The University of Sydney. The University of Sydney s Triple Bottom Line Performance

Transcription

1 The University of Sydney NSW 26 AUSTRALIA Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Project Phase 1 Report The University of Sydney s Triple Bottom Line Performance Dr Christopher Dey, Senior Research Fellow Professor Manfred Lenzen, Chair of Sustainability Research Centre for Integrated Sustainability Analysis In association with Professor Charlie Benrimoj, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Strategic Planning) Professor Michael Frommer, Director, Sydney Health Projects Group Ms Tess Howes, Executive Officer (Strategic Planning) Ms Emma Walters (Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific) Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning

2 Introduction to the Triple Bottom Line Project The Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning commenced a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) project in 26 to develop a University Sustainability Model to be undertaken by Professor Manfred Lenzen and Dr Chris Dey of the Centre for Integrated Sustainability Analysis (ISA) at the University of Sydney 1. This report, the first phase of the project, is a comprehensive assessment of The University of Sydney s TBL performance A key element of this assessment is the calculation of the full carbon footprint of all the University s activities, including the activities in the supply chain, identifying both direct (on-site) and indirect (off-site or upstream) effects. The TBL report also contains other extensive information covering the University s financial performance, social (and academic) contribution and the effects on the physical environment 2. Wherever possible, the results were benchmarked across the Australian educational sector 3 and further benchmarked against the Go8 institutions to in terms of direct academic 4, revenue 5 and expenditure 6 performance. Areas needing improvement are identified so that specific strategies can be developed to improve these outcomes. The University s performance across most of the academic and financial indicators is at or above the Go8 average. For example in net operating surplus, consultancy and contract research income, ARC grants, and economic stimulus 7. However, this positive increase in financial activity resulted in an increase in some negative indicators in absolute terms 8. The most pressing issue for the University is greenhouse gas emissions, particularly those associated with electricity use and air travel. This Report recommends the implementation of an Emission Reduction Target to ensure the University reduces its greenhouse gas emissions and improves its overall TBL performance. Depending on the emission reduction target implemented, it is possible for the University to become carbon neutral now, if we implement Target A, or progressively over a five year period if we implement Target B (see page 5). This creates a strategic opportunity for the University of Sydney to achieve national leadership status by becoming the first fully carbon neutral university in Australia. The Emission Reduction Target should be supported by Emission Reduction Management Strategies that complement the existing Sustainable Campus Projects and Energy Savings Action Plan developed by Campus Infrastructure Services 9. It is also recommended that progress towards the agreed Target be monitored and the University s TBL results published annually. As far as we are aware, this comprehensive approach to TBL reporting by a university is the first of its kind in Australia and most probably worldwide. A brief summary of the University s performance across the TBL indicators follows. For further information, refer to the attached appendices Table B1, p Table D1, p.18 4 Figure D2, p.19 5 Figure D3, p.2 6 Figure D4, p.21 7 Figures D3-D4, pp Tables D1-D2, p See Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 2

3 Financial performance Comprehensive detail of the University s financial performance is published each year in the University of Sydney Annual and Financial Reports. Therefore, this paper will only reference high-level financial data. Preliminary analysis of the 27 financial information indicates that the most recent performance is consistent with the 24-6 trends presented in this paper. Key results for are: Over the three years net revenue increased by more than 27% from $957 million to $1,211 million 1 which is greater than the increase in other Go8 institutions (average of ~2%). The University s net operating result (revenue minus expenses) demonstrates a clear upward trend. Overall performance is 87% higher per dollar of total revenue when compared with the Go8 average 11. Income from State and local government sources is about 8% lower per dollar of total revenue when compared with other Go8 universities 12. The University contained its operating expenses better than the other Go8 universities across most items. An exception is in repairs and maintenance, which probably reflects the age of University buildings 13. Although wages and salaries rose in absolute terms by about 1% from 25 to 26, they are fairly static as a proportion of revenue 14. Surpluses were reinvested, generating significant flow-on effects of $24 million in 26 for the organisations supplying the University with goods and services. Social (including academic) contribution The University s social and academic productivity is often expressed as outputs or outcomes. Actual social contributions are difficult to quantify. Further research will be undertaken in Phase 2 of this project to develop techniques to quantify the positive downstream contributions made by University staff and graduates. Direct social contributions result from the degrees awarded each year. There were almost 46, students enrolled at the University in 26, with an equivalent fulltime student load (EFTSL) of 35,582 and an undergraduate to postgraduate ratio of about 3.3:1. This culminated in the award of 12,314 degrees in 26 of which 4,11 were postgraduate. 26 academic data indicates that the University is a sector leader in graduates of masters degrees by coursework, masters degrees by research, journal publications and total research income. Performance is equal to or better than the Go8 average for bachelor s degrees, the undergraduate to postgraduate ratio, total publications and doctoral degrees 15. The University generally performs better than other Go8 institutions in Australian competitive grants on direct performance measures. In 26 the University earned 4% higher competitive grant income per dollar of total revenue 16. In absolute research income, the University generated $39 million in competitive and industry grants in 26. The social and academic contributions arising from this 1 Figure D3, p Figure D4, p Figure D3, p Figure D4, p Figure D1, p Figure D2, p Figure D3, p.2. Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 3

