Green Veneer or Green Revolution?

2008

Published by:

LGITU magazine and www.UKAuthorITy.com with support from SAS UK, Sun Microsystems, CIMA and Socitm. © Informed Publications Ltd, November 2008

Green Veneer or Green Revolution? ‐ greening the local authority ICT estate

2 Green Veneer or Green Revolution?

© Informed Publications Ltd, November 2008

Index

Page 1. Introduction 3 2. Executive Summary, Helen Olsen, Editor, LGITU 4 3. Commentary 8 3.1 ‐ Dave Waltho, Head of Government Affairs, SAS UK 8 3.2 ‐ Jim Craig, Public Policy and Corporate Social Responsibility

Manager, Sun Microsystems Ltd 10

3.3 ‐ Helenne Doody, Sustainability Specialist, Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA)

11

3.4 ‐ Richard Steel, Society of IT Management (SOCITM) President, CIO London Borough of Newham

13

3.5 ‐ Jos Creese, Head of IT, Hampshire County Council 14 3.6 ‐ Glyn Evans, Assistant to the Chief Executive on Transformation,

Birmingham City Council 15

4. The Survey 16 4.1 ‐ Methodology 16 4.2 ‐ Response 16 5. Quick Survey 18 5.1 ‐ Do you feel adequately informed about Green issues? 18 5.2 ‐ Are Green issues important to your council? 19 5.3 ‐ Is your council committed to Going Green? 19 5.4 ‐ Does technology have a part to play in Going Green? 19 6. Main Survey 20 6.1 ‐ Green issues and the council’s wider organisational strategy 20 6.2 ‐ Key drivers for pursuing Green initiatives 20 6.3 ‐ Green issues in relation to other policy agendas 21 6.4 ‐ Do authorities have Green targets? 22 6.5 ‐ Do authorities understand the Green impacts of current operations? 22 6.6 ‐ How is the measurement of sustainability tracked? 23 6.7 ‐ What is in the Green business case? 24 6.8 ‐ Who leads on Green issues? 24 6.9 ‐ Is technology an enabler for sustainability? 25 6.10 ‐ What technology specific Green initiatives are under way? 25 6.11a ‐ Do Green/sustainability issues influence technology procurement? 27 6.11b ‐ What proportion of decision scoring do Green issues play? 27 6.12 ‐ Is evidence of Green accountability required from suppliers? 28 6.13 ‐ Is best value procurement based on whole life costing? 28 6.14 ‐ What does whole life costing include? 28 6.15 ‐ How far is the finance team involved in these decisions? 29 6.16 ‐ Do councils report on sustainability performance? 29 6.17 ‐ Key enablers of success for Green initiatives 30 6.18 ‐ Key barriers to success for Green initiatives 30 6.19 ‐ Will councils’ ICT estate be ‘carbon neutral’ within four years? 31 6.20 ‐ How important is Green ICT to local government? 31 7. Greening Council ICT – Examples in the News 34 Appendix I Response 37 ‐ Council Types 37 ‐ Job Titles 39 Appendix II The Questionnaires 42 Appendix III Project Partners 49

© Informed Publications Ltd, 2008

All rights reserved. This survey was researched and written as a snapshot of Local Government’s attitudes towards the identification and authentication of citizens within the context of transformation of local service delivery early in the financial year 08/09. Whilst every care is taken, the publishers and project partners accept no liability whatsoever for the content or accuracy of this research and the opinions expressed in this report.



1. Introduction

Will local government be able to match central government’s ‘carbon neutral ICT within four years’ goal?

This key question, asked in LGITU editorial back in July 2008, instigated the research programme, ‘Green Veneer or Green Revolution’.

When Cabinet Office minister, Tom Watson, announced the government’s aim to make energy consumption of its ICT estate carbon neutral within four years – and carbon neutral throughout its entire lifetime, including manufacture and disposal by 2020 – the British government became the first in the world to tackle the carbon footprint of its own computer systems.

Computers produce as much carbon globally as the airline industry. And, yes, technology does admittedly use a massive amount of carbon energy. Yet there is universal acknowledgement of technology’s potential for cutting the carbon footprint of an organisation’s operations – any organisation.

According to Richard Steel, CIO at Newham, current Socitm president and member of LGITU’s Local t‐Gov editorial board, “The real potential of ICT is to save ten times the carbon it creates. We should be considering the ICT potential to model new solutions and alternatives to profligate energy consumption.”

