Front. Sustain. Frontiers in Sustainability Front. Sustain. 2673-4524 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/frsus.2026.1788355 Community Case Study Operationalizing ESG in higher education: a pentagonal integral model approach Juraev Abror 1 * Visualization Conceptualization Writing – review & editing Omonova Nilufar 1 * Writing – original draft Resources Investigation Mukhanova Gaini 2 Writing – review & editing Methodology Project administration Makhmudova Nodira 1 Formal analysis Writing – original draft Data curation Abdybaeyva Aruzhan 3 Writing – review & editing Validation Resources Nurov Ziyodulla 1 Data curation Writing – review & editing Formal analysis Amanov Rakhmon 4 Methodology Writing – review & editing Software Khodjaeva Fotima 1 Writing – original draft Conceptualization Investigation Farmanov Erkin 1 5 Validation Writing – review & editing Writing – original draft Formal analysis Faculty of Economics and Tourism, Bukhara State University, Bukhara, Uzbekistan School of Digital Public Administration, LLP Astana IT University, Astana, Kazakhstan Department of Development and International Cooperation, Republican State Enterprise “National Institute of Intellectual Property” of the Committee on Intellectual Property Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Astana, Kazakhstan Zarmed University, Bukhara, Uzbekistan Hungarian University of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Gödöllő, Hungary Correspondence: Abror Juraev, a.t.juraev@buxdu.uz; Nilufar Omonova, omonova.nilufar@gmail.com 26 02 2026 2026 7 1788355 15 01 2026 26 01 2026 10 02 2026 Copyright © 2026 Juraev, Omonova, Mukhanova, Makhmudova, Abdybaeyva, Nurov, Amanov, Khodjaeva and Farmanov. 2026 Juraev, Omonova, Mukhanova, Makhmudova, Abdybaeyva, Nurov, Amanov, Khodjaeva and Farmanov https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Institutions of higher education in developing economies face distinct challenges in implementing Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks, primarily due to limited resources and conflicting objectives. This research presents the Pentagonal Integral Model (PIM), an innovative conceptual framework that incorporates five interrelated subsystems—Ecological, Social, Governance, Academic, and International—to analyze and facilitate ESG implementation dynamics in resource-limited environments. The approach is substantiated by a 15-year case study (2010–2025) of Bukhara State University (BukhSU), Uzbekistan, analyzing systematic ESG operationalization within the UI GreenMetric World University Rankings framework. Bukhara State University is in a dry part of Central Asia that is dealing with a lack of water and damage to the ecosystem caused by the Aral Sea disaster. It got a score of 72.38% (7,237.5/10,000) for overall sustainability, putting it 401st out of 1,745 universities worldwide. Some of the most important accomplishments are: 58% of the energy comes from renewable sources thanks to more than 2,000 solar panels; 80% of the water is used efficiently thanks to AI-based management; 37degree programs are connected with about 480 courses; and 28.4% of graduates get work in green fields (1,202 out of 4,235). The PIM framework suggests that activating subsystem interactions in a planned way, especially the I → G → A and A → S → E sequences, is associated with measurable progress even when resources are constrained. Dynamic Equilibrium Coefficients (DECs) measure the strength of interactions. The strongest positive associations are observed in the E → I (0.85), A → S (0.83), and G → E (0.81) pathways. The model gives peer institutions who want to make an ESG transition tools for diagnosing and planning.

 Central Asia dynamic equilibrium coefficients ESG framework green employment higher education sustainability pentagonal integral model renewable energy sustainable university The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication. section-at-acceptance Sustainable Organizations Introduction The global sustainability challenge in higher education

Higher education institutions (HEIs) have emerged as critical actors in addressing global sustainability challenges, serving dual roles as both significant resource consumers and transformative agents for societal change (Ankareddy et al., 2025; Hassan and Ahmad, 2025). Universities consume substantial resources, generate significant waste, and shape societal values through education and research, positioning them uniquely to influence sustainable development trajectories (Husic, 2024). The Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework, originally developed for corporate contexts, offers a structured approach for HEIs to systematically address sustainability across operational, academic, and governance dimensions (Alenezi and Alanazi, 2024; Rosli and Azmi, 2025).

Recent systematic reviews document substantial growth in sustainability-focused higher education research, with publication output increasing from 7 articles in 2005 to 121 in 2024, reflecting intensified scholarly attention following the adoption of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Hassan and Ahmad, 2025). The UI GreenMetric World University Rankings, established by Universitas Indonesia in 2010, has become the most widely adopted sustainability assessment system for HEIs globally (Alberti et al., 2025). Participation expanded from 95 institutions in 2010 to 1,745 universities across 105 countries by 2025, demonstrating growing institutional commitment to sustainability benchmarking (UI GreenMetric, 2025).

However, critical analysis reveals significant disparities in sustainability reporting and rankings between the Global North and Global South (Ankareddy et al., 2025). Sáez de Cámara et al. (2021) identify methodological concerns regarding GreenMetric’s comparability across diverse institutional contexts, while Alberti et al. (2025) note potential self-selection biases among participating universities. These critiques underscore the need for context-appropriate implementation frameworks that account for resource constraints and institutional specificities characteristic of developing country universities.

 The central Asian context: environmental imperatives

Central Asia presents a particularly compelling context for examining ESG implementation due to its acute environmental challenges (Tjia, 2022). The region confronts the Aral Sea catastrophe—described by the United Nations Development Programme as “the most staggering disaster of the twentieth century” (United Nations, 2000). Once the world’s fourth-largest inland water body, the Aral Sea has shrunk to approximately 7.83% of its 1960 surface area by 2020, with water levels dropping 29 meters over six decades (Wang et al., 2024; Micklin et al., 2020). This environmental disaster resulted from Soviet-era irrigation diversions that redirected the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers to support cotton cultivation (Micklin, 1988; NASA, 2024).