4 output downstream in the short and long term is substantial. However, further work is required to quantify the consequences using robust methodologies. In 26 academic staff at the University published 271 books, 32 book chapters, 2759 journal articles and 52 refereed conference papers, a total of almost 4 annual publications. Per dollar of revenue, the University performs 12% better than the Go8 average for journal articles but 12% worse than the Go8 average for book chapters. After averaging all these indicators, the University s total publication score per dollar of revenue is 3% higher than the Go8 average. For every dollar the University spent on wages, another 27 cents was spent on wages in the supply chain. $23,185 of wages and salaries were paid for each student load unit and one full time equivalent amount of employment was generated for every three students (EFTSL). For every full-time equivalent (FTE) staff member employed in the University, another.75 FTE job was created in the supply chain. The University also makes many significant contributions to the cultural and intellectual life of local, regional and national communities and is a source of expertise in many fields. Effects on the environment 17 The increase in University s financial and academic activities over 24-6 is associated with a significant increase in energy consumption (11%) and greenhouse gas emissions (1%) which was disproportionate to increases in other environmental indicators such as land disturbance (1%) and water use (1%, but for water most of this increase is indirect). Total greenhouse gas emissions were 265, tonnes of CO 2 -e in 26, and total water use was slightly over 3,1 mega litres (ML), though less than 5 ML of this is our on-site water use. Greenhouse gas emissions per full-time student equivalent increased by approximately 22% during the three years Thus, while student numbers fell slightly, greenhouse gas emissions per student increased substantially. The University s energy consumption increased both directly (i.e. under its own control, 9%) and indirectly (through the supply chain, 13%). The largest single contributor to the University s total greenhouse gas emissions is electricity use (86, tonnes of CO 2 -e), or approximately 32% of total emissions. The second-largest contributor to the University s total greenhouse gas emissions is nearly 24, tonnes of CO 2 -e from air travel, which accounts for approximately 9% of total emissions. Direct use of petrol and gas only account for approximately 2% of the total (direct plus indirect) greenhouse gas emissions. The University s direct water use decreased in absolute terms during In 26, servicing each student load unit required almost 88, litres of water, caused 7.45 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and 4,236 m 2 of land disturbance. The University s overall environmental performance when measured against all institutions in the national education sector (universities, schools, colleges and other educational institutions) is below average, except for water use, which was significantly better than average. 17 See Table B1 for direct impacts under full responsibility for economy-wide indicators and Table B2 for total effects from EFTSL under both full and shared responsibility models, p.12. Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 4

5 Towards carbon neutrality These findings provide an opportunity for the University to set an Emission Reduction Target to reduce its carbon footprint. Several recommendations proposed in this report form part of a comprehensive emissions reduction strategy that will lead the University towards full carbon neutrality, an Australian university first. Full carbon neutrality, or so-called zero net emissions, generally implies that the organisation takes full responsibility for all emissions including those in its supply chain (ie. both direct and indirect). Under the ISA shared responsibility formalism emissions can be systematically allocated and shared with the University s suppliers as well as users of the University s services. The shared responsibility approach reduces the University s overall emissions by approximately a factor of four. It can be well argued that shared responsibility is an appropriate approach for the University, but this has to be agreed. Two emission reduction targets are proposed. A key component of both targets involves a switch to GreenPower. The purchase of 1% GreenPower will immediately save approximately 94, t CO 2 -e, at an annual additional cost about $3.6 million and reduce the University s total greenhouse gas emissions by one third. The savings cost is approximately 38 $/CO 2 -e. This would demonstrate clear leadership in the sector as very few large organisations and no university (currently) purchases 1% GreenPower. Costs will increase as the University s demand for power increases, with a typical GreenPower premium cost of about $4m per annum over the next three years. Recommendation 1: That the University progressively shifts energy procurement preferences towards renewable energy providers, particularly GreenPower. Emission Reduction Target A: Full Carbon Neutrality now Full carbon neutrality can be achieved now if the University purchases 1% GreenPower and offsets the remainder of the emissions using commercial offset providers. Based on current levels of activity the annual cost will be approximately $7.5m corresponding to an emissions savings cost of $26 per tonne of CO 2 -e saved OR Emission Reduction Target B: Carbon Neutrality over a five year period This long term target proposes a progressive shift to 1% GreenPower and use of commercial offset providers combined with substantial one-off investments of approximately $3 million in energy efficient infrastructure to deliver ongoing energy and emissions savings. This progressive target will reduce the net annual ongoing costs (including savings) to approximately $6.5 million and corresponds to $21 per tonne of CO 2 -e saved (depending on the timeframe adopted). Recommendation 2: That Emission Reduction Target A or Emission Reduction Target B be implemented See Appendix F for a detailed explanation of the costs, emissions savings and saving costs associated with both Emission Reduction Targets proposed, p.29. Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 5

