Between Discourse and Practice: Strategic Decision-Making and the Governance of Sustainability in Chilean State Universities

Abstract

This study explores how the leadership of Chilean state universities integrates sustainability into their strategic decision-making processes. Employing a qualitative research approach using semi-structured interviews conducted across nine institutions, it analyzes the perspectives of rectors (equivalent to university presidents in Chilean higher education), vice-rectors, and members of university governing bodies. The findings reveal that although sustainability is present in institutional discourse, its actual implementation remains limited, fragmented, and subordinated to financial imperatives. Contextual constraints, adaptive rationalities, and limited stakeholder engagement shape strategic decisions. Furthermore, institutions often employ sustainability as a rhetorical or compliance-driven narrative rather than as a transformative governance principle. This study frames these findings through stakeholder theory, organizational sustainability, strategic rationality, and information governance. It concludes that embedding sustainability meaningfully in university governance requires institutional transformation—moving beyond symbolic commitments towards inclusive, evidence-driven, and participatory decision-making practices.

1. Introduction

Chilean state universities play a pivotal role in the country’s sustainable development. Through human capital formation, knowledge generation, and innovation, these institutions contribute to social, environmental, and economic transformation processes [1,2,3].

Chilean Law No. 21.094 [4] aims to guarantee access to quality education and to foster innovation. Achieving this requires strategic decisions that extend beyond internal institutional goals. Such decisions must also reflect the expectations of diverse stakeholders, including students, academics, administrative staff, local communities, and productive sectors [5,6,7].

Strategic decisions are fundamental in defining institutional direction, allocating resources, and enabling adaptability in rapidly evolving contexts [8]. From the perspective of stakeholder theory, universities are embedded in ecosystems where multiple actors influence decision-making processes [9,10]. Therefore, strategic governance entails defining a direction and ensuring its sustainability over time with collective support. In this context, our research question was how the strategic leadership of Chilean state universities integrates sustainability into decision-making.

Decision-making processes require both technical rationality and inclusive participation. Engaging diverse voices leads to more legitimate and contextually grounded strategies [11]. Within this scenario, strategic leadership—the highest echelon of university governance—plays a critical role in aligning institutional missions with public policies and sustainability principles [12]. Nonetheless, there are numerous barriers to integrating sustainability into strategic governance, including public policy constraints, accreditation frameworks, competitive funding mechanisms, and rigid regulatory structures [7]. Additionally, a gap persists between sustainability as institutional rhetoric and practical implementation [1,13].

Budgetary pressures further constrain the ability to advance sustainability initiatives, particularly in areas not captured by performance indicators [14]. As a result, strategic leadership tends to prioritize actions that ensure financial viability, even when doing so may compromise the university’s public mission [15].

In Chile, this discussion is particularly complex: although the law considers higher education a social right, the system operates predominantly under a private logic, with high and sustained private spending. This scenario features competition among institutions seeking to attract students, within a context that also includes a declining number of providers and progressively slowing enrolment [16,17].

Faced with these tensions, institutional transformation demands more than just formal commitments. It requires dialogical spaces, strategic leadership, adaptive capacity, and a governance vision that links sustainability to core decisions [7,18,19,20]. Within this context, sustainability should be understood as a dynamic construction legitimized through stakeholder interaction. This calls for attention to the political, relational, and contextual dimensions that shape decision-making processes.

This study examines how Chilean state universities’ strategic leadership (rector, vice-rectors, and members of university boards) integrates—or fails to integrate—sustainability into decision-making. To this end, semi-structured interviews were conducted with rectors, vice-rectors, and members of university governing bodies. The analysis of this data has been grounded in stakeholder theory and is complemented by conceptual lenses on strategic rationality, organizational sustainability, and information governance.

This article makes an original contribution by studying, from an empirical perspective, how strategic leadership made key decisions incorporating the sustainability of Chilean state universities. Unlike previous research that focuses on institutional discourse [2] or generic models of sustainable management [19], this research articulates sustainability, university governance, and strategic rationality from a contextual perspective, which allows for the visibility of structural, contextual, and inter-actor tensions that shape this decision-making process.

2. Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded in four interrelated conceptual pillars that guide the analysis of sustainability integration into strategic decision-making in universities: stakeholder theory; organizational sustainability; the strategic rationality of the leadership; and information governance.

2.1. Stakeholders in Higher Education

Stakeholder theory asserts that organizations must consider the interests of all actors who influence or are affected by their decisions [9]. In higher education, this approach enables analysis of how students, faculty, staff, government bodies, employers, and communities shape strategic decision-making [21,22,23]. State universities, in particular, operate within networks of power relations, demands, and expectations. Strategic decisions often emerge from complex negotiations among diverse interests [24,25]. Limited funding and traditional hierarchical structures heighten this complexity in certain institutions [26,27].

Although formal mechanisms for stakeholder participation exist, their practical influence remains limited. Consultative processes do not always translate into meaningful involvement in strategy formulation [28,29]. This gap fosters tension between symbolic representation and substantive participation, undermining shared value creation [30].

2.2. University Sustainability from a Systemic Perspective

University sustainability encompasses social, economic, and environmental dimensions [31]. From a systemic perspective, society expects universities to contribute to sustainable development beyond their core academic functions [32].

Social sustainability involves equitable access to education, including historically marginalized groups, and strengthening social capital [7,33]. Economic sustainability requires stable funding, efficient resource management, and a vision that balances social and academic returns [15,34]. Environmental sustainability requires reductions in ecological footprints, the adoption of clean technologies, and alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals [35].

For university leadership, integrating these dimensions entails aligning institutional discourse, planning, and action in contexts characterized by competing demands and resource constraints.

2.3. The Strategic Rationality of the University Apex

Strategic decisions made by organizational leadership are shaped by internal dynamics, external pressures, and political considerations [5,11]. In Chilean state universities, rectors, vice-rectors, and governing boards must balance public mandates, regulatory requirements, territorial demands, and institutional performance criteria. Such decisions are not merely technical; instead, they involve negotiation, interpretation, and consensus-building among actors with varying degrees of power [10]. In line with stakeholder theory, this decision-making is relational, requiring the leadership to acknowledge the expectations of both internal and external actors [9].

Integrating sustainability in this context means navigating trade-offs among social, economic, and environmental logics. Often, there is no consensus on evaluation criteria, and decision-making is affected by unequal participation and operational constraints [19,29].

Advancing sustainability requires managing institutional feedback, fostering deliberative processes and adapting strategies accordingly [18]. Research shows that sustainable practices perceived as fair enhance institutional commitment [36].

In short, leadership does not apply a linear or neutral rationality; instead, leaders shape it through contingencies, interpretations, and negotiations—where sustainability must compete with other organizational logics, such as reputation or financial viability.

In the general Latin American context, some studies, such as that by Rosa et al. [37], on decision-making in Brazilian universities focus on the implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly responsible consumption, sustainable communities, and quality education.

In a case study of Argentine universities, Arias-Valle and Marimon [38] examined how a university made decisions to adopt sustainability policies effectively and sustainably within the university environment, highlighting the importance of strategic leadership for their implementation.

In the case of Colombian universities, some publications [39,40] have analyzed how universities in this country have integrated sustainability into strategic decision-making. The authors also indicate that sustainability practices could positively influence the quality and performance of universities.

Another study [41] indicates that universities in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean face challenges in integrating sustainability into decision-making.

2.4. Information Governance and Decision Traceability

Access to reliable, timely, and relevant information is fundamental for sustainable strategic decisions. Studies have highlighted how the absence of robust data can hinder planning and evaluation processes [19,42]. Integrated information systems within university governance structures promote transparency, accountability, and informed stakeholder engagement. However, many institutions lack coordinated data systems, resulting in fragmented, decontextualized, or disconnected information.

This lack of traceability weakens the evidence base for decision-making, limits the capacity to anticipate future scenarios, and undermines the ability to evaluate outcomes and adapt strategies.

3. Materials and Methods

This study employs a qualitative approach with an exploratory–interpretative design. Its objective is to understand how the strategic leadership of Chilean state universities incorporates sustainability into their decision-making processes. We chose this approach to reflect the complexity of the phenomenon. Institutional, political, economic, and cultural factors shape strategic decisions, and in-depth, context-sensitive methods offer the most effective way to examine them.

