Carbon neutral higher education institutions : a reality check, challenges and solutions

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Carbon neutral higher education institutions : a reality check, challenges and solutions © Veronica Lucia Ahonen, Aleksandra Woszczek, Stefan Baumeister, Ulla T. Helimo, Anne Kristiina Jackson, Maria Kopsakangas-Savolainen, Juha Kääriä, Tommi Lehtonen, Mika Luoranen, Eva Pongrácz, Risto Soukka, Veera Vainio and Sami El Geneidy Published version Ahonen, Veronica Lucia; Woszczek, Aleksandra; Baumeister, Stefan; Helimo, Ulla T.; Jackson, Anne Kristiina; Kopsakangas-Savolainen, Maria; Kääriä, Juha; Lehtonen, Tommi; Luoranen, Mika; Pongrácz, Eva; Soukka, Risto; Vainio, Veera; El Geneidy, Sami Ahonen, V. L., Woszczek, A., Baumeister, S., Helimo, U. T., Jackson, A. K., Kopsakangas- Savolainen, M., Kääriä, J., Lehtonen, T., Luoranen, M., Pongrácz, E., Soukka, R., Vainio, V., & El Geneidy, S. (2024). Carbon neutral higher education institutions : a reality check, challenges and solutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 25(9), 293-315. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-11-2023-0515 2024 Carbon neutral higher education institutions: a reality check, challenges and solutions Veronica Lucia Ahonen,Aleksandra Woszczek,Stefan Baumeister, Ulla T. Helimo,Anne Kristiina Jackson, Maria Kopsakangas-Savolainen,Juha Kääriä,Tommi Lehtonen, Mika Luoranen,Eva Pongr acz,Risto Soukka,Veera Vainio and Sami El Geneidy (Author affiliations can be found at the end of the article) Abstract Purpose –Calculating an organization’s carbon footprint is crucial for assessing and implementing emission reductions. Although Finnish higher education institutions (HEIs) aim for carbon neutrality by 2030, limited research exists on plans to reach a similar target in any country. This paper aims to address the shared and individual challenges Finnish HEIs have with carbon footprint calculations, reductions, resources and offsetting. Design/methodology/approach –A survey was targeted to sustainability experts in all 38 HEIs in Finland to identify key patterns and trends in the focus fields of the study. SWOT analysis was used to classify main strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and threats, based on which a series of policy recommendations was drafted. Findings –Finnish HEIs are committed to carbon footprint tracking (97%, annually by 87%). The lack of standardization and the number of external stakeholders complicate accounting indirect emissions, impeding comparability and reliability. Only 39% had set separate emission reduction targets, suggesting a preference for carbon footprint over other environmental impact indicators. Insufficient monetary and human resources emerged in 23% of institutions, especially those smaller in size. Only 52% had clear offsetting plans, with shared concerns over trust and responsibility. Originality/value –By including both research universities and universities of applied sciences, the findings provide an unprecedented outlook into the entire Finnish HEI sector. The policy recommendations guide HEIs both locally and globally on how to improve their transparency and scientificintegrity,reflect on core successes and weaknesses and how they complete their objectives of education, research and social impact while promoting stronger sustainability. Keywords Carbon footprint, Higher education institutions, Sustainability, Corporate sustainability, Carbon accounting, Carbon neutrality Paper type Research paper © Veronica Lucia Ahonen, Aleksandra Woszczek, Stefan Baumeister, Ulla T. Helimo, Anne Kristiina Jackson, Maria Kopsakangas-Savolainen, Juha Kääriä, Tommi Lehtonen, Mika Luoranen, Eva Pongr acz, Risto Soukka, Veera Vainio and Sami El Geneidy. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial & non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Higher education institutions 293 Received2 November 2023 Revised 15 April 2024 4June2024 Accepted2 July 2024 International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Vol. 25 No. 9, 2024 pp. 293-315 Emerald Publishing Limited 1467-6370 DOI 10.1108/IJSHE-11-2023-0515 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1467-6370.htm 1. Introduction Higher education institutions (HEIs) act as hubs of science, innovation and societal discussion. However, the sustainability and carbon footprint of HEIs themselves has been an understudied topic until recent years (Leal Filho et al.,2021;Helmers et al.,2021;Valls-Val and Bovea, 2021). Studies have mainly centered around the USA (Clabeaux et al.,2020)ortheUK(Robinson et al., 2015), but there is a growing interest in carbon neutrality in HEIs globally, e.g. in Northern Europe (Larsen et al.,2013), South Africa (Letete et al.,2011) and New Zealand (Butt, 2012). In addition, co-operative organizations have worked toward a shared emission accounting standard, such as the World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development with their joint greenhouse gas (GHG) protocol for organizations (WRI and WBCSD, 2004). Yet, HEIs still appear divided. Although some institutions show remarkable ambition, sustainability work in HEIs is often considered “siloed”, with a focus on singular actions such as campus greening or energy savings over comprehensive sustainability (Sterling et al.,2013). Even if institutions show willingness in theory, challenges such as cost, time or long-term commitment may limit actions in practice (Leal Filho, 2015). As sustainability concerns include ecological, social and economic factors (Bruntland, 1987), a thorough grasp of these difficulties necessitates collaboration between a variety of disciplines. Thus, there is an increasing need for an interdisciplinary approach to ensure that HEI policies are informed by insights from economics, sociology and other fields, making them more practical, successful and achievable. Several legal frameworks guide HEIs in their work. The Green Deal of the European Union states that Europe is to be the first climate neutral continent by 2050 (European Commission, 2019), and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive sets standards for sustainability reporting for companies of over 500 people and points a path toward the normalization of carbon footprint calculation (European Parliament, 2022). Countries within the EU work toward achieving their individual climate targets, but here the focus is on Finland: the 2035 carbon neutrality target of the Finnish Government is the most ambitious in the world (Finnish Government, 2021). Even more determined is the target set by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, (2020), aiming for carbon neutrality within Finnish HEIs