Next Article in Journal
Studying the Effects of Private Water Storage Tanks on Pump Scheduling Optimization and Leakage Control
Previous Article in Journal
Measurement and Comparative Analysis of Chinese New-Type Urbanization and Eco-Environment System Coordination
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 5
10.3390/su17051817
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Sustainable Universities: A Bibliometric and Thematic Analysis in Higher Education

by
Cristina Veres
1,2,*,
Maria Tănase
3,
Ioan Bogdan Bacos
2,4 and
Mihaela Kardos
2,4
1
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu-Mures, Nicolae Iorga Street, 1, 540088 Targu-Mures, Romania
2
Doctoral School of I.O.S.U.D., George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures, Gheorghe Marinescu Street, 38, 540142 Targu Mures, Romania
3
Mechanical Engineering Department, Petroleum-Gas University of Ploiesti, 100680 Ploiesti, Romania
4
Department ED1—Economic Sciences, Faculty of Economics and Law, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu-Mures, Gheorghe Marinescu Street, 38, 540142 Targu Mures, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(5), 1817; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051817
Submission received: 6 January 2025 / Revised: 15 February 2025 / Accepted: 19 February 2025 / Published: 21 February 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Sustainability in higher education has become a focal point of global discourse, reflecting the strategic role universities play in addressing environmental, social, and economic challenges. This study explores recent advancements in sustainable and green university practices through a comprehensive bibliometric and thematic analysis of Web of Science articles published between 2020 and 2024. While previous research often examines sustainability practices in isolation, a clear understanding of how digital technologies, institutional leadership, and stakeholder engagement interconnect to drive sustainability remains underdeveloped. This study addresses this gap by integrating bibliometric mapping with thematic analysis, providing a holistic view of the evolving landscape. Emerging themes include the role of digital technologies in enhancing operational efficiency and fostering inclusivity, as well as the increasing reliance on standardized metrics to measure progress. By bridging theoretical insights with actionable strategies, this research contributes to advancing sustainability in higher education, offering a roadmap for institutions to align their practices with global sustainability goals.

1. Introduction

Universities have long been recognized as transformative institutions, shaping not only the intellectual and professional trajectories of individuals but also influencing societal and global progress. In recent decades, the concept of a “sustainable university” has emerged as a central theme in higher education discourse, reflecting the pressing need to address environmental, social, and economic challenges through academia. These institutions are uniquely positioned to lead sustainability efforts by fostering innovation, producing cutting-edge research, and cultivating a culture of environmental responsibility among future generations [1,2,3,4].
This article examines both “green universities” and “sustainable universities”, recognizing their interconnected roles in advancing sustainability within higher education. While “green universities” prioritize environmental dimensions such as energy efficiency, waste reduction, and eco-friendly campus initiatives, the concept of ’sustainable universities’ extends this focus to encompass social and economic dimensions. By addressing both, this study provides a comprehensive perspective, acknowledging that environmental efforts cannot be fully effective without integration into broader institutional frameworks that include social equity, economic resilience, and community engagement.
Moving towards sustainability, however, is not an easy task. It requires universities to rethink their operations, reduce their environmental impact, and integrate sustainability into the very fabric of their organizational culture. From designing curricula that prepare students to tackle global issues to implementing policies that align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Institutions worldwide are grappling with questions of how best to approach sustainability, often finding themselves balancing ambitious goals with practical realities [5,6,7,8]. The integration of sustainability into higher education is not merely a trend but a necessity, as universities play a crucial role in equipping future leaders with the skills and knowledge necessary to address complex global challenges [9,10,11].
Moreover, the challenges faced by universities in implementing sustainable practices are multifaceted. These include financial constraints, institutional inertia, and the need for a cultural shift within academic environments [12,13,14]. For instance, while many universities have established sustainability centers to promote research and education on sustainability, these centers often struggle to gain mainstream acceptance within the broader institutional framework [15,16]. Furthermore, the commitment to sustainability must be reflected not only in academic programs but also in operational practices, community engagement, and research initiatives [17,18,19].
This study delves into the evolving landscape of sustainable universities, exploring the strides made in the past five years. Through a combination of bibliometric and thematic analyses, we reviewed 286 scholarly articles published between 2020 and 2024 to uncover key trends, challenges, and opportunities. Using tools like VOSviewer (Version 1.6.20), we examined how researchers and institutions are shaping the conversation around sustainability in higher education.
By examining keyword networks and thematic clusters, we aim to address the following questions: What are the dominant research areas and gaps in the field? What role does leadership play in driving these efforts? Our analysis also highlights discrepancies in regional implementation and theoretical approaches, shedding light on both converging and diverging perspectives.
This work contributes to the growing body of literature by offering a comprehensive overview of the academic discourse on sustainable universities and identifying pathways for future research. Our findings suggest that while significant progress has been made, there remain substantial opportunities to enhance sustainability leadership and foster deeper collaborations within and across academic institutions.
This study addresses a gap in the academic discourse on sustainable universities by combining bibliometric analysis with thematic analysis to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date synthesis of recent advancements in the field. While previous research has often focused either on theoretical frameworks or practical case studies in isolation, this study bridges these dimensions, offering both a quantitative mapping of research trends and a qualitative synthesis of actionable insights.

