State of Nonprofit Environmental Leadership
We recently added a question to our online Service Grant application asking nonprofits to report if they have an environmental policy and, if so, to share it with us. We made this change for two reasons. Firstly, we want to encourage nonprofits to adopt policies. Secondly, collecting this data enables the Taproot Foundation to better understand the state of environmental leadership in the nonprofit sector so that we can become a champion for change (see my blog entry on the topic from earlier this year).248 nonprofits have completed the new online application. Of those, 63 (25%) reported having environmental policies. Our sample size will grow significantly over the next year, but we felt that the early findings are telling and the issue is urgent enough that we wanted to share it with you now.
Nonprofit Adoption Trends
Of the 248 nonprofits, the largest group with environmental policies was no surprise: 54% of nonprofits with environmental missions have adopted environmental policies. That is more than double the percentage of all the other issue areas we serve (education, health, social service and education). Although it was not surprising that they are leaders in this area, I was struck by the fact that 46% of nonprofits with environmental missions don't have policies. Those nonprofits within the health category were the least likely to have one with only 17% reporting having environmental policies.
The budget of a nonprofit had negligible impact on whether or not there was an environmental policy in place until that amount surpassed $10 million. At that point the percent of organizations with policies drops to 17%. We've heard many people argue that nonprofits can't afford to take on environmental agendas because they are too strapped for cash. Our data contradicts this point and shows that it is the "wealthier" nonprofits that are the least likely to be environmentally responsible.
Geography appears to be the most weighted variable for environmental responsibility. Boston has the highest adoption rate (36%) with New York coming in last (15%). Seattle and Chicago join New York at adoption rates less than 20%. The San Francisco Bay Area and DC join Boston with rates above 30%. This suggests that the local social ecosystem plays a major role in driving responsibility through collective norming.
Best Practices
In reading the 63 policies, two best practices emerged:
1. Creating a staff and/or board committee that is responsible for ensuring compliance to the policy and regularly updating it (a "green team").
2. Looking beyond your organization's own footprint and using your programs as a means of educating and influencing others to reduce their footprints.
2. Looking beyond your organization's own footprint and using your programs as a means of educating and influencing others to reduce their footprints.
Common Environmental Policies
These are the most common efforts listed in the environmental policies:
- Transportation: encouraging telecommuting, public transportation and biking
- Waste management: reducing consumption and waste (i.e. uneaten food), and increasing recycling (paper and electronics), etc.
- Sourcing: recycled paper, recycled technology, local food, organic food, etc.
- Facilities: LEED-certified buildings, landscaping, power usage, etc.
- Programs: supporting community environmental education programs
Four Recommendations:
1. We need to re-evaluate the assumption that nonprofits can't afford to take on environmental policies and agendas.
2. Like they did to drive diversity in nonprofits starting 20 years ago, foundations need to ask nonprofits about their environmental policies during the grant making process to make it an "expected" practice. This is especially true in regions where the adoption rate is currently the lowest.
3. The environmental grant making community should make it a requirement of grantees to have a policy in place.
4. Most policies are still just touching on small changes that have minimal impact. We need to raise the bar. One way to do this is to create tools that help nonprofits leverage their influence through their programs and with their partners--thereby expanding their impact beyond their four walls. Along with evaluating their own footprint, nonprofits should be leaders in educating their partners and clients about the importance of, and strategies for, environmental conservation.
Definitely we need to re-evaluate this assumption and reorient our thinking. It's more like "non-profits cannot afford NOT to take on environmental policies and agendas". Of course, adopting policies for policies sake is not the point, either. Policies only make sense when they can be implemented and enforced, so how they are crafted, including the language used and the expected outcomes, is an important part of the process.
My initial response is that though it’s important for enviro groups to walk the walk, and I support the measures mentioned in your article, I would wager that the environmental/carbon footprints of these groups is very small in the context of our economy. If these groups adopt a telecommuting culture, recycle and reuse, etc. they should be commended, and perhaps this should be taken in to consideration when making funding decisions.
What really matters the most to me, though, is how much are they moving the needle on the big issues? Are those groups working for society-wide energy efficiency measures? For the production of renewable energy? For carbon policy that brings us to an 80% reduction of emissions by 2050?
Finally, most of the “green” measures you mention make sense from a financial standpoint, and therefore should logically be adopted by all non-profits that wish to make a credible case for their efficiency.
I wonder how many of 25% of non-profs that report an environmental policy can directly tie their environmental goals to their core mission statement (without a lot of logical twisting and turning).