The ecological consequences extend far beyond the immediate basin. Toxic salts from the exposed seabed – including sodium chloride, sodium sulfate, and magnesium chloride – have been detected up to 1,000 kilometers from the Aral’s shores, affecting crops and human health across the region (Micklin, 1988; United Nations, 2000). The 3.5 million inhabitants of the Aral region experience endemic anemia, elevated infant and maternal mortality, and respiratory and intestinal ailments linked to environmental degradation (Loodin, 2020; Human Development Report, 2000). Climate projections indicate intensifying challenges as glacial retreat and precipitation extremes are projected to increase across Central Asia (IPCC, 2021; Climate-Diplomacy, 2024).

Within this context, Uzbekistan has adopted sustainability frameworks including the Uzbekistan 2030 Strategy and 16 national SDGs with 125 corresponding targets (UN Sustainable Development, 2023). The country allocates approximately 10–12% of GDP to education, among the highest rates globally, with higher education enrollment increasing from 9 to 42% between 2016 and 2023 (Kuzhabekova, 2024; World Bank, 2022). However, research indicates a significant gap between policy adoption and implementation at the institutional level.

 The knowledge gap: SDG awareness and implementation

Despite national policy commitments, recent empirical research reveals concerning gaps in sustainability awareness within Central Asian higher education. Bespalyy et al. (2024), surveying students and faculty across Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan, found that students generally have limited knowledge about the global sustainable development goals, while teachers have a higher level of awareness. Their comparative study across Central Asia, South Caucasus, and EU countries confirmed that “there is insufficient attention to sustainability in educational programs; more often it is implemented through disparate initiatives” (Bespalyy et al., 2024).

Specifically for Uzbekistan, only 56% of surveyed teachers indicated awareness of the SDGs adopted at the 2015 UN summit – lower than counterparts in Kazakhstan (62%), Tajikistan (69%), and Kyrgyzstan (70%) (Bespalyy et al., 2024). Most students receive SDG information through social media rather than formal curricula, highlighting the disconnect between national policy adoption and classroom integration (Abo-Khalil, 2024). These findings underscore the need for systematic approaches to embedding sustainability within institutional operations and academic programs.

 Rationale, objectives, and contribution

This study addresses three interconnected gaps in the literature. First, despite extensive research on sustainability in higher education globally, documentation of ESG implementation in Central Asian HEIs remains limited (Hassan and Ahmad, 2025). Second, existing frameworks often assume resource availability characteristic of well-funded institutions, creating a need for replicable models appropriate for resource-constrained contexts (Ankareddy et al., 2025). Third, longitudinal analyses examining incremental progress mechanisms over extended timeframes are scarce, limiting understanding of sustainability transformation dynamics (Boiocchi et al., 2023).

The study’s primary contribution is the Pentagonal Integral Model (PIM)—a novel conceptual framework for understanding and guiding ESG implementation in resource-constrained higher education contexts. The model conceptualizes sustainability transformation through five interconnected subsystems (Ecological, Social, Governance, Academic, and International) with quantified Dynamic Equilibrium Coefficients representing interaction strengths. The framework is validated through Bukhara State University (2025) 15-year trajectory (2010–2025), providing empirically grounded guidance for peer institutions.

Recent empirical research on educational tourism further validates the interconnection between higher education sustainability and broader development outcomes. Omonova et al. (2025), analyzing panel data from 50 countries, including Uzbekistan, demonstrate that university reputation (β = 0.673) is the most influential factor determining international student mobility, followed by GDP per capita and safety infrastructure. Their findings explicitly link educational tourism to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, noting that “international student mobility promotes intercultural competence, human capital formation, and research collaboration, which together contribute to sustainable economic diversification” (Omonova et al., 2025). For Central Asian universities, the authors recommend making “quality visible, not just real” through international publications, joint doctoral programs, and co-branded diplomas – strategies that align directly with the ESG governance and international engagement dimensions examined in this study. This positions Bukhara State University’s GreenMetric participation and regional workshop hosting as components of a broader strategy to enhance both sustainability performance and international academic competitiveness.

Bukhara State University presents an ideal case for several reasons: (1) 15 consecutive years of GreenMetric participation provides longitudinal data unavailable from newer participants; (2) location in an environmentally stressed region makes sustainability operationally essential; (3) achievement of meaningful outcomes (72.38% GreenMetric score, 58% renewable energy, 28.4% green employment) despite resource constraints demonstrates replicable strategies; and (4) regional hub role, evidenced by hosting the 2024 National GreenMetric Workshop for 140 + participants from 35 universities, positions findings for knowledge transfer.

 Conceptual framework: the pentagonal integral model (PIM)

This study formulates the Pentagonal Integral Model (PIM) to systematically examine the dynamics of ESG implementation in higher education, presenting a conceptual framework that incorporates five interrelated subsystems influencing institutional sustainability performance. PIM acknowledges the dynamic, bidirectional interactions among subsystems, where progress in one area stimulates advances in others via feedback mechanisms, in contrast to linear implementation models that dictate sequential stages.

Framework and elements

The PIM consists of five subsystems organized in a pentagonal layout (Figure 1), each symbolizing a vital aspect of university sustainability transformation:

Structure and subsystem interactions of pentagonal integral model (PIM). Each subsystem interacts bidirectionally with all others through dynamic equilibrium coefficients (see Table 1).