Newham practices what it preaches. The council has a commitment to ‘supporting environmental stewardship through its use of ICT’ as one of its ten ICT strategic principles. Says Steel, “Local government has a duty of care for its communities, so environmental stewardship must be at the heart of its agenda, although this may often seem politically unattractive.

“It follows that we should be helping our communities to minimise environmental damage – tele‐assistance and telehealth can minimise the drain on travelling and other resource consumption; connected homes can benefit from energy management systems and so on.”

As a transformational tool, there is no doubting that technology will enable mobile, flexible, joined up, innovative, smart, efficient – and green – ways of working. It can deliver the green aspirations of many.

Following Watson’s announcement, the government published a document containing ’18 key steps’ that departments can take to become green. Some were simple in the extreme – such as removing screen savers and automatically switching off PCs outside working hours – but if followed across the public sector these simple measures could have a massive impact on carbon emissions and budgets.

The difficulty, of course, will be any perceived trade‐offs in the desire to implement leading edge, transformation technology solutions delivering enhanced customer services, and meeting green aspirations.

Reducing the carbon footprint of service provision will indeed involve a radical rethink on behalf of both suppliers and the public sector on how ‘green technology’ is factored into the business case, enforced throughout the procurement process, and measured at the end of the day.

Supported by SAS UK, Sun Microsystems, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) and the Society of Information Technology Management (SOCITM), the research team set out to investigate whether local government can ‘green’ its ICT estate within the next four years; how it can ensure that ‘green’ is factored into the business case and procurement process; and, most importantly, how it will measure, monitor, and thus prove, its success in meeting this global challenge.

With 98% of Local Area Agreements containing commitments for tackling climate change and its impacts, is local government, as with many issues before, ahead of the charge on the green revolution?

Or is the ever increasing talk and hype over green merely a veneer to continue the status quo?



“We recognise that ICT has a vital contribution to make both in terms of reduction of energy consumption and as an enabler to other initiatives.”

“It should be married to cost efficiency ‐ we are wasting our own money, we need to be finding a way to use IT more efficiently.”

“It becomes even more important that Chief Officers and politicians have bought into a sustainable strategy for the delivery of sustainable solutions. The total lack of strategy in many public organisations means that solutions that meet green targets are NOT being enabled in the most efficient way. This requires governance over business transformation AND strategic IT.”

2. Executive Summary

Green veneer paves way for green revolution Helen Olsen, editor LGITU

Almost six hundred local government officers – across the spectrum of councils and responsibilities – opened a survey form during this research project, reflecting the universal appeal of, and interest in, green issues.

What initially surprised researchers, however, was that only a third of these forms were completed.

A quick follow up exercise confirmed suspicions: whilst 84.5% of the 162 officers responding to this second exercise thought that technology had a part to play in ‘going green’ for their council, the majority felt unable to complete the survey because either it was not their personal area of work, the questions were too complex, or they felt unable to answer on behalf of their council.

There is obviously great interest in greening the council ICT estate, but there appears at present to be more talk than firm, well communicated, plans of action.

Overall, 359 officers from 219 local authorities participated in the research programme, representing 47% of the UK’s 468 local authorities.

In‐depth questionnaires were completed by 197.

Technology has a key role

The vast majority of ‘quick survey’ respondents (162) thought that technology had a part to play in ‘going green’ (84.5%) – even more than felt that their council was committed to going green (74.7%); or that their council saw green issues as important (81.5%); or felt informed about green issues in the first place (60.5%).

Of those completing the in‐depth questionnaires (197) just 4.1% felt that green issues were of limited or no importance to their council. The majority felt that green issues were of central importance (49.2%) or of some importance (46.7%) to their council’s wider organisational strategy.

The majority (87%) of in‐depth survey respondents again see technology as a key enabler of sustainability, council‐wide. Despite this, however, the head of IT or CIO appears to have little role in leading on green issues outside of the IT department.

Disappointingly, just four percent of respondents were confident that their council’s ICT estate would be carbon neutral within four years. Just over a third thought it ‘possible’, and 1.5% ‘probable’. But 12% were definite that their council would not meet this goal.

High levels of interest in all things Green

In general, interest in green issues seemed to be higher in the larger councils than in the smaller ones. Nearly nine in ten of the London boroughs and the metropolitan councils responded to the survey, with almost three quarters of the counties showing interest. The lowest response rates came from among the English districts (36.1%), Scottish unitaries (34.4%), Welsh unitaries (13.6%), with Northern Ireland showing least regional interest (3.8%).

