The Green League is People & Planet’s award-winning environmental ranking of the UK’s universities. As part of the Go Green campaign, the Green League aims to improve environmental performance in universities by raising the profile of environmental issues and creating a competition mechanism to drive up standards in the sector.

2. Why does the Green League on the People & Planet website differ from version printed in the Times Higher Education?

Due to a technical error that wasn’t spotted before the Times Higher Education (THE) went to print, the version submitted to the THE contained several errors which affected the rankings of some lower-scoring universities. People & Planet would like to make it clear that the discrepancies between the Green League table in the THE and the table published on our webpage are not the fault of the THE.

The table published by Times Higher Education was based on information that we provided and was published in good faith without knowledge of the errors. People & Planet apologises for any confusion caused but can confirm that the version available on the People & Planet website is the definitive version of the Green League 2009 with discrepancies corrected.

3.How is the Green League Table developed?

People and Planet asked 131 UK universities to complete an online questionnaire comprising of questions relating to management and policy. We then incorporated Estate Management Statistics (EMS), which was collected and validated by IPD Occupiers. Points were awarded based on a series of criteria and the final league table was developed from these results.

4.Why do People and Planet use management and policy and performance indicators to produce the Green League?

The Green League takes a dual approach as we are looking both at commitment to systemic environmental management as well as performance. People & Planet see both as being essential. The performance indicators reveal how well an institution is performing on the ground. The policy criteria demonstrate whether an institution has a systematic means of improving such performance.

5.What indicators were measured in developing the 2009 Green League?

Management & Policy

i.Publicly Available Environmental Policy

ii.Full Time Environment Management Staff

iii.Comprehensive Environmental Auditing

iv.Ethical Investment Policy

v.Carbon Management

vi.Fairtrade University accreditation

vii.Environmental Impact of Students’ Union or Students’ Association

Performance:

viii.Energy sources

ix.Waste

x.Carbon emissions per head

xi.Water consumption per head

6.How was the information used to develop the 2009 Green League collected?

Management & Policy: Information for criteria’s i - v was gathered by the Green League 2009, which was submitted to universities in the form of an online questionnaire. The responses to this questionnaire were analysed by a team at People & Planet team with the help of student researchers.

Criteria vi comprised of Fairtrade University accreditation information that was supplied directly by the Fairtrade Foundation, and this comprised of criteria vi. Criteria vii comprised of Sound Impact Environmental Award accreditation information, which was supplied directly by NUS Services Ltd.

Performance: Research for the remaining criteria (viii – xi) relates to the Estate Management Statistics (EMS) that was provided by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). These results measure the on-the-ground environmental performance outcomes.

7.What is EMS data?

Estate Management Statistics (EMS) was established in 1999 to provide Higher Education sector with standardized, reliable and useful property information to help managers understand current performance, promote sharing of best practice and drive improvements. EMS is run by IPD Occupiers, who are committed to working with UK institutional estates to help raise the profile, quality and effective applications for performance data across estates. Institutions have demonstrated increased evidence of the value in use of this information to understand, improve, share practice, justify change and help managers make a difference. Whilst results for institutions remain confidential and the property of the sector some very informative and valuable measures for the sector as a whole are available via the IPD Occupiers website.

8.How can People and Planet be sure that the information submitted by Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), in relation to the Estate Management Statistics (EMS) performance indicators, is accurate?

The validation of the EMS data has again this year been the priority to ensure the improving quality and reliability of both inputs and the output metrics. IPD have spent a good deal of time this year ensuring that individual returns are up to date and consistent and hope institutions feel increasing confidence is use of this information. Both the Service Team (at IPD Occupiers) and institutions were keen to ensure and improve the quality of information provided through EMS, with their internal consistency and accuracy being vital in increasing the value and applications of this resource.

To promote this quality check, a range of automatic checks are embedded in the EMS Data Collection Template to enable institutions to check the completeness, internal consistency and high level inter-relationships between key metrics.

9.How can People & Planet be sure that the information submitted by universities, in relation to management and policy, is accurate?

Universities were obligated to provide all management and policy information under the Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information Regulations. To ensure accuracy, evidence was required by the universities to substantiate their various responses. Our team of People and Planet research volunteers spent a good deal of timing inspecting both the responses and evidence in order to make the allocation of points both accurate and consistent.

10.How did People and Planet ensure consistency when analysing the collective University data?

