store & retrieve data anywhere - sustainability in …...2016/11/02 · sustainability staff...

Sustainability in Education 2016

Survey research by the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges, National Union of Students, University and College Union, Association of Colleges and the College Development Network

1

Contents

Headline summary 3

Chapter 1: Research objectives and methodology 7

Chapter 2: The respondents 10

Chapter 3: Resources for sustainability 19

Chapter 4: Financial resources 25

Chapter 5: Carbon 29

Chapter 6: ESD 33

Chapter 7: Institutional approach to sustainability 37

2

HEADLINE SUMMARY

3

Headline summary

This report presents the findings of the Sustainability in Education survey conducted in 2016.

A final sample of 512 staff members from universities, colleges and students’ unions was achieved, with 63 respondents identifying as lead staff members on environmental sustainability and social responsibility on a formal or informal basis.

The objective was to understand the resources available and perceptions of performance on delivery on environmental sustainability and social responsibility within Higher Education (HE), Further Higher Education (FHE) and Further Education (FE) institutions.

The survey was promoted amongst students’ unions and institutional representatives by the EAUC, NUS, UCU, AoC and College Development Network.

This survey is the second annual survey to be conducted, tracking perceptions and experiences from staff within Further Education, Further Higher Education and Higher Education institutions across the UK. This summary presents some headline observations comparing the current results with those of 2015.

Sustainability staff: Respondents who work at university or college, who have a formal or informal remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and either the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility or a sustainability representative.

Overall respondents: Sustainability staff (as above) AND respondents who work at university or college, or students’ union, with no formal or informal remit or responsibility or are members of a team with formal or informal remit or responsibility for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility.

Perceptions and attitudes were collected from two audiences, identified as follows.

4

Icons used throughout this report are sourced from the Noun project: ‘Education’ by Berkay Sargin and ‘Advocacy’ by OCHA Visual Information Unit

There continues to be significant differences in terms of resourcing (financial and human) for sustainability reported by respondents across FE, FHE and HE, with HE dominating in terms of having dedicated sustainability professionals and budgets within their institutions. Half of respondents from FE, working in a formal/lead sustainability role, spend just 10% of their time working on sustainability.

Within HE, and FE, addressing sustainability continues to led by estates / facilities teams, with the heads of department and senior management most commonly reported as the most senior members of staff with a remit to deliver on sustainability.

Budget available for delivery on environmental sustainability and social responsibility varies widely both within and betweenthe types of institution with a number of FE institutions reporting that no budget is available which can be seen as a reflection of the relatively low response rate received from FE institutions. Concerns over availability of financial resources for the 2016-17 academic year remain with respondents more commonly reporting an expected decrease than increase in budget. Respondents also report a reliance on external funding with half saying they had received external funding this year.

Fewer HE sustainability staff report issues regarding the likelihood of achieving carbon reduction targets at their institutions, with a third in 2016 saying they are unlikely or very unlikely to meet targets compared with two fifths in 2015. However it is worth noting that an annual review of progress against these targets revealed after this research was completed highlights that 71% of the HE sector are not on track to meet 2020 carbon targets1.

Action on teaching an learning for sustainability continues to be varied, however proportionately less respondents report no coverage this year compared with 2015 research. Similarly there has been a proportional increase in HE respondents reporting that sustainability is included within their institutions graduate attributes with over half reporting this to be the case.

Whilst respondents indicate a role for all stakeholders, students’ union officers, students and institutional leaders are perceived as the stakeholders within institutions which place the greatest importance on taking action on sustainability. These stakeholders are also seen as being most valuable and influence in terms of supporting action on sustainability, representing a mismatch in terms of institutional leaders with specific accountability for sustainability. Trustees are also seen as valuable supporters to action on sustainability however there is a perception of lower importance of sustainability amongst this group.

Headline summary | Key findings from overall respondents

Sustainability staff (Work at university or college, formal or informal remit or responsibility for

delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and either the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility or a sustainability representative).

5

1. http://www.brite-green.co.uk/index.php/our-work/reports-and-publications/university-carbon-progress/item/159-sector-performance-report

A quarter of respondents overall continue to report that sustainability is a strategic priority for their institution, however significantly fewer respondents report it to be an issue for all parts of the institution they work at in 2016 compared to 2015. HE respondents continue to be more likely than FE and FHE to report that sustainability is a strategic priority.