In many cases, more than one officer from many of these larger councils submitted surveys. For example, eight responses came in from Birmingham City Council from officers with a wide variety of responsibilities and levels of seniority, suggesting that the importance of green issues permeates all levels of that organisation.

The main drivers for pursuing green initiatives appeared to be local: a desire to play a part in conserving the local environment, champion local environmental responsibility and ensure local sustainability.



The link to cost savings and efficiencies from ‘going green’ has not been lost on many, however. Six in ten said that this was a major or key driver to their green programmes.

Green in the policy agenda

More respondents felt that the green agenda complemented the regeneration/place shaping policy agenda (63%) than felt it complemented any other – but only slightly more than felt it complemented the transformation agenda (61%).

Over half (55%) felt that green issues were complementary to the Gershon efficiency drive.

However, one in ten (8%) felt that the green agenda conflicted with efficiency efforts. Over a quarter (27%) also felt that green issues and Varney customer service aspirations bore no relation to each other ‐ and three percent that they were in conflict with each other.

Pulling together the threads of policy agendas to ensure that the organisation as a whole is acting in a coherent fashion on all fronts is no easy matter. Green, however, appears to be a policy that relates easily in the minds of many to other major policy issues, and could well be a cross cutting, or underpinning, theme pulling other agendas into the fuller picture.

Who leads the green charge?

There is little consistency as to who leads on green initiatives within councils at either the strategic or the operational level, except for when it comes to technology: responsibility for this lies firmly at the door of the head of IT or CIO.

Setting the corporate vision fell to the chief executive in a third of councils and the lead member in another third. In one third, however, there appeared to be no senior officer steering direction which, in light of later identification of senior level buy‐in being an essential factor for success, suggests that many councils will struggle to implement a coordinated green response.

One striking factor was the lack of lead by heads of finance either operationally or strategically in green issues.

Time to track

Encouragingly, almost seven in ten (68%) councils currently had green targets embedded within overall corporate targets. A further two in ten (21%) planned to embed targets in this way.

Less encouragingly, however, when it came to embedding green targets within specific IT department targets, just three in ten (30%) of councils currently did this. Just over a third (34%) not only had no IT department targets, but had no plans to do this. The remainder 36% had plans to instigate green targets within IT.

And even less encouragingly, the majority of respondents did not feel that their councils had a clear understanding of the impact of current operations and working practices.

Half of respondents claimed that their councils were tracking and measuring sustainability within the wider strategic performance process and within existing performance indicators. Yet just a third were using carbon footprint calculations, and only six percent currently used a green house gas protocol accounting tool.

By dint of the lack of activity, a number seemed to feel that tracking of specific green targets was not necessary.

“Budget pressures mean that 'Green IT' is not really a priority in procurement. We are implementing things under the 'Green' banner, eg Power Down, but the real reason for doing this is to save costs.”

“There are far more pressing issues to tackle and we have neither the will, funds or resources to deal with additional requirements, especially when they are so ill defined.

”All of these (policy items) are led by the City's Sustainable Community Strategy where 'green' issues underpin much of the action.”



Green technology initiatives

Whilst the role that ICT can play in enabling greener working practices is universally acknowledged, initiatives seem to focus on reducing the carbon footprint of the ICT function (virtualisation, thin client computing, power down, technology refresh etc).

Videoconferencing and mobile working stand out as greener working practices enabled by technology being actively deployed by councils – but telehealth had been explored by few.

Green purchasing

Ensuring that green factors are embedded into the procurement process will be key to delivering sustainable ICT according to recent Gartner reports. Encouragingly, over four in ten (42%) of councils currently specify green/sustainability issues within the tender process.

However, only 17% of councils currently use whole life costing when assessing best value procurement options. The majority, 62%, used a combination of quality and cost, with a further 15% making decisions based on ‘lowest cost’ alone.

At present there is little involvement of finance teams in the tracking of performance measures and indicators. However, this can be expected to change as procurement and tender processes increasingly specify green criteria.

There is a recognition that ICT environmental impact continues well after the hardware comes to the end of its life, with 74% stating that sustainable IT disposal initiatives are currently underway.

Increasingly, it would seem, technology suppliers will need to demonstrate green credentials for both themselves and their products – 67% either currently, or will soon, specify green/sustainability issues in the tender process. A further 53% state that they either currently, or will soon, request evidence of green accountability from suppliers.

It is obvious that green credentials are beginning to have a substantial impact on the tender process. And it can be expected that green will increasingly become a standard criterion within technology procurement within the next four years.

However, it remains to be seen whether green considerations will override cost considerations – especially in the wake of the credit crunch and banking failures prevailing in the last quarter of 2008.

