|
Sustainability Accord
Economics Working Group - Draft Discussion Paper
Sustainability Retreat, August 2005
The economics working group consisted of (in alphabetical order):
Jim Bauer (VP , Administrative services); Warren Binford (Director
of Clinical Law Program, Law school); Alice French (Technical
services specialist, Hatfield library); Gary Grimm (Operations
manager, Campus facilities); Don Negri (Professor, Economics);
Jenny Orr (Associate Professor, Computer science); David Rigsby
(Assistant Dean, Campus life); and Suzie Torre (Student, CLA).
The group was facilitated by Nathan Sivers Boyce (Assistant
Professor, Economics).
Introduction:
A sustainability accord?! How did the economics working group
end up outlining a sustainability accord?
The group was charged with helping the Sustainability Council
think about financial aspects of sustainability at Willamette.
Prior to the retreat, group members read three short articles
that highlighted the pervasiveness of financial considerations
in decision-making across the university and posed the question:
Under what circumstances should we be willing to make decisions
that do not minimize our financial costs or maximize our return
on investment? At the retreat, we began by considering what
kind of document we would like to produce through our collective
efforts. After some initial discussion, we settled on the idea
of producing a document that might serve as a guide for inserting
consideration of sustainability into the decision-making process.
As our discussions proceeded, it became increasingly clear
that two issues were very important to group. First, it was
important that our document recognize the complexity of the
tradeoffs that are often involved in decision-making. Second,
it was important that not be perceived as an imposition values
or processes (or anything else for that matter). Out of these
concerns grew the idea of outlining a sustainability accord:
a document that would be collectively drafted through a transparent,
inclusive, iterative process; that would articulate common principles
(values) upon which decisions would be made; and that would
identify some loose guidelines (questions).
Our draft discussion paper reflects this process. After articulating
our goals, we outline some suggestions for and potential difficulties
around the process of drafting the document. The remainder of
the paper is given over to a set of recommendations about the
structure and content of the accord. We close by identifying
some additional questions and challenges that the group identified
as important but were unable to address in much detail.
Goals:
In our experience, proposed projects/decisions at Willamette
are often formally evaluated on the basis of only two criteria:
financial (cost or return on investment) and contribution to
the education mission of the institution. We believe that in
order for Willamette to become a sustainable institution we
must consider equity and environmental impacts as well. Thus,
we want to help begin the conversation about how integrate all
of these values into the decision-making process.
Why the accord structure?
Willamette has a long standing tradition of decentralized decision
making in which individual decision-making units have a great
deal of latitude but are expected to conform to certain commonly
held values. Because of the degree of freedom inherent in this
system, there is often resistance to constraints that are imposed
on decision-makers rather than voluntarily adopted.
This model is similar in some important ways to the international
relations of a group of sovereign states. Thus, we took our
inspiration from attempts to generate international cooperation
around such issues as global warming or production and release
of CFCs: the international accord.
The process of drafting an accord provides sovereign states
a vehicle to articulate common values and expectations. The
resulting document allows them to function under some level
of collective guidelines, but also allows states significant
latitude in determining how best to comply with the principles.
The entire process is voluntary and inclusive.
Suggestions for drafting process:
1) Guiding principle: Process around the treaty and its components
are transparent and participatory.
2) Process begins with this working group outlining the structure
and content of the accord;
3) Sustainability council completes a draft for initial distribution;
4) An iterative drafting process is engaged wherein:
i) draft is distributed to all community members;
ii) a well-defined comment period is announced;
iii) at the end of the comment period draft is revised in light
of comments received;
iv) new draft is distributed and the cycle begins again.
The process goes through at least two cycles, more if necessary
in light of the volume and content of the comments received.
All data received needs to be open to the community so that
no input is left out.
5) After document is "finalized," community members
have the opportunity to sign on to the accord. By doing so they
are committing themselves to the values expressed in the accord
and to implement them in whatever decision-making they do.
Whom do we mean when we say community members?
Decision-making units at Willamette: Departments and areas as
decision making bodies, schools/colleges, the board of trustees,
but also individual decision-makers, students, faculty, staff,
trustees and parents.
Process Challenges & questions:
1. We offer a broad definition of community members so that
the process might be as inclusive as possible. This seems important
in the drafting phasing and particularly in the signature phase.
However, we recognize that this might pose a significant logistical
problem with regard to collecting, reviewing, and incorporating
feedback during the drafting process.
2. During the signature phase should we publish a list of who
has signed and who has yet to sign? or Does this create a useful
kind of peer pressure or an in-group/out-group dynamic that
is unfair and counterproductive?
Suggestions about the structure and content of the accord:
The accord might be usefully divided into the following components:
- Preamble - frames the content of the accord in terms of
the university mission statement.
- Principles - articulates a common set of values on which
decisions are made
- Guidelines - exemplifies the type of questions that decision-makers
should be trying to address in order to operationalize the
principles;
- Implementation - Articulates expectations about how the
guidelines and principles will be implemented
- Assessment - how are we holding ourselves accountable for
our commitment to these values?
Suggestions for the content of each section are made below:
|
Preamble:
Might include: broad definition of sustainability that
identifies and explains the four E's (equity, environment,
education, economy) and discussion of how the university
mission statement relates to these.
Principles behind the treaty are transparent to
everyone.
1) Sustain or build our financial ( growth, integrity,
strength) ??? (We don't know which word is most appropriate.
The importance here is that we have to sustain the institution
itself.)
2) Place a high(er) priority on those expenditures of
resources for sustainability that are consistent with
our direct educational mission. (It is important to keep
our primary mission in mind. We are an educational institution
and not, for example, a venture capital firm whose goal
is to promote sustainable business ventures.)
3) In decision-making, the four E's (education, equity,
economics and environment) are valued and considered.
4) Maintain transparency and inclusiveness in decision
making when practical. (The final clause is meant to remind
us to use common sense. If we the decision in question
is to buy a pencil, how inclusive and transparent does
the process need to be?)
Guidelines:
1) Is your current practice sustainable?
2) If not, do sustainable alternatives exist?
3) Who are the stakeholders and how does the decision
impact the stakeholder constituencies? Have the stakeholders
been notified and involved in the decision making process
if appropriate? (Again, the emphasis here is on common
sense and good faith.)
4) What positive and negative impact will the decision
have on the four "E"s? (Moving from an environmental
impact statement, EIS, to an EEEEIS.)
Implementation:
Principles will be implemented according to the best judgment
of the decision maker
Assessment:
Sustainability principles are incorporated into existing
assessment mechanisms
|
Additional questions and challenges:
Is it necessary to monitor the implementation of this agreement
in order for it to "have any teeth"? If so, how would
you do it? Should there, for example, be periodic external audits?
Are there support resources available in purchasing and other
campus areas that can help limit the amount of energy and time
needed to implement these principles?
Incentives-How would people feel rewarded when they do great
work in incorporating sustainable principles?
|