by 2030. In addition, Finnish HEIs follow the carbon neutrality roadmaps drafted by the Rector’s Council of Finnish Universities (UNIFI) and the Rector’s Council of Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences (Arene). Arene has settled on an annual calculation model for universities of applied sciences. Research universities instead are aiming for a set of minimum requirements and the transparent development of carbon calculations, so that they canbe replicatedby otherinstitutions. A key focus lies especially on indirect emissions. These progressive efforts place Finnish HEIs in a globally unique position. HEIs play a visible role in society due to their large size (Wright and Nyberg, 2017): in 2022, present students and university employees accounted for 6.4% of the Finnish population (Education Statistics Finland, 2022;Statistics Finland, 2023). However, the carbon neutrality efforts of Finnish HEIs remain limited to a few studies (El Geneidy et al., 2021;Kiehle et al., 2023) and have been largely focused on research universities. As of Spring 2024, there are 38 HEIs in Finland (14 research universities and 24 universities of applied sciences). Their wide geographic distribution, combined with Finland’s cold climate, pose additional challenges, particularly when it comes to emissions from transport and heating. 1.1 Assessing carbon neutrality in higher education institutions The most common metric used to assess carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions is the carbon footprint, which measures CO 2 released by the activities of an individual, an organization, a process, or a product, both directly and indirectly (Wiedmann and Minx, 2007). As this definition includes only CO 2 and omits other GHGs, some such as Wright et al. (2011) and Heinonen et al. (2020) have IJSHE 25,9 294 questioned that this could lead to deceptive and oversimplified results. Thus, the definition of carbon footprint should also include methane, nitrous oxide and certain synthetic chemicals that contribute to climate change. Wiedmann and Minx (2007) suggest that the term “climate footprint”could encompass all GHG emissions. However, the current popularity of the climate footprint compared to the carbon footprint is low –possibly due to the lack of consensus even when it comes to carbon footprint reporting (Matuštík and Ko cí, 2021). In the organizational context, direct and indirect emissions are often called Scopes. According to the GHG Protocol, Scope 1 emissions are defined as direct emissions controlled by a company or an organization, such as institution-owned vehicles. Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions generated through electricity or heating. Scope 3 refers to other emissions beyond these two scopes (WRI and WBCSD, 2004). Building on the GHG Protocol, the Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard issues guidelines on assessing organization’s entire value chain emissions. It divides Scope 3 emissions into 15 upstream and downstream emissions categories, namely, purchased goods and services, capital goods, fuel- and energyrelated activities, upstream transportation and distribution, waste generated in operations, business travel, employee commuting, upstream leased assets, downstream transportation and distribution, processing of sold products, use of sold products, end-of-life treatment of sold products, downstream leased assets and franchises and investments (WRI and WBCSD, 2011). As Scope 3 emissions are located outside the organization’s direct sphere of influence, they are the most difficult to calculate. This is a challenge, because Scope 3 emissions can make up a significant part of an institution’s carbon footprint (Ozawa-Meida et al.,2013). When it comes to methods for calculating carbon footprint, environmentally extended input–output analysis (EEIOA) is often used for indirect, especially procurement-caused emissions from annual financial statements. In the HEI context, EE-IOA uses a top-down approach to measure the organization’s carbon footprint through the entire supply chain (Wiedmann, 2009). However, it lacks detail compared to life-cycle assessment (LCA), which assesses the impact of individual products based on bottom-up data (Ozawa-Meida et al.,2013). These methods can also support one another and hybrid LCAs are commonly used to use the strengths of several methods (Crawford et al.,2018; Hellweg et al.,2023;Nakamura and Nansai, 2016). So far, few universities worldwide have declared achieving carbon neutrality, namely, the London School of Economics and Political Science in the UK (LSE, 2021), the Pontifical Bolivarian University in Colombia (Osorio et al.,2022), the Charles Sturt University and the University of Tasmania in Australia (Sen et al.,2021), using a combination of Scope 1, Scope 2 and selected Scope 3 emission categories (commonly business travel and waste). This lack of standardization, both locally and globally, poses an important challenge to the carbon neutrality work of HEIs. All institutions above relied on carbon offsetting: a market mechanism that allows organizations and individuals to invest in emission reduction or removal projects equal to their emissions. However, offsetting raises important questions regarding the validity and transparency of projects (Finnwatch, 2021). Generally, offsetting should follow a set of minimum criteria or a common standard. Still, no certification alone is infallible nor can always guarantee quality (Cames et al.,2016), which is why a combination of certification criteria is recommended (Finnwatch, 2021). The Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting acknowledge the significance of emission reductions and carbon removals. Emission reductions include emissions avoided, e.g. renewable energy, whereas carbon removals remove CO 2 directly from the atmosphere, for example, through tree planting or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Although emission reductions are the most common type of offsets, it is recommended that organizations continuously Higher education institutions 295 increase the share made up by carbon removals in their offsetting portfolio, eventually purchasing them exclusively to maintain long-term net zero(Allen et al., 2020). Building on the discussions and reports on the carbon footprints of Finnish HEIs, and a survey targeted for their sustainability personnel, in this article, the authors have strived to identify the key strengths and weaknesses of carbon footprint calculation, emission reductions and the carbon neutrality of Finnish HEIs. The findings are then used to come up with policy recommendations that institutions both locally and globally can use to develop their carbon footprint calculations uniformly and sustainably. To do so, the article focuseson the following research questions: RQ1. What actions have Finnish HEIs taken individually or collectively to (a) track, (b) decrease and (c) offset their carbon footprint? RQ2. What resources do theHEIs have for aiming towardcarbon neutrality? RQ3. What are the most common impediments to the HEIs’carbon neutrality? 