Journal of Cleaner Production 107 (2015) 164e176

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Exploring the applications of carbon footprinting towards

sustainability at a UK university: reporting and decision making
James Townsend*, John Barrett
School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Campus greening is often the first step universities take towards sustainability. In order to infer the
Received 18 December 2012 current level of environmental performance and the progress being made it is imperative that univer-
Received in revised form sities measure and report their campus greening efforts. This paper shows that sustainability reporting
13 September 2013
can be a simple task and is of significant value for directing sustainable campus operations. To do this,
Accepted 1 November 2013
Environmentally Extended Input Output Analysis was used to derive the carbon footprint for the Uni-
Available online 12 November 2013
versity of Leeds. Being driven by financial data which is readily available to universities the assessment is
easy to conduct and maintain through time. Environmentally Extended Input Output Analysis provides
Keywords:
Sustainability reporting
complete coverage of the campus system and thus accounts for the majority of emissions sources.
Campus greening Accordingly, it enables comparisons of environmental performance to be made between institutions. The
Carbon footprinting reliability of comparisons falters when organisational boundaries vary between carbon footprints, and
Environmentally extended input output thus, in the interest of methodological consistency, a framework should be established that defines
analysis universal organisational boundaries which universities must adhere to. Interviews with university
Sustainable procurement procurement staff showed that carbon footprints can provide a screening assessment which identifies
emissions hotspots in supply chains. Such as assessment is currently lacking and provides evidence of
win win situations where emissions and costs can be reduced simultaneously. Although carbon foot-
printing considers only the environmental dimension of the triple bottom line, it is recommended that
universities intensify its application. For the institutions themselves the results will be of significant
practical value for directing initiatives such as sustainable procurement and for enhancing stakeholder
engagement with the sustainability agenda, whilst an increased application will help build much needed
momentum for sustainability reporting overall.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction environmental degradation and social inequality, many are

As institutions that produce cutting edge knowledge and
educate society’s future leaders (Lozano, 2006a; Stephens et al.,
2008), universities are major catalysts in the pursuit of a sustain-
able world. In response to key global concerns such as
List of Acronyms: CF, Carbon footprint; DECC, Department of Energy & Climate
Change; Defra, Department for Environment; Food & Rural Affairs, DMU; De
Montfort University, EEIOA; Environmentally extended input output analysis, GHG;
Greenhouse gas, HLCA; Hybrid life cycle assessment, LU; Lancaster University,
NTNU; The Norwegian University of Technology & Science, PA; Process analysis, SP;
Sustainable procurement, UCT; The University of Cape Town, UIC; The University of
Illinois, Chicago; UoL, University of Leeds; WBCSD, World Business Council for
Sustainable Development; WRI, World Resources Institute; YU, Yale University.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 7725972130.
E-mail addresses: james_townsend1989@hotmail.com (J. Townsend), j.r.
barrett@leeds.ac.uk (J. Barrett).
adjusting their practices to address sustainability (Stephens and
Graham, 2010).
For many universities, the first step towards sustainability is
made through campus greening (Muller-Christ et al., 2014). This
involves implementing an array of organisational and technical
measures to improve the environmental performance of the
campus; campuses themselves often imposing considerable im-
pacts on the environment (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008).
In order to build momentum in campus greening it is vital that
efforts are measured and subsequently reported (Lozano, 2006b;
Lozano and Huisingh, 2011; Velazquez et al., 2006). Measuring
the progress of campus greening permits an analysis that can
facilitate improved environmental performance and can also unveil
opportunities within the other dimensions of the university sys-
tem: education, research and community outreach (Cortese, 2003;
Koester et al., 2006). For instance, areas of the campus can be
identified where students can gain critical hands on experience in
their studies by undertaking sustainability projects (Koester et al.,

0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.004
 J. Townsend, J. Barrett / Journal of Cleaner Production 107 (2015) 164e176
2006; Savanick et al., 2008). Further, reporting campus greening
efforts indicates an institution’s commitment to sustainability and
thus may stimulate related research or community partnerships
(Ferreira et al., 2006; Lozano, 2011).
In spite of this potential, measuring and reporting the progress
of sustainability initiatives remains in its infancy within higher
education (Lozano, 2011; Saadatian et al., 2013; Velazquez et al.,
2006). This can be attributed to the view that sustainability
reporting is an overly complex endeavour given that results should
provide reliable information that enables environmental perfor-
mance to both be compared with other institutions and tracked
through time (Lozano, 2006b; Lozano and Huisingh, 2011).
This paper shows that sustainability reporting can be a simple
task for universities. It also breaks ground by using empirical evi-
dence to prove that the results are of significant value for directing
sustainability initiatives on campus. To do this, the carbon footprint
(CF) for the University of Leeds (UoL) was derived using Environ-
mentally Extended Input Output Analysis (EEIOA). The method was
shown to be a robust basis for reporting, enabling consistency and
comparability in results. The CF results were also presented to
university procurement staff who saw them as beneficial for
guiding sustainable procurement (SP) practices; SP encompassing
an integral practice within campus greening (Lozano, 2006a;
Wright, 2010). Note that CFs are readily acknowledged as a
means for measuring campus sustainability (Klein-Banai and Theis,
2013), and thus its application here is fit for purpose.
The structure of this paper is as follows; Section 2 provides
context and outlines the rationale behind the paper. The methodo-
logical options available for carbon footprinting and their applica-
bility for deriving the CF of a large organisation are initially detailed.
The issue of methodological inconsistency is revealed, and the CFs
for a number of universities are then scrutinised to identify the
sources of these inconsistencies. The paper goes on to explain how
establishing robust methodological foundations is imperative since
they could enable CFs to guide SP procedures, this pending the
impact of practicality issues which are also outlined. Section 3 details
how EEIOA was applied to derive the CF for the UoL and also how the
utility of the results for informing SP procedures was assessed. The
respective results are displayed in Sections 4 and 5, and are then
discussed with reference to the literature in Section 6. Being capable
of both comparing and tracking environmental performance, EEIOA
is shown to be a valuable tool for sustainability reporting. It also
provides a screening assessment which is hugely beneficial for SP
since it indicates the environmental impacts of different purchase
areas. Concluding remarks are presented in Section 7.
2. Background
2.1. Carbon footprinting: an overview
CFs quantify the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that accrue as
a result of an organisation’s activities (Huang et al., 2009;
Wiedmann, 2009). Standardised guidelines that help organisa-
tions compile their CF are presented in the GHG Protocol (WRI and
WBCSD, 2004, 2011). A key process within the Protocol is the
delimiting of organisational boundaries, the operations that an
organisation owns or controls, and its operational boundaries.
Setting operational boundaries, emissions sources are classified
in accordance with three categories: Scope 1 (direct emissions),
Scope 2 (emissions from purchased electricity) and Scope 3 (indi-
rect emissions). Traditionally, organisations have accounted for just
Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions in their CFs. However, with the
recognition that CFs are only robust when they consider all three
scopes (Matthews et al., 2008), Scope 3 emissions are increasingly
being accounted for.
165
In order to quantify Scope 3 emissions it is necessary to consider
the environmental impacts of goods and services throughout their
entire life cycle. For this, two methods are available; process anal-
ysis (PA) and EEIOA. Being distinct in their depth and width of
analysis, each method is best suited to particular enquiries
(Wiedmann et al., 2009).
PA produces results that are highly precise as data collection
occurs at the relevant process level (Minx et al., 2008; Wiedmann,
2009). This makes it applicable for informing improvements in
business processes (Minx et al., 2008).
Only the main processes are considered in detail in PA, with
those existing outside of the delimited system excluded owing to
time and data restrictions (Suh et al., 2004). This incurs a cut off
error with system completeness typically around 50% (Lenzen,
2001; Lenzen and Treloar, 2003). As system boundaries are
unique by analysis it renders comparisons across organisations
extremely difficult.
An economy wide approach, EEIOA inherently covers the com-
plete system thus eliminating cut off error (Lenzen, 2001;
Wiedmann, 2009). Further, being based on standardised environ-
mental and economic accounts it allows organisations to derive
consistent, comparable estimates of Scope 3 emissions (Minx et al.,
2008; Wiedmann, 2009).
