should monitoring be compulsory within voluntary environmental agreements?

Sustainable DevelopmentSust. Dev. 8, 146–154 (2000)

SHOULD MONITORING BECOMPULSORY WITHINVOLUNTARYENVIRONMENTALAGREEMENTS?

Julia Walton*

University of Sunderland, UK

The emerging concept of businessaccountability implies a duty todemonstrate responsibility tostakeholders. Signing a voluntaryenvironmental agreement is a method ofpledging commitment; however, fewvoluntary environmental agreementscontain monitoring mechanisms todemonstrate performance against thatcommitment. Some voluntaryenvironmental agreements in theindustry and business sector incorporatemonitoring mechanisms and these areexamined in order to discover lessonsthat can be learned. A monitoringmechanism, such as EnvironmentalReporting via hardcopy and the WorldWide Web provides a useful and flexiblemechanism that could be utilized to amuch greater extent within other sectors.Higher education sector agreements suchas the European COPERNICUS Charterand the global Talloires Declaration inparticular are assessed using surveyevidence to demonstrate the need foradditional stimuli to ensure commitment.Flexible and incremental monitoring and

reporting via a variety of cost effectivecommunication media could provide theway forward in terms of establishingboth credibility and sustainability of thevoluntary environmental agreementmechanism. Copyright © 2000 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd and ERPEnvironment.

Received 18 October 1999Revised 10 January 2000Accepted 17 January 2000

INTRODUCTION

The emerging concept of industry andbusiness accountability implies a dutyto use resources responsibly, and to

demonstrate that responsibility to stakehold-ers (Grayson et al., 1995; Bennett et al., 1999;Schwartz and Gibb, 1999). The environmentalreply of businesses has, in part, been co-ordi-nated and stimulated by the actions of variousbusiness interest groups (Roberts, 1995). Prin-ciples, charters and declarations in the form ofvoluntary environmental agreements havebeen developed by a number of industry as-sociations, non-governmental organizations(NGOs) and special interest groups (Hutchin-son, 1997), and these groups have been part of‘the emergence of international secretariats asmajor motors of international action’ (von

* Correspondence to: Dr. J. Walton, Centre for EnvironmentalInformatics, School of Sciences, University of Sunderland, Bene-dict Building, St. George’s Way, Sunderland SR2 7BW, UK.

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

MONITORING WITHIN VOLUNTARY ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS

Moltke, 1996). Secretariats of voluntary agree-ments need to clearly recognize that the sus-tainability agenda is moving rapidly and thatsigning up to an agreement or claiming tohave an organizational environmental policyis no longer adequate proof of commitment.Voluntary agreements have galvanized atten-tion, but many of the charters, declarationsand principles have raised questions aboutthe need to have adequate monitoring andfollow-up procedures if they are not to beused solely for public relations benefits (Bro-phy, 1998).

Many of the more recent initiatives on theenvironment have been market driven andare voluntary (Welford, 1996). However, fewvoluntary environmental agreements auto-matically require compulsory monitoring bysignatories. In a comparative study under-taken by Brophy (1998), three out of nineagreements examined contained a require-ment to publish information and data on per-formance. But how can commitment andindeed accountability be monitored, assessedand disseminated? The aim of this paper is totherefore examine voluntary agreements suchas the Coalition for Environmentally Respon-sible Economies (CERES) Principles and theConfederation of British Industry (CBI) Envi-ronment Business Forum that incorporatemechanisms to monitor commitment, to high-light lessons for other agreements and sectorsand to argue that compulsory monitoringwithin voluntary agreements is necessary inorder to aid both implementation and longterm credibility of the voluntary agreement.Agreements in the higher education sector areexamined and the increasing use of the WorldWide Web (WWW) is discussed as a uniquemedium and tool to support these environ-mental communications (Jones et al., 1998).

