UJ ranked best university in sustainable development in Africa
The University of Johannesburg (UJ) has been ranked as the best university in sustainable development in Africa and 23rd in the world.
This is according to the 2025 Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Ratings, which assess universities against the UN's sustainable development goals (SDGs).
Western Sydney University in Australia was ranked number one in the world for four consecutive years, followed by Manchester University. The University of Pretoria came in at number 63 in the world.
UJ is now ranked among the top 30 universities in the world out of 2,318 institutions evaluated.
It ranked in the global top 100 for ten SDGs, with three in the top 10. This includes ranking number two in the world for SDG 1 (no poverty); number four for SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth); and number four for SDG 17 (partnerships for the goals).
UJ vice-chancellor and principal Prof Letlhokwa Mpedi said this was a testament to the university's commitment to reimagining higher education as a driver of change.
'These results not only underscore UJ's steadfast commitment to sustainable development, equity and impactful partnerships but also highlight the university's growing influence in tackling global challenges through research, teaching and community engagement,' Mpedi said.
'Our ranking reflects the focused efforts driven by our strategic plan 2035, which is built on three key pillars: societal impact and sustainability, global footprint and partnerships, and technology for the future. These pillars guide our trajectory over the next decade and underpin our dedication to creating a more just, equitable and sustainable future for all.'
In a separate global ranking, the university was named the third best university in South Africa after the University of Cape Town (UCT) and the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits).
'Together, the two results signal UJ's rising reputation and consistent excellence across multiple global performance metrics.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
a day ago
- Mail & Guardian
We need to upgrade to Development Finance 4.0 — business as usual won't get us there
The UN's Sustainable Development Goals. Development finance has long served as the quiet scaffolding behind the social and economic progress of emerging markets. Today, we stand at a pivotal moment. As the global development landscape evolves, so too must the models that guide our financial strategies and instruments in delivering the development mandate. By building on past gains and embracing new forms of collaboration, we can design a more aligned and impactful financial ecosystem for the future. To meet the scale and complexity of today's development challenges, we must give careful and consolidated thought to how we organise, deploy and measure capital earmarked for development projects. This is the impetus behind Development Finance 4.0, a model I've begun to articulate that foregrounds collaboration, contextual intelligence and impact as central pillars of sustainable finance. In my years working across academia, government and development institutions, I've seen how even well-intentioned finance can underperform when it operates in isolation. Too often, governments, private investors, multilateral agencies and civil society pursue development goals independently and apply distinct metrics, risk appetites and timelines. This result is duplication, missed opportunities and diluted impact. Development Finance 4.0 proposes a fundamental shift — from fragmentation to alignment. It urges us to replace parallel pipelines with shared frameworks that enable mutual accountability and maximise developmental returns. This is not a rhetorical shift. It is an operational one. At its core, this next iteration of development finance rests on four non-negotiables: equity, ethics, sustainability and collaboration. These are not lofty ideals. They are the minimum conditions for meaningful effect. Blended finance will continue to be a central tool. When well-structured, it enables public and philanthropic capital to de-risk investments and mobilise private finance toward development goals. Between 2012 and 2020, blended finance mobilised over $51 billion in private capital, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Yet this figure remains modest in light of the $2.5 trillion annual financing gap for the sustainable development goals in developing countries. To strengthen these partnerships, the five anchoring principles of blended finance must be enhanced. These are the development rationale — begin with purpose. What development problems are we solving and why? Second, the mobilisation of commercial capital — does the partnership unlock private finance that would not otherwise materialise? Then comes local context and the question: are we designing solutions that reflect the institutional realities and lived experiences of the communities they serve? Effective partnership is vital too and whether roles are clearly defined and there is a mechanism to manage disputes, risk and accountability. Last, transparency and impact must be considered as well. Are we measuring what matters — and sharing those findings across stakeholders? Despite the growing chorus around impact investing, meaningful impact measurement remains the Achilles heel of development finance. The sector is rich in Without reliable, disaggregated data, we cannot answer some basic questions. What is the long-term value of improved access to education? How does a new health facility