3.1. Data Collection Techniques

The research team collected data through 21 semi-structured interviews with senior management (rectors, vice-rectors, and members of the university board) from nine Chilean state universities; geographical diversity and length of time in the university system were taken into account when selecting the universities. Participants were selected using purposive sampling based on their strategic roles and experience in university governance. The interviews were conducted in 2023. The sample included

• Rectors (university president);
• Vice-rectors (vice president) for academic, financial, management, or outreach affairs;
• Members of the university board, governing councils, or equivalent bodies.

In sociodemographic terms, the sample consisted of 16 men and 5 women, aged between 40 and 71, with an average age of 58. In terms of educational level, 16 interviewees hold a doctorate, while 5 hold a master’s degree (

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents.

Variable	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Sex	Male	16	76.2%
	Female	5	23.8%
Age	40–49	4	19.0%
	50–59	7	33.33%
	60–69	6	28.6%
	70–71	4	19.0%
Level of education	Doctorate/PhD	16	76.2%
	Master	5	23.8%
Position	Rector	7	33.3%
	Vice-rector	8	38.1%
	Members of the university board	6	28.6%

).

As was indicated previously, interviews were conducted at nine Chilean state universities, considering geographical diversity and length of time in the university system; these were

• University of Aysén;
• University of Bío-Bío;
• University of La Frontera;
• University of Los Lagos;
• University of Playa Ancha;
• University of Santiago de Chile;
• Metropolitan Technological University;
• University of Talca;
• University of Valparaíso.

Chile has 18 state universities. Therefore, the nine selected institutions represent half of Chile’s state universities, accounting for 52.4% of all academics in state universities in 2024.

All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded, with prior informed consent obtained from participants.

As stated above, this study draws on a purposive sampling of nine Chilean state universities, capturing institutional diversity through 21 interviews with senior leaders. Rectors, vice-rectors, and board members brought varied disciplinary and professional profiles with a strong representation of doctoral training. Their strategic roles offered valuable insights into how sustainability is understood and approached within governance structures. This methodology enabled a context-sensitive exploration of decision-making dynamics at the university leadership, highlighting institutional perspectives across academic, administrative, and political domains.

3.2. Analytical Strategy

A mixed thematic coding approach was applied, combining inductive analysis (grounded in the data) with deductive reasoning (based on theoretical frameworks). Qualitative data analysis tools were simulated through artificial intelligence-assisted procedures to support the analysis.

To ensure rigorous analysis, AI was used as technical support in the initial organization of the empirical material, performing functions similar to those of specialized programmes. The transcripts were organized systematically according to the roles of the participants and the topics discussed; this allowed for the construction of the first coding matrices.

The research team then reviewed, adjusted, and validated the matrices through cross-coding and collective review, ensuring conceptual consistency between categories. This exercise, which ensured the thematic and intersubjective consistency of the analysis, allowed for reflection on possible biases in the analysis. These actions sought to ensure the traceability of the results and their consistency with the objectives and theoretical approach of the study.

From this process, six core analytical categories emerged through theoretical saturation:

• Dominance of financial criteria;
• Contextual and adaptive strategic rationality;
• Conditional stakeholder participation;
• Sustainability as an instrumental narrative;
• Organizational resistance and legitimacy;
• Materiality of information in decision-making.

These categories structure the empirical results and guide the subsequent discussion.

3.3. Ethical Considerations

The study followed essential ethical research principles:

• Voluntary participation;
• Confidentiality of participant identities;
• Exclusive use of data for academic purposes.

Prior to data collection, the research protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Santiago de Chile.

4. Results

This section presents the results of an analysis of interviews conducted with rectors (R), vice-rectors (VR), and members of the university board (UB).

4.1. Pre-Eminence of Financial Criteria in Decision-Making

One of the most frequently mentioned themes in the interviews was the dominance of financial considerations over dimensions of sustainability. Respondents consistently highlighted that economic viability largely shapes strategic decision-making in Chilean state universities.

Rectors emphasized that financial concerns dictate institutional priorities. As one stated:

“If we had to rank the three pillars of decision-making, financial considerations would easily come first”.

