An Integrated Approach for Fostering Environmental Sustainability in the Tertiary Sector Rainer Seidel University of Auckland Helene Sterzik Massey University Manuel Seidel ecoPortal Mehdi Shahbazpour University of Auckland Logan Wait ecoPortal Recommended Citation: Seidel, R., Sterzik, H., Seidel, M., Shahbazpour, M. & Wait, L. (2014). An Integrated Approach for Fostering Environmental Sustainability in the Tertiary Sector. Proceedings of the 14th International Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability (ACTS) Conference, Hobart, Australia. Available at http://www.acts.asn.au/conference-proceedings/

An Integrated Approach for Fostering Environmental Sustainability in the Tertiary Sector

Rainer Seidel

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Auckland, New Zealand Phone +64-9-9237578, Email rha.seidel@auckland.ac.nz

Helene Sterzik

Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

Manuel Seidel ecoPortal, Auckland, New Zealand

Mehdi Shahbazpour University of Auckland

Logan Wait

ecoPortal

Tertiary institutions are complex organisations, consisting of and engaging with a broad range of stakeholders with widely differing functions, requirements, goals and expectations. Generally these institutions are seen as leaders in their respective communities, and thus are expected to operate to the highest ethical, social and environmental standards. Therefore many of them are increasingly integrating environmental sustainability principles in their activities. However, many institutions struggle to effectively engage academic and professional staff, students and other relevant stakeholders, and struggle to create momentum in their sustainability and environmental management initiatives. Most current environmental sustainability approaches are either simple checklists, resource-intensive spreadsheet-based data collection solutions, or 'folder on the shelf' systems, which are only good for 'ticking boxes’. While these systems may help generate a ‘green image’ and achieve basic compliance, they often fail to facilitate significant reductions in environmental impacts. To engage stakeholders and generate effective progress towards sustainability the focus needs to be on effective collaboration and culture development rather than on bureaucracy and compliance. This paper introduces a sustainability strategy approach based on a maturity model. It involves four levels, which progressively take an institution on a journey from a ‘defensive’ approach to an ‘integrated’ maturity level. The framework includes specific tools to overcome the challenges that institutions face at their respective level of sustainability maturity, and to facilitate effective communication and collaboration within institutions.

Keywords: Sustainability and environmental management, sustainability strategy, sustainability maturity model, tertiary sector, web-based tool, ecoWheel framework

Introduction An increasing number of tertiary institutions have started to use an Environmental Management System (EMS) to facilitate sustainability change and to enable the effective development, implementation, monitoring and management of their organisation’s activities to mitigate its environmental impacts (Clarke and Kouri, 2009). The implementation of an effective EMS is one of the most accepted means by which organisations can systematically reduce their environmental impact and improve their sustainability performance (Melnyk, Sroufe et al., 2003, Hillary, 2004). Worldwide, ISO 14001 is the most frequently used EMS certification standard (Hillary, 2004), and its rate of implementation globally has increased rapidly over the last few years (International Standards Organisation, 2010; 2011; 2012).

It is expected that by establishing an EMS an organisation should achieve continual improvement of environmental performance (Zutshi and Sohal, 2004). Committed and effective implementation of an EMS has the potential to provide the basis for sound environmental improvements in any type of organisation, in a similar way that compliance with a Quality Management System (QMS) standard, such as ISO 9001, can improve the quality of products and services (Karapetrovic and Willborn, 1998). A range of international studies has found that the development and implementation of an EMS can lead to a wide range of beneficial outcomes leading to improved sustainability, including financial benefits, reduced waste, better organisational performance, enhanced staff motivation, stakeholder satisfaction, and improved reputation in their respective markets and social environments (Klassen and McLaughlin 1996; Melnyk, Sroufe et al. 2003; Nee and Wahid 2010). In this paper we look at the different approaches currently used in the tertiary sector to enhance all aspects of campus sustainability. We then summarise the factors that influence sustainability initiatives in tertiary organisations. In the final section of this paper we present our own approach towards fostering environmental sustainability in academic institutions, which is based on ten years of research, project and consulting work on all aspects of organisational sustainability and EMS implementation. We established a framework, called the ecoWheel Framework, which fits the requirements and dynamics of modern tertiary organisations by considering the key factors that prevent organisations from making more progress towards adopting sustainable practices. Our ecoWheel Framework provides organisations with a practical strategic ‘roadmap’ and the tools to enable them to effectively establish, implement and take advantage of sustainability practices.

