2005:35 R

Environmental management procedures at higher education institutions in Sweden - a survey and analysis of environmental accounts for 2004

We have been provided by the government with the accounts submitted by 30 of the 35 higher education institutions and this report is largely based on these accounts. Where there has been lack of clarity in certain cases, the web sites of the institutions have been consulted. The results in the report have been classified in terms of the years in which the government first required an institution to implement an environmental management system. In the course of the study it turned out that this categorisation gave rise to the clearest patterns in the results.

The accounts show clearly that progress has been made since 2000. The largest change in a positive direction since 2003 in percentage terms can be found in the proportion of institutions that have adopted overall objectives, integrated these endeavours either wholly or in part with their operational plans and undertaken staff training during the year. In addition there has been a tangible increase in the number of institutions including research or cooperation with the surrounding community as significant environmental aspects as well as the number of institutions seeking certification of their environmental management systems. On the other hand, there has been a decline in the environmental significance of procurement or purchasing to the level of 2002.

However, this process requires patience. Detailed objectives related to indirect impact on the environment constitute only one sixth of the number of detailed objectives as a whole. Attainment of these “indirect" objectives is also considerably less satisfactory than for other objectives.

It is also obvious that one important factor in these results is how long efforts have been devoted to these environmental management measures. Those subject to the requirement for the longest period, since 1997/98, have made most progress and succeeded best in the majority of areas, followed by those who started in 1999, with those given the task in 2000 coming last. The institutions on which this requirement was imposed in 2001 can be seen, however, to have attained relatively good results and in several areas are ahead of others that started earlier.

What is somewhat problematical in the accounts is the way in which objectives have been structured, methods for measuring attainment of objectives and the limited degree of review. Work on the development of measurement and key indicators is being undertaken in networks of institutions and elsewhere but could do with more concrete support and additional resources. Initiatives in other countries should be inventoried and analysed and this is not likely to be possible without specific support.

Information on how environmental management work is organised and the resources allocated is also lacking in these accounts. However, it is probable that these are important factors to take into account when explaining problems and outcomes and, in the long run, devising adequate systems of support and other measures.

Regular audits of environmental management procedures are important to ensure, for instance, that the system functions and that the task is being fulfilled as intended. They may also offer a clearer view of the problems linked to the formulation of objectives and measurement their attainment. Clearer indication of the desirability of internal and external audits is probably called for. Second party audits, when one institution inspects another, could provide one possible method and it would seem reasonable for the state to bear the cost and provide the infrastructure for a system of audits of this kind.

The majority of institutions, like the other agencies subject to an environmental management requirement, opted initially to focus on direct impact on the environment. However, we can now see more and more institutions including the indirect environmental impact of their core activities among significant environmental aspects and more explicit monitoring of these procedures in particular could help to encourage and to signal the importance of this work. Possible measures could include changes in the template for these accounts and also specific initiatives.

The questions concerning procurement included in the account template for 2004 also provide useful information for analytical purposes. The question posed in previous years about the extent of environmentally adapted procurement at the institutions should reappear in some form, as this procurement offers the institutions an important channel for controlling aspects of both their direct and indirect environmental impact, and the information submitted in the accounts offers an important tool for monitoring. We can also see scope for certain improvements in the account templates, mainly with regard to information about organisation and resources, procurement and distinctions between outcomes for direct or indirect environmental impact.