(R2)

Another rector underscored that financial stability is a prerequisite for advancing social or environmental sustainability:

“We cannot speak of social or environmental sustainability if we cannot first ensure the university’s financial survival. Everything else depends on that”.

(R3)

This logic leads to the prioritization of projects that are feasible in financial terms, even when they are less transformative:

“We are forced to prioritize fundable projects, even if they are not the most socially transformative”.

(R7)

The pressure to meet external performance indicators—such as accreditation or public evaluation frameworks—further reinforces this economic focus. According to another rector:

“Our strategy is anchored in a budgetary reality we cannot ignore. There is no sustainability without resources”.

(R5)

This trend, according to one interviewee, has even reshaped the role of university leadership:

“Rectors stopped being rectors long ago; they have become real managers”.

(R6)

A vice-rector confirmed this view, citing the burden of financial sustainability in the face of stringent requirements:

“Economic sustainability is under constant pressure. The university must self-finance over 90% of its operations while still meeting high standards”.

(VR5)

Another vice-rector pointed to the critical role of accurate financial information:

“The first responsibility is to know how much it costs to maintain strategic commitments. You can’t plan without knowing if the resources exist”.

(VR1)

The political and financial environment imposes real constraints on institutional aspirations. As one vice-rector put it:

“We make decisions based on what is feasible. The board always has financial balance in mind. There is goodwill, but many limits”.

(VR6)

In summary, the interviews reveal that while sustainability is acknowledged in institutional discourse, decision-making remains deeply anchored in financial logic. The imperative to ensure economic viability constrains the scope for more transformative social and environmental strategies.

4.2. Contextual and Adaptive Strategic Rationality

University leadership does not follow a fixed or linear model when making strategic decisions. Instead, leaders shape these decisions based on contextual contingencies, internal constraints, power dynamics, and shifting regulatory frameworks.

The interviews reveal a form of situated strategic rationality—leaders adapt their decision-making to prevailing institutional circumstances, leadership configurations, and planning cycles. Under this logic, sustainability is not integrated stably or systematically but rather according to the timing and pressures of the surrounding environment.

One rector articulated the solitary and uncertain nature of leadership in these contexts:

“You are alone at that table, with all the background and information you have studied—but in the end, you are still alone”.

(R1)

This testimony highlights the personal weight borne by senior leaders and the lack of collective responsibility in critical decisions.

From the vice-rectors’ perspective, maintaining strategic coherence is a constant challenge, especially in highly dynamic contexts. One explained:

“We try not to disconnect any of our initiatives from the institutional strategy. We always provide integrative background, considering both the local and systemic contexts”.

(VR5)

However, these efforts toward internal coherence often collide with the need to satisfy external demands—as another vice-rector noted:

“Today, many universities are more concerned with responding to quality standards than pursuing their strategic plans”.

(VR7)

These accounts indicate that decision-makers do not base strategic decisions exclusively on technical criteria. Instead, external pressures—such as accreditation requirements, funding mechanisms, or political shifts—influence their choices and sometimes override internal agendas.

In summary, strategic rationality in Chilean state universities is best understood as a processual, adaptive, and relational practice. Decision-making emerges through negotiation and adjustment rather than adherence to predetermined plans. Within this framework, sustainability often competes with apparently more urgent institutional imperatives rather than being consistently prioritized.

4.3. Conditional Stakeholder Participation

University authorities recognize the importance of stakeholder involvement in strategic decision-making. However, their actual influence tends to be limited by structural, cultural, and symbolic constraints. Although formal mechanisms for participation—such as university councils or advisory committees—are in place, their impact on high-level decisions remains modest. In most cases, consultative processes prevail without granting stakeholders meaningful deliberative power.

From the perspective of rectors, collegial bodies contribute to the legitimacy of institutional governance. One stated:

“Collegial groups such as the University Council and the Board of Governors are key. Together with the executive, they ensure the legitimacy of decisions and the governance of the institution”.

(R1)

Another rector emphasized the value of participation when decisions involve long-term structural change:

“When it comes to structural demands, these are deliberated in collegial forums with broad legitimacy. The resulting decisions are generally well accepted”.

(R5)

However, there is general agreement that external stakeholder involvement remains weak:

“In our case, the participation of many external actors is still not very clear, although there have been some instances”.

