Journal of Cleaner Production 106 (2015) 109e118

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Carbon management at universities: a reality check

Oliver Robinson, Simon Kemp, Ian Williams*
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Lanchester Building, University Road, Highfield, Southampton, Hampshire SO17
1BJ, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Carbon dioxide emissions from the higher education sector are globally significant. This study compares
Received 20 August 2013 the performance of 20 institutions in English research-intensive universities to their self-set targets,
Received in revised form using three key performance indicators. Emissions increased for all but two institutions and conse-
16 June 2014
quently, targets are extremely ambitious and almost certainly unachievable. Observations are supported
Accepted 30 June 2014
Available online 19 July 2014
by a 10-point appraisal that measures the environmental value of each carbon management plan and a
‘reality check’ equation to classify them as either pragmatic or ambitious. A paradox is highlighted: in-
stitutions that set realistic but relatively low targets can be penalised in league tables and lambasted for
Keywords:
Baseline
apparent lack of ambition even when they may be more likely to succeed in delivering environmental
Carbon management improvements. The results of a staff and student questionnaire at the University of Southampton suggest
Emission reduction that increasing awareness on impacts of energy usage will promote a cultural shift towards becoming
Greenhouse gas more energy efficient to reduce emissions. Current carbon management plans are not a good indicator of
Higher education future performance. The English higher education sector has underestimated the challenge of carbon
Russell group emissions reduction. Pledged targets seem unlikely to be met by English universities and the likely
environmental costs may jeopardise the global competitiveness of the sector. Methods for assessing
Scope 3 emissions need refining and standardizing, given they are likely to be the most significant
portion of a typical university’s carbon footprint. The use of appropriate key performance indicators to
foster action and promote realistic target-setting is required at sector-level to achieve the 2020 goal.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction There is a clear need to reduce the emissions of the United

1.1. Rationale
There is little doubt in the scientific community that significant
and reliable evidence reveals that anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases
(GHGs) directly influence the climate system (IPCC, 2007; Hoffman
et al., 2009; Collins et al., 2010). The United Kingdom's (UK) Climate
Change Act 2008 is the world's first carbon-related regulation and
drives the UK towards an 80% reduction in scope 1 and 2 carbon
emissions by 2050; each sector of the UK must be committed to
emission reduction in order to attain this. Scope 1 emissions are
direct emissions within the organisational boundary from sources
the organisation owns or controls i.e. combustion of fuels and scope
2 emissions are emissions from purchased electricity which occur
as a result of its activities and are not directly owned or controlled
(Ranganathan et al., 2004; Pino et al., 2006).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 (0)2380 598755; fax: þ44 (0)2380 678606.
E-mail address: idw@soton.ac.uk (I. Williams).
Kingdom's Higher Education (HE) sector; carbon emissions have
increased steadily from 1.78MtCO2 in 1990 to 2.05MtCO2 by 2005
(HEFCE, 2010b). With more than 2.4 million students (Williams and
Ongondo, 2011), 380,000 staff (HESA, 2012) and 129 universities
(Universities UK, 2013), the HE sector contributes 11% of the UK's
public sector emissions (Ward et al., 2008). In response to this and
external government pressure, responsibility for carbon manage-
ment within the English HE sector has fallen on the Higher Edu-
cation Funding Council for England (HEFCE), which has prescribed
a sector target of 34% reduction below 1990 levels in scope 1 and 2
emissions by 2020, equating to a reduction of 43% of the 2005/06
baseline (HEFCE, 2010a). How these targets will be met remains to
be seen and forms the focus of this paper.
This study compares the carbon performance of the English
Russell Group1 institutions by creating an emissions baseline and
1
The Russell Group represents 24 UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern
Ireland) institutions dedicated to world-leading research and teaching. Member
institutions garner 80% of the HEFCE's research funding (Lipsett, 2009), produce
over 80,000 graduates and contribute £22.3 billion to the UK economy per annum
(Russell Group, 2011).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.095
0959-6526/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
110 O. Robinson et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 106 (2015) 109e118

using the University of Southampton (UoS) as a case study to
identify emission-generating behaviours. The study also critically
reviews the HEFCE's carbon strategy and its likely effectiveness as a
way to initiate carbon reduction in HE and appraises institutional
carbon management plans (CMPs), with a special focus on their
self-imposed targets and the likelihood of success. The Russell
Group is of particular interest as it comprises institutions that have
the greatest challenge in altering behaviour, being among the UK's
highest-emitting as a result of energy-intensive research pro-
grammes (University of Cambridge (2010); Williams, 2011).
Table 1 shows the targets proposed by the Russell Group In-
stitutions up to 2020. An average reduction of 35.6% has been
pledged, although 14 institutions have proposed targets that fall
considerably short of the overall sector target. A number of notable
examples considerably exceed the HEFCE requirement i.e. London
School of Economics (LSE), Warwick and York. The remaining three,
Durham, Kings College and Newcastle proposed targets that will
match emissions with the sector requirements.
Universities are big business: the UoS for example is the largest
HE institution (HEI) by student numbers in south-east England. The
institution boasts a student population of 16,805 undergraduate
and 7325 postgraduate students, 5510 staff, and a £437.8 million
income through its teaching, research and enterprise activities in
the academic year 2011/12 (HESA, 2014). Although seen tradition-
ally as preserved for the social elite, universities are now open to all
(Anderson, 2009), benefitting the global community/economy
through the training of highly qualified professionals across a
myriad of disciplines, in addition to the development of new aca-
demic ideas (Collini, 2012).
1.2. Themes in Institutional Carbon Footprinting
Carbon footprinting is an emerging subject area and it is only
recently that a widely-accepted definition and standards for
applying it to various applications i.e. a city boundary, have
furthered the discipline (e.g. Wright et al., 2011; Publicly Available
Specifications 2050, 2070). Very few papers have focused on
emissions from HEIs and their management approach.
Previous studies that have been conducted on HEI carbon
footprinting have primarily focused on scope 1 and 2 emissions,
largely because they are easiest and cheapest to assign and calcu-
late (Bastianoni et al., 2004). Riddell et al. (2009) identified that
electricity consumption accounted for 40% of the direct emissions
of Rowan University in the United States of America (the rest
attributable to steam and heat production), with emissions
amounting to 4 tonnes CO2 per full time student per annum. Larsen
et al. (2013), using the Norwegian University of Technology and
Science (NTNU) as a case study, found that an annual footprint of
4.6 tonnes CO2 per full time student was emitted per annum. Scope
3 emissions, the remaining indirect proportion of the carbon
footprint result from the upstream (indirect emissions from pur-
chased/acquired goods and services) and downstream (indirect
emissions from sold/distributed goods and services) activities of
the organisation, are inherently more challenging to quantify as a
wide variety of primary and secondary data sources, as well as
modelled, extrapolated and proxy data need to be researched and
combined (Peters, 2010). Few studies have addressed this, although
it has been suggested that scope 3 emissions account for at least
80% of an organisation's carbon footprint (Ranganathan et al., 2004;
Lee, 2011; Ozawa-Meida et al., 2013). The methods of calculating
Scope 3 emissions need refining and standardizing (Turner et al.,
2012) so early research conclusions must be treated with caution.
Presenting reported organisational emissions is a contentious
issue for many authors, with literature presented on both sides of
the argument. Basing targets on appropriate key performance in-
dicators (KPIs), a business/financial metric i.e. revenue, employees
or floor space (Defra, 2009) ensures fairness across different insti-
tutional settings (Weber, 2008), whilst representing a more prac-
tical methodology due to inertia present in university-sized
organisations (Samarasekera, 2009). However, issues such as
operating hours, endowment and efficiency of floor space can all
influence and be obscured by KPIs (Reidy and Daly, 2010; Klein-
Banai and Theis, 2013). The sector target reductions are based on
absolute emissions and the implications of this will be discussed
further in this paper.
1.3. ESD and university institutions