2. Methodology 2.1 Research context This research aims to provide an in-depth understanding of a case study within Finland. Focusing on a single country allows researchers to delve deeply into the unique circumstances, policies and institutional factors that influence the phenomenon under investigation. Furthermore, this study aspires to serve as a cornerstone for shaping local and national policies in Finland. 2.2 Data collection To investigate the carbon footprint of Finnish HEIs, their public reports were scrutinized and when not publicly available, directly acquired from the respective sustainability specialist of the HEIs. The raw data on the institutions’carbon footprints, the number of staff and categories accounted for was analyzed with the goal of determining the key factors influencing the size of the carbon footprint. To gain deeper insights about the climate policies and calculations, a 28-question survey was sent to all 38 Finnish HEIs. The survey was implemented with Webropol 3.0 software and was open between December 20, 2021 and February 15, 2022. Mixedmethod surveys offer both quantitative and qualitative data about the respondent’s views on the topic, in this case HEIs (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). Similar nationwide surveys are not abundant the context of carbon footprint of HEIs and analyses have mainly focused on public reports and interviews (Klein-Banai and Theis, 2013;Li et al., 2021;Mazhar et al., 2021;Schmidt, 2022). Even though many HEIs publicly report their carbon footprint assessments, public reports do not reveal the hidden incentives that guideHEIstowardcarbonneutralitytargets.Inaddition,thesurveywaschosento limit the workload of the analyses compared to alternative methods, such as interviews, because it was necessary to give HEIs the chance to reflect on the results at their own pace. To gain further insights about the development of HEIs’carbon footprint management in the coming years, it will be easier to conduct the survey again for comparison. The survey could also be replicated for use in other countries, particularly those with similar systems of higher education, such as Sweden or Norway. IJSHE 25,9 296 2.3 Participants The target group comprised personnel in charge of the environmental responsibilities of HEIs. Multiple people from the same HEI could answer the same survey so that, e.g. the sustainability team could work through the answers together. Due to this and the fact that the survey was sent through formal channels, the responses can be seen as the position of the HEI itself. Questions were both multiple choice and open and designed together by the authors to ensure objectivity (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). See Appendix for details. The demographics of the respondents are presented in Table 1. Note that percentages are counted withineach group (type of institution; institution size; type of staff). 2.4 Data analysis The questions were split evenly between all the authors, who looked for trends and key messages in the responses. A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis was then created to visualize the key findings. SWOT is a widely used analytical tool which can be used to identify the key strengths and weaknesses of an organization or its equivalent. The traditional model also identifies the factors based on whether they are internal (strengths and weaknesses) or external to the organization (opportunities and threats). However, one of the limitations to this model is the difficulty inherent in placing the factors into simply one of the four categories, which is why the simplified model of combined categories may help reduce this error (Pickton and Wright, 1998;Stacey, 1993). As an outcome, a series of policy recommendations was drafted, based on the findings of the SWOT analysis and the extant literature. 3. Results 3.1 Tracking, decreasing and offsetting the carbon footprint This section looks through the responses that aim to answerRQ1. 3.1.1 Tracking. The results show that Finnish HEIs are collectively committed to tracking their carbon footprint, with 30 of the 31 institutions having undertaken calculations and the remaining institution planning on implementing calculations. Annual calculations were themostcommon, with only three institutions calculating biannually. However, there are variations between the institutions in terms of tools, emission factors and methods used to track carbon footprint. The Arene calculator was the most used (15 respondents, 12 of which were universities of applied sciences). Research universities have no similar common framework and mentioned a plethora of other calculators, such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Green Office Climate Calculator, Exiobase, the Hiilifiksu calculator and the GHG Protocol. It is notable that only 23% mentioned just one Table 1. Response rate of the participants of the study Respondent type Response rate (%) All HEIs 82 Research universities 39 Universities of applied sciences 61 Small institutions (<300 employees) 29 Intermediate institutions (300–999) 52 Large institutions (>1,000) 19 Administrative staff 48 Teaching and research staff 33 Other sustainability staff 19 Source: Authors’own work Higher education institutions 297 calculation method: instead, it was common for an institution to use several forms of calculation,depending on thecategories being accounted for (Table 2). A further investigation into the number of categories compared to the total carbon footprint revealed no clear trend between the total carbon footprint and the categories that were tracked (Figure 1). Similarly, institution size alone did not fully determine the size of the carbon footprint, as was revealed in the per capita comparison (Figure 2). The survey also sought to understand whether HEIs considered emission calculations to be their own or a shared responsibility. The results revealed that tracking was seen as a shared effort between HEIs and external stakeholders. Fourteen categories of external stakeholders were identified (Figure 3). 