What are the criteria for the league table - why have we chosen them?
The Green League 2007 uses eight essential criteria to rank the ‘greenness’ of UK universities.
People & Planet has taken a dual approach - judging both performance and commitment to systemic environmental management. We see both as being essential. The performance indicators reveal how well an institution is performing on the ground. The policy criteria demonstrate whether an institution has a systematic means of improving such performance.
Management
The first three indicators - publicly available environmental policy, full time environmental personnel, a comprehensive environmental audit - derive from careful research that People & Planet carried out in 2003 which shows that these factors are a minimum precondition for achieving high environmental performance. They form the basis of the four demands of People & Planet’s Go Green campaign.
1. Publicly available environmental policy
A publicly available environmental policy is the foundation on which good, long-term environmental management is built. Most universities have an environment policy of some kind. The most basic policies serve as a formal demonstration of intent, against which to compare practice; the best set out priorities, objectives and time-bound targets for ambitious improvement. The 27 Universities that don’t have have one are severely exposed in The Green League 2007.
This year, the league table highlights only whether institutions have publicly available policies, but does not provide a judgement on how strong or effective those policies are. We have counted as publicly available only policies that are published on websites or that have been sent to our researchers on request.
2. Full time environment staff
Without the expertise and championing of full-time environmental management staff, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that green initiatives in universities are unlikely to be systematic, well coordinated and resourced, or have significant success. Environmental managers develop objectives and set priorities, with significant, timebound targets, and can coordinate the work to fulfil them.
As one newly appointed environment manager puts it:
“My main responsibility is to deliver a greener university by focusing upon a number of key areas — waste, energy use, water, transport and travel to and from the university, procurement issues, land management and biodiversity, managing the buildings we use as well as those we renovate or construct. We ultimately need to develop structured and accredited systems for dealing with the impacts of the university… Full-time environmental managers are vital to give the issue focus on campus and to galvanise the institution into action.” (Dr Emma Fieldhouse, Environment Manager, University of Leicester)
Only a few universities have full time personnel dedicated to environmental management - and only those that do can be said to take their environmental responsibilities seriously.
A university counts as having full time environmental personnel only when there is at least one full time staff member dedicated solely to environmental issues, with at least part of their role focused on overall environmental management.
A university gets half marks if it has a part time environmental staff member, or an employee with responsibility for one specific aspect of environmental impact, eg energy. In such cases there is no-one with responsibility for taking a sufficient overview of the institution’s total environmental impacts or for developing systematic processes for improvement.
3. Comprehensive environmental auditing
An environmental review should provide a comprehensive and systematic analysis of the significance of all the environmental impacts of an institution, and recommendations for their improvement. Only by analysing the total environmental impacts - from energy to purchasing and biodiversity - can a university gain a baseline for monitoring, against which to set targets, and assess priorities for improvement.
Several universities have carried out partial audits, for example Anglia Ruskin University has carried out comprehensive energy auditing but not audited other environmental impacts. The Carbon Trust has helped its Higher Education Carbon Management Programme participants to carry out energy audits as part of its excellent scheme. Some institutions have audited a number of areas separately, but not brought them together in a single assessment which would give the comprehensive overview required. We have given half marks in all such cases. Audits assessing total impacts gain full marks.
Additional policy-related criteria measure transport and procurement:
4. Green travel plan
UK universities account for over 1 million journeys every day. There is no data available on the greenhouse gas emissions this is responsible for, nor improving performance in each institution. But by measuring whether a university has a green travel plan, this criterion gives the best indication of whether an institution is making serious efforts to ensure those journeys are not contributing to climate change.
In the course of this research it has become clear that travel plans are increasingly required by local authorities. This is an example of how legislation and best practice are converging and will increasingly affect the Higher Education (HE) sector. To be ready and able to deal with these trends, it will become ever more crucial for universities to have systems and staff in place to ensure that they meet all relevant regulatory requirements.