Table 1
The importance of analysing different education and research
Targets pledged by the 20 English Russell Group Institutions to be met by 2020.
activities in terms of carbon management in HEIs should not be
Higher education institution Carbon Baseline Notes underestimated, as an understanding of the carbon intensity of
reduction year
different activities is important in the development of institution-
target
2020/21 (%) specific strategies. Larsen et al. (2013) demonstrated the greater
carbon contributions of teaching and research in science, engi-
University of Birmingham 20 2005/06
University of Bristol 35 2005/06
neering and medicine compared to the humanities and social sci-
University of Cambridge 34 2005/06 ence. Klein-Banai and Theis (2013) provided an account of the
University of Durham 43 2005/06 environmental implications of different academic activities and
University of Exeter 28 2005/06 sizes of HEIs, showing that office and teaching areas have lower
Imperial College London 20 2008/09 30% incl.
emissions than laboratory and research spaces. This can allow
growth
King's College London 43 2005/06 targeted and holistic emission reduction strategies to be imple-
University of Leeds 35 2005/06 mented in HEIs (Disterheft et al., 2012), and is of particular rele-
University of Liverpool 30 2006/07 vance to the research and equipment intensive English Russell
London School of Economics and 57 2005/06 Group Universities.
Political Science
University of Manchester 40 2009
The relevance of education to carbon management goes further
University of Newcastle upon Tyne 43 2005/06 than the identification of the relevant carbon consumption of
University of Nottingham 34 2005/06 different academic study areas and equipment usage. Education for
University of Oxford 33 2005/06 Sustainable Development (ESD) is considered critical for altering
Queen Mary, University of London 34 2005/06
values and behaviours to move towards sustainable universities
University of Sheffield 20 2005/06 by 2016/17
University of Southampton 20 2005/06 (Lozano, 2006), especially in the context of HEI carbon manage-
University College London 34 2005/06 ment (Barth et al., 2013; Williams and Kemp, 2013). In order for
University of Warwick 60 2005/06 sustainable development and the carbon consequences of decision
University of York 48 2005/06 making to be understood by students, an interdisciplinary approach
Mean ± Standard Deviation 35.55 ± 11.4
to learning and teaching is required due to the multidimensional
 O. Robinson et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 106 (2015) 109e118 111

nature of ESD (Karatzoglou, 2013). The difficulty is that institutions Table 2

are better designed to teach others than teach themselves Questions used to appraise the institutional carbon management plans.

