انتخاب یک سیستم مدیریت زیست محیطی مناسب دانشگاه یا کالج

Universities considering integrating an environmental management system (EMS) have numerous decisions to consider. Should they pursue a formal certified model or an informal uncertified one? If informal is appropriate, which framework best meets their needs? Which environmental interactions are most important to manage? Are there any other sector-specific considerations? This article discusses six different campus EMS frameworks, three different categories of drivers, and the six unique features of a campus EMS, and offers suggestions on when each framework is best applied. The frameworks considered are from: ISO 14001; Higher Education 21 (UK); the EMS Self-Assessment Checklist (USA); the Auditing Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education (Netherlands); the Osnabrück University model (Germany) and the Sustainable University model (Mexico). This article also draws upon the empirical experiences of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada.

There has been a growing movement to implement environmental management systems (EMS) in order to systematically facilitate environmental and sustainability change [1], [2] and [3]. An EMS is a part of an organization's overall management system. It includes the organization structure, planning activities, responsibilities, practices, processes, and resources for implementing and maintaining the EMS [4]. The implementation and details of this system vary depending on the sector [5]. Higher education institutions have started to implement EMS, and the approaches used vary considerably from formal certified models to informal uncertified ones. They also vary in which environmental interactions are managed, ranging from direct operations risks to indirect research and education benefits. This article considers three different categories of drivers, six different frameworks, and the unique features of a campus EMS. This synthesis of academic literature, selected practitioner tools, and one empirical case leads to suggestions for practitioners on which framework best meets their higher education institution's needs. In essence, the article argues that universities and colleges require a sector-specific EMS framework that includes both direct and indirect environmental interactions, but the model and choice of environmental interactions (aspects) depend on the type drivers at their particular institution. 1.1. Campus environmental management system literature There is an ongoing debate in the campus environmental management system literature about the utility of the ISO 14001 certification and model for higher education systems. Some authors have argued that the ISO 14001 model for environmental management systems (EMSs) is ideally suited for any organization, including higher education institutions [3], [6] and [7]. Other authors have argued that a unique university EMS model is required [8] and [9]. In practice, while there are universities that have found benefit in obtaining formal certification for their EMS [7], [10] and [11], most are pursuing informal (no intention of seeking certification) EMS models [1], [3] and [12] with varying levels of structure [2], [13], [14] and [15]. Most of these informal EMS are based on ISO 14001, EMAS or BS 7750 guidelines [16] and [17], but others use a different model all together [18] and [19]. In almost all cases, the formal EMS is only being used to manage direct impacts from operations. The exceptions to this are the examples from Sweden [10], [11] and [15], which include indirect environmental interactions, such as teaching and research, in their formal EMS certification.1 These indirect interactions are some of the largest environmental impacts a university has [11] and are a result of the three missions of a higher education institution of teaching, research and service [20], [21], [22] and [23]. To ensure the coverage of these indirect interactions, some countries, such as the Netherlands, utilize a complementary tool like the Auditing Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education (AISHE) [18]. In other countries, tools have been created for both direct and indirect aspects combined, such as the Campus Sustainability Assessment Framework [19] in Canada, yet these tools are not linked to a formal EMS. This article provides a synthesis of selected frameworks to enable a practitioner to consider their options. 1.2. Methodology The majority of this article is based on further consideration and comparison of existing literature that discusses both formal and informal campus environmental management systems; the drivers, models, aspects, and roles and responsibilities. The six frameworks were selected based on: 1) available information; 2) demonstration of having been used by a higher education institution or designed for a campuses; 3) campus-wide (as opposed to one department or unit); 4) inclusion of content relevant to the complete EMS cycle (as opposed to only the assessment phase); and 5) an actual framework or model (as opposed to a case study with no framework presented). The existing literature is supplemented with a case study from Dalhousie University; a medium size university of 15,500 students with undergraduate, graduate and professional programs which is located in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Dalhousie University adopted an environmental policy in 1990, which includes content on operations, education and research in the one policy. They also signed the Halifax Declaration in 1991, the Talliores Declaration in 1999, and the United Nations Declaration for Cleaner Production in 2000. The University's Senate Environment Committee has more recently drafted an updated environmental policy and a complementary implementation plan which also includes content related to operations, education, research and finance in one policy [24]. The university has implemented many initiatives related to the original 1990 policy over the years, especially in the areas of solid waste, hazardous waste, toxins, air quality, energy conservation, and environmental education [12]. The existing documentation of the informal EMS at Dalhousie University makes it an excellent case study for a campus environmental management system. Archival research was complemented with 13 interviews which were conducted with senior administrators, senators, and board members.

