Universities

FOREWORDThis report is extremely timelyWith ever growing concerns about our climate and with more and more business leaders announcing thatunderstanding and addressing an organisation’s carbon footprint is now a priority - Business in the Communitybelieve that using the Index as a management framework provides a systematic approach to reviewingenvironmental and social practices. Notwithstanding that universities’ core activities are education and learning– they are also huge organisations in their own right, with an infrastructure that is equivalent to any business and assuch, managing environmental, economic and social impacts is equally relevant.We are delighted to have had the opportunity to apply our Index methodology in the Higher Education sectorand as we suspected – participating universities have gained new insight into their environmental managementand performance. It has reinforced the good work that is happening on the ground but challenged the systematicadoption of leading practice.Universities that CountWork of this kind must be based on partnership and we thank, and acknowledge, the commitment and involvementof the EAUC and Leeds Metropolitan University.We believe this work has proven that a voluntary exercise that engages and shares experience is a winning formulaand we look forward to using it to engage all universities who want to play a full part in responsible businesspractice.Patrick MallonDirector, Benchmarking and ReportingBusiness in the CommunityThe environmental sector is one of the most rapidly expanding sectors across the globeYet most organisations struggle to understand how it affects them and what it involves on a day-to-day basis.Benchmarking tools such as those provided by Business in the Community give a simple and straight forwardframework for all organisations to work from. The advantage of the indices tested in this project is that they gentlylead you on a journey from researching your current position, developing strategy, improving your performanceand then to effective management of all your significant impacts. Recognition of taking part is given the greatestemphasis; positive and constructive feedback then encourages improvement.The ultimate goal is to integrate environmental and corporate responsibility into the DNA of all organisations andtheir employees. It is my belief that the indices tested in this project are an effective way of starting that integration.Leeds Metropolitan University has certainly benefited from Business in the Community’s guidance and support ingoing through this process.Mark WarnerEnvironmental Projects ManagerLeeds Metropolitan University

Universities that CountImproving ourselves by learning from othersThere are numerous definitions of benchmarking, but essentially it involves learning, sharing informationand adopting best practices to bring about step changes in performance. So, at its simplest,benchmarking means “improving ourselves by learning from others”.This sums up the approach of the EAUC very well. As the sustainability champion for UK further andhigher education, we work collaboratively to both provoke and support universities and colleges to riseto the challenge and opportunity of becoming more sustainable.In the global economy where competition is higher than ever before, there is a growing recognition that,to compete effectively, groups of organisations need to improve their performance in parallel. There isalso an acceptance that different sectors require bespoke support to gain a deeper understanding of thespecific issues that are affecting them and tailoring support to help address these issues. Working withour partners, the EAUC intends to do just that.Whilst this report illustrates universities are taking the first steps towards environmental and corporateresponsibility benchmarking, it also highlights that there is a long journey to go before they are flagshiporganisations. Our goal should be to provide sustainable environments for teaching and learning, bothacademically and operationally, for our leaders of tomorrow.Benchmarking has much to offer our UK universities and colleges and the EAUC look forward to thesharing, learning and improvement ahead as sustainability benchmarking finds its rightful place in ourseats of learning.Iain PattonExecutive DirectorEnvironmental Association for Universities and Colleges

1EXECUTIVE SUMMARYTwenty-five pioneering HE Institutions tookpart in this project, of which twenty completedthe Environment Index and five completed theCorporate Responsibility (CR) Index. Results ofboth Indices have been provided within this report.Participants were benchmarked against the resultsof the National Environment and CR Indices forbusinesses in 2005. Comparisons with the privatesector have been made throughout this report.There is also an analysis of participants’ feedbackbased on interviews and project evaluationfeedback.This pilot project concludes that the benchmarkingtools developed by BITC are appropriate for theHigher Education (HE) sector. There was aninterpretation challenge for some, with languagethat was considered too ‘corporate’. Sectorspecificguidance material may be desirable tosupport Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)in carrying out more effective benchmarking.Consideration could be given to the addition of a‘Curriculum’ based option in the Performance andImpact section of the Indices. This would serve asa tool to highlight the contribution to society thatHEIs make through their teaching and research.It is apparent from results in the Environment Indexthat the HE sector as a whole is in the early stagesof managing its environmental impacts. Thereare, however, examples of good environmentalmanagement and performance emerging for thesector, particularly in the area of Climate Change.However, it should be noted that three out of thefive institutions (60%) completing the CR Indexscore highly on environmental performance.Few Institutions were able to participate in the CRIndex and scores were generally low relative tothe Business Index. Although only a small numbercompleted the CR Index, a high level of interestwas expressed by the HE sector indicating that theCR Index could grow in importance in the future.In terms of performance also, there were someareas where participants excelled, most notablyin Workplace Diversity. Here, the HE sector outperformedthe business sector.All participants report having benefited fromtaking part in this project, in particular the Indexprocess itself. The majority of participants felt theirinvolvement has raised board level awarenessof their activities and improved relationships withcolleagues in different departments where issuesare crosscutting. All participants have expressedan interest in continuing to benchmark and have ashared view that HEFCE should endorse the twoIndices and support Institutional work in this field.In the short term, the HE sector will requiresupport, both technically and financially, as itestablishes its benchmarking programme. Thisreport recommends the continuation of the HEBenchmarking Project: administered by BITC,led by HEFCE, with the backing of the EAUC. Inthe longer term, consideration should be madeto the results of the Indices being made public.An exit plan should also be developed to ensurethe programme’s success as a self-sustainingactivity. Consultation with project partners,participants and HEFCE will be paramount tothe continued success and evolution of the HEsector benchmarking journey that we have alreadybegun.Universities that Count

Universities that Count2INTRODUCTION“Optimising the efficiency of how a university teaches, researches and develops graduates has beenrecognised as simply good business in a globalising market. But optimising the contribution of theinstitution to the biggest challenge - a shift to a more sustainable path for human progress - is not yet atthe heart of this process.” Sara Parkin, Founder, Forum for the FutureThis report introduces the reader to the EAUC,BITC and Leeds Metropolitan University pilotproject: ‘Testing the Appropriateness of Businessin the Community’s Corporate Responsibility Indexand Environment Index for the Higher EducationSector’. The report has primarily been prepared forthe Higher Education Funding Council of England(HEFCE), which funded the project. From here on,for ease of reporting, this project will be referred toas the ‘HE benchmarking project’.The BITC Indices have provided a framework forbusinesses to benchmark their environmentaland social activities for over ten years. Althoughthese tools are designed for the business sector,environmental and social issues are essentiallythe same for a HEI. In terms of fitting the Indicesto the HE sector, the language and terminologydiffers, requiring a degree of interpretation withinthe HE sector. Participants may also feel they donot get enough opportunity to report on sectorspecificactivities. This is a concern also expressedby companies in the National Business Indexprogrammes. Since one of the Indices’ strengthsis for organisations to benchmark against theirpeers and other sectors, the framework needsto be consistent for all. The business world hasconcluded that the advantages of the Indicesoutweigh the short falls, with over 150 companiescompleting the Environment Index nationally andaround the same number completing the CR Indexeach year. The BITC Indices remain the leadingbenchmarking tool in this field. Project evaluationand comments provided by HEI participants in thisproject strongly support this conclusion.All participants were subject to the same Indexprocess as experienced by business participants.All completed either the Environment or CRIndex online, within a given timeframe, and wereexpected to provide supporting informationand evidence to back up their claims. Indexsubmissions were challenged during the reviewprocess and in many instances further evidence1Times Higher Education Supplement, 14th April 2006was requested. Telephone interviews weregenerally required to ‘close out’ participant’ssubmissions. All participants received a‘confidential feedback report’ containing theirscores, the HE sector averages, and the overallIndex 2005 scores, across the different sections inthe Index survey.The project partners, EAUC, BITC and the LeedsMetropolitan University shared the recruitment,project publicity, engagement, and workshoptasks. The Index submission reviews, projectevaluation, preparation of confidential feedbackreports back to participants, and this final projectreport were provided by BITC.2.1 Business in the Community’sBenchmarking ToolsBusiness in the Community is a charity, whichengages companies with the leadership totranslate corporate values and commitments intomainstream management practice. Companiesmeasure and report on progress and illustrate theaction being taken to improve the impact of theiroperations, products and services on society andthe environment. BITC membership comprisesover 750 members including over 70 of the FTSE100 companies with a further 2,000 connectedthrough a network of more than 90 global partners.Together BITC members employ over 14.7 millionpeople in over 200 countries worldwide.BITC, in consultation with its member companies,develop and manage the Environment Indexand Corporate Responsibility (CR) Index. TheEnvironment Index has been running for ten yearsand the CR Index is in its fifth year.The Environment Index is the UK’s leading selfassessedcorporate environmental benchmarkand is a stand-alone module of BITC’s broaderCR Index. It provides companies with a framework