3.1.2 Reduction. As a part of their efforts to reduce and neutralize emissions, 71% of the institutions had set a separate carbon neutrality target. However, there was no collectively agreed target year: the most common year was 2030 (64% of respondents), followed by 2025 (23%), as well as single replies for 2023, 2024 and 2028. One-third of the institutions had not set their own target year and were instead following the 2035 target set by the Finnish Government. This was especially the case with universities of applied sciences, seven of which had not set their own target. Emission reduction targets were much less prevalent, with 42% of research universities and 37% of universities of applied sciences having set them. In addition, 58%/42% were planning to do so, and 21% did not have or did not plan to set emission reduction targets. One difficulty emerged in setting a baseline. The most common baseline year was 2019 but several HEIs had not yet set a baseline due to the pandemic. Some HEIs also stated that they had already taken the most significant measures to reduce emissions or that an emission reduction target considered unnecessary alongside a carbon neutrality target. Overall, 47% considered the effectiveness of their institution to be more important than carbon footprint reductions. Regardless, emission reductions were stated to be an important part of sustainability communication: The positive effects/handprint of HEIs are especially important from the aspect of solving challenges of the world and society [...] The carbon footprints of HEIs are very small compared Table 2. Categories HEIs included in their carbon footprint Category name NScope % Electricity 31 2 100.0 Heat 31 2/3* 100.0 Business travel 31 3 100.0 Water 30 2 96.8 Waste 30 3 96.8 Procurement 30 3 96.8 Real estate maintenance 28 2 90.3 University’s vehicles 25 1 80.6 Construction 24 3 77.4 Refrigerants 16 2 51.6 Canteen services 12 3 38.7 Commuting 7 3 22.6 Student exchanges 7 3 22.6 Investments 7 3 22.6 Other 10 3 32.3 Note: *Depending on contract Source: Authors’own work IJSHE 25,9 298 to many other fields, although the reduction of footprint plays a role when it comes to leading with example. Finally, 36% of Finnish HEIs used or had not planned to use other environmental impact indicators besides the carbon footprint. Those that used of planned to use alternative metrics mentioned the Green Metric World University Ranking (three mentions), the UN Sustainable Development Goals (one mention) or the WWF Green Office metrics (one). The remaining HEIs Figure 2. Carbon footprints of Finnish HEIs per capita in 2019 for institutions that provided it (tCO 2 e) Figure 1. Carbon footprints of Finnish HEIs, along with number of categories accounted for Source: Authors' own work 33675 44000 16000 2571 793 44491 40873 19072 25000 10500 1321 Carbon footprint of Finnish HEIs (t CO2 e) along with number of accounted categories (in parenthesis) Higher education institutions 299 gave single mentions to various indicators such as biodiversity impacts and nature risks, energy efficiency, recycling rate and waste management, as well as water footprint and carbon handprint. 3.1.3 Offsetting. A majority of HEIs (52%) did not have offsetting plans. Full offsets were planned by 6%, partial offsets by 26% and no offsets by 16%. Research universities had gone further in their plans, with 50% planning to offset, compared to the 21% of universities of applied sciences. No collective consensus existed on which categories to offset. When asked which categories should not be included in the offsetting responsibility of HEIs commuting (68%), investments (48%) and student exchanges (39%) stood out. According to the replies to this question, these are also the categories which HEIs have the least control over. However, 26% of the HEIs stated that all the categories presented fall under the offsetting responsibilities of HEIs (Figure 4). When it came to funding offsets, no decision had been made by 50% of the respondents. The offsets of the remaining 50% were funded either externally (20%), e.g. via the city or the ministry, or internally through investments (30%). Generally, HEIs emphasize the use of offsetting as a last resort, after sufficient reductions have been made. Regardless of this, offsetting was seen as being important in reaching carbon neutrality goals: We are only planning to offset our carbon footprint once we have reduced our emissions as much as possible. The main reason for pushing back offsets is to encourage us to work faster in our own reductions [...] Responses also stated that offsetting may have other positive impacts. In addition, internal carbon offsetting and the carbon handprint were brought up as solutions. The balancing act at its best could be an internal offsetting model, in which the higher pricing of internal procurements would press down the carbon footprint and the revenue could be used to produce a positive impact. 3.1.4 Summary. Table 3 summarizes the key information collected through RQ1. 3.2 Resources This section presents the results aiming to answer RQ2. Figure 3. External stakeholders identified in carbon footprint calculations at Finnish HEIs IJSHE 25,9 300 practicalities of sustainability initiatives among various levels of employees, thereby enhancing the interpretive value of the findings despite the modest sample size. Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that survey design inherently permits variability in open-ended response length (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). Future investigations may benefit from supplementing survey data with in-depth interviews, particularly for delving into the climate policies of individual HEIs. An additional constraint lies in the temporal dimension of the responses. As most HEIs have only recently begun calculating their carbon footprint, the methods, data availability and accuracy levels are subject to change over time. It is also possible that current plans will evolve due to challenges related to credibility or financing of carbon offsets. The study is also limited by self-report bias (Bound et al., 2001). This means that respondents might have presented their university’s sustainability endeavors with subjectivity, potentially overstating their effectiveness. This can occur due to institutional pride, desire to conform to perceived expectations or misunderstanding the criteria being assessed. Such bias underscores the need for future research to use diverse methodologies, including objective measurements to mitigate potential discrepancies. Finally, the strong practical focus of this study limits its theoretical contribution. Although the results offer an outlook into the current state of carbon neutrality in Finnish HEIs and the SWOT-based policy recommendations provide institutions a tool for their policy development, future studies could benefit from a stronger theoretical focus, e.g. on how the current state of carbon neutrality came to be, to which socio-scientific theories such as the theory of change (Brest, 2010;Jackson, 2013) may provide a solution. 