VOLUNTARY ENVIRONMENTALAGREEMENTS IN INDUSTRY ANDBUSINESS

The monitoring mechanism being utilized byCERES and the CBI Environment BusinessForum is Environmental Reporting, which

provides a method for companies to com-municate their accountability to a numberof stakeholders. Environmental Reportingevolved originally as a voluntary activity inorder to demonstrate self-enforcement in-duced by concerns and a desire to be acceptedby other members of the industrial associationand the community (Ranghieri, 1995; Panay-otou, 1998). Environmental Reporting can becategorized as part of the new approach toself-regulation that has gained considerableinterest and momentum in recent years. It isan aspect of ‘informational regulation’ thatencourages the production of informationabout pollution generation both as a source ofincentive for behavioural change and as abenchmark for subsequent regulation (Panay-otou, 1998). The production of informationand data can inform and indicate continuouslong term commitment and genuine account-ability and the public disclosure of environ-mental information via corporate documentsis the ideal vehicle for highlighting the gapbetween rhetoric and action (Grayson et al.,1995). Environmental Reporting is a mecha-nism through which a company publiclyreports information and data on itsenvironmental performance to a variety ofstakeholders on an annual basis, and it is thismechanism that has evolved independentlyand has recently been incorporated into vol-untary agreements.

Environmental Reporting occurs not onlyvia hardcopy reports but also by the WWW,and there has been a significant increase inWWW based corporate environmental reports(CERs), with SustainAbility–UNEP referringto this growth in their second internationalprogress report on company environmentalreporting, Engaging Stakeholders, by sayingthat ‘the next 3–5 years are likely to see anexplosive growth in the number of corporatewebsites designed to communicate environ-mental commitment, targets and performanceover the Internet’ (SustainAbility–UNEP,1996).

The diffusion of Environmental Reportingvia both hardcopy and the WWW is an em-blematic demonstration of the necessity forfirms to communicate with external stake-holders, satisfy their requests and show them

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 8, 146–154 (2000)

147

J. WALTON

commitment (Azzone et al., 1996). The benefitsof reporting corporate environmental perfor-mance are already widely documented(Davis-Walling and Batterman, 1997; Palmerand van der Vorst, 1997; Jones et al., 1998),and signing up to the CERES Principles andthe CBI Environment Business Forum in-cludes a requirement for signatory companiesto produce publicly available EnvironmentalReports.

The CERES Principles are a corporate codeof environmental conduct created by a coali-tion of investors, public pension trustees,foundations, labour unions and environmen-tal, religious and public interest groups. Par-ticipating companies that sign up to theCERES Principles complete a standardizedEnvironmental Report to provide a way forstakeholders to gauge a company’s environ-mental progress (Brophy and Rikhardsson,1996). The CERES Environmental Report is acomprehensive attempt to cover all aspects ofcorporate environmental management andperformance. First developed in 1990 and re-vised annually through a collaborative indus-try – environmental – investor process, theCERES Report has been widely recognized asa leader worldwide in standardized reporting.In a 1997 SustainAbility–UNEP survey of cor-porate reports worldwide, a connection wasfound between the quality of the CERs thatcompanies produced and the sorts of agree-ment that the companies had signed up to.CERES company reports were found to be the‘greenest’ (Elkington et al., 1999) and half ofthe ten top-ranked reports in the survey be-longed to CERES companies, including thetop two (Massie, 1999).

A variety of Environmental Reportingguidelines have emerged in recent years;however, one of the main difficulties that hasbeen identified is the lack of standardization.CERES is actively progressing the Environ-mental Reporting agenda via new Sustainabil-ity Reporting guidelines that aim toencourage a level of standardization. TheGlobal Reporting Initiative (GRI) was con-vened by CERES and established in late 1997with the mission of designing globally appli-cable guidelines for preparing enterprise-levelsustainability reports. The intention of the

guidelines is to provide a sustainability re-porting framework that stresses the linkagesbetween the environmental, social and eco-nomic aspects of enterprise performance(CERES, 1999). These guidelines werelaunched in March 1999 and illustrate that themechanism of Environmental Reporting is adynamic one, which has a valuable role toplay in driving and challenging organizationsthat wish to claim environmental com-mitment.