(Stephens and Graham, 2010). Number Question

A desire to learn about sustainable development is prevalent in 1 Percentage reduction?
HEIs, as demonstrated by the three-year longitudinal analysis 2 Year of emissions baseline
conducted in the UK by the National Union of Students (NUS) and 3 Absolute or normalised data used to calculate emissions?
Higher Education Academy (HEA). This study has consistently 4 Any interim targets proposed?
5 Will strategies outline in CMP result in a net carbon reduction?
shown that over 80% of students believe their institutions should
6 How does this target compare with the HEFCE's?
actively incorporate and promote sustainable development, and 7 Pledge to reduce scope 3 emissions?
over two-thirds believe it should be covered by their courses 8 Full responsibility assigned to a relevant and qualified
(Drayson et al., 2013). This demand for the establishment of ESD in member of staff?
9 Is the CMP agreed by top management (i.e. Chancellor,
the curriculum would ensure all students have some environ-
Vice Chancellor) of the institution?
mental awareness (Fien, 2002) even if economic issues have taken 10 Is continual monitoring of emissions proposed?
precedence over environmental issues since the recession in 2008
(Kahn and Kotchel, 2010) leading to an imbalance in sustainable
development from a learning and teaching perspective. Factors
2010b). A set of 10 questions were developed to analyse the CMPs
affecting behaviour change from ESD are beginning to be under-
for their environmental credentials (Table 2). In order to identify
stood and addressed; a study by Polonsky et al. (2011) found that
appropriate target-setting, the analysis needs to assign scores to:
even if people have knowledge regarding carbon-related issues, it is
the institutional target, whether normalised or absolute data has
rarely acted upon due to being based on complex science they do
been used, whether interim targets and monitoring has been pro-
not understand or agree with.
posed, agreement with sector targets and if commitment is shown
The continual expansion of information technology into
by high-level management.
everyday life globally (Acre, 2003; Sadorsky, 2012) has had unin-
A rank of carbon targets was produced by defining outcomes to
tended consequences for university carbon management. The use of
the questions above and assigning scores using definitions of ‘light’
computing equipment is a highly energy-intensive activity and the
and ‘dark’ green environmentalism2 defined by Steffen (2011); see
associated rise in use for teaching and research purposes increases
Table 3. Scores were intended to represent the closest fit to the
institutional emissions (Ang, 1999; Soytas et al., 2007). Personal
light/dark green definitions as possible and explains the subtle
‘gadgets’, (i.e. MP3 players, tablets, laptops and smartphones) are
differences in the assigned score. This method assumed that all
now ubiquitous in the daily lives of students, and are increasingly
Russell Group institutions would be able to meet their intended
embraced by lecturers to enrich the learning experience and to
target by 2020 (a view that is shared by the institutions themselves)
engage with students outside the classroom. The numbers and in-
and for this reason a ‘reality check’ was applied to identify how
tensity of use of personal ‘gadgets’ has surged amongst the student
realistic the targets were. We proposed a more realistic target of
population with resultant increases in per student capita carbon
10% reduction in absolute emissions by 2020, with the equation x-
consumption through using and charging devices on campus,
10 being applied to check alignment.
increasing the carbon challenge for HEIs. An irony is inherent in that
To test the likelihood of institutions reaching these targets, an
innovative teaching methods are needed to engage students from
emissions baseline was produced. Consumption rates of electricity
across academic disciplines (as necessitated in the multi-
and vehicle fleet fuel usage data for all institutions were obtained
disciplinary field of ESD). However, these can lead to increased en-
through the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) (HESA,
ergy consumption and carbon emissions from a HEI, creating a
2010), namely the HE Estates Management Statistics (EMS). Emis-
paradox for ESD as a driver to more sustainable universities.
sions factors were applied, which convert activity data (i.e. litres of
Universities are seen as key drivers of sustainable development
fuel used) into carbon emissions. Here, energy usage (kWh) was
(Velazquez et al., 2006; Lozano et al., 2013a); as breeding grounds
converted, using factors provided by the UK Government Depart-
for responsible research into the technologies and ideas that will be
ment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (Defra, 2009).
required for the future of sustainable production and consumption
Data were chosen for the period 2005e2010 to show how emis-
(SPC) (Waas et al., 2010), and as the potential vehicle for creating
sions altered over the period since the baseline year and whether
the sustainability leaders and change agents of the future (Lozano
positive or negative progress towards the 2020 target was made.
et al., 2013b) by weaving ESD through curricula and extra-
Three KPIs: gross internal area, full-time equivalent (FTE) staff and
curricular activities. They possess the ability to influence gover-
student numbers and institutional income, were utilised to
nance at the local, national and international level as a result of
compare normalised emissions, following the conventions pre-
their population size, scope and affluence (Sedlacek, 2013). Wilk
scribed by Defra on reporting guidelines for business using KPIs
(2002) found that sustainable consumption in universities could
(Defra, 2006); also obtained from the EMS dataset.
be tackled through understanding how students can learn to
An online snapshot questionnaire was administered to FTE staff
consume resources sustainably, whilst Savagaeu (2013) proposed
and students at the UoS (via www.isurvey.soton.ac.uk) and
greater active and passive participation in the decision making
accessed through the Southampton University Staff/student Social
process. Whilst reducing emissions is important, it cannot be at the
expense of the academic and economic merits they provide
(Williams et al., 2012); practitioners must develop the innovative 2
Dark green ideology stipulates that environmental issues are inherent to
solutions to succeed, and it is clear that ESD plays a critical role in
industrialised capitalism and the current economically driven political setting that
tackling both current HEI and future global industrial carbon gives rise to consumerism and resource depletion. Consequently, targets claiming a
emissions. greater overall emissions reduction were assigned higher scores, despite the un-
certainty in using 1990 data (Ellerman and Joskow, 2008) and growth omitted in
2. Methods absolute targets. Light green ideology views environmentalism as a personal life-
style choice that exhibits cynicism towards politically-driven motives. Higher
scores were thus assigned to targets that aligned with the HEFCE and those beyond
The HEFCE requires each Russell Group institution to produce a were lower as the ideology stipulates that personal carbon management should
CMP based on their intended carbon reduction strategy (HEFCE, drive emissions down (Steffen, 2011).
112 O. Robinson et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 106 (2015) 109e118

Table 3
Answers and assigned scores for CMP appraisal for Dark and Light Green viewpoints.

Question Dark green environmentalism Light green environmentalism

Answer/outcome Assigned score Answer/outcome Assigned score

1 71e100% 10 31e50% 10
51e70% 8 71e100% 8
31e50% 6 51e70% 6
16e30% 4 16e30% 4
1e15% 2 1e15% 2
0 0 0 0
2 1990 10 2011 10
1991e2000 7 2001e2010 7
2001e2010 4 1991e2000 4
2011 1 1990 1
3 Absolute 10 Use of both absolute and KPIs 10
Use of both absolute and KPIs 7 Normalised (KPIs) 7
Normalised (KPIs) 4 Absolute 4
4 4 or more interim targets 10 4 or more interim targets 10
3 interim targets 8 3 interim targets 8
2 interim targets 6 2 interim targets 6
1 interim target 4 1 interim target 4
No Interim targets 0 No Interim targets 0
5 Net Carbon Reduction 10 Net Carbon Reduction 10
No change 5 No change 5
Net Carbon Gain 0 Net Carbon Gain 0
6 Surpasses the HEFCE Target 10 Meets the requirements of the HEFCE target 10
Meets the requirements of the HEFCE target 5 Surpasses the HEFCE Target 5
Fails to meet requirements of the HEFCE target 0 Fails to meet the requirements of the HEFCE target 0
7 Yes 10 Yes 10
No 0 No 0
8 Yes 10 Yes 10
No 0 No 0
9 Yes 10 Yes 10
No 0 No 0
10 Yes 10 Yes 10
No 0 No 0
Maximum total 100 Maximum total 100

& Educational Directory [SUSSED]) in order to gain a picture of self-
reported behaviour that generated emissions. A preliminary trial
was undertaken with a group of 10 staff and students in October/
November 2011 with questions altered to reduce the risk of
misinterpretation, an important consideration when surveying
(Oppenheim, 1992).
3. Results
posted rises of 17.7%, 40%, 143% and 91% respectively. Manchester
increased sufficiently to overtake Imperial College as the Russell
Group's largest emitter of absolute emissions. The emissions
Table 4
Outcomes of the carbon management plan appraisal and application of a ‘reality
check’.