5. Fairtrade university accreditation
Fairtrade University certification is an objective standard, accredited by the Fairtrade Foundation, for progressive Fairtrade purchasing in universities — indeed it is the only accreditation scheme in the HE sector People & Planet is aware of that considers procurement issues. Whilst Fairtrade alone is an indirect determinant of environmental attainment, Fairtrade standards require that producers “increase the environmental stability of their activities.” Moreover those universities that have Fairtrade accreditation have demonstrated their willingness and ability to alter purchasing practices based on social and environmental factors. A commitment to Fairtrade demonstrates understanding of the global impacts of university decisions, which is crucial to a holistic view of sustainability.
Information about which universities are accredited to the Fairtrade scheme was supplied by the Fairtrade Foundation on 11 May 2007.
Performance
The remaining three criteria relate to on-the-ground environmental performance outcomes for the academic year 2005-6 (this is the most recent data). This information has, until now, never been released into the public domain. It comes from Estates Management Statistics (EMStats), obtained through a freedom of information request to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE):
6. Percentage of energy from renewable sources
As major electricity consumers, universities have a clear responsibility to rapidly reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, to help prevent further climatic destabilisation. As carbon reductions will not be achieved by energy conservation measures alone, switching to ‘green’ electricity or on-site renewables generation is the only way for universities to meet this responsibility. So a university that consumes energy from renewable sources not only significantly minimises its impact on the climate, but demonstrates its commitment to doing so.
The table shows the percentage contribution to each university’s annual energy consumption (including for heating, cooling etc) that is derived from renewable sources. Institutions with 50-100% renewables get full marks, 10-49% gets two-thirds, 1-9% gets one-third, and 0% gets nothing.
7. Percentage of waste recycled
Recycling rates vary tremendously across the sector; the data shows that the average for UK universities is a paltry 16%. By not recycling, universities are wasting money through contributions to landfill tax, and contributing to pollution and climate change. Universities that recycle higher proportions of their rubbish can make cost savings and reduce their environmental burden.
The table shows the proportion of total waste mass which is recycled (and not incinerated or disposed of in any other way) — expressed as a percentage. Institutions in the top quartile get full marks (this ranges from 29%-68%), the next quartile down gets two-thirds (this ranges from 14-28%), the second quartile gets one-third (7-13% recycling), and bottom quartile gets nothing (0-6%).
8. Carbon emissions per head
Combating climate change, and cutting carbon emissions, is the predominant environmental challenge of today — the latest science shows the need for at least 80% carbon reductions in the UK by 2050. Measuring a university’s carbon emissions is therefore a key environmental criterion. All universities should be aiming to reduce their carbon emissions.
People & Planet has chosen to measure the carbon dioxide per head for each university. That is, the total kg of CO₂ equivalent emitted from energy use (oil, coal, gas, grid electricity, steam/hot water) divided by the population of the university. Population is calculated according to a ‘full time equivalent’ measurement, for both staff and students.
This criteria only quantifies direct emissions from energy, heating and electricity — it excludes significant other indirect emissions, for example from procurement, travel or flying. And it does not take account of varying circumstances on campus such as old or newer buildings, more energy-intensive research, or the extent of campus-provided accommodation. Alternative indicators such as CO₂ per metre squared of building space, are equally open to such criticism and comparisons of percentage improvement from one year to the next revealed inconsistencies in the way the data is collected between years. This demonstrates the need for a consistent and detailed methodology, preferably with external auditing to verify data.
Institutions in the top quartile get full marks, the next quartile down gets two-thirds, the second quartile gets one-third, and bottom quartile gets nothing.
How are universities ranked in The Green League?
Marks are calculated out of 50. Our criteria are not given equal weight in the Green League — some criteria we judge more important than others for assessing environmental performance.
Criterion |
Weighting |
|
|---|---|---|
1 |
Publicly available Environmental Policy |
8 |
2 |
Full-time Environmental Staff |
10 |
3 |
Comprehensive environmental audit |
8 |
4 |
Green Travel Plan |
4 |
5 |
Fairtrade University |
2 |
6 |
% Renewable Energy |
6 |
7 |
% Recycled waste mass |
6 |
8 |
CO₂ emissions per head |
6 |
Total = 50 |
The highest weighted criterion is for full time environmental staff. Over and above the others, the internal championing of an environment manager is the most crucial factor for effective and systematic improvement, and clearly demonstrates the commitment of an institution to tackling its environmental impacts.