6 Emission Target A includes standard offsetting of flights, vehicle fuel usage and indirect emissions (those associated with the goods and service purchased by the University), (see Activities 2-5 in Appendix F). These emissions are the single largest component of the total carbon footprint (~58%). Offsetting these indirect emissions alone at 2 $ per tonne, represents a considerable outlay at 3.3 m$. Emission Reduction Management Strategies (see Appendix F) The following strategies introduce an emission reduction management framework to support the implementation of the agreed Emission Reduction Target (A or B) and an ongoing emission reduction improvement cycle. Listed in approximate order of emissions savings, the strategies are initially focused on reducing the emissions generated from the University s electricity use (approximately 86, tonnes at present) which will continue to increase as campus development projects are expanded, additional space is air-conditioned and research equipment usage increases. Emissions from natural gas and vehicle fuel combustion are much smaller than those generated from electricity use. 1. The University should aggressively pursue energy savings to achieve a 15 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from total electricity use over the next five years. Phase 1 should focus on delivering an initial 1% reduction in energy usage by investing in energy efficient infrastructures and implementing energy conservation policies. The payback period would be less than 3 years (Activity 6, Appendix F). Phase 2 will be more challenging as it involves a further 8% reduction in energy usage and increased investment in energy efficient infrastructure, including in new building stock (Activity 7). A conservative payback period for Phase 2 is 1 years. 2. The University should establish an Emissions Reduction Working Group to support the implementation of the Emission Reduction Management Strategies, measure performance against emission reduction targets and monitor energy use, particularly, air conditioning equipment, and compliance with the CIS Energy Savings Action Plan 19. The Working Group should be well resourced and supported by Campus Infrastructure and Services. Academic involvement in the Group should be encouraged. With adequate resources for policy development and implementation extensive ongoing savings will be achieved (see Activity 11). 3. After electricity, air travel is the next most significant contributor to the University s emissions. An ambitious but realistic target of 1% reduction in both domestic and international air travel could be achieved by increased use of communications technology, primarily video conferencing (VC) (Activities 8 and 9). Recent surveys suggest staff are willing to explore the use of alternative communication technologies as long as it is accessible, reliable and of high quality. Well implemented VC will lead to secondary savings in staff time and travel costs. Further reductions are possible if emission offsets are purchased. At a typical offset price of $2 per tonne, offsetting current flight activity would cost about $47,. 19 The Energy Savings Action Plan in CIS is now finalised. Detailed energy audits of about half of the buildings on the Camperdown and Darlington campuses have been completed. The audit results have been used to inform the estimates here. Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 6

7 4. Emissions from the University s vehicles are relatively minor (<.5%). Small emissions reductions can be achieved by gradually replacing the fleet with more efficient vehicles and purchasing fleet offsets (Activities 4 and 1). 5. All new buildings should incorporate international best practice green building and low energy technology. Looking well beyond the typical Australian green building standards, the University should also take into account the ongoing savings energy efficient design will bring over the long lifetime of buildings. This is particularly important as energy costs are likely to rise significantly in the near future. Innovative design and project management (from concept all the way through to verification of operation) are essential to achieving a legacy of worldclass buildings. Recommendation 3: That the above Emission Reduction Management Strategies be implemented. Conclusion The results presented in this report are based on quantifiable performance metrics. A fully integrated sustainability management framework depends on a University-wide approach as process, governance and attitudes are as important as performance measures. It is recommended that sustainability thinking, and more precisely TBL considerations, be incorporated into all activities of the University. The magnitude of this task should not be underestimated. On an outreach level, TBL reporting can be incorporated into marketing material and used for engagement with stakeholders by including TBL elements in the annual reporting processes. This should include targets and benchmarks for all indicators, and where possible include comparisons with the education sector. Various performance targets should be expressed in relation to EFTSL and/or revenue. Finally, with the right approach, the University can take a leadership role among the Go8 by the implementation of an Emissions Reduction Target, Emission Reduction Management Strategies which represent best practice sustainability assessment and management principles, thereby establishing the University of Sydney as an Australian-wide exemplar for sustainability thinking, planning and management. Future work - The University Sustainability Model The second phase of the TBL project is the development of a University Sustainability Model which embeds the University s internal economy into the wider regional and national economy. This will allow the testing of various planning and forecasting scenarios across the TBL reporting indicators to predict the financial, social (including academic) and environmental impacts of current and proposed actions. The proof of concept model is now complete and the project on track for completion at the end of 29. The University Sustainability Model will enable the University of Sydney to conduct scenario planning to a degree of accuracy that represents cuttingedge world best practice and bring a significant competitive advantage to the University of Sydney s strategic planning projects. Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 7