Respondents have a fairly positive impression of their institution’s action on sustainability with a third of respondents see their institution as ranking as 7 or above, where 10 is doing all that the institution can, however this is a significant decrease compared to respondents in 2015. Only 1% believe that their institution is achieving 10 out of 10 in terms of their action on sustainability.

Respondents continue to have a poor perception of their institutions commitment to addressing ethical investment / unethical divestment with only 16% of overall respondents rate performance in this area as ‘good’ or ‘very good’. This element of sustainability represents the biggest unknown for respondents with 29% reporting that they ‘don’t know’ for this option. Recycling and waste is seen as the most positive area of performance on sustainability issues at institutions with over a half of respondents overall rating their institution’s commitment to recycling and waste as ‘good’ or ‘very good’.

Respondents continue to highlight a lack of financial and staff resources as being the biggest barriers to acting for sustainability with support from the highest levels seen as the most important way of overcoming these barriers.

Headline summary | Key findings from overall respondents

Overall respondents Sustainability staff AND respondents who work at university or college, or

students’ union, with no formal or informal remit or responsibility or are members of a team with formal or informal remit or responsibility for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility)

6

CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

7

Prize draw of a ticket to the Green Gown Awards, £100 John Lewis voucher and a £250 donation to charity was offered to encourage completion.

The survey was promoted amongst students’ unions and institutional representatives by the EAUC, NUS, UCU, AoC and College Development Network.

Objectives and methodology

This report presents the findings of the Sustainability in Education survey conducted in 2016.

A final sample of 512 staff members from universities, colleges and students’ unions was achieved, with 63 respondents identifying as lead staff members on environmental sustainability and social responsibility on a formal or informal basis.

Objective: To understand, and track on an annual basis, the resources available and perceptions of performance on delivery on environmental sustainability and social responsibility within HE, FHE and FE institutions.

8

Respondents who work at university or college, formal or informal remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and are either the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility or a sustainability representative.

Sustainability staff (as above) AND respondents who work at university or college, or students’ union, who either have no formal or informal remit or are members of a team with formal or informal remit or responsibility for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility.

Key to data

9

Sustainability staff

Overall respondents

CHAPTER 2: THE RESPONDENTS

10

The profile of respondents is slightly different in 2016 with two thirds based in higher

education institutions, and nine in ten based in a university or college rather than a

students’ union.

Base: 504 (2016), 548 (2015) respondents

A1. Which of the following types of institution do you currently work at?

19%

9%

72%

24%

10%

66%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Further Higher Education

Further Education

Higher Education

2016 2015

0%

26%

74%

2%

8%

90%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Students’ union

University or college

2016 2015


A2. What kind of organisation do you work for?11

Three quarters of respondents have some remit, formal or informal, to deliver on sustainability within their institutions. Significantly more in 2016 say they have no remit or responsibility at all.


A3. Do you have a remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility within your institution on a formal or informal basis?

20%

34%

45%

25%

35%

40%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

No

Yes - informal remit or

responsibilty

Yes - formal remit or

responsibility (e.g. included

within job description)

2016 2015

12

Two thirds of respondents are a member of a team of staff and 1 in 4 are the lead member of staff. 4 in 10 claim to be interested in sustainability but not involved in delivery.

Base : Q4 138 (2016), 133 (2015) respondents. Have a remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility within your institution on a formal or informal basis? Base : Q5 165 (2016), 128 (2015) respondents. Have a remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility within your institution on a formal or informal basis?

A4/5. Which of these options best describes your role in relation to delivering on environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility?

13

9%

26%

34%

31%

4%

35%

62%

15%

15%

28%

42%

4%

28%

67%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

None of these

I have been identified as the sustainability representative for

my institution

I'm involved in delivering on sustainability at my institution

I'm interested in sustainability but not involved in delivery

None of these

I am the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability

and/or social responsibility

I am a member of a team of staff delivering on environmental

sustainability and/or social responsibility

2016 2015

Higher

education

Further

education and

Further Higher

education

Almost a third of respondents working within institutions (excluding staff from students’ unions) are a UCU representative.

Base: 415 (2016), 357 (2015) respondents. Work at university or college.

A6. Are you a University and College Union representative at your institution?

21%

79%

Yes

No

44% of respondents working in FE are

UCU reps compared with 21% of HE

respondents and 37% of FHE respondents.