Higher education institution Carbon management plan appraisal method

3.1. Carbon emissions and targets
Light Rank Dark Rank x-10 Rank
green green
The rank order of institutions for both methods outlined in 2.1 is
University of Birmingham 58 16 58 15 10 1
shown in Table 4. Newcastle and York were consistently high for University of Bristol 41 20 40 20 25 12
both tests in the light/dark green analysis, with Nottingham and University of Cambridge 65 9 74 2 24 8
Bristol scoring consistently low. The difference between the two University of Durham 75 4 69 7 33 15
tests is apparent; institutions that scored highly in the light green University of Exeter 61 14 55 18 18 5
Imperial College London 65 9 64 9 10 1
and dark green appraisal ranked lowly when the “realistic” scenario
King's College London 71 6 65 8 33 15
was applied. In the latter case, the UoS is ranked joint first, along University of Leeds 65 9 64 9 25 12
with a number of institutions that ranked in the mid-ranges for the University of Liverpool 65 9 59 14 20 6
light/dark green tests i.e. Birmingham, Imperial College and Shef- London School of Economics 77 3 71 6 47 19
field. LSE and the University of Warwick were ranked 19th and 20th and Political Science
University of Manchester 61 14 60 13 30 14
respectively. University of Newcastle upon 81 1 75 1 33 15
The overall emissions of each institution were compared in or- Tyne
der to review performance against their 2020 targets. In Fig. 1 it is University of Nottingham 51 19 41 19 24 8
clear that Imperial College had by far the highest overall emissions University of Oxford 71 6 61 11 23 7
Queen Mary, University of 71 6 61 11 24 8
at 84,437 tonnes CO2 p.a in the baseline year and was one of only
London
two institutions where emissions decreased over the study period University of Sheffield 55 17 58 15 10 1
(0.7% to a level of 83,836 tonnes CO2 p.a by 2009/10); the Uni- University of Southampton 55 17 58 15 10 1
versity of Birmingham being the other. University College London 75 4 74 2 24 8
Large increases in emissions to 2009/10 were experienced by a University of Warwick 64 13 72 5 50 20
University of York 78 2 73 4 38 18
number of institutions i.e. Manchester, Nottingham, LSE and UCL
 O. Robinson et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 106 (2015) 109e118
Fig. 1. Comparison of English Russell Group absolute emissions in 2005/06e2009/10
against 2020 targets.
baseline for the UoS in 2005/06 was 31,983 tonnes CO2 p.a and like
a number of institutions rose significantly by 2010; up 13.3% to
36,228 tonnes CO2 per annum. A consequential reduction of 29%
would be needed to meet their 2020 target, which amounts to
25,586 tonnes CO2 per annum.
The implication of these increases in the group's total emissions
is shown in Fig. 2, compared against the 2020 target level. Emis-
sions increased from 856,560 tonnes CO2 per annum in 2005/06 to
1,043,824 tonnes CO2 per annum in 2009/10; the 2020 target would
bring emissions to 484,959 tonnes CO2 per annum (based on 43%
reduction below 2005/06 levels for the group's total emissions).
The pledged reductions, based on the institution's own self-
imposed targets would bring the Russell Group's emissions to
570,484 tonnes CO2 per annum, meaning that the reductions
pledged by the individual institutions will significantly fail to meet
the collective target. To put this into perspective, the overall sector
aim is to reach emissions of 690,000 tonnes CO2 by 2020, thus the
Russell Group contributes a significant proportion of the HE sector's
emissions. The 20 institutions comprising the English Russell Group
alone exceeded the 2020 sector target considerably in 2010.
Fig. 3 shows the normalised emissions of each institution by
staff and student numbers. Imperial College emitted by far the most
per staff and student than any other institution in the group. Some
institutions reduced their normalised emissions, whilst increasing
absolute levels over the time period e.g. Exeter and Queen Mary,
University of London. Only two institutions had fewer emissions
per staff and student than the UoS in 2009/10 (accounted for 1.37
tonnes per person in 2005/06, rising slightly to 1.41 tonnes in 2009/
10) which was Exeter and Sheffield at 1.27 and 1.36 tonnes CO2
emitted p.a. per staff and student respectively.
Fig. 2. The rise in total English Russell Group emissions from 2005/06e2009/10
against 2020 target emissions.
113
Fig. 3. Emissions per staff and student at English Russell Group institutions from 2005/
06e2009/10.
Linear regression analysis was carried out to identify the rela-
tionship between income and emissions at the UoS. In 2005/06, the
UoS emitted 0.103 tonnes CO2 per million pounds of income, which
declined to 0.1 tonnes CO2 per million pound of income by 2009/10
(09/10 value corrected for the retail prices index) (RPI); found to be
highly significant at p < 0.001. The independent variable, income
was perhaps unsurprisingly significant in determining CO2 emis-
sions. Nottingham featured top with an emission of 0.134 tonnes
CO2 per million pounds of income in 2009/10, having reduced from
0.142 tonnes CO2 per million pounds of income in 2005/06. In fact,
most institutions reduced their normalised emissions by income,
with only a few exceptions (Leeds, LSE and UCL).
At the UoS, emissions per gross internal area were among the
lowest of the Russell Group at 0.07 tonnes per m2 in 2005/06, but
rose to 0.09 tonnes per m2 in 2009/10. Over the study period, the
UoS's income increased, whilst internal area decreased and staff
and student numbers were roughly equal. This meant that emis-
sions per income decreased and emissions per internal area and
staff and student increased.
3.2. Staff and student behaviour
A total of 155 responses were recorded for both staff and student
individuals (students: 85% 18e24 years old, 66% female; staff: 75%
25e54 years old, 58% female). Staff reported spending more time at
university than students, 60% spending 31e40 h there. The re-
sponses were more evenly spread for students, with the majority
(30%) spending 11e20 h at university per week. Staff also reported
using computers for a longer duration each week than students;
81% using them for longer than 20 h per week as opposed to 38% of
students using computers for the same period. Mobile phone and
laptop charging accounted for the majority of personal energy
consumption (Fig. 4).
Simple strategies, such as turning lights off when leaving rooms
and taking the stairs instead of the elevator were reported by re-
spondents to reduce their energy consumption. For student re-
spondents in halls of residence, 35% reported spending >41 h at
their halls. 100% of respondents used a computer or laptop for
longer than five hours per week, with two respondents in particular
exceeding 41 h per week of computer use.
When asked about the UoS's carbon emission target, 40% of staff
and 47% of students knew the correct target for 2020. On whether
this target would actually be met (i.e. yes/no/maybe) there was no
114 O. Robinson et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 106 (2015) 109e118
Fig. 4. Personal energy consumption of staff and students at the UoS; results from the
snapshot questionnaire.
significant difference found between the difference in staff and
student opinions (35% of staff and 40% of students agreed). A Wil-
coxon Rank Sum Test was performed to identify significant differ-
ences between staff and students' views of carbon emissions and
climate change which was found to be not significant; a large
proportion of respondents in both categories held the opinion that
climate change was undeniable and occurring. Environmental is-
sues did not rate very highly for either staff or students when in-
dividuals were asked to rate the greatest issues faced by HE
institutions with institutional funding ranked number one by re-
spondents the most frequently (42% of staff and 33.5% of students).
“Tuition fees”, “student experience” and “standard of scientific
research and teaching” were also among the top rated.
4. Discussion
4.1. Target-setting culture
In recent years, a target-setting culture has become prevalent in
the UK. Whilst this has become a common-place mechanism to
direct change and bring about improvements in organisations
during a specific time period (O'Neil and Drillings, 1994) and is
often seen as a positive first step towards addressing environ-
mental issues, target-setting is not always appropriate. Targets
should not be set in circumstances when e.g. an organisation has
limited ability to affect an outcome, when achieving the target is
not a real priority, when the cost of measurement outweighs the
benefit, or when there are no resources for delivering it. Simply
setting a target does not guarantee that a positive change will occur
(Harris and Crane, 2002); rhetoric is no substitute for real action. It
could be argued from the results in this paper that target-setting in
the UK HE sector is incentivised (through high league table results)
and praised, sometimes to the detriment of realistic activities by
individual HEIs and to the benefit of those who have placed words
before actions.
The publication of CMPs has galvanised the sector to take the
carbon issue seriously; HEIs are considered important facilitators of
change (Sedlacek, 2013), however a danger is that having
unachievable targets, senior managers will lose interest and
support for their hard-pressed energy and environment managers.
In terms of environmental management, high targets often have a
low likelihood of success. A paradox for HEIs that set realistic but
relatively low targets is that they can be penalised in league tables
and lambasted by critics for an apparent lack of ambition when in
fact they may be more likely to succeed in delivering regular, in-
cremental environmental improvements than those who set wildly
unrealistic targets (Lozano, 2006; Velazquez et al., 2006). Setting
high targets for emissions reduction and then not making a realistic
attempt to achieve them should be dismissed as “greenwash3”. It
could be embarrassing for individual HEIs if their approach to
target-setting turns out to be either i) a cynical, short-term strategy
devised to improve upon league table positions in order to e.g.
improve recruitment or ii) simply ill-considered and poorly
thought out.
Our results suggest that many of the targets set by Russell Group
institutions are extremely ambitious and almost certainly
unachievable; compare the University of Warwick's target of 60%
reduction to the UoS's 20% target. We anticipate that it will take a
significant, sustained and concerted effort to achieve a 20%
reduction at the UoS and regard the target as optimistic at current
rates of energy consumption and estate growth. We argue that to
retain credibility, the HEFCE must ensure that institutions which set
realistic, proactive targets are rewarded whilst greenwash is
actively discouraged.
The HEFCE have proactively taken a lead on carbon manage-
ment in the UK HE sector, raising the profile of carbon reduction
and placing it, and ESD in general, firmly on the agenda's of HEIs
across the country (Karatzoglou, 2013). Many institutions have
responded well to instructions so far, as demonstrated by the
publication of CMPs, even if this is as a result of the threat of
penalties. It should be noted that the HEFCE's remit, following the
2010 general election and subsequent changes to tuition fees has
changed since the adoption of carbon targets. From being a HE
regulator and funder, the focus is now on becoming a ‘champion of
the student’. As a result, the future of directly linked funding and
emission reduction is in doubt, with wider connotations for the
sector as a result of limited impetus to meet targets in 2020. Now
there is no ‘stick’ that will drive HEIs towards reduction and so the
‘carrot’ (financial savings etc.) must be prioritised. Once aware of
this, the delivery of targets will most certainly become a lower
priority business activity for senior personnel.
Even though the drivers for carbon management in the HE
sector seem clear, the details in the delivery of this plan are
becoming lost; unrealistic target-setting and environmental rhet-
oric is being rewarded in practice to the detriment of real action and
leadership. This problem could be addressed through the use of
more appropriate KPIs. Further, interim targets should be included
as a requirement of the HEFCE guidelines, which will allow in-
stitutions to identify future difficulties in reaching their target,
allowing early action to be taken.
4.2. Key performance indicators and institutional growth
Targets should be based on appropriate KPIs in order to ensure
fairness across different institutional settings (Weber, 2008) and to
allow comparisons between institutions for the sector to collabo-
rate on future reductions. Significantly, many institutions are
3
Greenwash occurs when an organisation promotes pro-environmental initia-
tives but actually operates in a fashion that may be damaging to the environment or
in an opposite way to the goal of stated initiatives (Banerjee, 2004). It can also
include misleading people about environmental benefits and unsubstantiated
claims.
 O. Robinson et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 106 (2015) 109e118 115