8 Appendix - Contents Glossary of Terms 9 Appendix A - Indicator listings Table A1 Economy-wide indicators and brief descriptions 1 Table A2 Director indicators and brief descriptions 11 Appendix B The University s results for economy-wide indicators Table B1 Direct and total impacts under full responsibility for economy-wide indicators 12 Table B2 Total impacts per EFTSL under both full and shared responsibility 12 Appendix C Direct & indirect trends Figure C1 Salary: (a) absolute, b) per dollar of revenue and c) per student load 13 Figure C2 Operating surplus: (a) absolute, b) per dollar of revenue and c) per student load 13 Figure C3 Greenhouse emissions: (a) absolute, b) per $ of revenue and c) per student load 14 Figure C4 Land disturbance: (a) absolute, b) per $ of revenue and c) per student load 14 Figure C5 Water use: (a) absolute, b) per $ of revenue and c) per student load 15 Figure C6 Energy consumption: (a) absolute, b) per $ of revenue and c) per student load 15 Figure C7 Employment: (a) absolute, b) per $ of revenue and c) per student load 16 Figure C8 Export: (a) absolute, b) per $ of revenue and c) per student load 16 Figure C9 Economic stimulus: (a) absolute, b) per $ of revenue and c) per student load 17 Appendix D Benchmarking Figure D1 Figure D2 Figure D3 Figure D4 Performance against the Australian education sector for 26. Data underlying the results is presented in Table D1. Benchmarked against all Go8 universities for 12 direct indicators of academic performance for 26. Data underlying the results is presented in Table D2. Benchmarked against all Go8 universities for 12 direct indicators of revenue performance for 26. Data underlying the results is presented in Table D3. Benchmarked against all Go8 universities for 12 direct indicators of expenditure for 26. Data underlying the results is presented in Table D4. Appendix E Structural path analysis Table E1 SPA of the economy-wide indicator, greenhouse emissions, under full responsibility for 26 Table E2 SPA of wages and salaries under shared responsibility 24 Table E3 SPA of operating surplus under shared responsibility 25 Table E4 SPA of greenhouse gas emissions under shared responsibility 25 Table E5 SPA of land disturbance under shared responsibility 26 Table E6 SPA of water use under shared responsibility 26 Table E7 SPA of energy consumption under shared responsibility 27 Table E8 SPA of employment use under shared responsibility 27 Table E9 SPA of exports under shared responsibility 28 Table E1 SPA of economic stimulus use under shared responsibility 28 Appendix F costs Costs were adjusted in July 28. They should be considered indicative in August Page Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 8

9 Glossary of terms Direct The resources that the University has and uses on its campuses, and their effects. Indirect The resources that the University s suppliers and full supply chain use or create to make the [products and deliver the services that the University buys and uses, and their effects, as a proportion of the total resources used by the University or the sum of their effects. Total The total effects, calculated by combining direct and indirect effects. Economy-wide indicators: Full responsibility Indicators that cover the total of direct and indirect effects. Where the University accepts the responsibility of the total load of the effects, such as all the energy required to make the products and deliver the services that the University buys. This includes the proportion of energy used by suppliers and the full supply chain involved in making products for and delivering services to the University. Effects can be counted more than once if they are reported by different operators in a supply chain. Shared responsibility Where the user and each supplier in the supply chain accept a well-defined part of the responsibility for the effects of using the resources to make the product or deliver the service. Multiple counting is removed if both supplier and consumer report under shared responsibility. Shared responsibility means that there is a dilution of the supply chain impacts, the longer the supply chain. Impacts are also shared 5% with the users of the University s services (downstream). For example, under shared responsibility, 5% of the impacts of air travel are shared with the airline, 5% are passed onto the University and then 5% of these impacts are further passed on to the University s users. Therefore airline impacts are typically reduced by about a factor of four under shared responsibility compared with full responsibility. For the purposes of benchmarking and internal comparisons, the indicators are expressed in relation to one or two denominators total revenue (in dollars) or equivalent full-time student load (EFTSL). The economy-wide indicators and Go8 indicators used in TBL reporting are listed in Appendix A (following). Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 9

10 Appendix A: Indicator listings Table A1: Economy-wide indicators and brief descriptions. Economy-wide Indicator Description Financial indicators Net operating surplus (+) Economic stimulus (+) Exports (+) Environmental indicators Energy consumption (-) Greenhouse gas emissions (-) Water use (-) Land disturbance (-) Social indicators Wages & salaries (+) Employment (+) University of Sydney net profit, excluding re-investment in capital works (appropriated funds), plus the gross operating surplus generated in our entire supply chain. The total expenditure on all good and services from suppliers, excluding wages and salaries. Revenue sourced from outside Australia, including the export revenue associated with our supply chain. Our on-site energy use from the direct combustion of fuels, plus the primary energy use occurring in our entire supply chain, such as for electricity generation (regarded as being on-site). Excludes the Student Union and residential colleges, except International House is included. Our on-site emissions from the direct combustion of fuels, plus the emissions occurring in our entire supply chain, such as for electricity generation. Emissions from combustion for electricity are regarded as on-site. Emissions from coal mining are allocated to the first production layer. Our on-site water use on all campuses, plus the managed water use for our entire supply chain. Our direct land use for our properties weighted by land disturbance factors, plus the land disturbance in our entire supply chain. The wages and salaries paid to our employees, plus the wages and salaries involved with our entire supply chain. The number of full time equivalent (FTE) employees, plus the FTE employees in our entire supply chain. Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 1

