Intermediary organizations and their role in advancing the SDGs in higher education

ABSTRACT

Drawing on evidence from documents and semi-structured interviews with members of the Catalan system of higher education, this research explores how intermediary organizations (IOs) facilitate the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), conceived as a global policy framework, in local contexts. We observed that, despite the voluntary nature of SDGs-related policies, most Catalan public universities embraced the SDGs. Two contextual factors likely facilitated their effective engagement with this global initiative: first, the autonomy granted by regional and national governments to the higher education sector when it comes to social responsibility, and, second, the willingness and ability of higher education institutions (HEIs) in Catalonia to work with the SDGs. The key element added to these contextual factors was the collaboration stimulated by meso-level actors, namely Catalan intermediaries. The Catalan case exhibits a process whereby IOs effectively engage with HEIs, forging a platform for collaboration; in turn, this led the local government to delegate the task of promoting the SDGs to IOs. This paper contributes to the debate in global higher education policy-making as it discusses the policy implications of the involvement of intermediary actors in bringing global policy frameworks to local level.

KEYWORDS:

• Higher education policy
• sustainability
• the SDGs
• intermediaries

Introduction

Even though the transfer of (macro) global frameworks to the (micro) local level has received the attention of academics in the field of higher education policy (Altbach, Reisberg, and Rumbley 2019; Chankseliani, Qoraboyev, and Gimranova 2021; Maassen and Cloete 2002; Marginson and Van der Wende 2007; Spring 2014; Vidovich 2004), little has been said about the particular role of meso-level actors represented by regional IOs. Broadly speaking, intermediaries are defined as ‘facilitators of innovation’ (Klerkx and Leeuwis 2009), mediators between two parties, who operate independently and ‘provide distinct value beyond what the parties alone would be able to develop or to amass by themselves’ (Honig 2004, 67). In our paper, the case of Catalonia illustrates these exchanges between global and regional level and points out to the role of intermediaries in the system-level (local) adoption of the global policy framework put forward by the United Nations with the SDGs (2015–2030).

Beyond the particular SDG that directly targets education (SDG 4), the SDGs constitute a global policy framework in higher education adopted in 2015 by all the UN member states. The SDGs target transformative global policy shifts, necessitating the active participation of diverse stakeholders, including HEIs (McCowan 2019; Owens 2017). The 17 Goals constitute a particularly captivating research field from the perspective of higher education policy studies because these goals have the potential of becoming global transformers of local higher education institutions (HEIs) and the systems of higher education where they are integrated. Never before has a voluntary and to a certain degree abstract set of policy goals reached HEIs worldwide, irrespective of their economic objectives, geographical location, or institutional nature. However, it is unclear how they can be systematically implemented, given the absence of any clear coercive mechanism or well-established global funding scheme. Intermediary policy actors are a possible answer to this puzzle. Such an approach also has the potential of addressing a fundamental and broader question in policy research: how do IOs facilitate the adoption of global policies in local contexts? In other words, how can a strong presence of intermediaries contribute to the system-level advancement of the region when it comes to the adoption of the SDGs?

With our work, we intend to contribute to two streams of literature. Firstly, to the literature about the adoption of global policies on a voluntary basis. Since global policies usually do not include traditional ‘hard’ regulations by authorities and international organizations (Stone 2008), they face implementation challenges in local contexts. Therefore, ‘in the absence of enforcement capabilities and use of sanctions, non-compliance remains high’ (Stone 2008, 16). Secondly, we intend to unpack the role of IOs in the translation of global policies to local level, in particular in the realm of higher education. We presume that intermediaries, along with the state, market actors and international organizations, might be a partial solution to the challenges posed by new ways of policymaking that involve soft authority (Stone 2008). We intend to expand the literature that calls for the general acknowledgement of analysis of governance processes beyond the top-down (Moss 2009) or bottom-up paradigms, thus following hybrid approach (Elmore 1985; Sabatier 1986). By seeing the process of governance as multi-level and multi-actor forms of coordination (Vukasovic et al. 2018), we aim to unpack the new realities of higher education governance when it comes to global policies, such as the SDGs.

1. Context: the SDGs in higher education

The 17 SDGs constitute a global policy framework approved by all 193 United Nations member states in 2015 (UN 2015). These goals touch upon almost every area of human existence, from poverty reduction to ocean protection. However, the goals have a wide-ranging scope, which, along with their complexity and abstract, non-coercive nature, makes their implementation challenging (Biermann, Kanie, and Kim 2017; Easterly 2015).

As with many global policies, the SDGs have faced various criticisms. Firstly, this ambitious and managerial-like framework includes 169 targets and 232 indicators (UN 2015). This perspective might suffer from a lack of context-sensitive analysis, since the numbers and statistical analyses are not always the true and only signs of sustainable development. Furthermore, the framework does not include any coercive mechanisms, which evokes the danger of cherry picking or ‘window dressing’. Window dressing is a process in which policies do not necessarily translate into practice, as ‘external pressures for social performance encourage easily decoupled processes’, thus creating an illusion of progress (Weaver et al. 1999, 539). IOs present a potential solution to avoid window dressing, as their involvement can be decisive for capacity building. IOs can build capacity by providing external expertise, which is not biased by internal organizational factors and helps to promote transparency. Furthermore, by ‘facilitating the flows of knowledge, linking actors, forming ties across different scales, and supporting visioning and strategic planning’ (Sundqvist and Tuominen 2023, 1), intermediaries support transformative capacity building, which aims to ‘create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social (including political) conditions make the existing system untenable’ (Walker et al. 2004, 4).

Overall, the SDGs potentially empower HEIs and give them a role in the global sustainable development, thus enabling them to transcend their conventional role as educators and knowledge creators. It is important to note that the SDGs and the UN do not directly mandate or bolster HEIs into action. To understand how universities get engaged with the SDGs, we propose to study the involvement of intermediaries as key facilitators of the translation of the SDGs to local level.

2. Conceptual and theoretical underpinnings

2.1. Concept: value and types of IOs

Even though the term intermediary is used in a variety of research projects and reports, there is no clear conceptual agreement on its meaning. Intermediaries are known to perform various functions. According to Bullock and Lavis (2019, 2) they include

educating and stimulating interest in a policy or programme; assessing evidence and a policy or programme’s fit or feasibility in a certain context; linking knowledge generators and policy or programme developers with service deliverers; ensuring effective implementation and fidelity systems are developed and maintained; building capacity to implement … 

Frequently referred to as knowledge brokers, boundary organizations, or interest groups intermediaries aim to influence policy process via their info channels (Guston 1999; Hammond 2019). Although boundary organizations promote the sharing of information, their primary emphasis is on bridging the gap between policy and science (Guston 2001). Knowledge brokers may include a broader range of roles and actors in disseminating knowledge, yet these may not necessarily focus on policy influence as their primary goal (Meyer 2010).

The concept of intermediary organizations is also broader than interest groups. According to Beyers, Eising, and Maloney (2008), ‘interest groups’ should fulfill three requirements: some sort of organization, the aim of ‘influencing political decision-making’ and not competing in elections (informality), to what Klüver adds a fourth requirement: to ‘rely on constituents for their survival’; that is, on agents (be them citizens, companies or institutions) that ‘share a common policy objective and provide resources to interest groups’ (Klüver 2020, 1438–1439). This characterization of interest groups prefigures competing interests in a given organizational field; interest groups promote the interest of some political actors within a field that may not be compatible or shared with other actors in that field (e.g. trade unions and employers’ associations). Klüver and Pickup (2019) conceive interest groups as ‘organizations that represent the policy preferences of their constituents, vis-à-vis policy makers’, and they give trade unions as an example (95). Intermediary organizations have a broader sense of intermediation, not so conflictual. In the words of Bullock and Lavis (2019), they are ‘organisations or programmes that work between policy-makers and service providers to facilitate effective implementation of evidence-informed policies, programmes and practices’ (Bullock and Lavis 2019, 1). The sense of conflict between different political agents for scarce resources or incompatible policy outcomes is not so salient here. Overall, the primary function of intermediary organizations is to mediate, whereas the primary function of the interest groups is to represent.