2. Literature Review on Green and Sustainable Universities

The concepts of sustainable and green universities have gained significant traction in recent years, reflecting a growing recognition of the role that higher education institutions (HEIs) play in promoting sustainability [20]. This literature review synthesizes recent research findings on the integration of sustainability into higher education, focusing on various aspects such as curriculum development [21], institutional policies, and community engagement.
Higher education institutions are uniquely positioned to contribute to sustainable development through their educational practices, research initiatives, and community outreach [22]. As noted by Kohl et al. (2021) [23], HEIs have historically been involved in sustainability efforts, yet their potential impact remains underutilized. The authors argue that a whole-institution approach is necessary to align educational practices with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), emphasizing the need for leadership and commitment to sustainability at all levels of the institution. Similarly, Stanciu and Condrea (2023) [24] highlight that the commitment of higher education to sustainable development has evolved beyond mere teaching to encompass a broader engagement with sustainability issues, including research and community service.
The integration of sustainability into higher education is not an easy practice but is rather a critical response to global challenges such as climate change and social inequality. Shava (2020) [25] discusses the importance of embedding Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) within the curriculum, particularly in the context of the United Nations Agenda 2030.
The scientific literature highlights the importance of integrating sustainability into the curriculum for the development of a resilient society. Jing et al. (2022) [26] present a case study demonstrating the potential for embedding sustainability themes into non-environmentally focused courses, thereby enhancing interdisciplinary education. Such an approach prepares students for facing the global challenges and contributes to developing a culture of sustainability across diverse academic disciplines.
Researchers have also studied the role of communication in sustainability education. Voci and Karmasin (2021) [27] argue that effective communication strategies are essential for disseminating sustainability knowledge and engaging the broader community. They suggest that media and communication studies should be central to sustainability education, as they can significantly influence public perceptions and behaviors regarding sustainability. In addition, the importance of experiential learning and service learning as pedagogical strategies for promoting sustainability is highlighted by Higuera and Martín (2023) [28]. Their research indicates that service learning can effectively bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, enabling students to engage with sustainability issues in meaningful ways.
The successful implementation of sustainability initiatives within HEIs often hinges on strong institutional policies and leadership. According to Zhang (2024) [29], sustainable leadership in higher education involves not only the commitment of the faculty and administration, but also the active participation of students and the community. This collaborative approach is essential for fostering a culture of sustainability that permeates all aspects of university life. Moreover, the establishment of clear sustainability goals and performance indicators serves as an important tool for measuring progress and accountability. Griebeler et al. (2021) [14] propose a framework for deploying indicators that assess HEIs’ contributions to the SDGs, emphasizing the need for the systematic evaluation of sustainability efforts. This aligns with the findings of Al-Nuaimi and Al-Ghamdi (2022) [30], who stress the importance of sustainable consumption practices within higher education, advocating for policies that promote responsible resource use and environmental stewardship.
HEIs also play a strategic role in engaging with their local communities to promote sustainability. As noted by Berjozkina and Melanthiou (2021) [31], the integration of sustainability education within hospitality and tourism programs can significantly impact local economies and environmental practices. This highlights the potential for HEIs to act as catalysts for sustainable development not only within their campuses but also in the surrounding communities.
Furthermore, the concept of “third mission” in higher education, which encompasses community engagement and outreach, is increasingly recognized as essential for fostering sustainability. This notion is supported by the work of Menon and Suresh (2020) [32], who argue that HEIs must leverage their resources and expertise to address local sustainability challenges and contribute to community resilience.
Integrating sustainability into higher education is not always a smooth path to follow. Despite the progress made in this process, several challenges remain. Uggla (2023) [33] identifies the lack of a clear definition of sustainability as a significant barrier to its effective implementation in HEIs. This ambiguity can lead to inconsistent practices and hinder the development of comprehensive sustainability strategies.
Kuzmina (2021) [34] discusses the impact of changing economic conditions on the ability of universities to invest in sustainability initiatives. This underscores the need for innovative funding models and partnerships that can support sustainability efforts in higher education.
Moreover, the integration of sustainability into higher education curricula often faces resistance from traditional academic structures. As noted by Macheridis and Paulsson (2021) [35], the processes of responsibilization and accountabilization can create tensions within institutions, complicating efforts to maintain sustainability across various disciplines.
Looking ahead, the future of sustainable higher education will likely involve greater emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration and innovative pedagogical approaches. The research by Finnveden and Schneider (2023) [36] suggests that HEIs must adapt their curricula to equip students with the skills and knowledge necessary for navigating complex sustainability challenges. This includes fostering critical thinking, ethical decision-making, and environmental responsibility among students.
Furthermore, the role of technology in facilitating sustainability education should not be overlooked. As highlighted by the work of Septyandi and Prawira (2022) [37], digital tools and online learning platforms can enhance access to sustainability education and promote global collaboration among students and educators.
The literature on green and sustainable universities underscores the critical role of higher education institutions in advancing sustainability. Through comprehensive curriculum development, strong institutional leadership, community engagement, and innovative pedagogical practices, HEIs can effectively contribute to sustainable development goals and prepare future generations for the challenges ahead. However, addressing the existing challenges and leveraging emerging opportunities will be essential for realizing the full potential of sustainable higher education.
The described analysis highlights the multidimensional nature of sustainability in higher education, underscoring the importance of integrating environmental, social, and institutional strategies. While theoretical frameworks and case studies illustrate the potential of these approaches, understanding their practical applications across diverse contexts is essential for identifying replicable and impactful practices.
Table 1 synthesizes key contributions and methodological advancements in sustainable and green university practices. These 30 articles were selected based on their methodological rigor, thematic relevance, and contribution to defining sustainability trends in higher education between 2020 and 2024. Unlike the broader dataset used in bibliometric analysis, this selection provides a focused insight into best practices and emerging research approaches. These studies encompass a wide array of themes, including sustainability frameworks (e.g., KPI development for smart energy systems), green campus initiatives (e.g., waste management and energy efficiency projects), curriculum integration (e.g., embedding sustainability across disciplines), and stakeholder engagement (e.g., leveraging student and community perceptions to shape strategies). The table also highlights innovative methodologies, such as the use of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Weighted Arithmetic Mean (WAM) for sustainability indicators, as well as the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) technique for prioritizing sustainability criteria.
By organizing these contributions chronologically, the table demonstrates an evolution in research, from foundational approaches like UI GreenMetric-based analyses to emerging strategies focusing on digitalization, inclusivity, and interdisciplinary collaboration. This overview not only captures recurring themes—such as the role of leadership, policy alignment, and operational sustainability—but also showcases novel approaches to addressing global challenges within higher education.
This transition from conceptual discussions to specific studies enables a holistic understanding of sustainability in higher education, bridging abstract principles with concrete actions. The table serves as a first resource for identifying trends, gaps, and opportunities, emphasizing the importance of innovation, adaptability, and cross-disciplinary efforts in advancing the sustainable development goals (SDGs) within academic institutions.
This chapter highlighted the evolution of the concepts of “green universities” and “sustainable universities” in higher education, emphasizing how these institutions contribute to sustainable development through educational initiatives, institutional policies, and community engagement. The literature review demonstrated that integrating sustainability into universities is not merely a trend but a necessity for addressing global challenges such as climate change and social inequalities. Recent studies indicate a shift from fragmented approaches to holistic strategies that include interdisciplinary curriculum development, the implementation of sustainability performance indicators, and increased collaboration between academia and stakeholders.
Furthermore, the literature on sustainable universities highlights key trends and challenges in integrating sustainability into higher education. First, digital transformation has become a fundamental driver for sustainability efforts, with universities increasingly leveraging AI, big data, and smart technologies to optimize resource use and reduce environmental impact. Second, institutional leadership and governance play an important role in shaping sustainability policies, but implementation varies widely across regions, reflecting economic and political disparities. Third, stakeholder engagement, particularly the involvement of students and faculty, emerges as a critical factor in ensuring long-term success. However, the literature also points to challenges, including the lack of standardized measurement frameworks, the inconsistent integration of sustainability topics into curricula, and financial barriers to green campus initiatives.