11 Table A2: Direct indicators and brief descriptions. Direct Indicator Revenue Commonwealth Grants Schemes & others (+) Total DEST- Research Grants (+) Discovery (+) Linkages (+) Australian Research Council (+) Total State & Local Govt. assistance (+) Total Fees & Charges (+) Investment Income (+) Royalties, trademarks & licences (+) Consultancy & contract research (+) Total Other Revenue (+) Operating Result (+) Description Total funding from the Commonwealth, but predominantly the Commonwealth Grants Scheme. DEST research funding including IGS, RTS, SII, and RIBG. Australian Research Council Discovery Grants. Australian Research Council Linkage Grants. Total Australian Research Council funding, including networks and centres. Total of other assistance, including state and local government. All fee paying student revenue (overseas, UG, PG, and other courses). Revenue from investments, according to DEST data. Revenue from royalties, trademarks & licences, according to DEST data. Revenue from consultancy & contract research, according to DEST data. Other revenue, including donations and bequests, and other non-specified sources, according to DEST data. Operating revenue minus operating expenses, according to DEST data. Expenditure Academic salaries (-) Non Academic salaries (-) Employee benefits and on costs (-) Plant, equipment and office furniture (-) Buildings (incl. fixtures & fittings) (-) Depreciation & amortisation (-) Repairs & maintenance (-) Total other expenses (-) Operating Expenses (-) Operating Result (+) All expenditure on academic salaries. All expenditure on non-academic and general salaries. Total employee costs, including other contributions such superannuation. Expenditure on plant and equipment according to DEST data. Expenditure on buildings and their internals, according to DEST data. Total expenditure on plant, equipment and office furniture, infrastructure, and buildings (inc. fitout). Expenditure on repairs & maintenance, according to DEST data. Other expenses according to DEST data. Total expenses according to DEST data. Operating revenue minus operating expenses, according to DEST data. Academic UG:PG Ratio (EFTSL) (+) Student Staff Ratio (EFTSL / FTE Teaching Acad.) (-) Staff Ratio (Acad. / Non-Acad.) (+) Bachelor's degrees (+) Masters by coursework (+) Masters by research (+) Doctoral degrees (+) Book Chapters (+) Journal Articles (+) Publications Scores (unweighted) (+) Australian Competitive Grants (+) Total Research Income (+) Ratio of undergraduate student load (EFTSL) to postgraduate student load (EFTSL). Ratio of total student load (EFTSL) to total teaching and teaching & research staff (FTE). Ratio of total academic staff to non-academic staff (in FTE). Number of Bachelor degrees awarded in that year. Number of Masters by coursework degrees awarded in that year. Number of Masters by research degrees awarded in that year. Number of Doctoral degrees awarded in that year. University data on number of book chapters published. University data on number of journal articles published. University data on total number of publications (books, chapters, articles, conference papers). University data on the total competitive grant funding. Total research income including competitive grants, other public sector funding, industry and other funding, and CRCs. Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 11

12 Appendix B: The University s results for economy-wide indicators As the University s total revenue grows, so too does its social and environmental impacts. Table B1 shows the direct and total effects under a full responsibility model. The second column under each year shows the University s total results, without comparison to other institutions. Total revenue (a good proxy for total activity) has increased considerably over the three years. This is reflected in the rising wages and salaries, net operating surpluses, employment, exports and economic stimulus figures, all of which can be regarded as positive. Alongside these, the negative indicators have all increased significantly in absolute terms. Greenhouse gas emissions under full responsibility were 265, tonnes of CO 2 -e in 26, and water use was slightly over 3,1 mega litres (ML), though less than 5 ML of this is our on-site water use. Table B1: Direct and total impacts under full responsibility for economy-wide indicators Full Units Direct Total Direct Total Direct Total Wages & salaries m$ Net operating surplus m$ Greenhouse gas emissions t CO 2 -e 64,12 223,441 7,95 24,349 75, ,21 Land disturbance ha 7,24 14,77 7,24 14,868 7,24 15,73 Water use ML 48 2, , ,116 Energy consumption GJ 766,28 2,33, ,64 2,622,87 93,12 2,912,327 Employment emp-y 6,338 1,999 6,452 11,166 6,424 11,743 Exports m$ Economic stimulus m$ Net revenue m$ Table B2 relates total effects to equivalent full-time student load (EFTSL) under both full and shared responsibility models. Table B2: Total impacts per EFTSL under both full and shared responsibility. Full Shared Full Shared Full Shared Wages & salaries $/EFTSL 19,429 8,423 2,586 8,99 23,185 1,85 Net operating surplus $/EFTSL 4,37 1,456 4,883 1,69 6,312 2,35 Greenhouse gas emissions kg CO 2 -e/eftsl 6,17 1,369 6,672 1,566 7,453 1,727 Land disturbance m 2 /EFTSL 4,19 1,95 4,127 1,118 4,236 1,135 Water use kl/eftsl Energy consumption GJ/EFTSL Employment emp-y/eftsl Exports $/EFTSL 4,459 1,935 5,384 2,225 6,233 2,575 Economic stimulus $/EFTSL 5, ,48 1,73 6,774 1,23 Student load EFTSL 36,589 36,24 35,582 Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 12

