Next Article in Journal
Promoting Social-Emotional Competencies Through Mindfulness in Primary Education: The Sentir@Ser Program
Previous Article in Journal
Conceptualising Multilingual Infants’ Language Learning in ECEC Through a New Ecobehavioural Model
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/educsci16050758
education-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:
Article

A Measurement Framework for the Fourth Mission of Universities

by
Zsuzsanna Pálffy
1,*,
Zoltán Horváth
2 and
Lívia Ablonczy-Mihályka
1
1
Department of International Studies and Communication, Széchenyi István University, 9026 Győr, Hungary
2
Department of Business Communication and Marketing, Institute of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, 9700 Szombathely, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2026, 16(5), 758; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16050758
Submission received: 8 April 2026 / Revised: 27 April 2026 / Accepted: 9 May 2026 / Published: 11 May 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Higher Education)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Universities are increasingly expected to contribute to societal and environmental challenges, yet the concept of the fourth mission remains fragmented and weakly operationalized in the literature. This study aims to develop a measurement framework for the fourth mission of universities. The research adopts a theory-driven qualitative design based on a systematic literature review, synthesizing contributions on community engagement, social innovation, sustainability and institutional embeddedness. Building on this synthesis, the study develops a three-level conceptual model that integrates an institutional framework, core fourth mission processes and transformative impact domains. The core processes are structured around community engagement, co-creation and social innovation, and knowledge diffusion and local application, while the model explicitly links these processes to societal challenges and environmental sustainability outcomes. Furthermore, the model is operationalized through a structured indicator system applicable in document-based analysis, supported by a four-point scoring scale capturing the depth of institutionalization. An illustrative pilot test was also conducted using the example of one university faculty. The study contributes by clarifying the boundaries of the fourth mission and offering an operational framework that shifts attention from output-based measurement to universities’ transformative societal roles.

1. Introduction

Universities are conceptualized as embedded institutional actors shaping regional development and broader societal change through local and international linkages (Gunasekara, 2006; Filep et al., 2012; Lukovics & Zuti, 2015; Čajka et al., 2023). This dual positioning is particularly relevant for mid-range universities, which operate at the intersection of international academic competition and regional engagement imperatives. Beyond teaching and research, universities have expanded their mission portfolio, with the third mission describing economic and innovation-oriented engagement with external stakeholders (Morawska-Jancelewicz, 2022), emphasizing innovation, technology transfer, spin-offs, and regional economic growth (Akolgo-Azupogo et al., 2018; Olo et al., 2021), and the fourth mission referring to broader societal, cultural and sustainability-oriented roles, including community engagement and social development activities in order to serve endogenous regional development (Gál, 2016; Sitku, 2019; Corrall et al., 2022; Morawska-Jancelewicz, 2022; Natário & Oliveira, 2025). This newly emerged fourth mission can be most effectively examined through the Quintuple Helix model, which conceptualizes universities as actors embedded not only in economic and institutional structures but also in socio-cultural and ecological systems, by extending the Triple Helix framework to include civil society and the natural environment (Carayannis et al., 2012). Fourth mission objectives, although not explicitly labelled as such, are also reflected in the European policy setting, as the Renewed European Union (EU) Agenda for Higher Education emphasizes inclusiveness, civic engagement, community connectedness, and universities’ contribution to addressing social and environmental challenges (European Union, 2017). This orientation is further reinforced by the European Universities Initiative, which promotes long-term university cooperation at the service of society (European Commission, 2025); the Council Recommendation on learning for the green transition and sustainable development, which prioritizes sustainability in education (Council of the European Union, 2022); and the Council Recommendation on common values, inclusive education and the European dimension of teaching, which emphasizes democracy, equality, human rights and social cohesion as shared foundations of education (Council of the European Union, 2023).
Despite increasing recognition of universities’ societal roles, the fourth mission remains under-theorized and often not explicitly named, with its activities frequently subsumed under the third mission or described through overlapping, ambiguously defined concepts (Cantaragiu et al., 2014; Siwinski, 2017; Pelagallo et al., 2021; Borodiyenko et al., 2023; Stoliaryk et al., 2024). This ambiguity poses significant challenges for operationalization and comparability, especially since the growing emphasis on accountability in higher education has intensified the demand for evidence-based demonstrations of universities’ broader public value. International benchmarking systems, SDG-oriented rankings, and emerging sustainability reporting expectations increasingly push institutions to document how their activities contribute to social well-being, environmental responsibility, and sustainable development (D’Ambrosi et al., 2024; Biloslavo & Schaebs, 2025).
The objective of this study is to develop a coherent measurement model for universities’ fourth mission, based on a literature review, the reclassification of selected third mission indicators, and the integration of sustainability principles, within a Quintuple Helix framework. The study is guided by the following research question: How can a fourth mission measurement model be developed, distinct from the third mission and aligned with the Quintuple Helix?
The paper is structured as follows: The theoretical review is organized into two main parts. First, it examines the concept of the fourth mission, aiming to clarify its conceptual boundaries and identify its core domains within the broader literature on universities’ societal roles. Second, it reviews existing measurement approaches related to community engagement and societal impact, highlighting their relevance and limitations in capturing the fourth mission. Following this, the methodology section outlines the theory-driven model development process. The subsequent section presents the proposed conceptual and measurement framework in detail, including its dimensions, indicators and operationalization logic. The paper concludes with a summary of the main contributions and implications for future empirical research.

2. Literature Review

This study’s literature review is based on a systematic literature review conducted in line with the logic of the PRISMA protocol (Page et al., 2021). The purpose of the review is to identify and synthesize the academic literature addressing the fourth mission of universities, including studies that use the term explicitly as well as contributions that discuss functionally related concepts such as social mission, social responsibility, community engagement, social innovation, sustainability and regional embeddedness. The exploration of the main areas of the fourth mission is the foundation of the indicators created for the measurement.
The sample included empirical and theoretical studies on universities and higher education institutions. The phenomenon of interest was the fourth mission of higher education and its relation to societal engagement, sustainability and regional or local embeddedness. The review included conceptual, qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method studies, while the evaluation focus concerned universities’ contribution to social development, regional innovation, community engagement and stakeholder partnerships. Based on these considerations and pilot searches, the following search strategy was used: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (university OR universities OR “higher education” OR “higher education institution*” OR HEI) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“fourth mission” OR “social mission”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“social responsibility” OR inclusion OR “social engagement” OR “social innovation”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (mission) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (embeddedness OR regional OR “regional engagement” OR “local engagement” OR “regional development” OR “regional network*” OR “local partnership*”)).
The literature search was conducted in Scopus, as the database provides broad coverage of peer-reviewed journals in the social sciences. The review applied explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed journal articles published in English between 2005 and 2026 April. The starting year was selected because earlier exploratory searches indicated that substantive references to the fourth mission and closely related concepts began to appear around this period. Articles were included if they addressed the fourth mission, university embeddedness or closely related social and sustainability-oriented roles of higher education institutions. Conference abstracts, editorials, book chapters and non-peer-reviewed publications were excluded. Overall, after the application of these criteria, 27 articles were found.
Following the PRISMA-based screening procedure, keyword search was conducted in Google Scholar to include additional researches. After duplicate removal and title and abstract screening, the final sample consisted of 23 studies included in the qualitative synthesis. The review did not aim to produce a purely descriptive map of the literature, but to support the development of an operational measurement framework. Therefore, the synthesis focused particularly on identifying recurring conceptual dimensions, measurement-relevant categories and indicators that could inform the proposed fourth mission framework.