Factors for success

Embedding green initiatives within the corporate strategy was seen as the most important enabler for success in delivering a ‘green council’, with 68% scoring it as very or vitally important.

Having senior green champions within the organisation and both engaging with and involving employees were also cited as key to ensuring the success of green initiatives.

Quantifiable targets with clear performance reporting to officers and the community was also seen as important by a majority of respondents.

Interestingly, ICT was currently seen as the least important of these factors by the majority of respondents, with under half (46%) suggesting that they were very or vitally important to success. This despite the majority acknowledging technology’s importance to the green agenda in previous questions.

Green barriers

Overwhelmingly, insufficient resource/budget was seen as the biggest barrier to the success of a council’s successful implementation of its green initiatives – seven in ten said that it was a main or major barrier. Just 1.5% said that this was not a barrier at all.

“Lots of hype and misinformation which tends to cloud real issues and benefits. There is an inability to look at the overall impact, especially with external influences – a tendency to jump on latest bandwagon. See the LCD monitor situation for an example.”

There are benefits in some aspects such as power saving, but much of the 'green agenda' is over hyped, lacks credibility, and is promoted by those with a vested interest. Anything that is done is either a knee‐jerk reaction or a box ticking exercise.”

“You can't quantify the importance as it is paramount.”

“Members need to prioritise green issues and the rest will follow.”



Respondents felt that green initiatives were not yet given enough priority or importance within the majority of councils – and this, according to many, was a main blocker to successful implementation. Existing corporate culture, lack of clear targets and corporate requirements for a quick ROI were also listed as key barriers to success.

A third felt that their council’s current inability to monitor or measure progress was a major block – which is understandable. After all, if you can’t prove progress and success, how can you build the case for implementing such initiatives?

This lack of reporting ability appears in direct contradiction to the majority opinion that getting senior level and end user buy in to such initiatives was vital as a precursor to success. To engage effectively you need both evidence and a communication channel.

Councils, of course, are not green field sites. There is a massive existing investment in technology, fuelled in large part by the local e‐government programme which ended in 2005 and aimed to e‐enable local services. This existing, legacy technology infrastructure was cited as a main or major barrier to successful implementation of green initiatives by four in ten respondents (41%).

Green future

According to Gartner, immediate green IT issues centre on power, cooling and flow space problems in data centres and office environments. The analyst suggests eight areas of focus within the next two years: modern data centre facilities' design concepts; advanced cooling technologies; use of modelling and monitoring software; virtualisation technologies; processor design and server efficiency; energy management for the office environment; integrated energy management for the software environment; combined heat and power.

During the next two to five years, Gartner believes that many green technologies will mature and become important in the development of greener IT organisations. However, the analyst stresses the importance of planning and assessing the appropriateness and cost of using these new products. It suggests that organisations focus on green IT procurement; green asset life‐cycle programmes; environmental labelling of servers and other devices; videoconferencing; changing people's behaviours; green accounting in IT; green legislation in data centres; corporate social responsibility (CSR) and IT programs.

Gartner identifies seven further areas to focus on long term: carbon offsetting and carbon trading, data centre heat recycling, alternative energy sources, software efficiency, green building design, green legislation, green chargeback. And it warns organisations to beware of ‘greenwash’ – industry hype that causes confusion!

The results of our research suggest that local government is already making inroads with the immediate green IT issues – indeed the government’s 18 step plan to greener IT aligns nicely with these goals.

However, local government has made less progress with Gartner’s areas of medium and long term focus. Indeed, the sector will have its work cut out in the next few years if it is to green the ICT estate – either to match the government’s own target, or whether because it sees the benefit to the organisation and local communities of doing so.

The situation today would appear to be neither green veneer nor green revolution ‐ but there is an unstoppable green tide washing over local government that will revolutionise the way it underpins operations and service delivery.

“It is not understood by decision makers (our Head of ICT does, but can't seem to get adequate support as ICT itself is not valued).”

“There are far more pressing issues to tackle and we have neither the will, funds or resources to deal with additional requirements, especially when they are so ill defined.”

“North Tyneside Council’s early engagement with Keysource has resulted in the implementation of a free cooling system solution representing potential savings of £55,000 per annum. An equivalent saving of 300 tonnes of CO2 based on National Grid emissions.”



3. Commentary

3.1 When flying through heavy turbulence into a green fog you need good instrumentation Dave Waltho, Head of Government Affairs, SAS UK

The roots of the current financial crisis lie in the inability of some major, multinational organisations to make evidence based risk:benefit decisions, and to therefore align resources and incentives with sustainable strategic goals.

