By: José João Mendes (Prof. Dr.), President of the Directorate of the Egas Moniz School of Health & Science
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) occupy today a central place in the academic world. They are taught and researched; we produce scientific knowledge around them and they are even the subject of debate at numerous conferences we organize. We assess companies, advise governments, and train professionals who will prepare the sustainability reports of many organizations based on these principles.
But we do not always apply to ourselves the same level of rigor that we advocate for others. We rarely demonstrate, through verifiable indicators and time series, what our own contribution is. We are fluent in purpose and shy in evidence.
I write this reflection after reading the fourth report of the Observatory of the SDGs in Portuguese Companies, a project of Católica-Lisbon with the support of BPI and the Foundation “la Caixa.” This report, which results from an analysis and monitoring of around 60 large companies and more than a hundred small and medium-sized enterprises, is one of the most relevant instruments for understanding what the Portuguese business fabric is effectively doing within the scope of the 2030 Agenda.
The study does not aim to evaluate universities. That said, it is difficult to read it without recognizing some aspects that concern us directly.
In my reading, I found three moments in which the academy appears with relevance. In the first, we are a quality indicator. When the report explains Portugal’s progress on SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), it relies on the average university scores in international rankings, on scientific articles per thousand inhabitants, on R&D expenditure, and on the number of researchers. In the second, we are an institutional reference. The National Roadmap for Sustainable Development 2030, for example, identifies the “public entities, business sector, academia and civil society” as actors to engage and empower. And in the third, we are authors, because the study itself is developed by a school of management, similar to its Spanish counterpart Esade.
We appear as infrastructure for sustainable development. Never as institutions responsible for their own performance in that area. We are explanatory variables of national performance, but not organizations subject to the same degree of accountability that we demand from companies.
However, the most relevant data point of this report lies in another aspect.
For four years, Portuguese companies were asked where they most needed support. The answer remained consistent: many do not know how to operationalize the SDGs, report them, or, in some cases, do not know them sufficiently. And, when comparing the importance attributed to each objective with the contribution that companies acknowledge making, the largest gaps among small and medium-sized enterprises appear in SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 17 (Partnerships).
Education and partnerships. Two areas in which Higher Education could play a decisive role. The data is about the companies, but the question is for us: if this is where they fail most, what have we been doing?
The report itself helps to explain the problem. The SDGs were designed as systemic and long-term objectives, while companies work with operational goals, financial metrics, and shorter time horizons. Without instruments that bridge this gap between both dimensions, sustainability runs the risk of remaining at the level of commitment and discourse.
In universities, the asymmetry is different. Our mission already incorporates several of the dimensions these goals seek to promote: to educate, to research, to serve the community, and to produce social value. What we lack is to demonstrate, with the same rigor we apply to others, the results of that action. We have the language and we have the instruments. We know how to translate for others; we lack the discipline of measuring ourselves.
The report also cites a particularly relevant datum. Among the world’s largest financial institutions, only 4% provide information on monitoring the progress of their contribution to the SDGs. Even among organizations subject to high levels of scrutiny, demonstrating impact remains uncommon.
For Higher Education, this should be an incentive. An institution that sets clear priorities, defines indicators, tracks its evolution, and makes public its results, including what did not go as planned, can assume a reference position in an area where so many organizations continue to report, above all, intentions.
Nevertheless, there is no regulatory obligation comparable to what falls on some companies, as universities remain outside the perimeter of major sustainability reporting requirements. But this absence of obligation makes the choice even more relevant.
Another conclusion drawn from the investigation cited in the report is that, in Portugal, the quality of corporate sustainability reporting is associated mainly with external factors, such as stock market listing, sector of activity, adoption of international standards, and independent verification. The existence of an internal sustainability office does not by itself yield better accountability. Does this mean that sustainability commitments gain greater relevance when accompanied by concrete targets and verification mechanisms?
I write this knowing that the critique includes me. I lead a Higher Education institution and cannot claim that we already do everything I advocate here. The report identifies practices that can also be transferred to the academic context: carrying out a rigorous materiality analysis, selecting priority objectives, linking them to measurable targets, assigning concrete responsibilities, regularly publishing the results, and subjecting them to external verification. None of this depends on legislation. It depends on institutional decision.
For decades, universities have helped companies understand, measure, and communicate their social and environmental impact. It is time to apply to ourselves the same principle of responsibility and transparency.