One of the challenges of defining and identifying intermediaries is that their boundaries could easily invade the realms or limits of the agents (agencies) they are trying to intermediate between. Thus, there may be intermediaries that are partially participated by government (they have government representatives in their board of government) or, as in our case, intermediaries that are participated by the representatives of HEIs. We presume that this hybridity and multi-actor collaboration helps to communicate policy goals more efficiently across multiple areas, owing to their embeddedness in the local context and access to insider knowledge. It is essential to recognize that IOs do not constitute a monolithic category. Instead, they span a spectrum, ranging from the formal and frequently close to government agencies with a policy-oriented mandate to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that contribute to policy discussions but may not have a direct policy influence objective. Acknowledging this diversity is critical for a comprehensive understanding of IOs. A line can be drawn from government to individual universities. IOs can be placed along this line. Table 1 provides a short summary of the types of IOs depending on their proximity to the government.

Table 1. Types of intermediary organizations according to their proximity to the government.

High Proximity	Medium Proximity	Low Proximity
IOs with high proximity can be initiated by the government, or partially funded by it. They are involved in shaping policy processes and often have a formal mandate. They frequently interact with the government and have their objectives closely connected to the governmental.	IOs with medium proximity often act as bridges between the government and various stakeholders, thus initiating collaboration. These could be consultancies, advisory projects or other types of interaction. Even though the focus of these organizations is not necessarily connected to the government, they are closely related in their main agenda.	These organizations have minimal direct involvement with government in their activities. They function independently and do not focus their efforts on implementing governmental agenda. Their interactions with the governmental agencies are not regular.

In terms of the fields of their activity, IOs are found in numerous policy areas, including technology and innovation, health, or environmental protection. They are frequently mentioned in the context of sustainability transition policies (Wieczorek & Hekkert 2012; Kivimaa et al. 2019). Many studies recognize the importance of intermediaries as linking actors that are able to create ‘a momentum for change … new collaborations and disrupt prevailing socio-technical configurations’ (Kivimaa et al. 2019; Parag and Janda 2014). In the area of higher education, examples of IOs are wide-ranging: university networks, think tanks, academic associations, quality-assurance institutions, ranking agencies, and associations of students or university representatives (Sahlin et al. 2015).

Overall, IOs stand out from other entities due to their inherent intermediation processes, whether it is top-down or vice versa. This mediating function sets them apart from other organizations, like HEIs or governmental agencies, whose role is not primarily perceived as middle actors. Further, intermediaries frequently initiate collaborative initiatives, such as working groups, meetings and various networking opportunities. In this way, they are able to facilitate collaboration among a diverse range of stakeholders.

2.2. Theoretical reference

For decades policy-making literature was centered on bottom-up or top-down perspectives. IOs have rarely been presented as bridges between these two approaches; that is, as a potential focus of policy transformation. One way to look at IOs, is to view them as the catalysts that activate the global policy-making processes at local level (Bushouse and Mosley 2018). Despite their active role as providers of new resources, such as knowledge, social ties and administrative infrastructure, intermediaries ‘appeared in the background’ (Honig 2004, 65–66). What needs to be acknowledged is that HEIs are not isolated entities, as they are interconnected to a wide range of stakeholders and participate in multiple policy processes. In such a complex, non-linear network system the role of intermediaries has become more salient (Frandsen and Johansen 2015). IOs have often been treated as channels in the top-down or bottom-up policy approaches, but not as main drivers of policy change. In the particular case of a global policy like the SDGs, a successful outcome may be less likely to happen if the policy approach is, strictly speaking, top-down (imposed by HE authorities) or generated by some universities by themselves and diffused without any resort to IOs. In sum, intermediary organizations may have not received sufficiently central attention in more traditional accounts of policy making.

A general theory of intermediaries is ‘a theory of the actors whose primary function or mission is to mediate; that is, to represent and/or to intervene, in different ways and with different outcomes, in the relationship between a focal organization and its stakeholders’ (Frandsen and Johansen 2015, 254). Unlike the stakeholder theory which considers stakeholder–organization relationship as dyadic, general theory of intermediaries considers the presence of multiple actors (Friedman and Miles 2006). Similarly, Bressers and O’Toole Jr (1998) viewed policy process as a part of the complex interactions within policy networks. Defined as ‘a cluster of actors, each of which has an interest, or “stake” in a given policy sector and the capacity to help determine policy success or failure’ (Peterson and Bomberg 1999, 8), policy networks may be loosely structured but still not able to engage in collective action (Peterson 2003). Here come intermediary organizations, whose function is to facilitate collective action within policy networks. In the case of higher education, networks are constituted by multiple actors, such as governmental agencies, HEIs and a wide range of stakeholders. IOs are a part of this ecosystem, who are placed within networks and aim to facilitate connections within. Bressers and O’Toole (1998) referred to two main dimensions of policy networks, namely cohesion and interconnectedness. The former refers to ‘the contacts in the relevant policy formation process … and also the relationships between these actors outside the actual policy process at any particular time’ (1998, 219). The latter is ‘the extent to which individuals, groups, and organizations empathise with each other’s objectives’ (1998, 219). These two features are closely related to the selection of tools in policy process, since when ‘strong cohesion is combined with weak interconnectedness, it is sometimes necessary to set up intermediary structures’ (1998, 229). In our case, this refers to the contextual conditions, which implied shared ideas for the need of sustainable development policies and a lack of interconnectedness between Catalan HEIs in this respect. This situation resulted in the active involvement of IOs that later helped to improve interconnectedness within the Catalan higher education policy networks.

As it is expected from the general theory of intermediaries, one of the functions of IOs is to correct information imbalances between parties. By doing so, they contribute to the reduction of transaction costs. For example, an IO can help to improve communication between the parties and reduce costs that are associated with partner search, setting up the agenda and negotiating. Another contribution that IOs can provide is establishing trust between the engaged parties, which is necessary for further collaboration.

Through the lens of neo-institutional theories, intermediaries can be seen as actors encouraging a certain degree of isomorphism via the platforms they offer. One of the ways IOs act as catalysts of global policy-making in local scenarios is by developing networks between HEIs. These networks facilitate the transmission of values, norms and information across a given organizational field.

Depending on the situational context, isomorphism can be coercive, mimetic or normative (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Coercive isomorphism is rooted in social responsibility pressures, governmental influence or striving for legitimacy. This type of isomorphism is often associated with governmental agencies. Mimetic isomorphism comes from the fact that institutions tend to model their strategies based on the ‘success stories’ that they find in their organizational field. By providing a platform for collaboration, intermediaries act as capacity builders that initiate learning about advancements from other organizations. Moreover, the presence of individuals working across multiple organizations or transitioning between them can also lead to mimetic isomorphism. The third type of isomorphism, namely normative, comes from the notion of professionalization. Normative isomorphism is defined as ‘the collective struggle of members of an occupation to define the conditions and methods of their work … to establish a cognitive base and legitimation for their occupational autonomy’ (DiMaggio and Powell 1983, 152).

While these three types of isomorphism are not mutually exclusive, IOs are unlikely to be drivers of coercive isomorphism, given their limited capacity to exert coercion. Nonetheless, they may drive mimetic or normative isomorphism. We can presume that IOs have an opportunity to effectively promote implementation of sustainability policies among HEIs by providing relevant information and resources. In this way, mimetic isomorphism can be stimulated by IOs, because these can constitute platforms where mutual learning can be enhanced. In some contexts, having people working for several organizations because of job rotation or job sharing can also encourage mimetic isomorphism. IOs can spread information about successful practices that can encourage HEIs to adopt similar approaches, thereby fostering mimetic isomorphism. Furthermore, by providing fora where different higher education institutions meet and where values and norms are transmitted, intermediaries can encourage the development of shared norms in regard to sustainability, thus leading to normative isomorphism. Mimetic and normative isomorphism, in turn, guarantee that the global policy is spread across the local policy field.