2.1. The Conceptual Frame of Universities’ Fourth Mission

The fourth mission as an emerging conceptual extension of earlier mission-based approaches has its intellectual antecedents already in the early 2000s (Koltói et al., 2015), although some recent studies still describe the third mission as the new mission of universities (Borodiyenko et al., 2023). The post-COVID-19 period, however, appears to have accelerated this shift. According to D’Ambrosi et al. (2024), universities began to articulate their societal role more explicitly after the pandemic, integrating community engagement more visibly, a tendency also noted by Farnell and Ćulum (2021). This suggests that the fourth mission is not simply a terminological novelty but the outcome of a broader transformation in how universities understand their public role. The SLR revealed four main conceptual patterns in the literature: studies defining the fourth mission as a distinct institutional function (Natário & Oliveira, 2025), studies interpreting it as an extension of the third mission, studies in which the boundaries between the two missions remain blurred, and studies using alternative conceptual frameworks to describe fourth mission-type activities.
The studies that interpret the fourth mission as an extension of the third mission reflect a shift from economically oriented knowledge transfer toward sustainability and societal value creation. Rinaldi et al. (2018) argue that while traditional third mission activities primarily supported regional economic development, sustainability-driven co-creation represents a new paradigm that broadens universities’ societal role. In this view, the fourth mission emerges as a distinct yet complementary dimension, a perspective also shared by Bogedain and Hamm (2020) and Bardy et al. (2017), who frame it as a sustainability-oriented reinterpretation of earlier service-based activities. At the same time, other studies make only limited conceptual distinctions between the two missions. Tomasi et al. (2021) use the two terms interchangeably yet implicitly reinforce fourth mission logic by conceptualizing universities as public goods and sources of urban and regional collaboration. Similarly, Morawska-Jancelewicz (2022) challenges the dominance of the third mission in the social innovation literature, arguing for its integration across all university missions and highlighting the central role of sustainability-oriented education and research within a Quintuple Helix framework.
Several studies continue to use the concept of the third mission while assigning to it roles that partly overlap with the emerging fourth mission. Gregán et al. (2024), for example, link the entrepreneurial university to the application of knowledge and research outcomes to societal and economic challenges. Stoliaryk et al. (2024) extend third mission activities toward community cooperation, local development and post-conflict recovery, while Borodiyenko et al. (2023) emphasize regional responsibility, community ties and sustainable innovation ecosystems. Other studies move even closer to fourth mission logic by associating the third mission with social innovation and societal responsibility (Siwinski, 2017; Pelagallo et al., 2021), or with social development, civic engagement and public policy (Cantaragiu et al., 2014). These contributions show that fourth mission-type activities are often discussed within an expanded third mission terminology, which makes conceptual clarification necessary.
In addition to mission-based approaches, several studies conceptualize universities’ societal roles through broader concepts such as the social mission. In this perspective, universities’ societal contribution is often linked to reducing inequalities—particularly in health—through institution-wide commitments embedded in education, research, and governance (Henderson et al., 2021; Batra et al., 2022; Covelli et al., 2022). More broadly, the social mission is framed as a value-based commitment to the public good and regional development (Platonova et al., 2016; Zagirniak et al., 2018; Tryma, 2021). Complementary approaches move beyond mission-based terminology, emphasizing embedded institutional models such as the civic university (Arthur, 2017) or the multifunctional university (Thomas et al., 2023), both highlighting the integrated economic, social, and civic roles of universities within their local and regional contexts. Based on the systematic review of the literature, the following analytical distinction between the third and fourth missions of universities is proposed (Table 1).
Overall, the conceptual frame of universities’ fourth mission can be defined as an expanded institutional role that strengthens universities’ societal and community orientation in close connection with their local and regional environments. It builds on, but also moves beyond, the third mission by shifting emphasis from primarily economic knowledge transfer toward social innovation, sustainability, ethical responsibility, and public value creation. The fourth mission is therefore understood as a framework that integrates community engagement and empowerment, co-creation for sustainability, the promotion of health equity and social well-being, ethical leadership, and the alignment of teaching, research, and engagement with long-term regional development. In this sense, it captures the evolving role of universities as socially embedded and transformative institutions within the Quintuple Helix model.

2.2. Operationalization Pathways for University Missions

The conceptualization of university community engagement can be supported by existing measurement tools, as these frameworks help identify the key dimensions along which a fourth mission of universities—focused on societal impact—can be defined. While social innovation and engagement are not always directly measurable (Morawska-Jancelewicz, 2022), and “is resistant to being measured” (Farnell & Ćulum, 2021, p. 255), global pressures, such as rankings linked to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, push universities to demonstrate measurable outcomes, though these may describe only part of the systemic effects of engagement (D’Ambrosi et al., 2024). Developing a coherent indicator framework for universities’ fourth mission requires a systematic review of existing measurement approaches, particularly those related to community engagement. Given the conceptual overlap, existing indicator systems provide a suitable basis for measuring the societal, sustainability-oriented and co-creative dimensions of the fourth mission. Tools such as the Holland Matrix (Holland, 1997), Furco Rubric (Furco, 1999), Campus Compact Indicators of Engagement (Hollander et al., 2002) and the TEFCE (Towards a European Framework for Community Engagement in Higher Education) Toolbox provide structured ways to operationalize HEIs’ engagement (Farnell & Šćukanec, 2018).
One of the earliest and most influential approaches is the diagnostic matrix developed by Holland (1997), which aims to assess institutional commitment to community engagement. The multi-levelled, user-friendly matrix identifies seven key organizational dimensions: mission, leadership and incentive structures, organizational structure, student, faculty, and community involvement, as well as campus publications, all with the focus of community. These dimensions reflect primarily internal institutional factors, emphasizing how universities organize and support engagement activities. Similarly, Furco’s (1999) self-assessment rubric introduces a perspective by structuring service-learning across five core dimensions: philosophy and mission, faculty support and incentives, student support and leadership, community participation, and institutional support (including funding and administrative structures). The model assesses institutions along progressive stages, combining qualitative evaluation with quantifiable scoring across 21 components. The Campus Compact Indicators of Engagement (Hollander et al., 2002) further refine measurement by providing a set of standards across ten dimensions, including pedagogy, faculty development, enabling mechanisms, resource allocation (both internal and external), faculty roles and rewards, interdisciplinarity, community voice, leadership, and mission alignment. These indicators emphasize the integration of community-based learning into curricula, the availability of institutional support structures, and the active involvement of community partners in shaping educational and research processes. While these indicators also focus predominantly on internal institutional arrangements, they introduce a stronger emphasis on reciprocity and the role of external stakeholders, which aligns closely with the co-creation logic of the fourth mission.
More recent frameworks reflect a shift toward broader societal impact and sustainability. Farnell and Ćulum (2021), through the TEFCE project, conceptualize community engagement as mutually beneficial collaboration between universities and external actors, including government, business, and civil society, across multiple societal domains. The TEFCE framework conceptualizes community engagement as a multi-dimensional, institution-wide phenomenon, and embeds it across teaching, research, and knowledge exchange by integrating societal needs into curricula, fostering participatory and community-oriented research, and encouraging the active contribution of academic knowledge to public and civic domains by collaborative research projects. It further highlights the role of student initiatives by volunteering and NGO activities. At the institutional level, the framework underlines the significance of supportive governance structures, incentive systems, and strategic alignment, alongside open access to knowledge and shared infrastructures. Finally, it recognizes the role of academic culture and peer support in sustaining engagement.
Morawska-Jancelewicz (2022) proposes a socially engaged university model within a Quintuple Helix system, structured across three levels: strategic integration of social responsibility, organizational culture oriented toward dialogue and trust, and the development of structures and practices supporting social innovation. The model includes concrete implementation mechanisms, such as embedding the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into institutional strategies, prioritizing high social impact research, introducing evaluation systems that recognize pro-social activities, supporting social entrepreneurship, and fostering inclusive organizational cultures. Measurement dimensions span all missions, including teaching (e.g., social innovation pedagogy, curricula integration and new education tools), research (e.g., societal challenge-oriented research), third mission activities (e.g., participatory research, living labs), and explicitly fourth mission elements, such as co-creation, co-design, and the role of universities as open systems contributing to sustainability transitions. The model also identifies specific types of social innovation activities, including strategic integration, funding allocation, impact monitoring, conferences open to all stakeholders, and partnerships with external actors.
The concept of university community engagement (UCE) emphasized by Málovics (2025) draws attention to the lack of systematic measurement of universities’ contributions to social, spatial, and environmental justice, despite its growing relevance. In this framework, indicators should capture not only the existence of partnerships, but also their transformative character, including collaboration with marginalized groups, participatory processes and action research, contributions to spatial, social and environmental justice (such as equitable access to resources and regional sustainability), the linking of local and global challenges, and broader contributions to systemic sustainability transitions and the societal role of universities (Málovics, 2025).
Across these frameworks, several common patterns emerge that are highly relevant for constructing a fourth mission indicator system. First, there is a strong emphasis on internal institutional factors—mission, governance, incentives, organizational structures, and resource allocation—which shape the capacity for engagement. Second, most models highlight the importance of external relationships, particularly the involvement of community actors in co-design, implementation, and evaluation processes. Third, a developmental or multi-level logic is often present, while more recent approaches increasingly incorporate sustainability, social innovation, and societal impact as core dimensions.

