Going green: the impact on higher education institutions.

Santos, Annette Taijeron

INTRODUCTION

Across higher education, campuses are littered with utterances of green, eco-friendly, climate neutral, eco-chic lingos. The eco-lingo is a result of green trends overtaking campuses around the nation and the globe. In October 2006, presidents and chancellors of American col-leges and universities laid the groundwork for the President's Climate Commitment. This framework provided the structure and support for America's colleges and universities to go cli-mate neutral. The ultimate goal is to generate a broad, continuous, higher education effort on climate change with at least 1,000 participating institutions by December 2009. As of January 29, 2009, the American Association of College and University Presidents website showed a total of 607 signatories, a little over half of their target membership. The increasing number of universities and colleges yielding to the growing pressures to "go green" pauses one to question how universities and colleges are "greening" their institutions and what best practices exist to make this endeavor a sustainable one. In reviewing the activities of universities and colleges on various green lists as well as institutions with membership in various green groups, there is evidence of campus greening in regards to facilities and dorms, recycling and energy conservation, changes to the curriculum, yet much more attention must be paid to whether such green practices can be sustained and do such practices yield a competitive advantage.

This article develops a strategic perspective in regards to the pursuit of sustainable value by first exploring existing strategic models of performance, then identifying some potential chal-lenges associated with pursuing green initiatives in higher education, and finally proposing a model of performance to evaluate the organization's strategies and its capacity to transform the stated challenges into initiatives to increase shareholder value for the next generation of eco-chic students and other members of a campus community.

STRATEGIC MODELS OF PERFORMANCE

Strategic performance models were developed for managing organizational performance. There are a number of performance models that have been developed to assist organizations in achieving optimal performance. Across the board, performance models consist of activities such as developing goals, monitoring progress toward goal attainment, feedback activities to enhance continuous improvement or determine the need for adjustment of goals and performance objec-tives. Performance management systems are closely associated with determining compensation but its more effective use is as a system of accountability and a driver of organizational change (Howard, 1994). In reviewing the different models discussed in the strategic management litera-ture review, the models to be explored in this article were narrowed down to systems alignment (Labovitz and Rosansky, 1997; Howard, 1994), dashboard performance reporting (Kaplan and Norton, 1992; Hart and Milstein, 2003), and business process reengineering (Hammer and Champy, 1993). These models were selected based on their relevance to organizational change as well as its focus on organizational alignment to gauge performance. Alignment is key to a firm's ability to achieve optimal performance. H. Igor Ansoffs strategic success paradigm states that an organization's performance potential is optimum when there is alignment among the firm's level of strategy aggressiveness, its level of capability responsiveness, and the level of en-vironmental turbulence (Ansoff and McDonnell, 1990). Labovitz and Rosansky (1997) identify the key elements of their alignment model to include strategy, customer, people, and process. Alignment among these key elements ensures that the organization stays on course through the development and use of a systematic review process that measures and monitors results. These models also provide a starting point for a change management framework that focuses on the three basic strategic questions confronting organizations: What is our current situation? Where do we want to go? and How do we get there? These will be important questions higher education institutions will have to address as they begin developing a plan to implement their green initia-tives.

The systems alignment approach promotes the idea that if an organization is aligned, it has greater potential to compete through a well-connected structure. In most organizations, this begins with the organization's mission, vision, and values. Once the organization lays out its mission and vision, identifying its critical success factors follows. This initial process of align-ment leads to the development of a strong organizational culture of shared purpose. Culture is the link between strategy and performance outcomes and different culture styles are better suited to different strategic directions (Ghobadian and O'Regan, 2002). The degree of alignment achieved is dependent upon the following primary domains: communications, accountability, skills, and rewards (Howard, 1994). Realigning culture is necessary for organizations if they are to remain competitive. This requires changing the behavior of employees and overcoming potential resis-tance to change. Strong reasons to change are typically communicated through the organization's mission, vision, critical success factors, and values. Byham (1993) offered a dial of cumulative energy sources ranging from no involvement to low involvement to involvement to high in-volvement/empowerment. He relates the degree of involvement to the level of empowerment energy. It is possible that leaders in organizations may use all four levels of energy at different times depending on the situation and people involved.