However, not all intermediaries are the same and have similar agenda. Depending on their proximity to the government, they may exercise different kinds of influence. The further away IOs are from the government, the more they refer to the tools of mimetic or normative isomorphism.

Table 2 provides a framework for understanding the relationship between the isomorphism types and the proximity of IOs to the government, but it is also important to consider the context of each IO to understand the extent to which they initiate isomorphic pressures.

Table 2. Types of isomorphism depending on the proximity to the government.

Types of Isomorphism
IOs by Proximity to the Government	Coercive	Normative	Mimetic
High Proximity	likely	likely	unlikely
Medium Proximity	unlikely	likely	likely
Low Proximity	unlikely	likely	very likely

3. Case selection: Catalan higher education system and the SDGs

In order to answer how having strong intermediary organizations can contribute to the system-level advancement of the region when it comes to the adoption of the SDGs, we selected the Catalan system of higher education as a case study. With a population of 7.5 million inhabitants, Catalonia is one of the most developed Autonomous Communities within Spain when it comes to higher education. In 2020 there were around 208,000 students enrolled and 1270 different degree programs offered in the 12 Catalan universities (Gencat 2020). The capital Barcelona hosts 8 out of 12 Catalan public universities. In general, Catalan and Spanish university systems are based on the autonomy of individual HEIs, which can also lead to an increase in accountability in broader societal terms (Fumasoli, Gornitzka, and Maassen 2014). As it has also happened globally, the quest for legitimation, together with external societal pressures, such as stakeholder expectations, within Catalan, national and global arenas, pushed local universities to go beyond traditional roles of teaching and knowledge production and to work with wider societal questions, such as sustainability. The Catalan system of higher education looks also suitable for the study of the role of IOs in translation of global policies to local level because, unlike other organizational fields possibly more dominated by interest groups with conflictual interests, the presence of public universities is still overwhelming; there are relatively few private universities.

Catalan higher education progress in terms of the translation of the SDGs to local level is rooted in its already available institutional mechanisms and practices. For instance, universities in Catalonia have been collaborating among themselves since the early 90s (Catalan University Quality Assurance Agency, AQU, Interview 1, 25.02.2022), mostly regarding admission policies. Back then, the Catalan government decided to build a centralized regional system for that matter, which resulted in deeper inter-institutional collaborations over the years. From the governmental side, Advisory Council for the Sustainable Development of Catalonia (CADS) was created back in 1998. This council is not primarily focused on higher education, as it works in the broader areas of sustainable development in the region and one of its numerous functions is ‘to encourage the transfer of knowledge between the government, the academic world and civil society in the field of sustainable development’ (Gencat 2016, 2).

In terms of involvement with the SDGs, Catalan university system exhibits several characteristics. Firstly, there is a clear systematic effort when it comes to the SDGs. A proof of that is the existence of the official Action Plan for the Catalan University System initiated by Inter-university Council of Catalonia (the CIC) 2030 Agenda Group. The Action Plan includes several areas of implementation, among which are governance, teaching and learning, research and technology and knowledge transfer, commitment to society and commitment to environmental protection (Action Plan for the Catalan University System 2021). This plan is inspired by the SDGs and follows some of their main ideas as its core.

Overall, the SDGs are present across the Catalan higher education landscape, which is also showcased on the official website of the SDGs initiative of the Catalan Association of Public Universities (the ACUP) (https://ods.cat/en/). Even though the website cannot be regarded as a full representation of the regional effort to work with the SDGs, it serves as evidence of broader involvement and advancement within this global policy framework. This involvement is a proof of systematic efforts that are documented for the wider audience.

In addition, many Catalan universities, like numerous HEIs worldwide, publish extensive SDG-reports or summaries, which are accessible online (examples are Universitat Rovira i Virgili 2021; University of Barcelona 2020). Another way of demonstrating working with the sustainable development can be a summary of all research activities that are related to the SDGs. For example, Universitat Pompeu Fabra published their survey regarding the goals (UPF 2020). It is an exhaustive overview of all the research groups that contribute to the SDGs, accounting for 73% of the university’s total research output. However, it is worth noting the potential concern of retroactively labeling pre-existing projects with the SDGs or aligning ongoing research with these goals, which could misrepresent a real research impact in the area of sustainable development.

Moreover, Catalan universities are active in the SDGs-related Times Higher Education Impact Ranking. Although the nature of the rankings is widely disputed in the academic literature¹ (Altbach 2015; Brankovic, Ringel, and Werron 2018), participating in the ranking that evaluates the SDGs adoption already signals interest in this global policy framework and their readiness to be transparent in their sustainability actions. In fact, it is a resource-intensive activity for an HEI, as it demands significant bureaucratic effort, incurring both personal and financial costs. In 2021, 7 Catalan universities participated voluntarily in the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings 2021 by The World University Rankings (Times Higher Education 2021). This could have offered a framework for universities to assess their performance, and perhaps to look at the gaps in the development of a specific local policy for the introduction of the SDGs. Further, sustainability rankings can provide more voice to universities not only in terms of their research and teaching performance, but also to their social responsibility commitments. This might have even been an advantage for Catalan universities, which aimed for Spanish and international recognition (CADS, Interview 1, 06.03.2022).

Furthermore, reports by the Global University Network for Innovation (the GUNI) suggest that the overall attention to the SDGs has been peaking in the last few years (the GUNI 2022). Even though the network is concerned with the SDG situation on a global scale, having such an institution in a relative proximity to Catalan universities can bring about numerous opportunities. For example, the GUNI frequently hosts international conferences, which can be valuable platforms for universities to exchange knowledge and best practices. One of the latest events of global importance was UNESCO World Higher Education Conference held on 18–20 May 2022.

According to the International Association of Universities (IAU), which released the 2nd Global Survey Report on Higher Education and Research for Sustainable Development in 2019, Catalonia has been actively involved with the SDGs already back in 2019. At the time of the survey, five Catalan HEIs already had a strategic plan related to the introduction of the SDGs and three others were in the process of organizing their policies around the SDGs, out of a total of 17 public universities in Catalonia (IAU 2019, 6). This fact already placed Catalonia above the EU average, since only 32% of the universities in Europe owned similar strategic SDG-plans on the level of the whole institution (IAU 2019, 35). At the same time, it is not clear why this advancement relative to other regions in Europe has taken place and in what way. We hypothesize that Catalan intermediaries played a vital role in the critical engagement, which is to be unpacked in the next parts of the paper.

4. Research design and data collection

To address our research question, we use a process-tracing method. Process-tracing is defined as ‘a research method for tracing causal mechanisms using detailed, within-case empirical analysis of how a causal process plays out in an actual case’ (Beach 2017). This method allows us to unpack the main mechanisms leading to the eventual delegation of some of the policy functions to IOs, thus resulting in soft coercion and system-level adoption of the SDGs in Catalan higher education. Therefore, IOs transform into actors that do not have full decision-making power in the policy processes but have a significant influence or involvement in shaping policies. In this way, IOs may act as catalysts of policy-making, but leaving the implementation of the policies to the individual universities.

We scrutinize the catalytic processes within the Catalan higher education system, emphasizing the system-level mechanisms where entities engage in transformative activities (Beach 2017). These are generators of change and can be logically interconnected. Our methodological approach employed abductive reasoning, which combined theorization and empirical observations, focusing on the single case of Catalonia. In our case, we do not make a certain conclusion, but provide a tentative explanation of the advancement of Catalonia with the help of the IOs.

The causal mechanism we explore has several parts that link Cause X (the very beginning of the SDGs, marked by Spain’s approval of the goals back in 2015 and the interest of Catalan HEIs to contribute to these goals) and Outcome Y (IOs transformation towards soft coercion and the sustained integration of the SDGs at the regional level). The mechanisms leading to an outcome will be described in the subsequent parts of the paper.

