The concept of sustainability is associated with the so-called Triple Bottom Line (TBL) relationship, i.e., the 3Ps of wellbeing: people, planet, profit (Kligyte et al., 2025). In this way, it is conceived as a socio-economic process that defends a holistic view of the environment and an equitable use of resources (Song et al., 2021). Therefore, the current performance of sustainability is considered when talking about the Triple Bottom Line—social, environmental, and economic—balance, while considering future performance of governance actions, business ethics, relations with stakeholders and public and corporate policies favorable to sustainable development. Thus, university sustainability is conceived as those Higher Education Institutions that are managed according to social and environmental wellbeing and economic progress in their missionary functions to favor social transformation processes (Castro-Gómez et al., 2024; Nazneen et al., 2023). Theoretical and strategic aspects of university sustainability are presented in Table 1.

University governance is conceptualized as the organizational subsystem in charge of making strategic decisions and guiding the institution toward the achievement of its goals and its relationship with the various stakeholders (Sun et al., 2025). The organizational forms adopted by university governance have evolved from the traditional bureaucratic hierarchical approach to becoming a community made up of actors from various social scenarios; for instance, teachers, administrative staff, students, members of the public sector, accreditation bodies, industry representatives, and community representatives (Bergsteedt and du Plessis, 2025).

Moreover, campus management is defined as the process through which the university plans, organizes, and controls its physical, technological, ecological, social, and symbolic infrastructure to ensure the development of substantive functions and integration with stakeholders (Hudler et al., 2021). They are scenarios of cultural, artistic, and scientific creation where innovation is promoted. Citizen coexistence and the care of the environment include energy, waste water management, sustainable mobility, sustainable food, inclusion and diversity policies, smart infrastructure and the way in which the institution achieves sustainable development goals (Pereira Ribeiro et al., 2021). It involves an operational dimension related to logistics and maintenance services, and a strategic dimension related to sustainability, corporate reputation, institutional image, and brand image (Spry and Pich, 2021).

A theoretical understanding of governance and campus management conceives both dimensions as analytically distinct levels of institutional action, while recognizing their complementary roles in practice. University governance operates at a strategic and normative level, prioritizing institutional needs, allocating resources, and establishing formal commitments whose outcomes are linked to planning and control processes (Rodríguez-Aceves et al., 2024). Its functioning relies on policies, strategic plans, accountability mechanisms, and formal decision-making structures.

By contrast, campus management performs a predominantly operational and tactical role, as it constitutes the arena in which governance orientations become visible in practice. The campus represents the space where strategic approaches to sustainability are made tangible through concrete actions. These include the integration of infrastructure, logistics, technological resources, recycling processes, biodiversity spaces, water management, and awareness-raising activities related to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, among other initiatives that involve both internal and external stakeholders and enable institutions to demonstrate their contribution to sustainable development (Hudler et al., 2021).

Accordingly, governance establishes the institutional direction toward sustainability, whereas campus management facilitates its practical application through operational capacities, resource management, and tangible actions (Srivastava et al., 2019). This distinction is fundamental for understanding both the formulation and the implementation of sustainability strategies in universities.

The relationship between governance and strengthening the curriculum in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) depends on the institutional intentionality to guide university management and the incorporation of sustainability in the competencies and learning outcomes of the different academic programs. In turn, governance from a participatory perspective allows learning from different disciplines to be integrated into curricula (Tan et al., 2023; Velasco et al., 2021).

Likewise, incorporating new governance and leadership practices guide curricula updating based on the requirements of the educational market (Iskindirova et al., 2024; Berzosa et al., 2017). It is relevant to articulate institutional governance with regional strategic plans and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Wajid, 2025). In this way, governance viewed from curricula helps HEIs not only to train students in technical skills, but also in knowledge related to different perspectives of sustainability. Therefore, it is proposed as a first hypothesis:

Governance in the research activities developed by HEIs promotes collaborative work with different stakeholders and increases academic productivity by research professors (Truong et al., 2021). Thus, some factors related to governance such as calls for research projects funding, leadership, decentralization, and resources have a positive impact on the results presented by research groups and researchers (Zakharova, 2019). In turn, governance generates collaborative spaces and practices to include communities in the generation of more inclusive research results (Karlsson et al., 2024).