3. Research Design and Methodology

The primary objective of this study is to develop and operationalize a measurement model for the fourth mission of universities that is conceptually distinct from, yet grounded in, existing third mission frameworks regarding methodological approach. Building on the identified conceptual overlaps, the study seeks to construct an indicator system aligned with the Quintuple Helix perspective, capturing universities’ societal, environmental, and community-oriented roles. In line with this objective, the following research questions guides the analysis: How can a fourth mission measurement model be developed, distinct from the third mission and aligned with the Quintuple Helix?
This study adopts a theory-driven qualitative research design aimed at developing a conceptual and operational model of universities’ fourth mission. Given the conceptual ambiguity surrounding the fourth mission and the lack of coherent measurement frameworks, the research does not seek to test predefined hypotheses but rather to construct a theoretically grounded model that can be applied in empirical analysis, as many authors still try to conceptualize the new mission on a theoretical level (Platonova et al., 2016; Borodiyenko et al., 2023). This approach is widely used in emerging research fields where theoretical fragmentation necessitates the integration and reinterpretation of existing concepts into a coherent analytical framework. Accordingly, the study builds on prior work on university engagement, social innovation and sustainability, while explicitly distinguishing fourth mission activities from the traditionally economic focus of the third mission. Based on the systematic literature review, the study proceeds with the development of a conceptual model of the fourth mission. The model construction followed an iterative logic. First, key activity domains associated with the fourth mission were identified. These included community engagement, co-creation and social innovation, knowledge diffusion, and sustainability-oriented activities. Particular attention was given to distinguishing these domains from third mission activities by focusing on non-economic, societal and environmental dimensions.
Second, the identified domains were organized into a coherent structure reflecting the systemic nature of the fourth mission. During the development of the model, several alternative structuring logics were considered. One possible approach would have been to organize the fourth mission along stakeholder perspectives, distinguishing between institutional-, staff-, student- and community-level activities, as reflected in frameworks such as Furco (1999). Another option was to structure the model explicitly along the Quintuple Helix dimensions, or to follow organizational levels, for example, differentiating between strategy, organizational culture and operational practices, as suggested by Morawska-Jancelewicz (2022). However, the literature review revealed that the fourth mission—particularly in connection with sustainability and the SDGs—represents a highly complex and overlapping domain, where activities frequently span multiple categories simultaneously. As a result, these structuring approaches led to significant conceptual overlap and limited analytical clarity. To address this challenge, the model adopts a principle-based approach, focusing on core value domains identified in the literature. These include social sustainability, community engagement, co-creation, local application of knowledge, and environmental sustainability. In addition, internal institutional factors were incorporated as an enabling dimension, recognizing their fundamental role in shaping and sustaining fourth mission activities.
Third, existing measurement frameworks (Table 2) were reinterpreted and selectively adapted to the context of the fourth mission. While these models primarily focus on community engagement, their underlying dimensions (e.g., mission alignment, organizational support, participation, and reciprocity) provide a suitable basis for constructing a broader, sustainability-oriented measurement framework.
In the final step, the conceptual model was translated into an operational indicator system. Each dimension and sub-dimension was associated with specific indicators that can be identified through document-based analysis, interview or survey methods. An illustrative pilot test of the indicator system was then conducted at the Apáczai Csere János Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences of Széchenyi István University in Győr, Hungary.
The main methodological contribution of this study lies in the integration of fragmented theoretical approaches into a coherent and operationalizable framework. At the same time, the approach has certain limitations. As the model is derived from the literature rather than primary empirical data, its validity depends on subsequent empirical application and testing.