14

University and

college staff only

29%

71%

Yes No

2015 2016

Significantly more respondents in 2016 are teaching staff with almost half of FE respondents stating this to be their role. Overall 19% are sustainability professionals, with 26% of respondents from HE having this role.

Base: 504 (2016), 547 (2015) respondents.

A7. Which of the following job types most closely matches your current role?

6%

1%

3%

9%

5%

9%

8%

11%

9%

15%

21%

4%

1%

6%

2%

9%

5%

8%

5%

31%

19%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Other

ICT

Finance and procurement

Senior management / executive

Student / student officer

Research

Estates

Support staff

Manager of department

Student support

Teaching

Sustainability professional

2016 2015

“Print and Screen T+L Specialist Technician“

“Principal Officer Carbon Reduction”

“I am an Education for Sustainable Development Officer”

15

The majority of respondents classed as sustainability staff have worked at their current institution for more than 5 years, and have been involved in delivering on sustainability for more than 5 years.

A9. How long have you worked for your current institution?

1

1

12

10

36

0

5

12

10

52

0 20 40 60

Less than 6 months

6 months to 1 year

1 to 3 years

3 to 5 years

More than 5 years

2016 2015

Current institution Sustainability role

2

10

10

54

0

1

3

7

6

46

0 20 40 60

Not applicable - I don’t

deliver on sustainability

and social responsibility

Less than 6 months

6 months to 1 year

1 to 3 years

3 to 5 years

More than 5 years

2016 2015

A10. How long have you worked in a role directly involved in delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility?

Base: 63 (2016), 76 (2015) respondents. Work at university or college, formal or informal remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and either the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility or a sustainability representative.

16

2016 HE respondents most

likely to have been in a

sustainability role for 5 years or

more, with 4 out of 5

respondents selecting this

option. This compares to 2 out

3 in FE and under half in FHE.

Most respondents who are sustainability staff have worked in the education sector for more than five years, and this is the case across FE, FHE and HE institutions.


A11. How long have you worked in the education sector?

7

13

56

2

2

6

6

48

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Less than 6 months

6 months to 1 year

1 to 3 years

3 to 5 years

More than 5 years

2016 2015

17

The majority of sustainability staff respondents in FE, FHE and HE are on permanent full time contracts. Staff with responsibility for sustainability typically earn between £30-50,000. Within HE, the spread in salary is greater, reflecting the embedding of sustainability within senior management roles.

Base: 53 (2016), 68 (2015) respondents. Work at university or college, formal remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and either the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility or a sustainability representative.

A12. Which of the following options best describes your role?

0

3

64

2

2

1

4

45

0 20 40 60 80

Other

Temporary full time

contract

Temporary part time

contract

Permanent part time

contract

Permanent full time

contract

2016 2015

6

1

1

1

8

18

17

11

3

2

9

0

2

1

11

8

12

7

5

3

0 5 10 15 20

Prefer not to say

Not applicable

Under £18,000

£18,000 - £22,000

£22,000 - £30,000

£30,000 - £40,000

£40,000 - £50,000

£50,000 - £60,000

£60,000 - £80,000

Above £80,000

2016 2015


A13. We would like to gain a picture of the current pay for the sustainability profession in education. Please indicate your current salary range, per annum. 18

Roles delivered by respondents

in the top salary bands include

Senior management and

Managers of departments.

Overall, almost 3 in 4 respondents in a sustainability role report that they are satisfied with their overall job security.


A14. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: I am satisfied with my overall job security.

4

7

11

31

15

Prefer not to say Don’t know Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

19

1

6

7

25

13

2015 2016

CHAPTER 3: RESOURCES FOR SUSTAINABILITY

20

Almost half of lead sustainability staff respondents spend 100% of their time working on sustainability, however there is a vast difference between HE and FE staff with half of sustainability leads in FE spending just 10% of their time on sustainability compared with two thirds of HE sustainability leads spending 100% of their time in this area.


B1. What proportion of your time is spent working on sustainability?

21

1

21

5

3

3

3

6

2

4

28

12

6

4

1

2

5

2

31

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2016 2015

Estates and facilities teams are most likely to lead on environmental sustainability and social responsibility within institutions in FE, FHE and HE.


B2. Which parts of the institution lead on environmental sustainability and social responsibility?

64

8

8

11

22

21

71

Other Commercial services Information services

Finance Communications and marketing Students' union

Curriculum / Teaching and Learning Senior leadership Estates/Facilities

22

7 3

7

7

8

13

23

27

49

2015 2016

Most sustainability staff respondents report working with 2-5 members of staff with a formal remit to deliver on sustainability, though in 2016 more respondents say between 31 – 40 colleagues have a formal remit for sustainability than in 2015.