2. Introductionfor comparing environmental management andperformance with peers.The CR Index is the UK’s leading benchmarkof responsible business, helping organisationsto integrate and improve responsible businesspractice across their business. The Index providesa systematic approach to managing, measuringand reporting an organisations impact on societyand the environment.2.1.1 Benefits of benchmarkingWhen used as a management tool, both theEnvironment and CR Index can provide a numberof benefits:• Provides a useful framework to supportorganisations in identifying material andemerging issues.• Brings different functions in an organisationtogether to support understanding andmanagement of their CR/environmental keyissues.• Reinforces good practice already undertakenwithin an organisation and drives furtherimprovement through gap analysis.• Enables organisations to benchmarkthemselves against their peers and otherIndex participants.• Provides a practical framework for improvingand communicating performance to bothinternal and external stakeholders.• Challenges whether the organisation isconducting CR/environmental activities in asystematic and integrated way.• Can help build stakeholder trust, by providingcredible, independent information tostakeholders, demonstrating an organisationscommitment to transparency.2.2 Benchmarking the HE sectorTraditionally HEIs are not considered asbusinesses, yet in most cases share similarcharacteristics and are under similar pressures tocompanies in terms of social and environmentalimpacts, risks, opportunities and accountability tostakeholders. For example HEIs:• Provide a significant contribution to theeconomy of the region in which they arebased.• Turn over considerable sums of money.• Are large employers - often competing fiercelyfor top quality staff.• Have significant supply chains.• Work hard to attract customers (students).• Have an environmental impact that mustbe increasingly well managed withintighter legislative boundaries and higherexpectations.• Have student populations, researchprogrammes, resources and facilities thatimpact on both local and in some casesglobal communities.Further, HEIs are ‘future-shapers’:• Directing research, markets, science,technology and values.• Providing the next generation of society’sprofessionals, politicians and leaders.2.2.1 Benchmarking the HE sector in fiveyears timeThe HE sector will come under increasingscrutiny from stakeholders in terms of the waythey operate. They will feel a similar pressure todemonstrate responsible behaviour and promotetheir sustainability. The introduction of variabletuition fees will bring a ‘market’ effect that is newto the sector, and transparency will be a necessarypart of enhanced brand management and ‘licenceto operate’ – akin to the private sector.The institutions which are reducing their carbonfootprint, introducing eco-efficiencies, greeningtheir supply chains, collaborating with theircommunities and providing supportive as wellas excellent places to work and study will be theinstitutions selected by staff and students wantingto align their futures with the organisations thatshare their values. A HEI’s corporate responsibilityor sustainability reputation will be among the topconsiderations for staff and students when makingtheir choice.Universities that Count

Universities that Count3KEY FINDINGS3.1 Environment Index• All 25 HEIs participating in the HEbenchmarking project can be consideredpioneers in HE sector environmentalbenchmarking. The participants representapproximately 17% of the sector. Six projectparticipants (24%) have been benchmarkingfor over six years in the BITC Yorkshire &Humber (Y&H) Regional Environment Index(for businesses). The other 19 (76%) werenew to the Index process.• The HE sector scored well in a numberof Impact Areas within the Performancesection of the Index. Of note, the ‘ClimateChange’ Impact Area with an average of 61%,pushing the overall performance score up.Although the Self-Selected Impact score wasonly 56%, this masked the pockets of higherscores embedded within that score, such asWater Consumption at 78% and Biodiversity69%.• HEIs that have a history of benchmarking inthe Y&H Environment Index are leading theway. The Environment Index overall score forthe HE sector was 55%. When the scores forthe Y&H HEIs were extracted from the overallsector scores they averaged 84%. This wasslightly higher than the National (Business)Environment Index score in 2005 of 83%.• Only five of the project HEIs fell withinthe Business Environment Index 2005 Top100, and only one within the top fifty. Thissuggests that the sector, as a whole, hasplenty of room for improvement.• The HE sector scored equally forEnvironmental Management andPerformance & Impact. The Managementscore was 55% and the Performance scorewas 55% unlike a Business sector averagetrend of a higher score for Management(85% and 80% respectively). HE sectorscores dipped significantly in ‘EnvironmentalManagement Systems’, ‘Audit’ and ‘SupplyChain’, thus impacting on the overallmanagement section average. Resultsindicate that, besides identifying impactsand setting policies, the HE sector is inthe early stages of strategic environmentalmanagement.3.2 Corporate Responsibility (CR) Index• All five Institutions that completed theCR Index are pathfinders for the sector.Representing just 3% of the HE sector, theparticipation rate was low. All participantswere new to the CR Index process.• Participant’s scores across the Strategyand Integration sections of the Index wereconsistent with the peaks and troughs ofthe Business Index. The overall CR Indexscore for the sector was 51% compared to theBusiness score of 84%. Corporate Strategywas strongest at 78% and Integration weakestat 48%, as compared to the Business Indexscores of 92% and 82% respectively.• The majority, but not all of the CR Indexparticipants were amongst the top sectorperformers in the Environment Index. Thissuggests that the majority of participants in theCR Index have internal management systemsin place extending beyond environmentalmanagement. It is probable that environmentalmanagement is an obvious point of entryinto the broader corporate responsibility/sustainability agenda.