This systems alignment model provides the framework for initiating change and is an ap-propriate area for leaders in higher education intuitions to revisit its mission statement for fit with green initiatives. If an institution of higher learning wishes to remain competitive, it must adjust its mission to fit with the forces of change in its external environment. Going green may require that universities and colleges conform to the eco-pressures and embrace the possibility of changing old paradigms of faculty hiring, learning environments, course delivery, business processes and curriculum offerings. Institutions of higher learning may consider adopting new modes of technology to attract professors from different locations around the globe without hav-ing to physically relocate them to their campuses. Technology will provide opportunities for vir-tual engagement by offering more online courses, podcasting lectures or speeches, promoting attendance at virtual conferences, and perhaps partnering with other institutions for collaborative learning. Business processes will no longer require printouts of financial statements, payroll sheets, or paychecks. The opportunity to conduct such processes virtually will reduce paper usage. Students from around the globe would be able to register and attend classes through vir-tual access. Typical course distributions such as course syllabi, handouts, and tests could be pro-vided electronically. With the growing availability of social networks, students will have the op-portunity to engage in meetings and discussions outside of the virtual classroom expanding the span of one's social network. With growing attention placed on the natural environment, changes to course curriculum may reflect an integration of ecology or environmentalism into traditional programs such as business administration or urban studies. To remain competitive, institutions of higher learning must develop a vision that would position them for future optimal performance. This would begin with identifying critical success factors that would put them in the forefront of institutional leadership. Factors such as student success, virtual leadership, diverse learning mod-els, resources, and technology, opportunities for collaboration, innovative, model of financial stability or sustainability, linking technology to customer need are some potential success factors higher education campuses may identify a key to success. Critical success factors like these should provide the influence to achieve the organization's desired future state. Once the organi-zation has developed alignment among its mission, vision, and critical success factors if can begin developing a model to measure performance.

Dashboard performance reporting is about communicating data quickly through the use of visual attributes similar to a car or airplane dashboard. The balanced scorecard made famous by Kaplan and Norton (1992) was originally developed as a simple dashboard measurement of organizational performance. The scorecard focuses on four key perspectives that include the cus-tomer, internal processes, financials, and learning and growth to monitor an organization's progress towards attainment of its strategic goals. The organization develops its own scorecard, identifying objectives, measures, targets, and initiatives that would support achievement of its strategies. Today, the balanced scorecard is regarded as a strategic management system that in-corporates strategies and measurements that enable top managers to truly execute their strategies. Hart and Milstein (2003) developed a sustainable value framework that integrates the drivers of sustainability (Christensen, 1998) with dimensions of shareholder value. The drivers of sustaina-bility relate to increasing trends of industrialization and accompanying material consumption, proliferation and interconnection of civil society stakeholders, emerging technologies that may provide potent, disruptive solutions that could render the basis of many of today's energy- and material-intensive industries obsolete, and increases in population, poverty, and inequity asso-ciated with globalization. The sustainability value framework accounts for pressures organizations experience to realize short-term results while simultaneously generating expectations for future growth. In Hart and Milstein's framework each driver of sustainability and its associated business strategies and practices corresponds to a particular dimension of shareholder value. Shareholder value consists of the following dimensions: cost and risk reduction, reputation and legitimacy, growth path and trajectory, and innovation and repositioning.

Institutions that plan to pursue green initiatives may consider adopting a performance scorecard approach for specifically gauging its environmental indicators and incorporate dimen-sions that reflect shareholder value and sustainability. Some indicators that institutions of higher learning may include on their dashboard are: teaching, research, service, and operations. These dashboard dimensions require some reengineering in regards to objectives, measures, targets, and initiatives that are supportive of going green.

Business process reengineering increases an organization's performance by radically re-designing its structures and processes. This means starting over from the ground up or going back to zero. This may be required when institutions of higher learning decide to adopt environ-mentally friendly methods in their daily operations and management processes. Policies and standard operating procedures may require revamping. Registration processes, transcript and payment methods may need updating, student advisement and faculty office hours may need to account for online communication and chatting options rather than imposing face to face meet-ings between faculty and student in physical offices. The use of textbooks may be replaced with eBooks and online case study access or other course delivery methods. Such changes imply reengineering traditional processes and structures.

KEY CHALLENGES

Despite the persuasive drivers for change and the proliferation of survey results showing the positive trends towards going green from such sources as the Society for College and Univer-sity Planning (2008) and the College Sustainability Report Card for 2009, institutions of higher learning must contend with some key challenges that are unique to its environment. Potential is-sues such as the generation gap may affect university green initiatives. While students most of whom are part of the Net Generation are deemed the major proponents of green efforts on most campuses, some of the generation X and much of the baby-boomer members of the campus community may demonstrate difficulty unlearning years of traditional ways of doing things. A second challenge may involve getting the campus community to understand the sequential ap-proach of going green. The first step is not necessarily how we might begin developing alterna-tive sources of energy. Rather, immediate focus should be on basic, fundamental methods of conservation and saving energy. A third challenge relates to public policy and regulations. With-out any legislation supporting environmental sustainability, the drivers influencing going green may potentially weaken. Another major challenge of going green is the associated cost. Higher education institutions must recognize the investment challenges that incorporating green strate-gies might bring, particularly in light of recent economic conditions and unending budget con-straints confronting most universities and colleges.