EMS approaches in tertiary education

The operations and organisational setup of tertiary education institutes have been identified as having significant impacts on the environment (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008; Simkins and Nolan, 2004; Herremans and Allwright, 2000). Recognising this, many institutions have started to identify opportunities to organise and manage their activities in order to reduce their adverse effects on the environment and improve their sustainability performance (Herremans and Allwright, 2000). This development has been particularly prominent in Europe, USA, Canada as well as in Australasia. (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008; Simkins and Nolan 2004). Disterheft et al. (2012) have identified that an EMS is an appropriate tool in the overall process to enhance campus sustainability. There is an ongoing debate in the literature whether the ISO 14001 certification and model or other similar generic EMS models and certification schemes such as the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) are appropriate and useful for institutions in the tertiary education domain (EMAS, 2014; Clarke and Kouri, 2009). While some authors claim that the ISO 14001 model for EMS is well suited for any type of organisation and industry, including higher education institutions (Fisher, 2003; Noeke, 2000; Price, 2005; Filho, 2009), other authors have argued that a unique university EMS model is required (e.g. Savely et al., 2007; Viebahn, 2002). Clarke and Kouri (2009) identified in their study of the use of EMS in the tertiary sector that most institutions are using informal approaches with varying levels of structure (Arvidsson, 2004; Savely, 2007) to enhance their sustainability performance without the intention of seeking third party certification to a standard (Spellerberg et al., 2004; Fisher, 2003; Clarke, 2006). However, there are universities that have found benefit in obtaining formal certification for their EMS (Price, 2005; Sammalisto and Brorson, 2008). Most of the informal EMSs are based on ISO 14001, EMAS or BS 7750 guidelines, but others use a different model all together (Clarke and Kouri, 2009). The three most widely used approaches are the green building initiative, ISO 14001 and EMAS (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008). Disterheft et al. (2012) claim that implementing an EMS using a participatory approach is the most effective way to enhance campus sustainability, and in particular to “reduce the institutional environmental impact and to carry out research and teaching, offering opportunities to increase awareness for complex coherences and to develop competencies that lead to more sustainable practices” (Disterheft et al. 2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of the various approaches towards EMS, Bauer, Gibson, et al. (2012) found in their survey that many organisations use an EMS as a means to track or improve regulatory compliance, with the majority of respondents identifying an enhanced ability to comply with environmental regulatory responsibilities as the most significant benefit of EMS implementation. De Vries et al. (2012) conducted a review of the existing literature on the impact of ISO 14001 and report that while there is evidence of environmental benefits and/or other improvements for organisations

that have implemented a system based on the standard, the opposite can also be found. They go on to assert that the findings of many survey studies may be biased and may “overstate the benefits of EMS implementation, as answers on impacts are based on the perceptions of the interviewees. These interviewees are mostly the people in charge of the EMS. This may create a bias towards the positive side – it is ‘their’ system” (De Vries, Bayramoglu et al., 2012).

Factors affecting campus sustainability

In order to support organisations to successfully implement a systematic approach to drive progress towards sustainability, it is important to understand the factors that affect the uptake and operation of an effective EMS. Our own research and the international literature indicate that there are a wide range of internal and external factors that make the implementation of strategic improvement projects such as an EMS inherently complex. In addition to this, the process of moving toward sustainable practices is specific to each individual organisation (Shrivastava, 1995). However, various studies in different industries, including in the tertiary education sector, have shown that there appear to be a number of common issues affecting the implementation of effective EMSs (Chan, 2008; Levy and Dilwali, 2000; Hillary, 2004). In a comprehensive review of separate studies on EMS implementation, Hillary (1999 and 2004) identified 48 factors which act as internal and external barriers to the adoption of EMS. Internal barriers comprise insufficient resources, lack of understanding and perception, poor leadership, implementation difficulties, and negative attitudes and company culture; while external barriers include lack of support and guidance and economic pressure (Hillary 2004, Chan 2008). Our own consulting activities and research on the barriers affecting the uptake of sustainable business practices and implementation of environmental initiatives in a wide range of organisations including tertiary institutions have come to similar conclusions (Linthorst and D’Mello, 2013; Shahbazpour and Seidel, 2006; Seidel et al., 2011). Below are the major impediments we identified, which can be present at and affect the organisation as whole, as well as individual departments, stakeholder groups, processes and activities:

Undeveloped organisational sustainability culture and ignorance of own environmental impacts;

Lack of knowledge and experience with sustainability and environmental issues, and lack of awareness about environmental trends;

Absence of effective environmental legislation and other external drivers;

Limited financial and staff resources available for environmental projects;

Inadequate communication and organisational infrastructure to support sustainability initiatives;

Perceived conflicts between sustainable practices and other organisational objectives.

We found that the key factors that apply to organisations of all types and sizes globally are the motivation and level of support provided by top management. In addition, effective EMS implementation requires considerable experience, specialist knowledge and financial resources. Together with the impediments mentioned above, these factors appear to be the most significant barriers for organisations who want to improve the environmental sustainability performance of their products and business processes (Seidel et al., 2009). These conclusions are in line with the findings of Bauer et al. (2012) that the key barriers to successful EMS implementation in all types of organisations are the need for top management support, lack of resources and experience, communication and empowerment issues and the burden that EMS implementation places on staff (Bauer et al., 2012). Cortese (2003) identified that a university system encompasses the four dimensions of education, research, university operations and interactions with the external community, which are often treated as separate and isolated entities. In order to develop a vision for a sustainable campus it is necessary to understand the interdependence among these dimensions and to increase the collaboration between them, as all parts are critical to achieving a transformative change (Disterheft et al., 2012; Cortese, 2003). Martin (2011) argues that campus sustainability planning requires global optimisation that can only be achieved across ‘categories’, and that integrated planning is a requirement for achieving effective and strategic improvements in sustainability. In his experience, “while initial sustainability efforts on most campuses seem to emphasize efficiency initiatives under the control of some single department, most of the sizable potential improvements aren’t evident through the lens of the current organizational structure. Most of the really significant savings are likely to require rethinking and redesign, which affects and thus depends on activities that are often managed

separately or that operate in support of campus institutional functions that are managed separately” (Martin, 2011). Another significant barrier to increased campus sustainability is the overall lack of awareness and involvement from students, faculty and staff (Disterheft et al. 2012). While the process of institutional change towards more sustainability involves many organisational levels and actors, it is generally the senior administrators or student leaders who are identified as the change makers (Helferty and Clarke, 2009). Brinkhurst et al. (2011) have identified that conventional approaches towards sustainability in universities often are driven by the administration and neglect the role of faculty and staff members, and that greater attention must be given to the potential of faculty and staff leadership and how to effectively support their efforts (Brinkhurst et al., 2011). While good communication, shared vision and effective collaboration are critical for the success of environmental initiatives, individual stakeholders often appear to pursue separate objectives which are removed from realities of university operations. For example, bureaucratic distance of administrators from implementation can negatively affect the design and outcome of their change initiatives (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003). Similarly, students can find it difficult to design initiatives when they lack familiarity with the functioning of a university (Linthorst and D’Mello, 2013, Brinkhurst et al., 2011). Student projects and initiatives related to research activities are also often short-term, isolated and narrowly focused, and are affected by their unfamiliarity with the nature of university operations, and in particular by the compartmentalisation of the academic and administrative structures on campus. As a consequence student initiatives are most commonly limited to awareness raising activities, rather than contributing to the changes in policy or planning which are needed to reform operational practices on campus (Owens and Halfacre-Hitchcock, 2006). All the above factors support our own findings that an integrated, ‘holistic’ approach is required to achieve any major lasting improvements of campus sustainability. This is discussed further in the following sections.