EEIOA however is associated with high level aggregation as
numerous facilities and commodities are grouped into single sec-
tors in input output tables (Williams et al., 2009). As such, analysis
at the product level is limited (Lenzen, 2001; Minx et al., 2008). This
can be addressed by modelling specific products and processes
using PA in a Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment (HLCA) (Suh et al., 2004;
Minx et al., 2008). Here, the input output component of the model
ensures full system coverage, effectively combining the strengths of
both methods.
By allowing organisations to decide which method to utilise
when measuring their Scope 3 emissions CFs derived with the GHG
Protocol’s guidance are plagued with methodological in-
consistencies (Dragomir, 2012; Sullivan, 2009). Methodological
consistency is vital so as to enable a credible analysis of organisa-
tions’ CFs. Encouraging organisations to apply one specific method,
at least as the basis of the assessment, would foster the greatest
progress in this respect.
2.2. Carbon footprinting within higher education
CFs have been derived for a number of universities worldwide
(e.g. Klein-Banai et al., 2010; Letete et al., 2011; Lancaster
University, 2012; Larsen et al., 2013; Ozawa-Meida et al., 2013;
Thurston and Eckelman, 2011). However, the aforementioned
methodological issues regarding the accounting of Scope 3 emis-
sions have induced dubious results in certain cases. Universities
with a dubious CF cannot be certain of either the level or the
progress of their campus greening efforts. The value of the results
for informing sustainability initiatives will also be limited because
of uncertainties regarding the accuracy and the scope of assess-
ment (Velazquez et al., 2006).
Whilst an analysis comparing the levels of campus greening in
the aforementioned studies is implausible because of methodolog-
ical inconsistencies, an analysis aiming to identify the sources of
these inconsistencies is plausible and necessary. The CF results from
the studies are displayed in Table 1 and are evaluated in terms of
their composition according to the GHG Protocol Scopes in Section
2.2.1. Their Scope 3 emissions sources are scrutinised in Section 2.2.2.
2.2.1. Overall composition of university carbon footprints
Typical of the services sector, Scope 3 emissions dominate the
CFs (Suh, 2006). Where this is not apparent for UIC and UCT this is
166 J. Townsend, J. Barrett / Journal of Cleaner Production 107 (2015) 164e176
Table 1
Overview of university CF results.
Reference Case study
(Lancaster University, 2012) Lancaster University (LU)
(Ozawa-Meida et al., 2013) De Montfort University (DMU)
(Thurston and Eckelman, 2011) Yale University (YU)
(Larsen et al., 2013) The Norwegian University of
Technology & Science (NTNU)
(Klein-Banai et al., 2010) The University of Illinois, Chicago (UIC)
(Letete et al., 2011) The University of Cape Town (UCT)
due to the application of PA; the exclusion of numerous Scope 3
emissions sources from the delimited campus systems causing
considerable cut off error in results (Lenzen, 2001; Lenzen and
Treloar, 2003). This truncation means that neither CF is robust,
and thus neither UIC nor UCT are considered in Section 2.2.2.
2.2.2. Scope 3 components within university carbon footprints
Construction is a major contributor to most of the CFs. For both
DMU and NTNU construction contributes around 20% of the CF
(Larsen et al., 2013; Ozawa-Meida et al., 2013), whilst at YU it
contributes an even greater 26% (Thurston and Eckelman, 2011).
Transport emissions are also significant across studies, although
their magnitude and the activities from which they originate varies.
They comprise 29% of the CF at DMU and LU (Lancaster University,
2012; Ozawa-Meida et al., 2013), commuting being the main
contributor in both cases making up 18% and 16% of emissions
respectively. Business travel induced the remaining 13% of trans-
port emissions at LU, but contributed only 2% at DMU where stu-
dents’ trips from home to university was the next major contributor
after commuting (Lancaster University, 2012; Ozawa-Meida et al.,
2013).
At NTNU transport emissions make up 16% of the CF (Larsen
et al., 2013). However, it is not possible to attribute these emis-
sions to particular activities due to the lack of transparency in
transport sub categories. For instance, employees’ travels could
relate to either staff commutes or business travel. Similar issues are
prevalent at YU where transport emissions make up 8% of the CF
(Thurston and Eckelman, 2011).
Opacity in system boundaries is a key issue restricting the
application of EEIOA (Ozawa-Meida et al., 2013; Weidema et al.
2008). Ozawa-Meida et al. (2013) suggested that establishing a
common reporting framework which defines the organisational
boundaries, and, by extension, the Scope 3 emissions that univer-
sities should account for, will rectify this situation and allow EEIOA
to reach its full potential.
Machinery and computers comprise another variable emissions
source. They contribute almost 19% of the CF at NTNU (Larsen et al.,
2013), but only 3% at DMU where they had the same impact as
manufactured products (Ozawa-Meida et al., 2013). Manufactured
products were not analysed specifically at NTNU, instead they were
aggregated into a wider consumables category containing food and
books (Larsen et al., 2013). This subjectivity in aggregation com-
pounds the issue of inconsistent system boundaries.
2.3. Carbon footprinting and sustainable procurement
Establishing robust methodological foundations for carbon
footprinting is imperative since a reliable CF grants greater flexi-
bility in campus greening (Ozawa-Meida et al., 2013). With a
competent measurement of Scope 3 emissions, universities may be
better able to guide their SP practices; SP encompassing the pursuit
of economic, environmental and social objectives through the
purchasing and supply process (Walker et al., 2010).
Method Carbon footprint Carbon footprint (%)
(t CO2e)
Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3
HLCA 71,700 21 23 56
51,080 6 15 79
874,000 19 5 76
EEIOA 92,100 19 81
PA 275,000 64 17 19
84,926 81 19
A key requirement of SP is quantitative information that enables
greater understanding of the environmental impacts accumulating
within supply chains (Sundarakani et al., 2010; Young et al., 2010).
Theoretically, CFs can fulfil this requirement; though the appraisal
of how this potential transfers into practice has been suppressed by
the isolation which exists between academics and practitioners
(Burritt and Tingey-Holyoak, 2012; Wiedmann, 2009).
A number of studies encompassing collaboration between these
parties have shown that CFs can adequately inform SP procedures
(e.g. Larsen and Hertwich, 2010; Ozawa-Meida et al., 2013). How-
ever, they failed to engage with the practicality issues which have
the potential to constrain changes in procurement strategies and
thus could devalue the use of CF results. A more thorough inves-
tigation is conducted in this study which engages with the drivers
(Section 2.3.1) and the barriers (Section 2.3.2) of SP to better assess
the utility of CFs for informing its procedures.
2.3.1. Drivers for change
As different approaches are best suited for overcoming different
barriers (Lozano, 2006a), a combination of top down and bottom up
approaches is the optimal vehicle for driving the sustainability
agenda within higher education (Barth and Rieckmann, 2012;
Clarke and Kouri, 2009).
From the top, government intervention, either in the form of
regulatory requirements or a more supportive role, is vital for pro-
moting SP (Ageron et al., 2012; Wright, 2010; Wright and Wilton,
2012). From the bottom, students are key stakeholders. Being their
principle customers, universities strive to fulfil the demands of cur-
rent and potential cohorts (Ageron et al., 2012; Testa and Iraldo,
2010; Wright and Wilton, 2012). This is significant since students
today are highly motivated by the prospect of helping to advance
sustainability (Muller-Christ et al., 2014; Yuan and Zuo, 2013).
Although students and the government can act as the stimulus,
SP requires the commitment of management to truly become
operational (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008; Walker et al.,
2008). Having high level advocates ensures that resources can be
devoted to fully mobilise procedures (Koester et al., 2006), whilst
such leadership can be consolidated through an overarching vision
for sustainability which helps embed the agenda within the insti-
tutional culture (Lidgren et al., 2006; Velazquez et al., 2006).
Coherence across the campus can also be ensured by creating a
sustainability committee to coordinate objectives and targets for SP
(Velazquez et al., 2006).