3. Key Findings• For some HEIs it was evident that otherareas of CR were further advancedthan environment, indicating a different‘point of entry’ to CR than an extensionof environmental activities. For example,results indicate that Corporate Strategy(including corporate values, risk management,advocacy and business conduct) is quite welladvanced for some HEIs.• There were some pockets of strong sectoractivity namely, in Workplace Diversity inthe Social Impact section. The HE sectoraverage of 76% for Workplace Diversitywas higher than that for businesses at 72%.Participants had also progressed well inCorporate Strategy with an overall score of78%.• Sector scores were lowest in theIntegration Section, especially in terms ofintegrating CR principles, remuneration/bonus systems and public reporting.Community Investment Impact was also lowat 43%. The low result was possibly moreto do with a lack of procedures in place for‘measuring and accounting’ activities, ratherthan the extent to which these activities, suchas volunteering, are taking place.would help with interpretation, and agreedthat, despite the language issue one of thestrengths of the Index was it’s link to thecorporate world.• There was general consensus that thebenchmarking project and the Indexprocess helped raise the profile of theenvironment and corporate responsibilityat Board level. It is compulsory thatparticipants have their Index submissionsigned-off by a senior manager. Mostparticipants agreed that this requirement, theconfidential feedback report (gap analysis)and the sector ranking meant the projectreceived Board level attention.• Attendance was low at a number ofIndex workshops, reducing networkingopportunities. 50% of participants didnot feel they got enough opportunity tonetwork during the project. This was theproject’s weakest point. Unfortunately 25% ofparticipants did not attend workshops and thisobviously had an impact on the networkingopportunities. Feedback suggests thatworkshops would have been more successfulif more forewarning was provided to potentialattendees. However, 54% had a positiveexperience of workshops and 46% said theybenefited from the networking opportunities.Universities that Count3.3 Institutional feedback• All participants indicated that theywere interested in continuing theirbenchmarking activities through the BITCIndex process.• The majority of participants (83%) foundthe Index process straightforward. However,feedback highlighted issues with interpretingthe ‘corporate language’ and businessterminology in some parts of the survey. Mostsuggested that HE sector specific guidelines• Almost all participants said that ‘next timeround’ they would allow more time andinvolve more colleagues. This was one ofthe strongest messages coming through fromparticipants. The majority of participants werenot prepared for what was involved, in termsof collecting data and providing supportingevidence. These comments anecdotallysupport the Index findings: that the HEsector is in its early stages of strategicallyand systematically managing and reportingenvironmental and corporate responsibilityinformation.

Universities that Count4ENVIRONMENTALINDEXRESULTS10

4ENVIRONMENTAL INDEXRESULTS4.1 The Index modelThe Environment Index assesses the extent towhich environmental responsibility is integratedthroughout an organisation, and provides abenchmark for both environmental managementand performance in impact areas material to theorganisation.processes make up 5% of an organisation’s overallscore, and willingness to disclose contributes theremaining 5%. See Figure 1.4.3 Environment Index Overall Scores(HE Sector Average 55%, BusinessAverage 83%)Universities that Count4.2 ScoringThe Management and Performance sectionshave been equally weighted at 45%, while theAssurance section (which covers the entiresurvey) has been weighted at 10%. Within theManagement section, all questions have beenequally weighted, except for the Supply Chainand Stewardship questions, which carry doublethe weight of others. Within the Performancesection, all three impact areas carry the sameweight. Within the Assurance section, assuranceThe HE Benchmarking Project Environment Indexbenchmarked HEIs against their sector peers(HE Sector Average) and companies that haveparticipated in the National Environment Index2005 (providing the ‘Business Average’), on thebasis of their environmental management andperformance in key impact areas.Figure 2 compares the HE sector to sectors withinthe Business Index. The HE sector score of 55%falls 20% behind Professional Services, the lowestperforming sector in the Business Index.Figure 1(45%) (45%) (5%) (5%)11

4. Environmental Index ResultsUniversities that CountFigure 2The twenty-five HEIs in the pilot project makeup the ‘HE sector average’ for these results. TheBITC Environment Index 2005 average was 83%.Seasoned HEIs that have been benchmarking inthe BITC Y&H Regional Environment Index for thepast six years are significantly advanced. Theiraverage, when extracted from the overall sectoraverage, was a strong 84%. Compared to this,newcomers to the Index achieved an average of45%.Figure 3 shows the HE sector average across theEnvironment Index, and compares with the overallBusiness average. For reference, each chart isnormalised to 100%.4.4 Environmental Management (HE SectorAverage 55%, Business Average 86%)Environmental management encompasses theextent to which an organisation understandsand manages its environmental impacts and,where appropriate, makes environmental issuesan integral part of its business strategy. TheManagement section of the Index comprises of:key issues methodologies, leadership, policy,objectives, targets, employee environmentalprogramme, communication with externalstakeholders, environmental managementsystems (EMS), audit, supplier programme andstewardship.Figure 4 shows the HE sector average across themanagement areas, and compares with the overallBusiness average.Figure 312

4. Environmental Index ResultsFigure 4Universities that CountThe HE sector scored just under 55% forEnvironmental Management, compared to theBusiness Index average of 86%. The average,if extracted from the rest, for the six moreexperienced Index participants was 83%, closerto the Business average. Newcomers to the Indexaveraged 47%.4.4.1 Key Issues (HE Sector Average 70%,Business Average 99%)Key environmental issues for the HE sector were:Energy use and carbon emissionsWaste and recycling managementTravel managementProcurement and supply chainResource useEnvironmental legislationBiodiversityWater managementThe built environment, construction,maintenance and refurbishment.Sector-specific key issues identified were:Sustainability literacyCurriculum/teaching environmental andsustainability subject matterKnowledge production and transferThe methodologies employed by participantsto determine their key issues were varied. 20%of participating HEIs have no internal reviewprocedures in place to identify their key issues.Their review was a specific response to the Indexprocess. A further 20% carried out a reviewin response to this Index submission but alsoincorporated a cross-functional review. However,60% of participating HEIs have determined thekey environmental issues for their institutionfrom an established, regular environmental riskassessment or formal environmental impact reviewprocess.4.4.2 Leadership (HE Sector Average 65%,Business Average 88%)Without leadership from the top, environmentalmanagement will not be considered strategicallyimportant and will be implemented in an ad hocfashion.For the HE sector, the Leadership questionrequired participants to interpret ‘Board Memberwith specific environmental responsibilities’ toa HE equivalent; a translation that was easilymade in most cases. For instance, the majority ofparticipants could provide details of how their lineof reporting on environmental issues reached theUniversity Council or similar body.The majority (92%) of participating HEIs haveformally appointed a senior member of staff,such as the Vice-Chancellor or a Pro Vice-Chancellor with environmental responsibilities.In other cases a Director (for example of Finance13

4. Environmental Index ResultsUniversities that Countor Estates) reports directly to the UniversityCouncil, Committee, or as a member of aSenior Management Team. However only 60%of participants said environmental issues werereported to the ‘Board’ at least annually and couldprovide the date of the last report to support theiranswer.4.4.3 Policy (HE Sector Average 84%,Business Average 97%)Policies reflect an organisation’s commitmentto environmental responsibility, and set outthe framework for the management of relevantenvironmental issues. Policies help an organisationto communicate its vision and principles to bothinternal and external stakeholders, and provide abasis upon which to set environmental objectivesand targets.Most HEIs have by now developed anenvironmental policy, although not all. In somecases a single-issue policy was in use, suchas an energy policy, and at the other end ofthe spectrum there were examples of a fullsustainability policy. In a few cases there wasevidence of policy evolution, such as the upgradeof an existing environment policy or single-issuepolicy with a more integrated sustainability policy(which was sitting in draft form at the time of Indexsubmission). The majority (80%) of formalisedpolicies are available internally, are regularlyreviewed and accessible to the public via theuniversity’s website.The difference between environmental objectivesand targets was sometimes difficult for participantsto determine. The Index uses the ISO 14001definitions: “Objectives are the overall goals arisingfrom the environmental policy” and “Environmentaltargets are the detailed performance requirementsthat need to be met to achieve objectives. Targetsshould ideally be SMART (Specific, Measurable,Attainable, Relevant and have a Time scale)”.72% of participants have developed environmentalobjectives. Target setting is slightly less advanced,with 68% of participants having set environmentalmanagement targets.In terms of targets, however, the Index asksparticipants to report on both their managementtargets, that is initiatives or activities to improve theway in which environmental issues are managed,and performance targets which are concernedwith reducing measurable impact or improvingefficiencies. It is not surprising that the setting ofperformance targets (48%) is lagging behind thatof management targets since performance targetsusually require management targets to be put inplace first, and are often more challenging.Note, although a reasonable number ofparticipants could respond positively to the settingof both environmental objectives and targets, therewere few submissions where ALL environmentalkey issues identified by participants were coveredby management objectives, management targets,and performance targets. In most cases, it waslimited to one or two key issues; commonly energyand recycling.4.4.4 Objectives (HE Sector Average 68%,Business Average 95%) & Targets(HE Sector Average 59%, BusinessAverage 91%)Objectives and targets help an organisationto translate policy into focussed action, and toreduce/minimise negative environmental impactsor increase/maximise positive impacts. Internally,objectives and targets help prioritise workloadsand review progress. Externally, they demonstratecommitment to continuous improvement andtransparency.Only 36% of participants have their environmentalobjectives and targets publicly available.4.4.5 Employee Environmental Programme(HE Sector Average 66%, BusinessAverage 93%)An employee environmental programme (EEP)describes the specific means of enablingemployees (including contractors) to achieveenvironmental objectives and targets. 32%of participants have reported comprehensiveemployee programmes, providing internal14