Organisational capability and sustainability maturity Considering the significant barriers associated with the successful implementation of EMS it is useful to look at organisational factors, such as business performance, competencies and motivation and how they influence the uptake of sustainable practices. According to Keijzers (2002) there are three phases and motivations for sustainability in business:

Sanitize: Compliance driven maintenance of a minimal level of environmental performance;

Control: Eco-efficiency or cost driven environmental management;

Integration: Business competitive advantage driven where sustainability factors are taken into account in all business decisions (Keijzers, 2002).

Bansal and Roth (2000) also identify three motivating factors for organisations which influence their level of uptake of environmentally sustainable practices; namely legitimation, moral responsibility and competitiveness (Bansal and Roth, 2000). Bennet and James (1999) proposed three similar categories for campus sustainability, ranging from a focus on cost savings and compliance with the law in the first generation to emphasis on the institution’s role as a leader, as a ‘good citizen’ and its function of providing best-practice examples in the third generation. These categorisations and other models relating to management commitment and environmental performance of an organisation (e.g. Kolk and Mauser, 2002; Bansal and Roth, 2000; Dunphy et al., 2007; Cagnin et al., 2010; Baumgartner and Ebner, 2010) were used by one of the authors of this paper to develop a capability maturity model of environmental sustainability of an organisation (Seidel 2011). While it can be argued that maturity models have their limits as they do not take into account organisational complexities, they nevertheless have become a generally accepted and convenient method to improve the practice and understanding of environmental management (Kolk and Mauser 2002). The model summarised in Table 1 distinguishes four levels of environmental sustainability maturity, i.e. ‘defensive’, ‘proactive’, ‘managed’ and ‘integrated’, together with their associated drivers, barriers and main characteristics (Seidel, 2011).

In this maturity model, sustainability drivers and barriers as well as specific characteristics of organisational behaviour are associated with each of the maturity levels. This provides a deeper

understanding of the dynamics of the implementation process and facilitates the development of specific strategies and tools that are most likely to overcome the respective barriers and thus to generate progress towards enhanced sustainability in the organisation.

Table 1: Sustainability maturity matrix (Seidel, 2011)

In our experience, many organisations still have a ‘defensive’ approach to environmental management, either as a whole or in significant parts of their organisation. This means that they will only implement improvement initiatives when either their external stakeholders force them to, or if they are required to by law or regulations. Organisations with this approach are often unaware of or indifferent about their environmental impacts, or too busy with day-to-day operational problems to be in a position to implement improvement initiatives. However, increasingly tertiary organisations are starting to see the benefits of sustainability and are making real and concerted efforts to reduce their environmental impacts (Clarke and Kouri, 2009; Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008; Simkins and Nolan 2004). These organisations can be said to have a ‘proactive’ sustainability maturity level. Institutions at this maturity level often struggle to implement a systematic and effective infrastructure and do not have a holistic sustainability strategy. There is typically a focus on one environmental issue (such as waste reduction or energy savings), while neglecting other important areas of concern. The ‘managed’ level of sustainability maturity includes tertiary institutions who actively manage their environmental risks. Institutions at the ‘managed’ level have often implemented an EMS (or similar approach) by having developed policies and procedures that enforce sustainable practices in most parts of the organisation. However, in our experience few tertiary organisations can claim that they have reached an ‘integrated’ level of sustainability maturity and developed a culture for environmental management which is integrated into all aspects of their activities. To achieve this all stakeholders, including academic, professional and administrative staff, students and management need to understand and embed sustainability principles into all aspects of their day-to-day jobs as well as their teaching, learning and research-related activities. The ecoWheel Framework introduced in the following sections involves three elements: Baseline Assessment, Strategising Framework and Integrating Platform, which address the gaps between the four maturity levels. They are designed to progressively take an organisation on a journey from a ‘defensive’ approach to an ‘integrated’ sustainability maturity level. Each element of the ecoWheel Framework involves specific tools and principles to overcome the challenges that organisations face at their respective level of maturity.