B3. How many members of staff within your institution have a formal remit to deliver on environmental sustainability and social responsibility?

Formal remit

Base : 56 (2016), 66 (2015) answering about Number of staff. Base : 55 (2016), 52 (2015) answering about FTE. Work at university or college, formal remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and either the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility or a sustainability representative.

23

8

37

2

1

4

14

23

1

11

3

3

0 10 20 30 40

1

2-5

6-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

40+

N/A

Don't know

Full Time equivalent

2016

2015

10

45

5

1

5

9

30

2

9

3

3

0 10 20 30 40 50

1

2-5

6-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

40+

N/A

Don't know

Number of staff

2016

2015

There is a wider spread of size of staff/FTE with an informal remit to deliver on sustainability, but most commonly respondents report working with 2-5 colleagues with this remit.

B5. How many members of staff within your institution have an informal remit to deliver on environmental sustainability and social responsibility?

Informal remit

Base : 56 (2016), 66 (2015) answering about Number of staff. Base : 55 (2016), 52 (2015) answering about FTE. Work at university or college, informal remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and either the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility or a sustainability representative.

24

10

1

19

2

6

9

3

7

8

12

5

9

6

0 5 10 15 20

N/A

Don't know

1

2-5

6-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

40+

Full Time equivalent

2016

2015

12

3

15

6

10

4

6

3

15

7

10

12

0 5 10 15 20

N/A

Don't know

1

2-5

6-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

40+

Number of staff

2016

2015

Most sustainability staff respondents expect the staff resource with a formal remit to deliver on sustainability to remain the same for the next academic year.

Base: 55 (2016), 65 (2015) respondents. With 1-40 staff or FTE within institution that have a formal remit to deliver on environmental sustainability and social responsibility.

B4. Do you expect the staff resource with a formal remit to deliver on environmental sustainability and social responsibility to change for the 2015-2016 academic year?

7

9

40

9

Don’t know We expect the staff resource to decrease

We expect the staff resource to stay the same We expect the staff resource to increase

25

5

6

36

8

2015 2016

In 2016 Vice Chancellor/President/ CE/Principal roles are reported as being the most senior member of staff with a formal remit to deliver on sustainability, across all types of institution.


B6. What level is the most senior member of staff with a formal remit to deliver on environmental sustainability and social responsibility?

2

4

3

26

26

15

4

1

2

2

18

19

16

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Not applicable

Other

Junior management

Vice president / elected student officer

Director / Head of Department / Middle management

Registrar / Chief Operating Officer / Senior management

Vice chancellor / President / Chief Executive / Principal

2016 2015

26

CHAPTER 4: FINANCIAL RESOURCES

27

Sustainability staff respondents report a broad range in their budgets available for delivering on sustainability during the 2015-16 academic year, with higher average and median budgets seen for 2016 compared to 2015.

C1. What is the approximate total budget available for delivering on sustainability within your institution for the 2015-2016 academic year?Please include costs for any staff with a formal responsibility for sustainability (i.e. included in job descriptions) within this figure. Please do not include any external funding you have received, or waste and utility budgets in this figure.

Outliers at either end of the scale removed for calculations of average and median.

Provided by lead sustainability staff who work at university or college, formal or informal remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and either the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility or a sustainability representative.

2015 (n=21)• £1,200,000 largest budget*• £0 smallest budget*• £204,087 average budget• £50,000 median budget

2016 (n=29)• £4,000,000 largest budget*• £0 smallest budget*• £221,576 average budget• £60,000 median budget

28

Half of all sustainability staff respondents expect the budget to remain the same in 2016-17 compared to 2015-16.


C3. What are your expectations for the budget available for sustainability for the 2015-16 academic year compared to the 2014-2015 academic year?

3

14

20

33

6

Prefer not to say Don’t know

We expect the budget to decrease We expect the budget to stay the same

We expect the budget to increase in real terms

29

1

10

12

31

7

2015 2016

For those that expect a change in budget, most expect a 10-20% reduction in budget, mirroring the change that was expected between 2014/15 and 2015/16.

Base: 23 respondents. Work at university or college, formal or informal remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and either the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility or a sustainability representative.