expanding in terms of student and estate size and this is seldom
taken into account. A number of HEIs lacked consideration of their
emissions at the time their targets were set and HEIs that have
posted an emissions increase of more than 1% between 2005 and
2012 are at risk of missing the 2020 target altogether unless drastic
action is taken (HEFCE, 2010b); this is a reality check for 90% of
institutions in this study.
The UoS for example intends to continue to grow; a new Life
Sciences building, opened in 2012 and the redevelopment of the
Boldrewood Campus as a Maritime Centre of Excellence, to be
opened in 2014, are some recent examples of campus expansion
that must be considered when developing an institutional CMP in
order to meet the requirements of the Climate Change Act 2008.
Reducing normalised emissions so far has worked to the benefit
of institutions, with a recent example being financial incentives
from the HEFCE Capital Investment Framework (CIF),4 which sup-
ports one-off expenditures in institutions. This is the same fund
from which institutions would have been penalised if not having
prepared a CMP by 2011 (CIF round one). CIF two has imposed
penalties on four institutions for failing to reduce normalised
emissions (Leeds, LSE, Sheffield and UCL) during this round of
funding.
Internationally, organisations set targets through corporate so-
cial responsibility (CSR) policies using both KPIs and specific,
measurable, attainable, relevant and time-sensitive (SMART) tar-
gets (Doran, 1981). These are meant to be manageable, comparable
and attainable, allowing continuing progress and further targets to
be set. The HEFCE may have created an unintentional barrier to
carbon management as a result of stipulating that targets should be
set on absolute reductions, rather than reductions based on KPIs.
Normalised emissions are useful in order to find out the intensity of
emissions per KPI (Defra, 2009), which is a more practical method
of target-setting due to institutional inertia which masks progress
(Samarasekera, 2009).
demonstrate the importance of electricity usage on carbon emis-
sions, and generate awareness, the UoS undertook the first annual
‘Blackout’ in 2012. This engaged staff and students in a mass-switch
off of all non-essential electrical equipment in order to raise
awareness of the amount of electricity wasted as a result of leaving
equipment switched on unnecessarily. The UoS Blackout in 2012
demonstrated the savings that can be made through changing
behaviour and regularly switching off non-essential equipment.
The switch-off reduced weekend electricity consumption by 6%,
saving 16,000 kWh of electricity and seven tonnes of CO2 as well as
£1600 in electricity cost (Fig. 5) (University of Southampton (2012)).
The second annual Blackout in April 2013 featured 300 students
and two additional campuses.
4.4. Staff and student engagement/awareness
Activities such as the UoS Blackout demonstrate that staff and
student engagement is a very important and effective way to
permanently change the culture of an institution (Barth et al.,
2013). Student societies are an important way to increase engage-
ment across the student population, with national groups such as
Transition and initiatives like Student Switch Off representing fun
and interactive activities that all students can participate in. Stu-
dent Switch Off in particular focusses on students in their halls of
residences; providing incentives for students to reduce their elec-
tricity usage, usually extremely problematic due to electricity being
essential, free and unsupervised. Additionally, when on campus,
staff and students may over-consume electricity for the same
reason; it is “free” and (apparently) inconsequential to do so.
To this end, improving awareness of sustainability issues is
needed to address personal carbon management on the university
premises. Raising awareness on the impacts of electricity usage
should be made more apparent to staff and students alike, in order