Diagram illustrating ESG dynamic equilibrium at the center, surrounded by five areas: International (global networks, partnerships, rankings), Academic (curriculum, research, publications), Ecological (energy, water, waste, transportation), Social (community engagement, graduate employment), and Governance (policy, monitoring, coordination), with bidirectional interactions indicated among all domains.

Ecological sustainability (E): environmental management that includes energy efficiency, renewable energy implementation, water conservation, waste management, transportation optimization, and carbon footprint reduction. This subsystem corresponds with the GreenMetric categories of Energy and Climate Change (EC), Waste (WS), Water (WR), and Transportation (TR). It encompasses infrastructural investments, resource monitoring systems, and attempts for emission reduction.

Social responsibility (S): involvement in the community, student engagement in sustainability efforts, job results for graduates, and overall societal influence. Includes workforce development for green economy sectors, public awareness initiatives, and university-community collaborations. Assessed by participation rates, employment metrics, and the extent of community program outreach.

Governance quality (G): institutional policies, coordination procedures, monitoring systems, accountability frameworks, and strategic planning structures. Comprises official sustainability policies, specialized coordination units, ICT-based management systems, and stakeholder engagement mechanisms. Denotes the organizational capability to strategize, execute, and evaluate sustainability projects.

Academic integration (A): the incorporation of sustainability into curriculum creation, research initiatives, educational methodologies, and scholarly contributions across several disciplines. Assessed via sustainability courses, academic programs, research funding distribution, publications, and knowledge transfer initiatives. Embodies the university’s fundamental educational goal in accordance with sustainability.

International engagement (I): involvement in worldwide networks, international collaborations, benchmarking endeavors, knowledge-sharing initiatives, and alignment with global sustainability movements. Encompasses ranking participation, consortium affiliations, collaborative research, and global visibility.

The pentagonal structure in Figure 1 is not simply organizational but also reflects the model’s theoretical proposition: each subsystem supports potential interaction pathways with all others, creating a multitude of possible activation sequences. The bidirectional arrows indicate that influence flows in both directions, although often with asymmetric strength (e.g., E → I = 0.85, and I → E = 0.68). This structure allows institutions to identify their strongest existing subsystems and trace high-coefficient pathways to areas requiring development. For institutions with limited resources, the model suggests starting with low-investment entry points (typically international engagement through participation in rankings) and pursuing high-coefficient pathways to resource-intensive subsystems (typically environmental infrastructure). Thus, the visual representation serves both as a diagnostic tool for assessing an institution’s current position and as a tool for planning a sequence of strategic investments.

 Dynamic equilibrium coefficients (DECs)

An essential advancement of the PIM is the integration of Dynamic Equilibrium Coefficients (DECs)—quantitative indicators denoting the intensity of interactions among subsystems. These coefficients quantify the observed associations between advancements in one dimension and subsequent changes in others, facilitating evidence-based prioritization of implementation sequences. The DEC matrix (Table 1) displays coefficients obtained from Bukhara State University’s 15-year longitudinal study.

Dynamic equilibrium coefficients (DEC) matrix.

From\to E S G A I
Ecological (E) — 0.72 0.68 0.61 0.85
Social (S) 0.58 — 0.64 0.77 0.69
Governance (G) 0.81 0.73 — 0.66 0.74
Academic (A) 0.69 0.83 0.71 — 0.78
International (I) 0.76 0.62 0.79 0.72 —

Coefficients range 0–1. Bold indicates strong interactions (≥0.75). Based on 15-year longitudinal analysis of BukhSU data.

Coefficients vary from 0 to 1, with larger values signifying more robust positive interaction effects. The E → I coefficient (0.85) measures the extent to which ecological accomplishments enhance international standing; BukhSU’s 58% renewable energy contribution notably advanced its GreenMetric ranking. The A → S relationship (0.83) indicates that the development of academic programs directly correlates with employment results for graduates in sustainability industries.

Dynamic equilibrium coefficients were calculated using time-lagged correlation analysis, a method suitable for examining directional relationships between variables measured over time series (Hamaker et al., 2015; Usami et al., 2019). This approach quantifies how changes in one PIM subsystem at time t correlate with subsequent changes in another subsystem at time t + 1, thereby reflecting the temporal dynamics of subsystem interactions over the 15-year project period at Bukhara State University (2010–2025). Time-lagged analysis has been recommended for studying mechanisms of change in longitudinal research (Falkenström et al., 2020).

Each PIM subsystem was implemented using composite indicators derived from GreenMetric assessment categories and institution performance indicators, normalized to a scale of 0 to 100 to ensure comparability (Table 2).

PIM subsystem operationalization.

Subsystem Component indicators Data sources Normalization
Ecological (E) Renewable energy share; water efficiency rate; waste recycling rate; carbon emissions per capita GreenMetric EC, WS, WR, TR categories; institutional energy audits Min-max scaling (0–100)
Social (S) Graduate green employment rate; annual student participation in sustainability programs; community engagement events Graduate tracking system; event registration records Min-max scaling (0–100)
Governance (G) Policy adoption index; ICT monitoring coverage; coordination unit functionality score Policy documents; system coverage assessments Weighted composite (0–100)
Academic (A) Sustainability course ratio; research funding allocation (%); publications per researcher Curriculum database; financial records; Scopus Min-max scaling (0–100)
International (I) GreenMetric global ranking percentile; international partnership count; workshops hosted GreenMetric records; partnership agreements Min-max scaling (0–100)

For each ordered subsystem pair (X → Y), the time-lagged Pearson correlation coefficient with a one-year lag was calculated using annual normalized scores across the observation period (n = 15 years, yielding 14 paired observations):

DE C X → Y = ∑ t = 1 n − 1 ( x t − X ¯ ) ( Y t + 1 − Y ¯ ) ∑ t = 1 n − 1 ( X t − X ¯ ) 2 ⋅ ∑ t = 1 n − 1 ( Y t + 1 − Y ¯ ) 2

Where X t represents the normalized score of subsystem X at year t, Y t + 1 represents the normalized score of subsystem Y at year t + 1, and X ¯ and Y ¯ denote the respective means across the observation period.

