The University of Edinburgh
SEAG – Operations Group
22nd May 2013
Benchmarking University SRS performance
Brief description of the paper
The University is increasingly being asked to report on whether we have (or are working towards) a recognised EMS which has been externally verified – as part of our commitment to improving performance. The potential benefits to a complex and already committed, high achieving organisation like the University have to date been outweighed by the likely administrative burden and cost.
This paper provides an update on the 2010 report to SEAG Ops on Environmental Management Systems (EMS) and their potential benefit to our sector prepared by the Waste & Environmental Manager.
It provides information on the EU-funded “Universities and Social Responsibility” project being undertaken by academic colleagues at Edinburgh in collaboration with others in Belgium, Spain, Portugal and Romania. There are opportunities in using the more open and holistic benchmarking framework ISO 26000: Social Responsibility which might provide a framework more suited to the University of Edinburgh.
Action requested
The Group is invited to comment on the options open and to provide a steer on how to proceed.
Thereafter it will be possible to investigate the time and financial implications more fully.
Resource implications
Does the paper have resource implications? Yes See Costs section on page 4.
Risk Assessment
Does the paper include a risk analysis? Yes – see Background and Benefits sections on page 2.
Equality and Diversity
Does the paper have equality and diversity implications? No
Freedom of information
Can this paper be included in open business? Yes
Originator of the paper
Matthew Lawson, Programme Coordinator and
David Somervell, Sustainability Adviser, drawing on a paper by
Fleur Ruckley, Waste & Environment Manager
16 May 2013
Paper to be presented by
David Somervell, Sustainability Adviser
Benchmarking University SRS performance
This paper provides an update on the 2010 report on Environmental Management Systems (EMS), and their potential benefit to our sector, prepared by the Waste & Environmental Manager.
It also provides more information on the EU-funded “Universities and Social Responsibility” project being undertaken by academic colleagues at Edinburgh and Belgium, Spain, Portugal Romania.
There are opportunities in using a more holistic benchmarking framework like ISO 26000: Social Responsibility which might provide a framework more suited to the University of Edinburgh.
Background
External benchmarking schemes such as the People & Planet Green League, ask whether the University has or is working towards a recognised EMS. The University is asked whether we have (or are working towards) a recognised EMS which is externally. Potential benefits to a complex and already committed, high achieving organisation like the University have to date been outweighed by the likely administrative burden and cost.
Since the Green League started in 2008, the number of institutions who achieved accreditation to one of the schemes recognised by People & Planet has increased from 24% to 52% of the sector. 42% of Russell Group Universities have signed up to a formal package to achieve a verified EMS. There is a growing risk in not participating in an appropriate benchmarking scheme.
What is an Environmental Management System?
All organisations impact on their environment. An EMS is a framework for strategically reviewing legislative obligations; for assessing, prioritising and managing environmental impact and for ensuring continual improvement. It is modelled on a "Plan-Do-Check-Act" approach and shows a commitment to sustainability and legal compliance within an organisation.
What are the Benefits?
The cited environmental, social and business benefits of having an accredited EMS include:
· Improved local and global environment - the EMS will generate objectives and targets to improve in the areas of the most significant impacts;
· Improved marketability - taking positive action on the environment sends out positive signals to prospective and current students and staff;
· Legal compliance - the EMS demonstrates systems for complying with the law;
· Reduced risk - the EMS provides a systematic mechanism for managing financial and other risks associated with the environment;
· Cost reductions - rationalisation of managing the impact of our environmental aspects can lead to cost reductions often associated with more efficient waste & energy management;
· Efficiency - the systematic approach of an EMS identifies areas of inefficiency in managing aspects and allows impacts to be managed more efficiently.
The long-standing Environmental Benchmarking options
There are two main EMS approaches. In each case, in order to achieve certification an organisation must undergo a rigorous check by third party auditors:
· The best known international standard is ISO 14001: Environmental Management. ISO14001 specifies the features and requirements necessary to help organisations systematically identify, evaluate, manage and improve the environmental impacts of their activities, products and services. This is currently the most widely used EMS standard.
· The Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) is a European scheme that can include ISO 14001 as the EMS component. EMAS alsorequires organisations to publish an annual Environmental Statement on their performance.
The British Standards Institute has produced a set of guidelines for implementing an EMS on a phase-by-phase basis with the ultimate aim of gaining accreditation. The two schemes are:
o IEMA Acorn, run by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) (www.iema.net/ems/acorn_scheme).
o BS 8555 STEMS, operated by BSI provides a 6-step approach to gaining an EMS – aimed primarily at SMEs but open to anyone (www.bqms.co.uk/8555.html).
