 72 review articles are selected. Among these, 38 articles explicitly refer to at least one active HEI network and contributed to the identification of the networks included in the final sample. The remaining articles provide conceptual and analytical background on the role of collaborative networks in advancing sustainability in higher education (see Supplementary Materials Table S2).

The final sample spans 55 journals, including 12 explicitly focused on higher education. HEI networks mentioned in these journals are included in this study when they meet the established inclusion criteria.

The second step involves a qualitative content analysis of institutional websites, treated as grey literature sources (Paez, 2017), to examine the objectives, scope and SDG engagement of HEI networks. The analysis includes only currently active, institution-level networks, excluding collaborations involving single individuals (e.g. professor or researcher-based networks). Information is extracted from website sections such as About Us and Mission and Vision and Members, and systematically categorized according to key analytical dimensions:

• Typology of collaboration: drawing on studies of multiactor and cross-sector collaboration in higher education and sustainability (Dlouhá et al., 2018; Mehling and Kolleck, 2019), networks are categorized based on the types of actors involved into three macro categories: “HEIs-only,” comprising networks exclusively formed by HEIs; “HEIs–other actor,” including HEIs along with one additional type of actor; and “HEIs-mixed actors,” involving HEIs and at least two distinct types of non-HEI actors.

• Geographic focus: the analysis is carried out in two main directions. First, the networks are mapped based on their members and areas of focus according to UN regional classification (2025b), distinguishing continents, subregions (e.g. Northern Europe, South America), and, where available, national contexts. Second, the networks and collaborations are analyzed based on their operational reach, leading to the identification of five categories of geographical scale drawing on the work of Spiridonov et al. (2022): “national networks,” which operate within a single country or region; “intracontinental collaborations,” involving multiple countries within the same continent; “continental networks,” whose focus extends across an entire continent; “transcontinental networks,” which include members from different continents; and finally, “global networks,” which operate with a worldwide focus and transcend regional or continental boundaries. Global networks are counted exclusively in the global category, while transcontinental networks are included in each relevant continental category.

• SDG addressed by HEI networks: SDG engagement is analyzed through complementary visual and classificatory approaches to capture both frequency and thematic orientation. First, to examine the co-occurrence and prioritization of SDGs across networks, each goal was coded as an independent binary variable (addressed/not addressed). An SDG was coded as addressed when it was either explicitly mentioned or when the network’s stated objectives clearly corresponded to the thematic scope of a specific SDG (e.g. initiatives related to gender equality coded as SDG 5, climate-related initiatives coded as SDG 13). In cases where no explicit or clearly aligned objectives were identified, the SDG was coded as not addressed. This coding produced a combinatory matrix, visualized through an UpSet plot (Figure 3), which effectively reveals patterns of co-engagement and highlights fragmented versus integrative sustainability strategies. Second, thematic orientation is examined using two frameworks: the SDG “Wedding Cake” model (Folke et al., 2016) and the UNEP Sustainable University Framework (UNEP, U.N., 2021), operationalized through a radial tree diagram [Figure 4(b)]. This latter classification was inspired by the work of Carungay et al. (2023), but adapted for this study. For instance, SDGs 5, 10 and 12 are treated as cross-cutting goals, as they relate to more than one dimension, while SDG 17 is treated separately from domain-based categories and is therefore grouped under “Administration and Governance.” These frameworks enabled a more structured interpretation of how HEI networks distribute their sustainability efforts and balance priorities across environmental, social, economic and institutional domains.

The coding of individual networks across these dimensions was conducted following the operational definitions of each variable provided in this section and summarized in Supplementary Materials Table S3. The data set was iteratively reviewed during the coding process to ensure consistency across cases.

Microsoft Excel (2025), RStudio (2025) and Flourish (2024) are used for the extraction, processing and visualization of data.

The results are presented in alignment with the three analytical dimensions outlined in the methodology: typology of collaboration, geographical dispersion and SDGs addressed by HEI networks. Each subsection combines descriptive insights with critical interpretation, supported by targeted data visualizations. The section concludes with a thematic discussion on how network structure and geographic scale may shape SDG prioritization.

The analysis identifies a total of 62 active HEI networks, categorized into 11 different types grouped into the three macro categories described in section 3 (see Table 1). These findings corroborate previous observations on the flexibility of HEIs in establishing collaborations (Leal Filho et al., 2025a, 2025b; de la Vega-Leinert et al., 2009). Nevertheless, collaborations involving mixed actor types remain relatively limited, suggesting the persistence of barriers to more integrated, cross-sector approaches.