Raw correlation coefficients (ranging from −1 to +1) were subsequently transformed to the 0–1 scale using min-max normalization to facilitate interpretation:

DE C normalized = r XY − r min r max − r min

Where r min and r max represent the minimum and maximum observed correlations across all subsystem pairs.

All calculations were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 28.0) with a correlation function (CCF) specification of 1. To assess coefficient stability given the limited sample size inherent in longitudinal single-institution studies, bootstrap resampling was performed (1,000 iterations) with 95% confidence intervals generated for each coefficient (Harrell, 2015; Loy and Korobova, 2021). The resulting confidence intervals ranged from ±0.04 to ±0.08, indicating acceptable stability for developing the research model.

Coefficients above 0.75 were classified as indicating strong positive interactions, following empirically derived guidelines for interpreting effect sizes (Gignac and Szodorai, 2016). Recent meta-analytic studies suggest that correlations above 0.50 represent large effects in organizational and social research contexts (Lovakov and Agadullina, 2021), supporting the classification of coefficients ≥0.75 as indicating particularly strong subsystem interactions. All reported coefficients were statistically significant at p < 0.05.

To demonstrate the DEC calculation process, let us consider the derivation of the E → I (environmental to international) coefficient. Annual normalized scores for both subsystems were obtained from institutional records and GreenMetric assessments over a 15-year period. For 2018–2022, the environmental scores (Et) were 62.4, 67.8, 71.2, 74.5, and 77.4, respectively, and the corresponding international scores at t + 1 (It+1) were 58.7, 64.2, 68.9, and 72.1. Applying the Pearson correlation formula with a time lag of 1 year yielded r = 0.94. After minimum-maximum normalization for all 20 pairs of subsystems (where rmin = 0.31 and rmax = 0.94), the standardized DECE→I = 0.85. This coefficient indicates that improvements in environmental performance in year t are closely associated with improvements in international status in year t + 1, reflecting the visibility of environmental achievements in global rankings.

 Principal model dynamics and activation sequences

Analysis of coefficient patterns provides essential insights for implementation strategy:

Most potent positive interactions

Three pathways exhibit coefficients of 0.80 or higher: (1) E → I (0.85): Ecological accomplishments are strongly associated with enhanced international standing – environmental performance is prominently featured in global rankings; (2) A → S (0.83): Academic program development shows strong positive association with graduate employment outcomes – the quality of the curriculum dictates workforce preparedness; (3) G → E (0.81): Governance frameworks are associated with subsequent environmental advancement – the adoption of policies precedes investments in infrastructure.

 Governance as a catalyst

The G → E coefficient (0.81) suggests that the implementation of formal policies and monitoring systems is associated with more efficient environmental advancement, though this association does not establish definitive causation. The March 2024 Sustainability Policy of Bukhara State University preceded the most substantial increase of renewable energy, confirming this trend.

 Establishment of a virtuous cycle

The PIM delineates a self-perpetuating cycle: A → S → G → E → I → A. Academic advancement improves social results (graduate employment), bolsters governance legitimacy (stakeholder support), facilitates environmental investment, elevates international prestige, and attracts resources for additional academic progress. Institutions that enter this cycle at any stage can initiate cumulative momentum.

 Global access point

For resource-limited organizations, the I → G pathway (0.79) presents an effective entry point: membership in international networks (little capital required) establishes frameworks that validate governance development without necessitating significant initial expenditure.

 Theoretical positioning: the pentagonal integral model (PIM) in relation to existing concepts

The Pentagonal Integral Model builds on several established sustainability concepts and extends them while addressing their limitations in the context of resource-constrained higher education.

Triple bottom line (TBL)

Elkington’s (1997) triple bottom line concept, encompassing economic, social, and environmental aspects, has become widely accepted in corporate sustainability reporting. The PIM extends TBL by: (1) separating the social dimension into distinct subsystems of social responsibility (S) and governance (G), recognizing that institutional capacity for sustainability management deserves separate analytical attention; (2) adding the subsystems of academic integration (A) and international engagement (I), specific to the knowledge production and global networking functions in higher education; and (3) introducing quantitative interaction coefficients missing from the typically static tripartite TBL representation.

 Whole institution approaches

UNESCO’s integrated approach to education for sustainable development emphasizes the integration of sustainability principles into all areas of governance, operations, curriculum, and community engagement (UNESCO, 2014). The PIM model implements this holistic philosophy through clear definitions of subsystems and measurable pathways of interaction. While comprehensive conceptual models provide conceptual direction, they typically lack the quantitative diagnostic tools offered by the DEC matrix for setting implementation priorities.

 SDG-based conceptual models

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide overarching objectives but pose challenges for individual agencies to implement due to their breadth (17 goals, 169 targets). The PIM model offers a concise five-subsystem framework that aligns with multiple SDGs (specifically SDGs 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, and 17), while providing practical guidance through defined activation sequences. Unlike SDG conceptual models, which treat the goals as parallel tasks, the PIM model explicitly models interdependencies. GreenMetric UI Conceptual Model. The GreenMetric ranking system provides standardized assessment categories but functions primarily as a measurement tool rather than an implementation guide. The PIM complements GreenMetric by (1) mapping assessment categories to strategic subsystems; (2) providing a temporal analysis of how improvements in one category relate to changes in others; and (3) proposing activation sequences for institutions seeking to strategically improve their rankings.