4.3. Electricity usage

Electricity usage has the greatest effect on direct emissions at

university institutions and is likely to increase in future as the de-
mand for power increases, which supports findings by Ang (1999)
and Soytas et al. (2007). ICT consumption has rapidly increased
(Acre, 2003; Sadorsky, 2012) with personal ‘gadgets’ now being
ubiquitously used daily. The results here have shown that elec-
tricity usage is a large part of the emission-generating activities of a
university, with 81% of staff and 38% of students at the UoS using a
computer for longer than 20 h per week.
Little consideration is made for institutions with differing
electricity base loads, which is where significant emission re-
ductions can be made whilst being noted that engineering and
sciences-based institutions have higher energy requirements than
humanities-dominated institutions (Klein-Banai and Theis, 2013;
Larsen et al., 2013). Inefficient infrastructure is a major cause
even though simple actions can be taken to address this. For
example, significant savings have been made through the instal-
lation of a swimming pool cover to reduce heat loss and a combined
heat and power (CHP) system to the base load at the UoS. Studies
have shown that in the School of Chemistry, a particularly energy
intensive department, the base load (overnight measurements) can
be as high as 50% of daytime peak electricity usage and so to

4
The Capital Investment Framework was introduced by the HEFCE in 2008 to
foster academic excellence in universities through good quality infrastructure,
equipment and information communication technology (ICT) and has so far allo- Fig. 5. Headline results of the ‘Blackout’ undertaken at the University of Southampton
cated £598 Million in funding for 2011/12e2014/15 (HEFCE, 2012). in 2012. (University of Southampton (2012)).
116 O. Robinson et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 106 (2015) 109e118
for the increased participation of energy efficient activities (i.e.
switching lights off, appliances on standby etc. etc.) (Wilk, 2002;
Savagaeu, 2013). This will also highlight the need to reduce the
charging of peripheral appliances (smart phones etc. etc.). Raising
awareness of the carbon reduction targets by means of advertising,
to promote a community-based involvement is the key to develop a
holistic approach to carbon management (Disterheft et al., 2012),
which are much more likely to be met through a joint bottom-up
approach than a disjointed, expensive top-down strategy (Lozano,
2006; Stephens and Graham, 2010). Increased staff engagement is
also important since the staff population is less transient than the
student population (Saks, 2006), whilst praise and encouragement
is needed for those already undertaking strategies to reduce
emissions, as well as incentives for those currently not undertaking
such activities to alter behaviour.
Increasing awareness and education on the potential impacts of
climate change will also assist in boosting the profile of the envi-
ronment as a major issue affecting HEIs in the 21st century (Fien,
2002); issues that were not rated very highly in the snapshot
questionnaire, although they are generally understood to be mat-
ters that students want to learn about (Drayson et al., 2013). The
removal of individual (increasing individual knowledge) and social
barriers (i.e. distrust among social groups of politicians and climate
change evidence) is seen to improve awareness (Lorenzoni et al.,
2007). Communication must be clear and understandable; other-
wise those targeted will not act on the information and enact a
substantial and everlasting change (Polonsky et al., 2011). Efforts
should be directed to sustained awareness campaigns that force
behaviour through choices staff and students make. The agents of
change should be focussed on in order to produce long-term
change. Staff and student behaviours are complex, with more
interdependent factors than wider sector policy, it still promises to
deliver the biggest gains in terms of actual carbon reductions.
The results here suggest that the majority of staff and students
feel that issues other than environmental matters currently take
priority at the UoS (42% and 33.5% respectively selected institu-
tional funding). Whilst this is understandable, institutions must
ensure that environmental issues do not fall far down the agenda
since future impacts are potentially devastating for the sector as a
whole, the UK and the World. Climate change awareness however,
is particularly positive (100% of respondents had heard of climate
change).
4.5. Measurable is manageable
The activities and funding methods for HE are changing and so
this will inevitably bring greater challenges in the future of carbon
management at HEIs (Barber et al., 2013; HEFCE, 2013). What is
certain however is that the issue of carbon management is
becoming more important, with the HE sector looking to academia
for more answers. Although studies have traditionally focused on
scope 1 and 2 emissions, methods for assessing Scope 3 emissions
urgently need refining and standardizing given they are likely to
the most significant portion of a typical university's carbon foot-
print. The scale of the issues relating to carbon management will
only ever be tackled once the true scale is identified: ‘what is
measurable is manageable’. HEIs must work hard to reduce errors
when quantifying their emissions, at which point reduction can
take place. For this reason, the methods that are currently carried
out to obtain data required for carbon footprinting, as well as the
footprinting methods themselves need adapting in order to
become truly effective and uniformly implemented (Turner et al.,
2012).
Further international collaboration is needed to ensure that HE
carbon management is addressed ubiquitously so that the targets
adopted by the HEFCE are attainable for the entire sector. Whilst it
seems that time is running out for institutions to meet their targets
within a decade, this is still enough time for concerted, collabora-
tive and holistic actions to be taken.
5. Conclusions
Some English HEIs have set very high targets for carbon
reduction, the result of an ambitious sector target set by the HEFCE,
governmental and external pressures. We have demonstrated for
the first time that current carbon management plans are not a good
indicator of future carbon management performance and represent
a clear underestimate of the challenge of carbon emissions reduc-
tion by all institutions, the degree to which has been demonstrated
through a ‘reality check’. This is supported by the trends in insti-
tutional emissions which are fast-growing, not only hindering the
institutions in delivering higher education in the future as they
confront the inevitable environmental costs, but this also stands to
jeopardise the competitiveness of the English HE sector on the
global stage if it is not addressed (Ellis, 2013). This issue is likely to
become exacerbated since there is little evidence of this slowing at
the present.
To this end it certainly remains to be seen if such targets will be
accomplished within the set time frame to 2020. Despite this,
pledged targets are calculated to significantly fall short of the
sector-set targets and represents an issue that must be addressed
before the time for action has passed. The HEFCE and HEIs alike
have made little provision to account for individual institutional
setting in target guidelines and carbon management plans. By
utilizing three KPIs; FTE staff and student numbers, gross internal
area and income, simple comparisons can be made regardless of
institutional size and scope which means the HE sector could better
monitor progress on emissions reduction in the future. These