The Environmental Business Forum, whichis an initiative of the CBI, also incorporatesaccountability mechanisms. It is the mostwidely supported charter in the UK (Brophyand Rikhardsson, 1996). The CBI guidelinesserve a dual purpose: to help businesses im-prove their environmental performance andto allow them to demonstrate the actions thatthey are taking. However, companies cannotsimply sign this charter: there are criteria fororganizations to gain membership. The CBIEnvironment Business Forum takes a differentapproach to CERES by requiring organiza-tions to submit an action plan outlining howthe organization will address the points setout in the ‘Agenda for Voluntary Action’.Within the first 12 months signatories arerequired to produce a corporate environmen-tal policy statement as part of an overall ac-tion plan. Organizations are asked to assesstheir environmental performance and to re-port on their progress in a public documenton an annual basis. ‘The CBI recognizes thatthere is a great deal of public pressure formore information on the environmental per-formance of companies as well as openness ofinformation’ (Wehrmeyer, 1996). The ‘greatstrength of the CBI document lies in itscommitment to annual environmental per-formance reports, which are open toindependent, external assessment’ (Brophy,1998). The CERES Principles and CBI Environ-ment Business Forum offer an insight into themethods used to encourage genuine and sus-tained commitment from signatories. Theseagreements provide lessons that can be learntparticularly by other sectors that haveproduced their own specific voluntaryagreements.


148


VOLUNTARY ENVIRONMENTALAGREEMENTS IN THE HIGHEREDUCATION SECTOR

Organizations and groups within the HigherEducation Sector have functioned in a similarway to industry and business by developingvoluntary agreements and forming secretari-ats to encourage universities to address theirenvironmental responsibility. HEI environ-mental agreements have been promulgatedboth on a European (Co-operation Pro-gramme in Europe for Research on Natureand Industry through Co-ordinated Univer-sity Studies, COPERNICUS Charter) andglobal (Talloires Declaration) scale. Declara-tions and charters especially targeted at HEIsinclude:

1. The Talloires Declaration (1990),2. The Halifax Declaration (1991),3. The COPERNICUS Charter (1993),4. The Swansea Declaration (1993),5. The Kyoto Declaration (1993),6. The Yale Blueprint for a Sustainable Fu-

ture (1995) and7. The Global Student Environment Charter

(1997).

The Talloires Declaration and COPERNI-CUS Charter are perhaps the two most promi-nent and have been written to ensure that a‘more holistic and multi-disciplinary ap-proach to environmental problems is fosteredby drawing on the traditional strength of uni-versities as generators and disseminators ofknowledge’ (Filho et al., 1996) and that ‘sus-tainability is a major focus of academic disci-plines, research, operations and outreach’(ULSF, 1999).

Within western and, increasingly, easternEurope, the COPERNICUS Charter aims toencourage universities to address their envi-ronmental responsibilities. It is the UniversityCharter for Sustainable Development underthe Conference of European Rectors, whichwas drawn up in 1993 with a secretariat inSwitzerland and claims 217 signatories (Win-klemann, 1998). The COPERNICUS Charteralso has a working group and principles ofaction include: institutional commitment, en-

vironmental ethics, education of universityemployees, programmes in environmental ed-ucation, interdisciplinarity, dissemination ofknowledge, networking, partnerships, contin-uing education programmes and technologytransfer. Expressed in terms of specific guide-lines, in theory they should form a key ele-ment in the mission statement of theuniversity concerned. Following a number ofpublications and summer schools it has beenprogressively agreed that the COPERNICUSactivities could now orient themselves to-wards ‘environmental management’ (Winkle-mann, 1998).

The global Talloires Declaration was inau-gurated in 1990 at the European Campus ofTufts University (Boston, USA). The numberof signatory institutions is 265 from 43 coun-tries. The declaration is a ten point plan ofprinciples that encourages awareness raisingin a variety of sectors such as government,industry, foundations and HEIs. It advocatesinformation exchange between HEIs, the es-tablishment of environmental programmes forall undergraduates, environmental staff de-velopment, establishment of resource con-servation programmes, encouragement ofgovernment involvement at all levels andNGOs, collaboration with schools, work withthe UN environment programme and the es-tablishment of a steering committee. Morerecently the ULSF secretariat has gathereddata on signatory progress via a sustainabilityassessment questionnaire.