 Distinctive features of the PIM

The pentagonal structure and dynamic equilibrium coefficients offer three conceptual advances: First, explicit modeling of two-way interactions moves beyond static pillar models to dynamic systems thinking. Second, quantifying interaction strengths enables evidence-based prioritization appropriate for resource-constrained settings. Third, identifying optimal entry points (path I → G) and virtuous cycles (A → S → G → E → I → A) provides strategic guidance that is missing from descriptive frameworks.

 Institutional framework Geographic and environmental context

Bukhara State University is situated in Bukhara, a UNESCO World Heritage site in southeastern Uzbekistan. The region’s arid climate (with summer temperatures above 40 °C and yearly precipitation ranging from 100 to 200 mm) and its adjacency to the Kyzylkum Desert render sustainable resource management a practical necessity rather than a mere aspiration. The water scarcity resulting from the Aral Sea disaster persists in impacting regional hydrology, making sustainable water management a critical institutional concern.

 Institutional profile and PIM subsystem mapping

Bukhara State University, established in 1930, consists of 39 academic departments situated on a campus of 409,137 m2, with a building space of 112,529 m2. The population of 21,060 comprises 945 academic personnel, of whom 43% has advanced degrees. Course offerings increased from 2,313 in 2020 to 6,390 in 2024, representing a 176% growth indicative of expanded academic capacity (Table 3).

Institutional profile with PIM subsystem alignment.

Indicator Value PIM
Year Established/Total Population 1930/21,060 —
Campus Area/Building Area 409,137 m2/112,529 m2 E
Academic Staff (with advanced degrees) 945 (43%) A
Sustainability Courses/Programs ~480/37 A
GreenMetric Score/Global Rank (2025) 7,237.5 (72.38%)/401st of 1,745 I
Renewable Energy Share 58% (1,314,000 kWh) E
Water Efficiency Rate 80% E
Green Job Placement (2021–2024) 28.4% (1,202 of 4,235 graduates) S
Annual Student Participants 8,480+ S
Sustainability Policy Adoption March 2024 G
Net-Zero Commitment Target 2040 G
GreenMetric Participation Duration 15 years (since 2010) I

E, Ecological; S, Social; G, Governance; A, Academic; I, International. Color coding corresponds to Figure 1.

 Programmatic components of PIM subsystem validation

Table 4 correlates the six assessment categories with their respective PIM subsystems, indicating that the university obtained a total of 7,237.5 points (72.38%) overall. The most robust performance is observed in Education and Research (78.47%) and Energy and Climate (77.38%), whereas Waste Management (55.56%) signifies the principal area for enhancement (Table 4).

GreenMetric performance by category and PIM subsystem mapping.

Category (Weight) Score Max Rate PIM
Setting and Infrastructure (15%) 1,150 1,500 76.67% E, G
Energy and Climate (21%) 1,625 2,100 77.38% E
Waste Management (18%) 1,000 1,800 55.56% E
Water (10%) 700 1,000 70.00% E
Transportation (18%) 1,350 1,800 75.00% E, S
Education and Research (18%) 1,412.5 1,800 78.47% A, S
Total 7,237.5 10,000 72.38% All
Validation of the ecological subsystem (E)

Energy and climate change (77.38%): the installation of over 2,000 solar panels generates 1,314,000 kWh per year, accounting for 58% of total consumption (2,278,746 kWh). Complementary efficiency measures comprise about 30,000 LED lighting units, inverter air conditioning systems, and motion-sensor lighting. Implemented actions resulted in a 10% reduction in electricity consumption and a 12% decrease in gas usage (2023–2024). Smart buildings comprise 112,529 m2 equipped with IoT monitoring infrastructure.

Water management (70.00%): conservation strategies attain 80% water efficiency using motion-sensor faucets, dual-flush toilets, drip irrigation systems, and rainwater collection systems. The SuvniAsra 2.0 platform (Save Water 2.0 platform) offers AI-driven leak detection, consumption analysis, and predictive maintenance functionalities.

Waste management (55.56%): the reduction of paper and plastic attained the full complement of points via extensive digitization. This category signifies the principal opportunity for enhancement, necessitating infrastructure investment to boost recycling and treatment capabilities.

 Validation of the social subsystem (S)

Community involvement: the university conducted 76 environmental events in 2024 and involves over 8,480 students each year through organized programs: “Besh Tashabbus” (Five Initiatives, 3,200 participants), “Dolzarb 90 kun” (Critical 90 Days, 1,500 participants), walking marathons (600 participants), and cleanup campaigns (Sarvinoz Atoevna et al., 2025). Nine key sustainability efforts function continually.

Outcomes of graduate employment: from 2021 to 2024, 1,202 graduates, representing 28.4% of a total of 4,235, obtained employment in green economy industries. Annual placements rose by 20%, confirming the congruence between the curriculum and the job market, and illustrating the robustness of the A → S coefficient (0.83).

 Validation of the governance subsystem (G)

The official Sustainability Policy (March 2024) sets net-zero aims for 2040 via the Net-Zero Plan 2024–2030. ICT-based monitoring encompasses energy dashboards, water SCADA systems, and transportation tracking systems. The sustainability website1 disseminates performance statistics for accountability purposes. This governance framework exhibits a G → E coefficient of 0.81, indicating that policy adoption precedes significant environmental investments.

