678
N. H. Cardozo et al.
Finding 6—Education: both group 1 and group 2 presented the benchmark “inclusion of the sustainability theme in the curricula,” but no evidence was found to
confirm whether this is a compulsory or voluntary action of all courses offered by the
HEIs. Further, group 1 actively invests on research and sustainable projects, where
some HEIs have specific scholarships for this area, and others are prominent among
HEIs that most published research in the fields of ecology, environment, agriculture,
and animal and plant science. The promotion of interdisciplinary and interdepartmental collaborations is also a relevant benchmark for group 1 HEIs. Finally, sustainable
campaigns and internal competitions engage students in an active and even more
collaborative way on the sustainable efforts of their HEIs. For group 2, academic
conferences that discuss sustainable themes and foster research in this area, as well
as environmental awareness campaigns and events that engage both students and the
external communities, are emphasized. For both groups, the support of digital platforms for the dissemination of the HEIs’ initiatives was highlighted, as well as the
invitation of collaborators, students, and other organizations to participate in events
and campaigns.
6.1 The Related Benchmarks of the Selected HEIs from WUR
As clarified by Schofield (1998), the application of benchmarking in HEIs serves as
a support for the clarification of questions, such as:
– How well is the university doing compared to others?
– How good, and in what areas, does the university want to be?
– Across the university as a whole, which part of it is doing best, and how do they
do it?
– How does an institution improve its performance while retaining its unique
features?
– How might an institution become better than the best in the context of its mission?
Based on an overview of the benchmarks found, most of the sustainable actions
sought by the two groups focus on the indicator Energy and Climate Change, which
may be connected with the fact that this is the indicator with highest percentage
weight in the WUR total score (21%).
However, for the Setting and Infrastructure indicator, with a percentage weight of
15%, related benchmarks were not identified. The lack of benchmarks can also be
correlated to the fact that it is an indicator with several specifications regarding the
setting of a participant HEI (rural, semi-urban and urban), which consequently opens
up a range of possibilities for the application of different sustainable initiatives in
this sector.
The Waste and Water indicators have their related benchmarks in the area of
management and monitoring, with various directional and short-term measures, but
which can lead to significant improvements in waste and water reduction required
for a sustainable, functional HEI.
N. H. Cardozo et al.
Finding 6—Education: both group 1 and group 2 presented the benchmark “inclusion of the sustainability theme in the curricula,” but no evidence was found to
confirm whether this is a compulsory or voluntary action of all courses offered by the
HEIs. Further, group 1 actively invests on research and sustainable projects, where
some HEIs have specific scholarships for this area, and others are prominent among
HEIs that most published research in the fields of ecology, environment, agriculture,
and animal and plant science. The promotion of interdisciplinary and interdepartmental collaborations is also a relevant benchmark for group 1 HEIs. Finally, sustainable
campaigns and internal competitions engage students in an active and even more
collaborative way on the sustainable efforts of their HEIs. For group 2, academic
conferences that discuss sustainable themes and foster research in this area, as well
as environmental awareness campaigns and events that engage both students and the
external communities, are emphasized. For both groups, the support of digital platforms for the dissemination of the HEIs’ initiatives was highlighted, as well as the
invitation of collaborators, students, and other organizations to participate in events
and campaigns.
6.1 The Related Benchmarks of the Selected HEIs from WUR
As clarified by Schofield (1998), the application of benchmarking in HEIs serves as
a support for the clarification of questions, such as:
– How well is the university doing compared to others?
– How good, and in what areas, does the university want to be?
– Across the university as a whole, which part of it is doing best, and how do they
do it?
– How does an institution improve its performance while retaining its unique
features?
– How might an institution become better than the best in the context of its mission?
Based on an overview of the benchmarks found, most of the sustainable actions
sought by the two groups focus on the indicator Energy and Climate Change, which
may be connected with the fact that this is the indicator with highest percentage
weight in the WUR total score (21%).
However, for the Setting and Infrastructure indicator, with a percentage weight of
15%, related benchmarks were not identified. The lack of benchmarks can also be
correlated to the fact that it is an indicator with several specifications regarding the
setting of a participant HEI (rural, semi-urban and urban), which consequently opens
up a range of possibilities for the application of different sustainable initiatives in
this sector.
The Waste and Water indicators have their related benchmarks in the area of
management and monitoring, with various directional and short-term measures, but
which can lead to significant improvements in waste and water reduction required
for a sustainable, functional HEI.