C4. You indicated that you expect the budget available to deliver on sustainability to change in 2015-16 compared to 2014-15. Please let us know what percentage increase or decrease you expect to see.

1

1

7

3

2

1

5

6

1

4

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

-100%

-90%

-80%

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2016 2015

30

Half of respondents indicated that they had received external funding related to delivering sustainability during 2016/17 and funding was secured from a range of sources.

Base: 20 respondents. Work at university or college, formal or informal remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and either the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility or a sustainability representative.

C5. Have you received any external funding related to sustainability in 2016-17? [n.b. not asked in 2015]

1

9

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Don't know

No

Yes

2016

31

“We received funding for cycle shelters and a bicycle repair station. We also

received ERDF funding.“

“Various small scale grants from government agencies and funders for energy, consultancy, waste/reuse.”

“Feed in tariff. Renewable Heat Incentive.”

“Salix Energy Efficiency Loan Scheme.”

CHAPTER 5: CARBON

32

All but one sustainability staff respondents in HE institutions report that their institution has a carbon reduction plan, either as standalone or embedded into another plan.

Base: 39 (2016), 45 (2015) respondents. Work at HE university or college, formal or informal remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility, not the sustainability representative for institution.

D1. Does your institution have a carbon reduction plan?

1

2

42

1

1

11

26

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Don’t know

No

Yes - embedded into another plan

Yes - standalone plan

2016

2015

33

HE only

Examples of carbon reduction targets from HE institutions

Base: 30 respondents. Work at HE university or college, formal or informal remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility, not the sustainability representative for institution.

D2. What is your carbon reduction target?

“25% reduction in Scope 1&2 emissions by 2016 on a 2009/10

baseline. 20% reduction on scope 3 emissions by 2020 on a 2009/10

baseline”

“34% by 2020 80% by 2050”

“35% by July 2016, 45% by July 2021 against a 2008/09 baseline”

“Absolute reduction from 2005/6 – 2020/21: 22.5% total

reduction by 2020. 50% relative reduction 2001/2 - 2020/21”

“overall target of 30% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020”

“40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions intensity per square metre of gross floor area (from

2009 baseline)”

HE only

34

Fewer respondents in 2016 report a lack of confidence in their institutions ability to meet it’s carbon target compared to respondents in 2015. Around a third say they are unlikely to meet their target compared with approximately two fifths in 2015.

Base: 37 (2016), 44 (2015) respondents. Work at HE university or college, formal or informal remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility, not the sustainability representative for institution.

D3. Thinking about the final target you have currently set, how likely is your institution to reach its carbon target?

1. http://www.brite-green.co.uk/index.php/our-work/reports-and-publications/university-carbon-progress/item/159-sector-performance-report

3

15

47

12

3

Prefer not to say Don’t know Very unlikely Unlikely Neutral Likely Very likely

35

HE only2

6

7

7

8

7

2015 2016

This survey was

completed prior to the

release of the annual

report on progress

against carbon targets

by consultants Brite

Green. The 2016 report

states that 71% of the

HE sector are not on

track to meet their 2020

carbon targets1.

CHAPTER 6: EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

36

Plans or projects linked to teaching and learning on sustainability are most commonly embedded into other plans operating within the institution. In 2016 ESD is significantly less likely than last year to be implemented through campaigns, however this may reflect the lower response from students’ union representatives.


E1. Does your institution have a plan, campaign or project that includes teaching and learning on sustainability?

2

15

3

17

20

17

28

1

2

4

10

11

14

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Not applicable

Campaign

Don’t know

None of these

Project

Standalone plan

Embedded into another plan

2016 2015

37

Half of HE sustainability staff respondents report ESD to be included in their carbon reduction strategies, with half also reporting that it is included in their institution’s academic strategy.

Base : c.38 (2016), c.45 (2015). Work at HE university or college, formal or informal remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility. Responses to No, don’t know and not applicable not shown.

E2. Is teaching and learning on sustainability included in the following strategies at your institution?

HE only

38

20

21

3

13

19

20

8

10

0 5 10 15 20 25

Carbon reduction strategy

Academic strategy

Quality strategy

Estates strategy2016 2015

Just over half of HE sustainability staff respondents report that their institution’s graduate attributes include sustainability related attributes.

Base: 39 (2016), 43 (2015) respondents. Work at HE university or college, formal or informal remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility.

E3. Are sustainability related attributes included in the graduate attributes, or equivalent, developed by your institution?