However there are no compulsory require-ments in either the COPERNICUS Charter orthe Talloires Declaration to demonstrate ac-countability. Recent research has discoveredthat concerted institution-wide action is rare;‘while accompanying action has been takingplace for some time, much of it has beenhappening in institutional or regional isola-tion and is dependent upon committed indi-viduals or small groups without policies andsystems to support their efforts’ (ULSF, 1996;Walton et al., 2000). Universities have by andlarge failed to adequately address environ-mental issues either in the curricula they of-fer, or the way they operate (Alabaster andWalton, 1997), although it is recognized thatthese agreements are relatively difficult to


149

J. WALTON

implement given that universities are largelyconservative, bureaucratic and traditional in-stitutions (Alabaster and Blair, 1996).

TALLOIRES DECLARATION SURVEYFINDINGS

An international survey of signatories to theTalloires Declaration has recently been under-taken by the Centre for Environmental Infor-matics (CEI) in order to discover the issuessurrounding practical institution-wide imple-mentation. The objective of the survey was todiscover how HEIs were addressing or priori-tizing their environmental responsibility, toassess what types of support existed exter-nally and internally, and to determine whatlevel of Environmental Reporting was beingundertaken. Both quantitative data and quali-tative information were collected, and the sur-vey incorporated respondents from Asia,Africa, Europe, Latin America, North Americaand Oceania.

Although progress in implementing theTalloires Declaration was often dependentupon a unique set of circumstances at individ-ual institutions, a number of generic factorsemerged from the responses. The TalloiresDeclaration was often found not to be the solestimulus for action on environmental pro-gress. Some of the signatory respondents hadbeen taking action before signing the Declara-tion. For those that had not, however, therewas an understanding among the respondentsthat the Declaration provides a valuableawareness raising mechanism both for thesenior management of individual institutionsand to galvanize the global HEI sector as awhole. However, despite the general agree-ment that senior level support is essential, insome cases practical help was not forthcom-ing and general awareness of the Declarationwas often low in many institutions. This re-sulted in enthusiastic individuals lower downthe management hierarchy attempting totranslate the principles of the Declaration intopractice largely in isolation.

The Declaration suffers from a lack of pro-file due to the fact that it does not contain

additional mechanisms, support or incentiveto enable it to become a major institutionaldriving force. Evidence from the signatorysurvey demonstrates that the period immedi-ately after signing is a crucial opportunity fora binding element or plan of institutional in-tent to be developed. ‘Real progress seems totake place when institutions have the confi-dence to develop their own policy’ (DoE–DfEE, 1996). Once institutional policies areformulated, mechanisms are needed to main-tain momentum. As Trudgill (1990) states,‘even if people agree on goals, problems andsolutions, the implementation of solutionsmay meet technological, economic, social andpolitical obstacles’. This is an important pointat which additional mechanisms are neededthat can aid solutions and prompt furtherprogress. ‘The articulation of mission state-ments and overt attempts at cultural changeand manipulation may bring the issue of envi-ronmental values out into the open. Unfortu-nately these prescriptions do not and cannot,go far enough’ (Ledgerwood, 1997). A num-ber of barriers were discovered that can pre-vent progress and institutional policies canstagnate if not prioritized via the managementagenda. It is during this period that monitor-ing mechanisms, such as Environmental Re-porting, may provide an additional stimulusto ensure that the institutional environmentalpolicy remains a priority relative to otherinstitutional policies and that implementationis sustained.

