IJSHE
1,2
168
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 1 No. 2, 2000, pp. 168-181. #MCB University Press, 1467-6370
Environmental management
systems at North American
universities
What drives good performance?
Irene Herremans and David E. Allwright
Faculty of Management, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Keywords Universities, Environmental audit, Environmental management strategy
Abstract The purpose of this study is to determine what initiatives have been undertaken by universities across North America in implementing environmental management systems (EMS). Many universities have discovered that their activities can have significant impacts on the environment. As a result, some institutions have implemented systems to help them organize activities in order to recognize and reduce adverse environmental effects. This paper contributes to our understanding of these systems. A framework is developed that identifies important characteristics of effective EMS currently in use at some North American universities. The framework also provides guidance for those universities that have not yet developed effective EMS.
Introduction
Initially, the intent of this study was simply to gather information to help the authors suggest a direction for the University of Calgary's (U of C) environmental initiatives. The U of C's environmental management system (EMS) is fairly young and is still ``finding its way''. Therefore, one method of determining the direction for the U of C's Environmental Management Committee (EMC) was to study the practices of other universities.
After developing its policy, there were several questions that the U of C needed answering in order to determine the next steps in implementing its policy and putting into action the EMS that looked good on paper. The U of C did not know how well its proposed EMS would actually work; therefore, it attempted to learn from other universities what worked for them. The U of C intended to learn from other universities that had already faced or would be facing similar questions as they moved ahead in the development or sophistication of their EMS. Over the past 18months, data were gathered through a survey of North American universities to determine the environmental challenges that they were facing, the structure of their EMS and the measures of progress that they have instituted.
Survey of the literature
Strategic direction
Even though the literature provides some excellent case studies of environmental initiatives that have been implemented at universities throughout the world, most
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers/emh.asp
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
Environmental
management
systems
169
of the information available is in the form of examples of ``this is what we did onour campus'' (e.g. Eagan and Orr, 1992). Other research studies address the necessity of including environmental sustainability content in specific academic programs in the classroom (Finlay and Samuelson, 1999). Still other studies result in handbooks to be used by universities with practical advice and resources as to how to start and carry out environmental initiatives (Keniry, 1995; Thompson and van Bakel, 1995) The current research attempts to add to the body of knowledge of the last category of research and provides information on how successful systems operate. The holistic operations of colleges and universities are studied from a management perspective. Consequently, insight is provided on how gaps or faulty organization in the system, even though based on the best of intentions, can lead to sub-optimal environmental performance.
In the decade of the 1990s, several declarations have been put forth for university personnel. The objective of these declarations is to provide direction for universities in determining their roles in the movement toward an ecologically responsible future (Talloires Declaration, 1990; Halifax Declaration, 1991 and Swansea Declaration, 1993). Even though the major focus in these declarations calls for activities in the area of education, all of the declarations do call for universities to set examples in establishing their own programs for reducing their own environmental impacts. These declarations provide policy at the strategic level only and provide little direction for actually implementing the suggested strategy.
Model EMS
To determine the status of EMS on university campuses, a model or template was needed against which we could measure universities' progress in the development and implementation of their EMS. Although many models for EMS are available, including the prominent ISO 14000, we chose a model developed by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA, 1994) that conveniently allowed us to study four essential EMS elements: focus, commitment, capability, and learning (see Figure 1).
The simplicity of this model allowed us to delve deeper into each of these four elements and to look at relationships between these elements that might present a pattern for success. Furthermore, one of the authors had used the model in other environmental research and found that the model works well to gather information on EMS from respondents who have varying levels of knowledge on the topic or work with EMS in very rudimentary as well as advanced stages.
IJSHE
1,2
170
model, if functioning properly, should ensure a high level of environmental performance by directing behavior, evaluating performance against preset goals, and providing information for adjusting these goals through the feedback process.
Similar to the ISO standards, we did not attempt to measure the actual quantitative environmental performance of each university; however, we assumed that the more sophisticated the EMS, the greater the likelihood that the university's environmental impact was lessened.
The focus processes develop the purposes for which the control system is established: that is, to fulfil an organization's environmental objectives at some level. The processes involve evaluating and setting objectives and evaluating
PURPOSE (Define Purpose/Establish Plan) environmental policy
risk assessment
environmental objectives and targets
COMMITMENT (Establish Commitment) environmental values
alignment and integration accountability and responsibility
CAPABILITY (Ensure Capability) resources
knowledge, skills and training
information management and procedures
LEARNING (Evaluate, Learn, and Improve) measuring and monitoring
communication and reporting
system audits and management review continuous improvement
Source: EMS Model adapted from CSA, 1994 Illustration by Leah Stobbe
Purpose
Capability
Learning Commitment
Figure 1.