Baseline Assessment: Laying the foundation The ecoWheel Baseline Assessment is a structured approach which considers the barriers faced by defensive organisations, and in particular on those factors which affect the initial uptake of sustainability initiatives. At the ‘defensive’ level, it is useful to address common prejudices such as ‘environmental sustainability requires additional costs and efforts’ or ‘this is much too difficult to do’, and any lack of enthusiasm and support by management or staff for environmental initiatives. The Baseline Assessment for campus consists of four complementary and easy to apply tools:

Stakeholder analysis

SWOT analysis

Identification of environmental sustainability issues

Environmental project prioritisation

The use of the Baseline Assessment tools can generate an initial environmental sustainability profile of the organisation, establishing the foundation for the roadmap towards improved campus sustainability. In institutions that have very little environmental experience, the tools should ideally be embedded in a process which is facilitated by an experienced external moderator. However, if an organisation’s environmental culture is already strong enough (in particular in respect to management support and staff experienced in EMS implementation) the approach can also be completely driven from inside the organisation. The main aspects of the different tools in the context of our environmental sustainability approach are briefly introduced below (Seidel et al., 2009). Stakeholder analysis is a key tool supporting the implementation of an EMS, as it can be used to identify any stakeholders that can be involved in, are affected by or have an interest in the environmental activities on campus. Many institutions fail to identify and take advantage of opportunities and relationships with internal and external stakeholders. Also, many people spend little time scanning their environment outside their immediate area of influence and activity, collecting information, interpreting the situation and developing the necessary solutions. Given the substantial influence of stakeholder relationships on achieving sustainability improvements, and the significant potential of creating synergies through cooperation across institutional, departmental and disciplinary boundaries, we see it as crucial for an institution to have a means to easily and quickly understand and engage potential partners from inside as well as off campus. SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis helps organisations identify strategic performance variables related to environmental initiatives. Our research has shown that many organisations are primarily concerned with the short-term financial implications when they are considering the deployment of resources in strategic environmental projects. However, strategic, technical and social factors are also very important, although these are sometimes difficult to quantify. For example, the strategic significance of improved institutional reputation as a sustainability leader in the local community obtained as a result of environmental improvements is substantial in the long-term, but this can be difficult to express in financial terms. The third component of the Baseline Assessment element is the Identification and understanding of environmental sustainability issues. We suggest the use of internal or external audits to identify relevant aspects and impacts caused by campus activities and processes. This can be supported by the use of checklists and criteria that are published by organisations promoting environmental sustainability in the tertiary sector. Examples are the Green League methodology promoted by the People & Planet Organisation in the UK, and the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment & Rating System (STARS) promoted by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education in the US, and the Learning in Future Environments (LiFE) Index promoted by Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability. The LiFE Index, for example, presents four priority areas including Leadership and Governance; Partnership and Engagement; Learning, Teaching and Research; Facilities and Operations, and provides a range of frameworks in each of these areas to help an organisation assess their current sustainability activities (ACTS 2014). Stakeholder and SWOT analysis tools provide information and insights relating to the organisational environment, potential partners and the drivers, benefits and opportunities etc., involved in implementing sustainable practices on campus. Together with an analysis of relevant sustainability

issues they help institutions reach an improved understanding of their situation and be in a good position to start developing their sustainability strategies and initiatives. Prioritisation of projects, the fourth element of Baseline Assessment, is a key step for ensuring that the limited resources that are initially dedicated to campus sustainability initiatives are used in the most effective way and for optimising the potential return on investment of the crucial first improvement project activities. This is particularly important with respect to generating visible outcomes and ‘buy-in’ from management and all other stakeholders on and off campus in order to overcome their above-mentioned concerns and perceptions. The environmental improvement project prioritisation criteria listed in Table 2 reflect the characteristics and the internal dynamics of organisations at the ‘defensive’ state of sustainability, and the barriers to the uptake of environmental initiatives outlined earlier.

Table 2: Sustainability issues evaluation matrix

Each identified impact is given a score on the basis of the five criteria. The scores for the five criteria are added together, and the environmental impacts with the highest scores can then be prioritised as early improvement projects. The aim of such improvement projects is to ‘pick the low hanging fruit’ and prove the tangible benefits of environmental initiatives to sceptical managers and stakeholders. The validity and effectiveness of this Baseline Assessment approach has been demonstrated in a range of case studies from a research and consulting perspective. In particular, the success of these projects generally created a strong momentum towards sustainability and convinced decision makers as well as other stakeholders of the benefits of the implementation of an EMS.