4. Model Proposal

Building on the conceptual ambiguities identified in the literature and the need for a more coherent operationalization of universities’ fourth mission, this study develops a structured measurement model for the fourth mission of universities. The model integrates insights from existing engagement and institutional assessment frameworks, including the diagnostic matrix models from the existing literature, while extending them towards a sustainability- and impact-oriented perspective aligned with the Quintuple Helix model, and the international ranking systems. The increasing importance of global university rankings further reinforces the need for a coherent measurement framework of the fourth mission. Among these, the Times Higher Education World University Rankings represent one of the most influential benchmarking systems, evaluating universities across five core pillars: teaching, research environment, research quality, international outlook and industry income (Baty & Banette, 2026). While the ranking claims to capture universities’ core missions, its indicator system remains predominantly focused on research performance, academic reputation and economic knowledge transfer. From a fourth mission perspective, this creates a structural imbalance. Although certain elements—such as international collaboration or aspects of knowledge transfer—may indirectly relate to societal engagement, the ranking does not explicitly account for fourth mission activities. At the same time, Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings measure universities’ contributions along the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) defined by the United Nations, which indicates a growing recognition of universities’ broader societal roles (Times Higher Education, 2025).
As illustrated in Figure 1, the model follows a three-level logic. Internal institutional embeddedness functions as an enabling system, shaping the strategic orientation, organizational culture and operational conditions of fourth mission activities. The core of the model consists of three interrelated dimensions: community engagement, co-creation and social innovation, as well as knowledge diffusion and local application, which together describe the processual nature of the fourth mission. These processes are oriented towards two transformative impact domains, namely, societal challenges and environmental sustainability, reflecting the outcome-oriented dimensions of the fourth mission (Figure 1). The conceptual model is operationalized through a structured indicator system (Table 1), which translates each dimension into measurable components. The indicators are designed to be applicable in document-based analysis, relying on publicly available institutional materials such as strategies, reports, websites and project descriptions. Each indicator is assessed using a four-point ordinal scale ranging from 0 to 3. A score of 0 indicates the absence of the given activity or element. A score of 1 reflects implicit or ad hoc presence, typically limited to isolated initiatives. A score of 2 denotes explicit and recurrent activities, although not yet fully institutionalized. Finally, a score of 3 indicates strategic integration and institutionalization, supported by consistent implementation and multiple forms of evidence. This scoring approach allows for a comparative assessment of faculties while maintaining sensitivity to qualitative differences in the depth and maturity of fourth mission activities. At the same time, it ensures that the measurement framework remains applicable in contexts where quantitative data on societal impact are limited or not systematically available.

4.1. Institutional Framework and Strategic Embeddedness

The first level of the model describes the internal institutional conditions that enable and sustain fourth mission activities. This dimension builds on earlier engagement assessment models, which emphasize the role of mission, leadership, organizational structures and incentives in shaping universities’ societal engagement (Holland, 1997; Furco, 1999; Hollander et al., 2002; Farnell & Ćulum, 2021; Tierney et al., 2021). Accordingly, internal institutional embeddedness is operationalized through five sub-dimensions: strategic integration, organizational support, incentives and recognition, curricula integration, and student engagement structures. These elements reflect the degree to which the fourth mission is embedded in institutional strategy, supported by dedicated organizational units and financial resources, reinforced through incentive systems, integrated into teaching activities, and supported by student involvement mechanisms. The inclusion of funding as a separate indicator is particularly important, as previous studies highlight the role of resource allocation in sustaining engagement activities (Furco, 1999; Tierney et al., 2021). This level does not represent fourth mission activities per se, but rather the institutional environment that enables their emergence, continuity and scaling. In this sense, it functions as the “operating system” of the fourth mission (Table 3).

4.2. Core Processes of the Fourth Mission

The second level of the model describes the core processes through which universities interact with their external environment and generate societal value. This level is structured along three interrelated dimensions. Community engagement represents the entry point of the fourth mission, encompassing the development of long-term partnerships with actors across the Quintuple Helix, including civil society, government, industry, educational institutions and environmental organizations (Zagirniak et al., 2018; Covelli et al., 2022; Morawska-Jancelewicz, 2022; Stoliaryk et al., 2024; Natário & Oliveira, 2025). In line with TEFCE, this dimension also includes the depth of stakeholder participation in university processes, such as teaching, research and program design, as well as capacity-building activities and open university initiatives (Farnell & Ćulum, 2021). Within this dimension, long-term partnerships measure both the diversity and stability of collaborations. Diversity is assessed along the Quintuple Helix model, while stability refers to the continuity of these relationships, indicated by repeated and sustained collaborations rather than one-off initiatives. The participation sub-dimension focuses on the depth of engagement by examining the involvement of external stakeholders in core university processes. This includes their participation in teaching, research and program design, signaling a shift from one-directional interaction towards more participatory forms of engagement. Finally, capacity building means the university’s contribution to strengthening the knowledge and skills of local communities. This is reflected in training programs, workshops and other forms of targeted knowledge transfer, as well as in open university activities such as public events, conferences and lifelong learning initiatives, which broaden access to academic knowledge and support wider societal learning.
Moving beyond engagement, the second core dimension is the co-creative logic of the fourth mission. This includes societal challenge-oriented research, the joint definition of problems with stakeholders, and participatory research approaches such as action research and community-based research (Rinaldi et al., 2018; Bogedain & Hamm, 2020; Pelagallo et al., 2021; Morawska-Jancelewicz, 2022; Natário & Oliveira, 2025). The concept of “learning health communities” further illustrates how co-creation can be institutionalized through partnerships that link academic activities to measurable societal outcomes (Tierney et al., 2021). This dimension measures whether research agendas, projects and research teams explicitly address social and environmental issues, indicating a shift towards societally relevant knowledge production. Furthermore, it measures the degree to which problems are jointly defined with stakeholders, reflecting bottom-up or stakeholder-driven agenda setting rather than purely academic prioritization. The dimension also assesses the presence of participatory research approaches. Finally, it evaluates the joint use of research results, including shared ownership, co-implementation, or the practical application of outcomes together with partners.
The third core dimension focuses on the dissemination and local application of knowledge supporting regional development and public value creation (Platonova et al., 2016; Arthur, 2017; Bogedain & Hamm, 2020; Thomas et al., 2023; Natário & Oliveira, 2025; Málovics, 2025). It assesses the extent to which international knowledge is localized, for example, through student and teacher/researcher mobility outcomes or the adaptation of global knowledge to local needs. In addition, it measures the production of locally relevant knowledge, including publications, conference presentations and events that address regional issues. Finally, the dimension examines knowledge accessibility, focusing on the extent to which academic knowledge is made openly available through public dissemination, such as open access materials, public lectures and other forms of knowledge sharing with broader audiences.

4.3. Transformative Impact

The third level of the model means the ultimate orientation and outcomes of fourth mission activities. Unlike traditional output-based approaches, this model emphasizes the transformative impact. The first element focuses on societal challenges, including the reduction of social inequalities, the promotion of inclusiveness, and the improvement of health and well-being (Arthur, 2017; Zagirniak et al., 2018; Henderson et al., 2021; Tierney et al., 2021; Batra et al., 2022; Covelli et al., 2022). Evidence for these dimension includes programs targeting disadvantaged or vulnerable groups, as well as initiatives aimed at improving accessibility to education and services, indicating a commitment to widening participation and equal opportunities. In addition, this dimension reflects the university’s role in promoting health and well-being through community health initiatives, outreach activities and partnerships, as well as through institutional- or community-level mental health support programs within or outside the university. The recent literature on university social responsibility further supports this dimension by framing mental health and psychological well-being as integral components of universities’ social mission, linked to inclusion, resilience, equity and social cohesion (Severino-González et al., 2025).
The second factor addresses environmental sustainability, including sustainability-oriented programs, awareness-raising activities, and local ecological initiatives. This dimension describes the integration of environmental considerations into the universities’ activities (Bardy et al., 2017; Rinaldi et al., 2018; Bogedain & Hamm, 2020). It examines the presence of SDG-related initiatives and the extent to which sustainability goals are explicitly embedded in programs and projects. In addition, it measures efforts aimed at raising environmental awareness through educational and community-oriented activities. Finally, it considers local environmental action, including regional ecological initiatives and partnerships, which indicate the university’s active involvement in addressing environmental issues within its immediate context.
Overall, the proposed model contributes to the literature by providing an integrated framework that connects institutional conditions, operational processes and transformative impacts within a single analytical structure.

