Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education:Vol1.Issue2.2000:
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers/emh.asp
IJSHE
1,2
168
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
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 18 months, 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
International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education,
Vol. 1 No. 2, 2000, pp. 168-181.
# MCB University Press, 1467-6370
The authors wish to thank CGA Canada Research Foundation for partial funding of the
research.
of the information available is in the form of examples of ``this is what we did on
our 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.
This model was developed to assist any organization, but not specifically
academic institutions, to develop an effective EMS. The Canadian Standards
Association is the Canadian representative on the ISO committee and is
responsible for developing national standards in Canada similar to any
national standard setting body that exists in most countries. Therefore, the
model contains all the basic elements of a more sophisticated ISO 14000 EMS
but without the complexity. The four separate but related processes in this
Environmental
management
systems
169
IJSHE
1,2
Purpose
Learning
Commitment
170
Capability
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
Figure 1.
CSA model for an
environmental
management system
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
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
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 selfassessments, learning might not take place. These tools will enhance the
learning process.
Based on the model described above, universities can perform a selfassessment 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.
Keniry (1995) included two additional benchmarks in the areas of curriculum and
research. These two areas could not adequately be addressed in the current study
Environmental
management
systems
171
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:
Region
East
Central/Midwest
Table I.
Geographic distribution West
South
of survey respondents
Canada
USA
5
2
5
N/A
11
11
9
7
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 (18 were 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), 78 percent 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.
Major challenges that universities face regarding environmental
performance are matched fairly well with the time and capital resources needed
to address these challenges. For example, energy management also received the
highest rating for investment in capital resou,rces. Dry and hazardous waste
Environmental
management
systems
173
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,
but have not yet considered what preventive programs should take
place; because
.
Performance: ``by accident'', environmental problems have not occurred.
Therefore, they have not provided any additional resources to deal with
environmental problems.
Environmental
management
systems
Environmental dinosaurs
.
.
.
.
Attitude: feel that environmental issues do not affect their institutions or
do not ultimately care; therefore
175
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
High
Accidental
“Greens”
Environmental
Leaders
Environmental
Dinosaurs
Environmental
Strugglers
Environmental
Behavior
Low
Low
Environmental Posture
Source: David E. Allwright & Irene Herremans
High
Figure 2.
Environmental progress
matrix
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.
However, ISO-guided universities are not the only environmental leaders.
Also among the environmental leaders are universities that feel they are
preventing environmental problems from occurring through other forms of
EMS. These universities see the EMS as a useful tool, have considered what
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 fulltime staff. Having 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.
However, even if the university lacks reporting authority to the highest level
of the university, many respondents feel they have the knowledge and skills to
Environmental
management
systems
177
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
Attitude and awareness tend to be important determinants of the progress the
university is making in addressing environmental issues. If the respondent felt
that environmental issues did not affect the university or did not ultimately care,
the EMS was in a less-developed stage of development. Even if environmental
issues affected the university, but it did not see the use of an EMS as a useful tool,
then again the EMS was less developed. Respondents who felt that their
institutions were not affected by environmental problems, however, also
responded that they did not know if problems existed (96 percent). Little
information is known about environmental dinosaurs as it can be assumed that
many of them did not answer our surveys. However, we do know that they exist
as 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 (58 percent 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
Learning provides information on how well the focus or objectives are being
accomplished and how they might be accomplished more efficiently or
Environmental
management
systems
179
IJSHE
1,2
180
effectively. More universities measure progress quantitatively rather than
qualitatively (58 percent 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 (58 percent). 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
The U of C is striving to continually improve its EMS. We have found the
information contained in this research study to be invaluable in our journey. We
welcome readers to share their experiences with us or contact us with their
questions. Further information about other institutions' insights in developing
their environmental initiatives is always welcome.
References
Canadian 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,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Environmental
management
systems
181
http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers/emh.asp
IJSHE
1,2
168
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
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 18 months, 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
International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education,
Vol. 1 No. 2, 2000, pp. 168-181.
# MCB University Press, 1467-6370
The authors wish to thank CGA Canada Research Foundation for partial funding of the
research.
of the information available is in the form of examples of ``this is what we did on
our 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.
This model was developed to assist any organization, but not specifically
academic institutions, to develop an effective EMS. The Canadian Standards
Association is the Canadian representative on the ISO committee and is
responsible for developing national standards in Canada similar to any
national standard setting body that exists in most countries. Therefore, the
model contains all the basic elements of a more sophisticated ISO 14000 EMS
but without the complexity. The four separate but related processes in this
Environmental
management
systems
169
IJSHE
1,2
Purpose
Learning
Commitment
170
Capability
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
Figure 1.
CSA model for an
environmental
management system
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
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
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 selfassessments, learning might not take place. These tools will enhance the
learning process.
Based on the model described above, universities can perform a selfassessment 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.
Keniry (1995) included two additional benchmarks in the areas of curriculum and
research. These two areas could not adequately be addressed in the current study
Environmental
management
systems
171
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:
Region
East
Central/Midwest
Table I.
Geographic distribution West
South
of survey respondents
Canada
USA
5
2
5
N/A
11
11
9
7
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 (18 were 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), 78 percent 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.
Major challenges that universities face regarding environmental
performance are matched fairly well with the time and capital resources needed
to address these challenges. For example, energy management also received the
highest rating for investment in capital resou,rces. Dry and hazardous waste
Environmental
management
systems
173
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,
but have not yet considered what preventive programs should take
place; because
.
Performance: ``by accident'', environmental problems have not occurred.
Therefore, they have not provided any additional resources to deal with
environmental problems.
Environmental
management
systems
Environmental dinosaurs
.
.
.
.
Attitude: feel that environmental issues do not affect their institutions or
do not ultimately care; therefore
175
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
High
Accidental
“Greens”
Environmental
Leaders
Environmental
Dinosaurs
Environmental
Strugglers
Environmental
Behavior
Low
Low
Environmental Posture
Source: David E. Allwright & Irene Herremans
High
Figure 2.
Environmental progress
matrix
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.
However, ISO-guided universities are not the only environmental leaders.
Also among the environmental leaders are universities that feel they are
preventing environmental problems from occurring through other forms of
EMS. These universities see the EMS as a useful tool, have considered what
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 fulltime staff. Having 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.
However, even if the university lacks reporting authority to the highest level
of the university, many respondents feel they have the knowledge and skills to
Environmental
management
systems
177
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
Attitude and awareness tend to be important determinants of the progress the
university is making in addressing environmental issues. If the respondent felt
that environmental issues did not affect the university or did not ultimately care,
the EMS was in a less-developed stage of development. Even if environmental
issues affected the university, but it did not see the use of an EMS as a useful tool,
then again the EMS was less developed. Respondents who felt that their
institutions were not affected by environmental problems, however, also
responded that they did not know if problems existed (96 percent). Little
information is known about environmental dinosaurs as it can be assumed that
many of them did not answer our surveys. However, we do know that they exist
as 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 (58 percent 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
Learning provides information on how well the focus or objectives are being
accomplished and how they might be accomplished more efficiently or
Environmental
management
systems
179
IJSHE
1,2
180
effectively. More universities measure progress quantitatively rather than
qualitatively (58 percent 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 (58 percent). 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
The U of C is striving to continually improve its EMS. We have found the
information contained in this research study to be invaluable in our journey. We
welcome readers to share their experiences with us or contact us with their
questions. Further information about other institutions' insights in developing
their environmental initiatives is always welcome.
References
Canadian 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,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Environmental
management
systems
181