Strategising Framework: communication and management of sustainability The Baseline Assessment element of the ecoWheel Framework provides tertiary institutions with a solid understanding of their position and their options with respect to campus sustainability. The Strategising Framework builds on the assessment to develop and implement a sustainability strategy to systematically manage progress. The ecoWheel strategy tool was developed as a visual representation of objectives, which facilitates the development of a shared vision for sustainability in an organisation. The ecoWheel shown in Figure 1 is an example of a customised, generic tool for tertiary institutions where we categorised the

various aspects of campus sustainability into the three themes of People, Places and Performance (Linthorst and D’Mello, 2013). Each of the three wheels is segmented further into priority areas which represent appropriate sustainability programme themes. For example, the People wheel covers the five programmes “staffing”, “ethical practices”, “engagement”, “education” and “research”. Each programme is again divided into particular elements or objectives, e.g. “education includes the elements “audit”, “staff training”, “curriculum” and “campus education”. The process for developing an ecoWheel for managing programmes and objectives is as follows:

1. Establish suitable programme elements for the institution based on the sustainability impact

categories identified in the Baseline Assessment. 2. Establish an understanding of the current performance of the institution within each programme.

This can be facilitated through the use of the Baseline Assessment tools and the aspect and impact analysis applied in Phase 1.

3. Perform a gap analysis to identify the project-based objectives required to achieve best practice in each programme.

4. Establish suitable, measureable and short-term targets for each objective.

Figure 1: ecoWheel communication and management tool

While in the early stages of its sustainability journey the institution will likely focus on a limited scope, it is important that the specific short-term projects and objectives are put into a wider context of longer term strategic goals. This allows the individual actors, functions and departments throughout campus to understand how their activities fit into the overall campus sustainability strategy. Thus the ecoWheel generates communication mechanisms and facilitates shared understanding between all actors and stakeholders. In addition to this it can be used as a basis for coordinating sustainability-related roles and responsibilities as well as documentation and reporting.

Integrating Platform: Web-based implementation infrastructure The final element of the ecoWheel Framework is a web-based sustainability and EMS implementation infrastructure (ecoPortal – www.ecoportal.com). In our case study research we identified a number of key criteria which an EMS needs to satisfy in order to fully embed sustainability into all aspects of an organisation:

Communication between sustainability team and organisation, including the ability to capture input from staff outside the core sustainability team, such as students and academics;

Project management tools to assist the achievement of sustainability objectives, including functions such as email reminders, responsibility designation, etc.;

Web-based documentation and knowledge management to replace paper-based systems and to facilitate the management of sustainability knowledge;

External accessibility to facilitate collaboration with external stakeholders. This includes sophisticated permissions functionality to limit access to internal and confidential information and documentation;

People Places Performance

Integration of critical elements of sustainability management, such as environmental policy, objectives and targets, relevant legislation, aspects and impacts, internal auditing, etc. This ensures accessibility and understanding, as well as meeting the requirements of ISO 14001.

ecoPortal (Figure 2) enables tertiary institutions to operationalise their sustainability strategy, effectively collaborate to achieve objectives and targets and disseminate and share their successes.

Figure 2: ecoPortal sustainability management system for tertiary institutions

Conclusions Tertiary institutions around the world are facing considerable challenges in making progress towards integrating environmental sustainability principles into their culture and their day-to-day campus activities. The three elements of the ecoWheel Framework described in this paper were conceived based on an understanding of the barriers universities face in the four phases of sustainability maturity. The Baseline Assessment introduces a set of strategic business tools which help organisations in the tertiary education sector identify their areas of environmental impact, understand their key stakeholders, prioritise sustainability initiatives and realise the benefits of improved performance. In implementing the Baseline Assessment element of the ecoWheel Framework, universities can gain the support of all stakeholders – a critical success factor often lacking in organisations with a ‘defensive’ maturity level. The Strategising Framework (ecoWheel) is a strategic visualisation tool to develop and communicate a holistic sustainability strategy. The ecoWheel is tailored for each individual organisation to create improvement programmes with objective-based roadmaps in the areas applicable to its specific situation. The Strategising Framework can also be used to facilitate the implementation of an EMS. The Integrating Platform (ecoPortal) is a cloud-based infrastructure to manage sustainability.

ecoPortal enables tertiary institutions to operationalise their sustainability strategy, effectively

collaborate to achieve objectives and targets, and disseminate and share their successes.

