Why are universities implementing EMS

EMS – a Way towards SD in Universities

phenomenon. Those interviewed were asked not to discuss the content of the interviews with their colleagues. This was done in order for everyone interviewed to meet the questions with the same preconditions.

Other relevant data from the case companies were received by studying documents including organisation charts, initial environmental reviews and reports, business information and financial reports, as well as doing observations and having informal discussions during the visits. There was also an opportunity to attend an environmental training for management, an environmental pre-audit and a certification audit in one of the companies, and the presentation of an initial environmental review in another company.

The reliability of the study was gained through the audit trail. That is, by ensuring, to the greatest possible extent, that the findings reflect an authentic understanding of people’s experiences of the inquiry itself, rather than being the product of bias and prejudice on the part of the researcher. The fact that someone could make another interpretation of the material does not necessarily disqualify the first interpretation, as long as it is based on the same material.

Kaisu Sammalisto, IIIEE, Lund University

42

1998, 1999, 2000, 2001c, 2001d, 2002)⁶ was conducted in order to find answers to this research question. In particular, data were gathered and systematised concerning the driving forces and barriers for the implementation of EMS, as reported in the annual environmental management reports from 1999 and 2000. In these years universities were requested to report to the ministry on these issues specifically. Ten out of 13 universities in 1999, and 18 out of 24 universities in 2000 reported on the driving forces and barriers for their EMS work.

In addition, a survey was conducted in March 2003 with 17 university-based environmental coordinators regarding the possible changes in the driving forces and barriers that they had experienced since 1999 and 2000. All 17 environmental coordinators were approached during a conference organised by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. All coordinators participated and returned the questionnaire. However, one of the respondents represented a campus, which is only part of a university.

Another filled out the form, but in an incomplete manner. These two questionnaires were excluded, leaving 15 complete forms of data for the study. Since the answers concerning the strength of the drivers and barriers were few and in some of the answers the drivers and barriers were placed in order of importance, this question was omitted from the study. The survey questions are presented in Appendix A.

The 17 environmental coordinators represented both Sweden’s larger, as well as the smaller universities. Similarly, the universities represented those that offer broad studies, as well as universities with a higher degree of specialisation. Based on the author’s knowledge of the situation of environmental work undertaken at the Swedish universities, the 15 universities represented in the questionnaires returned are likely to be a typical sample of the Swedish universities at that time. Included are both universities with a well-known and active environmental emphasis in their work, as well as universities, in which the level of activity is known to be quite limited. The universities that are not represented are judged to be of largely of a similar mix, regarding concerns related to their EMS work.

6 The first EMS Directives included also guidelines for reporting. Starting 2001 separate guidelines for reporting have been issued. A general guide for the work with the EMS work in public agencies was published (Ministry of Environment, 2003). The annual environmental reports for the universities were sent to the Ministry of Education in connection to, but not included in, the annual reports of the universities. Copies can be obtained from the Ministry.

EMS – a Way towards SD in Universities

Table 4-2. Annual reports reviewed and survey respondents (2003 and 2006)

Submitted annual

report Survey

University ^Directive

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2003 2006

Lund University 1997 1 1 1 1 1 1

Stockholm University* 1997 1 1 1 1 1

Göteborg University 1998 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Umeå University 1998 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Linköping University* 1998 1 1 1 1 1

Royal Institute of Technology 1998 1 1 1 1 1

Mid Sweden University* 1998 1 1 1 1

Mälardalen University 1998 1 1 1 1 1 1

University of Gävle 1998 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Uppsala University 1999 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Karolinska Institutet 1999 1 1 1 1 1

Karlstad University 1999 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Växjö University 1999 1 1 1 1 1

Örebro University 1999 1 1 1 1 1 1

Kalmar University 1999 1 1 1 1 1

University of Borås 1999 1 1 1 1 1 1

Halmstad University 1999 1 1 1 1

Kristianstad University 1999 1 1 1 1 1

University of Skövde 1999 1 1 1 1 1

Malmö University 2000 1 1 1 1

Gotland University 2000 1 1 1 1 1 1

University West in Sweden 2000 1 1 1 1

Stockholm Institute of Education 2000 1 1 1 1

Södertörn University 2000 1 1 1 1

Luleå University of Technology 2001 1 1 1 1

Blekinge Institute of Technology 2001 1 1 1

Dalarna University 2001 1 1 1

Stockholm University of Physical Ed. & Sports 2001 1 1 1 1

University College of Dance 2001

University College of Film, Radio, TV & Theatre 2001 1 University of Arts, Crafts and Design 2001 1 1 1

Royal University of Fine Arts 2001 1 1

Royal University of Music in Stockholm 2001 1 1 1 1

University of Opera 2001 1 1 1 1

University of Acting in Stockholm 2001 1 1 1

13 24 29 32 32 15 15

Chalmers private 1 1

Jönköping University private 1

Note: The universities are listed with their present names. Three universities (marked with *) submitted their environmental management reports for year 2000 a year late in 2002.

Kaisu Sammalisto, IIIEE, Lund University

44

The data was then compiled in a database, coded manually and analysed to provide a more comprehensive picture. Coding was done individually by two researchers and could be agreed upon without significant discrepancies.

Comparing data from the annual reports for 1999-2000 and 2003 from the universities, along with the survey from the 17 university-based environmental coordinators provided a longitudinal study of the driving forces and barriers.

The longitudinal study was completed from a survey conducted for the environmental coordinators/managers of 38 Swedish universities (35 public and 3 private) in October 2006. A reminder, to improve follow-up, was sent a week later. This survey followed the amendment of the Swedish Higher Education Act in February 2006, to include sustainable development in the work of institutions of higher education. A set of specific questions in this survey focussed on the drivers and barriers for education and research for sustainable development. After questions regarding existing or lacking support, open questions were also conducted as to what the Ministry of Education and also the specific university could do to support the aim to achieve with sustainable development within higher education. The survey questions are attached in Appendix B.

Replies were received from 17 of the universities (45%). These universities represented a similar mix of universities, as in the survey in 2003. The contacts with the two private universities included in the survey, indicate that their way to work with EMS and ESD does not deviate from the public universities, even though they were not included in the Government Directives. Some of the smaller universities did not have an environmental coordinator at the time, a fact which may explain the lower rate of response.

The answers were compiled in a database. Yes/No replies were analysed quantitatively to provide statistical representations. The qualitative open answers were analysed to provide a richer picture as to the situation at the corresponding universities. In the final analysis, the results of the previous studies and information from colleagues within the same study field were also utilized to provide an additional contribution to the discussion.

The main focus regarding the work of the environmental coordinators and managers has, so far, been the environmental dimension of sustainable development. Less effort was spent on the social, cultural and economic dimensions of sustainability. However, it was known at the time that many of them could also be expected increase their work related to the wider

EMS – a Way towards SD in Universities

concept of sustainable development. They were assumed to have the best insight regarding the work with EMS and its connection to education for sustainable development (ESD) based on their large networks at their universities. Consequently, they were chosen as respondents for the survey.

The answers to the October 2006 survey came predominantly from those environmental coordinators/managers, known to the author to be amongst the most engaged in environmental work at Swedish universities. However, they do not always represent the universities with the most active work.

Instead, the author’s evaluation, based on knowledge of the work at various Swedish universities, rather implies that the answers came from universities largely typical for their group as outlined above (larger and smaller universities, state/private and universities of creative arts).

The results of the first studies, up to 2003, concern the question of why universities work with EMS. The results are found, in more detail, in Papers I and II, attached to this thesis. Paper V, also attached, includes the results from the study conducted in 2006.