By actively encouraging all stakeholders to engage with the
institutional change processes, there is a far greater chance that
they will embrace the sustainability agenda (Disterheft et al., 2012).
This is since a participatory approach focuses on understanding and
allows individuals to realise the value of the changes, changes
which they themselves help to create (Distertheft et al., 2012;
Juarez-Najera et al., 2010). Any scepticism preventing stake-
holders from collaborating can be eroded by raising their aware-
ness as to the successes of previous or ongoing sustainability
initiatives on campus (Koester et al., 2006; Velazquez et al., 2005).
 J. Townsend, J. Barrett / Journal of Cleaner Production 107 (2015) 164e176
2.3.2. Barriers to change
Cultural resistance is a significant barrier to the implementation
of SP (Hoejmose and Adrien-Kirby, 2012; Lozano, 2006a; Velazquez
et al., 2005). This is especially true within universities given their
long established, deep rooted traditions (Stephens and Graham,
2010; Stephens et al., 2008). Accordingly, changing established
ways of working can take a substantial amount of time and effort
(Haake and Seurling, 2009).
Limited awareness regarding sustainability also restricts the
mobilisation of associated practices (Lozano, 2006a; Wright, 2010;
Wright and Wilton, 2012). This occurs either due to a lack of un-
derstanding of how to advance sustainability, or, more significantly,
a reluctance to engage with an agenda which staff perceive as
largely irrelevant (Velazquez et al., 2005; Wright and Wilton, 2012).
The latter attitude often arises from fears of disempowerment or
diluted responsibilities (Baboulet and Lenzen, 2010; Foran et al.,
2005), thus reaffirming a desire to maintain the status quo.
Since campus operations typically prioritise business efficiency
(Wright, 2010; Wright and Wilton, 2012), the potential costs and
uncertain benefits of SP provide additional sources of resistance
(Ageron et al., 2012; Min and Galle, 2001). Despite suggestions of a
mutualistic relationship between reducing emissions and reducing
costs in the life cycle of goods and services (Porter and van der
Linde, 1995), such a relationship rarely transpires from SP pro-
cedures (Seurling and Muller, 2008; Testa and Iraldo, 2010). Cases
do exist however where SP has led to improved economic perfor-
mance (e.g. Rao and Holt, 2005), but these are the exception rather
than the rule.
The viability of substituting goods and services for less polluting
alternatives depends on the nature of the goods or services in
question and also on the organisational structure at the institution
(Young et al., 2010), particularly the extent to which it supports the
sustainability agenda (Lidgren et al., 2006; Velazquez et al., 2005).
Of central concern is that quality remains intact following the
substitution (Bala et al., 2008). As such, whereas interventions in
food, ICT, and paper are plausible, this is less so for other areas such
as transport, especially air transport for which there are minimal
alternatives (Foran et al., 2005). Similarly, it will prove difficult to
substitute specialised machinery that departments are dependent
upon for teaching and research (Baboulet and Lenzen, 2010; Larsen
et al., 2013).
3. Methods
3.1. Case study: the University of Leeds
The UoL is one of the 24 UK universities contained within the
Russell Group. As a member, the university is committed to con-
ducting leading edge research and to delivering an outstanding
learning experience to its students of which the university has
30,761, 23,823 undergraduates and 6938 postgraduates (University
of Leeds, 2013a). The university also contains 7144 members of staff
(University of Leeds, 2013a).
The university is in the process of developing an overarching
sustainability strategy but has already mobilised a travel plan and
initiatives such as SP (University of Leeds, 2013b; c). It has also
recently launched a Carbon Management Plan which aims to
reduce the university’s Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 35% from
a 2005/06 baseline by 2020/2021 (University of Leeds, 2011). A
range of interventions have been proposed across university
buildings to help move towards this target, with measures ranging
from improving efficiency and performance to mobilising action
from staff and students (University of Leeds, 2011). Scope 3 emis-
sions data is currently being collated and will be included fully in a
future plan. This study contributes to these efforts.
167
3.2. Estimating the carbon footprint
Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions for the year 2010/11 were
measured previously by the UoL. Measurements were made
directly and applied the emission factors advised by Defra/DECC
(2011) other than for steam and low pressure hot water where a
conversion factor of 0.21kgCO2e/kWh was used.
A two region input output model was used to derive the Scope 3
CF (see Wiedmann and Barrett, 2011; Wiedmann et al., 2009).
EEIOA was applied since it inherently covers all upstream emission
sources in the campus system (Wiedmann, 2009; Wiedmann et al.,
2009).
The associated calculus has been addressed by Hendrickson
et al. (2006) and Miller and Blair (2009), and will not be detailed
here. A qualitative description of the basic steps within EEIOA is
displayed in Fig. 1 however.
University expenditure data for the year 2010/11 was compiled
to drive the input output model as in step 2 (Fig. 1). Data was
classified according to the material group; the type of good or
service being purchased (e.g. books, advertising and glassware),
and the purchase group; which department was accountable for
the purchase (e.g. the Faculty of Engineering, the Faculty of Arts and
Estates Services).
Being driven by expenditure data, the Scope 3 CF was deter-
mined by what the university spent money on. For example, the
UoL spent money on business travel, catering and ICT products and
so their emissions are included in the CF. Commuting, energy use at
private halls of residence and the disposal of products purchased in
the university are examples of private activities undertaken by staff
and students and so are excluded from the CF. The focus is firmly on
upstream (cradle-to-gate) emissions with no consideration of the
downstream (gate-to-grave) emissions induced by university ser-
vices. Note that downstream emissions are negligible when
compared with upstream emissions however (Lenzen, 2001). The
scope of analysis is made clear in Table 2.
Each material group was matched to the closest corresponding
economic sector(s) from the 123 contained in the input output
model. Following this, steps 3 and 4 (Fig. 1) could be completed. By
driving the model with expenditure data for individual purchase
groups the CF for its respective department was derived. Driving
the model with expenditure data for all purchase groups, the uni-
versity CF was derived.
Results were aggregated into nine broad product categories (see
Appendix A) for ease of comprehension. They were also normalised
by expenditure to decouple emissions from the size of a depart-
ment or product category and enable more efficient decision
making (de Vries and te Riele, 2006). Full consumer responsibility is
employed in order to avoid double counting.
3.3. Assessing the utility of carbon footprints for informing
sustainable procurement
After having derived the CF, five semi structured interviews
were conducted with a total six members of university staff that
had a role in procurement (Table 3). The interviews followed a brief
presentation of the CF results, both at the university level and the
department level. The department level results were differentiated
according to the department the respondent worked in, thereby
ensuring that the respondent was interested in the results and
knowledgeable when it came to evaluating their utility.
The interviews were implemented in order to investigate per-
ceptions regarding the utility of CFs for informing SP procedures,
this in a heuristic sense (Oppenheim, 1992). By targeting staff with
a role related to procurement it ensured that the study was fully
engaged with the practical issues that can potentially constrain
168 J. Townsend, J. Barrett / Journal of Cleaner Production 107 (2015) 164e176

Fig. 1. Basic steps of environmentally extended input output analysis.

Adapted from Hendrickson et al., 2006.

Table 2
Scope of scope 3 analysis.

Emissions category Sub-category/description Included in carbon

footprint?

Purchased goods and services Upstream emissions of purchased goods and services Yes
Transport Commuting No
Student’s home trips to and from university accommodation No
Business travel Yes
Visitor travel No
Upstream transportation and distribution of inputs Yes
Energy (not included in Scope 1 or Scope 2) Energy consumption at private halls of residence No
Indirect impacts of electricity generation Yes
Capital goods Upstream emissions of purchased capital goods No
Waste Disposal of waste generated in operations Yes
Leased assets Operation of leased assets not included in Scope 1 or Scope 2 Yes
Downstream aspects Processing, use and disposal of sold goods and services No

Adapted from WRI and WBCSD, 2011.