3. Materials and Methods

This study employs a bibliometric and thematic analysis to investigate recent advancements and trends in sustainable universities. The methodology is structured into two phases: data collection and analysis, each designed to ensure the reliability and relevance of the findings. The bibliometric analysis aimed to map key themes, relationships, and research trends, while the thematic analysis focused on synthesizing practical insights and conceptual advancements.
The selection process adhered to a structured PRISMA methodology, as illustrated in Figure 1. This diagram visually represents the key stages of study identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion.
The initial search conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection using the terms “sustainable university”, “sustainable universities”, “green university” or “green universities” yielded 842 results. These terms were selected to ensure a comprehensive dataset that includes both environmentally focused initiatives (green universities) and broader sustainability efforts encompassing governance, social responsibility, and academic programs (sustainable universities). They reflect key thematic directions in the literature and align with prior studies in the field.
No duplicate records were removed at this stage, as automated tools did not detect redundancies. Following this, all these records were screened, with a focus on the time range. To maintain the relevance and timeliness of our research, we focused exclusively on articles published in the last five years, from 2020 to 2024 (as of 26 December 2024). This step resulted in a list of 410 articles, which also included 18 early-access publications. By focusing on recent publications, we aimed to capture the latest ideas and practices shaping this field.
At the retrieval stage, all 410 records identified for further evaluation were successfully accessed, with no missing or unavailable reports (n = 0).
The eligibility assessment phase involved a more detailed content evaluation, where 124 studies were excluded due to their lack of a university-related context. These excluded studies either focused on broader sustainability discussions or addressed sustainability in non-academic sectors. The final dataset consisted of 286 included studies, which were subsequently analyzed in bibliometric and thematic investigation.
The bibliometric analysis was conducted using VOSviewer, a widely recognized tool for visualizing bibliographic data. The tool was employed to create co-occurrence maps, bibliographic coupling, and keyword networks, enabling the identification of prominent themes, influential publications, and collaborative research networks. Additionally, thematic analysis was applied to examine recurring topics, emerging trends, and gaps in the literature.
The generated figures provide insights into the structural and temporal dynamics of the research field. For instance, bibliographic maps highlight clusters of interrelated themes, while temporal overlays reveal the progression of research topics from foundational concepts to emerging areas of interest.
This mixed-methods approach ensures a holistic understanding of the academic discourse on sustainable universities, combining quantitative rigor with qualitative depth to provide actionable insights for both researchers and practitioners.

