Green League 2010: Frequently Asked Questions
Please be aware that following the publication of the Green League, People & Planet receives a high volume of media and university enquiries and it may take some time to process your enquiry, due to limited capacity. We hope we’ve provided comprehensive information here to answer your questions. If you have a question not covered in this FAQ please use the comment box at the bottom of the page and we’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
See also: Green League 2010: Full criteria, points distribution and methodology
Thank you for your patience
2. When will be Green League be published in the Times Higher Education?
3. How is the Green League developed?
5. What indicators were measured in developing the 2010 Green League?
6. How was the information used to develop the 2010 Green League collected?
7. What are Estates Management Statistics (EMS) data?
10. How did People & Planet ensure consistency when analysing the collective University data?
11. What was the final score allocation breakdown for the Green League 2010?
13. What constitutes an Environmental Policy?
14. Why have you changed the points available for full-time environmental management staff?
16. Why does the Green League include Ethical Investment in its table in 2010?
17. Isn’t the Green League duplicating other benchmarking exercises such as Universities that Count?
18. In what ways is the Green League 2010 different to the previous year?
19. Why does the Green League methodology change?
20.How was the methodology for the Green League 2010 developed?
21. Which universities were assessed?
22.Why does the Green League 2010 award points for Fairtrade status?
24.Why does People & Planet focus on short-term targets?
1.What is the Green League?
The Green League is People & Planet’s award-winning environmental ranking of the UK’s universities - it aims to measure just how far and fast the higher education sector is making the necessary transition to a low-carbon future and forms an integral part of the Going Greener 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 across the sector and is widely credited with increasing the profile and importance of environmental management within the sector.
2. When will be Green League be published in the Times Higher Education?
People & Planet’s Green League 2010 will be published in full in the Times Higher Education on Thursday 10 June 2010. It will also be published in full on this website. Please see tab on the left for any media enquiries, phone 01865 245678 or email: louise.hazan@peopleandplanet.org
3.How is the Green League developed?
In 2010 People and Planet asked 139 UK universities to complete an online questionnaire comprising of questions relating to management and policy. We then incorporate this information with Estate Management Statistics (EMS), which is collected and validated by IPD Occupiers (who act as consultants on behalf of the Higher Education funding councils). Points are awarded based on a series of criteria and the final league table is developed from these results.
4.Why do People & Planet use management and policy and performance indicators to produce the Green League?
People & Planet’s Green League takes a dual approach to environmental management - looking both at commitment to systemic improvement and at actual performance. We see both as being essential indicators of universities’ commitment to and actual transition towards a low-carbon, post-oil world which will require resilience and innovation from all sectors of society. The performance indicators reveal how well an institution is performing on the ground and whether it is actually on a low-carbon transition pathway. The management and policy criteria demonstrate whether an institution has a strong commitment to and systematic means of improving its performance, and of planning and implementing its low-carbon transition.
5.What indicators were measured in developing the 2010 Green League?
Management & Policy
i.Publicly Available Environmental Policy
ii.Environmental Management Staff
iii.Environmental Auditing & Management Systems
iv.Ethical Investment Policy
v.Carbon Management
vi.Sustainable Procurement and Fairtrade
vii.Student and Staff Engagement
Performance:
viii.Energy sources
ix.Waste
x.Carbon emissions
xi.Water
6.How was the information used to develop the 2010 Green League collected?
Management & Policy: Information for criteria 1-7 is gathered by the Green League 2010 questionnaire which is submitted to universities as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information Regulations. The responses to this questionnaire are analysed by a team of student researchers and People & Planet staff.
Research for criteria 6: Fairtrade University accreditation information is supplied directly by the Fairtrade Foundation. The assessment of evidence of sustainable food procurement criteria met will be coordinated by Soil Association/Sustain working together with People & Planet. From next year, we intend to award points specifically for those institutions which have achieved the Soil Associations’ Food for Life accreditation which will be based on data provided by the Soil Association.
Performance: The remaining criteria relate to on-the-ground environmental performance outcomes. This information comes from the most recent Estate Management Statistics (EMS) available, obtained through a freedom of information request to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and collated and analysed by People & Planet.
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 currently 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 & 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?
A number of institutions have raised concerns about People & Planet’s use of EMS in the compilation of the Green League ranking, due to their outdated nature (statistics refer to the previous academic year) and concerns over the quality of reporting across the sector. Estates Management Statistics are the only statistics of their kind covering all UK universities and are coordinated by Hefce on behalf of the four UK funding bodies. Guidance to assist universities in reporting their data accurately is provided on the EMS website. EMS is also used by Hefce for the Capital Investment Framework and sample audits of EMS data will monitor accuracy. The scope of EMS data and the definitions are reviewed annually by a steering group drawn from the sector and including Directors of Estates and Finance. The management of EMS is currently transferring to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) who are undertaking a thorough review of data items and definitions.