13 Appendix C: Bar graphs Figures C1-C9 show direct (light shade) and total (dark shade) contributions in terms of full responsibility, and the trends in the indicators intensities per dollar of revenue and per student load. Main comments and meanings are described below. Figure C1 shows that absolute Wages & salaries (Figure C1a) are dominated by direct expenditures (light shading), and are increasing. Indirect Wages & salaries however are also increasing, due mainly to the capital spending and its related embodied Wages & salaries. Per dollar of revenue (Figure C1b), Wages & salaries are static, with ~79% being direct and ~21% indirect. Further, since student load is falling slightly, Wages & salaries per load also increase considerably over the 3 years (Figure C1c). (a) 9,, 8,, 7,, 6,, 5,, 4,, 3,, 2,, 1,, Wages & salaries ($) (b) Wages & salaries ($/$) (c) 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, Wages & salaries ($/EFTSL) Wages & salaries ($): Indirect Wages & salaries ($): Direct Indirect Wages & salaries per $ of revenue Direct Wages & salaries per $ of revenue Indirect Wages & salaries per student Direct Wages & salaries per student Figure C1: Direct & indirect wages and salaries trends: (a) absolute, b) per dollar of revenue and c) per student load. Figure C2 shows our substantial and increasing in absolute terms (Figure C2a) Net operating surplus (direct, light shading) which is comparable to all Net operating surpluses generated in our supply chain (dark shading). Direct Net operating surplus per dollar of revenue (light shading in Figure C2b) is of the order of 1% and increasing. Per EFTSL, Net operating surplus (Figure C2c) increases considerably over the three years, being about $4, per student for direct (light) and an additional $2,5 per student in the supply chain (dark). (a) 25,, Net operating surplus ($) (b).25 Net operating surplus ($/$) (c) 7, Net operating surplus ($/EFTSL) 2,,.2 6, 5, 15,,.15 4, 1,,.1 3, 5,,.5 2, 1,. Net operating surplus ($): Indirect Indirect Net operating surplus per $ of revenue Indirect Net operating surplus per student Net operating surplus ($): Direct Direct Net operating surplus per $ of revenue Direct Net operating surplus per student Figure C2: Direct & indirect operating surplus trends: (a) absolute, b) per dollar of revenue and c) per student load. Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 13

14 Figure C3 shows Greenhouse gas emissions are substantial and increasing (Figure C3a), but primarily due to the emissions embodied in the capital works program. Still, approximately 3% of total emissions are associated with direct impacts, almost entirely due to electricity production (light shading). Our increasing revenue means that emissions per dollar of revenue are fairly static. Emissions per student load were 6.1 tonnes in 24, but increased to 7.45 tonnes in 26. This level of emissions is similar to the annual emissions from about two typical Australian cars under standard usage. (a) 3, Greenhouse gas emissions (t CO2-e) (b).3 Greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2-e/$) (c) 8, Greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2-e/EFTSL) 25, 2, , 6, 5, 15,.15 4, 1, 5,.1.5 3, 2, 1,. Greenhouse gas emissions (t CO2-e): Indirect Indirect Greenhouse gas emissions per $ of revenue Indirect Greenhouse gas emissions per student Greenhouse gas emissions (t CO2-e): Direct Direct Greenhouse gas emissions per $ of revenue Direct Greenhouse gas emissions per student Figure C3: Direct & indirect greenhouse emissions trends: (a) absolute, b) per $ of revenue and c) per student load. Figure C4 shows that total Land disturbance is composed of about 5:5 direct and indirect effects (Figure C4a), but that these are both fairly static over the three years. Due to the increasing revenue, Land disturbance per dollar is falling (Figure C4b). (a) 16, Land disturbance (ha) (b).18 Land disturbance (m2/$) (c) 4,5 Land disturbance (m2/eftsl) 14,.16 4, 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, ,5 3, 2,5 2, 1,5 1, 5. Land disturbance (ha): Indirect Indirect Land disturbance per $ of revenue Indirect Land disturbance per student Land disturbance (ha): Direct Direct Land disturbance per $ of revenue Direct Land disturbance per student Figure C4: Direct & indirect land disturbance trends: (a) absolute, b) per $ of revenue and c) per student load. Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 14

15 Figure C5 shows direct Water use has fallen to about 15% of total Water use (Figure C5a). This is due to the successful water saving measures the University has employed on campus in recent years (for which it been recognised through a state government award). It is also due to the increase in indirect water use embodied in materials we are using for new infrastructure. There are about 2.8 litres of water used for every dollar of revenue, or almost 88, litres for every standard student. (a) 3,5 3, 2,5 Water use (ML) (b) Water use (L/$) (c) Water use (kl/eftsl) 2, 1, , Water use (ML): Direct Water use (ML): Indirect Indirect Water use per $ of revenue Direct Water use per $ of revenue Indirect Water use per student Direct Water use per student Figure C5: Direct & indirect water use trends: (a) absolute, b) per $ of revenue and c) per student load. Figure C6 demonstrates that absolute Energy consumption, particularly energy embodied in our supply chain is increasing (Figure C6a), but is increasing slightly per dollar of revenue (Figure C6b). Direct energy use is dominated by our purchase of electricity: energy consumed by our vehicle fleet and our natural gas usage are comparatively very small. The energy trend per student (Figure C6c) is cause for some concern but the embodied energy in materials related to capital works will effectively be amortised over many future students. (a) 3,5, Energy consumption (GJ) (b) 3. Energy consumption (MJ/$) (c) 9 Energy consumption (GJ/EFTSL) 3,, 2,5, 2,, 1,5, ,, 5, Energy consumption (GJ): Indirect Indirect Energy consumption per $ of revenue Indirect Energy consumption per student Energy consumption (GJ): Direct Direct Energy consumption per $ of revenue Direct Energy consumption per student Figure C6: Direct & indirect energy consumption trends: (a) absolute, b) per $ of revenue and c) per student load. Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 15