(R6)

Vice-rectors expanded on this point by highlighting the increasing diversity among stakeholder groups. One noted:

“We have working students, students with children, LGBT groups, neurodivergent students, unions, alumni. They all have legitimate demands and different ways of engaging with the university”.

(VR3)

Such heterogeneity challenges the traditional modes of stakeholder interaction and calls for more inclusive policymaking.

University council members acknowledged external stakeholders’ contributions, particularly through indirect feedback mechanisms. As one council member explained:

“Young alumni often provide critical feedback about their training. That forces us to rethink the relevance of what we teach”.

(UB2)

Another pointed to the need for more horizontal and open dialogue with external groups:

“We’ve made efforts to refresh the conversation with our broader environment. Without engaging other actors, we remain stuck in a very internal view”.

(VR7)

In short, while the importance of stakeholder engagement is widely acknowledged, its actual implementation within strategic decision-making remains limited. Deliberative spaces are still scarce, and mechanisms for co-producing strategies with internal and external actors remain underdeveloped. This represents a significant challenge for advancing toward more participatory and sustainable university governance.

4.4. Sustainability as an Instrumental Narrative

Actors in strategic leadership acknowledge that sustainability has been incorporated into institutional discourse and official planning documents. However, its effective integration into university management remains limited, fragmented, and largely symbolic. While the concept of sustainability frequently appears in strategic plans, it is often not operationalized. Many interviewees described an instrumental use of sustainability—employed more to promote institutional legitimacy in the eyes of external evaluators than as a guiding principle for organizational transformation.

One rector recognized this lacuna between aspirational discourse and actual implementation:

“Initiatives are supposed to be aligned with the institutional development plan. But sometimes that plan is more aspirational than operational”.

(R5)

Another rector reflected on the mismatch between declarations and execution:

“When a new academic program is proposed, we start by stating which sustainability goal it contributes to. But there’s not always coherence between what is declared and what can actually be implemented”.

(R3)

Vice-rectors echoed these concerns, emphasizing the lack of integration between sustainability and institutional resource planning, with one stating the following:

“Plans often include isolated actions that are not linked to resource allocation. This creates a disconnect between management and sustainability”.

(VR1)

From the perspective of governing councils, similar concerns arise. One council member noted:

“Planning processes do not consider available resources—they just list sectoral goals by area”.

(UB1)

Together, these accounts suggest that sustainability has become part of the institutional language, but its operational significance remains weak. Structural, financial, and coordination barriers limit the extent to which sustainability principles are embodied in day-to-day decisions. This instrumental narrative weakens the critical and transformative potential of sustainability. Rather than using sustainability as an integrative framework for strategy and governance, university leaders often deploy it rhetorically to meet external expectations. Bridging this gap requires them to align declared intentions with actual planning and effective implementation more coherently.

4.5. Resistance Factors and Drivers of Strategic Change Toward Sustainability

Strategic decision-makers do not integrate sustainability based solely on policies or formal plans. Instead, they also respond to internal cultural, structural, and symbolic factors that can either hinder or facilitate institutional change. From the rectors’ perspective, the construction of institutional legitimacy is a key facilitator. One rector noted:

“You may sacrifice some speed in decision-making, but you gain a great deal in implementation if the decisions are legitimate. That makes the process easier”.

(R5)

Vice-rectors emphasized the importance of fostering a collaborative organizational culture and ensuring the circulation of strategic information. One described their approach as follows:

“I used to map institutional needs. I always knew that demands exceed available resources, but we prioritized based on the strategy”.

(VR5)

The study also identified distributed leadership as a critical driver of change. One vice-rector highlighted:

“Decision-making is collaborative. I always tell my team: we each have different responsibilities, but we share the same mission”.

(VR8)

Members of university councils drew attention to a recurring challenge: the disconnection between strategic definitions and their appropriation by operational units. One council member observed:

“Each unit used to operate independently, without coordination. That’s a leadership issue. We need everyday dialogue to reinforce institutional unity”.

(UB4)

These insights suggest that advancing sustainability requires more than formal declarations or isolated initiatives. Rather, it involves transforming organizational culture, improving internal coordination, and building trust across levels of governance.