As such, People & Planet has concluded that they remain the best source of data available upon which to base the performance-related indicators used in compiling the Green League. We are actively engaging with Hefce and HESA to improve the scope, accuracy of reporting and timing of EMS in relation to future People & Planet Green Leagues.
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.
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, detailed evidence was required by the universities to substantiate their various responses. Our team of Green League researchers 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 & Planet ensure consistency when analysing the collective University data?
People & Planet Green League researchers have been more rigorous in their analysis than ever before. Stringent in-house procedures were used to assess 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 2010 wouldn’t have been possible without the hard work of our Green League Researchers: Sam, Jason, Eve, Susannah, Daniel, Valerie, James, Juliet, Manishta, Alys, Nishma and Fiona. Thank you!
11.What was the final score allocation breakdown for the Green League 2010?
Management & Policy:
i.Publicly Available Environmental Policy (6 points)
ii.Environment Managemental Staff (8 points)
iii.Environmental Auditing & Management Systems (8 points)
iv.Ethical Investment Policy (4 points)
v.Carbon Management (8 points)
vi. Sustainable Procurement and Fairtrade (3 points)
vii.Student and Staff Engagement (3 points)
Performance:
viii.Energy sources (6 points)
ix.Waste Reduction (8 points)
x.Carbon emissions (8 points)
xi.Water Consumption (8 points)
12.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 2010 uses to gauge 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 be 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. The Green League was designed to measure not only the actual carbon emissions of a university, but also its approach and commitment to reducing the environmental impacts of its community and beginning the difficult transition towards a low-carbon, post-fossil fuel world.
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).
13.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 2010 revealed that more unis than ever have published environmental policies (125 compared to 120 last year) however these varied greatly in strength and the areas of environmental impact they covered. People & Planet made the policy criteria tougher this year: no institutions got full points unless their environmental policy and accompanying action plans set specific, time-bound targets for reducing their impacts in all keys areas (waste management, transport, sustainable procurement, water, construction & refurbishment, emissions & discharges, community involvement and biodiversity.
14.Why have you changed the points available for full-time environmental management staff?
Without the expertise and championing of professional staff dedicated to environmental management, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that green initiatives in universities are unlikely to be systematic, well-coordinated and resourced, or have significant, sustainable success. Environmental managers develop objectives and set priorities with significant, time-bound targets and can co-ordinate the work to fulfil them.
The Green League 2009 revealed significant progress in this area as 67% of universities (85 institutions) now have at least 1 full-time environmental manager. This represents a large increase since publication of the first People & Planet Green League in 2007. Sector-wide carbon reduction targets also now provide clear incentives for institutions to allocate sufficient staff capacity to managing their environmental impacts. Commensurate with these increases, we have reduced the overall number of points allocated to this criteria to focus the Green League 2010 on other innovations essential for a university’s low-carbon transition journey.
After consultation with our stakeholders, we have also amended the methodology slightly to make the allocation of points in this category fairer to smaller institutions. Points this year are awarded to institutions based on the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) posts per 5,000 FTE students as previous Green Leagues have shown this to be the level of staff capacity required to manage the university’s environmental impacts. Further points are awarded where an institution can show that there is at least one member of staff with overall responsibility for strategy and implementation of environmental management policy which forms at least 50% of their job description.
15.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, the Green League 2010 awards points to those universities that have opened themselves up to the external scrutiny of such schemes. We have also widened the list of schemes eligible for these points based on consultation with the sector and an evaluation of different schemes. In recognition of the incremental nature of accreditation for these schemes, we award different levels of points according to progress towards the highest achievable standard in each scheme.
16.Why does the Green League include Ethical Investment in its table in 2010?
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. They are necessary to inform decisions about all areas of investment conducted by a university, including but not limited to pension fund investments, equities investment and banking providers. The Green League 2010 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 also awards points to those universities that specifically consider the environmental consequences of investment.
17.Isn’t the Green League duplicating other benchmarking exercises such as Universities that Count?
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 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 does not.
18.In what ways is the Green League 2010 different to the previous year?
The most significant change to the Green League 2010 is that People & Planet has added one entirely new criteria (7. Student and Staff Engagement) and also incorporated wider sustainable food procurement into criteria 6 on Fairtrade Accreditation (see methodology for full details)
In addition to this a number of existing criteria have been modified to more accurately gauge universities environmental performance and policy:
The overall number of points allocated for environmental policy have been reduced from 8 to 6. Half points are no longer awarded for specific areas covered by policy, as People & Planet expects that by 2010 most universities should have developed comprehensive environmental policies which cover the basic areas of environmental management highlighted in previous Green Leagues.
