Testing the suitability of BITC’s indices for the sector

1. Testing the suitability of BITC’s indices for the sector Mark Warner Environmental Projects Manager Isabel Souza Business in the community

2. Topics • How & why the project came about • The indices explained (Isabela) • Participation • Analysis (Isabela) • Participants feedback • Findings • Recommendations • Promotion

3. How & why

4. INDICES BACKGROUND • ENVIRONMENT INDEX • National Environment Index launched in 1996, Y&H followed in 1999 and North West is piloting it in 2006 • CR Index • National CR Index launched in 2002 • Target Audiences • National Indices restricted participation to FTSE 350, Dow Jones Sector Leaders and BITC member companies with significant economic presence • Regional Indices focus in SMEs

5. INDICES’ MODEL • ENVIRONMENT INDEX • CR INDEX Management (22.5%) Performanceand Impact (35%) Assurance & Disclosure (10%) Climate Change Waste Self-selected Corporate Strategy (10%) Integration (22.5%) Management (22.5%) Performanceand Impact (35%) Assurance & Disclosure (10%) Community Social Impact Environment Env. Impact Marketplace Workplace

6. Participation • Target was 30 institutions • 30 represented at workshops • 12 participants in total • 6 institutions outside Yorkshire & Humber • 6 from Yorkshire & Humber • 3 did the CR Index • 6/13 have completed feedback forms

7. ENVIRONMENT INDEX PILOT PROJECT RESULTS • OVERALL • Average for HE Sector pilot is the lowest in the Index* • HE sector average in the pilot is lower than in the Y&H Environment Index • CONSIDERATIONS • Publicity of rankings • Continuous improvement of previous participants * Source National Environment Index 2005

8. ENVIRONMENT INDEX PILOT PROJECT RESULTS • SECTION BREAKDOWN • Following the same trend as the all participants in the Environment Index, HE Sector performs better in the management section than in the performance and impact section • The greatest gap between HE Sector and all participants in the Environment Index is in terms of assurance ( 30% difference), whereas the smallest gap is in terms of willingness to disclose

9. ENVIRONMENT INDEX PILOT PROJECT RESULTS (Cont.) MANAGEMENT SECTION (Part I) • Key Issues Methodology • Some universities do not have a formal risk assessment process to identify their key issues • Leadership and Policies • Top management assigned environmental responsibilities, but some do not discuss environmental issues regularly • All universities have a policy in place, but some not reviewed regularly & not in the public domain • Objectives and Targets • Same trend as in the Environment Index: organisations are better in setting objectives than in setting targets • Employee Programme • Whereas some universitieshave programmes in place achieving 100% in this question, others perform poorly – dropping the sector average

10. ENVIRONMENT INDEX PILOT PROJECT RESULTS (Cont.) MANAGEMENT SECTION (Part II) • Supply Chain • Weakest area in the Environment Index • Surprisingly HE Sector performs better in terms of their supply chain than EMS • Stewardship • HE Sector has difficulty in identifying its services/products and clients and how they influence them • Stakeholder • No large discrepancy between the HE Sector and Environment Index participants • EMS and Audit • 1/3 of universities in the project did not have an EMS in place or environmental audits

11. ENVIRONMENT INDEX PILOT PROJECT RESULTS (Cont.) • PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT SECTION • Climate Change • HE Sector performs similarly to all participants in the Environment Index • Potentially this is a result of good influence from the academic community giving weight to the issue • Waste and Resource Use • Surprisingly, some universities do not even measure their waste • There are eco-efficiency opportunities and low hanging fruits waiting to be picked

12. ENVIRONMENT INDEX PILOT PROJECT RESULTS (Cont.) • PERFORMANCE SECTION (Cont.) • Biodiversity • HE Sector performs similarly to all participants in the Environment Index • Self-selected Impact Areas • Design was the most popular self-selected impact area – reflecting the concern with universities facilities

13. CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY INDEX PILOT PROJECT RESULTS • OVERALL • Major discrepancies observed in terms of Integration of CR principles and assurance (already discussed in the Environment Index results) • The choice for completion of the CR Index shows the maturity of universities in the environment agenda, thus natural trend to broaden the scope of their submission

14. CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY INDEX PILOT PROJECT RESULTS • CORPORATE STRATEGY SECTION • Although universities showed they had a high level corporate statement, the same trend was not observed in terms of CR principles • Leadership and policy follows a similar trend to the environment Index • HE very good in advocating their CR commitments ( same score as average of CR Index participants) • Good risk management demonstrates the maturity of universities that chose to complete the CR Index (in the Environment Index some universities stated they did not have any kind of risk assessment to identify their key issues)

15. CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY INDEX PILOT PROJECT RESULTS • INTEGRATION SECTION • Major discrepancy in terms of remuneration and bonus • Other weak areas include CR principles integration, strategic decision-making, training and development and scope of reporting • On the other hand, HE Sector average for business conduct was very close to the average of all the participants in the CR Index CPI - Corporate Responsibility Principles Integration BC - Business Conduct PM - Performance Management RB - Remuneration and Bonus SD - Strategic Decision-making TD - Training and Development SM/BM Senior Managers and Board member Training/Briefing SE - Stakeholder Engagement R - Reporting SR - Scope of reporting

16. CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY INDEX PILOT PROJECT RESULTS • MANAGEMENT SECTION • Environmental management scores are slightly higher than the other three CR pillars, demonstrating that although universities are mature enough to broaden their agenda, they are a little behind in terms of managing their community, workplace and marketplace impacts • HE sector averages are  20% lower than all the CR Index participants, but there are no major discrepancies

17. CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY INDEX PILOT PROJECT RESULTS (Cont.) • PERFORMANCE SECTION • Environmental Performance • Covered in the Environment Index • Social Performance • Flexibility to choose 3 out of 5 social impact options • HE sector better than average of all participants in relation to Workplace Diversity • Although universities chose to answer Community investment, their performance in this area is quite poor • Similar observation in regards to Occupational Health and Safety, which includes requirements of public reporting on OHSMS KPIs and external certifications as OHSAS 18001 PHS - Product Health & Safety OHS - Occupational Health & Safety LRSC - Labour Rights in the Supply Chain WD - Workplace Diversity CI - Community Investment

18. OVERALL PILOT PROJECT RESULTS • CHOICE OF ENVIRONMENT INDEX versus CR INDEX • Environment Index is preferred among universities (72%), whereas in the National Index, only 23% of companies opt to enter the Environment Index solely • MOST COMMON REASON FOR NOT PARTICIPATING • No time / resources • Afraid of publicity of results • OUTCOMES* • Gap analysis and benchmarking provided to universities taking part of the Pilot Project • Benchmark of HE sector against companies taking part in the National Indices * Mark Warner will talk about the applicability of the Indices to the HE Sector

19. Participants feedback • Completing the survey, while taking longer than expected, has provided a focus for the consideration of the role of the University in terms of Corporate Responsibility (University of Manchester). • Provides clear evidence to senior management of areas requiring improvement (York St John University College). • Easy to complete and well-structured (University of Worcester).

20. Participants feedback (cont) • Support and sign off at strategic level makes a big difference (University of Leeds). • Highlighted need for dedicated Energy / Environment Management resource (University of Hull). • Brings together a broad range of specialists and generalists (Leeds Met).

21. Findings • Time, ease of use & training • Future participation • Driver for change • Raised board awareness • Flexible tool • Other surveys

22. Findings (cont) • High profile • Support • Network • Priority areas & significant impacts • Knowledge

23. Immediate recommendations • Treat as a process of continual improvement • Tweak terminology and questions • Run another pilot with a larger group of participants • Run with environment index first • Run regionally with one annual national report

24. Future recommendations • Integrate Env index into HEFCE sustainable development strategy • HEFCE to allow index results to be submitted as Env KPI’s by institutions • HEFCE to establish formal partnership with BITC

25. Promotion • Participant reports Apr (public & private) • Recommendations to HEFCE Apr 06 • Wider promotion Apr-May 06 via: EAUC members, HE Academy, British Universities Directors of Finance Group, the Association of University Directors of Estates and through direct mailings to Vice-Chancellors, Guardian, Times Higher, IEMA.