findings can also benefit the strategies used in carbon management
practices at all organisations, which has fallen victim to a target-
setting culture that has little regard for the semantics of
achieving targets. We have highlighted the disparate nature of
target setting on paper against real-life applications of emission
reduction strategies and it is here that this paper makes significant
contributions to the fields of ESD and carbon management. Un-
derstanding that emission reduction must be achieved without
hindering the business-critical practices of the university makes it
all the more difficult to see how targets will be reached.
Computer usage contributes to a significant proportion of
emissions, and is without question the greatest source of
individually-controlled contributions by staff and students. More
specific factors, such as lecture hall usage, wind tunnel and research
machinery i.e. ‘shared activities’ have not been investigated and
could provide greater understanding of energy use. By reducing
overnight power usage and the electricity base load, it has been
demonstrated that electricity consumption reduction, coupled with
emissions reduction can be achieved in a short timescale. An
increased awareness of staff and students to the impacts of elec-
tricity usage at university is needed in order to achieve a culture
change in HEIs. Furthermore, greater engagement will act to
completely change the way HE is delivered in the future.
The implications of these findings can have contributions to
institutions across Europe and the world as HE carbon management
is a pressing issue for leaders in HEIs globally. It is also vital to
maintain dialogue on the strategy of institutional carbon manage-
ment so that complacency is avoided and continual improvement is
fostered. It is here that this paper makes a significant contribution
to the field of carbon management. Understanding the role that
staff and students have in carbon management is important, but
further than this; institutions should take lessons from the carbon-
 O. Robinson et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 106 (2015) 109e118
management-through-target-setting culture that is prevalent in
the UK. Contextualising the UK's HE sector on a global setting
would be valuable in identifying it as a leader or a laggard in
institutional carbon management and although this study has
focussed on the English Russell Group as a sample of the English HE
sector, it would be pertinent to extend this to encompass all in-
stitutions in England for which data is available. A non-Russell
Group sample could be tested in order to verify if trends outlined
in this paper are ubiquitous through HE in England.
An important consideration for institutions in the near future
are scope 3 emissions, which are soon to become an integral part of
the HEFCE target (institutions able to report these emissions in the
2013/14 EMS data). Institutions will need to prepare for any targets
that develop to control these emissions and even though they
prove difficult to quantify and assign, they represent the greatest
source of emissions reduction due to their large proportion of an
organisational carbon footprint (Ranganathan et al., 2004).
Highlighting transport, this looks to be a future important scope
3 source that can be investigated, as this currently accounts for 24%
of the UK's overall carbon emissions (Department for Transport,
2009); addressing the issues of calculating the emissions associ-
ated with scope 3 emissions, particularly transport, will be a
pertinent extension of this paper. Transport emissions can also be
simply addressed through improved local public transport schemes
which are more efficient than personal transportation (Hoornweg
et al., 2011).
References
Anderson, R., 2009. The idea of a university. In: Withers, K. (Ed.), First Class?
Challenges and Opportunities for the UK's University Sector. Institute for Public
Policy Research, London. Ch. 3.
Ang, B., 1999. Is the energy intensity a less useful indicator than the carbon factor in
the study of climate change? Energy Policy 27 (15), 943e946.
Acre, I., 2003. The rise of the gadgets. Security and Privacy. Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng.
1 (5), 78e81.
Banerjee, S., 2004. Teaching sustainability: a critical perspective. In: Galea, C. (Ed.),
Teaching Business Sustainability: from Theory to Practise. Greenleaf Publishing,
Sheffield. Ch. 2.
Barber, M., Donnelly, K., Rizvi, S., 2013. An Avalanche Is Coming: Higher Education
and the Revolution Ahead. Institute for Public Policy Research, London.
Barth, M., Adomßent, M., Fischer, D., Richter, S., Rieckmann, M., 2013. Learning to
change universities from within: a service-learning perspective on
promoting sustainable consumption in higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 62 (1),
72e81.
Bastianoni, S., Pulselli, F.M., Tiezzi, E., 2004. The problem of assigning responsibility
for greenhouse gas emissions. Ecol. Econ. 49 (3), 253e257.
Collini, S., 2012. What are Universities for? Penguin, London.
Collins, M., An, S., Cai, W., Ganachaud, A., Guilyardi, A., Jin, F., Jochum, M.,
Lengaigne, M., Power, S., Timmermann, A., Vecchi, G., Wittenberg, A., 2010. The
impact of global warming on the tropical pacific ocean and El Nin ~ o. Nat. Geosci.
3 (6), 391e397.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2006. Environmental Key
Performance Indicators. Reporting Guidelines for UK Business. DEFRA, London.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2009. Guidance on How to
Measure and Report Your Greenhouse Gas Emissions. DEFRA.
Department for Transport, 2009. Transport Trends 2009 Edition. Department for
Transport, London.
Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S., Ramos, M., Azeiteiro, U., 2012. Environmental Management
Systems (EMS) implementation processes and practices in European higher
education institutions e top-dwon versus participatory approaches. J. Clean.
Prod. 31 (1), 80e90.
Doran, G., 1981. There's a S.M.A.R.T way to write management’s goals and objec-
tives. Manag. Rev. 70 (11), 35e36.
Drayson, R., Bone, E., Agombar, J., Kemp, S., 2013. Student Attitudes towards and
Skills for Sustainable Development [Online] Available at: http://www.
heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/sustainability/ESD_student_attitudes_
2013_v4.pdf (accessed 26.01.14.).
Ellerman, A., Joskow, P., 2008. The European Union's Emission Trading System in
Perspective. Pew Centre on Global Climate Change, Arlington.
Ellis, K., 2013. Low Carbon Competitiveness: Analyzing Opportunities and Threats
for Low-income Countries and the Business Case for Low Carbon Investment.
Overseas Development Institute, London.
Fien, J., 2002. Advancing sustainability in higher education: issues and opportu-
nities for research. High. Educ. Policy 15 (2), 143e152.
117
Harris, L., Crane, A., 2002. The greening of organizational culture: management
views on the depth, degree and diffusion of change. J. Organ. Change Manag. 15
(3), 214e234.
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2010a. Carbon Manage-
ment Strategies and Plans: a Guide to Good Practice. HEFCE, Bristol.
Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2010b. Carbon Reduction Target and
Strategy Higher Education in England. HEFCE, Bristol.
Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2012. Capital Funding [Online]
Available at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/invest/funds/capital (accessed
01.07.13.).
Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2013. Sustainable Development in
Higher Education. HEFCE, Bristol.
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), 2010. Estates Management Statistics