Environmental
management
systems
171
risk and reliability decisions. When applied to the environment, focus involves the development of environmental policy statements, principles and guidelines and provides a means of evaluating risk and reliability decisions.
The commitment processes work to ensure goal congruence by motivating people to work toward the realization of the organization's environmental objectives rather than a personal objective that might be in conflict with the organization's. These processes involve establishing shared values, providing responsibility and authority, establishing reward systems to create cohesion, and equipping employees with the necessary skills. Commitment means giving adequate education, training and communication, rewarding upon achieving the organization's environmental objectives, and assigning responsibility for environmental accountability.
The capability processes involve providing information, physical equipment, people, and finances and include such environmental tools as product and technology assessment, environmental impact assessment, life cycle assessment and costing, environmental product impact assessment, and full cost accounting (internalizing external costs). Also, developing environmental standards will help provide and enhance capability for the organization's employees.
The learning processes generate information to permit self-regulatory and self-correcting activities to occur, while involving monitoring, applying systems thinking, and performing self-assessment. Without the use of environmental indicators for monitoring, environmental audits, and self-assessments, learning might not take place. These tools will enhance the learning process.
Based on the model described above, universities can perform a self-assessment and determine the weak links or missing elements in their EMS. Assessing their current level of environmental performance and learning to use tools and techniques to improve their environmental performance is a challenge for all universities, regardless of the sophistication of their EMS.
Specific to universities, Keniry (1995) has provided evidence of the characteristics that distinguish successful programs in environmental stewardship. Keniry's 12 benchmarks can be categorized in the four processes discussed above:
(1) Focus: policy, ecological planning, and design.
(2) Commitment: support, structural framework, sense of place, public relations, and documentation.
(3) Capability: provision of resources, financial accountability, leadership development, and training.
(4) Learning: measurable reduction of cost and waste.
IJSHE
1,2
172
along with the university's own environmental practices. Therefore, this study focuses only on the university's performance in reducing its own ecological footprint.
Methodology
Rather than selecting a random sample of universities across North America, we were interested in having a stratified geographic sample of universities, sometimes referred to as a purposive sample. We attempted to select universities across the provinces of Canada and the states of the USA. We wanted a fairly even representation geographically; therefore, we chose at least two of the largest universities from each of the provinces and states. From more densely populated provinces and states, we selected more than two representative universities.
Because the department responsible for environmental affairs varies considerably from institution to institution, we directed an initial questionnaire to those universities listed on the Internet with the Campus and University Recycling Initiative. A second mailing was sent to additional universities, addressed to the Environment, Health & Safety Office. These initial mailings were intended to determine any interest in participating in a more thorough study of EMS and to determine who at that university would be able to answer such a survey.
As the U of C was also considering signing the Talloires Declaration, we included the signatories to this Declaration in our sample. These universities were included to determine if the signing of a prepared declaration would lead to improved environmental performance.
The survey respondents to the final survey (referred to as the EMS survey) were proportionately distributed among the various regions of Canada and the USA. A total of 12 responses were received from Canadian institutions and 38 from US institutions. Table I details the geographic distribution of the respondents.
Both surveys were sent with addressed return envelopes. Respondents were also given the choice of answering both surveys via the Internet.
Purpose of the surveys and response rates
The purpose of both surveys was to determine what variables characterize the EMS implemented by universities across North America, and what challenges and concerns those EMS address. More specifically, the questions for the first survey were designed to elicit the following information:
Table I.
Geographic distribution of survey respondents
Region Canada USA
East 5 11
Central/Midwest 2 11
West 5 9
Environmental
management
systems
173
First survey
. key environmental areas that university EMS are addressing; and . time and financial resources to address those areas.
Also, the purpose of the first survey was to determine if someone at the institution was willing and able to answer a more complete EMS survey. Out of 251 valid mailings (18were returned as undeliverable), 79 responded either ``yes'' or ``no'' to answering the EMS survey (31 percent).
Some of those not interested in continuing with the second survey did provide us with some useful information. Through e-mail, telephone, or regular mail, several universities explained that their lack of interest in the second survey was due to the absence of an organized environmental function at their university, or lack of an individual(s) that could answer the questions adequately. Therefore, we can say with some confidence that many of the responses that we did receive to the second survey are from universities that are undergoing some thought process and have some degree of awareness regarding the environmental management function. Many universities have not even progressed to this point.