4. Environmental Index Resultscommunication of environmental information,assigning people with specific responsibilities,providing training and consulting with employeeson environmental issues across the whole of theirorganisation. The rest, however, reported ‘variable’progress made on their EEP. Popular approachesto environmental programmes included raisinggeneral awareness via the intranet and staffnewsletters, setting up a ‘champions’ networkacross the campus, and introducing crossfunctionalsustainability groups.4.4.6 Communication with ExternalStakeholders (HE Sector Average 57%,Business Average 86%)Stakeholders are those who either affect, or areaffected by, the activities of an organisation.Results for the HE sector indicate that externalstakeholder communication is generally lessadvanced than communication with staff. Inmost cases the best example of stakeholdercommunication was that with students (obviouslya key stakeholder). Some HEIs have two-waydialogue with their students via internet portals,student union relationships, or by inviting studentsonto stakeholder panels or committees.Communications with HEFCE and/or otherfinancial stakeholders is either one-way or two-waybut tailored to need. There were other examplesof stakeholder communications with financialinvestors such as Public Finance Initiatives,which involved environmental risk/opportunityconsultation. Communications with financialinsurers was much more limited, indicatingthat contractual arrangements with insurancecompanies or similar, did not cover environmentalcriteria or risk assessment.The HE sector’s communications with governmentregulators such as DTI, Environment Agency andDfES and local councils are fairly active. SomeHEIs have good relations with local communitystakeholders and are member of residentsgroups, regional development committees orhave developed better stakeholder engagementin response to campus expansion plans, recyclingprogrammes or green travel plans.Less advanced are communications with NGOsand the media, and in most cases suppliersand contractors. In terms of NGOs/media, manyparticipants reported little or no communicationunless they were either stimulated by lobbygroups (such as People & Planet) or were partof partnerships that won media attention (suchas Fairtrade activities). Communications withsuppliers and contractors tended to be one-wayvia procurement questionnaires. However, therewere some examples of two-way communication(dialogue) between some HEIs and their suppliers.4.4.7 EMS (HE Sector Average 24%, BusinessAverage 78%) & Audit (HE SectorAverage 35%, Business Average 84%)The Index revealed that almost half (48%) ofparticipants do not have any form of environmentalmanagement system (EMS) and only 8% havea fully certified system. The remaining 44% areeither in the early stages of implementation or havean informal system covering one or two of theirimpact areas.Audit systems are a little more varied with someparticipants having either completed an initialreview or a baseline audit, and others havingaudited one or two impact areas either throughtheir environmental programme or as part ofan internal audit process conducted by anindependent audit team. Only 16% of participantshave a fully implemented, periodic audit systemcovering all activities, which is verified by anindependent third party.4.4.8 Environmental Supplier Programme(HE Sector Average 38%, BusinessAverage 72%)A supplier programme refers to the integrationof environmental factors into the procurementprocess of an organisation. It can take the formof information exchange, can provide help andencouragement to suppliers, and can produce costewardshipagreements.With one or two exceptions, the HE sector is inthe early stages of integrating environmentalUniversities that Count15

4. Environmental Index ResultsUniversities that Countfactors into their supply chain management(sector average of 38%). However, the majorityof participants (92%) have some form of ‘green’procurement policy, often embedded into theirenvironmental or sustainability policy. HEIs areshowing signs of advancing their supply chainprogramme. They are beginning to allocate keysupply chain responsibilities to staff and providetraining, review their supply chain in terms ofenvironmental risks (and opportunities), asksuppliers for information regarding environmentalmanagement and engage more fully with suppliersand contractors on environmental issues.4.4.9 Environmental Stewardship (HE SectorAverage 55%, Business Average 89%)Environmental stewardship means consideringand managing the environmental impactsthat arise either directly or indirectly from anorganisation’s products, processes or servicesfrom its development, use and disposal.This concept is more difficult and less tangible forthe HE sector to interpret than, say, the Miningsector or a manufacturing company where the‘core product’ and its production process is muchmore obvious. HEIs view their core product astheir ‘teaching/research and knowledge transfer’or their ‘graduates’. In either case, the curriculum,the student, and the campus can be ‘stewarded’by the HEI in terms of environmental impact.Furthermore, a student developing environmentallyresponsible behaviour, literacy and knowledgeduring their time on campus, can take this intotheir domestic and professional lives. This can beviewed as the ‘indirect stewardship’ effect an HEIcan have on society.Reponses to this question tended to be ratherbroad and ranged from curriculum developmentand sustainability strategies, environmentalawareness raising and provision of services oncampus (such as recycling, organic and Fairtradeproducts), to the introduction of eco-efficiencieson campus such as the procurement of recycledproducts and energy conservation technologies.Given the broad approach to this question, formost Index participants there is some degree ofenvironmental stewardship taking place. Surveyresults indicate that HEIs participating in the BITCY&H Environment Index are more advanced in thisarea, with a sub-group average of 85%, comparedto a newcomer’s average of 48%.4.5 Performance and Impact (HE SectorAverage 55%, Business Average 81%)The Environmental Performance Section of theIndex assesses the extent to which organisationsmeasure, manage and publicly report their keyenvironmental impacts. As part of this, the Indexconsiders the scope and quality of measurementand reporting, asks whether organisations setperformance improvement targets, and checkswhether companies can demonstrate continuousimprovement in the different impact areas.Each HEI was asked to complete a total of threeimpact areas – two mandatory areas (ClimateChange and Waste), and one self-selected areamaterial to their operations. The following graphsillustrate the HE sector’s performance in both coreareas and self-selected areas, compared withthe average performance of the overall BusinessIndex.Figure 516