Tables [Online] Available at: http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/component/
option,com_datatabl es/Itemid,121/task,show_category/catdex,4/ (accessed
15.12.11.).
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), 2012. Latest 2011/12 Staff Statistics
[Online] Available at: http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option¼com_
content&task¼view&id¼1 898&Itemid¼239 (accessed 01.03.13.).
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), 2014. Southampton 2011/12 Staff Sta-
tistics [Online] Available at: http://www.hesa.ac.uk/ [Headline Statistics by
Institution table] (accessed 26.01.14.).
Hoffman, A., Parry, J., Cuambe, C., Kwesha, D., Zhakata, W., 2009. Climate change
and wildfires in Mozambique. In: Cochrane, M. (Ed.), Tropical Fire Ecology.
Springer, Berlin. Ch. 8.
Hoornweg, D., Sugar, L., Go  mez, C., 2011. Cities and greenhouse gas emissions:
moving forward. Environ. Urban. 23 (1), 207e227.
IPCC, 2007. Summary for policymakers. In: Solomon, S., et al. (Eds.), Climate Change
2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Kahn, M., Kotchel, M., 2010. Business cycle effects on concern about climate change:
the chilling effect of recession. Clim. Change Econ. 2 (3), 257e273.
Karatzoglou, B., 2013. An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and
contributions of universities to education for sustainable development. J. Clean.
Prod. 49 (1), 44e53.
Klein-Banai, C., Theis, T., 2013. Quantitative analysis of factors affecting greenhouse
gas emissions at institutions of higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 48 (1), 29e38.
Larsen, H., Pettersen, J., Solli, C., Hertwich, E., 2013. Investigating the carbon foot-
print of a university e the case of NTNU. J. Clean. Prod. 48 (1), 39e47.
Lee, K., 2011. Integrating carbon footprint into supply chain management: the case
of Hyundai Motor Company (HMC) in the automobile industry. J. Clean. Prod. 19
(11), 1216e1223.
Lipsett, A., 2009. Anxious Wait. The Guardian. Jan 20.
Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., Whitmarsh, L., 2007. Barriers perceived to engaging
with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob.
Environ. Change 17 (3e4), 445e459.
Lozano, R., 2006. Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities:
breaking through barriers to change. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (1), 787e796.
Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F., Huisingh, D., Lambrechts, W., 2013a. Declarations
for sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through
addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 48 (1), 3e9.
Lozano, R., Lozano, F., Mulder, K., Huisingh, D., Waas, T., 2013b. Editorial: advancing
higher education for sustainable development: international insights and crit-
ical reflections. J. Clean. Prod. 48 (1), 3e9.
O'Neil, H., Drilliings, M., 1994. Motivation: Theory and Research. Routledge, London.
Oppenheim, A.N., 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Mea-
surement. Pinter Publications, London.
Ozawa-Meida, L., Brockway, P., Letten, K., Davies, J., Fleming, P., 2013. Measuring
carbon performance in a UK University through a consumption-based carbon
footprint: De Montfort University case study. J. Clean. Prod. 56 (1), 185e198.
Peters, G., 2010. Carbon footprints and embodied carbon at multiple scales. Curr.
Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2 (4), 245e250.
Pino, S., Levinson, R., Larsen, J., 2006. Hot Climate, Cool Commerce: a Services Sector
Guide to Greenhouse Gas Management. World Resources Institute, Washington
DC.
Polonsky, M., Garma, R., Grau, S., 2011. Western consumers’ understanding of car-
bon offsets and its relationship to behaviour. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 23 (5),
583e603.
Ranganathan, J., Corbier, L., Bhatia, P., Schmitz, S., Gage, P., Oren, K., 2004. The
Greenhouse Gas Protocol: a Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard
(revised edition). World Business Council for Sustainable Development and
World Resources Institute, Geneva, Switzerland.
Reidy, C., Daly, J., 2010. Targeting a low-carbon university: a greenhouse gas
reduction target for the Australian technology network of universities. In:
Filho, W. (Ed.), Climate Change Management. Springer, Berlin. Ch. 12.
Riddell, W., Bhatia, K., Parisi, M., Foote, J., Imperatore, J., 2009. Assessing carbon
dioxide emissions from energy use at a university. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 10
(3), 266e278.
Russell Group, 2011. The Economic Impact of Russell Group Universities. Russell
Group, Cambridge.
Sadorsky, P., 2012. Information communication technology and electricity con-
sumption in emerging economies. Energ. Policy 48 (1), 130e136.
Samarasekera, I., 2009. Universities need a new social contract. Nature 462 (7270),
160e161.
118 O. Robinson et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 106 (2015) 109e118
Saks, A., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Manag.
Psychol. 21 (7), 600e619.
Savagaeu, A., 2013. Let's get personal: making sustainability tangible for student.
Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 14 (1), 15e24.
Sedlacek, S., 2013. The role of universities in fostering sustainable development at
the regional level. J. Clean. Prod. 48 (1), 74e78.
Soytas, U., Sari, R., Ewing, B., 2007. Energy consumption, income and carbon
emissions in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 62 (3e4), 482e489.
Steffen, A., 2011. Worldchanging: a User's Guide for the 21st Century. Abrams, New
York.
Stephens, J., Graham, A., 2010. Toward an empirical research agenda for sustain-
ability in higher education: exploring the transition management framework.
J. Clean. Prod. 18 (1), 611e618.
Turner, D., Williams, I., Kemp, S., Wright, L., Coello, J., McMurtry, E., 2012. Towards
standardization in GHG quantification and reporting. Carbon Manag. 3 (3),
223e225.
Universities UK, 2013. UUK Members [Online] Available at: http://www.
universitiesuk.ac.uk/aboutus/members/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 10.02.13.).
University of Cambridge, 2010. Carbon Management Plan 2010e2020. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
University of Southampton, 2012. Southampton blackout Headline Results. Uni-
versity of Southampton, Southampton.
Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Platt, A., Taddei, J., 2006. Sustainable university: what
can be the matter? J. Clean. Prod. 14 (1), 810e819.
Waas, T., Verbruggen, A., Wright, T., 2010. University research for sustainable
development: definition and characteristics explored. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (1),
629e636.
Ward, I., Ogbonna, A., Altan, H., 2008. Sector review of UK higher education energy
consumption. Energy Policy 36 (8), 2939e2949.
Weber, M., 2008. The business case for corporate social responsibility: a company-
level measurement approach for CSR. Eur. Manag. J. 26 (4), 247e261.
Wilk, R., 2002. Consumption, human needs and global environmental change. Glob.
Environ. Change 12 (1), 5e13.
Williams, R., June 2011. Emissions rise at UK universities puts 2020 targets in doubt.
The Guardian 7.
Williams, I., Coello, J., Kemp, S., McMurtry, E., Turner, D., Wright, L., 2012. The role of
business and industry in climate management after Durban. Carbon Manag. 3
(5), 431e433.
Williams, I., Kemp, S., 2013. The importance of education to carbon management.
Carbon Manag. 4 (2), 107e109.
Williams, I., Ongondo, F., 2011. Greening academia: use and disposal of mobile
phones among university students. Waste Manag. 31 (7), 1617e1634.
Wright, L., Kemp, S., Williams, I., 2011. ‘Carbon Footprinting’; towards a universally
accepted definition. Carbon Manag. 2 (1), 61e72.