Second survey
The second survey was sent only to those who indicated they were interested and could complete it. The questions were designed to elicit the following information:
. characteristics of universities (posture and behavior); . characteristics of effective EMS at universities;
. progress that universities are making towards implementing an EMS;
and
. benchmarking tools used for monitoring and measuring environmental
performance and EMS effectiveness at universities.
Although the number of universities responding to the second survey contained only 50 respondents, of those saying that they would respond to the second survey (EMS survey), 78percent actually completed the survey.
Findings
First survey: key areas and major challenges
Universities were asked to rate their challenges, use of time resources, and use of capital resources from 0 to 4 on a Likert scale, with 4 representing the most significant challenge or most resources. The three challenges that were determined as most significant (by their mean ratings) are energy management, dry waste, and hazardous waste.
IJSHE
1,2
174
were ranked 2nd and 3rd as significant challenges and also ranked 2nd and 3rd for investment in capital resources. However, dry waste was rated as 1st for time resources even though energy management was rated as the most significant challenge.
The least significant challenges in terms of time and capital resources were liquid waste, natural area conservation, and water quality.
Second survey: EMS
Posture and behavior toward environmental issues
In order to determine the posture (attitudes and awareness) that would lead to behavior (actions and performance) regarding environmental issues, the second survey contained ten statements and asked respondents to indicate to what degree these statements offered a good or poor description of their university. Based on the correlations among these ten statements and the responses to the first survey, we are able to classify universities into four general categories.
Environmental leaders
. Attitude: feel that environmental problems do affect the university; . Awareness: know where the problems are, and therefore;
. Actions: they have developed the necessary programs; and
. Performance: are preventing environmental problems from occurring,
because they have the necessary finances, time, and skills to implement an effective EMS.
Environmental strugglers
. Attitude: feel that environmental problems do affect the university; but . Awareness: are not sure where the problems are until they arise; because . Actions: they are struggling to develop an effective EMS; and
. Performance: use it to determine what programs should occur. They
have the necessary knowledge and skills, but do not have the time and finances.
Accidental ``greens''
. Attitude: do not see the EMS as a necessary tool;
. Awareness: because they are not fully aware of the environmental
problems that affect the institution;
. Action: they might have signed a pre-prepared set of guiding principles,
Environmental
management
systems
175
. Performance: ``by accident'', environmental problems have not occurred.
Therefore, they have not provided any additional resources to deal with environmental problems.
Environmental dinosaurs
. Attitude: feel that environmental issues do not affect their institutions or
do not ultimately care; therefore
. Awareness: they are not fully aware if there are environmental
problems, and do not see an EMS or any other program as necessary;
. Actions: they have not yet considered what programs should take place;
and
. Performance: are not preventing environmental problems from
occurring. They have not considered what knowledge, time, or resources are necessary to commit to an EMS.
From an environmental management perspective, these four categories of universities can be classified according to their environmental attitude/awareness and their environmental actions/ performance. When organized in a matrix, four categories of universities emerge (see Figure 2 ± Environmental progress matrix).
On the matrix, environmental posture (attitude and awareness) ranges from low to high. Various attitudes and awareness are displayed towards environmental responsibility. Universities with a low awareness would be ignorant or uncaring about the impact their operations have on the environment. This could be the result of a belief (well-founded or otherwise) that their universities have no need to consider or improve their environmental performance. High awareness universities are very concerned about the
Environmental Behavior
Environmental Posture
Accidental “Greens”
Environmental Leaders
Environmental Dinosaurs
Environmental Strugglers High
Low
Low High
Source: David E. Allwright & Irene Herremans
Figure 2.
IJSHE
1,2
176
possible effects their operations are having on the environment and have addressed, or are contemplating policies and other actions to address, those concerns.
On the other axis, environmental behavior ranges from low to high. Some universities act consistently with their posture regarding the environment. If they believe they do not impact the environment, they do nothing or if they believe they do impact the environment, they act to lessen the impact. Others act inconsistently with their beliefs, in most cases, because they do not have the knowledge, time, or financial resources to perform consistently with their attitudes. Low environmental performers generally have no environmental monitoring programs in place and address each problem as it arises. High performers generally produce little or no pollution, either deliberately (through environmentally friendly processes or policies) or because the very nature of their operations, policies, or processes produces little or no impact.
It is proposed (although not tested in this paper) that movement from low posture to high behavior/high posture follows a predictable pattern (as represented by the arrows in Figure 2). Organizations generally do not move from environmental dinosaurs directly to accidental ``greens'', because moving from low to high behavior requires a concerted effort usually as a result of an increased awareness or change in attitude about the effects that their operations may be having on the environment. Therefore, in order to move towards an environmental leadership position, organizations must first develop an increased awareness and change in attitude about their environmental impacts.