Indeed, it is not uncommon in our dealings with private sector organisations for SAS Business Intelligence and Analytics solutions to uncover that c20% of an organisation’s customers are destroying c400% of their profit. However, because more than half of executives agree that they do not fully understand what drives their profit, many have been making decisions – such as investing scarce resources in and incentivising staff on high response rates from marketing campaigns to those same or similar customers ‐ that are in fact accelerating the death of the company.

Reminding myself of this helps me to assess these research results in Green IT through a half full rather than half empty lens. If global organisations are even now managing such fundamental and long standing KPIs as profit by using gut feel and/or bad data, then it is no surprise that many Local Authorities admit that they are currently struggling to integrate, measure and prioritise the impacts of new, and harder to pin down, KPIs such as green.

Our global research shows that the majority of larger organisations across all sectors have also identified environmental issues as a key strategic issue – if only because of the increasing demand from all of their external stakeholders. But few have successfully embedded this in their strategies, corporate and business unit performance management frameworks and ‘business‐as‐usual’ operations. Fewer still really understand how to benchmark, measure and track progress and prioritise what they should do next.

Certainly it has to be highly encouraging to find that, not only do almost all councils acknowledge that green issues are vital to their wider organisational strategy, but also that nearly 70% see it as their role to act as a champion and provide a lead locally in environmental responsibility and awareness.

Furthermore, it makes absolute sense that many have started by putting a green veneer on existing cost saving initiatives. Best practice suggests that a phased approach, starting with the more obvious lower hanging fruit, is a great way of getting quick wins and generating internal momentum and buy in.

Nevertheless other parts of the research indicate that the commitment to green among many councils is built on fragile foundations. The fact that, in the short time since the research was completed and the financial crisis has worsened, some councils have already reported that green has become an ‘unaffordable luxury’ supports this more pessimistic perspective. For some councils at least, it seems that green was not even momentarily this seasons ‘new black’ but merely an even faster passing fad among accessories!

To some extent this apparent fickleness is surprising because 91% of councils identify that embedding green into corporate strategy is the biggest enabler ‐ and 60% claim to have done this. A similar majority say that green is regarded, and indeed communicated, as complementary to other key goals such as ‘Place shaping’, Transformation and Gershon.

Nevertheless, other responses point to the shaky foundations and more of a ‘zero sum’ mentality ‐ not least the 93% who say that insufficient budget and resources are the key barrier to greening the organisation. Perhaps of most concern is that over 50% say they are tracking green performance, but a higher proportion then admit that they do not understand the green impacts of either their current working practices or their future plans and few are using one of the established carbon accounting protocols.

This suggests that many are essentially ‘flying blind’ – unclear on both where they took off from and where they are headed; with no information on fuel levels, and no instrumentation or radar to steer them through the turbulence.



To make matters worse, few seem to have their qualified pilots on board! The limited involvement of both Heads of Finance and Heads of IT in the greening of councils technology estate surprised all who have been involved in commissioning and reviewing this survey. The research underlines that the latter do have a clear responsibility for leading the greening of the IT department but that they are largely missing the opportunity to make a bigger impact by evangelising how IT can help green the rest of the organisation. In contrast, it seems that Heads of Finance are almost entirely failing to engage ‐ not even being involved in the measuring, monitoring, analysis and performance of green initiatives.

Until the strong relationship between carbon emissions and pounds ‐ and the importance of accounting for both ‐ is understood, then ‘green’ initiatives will always be the first to be jettisoned when councils hit turbulence and fuel runs low and choices between alternative routes through the storm will have to be made on gut feel.

With the long range forecast indicating that the regulatory and moral pressures on councils to not only do more with less but achieve and be transparent about their green credentials will only grow, the prospects for a crash landing for many would seem to be high.

From our experience of deploying integrated ‘instrumentation and radar’ in the private sector, SAS knows that the right information can make organisations both more fuel efficient and better at piloting a successful course through financial storms. Our ‘IT Intelligence’ solutions not only enable the ‘greening of IT’ but also generate many £ms in quick win savings – at the same time as reducing contingency risk. Indeed, we are so confident of these capabilities that we often enter risk:reward arrangements.

However, identifying and reaching the bulk of the fruit that is above the easy pickings line requires a more holistic approach. Investing a small proportion of the ‘Green IT’ savings in solutions such as SAS ‘Sustainability Performance Management’ ‐ which includes carbon footprint modelling, ‘what if’ scenario analysis and simple and consistent reporting ‐ enables a balanced view across economic, social and environmental issues and shows where you can be both ‘green’ and ‘lean’ going forward.