References ACTS (2014), Learning in Future Environments, Australasian Campuses Towards Sustainability,

available at http://life.acts.asn.au/about-LiFE/, accessed on 17 July 2014 Alshuwaikhat, H., Abubakar, I., (2008), An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability:

assessment of the current campus environmental management practices, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16: 1777-1785.

Arvidsson, K. (2004), Environmental management at Swedish universities. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 5(1):91–9.

Bansal, P., Roth, K. (2000), Why Companies Go Green: A Model of Ecological Responsiveness, The Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4): 717-736.

Bauer, A., Gibson, K. and Tierney, J. M. (2012), The evolution of environmental management systems: The final results from our survey. Environmental Quality Management, 21: 35–46.

Baumgartner, R.J., Ebner, D. (2010), Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability profiles and maturity levels, Sustainable Development, 18 (2): 76-89.

Bennet, M., James, P. (Eds.), (1999), Sustainability Measures: Evaluating and Reporting on Social and Environmental Performance. Greenleaf Publishing Ltd, Sheffield, UK.

Brinkhurst, M., Rose, P., Maurice, G., Ackerman, J. (2011), Achieving campus sustainability: top-down, bottom-up, or neither? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 12(4): 338-354.

Cagnin, C. H., D. Loveridge, Butler, J. (2010), Business Sustainability Maturity Model. Corporate Responsibility Research Conference 2010 “Sustainability Management in a Diverse World". Marseille, France.

Chan, E. (2008), Barriers to EMS in the hotel industry, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Volume 27, Issue 2, June 2008, Pages 187-196.

Clark, D. (1999), What drives companies to seek ISO 14000 certification?, Pollution Engineering International, Summer 1999, 14–15

Clarke, A., Kouri, R. (2009), Choosing an appropriate university or college environmental management system, Journal of Cleaner Production, 17: 971–984.

Clarke, A. (2006), The Campus Environmental Management System Cycle in Practice: 15 years of environmental management, education and research at Dalhousie University. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(4):374–89.

Cortese, A. (2003), The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable future. Planning for Higher Education. March-May 2003, 15-22

De Vries, H., Bayramoglu, D., and van der Wiele, T. (2012), Business and environmental impact of ISO 14001, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 29(4): 425 – 435.

Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S.S., Ramos, M.R., de Miranda Azeiteiro, U.M. (2012), Environmental Management Systems (EMS) implementation processes and practices in European higher education institutions - Top-down versus participatory approaches, Journal of Cleaner Production 31: 80-90

Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., Benn, S., (2007), Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability: A Guide for Leaders and Change Agents of the Future, 2nd ed., Routledge, 2007

EMAS (2014), EMAS - Eco-Management and Audit Scheme; available at http://www.emas.de/meta/english-summary/, accessed on 11 July 2014

Filho, W.L. (Ed.), (2009), Sustainability at Universities - Opportunities, Challenges and Trends, vol. 31. Peter Lang, Frankfurt.

Fisher, R. (2003). Applying ISO 14001 as a business tool for campus sustainability: a case study from New Zealand. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 4(2): 138–50.

Helferty, A., Clarke, A. (2009), Student-led campus climate change initiatives in Canada, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10(3): 287-300.

Herremans, I., Allwright, D.E., (2000) Environmental management systems at North American Universities: what drives good performance? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1(2):168 - 181.

Hillary, R. (1999), Evaluation of Study Reports on the Barriers, Opportunities and Drivers for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in the Adoption of Environmental Management Systems. Department of Trade and Industry, Environmental Directorate, London

Hillary, R. (2004), Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(6): 561-569.

Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. (2003), Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.

International Standards Organisation (2010), The ISO Survey of certifications - 2010. Genève, Switzerland, International Standards Organisation.