Characteristics of effective EMS at universities
Further support for the above classifications were developed through the use of analysis of variance. The significant relationships discussed in the following sections were significant at p = 0.1 at a minimum (most were found to be considerably more significant). The relationships among several of the survey questions were analyzed to determine the consistency of posture (attitudes and awareness) and behavior (actions and performance). Furthermore, we discuss what characteristics of an EMS are most important in producing high environmental performance. The discussion follows.
Environmental leaders
Among the environmental leaders are universities who are using ISO guidelines or are ISO certified. These universities were more likely to have obtained the required finances and time to develop their EMS and their environmental programs. Those universities with increased finances set long-range objectives more often and would more likely have assessed their environmental risks.
Environmental
management
systems
177
environmental management programs should take place, and generally report to the Board of Governors. (For ease of communication, the term Board of Governors is used here. However, the survey referred to the Board of Governors or other senior management body or person. For those universities that do not have a Board of Governors, this high level authority might consist of a Senate or Council.) These universities generally answered ``yes'' to having aligned appropriate controls, policies, action plans, and procedures with areas of risk. They also believe in sharing knowledge on environmental issues with other institutions through partnering, benchmarking, conferences, and other means.
The importance of having full-time staff and/or reporting to the Board of Governors must be emphasized. These were the two variables that tended to distinguish environmental leaders from other universities. These universities feel more strongly about environmental issues affecting their institution and have actions consistent with their beliefs; therefore, they are more likely to report to the Board of Governors, tend to have full-time staff, tend to quantify progress, and to know if they have environmental problems. In turn, having full-time staff plays a major role in the further development of the EMS. Those institutions that indicated that they have full-time staff were more likely to respond ``yes'' to having developed their own guiding principles, having both short-term objectives and long-range objectives, using quantitative measures and qualitative measures, sharing knowledge with other institutions, knowing the cost to comply with environmental regulation, conducting seminars, producing information pamphlets, and producing an environmental newsletter. Of the respondents reporting to the Board of Governors, 75 percent have full-time staff. Having full-full-time staff also tends to be associated with the absence of time and financial pressures. Respondents that indicated they had full-time staff suggested that finances and time were less of a problem in developing environmental programs.
Environmental strugglers
Environmental strugglers are differentiated from environmental leaders not by their attitudes but by their inability to implement actions. Generally, they report to a lower authority within the university's governance or are decentralized with no umbrella committee to organize their environmental activities. They tend to lack either the necessary financial resources or time resources to carry out their initiatives.
Environmental strugglers tend to report to someone other than the Board of Governors and they have no full-time staff. Only 25 percent of these universities report to the Board of Governors. Of the respondents not reporting to the Board of Governors, 55 percent do not have full-time staff. These universities not reporting to the Board of Governors tend to struggle for recognition, authority, or organization. The universities without full-time staff also tend to struggle for time and financial resources.
IJSHE
1,2
178
deal with environmental problems. Additionally, these respondents know whether they have environmental problems, suggesting an awareness but a lack of action. If the universities' environmental programs lack finances it is more difficult to prevent environmental problems from occurring. Strugglers tend to set more short-range objectives rather than long-range objectives because accomplishing long-range objectives is difficult when time and financial resources are limited.
Using quantitative measures is not generally driven by the amount of finances or time that a university feels that it has. Doing cost/benefit analysis is not affected by time. While 70 percent of the respondents felt that they had the necessary knowledge and skills, only 26 percent felt that they had the necessary finances and 34 percent felt that they had the necessary time. This situation indicates an opportunity lost in terms of knowledge and skills not being used to develop programs due to lack of time and finances.
Accidental greens
If the university tends to lack knowledge as to whether it has environmental problems or the university has not yet considered what programs should take place, it might still achieve a high level of environmental performance or low environmental impact. A number of explanations may account for these phenomena. First, the size of a university may have a direct bearing on its environmental impact. Small liberal arts colleges are likely to have a lesser impact than large research-intensive institutions with large chemistry, engineering, or medical departments that tend to produce hazardous waste. Size is also a factor in the amount of waste produced (liquid and dry). Additionally, newer institutions with more energy efficient buildings would be more environmentally friendly than older universities struggling (at great expense) to convert existing facilities into energy efficient ones. Numerous jurisdictions have passed stringent health, safety, and environmental regulations that lead to a more environmentally responsible institution by achieving regulatory compliance without the attendant voluntary commitment to environmental programs (awareness/attitude). Other universities have undertaken ``modernization'' programs that are driven by economic considerations that accidentally have positive environmental impacts.