changes in procurement strategies. Further, the flexible interview communication (5%), and public services (5%) all encompassed
agenda meant that these issues could be explored comprehen- modest emissions sources, whilst the remaining categories had
sively, with probes being used where appropriate to follow up only minor impacts.
interesting points (Miles and Huberman, 1994). The absolute emissions of all procured commodities can be seen
Interviews were recorded so that attention could be devoted in Appendix B.
towards the respondents. Accordingly, all analysis was made
following their completion. After coding the data following the 4.2. Department level
guidance provided by Tesch (1990), the analytical process pro-
gressed from exploratory to inferential when data was appraised Analysis here is restricted to Scope 3 emissions since data for
with reference to the literature. Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions was unavailable at the department
level.
Fig. 3 displays the Scope 3 CFs for individual departments, and
4. Carbon footprint results
the contributions that they make towards total indirect emissions
at the UoL. The CFs are extremely variable, both in terms of their
4.1. University level
total and their composition. Further, their emissions hotspots are
often areas associated with the service provided or research
For the year 2010/11, the UoL’s CF was 161,819t CO2e. Fig. 2
shows that just over half of the CF was made up of Scope 3 emis-
sions (51%), whilst Scope 2 emissions also made a significant Table 3
Details of interview respondents.
contribution (31%). Accordingly, the UoL accrues the majority of its
emissions indirectly through procurement, though it also induces a Interview number Respondent(s) Nature of department
considerable amount through electricity consumption. 1 A Central purchasing
Of the Scope 3 categories utilities and construction comprised 2 B Environmental
the main source of emissions (13%), with considerable impacts also 3 C Social Science-based
from machinery and computers (9%) and manufactured products 4 D and E Administrational
5 F Innovation Centre
(8%). Raw materials and chemicals (6%), transport and
 J. Townsend, J. Barrett / Journal of Cleaner Production 107 (2015) 164e176
Fig. 2. The University of Leeds’ Carbon Footprint according to the GHG Protocol Scopes and Scope 3 broad product categories.
conducted by the department. For instance, from Estates Services,
which is clearly the most emitting department inducing 28% of
Scope 3 emissions, the vast majority of emissions originate from
utilities and construction (72%).
After Estates Services “Unknown Spend” was the next biggest
contributor. This category was devised in order to satisfy total
procurement spend which was not fulfilled upon summing
expenditure across purchase groups. Representing a hypothetical
average it will be excluded from this analysis. As such, the Faculty of
Medicine and Health, sourcing 16% of Scope 3 emissions, is the
second most emitting department. Its CF is spread across a range of
emissions sources as might be expected from such a diverse
department with: raw materials and chemicals (25%), manufac-
tured products (16%), machinery and computers (18%), transport
and communication (11%), and public services (21%) all providing
notable contributions.
Normalising results by expenditure provides a different
perspective on results. Despite comprising the most emitting de-
partments in absolute terms, Fig. 4 shows that Estates Services and
the Faculty of Medicine are ranked amongst the middle ground in
terms of emissions intensities.
Both inducing 7% of Scope 3 emissions (Fig. 3), the Faculty of
Biological Sciences and the Faculty of Engineering are similar in
terms of absolute emissions. Biological Sciences however possesses
an emissions intensity much larger than Engineering (Fig. 4), this
being due to the differences in procurement structures between the
departments. The largest contrasts occur between machinery and
computers, which sources 22% of emissions for Biological Sciences
and 50% for Engineering, and between raw materials and chem-
icals, which sources 43% and 11% of emissions respectively. This
pattern is to be expected since it is in accordance with the nature of
the research conducted within the departments, and, with chem-
icals generally being more emissions intensive than machinery, this
transpires to the department level overall.
The 10 remaining departments make only minor contributions
to university Scope 3 emissions individually. However, when
combined they account for 24% of Scope 3 emissions and mitigation
opportunities do exist in these departments. For instance, emis-
sions hotspots are evident for: food and drink (82% of emissions) in
Catering Services and paper and publishing (67% of emissions)
within Media.
169
5. The utility of carbon footprints for informing sustainable
procurement
5.1. Functionality
CF results effectively provide a screening assessment which
indicates the environmental impacts of different purchase areas.
The quantitative nature of the results was regarded as highly
beneficial, as was expressed by Respondent D (2012) who referred
to using the results to justify SP procedures through the presence of
win win situations:
“.to actually have some cold, hard data that we can show to
people and say look, this is the reason we want to be greener in this
area because we can save money and save emissions, it will make a
proper difference”
The value of win wins was unanimous across respondents, with
such no brainer situations seen as vital for engaging management
with the sustainability agenda and further leveraging SP pro-
cedures (Respondents A; D; E; F, 2012):
“the results identify areas where there are quick wins, areas that
we could skew in our favour.this could be useful for targeting our
new projects”
Respondent A, 2012.
Respondents also recognised the awareness raising potential of
the results, the utility of which was seen to extend beyond SP and
into sustainability policy in a broader sense:
“.I think sometimes people need something shoving under their
nose, I think they need statistics to prove something so they think
more about the little things they do in their everyday life”
Respondent B, 2012.
Beyond supporting current SP procedures and facilitating a
greater environmental conscience amongst individuals, the
screening assessment is particularly useful as it provides
170 J. Townsend, J. Barrett / Journal of Cleaner Production 107 (2015) 164e176
Fig. 3. Departmental carbon footprints.
information on environmental impacts that were previously un-
known. For instance, numerous Respondents (C; D; E, 2012) were
surprised by the minor impact of paper:
“Our paper wasn’t a problem area was it.it still wouldn’t compare
to the public and business services, so it’s good for directing us
because it would be quite easy to get stuck on paper for the next
decade”
Respondent E, 2012.
Respondent F (2012), who was most knowledgeable in terms of
CF and SP issues, was more apprehensive regarding the utility of the
CF results however. This was owing to the limited precision in the
results: “the tool doesn’t recognise the detail, the processes in
manufacturing and the waste generated”, which the respondent
argued were inadequate for directing specific purchasing decisions.
5.2. Practicality issues
University policy was widely perceived a major constraint upon
changes in procurement strategies (Respondent B; C; D, 2012). This
was exemplified by Respondent C (2012): “I feel a bit powerless
through the university system because we’re only supposed to use
certain suppliers”. Travel in particular was identified as an area
where staff have little influence:
“.there are specific rules about transport, you can’t turn round to
staff and say you can’t use it or it’s against university procedures to
use domestic flights and stuff.it’s a really grey area to be honest”
Respondent B. 2012.
Limited resources also appear to restrict the expansion of SP
procedures. All Respondents (A; B; C; D; E; F, 2012) expressed that,
ultimately, procurement decisions are based upon cost, and the
cheapest option usually prevails over the sustainable option:
“.it’s been quite a difficult year because there’s not as much
money to buy anything, a lot of the time people will just see who
will do something the cheapest without even bothering to look at
the environmental side of it”
Respondent D, 2012.
Respondents A (2012) and F (2012) attributed this disregard for
the environment to the lack of a clear message regarding sustain-
ability from higher governing levels within Higher Education and
beyond. Clarifying what is required in terms of both sustainability
and SP was perceived as necessary to rectify this:
“When our government knows more about sustainability, partic-
ularly procurement, and sets specific targets that are mandatory,
that’s when it’ll [the environment] come to the top of the pile”
Respondent F, 2012.
Respondent F (2012) also alluded to the potential of pressure
coming from the bottom up, most notably from students who are:
“very switched onto the environment.so universities will have to
listen to them because they want students to come to their institution
and purchase their education”.
As such, it appears that combining pressure from the top down
and the bottom up could entail a mutualistic relationship capable of
propelling sustainability up the ladder of priorities.
6. Discussion
6.1. The applicability of EEIOA for sustainability reporting
The aim of deriving an institutional CF is to provide a metric
from which the level of campus greening can be inferred and im-
provements in environmental performance can be facilitated
(Klein-Banai and Theis, 2013; Koester et al., 2006). If a CF provides
reliable information that allows environmental performance to
 J. Townsend, J. Barrett / Journal of Cleaner Production 107 (2015) 164e176
Fig. 4. Departmental emissions in absolute and intensity terms.
both be compared with other institutions and tracked through
time, the aim will be successfully achieved (Lozano, 2006b; Lozano
and Huisingh, 2011). With a focus on the CF results derived for the
UoL, the efficacy of EEIOA for benchmarking environmental per-
formance and constructing time series’ will be appraised in Sec-
tions 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 respectively.