I work for a nonprofit that receives probono office space. My hypothesis is that many small nonprofits might be similarily situated so while they have small footprints, small nonprofits may be able to shift cultures of much larger organizations. Of course, this will be hard and they would need help in(gently)making financial arguments to their benefactors.
Another provocative post, Aaron. As you know, our organization addresses the built environment, but we're not a traditional environmental organization, for better or worse. The percentage you gave leads me to believe it's well-understood by the foundation world, but also that it's crowded.
At first reading, I thought this environmental policy was definitely something I agreed with. Who wouldn't? But I have to say, thinking about it more, I wonder about the value of an environmental policy in isolation. In fact, environmental impact is a major party, but still only a component of sustainability.
Our organization is only beginning to move beyond our boilerplate bylaws, etc. I would assume that many other nonprofits find themselves in a similar situation after a similar number of years. Like the readily-available boilerplate bylaws and other materials, it would be interesting to see the nonprofit sector develop a series of aggressive policies--on diversity/tolerance, the environment, workplace health, etc. Perhaps policy development could be a future Taproot service grant area. The trick would be implementation/participation, otherwise a policy is just a policy.
Of course, it would be great to see foundations flex their muscle and encourage or insist that grantees consider their environmental impact. I recall only one such instance, and I would hate to see it become the norm. Less than a year ago, our organization submitted a grant proposal to a foundation that insisted applications be printed on 100% recycled paper, double-sided, etc. Our regular paper had a high percentage (~80%) of post-consumer waste, but was not 100% recycled at that time. Never mind the fact that most foundations can easily accept applications online in any number of ways, but our (last-minute) search for 100% recycled paper was not nearly as easy as one would have thought. By the end of the process, any carbon offset was lost. Additionally, without even so much as a watermark, it was impossible to distinguish 100% recycled from 80% recycled paper. For better or worse, and perhaps because we weren't funded, that experience represents my lasting impression of that foundation.
These are all great points. Upon further reflection, a couple of my assumptions have surfaced that explain why I am advocating for environmental leadership in the nonprofit sector and see environmental policies as a good tool.
1) Nonprofits average only about 5% of the GDP of most countries. While 5% does matter, the role of the sector is more important than its size.
Nonprofits are our society's ethical innovator. Major ethical and moral shifts in organizational behavior have been initiated and tested in nonprofit organizations before companies adopt them or the government supports them through policy.
For example, nonprofits were some of the first organizations to adopt diversity policies and to proactively work to create effective and supportive workplaces for women. They were not the largest employers, but they were able to show that it could be done and most be done.
My assumption is that our society needs the nonprofit sector to set an example and to be a lab for effective behavioral change for organizations.
2) Policies are just policies. On their own they are meaningless. Much like laws are just laws. My sense, however, is that environmental policies CAN play a large role in creating social change.
First, and perhaps most importantly, drafting and refining a policy can be a great way to engage employees in discussions about their environmental impact and to signal that the management team and board consider the environmental a priority. At the Taproot Foundation, this has caused a number of employees to come up with innovations to make their jobs greener that are now being adopted across the organization.
Second, publishing them can help to spread best practices and norms around the ingredients of a strong policy.
Third, an environmental policy becomes a type of "membership" to a club of organizations that share values around environmental responsibility. It creates a sense of shared identity and values.
Finally, it creates a simple way to measure progress as a sector. Much like the LEED program for construction, we can start to determine who is making the environment a priority and eventually start to classify policies according to their scope (i.e. Level 1 vs. Level 5). This is not perfect, but given the complexity of the issue, it is a solid starting place.
Thanks for posting this Taproot. Great data to help build the argument about why we need more pressure on sustainable offices practices. Has Taproot ever considered offering a service grant for this? Might be helpful for those $10 million giants who can't seem to pull it together on this issue.
Here at EGA we are finding varying responses among Foundations to this issue. The one Foundation that I know of that has made great strides is the Merck Family Fund in Boston (hmmm...possible correlation to the high % of policies there? dunno.) They offered grantees $1000 to implement any form of carbon footprint reduction. EGA used the mini grant to think about ways to integrate video conferencing into our meetings and explored how to offset our conferences. It was very helpful.
However, within philanthropy, probably the greatest carbon impact is flying. We travel a lot to conferences and site visits. This year EGA is promoting the notion of 'virtual proposals and site visits' through our annual conference as a way to encourage Foundations to think about how to cut back on travel. This is going to be the steepest climb for funders seeking to reduce this impacts.