Testing the suitability of BITC

1
Testing the suitability of BITCs 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
Question 1999 Score 2004 score Improvement
Leadership 86 100 14
Policy 93 100 7
Objectives 50 90 40
Targets 71 79 8
Audit 21 71 50
Supplier 29 42 13
Employee 0 73 73
Stakeholder 3 84 45
4
INDICES BACKGROUND

• ENVIRONMENT INDEX
• National Environment Index launched in 1996, YH
  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
Management (22.5)
Performanceand Impact (35)
Assurance Disclosure (10)

• ENVIRONMENT INDEX
• CR INDEX

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 YH 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 universities have 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 KPIs 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.