This guide has been prepared by Nathalie Jacoby-Danesh, a Partner at Browne Jacobson in collaboration with Matt Wells, International Partnership Manager at the University of Plymouth. 

This guide covers: the strategic context for transnational education growth within higher education; understanding and managing the stakeholder environment; the non-negotiables for turning an international project into a success; and practical supporting pillars for making it work. 

Strategic opportunities, compliance essentials and practical advice for building resilient TNE partnerships

Introduction

Transnational education (TNE) – the delivery of education in a country other than the country in which the awarding institution is based – once considered a niche provision, is becoming increasingly mainstream and experiencing significant growth. UK TNE student numbers have grown around 70% over the past decade, reaching 669,950 in academic year 2024/25 and thus approaching the number of international students studying in the UK.

Government policies on immigration, directly impacting the long-time subsidy provision of international student recruitment, and the increasing interest in education exports, as seen in the UK's International Education Strategy 2026 (Strategy) setting growth of education exports to £40bn by 2030 as a core ambition for the country, are two key factors influencing this trend.

Collaborations across disciplines, sectors, institutions or borders have always been central to academic activities. At this time of acute financial precarity for UK universities, we are seeing how international collaboration and TNE as potential income diversification streams are becoming increasingly part of institutional-level strategic planning.

Universities with established or newer operations overseas, or those in the planning stages, will recognise, however, that it would be wrong to frame TNE as a simple solution to a complex issue – as a financial ‘quick win’. Setting up overseas is undeniably complex and presents increased governance risk and challenges. In times of financial difficulty, where there is increasing pressure on overseas expansion, those risks and challenges can be exacerbated.

University leaders and their legal teams need to be increasingly aware of the need to approach these opportunities with both ambition and vigilance as they can expose institutions to reputational, financial, compliance, people and cultural risks. Geopolitical developments may cause institutions to hit pause on some aspects of the TNE provision, and this may be a good opportunity to re-evaluate and adapt international strategies.

Ambition and vigilance

In this guide, we consider how to strengthen coordination between institutional departments to successfully manage international partnerships across borders, cultures and compliance. We examine the stakeholder environment that institutions face, identify the non-negotiable elements for building resilient partnerships, and offer practical advice to help practitioners balance ambition with rigour in an increasingly complex operating environment.

Understanding and managing the stakeholder environment: a critical success factor

One of the most significant challenges in managing international collaborations, including TNE, is for each institution to understand and manage the diverse interests and power dynamics of both internal and external stakeholders. Success requires careful management of competing priorities whilst maintaining accountability and compliance at every stage.

A simple yet effective method to understanding the stakeholder network is a power-interest grid, wherein we plot power (the ability for an individual or group to achieve a given end through their influence) along the x-axis, and interest (the degree to which they are interested in the topic) on the y-axis. Here, the object is establishing TNE partnerships. The stakeholder network can be further analysed by identifying lines of influence between the various groups plotted on the grid; that is, where individuals or groups can influence the decisions of others, allowing, inter alia, those with less formal power to exert greater influence.

As the exercise itself can often be more informative than the finished picture, we invite the reader to work with colleagues to plot such a grid for their own organisation. We set out below an overview of the stakeholders most commonly encountered. 

Internal stakeholders

Internal stakeholders bring different priorities and perspectives to international partnerships, and managing this complexity requires clear communication, defined roles and responsibilities, and mechanisms for escalating concerns where necessary within a well-understood governance framework. 