4. Environmental Index ResultsThe HE sector scored equally 55% for Performanceand Impact and Environmental Management.This may reflect pockets of good practice that arenot linked to any overall strategy or managementsystem. The average score for the Business Indexwas 81% and if we breakdown the HE sectorinto experienced participants and newcomers;we have averages of 88% and 45%, respectively.These results indicate the advancements madeby the Y&H HEIs in terms of their environmentalperformance and impact through consistentinvolvement in the Index.4.5.1 Climate Change (HE Sector Average61%, Business Average 78%)For Climate Change, organisations are given thechoice of reporting either on one overall, or severalindividual Key Performance Indicators (KPIs),including energy, transport and process emissions.68% of HEIs chose to report in terms of an overallKPI for Climate Change, and 32% chose to reporton individual KPIs. Detailed scores for the Sectorand Business Index are shown below.The majority of HEIs answered this question interms of an overall KPI since amounts of fuelused/CO2 generated by vehicle use were lessthan 10% of the overall energy total. Fuel usage,for the purposes of the Index, only covers ‘fleetand business use’ and does not include staff orstudent commuting. Commuting to the universityis, of course, a significant issue for the sector andthere was the opportunity to report on this impactarea (‘indirect impact’) later in the Index. Processemissions from plant and buildings were notidentified as an issue for participants.It should be noted that in most cases participantschoosing to report individual KPIs did not havefuel/CO2 data measurements for transport. Thisgap was reflected in the scores, with the averagefor Climate Change - overall KPIs at 67% and theaverage for Climate Change - individual KPIs beingslightly lower at 54%. Similar trends were evidentin the Business Index: 87% and 69% respectively.The HE sector scored relatively well in this impactarea, especially in terms of measurement andreporting, scope and quality of information, anddemonstrating management improvements. Thesector is seeing significant improvements throughthe Carbon Trust Programme. The Carbon Trustis providing HEIs with technical and changemanagement support and guidance to help themrealise carbon emissions savings. Progress couldalso be partly attributed to HEFCE, who now askHEIs to provide energy/CO2 data in their EstatesManagement Statistics.Although 80% of participants are measuring andaggregating centrally their energy use acrossthe whole of their campus, only 32% are makingthis information publicly available. Data is usuallyof a ‘verifiable’ standard (80%) but not oftenindependently verified (28%).The results for target setting were split. 40% ofHEIs having set targets for the whole of theirinstitution and made them public. 36% havenot set targets at all. 80% of participants couldUniversities that CountFigure 617

4. Environmental Index ResultsUniversities that CountFigure 7demonstrate management improvements.Fewer (56%) could demonstrate performanceimprovements (i.e. actual reductions in energyuse), only 12% could claim improvement over 3-5years.4.5.2 Waste and Resource Management(HE Sector Average 46%, BusinessAverage 69%)All participants were required to answer the Waste& Resource Management question, which looks atan organisation’s approach to waste reduction atsource, waste re-use/recycling and waste disposal.Waste and resource management is generally notas advanced as climate change for the HE sector(46%). A similar trend is evident in the Businessaverage, which dips to 69%. Results indicate thatwhere waste to landfill (or incinerator) and/or wastebeing recycled is measured (just over 50%), itgenerally covers the whole of campus. However,amounts are usually estimates, target setting issparse, and performance improvement is low. Themanagement and performance of waste recycling(including the setting of targets) is generally moreadvanced than that of waste disposal.4.5.3 Self-selected Impact Area (HE SectorAverage 56%, Business Average 83%)Finally, participants are asked to report on a selfselectedimpact area material to their operations.HE participants selected Biodiversity (28% of allparticipants), Water Consumption (24%), Design(16%), Resource Use (12%), Indirect Impact (12%),Chemical Use (4%) and Local Impact (4%).Figure 818

4. Environmental Index Results4.5.4 Biodiversity (HE Sector Average 69%,Business Average 87%)Biodiversity was the most popular self-selectedimpact area with 28% of participants choosingto report on their management of this impactarea (higher than the Business Average of 14%).The sector average score for biodiversity was69%. This, however, masks the fact that almosthalf (43%) of this group scored remarkablywell, receiving full points for measuring andreporting, scope and quality of information, andtarget setting. Management and performanceimprovement was also good with all participantsdemonstrating management improvement,71% demonstrating performance improvement,including 29% able to demonstrate improvementsover 3-5 years.4.5.7 Resource Use (HE Sector Average 10%,Business Average 79%)Resource use was selected by 12% of participantsand was the lowest scoring self-selected impactarea (10%). Identifying a KPI for measuring andreporting on resource use was generally notachieved. Likewise the setting of performancetargets or any demonstration of performanceimprovement was generally low. However, theseparticipants have recognised the importance ofresource use and 67% of them could demonstratesome improvement in the management of thisimpact area.4.5.8 Indirect Impact (HE Sector Average 48%,Business Average 68%)Universities that Count4.5.5 Water Consumption (HE Sector Average78%, Business Average 78%)Water consumption was also a popular choice ofimpact area with 24% of participants reporting onit. Scores were strong (average of 78%), indicatinggood management of this impact. All participantsmeasure their water use and aggregated this datacentrally. 40% reported their water consumptiondata publicly. The majority (83%) have setwater reduction targets. All participants coulddemonstrate water management improvementswith performance improvement for the past year orlonger.4.5.6 Design (HE Sector Average 33%,Business Average 83%)16% of participants chose to report on theDesign impact area, in terms of the design andconstruction of new buildings, although curriculumdesign was also reported. This made anycomparisons or sector trends difficult. Howeverthe sector average score for Design was 33%.Only half of participants are actually measuringand reporting data on this impact area or haveset targets. All participants can demonstratemanagement improvements but participants havenot yet made performance improvements.Participants selecting this impact area havereported on the indirect impact of staff andstudent commuting and the indirect impact ofenvironmental consultancy. The average scorewas 48%. Participants are in varying stagesof management in terms of measuring andreporting impact, in the scope of data collectionand the quality of data. Target setting tends tobe low, however the majority of participantscould demonstrate some improvement in themanagement and performance of this impact area.4.5.9 Local Impact and Chemical Use(HE Sector Average 62%, BusinessAverage 82%)Local Impact and Chemical Use were notpopular choices of impact area so participant’sresponses have been pooled with the responsesfor Indirect Impact (above) to achieve a combinedaverage for the sector. This approach also keepsa participant’s scores confidential when theyare the sole respondents to a set of questions.The combined average score for Local Impact/Chemical Use/Indirect Impact was 62%. It is notpossible to draw any meaningful sector trends forthis impact area.19

4. Environmental Index ResultsUniversities that Count4.6 Assurance (HE Sector Average 58%,Business Average 85%)This section is important to ensure accuracy,relevance and reliability of any informationprovided within the survey. The Index is based ona self-assessment process, but the organisationshould be able to justify its responses bothinternally and externally. Within the Assurancesection, assurance processes make up 5% of anorganisation’s overall score, and willingness todisclose contributes the remaining 5%.4.6.1 Assurance process (HE Sector Average45%, Business Average 89%)An environmental assurance framework is thesum of the internal and external processes thatan organisation uses to provide confidence thatenvironmental information is of an acceptablequality and that it adequately addresses allenvironmental risks.Results indicated that participants were at differentstages of the assurance process. Only 12% ofHEIs had a management process that providesassurance that their environmental informationwas of an acceptable quality and reviewed foreffectiveness by an independent group auditor third party verification. The slight majority(36%) of participants had most of the necessaryrequirements in place to ensure information wasof an acceptable quality, but they had not beenaudited by a third party. 24% were in the processof developing assurance process procedures, and28% of participants had no process at all.4.6.2 Disclosure (HE Sector Average 50%,Business Average 80%)The ultimate test of assurance of the Index processis whether companies would be prepared to shareinformation submitted during the Index process.This question is weighted as 5% of the overallscore. Since this is a pilot project and individualparticipant results are kept confidential, thequestion is somewhat hypothetical. The spirit ofthe question remains however, and over a quarterof participants (28%) said they would be prepared,in theory, to share their survey submission andfeedback reports with the public.The majority (56%) indicated that they would bewilling to share either their Index submission ortheir feedback report (in most cases referring totheir submission rather than their feedback report).The remaining 16% either felt it was too earlyfor them to share submitted Index information.Or, since it was a confidential pilot project,inappropriate to state their position on disclosure.20

