The
(24th and
Prof. Dr. Jacqueline
Cramer,
The main goal of this
lecture was to explain the meaning of “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR),
its importance for universities, its structural embedding in the university
organization, and also to concretize its added value.
The lecturer showed with practical
examples how smoothly the CSR can be incorporated into the structure and management
of the university. She also pointed out that it might be already there,
although we either don’t know about it or call it differently.
CSR process should start
with zero assessment which should give us the idea of where we are at the
moment, to make clear both our weak and strong points, to follow motives in all
its means – staff motivation, building an imaginative umbrella for both
management and organizational level, cost reduction, enhancing reputation and
strengthening our positions (which goes hand in hand with improving
relationships with important stakeholders), and – last but not least –
environmental aspects.
Next steps would be
defining short and longer term strategies, setting up monitoring and reporting
systems, and focusing on communication – internal, external, including not only
external stakeholders, but also the outside world.
Since every subject is more
or less unique, the speaker showed just one way how to bring the CSR policy
into everydayness, which should serve as a mirror, not as a step-by-step
manual. Every university should start with whatever is most relevant for them.
Discussion on Session 1:
The participants mostly
agreed that CSR already exists in their universities, although it can be found
on different levels and each university is struggling with different problems
depending on specific positions and relationships with regard to the subject or
the relationship with the outside world and partners.
Mr. Gerry Webber (UK)
suggested that it is not important what we do, but what we could do, but for
different reasons chose not to do. The top management of the university is
usually aware of what is expected (e.g. not obtaining money from tobacco
companies etc. on one hand), but there are paradoxes (some controversial
partners on the other), and it is difficult to stop the chain which is already
in use.
Mr. Dugald Mackie (UK) was
wondering how to find an agreement between what universities have to and what they
are expected to do / want to do. The answer might be to build up an ethical
position for the future.
Mr.
Mr. Eddie Newcomb’s
conclusion of the discussion – which later became an unofficial motto of the
seminar – was a statement that “the best is the enemy of the good”.
Universities have to refine and get better. The level of awareness is
increasing (no. 1 is without any doubt medical field), it’s not great, but it’s
generally better than in the past.
Betty de Keizer, University
of Amsterdam (NL):
The speaker shared the
experience connected to corporate social responsibility gained at the
The participants faced the
so-called triple P philosophy: people (social well-being), planet (ecological
quality), and profit (economic prosperity).
CSR deals with the triple P
and universities deal with following processes: education, research,
administration, and external relations. The speaker went on with the question
of when, how and why the Universiteit van Amsterdam dealt with bringing the CSR
into university processes.
One of the most important
lessons learned during this process is that
it is
necessary to communicate both internally and externally. None of the efforts
are effective without support of the top management and people who are
enthusiastic and able to motivate others are necessary. Sharing experience (on
international basis as well) and translating someone’s story to specific cases
is helpful. There are new questions coming up every year. It is impossible to
satisfy every area of interest at the same time, don’t try it and prepare for a
long process.
Discussion on Session 2:
Mr. Eddie
Newcomb (UK) suggested that the area his university – and maybe not only his - has
most trouble with is education. We have to realize that students are the future
decision makers. The first two P's (people and planet) are not that difficult
to fulfil as the last one – profit. The question is if we are putting enough
effort into that one. There is a difference between the attitude of the top
management and the attitude of the students. Deans are usually not interested
in environmental issues; it is a weak point of most universities. The
“operational” level and top management level is in this case in opposition. The
solution might be trying to convince people with arguments and good examples.
Universities should set up a plan of influencing the behaviour of staff.
Mr.
The
conclusion of the discussion was the agreement of all participants to follow the
motto “what you teach is what you preach”, count on enthusiastic and active
students leaving school, but with others coming, count on a different attitude
of students studying in different fields, and be positive, patient, but active,
starting in your own territory.
Luciano
Galán, Universidad Autonóma de Madrid (ES):
Mr. Galán's lecture drew a picture of the history of
HUMANE as well as the character of Copernicus organization and its cooperation
with HUMANE, and set up a basis for discussion about its plans for the future.
He gave a comparison of the HUMANE network (ideas) and Copernicus network
(institutions).
Since
1998 HUMANE discussed different topics: Ecocampus, energy, transport, space
management, best practices and finally CSR. What should be the next steps?
Which direction to turn to now? Where to direct activities, efforts and energy?
Discussion on Session 3:
Mr.
British colleagues
mentioned a need of finding an extra value of the HUMANE seminars to encourage
the executives to move in this direction.
The situation is painful
also because it is hard to ask people to do even more than they are already
doing. Would it be a solution to pay an extra sum of money for special events?
Mr. Peter Wilson (UK) cut
sharp by asking what and where is the influence of HUMANE sessions. According
to him HUMANE must be recognized and get recognition.
Mr. Galán suggested
preparation of special seminars for friends, but opened again the need for
extra money and staff.
