Asian Universities Rise in Global Sustainability Leadership Rankings
As global efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) face mounting financial shortfalls, universities across Asia are emerging as key players in sustainable finance. The Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings 2025 highlight a growing presence of Asian institutions in sustainability leadership, with 22 of the top 50 universities now coming from the region – an 83 percent increase from the previous year.
This shift comes at a critical moment. According to the U.N. Sustainable Development Report 2024, only 15 percent of SDG targets are on track, while more than 30 percent show stagnation or decline. The financing gap is particularly severe in emerging economies, where governments struggle to mobilize resources for climate action, education, and infrastructure. Universities, traditionally seen as knowledge producers, are now being recognized for their role in sustainable finance, bridging research with policy and investment strategies.
Meeting SDG targets requires more than institutional commitment – it demands financing on a scale that traditional sources are unlikely to deliver. According to Indonesia's Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas), the country faces a funding shortfall of $1.7 trillion by 2030 to meet its SDG commitments. Similar gaps exist across Southeast Asia, where declining international aid and rising fiscal pressures have forced governments to seek alternative financing mechanisms.
Universities are increasingly stepping into this space. Academic research centers contribute to the design of financial taxonomies, ESG standards, and impact measurement tools, helping governments and investors align funding with sustainability goals. Institutions are also engaging in green bonds, sustainability-linked loans, and blended finance models, providing expertise in structuring financial instruments that attract both public and private capital.
The THE Impact Rankings assess universities based on their contributions to the United Nations SDGs, measuring research, teaching, stewardship, and outreach. While traditional academic rankings have long been dominated by institutions in North America, the United Kingdom, and Australia, the Impact Rankings reveal a shifting landscape. Asian universities are increasingly setting benchmarks in sustainability and social impact, leveraging their expertise to influence policy and investment decisions.
In Indonesia, universities are collaborating with development banks, regulators, and ministries to build capacity and provide evidence-based recommendations for sustainable finance. Research centers at institutions such as Universitas Airlangga, Universitas Indonesia, Institut Teknologi Bandung, and Universitas Gadjah Mada have contributed to policy frameworks on carbon pricing, renewable energy investment, and climate finance governance through Islamic social finance.
Beyond research, universities also facilitate training for government officials and financial professionals, ensuring that sustainability principles are integrated into national and corporate financial planning. Their role in convening public and private actors is critical, especially in a fragmented policy environment where coordination between stakeholders remains a challenge.
Recognizing the growing influence of higher education in sustainable finance, the United Nations has included an Academic Day in the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4), scheduled for July 2, 2025. This marks the first formal participation of universities in global development financing discussions, where they will present research on financing strategies and enabling conditions for SDG investment.
The inclusion of universities in FFD4 reflects a broader recognition that higher education institutions are not just passive recipients of funding but active contributors to financial innovation. Their ability to generate knowledge, test financial models, and engage with policymakers positions them as critical actors in shaping the future of sustainable finance.
Sustainable finance is closely tied to education access, particularly in emerging economies. In Southeast Asia, gross tertiary enrollment rates vary widely. According to UNESCO, Malaysia exceeds 40 percent, Indonesia hovers around 36 percent, and Cambodia falls below 20 percent.
Structural barriers persist, including declining international aid, rising tuition costs, and limited digital infrastructure. Universities are not immune to these challenges, but they retain a level of independence and public credibility that allows them to advance inclusive policies. Many institutions are expanding need-based scholarships, integrating community engagement into curricula, and promoting open-access research to extend knowledge beyond campus boundaries.
The growing presence of Asian universities in sustainability rankings is more than symbolic — it signals a shift toward embedding sustainable finance within academic and institutional priorities.
Visibility alone does not guarantee lasting impact. Long-term success depends on strategic alignment rather than short-term projects or publicity-driven initiatives. Universities cannot solve development challenges alone, but they offer a unique capacity: they generate knowledge, test financial models, and share insights across sectors.
In a world of limited financial resources and increasingly politicized data, this contribution may become one of Asia's most valuable assets in global development.
Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Today
17 hours ago
- Japan Today
Asian shares retreat after Trump's order imposing new tariffs on 68 countries and the EU
People walk in front of an electronic stock board showing Japan's Nikkei index at a securities firm Friday, Aug. 1, 2025, in Tokyo. By TERESA CEROJANO Asian shares retreated Friday following choppy trading on Wall Street that saw more losses as investors assess President Donald Trump's order imposing new tariffs on 68 countries and the European Union starting in seven days. Trump's order, which pushed back the tariff deadline earlier set on Aug. 1, has injected a new dose of uncertainty in an already uncertain process. Japan's Nikkei 225 slid 0.7 % to 40,797.96 while South Korea's Kospi tumbled 3.5% to 3,132.12. Hong Kong's Hang Seng index trimmed earlier losses, shedding 0.8% to 24,584.86, while the Shanghai Composite slipped 0.5% to 3,554.67. Australia's S&P ASX 200 shed 0.9% to 8,666.70, India's BSE Sensex rose less than 0.1% to 81,208.37 and Taiwan's TAIEX slid 0.5% to 23,434.38. "US and European equity futures are pointing negative, Asian stocks are taking a beating and the DXY index is still rising,' Benjamin Picton, senior market strategist at Rabo Bank, said in a commentary about Trump's new order updating reciprocal tariff rates. "The USA is cherry-picking high value-add industry for its own economy while forcing trading partners to grant preferential market access for its exports and supply it with cheap imports. Make no mistake, this is imperial trade,' he added. Mizuho Bank noted in "somewhat a turn of the tables, Asia (and in particular Southeast Asia) which was harder hit post-'Liberation Day' now appear to be in a better position by virtue of tariffs differentials though intra-regional differences remain small.' On Wall Street on Thursday, stocks capped the trading day with more losses after an early big tech rally faded and a health care sector pullback led the market lower. The S&P 500 fell 0.4%, its third straight decline. The benchmark index, which is just below the record high it set Monday, notched a 2.2% gain for the month of July and is up 7.8% so far this year. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 0.7% and the Nasdaq composite closed less than 0.1% lower. Roughly 70% of stocks in the S&P 500 lost ground, with health care companies accounting for the biggest drag on the market. Health care stocks sank after the White House released letters asking big pharmaceutical companies to cut prices and make other changes in the next 60 days. Eli Lilly & Co. fell 2.6%, UnitedHealth Group slid 6.2% and Bristol-Myers Squibb dropped 5.8%. Gains by some big technology stocks with hefty values helped temper the impact of the broader market's decline. Meta Platforms surged 11.3% after the parent company of Facebook and Instagram crushed Wall Street's sales and profit targets even as the company continues to pour billions of dollars into artificial intelligence. Microsoft climbed 3.9% after posting better results than analysts expected. The software pioneer also gave investors an encouraging update on its Azure cloud computing platform, which is a centerpiece of the company's artificial intelligence efforts. Big Tech companies have regularly been the driving force behind much of the market's gains over enthusiasm for the future of artificial intelligence. In other dealings Friday, U.S. benchmark crude oil added 14 cents to $69.40 per barrel, while Brent crude, the international standard, rose 12 cents to $71.82 per barrel. The U.S. dollar fell to 150.47 Japanese yen from 150.67 yen. The euro rose to $1.1431 from $1.1421. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Nikkei Asia
19 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
Bhutan wrestles with professional brain drain
In the latest episode of Nikkei Asia News Roundup, hosts Jada Nagumo and Brian Chapman discuss Bhutan's wave of emigration which is risking the tiny country's economic growth. The episode consists of: A selection of news headlines A glimpse into a notable story for deeper understanding A highlight of our best stories Please subscribe to us wherever you get your podcasts, and leave us a review to let us know what you thought about this episode. And for other Asian business, politics, economy and tech stories, subscribe to Nikkei Asia here. Thank you for listening!
Yomiuri Shimbun
a day ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Glut of Capital Behind Changes in Financial Markets
The trends in financial markets appear to have changed significantly over the past several years. The biggest change has been that external shocks are causing smaller price drops. Since 1987, the U.S. stock market has crashed nearly once every 10 years. The Black Monday collapse, the Asian financial crisis and the Lehman shock all fit more or less into that 10-year cycle. However, this trend seems to have subsided considerably since 2017. One theory has it that the 2007-08 shock was so great that the markets have not fully recovered even 10 years later, leaving no room for them to slump any further. In reality, there have been structural changes beyond the shock. Needless to say, as markets have grown in size, price drops have gotten larger in terms of absolute value. But, when looking at the percentage change, price drops have shrunk in size. Moreover, after a drop, prices now tend to recover relatively quickly to previous levels, so that slumps do not go on for months. If this was the result of the financial system improving its resilience, that would be fine. But, in my view, there seems to be another factor at work. I think the biggest reason why price drops have shrunk is a 'glut of capital' that can be seen across the financial markets. The most significant source of the funds is increased savings. It is known that once income goes up, allowing individuals to save, growth in savings outpaces that of income. In the recent three decades or so, savings have risen sharply worldwide. Let's take a look at the nominal value of the global gross domestic product, so that we can estimate the growth in income around the world. The nominal GDP for the world rose nearly fivefold from $22 trillion in 1990 to $110 trillion in 2024. On the other hand, according to the United Nations, the global population