People & Planet have been more rigorous in their analysis than ever before. Stringent in house procedures were used to access and validate university responses. Additional comparison analysis was also carried out across numerous sample groups to ensure consistency. People & Planet staff members worked with a team of dedicated volunteers to assess the responses to ensure accuracy and consistency. The Green League 2009 wouldn’t have been possible without the hard work of the volunteers: Holly, Devin and Jason.

11.What was the final score allocation breakdown for the Green League 2009?

Management & Policy:

i.Publicly Available Environmental Policy (8 points)

ii.Full Time Environment Management Staff (10 points)

iii.Comprehensive Environmental Auditing (8 points)

iv.Ethical Investment Policy (4 points)

v.Carbon Management (6 points)

vi.Fairtrade University accreditation (2 points)

vii.Environmental Impact of Students’ Union or Students’ Association (2 points)

Performance:

viii.Energy sources (6 points)

ix.Waste (8 points)

x.Carbon emissions per head (8 points)

xi.Water consumption per head (8 points)

12.With regards to the Estate Management Statistics (EMS) Data, did carbon emission increase overall, and if so, why?

For the purposes of EMS submission a universities carbon emissions are calculated by looking at how much electricity a university uses and from what source that electricity is taken from. Each source has a different conversion rate and the conversion rate approximates how carbon intensive each electricity source is. So by looking at the amount of electricity used you can approximate how many kilograms of carbon went into its production. The general trend of increases in carbon emissions compared to last year is partly due to the carbon conversion rates changing since last year. In 2008 the the conversion rates used were “based upon fuel conversion factors in Section 4 of ‘Proposals for amending Part L of the Building Regulations and Implementing the Energy Performance of Building Directive’ (July 2004) (www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg).” In 2009 the conversion rates used were taken from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and are more up to date. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/conversion-factors.htm The conversion rates this year were typically higher than last year and therefore a university using exactly the same amount of energy of the same type would appear to have increased their emissions. While People & Planet accepts that updating the conversion rates to more recent and accurate rates is needed to increase the accuracy of the figures, its important for this change to be well communicated and understood. People & Planet has not found it possible to disentangle the factors that caused the increases in carbon emissions and so cannot definitely say whether the carbon emissions have increased or decreased. In light of this the Green League 2009 awarded points for changes in carbon emissions per head relative to other institutions rather than simply on whether a university has increased or decreased their absolute emissions.

13.Why have some universities improved their ranking in the Green League even though their emissions per head have increased?

While carbon emissions are an important indicator of an insitutitions environmental performance they are only one of a number of factors that the Green League 2009 uses to guage environmental performance. It is important to have a holistic approach as carbon emissions do not take into account all of the environmental impacts a university has e.g. the amount of waste the university generates. Furthermore, a university may furiously working to implement environmental projects that will reduce carbon emissions in the medium to long term but these may not show a reduction in emissions on the ground this year. Finally, due to changes in conversion rates for carbon an institutions carbon emissions may have increased according to EMS but may not actually have increased (see 12. With regards to the EMS Data, did carbon emission increase overall, and if so, why? For a full explanation).

14.Did People and Planet change the Estates Management Statistics (EMS) data in any way?

People did not alter any EMS data in anyway. As with previous years, and to ensure the consistency of the League, People & Planet removed data that was clearly erroneous. Data figures that have changed by 50% or more when compared to last year were removed as these are much more likely to be errors of reporting than astonishing feats of environmental management. Universities declaring that they recycle 70% or more were also awarded 0 points as it is deemed unlikely that such figures are accurate.

15.What constitutes an Environmental Policy?

An environmental policy provides a formal, public and permanent demonstration of intent regarding performance. It is crucial in ensuring there is sustained, strategic improvement in environmental performance. The Green League 2008 revealed that 97% of institutions have some form of environment policy but the policies varied widely in the number of areas they assess.

16.Why are the points for full time staff so heavily weighted?

Without the expertise and championing of full-time professional environmental management staff, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that green initiatives in universities are unlikely to be systematic, well coordinated and resourced, or have significant success. Environmental managers develop objectives and set priorities, with significant, time bound targets, and can co-ordinate the work to fulfil them.

17.Why were points allocated for a variety of Environmental Audits and not a single baseline review?

People & Planet believe that only by analysing the variety of different environmental impacts - from energy to purchasing and biodiversity - can a university set targets, and assess priorities for improvement. In recognition of the rigor and accuracy of external environmental management systems (e.g. ISO14001, EMAS etc) the Green League 2009 awarded additional to the universities that have opened themselves to the external scrutiny of such schemes.