From another perspective, the systematization of governance practices in HEIs generates conditions to promote job stability and internationalization of academic staff dedicated to research (Haworth et al., 2023). It is therefore necessary to favor the management of institutional governance based on data, which allow to measure, evaluate, and take improvement actions regarding the scientific performance of the institution (Hue et al., 2022; Mauro et al., 2024). Therefore, it is proposed as a second hypothesis:

It is important to highlight that governance in HEIs strengthens the development of extension activities with the community by creating participatory structures, coordination mechanisms and access to information policies that consolidate social trust (Kuiper et al., 2024). Similarly, governance in projects that involve active work with communities becomes the core element to articulate missional teaching, research, and extension activities (Sribanasarn et al., 2025).

From another perspective, including SDGs in the institutional governance structure strengthens the extension programs in which the students can participate, encourages the creation of local alliances, and demonstrates transparency in the management of resources toward society (De Iorio et al., 2022; Rodríguez-Aceves et al., 2024). Finally, governance promotes the creation of projects and ventures with community extension (Barro et al., 2025).

Therefore, it is proposed as a third hypothesis:

Campus operations impact academic training by promoting experiential learning opportunities, co-creation spaces, and learning to solve problems (González-Fernández and Pérez-Moreno, 2025; Nazneen et al., 2023). Campuses are managed in a sustainable way when they impact curricular training, becoming living laboratories (Leal Filho, 2021). Likewise, the sustainable management of the campus is integrated into the curricular orientation for sustainability by serving as an experiential and empirical support to the activities of the classroom, generating group cohesion and collaborative work (Ramakrishna, 2021). Therefore, it is proposed as a fourth hypothesis:

Likewise, institutional operations in HEIs have a positive relationship with research activities, since they generate the structural and financial conditions that allow their execution in a given period of time (Quoc et al., 2025). Moreover, the management of these operations facilitates monitoring research results and products. In turn, this operational management directly affects the productivity of the scientific personnel working at HEIs (Temoso et al., 2023).

The financial income obtained from institutional operations can be used to strengthen infrastructure, mobility, protection of intellectual property and dissemination of the scientific activity generated in the HEIs (Parker et al., 2023). In the same vein, institutional operations promote hiring researchers and highly trained personnel for missional teaching, research, and extension activities (Martelli et al., 2025). In addition, the adoption of information systems and educational technologies to support the management of institutional operations strengthens the development of scientific and research activity among different stakeholders (Svetsky and Moravcik, 2025). Thus, it is proposed as a fifth hypothesis:

Also, institutional operations boost community extension by articulating internal management with the social commitment of HEIs. Thus, community extension provides spaces to develop international mobility programs, community immersions, and access to transformative experiences for students (Kumpoh et al., 2021). Likewise, integrating SDGs into the operational management of university campuses, investment in infrastructure, and operational strategic planning translate into a greater number of projects involving the community (Sribanasarn et al., 2025).

In this same line, the redesign of campus operations toward the adoption of circular economies strengthens interaction with different local actors and promotes shared benefits (Oldham et al., 2021). This includes alleviating and searching solutions to problems of vulnerable populations (De Iorio et al., 2022). Thus, it is proposed as a sixth hypothesis:

Hypotheses proposed in the present study can be seen in Figure 1.

Although previous studies have demonstrated that governance and campus management are key factors in the implementation of university sustainability, the literature still reveals significant gaps in understanding how governance and campus management actions are operationally articulated with the substantive missions to achieve sustainability objectives in the education of future professionals (Kioupi and Voulvoulis, 2022). Most existing research on university sustainability focuses on infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, strategic plans, or reporting and accountability mechanisms, thereby framing sustainability achievement primarily as an organizational endeavor. Such an approach overlooks the dynamic processes through which resources and capabilities are integrated to enable the education of future professionals, namely through teaching activities, research, and community engagement (Hamadi and El-Den, 2024; Lopes et al., 2023).

Accordingly, the present theoretical framework extends this academic debate by integrating governance actions and campus management within a single explanatory context that addresses the performance of the university’s substantive missions in relation to sustainability objectives (Mendoza-Villafaina and López-Mosquera, 2024). From this perspective, the campus is conceived not only as a physical asset but, as a hidden curriculum, as a pedagogical environment that requires governance to be redefined not merely as a set of static principles and regulations, but as an expression of institutional leadership capacity to articulate and make visible the achievement of sustainability through the substantive missions (Ramakrishna, 2021).