International Standards Organisation (2011), The ISO Survey of certifications - 2011. Genève, Switzerland, International Standards Organisation.

International Standards Organisation (2012), The ISO survey of certifications - 2012. Genève, Switzerland, International Standards Organisation. Available at http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/certification/iso-survey.htm; accessed on 11 July 2014.

ISO 14040. (2006). Environmental management - Life cycle assessment -Principles and framework, International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneve.

ISO 14044. (2006). Environmental management - Life cycle assessment -Requirements and guidelines, International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), Geneve.

Karapetrovic, S. and W. Willborn (1998), Integration of quality and environmental management systems. The TQM Magazine, 10(3): 204–213.

Kolk, A., Mauser, A., (2002), The evolution of environmental management: from stage models to performance evaluation, Business Strategy and the Environment, 11 (1): 14-31

Levy J.I. and Dilwali, K.M. (2000), Economic incentives for sustainable resource consumption at a large university: past performance and future considerations, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1 (3): 252–266.

Linthorst M., D’Mello J. (2013), ecoPortal for tertiary institutes, Internal report, The University of Auckland and University of Twente, 58pp.

Martin, R.J. (2011), STARS: A Campus-Wide Integrated Continuous Planning Opportunity, Planning for Higher Education, January–March 2011, 41-47

Melnyk, S. A., R. P. Sroufe, et al. (2003), Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(3): 329-351.

Noeke, J. (2000), Environmental management systems for universities: a case study. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1(3):237–51.

People & Planet (2014), People & Planet Green League 2014 Methodology, Available at http://peopleandplanet.org/greenleague/methodology, accessed on 11 July 2014

Owens, K.A., Halfacre-Hitchcock, A. (2006), As green as we think? The case of the College of Charleston green building initiative, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(2): 114-28.

Pouliot, C. (1996), ISO 14000: beyond compliance to competitiveness, Manufacturing Engineering, 116 (5): 51–56.

Price, TJ. (2005), Preaching what we practice: experiences from implementing ISO 14001 at the University of Glamorgan. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 6(2):161.

Sammalisto, K., Brorson, T., (2008), Training and communication in the implementation of environmental management systems (ISO 14001): a case study at the University of Gavle, Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(3):299–309.

Savely, S.M., Carson A.I., Delclos G.L. (2007), An environmental management system implementation model for U.S. colleges and universities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(7):660–70.

Shahbazpour, M., Seidel, R.H.A. (2006), Using Sustainability for Competitive Advantage, Proceedings LCE 2006, 13th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering - Towards a closed loop economy, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 287-292

Shrivastava, P. (1995), The Role of Corporations in Achieving Ecological Sustainability, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Oct., 1995): 936-960

Seidel, M. (2011), Towards Environmentally Sustainable Manufacturing: A Strategic Framework for Small and Medium sized Enterprises, PhD Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Seidel, M., Seidel, R., Tedford, D., Cross, R., Wait, L. and Hämmerle, E. (2009), Overcoming barriers to implementing environmentally benign manufacturing practices: Strategic tools for SMEs, Environ. Qual. Manage., 18: 37–55.

Simkins, G., Nolan, A. (2004), Environmental management system in universities. Occasional paper for the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC).

Spellerberg, I., Buchan, G., Englefield R., (2004), Need a university adopt a formal environmental management system? Progress without an EMS at a small university. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 5(2):125–32.

Stenzel, P.L. (2000), Can the ISO 14000 series environmental management standards provide a viable alternative to government regulation?, American Business Law Journal, 37 (2): 237–299.

Viebahn P., (2002), An environmental management model for universities: from environmental guidelines to staff involvement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(1):3–12.

Yin, H.T. and Ma, C.B. (2009), International integration: a hope for a greener China?, International Marketing Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 348-67.

Zutshi, A., Sohal A. (2004-1), Environmental management system adoption by Australasian organisations: part 1: reasons, benefits and impediments. Technovation 24: 335-357.

Zutshi, A., Sohal A. (2004-2), A study of the environmental management system (EMS) adoption process within Australasian organisations: part 2. Role of stakeholders." Technovation 24: 371-386.