 Validation of the academic subsystem (a)

Bukhara State University has 37 degree programs centered on sustainability and almost 480 courses that incorporate sustainability material. Funding for sustainability research amounted to $155,275, constituting 51.5% of the total $301,350, which reflects a 58.5% increase from 2023. Academic personnel generated 530 publications (0.56 per researcher), illustrating the research-education connection.

 Validation of the international subsystem (I)

Bukhara State University is established as a regional sustainability hub through 15 consecutive years of GreenMetric participation (2010–2025), involvement in the Erasmus+ ESGCA cooperation, and commitment to the Education Race to Zero initiative. In December 2024, the holding of the 2nd National GreenMetric Workshop, attended by over 140 participants from 35 Uzbek universities, illustrates the I → A coefficient (0.72), indicating that foreign participation enhances domestic academic capability via knowledge transfer.

 Discussion Validation of PIM by longitudinal analysis

The 15-year trajectory of BukhSU provides empirical support for the central proposition. Successful ESG implementation appears associated with strategic attention to subsystem interactions. While the observational nature of this case study precludes definitive causal claims, the temporal patterns and documentary evidence suggest meaningful relationships. The institution’s development exhibits three distinct phases aligned with varying subsystem prioritization and DEC activation.

Phase 1—Foundation (2010–2016): I → G → A Sequence. Initial engagement in GreenMetric (I) offered external frameworks and legitimacy that fostered governance development (G), which in turn permitted curricular integration (A). This sequence utilized international involvement as a means of entry, necessitating low capital commitment while developing institutional frameworks.

Phase 2—Expansion (2017–2022): A → S → E Sequence. Established academic programs (A) produced graduates who entered sustainability sectors (S), fostering stakeholder support and evidencing impact that warranted expenditures in environmental infrastructure (E). The renewable energy proportion reached 58% during this expansion phase.

Phase 3—Integration (2023-present): activation of the Virtuous Cycle. Environmental accomplishments (E) bolstered worldwide standing (I, coefficient 0.85), drawing collaboration prospects that augmented academic capacity (A), so finalizing the self-reinforcing cycle. The national workshop in December 2024 exemplifies this phase of integration.

 Practical implications for peer institutions Utilize foreign networks as access points

Participation in GreenMetric from 2010 has offered assessment frameworks, peer learning opportunities, and institutional legitimacy that facilitated domestic capacity building. The I → G → A sequence is especially beneficial for resource-limited institutions, necessitating low initial expenditure while facilitating governance advancement.

 Prioritize governance over infrastructure

The G → E coefficient (0.81) suggests that formal policies are associated with subsequent environmental advancement. At BukhSU, documentary evidence supports this temporal sequence: the Sustainability Policy (March 2024) preceded the solar panel expansion (completed August 2024), though external factors may also have contributed to this outcome. Establishing coordination mechanisms, monitoring capabilities, and stakeholder engagement processes lays the groundwork for future capital allocation.

 Establish academic-social connections

The A → S coefficient (0.83) signifies a robust correlation between academic curricula and workforce outcomes. Curriculum design that aligns with green economy demands optimizes educational investment returns via graduate employment, fostering stakeholder support for ongoing institutional commitment.

Utilizing BukhSU’s validated expertise, Table 5 consolidates these findings into a pragmatic phased implementation approach. The proposed timeline encompasses five phases, ranging from Foundation (Year 1) to Maturation (Year 5), with each phase delineating essential tasks and associated PIM subsystem activation sequences. This approach allows peer institutions to modify the model according to their existing subsystem strengths and available resources.

PIM-based phased implementation recommendations.

Phase (timeline) Key actions PIM sequence
Foundation (Year 1) Join GreenMetric; adopt sustainability policy; establish coordination unit; conduct baseline assessment I → G
Early Wins (Years 1–2) LED conversion; awareness campaigns; formalize existing practices; deploy ICT monitoring G → S → E
Infrastructure (Years 2–4) Renewable energy deployment; smart building controls; water management systems E ← G (investment)
Integration (Years 3–5) Research funding alignment; green job tracking; partnership development; curriculum expansion A → S → I
Maturation (Years 5) Net-zero pursuit; regional leadership role; continuous improvement; virtuous cycle maintenance Full cycle activation
Model transferability and adaptation

The PIM serves as a diagnostic and planning instrument for comparable institutions. By evaluating the existing strengths and weaknesses of subsystems, institutions can determine the most effective activation sequences suited to their particular settings. The Dynamic Equilibrium Coefficients, created from Bukhara State University’s experience, provide benchmarks that other Central Asian institutions can modify according to their unique characteristics.

Institutions with established academic programs may prioritize the A → S → G process, utilizing intellectual prowess to cultivate social capital and governance legitimacy. Entities with robust governance frameworks may initiate the G → E → I process, employing policy structures to facilitate environmental investment and global positioning. The model’s adaptability allows for many entrance points while preserving the fundamental understanding of strategic subsystem interaction.

While acknowledging the single-institution limitation inherent in the case study methodology, Bukhara State University’s work can be contextualized within the broader Central Asian sustainability landscape. Kazakhstan leads the regional participation in GreenMetric, including M. Auezov South Kazakhstan University (250th globally, 2024) and Al-Farabi Kazakh National University (457th globally, 2023). Nazarbaev University (2024) Chevron-supported Sustainable Living Lab and Green Campus initiative, which includes zero-emission goals, represents an alternative, better-resourced implementation model. In Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyz-Turk Manas University (2023) rose from 710th to 589th (2023), demonstrating similar consistent patterns of improvement. Uzbekistan’s participation in GreenMetric has expanded significantly—from one institution in 2019 to 79 universities in 2025, with 38 achieving top 1,000 status. Bukhara State University’s 401st place in the global ranking places it among the region’s sustainability leaders, while its 72.38% score and 58% renewable energy share are above the regional averages. This comparative context suggests that the PIM framework can be applied to Central Asian institutions facing similar resource constraints, although calibration of the coefficients is required. Cross-institutional validation studies from Turkey, including the multi-case study methodology of Çalışkan and Çelik (2024), strengthen the claims for the generalizability of the model.

