Measuring Sustainability

(Author’s name)

(Institutional Affiliation)

The AASHE, Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, developed a campus scorecard for sustainability named STARS, Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Rating System. The main purpose of the sustainability program was to measure sustainability in three main regions; operations, education and research, and planning, engagement and planning. This paper, thereby, reviews the sustainability scorecard initiative, critically, so as to give the STARS model a positive review so that the institutional buy- in of the second version, version 2.0, can increase.

SU, the Sustainable University, is one of the institutions that participated in the pilot study for the scorecard initiative. The university has a total of 14 thousand students with about 2, 359 graduate students and 11, 845 undergraduate students. The university’s sustainability program has a total of 9 employees. STARS had five main objectives for the university, but of the five the university thought that only three of them were relevant and most useful. The university, for example, believed that the sustainability program could help the institution improve its projects. Since society value external ranking, SU believed that the STARS could help increase and further its reputation. Additionally, the university thought that the pilot study could help enhance the collaboration that the institution had maintained across different constituencies of the campus. SU also had an intention of helping the STARS develop through its own experiences and, from what the institution would learn from other institutions.

Determine how SU specifically gained support for implementing the STARS model and whether this was good management practice.

There are several ways through which the university gained support for the implementation of the STARS pilot study. The top administrators of the university were first contacted by the director of the program for permission to contact the pilot study in the institution. Just as well, the university was appointed as a suitable site for conducting the study. Several entities were soon contacted as the main correspondents of the study who were going to ensure that the collected data was accurate. More specifically, all the staff were notified by two vice presidents of the school of the need for them to introduce STARS program and to notify them of the need to work with the Sustainability office to provide any data that was required.

The involved entities in this case included the faculty, operating staff, and the professional staff. The students were not involved with this pilot study except for the one undergraduate student who was working with the Associate Director to obtain data, as well as, collating and submitting it. The faculty members were found to be the least supportive members, though a few of them remained supportive of the university’s initiative. It was found that a majority of faculty members did not respond to the surveys carried out by the sustainability office, or any information requests that were directed at them. It was thought that the reason for this was maybe because of the faculty’s unclearness as to what constituted research or teaching that was related or focused to sustainability.

However, the faculty and other members of staff soon realized and learned something as the project progressed. They started to understand more fully what the sustainability program was all about. Specifically, they learned that the program did not only involve operations but also academic research and programs. As a result of this new understanding, the sustainability office was provided with more support and opportunities to partner with other individuals in the university. In addition to this, the model was used to come up with other new initiatives for the school such as a sustainability awards program. To implement these new projects, the sustainability office would have to work directly with several offices in the campus. This was an excellent management practice. This is because the support of the sustainability program was gained only after the staff received some incentive and motivation. Motivation and incentives are good management practices (Patricia, et al., 1997). The incentive was that the program was going to make the academic research and programming better, as well as, improve the programs of the institution. This motivated the staff to give the program support.

Determine the most difficult challenge faced by SU in implementing the STARS model.

In implementing the sustainability model, the institution faced several challenges. The main one, however, was that the faculty was difficult when it came to giving the program support. While some member were involved and were supportive of the program, many remained unresponsive and unsupportive of the program. They, therefore, did not answer or provide questions, surveys or other types of requests the sustainability office asked. It, therefore, became extremely difficult to collect useful information.

Analyze whether or not SU’s participation in the STARS pilot study will/did add value to the institution.

The participation of the institution in the pilot study was extremely useful in adding value to the university. This is because the study provides the institution with more information on how advance in numerous causes, in addition to, academic research. The STARS model also introduced some essential new initiatives in the university such as the sustainability awards program. The participation in the pilot study would also add the value of the institution if the university scored higher on the score card provided by the sustainability program. For example, the value of the institution would be higher if it scored higher on such items as higher education sustainability, research and sustainable performance. If the university obtained more scores on these items, it would increase its reputation as an excellent institution and, therefore, its value. The sustainability program would also make the institution work harder in establishing and improving on the items on the scorecard of the program so as to score higher points. As a result, the value of the institution would also be increased.

Evaluate whether or not the STARS model rewards higher education for focusing on the “low-hanging fruit” or its more long-term strategic sustainability challenges.

The STARS model is most suitable for rewarding and commenting strategic sustainability actions that are more focused on long- term effects than short- term. This is because the model seemed to award SU with fewer points for not accomplishing sustainable performance that was meant to last and to be valuable for a long time. For example, the university received fewer points for not implementing LEED- certified systems and buildings that were to add long- term value and benefits for the institution. The program also gave more points to such projects as installing bike racks near a building, and implementing systems that were energy efficient in the institution, than such programs as academic courses. This shows that the program was more focused on value that was long- term than in attaining results that were short- term, and ‘low hanging’.

References

Patricia, K. et al. (1997). Benchmarking for Best Practices in the Public Sector. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.