Environmental dinosaurs
Environmental
management
systems
179
many of them did not answer our surveys. However, we do know that they existas we received some responses that indicated that their environmental impact was of little concern to them.
Progress toward implementing an effective EMS
Theoretically, a set of guiding principles is the starting point to developing an effective EMS. Even though a high number of the respondents have signed some form of guiding principles, it was surprising to find that having a set of guiding principles had no statistical significance to other characteristics of the EMS, especially to actions and performance. Instead, whether the university reported to the Board of Governors and/or had full-time staff responsible for environmental issues were the two variables that differentiated environmental leaders from environmental strugglers. We interpret this to mean that focus or direction is still important, but reporting to a higher university authority or having full-time staff, at times, can substitute for, or reinforce achievement of, a set of guiding principles. Even though objectives are generally derived from a policy statement, if an employee is responsible for environmental initiatives, his/her job description can give the direction necessary for environmental actions. The same can be said for reporting to the Board of Governors. The most troubling aspect of the responses to this section of the survey was that most respondents did not know what (if any) declaration or guiding principle their institution had signed.
Proper commitment suggests that everyone within the organization do his/ her part to accomplish the focus. In order to ensure these shared values, some means of communicating that commitment is necessary. Additionally, authority must be assigned for making sure the job gets done. Meetings are one way of achieving commitment. Many universities have some form of regular meetings (50 percent); however, communication to others outside the meetings through newsletters, pamphlets, and other materials is less common (16 percent, 42 percent, and 34 percent respectively). Training courses are frequently (76 percent) offered and may be more effective depending on time commitments.
In order to move posture into behavior, it is necessary to have the capability to make good decisions and implement actions into performance. Capability can be in the form of people, information, finances, and equipment. The level of capability of universities is generally quite consistent with the level of commitment. However, remember that the first survey suggested that universities tend to have more knowledge and skills than they do time and financial resources. Therefore, it is not unusual to find more monetary amounts being tracked than non-monetary amounts (58percent versus 26 percent). Many programs must pass a cost/benefit analysis in order to compete with other capital and time investments.
Benchmarking tools and measuring progress
IJSHE
1,2
180
effectively. More universities measure progress quantitatively rather than qualitatively (58percent versus 40 percent), and many learn from other groups as to how to improve environmental performance (community groups, 50 percent, and other institutions 46 percent). The majority of the respondents conduct audits with internal staff rather than an external agency (58percent). However, approximately one-third of the respondents have engaged an external auditor (34 percent). These results are consistent with what universities see as their significant challenges. In other words, energy management and waste were reported as the most significant challenges; therefore, universities are tracking their performance in these areas most often.
Concluding remarks
The most significant finding of this study, and one that should be of particular interest to institutions contemplating implementing an EMS, is the fact that it is sometimes more important to have the support and oversight of a senior administrative body than a set of guiding environmental principles. Reporting to a Board of Governors and/or having full-time staff responsible for an EMS sometimes does more to ensure dedicated resources (time, money, and expertise), than a simple declaration of principles. This may be partly due to a reluctance on the part of many organizations to declare their intention of adhering to principles and guidelines without first having the necessary resources in place (along with the support of senior administration).
While it was the intention of this study to characterize universities according to their performance and dedication to environmental principles, other factors quickly became apparent. Most importantly, the lack of a centralized reporting function made it very difficult to identify the salient attributes of an effective EMS. This also contributed to the low response rate on the initial survey. It has become very apparent that, generally, in order for an effective EMS to exist, the institution as a whole must have a centralized authority to coordinate the various functions necessary for such a system to exist. The current state of EMS at North American universities is a patchwork of independent, autonomous functions (recycling departments, facility services, plant maintenance, etc.), that are not well coordinated, nor are they working toward a common goal. Therefore, for an effective EMS to exist, we suggest establishing a centralized body with the authority to coordinate the various disparate activities.
Postscript
Environmental
management
systems
181
ReferencesCanadian Standards Association (CSA) (1994),A Voluntary Environmental Management System, CSA, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Eagan, D.J. and Orr, D.W. (Eds) (1992),The Campus and Environmental Responsibility, No. 77 in a series of New Directions for Higher Education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Finley, J. and Samuelson, J. (1999), Beyond Grey Pinstripes: Preparing MBAs for Social and Environmental Stewardship, World Resources Institute and Initiative for Social Innovation through Business, a program of the Aspen Institute.
Keniry, J. (1995),Ecodemia: Campus Environmental Stewardship at the Turn of the 21st Century, National Wildlife Federation, Washington, USA.
Thompson, D. and van Bakel, S. (1995),A Practical Introduction to Environmental Management
on Canadian Campuses, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy,