A distinctive case is the “Institutional Cluster Network” model, as exemplified by the UNITWIN/UNESCO Chairs Programme, which expands from a central entity into multiple subunits, enabling global knowledge sharing while remaining context-sensitive.

In terms of geographical scale, as shown in Figure 1, the most represented category is global network (20), followed by national network (17), while instead intracontinental networks are the least represented (2). This pattern suggests a dual governance dynamic in which global networks primarily facilitate knowledge exchange and strategic coordination, while national collaborations are more closely aligned with the implementation of sustainability initiatives within specific institutional and policy contexts. Regarding the actual geographical distribution, networks are present in each continent except Antarctica. America and Europe host the largest number of networks, including four transcontinental networks involving Lusophone countries that are also active in Asia and Africa (see Figure 1). At the subregional level, Northern America is the most represented area (n = 12) as shown in Supplementary Materials Table S4. Despite the presence of continental and global networks across macro-regions, substantial geographical gaps persist, with areas such as Northern Africa, Central Asia, Eastern and Northern Europe, Central America, Micronesia and Polynesia remaining underrepresented. Particularly, in Asia and Oceania, engagement occurs predominantly through transcontinental platforms, while region-specific collaborations remain scarce, potentially limiting the capacity to address localized sustainability challenges (Pizarro, 2015; de la Vega-Leinert et al., 2009).

Linking geographic focus with network typologies reveals associations between collaboration structures and specific geographic contexts or scales of intervention. HEI–mixed actor networks often operate globally, while collaborations involving community or healthcare partners are more frequently national in scope. This suggests that localized partnerships are particularly responsive to region-specific needs, especially in the social and health domains. Notably, national HEI–community networks have shown promise in advancing sustainability through urban planning and design rooted in ecological principles (Gamboa et al., 2023; Leal Filho et al., 2023; Pizarro, 2015). At the same time, HEI–healthcare networks are not confined to the national level: together with HEI-only networks, they emerge as the most geographically flexible, being present across all continents and representing the most frequent network types overall.

To contextualize these findings within a temporal perspective, Figure 2 illustrates the evolution of HEI networks over time in terms of both their structural typologies [Figure 2(a)] and geographical dispersion [Figure 2(b)]. The data show that active networks have been established as early as the 1900s, with a gap of nearly 30 years after 1920, and a marked increase in both frequency and structural complexity beginning in the late 1960s.

This pattern can be explained by two main factors. First, the analysis includes only networks that are currently active, meaning that those established in the early 20th century have demonstrated remarkable longevity. Second, according to several authors, key events contributed to the rise in HEI network creation, emphasizing the evolving role of HEIs in addressing global challenges (Alghamdi et al., 2017; Dlouhá et al., 2018; Lozano et al., 2013). Indeed, a significant acceleration in the number of networks founded, along with greater diversity in their composition and geographical dispersion, can be observed after 1972. In that year, key events such as the UN Conference on the Human Environment and the publication of The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972), contributed to raising global awareness of environmental sustainability and its integration into higher education. The upward trend may also have been further supported by sectoral initiatives and declarations, including the Magna Charta of European Universities (1988), the Talloires Declaration (1990), the Global Higher Education for Sustainability Partnership (GHESP, 2000) and the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014). Consequently, more than half of the identified networks were established after 2000, with a peak in 2008 when five networks were launched in a single year, potentially reflecting a response to the global financial crisis.

The content analysis of HEI networks’ websites highlights a clear, albeit uneven, commitment to all 17 SDGs (see Figure 3). The most common configuration involves addressing all 17 SDGs (16 networks), and most networks engage with multiple goals simultaneously, reflecting an integrative vision often embedded in their foundational narratives (RUS, 2025; SDSN, 2025). However, pursuing multiple SDGs in parallel may generate tradeoffs that limit the effectiveness of specific initiatives, as documented for conflicting goals such as SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) vs SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) vs SDG 13 (Climate Action) (Bennich et al., 2023; Leal Filho et al., 2025a; Payet-Burin et al., 2021). In this regard, the frequent declaration of addressing the full set of SDGs could also represent a form of purely reputational signaling, “SDG washing” (Costa et al., 2025; OECD, 2021), rather than evidence of genuinely integrated sustainability action (Kaffashi and Grayson, 2022).

