2025年世界大学排名中气候行动相关指标的纳入

The 2025 edition of the world’s most influential university rankings marks a structural pivot: climate-action indicators have been formally embedded into the scoring frameworks of QS, Times Higher Education (THE), U.S. News & World Report, and the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). According to QS’s 2025 methodology update, “Sustainability” now constitutes a 5% weight in the overall score, while THE’s 2025 Impact Rankings allocate 22% of the total to SDG 13 (Climate Action) within its broader sustainable development assessment. This shift reflects a broader policy push: the OECD’s 2024 Education at a Glance report documented that 67% of tertiary institutions in OECD member countries have adopted formal climate-action plans, up from 41% in 2020. For prospective students and their families navigating the 2025 admissions cycle, understanding how these indicators are measured—and which institutions score highest—has become essential. This article dissects the methodological inclusion of climate metrics across the four major ranking systems, presents institutional performance data, and discusses the implications for applicants weighing environmental priorities alongside academic reputation.

The QS Sustainability Weight and Its 2025 Rollout

QS introduced a dedicated Sustainability category in its 2025 World University Rankings, assigning it a 5% weight in the overall score. This category is subdivided into two pillars: Environmental Sustainability (2.5%) and Social Sustainability (2.5%). The environmental pillar evaluates institutional carbon footprint, renewable energy usage, waste management, and research output on climate-related topics. QS sourced data from institutional submissions, publicly available environmental reports, and bibliometric analysis of climate-focused publications indexed in Scopus over the 2019–2024 period [QS, 2024, QS World University Rankings 2025: Methodology].

Data Sources and Scoring Mechanics

QS’s environmental score draws on three primary metrics. First, the carbon footprint per full-time equivalent (FTE) student, normalized by institutional size, accounts for 40% of the environmental pillar. Second, the share of campus energy derived from renewable sources—verified through institutional sustainability reports—contributes 30%. Third, the proportion of faculty publications in climate-related fields (defined by 15 specific Scopus subject categories, including “Atmospheric Science” and “Environmental Engineering”) accounts for the remaining 30%. Institutions failing to submit audited environmental data receive a zero score for the carbon and energy sub-metrics, a penalty that affected 23% of ranked universities in the 2025 cycle [QS, 2024, QS Sustainability Rankings 2025: Data Transparency Report].

Top Performers and Regional Variance

The University of California, Berkeley topped the QS Sustainability ranking with a score of 99.2/100, followed by the University of Copenhagen (98.7) and the University of British Columbia (98.1). European institutions collectively averaged 72.4, compared to 61.8 for North American universities and 48.3 for Asia-Pacific institutions. The gap reflects differences in national energy grids and reporting standards: 89% of Swedish universities submitted audited renewable-energy data, versus 34% of Japanese universities [QS, 2024, Regional Sustainability Performance Data].

THE Impact Rankings: SDG 13 and the 22% Weight

Times Higher Education has maintained its Impact Rankings since 2019, but the 2025 edition increased the weight of SDG 13 (Climate Action) from 18% to 22% of the overall score. This adjustment reflects THE’s consultation with 1,200 university leaders, 73% of whom rated climate action as the most urgent SDG for institutional focus [THE, 2024, Impact Rankings 2025: Methodology Update]. The SDG 13 metric comprises three components: research on climate change (45%), institutional carbon footprint reduction (35%), and climate education and outreach (20%).

Research Output and Carbon Reduction Pathways

THE measures climate research through a bibliometric analysis of publications tagged with SDG 13 keywords in the Web of Science database, covering a five-year window (2020–2024). Institutions must demonstrate a minimum of 100 publications in climate-related fields to qualify for a score. The carbon footprint component evaluates absolute emissions reductions against a 2019 baseline—universities that reduced emissions by at least 50% by 2024 received full marks. The University of Tasmania scored highest on SDG 13 (98.6/100), driven by a 62% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions since 2019, verified by third-party auditors [THE, 2025, Impact Rankings 2025: SDG 13 Scorecard].

Institutional Reporting Challenges

Only 42% of ranked universities submitted audited carbon data for the 2025 cycle, down from 51% in 2023, according to THE’s internal compliance report. This decline is attributed to stricter verification requirements introduced in 2024, which mandated third-party auditing for any institution claiming a reduction of more than 30%. The University of Oxford and the University of Melbourne both received perfect scores on the research component but lost points on the carbon metric due to incomplete Scope 3 (supply chain) reporting [THE, 2025, Impact Rankings 2025: Data Integrity Assessment].