5CORPORATERESPONSIBILITYUniversities that CountINDEXRESULTS21

Universities that Count5CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITYINDEX RESULTSFigure 9The Index Model5.1 The (CR) Index ModelThe Corporate Index (CR) Index Model isbased on a framework of four componentsshown in the above model and incorporates theEnvironment Index questions described in PartA. The Index enables organisations to assess theextent to which corporate strategy is integratedinto responsible business practice throughoutan organisation. It provides a benchmark fororganisations to compare their managementpractice across the four areas of community,environment, marketplace and workplace, as wellas their performance, in a range of environmentaland social impact areas, material for theirorganisation.5.2 ScoringThe Strategy section of the Index represents 10%of the overall score, Integration and Managementeach receive 22.5%, and the Performance andImpact section receives 35% (equally split betweenEnvironment and Social). The final 10% of marksare awarded for the level of Assurance (5%)provided by participants and their willingness toDisclose certain information relating to their surveysubmission (5%).5.3 CR Index Overall Scores (HE SectorAverage 51%, Business Average 84%)Although there was much interest in the CRIndex within the HE sector, the number ofactual completed submissions was lower thananticipated. Completing the CR Index requiresgathering information from a range of departmentssuch as HR, policy, community and publicrelations, as well as from the environment team.For some, the CR Index turned out to be a ‘steptoo far’. For others, more time would have beenrequired to complete the Index. In all cases, the‘non-participants’ are either completing the Indexat their own pace or would like the opportunityto participate in the future. Results indicate thatthe HE sector is in the early stages of thinking interms of corporate responsibility, but institutionalfeedback suggests an ever-increasing importance.The HE sector average for the CR Index, is basedon a much smaller sample size (5 participants)than the Environment Index (25). Therefore,22

5. Corporate Responsibility Index ResultsFigure 10Universities that Countparticipants’ responses and sector scores havebeen subject to less detailed analysis than theresults for the Environment Index. Despite thesmall sample size, the results were nonethelessilluminating. The CR Index average for the HEsector was 51%, only a few percentage pointsbehind the HE sector’s Environment Index averageof 55%. This is important to note, because unlikethe Environment Index all participating HEIs werenew to the CR Index process.Figure 10 compares the HE sector to othereconomic groups within the Business Index. TheHE sector score of 51% falls 11% behind theGovernment, the lowest performing sector in theBusiness CR Index.Figure 11 provides a summary of the HE sector’soverall performance across the CorporateResponsibility Index and compares with the overallCR Index 2005 average.5.4 Corporate Strategy (HE Sector Average78%, Business Average 92%)The Corporate Strategy section looks at how thenature of an organisation’s business activitiesinfluences their values and principles, howthese principles are addressed through riskmanagement, the development of policies, andthe responsibilities held at a senior level in thecompany.Figure 1123

5. Corporate Responsibility Index ResultsUniversities that CountFigure 12The HE sector score (78%) is relatively strong andcompares well to the Business average of 92%.This may reflect the degree to which a HEIs corevalues coincide with the aspirations of corporateresponsibility values (broader than short-termeconomic considerations). HEIs scored 100%for Corporate Values due to a common focus onprioritising students’ needs and quality of teaching.Participants scored well in the development ofCR Principles (81%). A well-established andtransparent governance process may contributeto a good score in these areas. Advocacy (mainlythrough internal communications, public activitiesand policy shaping) is also strong and the scorefor the sector (90%) sits close to that of theBusiness average (91%). Risk management isfairly well developed, although results indicate thatdialogue with external stakeholders is generallyless commonly conducted as part of the riskreview process. The sector generally falls short inproviding leadership (57%) at the top for the fullrange of CR areas and it seems the discussion ofCR issues at top management meetings is oftennot taking place (55%).5.5 Integration (HE Sector Average 48%,Business Average 82%)The Integration section focuses on theadministration, management and integrationof responsible business practice throughoutan organisation’s operations. Participants areasked to report on the integration of corporateresponsibility principles, business conduct, staffperformance management, remuneration andbonus systems, strategic decision-making, trainingand development, stakeholder engagement andpublic reporting.Figure 1380%60%40%20%0%Integration of CRPs Business Conduct PerformanceManagementRemuneration &Bonus SystemsStrategic DecisionMakingTraining &DevelopmentSenior & BoardMemberTraining/BriefingStakeholderEngagementPublic ReportingScope of ReportingHE Sector CR Index 200524

5. Corporate Responsibility Index ResultsSector scores dipped here: 48% compared to 78%at Strategy, which is consistent with the BusinessIndex trend (82% for Integration, down from 92%at Strategy). This dip reflects the gap between thedevelopment of high-level policy commitmentsand putting procedures in place to see that theyare woven into the fabric of the organisation. Theresults indicate that the majority of participantshave published codes governing the conduct oftheir employees, including confidential whistleblowing mechanisms and disciplinary procedures(92%). Further, the score for stakeholderengagement is strong at 87% (comparing wellwith the Business average of 88%), indicatingthat some consultation is taking place with keystakeholders in the identification of risks andopportunity, policy development, monitoring and/or reporting of CR issues.Less developed is the integration of CR Principlesin terms of internal communication, and seekingfeedback from internal and external stakeholders(50%). Bonus systems are not common within theHE sector (sector score of 10%), although therewere some reports of rewards within staff gradingsystems. HEIs are not yet building CR into theirstrategic decision-making (27%), although thisquestion was difficult for participants to answerand perhaps does not best capture HE activities.Training on CR principles is generally low (40%),as is the scope of public reporting (46%).5.6 Management Practice (HE SectorAverage 64%, Business Average 87%)The Management Practice section looks at howan organisation manages issues relating to theFigure 14Community, Environment, Marketplace, and theWorkplace. It looks at what the key issues are foran organisation, the objectives and targets setto manage these issues and how it implements,monitors and communicates its policies, objectivesand targets. This provides a sense of the depthand breadth of the management of corporateresponsibility within an organisation.5.6.1 Community Management Practice (HESector Average 67%, Business Average83%)A community is a group of individuals bound bya common experience who affect, or are affectedby, the operations of an organisation. As such,a community may be bound by geographicproximity (city, town, and local neighbourhoods),historical relationship (alumni, partners/recipientsof investment activities) or common characteristic(ethnicity, gender, disability etc.).Key community issues arising for the HE sectorincluded:Reputation and being seen as a responsiblecorporate citizenEconomic development and employmentAccess to, and diversity within, HEIsWidening participation and lifelong learningRegional and local partnerships andcollaboration activitiesThe impact of a transient studentpopulationEncouraging students to participate incommunity, charitable and volunteeringactivitiesUniversities that Count25

5. Corporate Responsibility Index ResultsUniversities that CountKey stakeholders in the community are consideredto be:Local residents and residents associationsLocal authorities and policeVoluntary and not-for-profit organisationsLocal and regional businesses andindustryDisadvantaged communities and underrepresentedgroupsLocal Further Education colleges and otherHE providersNeighbours of the university campusStaff and students were also identified as keyCommunity stakeholders as well as being keystakeholders in Marketplace and Workplace. Themajority of participants (80%) reported havinga formal risk review process for identifying theircommunity risks and opportunities.The average for the HE sector was 67%, indicatingsome good progress in community managementpractice. Most participating HEIs have somesort of community strategy (66%), and theyintegrate aspects of this strategy into their keybusiness activities (65%). For example, mostparticipants had integrated ‘widening participation’and ‘encouraging lifelong learning’ into theirbusiness strategy. Target setting is generallylower (56%) however the majority of participantshave an employee programme (72%) and, forexample, carry out activities such as communityvolunteering and mentoring. Interestingly, later onin the Performance & Impact section, ‘CommunityInvestment’ scores plummet (43%), suggestingthat capturing evidence of the positive impact ofinvestment activities is much weaker.5.6.2 Environment Management Practice(HE Sector Average 67%, BusinessAverage 88%)The HE sector average for environmentalmanagement was 67% compared to the Businessaverage of 88% (see details in Section 4.4 fora breakdown of environmental key issues andmanagement practices).5.6.3 Marketplace Management Practice(HE Sector Average 61%, BusinessAverage 86%)Corporate Responsibility in the marketplace is theapplication of responsible behaviour in developingpurchasing, selling and marketing of products andservices.Key marketplace issues for the HE sector often tiein with an institution’s core values and included:Quality in teaching, research andknowledge transferWidening participation and promotinglifelong learningCompliance with regulating bodies andlegal authoritiesReputation and the advancement of HEwithin the region and internationallyManaging course supply and demandGraduate employabilityRelations with student unionsProcurement and delivering value formoneyAll participating HEIs have determined their keymarketplace issues from an established, regularrisk assessment or formal impact review process.The current focus for HEIs is on customers(students), more so than the institution’s suppliers.The average for the HE sector was 61%, indicatingsome good progress in this management area.Marketplace Management Practice is split into‘customer-facing’ and ‘supply chain’ questions.The HE sector is generally well developed in itsmanagement of customer-facing market issuesand scored well for responsible marketing (78%).Scores were low for Social Stewardship ofProducts and Services, possibly because it wasdifficult for participants to answer this question(only 40% of participants responded) although theaverage score was 78%. Social considerations insupply chain management are in their infancy, witha score of 35%.26

