Green Ratings: Help or Hurt?

Colleges were quick to announce good scores on the Sustainable Endowments Institute’s annual sustainability report card, which was released recently. It was up to student-run newspapers to publicize the middling to poor grades earned by some other institutions.

For example, the Indiana Daily Student ran an editorial noting Indiana University’s B- mark (still, an improvement over last year’s C+) and urged the administration to do more.

“It is still unclear how committed the university actually is to the cause,” wrote Nathan Dixon. “For example, IU has yet to join the 392 colleges and universities [actually 600-plus] whose presidents have signed the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. … The fact that IU President Michael McRobbie hasn’t yet felt compelled to sign the ACUPCC is somewhat troubling, considering his ambitious–and controversial–construction plans for the IU campus.” Perhaps it’s because of the university’s construction plans, which usually lead to more emissions, that IU has not signed the commitment.

New Mexico State University’s Round Up said the institution’s overall grade of C- was due in part to “an F on the report card for endowment transparency, a category that evaluates how schools control endowment investment holdings and shareholder proxy voting records,” wrote Dustin Edwards. “So, why not make them available for all to see?… This low mark, falling two letter grades behind the national average, should be an easy fix.” Ah, youth.

Mr. Edwards added: “Perhaps a little embarrassment will push sustainability on campus forward in time for next year’s report card.”

The Daily Lobo, of the University of New Mexico, said students themselves were bringing down the green GPA: The university earned a B, but student involvement was rated a C. Students complained that they had not had the chance to fill out the survey, which was sent out in the summer, the story says.

The Columbia Spectator said administrators at Columbia University were surprised by their grade. “Columbia received an overall grade of B, a huge downturn from the A- it received in 2009 and the B+ it received in 2008. But in 2007, Columbia also received a B,” the story says. “It seems that administrators, like students, are used to earning A’s.”

The Daily Lobo and the Spectator raise questions that others have raised in the past about green ratings systems and about the Sustainability Endowment Institute in particular: How much stock do you put into a rating system composed of self-reported achievements? Does that help or hurt? Some might argue that the system pushes people to take on new efforts; others say it promotes greenwashing and skews priorities.

The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education offered a forum on its blog where people could comment on the SEI, but response was limited. “I have several issues with the way this process works,” wrote one contributor, from the University of Nevada at Reno, who complained that the reporting process lacked accountability, transparency, and authority. “Yes, nothing is perfect, but we … went from C- to B+ in one year. Most of that was due to changes in how we report our efforts, not the efforts themselves.”