shift labour productivity over time? These ripple effects are critical for policymaking but often go undocumented. And this leaves gaps in learning and weakens trust between actors. Robust impact measurement goes beyond reporting. It is a shared learning process and a precondition for partnership. Governments, investors and communities need a common view of what success looks like, how we measure it and why it matters. In this model, impact or, more importantly, measured and communicated impact, becomes a currency of trust. If Development Finance 4.0 is to become more than a framework, education must play a catalytic role. The next generation of finance professionals must be equipped, not only with technical tools, but with a deep understanding of context, systems and ethical complexity. Students need to be challenged on their understanding of conventional financial instruments and assets, principles and their applicability to the ever-evolving development landscape. They must be able to grapple with contextual dynamics, systemic trade-offs and the ethical dimensions of development. They need to be equipped, not only as finance professionals, but as system builders and changemakers. That means going beyond case studies and spreadsheets to explore trade-offs, engage with community realities and interrogate the true meaning of development. Because, ultimately, finance as a catalyst for development, must reflect what we value, who we serve and how we define and achieve ethical, equitable, sustainable and collaborative development. Development finance is not charity, nor is it conventional capitalism. It is a form of purposeful capital deployment, designed to address systemic inequities and catalyse sustainable growth. But, to achieve this, we must move beyond legacy models built for a different era. The AU's Agenda 2063 and the UN's sustainable development goals set ambitious visions. Yet current fiscal trajectories and fragmented ecosystems place these targets out of reach. Africa alone faces a $1.6 trillion financing gap between now and 2030. Bridging this gap demands that all actors, be they public, private or philanthropic, come together, not as competitors, but as co-creators. The message is simple. The future of development finance will not be built alone. All hands must be on deck. Thus, financing sustainable development should be done with an ethical, equitable, sustainable and collaborative approach. Latif Alhassan is the professor of development finance and insurance, and programme director of the Master of Commerce in Development Finance,* at the UCT Graduate School of Business.
The South African
2 days ago
- The South African
G20 Sherpa meeting highlights global development challenges
South Africa's Group of 20 (G20) Presidency convened its third Sherpa meeting this week, focusing on critical global challenges, including sustainable development and geopolitical tensions. Speaking to the media, South Africa's G20 Sous Sherpa, Xolisa Mabhongo, stressed the urgency of achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), noting that the G20 represents 85% of global GDP and has a crucial role in advancing the 2030 agenda. Mabhongo serves as the Deputy Director-General of Global Governance and Continental Agenda at the Department of International Relations and Cooperation. 'We are now five years away from the date set for achieving the SDGs and this is worrisome,' the diplomat stated. He said the 20 largest economies in the world, which come from various regions, have a significant role in fostering the development agenda. 'The G20 has a responsibility to push hard during these remaining years.' He told journalists that Wednesday's Sherpa meeting of the G20 at the Sun City Resort addressed complex geopolitical issues, with participants discussing conflicts ranging from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Gaza and Ukraine. However, the approach focused on principles of achieving 'just peace' rather than diving into specific conflict details. Mabhongo said South Africa outlined four key priorities for its Presidency, which include disaster resilience, debt sustainability, critical minerals, and the Just Energy Transition (JET). He, meanwhile, highlighted the importance of transforming Africa's mineral extraction model. 'We do not want raw materials to be just taken from Africa. We want African countries to have space for beneficiation and manufacturing.' The meeting also noted the absence of the United States, with officials expressing openness to continued engagement and emphasising the continuity of the G20 agenda. Mabhongo believed that the gathering signalled South Africa's commitment to advancing Global South priorities and building on the legacies of previous presidencies from Indonesia, India, and Brazil. Meanwhile, he explained the continuity of priorities, such as the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty from Brazil. 'Our task force on food security that we are creating is focusing on the regional level and at the global level.' Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
IOL News
3 days ago
- IOL News
Why the Gini coefficient remains crucial for understanding inequality