4.4. Illustrative Pilot Application of the Proposed Framework

To illustrate the applicability of the proposed framework, a document-based pilot assessment was conducted at the Apáczai Csere János Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences of Széchenyi István University in Győr, Hungary. The faculty was selected because it represents a socially oriented academic unit within a regionally embedded, medium-sized university. The analysis relied on publicly available institutional documents, strategic materials, faculty websites, program descriptions, event information, project descriptions, research group profiles and media appearances. The pilot analysis focused on publicly available evidence from January 2023 to April 2026, as the fourth mission gained particular relevance in the post-COVID-19 period (D’Ambrosi et al., 2024). The aim was not to provide full empirical validation, but to demonstrate how the proposed indicators can be applied in a structured assessment of fourth mission activities. For each indicator, only the evidence was identified, but no scores were added in the absence of comparison.
The pilot showed that fourth mission activities are identifiable across all six dimensions of the model. In relation to internal institutional embeddedness, the university’s Strategic Development Plan 2021–2030 explicitly refers to regional socio-economic development, local social engagement, community building, partnership development and the solving of real societal challenges. Organizational support is visible through leadership responsibilities related to social relations, while dedicated funding and formal reward systems appear less clearly in publicly available sources. Curricular integration is stronger: programs such as Community Coordination, Cultural Mediation and Human Resource Counselling, as well as courses linked to civil society, social responsibility, inequalities, intercultural sensitivity and SDG-related topics, provide evidence for community-based and sustainability-oriented education. New teaching methods and student engagement are reflected in project-based learning, workshops, student-led project work, volunteering opportunities, the Chréathon workshop, Job Fair-related assignments, drama pedagogy and Lego-based awareness-raising activities.
Community engagement is one of the most visible dimensions. The faculty cooperates with a diverse range of actors, including companies such as Audi Hungaria, Büchl and REJUNIVA; civil and church-related organizations such as Caritas and the Hungarian Maltese Charity Service; public and cultural institutions; international university partners; and environmental organizations. Partnership continuity is reflected in recurring collaborations, professional events and long-term cooperation with local social and cultural actors. Stakeholder participation is visible in guest lectures, workshops, teaching-related activities and events involving civil, church, corporate and institutional partners. Capacity building and open university activities are represented by the EPALE workshop, the Values and Communities of the Ageing Generation workshop, the REJUNIVA LONGEVITY+ program, Senior University lectures, public lectures and faculty conferences.
The co-creation and social innovation dimension is also present, although less fully institutionalized. Research addressing societal and sustainability challenges is visible in the faculty’s SDG-related publication profile, based on Scopus database (Table 4).
Research groups address sustainability, inclusion, labor market change, regional embeddedness, ageing and social services. Joint problem identification appears in cooperation with the Hungarian Maltese Charity Service, where research supports the mapping of regional social service development needs, and in the preparation of Győr’s ageing policy concept. Participatory research is reflected in surveys and data collection involving practitioners, residents and social service workers, while joint use of results is visible where findings feed into service development plans or local policy documents.
Knowledge diffusion and local application are strongly represented. International knowledge is localized through the Chréathon workshop with French partners and through events presenting western European good practices on ageing to local cultural actors. Local knowledge production is visible in the Apáczai Scientific Conference, the Győr Tanoda Club workshop, research on social services in Western Transdanubia and the ageing policy concept prepared for Győr. Knowledge accessibility is supported by public lectures, Senior University programs, faculty events, media appearances, local press coverage and online event platforms.
The social impact dimension is reflected in activities addressing inclusion, access, health and well-being. Programs in special needs education, social work and inclusion support the indicator on disadvantaged and vulnerable groups, while Caritas-related activities and fundraising initiatives demonstrate further social responsibility. Accessibility improvement is visible in the subject mentor system, English-language programs and the Senior University, which widens access to knowledge for older adults. It is worth noting that Ocupa-Cabrera et al. (2025) show that mentoring practices, when embedded in a university social responsibility framework, can contribute both to students’ personal and professional development and to universities’ engagement with the Sustainable Development Goals. Community health and well-being are represented by the REJUNIVA LONGEVITY+ program, while mental health support appears through lectures and course sessions addressing vocation, family, reconciliation, life management and resilience.
Environmental sustainability is less extensive than the social dimension, but it is still identifiable. SDG-related activities and projects are visible in the faculty’s research output, its sustainability and awareness-raising research group, and conference themes referring to inclusive, resilient and sustainable futures. Environmental awareness is reflected in educational and public activities, including a lecture on climate and the protection of the created world, as well as the faculty’s longer tradition of environmental education. Local environmental action is illustrated by the Forest Pedagogy project and cooperation with partners such as the Foundation for School Gardens, the Forest School Association, Green Forest Environmental Protection and Beautification Association, and the Environmental Protection Committee of the City of Győr.
Overall, the analyzed institution shows a medium level of fourth mission contribution, as evidence was identified across nearly all dimensions of the framework, with the exception of dedicated funding. However, the relatively strong visibility of fourth mission-related activities may partly stem from the faculty’s disciplinary profile in humanities, education and social sciences, rather than from an explicitly formulated fourth mission strategy. Many activities appear to be socially oriented by their nature but are not necessarily communicated or institutionalized as fourth mission practices. This suggests that the faculty should further develop its strategic communication by explicitly naming and framing these activities as part of the fourth mission. Overall, the pilot suggests that the framework can describe fourth mission activities in a structured and comprehensive way. No major activity identified in the document-based analysis fell outside the six dimensions, which indicates that the model has sufficient analytical coverage. At the same time, the pilot also confirms the limitations of public document analysis: some practices are only partially visible, and insider knowledge supported the identification and interpretation of relevant evidence. Therefore, the pilot should be understood as an illustrative example rather than full empirical validation, while future research should combine document analysis with interviews, expert validation or institutional self-assessment.