6.1.1. Benchmarking
In order to benchmark environmental performance effectively it
is imperative that results are obtained from consistent methodo-
logical foundations. Guaranteeing full coverage of the campus
system (Lenzen, 2001; Minx et al., 2008), EEIOA ensures consis-
tency to a certain extent. Methodological discrepancies can how-
ever arise when particular Scope 3 emissions sources are not
accounted for.
With reference to Section 2.2.2, commuting is not considered in
the CF for the UoL unlike at DMU and LU, and thus it is not
possible to compare transport emissions effectively across the
institutions. This inference can be made due to the transparency in
emissions sources accounted for at each institution which acts to
prevent unviable comparisons of environmental performance.
Such transparency is also necessary to resolve issues where
emissions sources are aggregated at higher levels as at NTNU
where manufactured products are aggregated into a wider con-
sumables category.
Where it is unclear which emissions sources have been
accounted for it renders comparisons of CFs redundant. No mean-
ingful conclusions can be made from comparing transport emis-
sions across the UoL, NTNU and YU because it is not possible to
exact which transport activities are accounted for at the latter two
institutions. By contrast, although no viable comparison of envi-
ronmental performance can be made comparing transport
171
emissions across the UoL, DMU and LU, there is value in the com-
parison since it can inform future data collection. For instance,
knowing that commuting was the greatest source of transport
emissions at both DMU and LU suggests that commuting emissions
should be accounted for by the UoL in the future.
Although these methodological inconsistencies constrain
benchmarking, the process is wholly more viable using results
derived from EEIOA compared with PA. This is since the cut off error
associated with PA truncates the campus system and inevitably
excludes major Scope 3 emissions sources, as was observed with
the CFs for UIC and UCT (Lenzen, 2001; Lenzen and Treloar, 2003).
Further, by defining universal organisational boundaries that must
be adhered to by reporting entities, the methodological issues that
constrain EEIOA can be resolved (Ozawa-Meida et al., 2013). Steps
should be made immediately towards such a framework as it pre-
sents a solution for methodological consistency that is easily
attainable.
Caution should be exerted during the benchmarking process
even when based upon robust methodological foundations. This is
since, consistent with findings made by Klein-Banai and Theis
(2013), CF results are heavily influenced by the nature of the
institution. This is illustrated by the emissions from machinery
and computers which make up 19%, 9% and 3% of the CFs at NTNU,
UoL and DMU respectively. This pattern occurs since NTNU spe-
cialises in engineering and experimental research which require
considerable amounts of machinery. By contrast, the largest de-
partments at DMU are social science oriented, and so machinery
and computers have only a minor impact on the CF. The UoL
represents a middle ground, the range of emissions sources from
numerous other departments reducing the impacts from ma-
chinery and computers in the dedicated engineering and medicine
departments.
172 J. Townsend, J. Barrett / Journal of Cleaner Production 107 (2015) 164e176
6.1.2. Time series
Of critical importance when creating a time series is the ease
with which underlying data can be updated. With EEIOA this is a
simple process since financial data, the input which drives the
analysis, is readily available on a yearly basis.
Conversely, updating data for PA is a time and cost intensive
process (Suh et al., 2004; Minx et al., 2008). Despite this, PA reflects
the effects of technological development more accurately than
EEIOA as detailed input output tables are only issued on average
every five years (Williams et al., 2009). Should secondary data
sources be utilised to speed up the process, this accuracy will likely
be sacrificed however due to uncertainties in data quality (Williams
et al., 2009).
Accounting for additional sources of Scope 3 emissions and
recalculating results over time, possibly in relation to an emissions
target, is also an easier task using EEIOA. Instead of demanding
arduous calculations as with PA, only the current and historical
spend related to the newly considered activity are required to
calculate the emissions and to backcast data to the base year.
6.2. The utility of carbon footprints for informing sustainable
procurement
Interview findings confirm that CFs fulfil a vital requirement for
SP by providing quantitative information that allows environ-
mental impacts within complex supply chains to be better under-
stood (Sundarakani et al., 2010; Young et al., 2010). Utilising this
information, CFs have two potential applications; the first is an
elementary screening tool for identifying emissions hotspots, as
discussed in Section 6.2.1; the second is a detailed analytical tool to
explore potential SP strategies, as discussed in Section 6.2.2. Both
applications are constrained by practicality issues but can also be
driven by a number of factors as documented in Section 6.2.3.
6.2.1. carbon footprints as a screening tool
CFs derived using EEIOA provide a screening assessment which
indicates the environmental impacts of different purchase areas.
The nature of such impacts are often previously unknown but are
clarified through the provision of quantitative results. This enables
the identification of emissions hotspots which can subsequently be
prioritised for mitigation efforts through SP.
The assessment provides evidence of win win situations where
emissions and costs can be reduced simultaneously, the potential of
which was recognised for justifying current SP procedures and
leveraging them further. Targeting win wins could grant SP greater
support on campus since procedures would comply with the cost
imperative that characterises campus operations (Wright, 2010;
Wright and Wilton, 2012).
It would be naïve to assume that win wins will always transpire
in practice given that benefits from SP are often intangible (Seurling
and Muller, 2008; Testa and Iraldo, 2010). However, Rao and Holt
(2005) have shown that SP procedures can improve both envi-
ronmental and economic performance, and universities have pre-
viously been deprived of a tool capable of evaluating the potential
financial gains from SP (Ageron et al., 2012). Comprising such a tool,
it is conceivable that CFs could guide SP procedures in such a
fashion that tangible benefits become the norm rather than the
exception.
Additional value useful within procurement and also sustain-
ability policy in general was associated with the awareness raising
potential of CF results. This provides capacity to elevate environ-
mental issues in the conscious of university stakeholders and to
overcome cultural resistance to change which was reaffirmed here
as a key barrier to SP (Hoejmose and Adrien-Kirby, 2012; Lozano,
2006a).
With their long established traditions (Stephens and Graham,
2010; Stephens et al., 2008), surpassing the cultural resistance
prevalent within universities can prove an arduous task (Haake and
Seurling, 2009). Awareness raising however neither disempowers
individuals nor dilutes responsibilities, two key stakeholder fears
which act to prevent institutional change (Baboulet and Lenzen,
2010; Foran et al., 2005). Accordingly, CF results harness great po-
tential for increasing sustainability literacy across university
stakeholders without provoking additional resistance. For instance,
by communicating CF results and the progress being made through
related initiatives such as SP, stakeholders will witness the value of
the sustainability agenda and the changes it is stimulating on
campus (Koester et al., 2006; Velazquez et al., 2005). CFs could also
encompass the focal point of workshops where stakeholders
engage with sustainability issues and contribute ideas to accelerate
the progress of campus greening.
6.2.2. Carbon footprints as a detailed analytical tool
Knowledge of emissions hotspots can be used to direct SP pro-
cedures at a broad level when altering the structure and volume of
purchases. However, a more detailed analysis is also desirable for
guiding specific purchasing decisions (Minx et al., 2008). For
instance, having identified manufactured products as a source of 8%
of emissions at the UoL (Fig. 1), it would be useful to specify the
exact products responsible for the majority of this impact. As rec-
ognised by Respondent F (2012), this is where CFs derived using
EEIOA falter due to the aggregation error incurring imprecise re-
sults (Williams et al., 2009).
Since information at the product level is rarely publicly avail-
able, the opacity in input output sectors makes it difficult to
determine whether to substitute computers from Brand X for those
from Brand Y; or, similarly, whether to focus mitigation efforts on a
single product or an array of goods within a highly polluting pur-
chase area. Additional precision at the product level can be gained
by applying PA in a HLCA (Minx et al., 2008), although time and
data requirements are greater for such an assessment (Suh et al.,
2004). All things considered, CFs derived using EEIOA have
limited capacity for guiding specific procurement procedures.
