In December of last year, QS World University Rankings put the world’s leading universities to the test. Their annual Sustainability Rankings were published at the culmination of the hottest year yet recorded. 2024 was the first year to exceed the 1,5°C goal set by the Paris Agreement, the threshold for significantly reducing the risks and impacts of global warming. With the re-election of Donald Trump, 2024 became a year that will define future global efforts to prevent ecological and climate breakdown. Amidst all of this, the QS rankings serve as a reminder that ‘sustainability’ remains an ambiguous weapon with which the complexities of the climate crisis can be domesticated and commodified.
For the third year in a row, Trinity scored quite low, placing 265th on the 2024 QS Sustainability Ranking that was published on the tenth of December. Although Trinity’s sustainability ranking has improved from last year’s 277th place, Trinity still falls behind UCC in 127th place, University of Galway in 140th place, and UCD who placed 49th.
What lies behind Trinity’s consistently low scores? The answer is seemingly simple: a lack of data.
In an email exchange with The University Times, Vice President of of Biodiversity and Climate Action, Jane Stout, revealed that the College so far “have not submitted sustainability metrics from Trinity”. Stout wrote that her priority in leading Trinity Sustainability over the past couple of years “has been to gather baseline data and information, develop the Sustainability Strategy and Action Plan, and focus on sustainability across a large number of educational, research, operational, community and governance issues across the whole of the university, with a huge range of students and staff colleagues”. Stout further elaborated that the team has prioritized their “obligations to report to the Irish government on Climate Action and on Education for Sustainable Development”.
Elaborating specifically on University Rankings as a concept, Stout expressed that “Although the rankings are commonly used by people to compare universities, they are not necessarily a true reflection of what’s going on”. Stout continued to question the consistency of rankings in general, highlighting how ‘different agencies can produce conflicting outcomes’.
Norah Campbell, who helped develop, and now teaches, the mandatory first year business module ‘Enacting Education for Sustainable Development’, echoes Stout’s criticism of university rankings in general. Focusing on the QS Sustainability Rankings, Campbell highlighted how the rankings never count what an institution is “doing less of’, thereby furthering the idea of growth as the only measure for success – a notion that seems paradoxical in a sustainability ranking. She also emphasized how the rankings are, first and foremost, a business, and that the sustainability rankings are not driven by a desire to make universities more accountable, but rather to create another subcategory of measurement for them to own.
Trinity’s prioritisation, however, seems to work against the very nature of how rankings are received and interpreted. While reasonable doubt can be, and has been, cast on the quality and intentions of university rankings, their position as cultural institutions of signification is hard to deny. In a New York Times article, Alan Blinder highlights that rankings have become a central part of how families evaluate schools. Interviewing Jonathan Henry, vice president at the University of Maine at Augusta, Blinder writes that “The Amazonification of how we judge a product’s quality,’ he [Henry] said, has infiltrated higher education, as consumers and prospective students alike seek order from chaos”. In an information chaos where one source seems just as qualified – or unqualified – as any else, rankings provide condensed signposts that are just as meaningful as they are commercialized. “You can’t ignore the leviathan that they [rankings] are”, Henry tells Blinder.
Ella Hammerich, a first year PPES student, told The University Times that while rankings were not necessarily the most important factor in her decision to go to Trinity, the cultural makeup of a given university was; and that especially includes a university’s commitment to sustainability. She particularly highlighted the importance of visibility in terms of sustainable initiatives, pointing out that “what you see is what you know”. While Ella felt neutral about QS sustainability rankings in general, she was shocked when The University Times revealed Trinity’s 265th place on the sustainability ranking – “That’s outrageous,” she said. ‘‘Something that makes Trinity cool to begin with is that it tries to unite modernity and tradition – and part of that is living up to climate goals. As a student it’s extremely disappointing”. She had guessed 87th – the same as Trinity’s place in the QS overall University rankings.
From Blinder’s article to Campbell’s statements, it is evident that discourse surrounding university rankings are shrouded in capitalist language. University rankings are, inherently, a capitalist project; and the QS Sustainability Rankings are no exception. However, for students and families alike who do not have access to all the academic or political insights underpinning this practice, it is difficult to evade the behemoths that are University Rankings. Ella frames this from a student perspective: “As a prospective student, quite honestly it’s a hire or fire system – it’s capitalism, right – when you’re looking at universities. It [Trinity’s sustainability ranking] could also be a factor for me to decide against Trinity as a prospective university”. The visibility of sustainable initiatives at a university starts before students even step foot on campus. In the increasingly commodified world of third level education, Trinity’s “extremely disappointing” ranking could dissuade prospective Trinity students who prioritize sustainability from attending – or even applying.
While the rankings are all about appearance – another means by which the world can be delimited and organized – it seems disingenuous to pretend that the cultural and economic environment surrounding the rankings is any different. Everything is capitalism, everyone must play the game; and opting out is not a statement unless it is a statement. That is to say that simply neglecting to submit data is fundamentally irresponsible as a ‘sustainably’ inclined university.
Trinity’s 265th place might not properly reflect the many sustainability initiatives and hours of work dedicated by Trinity staff and students; but it stands as a lighthouse for prospective and current students who are trying to figure out what sustainability at Trinity really looks like. If what you see is what you know, the upcoming 2024 report from Trinity Sustainability might shine some light on whether what you see, then, is also what you get.
The QS Sustainability Rankings are determined “using a methodology comprised of indicators designed to measure an institution’s ability to tackle the world’s greatest environmental, social and governance challenges”. The rankings rely on data submitted from the universities themselves in order to attain the highest possible accuracy. For universities who, like Trinity, do not submit any data, the QS Sustainability Rankings ‘feature them on the strength of proprietary and publicly available or previously supplied data.’
The rankings would then have to rely on the public resources made available, amongst others, by Trinity itself. This could include the annual Sustainability Reports published on Trinity’s website. Since the commencement of the QS Sustainability Rankings in 2023, however, only the bi-annual Climate Action Roadmaps have been published on the website, while the most recent annual Sustainability Report dates back to 2021.