4. Results

The selected dataset allowed us to explore key patterns, themes, and trends that characterize the discourse on sustainability within higher education. Through a combination of bibliometric and thematic analysis, we aimed to identify meaningful connections and highlight emerging areas of interest. This approach enables a comprehensive understanding of how sustainability-related concepts are evolving, both in theory and in practice, within the academic landscape.
To further illustrate these findings, Figure 2 presents a bibliographic map based on text data. It visually captures the relationships between terms used in the full records and cited references, revealing clusters of interconnected themes and their relevance within the dataset.
The bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer identified three distinct clusters that capture the evolving landscape of sustainability in higher education. These clusters provide a framework for interpreting the thematic findings and illustrate how institutions are addressing challenges through a combination of strategic leadership, technological innovation, and participatory approaches.
The red cluster centers on themes like sustainable universities, community engagement, and stakeholder involvement, emphasizing the social and institutional dimensions of sustainability. It highlights the interaction between universities and their broader ecosystems, underscoring the importance of collaboration in implementing sustainability initiatives. Key terms such as “stakeholder”, “community”, and “perception” reflect the human and organizational aspects central to this discourse.
The green cluster focuses on actionable measures being implemented by universities, including green infrastructure projects, environmental impact assessments, and curriculum reforms. Terms like “impact”, “project”, and “curricula” highlight the practical aspects of integrating sustainability into both academic and operational activities.
Finally, the blue cluster emphasizes evaluation metrics, university rankings, and criteria, showcasing the importance of assessment and benchmarking in advancing sustainability goals. Tools such as the UI GreenMetric and other evaluation frameworks are frequently associated with this cluster, suggesting a growing emphasis on measurable progress and accountability.
This clustering of concepts not only highlights key areas of focus but also reveals interconnections between institutional strategies, practical applications, and accountability mechanisms. Together, these clusters illustrate how sustainability efforts in higher education are evolving to address contemporary challenges while aligning with global sustainability goals.
Each term is represented as a node, with the node size signifying its frequency or relevance within the dataset. Prominent terms, such as “sustainable university” and “green university”, are larger and more central, indicating their significant presence and importance in academic discourse. The connections between nodes are depicted as lines, with the thickness of each line representing the strength of the relationship or co-occurrence between terms.
Clustering provides a deeper understanding of how sustainability-related themes are interconnected in higher education research. The central positioning of “sustainable university” and “green university” suggests that they serve as overarching concepts bridging multiple dimensions, from strategic frameworks to measurable outcomes.
The interconnection between the red cluster (Social and Institutional Dimensions), green cluster (Operational), and blue cluster (Evaluation and Benchmarking) highlights the multifaceted nature of sustainability in higher education, where stakeholder engagement and community partnerships (Red) drive practical initiatives and curriculum reforms (Green), while being supported and assessed through measurable criteria and rankings (Blue), creating a dynamic and interdependent framework for fostering sustainable universities.
Figure 3 shows how the terms related to sustainability in higher education evolve over time, indicated by the color gradient from blue (2020) to yellow (2024). Some temporal trends can be deducted from the representation.
Older terms, marked in blue (year 2020), such as “sustainable society”, “policy maker”, and “environment”, suggest foundational topics that have been discussed for several years. These terms represent the conceptual groundwork of sustainability research. Correlated with the previous figure, we can notice that older terms are more concentrated in the operational cluster.
Blue-green terms (2021–2023), like “green university”, “evaluation”, and “project”, fall in the mid-range of the timeline, indicating that the focus shifted towards practical implementations and frameworks for assessing sustainability.
Emerging topics (2024), presented in yellow, like “relation” and “digital technology”, are more recent, indicating a growing interest in leveraging advanced technologies and fostering interconnected systems to address sustainability challenges in higher education. These terms suggest that research is increasingly focusing on how universities can integrate innovative digital tools and platforms to enhance collaboration, streamline sustainability efforts, and adapt to the rapidly evolving technological landscape. The emphasis on “relation” highlights the importance of building stronger partnerships and networks among stakeholders, including students, faculty, policy-makers, and the wider community. This points to a shift from isolated initiatives to more holistic and interconnected strategies, where the synergy between digital advancements and relational dynamics is seen as pivotal for achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs) within academic institutions.
This evolution reflects not only the growing complexity of sustainability in higher education but also a recognition of the need for systemic and adaptive approaches to address global environmental and societal challenges effectively. As these topics gain traction, they pave the way for new frameworks and methodologies that can bridge technological innovation with human-centered solutions in the creation of sustainable universities.
This density visualization from VOSviewer provides insights into the prominence and concentration of terms within the dataset (Figure 4).
The yellow regions highlight terms with the highest frequency and co-occurrence in the dataset, indicating their central importance to the research field. The most prominent term is “sustainable university”, followed by community, relationship, and others. The terms “community” and “relationship” indicate a strong focus on stakeholder involvement and collaborative efforts in achieving sustainability goals. The topics “environment” and “activity” emphasize the practical aspects of implementing sustainability initiatives.
The green areas represent frequently mentioned but less central terms, which contribute additional dimensions to the research. We can see that “green university” is a topic of a growing interest in specific operational models for sustainable institutions. The terms “evaluation” and “criteria” reflect the importance of assessing sustainability efforts through measurable indicators.
The blue areas indicate terms with lower frequencies or co-occurrence. For example, the less frequently used term “Covid” suggests a contextual factor influencing recent sustainability discourse created by the pandemic.
An analysis of the co-authorship (relatedness of items based on their number of co-authored documents) networks between countries was carried out to examine collaborative research networks in the field of sustainability in higher education. This visualization highlights the global interconnections and the extent of international cooperation between countries contributing to this research domain (Figure 5).
Bangladesh, Iraq, USA, and China appear as significant nodes, indicating their central role in fostering international collaborations. These countries have strong co-authorship links with a diverse range of other nations, emphasizing their influence in the research landscape. Malaysia and England also emerge as prominent hubs, reflecting their active participation in collaborative research. These countries can be considered as major hubs of collaboration.
Analyzing the regional collaborations, strong links can be observed within specific regions. Countries like Germany, Spain, and Romania show interconnections, indicative of regional research networks in Europe. Strong ties between Malaysia, China, India, and Indonesia reflect a collaborative effort within Asia.
Connections between countries like USA, South Africa, and Australia demonstrate cross-continental research partnerships.
As temporal trends, the color gradient (blue to yellow) reflects the recency of the research collaborations, with yellow indicating more recent activity. Australia and China have had recent collaborations, suggesting growing participation in sustainability research. Romania, Bangladesh, and Germany had a notable presence in co-authorship networks during earlier years of the timeline, closer to 2020–2021. The blue color highlights these countries as foundational contributors to the global research network in sustainability in higher education during the earlier years of this research timeline.
This analysis underscores the importance of fostering international partnerships to enhance the global knowledge base and collaborative efforts in advancing sustainability in higher education.
Furthermore, a different approach of the analysis was performed to deepen the investigation, this time not based on full records but on terms included in the title and in the abstract of the publications. This visualization provides additional granularity and context, enabling further insights into the relationships and themes within each cluster.
Figure 6 refines the insights from Figure 2 by highlighting how sustainability is framed in higher education research. While Figure 2 outlined the broader bibliographic clusters—social and institutional dimensions (red), operational measures (green), and evaluation frameworks (blue)—Figure 6 delves into the specific language researchers use to articulate these themes. This shift in focus offers a clearer understanding of how key concepts are prioritized and contextualized, complementing the broader patterns identified in the earlier bibliometric analysis.
The temporal evolution highlighted in Figure 7 reveals the emergence of themes such as “digital technology”, “guideline”, “assessment”, and “relation”, signaling an increasing focus on integrating technology and fostering cross-disciplinary collaboration in sustainability initiatives. These trends suggest a shift toward innovative solutions that leverage digital tools and interdisciplinary approaches to address the complexities of sustainability in higher education.
This analysis underscores the dynamic and layered nature of sustainability research, illustrating how practical applications, strategic planning, and transformative educational roles intersect. It emphasizes the growing importance of aligning operational measures with technological advancements and collaborative frameworks to advance sustainable development in academic institutions. By identifying these evolving priorities, the findings provide valuable insights into the pathways through which universities can effectively address contemporary sustainability challenges.