Even in light of the potential benefits and support from stakeholders, more campuses will have to contend with the primary challenge of cost, closing the generation divide, forgoing prac-tical strategies, and absence of strong environmental regulations and legislation to support envi-ronmental initiatives in order to achieve sustainable value in the increasingly growing green en-vironment.

DEVELOPING A STRATEGIC SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK

While recognizing that some established frameworks for assessing sustainability exists, such models lack clarity and become problematic when an institution of higher learning attempts to incorporate sustainability into its management systems (Shriberg, 2002). Another critique of sustainability is its highly lauded appeal, but lackluster impact. In consideration of these poten-tial limitations, a simple approach to gauging environmental sustainability efforts in higher edu-cation is proposed.

The framework requires that institutions start at ground zero to reengineer the higher education process with green initiatives in mind and consider the following recommendations.

* Sustainability initiatives require that institutions confront the three basic strategic questions: What is our current situation? Where are we going? How do we get there? This requires a review and/or update of the institution's mission statement, developing its vision statement, institution's values and critical success factors.

* Institutions must then align its processes and structures. This may require re-engineering traditional methods that will no longer be valid in the future and may not be aligned with the institution's new vision.

* The degree of involvement and level of energy empowerment must then be determined by top leaders in regards to achieving organizational and systems alignment.

* Institutions must then identify its dashboard components. In this article, the green initiatives are a major focal point and should be reflected in the dashboard. For the purpose of this article, the dashboard dimensions would likely reflect the following:

** Environmental Initiatives

** Stakeholder Value (Customers, Students, Community)

** Research and Scholarship

** Teaching Effectiveness

** Operations (Efficiency, Cost Reduction)

** Financial (Risk Management, Financial Stability)

* Feedback Control Model (Managing Quality)--Go back to start and make adjustments as necessary.

Sustainability is a moving target and continues to change as the natural environment evolves. The same holds true for institutions of higher education. The traditional methods of lec-ture have been challenged with the case approach, distribution of course material in paper format has met pressures to reduce material consumption, such changes contribute to the ongoing evolu-tion of higher education. The dashboard allows for tracking of such changes and positions organ-izations for proactive positioning rather than reactive, survival modus operandi.

CONCLUSION

It is hoped that this article provided a strategic perspective in regards to the pursuit of sustainable value by discussing existing strategic models of performance, identifying potential challenges associated with pursuing green initiatives in higher education, and finally proposing a strategic sustainability framework to evaluate the organization's strategies and its capacity to transform the stated challenges into initiatives to increase shareholder value for the next genera-tion of eco-chic students and other members of a campus community.

REFERENCES

American College & University Presidents' Climate Commitment: Program Overview. Retrieved on January 18, 2009, from: http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/pdf/program_overview.pdf

Ansoff, H. I. and E. McDonnell (1990). Implanting Strategic Management (2nd Edition). Europe: Prentice Hall.

Byham, W.C. (1990). Zapp! The lightning of empowerment. New York: Harmony Books.

Christensen, C. (1998). The innovator's dilemma. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Ghobadian, A. and N. O'Regan (2002). The Link Between Culture, Strategy, and Performance in Manufacturing SMEs, Journal of General Management, 28(1), 16-34.

Hammer, M. and J. Champy. (1993). Reengineering the Corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. New York: Harper Business.

Hart, S. and M. Milstein (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 56-69. Howard, A. and Associates. (1994). Diagnosis for Organizational Change: Methods and Models. The Guilford Press: New York: NY.

Kaplan, R. and D. Norton. (1992). The balanced scorecard--measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 72(1): 71-79.

Labovitz, G. and V. Rosansky. (1997). The Power of Alignment. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, NY.

Shriberg, M. (2002). Sustainability in U.S. Higher Education: Organizational Factors Influencing Campus Environmental Performance Leadership. Dissertation: University of Michigan.

The College Sustainability Report Card for 2009. (n.d.) Retrieved January 18, 2009, from http://www.greenreportcard.org/

Annette Taijeron Santos, University of Guam