In order to provide incentive to integratethe Talloires Declaration into management,the production of initial action plans andmonitoring could be a valuable aid. The mem-bership organization of the Talloires Declara-tion that provides signatory support does notrequire or provide a framework or mecha-nism for institutions to submit an initial planof action. Neither does it require signatoriesto provide information on progress at laterstages of implementation to the membershiporganization or to the public. This results inprogress being made mainly by ‘trailblazinginstitutions’ (DoE–DfEE, 1996) that have acombination of alternative driving forces thatenable progress. However these driving forcesmay not be permanent or integrated into


150


institutional management. Greene (1996)states that ‘monitoring is an important ele-ment in the verification process (that is theability to verify compliance with) commit-ments, a factor which itself could have a sig-nificant influence on the behaviour of keyactors’. Long term monitoring could be astimulus for long term commitment and pre-vent institutions relying on short termprojects and successes. Calls for a monitoringmechanism have been made by signatoriesthemselves in relation to the COPERNICUSCharter: ‘A monitoring mechanism for record-ing actions and for over-viewing progress wasconsidered necessary. Such a body could helpassist universities in their future work withcross-curricular and institutional greening,and supply them with means for self-evalua-tion and assistance in the introduction of en-vironmental audits. Environmental achieve-ments should preferably be included in futureuniversity annual reports’ (Filho et al., 1996).

Communication of environmental achieve-ments may use a range of formal and infor-mal tools (Ali-Khan et al., 1998), which HEIscan consider in order to monitor and sustaintheir environmental progress. In terms of thecommunications medium, the WWW offersunique dissemination and communicationpossibilities and can reduce overall costs ofpublication (Walton and Alabaster, 1996).There are varying entry levels that HEIs canselect depending upon their history and levelof progress and currently around 30 HEIsprovide environmental progress informationvia the WWW although this type of provisionis in its infancy and is concerned primarilywith the background and set-up of opera-tions. It is clear that there is enormous scopefor innovation and development in the areasof measuring, monitoring, providing environ-mental information and the methods and de-signs through which this information iscommunicated. At the 1998 COPERNICUSconference there were suggestions that ‘publi-cation of greening the campus project resultsmight be a vehicle for sharing experience inthis field. A cost effective way might be a typeof publication that used the possibilities of theInternet’ (Winklemann, 1998). It can be ar-gued that the WWW is likely to become a

major channel for some forms of corporateenvironmental communication and that thecoming years will see major shifts in the waysin which the environmental and social perfor-mance of an institution are communicated tothe outside world (SustainAbility–UNEP,1996).

Examples of institutions within the HEI sec-tor that have recognized the need for, andbenefits of, monitoring via Environmental Re-porting can be found in the UK. The Univer-sity of Sunderland and Liverpool JohnMoores University provide examples of uni-versity Environmental Reports both via hard-copy and the WWW. ‘An EnvironmentalReport was produced as a pilot in 1996 at theUniversity of Sunderland which adds credibil-ity to the institution in terms of being seen tobe accountable’ (Walton and Ali-Khan, 1998).Liverpool John Moores University, also a sig-natory to the Talloires Declaration, producedan Environmental Performance Report in 1997and incorporated information from an Envi-ronmental Review Exercise. It has providedan opportunity to promote positive and prac-tical solutions to environmental concerns, ac-knowledges the vital contribution made by anumber of key enthusiastic individuals andallows the assessment of performance againsta set of target indicators (Ali-Khan et al.,1998).

DISCUSSION

HEIs are subject to expectations and incen-tives different from those of industry andbusiness although there are many similaritiesin the way that their business systems func-tion (Walton et al., 1997). However, pressure isnow building on the higher education sectorto ‘practise what it teaches’ given that at theDETR funded HE21 project conference in Ed-inburgh in May 1998 Brian Wilson, Ministerof State for Education and Industry for Scot-land, declared that sustainable developmentwas ‘very much a mainstream Higher Educa-tion issue’ (Kinver, 1998). Furthermore, AC-CA’s Technical Director, Roger Adams,recently stated during the 1999 ACCA Envi-ronmental Reporting awards ceremony that


151

J. WALTON

‘Small and medium sized enterprises, the vol-untary sector and public institutions were stillnot reporting in large numbers’ (Wright,1999). HEIs have been very slow to respondto mechanisms such as Environmental Re-porting, even within their business systemfunctions, and could clearly benefit from theknowledge and experience in industry andbusiness (Rauberger, 1996; Walton et al., 1997).

