Applying STARS to your organization’s unique contexts

In This Article

Background

STARS is a comprehensive sustainability assessment that can be used by any higher education institution in the world. To the extent possible, STARS credits reference international standards, recognizes programs that are relevant to diverse contexts, and make allowances for local equivalents. 

However we understand that certain contexts may present unique reporting challenges. This article provides recommendations on how STARS can be successfully applied in any local or regional context. 

See related article, STARS Language and Translation Guidelines.

Frequently Asked Questions

What contexts may make STARS reporting challenging? 

  • Institutional characteristics – Institution size, research intensity, degree of (de)centralization, access to resources, institutional culture, and other factors can impact data availability or the means to successfully pursue a credit.
  • Regional characteristics – There may be cases where a standard, program or equivalent is not available in, or relevant to, a specific geographic region. Likewise, there may be cases where it is currently not possible to meet a criterion due to an institution’s legal or policy jurisdiction (e.g., a restriction on water reuse or a ban on using public funds to participate in green building rating systems).

In what ways does STARS provide flexibility when reporting in unique contexts?

There are no required credits in STARS, and institutions can choose not to pursue any credit. Institutions also have the option to pursue an unscored report resulting in a Reporter designation, rather than a scored report with a Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum rating. Going further, the scoring methodology is designed to account for differences in context in multiple ways: 

  • Applicability – Some credits allow institutions to opt out of that credit on specific grounds (e.g., institutions with little/no research intensity may opt out of Research credits). Credits marked Not Applicable do not count against an institution’s score.
  • Contextual variability – Scores for some credits vary based on institutional contexts and impacts (e.g., the Sustainable Investment credit is weighted more heavily for institutions with large investment pools and less heavily for institutions with smaller investment pools).
  • Normalized metrics – Quantitative metrics in STARS are normalized to account for differences in organizational characteristics (e.g., to control for differences in size).
  • Approved equivalents – Some credits in STARS may reference certifications that are common in the U.S. and Canada, and for which equivalent certifications may exist elsewhere. Institutions can reference equivalent certifications if the standards are comparable. Approved equivalents are added to the relevant Help Center credit FAQ (e.g., Anchor Institution Network credit). If a particular program isn’t listed in the relevant Help Center article and you think it qualifies, please email stars@aashe.org to inquire if it qualifies as an equivalent, providing justification for its equivalency.  
  • Innovation & Leadership credits – These credits acknowledge exemplary practice and  provide bonus points in STARS, and may or may not be applicable to any specific institution. A wide array of Innovation and Leadership credits are offered and bonus points are capped, allowing institutions across diverse contexts to earn bonus points. 
  • Flexible timeframes – For credits that include comparisons between baseline and performance years, institutions have a wide range of flexibility. If historical emissions data are not available to report for the Emissions reduction credit, for example, institutions can report the same data and timeframe for the baseline and performance years. 
  • COVID reporting exemptions – AASHE offers flexibility with STARS reporting for institutions across all contexts whose reporting has been impacted by COVID.

Does STARS make exceptions for institutions in unique contexts?

All STARS submissions are evaluated and scored based on the same set of standards and methodologies outlined in the STARS Technical Manual. As noted above, these standards are designed to control for a variety of organizational differences. To provide meaningful sustainability comparisons and benchmarking, we do not allow exceptions above and beyond the allowances outlined in the Technical Manual and in alignment with established precedents.

If a STARS credit is illegal in my context, can I mark it as “Not Applicable” so it does not count against my institution’s score?

No, credits cannot be marked as Not Applicable for legal reasons. A credit can only be marked Not Applicable when the feature assessed by that credit is not present (e.g., an institution doesn’t award graduate degrees) or is present in such a limited way as to be de minimis (e.g., grounds comprise less than one percent of the total campus area). The intention is to ensure that institutions don’t lose points simply for not having certain features.

Allowing an institution to mark credits as Not Applicable for legal reasons would result in a misleading portrayal of the institution’s sustainability performance and thereby undermine the integrity of STARS. To see how, imagine a scenario in which an institution in a legal context that is hostile to sustainability is unable to pursue all but a few credits. If the institution scored well on those few credits and was able to mark the rest as Not Applicable, it could potentially earn a STARS Platinum rating despite not meeting most of the standards for sustainability set through STARS. This example also illustrates how allowing institutions to mark credits as Not Applicable for legal reasons would hide the actual impacts that anti-sustainability laws have on the sustainability performance of institutions covered by such laws.

There are also practical challenges to allowing institutions to mark credits as Not Applicable for legal reasons. Determining how a specific legal context relates to the criteria in STARS is complex and subjective. Often, only part of a credit is limited by legal considerations. In other cases, the credit requirements themselves aren’t prohibited but the legal context makes the achievement of full points more difficult. Different institutions also often respond to the same legal context in different ways. Given the inherent subjectivity as well as the wide variety of legal contexts in which STARS participants exist and languages in which the relevant laws are written, it wouldn’t be feasible for AASHE staff to make determinations about whether a credit should be considered Not Applicable for legal reasons. Leaving it up to each individual STARS participant to make their own determination would impose extra work on participants and result in inconsistent determinations of credit applicability among institutions in similar legal contexts. There is a danger that these determinations might be based in part on the expected impact on the institution’s STARS score.

We understand that it can be frustrating to have your institution’s STARS score constrained because of its legal context. When legal issues limit the scores of a substantial number of STARS participants in a particular credit, we take it as an opportunity to examine whether we can address the issue via the credit design. In some cases, we may be able to make changes that avoid or reduce possible legal concerns while retaining the integrity of credit. Please submit suggestions along these lines via the STARS Suggestion Box.

Is STARS only for higher education institutions, or can other organizations participate?

While STARS is designed for higher education institutions (see related article, “Is my institution eligible?”), we also welcome other educational organizations (e.g., schools, museums, or adult education institutions) to participate. If your organization is not a higher education institution but you have a compelling case for participation, please email stars@aashe.org.

Example Responses

 

Tags:

Did you find this article helpful?