18.Why does the Green League include Ethical Investment in its table in 2009?

A strong ethical investment policy ensures a university’s investments are conducted transparently and in an economically viable and socially responsible manner, not blind to wider social, environmental and humanitarian concerns. The Green League 2009 therefore awards points if there is a clear process for regular review, with ongoing opportunities for staff, students and other stakeholders to engage with the policy. The Green League is focused on testing the environmental impact of universities, therefore the Green League 2009 also awards points to those universities that specifically consider the environmental consequences of investment.

19.Is the Green League a benchmarking exercise?

The Green League is not a benchmarking exercise but instead provides a snapshot of environmental performance and management. People & Planet believe the bar must constantly be raised if universities are going to continuously improve their environmental performance. By tightening the evidence required and the definition of criteria year on year, People & Planet increase the rigor and accuracy of the Green League. There are benchmarking exercises that universities can take part in that will provide the consistency and detailed suggestions for improvement that the Green League doesn’t.

20.In what ways is the Green League 2009 different to the previous year?

The most significant change to the Green League 2009 is that People & Planet has added two entirely new criteria 5. Carbon Management and 7. Environmental Impact of Students’ Union or Students’ Association.

In addition to this a number of existing criteria have been modified to more accurately gauge universities environmental performance and policy:

The number of points allocated for an environmental policy has been reduced from 3 ½ to 2.
Points are no longer allocated for targets relating to energy in the environmental policy.
Unlike last year no points are given for having a part time member of staff with part responsibility for environmental management (e.g. Health & Safety and Environmental Manager).
This year points are not allocated for a single comprehensive baseline review as People & Planet recognises that while a baseline review is ideal, universities are able to effectively monitor a variety of impact areas separately.
Unlike last year no points are given for having audited community involvement as this is felt to be too difficult to audit.
The other staff questions now all account for 2 points less than last year.
On ethical investment People & Planet now allocates 1 point if the ethical investment policy or other investment documents makes specific reference to taking action due to environmental considerations.
The number of points allocated for having Fairtrade status has been reduced from 3 to 2.
The Green League 2009 has also increased the weighting for the improvement in an institution’s performance over the institution’s absolute performance figures. Increasing the number of points for improvement is a recognition of the diversity of institutions within the HE sector; differences in circumstances will mean some institutions find it more difficult to perform well in the performance related indicators than others and including points for improvements recognises those institutions who face more difficult circumstances but are still making improvements.
Specifically the change in waste mass per head an institution produces, change in carbon emissions per head relative to other institutions and change in water consumption per head now qualify a university for between 0 to 4 points each.

21.Why does the Green League methodology change?

By constantly changing the areas looked at People & Planet is constantly raising the bar in the hope that universities will continuously improve their environmental performance. By introducing new areas every year People & Planet ensures that universities are rewarded for pioneering new areas of environmental management and not simply ticking the boxes of previous Green Leagues.

22.How was the methodology for the Green League 2009 developed?

People & Planet consulted experts in the field of environmental management and conducted independent research to assess the methodology and processes for the Green League 2009. In January 2009 People & Planet hosted the “Going Greener” event at LSE which brought together 50 environmental managers and students to discuss the methodology of the Green League and the weighting of the criteria. As a result of this research People & Planet introduced carbon management, environmental impact of students unions and increased the weighting to performance and management. People & Planet is thankful to the keenness of environmental managers to contribute to the accuracy and rigor of the Green League.

23.Which universities were assessed?

People & Planet assessed 131 UK universities based on the full membership of Universities UK. For both the University of London and the University of Wales, we have taken the constituent colleges. For a full list of Universities, please visit the website: peopleandplanet.org/greenleague

24.Why does the Green League 2009 award points for Fairtrade status?

People & Planet awards points for Fairtrade status because a sustainable university should consider its impacts not just in the UK but also on the wider world particularly through its purchasing policies. Being an accredited Fairtrade University demonstrates that the university is, at least in part, considering this.

Take our 2 minute tour of People & Planet

© People & Planet. 51 Union Street, Oxford OX4 1JP. +44 (0)1865 245678. Contact us. People & Planet Limited - A not for profit company No. 3076463 - Chair: Joe Saxton, Treasurer: Kate Graham, Director: Ian Leggett
People & Planet Trust - A registered charity No. 326008 - Chair: Lucy Russell

FAQ

1.What is the Green League?