5. Discussions and Conclusions

This study revealed the multidimensional nature of sustainability in universities, which aligns with the broader academic discourse on operational strategies, curriculum integration, stakeholder engagement, and the development of assessment frameworks as essential for fostering a sustainable educational environment [68,69,70,71]. The bibliometric and thematic analyses conducted highlight the increasing focus on interdisciplinary approaches and the integration of digital technologies, findings that are consistent with the recent literature emphasizing the transformative role of technological innovation in advancing sustainability efforts [72,73,74].
This study’s identification of emerging areas such as digitalization, inclusivity, and collaboration builds upon foundational concepts in sustainability research while addressing gaps noted by Pontelli (2023) [75], who emphasized the challenges posed by the lack of standardization in sustainability metrics. Similarly, the persistence of disparities in the regional implementation of sustainable practices echoes calls by Kioupi and Voulvoulis (2023) [76] for globally coordinated efforts to embed sustainability into institutional cultures. Consistent with these findings, our analysis revealed that universities must overcome resistance to interdisciplinary integration and operational reforms, as also noted in the work of Galkienė Garcia-Vallès (2024) [77], who highlighted the strategic potential of universities to contribute to local and global sustainability efforts.
Furthermore, the role of leadership and institutional policies in driving these changes is echoed in broader discussions on the necessity of fostering a culture of inclusivity and shared responsibility within academic institutions. This study aligns with the views of Gamage et al. (2022) [78], who advocate for prioritizing the social dimension of sustainability—particularly the well-being and happiness of students and staff—alongside environmental and economic considerations. By situating its findings within the evolving sustainability discourse, our research underscores the need for universities to adopt standardized assessment frameworks, leverage digital platforms for enhanced efficiency, and promote participatory decision-making processes.
The bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer highlights key thematic clusters, such as stakeholder engagement and digital sustainability, which are essential for shaping curriculum development in higher education. Beyond mapping research trends, these findings hold valuable implications for curriculum design, revealing a strong interplay between sustainability research, digital transformation, and institutional governance. By integrating these themes into academic programs, universities can create more responsive and interdisciplinary sustainability courses that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries. Rather than confining sustainability principles to environmental science or engineering faculties, the analysis suggests a broader integration across disciplines, fostering a more holistic approach to education. Moreover, the clustering of emerging digital tools—such as AI and smart learning platforms—alongside sustainability research underscores the necessity of embedding digital literacy within sustainability curricula. This alignment prepares students to leverage technology in addressing complex sustainability challenges, ensuring that higher education institutions not only provide theoretical knowledge but also cultivate practical competencies that drive real-world sustainable practices.
The results suggest that embedding sustainability principles across all disciplines, fostering interdisciplinary education, and advancing collaborative networks are critical pathways for institutions to head down in order position themselves as leaders in addressing complex global challenges. This approach reinforces existing academic perspectives and provides actionable insights for universities seeking to align their practices with global sustainability goals and prepare future leaders with skills so that they are equipped to tackle pressing societal issues. The integration of these dimensions into university operations, curricula, and engagement strategies reflects a broader societal shift toward recognizing the interconnectedness of environmental, social, and economic systems, paving the way for a more sustainable and equitable future.
To provide a structured perspective on how these dimensions are addressed through our findings, we summarize the key implications in Table 2.
These findings suggest that a comprehensive approach to sustainability in higher education must address all four dimensions simultaneously, ensuring integration across academic, operational, and community-driven initiatives.
The results of this study can be implemented within higher education institutions to refine sustainability strategies, particularly in improving the assessment and execution of sustainability initiatives. Universities can utilize the findings to embed sustainability principles across curricula, enhance stakeholder engagement, and optimize resource use through digitalization. Additionally, institutional decision-makers can leverage the proposed framework to develop more effective policies aligned with global sustainability goals.
The study’s scientific novelty lies in its integrated bibliometric and thematic analysis, providing a comprehensive perspective on sustainability in higher education. Unlike previous studies that often treat theoretical frameworks or case studies in isolation, this research bridges both dimensions. By identifying emerging trends such as digital transformation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and standardized assessment frameworks, it advances the discourse on sustainable university practices and offers actionable insights for institutional leaders and policy-makers.
Regarding implementation restrictions, challenges may arise due to institutional inertia, financial constraints, and regional disparities in sustainability adoption. The study highlights the need for strong leadership, interdisciplinary collaboration, and tailored policy interventions to overcome these barriers. Additionally, differences in regulatory frameworks and resource availability across institutions may impact on the scalability of the proposed strategies, necessitating context-specific adaptations.
Further, we aim to focus our research efforts on refining sustainability indicators, exploring the role of digital platforms in fostering collaboration and examining the long-term impacts of interdisciplinary education on sustainability outcomes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.V., I.B.B. and M.K.; methodology, C.V. and I.B.B.; software, C.V.; validation, M.T. and I.B.B.; formal analysis, M.K.; investigation, M.T.; resources, C.V.; data curation, I.B.B. and M.K.; writing—original draft preparation, C.V. and I.B.B.; writing—review and editing, C.V., I.B.B., M.K. and M.T.; visualization, M.T.; supervision, M.K.; project administration, C.V.; funding acquisition, M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures.