The responsibility of universities for dis-seminating knowledge to the public at large isrecognized by the COPERNICUS Charter aspart of the role of higher education in further-ing sustainable development (Filho et al.,1996). Signatories have called for comparisonsof performance, stating that competitionamong universities is conducive to evaluationof performance via benchmarking (Filho et al.,1996). ‘Several European countries have al-ready approved legislation requiring compa-nies to publicly report on their performance’(SustainAbility–UNEP, 1998a) and this isspreading to the higher education sector. Inthe Netherlands, for example, universities arerequired to provide an Environmental Reportto the local authority and to provide a con-densed version of their report to the generalpublic. Therefore pressure is increasing fromgovernments, funding councils, secretariatsand signatories for HEIs to monitor and dis-close environmental performance informationand data.

However, concerns have been expressedabout the monitoring process becoming an‘onerous task’ for both secretariats and signa-tories. The question is whether voluntaryagreements without monitoring mechanismsare less meaningful as driving forces. If moni-toring mechanisms were to be introducedwould this deter potential signatories? Whatare the options facing secretariats who wish toestablish and maintain the credibility of theirvoluntary agreements in order to attract fu-ture signatories, but who do not wish to deterpotential signatories because of compulsorymonitoring procedures? This dilemma is com-pounded by the relative lack of credibility ofsome agreements, which has been highlightedthrough comparative studies (Brophy, 1998).Aspects of the voluntary agreement mecha-nism are being called into question. The ques-

tion is not what the cost in broad terms ofintroducing monitoring procedures might be,but what the consequences of not doing sowould be. According to Greene (1996) theeffectiveness of the implementation dependson the extent to which a combination of mech-anisms are developed in such a way that theyinfluence and interact with actors in a mannerthat promotes desired changes in behaviour.It is the combination of several mechanisms toincrease successful implementation that is thekey issue. The potential solution lies partly inthe incorporation of an Environmental Re-porting mechanism that incorporates manyentry levels and stages of incremental devel-opment, thus reducing the immediate scale ofthe task. Table 1 illustrates the varying levelsof the Environmental Reporting format andmedium, from small scale communications tocomprehensive documents.

Corporate Environmental Reporting hasevolved significantly in industry and businessin recent years and remains flexible as there isno international mandatory standardized for-mat (Ranghieri, 1995). It is therefore suitablefor sectors other than industry and business.Those signatories that have suggested or re-quested some type of monitoring and report-ing mechanism could become trailblazers andprovide working examples of best practice forother institutions. Furthermore, it is possibleto divide monitoring mechanisms into threemain stages in order to overcome difficultiesat crucial stages without overloading signato-ries with rigorous reporting requirements.

1. Binding elements such as an initial actionplan would help to galvanize practical topdown support due to attention being fo-cused on the strategic decisions and plan-ning on the initial implementation of thedeclaration and provide a lever for enthu-siastic individuals to drive the internalprocess. Evidence from the survey indi-cated that at some signatory institutionsagreements are signed and forgotten. Anumber of industries and businesses havealso signed up to formal commitmentssuch as the International Chamber ofCommerce Charter (ICC) and in ‘someextreme cases, some managers we


152


Table 1. The five main stages of the Sustainability–UNEP model.

Stage 2Stage 1 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Green Annual reporting, Provision of full toxic Sustainable developmentOne-off environ-reporting, linkingmental report, often release stylelinked toglossies,

environmental performance data onlinked to first formalnewsletters, environmental, economicand social aspects ofmanagement system, annual basis.policy statementvideos, short

but more text than Input/output data for corporate performance,statements inservice companies.figuresannual report supported by indicators

of sustainabilityAvailable on disketteor on-line.Environmental reportreferred to in annualreport

(SustainAbility–UNEP, 1997).

interviewed were not even aware thattheir company had signed the ICC Busi-ness Charter’ (SustainAbility–UNEP,1998b). Therefore there are similar prob-lems with the voluntary agreement mecha-nism in both the higher education andindustry and business sectors.