Notably, this causal process was developed using abductive reasoning, which implies its refinement after the interviews in the field and continuous improvement. A limitation of this approach is that it mostly focuses on the IOs, potentially overlooking alternative explanations; in particular, the potential role of the government or the agents at the bottom of the field. While this paper centers on the role of IOs in advancing sustainable development, we acknowledge a possibility of further additional causal streams that may have led to the advancement of the Catalan higher education system.

In our research, we refer to theoretical underpinnings that are based on institutional theories and intermediary theory, which we juxtapose with empirical observations from the Catalan higher education context. Based on Beach’s two-stage evidence evaluation framework for turning empirical evidence into evidence of mechanisms (Beach 2014), we assessed the data that we obtained from the interviews and content analysis of the open access sources based on the two criteria: (a) the presence/absence of empirical references, (b) analytical evaluation of the trustworthiness of the source. In the following part, we explain our data collection process.

On the basis of document analysis of the governmental and university websites, in-person consultations with the experts on the Catalan higher education system and insider knowledge of higher education sector employees, we identified four main intermediary actors in Catalan higher education (Table 3). During the exploratory phase of our research, we systematically examined the network of organizations influencing the Catalan higher education policy landscape. This led to the identification of four key IOs that played intermediary roles between the Catalan HEIs and the government, catalyzing the exchanges regarding the SDGs. Four IOs were identified on the basis of exploratory expert interviews and several conversations with various representatives of Catalan higher education, such as academics, university administrators and students. Once the key IOs were identified, we proceeded with the identification of potential interviewees, whose selection was guided by our initial research and was further validated by the expert recommendations within the Catalan higher education system.

Table 3. Main intermediary actors.

IO	Scale	Type of organization^3	Proximity to the government	Funding	Number of employees	Year of establishment	The SDGS are main priority	Members
The GUNI	global	University network Cluster organization	Low	Private/ by UNESCO and the Catalan Association of Public Universities (The ACUP)	9	1999	Yes	291 members from 87 countries. The members include higher education institutions, UNESCO Chairs and research centers.
The ACUP	local	Association of public universities	Medium	Private	9	2002	No	Universitat de Barcelona (UB), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Universitat de Girona (UdG), Universitat de Lleida (UdL), Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV) and Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC)
AQU	local	Quality assurance Efficiency agency	High	Public	53	1996	No	Accredited universities in Catalonia
The CIC	local	Cluster organization	Medium	Voluntary basis participation	Voluntary employment	2019	Yes	12 Catalan universities (also 4 private), representatives from the student community, AQU Agency for Management of University and Research Grants (AGAUR), the CERCA Institute, the ACUP and the Secretariat General of the CIC

To assess the robustness of the networks fostered with the help of the IOs, we took into consideration several factors, such as the frequency and regularity of interactions between the IOs and the Catalan HEIs, as well as their duration and the thematic relevance of such interactions. Regarding the measurement of the success of collaboration, we acknowledged the achievement of pre-defined goals within IO-initiated initiatives and the extent to which agreed-upon outcomes are met by all parties. The trust mechanisms included the perceptions of trust that were asked in the interviews, as well as their past collaboration activities and their outcomes.

Table 3 describes the IOs identified in terms of their major characteristics, such as their scale of outreach, type, proximity to the government, funding basis, size, age, presence/absence of sustainable development discourse and their main members. In our case, AQU, a governmental agency, is close to the Catalan government. The GUNI and the rest of the IOs can be placed closer to individual universities, since they are participated by them and not by the government.

The evidence for the causal mechanism (Figure 1) was collected from analysis of public statements and reports of the universities and the IOs. In turn, the analysis of these documents was used for collecting the evidence for the future steps, namely, 17 semi-structured interviews with representatives from the Catalan higher education system (selected IOs and individual HEIs, which were mostly university professors, administrators and a student representative). These interviews lasted approximately 90–120 min. The respondents were approached by email and the interviews were conducted either in person or online. Prospective interviewees were provided with information regarding the main areas of the interviews in advance. Questions that were proposed to the interviewees can be found in Appendix. Notably, the interviews were customized to the roles and well as years that interviewees had been in charge in their positions within their respective organizations. Given the semi-structured nature of the interviews, our questionnaire was enriched by ad hoc questions that were added as follow-ups to the statements of the interviewees.

Figure 1. Causal mechanism.

The respondents were selected based on purposeful sampling, which relies on interviewing individuals who are more likely to provide information that is necessary to answer the research question (Creswell and Poth 2016). Therefore, we considered selecting interviewees with ‘insider knowledge’ (Creswell and Poth 2016), whom we identified from the public statements of the universities, available documents from the Catalan government and university networks and the recommendations of the participants. Table 4 presents additional details regarding the data gathered via interviews.

Table 4. Data collection.

Organization	Interviewees	Documents of analysis
AQU	Head of Internationalization and Knowledge Generation Department Project coordinator	Webpages Standards and Criteria for the Institutional Accreditation of University Centres Internal presentations Newsletter Corporate social responsibility report
The CIC working group (the 2030 Agenda Woking Group)	Coordinator The CIC founder The CIC representative Student representative	Webpages 2nd Global Survey on Higher Education and Research for Sustainable Development Action Plan for the Catalan University System
The GUNI	Director Project officer	Webpages Conference presentations Reports on the SDGs Open access publications Newsletter
The ACUP	Project Officer Executive Secretary	Webpages Internal notes Declaration ‘The commitment of Catalan universities with the Sustainable Development Goals: towards a transformative education for a new world’ Information portal showcasing the examples of the SDGs in Catalan higher education.

Apart from interviewing representatives of four intermediaries, we conducted interviews with the representatives of Catalan universities (administrators, academics and a student representative), the Catalan government (head of the Inter-university Council of Catalonia, Secretary General of Foreign Affairs), the Spanish Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation, ANECA (Team of Titles and Institutions officer, responsible for the SDGs). The interviews covered questions related to the history of the SDGs in the Catalan higher education context, main actors that contributed to its advancement and plans, roles and main activities of the selected intermediaries, incentives/coercive mechanisms of policy change, evaluative tools and challenges (Questions are available in Appendix).

5. Intermediary organizations: causal mechanisms

5.1. Context prior to the SDGs

Prior to the introduction of the SDGs, Catalan IOs’ presence shaped higher education in multiple ways. The Catalan University Quality Assurance Agency, AQU, founded in 1996, was the first quality assurance agency in Spain. AQU is an external review organization linked to the Catalan government, even though it is autonomous in its actions. By gaining its legitimacy through a direct relation to the government and international quality assurance agencies, AQU has gained authority to push universities to be accountable in terms of social responsibility.

Beyond the focus on sustainable development, since 2015, AQU has a regulatory mandate regarding gender equity in Catalan higher education, a mandate that is also enshrined in Catalan law. AQU is dedicated to ensuring the integration of a gender mainstreaming perspective within Catalan universities. The agency aligns the main points of the SDGs regarding gender mainstreaming with its responsibilities in the region. For example, the organization conducts three yearly surveys targeting recent graduates, and gender equality is one of the main points of the survey. The existence of a social responsibility mandate concerning gender prior to the SDGs proves that Catalonia has long had strong institutional foundations in place.

Another IO is the Inter-university Council of Catalonia (the CIC). Created in 1977, it is the oldest IO in the region serving as a mediator between the Catalan government and universities. Its three main functions include admissions management, assessment and internationalization. Apart from that, it integrates all public and private HEIs in Catalonia and provides a regular platform for collaboration.

The Catalan Association of Public Universities (the ACUP) is a third intermediary organization that supports Catalan public universities by offering a collaborative platform. Since its creation, the ACUP has played a key role in promoting social responsibility within Catalan higher education, as it was also followed by the Catalan government in its initiatives. The governmental institutions, on the other hand, were more concerned about core functions of higher education, such as the admission process, funding, equal access, etc. Consequently, the ACUP could fill the gap regarding social responsibility questions, like the SDGs.