Data Availability Statement

The data used are available through academic databases.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Târgu Mureș Research Grant number 172/1/09.01.2024.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Leal Filho, W.; Ruiz Vargas, V.; Lange Salvia, A.; Brandli, L.L.; Pallant, E.; Klavins, M.; Ray, S.; Moggi, S.; Maruna, M.; Conticelli, E.; et al. The role of higher education institutions in sustainability initiatives at the local level. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 1004–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Filho, W.; Shiel, C.; Paço, A.; Mifsud, M.; Ávila, L.; Brandli, L.; Caeiro, S. Sustainable development goals and sustainability teaching at universities: Falling behind or getting ahead of the pack? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Khurshid, K.; Noureen, S.; Hussain, B. Implementing the sustainable development goals for quality education in institutions of higher education in Pakistan: A qualitative analysis. Int. J. Innov. Teach. Learn. 2020, 6, 159–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kardos, M. Education role in supporting change towards sustainable development: Research on Romanian universities. Act. Probl. Econ. 2013, 1, 337–345. [Google Scholar]
  5. Maina, J. Analyzing sustainability efforts in supporting the green library initiative by Kenyan university libraries. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Soc. Sci. 2024, 2, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Soini, K.; Jurgilevich, A.; Pietikäinen, J.; Korhonen-Kurki, K. Universities responding to the call for sustainability: A typology of sustainability centres. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 1423–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Adams, R.; Martin, S.; Boom, K. University culture and sustainability: Designing and implementing an enabling framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 434–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Molokova, E. Higher education as a sustainable development tool. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 291, 05040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Salvia, A.; Filho, W.; Brandli, L.; Griebeler, J. Assessing research trends related to sustainable development goals: Local and global issues. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 841–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Filho, W.L.; Sierra, J.; Price, E.; Eustachio, J.H.P.P.; Novikau, A.; Kirrane, M.; Dinis, M.A.P.; Salvia, A.L. The role of universities in accelerating the sustainable development goals in Europe. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 15464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Lazarov, A.; Semenescu, A. Education for sustainable development (ESD) in Romanian higher education institutions (HEIs) within the SDGs framework. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Khadim, M.; Qureshi, N.; Khan, A.M. Challenges of implementing education for sustainable development: University teachers’ perspectives. Pak. J. Educ. 2023, 39, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Németh, P.; Torma, A.; Lukács, E.; Filep, B. Sustainability opportunities and barriers at universities: Development of a sustainable university environment. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2023, 107, 505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Griebeler, J.; Salvia, A.; Filho, W. Sustainable development goals: A framework for deploying indicators for higher education institutions. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2021, 23, 887–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Blanco-Portela, N.; Pertierra, L.; Benayas, J.; Lozano, R. Sustainability leaders’ perceptions on the drivers for and the barriers to the integration of sustainability in Latin American higher education institutions. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Maiorescu, I.; Sabou, G.C.; Bucur, M.; Zota, R.D. Sustainability Barriers and Motivations in Higher Education—A Students’ Perspective. Amfiteatru Econ. 2020, 54, 362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Filho, W. Viewpoint: Accelerating the implementation of the SDGs. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2020, 21, 507–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chankseliani, M.; McCowan, T. Higher education and the sustainable development goals. High. Educ. 2020, 81, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Blasco, N.; Brusca, I.; Labrador, M. Drivers for universities’ contribution to the sustainable development goals: An analysis of Spanish public universities. Sustainability 2020, 13, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Silva, J.L.D.; de Melo, K.B.; dos Santos, K.V.; Sako, E.Y.; da Silva, M.K.; Moreira, H.S.; Archilli, G.B.; Cypriano, J.G.I.; Campos, R.E.; da Silva, L.C.P.; et al. Case study of photovoltaic power plants in a model of sustainable university in Brazil. Renew. Energy 2022, 196, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tripon, C.; Gonta, I.; Bulgac, A. Nurturing Minds and Sustainability: An Exploration of Educational Interactions and Their Impact on Student Well-Being and Assessment in a Sustainable University. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pedro, E.D.; Leitão, J.; Alves, H. Students’ satisfaction and empowerment of a sustainable university campus. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 27, 1175–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kohl, K.; Hopkins, C.; Barth, M.; Michelsen, G.; Dlouhá, J.; Razak, D.; Toman, I. A whole-institution approach towards sustainability: A crucial aspect of higher education’s individual and collective engagement with the SDGs and beyond. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2021, 23, 218–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Stanciu, A.; Condrea, E. Sustainability in higher education. Proc. BASIQ Conf. 2023, 9, 267–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shava, G. Quality education for sustainable development in Zimbabwean higher education. In Quality Education, 1st ed.; Leal Filho, W., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jing, L.; Watabe, Y.; Goto, T. Integrating sustainability themes for enhancing interdisciplinarity: A case study of a comprehensive research university in Japan. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2022, 23, 695–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Voci, D.; Karmasin, M. Sustainability and communication in higher education. In Proceedings of the HEAd’21 International Conference, Valencia, Spain, 23–25 June 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Higuera, P.; Martín, R. Service-learning as an approach to educating for sustainable development. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, G. Sustainability of higher education institutions and sustainable leadership of higher education teachers: A literature review-based exploration. J. Educ. Soc. Res. 2024, 14, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Al-Nuaimi, S.; Al-Ghamdi, S. Sustainable consumption and education for sustainability in higher education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Berjozkina, G.; Melanthiou, Y. Is tourism and hospitality education supporting sustainability? Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2021, 13, 744–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Menon, S.; Suresh, M. Synergizing education, research, campus operations, and community engagements towards sustainability in higher education: A literature review. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2020, 21, 1015–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Uggla, Y. Possibilities and challenges in education for sustainable development: The case of higher education. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 17, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kuzmina, J. Financial sustainability of higher education institutions. In Proceedings of the Society Integration Education International Scientific Conference, Rezekne, Latvia, 21–22 May 2021; Volume 6, pp. 324–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Macheridis, N.; Paulsson, A. Greening higher education? From responsibilization to accountabilization in the incorporation of sustainability in higher education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2021, 22, 208–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Finnveden, G.; Schneider, A. Sustainable development in higher education—What sustainability skills do industry need? Sustainability 2023, 15, 4044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Septyandi, C.; Prawira, M. A review of sustainable tourism curriculum on higher education. J. Tour. Sustain. 2022, 2, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Grabara, J.; Hussain, H.I.; Szajt, M. Sustainable university development through sustainable human resources and corporate entrepreneurship: The role of sustainable innovation and work environment. Sustainability 2020, 15, 8037–8057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nagy, S.; Somosi, M.V. Students’ perceptions of sustainable universities in Hungary: An importance-performance analysis. Amfiteatru Econ. 2020, 22, 50–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Barros, M.V.; Puglieri, F.N.; Tesser, D.P.; Kuczynski, O.; Piekarski, C.M. Sustainability at a Brazilian University: Developing Environmentally Sustainable Practices and a Life Cycle Assessment Case Study. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2020, 21, 841–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nekhoda, E.V.; Nyurenberger, L.B.; Krakovetskaya, I.V.; Vorobyeva, E.S.; Dalibozhko, A.I. Sustainable university development: Concepts, initiatives, results. Amfiteatru Econ. 2020, 22, 34–50. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pop, N.A.; Todea, S.; Partenie, C.V.; Ott, C. Stakeholders’ perception regarding sustainable universities. Amfiteatru Econ. 2020, 22, 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Serban, E.C.; Hristea, A.M.; Curea, S.C.; Cretu, R.F. Sustainable universities, from indifference to joint action—A panel data analysis. Amfiteatru Econ. 2020, 22, 90–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zanellato, G.; Tiron-Tudor, A. Toward a Sustainable University: Babes-Bolyai University Goes Green. Adm. Sci. 2021, 11, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Silva, C.; Ribeiro, P.; Pinto, E.B.; Monteiro, P. Maturity Model for Collaborative R&D University-Industry Sustainable Partnerships. Proc. Comput. Sci. 2021, 181, 811–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Heravi, G.; Aryanpour, D.; Rostami, M. Developing a green university framework using statistical techniques: Case study of the University of Tehran. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lara Diaz, L.M.; Perez Padron, M.C.; Martinez Casanova, L.M. Education Research and Its Possible Contribution to University Sustainable Development, from Theory. Rev. Univ. Soc. 2021, 13, 205–219. [Google Scholar]
  48. Dielini, M.; Nesterova, M.; Dobronravova, I. Social Responsibility and Social Cohesion as Drivers in the Sustainable Development of Universities. Balt. J. Econ. Stud. 2021, 7, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rojas, B.D.T.; de Maduro, L.P.; Rojas, A.T.; Lopez, O.E. Sustainable Development Goals, University Management, and Design Sciences Research. Suma Neg. 2022, 13, 150–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kosinski, P.; Skotnicka-Siepsiak, A. Possibilities of adapting the university lecture room to the green university standard in terms of thermal comfort and ventilation accuracy. Buildings 2022, 15, 3735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Albuja Marino, P.A.; Baldeon Egas, P.F.; Recalde, H.; Toasa, R. Environmental Management and ICT for Sustainable Development in Universities. In Proceedings of the 8th International Engineering, Sciences and Technology Conference (IESTEC), Panama City, Panama, 19–21 October 2022; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2022; pp. 330–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rotondo, F.; Giovanelli, L.; Ezza, A. Implementing Sustainable Innovation in State Universities: Process and Tools. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 391, 136163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Herrera Burstein, Y.E.; Goni Avila, N.M. Promoting Sustainable Consumption among University Students: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2024, 25, 265–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kifor, C.V.; Olteanu, A.; Zerbes, M. Key performance indicators for smart energy systems in sustainable universities. Energies 2023, 16, 1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kobylinska, U.; Irimia-Dieguez, A.I. Sustainable university knowledge and technology transfer channels to enterprises. Technovation 2023, 15, 300–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Markauskaite, L.; Carvalho, L.; Fawns, T. The role of teachers in a sustainable university: From digital competencies to postdigital capabilities. Teach. High. Educ. 2023, 28, 122–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nikolaou, I.I.; Tsalis, T.A.; Trevlopoulos, N.S.; Mathea, A.; Avlogiaris, G.; Vatalis, K.I. Exploring the Sustainable Reporting Practices of Universities in Relation to the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Discov. Sustain. 2023, 4, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Stan, A.; Brad, E.; Chis, I.-A.; Trifan, C.-V. The Role of Universities in Increasing Awareness of Challenges Related to Sustainable Development Goals. Case Study: Technical University of Cluj-Napoca. Acta Tech. Napoc. Ser. Appl. Math. Mech. Eng. 2023, 66, 19–24. [Google Scholar]
  59. Bilbao, J.; Bravo, E.; Garcia, O.; Rebollar, C. Education and Sustainability: A Model for Different Engineering Degrees. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2402.04350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pactwa, K.; Wozniak, J.; Jach, K.; Brdulak, A. Including the Social Responsibility of Universities and Sustainable Development Goals in the Strategic Plans of Universities in Europe. Sustain. Dev. 2024, 32, 4593–4605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. da Silva, A.N.R.; Tan, F.M.; de Sousa, P.B. Key Sustainable Mobility Indicators for University Campuses. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2024, 22, 100371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Karahan, M. Advancing Sustainable Entrepreneurial Universities: Sustainability Transformations of University Business Incubators in Germany. Small Bus. Econ. 2024, 63, 575–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Del Gesso, C.; Parravicini, P.; Ruffini, R. The University as an Intellectual Capital Catalyst for Sustainable Organisations: Conceptualising the Nexus. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Leal Filho, W.; Viera Trevisan, L.; Wahaj, Z.; Deda Araujo Nunes, D.; Ruy Portela de Vasconcelos, C.; Aparecida Dibbern, T.; Ruiz Vargas, V.; Iyer-Raniga, U.; Anholon, R.; Novikau, A.; et al. University Rankings and Sustainable Development: The State of the Art. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Arbeiter, J.; Jaklic, A.; Manfreda, K.L. University as an Accelerator of Sustainable Development: The Case of Sustainability at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana. Teor. Praksa 2024, 61, 747–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Xu, S.; Sze, S. Enhancing University Performance Evaluation through Digital Technology: A Deep Learning Approach for Sustainable Development. J. Knowl. Econ. 2024, 15, 20578–20594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Popelo, O.; Kholiavko, N.; Safonov, Y.; Shaposhnykov, K.; Babukh, I.; Yamniuk, B. Global Trends of Universities Digitalization under the Sustainable Development Concept. Manag. Theory Stud. Rural Bus. Infrastruct. Dev. 2024, 46, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Eppinga, M.; Lozano-Cosme, J.; Scisciolo, T.; Arens, P.; Santos, M.; Mijts, E. Putting sustainability research into practice on the university campus. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2020, 21, 54–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pu, R.; Tanamee, D.; Jiang, S. Digitalization and higher education for sustainable development in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: A content analysis approach. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2022, 20, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Eltawil, A.; Mostafa, N.A.; Matsushita, Y. Toward a Smart and Sustainable Campus: Future Vision, Opportunities, and Challenges. In Resilient and Responsible Smart Cities; Ujang, E.N., Fukuda, T., Pisello, A.L., Vukadinović, D., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Tullio, P.D.; Torre, M.L.; Rea, M.A. Social media for engaging and educating: From universities’ sustainability reporting to dialogic communication. Adm. Sci. 2021, 11, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rosa, M.R.d.; Boscarioli, C.; Freitas Zara, K.R.d. A systematic review of the trends and patterns of sustainability reporting in universities. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2023, 25, 556–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Trevisan, L.V.; Eustachio, J.H.P.P.; Dias, B.G.; Leal Filho, W.; Pedrozo, E.Á. Digital transformation towards sustainability in higher education: State-of-the-art and future research insights. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 26, 2789–2810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Perera, V.H.; Moriña, A.; Díaz, M.d.l.N.S.; Spínola-Elías, Y. Technological platforms for inclusive practice at university: A qualitative analysis from the perspective of Spanish faculty members. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pontelli, G.E.; Maffini, C.A.; Kneipp, J.M.; Gomes, C.M. Environmental disclosure in Brazilian public universities. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2023, 18, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kioupi, V.; Nawire, A.W.; Musungu, S.; Nzuve, F.; Giannopoulos, G. Policy and practice on inclusive higher education in the UK and Kenya: A theoretical framework and recommendations. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Garcia-Vallès, X.; Badia Martín, M.; Gavaldà, J.M.S.; Pérez Romero, A. Students’ perceptions of teacher training for inclusive and sustainable education: From university classrooms to school practices. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gamage, K.A.A.; Munguía, N.; Velázquez, L. Happy sustainability: A future quest for more sustainable universities. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 01817 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for the selection of articles in the bibliometric analysis.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for the selection of articles in the bibliometric analysis.