Despite this declared comprehensiveness, the frequency analysis reveals that SDG 17, SDG 4, SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being) are the most actively addressed. These priorities reflect the networks’ structural composition: HEI-only collaborations amplify education-related targets, while partnerships with healthcare and business actors drive engagement with SDG 3 and SDG 9, respectively. In addition, frequent co-occurrence is observed among SDG 17, SDG 4, SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 9 and SDG 3, suggesting that HEIs are particularly effective in mobilizing interconnected socioeconomic dimensions of sustainability. This result is consistent with previous research highlighting how HEI networks support collaborations with industry and healthcare institutions to develop initiatives addressing societal challenges, while also fostering shared commitments to inclusiveness among students and staff (Babcock et al., 2010; Inês et al., 2025). By contrast, when networks aligned with all 17 SDGs are excluded, several goals related to social justice and environmental protection appear only sporadically. Specifically, targets such as SDG 1, SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and the environmental SDGs (SDG 2, SDG 6 [Clean Water and Sanitation], SDG 7 [Affordable and Clean Energy], SDG 11 [Sustainable Cities and Communities], SDG 13, SDG 14 [Life Below Water] and SDG 15) remain underrepresented.

This pattern is reinforced by the SDG “Wedding Cake” model and the UNEP Sustainable University Framework (see Figure 4). While the Wedding Cake conceptualizes the biosphere as the foundation of societal and economic goals (Folke et al., 2016), emphasizing an ecocentric hierarchy, the results reveal an inverted trend [see Figure 4(a)]. On average, Economy-related SDGs are addressed by 30 networks, compared to 25 for Society and 21 for the Biosphere. This indicates the persistence of an anthropocentric and growth-oriented paradigm in sustainability collaborations (Hickel, 2019).

The UNEP Sustainable University Framework not only confirms the results of the domain-based analysis but also highlights another important finding, the Administration and Governance dimension polarized pattern [see Figure 4(b)]. While SDG 17 is the most frequently addressed, SDG 16 remains among the least considered, despite its relevance for transparency, accountability and inclusive governance. This imbalance suggests that while partnerships are actively promoted, the institutional conditions required to sustain them receive comparatively less attention, potentially weakening the long-term effectiveness of HEI sustainability networks. Strengthening the focus on environmental and structural dimensions could enhance the overall sustainability performance of HEI networks and better align institutional strategies with global ecological objectives (Oliveira and Proença, 2025).

According to Figure 5, at least 12 of the HEI-only networks address each of the SDGs, with SDG 4 consistently present across all these networks. Although the HEIs-mixed actor networks represent the smallest group, they demonstrate a balanced and comprehensive approach, engaging with nearly all SDGs uniformly. The diversity of actors involved in these collaborations may facilitate the integration of complementary expertise and resources, enabling networks to address multiple sustainability goals simultaneously. By contrast, HEI–other actor networks exhibit a more selective focus, prioritizing SDGs aligned with the core expertise of nonacademic partners, such as health in healthcare collaborations or innovation in partnerships with businesses and research institutes.

Geographical scale of networks also shapes SDG engagement. Transcontinental and global networks, due to their broad scope and institutional diversity, tend to exert the greatest influence on collective priorities (see Figure 6). Present across all continents, they have the capacity to steer efforts toward specific challenges. In particular, they consistently address SDG 4, SDG 9 and SDG 17. In addition, global networks show a marked emphasis on SDG 8, which, although less frequently prioritized at the continental level, emerges among the most represented goals in the overall sample (see Figure 3). This trend may reflect the continued centrality of economic growth and innovation within global sustainability agendas, reinforcing critiques that sustainability collaborations often remain embedded within an anthropocentric development paradigm (Hickel, 2019). At the same time, networks with a more localized focus retain strategic importance, as they are better positioned to respond to region-specific priorities and sociopolitical contexts (Pizarro, 2015). For instance, as shown in Figure 6, in America SDG 3 stands out prominently at the national level, reflecting context-specific needs and public health priorities. In Europe, SDG 10 gains visibility, indicating a regional concern with social equity and inclusion. These societal priorities are supported and institutionalized by the European Commission through policies such as the European Pillar of Social Rights, the European Child Guarantee and a range of strategies under the Union of Equality agenda, including the Gender Equality Strategy, the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy, the EU Anti-Racism Action Plan, the EU Roma Strategic Framework and the Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (European Commission, 2025a, 2025b).