Mr. Rafael Zorilla (ES)
called for a project for both top managers and technical staff to be involved.
The discussion was closed
by Mr. Steve Cannon’s (
Steve
Cannon,
Steve
explained the term “sustainability” being the UK term for corporate social
responsibility and gave the participants a quick background of The Higher
Education Partnership for Sustainability as a collaboration of 18 UK
universities and colleges which are exploring how to enhance their contribution
towards sustainable development, focusing on short term initiatives to create a
long term commitment with state financial support.
The
An important document
called Sustainable Development Education Panel (SDEP) from 1997 recommends that
by 2010 “all further and higher education institutions should be accredited to
an internationally or nationally recognized sustainable development system
standard; to have staff fully trained and competent in sustainable development;
and to provide all students with sustainable development learning
opportunities” and also that “all professional bodies and industry bodies
should have sustainable development education criteria included within their
course accreditation requirements”. (The SDEP is highly evaluated by
participants from other countries.)
Steve named their “early
wins” – effective communication and publicity (good web-site etc.), being green
already (paper recycling, green transport policy etc., but also courses and
programs already exist), and to support both groups. From “beginners”, the
Discussion on Session 4:
Larry
Banks (UK) was excited about the reporting system. It was agreed that it is
necessary, but hard to follow and to give objective information. He was curious
about the demand of the students in the curriculum embedding.
The
praxis in
Mr. Jerzy
Pieszczurykow (PL) suggested to encourage and engage people who are sympathetic
and cherish them (since most of the students and staff are apathetic).
Mr.
Mr. Eddie
Newcomb's (
Mr. Jerzy
Pieszczurykow (PL) warned about the difficulties with bringing the green transport
policy into university life – sometimes it results in anger towards the
university (lack of parking lots/no parking lots nearby, etc.)
John
Lauwerys,
Campus
Security at the
The
speaker started his lecture by explaining how local residents feel about
university students/staff. Among local residents of university campuses there
is a general opinion that university students and staff are privileged and they
might be detached from the immediate local residential community. This can
emerge in the form of aggression between students and the locals and the abuse
of university property. Each university is facing different specific problems
depending on the locality, character of local inhabitants, structure of the
campus, national habits etc.
John gave
the audience a short introduction of the
There is
a long history of security problems in the Highfield Campus, as is shown by the
number of thefts, burglaries, vandalism, youth nuisance, which in years 2001
and 2002 unfortunately increased. The University has to react, and it does. Its
security response consists in increase in security patrols, improvements in
lighting, extension of CCTV monitoring and smart card locking system, introduction
of dog patrols.
Above
mentioned measures wouldn’t be enough without responding to the root cause in
the local community followed by coming up with active solutions, such as
encouraging the city staff and students to work as youth workers, tutoring and mentoring
in local schools, visiting student unions and producing other cultural and
sport projects and events.
The
coexistence of both groups is also supported by inviting the community into the
University.
There are
reasons for optimism (there are signs of some reduction in crime and enthusiasm
from local young people to activities is pleasant), but as John said, “it’s an
ongoing challenge”.
(half of the group)
The discussion on cases
presented by John Lauverys was very fruitful and brought up a lot of new
themes. The discussion lead to an exchange of many new views and experiences
between countries:
·
Arts
Education brings a lot of good results against criminality. Too many security
restrictions do not bring good and comfortable feelings (
·
In
·
Criminality
is not only outside but also inside of universities. Inside criminality means
that some students, teachers or administrative staff members are involved.
Security agencies members are sometimes thieves as well, which leads to the
question whether it is better to have a special agency or our own staff?
·
In The
Netherlands it is possible to separate university buildings by water canals
which are a natural security system against outside criminality, especially
during the night. Inside criminality is partly rescued by spies among students
(Secret police) and by special security agencies at the entrance. It is also
good to have one special staff member with knowledge of police work (laws,
restrictions, etc.). Dutch universities are not responsible for student dorms
and students belongings there.
·
·
Czech
universities do not have very good experiences with communication with the police.
There is special permission for the police to visit universities just with an
agreement of its director.
The university in
·
Students,
teachers and administrative staff are not careful enough with the university
equipment and their personal belongings.
·
Vandalism
between students is solved by strictly applied regulations between students,
especially at the student dorms.
·
Alcohol
sold in student restaurants – in the
·
Noisy
students at student dorms situated in towns – AMU named one of most problematic
students to be a head of the student union responsible for silence after
·
Work
experience for students at the university is useful for both sides – university
and students as well (useful for Curriculum vitae).
·
Drug
problems are related to criminality.
Conclusion for the workshop
– group 2. was:
Criminality outside and
inside is a very important problem nowadays. The question is if it is better to
close or to open the campus and / or the university.
Discussion on CSR and
security, lead by Mr. Jiří Jirka
(CZ) and
Ms. Betty de Keizer (NL)
(half of the group)
Participants of the
discussion agreed that CSR is rather wide spread in the
Mr. Jean Pascal (FR)
acknowledged that in
Prof. Anne-Marie Kumps (BE)
also thought the concept is new for her, and added that in
The group came back to Mr. Jirka's
concern for growing bureaucracy.