Evidence based decisions between alternative routes can then generate much larger financial and carbon savings both across the organisation as a whole (IT generally represents 2% of emissions) and also within its value chain.

The alternative is to fly by the seat of your pants. But, as the ‘profit blind’ private sector executives found, taking that approach in turbulent economic weather can result in lost bearings and decision making that may not only hasten the organisation’s demise but also, in the case of green issues, that of the rest of the planet.



3.2 Think global, act local to impact sustainability Jim Craig, Public Policy and Corporate Social Responsibility Manager, Sun Microsystems Ltd

I'd like to thank all the participants who took the time to respond. Overall we were encouraged by the responses to the ‘Green Revolution’ survey. The importance of local initiatives combining to create a wider benefit cannot be underestimated.

It is positive to see that over 90% of councils who responded feel that green issues are central or of some importance to the wider organisational strategy. The importance of thinking globally and acting locally is something that a combination of local authorities and global organisations can achieve.

Green issues are seen as aiding the transformation agenda and in order for us to mitigate the impact of climate change we can increase our focus on transformation.

The Eco‐nomic and Eco‐logical aspects are well balanced in the survey demonstrating both commercial and environmental awareness. More benefits can be achieved with cross functional teams.

IT provides a service used by all the authorities and is both part of the carbon emission problem and reassuringly is also seen as part of the carbon reduction solution.

The Global eSustainability Initiative (GeSI) in its Smart2020 report recommends technology for mobile and flexible working and video‐conferencing; this view was also echoed by the authorities questioned. At Sun we encourage flexible working. This saves time, money and GHG emissions avoided or reduced by eliminating employee commutes. In 2008 a US study revealed that employees saved on average 107 hours in travel time, 151 gallons of fuel and avoided 52000 metric tons of carbon dioxide!

Technology can provide dramatic reductions in electrical consumption and associated carbon emissions. Sun's thin client desktop model uses approximately 5% of the electricity consumed by a traditional PC, providing significant environmental and cost benefits.

Expansion of green/sustainable procurement policies will encourage technology vendors to take this aspect of their business even more seriously. Standards for measurement and comparison within the industry will help authorities to compare ‘apples with apples’.

Measuring whole life costs would help to identify products that were more ‘sustainable’, especially combined with green accountability of suppliers. A greater weighting towards sustainable technology is favoured. Measuring and accounting of emissions will become standard practice. You can't manage what you can't (or don't) measure. With figures of €30 per tonne of carbon being muted currently, involving the finance team in this process will be a key enabler to success.

An on‐going partnership is important between vendors and authorities to create ‘exemplars’ of successful implementations while simultaneously understanding and removing barriers to adoption; this will help in the overall implementation and promotion of sustainable ICT.

The key to 'Green IT' is that it should not (and does not) cost more. Many efforts are underway to reduce the environmental impacts of ICT within authorities, including server virtualisation and PC replacements with thin clients. These help reduce power, space, heat and cooling costs. More positive use of ICT to help the broader organisation reduce emissions is also considered, such as video conferencing and remote working.

Overall the signs are encouraging. Understanding the benefits of sustainable technologies, sharing lessons learned and looking at the eco‐nomic as well as eco‐logical benefits provides a balanced view to organisations for long term sustainability.



3.3 Traditional financial tools and strategy will underpin green ambitions Helenne Doody, Sustainability Specialist, Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA)

CIMA supported this survey because we are interested to learn whether sustainability is becoming integrated within local government. Thousands of our members work within the public sector and it is important for us to get a better understanding of how the green agenda is affecting their role and the organisations they work for.

Local authorities have a vital role to play in taking the lead on ‘going green’ and are uniquely placed for encouraging local action for reducing carbon emissions and responding to climate change. The survey results have been positive in this respect. It is clear from both the ‘quick survey’ and the ‘main survey’ that green issues are of importance to local government, and the majority of respondents felt that their council is committed to going green.

However, in digging a little deeper, the survey results generally reflect what we are seeing in the private sector. Although environmental issues are becoming increasingly important, and there is a lot of talk about ‘going green’, this talk is often not translated into action. Few organisations, in either the public or the private sector, have really integrated sustainability into strategy, and fewer still are involving the finance team.