Collaborative leadership, recognition of internal diversity, and legitimacy are powerful enablers of change. By contrast, rigid structures, fragmented decision-making, and weak institutional articulation act as persistent obstacles to the meaningful integration of sustainability.

4.6. Materiality of Information in Strategic Decision-Making

A consistent finding throughout the interviews is the central role of information in the decision-making processes of university leadership. Respondents emphasized that the quality, accessibility, and traceability of institutional data are critical for sustainable planning and governance.

Several rectors expressed concern over the fragmentation and redundancy of information systems. One stated:

“The university needs a single, mandatory information system. Right now, the same data is requested from different departments. The lack of integration is evident”.

(R1)

Although relevant data may exist, it is often dispersed, poorly contextualized, and disconnected from strategic decision-making. Leaders reported the need to reconstruct scenarios from fragmented sources, which undermines their ability to make informed and timely decisions.

One vice-rector pointed out that a large number of indicators are produced without clarity on their purpose or audience:

“We generate a lot of indicators, but it’s often unclear who they are for or why. Sometimes it’s just a formality, with no link to real management”.

(VR1)

Another highlighted the value of institutional self-assessment as a tool for identifying strategic needs:

“I compiled all the reports and used them to build a needs map. For me, that process was more valuable than the system itself”.

(VR5)

External accountability frameworks frequently guide decision-making. As one vice-rector explained:

“We base many decisions on the 14 accreditation criteria defined by the National Accreditation Comission (CNA)”.

(VR3)

Council members also described gaps in institutional feedback and communication. One noted:

“We brought decisions to the council, but then the comptroller raised objections. We had to go back and debate again, without really knowing what had gone wrong”.

(UB3)

These accounts reveal a structural tension: society expects universities to make evidence-based decisions, but they often operate without the integrated systems needed to support such decisions. The absence of reliable and usable data undermines both strategic coherence and institutional adaptability. To advance sustainability, it is not enough to have political will or sufficient information at hand. Rather, institutions must develop robust data governance capabilities, ensuring that information is relevant, timely, and aligned with strategic decision-making processes.

In general, these preliminary findings suggest that the integration of sustainability at the highest strategic echelon of Chilean state universities is partial, contingent, and shaped by multiple tensions. The identified categories provide a foundation for a deeper discussion on the challenges of governance, leadership, and institutional transformation from a sustainability perspective.

Table 2. Perceptions of the strategic apex according to analytical categories.

Categories	Rectors	Vice-Rectors Vice Chancellors	Senior Advisors (Members of the University Board)
Economic criteria	Financial priority first and foremost	Budget-contingent management	Financial balance as a council priority
Strategic rationality	Loneliness in decision-making	Strategic contextualisation	Adjustment to possible conditions
Stakeholder participation	Institutional legitimisation from the council	Recognition of new social actors	Territorial demand and relevance
Mainstreaming sustainability	Tension between discourse and execution	Fragmented and under-resourced management	Plans without executive coherence
Organizational change	Legitimacy as an enabler of change	Collaborative strategy building	Disarticulation between units
Strategic information	Lack of integrated information	Assessment of self-assessment as input	Lack of traceability in decisions

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on the analysis of qualitative interviews and theoretical review.

summarizes the perceptions of senior university leaders regarding six key categories identified from the interviews. First, there is a predominant concern for financial viability, which is fundamental to management. Strategic decisions are made based on context, with differences according to roles: rectors act alone, vice-rectors adapt to the environment, and senior advisors evaluate what is most viable.

Strategic leaders recognize the value of external actor participation, although they acknowledge its limitations—highlighting the role of the senior council and the partial inclusion of social and territorial demands. They often treat sustainability more as a discourse than as a coherent practice, and some obstacles persist, such as the lack of transparent and traceable information. Despite these barriers, they identify opportunities in collaborative work and in strengthening institutional legitimacy.

Figure 1 summarizes the key relationships among the main factors influencing the incorporation of sustainability into strategic decision-making at the university’s highest governance level. It illustrates how external context, internal stakeholders, and institutional planning instruments shape the decision-making process and, in turn, affect strategic outcomes at the institutional level.