5. Conclusions This article investigated the collective and individual efforts undertaken by Finnish HEIs to monitor, decrease and offset their carbon footprints, as well as the resources required for the work. The key discovery was that Finnish HEIs stand in various positions when it comes to fulfilling their carbon neutrality goals. The level of commitment to the governmental targets is high and resources for sustainability work are largely considered sufficient. However, smaller HEIs and universities of applied sciences struggle with resources, whereas larger research universities are challenged with tracking their large carbon footprints due to multiple stakeholders and Scope 3 categories. The lack of standardization is a shared issue in terms of carbon footprint calculations and carbon offsetting, and the low variety in environmental impact indicators poses a problem for institutions of all kinds. The authors’policy recommendations offer suggestions for HEIs on reducing discrepancies between the HEIs and normalizing carbon footprint reporting to the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture. The stakeholders involved, such as offsetting providers, can benefit from increased collaboration with HEIs, which may lead to better utilization of their resources or new technological or economic innovations. Policymakers can benefit from the increased clarity, transparency and efficiency offered by the recommendations. Finally, through the results, the scientific community gains more understanding of the state of sustainability in Finnish HEIs, as well as the challenges and opportunities of conducting a survey-based study spanning the entire HEI sector of a country. The results also demonstrate that establishing ambitious goals alone is insufficient. Institutions should increasingly “walk the talk"; if those in society with the most knowledge of environmental damage do not practice what they preach, who will? Higher education institutions 307 References Allen, M., Axelsson, K., Caldecott, B., Hale, T., Hepburn, C., Hickey, C., Mitchell-Larson, E., Malhi, Y., Otto, F., Seddon, N. and Smith, S. (2020), The Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting, University of Oxford, Oxford. Andrade, J.C.S. and Puppim de Oliveira, J.A. (2015), “The role of the private sector in global climate and energy governance”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 130 No.2, pp. 375-387. Arene (2020), “Sustainable, responsible and carbon-neutral universities of applied science. Programme for the sustainable development and responsibility of universities of applied sciences”, available at: https://arene.fi/wp-content/uploads/Raportit/2020/Sustainable%2C%20responsible%20and %20carbon-neutral%20universities%20of%20applied%20sciences.pdf?_t=1606145574 (accessed 1 October 2023). Bound, J., Brown, C. and Mathiowetz, N. (2001),“Measurement error in survey data”, in Heckman, J.J. and Leamer, E. (Eds), Handbook of Econometrics, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Elsevier Vol. 5, pp. 3705-3843 doi: 10.1016/S1573-4412(01)05012-7. Brest, P. (2010), “The power of theories of change”, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring. Bruntland, G. (1987), “Our common future”,The World Commission on Environment 1 and Development, pp. 45-65. Butt, Z.H. (2012), “Greenhouse gas inventory at an institution level: a case study of Massey university, New Zealand”,Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 178-185. Cames, M., Harthan, R.O., Fussler, J., Lazarus, M., Lee,C.M., Erickson, P. and Spalding-Fecher, R. (2016), “How additional is the clean development mechanism? Analysis of the application of current tools and proposed alternatives”, CLlMA.B.3/SERl2013/0026r. Prepared for DG Clima by Oko- Institut, INFRAS, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Berlin, available at: https://ec.europa. eu/clima/sites/clima/files/ets/docs/clean_dev_mechanism_en.pdf (accessed 10 December 2022). Clabeaux, R., Carbajales-Dale, M., Ladner, D. and Walker, T. (2020), “Assessing the carbon footprint of a university campus using a life cycle assessment approach”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 273, p. 122600, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122600. Crawford, R.H., Bontinck, P.A., Stephan, A., Wiedmann, T. and Yu, M. (2018), “Hybrid life cycle inventory methods –a review”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. 1273-1288, doi: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.10.176. Creswell, J.W. and Creswell, J.D. (2018), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA,5th ed., doi: 10.1080/15424065.2022.2046231. Davies, M. (2016), “Insetting: developing carbon offset projects within a company’sownsupply chain and supply chain communities”, Geneva, ICROA and University of Bristol, available at: www.icroa.org/resources/Pictures/ICROA%20Insetting%20Report_v300.pdf (accessed 11 November 2022). Education Statistics Finland (2022), “Education statistics Finland”, available at: https://vipunen.fi/engb/ (accessed 1 October 2023). El Geneidy, S., Alvarez Franco, D., Baumeister, S., Halme, P., Helimo, U., Kortetmäki, T., Latva-Hakuni, E., Mäkelä, M., Raippalinna, L.-M., Vainio, V. and Kotiaho, J.S. (2021), “Sustainability for JYU: Jyväskylän yliopiston ilmasto-ja luontohaitat”, Wisdom Letters (Vol. 2), available at: http://urn. fi/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-202104232476 European Commission (2019), “Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the European council, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions”, The European Green Deal, COM/2019/640 final, available at: https://eur-lex. europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=COM:2019:640:FIN (accessed 26 March 2024). European Parliament (2022), “Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European parliament and of the council of 14 December 2022 amending regulation (EU) no 537/2014, directive 2004/109/EC, directive 2006/43/EC and directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting (text with IJSHE 25,9 308 EEA relevance)”,Official Journal of the European Union., available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022L2464 (accessed 26 March 2024). Finnish Government (2021), “Government programme. Strategic themes”, 3.1 Carbon neutral Finland that protects biodiversity, available at: https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/marin/governmentprogramme/carbon-neutral-finland-that-protects-biodiversity (accessed 10 February 2023). Finnish Government (2023), “Guide to good practices for supporting voluntary carbon markets. Supporting voluntary mitigation action with carbon credits”, available at: https://urn.fi/URN: ISBN:978-952-383-815-4 (accessed 21 September 2023). Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, (2020), Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön ja Helsingin yliopiston välinen sopimus vuosille 2021-2024, 2020, https://okm.fi/documents/1410845/ 3992561/Helsingin+yliopisto+sopimus+2021-2024.pdf/0037ce7d-08bf-3e5b-f09e-2ea14760ba35/ Helsingin+yliopisto+sopimus+2021-2024.pdf?version=1.1&t=1611840757037 Finnwatch (2021), “Anekauppaa vai ilmastotekoja? Vapaaehtoisen päästökompensaation kysyntä, tarjonta ja laatu suomessa”, available at: https://finnwatch.org/images/reports_pdf/ Anekauppaa_vai_ilmastotekoja_small_size.pdf?ver=2 (accessed 14 December 2022). Heinonen, J., Ottelin, J., Ala-Mantila, S., Wiedmann, T., Clarke, J. and Junnila, S. (2020), “Spatial consumption-based carbon footprint assessments –a review of recent developments in the field”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 256,p. 120335, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120335. Hellweg, S., Benetto, E., Huijbregts, M.A., Verones, F. and Wood, R. (2023), “Life-cycle assessment to guide solutions for the triple planetary crisis”,Nature Reviews Earth and Environment, Vol. 4 No. 7, pp. 471-486. Helmers, E., Chang, C.C. and Dauwels, J. (2021), “Carbon footprinting of universities worldwide: part I– objective comparison by standardized metrics”,Environmental Sciences Europe, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-25, doi: 10.1186/s12302-021-00454-6. Jackson, E. (2013), “Interrogating the theory of change: evaluating impact investing where it matters most”,Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 95-110. Kiehle, J., Kopsakangas-Savolainen, M., Hilli, M. and Pongr acz, E. (2023), “Carbon footprint at institutions of higher education: the case of university of Oulu”,Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 329, p. 117056, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117056. Klein-Banai, C. and Theis, T.L. (2013), “Quantitative analysis of factors affecting greenhouse gas emissions at institutions of higher education”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 48, pp. 29-38, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.06.004. Larsen, H.N., Pettersen, J., Solli, C. and Hertwich, E.G. (2013), “Investigating the carbon footprint of a university - the case of NTNU”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 48, pp. 39-47, doi: 10.1016/j. jclepro.2011.10.007. Leal Filho, W. (2015), “Campus greening: why it is worth it”, in Leal Filho,W., Muthu, N., Edwin, G. and Sima, M. (Eds), Implementing Campus Greening Initiatives. World Sustainability Series, Springer, Cham, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-11961-8_27. Leal Filho, W., Will, M., Shiel, C., Paço, A., Farinha, C.S., Orlovic Lovren, V., Avila, L.V., Platje, J., Sharifi, A., Vasconcelos, C.R. and Fritzen Gomes, B.M. (2021), “Towards a common future: revising the evolution of university-based sustainability research literature”,International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, Vol. 28 No. 6,pp. 503-517. Letete, T., Mungwe, N.W., Guma, M. and Marquard, A. (2011), “Carbon footprint of the University of Cape Town”,Journal of Energy in Southern Africa, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 2-12. Li, Z., Chen, Z., Yang, N., Wei, K., Ling, Z., Liu, Q., Chen, G. and Ye, B.H. (2021), “Trends in research on the carbon footprint of higher education: a bibliometric analysis (2010–2019)”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 289, p. 125642, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125642. LSE (2021), “LSE becomes the first carbon neutral verified university in the UK [WWW document]”, lse.ac.uk, available at: www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2021/k-November-21/LSE- becomes-the-first-Carbon-Neutral-verified-university-in-the-UK (accessed 27 January 23). Higher education institutions 309 Matuštík, J. and Ko cí, V. (2021), “What is a footprint? A conceptual analysis of environmental footprint indicators”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 285, p. 124833,doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124833. Mazhar, M.U., Amar, H., Bull, R., Lemon, M. and Piyaa, M.R.-S. (2021), “Exploring barriers to carbon management in UK universities”, In British academy of management (BAM) 2021, Lancaster University Management School, available at: https://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/43864 Müller, A. (2023), “Decarbonizing business travel: a qualitative exploration of the (mis-) alignment between knowledge organizations’climate strategies and travel practices”,Journal of Sustainable Tourism, pp. 1-25. Nakamura, S. and Nansai, K. (2016), “Input–output and hybrid LCA”, in Finkbeiner, M. (Ed.), Special Types of Life Cycle Assessment. LCA Compendium –The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment, Springer, Dordrecht, doi: 10.1007/978-94-0177610-3_6. Niemistö, J., Seppälä, J., Karvonen, J., Soimakallio, S., Päästökompensaatiot ilmastonmuutoksen hillinnän keinona Suomessa –nyt ja tulevaisuudessa, Finnish Ministry of the Environment. Osorio, A.M., Úsuga, L.F., V asquez, R.E., Nieto-Londoño, C., Rinaudo, M.E., Martínez, J.A. and Filho, W.L. (2022), “Towards carbon neutrality in higher education institutions: case of two private universities in Colombia”,Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 1-24, doi: 10.3390/ su14031774. Ozawa-Meida, L., Brockway, P., Letten, K., Davies, J. and Fleming, P. (2013), “Measuring carbon performance in a UK university through a consumption-based carbon footprint: De Montfort university case study”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 56, pp. 185-198, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.09.028. Pajula, T., Vatanen, S., Behm, K., Grönman, K., Lakanen, L., Kasurinen, H. and Soukka, R. (2021), “Carbon handprint guide V. 2.0 applicable for environmental handprint”. Pickton, D.W. and Wright, S. (1998), “What’s SWOT in strategic analysis?”Strategic Change, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 101-109. Robinson, O., Kemp, S. and Williams, I. (2015), “Carbon management at universities: a reality check”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 106,pp. 109-118, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.095. Robinson, O.J., Tewkesbury, A., Kemp, S. and Williams, I.D. (2018), “Towards a universal carbon footprint standard: a case study of carbon management at universities”,Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. 