One reason for this may be a lack of real understanding as to what ‘going green’ actually means, both for the local authorities and for individuals. The main survey highlighted that the majority of respondents feel that their local authority does not have a clear understanding of the green impacts of its current or future operations. Without a clear understanding of impacts it is difficult to identify appropriate actions. In terms of individuals, the quick survey showed that less than two thirds feel adequately informed about green issues.

A contributing factor may be that there is little consistency as to who leads on green issues, both at a strategic or operational level. In a significant number of cases there appears to be no senior officer responsible for steering direction of green issues at all. It is important that all organisations have a clear vision in relation to green issues and related objectives should be incorporated into the council’s overall strategy. Equally important is communication of strategy and objectives throughout the organisation, and regular updates on progress towards meeting the objectives. Although 62% of councils report regularly on sustainability performance internally to staff, 38% do not. Yet the key enabler rated with the highest overall importance was ‘engaging and involving employees’.

Almost two thirds claimed to have green targets embedded within business strategy and in overall corporate targets, but only about half felt that their councils were tracking and measuring sustainability within the wider strategic performance process. A further 15% planned to do so.

Strategy should be the starting point. Measurements and targets will play an important role, but metrics will have little value unless they are in demand to support strategy and long term decision making. Likewise, unless sustainability reporting is demonstrating measured progress towards implementing a sustainability strategy, it is largely just a backward‐looking compliance or public relations exercise.

Survey respondents agree that strategy is a key enabler to going green, with 88% believing that is important that green initiatives are embedded in corporate strategy. Organisations should be more forward looking and think about how to adapt their strategy to make sustainability part of day‐to‐day operations. Finance professionals have a key role to play in this process, providing vital business intelligence to support strategy and influence long‐term decision making.

When making capital investments, including those relating to ICT processes and technologies, it is important to consider the long‐term implications – both financial and environmental – and balance these with short‐term costs. Finance teams should be involved in such capital investment appraisal exercises, applying tools such as whole‐life costing and looking at the entire value chain.

The main survey showed that only 17% of local authorities are currently using whole‐life costing processes when assessing best value procurement options. The majority use a combination of quality and cost, but 15% are still making decisions based on ‘lowest cost’ alone, with no consideration being given to environmental impacts.



In the Cabinet Office’s document on ‘Greening Government’s ICT’ Finance Directors have been tasked with assuring that the environmental consequences of procurements are fully evaluated.

Yet in the small percentage of cases where whole‐life costing is being applied, there is limited involvement of the finance team. Making investment decisions based on long‐term impacts may be a challenge for finance directors, who are often faced with short‐term budget pressures, particularly in the current economic climate. It is important to encourage a change in mind set, from the top downwards, so that decisions made are based on the best long‐term financial return and the lowest environmental impact, even when this may mean a greater up‐front investment.

Culture and insufficient budget and resources were seen by survey respondents as the top two key barriers to successful implementation of green initiatives. It is important that a more long‐term view is taken when making procurement decisions and up‐front investments will need to be made. However, many ‘quick wins’ have also been identified ‐ actions that do not cost any money but that save money. Implementing quick wins are an ideal start in the journey to going green. They will help to build momentum and motivation, as well as contribute towards reducing costs and the council’s carbon footprint. Seeking cost savings and efficiencies were seen as another key driver of green initiatives.

Although the finance team do have involvement in procurement decisions, they surprisingly have very little involvement in activities such as tracking performance measures, preparing carbon footprint calculations, carbon accounting/budgeting and sustainability reporting. CIMA would like to see this situation change over time, with organisations making better use of the skill sets of finance professionals. Traditional financial tools and techniques can be applied to these new and challenging issues.



3.4 Green IT, pragmatism & strategy Richard Steel, Society of IT Management (SOCITM) President, CIO London Borough of Newham

The Green Bandwagon is rolling, but how can we steer beyond the hype and adopt a pragmatic approach that’s embedded in our ICT strategy? And how can we avoid preaching to the converted and influence those who are only paying lip‐service?

I was recently a Panellist at an ‘Answer Time for Green IT’ conference organised by the Environmental IT Leadership Team, which was interesting and informative, but I realised that the audience was already converted to the cause. The indifferent majority have yet to be engaged. Part of the answer, I suppose, is that the converted must be missionaries for the cause, but I feel there’s a still greater need to cut through the hype and articulate a realistic Green Agenda.

Experts agree that the most environmental damage occurs during the manufacture, delivery and disposal of ICT equipment, so that hints at priority areas in which to focus our efforts on sustainable procurement and end‐of‐life strategies, and implies the need to sweat the asset.