The FHE sector has an EMS package: EcoCampus (www.ecocampus.co.uk/index.htm) supported by a consultancy spin-out at Nottingham Trent University. Loreus Ltd provide support for a phased recognition for progress. Independent auditors (NQA) check Gold and Platinum phases.
Other benchmarking schemes
There are a growing number of approaches developed for assessing progress in environmental and sometimes the wider social responsibility agenda – many focussing on Higher Education:
· Universities that Count and its successor the LiFE Index have been developed by the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) and partners with support from all funding councils. The University has not found these to match our approach to date and LiFE Index is likely to be reviewed further as a diagnostic / gap analysis tool.
· The North American Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) has developed Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS) as a transparent, self-reporting framework for colleges and universities to measure their sustainability performance. It is being rolled out internationally.
· An EU-funded project – in which Edinburgh is participating – is reviewing options based on ISO26000: Social Responsibility. This standard clarifies what social responsibility is, translating principles into effective actions and shares best practices relating to seven areas that socially responsible organisations should address. Implementers evaluate their actions in each area, identify their current practices, and set priorities for improvements:
1. Organisational governance – practicing accountability and transparency at all levels of your organization; using leadership to create an organizational culture which uses core values of social responsibility when making business decisions
2. Human rights – treating all individuals with respect; making special efforts to help people from vulnerable groups
3. Labour practices – providing just, safe and healthy conditions for workers; engaging in two-way discussions to address workers’ concerns
4. Environment– identifying and improving environmental impacts of your operations, including resource use and waste disposal
5. Fair operating practices – respecting the law; practicing accountability and fairness in your dealings with other businesses, including your suppliers
6. Consumer issues – providing healthy and safe products, giving accurate information, and promoting sustainable consumption
7. Community involvement and development – getting involved in the betterment of the local communities that your organization operates in; being a good neighbour
Brian Martin, former convener of the University’s Joint Union Liaison Committee, is leading research on this scheme for universities seeking to have their SRS approach benchmarked.
Where do we go from here?
Benchmarking our progress involves a number of steps. These are outlined below along with an indication of where the University is in the process. Initially, the University would need to:
· Determine which approach to use e.g. ISO 14001 or EMAS / direct or via recognised programme / supported or unsupported;
· Determine the scope and boundary of any system - a decision would need to be taken on how broad and deep to take the certification and how to include social responsibility issues;
· Agree on a management structure and lines of reporting (SEAG-Ops reporting through SEAG to CMG with an Benchmarking Working Group would probably be the way forward);
After this, there are a range of steps which would need to be taken including to:
· Determine which staff to be directly involved in the implementation and maintenance and whether to hire consultant(s) in e.g. to help define scope and carry out an initial gap analysis or deliver entire project;
· Determine policy (which the University has to a large extent done);
· Prepare a register of aspects and impacts and determine objectives, actions and targets (partially done);
· Prepare a register of relevant legislation (partially done);
· Determine responsibilities and clarify roles of all staff whose input would be necessary for achieving objectives and targets;
· Set up a monitoring system - there are various options for this but some sort of electronic means of holding information - and associated training might be required;
· Eventually, a pre-assessment visit or gap analysis, and review by independent parties;
· EMS or SRS registration and certification;
· Create opportunities for continuous quality improvement and acting on opportunities;
· Thereafter, continuing assessment visits by representatives of the chosen independent body - typically twice per year;
· Management review of EMS performance and establishment of new objectives, targets and actions - including review of management styles and behaviours;
· Link EMS to promotion and public reporting (optional but recommended).
Implementation Costs
These are fairly intangible at this stage but include:
· For ISO14001 and EMAS, there are separate costs for registration, assessment and accreditation which are generally determined by the size of the organisation;
· Software – with upfront and ongoing maintenance and support costs;
· Consultancy support if required and training of in-house staff;
· Note: the EcoCampus approach (includes software and support) costs £12,000+VAT p.a. for 3 years, £6,000+VAT p.a. thereafter.
There is an opportunity for greater engagement of the academic community in determining an appropriate way forward for Edinburgh, building on the EU-funded Universities – Social Responsibility research. Ideally Masters-level student could contribute as part of their studies.
SEAG-Ops is invited to comment on the options open and provide a steer on a way forward. Thereafter it will be possible to investigate the time and financial implications more fully.
Based on a report for for SEAG-Operations by Fleur Ruckley, Waste & Environment Manager, in September 2010.
Paper edited for SEAG-Operations by: Matthew Lawson, Programme Coordinator and David Somervell, Sustainability Adviser, 16 May 2013
Page 4 of 4