5. Conclusions

This study set out to address the conceptual and methodological ambiguity surrounding the fourth mission of universities by developing a coherent and operationalizable measurement framework. The originality and the contribution of the proposed framework lies not in introducing entirely new engagement categories, but in reorganizing fragmented and partly overlapping approaches into a fourth mission-specific measurement logic. Existing frameworks primarily focus on community engagement, service-learning, institutional commitment or social innovation separately. By contrast, the present model integrates these elements into a three-level structure that distinguishes enabling institutional conditions, core fourth mission processes and transformative impact domains. In doing so, it shifts the measurement focus from isolated activities or outputs toward the degree of institutionalization, stakeholder co-creation and societal and environmental transformation.
The results of the study demonstrate that the fourth mission can be meaningfully conceptualized as a multi-level system. First, it is embedded within an institutional framework, highlighting the importance of strategy, organizational structures, incentives and educational integration. Second, it is realized through a set of core processes, including community engagement, co-creation and local application. Third, these processes are oriented towards transformative impact domains, specifically societal challenges and environmental sustainability.
In addition to its conceptual contribution, the study provides a practical measurement tool through the development of a detailed indicator system and a four-point scoring scale. The framework is particularly relevant for mid-range and regionally embedded universities, where societal engagement, local embeddedness and sustainability-oriented activities play a central role but are often underrepresented in existing evaluation systems. In this sense, the model can support institutional self-assessment, strategic planning and benchmarking, while also offering a complementary perspective to dominant ranking systems, such as the Times Higher Education rankings.
At the same time, the study has several limitations. The proposed model is based on a literature-driven approach and has not yet been empirically validated. As a result, its applicability and robustness need to be tested in different institutional and regional contexts. However, the pilot test demonstrates that the framework can be applied in a structured document-based assessment and is able to describe a broad range of fourth mission-related activities, while further comparative applications and expert validation are still needed to confirm its wider applicability. Additionally, although the PRISMA-based search strategy was designed to ensure transparency and systematic coverage, some relevant studies may have remained outside the final corpus; moreover, the limitations of the reviewed studies themselves also constitute limitations of the present study. A further limitation is that, given the still emerging nature of the fourth mission literature, many of the most recent contributions are themselves systematic literature reviews or conceptual studies rather than empirical investigations. Finally, the interpretation of indicators may involve a degree of subjectivity, particularly in distinguishing between implicit and explicit forms of institutionalization. These limitations also point to important directions for future research. Empirical validation of the model represents a key next step. Comparative studies could explore how the fourth mission manifests in different institutional environments, particularly between research-intensive and mid-range universities. In addition, further research could refine the measurement framework by integrating qualitative methods, such as interviews or case studies, in order to capture the depth and transformative nature of engagement processes more accurately.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.P.; methodology, L.A.-M.; literature review, Z.H.; model development, Z.P. and Z.H.; writing—original draft, Z.P. and Z.H.; writing—review and editing, L.A.-M.; visualization, Z.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by Széchenyi István University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the EKÖP-25-4-I University Research Fellowship Program of the Ministry for Culture and Innovation from the Source of the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
HEIHigher Education Institution
NGONon-governmental Organization
SDGsSustainable Development Goals
UCEUniversity Community Engagement
TEFCETowards a European Framework for Community Engagement in Higher Education
HHRDepartment of Humanities and Human Resources
SNEDepartment of Special Needs Education
ISCDepartment of International Studies and Communication
SSSDepartment of Social Studies and Sociology
EPDepartment of Education and Psychology
METHDepartment of Methodology

