Asia holds over 50% of universities in THE Sustainability Rankings 2026; India second most-represented

3 min readNew DelhiJun 24, 2026 02:10 PM IST

Three Indian universities ranked in top-100 in THE Sustainability Rankings 2026 (Images via official websites)

Asian universities make up more than half of all institutions featured in the Times Higher Education (THE) Sustainability Rankings 2026. Of the 1,646 universities ranked across 116 countries and territories this year, 962 are from Asia. India is the second most-represented country in the rankings with 110 institutions, behind only the Philippines, which has 160 universities in this year’s rankings.

The ‘THE Sustainability Rankings’ assesses universities across 18 tables — one overall ranking and 17 tables aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Overall, the University of Manchester retained the top position globally, followed by Griffith University and Western Sydney University.

Key figures from THE Sustainability Rankings 2026

Indicator

Institutes

Total institutions ranked

1,646

Countries/territories represented

116

Asian institutions

962

Philippines institutions

160

India institutions

110

Asian universities in the global top 10

5

Asia’s prominence is visible not only in the number of institutions represented but also in the strength of its top performers. Five Asian universities feature in the global top 10 overall rankings, while universities from the region lead eight of the 17 SDG categories.

Read | India ranks 13th globally for AI-Economy readiness, but skills gap threatens growth: QS World Future Skills Index 2027

Among Asia’s highest-ranked institutions are Universiti Sains Malaysia (5), Hanyang University (6), Hokkaido University (joint 7), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (joint 7), and National Taiwan University (joint 10). Korea University (12), Universitas Airlangga (15), Pusan National University (16), Chulalongkorn University (19), and Kyungpook National University (joint 20) also feature among the region’s leading performers.

China also led with universities under the SDG 9 category, which includes industry, innovation and infrastructure. The rankings list the Harbin Institute of Technology, which came at the top globally. The university is among a small group of institutions that jointly lead the category, alongside universities from Hong Kong, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany. China is one of only two Asian countries, along with Malaysia, to top an SDG table while also maintaining a broad presence across the overall rankings.

India, meanwhile, continues to strengthen its presence in the rankings. With 110 universities in the overall table, it is the second-largest contributor globally and one of the countries with the strongest representation among Asian institutions.

Story continues below this ad

Lovely Professional University emerged as India’s highest-ranked institution, placed 23rd overall. It was followed by Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham at joint 37th and JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research at joint 74th.

India’s highest-ranked universities

Institution

Overall rank

Lovely Professional University

23

Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham

Joint 37

JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research

Joint 74

Indian universities also secured top positions in two SDG categories. Manipal Academy of Higher Education ranked first globally for SDG 5 (Gender Equality), while Lovely Professional University topped the SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) table.

The United Kingdom continued to perform strongly at the category level, recording five institutes finishing in first place and three joint first positions across the SDG rankings. It also has the highest number of institutions in the overall top 200.

Notably, several of India’s premier engineering institutions are absent from THE rankings. The older IITs, including IIT Bombay, IIT Delhi, IIT Madras, IIT Kanpur, IIT Kharagpur and IIT Roorkee, have continued their long-standing boycott of Times Higher Education rankings, citing concerns over the transparency of the methodology and the use of what they describe as subjective assessment parameters.