Thus, this study seeks to make a theoretical contribution by clarifying the organizational mechanisms through which institutional strategies aimed at achieving sustainability become manifest in the university’s substantive missions (Castro Gómez et al., 2025). By focusing on the operational processes of governance and campus management, together with the processes underpinning teaching, research, and community engagement, the study contributes to a more integrated understanding of university sustainability implementation, in which the structural and strategic elements of the institution are inseparable from the performance of its core missions.

The perception study was carried out in 6 Colombian universities certified with high quality accreditation. This is granted by the Colombian Ministry of Education to institutions that have demonstrated excellent management in academic operational and sustainability matters. Likewise, they are among the higher education institutions with the greatest academic prestige in the region and the greatest acceptance in the business field. Thus, the survey was applied to 636 teachers from various faculties and located at various position rankings (see Table 2). Although the Partial Least Squares technique does not require a large number of samples, the suggestion to address a robust sample has been followed to guarantee the quality of the observations and data of subsequent analysis (Hair et al., 2014). It is noteworthy that this research complies with ethical guidelines approved by the Ethics Committee of the universities that support it. Likewise, participants gave their informed consent before participating. Confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed throughout the investigation process. Secondary data sources are appropriately cited to ensure academic integrity.

For the university government independent variable, the aspects proposed Rodríguez-Aceves et al., 2024 on the management and direction of universities were considered. The study of Niedlich et al. (2020) was considered for issues related to the inclusion of sustainability in the mission, vision, values, and strategic statements of the institution. For the second independent variable, sustainable management of the campus, the proposal of Amaral et al. (2020) regarding the management of intelligent infrastructure, recycling, renewable energies and waste management was considered. In addition, Pereira Ribeiro et al. (2021) and Wang et al. (2022) contributed to the themes of green spaces, biodiversity and inclusion.

To measure the inclusion of sustainability in teaching and lifelong learning activities in sustainability, the proposal of Ramakrishna (2021) was followed. Also, Okanović et al. (2021) contributed the items related to curriculum and classroom activities. The research dimension was developed based on Du et al. (2020) and Castro-Gómez et al. (2024) about academic publications, scientific research projects, and participation in city and company projects. The community extension was developed based on the contributions of Iskindirova et al. (2024).

The “main axes” rotation was used with the smart PLS software, as it is ideal to estimate reflective models and part of the non-normality of the data. The sample size is validated exceeding the threshold of 0.60 established by Hair et al. (2014) with a KMO = 0.963 for government, 0.979 for field operations, and 0.912 for substantive functions. Bartlett’s sphericity presented a level of significance of 0.00; therefore, it is statistically significant in its exploratory phase. Cronbach’s alpha was higher in all cases at 0.791; thus, all variables are statistically significant, which is proof that they explain the latent variables by their common factors. Factorial loads for all items were greater than 0.845 except for GV7, which was 0.56. In both cases, the significance of the loads is strong (>0.70) (Hair et al., 2014). No factor that explains the model more than 50% was detected; therefore, there was no common method bias.

To assess the potential presence of common method bias, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted as an initial diagnostic, revealing that no single factor accounted for more than 50% of the total variance. This finding suggests that common method bias is unlikely to constitute a serious concern in the validation of the measurement items. Nevertheless, acknowledging the potential limitations of this test when applied in isolation, full collinearity and variance inflation factors (VIFs) were examined, with all values remaining below the threshold of 3.3 recommended for this assessment (Kock, 2015; Hair et al., 2014). Furthermore, preventive ex ante procedural remedies were implemented to minimize the risk of bias, including expert judgment in the validation of the measurement instruments and the application of a pilot test. These procedures facilitated the verification of item clarity and relevance and contributed to reducing the likelihood of common method bias, in line with the recommendations of Podsakoff et al. (2003) and MacKenzie and Podsakoff (2012).

Confirmatory factorial analysis validated factorial loads of the items greater than 0.850 for all items, except for GV 7, which was 0.504. This is still excellent value to support the permanence of the item. Cronbach’s alpha is greater than 0.773, as well as the composite reliability values rho_c (greater than 0.811). This confirms the reliability and internal consistency of the instruments by exceeding the threshold of 0.70 recommended by Hair et al. (2014).

With the average variance extracted (AVE), the convergent validity of the models was estimated. For university government it was 0.87; for sustainable management of the campus, it was 0.93; and for the substantive functions, all were higher than 0.845. These values confirm convergent validity (>0.50) according to Hair et al. (2014). Therefore, the levels of explained variance fit the theoretical nature of the constructs. The values of the analysis of reliability, composite reliability, and convergent validity are presented in Table 3.