The overall number of points allocated for Environmental Management Staff also decreased from 10 to 8 points to reflect the higher proportion of universities now meetings this criteria. After consultation with our stakeholders, we have also amended the methodology slightly to make the allocation of points in this category fairer to smaller institutions. Points this year are awarded to institutions based on the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) posts per 5,000 FTE students as previous Green Leagues have shown this to be the level of staff capacity required to manage the university’s environmental impacts.
The number of points allocated for having Fairtrade status has been reduced from 2 to 1.5 and additional points awarded based on questions around sustainable food policy and procurement (as above) so the total points available for section 6 was 3.
For details of further changes, please consult the full methodology
19.Why does the Green League methodology change?
By constantly improving the methodology and introducing new criteria, 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.
20.How was the methodology for the Green League 2010 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 2010. In January 2010 People & Planet hosted a stakeholder consultation event at Oxford Brookes university which brought together 40 environmental managers and other key stakeholders to discuss the methodology of the Green League and the weighting of the criteria. We also sought the views of stakeholders through an additional online survey, designed to enable those who couldn’t attend the event to register their views and ideas for the Green League 2010.
People & Planet also established a brand new Green League Oversight Group(GLOG) to increase transparency and provide oversight, expertise and advice on the methodology and criteria review process from stakeholders within the Higher Education sector. If you’d like to get involved in this group for the Green League 2011, please email louise.hazan@peopleandplanet.org.
We also established a new Stakeholder Area on our website where notes and results of the consultation were made available. People & Planet remains grateful to the numerous environmental managers and others who devoted so much time to helping us improve the rigour and accuracy of the Green League, as well as making the process itself easier for environmental managers to complete each year. A testament of their hard work is the fact that more universities than ever before took part in the Green League 2010.
21.Which universities were assessed?
More universities than ever were eligible for inclusion in the Green League (139). Of these, 133 provided People & Planet and Hefce with enough information and evidence to be entered into the Green League 2010. This is an increase from 131 in 2009, 129 in 2008 and 120 universities which took part in the first-ever Green League in 2007.
22.Why does the Green League 2010 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.
23. Will People & Planet continue to produce the Green League now that there are a number of other league tables and benchmarking excercises out there?
People & Planet intends to continue producing and publishing the Green League until there is a comprehensive, viable alternative which makes its results publicly-available and covers all UK universities. Current benchmarking systems (such as Universities that Count) are internal excercises designed to provide consistent information and detailed advice to help universities gauge and improve their own performance. Universities currently have to pay to take part in such benchmarking (which can provide self-selecting bias) and benchmarks such as Universities that Count do not currently make their findings available publicly or cover all UK universities as the Green League does. For the first time ever, the Green League 2010 results were presented alongside additional data gathering by Universities that Count in the Times Higher Education magazine, and we are currently in discussions with Universities that Count about how we might work together going forwards.
The Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) will also publish league tables from next year ranking institutions by carbon emissions and savings which may duplicate some of the criteria in People & Planet’s Green League. We are currently considering how to incorporate this information into the Green League, but again, the CRC does not cover all universities.
24.Why does People & Planet focus on short-term targets?
To avoid the climate impacts of cumulative emissions in the atmosphere, carbon reductions need to start now and decline annually on a steep trajectory until 2050. For example, it is not acceptable to carry on with business as usual and drastically reduce emissions by 80% in 2049 to achieve a 2050 target. The total emissions emitted between now and 2050 would be far greater than if emissions had declined annually. It is vital that universities’ carbon management plans set them on the right carbon reduction trajectory (or transition pathway) by including ambitious short, medium and long-term targets. The Green League 2010 will therefore calculate and award points for those institutions whose short-term (1-5 years) and medium/long-term (10+ years) targets contribute adequately to the sector-wide targets. This is calculated as a yearly average reduction target per institution as compared to the 35% cut by 2017 on a 2005 baseline target which is set out in Hefce’s carbon reduction strategy.
25. Why focus on Scope 3 emissions when these are excluded from the HE sector-wide carbon reduction strategy?
People & Planet has long pushed for a comprehensive carbon reduction strategy for the sector. It is estimated that up to 50% of a university’s footprint comes from the emissions embedded within the goods and services procured. To recognise that universities have a huge power to influence the significant emissions resulting from travel and procurement more points are allotted if carbon managements plans cover those specific areas. Last year’s Green League revealed that a relatively small number of institutions’ carbon management plans covered these so it is hoped that when plans are reviewed institutions will look at these very significant areas.
These ‘Scope 3’ emissions are currently excluded from the sector-wide targets set at the national level and will only be included in 2012/3 pending a nationally agreed methodology for calculating Scope 3 emissions accurately. People & Planet feels it important to reward those universities who are leading the way in monitoring and addressing these significant portions of their carbon footprints, despite not being legally required to do so yet.
