From start to beginning: a journey from the sustainability wilderness

1. From start to beginning: a journey from the sustainability wilderness Dr Peter Rands, Director of Sustainability Dr Janet Haddock-Fraser, Dean, Faculty of Social and Applied Sciences

2. Objectives • The Christ Church story – what and why • Methodology of research • Activity - What do you think? • Findings • Discussion • Lessons learnt and the route ahead

3. University evolution • 1962 – Church Foundation teacher training Coll. In Canterbury • 1988 – 2,000 students • 1995 – University College • 1997 – New Vice Chancellor • 2000 – Campus in Broadstairs • 2002 – 14,000 students • 2004 – Campus in Medway • 2005 – University title • 2007 – Campus in Folkestone • 2009 – Research Degree awarding powers • 2010 – New Vice Chancellor • 2012 – 20,000 students – Golden Jubilee

4. University values • the development of the whole person • by encouraging a spirit of reflection and enquiry and promoting opportunities for learning beyond the curriculum • in responsible stewardship of the natural environment • equality of opportunity • by respecting the inherent dignity and potential of each person

5. The sustainability ‘journey’

6. The sustainability ‘journey’

7. The sustainability ‘journey’

25. So what now? • Lots of activity across the University • Embedded within Estates and Facilities • Innovative use of ‘place’ within the WHS • Creative capacity building for ESF • Pockets of engagement with GI and SSO • Active volunteering and community engagement • Commitment to CMP, EcoCampus and LiFE

26. Motivations for review • Impact of financial agenda on CMP • Successful achievement in EcoCampus • Priority of student recruitment and other short term business related focuses • Hiatus of senior leadership • Halfway through Strategic Plan • Understand best areas to focus efforts • Support SMT in evaluation & articulation

27. Methodology • To examine underlying perceptions of the drivers and influencers of sustainability decisions: • In-depth semi-structured interviews • All current (and one former) members of Senior Management Team (10 staff) • 8 additional staff: • Academic Heads of Department • Professional Services staff engaged in development/implementation of sustainability actitives as part of their institutional role (e.g. facilities, learning and teaching) • Senior staff engaged in environmental agenda on a ‘project’ basis

28. Interviewees • SMT • Vice Chancellor, PVC Research & KE and PVC Academic • Deans of Education, Health & of Arts and Humanities • Strategic Director of Resources, University Solicitor • Management Group • Ex PVC Learning and Quality • Director & Assistant Facilities Director (Estates and Infrastr.) • Director of Marketing, Director of Learning and Teaching • Director of Futures Initiative & HoD of Geographical and Life Sci. • HoD of Sports Science, Tourism and Leisure • HoD of Computing & Dean of Chapel

29. Organisational structure (Acting) Vice-Chancellor University Solicitor Chaplain Dean- Health & Social Care PVC (RKE) PVC ( Academic) Strategic Director Resources Dean – Social/ Applied Sciences Dean- Arts & Humanities Dean- Education Director Sustainability Director Facilities HoD Sport Tourism Leisure Director FI Senior Management Team HoD Geog/Life Sciences Director Marketing HoD Computing

30. Methodology (ctd) • Individual interviews of 30-40 minutes • Focus on perceptions of: • Key drivers of sustainability activities (list provided) – with prompts based on: reputation; risk reduction; cost reduction; regulation; ‘right thing to do’; • Initiators, leaders and influencers of these; • Barriers to progress to date, and going forward; • Thoughts on priorities for sustainability in future.

31. Activity • Reflect on your own organisation • If you undertook this exercise what would you expect the results to be?

32. Findings • All staff interviewed felt the sustainability agenda was congruent with institutional values; • All staff recognised importance of supporting institutional values as part of their role; • Perceptions on • (i) items of greatest importance; • (ii) drivers for justification, depending on function of individual

33. Findings (ctd) • For instance: • Academic staff tended to focus on: • Integration of sustainability into the curriculum • Exploring opportunity for development on the ‘intelligent citizen’ with students • Reputational benefits from above • Operational/professional services roles tended to focus on • Risk and cost reduction opportunities; • Environmental sustainability issues relating to estates/facilities/procurement

34. 1. No positive incentives for change unless societal net benefits of change are positive. 2. No positive incentives if organisation would adopt sustainability changes without incentives/regulation. 3. No positive incentives if overall costs outweigh benefits. Simple rulesfor determining sustainability behaviour Adapted from Pannell 2008 – Land Economics

35. Benefit-Costs of sustainabilityfor CCCU? Right thing to do? Regulation Reputation Risk reduction Reduce costs Benefit to society Cost to society Cost to organisation Benefit to organisation

36. Response to environmental position Low risk High risk Low opportunity High opportunity Steger 1993 ‘Greening the Boardroom’

37. Growth of activity ORGANISATION / SMT Directive Supportive

38. Multiplying Davids and GreeningGoliaths (Schaltegger 2002) Holisticorganisationalengagement Staff SMT Organisation hierarchy

39. Findings Operational maturity • Different stages of maturity/development • Operational • ‘Low hanging fruit’ - all but achieved • Cost and efficiency priorities • Searching out win-win scenarios • But part of mainstream decision making • Limited permeability relating to behaviour at work

40. FindingsAcademic maturity • Academic • Seen as big opportunity but lesser stage of operationalisation • No target in Strategic Plan • Not clear how to embed this into programme and module planning • Strong examples of good practice (FI) • Approval mechanisms need sorting out • Levels of understanding need raising (FI)

41. Lessons learnt • An ‘organisation’ is not a single entity, but a collection of staff with differing priorities, perspectives, personality and power to influence; • To what extent should we expect personal behaviours to reflect organisational values? • Present new initiatives with respect to meeting multiple (differing) needs and perspectives of influential/powerful decision-makers; • Sell appropriately to each organisational unit.

42. Lessons learnt (ctd) • Role of ‘collective voice’ important to capture in decision-making • Is the organisational culture an enabler of this? • Should senior management provide top-down direction or ‘permission/space’ for ‘bottom-up’ ideas to flourish? • Importance of follow-through to operationalize strategic plans/intentions

43. Message 1 Message 2 Message 3