References

  1. Akolgo-Azupogo, H., Bardy, R., & Rubens, A. (2018). Leapfrogging to the fourth mission in higher education. A new Ghanaian college creates sustainability approaches and community engagement. In K. Kassel, & I. Rimanoczy (Eds.), Developing a sustainability mindset in management education (pp. 297–319). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  2. Arthur, J. (2017). The first modern university: The university of Birmingham. British Journal of Educational Studies, 65(2), 183–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bardy, R., Rubens, A., & Eberle, P. (2017). Building intellectual capital for sustainable development: Combining local wisdom and advanced knowledge. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(3), 159–169. [Google Scholar]
  4. Batra, S., Orban, J., Zhang, H., Guterbock, T. M., Butler, L. A., Bogucki, C., & Chen, C. (2022). Analysis of social mission commitment at dental, medical, and nursing schools in the US. JAMA Network Open, 5(5), e2210900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Baty, P., & Banette, D. (2026). World university rankings 2026: Methodology. Available online: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/methodology (accessed on 18 March 2026).
  6. Biloslavo, R., & Schaebs, D. S. (2025). Joint sustainability reports (JSRs) to promote the third mission of universities. Sustainability, 17(21), 9587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bogedain, A., & Hamm, R. (2020). Strengthening local economy—An example of higher education institutions’ engagement in ‘co-creation for sustainability’. Region, 7(2), 9–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Borodiyenko, O., Malykhina, Y., Spryndys, S., Kamenska, I., & Bokshyts, O. (2023). Ukrainian universities as clusters of regional socioeconomic development: Inspirations from European experience. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 3(50), 447–456. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cantaragiu, R., Păunescu, C., & Hadad, S. (2014). The social impact of university entrepreneurship in Romania: Is the institutional discourse replicated or adapted? Management & Marketing, 9(4), 403–422. [Google Scholar]
  10. Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). The quintuple helix innovation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Christiansen, S. H., Du, X., & Guerra, A. O. P. d. C. (2024). Middle management leadership experiences of a mission-driven innovation university strategy. Education Sciences, 14(6), 609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Corrall, S., Schlak, T., & Bracke, P. (2022). Renewing and revitalising the social mission of higher education. In T. Schlak, S. Corrall, & P. Bracke (Eds.), The social future of academic libraries: New perspectives on communities, networks, and engagement (pp. 59–90). Facet. [Google Scholar]
  13. Council of the European Union. (2022). Council recommendation on learning for the green transition and sustainable development. Available online: https://education.ec.europa.eu/news/learning-for-the-green-transition-and-sustainable-development (accessed on 25 April 2026).
  14. Council of the European Union. (2023). Council recommendation on common values, inclusive education and the European dimension of teaching. Available online: https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/improving-quality/inclusive-education/common-values (accessed on 25 April 2026).
  15. Covelli, F. A., Mahoney, D. A., Batra, S., Beard, K. V., Campbell, L. A., & Pittman, P. P. (2022). Driving toward a culture shift: Case studies of social mission in nursing education. Journal of Professional Nursing, 42, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Čajka, P., Čajková, A., & Krpálek, P. (2023). The role of universities as the institutional drivers of innovation at the regional level. Terra Economicus, 21(1), 94–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. D’Ambrosi, L., Martino, V., & Brescia, P. (2024). University fourth mission and social impact. Ethic imperative and relational challenges in the context of high education in Italy. In E. Oliveira, & G. Gonçalves (Eds.), Ethics and society challenges in organisational and public communication (pp. 99–134). LabCom Books. [Google Scholar]
  18. European Commission. (2025). The European universities alliances in action. Available online: https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/higher-education/european-universities-initiative/about (accessed on 25 April 2026).
  19. European Union. (2017). A renewed EU agenda for higher education. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/a-renewed-eu-agenda-for-higher-education.html?fromSummary=15 (accessed on 25 April 2026).
  20. Farnell, T., & Ćulum, B. I. (2021). Towards a European framework for community engagement in higher education (Chapter 20). In B. Hall, & R. Tandon (Eds.), Socially responsible higher education, international perspectives on knowledge democracy (pp. 253–264). Brill Sense. [Google Scholar]
  21. Farnell, T., & Šćukanec, N. (2018). Mapping existing tools for assessing community engagement in higher education. In P. S. Benneworth, B. Ćulum, T. Farnell, F. Kaiser, M. Seeber, N. Šćukanec, H. Vossensteyn, & D. Westerheijden (Eds.), Mapping and critical synthesis of current state-of-the-art on community engagement in higher education. Institute for the Development of Education. [Google Scholar]
  22. Filep, B., Tamándl, L., Rámháp, S., & Kovács, Z. (2012, May 10–11). The economical and social impact of Széchenyi István University (Győr, Hungary) on regional development. 7th International Scientific Conference on Business and Management, Vilnius, Lithuania. [Google Scholar]
  23. Furco, A. (1999). Self-assessment rubric for the institutionalization of service-learning in higher education. Service Learning General, 127, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gál, Z. (2016). Egyetem és város. Educatio, 25(2), 220–233. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gregán, O. G., Kovács, S., & Gabnai, Z. (2024). The role of intrapreneurs in driving entrepreneurial transformation in universities: A bibliographic analysis between 1990 and 2024. Administrative Sciences, 14(12), 327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gunasekara, C. (2006). Reframing the role of universities in the development of regional innovation systems. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Henderson, M. C., Green, C., & Chen, C. (2021). What does it mean for medical school admissions to be socially accountable? AMA Journal of Ethics, 23(12), 965–974. [Google Scholar]
  28. Holland, B. (1997). Analyzing institutional commitment to service: A model of key organizational factors. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4(1), 30–41. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hollander, E. L., Saltmarsh, J., & Zlotkowski, E. (2002). Indicators of engagement. In M. E. Kenny, L. A. K. Simon, K. Kiley-Brabeck, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Learning to serve (pp. 31–49). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  30. Huang, Y., Jiang, L., & Zhai, R. (2025). Reconciling teaching and research tensions: A sustainability framework for expert teacher development in research intensive universities. Sustainability, 17(15), 7113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Koltói, L., Dombi, A., & Kiss, P. (2015). What do conscious citizens see?—Role of higher education in setting social priorities. In J. Berács, J. Iwanska, G. Kováts, & L. Matei (Eds.), Central European higher education cooperation conference proceedings (pp. 100–113). Corvinus University of Budapest Digital Press. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lukovics, M., & Zuti, B. (2015). New functions of universities in century XXI towards “Fourth Generation” universities. Transition Studies Review, 22(2), 33–48. [Google Scholar]
  33. Málovics, G. (2025). Harmadik misszió és (versus) egyetemi közösségi szerepvállalás (EKSZ): Az EKSZ, mint a térbeli igazságosságot és fenntarthatóságot támogató egyetemi gyakorlat. Tér és Társadalom, 39(4), 63–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Morawska-Jancelewicz, J. (2022). The role of universities in social innovation within quadruple/quintuple helix model: Practical implications from Polish experience. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13, 2230–2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Natário, M. M. S., & Oliveira, P. (2025). How higher education institutions may catalyse regional innovation ecosystems: The case of polytechnics in Portugal. Industry and Higher Education, 39(3), 365–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ocupa-Cabrera, H. G., Meneses-La-Riva, M. E., Fernández-Bedoya, V. H., & Suyo-Vega, J. A. (2025). Mentoring and university social responsibility: A systematic review of strategies and impacts in higher education. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1625433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Olo, D. D. P., Correia, L. C., & Rego, C. (2021). Higher education institutions and development: Missions, models, and challenges. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 12(2), 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  38. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pelagallo, F., Pellegrini, M. M., Giannitelli, R., & Sartini, P. (2021). University and social innovation: The case of an urban regeneration in the municipality of Rome. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management, 7(2), 264–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Platonova, R. I., Levchenkova, T. V., Shkurko, N. S., Cherkashina, A. G., Kolodeznikova, S. I., & Lukina, T. N. (2016). Regional educational institutions with in modern system of education. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 11(8), 2937–2948. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rinaldi, C., Cavicchi, A., Spigarelli, F., Lacchè, L., & Rubens, A. (2018). Universities and smart specialisation strategy: From third mission to sustainable development co-creation. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(1), 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Severino-González, P., Medina-Giacomozzi, A., Calderón-Morales, W., Ramírez-Molina, R., Rebolledo-Aburto, G., Sarmiento-Peralta, G., & Dote Pardo, J. S. (2025). Mental health and university social responsibility: Evidence, trends and challenges for inclusion. Mental Health and Social Inclusion. Ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
  43. Sitku, K. (2019). Vidéki egyetemek harmadik missziós tevékenysége: A társadalmi tudásmegosztás hatásai. Iskolakultúra, 29(8), 17–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Siwinski, W. (2017). Academic rankings—Where are they heading? Educational Studies Moscow, 1, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Stoliaryk, O., Korniat, V., & Hertsyuk, D. (2024). Strengthening social responsibility: Ukrainian universities’ third mission amidst war. New Educational Review, 76(2), 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Thomas, E., Pugh, R., Soetanto, D., & Jack, S. L. (2023). Beyond ambidexterity: Universities and their changing roles in driving regional development in challenging times. Journal of Technology Transfer, 48, 2054–2073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tierney, W. M., Auzenne, D., Cook, L., Jones, B. L., Mackert, M., Paydarfar, D., Ding, X., Woods, J. M., & Kahlon, M. (2021). Importance of community impact as the fourth academic mission: A qualitative study. Population Health Management, 24(5), 610–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Times Higher Education. (2025). University impact rankings 2025. Available online: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/impactrankings (accessed on 18 March 2026).
  49. Tomasi, S., Cavicchi, A., Aleffi, C., Paviotti, G., Ferrara, C., Baldoni, F., & Passarini, P. (2021). Civic universities and bottom-up approaches to boost local development of rural areas: The case of the University of Macerata. Agricultural Economics, 9(1), 15. [Google Scholar]
  50. Tryma, K. (2021). The analysis of students’ opinions about the social responsibility of Ukrainian universities. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 12(4), 527–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zagirniak, D., Khovrak, I., & Perevozniuk, V. (2018). The convergence of the systems of education at Scottish and Ukrainian universities in the context of ethic leadership. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(4), 550–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 16 00758 g001
Figure 1. Proposed model framework for the operationalization of the fourth mission.
Figure 1. Proposed model framework for the operationalization of the fourth mission.
Education 16 00758 g001
Table 1. Conceptual distinction between the third and fourth missions of universities.
Table 1. Conceptual distinction between the third and fourth missions of universities.
DimensionThird MissionFourth Mission
Primary orientationEconomic and innovation-oriented contributionSocietal, ethical and sustainability-oriented contribution
Main objectiveUtilization of knowledge and research results for economic developmentCo-creation of public value and transformative responses to societal and environmental challenges
Dominant activitiesTechnology transfer, innovation support, entrepreneurship, spin-offs, industry cooperationCommunity engagement, social responsibility, ethical leadership, sustainability, inclusion, social innovation
Role of societySociety is mainly a beneficiarySociety is an active participant
Knowledge flowPrimarily university-to-economyParticipatory and co-creative
Typical partnersFirms, industry actors, innovation agenciesCivil society, communities, public institutions, local stakeholders
Disciplinary affinityMore closely linked to technological, natural science, business and engineering fieldsParticularly relevant for social sciences, humanities, education, and health related fields
Measurement focusOutputs such as patents, licenses, spin-offsSustainability embeddedness and societal impact
University modelEntrepreneurial universityEmbedded civic university
Table 2. Theoretical foundation of the proposed framework.
Table 2. Theoretical foundation of the proposed framework.
Literature EvidenceProposed IndicatorsMain Source
The importance of supporting institutional implementation of mission-driven innovation strategies1.1 Strategic integration(Holland, 1997; Furco, 1999; Hollander et al., 2002; Christiansen et al., 2024)
Mission-oriented institutional change depends on supportive organizational environments, revised evaluation and recognition mechanisms1.2 Organizational support(Holland, 1997; Furco, 1999; Farnell & Ćulum, 2021; Huang et al., 2025)
1.3 Incentives and recognition
Engagement-oriented missions become institutionalized through teaching, curricula, student involvement1.4 Curricula integration(Holland, 1997; Furco, 1999; Hollander et al., 2002; Farnell & Ćulum, 2021; Morawska-Jancelewicz, 2022; Ocupa-Cabrera et al., 2025)
1.5 Student engagement
Community engagement emphasizes long-term collaboration, and external stakeholder involvement2.1 Long-term partnerships(Holland, 1997; Hollander et al., 2002)
2.2 Participation
2.3 Capacity building
Fourth mission-oriented research has societal relevance, and stakeholder-driven problem definition3.1 Societal challenge-oriented research(Holland, 1997; Farnell & Ćulum, 2021; Morawska-Jancelewicz, 2022)
3.2 Co-definition of problems
3.3 Participatory research
Regional and local engagement is as a central topic, local actors, local community, local economy are main keywords4.1 Knowledge localization(Platonova et al., 2016; Arthur, 2017; Bogedain & Hamm, 2020; Thomas et al., 2023; Natário & Oliveira, 2025)
4.2 Local knowledge production
4.3 Knowledge accessibility
A distinct part of the literature links the social mission of higher education mainly to promoting health equity and addressing broader social inequalities5.1 Social inequalities, inclusiveness(Henderson et al., 2021; Batra et al., 2022; Covelli et al., 2022; Severino-González et al., 2025)
5.2 Health and well-being
Sustainability-oriented approaches frame universities as actors contributing to SDG-related activities6.1 Environmental sustainability orientation(Rinaldi et al., 2018; Bogedain & Hamm, 2020; Pelagallo et al., 2021; Morawska-Jancelewicz, 2022; Natário & Oliveira, 2025)
6.2 Environmental awareness
6.3 Local environmental action
Table 3. Indicator set of the proposed model framework.
Table 3. Indicator set of the proposed model framework.
DimensionSub-DimensionObservable IndicatorEvidence, Measurement
1. Internal institutional embeddedness1.1 Strategic integrationFourth mission in strategyExplicit reference to fourth mission related activities and goals in institutional mission statements, strategic plans, policy documents or development plans
1.2 Organizational supportDedicated structureUnits, coordinators, programs
FundingFinancial resources separated
1.3 Incentives and recognitionReward systemsAwards, promotion for fourth mission related activities
1.4 Curricula integrationCommunity-based and sustainability educationNumber/existence of courses with the involvement of communities/SDG related topics
New teaching methodsNew teaching methods
1.5 Student engagementStudent involvement structuresVolunteering, student-led initiatives, support systems
2. Community engagement2.1 Long-term partnershipsDiversity of partners (Quintuple Helix)Evidence of repeated, continuous or multi-year cooperation with external stakeholders, such as renewed agreements, recurring joint projects, long-term partnership programs
Stability of partnershipsEvidence of continuous, repeated collaborations
2.2 Participation (engagement level)Stakeholder involvement in university processesExternal actors involved in teaching, research, program design
2.3 Capacity buildingCommunity training programsTraining, workshops, skills development for communities
Open university activitiesPublic events, conferences, lifelong learning (e.g., senior university)
3. Co-creation and social innovation (research)3.1 Societal challenge-oriented researchResearch addressing social/sustainability issuesResearch projects, research groups, publications explicitly addressing social challenges, sustainability, inclusion, health, well-being, regional development or environmental issues
3.2 Co-definition of problemsJoint problem identificationEvidence that external stakeholders participate in defining research problems, project objectives
3.3 Participatory researchCo-creation in research processesParticipatory/action/community-based research approaches
Joint use of resultsShared ownership or co-implementation of outcomes
4. Knowledge diffusion and local application4.1 Knowledge localizationAdaptation of international knowledge to local contextMobility outcomes, local adaptation of global knowledge
4.2 Local knowledge productionLocal-topic publications and eventsConferences, conference presentations, publications addressing regional issues
4.3 Knowledge accessibilityOpen access and public disseminationPublicly available research outputs, open access publications, policy briefs, community reports, public lectures, podcasts, webinars, workshops or other knowledge-sharing formats accessible to non-academic audiences
5. Social challenges; sustainability and society5.1 Social inequalities, inclusivenessPrograms targeting disadvantaged groupsPresence of initiatives addressing inclusion, equal access, vulnerable groups
Accessibility improvementMeasures aimed at widening participation and improving access to education, services or university resources for underrepresented, disadvantaged or vulnerable groups
5.2 Health and well-beingCommunity health initiativesHealth-related programs, partnerships, outreach activities
Mental health supportInstitutional- or community-level mental health and well-being programs, counselling services, prevention initiatives, resilience-building activities, peer-support schemes or partnerships with health/social service providers
6. Sustainability and environment6.1 Environmental sustainability orientationSDG-related activities and projectsExplicit SDG integration in programs/projects
6.2 Environmental awarenessAwareness-raising activitiesEducational-, public- or community-oriented events, campaigns, workshops, trainings or outreach programs aimed at raising awareness of environmental sustainability, climate change, biodiversity, circular economy or responsible resource use
6.3 Local environmental actionRegional ecological initiativesLocal environmental partnerships and actions
Table 4. Research profile associated with Sustainable Development Goals based on Scopus data.
Table 4. Research profile associated with Sustainable Development Goals based on Scopus data.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)HHRSNEISCSSSEPMETHTotal
1. No poverty0035008
2. Zero hunger0030003
3. Good health and well-being0002057
4. Quality education21811134681
5. Gender equality1030004
6. Clean water and sanitation0030003
7. Affordable and clean energy1001204
8. Decent work and economic growth921125130
9. Industry, innovation and infrastructure100727026
10. Reduced inequalities31710012
11. Sustainable cities and communities40340011
12. Responsible consumption and production801464032
13. Climate action1031005
14. Life below water0010001
15. Life on land0010001
16. Peace, justice, and strong institutions60851020
17. Partnerships for the goals70802017
Total per faculty711186305512265
Note. HHR = Department of Humanities and Human Resources; SNE = Department of Special Needs Education; ISC = Department of International Studies and Communication; SSS = Department of Social Studies and Sociology; EP = Department of Education and Psychology; METH = Department of Methodology.
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

Pálffy, Z.; Horváth, Z.; Ablonczy-Mihályka, L. A Measurement Framework for the Fourth Mission of Universities. Educ. Sci. 2026, 16, 758. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16050758

AMA Style

Pálffy Z, Horváth Z, Ablonczy-Mihályka L. A Measurement Framework for the Fourth Mission of Universities. Education Sciences. 2026; 16(5):758. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16050758

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pálffy, Zsuzsanna, Zoltán Horváth, and Lívia Ablonczy-Mihályka. 2026. "A Measurement Framework for the Fourth Mission of Universities" Education Sciences 16, no. 5: 758. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16050758

APA Style

Pálffy, Z., Horváth, Z., & Ablonczy-Mihályka, L. (2026). A Measurement Framework for the Fourth Mission of Universities. Education Sciences, 16(5), 758. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16050758

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