Overall, the findings indicate that SDG engagement patterns are reinforced by network structure and geographic scale. This trend may also be influenced by external factors such as university rankings, which shape institutional reputation and strategic priorities (Hazelkorn and Ryan, 2013). Indeed, previous studies show that progress on SDG 4, SDG 3 and SDG 9 is positively associated with higher positions in global university rankings such as the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings (De la Poza et al., 2021). From a practical perspective, the findings highlight several opportunities to strengthen the effectiveness of HEI sustainability networks. First, the results show that mixed-actor networks remain relatively limited despite their potential to address multiple sustainability goals simultaneously. HEIs and policymakers should therefore support the development of locally grounded collaborative networks that bring together HEIs, industry, public institutions, community actors and environmental stakeholders, drawing inspiration from governance models such as the quintuple helix model. Supporting the creation of such networks could enhance the capacity of HEI collaborations to tackle complex sustainability challenges through the integration of complementary expertise and resources. In addition, these networks can create opportunities to connect teaching and practice, enabling students, as active members of their communities, to apply the knowledge acquired in sustainability-related courses through collaborative projects involving policymakers and industry partners. Such experiences can strengthen students’ understanding of the real-world impact of sustainability initiatives while fostering more practice-oriented learning environments.

Second, the observed imbalance between socioeconomic and biosphere-related SDGs suggests the need for stronger institutional commitment to environmental priorities. HEIs and research institutions with expertise in environmental sciences could play a key role in fostering new collaborative platforms specifically focused on biosphere-related goals, thereby helping to rebalance the current sustainability agenda. Addressing this imbalance may also have broader policy implications: stronger ecological integration within HEI networks could enhance the development of new knowledge and technologies supporting environmentally oriented sustainability strategies at both institutional and regional levels.

Finally, while many networks declare engagement with multiple SDGs, a more strategic alignment between goals and institutional capacities may enhance their practical impact. HEI-only networks, in particular, may risk addressing multiple goals primarily through education and knowledge production. Expanding these collaborations to include additional societal actors could enable networks to translate multi-SDG commitments into more concrete and operational sustainability initiatives.

These insights provide a foundation for rethinking how HEI networks can be better leveraged to drive inclusive, systemic change across all dimensions of sustainable development, from the local to the global level, from the SDG 1 (No Poverty) to the SDG 17.

This study offers a global overview of HEI networks engaged in sustainability, with a focus on their structural configurations, geographical reach and SDG alignment. It reveals that while HEI networks involve a wide range of actors, from institutions themselves to governments, businesses and NGOs, they tend to prioritize economic and social goals, while biosphere-related goals remain underaddressed. This imbalance raises concerns about the persistence of anthropocentric, growth-oriented paradigms that may hinder transformative change.

The findings show that network structure, geographical focus and operational scale shape SDG engagement patterns, while external factors such as international rankings may also influence strategic priorities. Furthermore, the widespread claim of alignment with all 17 SDGs warrants scrutiny. While it may signal ambition, it also risks superficiality or “SDG washing.” Greater attention must be paid to strategic focus, coherence and managing tradeoffs among goals.

These results offer relevant insights for HEIs, policymakers and funding bodies. In particular, strengthening the effectiveness of HEI sustainability networks requires fostering locally embedded cross-sector partnerships that engage public authorities, industry actors and community organizations to address context-specific challenges. It also requires a stronger focus on biosphere-related SDGs through targeted research initiatives and technological developments aimed at supporting ecological sustainability. Finally, translating multi-SDG commitments into practice requires the adoption of collaborative governance and institutional models, such as the quintuple helix model, that can enable coordinated and complementary actions across different sustainability goals. Finally, it should be noted that this study is limited to networks documented in peer-reviewed review articles and in academic journals, thereby excluding those found exclusively in grey literature or other informal sources. Future research will address this gap through a more extensive mapping. Moreover, the analysis focused on the information presented in networks’ website. In-depth qualitative studies, including interviews and case studies, will be conducted to provide richer insights into governance models, impact assessment practices and long-term effectiveness. Such analyses will help clarify whether, and why, the results show an inverted SDG Wedding Cake. This remains a particularly relevant issue, as neglecting ecological priorities could undermine the long-term transformative potential of HEI networks.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.