2

14

12

15

Not applicable Don’t know No Yes

HE only

39

1

9

8

21

2015 2016

CHAPTER 7: INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO SUSTAINABILITY

40

Approximately a quarter of respondents overall report that sustainability is a strategic priority for the institution they work at. Significantly fewer this year say it is an issue for all parts of the institution they work at.


F1. Which of the following options best describes your institution’s overall approach to environmental sustainability and social responsibility?

0%

1%

2%

4%

5%

7%

7%

10%

22%

16%

26%

1%

3%

4%

5%

6%

6%

7%

11%

17%

18%

23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

A research issue

A teaching and learning issue

Other

Don't know

Save money

Improve reputation

Part of the core business for the

institution

Comply with legislation

An issue for all parts of the institution

An estates / facilities issue

A strategic priority for the institution

2016 2015

Respondents from FE and FHE more

likely to report that sustainability is

approached in order to comply with

legislation

Respondents from FE less likely to

report that sustainability is

approached as a strategic priority

41

A quarter of respondents rate their institution’s commitment to recycling and waste as ‘very good’, significantly less than 2015. 15% rate performance on carbon reduction as ‘very good’, also significantly lower than the 2015 scores. Ethical procurement represents the biggest unknown for respondents with 20% selecting this option.

Base: (in brackets 2015/2016)

F2. How would you rate your institution’s commitment to addressing each of the following issues? Please pick one only for each option, where 1 is very poor and 5 is very good

8%

6%

10%

6%

5%

3%

16%

14%

20%

16%

14%

10%

29%

32%

24%

31%

24%

21%

24%

29%

26%

27%

31%

35%

8%

11%

13%

16%

19%

29%

15%

8%

7%

4%

7%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ethical procurement (n=544/501)

Resource efficiency (n=543/501)

Encouraging wildlife/biodiversity

(n=544/501)

Sustainable travel (n=545/501)

Carbon reduction (n=546/500)

Recycling and waste (n=540/499)

1 2 3 4 5 Don't know

42

9%

8%

13%

10%

8%

5%

17%

18%

19%

17%

14%

15%

26%

31%

24%

29%

24%

23%

21%

27%

25%

26%

32%

29%

8%

8%

11%

13%

15%

24%

20%

8%

7%

5%

8%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2015 2016

Performance on ethical investments also presents a significant unknown for staff, with 28% say they don’t know how committed their institution is to addressing unethical investment. Two new issues were added to the survey in 2016 – 1 in 5 didn’t know if their institution was committed to addressing the issue of the contribution of research to sustainability.

Base: (in brackets 2015/2016)

F2. How would you rate your institution’s commitment to addressing each of the following issues? Please pick one only for each option, where 1 is very poor and 5 is very good

43

17%

9%

9%

9%

5%

18%

20%

17%

16%

13%

20%

28%

30%

29%

23%

12%

22%

21%

25%

32%

4%

13%

13%

15%

19%

29%

8%

9%

7%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Empowering staff on sustainability (n=NA/502)

Contribution of research to sustainability

(n=NA/500)

Ethical investments/unethical divestment

(n=544/500)

Education for sustainable development

(n=544/501)

Local sustainable food (n=545/499)

Empowering students on sustainability

(n=542/501)

Community engagement and partnerships

(n=546/498)

1 2 3 4 5 Don't know

13%

15%

15%

12%

12%

12%

8%

24%

14%

17%

19%

17%

18%

17%

26%

17%

20%

27%

24%

25%

25%

24%

21%

15%

22%

23%

26%

29%

9%

14%

5%

13%

11%

12%

14%

5%

19%

28%

8%

13%

8%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2015 2016

2016 respondents have a less positive impression of their institution’s action on sustainability compared to 2015. 1 in 3 respondents see their institution as ranking as 7 or above, where 10 is doing all that the institution can.


F3. Overall, do you think your institution is doing enough to progress environmental and social responsibility? Please click the scale below, where 1 is nowhere near enough, and 10 is doing all that the institution can.

3%

6%

9% 10%

15% 15%

23%

13%

4%

1%

9% 9%

11%

9%10%

17%

21%

12%

2%1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2015

2016

Respondents from FE and

FHE more likely to rank their

institution as 1 – doing

nowhere near enough on

sustainability

Respondents from FHE and

HE more likely to rank their

institution as 7 out of 10 in

terms of action on

sustainability

44

Compared to similar institutions in the sector, 4 in 10 rate their institution to be better than others. 3 in 10 feel they are about the same.