The discriminant validity of the model was verified with the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio. All the correlations between the indicators were less than 0.85 and the confidence interval less than 1 (Hair et al., 2014). In this way, the discriminant validity of the model is corroborated. Therefore, it is shown that the constructs are properly differentiated conceptually and operationally as seen in Table 4.

Results of the structural model estimated by robust PLS-SEM show significant effects on the proposed relationships between governance and substantive functions, and between campus management and mediated substantive functions. The structural model of the research is shown in Figure 3.

The model confirmed the direct effects of governments and sustainable management of the campus on the substantive functions with adequate route levels (>0.30) and significance (p < 0.05) as seen in Table 5. The bootstrapping resampling method was used with 5,000 samples to ensure the strength of the statistical significance. In this way, all the hypothetical relationships of the research were validated.

The level of variance in the endogenous variables was analyzed with the R² and adjusted R² indicators, whose values ≥0.10 (acceptable) and ≥0.25 (good) indicate an adequate understanding of the constructs. The model shows an excellent predictive capacity with values ≥0.50. The R² for the substantive functions was ≥ 0.782 and the adjusted R² ≥ 0.781, which indicates that the model has a high explanatory capacity. Thus, more than 78% of the variance of the dependent variables are explained by the effects of the independent variables. As for the predictive validity of the model, the values were Q² = 0.38 for curriculum, 0.36 for research, and 0.35 for extension for the relationship between government and substantive functions. For the relationships between campus management and substantive functions, Q² = 0.36 for curriculum, 0.36 for research, and 0.35 for extension. In all cases, indicators showing robustness and high predictive capacity were presented. They exceeded the threshold of 0.35 for an optimal predictive validity result indicated by Hair et al. (2014).

The effect size in all cases was greater than 0.35, indicating that the independent variables optimally explain the endogenous constructs. It was validated that university government has large effects on the substantive functions f² ≥ 0.35. Likewise, sustainable management of the campus presents an excellent explanatory capacity on the substantive functions with f² ≥ 0.35. As for the overall fit of the model, the SRMR values = 0.037 well below the threshold of 0.08 suggested by Hair et al. (2014), indicates a good fit of the model. The NFI = 0.91 indicating that the model has an adequate global fit.

As main limitations, this study only addressed the institutional aspects of the campus and university government. This limits only two variables of the organizational management of universities for sustainability; thus, the study should be extended to other administrative aspects. Likewise, perspective is analyzed, thus limiting a general perception of all the interested parties of the organization. These are fundamental aspects to evaluate university performance in terms of sustainability. Therefore, future research could incorporate variables such as sustainability reports and log files; analysis of strategic plans and development plans, and their relationship with sustainability; and participation of administrative staff in the achievement of sustainability goals.

As a main theoretical contribution, this study has shown that governance and management of the university campus are two strategic components that drive the application of sustainability goals to the substantive missions of the university. Therefore, as the main theoretical contribution, it was demonstrated that the management of the campus represents a cause for integrating sustainability into curriculum actions, research, and extension by providing the resources and capacities that allow including the academic community around sustainable development goals. The relationship between university government and the teaching perspective was also verified as the main support around sustainable development goals. The novelty of the study lies in addressing the campus, concomitantly with the university government, as the cause of a sustainable approach to the missionary functions of the university. Thus, this study contributes theoretically to rethinking the understanding of university sustainability, which integrates organizational and academic staff capacities into a single operational framework. The campus is not conceived as a set of physical elements but as a pedagogical and organizational force thanks to which governance for sustainability becomes tangible in substantive functions.

For the management of the university toward the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, it is suggested to incorporate campus management as a strategic element that enables integrating sustainability training into each project of the substantive mission. Furthermore, the study presents the empirical difference between governance and management in the field, which is supported by the variation observed in their path coefficients, effect sizes, and predictive irrelevance in substantive missions. This reinforces the need to theoretically and strategically address both constructs as independent but interrelated analytical units. Thus, directives and institutional managers must promote both financial and infrastructure resources, as well as the adequate application of policies and strategic objectives to gather all members of the organization around sustainability goals. Likewise, in the teaching activity, campus must be considered as a training space, whose pedagogical approach guarantees the experience in terms of sustainability to future professionals. Coherence between the strategic and operational formulation of the sustainability goals in universities is guaranteed whenever the main actors of the academic activity, teachers and students, are aligned and articulated with proposals raised by the managers in terms of sustainability.