6.2.3. Wider practicality issues
Reaffirming findings made by Lidgren et al. (2006) and
Velazquez et al. (2005), central policies within an institution
constrain the development of SP procedures. This was particularly
true for transport which comprises an area where SP likely has little
impetus. Ultimately, if staff need to be in a certain place at a certain
time they will use transport, with the prospect of a large scale
switch towards videoconferencing being highly improbable (Foran
et al., 2005). This highlights that regardless of what CF results
suggest, sustainable procedures cannot be implemented across all
purchase areas.
Amidst budgetary constraints the cheaper, more economical
option usually takes precedence over the environmental option in
procurement. This supports previous research conducted by Wright
(2010) and Velazquez et al. (2005). As such, being in control of
resources, the extent of SP procedures could rest largely in the
hands of management (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008; Koester
et al., 2006).
In the essence of win wins, proactive managers may be attracted
to using CFs to identify purchase areas where environmental op-
tions can be pursued without exerting additional pressure upon
budgets (Wright, 2010; Wright and Wilton, 2012). However, win
wins will have to be carefully scrutinised so as to ensure that the
quality of research and teaching does not suffer from the changes
made to procurement practices (Bala et al., 2008). This is especially
pertinent considering that the most polluting purchase areas are
 J. Townsend, J. Barrett / Journal of Cleaner Production 107 (2015) 164e176 173

often integral to their departments (Fig. 2). A sustainability com- The screening assessment can guide purchasing procedures at a
mittee may have a role here in coordinating SP policies that are broad level but it falters when it comes to directing specific de-
appropriate to specific departments (Velazquez et al., 2006). Such a cisions at the product level due to the aggregation error in EEIOA.
committee will be most effective if backed by management. This Further, purchase areas will exist where sustainable practices are
can be achieved through a sustainability vision statement which impractical regardless of what CF results suggest. This is due to
indicates an institutional commitment to advancing sustainability either the purchase area being indispensable to research and
within the university system (Lidgren et al., 2006; Velazquez et al., teaching in a department or constricting central policies.
2006). Advancing sustainability and its reporting in higher education
Where managers are less proactive at pursuing environmental should not be limited solely to carbon footprinting. Such practice
options in procurement, an initial stimulus may be necessary to would risk compartmentalisation since universities can only
mobilise SP procedures. Consistent with previous findings, gov- become truly sustainable when environmental progress occurs in
ernment intervention was recognised as key here (Ageron et al., tandem with social and economic progress. As such, future research
2012; Wright, 2010; Wright and Wilton, 2012), as was pressure should expand on the foundations laid here and address the means
from students (Ageron et al., 2012; Testa and Iraldo, 2010; Wright of reporting the entire triple bottom line. While such research gains
and Wilton, 2012). Together, both drivers may encapsulate a momentum however, universities should intensify their efforts to
mutualistic relationship. This would combine top down and bottom measure the progress of campus greening. This will generate much
up drivers as advocated by Lozano (2006a), and could be particu- needed traction for sustainability reporting, and, critically, the re-
larly effective given that students, the principle customers within sults will be of significant practical value for directing initiatives
higher education, attach considerable value to sustainability such as SP and enhancing stakeholder engagement with the sus-
(Muller-Christ et al., 2014; Yuan and Zuo, 2013). Further, govern- tainability agenda.
ments worldwide are also enhancing their support for the agenda.
Such pressure will be truly efficacious when university man-
agement acknowledges the importance of SP and thus devotes Acknowledgements
sufficient support to it (Alshuwaikhat and Abubakar, 2008; Walker
et al., 2008). Should the priority of SP increase in such a fashion, CFs Thanks go to James Dixon-Gough, Richard Lewis and Adele
could likely become a necessity to guide related policy and report White whose cooperation was invaluable in satisfying data re-
its progress. quirements. Large thanks are also owed to all the anonymous
interview respondents who took time out of their schedules to
7. Conclusions assist this research.
The contribution by Professor John Barrett formed part of the
Measuring the progress of campus greening efforts, along with programme of the UK Energy Research Centre and was supported
sustainability reporting as a whole, remains in its infancy within by the UK Research Councils under Natural Environment Research
higher education. This is despite measurement being a necessity in Council award NE/G007748/1.
order to infer and improve upon current sustainability perfor-
mance. Utilising EEIOA to derive the CF for the UoL, this paper has
shown that sustainability reporting can be a simple endeavour for
universities. Financial data drives the analysis, and, being readily
available on a yearly basis, it is easy to track environmental per- Appendix A
formance through time. Further, encompassing an economy wide
Table A1
approach, EEIOA provides coverage of the complete campus sys- a, b and c. Composition of broad product categories
tem. This ensures that the assessment is comprehensive and that
Product category Commodity group
important sources of Scope 3 emissions are accounted for.
Accordingly, the method is preferable to the alternative, PA, for Raw materials & chemicals 2: Forestry products
which time and data restrictions mandate a delimited campus 7: Aggregates
37: Inorganic basic chemicals
system which excludes numerous sources of Scope 3 emissions. 38: Organic basic chemicals
Methodological inconsistencies arise with EEIOA when organ- 39: Fertilisers etc.
isational boundaries are defined differently by analysis. This results 42: Paints, varnishes etc.
in discrepancies as to which Scope 3 emissions sources institutions 43: Pharmaceuticals etc.
44: Soap, detergents etc.
have accounted for in their CFs. Where institutions are transparent
45: Other chemical products
regarding which emissions sources they have accounted for this Food & drink 8: Meat
prevents unviable comparisons of environmental performance. 9: Fish, fruit and vegetables
Transparency should be encouraged in sustainability reporting as a 11: Dairy products
whole for this purpose. Further, defining universal organisation 14: Bread, baked products
16: Chocolate and confectionery
boundaries that universities must adhere to would resolve the issue 17: Other food products
entirely, and the GHG Protocol should act here. 18: Alcoholic beverages
This paper is the first to directly engage with university pro- 19: Mineral waters and soft drinks
curement staff and document the value they perceive CF results to Paper & publishing 32: Pulp, paper and paperboard
34: Publishing and printing
hold with regards to decision making. CF results provide a
Manufactured products 23: Finished textiles
screening assessment that indicates the environmental impacts of 25: Carpets and rugs
different purchase areas. Such a tool has previously been unavai- 28: Wearing apparel, fur
lable and is capable of unveiling situations where emissions and 30: Footwear
costs can be reduced simultaneously. Win wins could gain SP 46: Man-made fibres
47: Rubber products
additional support from management as they provide an oppor- 48: Plastic products
tunity to advance sustainability without exerting extra pressure on
budgets.
174 J. Townsend, J. Barrett / Journal of Cleaner Production 107 (2015) 164e176

Table B1 (continued )
Product Category Commodity group
Rank Commodity Impact (t CO2-e)
Manufactured 49: Glass and glass products
products (continued) 60: Cutlery, tools etc. 9 Other chemical products 3952
77: Motor vehicles, trailers etc. 10 Inorganic basic chemicals 2928
79: Other transport equipment 11 Organic basic chemicals 2564
81: Furniture 12 Other business services 2404
82: Jewellery, musical instruments etc. 13 Publishing and printing 1360
83: Sports goods, games and toys 14 Meat 883
84: Miscellaneous manufactured products 15 Dairy products 881
31: Wood and wood products 16 Hotels and restaurants 859
Machinery & computers 62: Mechanical machinery 17 Gas, steam and hot water 845
66: Special purpose machinery 18 Pulp, paper and paperboard 806
68: Domestic appliances 19 Fish, fruit and vegetables 787
69: Office machinery and computers 20 Insulated wire and cable 742
71: Insulated wire and cable 21 Public administration and defence 737
72: Electrical equipment n.e.c. 22 Furniture 677
73: Electronic valves and tubes etc. 23 Water supply 626
74: TV, radio transmitters etc. 24 Other land transport 594
75: TV, radio receivers etc. 25 Transport via railways 588
76: Medical, precision and 26 Business/management consultancy activities 576
optical instruments
Utilities & construction 52: Cement, lime and plaster Rank Commodity Impact (t CO2-e)
54: Basic iron and steel 27 Plastic products 506
55: Basic precious and non-ferrous metals 28 Post and courier services 466
57: Structural metal products 29 Health care 454
85: Electricity 30 Sewage and refuse disposal 438
86: Gas, steam and hot water 31 Other food products 415
87: Water supply 32 Insurance and pension funding 397
88: Construction 33 Electrical equipment n.e.c. 381
Product category Commodity group 34 Mineral waters and soft drinks 356
35 Paints, varnishes etc. 344
Transport & 89: Sale, maintenance and repair of motor 36 Forestry products 320
communication vehicles; retail sale of automotive fuel 37 Electronic valves and tubes etc. 298
90: Wholesale trade 38 Advertising 266
91: Retail trade 39 Chocolate and confectionery 206
92: Hotels and restaurants 40 Medical, precision and optical instruments 190
93: Transport via railways 41 Finished textiles 189
94: Other land transport; transport via pipelines 42 Bread, baked products 183
95: Water transport 43 Domestic appliances 170
96: Air transport 44 Fertilisers etc. 157
98: Post and courier services 45 Recreational, cultural and sporting activities 153
99: Telecommunications 46 Pharmaceuticals etc. 139
Business services 100: Banking and financing 47 Cutlery, tools etc. 111
101: Insurance and pension funding 48 Alcoholic beverages 103
104: Letting of dwellings 49 Letting of dwellings 101
106: Renting of machinery and equipment 50 Soap, detergents etc. 93.5
107: Computer and related activities 51 Wholesale trade 86.4
108: Research and development 52 Basic iron and steel 82.8
109: Legal activities 53 Wearing apparel, fur 77.8
110: Accounting etc.