Base: 500 respondents. Not asked in 2015.

F4. And, how do you think this compares with other similar institutions in the sector?

15%

5%

15%

28%

29%

9%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Don't know

Much worse than other similar institutions

A bit worse than other similar institutions

About the same as other similar

institutions

A bit better than other similar institutions

Much better than other similar institutions

Respondents from FE and

respondents who are not

sustainability staff are less likely to

know how their institution

compares to others.

45

Respondents from FHE and HE

more likely to rank their institution

as better than others

Respondents who are

sustainability staff are more

likely than other respondents

to say that their institutions is

performing a bit better than

other institutions.

Assessing different groups within their institution, students and students’ union officers are seen as most likely to believe that addressing environmental sustainability and social responsibility is important, followed by institutional leaders and senior management.

Base (in brackets)

F5. In your opinion, how important is addressing environmental sustainability and social responsibility to the following groups within your institution?

23%

20%

23%

26%

34%

29%

29%

23%

27%

29%

29%

28%

36%

38%

17%

20%

23%

19%

15%

21%

13%

8%

7%

14%

11%

7%

6%

3%

2%

2%

4%

4%

1%

1%

28%

24%

7%

10%

12%

6%

15%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Trustees / governors (n=493)

Trade union representatives (n=492)

Senior managers (academic / teaching

staff) (n=496)

Senior managers (non-academic)

(n=493)

Vice chancellor / Chief Executive /

Principal (n=496)

Students (n=494)

Students’ union officers (n=493)

Very important Important Neutral Unimportant Not important at all Don't know

46

The support of students and institutional leaders is seen as having the biggest potential to help address environmental sustainability and social responsibility, however respondents indicate a role for all stakeholders across institutions. Trustees / governors are seen as having valuable potential to support action on sustainability within institutions, however respondents previously indicated relatively low levels / a lack of awareness of perceived importance to this group.

Base (2015=74 / 2016=c.60). Work at university or college, formal or informal remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and either the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility or a sustainability representative.

F6. How valuable would the support of the following groups within your institution be to addressing environmental sustainability and social responsibility?

21

37

39

47

45

62

48

12

22

21

22

25

9

23

24

8

7

5

4

3

3

8

4

2

7

3

5

0 20 40 60 80

Trade union representatives

Trustees / governors

Students’ union officers

Senior managers (academic / teaching staff)

Senior managers (non-academic)

Vice chancellor / Chief Executive / Principal

Students

Extremely valuable Very valuable Moderately valuable Slightly valuable Not at all valuable Don’t know

47

22

37

35

45

44

49

41

14

13

15

13

14

9

16

11

4

3

2

2

4

1

7

5

0 20 40 60 80

2015 2016

Senior leadership, government policy and funding councils are seen as having the greatest influence on the importance placed on addressing sustainability within the institution.

Base: (in brackets). Work at university or college, formal or informal remit or responsibility for delivering on environmental sustainability and social responsibility, and either the lead member of staff for environmental sustainability and/or social responsibility or a sustainability representative. N.b. – scale changed in 2016 to account for additional influences.

F7. What influence do the following institutions and groups have on the importance placed on addressing environmental sustainability and social responsibility within your institution? Please rank the institutions and groups listed in order of influence, where 1 is least influence and 13 is most influence

6

18

2

3

8

2

25

18

16

17

15

6

10

6

6

5

24

33

14

24

24

24

23

20

12

8

19

21

26

32

32

34

41

47

57

62

0 20 40 60 80

Trade unions (n=74)

Local community (n=73)

Further Education sector bodies

(n=74)

Sector sustainability institutions

(n=75)

Student institutions (n=74)

Higher Education sector bodies (n=72)

Students (n=75)

Funding councils (n=75)

Government policy (n=75)

Senior leadership within the

institution (n=75)

Not applicable 1-3 4-6 7-10

48

4

2

9

13

3

6

2

27

16

9

15

7

9

8

9

5

4

5

5

12

17

10

10

14

20

11

15

7

6

6

5

10

18

22

11

28

18

24

16

30

21

19

19

4

5

9

10

10

11

15

29

0 20 40 60

Trade unions (n=57)

International agreements and initiatives (n=58)

Research Excellence Framework (n=56)

Further Education sector bodies (n=56)

Sector sustainability institutions (n=58)

Local community (n=57)

Student institutions (n=56)

Higher Education sector bodies (n=57)

Students (n=58)

Funding councils (n=57)

Government policy (n=57)

Senior leadership within the institution (n=58)

Not applicable 1-3 4-6 7-10 12-13

2015 2016

Securing financial resources is most frequently highlighted as a barrier to delivery on sustainability within institutions. This is followed by a, a lack of senior management commitment, lack of staff resource, competing priorities and a lack of student engagement.