4435-4455, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.147. Schmidt, A. (2022), “University air travel and greenhouse gas mitigation: an analysis of higher education climate policies”,International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1426-1442, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-07-2021-0318. Sen, G., Chau, H.-W., Tariq, M.A.U.R., Muttil, N. and Ng, A.W.M. (2021), “Achieving sustainability and carbon neutrality in higher education institutions: a review”,Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 1, p. 222, doi: 10.3390/su14010222. Stacey, R. (1993), “Strategic thinking and the management of change: international perspectives on organisational dynamics”, Kogan Page. Statistics Finland (2023), “Number of deaths historically high in Finland in 2022”, available at: www. stat.fi/en/publication/cl7riu7w5epo10cw3xuduscz0 (accessed 27 March 2024). Sterling, S., Maxey, L. and Luna, H. (2013), “The sustainable university”,Progress and Prospects, Routledge/Earthscan, Abingdon. Tipper, R., Coad, N. and Burnett, J. (2009), “Is ‘insetting’the new offsetting”, Econometrica, available at: https://ecometricacom/assets/insetting_offsetting_technicalpdf (accessed 15 September 2022). Unifi(2020), “Theses on sustainable development and responsibility”, available at: www.unifi.fi/viestit/ theses-on-sustainable-development-and-responsibility/ (accessed 6 January 2023). Valls-Val, K. and Bovea, M.D. (2021), “Carbon footprint in higher education institutions: a literature review and prospects for future research”,Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 2523-2542, doi: 10.1007/s10098-021-02180-2. IJSHE 25,9 310 Wiedmann, T. (2009), “A review of recent multi-region input–output models used for consumptionbased emission and resource accounting”,Ecological Economics, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 211-222, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.08.026. Wiedmann, T., and Minx, J. (2007) “Adefinition of ‘carbon footprint’”, Ecological economics research trends, Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge,New York, 1, pp. 1-11., WRI and WBCSD (2004), “The greenhouse gasprotocol corporate accounting andreporting standard” WRI and WBCSD (2011), “Corporate valuechain (scope 3) accounting and reporting standard”. Wright, C. and Nyberg, D. (2017), “An inconvenient truth: how organizations translate climate change into business as usual”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 60No. 5, pp. 1633-1661. Wright, L.A., Kemp, S. and Williams, I. (2011), “‘Carbon footprinting’: towards a universally accepted definition”,Carbon Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 61-72, doi: 10.4155/cmt.10.39. Wynes, S. and Donner, S.D. (2018), Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Business-Related Air Travel at Public Institutions: A Case Study of the University of British Columbia, Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, Victoria, BC. Author affiliations Veronica Lucia Ahonen, Department of Geosciences and Geography, Earth Change Observation Laboratory (ECHOLAB), Faculty ofScience, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Aleksandra Woszczek, Department of Sustainability Science, School of Energy Systems, Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology (LUT), Lappeenranta, Finland Stefan Baumeister, School of Business and Economics, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Ulla T. Helimo, Schoolof Resource Wisdom, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Anne Kristiina Jackson, Governance Services, Faculty of Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland Maria Kopsakangas-Savolainen, Finnish Environment Institute, Oulu, Finland and Oulu Business School, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland Juha Kääriä, Water and Environmental Engineering Research group, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland Tommi Lehtonen, InnoLab, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland Mika Luoranen, Department of Sustainability Science, School of Energy Systems, Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology (LUT), Lappeenranta, Finland Eva Pongr acz, Department of Water, Energy and Environmental Engineering, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland Risto Soukka, Departmentof SustainabilityScience, School of EnergySystems, Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology (LUT), Lappeenranta, Finland, and Veera Vainio and Sami El Geneidy, School of Resource Wisdom, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Higher education institutions 311 Appendix. Survey to HEIs (1) Name of HEI (2) Has your HEI implemented a carbon footprint calculation? Yes/No/Is planning to (3) How often is your institution planning to undertake carbon footprint calculations? Annually/Biannually/Every three years/Other/No decisions made (4) The main external stakeholders in your HEI’s carbon footprint calculation? (5) The biggest challenges in calculating your HEI’s carbon footprint? (6) What resources does your HEI have for carbon footprint calculation? (7) Are these resources sufficient? (8) What are the main reasons why your institution has not or does not intend to implement a carbon footprint calculation? (9) Which of the following categories have you included/intend to include in your carbon footprint? Canteen services/Commuting/Construction/Electricity/Heat/Investments/Real estate maintenance/Procurements/Refrigerants/Student exchanges/University vehicles/Waste/ Water/Work travel/Other (10) What tools, emission factors and methods are used to calculate the carbon footprint? (11) Has your HEI set a separate carbon neutrality target? Yes/No/Is planning to (12) If not, why does your HEI not intend to set a separate carbon neutrality target? (13) Has your HEI set emission reduction targets? Yes/No/Is planning to (14) If not, what are the main reasons why your HEI has not set emission reduction targets? (15) Explain more about your university’s emission reduction targets: size of reductions, benchmark, milestones, which categories apply? (16) Does your HEI offset or intend to offset its carbon footprint? Fully/Partially/Not intending to offset/No plans yet (17) What are the main reasons why your HEI is not planning to offset? (18) How is your HEI planning to fund offsetting? (19) What are the main offsetting-related challenges at your HEI? (20) Which categories is your HEI planning to offset? Commuting/Construction/Investments/Real estate maintenance/Procurements/ Student exchanges/Waste/Work travel (21) Which categories should not be part of a HEI’s offsetting responsibilities? (22) Other thoughts