A publicly available environment policy is a basic but essential tool — and hence heavily weighted. Equal to that is comprehensive environmental auditing, which is significant enough for good management to also warrant a 16% share of the total — if an organisation doesn’t know what its environmental impacts are it is unlikely to address them properly.
A university that scores perfectly on criteria one, two and three, as 19 have done this year, will automatically gain 52%. The high emphasis on these three factors of good environmental management derives from the conviction that, whatever the performance on the ground — and even the best performers have much to improve on there — an institution without these factors is unlikely to achieve the significant environmental progress that’s needed. This is reinforced by our research and the findings of a number of academic studies.
36% of the total score comes from the all-important performance indicators — criteria six, seven and eight. Each is given equal weighting. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, so these starkly demonstrate the effectiveness of an institution’s environmental strategy. And since The Green League hasn’t been able to make any qualitative assessment of environmental management, we let the figures speak for themselves. These are weighted less heavily than the management indicators as some of the differences in performance may be outside an institution’s control.
Lastly the green travel plan, constituting an important but small part of the environmental agenda, weighs in at 8%, whilst Fairtrade University status, being symbolic and only indirectly related to environmental performance, makes up 4% of the marks.
Grades
Grade boundaries were set after the scores were collated.
15 universities gained a First - with a score of 40 and above. These institutions are clearly the shining lights in the HE sector. However with the sector scoring an average of only 55% on the Business In The Community Environment Index, as compared to the business average of 83%, and the best universities scoring well below leading businesses (see news story), there is still much further to go. Indeed, such scores should be considered the bare minimum.
20 institutions gained a 2:1 — scoring 33-38: room for improvement.
34 were graded 2:2 — with scores 23-32. In light of the threat of climate change and the imperative for HE institutions to lead the way in meeting that challenge, the state of environmental performance denoted by this category cannot be considered satisfactory.
19 were awarded a Third (scores 15-22) and 17 were Failed (scores 4-14). Whilst some, such as Manchester Met, are in the process of instituting reforms which should improve their position next year, the complacency and inaction of these institutions is exposed and there for the world to see.
Where a university has three or more pieces of information missing (missing information is marked with a marked with a ” — “), we have been unable to score and rank them. There are 15 such cases.
Which universities are assessed?
People & Planet has assessed 120 UK universities based on the full membership of Universities UK.
The University of Buckingham was excluded because, as a private university, it wasn’t included in Estates Management Statistics. Open University was also excluded because, as a distance-learning institution, comparisons with other institutions were not applicable.
For both the University of London and the University of Wales we have taken the constituent colleges.
How has the information been collected?
Research for criteria 1-4
Information for criteria 1-4 has been gathered by a team of student researchers. This information came from university websites, and where not available online, by direct email and phone contact. In such cases, we have had to rely on what institutions themselves have told us — up until 30 May 2007. We’ve made every effort to maintain consistency and accuracy.
Our enquiries with many universities during the course of this research have shown up a common theme of lack of awareness within an institution of environmental initiatives (even, in some cases, where very effective and systematic work is being done). This demonstrates the need for senior decision-makers within institutions to be strongly committed to and supportive of environmental initiatives and staff, to the extent that such work becomes more high profile and is mainstreamed throughout institutions’ operations.
Research for criteria 5-8
Fairtrade University accreditation information was supplied directly by the Fairtrade Foundation. The performance criteria (6-8) were supplied by HEFCE from Estates Management Statistics, and computed by People & Planet.
Thanks
People & Planet would like to thank the student research volunteers for their dedication, hard work, and meticulousness! Thanks also to all the university staff who have kindly and diligently assisted our efforts. Lastly HEFCE deserves praise for taking the tough decision to open the Estates Management Statistics to public transparency.