Universities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6. Institutional FeedbackAdditional Comments, both positive and negative, have been summarised below.Interested in repeatingthe Index process nextyearCompleting thesurvey online wasstraightforwardBelieve that the Indexprocess would drive yearon year improvementBelieve that participationin the project has raisedboard awarenessThe Index is a flexibletool that can be appliedto the HE sectorThere are no othersurveys more relevant toour institution/sectorHigh profile of BITC andIndices will influenceboard to continueparticipationEnough support wasprovided by BITC andonline guidance notesAdequate opportunityto network with otheruniversitiesIndex helped prioritiseareas to work on anddevelop action plansIndex helped identifysignificant issues/impacts & future risksIndex helped identifyeco-efficiencyopportunitiesThe workshops/surgeries helped tounderstand project andIndex processIndex has aideddiscovery of knowledge/initiatives/datapreviously unaware ofIndex process hasencouraged integrationof thinking among morethan one department100% of respondents stated that they would be interested in repeating the Indexprocess. Participants felt that the real value in participating in the Index is to use theresults as an agenda for improvement. Year on year benchmarking provides theframework to gauge progress.Over 80% of participants found the online survey straightforward. However, thosethat didn’t had difficulty using the Index survey tool or experienced some technicalcomplications along the way.All participants agreed that the Index process provided a real driver for year onyear improvement. It was commented that ‘sign-off’ at a strategic level makes a bigdifference. The majority agreed that for improvements to happen, results needed tobe reported to, and addressed by senior management.The majority felt that their participation in the project raised board awareness.Some felt that the board was already aware of their work; others believed that thepresentation of the results raised more awareness, especially when the board sawtheir position against other institutions.Almost 80% of respondents felt the Index tool was applicable to the HE sector.12% felt that parts of the Index, or the terminology, were difficult to interpret or notappropriate to the sector. There was much support for HE sector guidance notes toprovide clarity.63% of participants did not know of any other surveys more relevant to the sector.25% weren’t sure. Some believed that HEFCE branding of the Index was important.Some felt that the sector shouldn’t ‘reinvent the wheel’. Two participants commentedon the EcoCampus project but were either holding out on the final verdict or did notsee any duplication. One HEI mentioned using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)but not as a benchmarking tool.The majority (79%) agreed that BITC and the Indices held some influence over theirboard. Many believe that HEFCE has more influence. In a few cases there was noreal board involvement in the project.All participants agreed that they received enough support in completing the surveyfrom BITC staff and the online guidance notes. However, many suggested that sectorspecificguidelines would be most helpful.Half of the participants did not experience adequate opportunities to network. Aquarter did not or could not make the dates set for workshops. Some felt there wastoo short notice of the event, and consequently with numbers down opportunities tonetwork were further reduced for attendees.Over 80% felt the Index process helped them to prioritise and develop action plans.Comments suggested that results were used in planning decisions. Others statedthat the process should be viewed longer term.67% of participants agreed that the Index helped identify issues. 33% disagreed.Many HEIs had already identified their key risks and had processes in place. Forsome the Index process confirmed their key risks.The majority of participants agreed with this statement, although 33% disagreed.Feedback indicated that eco-efficiencies had often already been identified.25% of participants did not attend workshops or surgeries, either because they joinedthe project too late, or they were unavailable on the day, or felt there was too littlenotice given. 21% said workshops did not help - mainly because they did not attend.54% said they benefited from the experience.84% of HEIs agreed with this statement. Comments suggest that the Index processdrew attention to pockets of good practice and other initiatives within their institution,it brought people together from across departments, and in one case, identified agroup of people already collecting similar data.The majority agreed with this statement and believed it was one of the most satisfyingachievements of the project. For others, 25%, it is early days and plans are in placeto set up a cross-departmental sustainability group (or similar) to integrate the Indexprocess more thoroughly.<strong>Universities</strong> that Count31
<strong>Universities</strong> that Count7LESSONS LEARNT7.1 Raising awareness in the ViceChancellor’s officeAlthough a letter was sent to the Vice Chancellorof each HEI in England from HEFCE explaining theproject and inviting Institutions to take part, it oftengot lost ‘along the way’ or was not delegated onto the appropriate person. This is not surprisinggiven the deluge of information that passes intothe Vice Chancellor’s office. In most cases, whencontacted, PA’s were extremely good at followingup and the strike rate was high for those HEIsthat were contacted. It was, however, impossible,to ‘cold call’ all institutions, track down the rightperson and initiate project recruitment. If theproject was to continue it would help to furtherincrease the profile of the project. The launch ofthis report, its dissemination and publicity will helpraise awareness.not enough forewarning given to participants, theunavailability of participants, and the late arrivalof some participants to the project, attendancerates at workshops were down. This reduced theopportunities for networking. In future, a ‘buddy’programme would be recommended to back upworkshops.7.4 Sector-specific guidance notesThere was an interpretation challenge for some,with language in the Index surveys that wasconsidered too ‘corporate’. Sector-specificguidance material would be desirable tosupport HEIs for future sector benchmarking. A‘Curriculum’ based option in the Performance andImpact section of the Indices would highlight thecontribution to society that HEIs can make throughtheir teaching and research.7.2 Raising awareness and projectrecruitment at ‘practitioner’ levelThe EAUC provided a good avenue to promote theproject, raise awareness, and was a good sourceof recruitment. BITC account managers could havebeen a more useful source of recruitment thanwas taken advantage of. If recruitment had startedearlier, the BITC project manager could havespent more time liaising with the BITC regions andformalising a recruitment strategy with them.July and August was not an ideal time to contactHEIs. This was holiday time for universities andcolleges. Although the campus continues to run,and Estates, Facilities and Environment teamsare on site, staff numbers tended to be down andreaching the right person was sometimes difficult.7.3 Workshops and networkingThis was the biggest ‘missed opportunity’ of theproject and could definitely be improved upon inthe future. Due to a mixture of project constraints,7.5 Managing expectationsForty-nine institutions were engaged to the point ofeither requesting an ‘information pack’, attendingan ‘engagement’ meeting, participating in anintroductory workshop, or even ‘signing-up’ to theproject and commencing the Index process. Ofthese ‘engaged’ HEIs, twenty-five (51%) actuallysucceeded in completing their Index submission.The ‘non-participants’ are mostly waiting in thewings. The 50% ‘strike rate’ is not surprising andclosely mirrors that of the Business Indices -especially in the early stages. It is generally agreedthat the first time round is the hardest and fromthat point the first step on the path has been taken.Year on year improvement then becomes a priorityfor initiated Index participants.For the CR Index there were at least ten veryinterested HEIs, however only five completedtheir submission. As with the Business Index itsometimes takes a few years to get to the rightposition to make an Index submission.32
Page 4 and 5: FOREWORDThis report is extremely ti
Page 6 and 7: 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARYTwenty-five pione
Page 8 and 9: 2. Introductionfor comparing enviro
Page 10 and 11: 3. Key Findings• For some HEIs it
Page 12 and 13: 4ENVIRONMENTAL INDEXRESULTS4.1 The
Page 14 and 15: 4. Environmental Index ResultsFigur
Page 16 and 17: 4. Environmental Index Resultscommu
Page 18 and 19: 4. Environmental Index ResultsThe H
Page 20 and 21: 4. Environmental Index Results4.5.4
Page 22 and 23: 5CORPORATERESPONSIBILITYUniversitie
Page 24 and 25: 5. Corporate Responsibility Index R
Page 31: Universities that Count6INSTITUTION
Page 35 and 36: Universities that Count8CONCLUSIONS
Page 37: Universities that Count36

Universities

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?