2. Periodic monitoring should take place inorder to assess the extent to which thedeclaration has been ‘internalized’ into thepolicy and procedures of the signatoryinstitution.

3. Following significant progress in develop-ing institutional systems, monitoring ofprogress and performance against both theinstitutional policies and the principles ofthe declaration should be carried out.

Environmental Reporting is symbolic of ageneral societal trend towards greater ac-countability, which is particularly importantin relation to voluntary agreements (Brophyand Rikhardsson, 1996). In the new era ofaccountability, evaluation and communicationthere are real dangers for the credibility ofvoluntary agreements that cannot demon-strate evidence of progress. There are futurethreats of increasing legislation and the scepti-cism of potential signatories. Therefore secre-tariats need to consider the introduction ofcompulsory but flexible monitoring mecha-nisms. Flexible and incremental monitoringand reporting via a variety of cost effectivecommunication media may provide the wayforward in terms of both establishing credibil-ity via existing signatories and building a

much larger signatory base in future. Secretar-iats will find it difficult to attract sponsorshipor to become self-sustaining through signa-tory membership fees without evidence ofsignatory accountability and progress. Sus-tainability of voluntary agreements is ulti-mately a question of accountability anddemonstrable credibility.

REFERENCES

Alabaster T, Blair DJ. 1996. Greening the university. InEducation for Sustainability, Huckle J, Stirling S (eds).Earthscan–WWF: London; 86–104.

Alabaster T, Walton J. 1997. Practising what they teach:universities, industry and environmental reporting.Environmental Information Bulletin 64: 11–16.

Ali-Khan S, Downton B, Walton J. 1998. Sustainabilitycommunications. HE21 Best Practice Bulletin. Forumfor the Future: London.

Azzone G, Manzini R, Noci G. 1996. Evolutionary trendsin environmental reporting. In Industry and the Envi-ronment: Practical Applications of Environmental Man-agement Approaches in Business, Ulhoi JP and MadsenH (eds). Aarhus School of Business.

Bennett M, James P, Klinkers L. 1999. Sustainable Mea-sures: Evaluation and Reporting of Environmental andSocial Performance. Greenleaf: Sheffield.

Brophy M. 1998. Environmental guidelines and charters.In Corporate Environmental Management 1, Welford RJ.(ed.). Earthscan: London; 104–118.

Brophy M, Rikhardsson P. 1996. Should environmentalreporting be made obligatory? Issues and aspects. InProceedings of the Environmental Management and Audit-ing Conference, Leeds, 1996.

Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies(CERES). 1999. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Sus-tainability Reporting Guidelines: Exposure Draft. Boston,MA.


153

J. WALTON

Davis-Walling P, Batterman S. 1997. Environmental re-porting by Fortune 50 firms. Environmental Manage-ment 21(6): 865–875.

Department of the Environment (DoE)--Department forEducation and Employment (DfEE). 1996. Environ-mental Responsibility: a Review of the 1993 Toyne Report.HMSO: London.

Elkington J, Kreander N, Stibbard H. 1999. A survey ofcompany reporting: the 1997 Third InternationalBenchmark Survey. In Sustainable Measures: Evaluationand Reporting of Environmental and Social Performance,Bennett M, James P (eds). Greenleaf: Sheffield; 330–334.

Filho W L, MacDermott F, Padgham J. 1996. Implement-ing Sustainable Development at University Level: a Man-ual of Good Practice. CRE-COPERNICUS, EuropeanResearch and Training Centre on Environmental Edu-cation: Bradford.

Grayson L, Woolston H, Tanega J. 1995. Business andEnvironmental Accountability: an Overview and Guide tothe Literature. Thornes: Cheltenham.

Greene M. 1996. The environment and internationalrelations. In Global Environmental Change Program,Vogler J, Imber M (eds). Routledge; 236 pp.

Hutchinson C. 1997. Building to Last: the Challenge forBusiness Leaders. Earthscan: London.

Jones K, Alabaster T, Walton J. 1998. Virtual environ-ments for environmental reporting. Greener Manage-ment International 21: 121–137.

