Tenley M. Conway, Chelsea Dalton, Jennifer Loo and Laura Benakoun
The ecological footprint represents a simple way to assess the amount of materials consumed and waste produced by a given entity. The approach has been applied to countries…
Abstract
Purpose
The ecological footprint represents a simple way to assess the amount of materials consumed and waste produced by a given entity. The approach has been applied to countries, towns, households, and more recently university campuses. One of the challenges of using the ecological footprint at a university is the difficulty of determining how large the footprint should be. The authors have developed a calculator specific to the needs of a university campus, and applied it to the University of Toronto at Mississauga (UTM). Rather than focus on the overall size, the purpose of this paper is to instead create several scenarios to help communicate the relative impacts of alternative actions.
Design/methodology/approach
An ecological footprint calculator appropriate to the campus was developed and applied to UTM. Three scenarios were then created: on‐campus electricity generation versus electricity purchased from the grid, current commuting patterns versus those expected if a student bus pass is adopted, and use of virgin office paper versus recycled office paper.
Findings
The results of the calculator suggest that energy consumption represents the largest component of UTM's footprint, followed by commuting to campus.
Practical implications
The relative benefits of on‐campus electricity generation, increasing public transit use, and the adoption of recycled paper are all highlighted through the scenario calculations.
Originality/value
This paper presents a way to avoid the difficulty of determining how large a university's footprint should be through the use of an alternative scenario method, which provides an easy way to communicate the impacts of consumption decisions to a campus' community.
Details
Keywords
Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management…
Abstract
Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.
Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17;…
Abstract
Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.
Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17;…
Abstract
Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.
Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17;…
Abstract
Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.
Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18;…
Abstract
Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.
Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18;…
Abstract
Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.
Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18;…
Abstract
Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.
Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management…
Abstract
Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.
Edeltraud Guenther, Timo Busch, Jan Endrikat, Thomas Guenther and Marc Orlitzky
The purpose of this literature review is to reorient empirical research on the causal links between corporate ecological sustainability (CES) and corporate financial performance…
Abstract
The purpose of this literature review is to reorient empirical research on the causal links between corporate ecological sustainability (CES) and corporate financial performance (CFP). Toward this end, we summarize the findings of four meta-analyses (conducted between 2012 and 2016), which indicate that there is, on average, a small positive association between CES and CFP. In addition, these empirical associations seem to be contingent on the firm’s strategic approach with regard to ecological sustainability (e.g., proactive vs reactive approach) and on the operationalization of both constructs. We conclude that future research may benefit from an even more explicit, analytic shift to the circumstances under which it pays for firms to go green. The main research limitations we point out are model misspecifications, endogeneity, and problems in the measurement of both CES and CFP.