In summary, the discussion suggests that sustainability in university strategic leadership decision-making is an emerging process, currently under tension and construction. It requires progress towards models of university governance that integrate situated strategic rationality, effective stakeholder participation, and institutional capacity building. To establish sustainability as a guiding principle of university governance, it must transcend declarative intentions and take shape as a relational, measurable, and collectively enacted practice.

Figure 2 complements the above using a word cloud that illustrates the frequency and relevance of the concepts that emerged in the interviews. Terms such as sustainability, strategy, stakeholders, rationality, and information stand out for their semantic recurrence and their close relationship with the decision-making processes of strategic leadership.

Figure 3 presents a coding network representing the co-occurrence between emerging categories identified in the interviews. Significant links are observed between sustainability and rationality, indicating their articulation as central axes in strategic decision-making. The connections between participation, stakeholders, and legitimacy also stand out, reflecting the tensions inherent in deliberative processes. On the other hand, the relationship between information, criteria, and strategy suggests the influence of these elements in the rational construction of decisions. Overall, the network exposes a complex semantic structure that supports a theoretical interpretation of the findings.

5. Discussion

This study explored how strategic decision-making in Chilean state universities incorporates sustainability. The results reveal a persistent gap between sustainability discourses and actual decision-making practices. Structural, cultural, and institutional dynamics—reflecting broader tensions in university governance—shape this disconnect.

First, the dominance of financial criteria in strategic decisions confirms findings from earlier studies that highlight the neoliberal framing of university management [43,44]. In the Chilean context, high levels of self-financing and competitive performance-based funding intensify this logic. Rectors and vice-rectors report that financial sustainability often overrides environmental or social considerations, relegating sustainability to a secondary concern.

Second, strategic rationality appears contextual and adaptive rather than programmatic or systematic. This is consistent with the literature that characterizes university governance as a complex negotiation between competing logics—professional, managerial, and political [45,46]. Decisions are frequently reactive, constrained by short planning cycles, regulatory uncertainty, and shifting leadership configurations.

Third, while stakeholder participation is formally recognized, it remains largely consultative. This reflects global debates on the limited democratization of university governance [47,48]. Institutional culture, fragmented channels of communication, and symbolic mechanisms of inclusion limit the co-construction of strategy with internal and external actors.

Fourth, sustainability is frequently used as an instrumental narrative rather than as an organizing principle. It functions as a rhetorical tool aligned with accreditation and legitimacy while lacking credible implementation in practice. This finding reflects both the performative risks in sustainability discourses [49] and the broader tensions between legitimacy and organizational change in higher education governance [50].

Fifth, cultural and symbolic factors facilitate or hinder change. Leadership styles, legitimacy, and organizational coordination emerge as key enablers of transformation, whereas rigid hierarchies and fragmented responsibilities act as barriers. Distributed leadership and trust-building are particularly relevant for advancing more participatory and coherent sustainability strategies [51].

Finally, information plays a decisive role. The absence of integrated and strategic information systems undermines evidence-based decision-making. This is problematic given the growing reliance on performance metrics and external accountability frameworks. Without robust data governance, sustainability remains disconnected from management.

Overall, this study reveals that integrating sustainability into strategic governance is less a matter of formal adoption than of organizational alignment, cultural transformation, and institutional coherence. Advancing sustainability in universities requires navigating competing rationalities, strengthening participatory mechanisms, and ensuring that information systems serve not only reporting purposes but also strategic learning and action.

To conclude (

Table 3. Summary of concepts.

Analytical Theme	Stakeholders	Adaptive Rationality	Information Asymmetry
1. Pre-eminence of financial criteria	Weak stakeholder influence	Priority given to short-term decisions	Data focused on external accountability
2. Adaptive strategic rationality	Limited internal negotiation	Context-specific and contingent decisions	Limited empirical basis for decisions
3. Conditional stakeholder participation	Deliberate exclusion	Consultation as a legitimacy mechanism	Lack of shared information
4. Sustainability as an instrumental narrative	Stakeholders as rhetorical recipients	Sustainability as symbolic legitimacy	Disconnect between planning and execution
5. Resistance and change factors	Fragmented organizational culture	Collaborative leadership as an exception	Lack of coordination between units
6. Materiality of information	Lack of transparency and traceability	Reactive use of information	Institutional fragmentation and opacity

), three overarching concepts summarize the findings discussed in this study: stakeholders, adaptive rationality, and information asymmetry. These elements provide a relational, strategic, and cognitive framework for interpreting university governance results. State universities face structural challenges articulated around three interconnected dimensions: (i) restricted stakeholder participation, (ii) a predominantly adaptive strategic rationality, and (iii) information asymmetry that weakens evidence-based decision-making. These dimensions revolve around the pre-eminence of financial criteria, adaptive strategic rationality, conditioned stakeholder participation, sustainability as an instrumental narrative, resistance factors, and the materiality of information. The following table summarizes these findings based on six critical axes.