5. Corporate Responsibility Index ResultsUniversities that Count5.7.2 Social Performance & Impact (HE SectorAverage 55%, Business Average 82%)Participants selected to answer OccupationalHealth & Safety, Diversity in the Workplace,Community Investment and/or a Self-selectedoption. For those that selected one of their ownimpact areas ‘Staff Development’ and ‘HumanFactors’ were chosen. Participants were expectedto answer three social impact areas, however, itshould be noted that a number of participantsprovided answers to only two - possibly due to alack of data at this stage.5.7.3 Occupational Health and Safety(HE Sector Average 56%, BusinessAverage 77%)5.7.5 Community Investment (HE SectorAverage 43%, Business Average 84%)The average for the HE sector was 43% comparedto an Index average of 84%. All participants thatselected this impact area have a communityinvestment strategy of some sort however it doesnot usually link into any overall strategic planning.Results indicate that whilst community activitiessuch as volunteering, mentoring, and partneringcharities are high, the actual measurement ofcommunity inputs (cash, staff time, gifts in kind,management time) is low at 47%. Even less likelyis the measurement of outputs, such as leverage,community benefit, and benefit for the Institution(21%). There is some evaluation of positive impactin relation to community investment and somepublic reporting on activities.All HEIs completing the CR Index elected to reporton Occupational Health & Safety. The HE sectoraverage was 56% compared with an Index averageof 77%. All participants reported having developedan Occupational Health & Safety ManagementSystem although none were externally certified.There was little evidence of measuring, reporting,or target setting for heath and safety performancebeyond regulatory requirements.5.7.4 Diversity in the Workplace (HE SectorAverage 76%, Business Average 72%)80% of participants chose to report on Diversityin the Workplace. The sector average wasrelatively high at 76%, coming in above theBusiness average of 72%. Real strengthsfor the sector were in the ‘mainstreaming’ ofdiversity into employment processes (83%) andmeasuring workplace diversity profiles (100%).All participating HEIs have diversity policies, andsome are benchmarking on one or more strandsof diversity. However, scores for ‘investment indiversity’ were not as high (69%). Less investmentin diversity programmes may account for the lowerscores attained for ‘demonstrating improvement inperformance across the diversity agenda’ (50%).5.7.6 Self-selected Impact Area (HE SectorAverage 74%, Business Average 81%)Participants are given the opportunity to reporton a social impact area of their choice that hasa material impact on their organisation. 40% ofparticipants elected to do so. Human factors(staff, student and other stakeholder satisfaction)and staff development were reported. Due tothe small numbers (and similarity in Impactareas chosen) scores have been combined tomake one ‘Self-Selected Impact Area’ average(74%). Participants were asked to report on their‘corporate commitment’ to their chosen impactarea in terms of policy, strategic objectives andclearly defined responsibilities. They were alsorequired to provide details on the progress madein the measurement and reporting of performance.Results were generally high, with 75% forcorporate commitment and 81% for measuringand reporting, thus reflecting good progress madeon the management of staff development andstakeholder satisfaction activities. Performanceimprovement scores, however, were lower at 30%.28

6INSTITUTIONALFEEDBACKUniversities that Count29

Universities that Count6INSTITUTIONAL FEEDBACKAll participants were asked to evaluate theirexperiences of the project and the Index processvia a project evaluation questionnaire. Responserate was 24 out of 25 (96%). (One HEI experienceda change in staff which resulted in not beingSTATEMENTInterested in repeating theIndex process next yearCompleting the survey onlinewas straightforwardBelieve that the Index processwould drive year on yearimprovementBelieve that participation inthe project has raised boardawarenessThe Index is a flexible toolthat can be applied to the HEsectorThere are no other surveysmore relevant to ourinstitution/sectorHigh profile of BITC andIndices will influence board tocontinue participationEnough support was providedby BITC and online guidancenotesAdequate opportunity tonetwork with other universitiesIndex helped prioritise areasto work on and developaction plansIndex helped identifysignificant issues/impacts &future risksIndex helped identify ecoefficiencyopportunitiesThe workshops/surgerieshelped to understand projectand Index processIndex has aided discoveryof knowledge/initiatives/datapreviously unaware ofIndex process hasencouraged integration ofthinking among more thanone departmentin a position to provide feedback). Below is aquantitative analysis of participants’ responses tothe questionnaire, followed by a general overviewof participants’ comments.Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A / Not Sure30

6. Institutional FeedbackAdditional Comments, both positive and negative, have been summarised below.Interested in repeatingthe Index process nextyearCompleting thesurvey online wasstraightforwardBelieve that the Indexprocess would drive yearon year improvementBelieve that participationin the project has raisedboard awarenessThe Index is a flexibletool that can be appliedto the HE sectorThere are no othersurveys more relevant toour institution/sectorHigh profile of BITC andIndices will influenceboard to continueparticipationEnough support wasprovided by BITC andonline guidance notesAdequate opportunityto network with otheruniversitiesIndex helped prioritiseareas to work on anddevelop action plansIndex helped identifysignificant issues/impacts & future risksIndex helped identifyeco-efficiencyopportunitiesThe workshops/surgeries helped tounderstand project andIndex processIndex has aideddiscovery of knowledge/initiatives/datapreviously unaware ofIndex process hasencouraged integrationof thinking among morethan one department100% of respondents stated that they would be interested in repeating the Indexprocess. Participants felt that the real value in participating in the Index is to use theresults as an agenda for improvement. Year on year benchmarking provides theframework to gauge progress.Over 80% of participants found the online survey straightforward. However, thosethat didn’t had difficulty using the Index survey tool or experienced some technicalcomplications along the way.All participants agreed that the Index process provided a real driver for year onyear improvement. It was commented that ‘sign-off’ at a strategic level makes a bigdifference. The majority agreed that for improvements to happen, results needed tobe reported to, and addressed by senior management.The majority felt that their participation in the project raised board awareness.Some felt that the board was already aware of their work; others believed that thepresentation of the results raised more awareness, especially when the board sawtheir position against other institutions.Almost 80% of respondents felt the Index tool was applicable to the HE sector.12% felt that parts of the Index, or the terminology, were difficult to interpret or notappropriate to the sector. There was much support for HE sector guidance notes toprovide clarity.63% of participants did not know of any other surveys more relevant to the sector.25% weren’t sure. Some believed that HEFCE branding of the Index was important.Some felt that the sector shouldn’t ‘reinvent the wheel’. Two participants commentedon the EcoCampus project but were either holding out on the final verdict or did notsee any duplication. One HEI mentioned using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)but not as a benchmarking tool.The majority (79%) agreed that BITC and the Indices held some influence over theirboard. Many believe that HEFCE has more influence. In a few cases there was noreal board involvement in the project.All participants agreed that they received enough support in completing the surveyfrom BITC staff and the online guidance notes. However, many suggested that sectorspecificguidelines would be most helpful.Half of the participants did not experience adequate opportunities to network. Aquarter did not or could not make the dates set for workshops. Some felt there wastoo short notice of the event, and consequently with numbers down opportunities tonetwork were further reduced for attendees.Over 80% felt the Index process helped them to prioritise and develop action plans.Comments suggested that results were used in planning decisions. Others statedthat the process should be viewed longer term.67% of participants agreed that the Index helped identify issues. 33% disagreed.Many HEIs had already identified their key risks and had processes in place. Forsome the Index process confirmed their key risks.The majority of participants agreed with this statement, although 33% disagreed.Feedback indicated that eco-efficiencies had often already been identified.25% of participants did not attend workshops or surgeries, either because they joinedthe project too late, or they were unavailable on the day, or felt there was too littlenotice given. 21% said workshops did not help - mainly because they did not attend.54% said they benefited from the experience.84% of HEIs agreed with this statement. Comments suggest that the Index processdrew attention to pockets of good practice and other initiatives within their institution,it brought people together from across departments, and in one case, identified agroup of people already collecting similar data.The majority agreed with this statement and believed it was one of the most satisfyingachievements of the project. For others, 25%, it is early days and plans are in placeto set up a cross-departmental sustainability group (or similar) to integrate the Indexprocess more thoroughly.Universities that Count31

