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 Question 1999 % Score 2004 % score Improvement Leadership 86
100 14
Policy 93 7
Objectives 50 90 40
Targets 71 79 8
Audit 21
Supplier 29 42 13
Employee 73
Stakeholder 3 84 45

4. INDICES BACKGROUND CR Index Target Audiences 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
BITC
22 years experience of helping companies to improve their impact on society
750+ member companies
Network of 100+ local business-led partnerships & 60 global partners
In UK, members employ over 1 in 5 in the private sector workforce
12 Regional Support Branches: South West, West of England, South East, East of England, East Midlands, West Midlands, Wales, Yorkshire and Humber, North West, North East, Scottish, Northern Ireland
OUR PURPOSE
To Inspire, Engage, Support and Challenge business in the continual improvement of their company’s impact on society
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT INDEX
Developed through a series of workshops with business and in consultation on emerging environmental issues with Earthwatch and English Nature, Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), Carbon Trust and Charted Institute Purchasing and Supply (CIPS)
It is a voluntary, business-led benchmark with flexibility to allow companies to focus on material issues
CR Index = developed to satisfy a demand for next steps for companies scoring high in the environment Index
YORKSHIRE & HUMBER ENVIRONMENT INDEX
Focused on SMEs
Local Universities already participate on annual benchmark
HE = Business
Together HE employ …. And have a turnover of more than….
Higher Education Institutions are in the competitive market and environmental and CR issues are set to become a real driver in student and staff recruitment.

5. INDICES’ MODEL ENVIRONMENT INDEX CR INDEX Management (22.5%)
Performance and Impact (35%)
Assurance & Disclosure (10%)
Climate Change
Waste
Self-selected
Corporate Strategy (10%)
Integration
(22.5%)
Management
(22.5%)
Performance and Impact (35%)
Assurance & Disclosure (10%)
WHAT ARE THE INDICES?
Management tool for integrating environmental issues into strategic decision making
Framework for a systematic approach to managing, measuring and reporting social and environmental performance
Method for engaging board members and raise awareness of environmental risks and opportunities
Communication tool with external stakeholders
Benchmark for comparing a company’s management processes and performance with those of others in the sector/Index
INDICES ALSO
Aid to the management of non-financial risks
Progression beyond regulatory compliance
Strategic opportunities Identification (e.g. eco-efficiency)
OVERALL KEY ISSUES PERFORMANCE KEY ISSUES
Management of Key Issues Measurement and Reporting (Is your data trustable?)
Core responsibilities Scope of Information (Business coverage)
Approach to stakeholder engagement Quality of Information (Verifiable data or based on estimates?)
Transparency & Disclosure Targets
Assurance Performance Improvement
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
Overall view – disappointing. But understand the reasons. However, the group provided good results and still demonstrates that there are a lot of opportunities.
Having six institutions outside the Y&H region gives a good balance to the project.
Hopefully the report will increase the confidence of those institutions that dropped out. Need to make more of the fact that it is better to take part and come last than not to partake at all.

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. MANAGEMENT SECTION (Part I)
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
MAKING THE ENVIRONMENT A BOARDROOM ISSUE
Leadership & Policy average increase: From 85% in 2000 to 94% in 2004
almost every firm has a policy
Most firms have a board member with environmental responsibility
SETTING DELIVERABLE AIMS
Objectives & Targets average increase: From 62% in 2000 to 90% in 2004
Most have set environmental objectives and targets
Reticence to put performance against targets in the public domain
Employee Programme
Whereas some universities have programmes in place achieving 100% in this question, others perform poorly – dropping the sector average

10. MANAGEMENT SECTION (Part II)
ENVIRONMENT INDEX PILOT PROJECT RESULTS (Cont.)
MANAGEMENT SECTION (Part II)
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
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
IMPLEMENTING MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
EMS & Audits average : From 48% in 2000 to 76% in 2004
Many firms developing or introduced EMS
Mixed number with ISO14001/EMAS

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
CR vs ENV. INDEX
Overall, environmental scores are higher among those that complete the CR Index

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
Time, ease of use & training – most agreed that was easy to use. People who will be completing the index need to go on the training as well.
Future participation – most people said they would complete the index again. SHU – once you’ve done it once and got everything in order it is a lot easier the second time. First time can be very time consuming.
Driver 4 change – everyone agreed (most strongly) that the index would help drive change. Some stated it highlighted need ofr an energy/env manager. Others stated in highlighted areas such as waste as a priority.
Raised Board Awareness – Everyone agreed that is had done so. Whether it raised board commitment is another issue?
Flexible – most agreed that the emphasis on some questions needed to change and that the definition of some questions was difficult to relate to the sector. For example, product. This was especially relevant in the CR Index where it related to human rights issues and Health & Safety.
Other surveys – people who competed the feedback forms said they where not aware of / looking at other surveys. Or felt that other surveys are more relevant to the sector. Only know of one inst (Uni of York) who feel the GRI Index is more relevant.

22. Findings (cont) High profile Support Network
Priority areas & significant impacts
Knowledge
High profile – everyone felt that the high profile of the index nationally would influence the board to continue with the Index even if there was another index that is more relevant.
Support – most felt that the support from BITC was good and crucial to being able to complete the survey. For example, when setting the scope and definitions of the questions. Guidance notes are definitely needed in order to complete properly.
Networking – this was something that could have been improved and can be easily rectified if the project goes to the next stage.
Priority areas – as for driving change. However, the high profile of the index, participations of others, HEFCE strategy etc will make a water tight case for dedicated members of staff.
Knowledge – all agreed that knowledge of projects by other departments and data increased as a direct result of the project. Hence, participants gained a better understanding of their own institution, encouraged two way dialogue and more of an integrated approach.

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
Asking institutions to complete two different indices may be asking to much (in terms of time) hence it may just be easier to run with the env index.

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.