• The Board of Governors sits at the apex of power and interest, bearing ultimate responsibility for institutional strategy and risk oversight. They require assurance that international partnerships are financially sustainable and align with institutional mission and that governance arrangements are robust.
• Executives and Directors translate board strategy into operational reality, balancing growth ambitions with risk management. Their high interest and power make them critical gatekeepers for partnership approval and ongoing oversight. Executives will also often have formal roles in any joint venture or partnership arrangements and will need to be mindful of the need to balance their roles and responsibilities so as to guard against conflict of interest.
• Deans and academics bring subject expertise and often drive partnership opportunities through existing research or teaching networks. Their interest may be high, but power varies depending on institutional culture and governance structures. Engaging them early is essential for academic quality assurance and buy-in.
• Quality Assurance Officers have high interest in ensuring that TNE provision meets the same standards as on-campus delivery and the requirements of the Office for Students (OfS) and the guidance of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), though their effective power may depend on institutional culture. Recent regulatory focus has elevated their importance significantly.
• Finance teams assess commercial viability, cash flow, and exit costs. Their input is critical and should come early in the partnership development process, to avoid unrealistic projections or inadequate provision for wind-down costs.
• Legal teams have high interest in compliance, contract negotiation, and risk mitigation, though their power varies. Early involvement is essential as opposed to delaying legal input to when problems emerge or contracts need urgent review.
• Students are directly affected by certain partnerships; their interest can be high, particularly regarding quality, student experience, and protection mechanisms, though their power is typically low unless mobilised through complaints or collective action.
• Administrative and Professional Services Staff have varying levels of interest and power depending on their role (international offices, partnerships teams, student services) but are critical to successful implementation and monitoring.

External stakeholders

External stakeholders present an even more complex environment, with shifting levels of interest and power depending on circumstances.

• Public opinion and media represent an intangible but powerful force.
• Politics and governments shape the environment in which universities operate. Universities are hybrid institutions: independently governed and managed but reliant on public funding streams and subject to some areas of public law. As charities they are prevented from actively engaging in party politics, but due to their hybrid status they are affected by politics, which translate through regulation.
• Higher education regulators: the OfS in England and MEDR in Wales, as the respective regulators of higher education providers, take a high interest in everything universities are doing, including international activities, and they have large enforcement powers. The OfS has published guidance on how English universities should manage their international collaborations, particularly focusing on TNE and partnerships that may pose risks to academic freedom and student protection. For Welsh institutions, since 1 August 2024, MEDR has regulated institutions and is developing a new regulatory system for tertiary education expected to be fully established by August 2027. The Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 (2022 Act) mandates MEDR to promote a Global Outlook as one of 11 strategic duties, and MEDR's Strategic Plan 2025-2030 includes a founding commitment to ensure that learners and staff are aware of opportunities to learn, train, volunteer and work globally.
• National security frameworks carry enormous power, for instance through the National Security and Investment Act 2021, which establishes both mandatory and voluntary notification regimes regarding corporate and contractual collaborations (at home or abroad) in areas potentially affecting national security (which include many areas of research pursued by universities). Non-compliance may result in transactions being rendered void, and specific breaches may give rise to criminal offences or civil monetary penalties.
• The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published guidance recently on 'Collaborating with other higher education providers'. Whilst primarily concerned with competition in UK markets for the benefit of UK consumers (UK students or the UK education market), international collaborations must not harm student choice, pricing, or quality within the UK.
• The QAA no longer carries out a direct regulatory function in England, but its insights, Code and guidance remain valuable for providers across the UK.
• The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA), whilst primarily concerned with individual student complaints, can alert other regulators to systemic issues. The OIA published in 2024 a Good Practice Framework called 'Delivering learning opportunities with others' which sets out the OIA's expectations with regard to student rights in international partnerships.
• UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) may not directly regulate TNE students taught exclusively overseas, but will be relevant to the movement of students and staff from abroad into the UK. 
• Sector bodies and international networks (British Council, Department for Business and Trade, Association of University Legal Practitioners, Universities UK, UUKi, Universities Wales, and international networks) have high interest in British HE doing well internationally. Although they have no direct powers over institutional activities, they can facilitate access to information and partners and help shape agendas and outreach.
• A category of 'Emerging or Unidentified Stakeholders' represents the additional stakeholders who may have an interest in or power over any particular international collaboration, such as national and international partners and regulators. Their powers and interest will be better understood after the university has carried out some background research and due diligence.

The non-negotiables for turning an international project into a success

The key elements for turning an international collaboration into a success remain the same as we advised on 20 years ago. Lessons learnt from any unsuccessful partnerships in the meantime confirm that these elements remain of crucial importance. We have set out below a reminder of the non-negotiables as well as some of the available support pillars.