111: Business/management consultancy activities Rank Commodity Impact (t CO2-e)
113: Advertising 54 Legal activities 63
114: Other business services 55 Glass and glass products 60.6
Public services 115: Public administration and defence 56 Accounting etc. 58.9
116: Education 57 Basic precious and non-ferrous metals 52.2
117: Health care 58 Retail trade 52
119: Sewage and refuse disposal 59 Structural metal products 50.7
121: Recreational, cultural and sporting activities 60 Research and development 47
61 Jewellery, musical instruments etc. 44.5
62 Retail sale of automotive fuel 42.9
63 Cement, lime and plaster 35.1
64 TV, radio receivers etc. 29
65 Computer and related activities 26.8
Appendix B 66 Carpets and rugs 20.3
67 Mechanical machinery 19.3
Table B1 68 Motor vehicles, trailers etc. 17.5
a, b and c. GHG impacts of commodity groups 69 Footwear 8.94
70 Rubber products 8.69
Rank Commodity Impact (t CO2-e)
71 Sports goods, games and toys 7.52
1 Electricity 51,609 72 Man-made fibres 6.59
2 UoL 28,303 73 Aggregates (stone, sand, gravel, etc.) 6.26
3 Construction 17,218 74 Other transport equipment 5.14
4 Miscellaneous manufactured products 10,729 75 Renting of machinery and equipment 4.28
5 Special purpose machinery 6509 76 Telecommunications 3.59
6 Education 5619 77 TV, radio transmitters etc. 2.49
7 Office machinery and computers 5417 78 Water transport 1.82
8 Air transport 4632
 J. Townsend, J. Barrett / Journal of Cleaner Production 107 (2015) 164e176
Table B1 (continued )
Rank Commodity Impact (t CO2-e)
79 Wood and wood products 0.14
80 Banking and financing 0.004
References
Ageron, B., Gunasekaran, A., Spalanzani, A., 2012. Sustainable supply management:
an empirical study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140, 168e182.
Alshuwaikhat, H.M., Abubakar, I., 2008. An integrated approach to achieving
campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental
management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1777e1785.
Baboulet, O., Lenzen, M., 2010. Evaluating the environmental performance of a
university. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1134e1141.
Bala, A., Munoz, P., Rieradevall, J., Ysern, P., 2008. Experiences with greening sup-
pliers. The Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1610e1619.
Barth, M., Rieckmann, M., 2012. Academic staff development as a catalyst for cur-
riculum change towards education for sustainable development: an output
perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 26, 28e36.
Burritt, R.L., Tingey-Holyoak, J., 2012. Forging cleaner production: the importance of
academic-practitioner links for successful sustainability embedded carbon ac-
counting. J. Clean. Prod. 2012 (36), 39e47.
Clarke, A., Kouri, R., 2009. Choosing and appropriate university or college envi-
ronmental management system. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 971e984.
Cortese, A.D., 2003. The critical role of higher education in creating a sustainable
future. Plann. High. Educ. 31, 15e22.
Defra/DECC, 2011. 2011 Guidelines to Defra/DECC’s GHG Conversion Factors for
Company Reporting, Version 1.2, Updated 19/8/2011. Available online: http://
www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/09/01/ghg-conversion-factors-reporting/
(accessed 12.06.12.).
de Vries, J.L., te Riele, H.R.M., 2006. Playing with Hyenas: renovating environmental
product policy strategy. J. Ind. Ecol. 10, 111e127.
Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S.S.F.S., Ramos, M.R., Azeiteiro, U.M.M., 2012. Environmental
management systems (EMS) implementation processes and practices in Euro-
pean higher education institutions e top-down versus participatory ap-
proaches. J. Clean. Prod. 31, 80e90.
Dragomir, V.D., 2012. The disclosure of industrial greenhouse gas emissions: a
critical assessment of corporate sustainability reports. J. Clean. Prod. 29e30,
222e237.
Ferreira, A.J.D., Lopes, M.A.R., Morais, J.P.F., 2006. Environmental management and
audit schemes implementation as an educational tool for sustainability. J. Clean.
Prod. 14, 973e982.
Foran, B., Lenzen, M., Dey, C., Bilek, M., 2005. Integrating sustainable chain man-
agement with triple bottom line accounting. Ecol. Econ. 52, 143e157.
Haake, H., Seurling, S., 2009. Sustainable procurement of minor items e exploring
limits to sustainability. Sustain. Develop. 17, 284e294.
Hendrickson, C.T., Lave, L.B., Matthews, H.S., 2006. Environmental Life Cycle
Assessment of Goods and Services: an Input-output Approach. Resources for
the Future, Washington.
Hoejmose, S.U., Adrien-Kirby, A.J., 2012. Socially and environmentally responsible
procurement: a literature review and future research agenda of a managerial
issue in the 21st century. J. Purch. Supp. Manag. 18, 232e242.
Huang, Y.A., Lenzen, M., Weber, C.L., Murray, J., Matthews, H.S., 2009. The role of
input-output analysis for the screening of corporate carbon footprints. Econ.
Syst. Res. 21, 217e242.
Juarez-Najera, M., Rivera-Martinez, J.G., Hafkamp, W.A., 2010. An explorative socio-
psychological model for determining sustainable behaviour: pilot study in
German and Mexican universities. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 686e694.
Klein-Banai, C., Theis, T.L., 2013. Quantitative analysis of factors affecting greenhouse
gas emissions at institutions of higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 29e38.
Klein-Banai, C., Theis, T.L., Brecheisen, T.A., Banai, A., 2010. A greenhouse gas in-
ventory as a measure of sustainability for an urban public research university.
Environ. Pract. 12, 35e47.
Koester, R.J., Eflin, J., Vann, J., 2006. Greening of the campus: a whole-systems
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 769e779.
Lancaster University, 2012. Energy & Carbon Management. Available online: http://
www.lancs.ac.uk/estates/environment/energy.html (accessed 31.07.12.).
Larsen, H.N., Hertwich, E.G., 2010. Implementing carbon-footprint-based calcula-
tion tools in municipal greenhouse gas inventories. J. Ind. Ecol. 14, 965e977.
Larsen, H.N., Pettflozanoersen, J., Solli, C., Hertwich, E.G., 2013. Investigating the
carbon footprint of a university e the case of NTNU. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 39e47.
Lenzen, M., 2001. Errors in conventional and input-output based life-cycle in-
ventories. J. Ind. Ecol. 4, 127e148.
Lenzen, M., Treloar, G., 2003. Differential convergence of life-cycle upstream pro-
duction layers: implications for life-cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 6, 137e160.
