Abstract Recently, universities have transformed from passive contributors to active participants in the global sustainability movement. However, the absence of robust theoretical frameworks and larger‐scale samples has limited the progress that universities can make towards becoming sustainable. By applying complex adaptive systems and taking stock for the first time of a whole national sector's progress towards sustainability (n = 137), combined with semi‐structured interviews from a representative sample of institutions (n = 25), this paper contributes a much‐needed theoretical conceptualisation. It highlights the relationship between organisational control and change in universities, identifying structural and relational conditions that shape institutional approaches to sustainability. Our typology of sustainability approaches reveals a paradox of control: as universities yield control over the operationalisation of sustainability, they create more favourable conditions for effective organisational change. We identify four archetypes of sustainability approaches across the UK university sector, each characterised by different configurations of coupling between value‐adding activities (such as teaching and research) and non‐value‐adding activities (such as campus operations). These archetypes demonstrate varying orientations towards system adaptation. In some cases, institutions direct resources to activities aligned with their disciplinary expertise and sources of financial value, while in others, efforts are directed towards controlling features of the operating environment that remain inherently uncertain. The findings illustrate how universities interpret and respond to conditions of complexity and uncertainty, producing organisational logics that shape the scope and potential resilience of their sustainability strategies. The practice‐relevant findings provide valuable insights for change agents in universities, empowering them to advocate for actions and assist university managers in making informed decisions about implementation.
Voigt et al. (Mon,) studied this question.