6. Conclusions

This study examined how Chilean state universities integrate sustainability into their strategic decision-making processes. By analyzing qualitative data from interviews with rectors, vice-rectors, and university council members, we identified a persistent disconnect between institutional sustainability discourse and actual decision-making practices.

Financial imperatives dominate the strategic agenda, often subordinating social and environmental considerations. Decision-making tends to be adaptive and context-driven rather than guided by systematic and long-term sustainability strategies. Although institutions formally establish participation mechanisms, leaders rarely use them to co-construct decisions. They frequently treat sustainability as a rhetorical tool rather than a transformative framework.

Internal leadership, cultural norms, and the degree of organizational coordination emerge as critical factors—either facilitating or impeding the integration of sustainability. Likewise, the lack of robust, integrated information systems undermines evidence-based governance and the alignment between planning and execution.

This research highlights the need to reframe sustainability from being a peripheral narrative to becoming a core principle of university governance. Achieving this requires structural reforms, cultural transformation, and stronger information infrastructures that support participatory, informed, and coherent strategic decisions.

This suggests, first, the need for a concerted effort by rectors, vice-rectors, and members of university councils to systematically identify how each decision is shaped by—and, in turn, affects—various dimensions of sustainability, including economic, social, and environmental aspects. The goal is to ensure that sustainability becomes embedded in everyday decision-making, moving beyond abstraction to become a comprehensive and actionable principle. Secondly, institutions should advance in the development of an institutional model for sustainability implementation in which the meaningful involvement of diverse stakeholders is critical. Finally, it is essential to design and apply indicators capable of monitoring the progress and effectiveness of this model within each university context.

The main limitations of this qualitative and exploratory study stem from its purposive design and focus on high-level university leadership. While this approach provides deep insight into strategic decision-making, it excludes perspectives from other key actors, such as students, faculty, and external stakeholders. The findings reflect interpretations shaped by specific institutional context and leadership experiences, and data collection was limited to a defined period. Additionally, the self-reported nature of interviews may introduce bias or strategic framing. These limitations underscore the importance of future research seeking broader, more diverse, and longitudinal perspectives on university sustainability governance. Future studies can deepen our understanding by comparing how the identified tensions arise in different settings and by examining the mechanisms institutions use to address them. Researchers should also explore student and faculty perceptions and assess how sustainability-driven governance innovations impact institutions.

Although this study focuses on Chilean state universities, its findings offer insights that resonate beyond the national context. These institutions share core structural, political, and cultural features with public universities across Latin America and other parts of the world. They operate in settings often characterized by territorial inequalities, constrained funding, increasing pressure on academics to deliver research quality and quantity, and strong societal engagement expectations. These tensions emerge most strongly in contexts where university sustainability faces three fundamental challenges: the need to ensure stable funding and efficient resource management without losing sight of mission objectives; the duty to contribute to territorial and social equity in access to education; and, finally, a commitment to responsible environmental management. In this light, the universities examined may represent a broader model of higher education—one that navigates similar tensions and challenges across the Global South and beyond. Exploring how these institutions strategically engage with sustainability offers valuable and transferable lessons. Thus, it contributes to the global conversation on the evolving public mission of universities, particularly in contexts marked by complexity, institutional transformation, and persistent asymmetries. In Chile, the mixed configuration of the university system intensifies these tensions as principles of social law coexist with education market dynamics, including fierce competition between institutions and growing pressure to maintain enrolment levels. For this reason, while the findings may offer relevant insights for other university systems, researchers should extrapolate them with caution, considering additional factors such as the current legal framework, institutional tradition, and the degree of university autonomy.