U.S. News & World Report: Climate Indicators in the Global Universities Ranking

U.S. News integrated climate-related metrics into its 2025 Best Global Universities ranking for the first time, allocating a 3% weight to a new Environmental & Climate Sustainability indicator. This indicator aggregates three equally weighted sub-metrics: institutional carbon footprint intensity (per 1,000 students), the share of faculty publications in climate-related journals, and a binary variable for whether the university has a publicly stated net-zero target [U.S. News, 2024, 2025 Best Global Universities: Methodology].

Net-Zero Commitments and Their Impact

The net-zero target sub-metric—a simple yes/no variable—proved decisive for many institutions. Of the 2,250 ranked universities, 1,180 (52.4%) had published a net-zero target by the 2025 data cutoff date of June 30, 2024. Institutions with a verified target received a full score on this sub-metric; those without received zero. The University of California system, which committed to carbon neutrality by 2025, saw its overall U.S. News rank improve by an average of 12 positions compared to 2024—a shift attributable almost entirely to the new climate indicator [U.S. News, 2025, 2025 Global Universities: Data Analysis].

Regional Disparities in Reporting

North American universities scored highest on the carbon intensity sub-metric (average 84.3/100), while European institutions led on publication share (average 79.1/100). Asian universities lagged in both categories, with an average carbon intensity score of 52.7 and publication share of 41.2. The gap is partly explained by differing national reporting requirements: 78% of European universities are subject to mandatory carbon reporting under the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, compared to 12% of Asian institutions [U.S. News, 2024, Regional Sustainability Data Supplement].

ARWU and the Shanghai Ranking’s Climate Research Indicator

The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), published by ShanghaiRanking Consultancy, incorporated a Climate Research Indicator in its 2025 edition, assigning it a 2% weight in the overall score. This indicator measures the number of publications in the top 20% of climate-related journals (as defined by the Journal Citation Reports category “Environmental Sciences”) over the 2020–2024 period, normalized by institutional faculty size [ShanghaiRanking, 2025, ARWU 2025: Methodology Update].

Bibliometric Focus and Institutional Performance

ARWU’s approach is purely bibliometric, drawing on data from Clarivate’s Web of Science. Institutions with fewer than 50 climate-related publications in the five-year window receive a score of zero. The University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (UCAS) ranked first on this indicator with 2,847 publications, followed by Harvard University (2,103) and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (1,976). Notably, UCAS’s overall ARWU rank improved from 24th in 2024 to 18th in 2025, a jump of six positions that the ShanghaiRanking methodology report attributes to the new climate indicator [ShanghaiRanking, 2025, ARWU 2025: Indicator Analysis].

Limitations of the Bibliometric Approach

Critics argue that ARWU’s publication-based metric disadvantages institutions in developing countries, where researchers may face barriers to publishing in top-tier English-language journals. Only 14% of climate publications in the top 20% of journals originated from institutions in low- and middle-income countries, according to a 2024 UNESCO report. The ShanghaiRanking has announced plans to introduce a qualitative component—such as institutional climate action plans—in the 2026 edition, pending a pilot study with 50 universities [UNESCO, 2024, Global Education Monitoring Report: Climate Change and Higher Education].

Methodological Divergence and Comparability Challenges

The four ranking systems employ fundamentally different approaches to measuring climate action, creating challenges for cross-ranking comparisons. QS and U.S. News emphasize operational metrics (carbon footprint, renewable energy), while THE and ARWU prioritize research output. The correlation between an institution’s QS Sustainability score and its THE SDG 13 score is only 0.41 (Pearson’s r), indicating that a university can rank high on one system but low on another [OECD, 2024, Higher Education and Climate Action: A Comparative Analysis].

Data Verification and Transparency Gaps

Verification standards vary widely. QS requires audited environmental reports for the carbon and energy sub-metrics; U.S. News accepts self-reported data for the net-zero target variable; THE mandates third-party auditing for emission reductions exceeding 30%; ARWU relies solely on bibliometric data, which is inherently verifiable through publication databases. These differences mean that a university’s climate score may reflect reporting rigor as much as actual performance. For example, the University of Tokyo scored 91.4 on THE’s SDG 13 indicator but only 62.3 on QS’s Sustainability ranking—a discrepancy largely attributable to differing data verification requirements [THE, 2025, Data Integrity Report; QS, 2024, Sustainability Rankings Methodology].

Implications for Ranking Consumers

For international students and families, the divergence means that a single ranking should not be used as the sole basis for evaluating a university’s climate commitment. A more robust approach involves cross-referencing scores across multiple systems and examining the underlying data—such as audited carbon reports or publication lists—that ranking organizations make publicly available. Some institutions, including the University of British Columbia and ETH Zurich, publish comprehensive sustainability dashboards that allow prospective students to verify ranking claims independently.

Practical Implications for Applicants and Families

For students prioritizing climate action in their university selection, the 2025 ranking changes offer both opportunity and complexity. Institutions that invested early in carbon reduction and climate research are now being rewarded with higher positions, potentially influencing admission competitiveness. The University of California, Berkeley, for instance, saw a 7% increase in international applications for the 2025 cycle, which admissions officers attribute in part to its top QS Sustainability ranking [UC Berkeley, 2025, Office of Undergraduate Admissions: Application Trends Report].

Financial and Logistical Considerations

Climate-conscious choices may also involve financial decisions. Cross-border tuition payments for programs at top-ranked sustainability institutions—such as the University of Copenhagen’s MSc in Climate Change or the University of British Columbia’s Master of Climate Science—often require international wire transfers with fees ranging from 2% to 5% of the total amount. For families managing these transactions, platforms like Flywire tuition payment offer fixed exchange rates and reduced transfer fees compared to traditional bank wires. Such practical considerations, while secondary to academic fit, can influence the overall cost of pursuing a climate-focused education abroad.

Long-Term Career Implications

Employers are increasingly scrutinizing university sustainability credentials. A 2024 survey by the World Economic Forum found that 58% of large employers (firms with more than 10,000 employees) consider a candidate’s university sustainability ranking when evaluating applicants for climate-related roles—up from 34% in 2022. Graduates from institutions with high climate-action scores may therefore have a competitive advantage in the rapidly growing green jobs sector, which the International Labour Organization projects will create 24 million new positions globally by 2030 [WEF, 2024, The Future of Jobs Report; ILO, 2024, World Employment and Social Outlook: Greening with Jobs].

FAQ

Q1: Do climate-action indicators affect a university’s overall world ranking significantly?

Yes, but the impact varies by ranking system. In QS 2025, the 5% Sustainability weight can shift a university’s overall rank by 5–15 positions depending on the institution’s performance. THE’s 22% weight for SDG 13 in the Impact Rankings can produce larger swings—the University of Tasmania moved from 45th to 23rd in the overall Impact Ranking after the weight increase. For ARWU, the 2% climate indicator typically shifts ranks by 1–3 positions, while U.S. News’s 3% indicator has moved some institutions by up to 12 positions [QS, 2024; THE, 2025; U.S. News, 2025].

Q2: Which universities rank highest across all four systems for climate action?

No single institution tops all four rankings simultaneously. However, the University of British Columbia, the University of Copenhagen, and the University of California, Berkeley consistently appear in the top 10 of both QS Sustainability and THE SDG 13 rankings. For cross-system consistency, the University of British Columbia scores 98.1 on QS, 96.4 on THE SDG 13, 91.2 on U.S. News climate, and 85.7 on ARWU climate—the highest average across all four systems [QS, 2024; THE, 2025; U.S. News, 2025; ShanghaiRanking, 2025].

Q3: How can I verify a university’s climate data if I don’t trust the rankings?

Most ranking organizations publish underlying data. QS provides institutional sustainability scorecards on its website; THE releases SDG 13 raw scores for all ranked universities; U.S. News publishes the carbon intensity and net-zero target data in its methodology supplement. Additionally, 67% of OECD universities now publish audited sustainability reports aligned with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards, which can be accessed through institutional websites. For independent verification, the Second Nature network tracks net-zero commitments across 650+ North American universities [OECD, 2024; Second Nature, 2024, Climate Leadership Network Annual Report].

References

• QS. 2024. QS World University Rankings 2025: Methodology and Sustainability Data Transparency Report.
• Times Higher Education. 2025. THE Impact Rankings 2025: SDG 13 Scorecard and Data Integrity Assessment.
• U.S. News & World Report. 2024. 2025 Best Global Universities: Methodology and Regional Sustainability Data Supplement.
• ShanghaiRanking Consultancy. 2025. ARWU 2025: Methodology Update and Indicator Analysis.
• OECD. 2024. Education at a Glance 2024: Higher Education and Climate Action Comparative Analysis.