regarding offsetting responsibility? (23) Who is responsible for the decision-making considering carbon footprint? (24) Are the sustainability-related decision-making processes and responsibilities clear at your HEI? (25) How would you balance between reducing the carbon footprint and increasing the effectiveness of climate related solutions? (26) Has your HEI taken into consideration other environmental impact indicators? IJSHE 25,9 312 About the authors Veronica Lucia Ahonen is a Doctoral Researcher at the Earth Change Observation Laboratory (ECHOLAB) group located at the Department of Geosciences and Geography of the University of Helsinki, Finland. She also has an affiliation to the Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science. Her specialty is the carbon neutrality work of Finnish Higher Education Institutions, especially in the context of academic air mobility and carbon offsetting. Veronica Lucia Ahonen is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: veronica.ahonen@helsinki.fi Aleksandra Woszczek is currently pursuing a PhD in sustainability science at the School of Energy Systems at the Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology LUT, Finland. She has been part of the Sustainability Science Carbon Negativity Team at LUT University since 2020. Her research interests are carbon footprint calculations and carbon neutrality of universities and environmental system analysis. Stefan Baumeister, PhD is a Senior Lecturer and Adjunct Professor at the University of Jyväskylä, School of Business and Economics, Finland and the Director of the Corporate Environmental Management Master’s Degree program. Stefan’s research interests center around climate change mitigation, sustainable consumption and the transportation sector. His research has appeared in leading journals of his field such as Transport Policy,Journal of Transport Geography,Environmental Impact Assessment Review or Journal of Cleaner Production. Stefan also acts as an editorial board member of Wisdom Letters. Ulla T. Helimo is a sustainability and responsibility specialist at the Division of Policy and Planning of the University of Jyväskylä and a member of the Board of Wisdom Directors at the School of Resource Wisdom. Ulla’s expertise areas include environmental management, sustainability of organizations and biodiversity. Anne Kristiina Jackson is a specialist in Governance and Management, Sustainability, Human Resources and Education. A PhD Graduate of Royal Holloway, University of London, Anne has worked in University Governance and Management since 2001. Having operated at British universities (research, teaching, management) for almost two decades, she is currently working at the University of Turku, Finland. At the University of Turku, she is a Human Resources Specialist focusing on recruitment, sustainable well-being of the workforce and international recruitment as well as contracting systems and operations. Maria Kopsakangas-Savolainen is an Energy Economics Professor at the Finnish Environment Institute and the University of Oulu Business School. Her focus is on the operation of the electricity market. Her recent research has concerned electricity pricing schemes, consumers energy contract preferences, intermittent energy value, promotion market access and efficient use of renewable energy. Her professional experience includes several journal referees, testimonies in the Finnish market court and consulting government bodies. She was vice president of the Finnish Climate Change Panel (2015–1019) and is Associate Editor of the journal Energy Efficiency (Springer) and board member in the journal Finnish Economic Papers. Higher education institutions 313 Juha Kääriä (PhD) was a Principal Lecturer at the Water and Environmental Engineering Research group, Turku University of Applied Sciences, where he had worked since 2004 in teaching and research and development projects related to aquatic protection. His competences included sustainable development, management, circular economy and stakeholder group work among others. He was recently rewarded the Baltic Sea Protection Award by the Protection Fund for the Archipelago Sea by Centrum Balticum. Kääriä passed away in spring 2023. Tommi Lehtonen is the Director of Responsibility and Ethics at the University of Vaasa, Finland. He specializes in ethics, social philosophy and philosophy of science. His expertise areas include the role of attitudes in decision-making and choice behavior, values and ethics of management and sustainability in economic, social and cultural contexts. Lehtonen has published widely in philosophical and social scientific journals. Mika Luoranen, PhD (male) is the Associate Professor in Sustainable Community at the department of Sustainable Solutions at LUT School of Energy Systems. His research interests and expertise include the sustainability of various energy systems, including energy efficiency assessment and life cycle modeling of areas and buildings. Eva Pongr acz is Professor of energy systems and environmental engineering at the University of Oulu, and she is the chair of the Carbon Footprint Working Group of the University of Oulu. She is also head of the Energy and Environmental Engineering Research Group, where the main research themes are sustainable energy systems, energy transition, carbon neutrality and critical materials in circular economy. Risto Soukka DcS (Tech.) is a Professor of Environmental Technology especially life cycle modelling. He is leading a research group which is focused on reducing environmental impacts of products/services/organizations/communities by evaluating sustainability of novel solutions, conducting footprint calculations, developing more sustainable products, planning paths toward climate neutrality and developing methodology to show positive impacts of products and services. The team has recently done research regarding P2X solutions and also methodological development related to handprint. Veera Vainio (MSc) is a Project Planner at the School of Resource Wisdom and the Department of Biological and Environmental Science at the University of Jyväskylä. She is especially interested in the assessment of climate and biodiversity impacts of organizations. IJSHE 25,9 314 Sami El Geneidy is a Doctoral Researcher at the School of Resource Wisdom and School of Business and Economics at the University of Jyväskylä. Sami specializes in Corporate Environmental Management. He is especially interested in carbon and biodiversity footprint assessments of organizationsand how environmental accounting can be integrated with financial accounting. For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] Higher education institutions 315