Universities that Count7LESSONS LEARNT7.1 Raising awareness in the ViceChancellor’s officeAlthough a letter was sent to the Vice Chancellorof each HEI in England from HEFCE explaining theproject and inviting Institutions to take part, it oftengot lost ‘along the way’ or was not delegated onto the appropriate person. This is not surprisinggiven the deluge of information that passes intothe Vice Chancellor’s office. In most cases, whencontacted, PA’s were extremely good at followingup and the strike rate was high for those HEIsthat were contacted. It was, however, impossible,to ‘cold call’ all institutions, track down the rightperson and initiate project recruitment. If theproject was to continue it would help to furtherincrease the profile of the project. The launch ofthis report, its dissemination and publicity will helpraise awareness.not enough forewarning given to participants, theunavailability of participants, and the late arrivalof some participants to the project, attendancerates at workshops were down. This reduced theopportunities for networking. In future, a ‘buddy’programme would be recommended to back upworkshops.7.4 Sector-specific guidance notesThere was an interpretation challenge for some,with language in the Index surveys that wasconsidered too ‘corporate’. Sector-specificguidance material would be desirable tosupport HEIs for future sector benchmarking. A‘Curriculum’ based option in the Performance andImpact section of the Indices would highlight thecontribution to society that HEIs can make throughtheir teaching and research.7.2 Raising awareness and projectrecruitment at ‘practitioner’ levelThe EAUC provided a good avenue to promote theproject, raise awareness, and was a good sourceof recruitment. BITC account managers could havebeen a more useful source of recruitment thanwas taken advantage of. If recruitment had startedearlier, the BITC project manager could havespent more time liaising with the BITC regions andformalising a recruitment strategy with them.July and August was not an ideal time to contactHEIs. This was holiday time for universities andcolleges. Although the campus continues to run,and Estates, Facilities and Environment teamsare on site, staff numbers tended to be down andreaching the right person was sometimes difficult.7.3 Workshops and networkingThis was the biggest ‘missed opportunity’ of theproject and could definitely be improved upon inthe future. Due to a mixture of project constraints,7.5 Managing expectationsForty-nine institutions were engaged to the point ofeither requesting an ‘information pack’, attendingan ‘engagement’ meeting, participating in anintroductory workshop, or even ‘signing-up’ to theproject and commencing the Index process. Ofthese ‘engaged’ HEIs, twenty-five (51%) actuallysucceeded in completing their Index submission.The ‘non-participants’ are mostly waiting in thewings. The 50% ‘strike rate’ is not surprising andclosely mirrors that of the Business Indices -especially in the early stages. It is generally agreedthat the first time round is the hardest and fromthat point the first step on the path has been taken.Year on year improvement then becomes a priorityfor initiated Index participants.For the CR Index there were at least ten veryinterested HEIs, however only five completedtheir submission. As with the Business Index itsometimes takes a few years to get to the rightposition to make an Index submission.32

7. Lessons Learnt7.6 Time taken to complete Index surveysubmissionsFrom a participant’s point of view, finding ormaking the time to prepare an Index submissioncan be the most challenging element. Mostparticipants had a number of different projectsongoing, or were having to find time on top oftheir general day-to-day busy schedules. Thishad a knock-on effect for managing the project.The project team decided it was more importantto ‘hand hold’ participants and ensure their finalsubmission than to stick strictly to the deadline. Asa result, time for the submission review processand final report writing was encroached upon.Once again, this is something familiar to theNational Business Index team.7.7 Project management processes withHEFCEIf a phase three is going to take place the projectteam should make more effort to involve HEFCE.For example, there was a significant increasein participants when HEFCE wrote to ViceChancellors. A representative from HEFCE on theproject team would be ideal.Universities that Count33

Universities that Count8CONCLUSIONSThis project’s objective was ‘testing theappropriateness of BITC’s Environment Index andCR Index for the HE sector’. We conclude that, ingeneral, the benchmarking tools developed byBITC are appropriate for the HE sector. It is clearthat the HE sector as a whole is in the early stagesof strategically and systematically managing theirenvironmental and social impacts. Comparedto the Business Index scores, the HE sector sitsbetween 20 and 40 percentage points below,across both the Environment and CR Index.The six Yorkshire & Humber HEIs involved for upto 7 years in this benchmarking are leading theway in the Environment Index and their averagescores are generally more on a level with theBusiness Index scores. This shows that HEIs,given the opportunity for repeated benchmarkingand performance improvement, will reach thestandards that many businesses have attained.Institutional feedback concluded that allparticipants benefited from taking part in theproject. All participants are motivated to continuewith benchmarking their environment and socialactivities should they have the opportunity. Themajority of participants felt their involvement inthe project has raised board level awareness oftheir activities and improved relationships withcolleagues in different departments where issueswere crosscutting. According to one HEI, “TheIndex provides a holistic view of the institutionand highlights how all departments interrelateand need to collaborate to improve environmentalperformance”. There was a view amongstparticipants that HEFCE should be leading theway by endorsing the Indices and supportinginstitutional work in this field.34

9RECOMMENDATIONS FORTHE FUTUREThis report recommends the continuation ofthe HE Benchmarking Project, as it exists:administered by BITC, led by HEFCE, with thebacking of the EAUC. Project progress must betracked to ensure the programme is advancingas expected. Agreed key performance indicatorsshould be in place to measure this progress, suchas participation rates and Index performance rates.‘Lessons learnt’ from the project thus far shouldbe recognised, such as improving networkingopportunities, and providing HE sector-specificguidance notes.In the longer term, consideration should be madeto the Indices being made public. This wouldencourage the participating HEIs to be “pro-active”by using their participation as a differentiator inpublications used to promote their respectiveInstitution’s to key stakeholders - including localcommunities and students. An exit plan shouldalso be developed to ensure the programme’ssuccess as a self-sustaining activity. Consultationwith project partners, participants and HEFCEwill be paramount to the continued success andevolution of the HE sector benchmarking journeythat we have already begun.Universities that Count35

Universities that Count36