The literature review provided in this article synthesizes campus EMS articles and practitioner documents, and succinctly presents three categories of drivers, six campus EMS models, and six unique features of a campus-specific EMS. The sector has specific drivers, decision-making structures, declarations, environmental interactions, roles and responsibilities, EMS documentation, and environmental audits. The debate on the best model for a campus EMS must take these unique features and needs into account. This article contributes to the literature on drivers by integrating the three generation theoretical framework on drivers [5]. This framework explains the wide range of drivers found in the literature, demonstrating that they can develop through time from cost and compliance in the first generation, move to stakeholder management, total quality management and pollution prevention in the second generation, and ultimately transition into a third generation encompassing stakeholder partnerships, sustainable development and life-cycle management. Drivers for initiating a campus EMS often reflect the broader mandate of the institution to provide service, teaching and research. Indirect environmental impacts are a highly dynamic component of the environmental interactions at a university, particularly in the investment, procurement, teaching, learning, and research activities of the school. An EMS must be flexible enough to gauge the potential of these activities to achieve significant environmental change, not only in reducing risk and impact, but also in creating concrete environmental benefits. The drivers behind why an institution adopts an EMS affect which campus EMS model is most appropriate. This article discusses six EMS frameworks; specifically ISO 14001; the Higher Education 21 (UK); the EMS Self-Assessment Checklist (USA); the Auditing Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education (Netherlands); the Osnabrück University model (Germany) and the Sustainable University model (Mexico). Of these, ISO 14001 and the Osnabrück University model are best suited to first generation drivers and direct environmental impacts of operations, while AISHE and the Sustainable University model would not be appropriate for an EMS solely focused on risk reduction measures. The EMS Self-Assessment Checklist, and the Higher Education 21 are specifically designed for second generation drivers focused on internal direct and indirect environmental interactions. ISO 14001 can also accommodate second generation drivers, and AISHE and the Sustainable University model could be used for this purpose. For third generation drivers, only AISHE and the Sustainable University models have been designed to incorporate external stakeholder partnerships and regional sustainable development. In general, certified EMS does not result in greater improvements in environmental performance as compared to uncertified ones, and the average cost (including direct, indirect, and labor costs) is $64,000 [8]. Only ISO 14001 was designed as a formal, certifiable EMS. Osnabrück University model was designed to be compatible with EMAS. Generally the certified EMS is compatible with first generation drivers, though the Swedish examples have proven that it can be extended to include indirect interactions such as education and research. 5.1. Key features of a campus EMS • Involves a continual improvement cycle that includes emergent plans, unrealized plans, best practices feeding into the review, and interactions between planning and implementation; this was demonstrated in Fig. 1 of this article. • Can be used for all three generations of campus environmental management as was demonstrated by the diversity of drivers and shown in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 and the discussion on different EMS frameworks. • Requires a structure that matches the decision-making structures. This raises questions on the best placement of the environmental office and officer; should it be aligned with the operations side of the university or the academic side? • Requires policies that match the decision-making structures. This raises questions on the environmental interactions to be included in the environmental policy and if there should be one overarching policy or separate strategies for operations, education, research, and community. Declarations are also used as a complement to a university policy. • Requires specific roles and responsibilities; in particular this article discussed the roles of the environmental officer, departmental contacts, audit team, and multi-stakeholder committee; and offered an example of Dalhousie's lead and support roles (in Table 5). • Prefers less EMS documentation, and a sector-specific environmental assessment. Herremans and Allwright [14] have also commented on what makes a successful campus EMS. Through their survey, they concluded that the necessary pieces include guiding principles, reporting to the Board, full-time staff, commitment, communication, defining authority, environmental audits, and capability in the form of people, information, finances and equipment [14]. In conclusion, there are a range of relevant EMS frameworks, many of which are specifically tailored to the university's needs. In a recent Journal of Cleaner Production article [8], the authors concluded that there are only two EMS models in the literature that have been proposed specifically for universities, although several guides are available; the ISO 14001 and the Osnabrück University model. This article expands the literature on campus EMS models by considering six different frameworks and even then does not consider at least two more; the EMAS@School (European) [35] and [58] and the Sierra Youth Coalition guides (Canada) [19], [53], [59] and [60]. The field is rich but there is work yet to be done, including a variety of new research areas identified in the following section. 5.2. Reflections on future research As schools worldwide continue to reduce their environmental footprint and develop new tools, the study of environmental management systems within the university and college context is similar to chasing a moving target, with much innovative work still to be pursued. Based on the literature review conducted for this paper, potential future research includes: • Further cross-country comparisons are necessary as current articles on campus EMS are either regional [14], treat one country at a time, such as USA [13], Canada [28], Sweden [2] and [15], Australia [17], or they focus on specific universities. The one international study [31], while very informative, had only 80 higher education institutions involved, as compared to the USA survey [13] which had 273 respondents. • While recent literature has explored campus assessment tools [55] and [61], there is a lack of research exploring the links between campus auditing systems and EMS. • More research is also needed on the empirically found implications of different structures and processes for a campus EMS, including the related roles and responsibilities. The number and timing of policies is a potential variable, alongside the number and variety of implementation plans. Are universities that use multiple policies and plans more successful in implementation than those that use one? Another potential research thread is the implication of the placement of the EMS office in the administrative structure; whether in facilities management, health and safety, an academic office, the student union, or located independently. • More research is needed on the difference between a sustainability management system (SMS) and an environmental management system. At least in Canada, there is a recent trend towards SMS [52]. There are many potential questions in this area. In conclusion, universities and colleges have unique features which require distinct approaches to integrating an EMS, and selecting the appropriate model depends on the campus-specific drivers.