1. Strategic alignment

International partnerships must be aligned with the strategy and mission of all involved parties, at home and abroad. This requires a well-defined and widely understood institutional strategy and mission to be in place, which sets out the university’s intentions and targets on an international level, taking into account its aspirations, track record and strength in general. 

Internal stakeholders should be involved in formulating and reviewing a provider’s strategy, including any international aspects. Professional services and academic departments play an essential role in connecting high-level strategy with operational reality, as well as in aligning the institution’s policies, wherever relevant (e.g. IP ownership, employment policies, student terms, ethics, etc.) while being mindful of the wider applicable legislative frameworks to ensure compliance (e.g. charity law, the OfS framework, subsidy control, national security, competition law etc.) from the outset.

2. Governance structures

Good governance is the foundation of successful international collaborations. The degree-awarding institution bears direct responsibility for the governance, quality, and management of any courses delivered in its name, at home and abroad. Universities cannot outsource accountability for quality or compliance. It is the governing body of the university which retains ultimate responsibility for international collaborations.

Universities cannot outsource accountability for quality or compliance

Given the OfS’s keen interest in ensuring compliance with all governance and management conditions of registration, it is important that the university’s internal governance arrangements for international collaborations allow the governing body to discharge these responsibilities properly.

Governance structures must not become static or excessively bureaucratic. They must be sufficiently rigorous yet adaptable to the evolving needs of partnership arrangements over time. The key for practitioners is to continually review, streamline and optimise governance processes to ensure strong governance is combined with agility and pace to ensure the partnership retains its competitive edge and regulatory compliance.

3. Comprehensive due diligence

Universities must conduct thorough checks on prospective partners' academic quality, financial health, governance, and reputation before entering into agreements, including verifying accreditation status, reviewing prior collaborations, and evaluating conflicts of interest. 

Due diligence checks need to extend beyond the partner organisation – universities should also seek to gain a better understanding of the legal, regulatory and cultural framework which applies to their potential partner and will govern their collaboration. For instance, before launching cross-border programmes, consult local counsel to verify host country requirements.

Due diligence checks should be completed as early as possible in the process with sufficient time allotted for completion and consideration before moving to the next stage. It should not be seen as a formality: institutions need to be prepared to walk away from any partners or projects that raise unacceptable risks. 

Where projects pass this stage gate, risk registers and risk mitigation strategies should be developed and updated from this early stage onwards.

4. Robust legal agreements

It takes time to design the financial, academic and legal framework which shall govern a specific partnership. While the academic framework may attract significant attention and scrutiny, it is vitally important that the financial and legal aspects are not neglected. 

The results from the due diligence exercise need to be factored in. Early stage legal and tax advice help avoid issues at a later stage. Negotiating thorough written agreements with numerous stakeholders, across borders and time zones must not be rushed. Well-drafted partnership contracts must explicitly detail each party's duties for academic standards, student support, admissions, marketing, data sharing, and reporting, with specific clauses on termination, limitation of liability, governing law and dispute resolution arrangements, compliance, wind-down procedures, and teach-out plans to protect students.

Where templates are used, ensure that they are up to date, suitable for the envisaged arrangements, tailored to the specific project and partner as required and that material changes are reviewed by qualified lawyers before they are endorsed.

Institutions should only enter into legally binding agreements when they are satisfied that risks identified during the due diligence exercise have been properly addressed or mitigated and that the agreement covers all aspects of the collaboration in an acceptable manner.

Regardless of any pressures from partners, the delivery of programmes must not commence before legally binding agreements have been entered into. A joint declaration of intent or non-legally binding memorandum of understanding are not a sufficient basis for implementing an international collaboration, regardless of the pressures that the partner may exert or any cultural differences. 

Once the legal agreements have been signed, it is important that all relevant information gathered during the pre-contract stage (such as during due diligence and negotiations) is shared among the team that will implement the agreements and manage all aspects of the partnerships (including quality assurance and monitoring, student protection, continuous risk assessment and monitoring). The institution’s internal systems and procedures should facilitate such knowledge sharing.