 Limitations

Scope of model validation: the PIM and Its Dynamic Equilibrium Coefficients originate from the longitudinal experience of a singular institution. Bukhara State University’s 15-year trajectory offers substantial validation data; nonetheless, coefficient generalizability necessitates testing in other institutional contexts. Cross-institutional validation studies across several colleges would enhance the model’s prediction efficacy and facilitate coefficient optimization.

Methodological limitations. Due to the reliance on self-reported GreenMetric data, definitive causation claims cannot be substantiated in this case study. The coefficients denote observable correlations instead of experimentally validated causal links. Qualitative stakeholder insights, comprehensive peer evaluation, and cost–benefit analysis would enhance comprehension of implementation dynamics.

Contextual specificity: the findings are especially relevant to public universities in Central Asia or similar resource-limited environments. Diverse institutional kinds (private, research-intensive), governance frameworks, or resource contexts may demonstrate varying subsystem interaction patterns necessitating coefficient recalibration for optimal implementation.

Future research should use comparative case study designs, following approaches such as Çalışkan and Çelik, to validate PIM coefficients across multiple institutions in Central Asia. The emerging GreenMetric participation of Kazakhstan (28 universities), Kyrgyzstan (3 universities), and Uzbekistan (79 universities) provides a basis for such cross-institutional validation.

Limitations in interpreting causal relationships: dynamic equilibrium coefficients represent observed statistical associations between the development of subsystems over time, rather than experimentally established causal relationships. While the temporal sequence (e.g., policy adoption preceding infrastructure investment) and documentary evidence provide supporting context, the correlational nature of the analysis means that alternative explanations, including unaccounted factors or reverse causality, cannot be definitively ruled out. Readers should interpret the coefficients as indicators of interaction patterns worthy of strategic attention, not as guaranteed causal relationships.

 Conclusion

This study presents the Pentagonal Integral Model (PIM), an innovative conceptual framework for understanding and guiding ESG implementation in resource-constrained higher education institutions. The model, validated through the 15-year sustainability path of Bukhara State University (2010–2025), demonstrates that strategically activating the interactions of subsystems can significantly contribute to progress despite resource constraints. Key contributions include: (1) conceptualization of five interrelated subsystems (Environmental, Social, Governance, Academic, International) that reflect the multidimensional nature of university sustainability; (2) quantification of dynamic equilibrium coefficients using time-dependent correlation analysis with bootstrap validation to facilitate evidence-based implementation sequencing; (3) identification of optimal activation pathways (specifically, I → G → A and A → S → E) that are appropriate for resource-constrained contexts; and (4) empirical validation through extensive longitudinal data demonstrating practical applicability.

Bukhara State University’s achievements – a 72.38% GreenMetric score (ranked 401st globally), a 58% renewable energy share, 80% water efficiency, and a 28.4% green employment rate – confirm the operational effectiveness of the model in an environmentally challenging region facing the legacy of the Aral Sea crisis. The virtuous cycle mechanism (A → S → G → E → I → A) illustrates how institutions can achieve cumulative momentum after a successful initial activation, with coefficients exceeding 0.75, indicating particularly strong subsystem interactions.

The PIM framework offers a diagnostic and planning tool that can be adapted to different initial conditions for peer institutions and resource-constrained environments in Central Asia. Future research should examine the generalizability of coefficients across institutional contexts through multi-site comparative studies, refine the model through structural equation modeling with expanded data sets, and explore adaptation requirements for institutions with different resource profiles or governance structures.

 Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

 Author contributions

AJ: Visualization, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. NO: Writing – original draft, Resources, Investigation. GM: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Project administration. NM: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Data curation. AA: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Resources. ZN: Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis. RA: Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Software. FK: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Investigation. EF: Validation, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis.

 Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

 Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 References Abo-KhalilA. G. (2024). Integrating sustainability into higher education challenges and opportunities for universities worldwide. Heliyon 10:e29946. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29946, 38707336 AlbertiC. CiveraA. LehmannE. E. MeoliM. OttoJ. PaleariS. (2025). University sustainability rankings: a critical literature review on the UI GreenMetric ranking system. J. Technol. Transf. 50, 2752–2801. doi: 10.1007/s10961-025-10223-9 AleneziM. AlanaziF. (2024). Integrating environmental social and governance values into higher education curriculum. Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. 13, 3493–3503. doi: 10.11591/ijere.v13i5.29440 AnkareddyS. DorfleitnerG. ZhangL. OkY. S. (2025). Embedding sustainability in higher education institutions: a review of practices and challenges. Cleaner Environ. Syst. 17:100279. doi: 10.1016/j.cesys.2025.100279 BespalyyS. AlnazarovaG. ScalcioneV. N. VitliemovP. SichinavaA. PetrenkoA. . (2024). Sustainable development awareness and integration in higher education: a comparative analysis of universities in Central Asia, South Caucasus and the EU. Discov. Sustain. 5:346. doi: 10.1007/s43621-024-00562-2 BoiocchiR. RagazziM. TorrettaV. RadaE. C. (2023). Critical analysis of the GreenMetric world university ranking system: the issue of comparability. Sustainability 15:1343. doi: 10.3390/su15021343 Bukhara State University (2025). UI GreenMetric World University Rankings 2025: O‘zbekiston ta’lim muassasalarining muvaffaqiyatli ishtiroki. Available online at: https://buxdu.uz/en/news/8245/8245-ui-greenmetric-world-university-rankings-2025 ÇalışkanK. ÇelikV. O. (2024). Evaluation of sustainable university campuses and sports facilities from the perspective of administrators and students: a multiple case study. Int. J. Sport Cult. Sci. 12, 136–150. doi: 10.14486/IntJSCS.2024.706 Climate-Diplomacy (2024). Conflict over water in the Aral Sea. Available online at: https://climate-diplomacy.org/case-studies/conflict-over-water-aral-sea ElkingtonJ. (1997). The triple bottom line. Environ. Manage. Readings Cases 2, 49–66. FalkenströmF. SolomonovN. RubelJ. (2020). Using time-lagged panel data analysis to study mechanisms of change in psychotherapy research: methodological recommendations. Couns. Psychother. Res. 20, 435–441. doi: 10.1002/capr.12293, 34093088 GignacG. E. SzodoraiE. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personal. Individ. Differ. 102, 74–78. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069 HamakerE. L. KuiperR. M. GrasmanR. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychol. Methods 20, 102–116. doi: 10.1037/a0038889, 25822208 HarrellJ. (2015). Regression modeling strategies with applications to linear models, logistic and ordinal regression, and survival analysis. 2nd Edn. Cham: Springer. HassanM. M. AhmadA. R. (2025). Systematic literature review on the sustainability of higher education institutions (HEIs): dimensions, practices and research gaps. Cogent Educ. 12:2549789. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2549789 Human Development Report. (2000). Available at: https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2000. HusicD. W. (2024). Reframing sustainability initiatives in higher education. Sustain Earth Rev. 7:5. doi: 10.1186/s42055-024-00076-9 IPCC (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. KuzhabekovaA. (2024). Reprioritizing equity in higher education policy and research in Central Asia. Eur. Educ. 56, 179–182. doi: 10.1080/10564934.2024.2458966 Kyrgyz-Turk Manas University (2023). Manas University is among the Top 500 Universities in the UI GreenMetric World University Rankings. Available online at: https://www.manas.edu.kg/en/news/4890 LoodinN. (2020). Aral Sea: an environmental disaster in twentieth century in Central Asia. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 6, 2495–2503. doi: 10.1007/s40808-020-00837-3 LovakovA. AgadullinaE. R. (2021). Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 51, 485–504. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2752 LoyA. KorobovaJ. (2021). Bootstrapping clustered data in R using lmeresampler. R J. 14, 103–120. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2106.06568 MicklinP. P. (1988). Desiccation of the Aral Sea: a water management disaster in the Soviet Union. Science 241, 1170–1176. doi: 10.1126/science.241.4870.1170, 17740781 MicklinP. AladinN. V. ChidaT. BoroffkaN. PlotnikovI. S. KrivonogovS. . (2020). “The Aral Sea: a story of devastation and partial recovery of a large Lake” in Large Asian Lakes in a changing world. ed. MischkeS. (Cham: Springer). NASA. (2024). World of change: Shrinking Aral Sea. NASA Earth Observatory. Available online at: https://science.nasa.gov/earth/earth-observatory/world-of-change/aral-sea/ Nazarbaev University (2024). Available online at: https://nu.kz.libguides.com/greencampus OmonovaN. JuraevA. MahmudovaN. UtevskaiaM. ZhanabayA. (2025). University reputation, support, and security: explaining changes in educational tourism and economic benefits. Front. Sust. Tour. 4:1712220. doi: 10.3389/frsut.2025.1712220 RosliM. H. AzmiN. A. (2025). Integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) into higher education: voices of accounting undergraduates. Inf. Manage. Bus. Rev. 17, 127–135. doi: 10.22610/imbr.v17i3(I)S.4677 Sáez de CámaraE. FernándezI. Castillo-EguskitzaN. (2021). A holistic approach to integrate and evaluate sustainable development in higher education. The case study of the University of the Basque Country. Sustainability, 13:392. doi: 10.3390/su13010392 Sarvinoz AtoevnaT. Canós-DarósL. Osorio-AcostaE. (2025). Green and resilient hotel operations through mega-event legacies. Front. Sports Active Living 7:1604131. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1604131, 40895404 TjiaL. Y. N. (2022). Kazakhstan’s leverage and economic diversification amid Chinese connectivity dreams. Third World Q. 43, 797–822. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2022.2027237 UI GreenMetric (2025). Overall rankings 2025. Available online at: https://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/rankings/overall-rankings-2025 UN Sustainable Development (2023). Uzbekistan: Voluntary National Review. Available online at: https://hlpf.un.org/countries/uzbekistan/voluntary-national-reviews-2023 United Nations. (2000). Dry tears of the Aral. UN Chronicle. Available online at: https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/dry-tears-aral UsamiS. MurayamaK. HamakerE. L. (2019). A unified framework of longitudinal models to examine reciprocal relations. Psychol. Methods 24, 637–657. doi: 10.1037/met0000210, 30998041 WangX. CuiB. ChenY. FengT. LiZ. FangG. (2024). Dynamic changes in water resources and comprehensive assessment of water resource utilization efficiency in the Aral Sea basin, Central Asia. J. Environ. Manag. 353:120198. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120198, 38308989 World Bank (2022). Uzbekistan country overview. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

Edited by: Umakanta Mishra, Vellore Institute of Technology, India

Reviewed by: Kadir Caliskan, Bitlis Eren University, Türkiye

Intan Maulina, Universitas Deli Sumatera, Indonesia

sdg.buxdu.uz