A fourth and final IO is a university network, Global University Network for Innovation, (the GUNI), a global think tank based in Barcelona. It is currently constituted by 268 HEIs from 85 countries (the GUNI 2022). Created in 1999 after the first UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education in 1999, this network was the result of a joint initiative by the ACUP and UNESCO, which helped the GUNI to gain legitimacy in local and international contexts. By being embedded in both Catalan and global higher education landscapes, the GUNI has served as a mediator and policy diffusion agent in the region.

What is very notable about Catalan intermediaries’ context is its highly networked structure. Most employees of these intermediaries either have a close contact with other IOs or even share positions in several of them. As it was mentioned in one of the interviews, highly networked structures of Catalan higher education, together with the interest of its main actors, provided an initial interest in the SDGs:

It is thanks to the motivation of people involved in the higher education scene of Catalonia, we could reach the current level of awareness with the questions of social responsibility and sustainability. We work closely together, and the network of people is well connected (AQU, Interview 1, 25.02.2022)

In most cases, the IOs are formed by ‘people of recognised prestige in the academic world’ (CADS, Interview 1, 06.03.2022). This raises the legitimacy of IOs in the higher education sector, and adds to the trust levels, as their employees are already well-known in Catalan higher education context.

5.2. The introduction of the SDGs: window of opportunity for Catalan higher education

Spain approved the SDGs in September 2015 alongside 192 other nations. For higher education sector, this commitment meant new opportunities, but also presented potential challenges of collaboration and coordination. Spanish higher education sector relies on the autonomy of HEIs; that is, on a principle of self-government and administration and the ability of the university to generate its own statutes. In fact, there is little centralized pressure from the central authorities. However, the SDGs are built on the notion of collaboration, which in the case of Catalan higher education, was facilitated by the IOs.

One of the biggest collaborative events at the national level happened at the meeting of CRUE (Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities) held in Madrid on 29.05.2018. The meeting was dedicated to the SDGs and the agreement to pursue 2018–2020 Action Plan. The CRUE meeting sparked interest in collaboration among Catalan universities, culminating it the foundation of a special intermediary organization dedicated to the promotion of the SDGs, the CIC 2030 working group (the CIC, Interview 1, 07.03.2022).

As it was mentioned in the interview with the CIC representative (the CIC, Interview 1, 07.03.2022), organizing events at the Spanish level poses significant challenges in terms of planning and budget, and therefore regional cooperation is a more favorable option (the CIC, Interview 1, 07.03.2022). Moreover, Catalonia already had a strong pre-existing embeddedness of the IOs in their higher education system and there were already collaborative mechanisms in place. As mentioned in the interview with a representative of the ACUP (Interview 1, 30.01.2022): ‘Collaboration is not a new aspect for Catalan universities, and we have witnessed it since the early nineties, when Catalan universities started working together on admission policies’.

At the same time, the SDGs were seen as a vehicle for claiming the legitimacy for HEIs in the area of social responsibility; a tool for inter-university collaboration; and an international representation of Catalonia, since the SDGs are currently at the center of attention for numerous university networks, EU funding and collaborative research projects (the GUNI, Interview 1, 06.04.2022). The goals were perceived as an opportunity for the promotion of Catalan higher education at the international level. Later, Catalan universities also appeared in the SDG-related international ranking, which potentially helped to promote efforts of Catalan HEIs abroad (the GUNI, Interview 1, 06.04.22). In this sense, the introduction of the SDGs on the regional level brings the idea of diplomacy in higher education, making Catalan higher education ‘an ideal vehicle for soft power’ (Peterson 2014). Understood as a two-way process, knowledge diplomacy refers to higher education actors influencing international relations and vice versa (Knight 2020). Utilizing higher education as a soft diplomacy tool can promote Catalonia internationally, fostering connections with other regions and enhancing academic exchange. In the case of certain universities, like Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), participation in international university networks has facilitated further interest in the SDGs:

Having the SDGs is both voluntary and coercive, since no funding nowadays goes without social responsibility elements … The university is a part of many networks. EUTOPIA is one of them and the SDGs are in its focus, therefore also international actors influence the implementation of the SDGs. (UPF, Interview 1, 06.02.2022)

5.3. Mobilization and collaboration of Catalan intermediaries

5.3.1. Creation and activities of the CIC 2030 working group

Created in February 2019, the CIC working group acts as an intermediary between 8 public, 4 private universities and a wider range of stakeholders, including the IOs. Currently, the working group operates voluntarily and has an advisory function. Our key informant from the CIC claimed that there is no other systemic coordination group in any other Spanish region that aims to accelerate the incorporation of the SDGs in higher education, and ‘other regional representatives in Spain frequently contact the CIC to know more about their way of implementing the SDGs’ (the CIC, Interview 2, 03.06.2022). The information about the uniqueness of the group was also confirmed by the representative of Spanish quality assurance agency, ANECA (27.06.2022).

Created as a collaborative space for peer-learning and sustainability discussions, the establishment of the CIC Working Group was influenced by a variety of factors:

There were several reasons behind starting a working group, among which there was some kind of a crisis of legitimacy of universities, high interest to network and the confluence of stakeholders at the meeting of CRUE. Coming back to the coordination on the level of Spain: there was an effort, when all relevant stakeholders were gathered and the main priorities were identified. Coordinating on a level of the region is easier. (the CIC, Interview 1, 07.03.2022)

The activities of the CIC working group commenced with their collaboration with the International Association of Universities, in order to clarify the position of Catalan universities regarding the SDGs. The working group analyzed the answers of 12 public universities to the 2nd Global Survey on Higher Education and Research for Sustainable Development (IAU 2nd Global Survey Report 2020). This helped to set the foundation for the next step, which was the creation of Action Plan for the Catalan University System. Approved by the Catalan government, the IOs and Catalan HEIs, the plan encompasses a variety of domains, including, strategy and governance, education and teaching, research and knowledge transfer, social engagement and campus initiatives (Action Plan for the Catalan university system 2021). The action plan advocates for a synergistic approach, calling for collective action.

In an interview with the representative of the working group, it was mentioned that the Open University of Catalonia was one of the first to raise the question of the SDGs back in 2017, and their ‘example was later brought in the meetings and followed by several other HEIs in Catalonia’ (the CIC, Interview 1, 07.03.2022). In addition to HEIs, the working group also collaborates with other intermediaries, including the ACUP and AQU, to advance the SDGs. This robust network allows more information exchange, potentially leading to the transmission of norms and ideas. Later, the Catalan government started officially supporting the activities of the working group, but without direcly promoting or funding it. As stated in the interview with the representative of the working group: ‘The CIC was not directly promoted but praised for its efforts in the implementation of the SDGs’ (the CIC, Interview 1, 07.03.2022).

One of the central missions of the CIC is to enact systematic change in alignment with Agenda 2030. The working group is aware of the risk of superficial compliance (window dressing) and they proactively counter it by regular meetings and in-person informal interactions within and beyond their formal meetings. One of our informants stated:

Universities have the resources for the implementation of the SDGs, and they are free to decide whether or not to use them. It is our task to persuade the top management to change their mind and include the SDGs into their main agenda. We do not ask for a lipstick service or one-day events that do not make any substantial difference; we do want a systemic change that will allow us to feel the presence of the SDGs even after their term comes to an end. (the CIC, Interview 2, 03.06.2022)

Even though the specific measurement instruments for assessing systematic change were not mentioned in detail, the CIC working group was developing these at the moment of the interview. Furthermore, the CIC working group aims to cultivate a learning environment across the Catalan higher education landscape that stimulates the exchange of experiences, including both negative and positive.