He was assured by Dutch
experience that the people, once they put their effort and energy into
activities connected with CSR, they are happy to prove what’s been done. In
fact, it sometimes brings even less bureaucracy than usual, since some of the
procedures might be the same or similar for different activities (energy
savings, waste policy etc.), and they can be used over and over. Mrs. Betty de
Keizer thought that “bureaucracy is growing by not doing things, not by doing
them.”
Then the discussion turned
to the position of universities in general. The role of universities is kind of
unique – people don’t trust governments (and big companies) anymore, and since
universities are not part of them either, their position should enable them to
give society the values, which are fundamental for it. People trust
universities, so far; universities should cherish that fact and maintain
independence (of course, there is a certain supervision by the ministry, but it
is not that stressing).
According to British
participants, universities should provide knowledge transfer supported by
exchange programs, but never act like “we know it better”.
University teachers and
staff should be aware of contacts with young people, who might take a lead in
any field in the future, so to give them a good example and support them. (Mr.
Jiří Jirka)
Mr.
Mr. Eddie
Newcomb (UK) put a strong emphasis on schools. He thought that although universities
cannot heal all what’s ill, they could take their part, but couldn’t be the
only ones who tried. His idea was strongly supported by others. The unambiguous
way is the fact that universities are preparing teachers and that is why the
need for awareness of being consequential and consistent in lecturing them and
trying to translate the subject into every discipline is crucial.
In
summary, the conclusions from the discussions are:
·
unique
position of universities in general
·
“do
what you preach”
·
global
look is necessary
·
build
on what is happening in schools (don’t focus on your institution only)
·
communicate
with local community in all ways you can think of
·
make
a selling point from being green
Cristina
Marti Barranco, Universitat Politénica de Valéncia (ES)
Accreditation
of ISO 14001 in Environmental Management of a
Ms. Marti
started her talk with the background of environmental management in the
University and the origins of the project. The University Polytechnic of
Valencia (UPV) established the Green Office in the academic year 1993/94. Its
initial objectives were to undertake various initiatives, in general terms
directed towards an improvement in the environmental policy. This was intended
to be put into practice through a variety of activities connected with
students, but also extending it to other groups and activities (lecturers,
researchers, non-academic staff etc.).
The Green
Office took on the responsibility (through a European Union project) to put
into practice an environmental system that could be applied to European
universities in general in 1997. This project was carried out based on centers
considered typical – it 13 pilot units, e.g.
The
School of Civil Engineering, Higher Education College, The Laboratory of
Agricultural Mechanization, The Central Library, Cleaning Services, Cafeteria
and more. These centers and activities were selected to provide a cross-section
within the University, but were also common to universities across
From 1999
to 2001 the UPV began putting into practice its commitment to environmental
management by drawing up an environmental policy for the university.
Ms. Marti
described the implementation phases of the environmental management system as
follows: information phase (holding meetings), initial environmental review
(visits, interviews with relevant personnel), environmental policy (adopted
policy from 1997), structure and responsibilities (establishment of
Environmental Committee), identification of environmental aspects (based on
results of the Initial Environmental Review), identification of legal and other
requirements, environmental objectives and targets, training plan,
documentation, document control, records, internal audit, management review
(annual review carried out by the site management to ensure its continual
suitability and effectiveness), action plans, and certification audit.
During the
process the UPV encountered many problems and difficulties starting with the
organization structure of the University, bureaucratic nature of the university
personnel, decentralization and ever changing nature of University, with
difficult monitoring ending.
At
present the environmental management system has been certificated in the
Discussion on Session 6:
The first
question was directed to staff’s reaction to changes which the implementation
of the program brought. Cristina assured everyone that “the staff is happy”.
Spanish
colleagues were curious about the maintenance of the program and were answered
that each school (unit) maintains the program itself, and provides their own
technical staff (doesn’t pay specials), but the Green Office provides the
training. However, there is a lack of staff still, the Green Office would need
much more people to have better control on each unit.
According
to Cristina, the answer for “What is the motivation of the staff/school?” is
simply young people’s enthusiasm and personnel’s attitude.
Betty was
curious about the way the Green Office is getting data for reports. There are
specific procedures, some data are estimations, but what helps most is trying
to follow each department’s system, never trying to change it.
For
universities in general – in this context - the main objective should be to
have the skills, and go for certificates. One university chooses one way,
another one the other... (Mr. Luciano Galán)
Ruud
responded that the way in which you reach the certificates is important. Betty
continued by saying that having a goal is important, but improving all the time
and focusing on improving ourselves is what counts.
British
colleagues talked about the positive effects of competition among universities
– that universities have to be more conscious about
the way they are doing things. Whichever route they take, it must be a defensible,
rigorous approach, otherwise the results are not
acceptable.