5. Continuous quality assurance and monitoring

Strong working relationships pay dividends

Students on partner-delivered courses must receive the same standard of education and support as those on the home campus. Universities should establish regular communication channels with partner staff and procedures for regular monitoring and review of agreements.

As these issues will likely be uncovered by those involved in the day to day running of the partnership, staff with partnership management responsibilities should be aware of key legal considerations and check with the legal services department where doubts or questions arise. Legal teams may be able to upskill other professional service staff to help them spot potential issues early on, mitigating risk and freeing up resource. Strong working relationships between the two teams can pay dividends.

6. Student protection

Universities must monitor the experience of their students at home and abroad. If complaints identify systemic issues with particular partnerships, universities should seek to address them as soon as possible, exercising their rights to audit and/or intervene under the partnership agreements. The OIA Good Practice Framework requires the partners to put into place clear protocols for handling concerns, complaints or appeals.

7. Continuing risk assessment and exit planning

Throughout the lifecycle of a partnership, the university needs to update its risk register, adjust arrangements as needed and maintain exit strategies which protect the interests of students.

It’s very difficult to establish actionable and realistic exit plans in advance, given that the specific events leading to the termination of a partnership will have a major impact on what an exit may look like, how the interests of students can best be protected, what third parties may need to be involved and what the associated timeframes and costs may be. 

However, institutions will need to have in place strategies to set out a framework that assists decision makers in making exit arrangements when needed.

Supporting pillars: making it work in practice

The foregoing sections raise the question how universities can manage the process of developing a strong partnership built upon robust foundations in times of increasingly strained resources. We offer practical suggestions under four broad categories: 

Stakeholder alignment and governance culture

Effective stakeholder management requires understanding the power/interest matrix, connections and lines of influence between stakeholders, and creating mechanisms to keep all parties aligned. 

Universities should establish clear communication channels, define roles and responsibilities explicitly, and create escalation procedures before issues become crises. Governance culture is critical – policies and processes must be clear, well-defined, well-understood, documented and, most importantly, applied consistently.

Internal resources and capacity

Universities should take a wide view on internal resources and use them effectively, including employees from target jurisdictions, speakers of relevant languages, researchers familiar with the overseas culture as well as professional advisors’ panels making available ‘added value’ resources.  

Universities should also conduct regular audits on what research/activities fall within National Security and Investment Act 2021 regulated categories so that compliance issues are flagged from the outset. 

Templates should be kept up to date and include (separate) notes and guidance sections for negotiators and overseas partners to facilitate contract negotiations.

Governance and operational procedures also need to ensure that internal stakeholders and resources are involved at the right stage. For instance, it is important to seek the views of the finance team from the outset, when evaluating whether a partnership should be pursued further, as Finance will be able to inform on potential winding down and teaching out costs. 

Equally, the needs of the in-house legal team should be taken into account, including to budget for external/overseas advice and ensure sufficient capacity at the right time.

Leveraging sector bodies and external resources

Universities should lean on HE sector bodies to facilitate access to information, potential partners and overseas stakeholders. Universities can help shape the agendas of sector bodies and their outreach to their counterparts across the world. Universities should also avail themselves fully of the external resources identified in the Strategy (e.g. British Council, Department for Business and Trade, the UK’s Education Champion).

Shared services and collaboration

The UUK Transformation and Efficiency Taskforce recommended that universities collaborate more effectively through shared services. Universities should consider sharing services and resources to further their international collaborations. 

Whilst many universities will be competing for partnerships, students and funding abroad, they could combine their efforts to conduct due diligence on entire regions or types of partners, on overseas regulatory environments. They could also commission legal advice on a shared basis on general questions of law or regulations.

Universities could further exchange their know-how and pool international office expertise, not to reduce overall headcount but to put heads together to share out an increasing compliance load.

Conclusion

International partnerships offer significant strategic opportunities for UK universities, but they demand sustained attention to governance, compliance and stakeholder management. By embedding the non-negotiables outlined above and making effective use of internal and external resources, institutions can build partnerships that are both ambitious and resilient.