5.3.2. AQU (The Catalan University Quality Assurance Agency)

As a quality assurance agency, AQU views the SDGs from two angles: as a policy framework that is important for their own institution, and as a framework that AQU itself aims to promote among Catalan HEIs. The main activity of AQU is associated with Goal 4, namely Quality Education. Additional areas of expertise of AQU are ‘governance, employment-related questions, creating alliances and working with external societal stakeholders’ (AQU, Interview 1, 25.02.2022). In relation to these main areas, AQU defines its most relevant goals, which are: Quality Education; Gender Quality Education; Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions; Reduced Inequalities; Decent Work and Economic Growth; Partnerships for the Goals. AQU has also published its Summary of the AQU Catalunya Annual Activities and Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2021 (2022), which is structured around the SDGs. However, the link between the SDGs and the activities is not clearly explained and someone unfamiliar with the SDGs might not understand their importance in the context of the report.

It is important to note that AQU has a longstanding commitment to social responsibility, mostly in the area of gender equality: ‘Gender mainstreaming in higher education is a regulatory mandate in Catalonia’ (AQU, Interview 1, 25.02.2022). Gender equality, being an integral part of the SDGs, facilitates the alignment of the previous efforts and the SDGs discourse. The latter is considered to be not only a framework, but also ‘a new way to work in general, [because] as a society, we are asking for it’ (AQU, Interview 1, 25.02.2022). Apart from the personal agency and general societal pressure, the representative of AQU commented that ‘it is the international agenda that is really pushing this subject’ (AQU, Interview 1, 25.02.2022), perhaps adding to the international competitiveness of Catalan universities and allowing them to act as knowledge diplomats of the region.

So far, there is no official standard created by AQU to formally assess the implementation of the SDGs by individual HEIs, but there is a document published in 2021, called ‘Standards and Criteria for the Institutional Accreditation of University Centres’, one of whose key points is the inclusion of sustainable development into its main agenda, which has never been done before. According to the information gathered from the AQU representatives, Catalonia will be the first region in Spain when it comes to a compulsory sustainable development assessment. This is a potential example of coercive isomorphism, which pushes universities in Catalonia to meet the standards of sustainable development and to act in certain ways that the SDGs dictate (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). This represents not only a shift in the attitude towards the SDGs, but also the potential for future institutionalization of sustainable development in the region. However, compulsory inclusion might also endanger in-depth implementation. Imposing sustainable development as a requirement might push universities to engage in window dressing, namely to find ways of ticking the boxes without enacting specific in-depth policy changes. On the other hand, the compulsory implementation for accreditation comes only after a pre-established long-term collaboration, meaning all HEIs would have already embraced it, thereby potentially minimizing the resistance to change.

5.3.3. The GUNI (Global University Network for Innovation)

Established in 1999, following the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education, the GUNI was the result of a joint initiative between the Catalan Association of Public Universities (the ACUP) and UNESCO, which helped the GUNI to gain legitimacy in local and international contexts. At the moment, one of the central agendas of the GUNI is constituted by the SDGs, as it calls itself ‘a reference institution in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs in higher education’ (the GUNI website 2022). Its main activities include reporting, organizing workshops, seminars and international conferences, facilitating international projects and generating new knowledge.

According to the interview with the GUNI representative (the GUNI, Interview 1, 06.04.22), social responsibility narratives of Catalan universities have deep historic roots, providing a foundation for the SDGs. The implementation of the SDGs is also driven by the reputational benefits for Catalan universities, both locally and globally. The interview did not clearly mention financial incentives, confirming the presumption that there is no institutionalized funding exclusively for sustainability projects.

Since 2016, one of the central priorities of the GUNI is sustainable development, which even pre-dates the creation of the 2030 working group. The organization has a capacity to gather international stakeholders, and therefore fosters a process of mimetic isomorphism between Catalan HEIs, nationally and globally (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Overall, having a global university network that works with the SDGs in Catalonia brings a strategic advantage in terms of the SDGs implementation to the region.

Knowledge dissemination through global networks is a requisite for a region that aims for global recognition in higher education (the GUNI, Interview 1, 06.04.2022). Catalan higher education and the IOs benefit from international conferences and workshops that the GUNI organizes. These conferences constitute a way to promote Catalan universities abroad and, at the same time, to learn from experts and higher education practitioners from other countries, causing certain degrees of mimetic isomorphism across borders. In some ways, events organized by the GUNI exert external normative pressure on Catalan higher education and the IOs, by bringing up the need to learn international best practice SDG-cases, and, later, showcase their own work.

5.3.4. ACUP (The Catalan Association of Public Universities)

Before the creation of the 2030 working group in 2019, the ACUP published a special declaration entitled ‘The Commitment of Catalan Universities with the Sustainable Development Goals: Towards a Transformative Education for a New World’ (ACUP 2017).² The declaration asks for teaching global citizenship, local and global collaboration for the sake of the achievement of the SDGs.

The ACUP has a webpage dedicated to the introduction of the SDGs in the Catalan higher education system, www.ods.cat. This webpage serves as a platform where Catalan universities can share their experience and achievements regarding the SDGs. Being an open-access platform, also available in English, it has become a peer-learning tool among Catalan and international HEIs.

Apart from the very close collaboration with the GUNI, which the ACUP was chairing at the moment of this research, this IO contributes to the attainment of the SDGs through the Territorial Innovation Knowledge Platform (CTI Platform, https://plataformacti.cat). This platform promotes Catalan social and economic development through cooperation between various actors, such as universities, businesses, NGOs and governmental administration. Even though it was created before the SDGs, in 2013, this platform serves as a collaborative space for governmental institutions, civil society organizations, businesses and universities in Catalonia. The SDGs are not the primary goal of the platform, but the activities of CTI correspond to some of the priorities of the SDGs, such as collaborative research, involvement of the wider stakeholder groups, policy learning and networking.

5.4. Local government delegates tasks to intermediaries

Regardless of their funding or closeness to the government, intermediaries were able to represent a neutral position to be considered legitimate by HEIs, since most of the actors that constitute intermediaries come from local higher education sector (Matschoss and Heiskanen 2017). Also, from an administrative point of view, ‘having [IOs] helped universities to improve our communication processes when it comes to the ODS [the SDGs in Spanish]. Thanks to the meetings organized by the working group we can exchange our ideas much faster and easier’ (UPF, Interview 3, 21.02.2022). Perhaps the fact that intermediaries in question include representatives from universities who are in leadership positions helped them to obtain legitimacy and trust in the eyes of universities without additional approval. Further, having a closer network of people allowed better coordination and increased collaboration efforts: ‘It is thanks to the motivation of the people and their activism on sustainable development we have a well-coordinated system’ (UAB, Interview 1, 20.02.2022). Although most intermediaries are connected to the regional government, this connection does not imply the government telling them how to promote the SDGs; on the contrary, the initiative comes from universities and the IOs that help to facilitate such exchanges (Gencat, Interview 1, 07.04.2022). In the context of Catalonia, intermediaries do not have the resources to provide economic incentives for participating universities, but they managed to gain authority without any financial power dynamics, possibly because they are not purely meso-level organizations, but they include internal stakeholders. Notably, funding opportunities did not play a significant role in the effective dissemination of the SDGs among the Catalan HEIs; instead, it was the motivation of the IOs' representatives that largely contributed to its success (UAB, Interview 1, 20.02.2022).

By acknowledging the focal role of the IOs, Catalan government delegated promotion and establishment of sustainable development practices in higher education to them. According to a representative of Catalan government: ‘It is actually in our advantage to have other organizations that promote sustainable development. They have a close connection to universities and help to establish dialogues, and help universities to learn from each other’ (CADS, Interview 1, 06.03.2022). Without direct top-down intervention, HEIs maintained their autonomy and had more opportunities for peer learning and collaboration, provided by the joint platforms organized by the IOs: ‘We learn from other universities in our meetings, since they present their progress’ (CADS, Interview 1, 06.03.2022); and ‘We thought about assessing our sustainability focus in our curriculum for a long time, and our collaborative meetings really helped to re-think our sustainability-related courses’ (UPF, Interview 2, 14.02.2022). This hybrid coordination model proved to be successful in the Catalan case, leading to the absence of resistance to institutional changes from the HEIs and therefore a more smooth and transformative adoption of the SDGs.