Kinver M. 1998. Green Futures No. 12.Ledgerwood G. 1997. Greening the Boardroom: Corporate

Governance and Business Sustainability. Greenleaf:Sheffield.

Massie RK. 1999. Coalition for Environmentally Respon-sible Economies (CERES). http://www.ceres.org/re-porting/index.html [2 July 1999].

Palmer J, van der Vorst R. 1997. New recipe greenreporting for small and medium-size enterprises. Eco-Management and Auditing 4: 57–67.

Panayotou T. 1998. Instruments of Change: Motivating andFinancing Sustainable Development. UNEP–Earthscan:London.

Ranghieri F. 1995. Environmental reporting: how, who,when, why, what. Fondazione Eni Enrico MatteiNewsletter No. 2. http://www.feem.it/feem/notifeem/295/1.html [2 July 1999].

Rauberger R. 1996. Measuring and communicating envi-ronmental performance. In Industry and the Environ-ment: Practical Applications of Environmental Man-agement Approaches in Business, Ulhoi JP, Madsen H(eds). Aarhus School of Business; 53–66.

Roberts P. 1995. Environmentally Sustainable Business: aLocal and Regional Perspective. Chapman: London.

Schwartz P, Gibb B. 1999. When Good Companies do BadThings: Responsibility and Risk in an Age of Globalization.Wiley: New York.

SustainAbility–United Nations Environment Pro-gramme (UNEP). 1996. Engaging Stakeholders: theBenchmark Survey. SustainAbility–UNEP: London.

SustainAbility–United Nations Environment Pro-gramme (UNEP). 1997. Engaging Stakeholders: the 1997Benchmark Survey. SustainAbility–UNEP: London.

SustainAbility–United Nations Environment Pro-gramme (UNEP). 1998a. The Non-Reporting Report.SustainAbility–UNEP: London.

SustainAbility--United Nations Environment Pro-gramme (UNEP). 1998b. The CEO Agenda. Sustain-Ability–UNEP: London.

Trudgill S. 1990. Barriers to a Better Environment. Bel-haven: London.

ULSF, 1996. University Leaders for a Sustainable Future(ULSF). 1996. Inaugural Declaration Newsletter.

ULSF, 1999. University Leaders for a Sustainable Future(ULSF). http://www.ulsf.org/ [2 July 1999].

von Moltke K. 1996. International Environmental Manage-ment; Trade Regimes and Sustainability. IISD: Canada.

Walton J, Alabaster T. 1996. Institutional environmentalreporting using the World Wide Web. In Industry andthe Environment: Practical Applications of EnvironmentalManagement Approaches in Business. Aarhus School ofBusiness; 29–39.

Walton J, Alabaster T, Jones K. 2000. Environmentalaccountability: who’s kidding whom? EnvironmentalManagement in press.

Walton J, Alabaster T, Richardson S, Harrison R. 1997.Environmental reporting for global higher educationinstitutions using the World Wide Web. The Environ-mentalist 17: 197–208.

Walton J, Ali-Khan S. 1998. Trailblazer stories: Univer-sity of Sunderland. HE21 Best Practice Bulletin. Forumfor the Future: London.

Wehrmeyer W. 1996. Greening People: Human Resourcesand Environmental Management. Greenleaf: Sheffield.

Welford R. 1996. Corporate Environmental Management 1:Systems and Strategies. Earthscan: London.

Winklemann HP. 1998. Report of the InternationalCOPERNICUS Conference. The Role of Universities forSustainable Development, Utrecht, 1998.

Wright M. 1999. Business and finance, environmentalreporting gaining ground. Green Futures May–June.

BIOGRAPHY

Dr. Julia Walton is a lecturer and researcher atthe Centre for Environmental Informatics(CEI) in the School of Sciences, University ofSunderland.Address: Centre for Environmental Informat-ics, School of Sciences, University of Sunder-land, Benedict Building, St. George’s Way,Sunderland SR2 7BW, UK.Tel.: 0191 515 3761. Fax: 0191 515 3762.E-mail: [email protected]


154

should monitoring be compulsory within voluntary environmental agreements?

Documents