The Gini coefficient is not the full story of inequality in South Africa, but it remains an important chapter. Image: Ron AI THE rubric of robust statistical measures is essential for evaluating policies and plans within the context of democratic governance. A RECENT Sunday Independent article questions the relevance of the Gini coefficient as a measure of inequality in South Africa, describing it as outdated, narrow, and even politically manipulative. It argues that the Gini fails to account for social grants, informal economies, and the growing black middle class, concluding that we must retire it and replace it with a new, locally informed metric. The critique is welcome and necessary. As Statistician-General, I support public scrutiny of the tools we use to measure our society. But I caution against discarding useful instruments because they are imperfect. The Gini coefficient is not the full story of inequality in South Africa, but it remains an important chapter. Developed in the early 20th century, the Gini coefficient is a single statistic that indicates how evenly (or unevenly) income or wealth is distributed. It is widely used by national and international bodies, especially in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 10, which focuses on reducing inequalities. This commitment is reflected in Agenda 2063, the African Union's (AU's) socio-economic transformation plan. It is embedded in South Africa's National Development Plan (NDP), which aims to reduce our Gini from 0.69 to 0.60 by 2030. The article makes a valid point: inequality is complex, and no single measure can capture it all. The Gini does not reflect the value of the 'social wage' — free education, healthcare, grants, housing subsidies — and may undercount informal economic activity. But it is not meant to measure everything. It is one tool among many, and it tells us something important: South Africa remains one of the most unequal societies in the world, even if we have made real progress in reducing poverty. As a statistician, I use it as part of my statistical toolkit. Statistical measures are essential for data analysis and informed decision-making, revealing patterns and trends. In his 2005 paper, Aziz Othman emphasises that effective policies rely on quality data. There is a growing shift among governments and organisations from opinion-based to evidence-based policy, underscoring the need for credible statistical analysis in policy formulation. National statistical agencies in the United Kingdom and Australia also produce Gini coefficient statistics relevant to their contexts. This highlights the importance of continuous monitoring of income inequality and the integration of statistical methods into policymaking, as discussed in Othman's paper. With more than 30 years of experience in producing official statistics at both national and continental levels, I have come to understand that poverty and inequality are complex issues that span social, economic, and political dimensions. This complexity shows that a single measure cannot fully capture these challenges. Thus, using various statistical methods is essential. Statistics SA (Stats SA) employs three main approaches to assess poverty: traditional money-metric measures based on national poverty lines, multidimensional methods like the SA Multidimensional Poverty Index (Sampi) and Child Multiple Overlapping Deprivation Analysis (Moda), along with subjective assessments that reflect personal views of poverty. Similarly, in analysing inequality, the Gini coefficient is but one of several metrics used by Stats SA to quantify economic disparities. Additional indicators include inequality experts Henri Theil's indices, Anthony Atkinson's indices, and Alex Sumner's Palma ratio. Each of these measures possesses distinct strengths and weaknesses, yet all are widely recognised and used by National Statistical Offices (NSOs) and scholars globally to elucidate the structure and magnitude of inequality within a nation. It is important to note that the Gini coefficient facilitates understanding income and expenditure distributions across households rather than functioning as an all-encompassing indicator of inequality, contrary to what the article may imply. Furthermore, additional measures based on asset data, service delivery data, and labour market information produced by Stats SA are also useful for understanding the broader issue of inequality beyond economic indicators such as the Gini coefficient. The simplest approach to measuring income inequality involves segmenting the population or households into quintiles, ranging from the poorest to the richest, and analysing the distribution of income or expenditure across these segments. Recent Income and Expenditure Survey (IES) results indicate that about 75% of white-headed households are within the upper income quintile. Conversely, nearly half (45.1%) of black African-headed households fall within the lowest two quintiles in terms of income. Similar trends are observed in expenditure, where about 45.3% of black African-headed households are also categorised within the bottom two expenditure quintiles. This data underscores the significant disparities in economic status between these demographic groups. The findings illustrate a significant disparity in income and expenditure per capita, clearly highlighting the entrenched income inequality in South Africa, particularly affecting black African-headed households. Notably, nearly 57% of households within the lowest income quintile are female-headed. However, this proportion diminishes across the quintiles, with 49.5% of the second quintile, 42.9% in the third, 34.5% in the fourth, and only 33.5% in the upper quintile. This decreasing representation of female-headed households in higher quintiles underscores the persistent issue of gender inequality within the socio-economic landscape. South Africa has extensive survey data on individual and household welfare from Stats SA, which offers various indicators of poverty and inequality.