5.5. Transformation of intermediaries into actors endowed with policy-making capabilities

Both top-level actors (represented by the government) and bottom-level actors (HEIs) benefitted from the active stance taken by the IOs. From the governmental side, it meant achieving sustainable development in higher education sector with limited funding. For HEIs, it meant more freedom of adoption and more opportunities of peer learning and collaboration. Given the absence of a strong policy-making body when it comes to the SDGs and a simultaneous need of it, the IOs have taken the role of catalysts in the policy making process. Even though most IOs (apart from the 2030 working group) have other areas of interest apart from the SDGs, they managed to collaborate among each other for a more unified agenda (Action Plan for the Catalan University System) and to set up a collaborative space for HEIs in regards of sustainable development. Moreover, coercive isomorphism was de facto absent in this process. Even an organization like AQU, which is very close to the government in its mission and also funding structures, did not exercise a direct mandate to implement the SDGs.

6. Conclusion and policy implications

In this paper, we have analyzed ‘intermediary organizations’ (intermediaries) as key actors in policy innovation regarding the attainment of the SDGs in higher education. In order to study the role of intermediaries in the sustainability advancement of the Catalan higher education system, we interviewed key actors from the IOs based in Catalonia. We also interviewed representatives of local universities and the National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation of Spain, ANECA, in order to avoid any ‘insider bias’.

Our paper makes two contributions to the literature. First, we contribute to the broader debates in public policy literature about IOs and global policy applications. Our evidence shows that intermediaries can have a transformative impact when it comes to the localization of global policies (transformation of design from global to local level), especially in well-established higher education systems, like the Catalan one. By transformative, we imply an increasing flow of communication among the Catalan HEIs thanks to the IOs, a possibility to learn best practices from colleagues at other institutions and a presence of indirect peer pressure (competition, rivalry) that may help more universities to push boundaries towards sustainable development. Secondly, by looking at the advanced SDGs higher education system, we provide tentative evidence that IOs may play a key role in shaping the transmission of global voluntary policies into local higher education contexts.

Our evidence shows that intermediaries do not make decisions on behalf of universities, as their role is to lead, and not to manage. In our case, intermediaries do not have specific well-established funding for the SDGs, which makes the case of Catalonia relevant to voluntary global policy localization. To some extent, this can be relevant for regions that do not have funds for systematic delegation of the SDGs but have a strong presence of networked intermediaries that are embedded in the system for a longer period.

Additionally, we found interaction with global policymaking experts that was crucial for the effectiveness of intermediary organization. For example, the CIC drew their conclusions from the data available from the 2nd Global Survey Report on Higher Education and Research for Sustainable Development. This helped them to establish a solid background for the Action Plan for the Catalan University System. Similarly, regular conferences and expert consultations by the GUNI helped to facilitate policy exchange and encouraged universities to implement SDG-related policies.

Moreover, the evidence we drew from our interviews suggests that intermediaries may be crucial for the creation of networks when it comes to the SDGs. For example, regular meetings held by the ACUP have the value of providing information, facilitating policy learning and stimulating emulation between HEIs. Facilitating exchange might have been a crucial factor that contributes to the advancement of the Catalan higher education system when it comes to the SDGs. This can be also applied to other areas, such as certain quality assurance practices or regulatory frameworks in the areas of admissions, gender equality, or campus sustainability.

We were informed that the intermediaries also contributed to the enhancement of the competitiveness of the region in such ways. Some of them, like the GUNI, AQU and the Catalan government, are interested in the promotion of the Catalan higher education system abroad. The SDGs are a globally recognized policy framework, and its values are shared by universities worldwide. The label of the 17 Global Goals is also used for the purposes of marketing of Catalan universities abroad.

Moreover, we found evidence that the effectiveness of intermediaries in translating global policies to local scenarios depends on the proximity to the government. At the first stage, intermediaries with low and medium proximity to the government showed to be quite effective in promoting collaboration and exchanges that facilitated this translation of the SDGs to local level by normative and mimetic isomorphism. For example, having regular meetings with the universities with clear expectations of them to showcase their progress leads to the establishment of sustainable development norms in the Catalan higher education landscape. At a later stage, the intermediary organization with high proximity (AQU) was already in a good position to begin thinking on additional criteria for the assessment of individual HEIs that were explicitly related to the SDGs. By partially delegating policy-making in the area of the SDGs to intermediaries, the government can benefit from their insider status, implicit motivation of the employees and powerful pre-existing networks. By avoiding a top-down policy implementation, especially in the cases of non-coercive and voluntary policies, the government can leave more space for the actors to be included in a less directive way.

Regarding the policy implications of our study, we believe our findings can be partially reproduced in other systems of higher education at the regional or national level. There may be some conditions that are unique to Catalonia, like hosting a global network with connections to UNESCO, as it is the GUNI. But there are several conditions for the successful implementation of the SDGs at local level that can be reproduced in other systems of higher education. Firstly, the active presence of meso-level organizations, or the potential for their development, is essential. To develop this ‘soil’, there needs to be certain absence of centralized governmental power, or, in other words, some degree of autonomy. If the governments were to be directive and immensely powerful, it might be challenging or even impossible for intermediaries to make such a direct and rapid impact in terms of sustainability transitions. Secondly, another crucial factor to consider is the presence of civil society, which can stimulate cooperation and promote active engagement. Indeed, intermediaries can be composed from civil society actors. Thirdly, there are other drivers that can increase the chances of replications, such as global competition (which is a very relevant and timely challenge for HEIs not only in Catalonia, but across the globe) and pursuit of prestige within the country. The former may be found in the form of competitiveness for international prestige, funding, international and national students or ambitions to be top-performers in global rankings. The latter is more suitable to the context of Spain, where there is an increased inter-regional competition when it comes to higher education (AQU, Interview 1, 25.02.2022).

Secondly, our study suggests several factors that contribute to the effectiveness of IOs. In our case, Catalan IOs, excel at mobilizing resources from both the top and bottom levels in higher education, acting as proficient delegators. However, the functionality of IOs can be endangered by excessive competition and lack of collaboration. In the Catalan context, the nature of the IOs is highly overlapping, which significantly contributed to that cooperation. Their main features were mutual policy guidance and influence, which we documented in our interviews, and also found in the documents. For instance, when some IOs were co-creating sustainability initiatives without competing for influence. Similarly, the goals of HEIs are overlapping and there is little to no rivalry between them in the Catalan context. HEIs have long collaborative history, which preceded the SDGs, and cooperation is well-established. This is a unique feature which might not travel to other contexts.

Overall, our research illuminates the intricate dynamics of Catalan higher education arena and its ongoing sustainability transitions, with a special focus on the IOs. The replication and effectiveness of these processes hinge on a balance of autonomy, need and ability to collaboration, and the presence of active civil society, all of which foster normative and mimetic isomorphisms, thus encouraging homogeneity across the field in response to sustainability. We give extra credit to the IOs for their ability to solidify collaboration networks for sustainability transition, which are essential for making it happen.

There are several limitations in our research. First of all, we do not provide an actual measurement of the degree to which sustainable development is present in Catalan higher education, as we focus on the actions of the IOs. Second, due to limited time availability, only a limited number of people were interviewed among the different agents relevant for our phenomenon of study. A larger number of interviews may have generated more certainty in the information provided by these interviewees who, at any rate, were considered experts. There are always limits in the extent to which statements about the collaboration between HEIs and IOs and the introduction of the IOs could be formulated more in normative terms than as report of actual changes or transformations. Further interviews would have allowed us to check the extent to which actual changes in the direction of implementation of IOs were actually introduced. Second, along with the emphasis attached to the role of IOs, other two nodes of policy agency could certainly contribute to the introduction of the SDGs, at least in theory: the market and the state. On the one hand, the local design of the SDGs may be theoretically left to the market, so that universities demonstrate that they have gone deeper (further) in the introduction of the SDGs in order to enhance their stance in a purely competitive higher education market. This could be a scenario in highly decentralized systems of higher education dominated by the market (e.g. US). There, the SDGs may become a token of prestige and distinction. Alternatively, in highly centralized systems of higher education, the SDGs may be explicitly promoted by higher education authorities deeply committed to these goals. These two scenarios are conceivable, but they have not been explored in this paper due to the idiosyncrasy of the Catalan and Spanish systems of higher education. One interesting line of research would be to compare the effectiveness of IOs as promoters of the SDGs with the potential effectiveness of markets or the state.