16 Figure C7 shows employment generation has significant direct and indirect components. In absolute terms our total Employment is nearly 12, Full Time Equivalents in 26, with just over half being direct. Per student load (Figure C7c), about.18 employment years direct (light shading) and an additional.15 employment year indirect (dark shading) are generated. (a) 14, Employment (emp-y) (b) 1.4 Employment (emp-min/$) (c).35 Employment (emp-y/eftsl) 12, , ,.8.2 6, ,.4.1 2, Employment (emp-y): Indirect Indirect Employment per $ of revenue Indirect Employment per student Employment (emp-y): Direct Direct Employment per $ of revenue Direct Employment per student Figure C7: Direct & indirect employment trends: (a) absolute, b) per $ of revenue and c) per student load. Export generation is significant, and is dominated by on-site (direct fees) contributions (all light shaded regions in Figure C8). The indirect component arises from Exports generated by business in the supply chain. Direct Exports per dollar of revenue are increasing slightly, and amount to more than $.13 per dollar. Per student load Exports are increasing, both as a direct effect (representing revenue shifts in the student population), and the non-causal effect of the exports associated with our suppliers. (a) 25,, Exports ($) (b).25 Exports ($/$) (c) 7, Exports ($/EFTSL) 2,,.2 6, 5, 15,,.15 4, 1,,.1 3, 5,,.5 2, 1,. Exports ($): Direct Exports ($): Indirect Indirect Exports per $ of revenue Direct Exports per $ of revenue Direct Exports per student Indirect Exports per student Figure C8: Direct & indirect export trends: (a) absolute, b) per $ of revenue and c) per student load. Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 16

17 Figure C9: By definition, Economic stimulus is an indirect indicator only, representing the activity resulting from our supply chain. In absolute terms it has increased considerably due to the capital works program. This is also shown in the increasing per student load figures (Figure C9c). The flow-on effects of the University are considerable and such economic stimulus demonstrates the how substantial the University is as an economic entity. (a) 3,, Economic stimulus ($) (b).25 Economic stimulus ($/$) (c) 8, Economic stimulus ($/EFTSL) 25,, 2,, 15,, , 6, 5, 4, 1,, 5,,.1.5 3, 2, 1,. Economic stimulus ($): Indirect Indirect Economic stimulus per $ of revenue Indirect Economic stimulus per student Economic stimulus ($): Direct Direct Economic stimulus per $ of revenue Direct Economic stimulus per student Figure C9: Direct & indirect economic stimulus trends: (a) absolute, b) per $ of revenue and c) per student load. Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 17

18 Appendix D: Benchmarking Comparison with the entire education sector on total performance Figure D1 shows the relative performance of the University in 26 compared with the entire Australian education sector across all indicators. It is a visual representation (known as a spider diagram or radar plot) of the ratio between shared responsibility intensities (per dollar of revenue) of the University compared with those for the whole education sector 2. Data are given in Table D1. The University s performance relative to the education sector in 26 was better than that of the education sector on net operating surplus, water use and exports (Figure D1). The University was slightly worse than the benchmark for wages and salaries, and well below the benchmark for greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, land disturbance, employment and economic stimulus. Figure D1: Comparisons of University of Sydney performance against the Australian Education sector (per dollar of revenue) for 26. Wages & salaries (+) 1 Economic stimulus (+) Net operating surplus (+) 1 Exports (+) Greenhouse gas emissions (-) Employment (+) Land disturbance (-) Energy consumption (-) Water use (-) 2 In the spider diagram, the benchmark across the education sector is indicated by the thin line mid-way between the centre and the perimeter of the polygon. This is given the value 1. The University s performance against the indicator is identified by the data points joined by the thick line. Where a data point is closer to the centre than the benchmark, the University s performance is better than the benchmark.; where a data point lies on the benchmark polygon, the University s performance is equivalent to the benchmark; and where the data point lies outside the benchmark polygon, the University s performance is worse than the benchmark. The scale is logarithmic, so the spider diagram depicts a wide range of performance. Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 18