only increased 60% over the same period, from 5.2 billion to 8.2 billion. When the GDP figures are divided by population, you find that GDP per capita nearly tripled, shooting from $4,200 to $13,300. To calculate how much savings grew, you first need to exclude the tranche of the population with zero savings. Besides looking at the average, you will also want to reference the median and the mode, the latter being the value that appears most frequently in a data set. My impression is that ultra-high-income earners have seen their incomes grow significantly in many countries. It seems this has caused the average income level to rise on a global basis. In any case, the supply of capital in the form of savings has significantly increased. This supply has not been matched by demand, resulting in a 'glut of capital.' Looking only at the supply side does not tell the real story. Why has demand for capital been waning? Sluggish demand for capital Capital needs can be generally divided into short-term needs of a year or less and longer-term needs. Of these two, demand for long-term funds has been particularly sluggish. Long-term funds are primarily provided for infrastructure development, environmental conservation and the installation of large-scale production facilities over long periods of five, 10 or 20 years. The main reason for slow demand for long-term funds is that infrastructure development in developed countries has finished for now, leading to a slowdown in orders for new projects. On the other hand, despite strong demand for new projects in developing countries, fewer and fewer projects have been eligible for financing as borrowers have grown less creditworthy. Predictability has also been reduced by the inability to reach a consensus on environmental conservation programs and the lack of clarity on goals for environmental investment. These issues have become pronounced over the past 10 or so years. The situation has been exacerbated by tensions between the United States and China and, more recently, U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff diplomacy. Moreover, international trade has been contracting due largely to tariff increases, a shift to trading with neighboring countries and a surge in maritime transport costs caused by piracy, among other factors. As a result, demand for long-term funds has shrunk and surplus funds have moved to short-term investments. Short-term funds would normally be directed to real estate and stocks, but in the United States, memories of the real estate bubble collapse in the 2000s are still causing a lot of short-term funds to be directed toward the stock market rather than real estate. For many years, the bond and stock markets in the United States had an inverse relationship. That means that funds would move between the two markets, depending on a comparison of interest from the bond market and dividends from the stock market. The mechanism worked like this: When bond rates rose, people would buy U.S. Treasurys, which are considered risk-free, resulting in a drop in stock prices. Moving in tandem However, of late, people have been buying both bonds and stocks, leading both markets to move in the same direction. The reason that capital is not scrambling between the two markets as it did before is that there are more funds going to both markets. In many countries, a political backlash against unequal income distribution is gathering steam. But ironically, the income gap has widened even further, driven by the influx of funds. Many companies have been buying back their own stock by using internal reserves of excess cash. Share buybacks — which reduce the number of shares in circulation on the market and boost share prices — may make it easier to procure funds. However, companies with no forward-looking ideas for investment have little need for funds in the first place, and they may end up on the path to a diminished equilibrium. The demand for long-term funds is, in fact, enormous. For example, if you add up the money required to maintain and repair existing infrastructure in developed countries, you will come up with a considerable sum. Roads and airport runways are suitable for investment using public expenditure based on tax revenue. But for renewal of other infrastructure projects such as railways, airport terminals, water supply and sewage systems, and power plants, there is an enormous demand for funds from the private sector. Since there are no enthusiastic proponents of such maintenance, we often tend to forget the pressing need to discuss whether we should prioritize securing funds for maintenance and repairs even if that means restricting new infrastructure investments. Now, I would like to touch on something a little different from the usual capital flows. That is the fact that as global markets become increasingly fragmented, the supply of funds that have functioned as a kind of insurance for maintaining the entire system is shrinking. In the past, some countries have struggled due to unsound economic management, but when a risk of sovereign bankruptcy arose, emergency funds were provided from the outside as what looked like insurance payouts. However, countries are increasingly only willing to help those in distress who are 'like-minded.' If this is not the case, no support will be extended even if the debtor is not an 'enemy nation.' In many cases, economic collapse is the country's own fault. That said, if one imprudently throws a rotten orange into a box of oranges, it may cause the rest of the citrus to rot as well. And a failing country may well be a neighbor to 'like-minded' countries. Regardless of the politics of the country facing bankruptcy, if it can carry out the appropriate measures for economic restructuring, there should be a framework that can quickly provide the nation with support. Hiroshi Watanabe Watanabe is a visiting professor with the Faculty of Business Administration at Tokyo Seitoku University. Previously, he was vice finance minister for international affairs and a professor at Hitotsubashi University. He also served as governor and chief executive officer of the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, and president of the Tokyo-based Institute for International Monetary original article in Japanese appeared in the July 27 issue of The Yomiuri Shimbun.
