隨著聯合國永續發展目標（Sustainable Development Goals， SDGs）逐漸成為全球治理與社會發展的重要指標，高等教育機構在推動永續發展中的角色日益受到重視。泰晤士高等教育（Times Higher Education， THE）自2019年推出世界大學影響力排名（Impact Rankings），以SDGs為核心評估架構，成為觀察大學永續發展表現的重要指標。本研究以2025年THE世界大學影響力排名中臺灣入榜大學為對象，分析其SDGs表現及基本特徵，並探討永續報告書之揭露情形。 本研究透過描述性分析，檢視入榜大學於各項SDGs之表現，並比較其地理分布、學校類型及規模與排名之關聯；另選取國立臺灣大學與國立雲林科技大學為個案，依據相關評估框架分析其永續報告書中SDGs揭露內容。 研究結果顯示，臺灣入榜大學於SDGs之參與程度存在差異，其中SDG11、SDG7、SDG12及SDG9較為突出，而SDG14、SDG1及SDG2相對較低；各校基本特徵與排名表現未呈現明顯關聯。此外，永續報告書所揭露之SDGs範圍較THE排名所呈現之參與項目更為多元，顯示其較能全面反映大學之永續行動。 整體而言，本研究結合國際排名與永續報告書分析，有助於理解我國大學於永續發展之揭露情形，並提供未來政策與研究之參考。;With the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) increasingly becoming important indicators of global governance and societal development， the role of higher education institutions in promoting sustainable development has received growing attention. Since 2019， Times Higher Education (THE) has introduced the Impact Rankings， which adopt the SDGs as the core evaluation framework and serve as an important reference for observing universities’ sustainability performance. This study focuses on Taiwanese universities listed in the 2025 THE Impact Rankings， analyzing their SDG performance and institutional characteristics， and examining the disclosure of SDG-related information in their sustainability reports. This study employs descriptive analysis to examine universities’ performance across different SDGs and to compare the relationships between ranking performance and institutional characteristics， including geographic distribution， university type， and institutional scale. In addition， National Taiwan University and National Yunlin University of Science and Technology are selected as case studies， and their sustainability reports are analyzed based on a relevant SDG evaluation framework. The results indicate that Taiwanese universities exhibit differences in their levels of participation across SDGs， with SDG 11， SDG 7， SDG 12， and SDG 9 appearing more frequently， while SDG 14， SDG 1， and SDG 2 show relatively lower levels of participation. Furthermore， no significant relationship is found between institutional characteristics and ranking performance. In addition， the range of SDGs disclosed in sustainability reports is broader than the SDG participation reflected in THE rankings， indicating that sustainability reports provide a more comprehensive representation of universities’ sustainability actions. Overall， by integrating the analysis of international rankings and sustainability reports， this study contributes to a better understanding of SDG-related disclosures among higher education institutions in Taiwan and provides a reference for future policy development and research.