F8. What barriers face your institution in doing more on environmental sustainability and social responsibility? [Coded responses from an open-ended question]

49

Barriers Number of responses

Finances / budgets / budget cuts 121

Lack of senior management commitment/strategic direction 78

Lack of staff resources 70

Competing priorities 38

Lack of student engagement 35

Definition of sustainability/communicating/awareness 35

Lack of staff engagement 32

Bureaucracy / decision making in universities / infrastructure 32

Engaging with curriculum / academics 18

Local community/transport issues 17

Lack of sector leadership / wider sector issues 16

Other 16

No clear owners of agenda / cohesive approach 9

Barriers facing the institution when acting on sustainability include…

“A fear of trying anything innovative due to organisational reputation and fear of upsetting academics and long serving

staff by introducing change which would benefit the environment. A very bureaucratic system which makes it very

slow and difficult to implement anything. These are barriers that I face as a professional sustainability member of staff.”

“Lack of support from Senior Management to lead on sustainability and to continually commit to delivering across

all areas of the college. Lack of a Sustainability Team to deliver a constant sustainability vision. Unsure whether this is due to lack of financial resource to fund the team or due to the

lack of commitment from senior management. There are pockets of staff throughout the college who implement their

own sustainability objectives,”

“Institution not really prepared to invest to save money. I get the

impression that they are only doing what they are required to do. Some very simple approaches are ignored

despite being drawn to their attention.”

“Financial costs and knowing where to find information regarding sustainability projects/ideas when the college does not have a dedicated sustainability officer”

“Funding, resource-dedication, enough staffing, not enough overt support from

higher management”

50

“Contradictions, bureaucracy, bad communication, decision made by

managers with no knowledge at all on the subject, not a priority, no

commitment, ignorance.”

“Recognition and leadership from senior management that sustainability should be a core priority in all areas of the

University business. Embedding sustainability into University activities and processes, particularly on the estates and

facilities side can often be seen as a nice to have or additional cost, and the longer term benefits being overlooked. This

results in sustainability not being fully resourced, we have no budget to deliver the objectives and little support for the

team. ”

Climate change is seen as the most important agenda looking forward into 2016-2017 and beyond. Raising awareness, education and embedding these issues in to daily life should also be high on agendas.

What more could your institution be doing on sustainability? Number of responses

Climate change/CO2 reduction/carbon management 94

Raise awareness/communicate/educate/embed in to daily life 76

Waste management/recycling 62

Staff/senior management/student engagement 50

Energy 44

Sustainable transport/travel 33

Other 32

Curriculum/ESD/training 25

Procurement/Fair Trade/Local suppliers 21

Actions in wider community 16

Plan/strategy/policy/Governance 15

Ethical investment/divestment 15

Specific local action 11

The impact of Brexit 10

F9. Looking forward into 2016-2017 and beyond, what are the most important agendas within environmental sustainability and social responsibility to you? [Coded responses from an open-ended question]. Excludes don’t know/none/not answered (105) 51

“Embedding and normalising sustainability within the organisation. Equipping students with the knowledge and awareness of sustainability that they can take within them into the workplace.”

“Making it part of the everyday, normalising, so it becomes business as usual, rather than something we have to fight for.”

“Carbon management. Sustainable use of resources locally up to globally ; for now and for future generations.”

“ Building a new environmental/sustainability strategy driven by Carbon management and Teaching and Learning.”

Sustainability staff identify climate change as the most important agenda looking forward into 2016-2017 and beyond. Raising awareness, education and embedding these issues in to daily life should also be high on agendas.

52

“Implementing carbon management plan - getting buy-in from senior management, staff and students. Ensuring long-term commitment to environmental sustainability (i.e. at least one permanent member of staff and possibly additional staff).”

“Tackling climate change post-Brexit.”

53

For further information about this research please contact:

Rachel Drayson – Insight Manager (Sustainability)

[email protected]

store & retrieve data anywhere - sustainability in …...2016/11/02 · sustainability staff...

Documents