19 Table D1: Data underlying the results presented in Figure D1. Economy-wide Indicator (26) Unit USyd Education Ratio Wages & salaries (+) $ / $rev Net operating surplus (+) $ / $rev Greenhouse gas emissions (-) $ / $rev Land disturbance (-) $ / $rev Water use (-) $ / $rev Energy consumption (-) $ / $rev 1, Employment (+) $ / $rev Exports (+) $ / $rev Economic stimulus (+) $ / $rev Using a database compiled by the Centre for ISA and the Planning Office, it is possible to benchmark the University s performance against that of an aggregate of the Go8 universities. Figure D2 shows the results for academic indicators for 26. Unlike Figure D1, it is on a linear scale (i.e. not logarithmic). The comparisons are on the basis of direct-only figures (not including indirect effects from the supply chain). Performance is normalised against total operating revenue, so the results indicate the relative performance, not the absolute performance. Data are given in Table D2. Figure D2: The University of Sydney benchmarked against all Go8 universities for 12 direct indicators of academic performance for 26. * indicates 25 data, since 26 data was not available for these indicators. Australian Competitive Grants (+) Total Research Income (+) UG:PG Ratio (EFTSL) (+) Student Staff Ratio (EFTSL / FTE Teaching Acad.) (-) * Staff Ratio (Acad. / Non-Acad.) (+) * Total Publication Scores (+).5 Bachelor's degrees (+) Journal Articles (+) Masters by coursework (+) Book Chapters (+) Masters by research (+) Doctoral degrees (+) Figure D2 shows that, for the indicators relating to academic performance, the University was clearly better than the Go8 average for bachelor s degrees, master s degrees by research and coursework, journal articles and total research income, marginally better than the Go8 for doctoral degrees, total publication scores and Australian competitive grants, on the benchmark for undergraduate to postgraduate Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 19

20 ratio, slightly worse than the benchmark for student-staff ratio and only clearly worse than the Go8 average for staff ratio (academic to non-academic), and book chapters. Except on two minor indicators, on direct academic indicators the University s performance is equal to or better than the Go8 average. Table D2: Data underlying the results presented in Figure D2. Direct Academic Indicator (26) Units USyd Go8 Ratio UG:PG Ratio (EFTSL) (+) n/a Student Staff Ratio (EFTSL / FTE Teaching Acad.) (-) * n/a Staff Ratio (Acad. / Non-Acad.) (+) * n/a Bachelor's degrees (+) # / mil$rev Masters by coursework (+) # / mil$rev Masters by research (+) # / mil$rev Doctoral degrees (+) # / mil$rev Book Chapters (+) # / mil$rev Journal Articles (+) # / mil$rev Total Publication Scores (+) # / mil$rev Australian Competitive Grants (+) $ / $rev Total Research Income (+) $ / $rev Figure D3 shows that, for most indicators relating to revenue, the University clearly performed as well as or better than the Go8, particularly on Net Operating Result and overall revenue. Exceptions were revenue from royalties, trademarks and licences and revenue from State and local government (Note that Figure D3 uses a logarithmic scale). Data are given in Table D3. Figure D3: The University of Sydney benchmarked against all Go8 universities for 12 direct indicators of revenue performance for 26. Commonwealth Grants Scheme & others (+) 1 Operating Result (+) Total DEST - Research Grants (+) Total Other Revenue (+) 1 Discovery (+) Consultancy & contract research (+) Linkages (+) Royalties, trademarks & licences (+) Australian Research Council (+) Investment Income (+) Total State & Local Govt. assistance (+) Total Fees & Charges (+) Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 2

21 Table D3: Data underlying the results presented in Figure D3. Direct Revenue Indicator (26) Units USyd Go8 Ratio Commonwealth Grants Scheme & others (+) $ / $rev Total DEST - Research Grants (+) $ / $rev Discovery (+) $ / $rev Linkages (+) $ / $rev Australian Research Council (+) $ / $rev Total State & Local Govt. assistance (+) $ / $rev Total Fees & Charges (+) $ / $rev Investment Income (+) $ / $rev Royalties, trademarks & licences (+) $ / k$rev Consultancy & contract research (+) $ / $rev Total Other Revenue (+) $ / $rev Operating Result (+) $ / $rev Figure D4 shows that the University spent less than the Go8 average on plant, equipment and office furniture and infrastructure, but more than the benchmark level on repairs and maintenance. This is to be expected because, as the oldest university in the country, many of the University s buildings are old and require intensive maintenance. However, there may be a connection between the University s relatively low expenditure on infrastructure and equipment and the apparent need for repairs and maintenance. Comparative performance data on new capital expenditure are not easy to obtain. The University s employee costs were similar to the Go8 benchmark; expenditure on non-academic salaries was slightly higher than the benchmark. Like Figure D2, Figure D4 uses a linear scale. Data are given in Table D4. Figure D4: The University of Sydney benchmarked against all Go8 universities for 12 direct indicators of expenditure for 26. Operating Result (+) Academic salaries (-) Non Academic salaries (-) Operating Expenses (-).75.5 Employee benefits and on costs (-).25 Total other expenses (-) Plant, equipment and office furniture (-) Repairs & maintenance (-) Buildings (incl. fixtures & fittings) (-) Depreciation & amortisation (-) Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 21

22 Table D4: Data underlying the results presented in Figure D4. Direct Expenditure Indicator (26) Units USyd Go8 Ratio Academic salaries (-) $ / $rev Non Academic salaries (-) $ / $rev Employee benefits and on costs (-) $ / $rev Plant, equipment and office furniture (-) $ / $rev Buildings (incl. fixtures & fittings) (-) $ / $rev Depreciation & amortisation (-) $ / $rev Repairs & maintenance (-) $ / $rev Total other expenses (-) $ / $rev Operating Expenses (-) $ / $rev Operating Result (+) $ / $rev Office of Strategy Implementation and Sustainability Planning December 28 22