Letete, T.C., Mungwe, N.W., Guma, M., Marquad, A., 2011. Carbon footprint of the
University of Cape Town. J. Energy S. Afr. 22, 2e12.
Lidgren, A., Rodhe, H., Huisingh, D., 2006. A systemic approach to incorporating
sustainability into university courses and curricular. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 797e809.
Lozano, R., 2006a. Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities:
breaking through barriers to change. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 787e796.
175
Lozano, R., 2006b. A tool for a graphical assessment of sustainability in universities
(GASU). J. Clean. Prod. 14, 963e972.
Lozano, R., 2011. The state of sustainability reporting in universities. Int. J. Sustain.
High. Educ. 12, 67e78.
Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., 2011. Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability
reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 99e107.
Matthews, H.S., Hendrickson, C.T., Weber, C.L., 2008. The importance of carbon
footprint estimation boundaries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 5839e5842.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded
Sourcebook. Sage Publications, London.
Miller, R.E., Blair, P.D., 2009. InputeOutput Analysis: Foundations and Extensions.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Min, H., Galle, W.P., 2001. Green purchasing practices of US firms. Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Manag. 21, 1222e1238.
Minx, J., Wiedmann, T., Barrett, J., Suh, H., 2008. Methods Review to Support the PAS
Process for the Calculation of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Embodied in
Goods and Services: Report to the UK Department for Environment. Food and
Rural Affairs by Stockholm Environment Institute at the University of York and
Department for Bio-based Products at the University of Minnesota. Defra,
London.
Muller-Christ, G., Sterling, S., van Dam-Mieras, R., Admonbent, M., Fischer, D.,
Rieckmann, M., 2014. The role of campus, curriculum and community in higher
education for sustainable development e a conference report. J. Clean. Prod. 62,
134e137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.029.
Oppenheim, A.M., 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Mea-
surement. Continuum, London.
Ozawa-Meida, L., Brockway, P., Letten, K., Davies, J., Fleming, P., 2013. Measuring
carbon performance in a UK university through a consumption-based carbon
footprint: De Montford University case study. J. Clean. Prod. 56, 185e198. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.09.028.
Porter, M.E., van der Linde, C., 1995. Green and competitive: ending the stalemate.
Harv. Business Rev. 73, 120e134. SeptembereOctober.
Rao, P., Holt, D., 2005. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and eco-
nomic performance? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 25, 898e916.
Respondent A, 19th July 2012. Interview with Respondent A. Leeds.
Respondent B, 19th July 2012. Interview with Respondent B. Leeds.
Respondent C, 24th July 2012. Interview with Respondent C. Leeds.
Respondent D, 26th July 2012. Interview with Respondent D. Leeds.
Respondent E, 26th July 2012. Interview with Respondent E. Leeds.
Respondent F, 27th July 2012. Interview with Respondent F. Leeds.
Saadatian, O., Sopian, K.B., Salleh, E., 2013. Adaptation of sustainable community
indicators for Malaysian campuses as small cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 6, 40e50.
Savanick, S., Strong, R., Manning, C., 2008. Explicitly linking pedagogy and facilities
to campus sustainability: lessons from Carleton College and the University of
Minnesota. Environ. Educ. Res. 14, 667e679.
Seurling, S., Muller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework
for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1699e1710.
Stephens, J.C., Graham, A.C., 2010. Toward an empirical research agenda for sus-
tainability in higher education: exploring the transition management frame-
work. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 611e618.
Stephens, J.C., Hernandez, M.E., Roman, M., Graham, A.C., Scholz, R.W., 2008. Higher
education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts.
Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 9, 317e338.
Suh, S., 2006. Are services better for climate change? Environ. Sci. Technol. 40,
6555e6560.
Suh, S., Lenzen, M., Treloar, G.J., Hondo, H., Horvath, A., Huppes, G., Joilett, O.,
Klann, U., Krewitt, W., Morigochi, Y., Munksgaard, J., Norris, G., 2004. System
boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 38, 657e664.
Sullivan, R., 2009. The management of greenhouse gas emissions in large European
countries. Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 16, 301e309.
Sundarakani, B., de Souza, R., Goh, M., Wagner, S.M., Manikandan, S., 2010.
Modeling carbon footprints across the supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 128,
43e50.
Tesch, R., 1990. Qualitative Research: Analysis Types & Software Tools. The Falmer
Press, New York.
Testa, F., Iraldo, F., 2010. Shadows and lights of GSCM (Green Supply Chain Man-
agement): determinants and effects of these practices based on a multi-
national study. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 953e962.
Thurston, M., Eckelman, M.J., 2011. Assessing greenhouse gas emissions from uni-
versity purchases. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 12, 225e235.
University of Leeds, 2011. Carbon Management Plan. The University of Leeds.
Available from: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/sustainabledevelopment/downloads/
CMP%20Full%20Document-June2011.pdf.
University of Leeds, 2013a. Facts and Figures [online]. Available from: http://www.
leeds.ac.uk/info/20014/about/234/facts_and_figures (accessed 2.09.13.).
University of Leeds, 2013b. Purchasing [online]. Available from: http://www.leeds.
ac.uk/sustainability/resources_purchasing.html (accessed 2.09.13.).
University of Leeds, 2013c. Travel Plan. The University of Leeds. Available from:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/sustainabledevelopment/downloads/travel_plan.pdf.
Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Sanchez, M., 2005. Deterring sustainability in higher
education institutions: an appraisal of the factors which influence sustainability
in higher education institutions. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 6, 383e391.
Velazquez, L., Munguia, N., Platt, A., Taddei, J., 2006. Sustainable university: what
can be the matter? J. Clean. Prod. 14, 810e819.
176 J. Townsend, J. Barrett / Journal of Cleaner Production 107 (2015) 164e176
Walker, H., Di Sisto, L., McBain, D., 2008. Drivers and barriers to environmental
supply chain management practices: lessons from the public and private sec-
tors. J. Purchas. Suppl. Manag. 14, 69e85.
Walker, H., Spencer, R., Miemczyk, J., Johnsen, T., 2010. Special issue: “Sustainable
procurement”. J. Purchas. Suppl. Manag. 16, 150.
Weidema, B.P., Thrane, M., Christensen, P., Schmidt, J., Lokke, S., 2008. Carbon
footprint: a catalyst for life cycle assessment? J. Ind. Ecol. 12, 3e6.
Wiedmann, T., 2009. Carbon footprint and input-output analysis e an introduction.
Econ. Syst. Res. 21, 175e186.
Wiedmann, T., Barrett, J., 2011. A greenhouse gas footprint analysis of UK central
government, 1990e2008. Environ. Sci. Policy 14, 1041e1051.
Wiedmann, T.O., Lenzen, M., Barrett, J.R., 2009. Companies on the scale: comparing
and benchmarking the sustainability performance of businesses. J. Ind. Ecol. 13,
361e383.
Williams, E.D., Weber, C.L., Hawkins, T.R., 2009. Hybrid framework for managing
uncertainty in life cycle inventories. J. Ind. Ecol. 13, 928e944.
Wright, T., 2010. University presidents’ conceptualizations of sustainability in
higher education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 11, 61e73.
Wright, T.S.A., Wilton, H., 2012. Facilities management directors’ conceptualizations
of sustainability in higher education. J. Clean. Prod. 31, 118e125.
WRI, WBCSD, 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: a Corporate Accounting and
Reporting Standard. World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business
Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Available from: http://www.
ghgprotocol.org/standards/corporate-standard.
WRI, WBCSD, 2011. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Corporate Value Chain (Scope
3) Accounting and Reporting Standard. World Resources Institute (WRI) and
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Available
from: http://www. ghgprotocol.org/standards/product-and-supply-chain-
standard.
Young, W., Costelloe, P., Kerr, L., 2010. Sustainable procurement: human rights and
greenhouse gas emissions. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. Develop. 9, 364e377.
Yuan, X., Zuo, J., 2013. A critical assessment of the higher education for sustainable
development from students’ perspectives e a Chinese study. J. Clean. Prod. 48,
108e115.