6.1. Future research

In our paper, we have found preliminary evidence that the effectiveness of IOs in translating global policies into local scenarios is related to the existence of different types of IOs; in particular, to the existence of IOs at different points along a line connecting relevant authorities in the policy field with individual agents at the bottom of that field. In our case, this line connects higher education governmental authorities and individual universities. Low- and medium-proximity IOs (relatively distant from the government but close to individual universities) foster collaborative efforts. This collaboration initiates the application of global policies at the local level, through the mechanisms of mimetic and normative isomorphisms. This inceptive process of localization of the SDGs generates trust in the policy-making potential of IOs among formal policy makers.

A more thorough confirmation of this rationale would require the comparison of different national cases like the one we have presented here, in this work. These national cases would need to represent different combinations of the IOs presented in Table 3; that is, different combinations of IOs with high, medium and low proximity to the government. Arguably, a higher effectiveness would be expected in settings with a representation of each one of these types so that the connection between individual agents (universities) and the government can be eventually and easily established, involving low-proximity IOs into the policy-making process, making it more formal. High proximity IOs (like the one represented in this paper by AQU) would initiate the formulation of hard incentives (e.g. money, or accreditation of introduction of the SDGs), knowing that individual universities would not resist these measures since they have been already cooperating (through their involvement in medium- and low-proximity IOs) in the introduction of these measures.

Besides the comparison of systems of higher education with different combinations of types of IOs, the role of IOs in the translation of global policies to local scenarios would need to be studied in systems of higher education where the state and the market play a major role, vis-à-vis intermediary organizations of any type. In other words, it would be interesting to assess the effectiveness of the state and the market in effectively translating global policies to local scenarios. For instance, in highly decentralized systems of higher education where the market plays a major role (e.g. US), the market may be decisive in the translation of the SDGs to individual HEIs as a mere and sheer matter of competition for students and resources, without IOs or the state playing any meaningful role.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Rankings have been the subject of criticism due to concerns surrounding their methodology, lack of inclusivity and other reasons. Nonetheless, it should be highlighted that the focus of our research is not on the weaknesses of university rankings. Rather, we refer to sustainability rankings as a means of gauging the willingness of HEIs to participate in such rankings, rather than as a means of showcasing specific scores.

2 https://www.acup.cat/ca/publicacio/declaracio-el-compromis-de-les-universitats-catalanes-amb-els-objectius-de is published in Catalan.

3 Mignon and Kanda (2018) provided a typology of IOs in the context of sustainability innovation. The study highlighted three types of intermediaries, which are cluster organizations (‘a concentration of interconnected organizations that cooperate regarding different activities’) (106), efficiency agencies (which are typically funded by the government and have a specific function of supporting local organizations in certain sustainability-related areas), and project developing companies (consultancy firms).

Appendix

Interview questions to experts (prior to selecting the IOs):

1. From your perspective, which organizations or entities have been actively engaged in policy discussions regarding sustainable development in the field of Catalan higher education?

2. How strong is the governmental mandate regarding sustainable development in higher education in the region? If yes, how? If it not strongly present, are there any other actors promoting sustainable development?

3. Do you know any specific people who are actively engaged in sustainability initiatives in Catalonia? If yes, are they a part of any organizations?

4. Is there any way for universities to share their progress regarding sustainable development in the region? Do they have to formally report on their progress? If yes, what are the requirements? If not, are there any opportunities to share with their peers? If they share it, what are the possible ways of networking?

5. Whom do you believe we may contact to know more about sustainable development in Catalan higher education?

Interview questions to intermediary organizations:

1. Who are the main actors (if any) when it comes to the SDGs implementation in Catalan higher education? Could you provide any names?

2. When were the SDGs first commented as a policy goal? Who initiated this? Why the SDGs gained attention in the first place?

3. How does your organization contribute to the implementation of the SDGs by Catalan universities? Can you please provide specific examples of projects that you lead or participate in?

4. Does your organization evaluate the implementation of the SDGs? If yes, how? If not, are there any plans for the future to evaluate, if it does not happen currently?

5. Do you believe there is something that makes Catalonia distinctive as the region when it comes to the implementation of the SDGs in higher education? If there are any differences, could you please elaborate on these?

6. Are there any specific incentives for universities to implement the SDGs? If not, how are they motivated?

7. How regularly are you in touch with the representatives of universities? What do meetings look like? What are the main achievements in the area of sustainable development that happened in the last years? Do you believe that your meetings lead to improvements, and if so, why?

8. How regularly do you contact or are contacted by the government? What are your main points of discussion, if any?

Interview questions to the representatives of the Catalan government:

1. Who are the main actors (if any) when it comes to the SDGs implementation in Catalan higher education? Could you provide any names?

2. Do you believe there is something that makes Catalonia distinctive as the region when it comes to the implementation of the SDGs in higher education? If there are any differences, could you please elaborate on these?

3. How does your office contribute towards sustainable development in higher education in Catalonia? Do you collaborate with other actors when it comes to sustainable development in higher education?

4. Could you elaborate on any partnerships or collaborations that the government has established with other organizations to advance the SDGs in Catalan higher education?

5. Do you monitor progress related to sustainable development in Catalan higher education? If you do not directly measure it, do you collect evidence from other sources?

6. Can you name best cases when it comes to sustainable development in higher education? What are the main factors of their success?

7. Which actors do you believe can help to make a difference when it comes to sustainable development in Catalan higher education in the future? How do you see your office in this?

Interview questions to academics and administrators:

1. How does your university contribute to the SDGs? Do you know any particular examples of activities?

2. Do you recall when sustainable development started to be a part of the agenda? Why was it considered relevant back then and who were the main actors that advocated for it?

3. Does your department/unit engage with the SDGs? How?

4. Whom do you know in Catalan higher education as an active advocate for sustainable development? Do you know if they are a part of any organization?

5. Have you attended any meetings regarding sustainable development? If yes, what was the main agenda? Who organized these meetings?

6. Do you know what role does the government play in the implementation of the SDGs in your university?

7. Do you know any other organizations, apart from the government, that are active in the area of sustainable development? If yes, what are their main activities?

8. In your opinion, what are the main factors that motivate your university to work with sustainable development discourse? Can you provide examples?

9. In your opinion, what are the main factors that contribute to the successful implementation of the SDGs? How can it be improved in the future?

Interview questions to the student representative:

1. How would you describe current state of sustainable development in Catalan higher education? What are the main driving forces of sustainable development?

2. In your opinion, what factors have been most significant in shaping sustainability practices at your institution? Do you know about other universities, since you participate in the Catalan-wide meetings?

3. Do you know about, or have you collaborated with any external organizations that support sustainability projects in Catalan higher education? If yes, what are these organizations and how do these organizations interact with student groups or the university administration?

4. As a student representative from Catalonia, how frequent do you come into contact with other representatives from Spain? If you do, do you happen to know main actors in their sustainability policy landscape?

5. Can you share any personal experiences where you witnessed the positive influence of an external organization on sustainability initiatives at your university or universities in Catalonia?

Interview questions to ANECA:

1. What role does ANECA play in the implementation of the SDGs on the Spanish level?

2. Is there any activity that promotes the SDGs which ANECA has carried out so far? Which activities have been done so far?

3. Are there any regions that are particularly active when it comes to the implementation of the SDGs locally?

4. Do Spanish universities have incentives in implementing the SDGs? Are Spanish universities provided with incentives of any kind in order to promote / implement the SDGs?

5. Are there any working group in Spain that is specifically dedicated to the implementation of the SDGs? What do you know about their activities?