Sustainability 17 01817 g001
Sustainability 17 01817 g002
Figure 2. Bibliographic map depicting clusters of sustainability-related themes in higher education.
Figure 2. Bibliographic map depicting clusters of sustainability-related themes in higher education.
Sustainability 17 01817 g002
Sustainability 17 01817 g003
Figure 3. Temporal evolution of sustainability-related terms in higher education (2020–2024).
Figure 3. Temporal evolution of sustainability-related terms in higher education (2020–2024).
Sustainability 17 01817 g003
Sustainability 17 01817 g004
Figure 4. Density visualization of prominent terms in sustainability research.
Figure 4. Density visualization of prominent terms in sustainability research.
Sustainability 17 01817 g004
Sustainability 17 01817 g005
Figure 5. Global co-authorship network in sustainability research within higher education.
Figure 5. Global co-authorship network in sustainability research within higher education.
Sustainability 17 01817 g005
Sustainability 17 01817 g006
Figure 6. Thematic analysis of key terms in titles and abstracts of sustainability publications.
Figure 6. Thematic analysis of key terms in titles and abstracts of sustainability publications.
Sustainability 17 01817 g006
Sustainability 17 01817 g007
Figure 7. Temporal evolution of sustainability-related terms in higher education research.
Figure 7. Temporal evolution of sustainability-related terms in higher education research.
Sustainability 17 01817 g007
Table 1. Key contributions and methodological advancements in green and sustainable university practices (2020–2024).
Table 1. Key contributions and methodological advancements in green and sustainable university practices (2020–2024).
First AuthorYearDescriptionReference
Grabara et al.2020Examines the role of sustainable HR and corporate entrepreneurship in enhancing university sustainability through innovation and a supportive work environment.[38]
Nagy et al.2020Proposes a sustainable university scale combined with importance-performance analysis to assess and improve university sustainability based on students’ perceptions.[39]
Baros et al.2020Investigates environmentally sustainable practices at a Brazilian university, utilizing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).[40]
Nekhoda et al.2020Analyzes the role of universities in implementing sustainable development concepts through stakeholder engagement and global practices.[41]
Pop et al.2020Identifies vectors of sustainable university development through stakeholder perceptions, validated by quantitative and qualitative research.[42]
Serban et al.2020Evaluates sustainability ranking criteria using panel data to identify indicators for improving sustainability in European universities.[43]
Zanellato et al.2021Investigates the roadmap of Babes-Bolyai University in implementing sustainability practices and contributing to the UN SDGs through a longitudinal perspective, using qualitative methodologies and stakeholder theory.[44]
Silva et al.2021Introduces a maturity model for sustainable university–industry partnerships based on a literature review and six years of collaboration between the University of Minho and Bosch Car Multimedia.[45]
Heravi et al.2021Develops and tests a green university framework using statistical techniques, focusing on key areas like water, energy, and procurement.[46]
Diaz et al.2021Explores how education research can contribute to university sustainable development by analyzing theoretical frameworks, global declarations, and scientific sources to establish sustainability indicators.[47]
Deilini et al.2021Examines the role of social responsibility and social cohesion as drivers for sustainable development in universities, linking these values to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).[48]
Rojas et al.2022Analyzes the impact of SDGs on university management and education, emphasizing the need for awareness and structured policies to implement sustainability in higher education institutions.[49]
Kosinski et al.2022Evaluates thermal comfort and energy systems to adapt lecture rooms to green university standards.[50]
Marino et al.2022Investigates the role of environmental management and ICT in promoting sustainability in universities, highlighting the importance of transversal education for sustainable development.[51]
Rotondo et al.2023Examines processes, tools, and challenges for implementing sustainable innovation in state universities, proposing a theoretical framework and multiple-case study in Italian universities.[52]
Herrera Burstein et al.2023Conducts a systematic literature review on promoting sustainable consumption among university students, analyzing consumption areas, strategies, and reported outcomes.[53]
Kifor et al.2023Proposes a KPI framework for evaluating smart energy systems in sustainable universities.[54]
Kobylinska et al.2023Explores knowledge and technology transfer channels for sustainability from universities to enterprises.[55]
Markauskaite et al.2023Highlights digital and ecological pedagogies for teachers in sustainable universities.[56]
Nikolaou et al.2023Analyzes the sustainability reporting practices of universities concerning the UN 2030 Agenda, identifying key areas of focus such as climate change mitigation and SDG implementation gaps.[57]
Stan et al.2023Investigates the role of universities in raising awareness about SDGs through education, research, and institutional practices, with a case study on the Technical University of Cluj-Napoca.[58]
Bilbao et al.2024Proposes a model for integrating sustainability in engineering education through IoT-based monitoring systems applied in urban gardens and composting processes, aligning with sustainable development goals.[59]
Pactwa et al.2024Examines how universities integrate social responsibility and SDGs into strategic plans, analyzing policies from Polish and European HEIs.[60]
Da Silva et al.2024Identifies key sustainable mobility indicators for university campuses, using expert judgment and statistical analysis to evaluate their relevance and applicability.[61]
Karahan et al.2024Explores the sustainability transformation of university business incubators in Germany, identifying stages, challenges, and strategies in the pursuit of sustainable entrepreneurial universities.[62]
Del Gesso et al.2024Conceptualizes the role of universities as catalysts for intellectual capital creation in sustainable organizations, developing a theoretical framework for value-driven interactions.[63]
Leal Filho et al.2024Analyzes the role of university rankings in promoting sustainable development, evaluating their impact, limitations, and effectiveness in advancing sustainability goals in higher education.[64]
Arbeiter et al.2024Examines the role of universities as accelerators of sustainable development, analyzing SDG integration in education, research, and management at the University of Ljubljana.[65]
Xu et al.2024Introduces a deep learning-based approach to university performance evaluation, integrating AI techniques to improve assessment accuracy and support sustainable development.[66]
Popelo et al.2024Examines global trends in university digitalization under the sustainable development concept, analyzing the best practices and future prospects for digital transformation in higher education.[67]
Table 2. Sustainability dimensions and their implications.
Table 2. Sustainability dimensions and their implications.
Sustainability DimensionFindings from Our StudyImplications
Academic programsGaps in sustainability integration across disciplinesUniversities should create interdisciplinary sustainability courses
Operational practicesDigital tools (AI, smart energy) are underutilizedInstitutions should adopt more technology-driven sustainability strategies
Community engagementStakeholder involvement remains inconsistentPolicies should focus on student/faculty participation in decision-making
Research initiativesFragmented approaches to sustainability researchEncourage interdisciplinary and international collaborations
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Veres, C.; Tănase, M.; Bacos, I.B.; Kardos, M. Sustainable Universities: A Bibliometric and Thematic Analysis in Higher Education. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1817. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051817

AMA Style

Veres C, Tănase M, Bacos IB, Kardos M. Sustainable Universities: A Bibliometric and Thematic Analysis in Higher Education. Sustainability. 2025; 17(5):1817. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051817

Chicago/Turabian Style

Veres, Cristina, Maria Tănase, Ioan Bogdan Bacos, and Mihaela Kardos. 2025. "Sustainable Universities: A Bibliometric and Thematic Analysis in Higher Education" Sustainability 17, no. 5: 1817. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051817

APA Style

Veres, C., Tănase, M., Bacos, I. B., & Kardos, M. (2025). Sustainable Universities: A Bibliometric and Thematic Analysis in Higher Education. Sustainability, 17(5), 1817. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051817

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop