By George Sammour and Ola Al Haddid
As sustainability becomes a crucial metric in higher education, global sustainability rankings have gained prominence. However, these benchmarks often overlook the varying challenges faced by universities, especially those in the MENA region. George Sammour and Ola Al Haddid put the case for a more equitable evaluation framework.
In recent years, the significance of sustainability within higher education institutions (HEIs) has become increasingly recognised on a global scale. International green / sustainability rankings such as the UI GreenMetric World University Ranking, Times Higher Education (THE) Sustainability Impact Rankings, and the QS Sustainability Ranking have emerged as prominent benchmarks, assessing universities’ commitment and performance towards (or away from) sustainable growth and development.
While these rankings aim to promote environmental citizenship, social responsibility, and economic viability, there is growing concern regarding their ability to accurately reflect the diverse contexts of HEIs, particularly the disparities between institutions in the global North and the global South, especially countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). This article delves into the nuances of these international sustainability rankings, highlighting the overlooked contextual differences and proposing a pathway towards a more inclusive, as well as nuanced, framework.
The Essence Of International Sustainability Rankings
There is growing concern regarding their ability to accurately reflect the diverse contexts of HEIs, particularly the disparities between institutions in the global North and the global South, especially countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).
The Times Higher Education Sustainability Impact Rankings assess universities against the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), considering factors like research, outreach, stewardship, and teaching on sustainability. Similarly, the UI GreenMetric World University Ranking, initiated by Universitas Indonesia, evaluates universities based on their infrastructure, energy and climate change policies, waste management, water usage, transportation, and education on sustainability. The QS Sustainability Ranking also aligns with this trend, focusing on environmental and social sustainability, as well as governance indicators.
These rankings serve multiple purposes: they incentivise HEIs to improve their sustainability practices, provide benchmarks for comparison, and guide prospective students in their university selection. However, the effectiveness of these rankings is under scrutiny, especially when considering the diverse contexts of global HEIs.
Contextual Disparities Between The Global North And South
The global North, typically comprising wealthier countries with more developed infrastructure and resources, often has a distinct advantage in sustainability rankings. These institutions can invest heavily in green technologies, sustainable infrastructure, and extensive research programmes dedicated to sustainability. For example, universities like the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Oxford, and the University of Manchester are regularly featured prominently in these rankings due to their comprehensive sustainability initiatives and substantial research outputs.
In contrast, universities in the MENA region of the global South face a different set of challenges. These institutions operate within economies that are often resource-constrained, with limited access to the latest green technologies and sustainability solutions. Additionally, political instability, economic challenges, and social disparities further complicate their pursuit of sustainability. For instance, while the American University of Beirut (AUB) in Lebanon has made significant strides in sustainability, it operates within a context of economic uncertainty and infrastructural constraints, which are not adequately accounted for in the current ranking methodologies. In Jordan, the Princess Sumaya University for Technology (PSUT) has also made substantial advances towards sustainability, from utilising solar panels, working towards reducing its carbon footprint, to integrating sustainability within the life of the university. However, these efforts were also not adequately accounted for sustainability ranking methodologies.
Examples Of Overlooked Contextual Differences
Resource Allocation
HEIs in the global South often have to prioritise basic educational needs and infrastructural stability over cutting-edge sustainability initiatives, due to financial constraints. For example, universities in countries such as Jordan, Egypt, and Morocco are deeply engaged in efforts to enhance their educational offerings and campus facilities amidst financial and economic constraints. This discrepancy is not sufficiently recognised in the existing ranking frameworks.
Cultural And Social Norms
The adoption of sustainability practices is deeply influenced by local cultural and social norms. For example, water conservation practices essential in arid to semi-arid regions like the Middle East may not be as pertinent in the water-abundant landscapes of Northern Europe. Furthermore, the approach to diversity, including issues surrounding gender identity, sexual orientation, and sexual and gender healthcare, varies significantly across global contexts, influenced by local cultural and religious norms. Thus, current rankings do not fully accommodate these regional sustainability priorities.
Technological Access
The availability and adoption of green technologies are uneven across the globe. Universities in developed countries often have better access to renewable-energy technologies, green buildings, and sustainable waste management systems, giving them an inherent advantage in the rankings.
Economic Stability
Economic instability in many MENA countries affects universities’ ability to invest in long-term sustainability projects. The rankings tend to overlook the impact of economic fluctuations on sustainability initiatives.
Political Climate
The political environment can significantly influence an institution’s capacity to implement and maintain sustainability initiatives. Political instability in parts of the MENA region due to war occurring in neighbouring countries poses challenges that are not encountered by universities in more politically stable regions.
Towards a More Inclusive Framework
To address these disparities, it is imperative to develop a more nuanced and inclusive ranking framework that considers the contextual realities of HEIs across the globe. This could involve:
Customised Indicators
Additionally, political instability, economic challenges, and social disparities further complicate their pursuit of sustainability.
Introducing region-specific indicators that reflect the unique challenges and priorities of HEIs in different parts of the world, including those in the MENA region. For example, considering the arid and semi-arid climates prevalent in many countries in the region, an important region-specific indicator could be the efficiency of water usage and the implementation of water conservation technologies, integration of traditional knowledge and practices, and education and training for refugees, women, and girls.
Weighting Mechanism
Implementing a weighting system that accounts for the varying degrees of difficulty faced by institutions in implementing sustainability initiatives, based on their socioeconomic, environmental, and political contexts.
Collaborative Benchmarks
Encouraging collaboration between universities to share best practices and resources, thereby levelling the playing field for institutions with fewer resources.
Holistic Assessment
Expanding the assessment criteria to include qualitative measures of sustainability efforts, such as community engagement, policy advocacy, and the integration of sustainability into curricula, which may not require substantial financial investment.
Conclusion
While international sustainability rankings have played a crucial role in promoting sustainable development within higher education, it is clear that they must evolve to more accurately reflect the diverse contexts of higher education institutions.
About the Authors
Dr George Sammour is an associate professor of Business Informatics at the Princess Sumaya University for Technology (PSUT), Jordan. He has published more than 50 research articles in international peer-reviewed journals and meetings. He is a member of the AACSB advisory council for the MENA region. Currently, Dr Sammour is the Dean of the King Talal School of Business Technology at PSUT.
Dr Ola Al Haddid obtained a PhD from Sheffield University, in the UK. She teaches Logistical Management, Supply Chain Management, and Management Communication Skill, among others. Her research interests are sustainable development, natural resource management, and organisational operations and practices, particularly water resource management.
Why Europe Shouldn’t Treat Protectionism as a Panacea
By Zhenglin (Alex) Li
In a bid to protect domestic car manufacturers, the EU is considering imposing extra tariffs on imported Chinese cars. Is this the right response? How about allowing some competition to encourage innovation?
The recent decade seems to be the least enjoyable time for European car producers. While the economic community is experiencing serious supply-side and cost-of-living crises, car production of old European brands has moved to a comparatively inferior position, especially in terms of Chinese companies. Not only does the latter have a price advantage of being 28% lower than European-made vehicles, but also has contributed more to innovations like electric vehicle (EV) development. A lot of politicians and economists are arguing that it is necessary to protect domestic car producers, to keep their competitiveness and employment of manufacturing workers. Nonetheless, protectionist policies such as a tariff on imported Chinese cars should never be considered as a panacea. Instead, a more practical solution is to treat foreign competitors as “catfishes” which encourages the “sardines” of domestic producers to run faster.
A Costly Agenda
Although domestic producers will benefit from the higher price resulting from the tariff, consumers will need to pay more compared to current costs. Because of the importance of transport vehicles to consumers and their position as a necessity, everyone, despite their financial background or lifestyles, would be negatively affected by the additional cost of buying a car. Although it seems that economic nationalism is encouraging to people who tend to be patriotic, its drawback is shared by the whole economy. According to economic theory, at least in the short run, the economic loss of the EU would be greater than its economic gain.
Furthermore, although employment is increased by a greater scale of domestic output, it has a regressively re-distributive effect on the economy. The newly-employed workers are largely those with better educational backgrounds and skills, so their income is usually greater than other employees. This leaves the poorest members and consumers in the economy in a worsening situation as the price has been driven up, and they are no longer able to buy a car. To sum up, the tariff transfers the wealth of the poor to the middle class and businesspeople which would make equality in the economy worse off.
Despite people’s utility being worsened, it would also lead to a greater market failure. Since most Chinese imported cars are electric, if a tariff is introduced that raises the price for EVs, people will start to purchase petrol cars as a substitute to replace its highly-priced competitor. Consequently, the carbon emissions from petrol cars could immediately result in environmental damage and enhanced global warming. Besides, considering the tariff on carbon resources, the price of petrol cars is increasing rapidly. This would force the EU to either bear the costs of inflation and the rising cost of living due to the rising prices of both types of cars or reduce carbon regulations and take the risk of greater external costs and market failure.
Lastly, it should be noticed that the European car market is an oligopoly market controlled by a few manufacturers who are earning much higher than normal profits. With protection that limits international competition, oligarchies are less likely to invest in new technology. Instead, they can rely on the protections which give the power of control back to their hands and there is less risk that they will lose profits due to little development.
And a Useless Agenda
Some people have argued that because the electric car market is an infant industry with high growth potential in the future, the EU should take any attempts to provide a good innovative environment for the entrepreneurs. While it has been proven in South Korea through Park Chung-hee’s Heavy-Chemical Industry (HCI) programme which gave Koreans an obvious advantage in the industry, it should be noted that previous successful cases generally rely on two conditions: low cost of labour and enterprises’ investments in innovation.
However, this is not typically suitable for the European Common Market. Firstly, as we have mentioned, it could result in firms’ reliance on government protections. This is found in the European agricultural market, where protections like tariffs to other economies have reduced the productivity of farmers. Because they are the only choice of European consumers, there is little motivation to invest in new technology and management systems of farms. Unfortunately, it seems to be true for car producers as well. European car manufacturers have a relatively low investment rate in technological advancement. There is no reason to believe that they will return to “good developers” just because the government has cared for them as newly-born babies while they are old hands.
Moreover, the growth potential of European car producers should also be questioned. Due to the strong trade union power in Europe and the high cost of labour, it should be questioned whether the companies would still have the money for innovation after receiving the protections. If they are forced to pay much higher to their workers, which enhances its disadvantage compared to Chinese producers, the current situation will hardly be altered. On the other hand, if it chooses cheap labour and de-industrialise its domestic industries, it would be unrestrained gambling for the EU to do so as neither the consumers nor workers will benefit from it. Hence, even if it can be more efficient in the future, can Europeans be beneficiaries of this de facto non-European companies’ growth?
On the contrary, what free trade and international competition can contribute to growth is that it forces European producers to invest in innovations to cope with changes in the world market. If these companies have seen an obvious loss in profits due to the development of Chinese EVs, unless they are Stoics, they will immediately promote their technologies to keep their positions as world-leading companies. Furthermore, this can also encourage international cooperation between Chinese and European firms. If the former can benefit from the experiences of the latter, the Catfish Effect on European car producers would be successful because they are indeed encouraged.
Conclusion
Protectionism has a long history since the discovery of economics. However, its agendas are usually controlled by large firms that aim to benefit from the lack of international competition. Europe should be enthusiastic about competition: it still has great growth potential, and the key issue is to find an effective strategy for growth. In a world with exaggerated “Communist China has beaten capitalism in a market economy,” Europe should be open to new challenges and take advantage of this global ordeal. It has to grow, in the way of encouragement instead of protection.
About the Author