Understandably though, the Bandwagon has initially focussed on the more obvious power consumption and the mantra now is to switch unused equipment off. This sounds like a no‐brainer, but is it? Old IT lags, like me, remember the days when we dreaded disruption to our Data Centre power supplies because there were always failures when equipment that had to be turned‐off was switched back on again.

My own conversion to green consciousness started last year when I decided to switch‐off the three year old family PC at night. So, guess what, the hard disc failed. The reality still is that the longevity of computer equipment, especially where motors are involved, is heavily affected by switching on and off and associated affects such as heat variation and power spikes.

So how do we achieve the right balance when it comes to sweating the asset and power management?

The clue, I think, is in the words ‘power management’. Modern systems software is designed to strike a reasonable balance between minimising power consumption and maximising equipment longevity. ICT products, services and applications have massive potential to reduce climate change in other industrial and domestic sectors through a reduction in their carbon emissions, but we should also ensure that we maximise the potential for ICT tools to mitigate its own carbon footprint.

An allied consideration is that, in the UK, accepted wisdom says that we should turn equipment off at night; ‘standby is not good enough’. But when I was at a conference in Sweden earlier this year an EU Researcher on the subject presented figures that showed that the difference between power consumption in computers switched‐off, and in a sleep state, were negligible. (www.ecocomputer.org). A less debatable focus for the avoidance of power wastage is in the millions of transformers we use for the chargers and low voltage power supplies used by our ‘phones and computer peripherals. More often than not, these are left humming away when the equipment they serve is turned‐off, or fully charged!

On the principle that every little helps, we can help to save energy by avoiding the use of bright colours in our applications design (if using LCD screens – there’s no difference with CRTs) – see the alternative to Google… www.blackle.com

So, we need to be clearer about what really makes a difference. But the other key consideration is strategy.

How does the Green Agenda fit alongside other imperatives, such as digital convergence and the resulting new security infrastructure requirements, Local Government Reorganisation, Data Centre virtualisation, greater partnership working driven by Local & Multi‐Area Agreements, Comprehensive Area Assessment, New Ways of Working and accelerating channel migration?

Actually, most of these will considerably help reduce Local Government’s carbon footprint in the longer term, but we must, at all costs, avoid knee‐jerk reaction to single‐issue agenda items, like ‘Green IT’, driven by misinformation and hype.

An holistic approach to strategy development is vital. We have to plan for the long‐term and the reality, therefore, is that the full potential for sustainable, ICT facilitated reduction in Local Government’s carbon footprint will only be achievable in the medium to long term.



In the meantime, there are some ‘no‐brainers’ that will deliver benefits in the short‐term. Effective print management, almost certainly based on networked multi‐function devices, with accounting controls to encourage efficient use of resources, is certainly one of them.

3.5 Green veneer or green revolution? Jos Creese, Head of IT, Hampshire County Council (Local Government Delivery Board, CIO Council and SOCITM Vice President)

The trouble is, ‘Green IT’ has a sort of fashionable ring about it. At one end of the spectrum it’s seen as being sustainable and organic, but with little practical business value – a sort of ‘green froth’. At the other end it is seen to be just about reducing energy consumption and marketing more environmentally sensitive manufacturing methods.

In reality, Green IT must be about much more. Technology is a major contributor to greenhouse gases and at a time of soaring demand for energy it really does offer the potential to help save the planet ‐ if it is used and designed responsibly.

Part of the problem is that no one seems to really know exactly what to do. Clearly switching off things when they are not in use makes practical sense. But beyond this things get a little more complicated.

Take for example bio‐fuels – good or bad for the planet? The jury is out. The same goes for disposable versus traditional nappies. You would think these were the easy things to prove! Home working is more difficult, yet we are told it’s a good thing and most companies are pushing for more flexible working to save money and to reduce carbon footprint. I’d be the first to admit that flying to Brussels twice a week is probably not good for the planet. But for many businesses the most energy and carbon efficient approach is to squeeze as many people as possible in to a well‐designed office block, even if they have to commute there, rather than all of us working in our own homes, with our own PCs, printers, lighting, heating etc. … not that I can prove it of course.

The trouble is that business has been quick to spot the savings from home working and of course the ability to claim carbon savings on the company ‘green’ balance sheet.

And then there are PCs. Not many people know that it is estimated that 80% of the ‘carbon cost’ of the life of a PC lies in its manufacture, not in its use or even its disposal. Yet we seem fixated on power ratings. The same goes for mobile phones – do we really need a new one every 12 months? Do they really all need different chargers and cables? The manufacturers thinks so, and few of us seem to resist those ‘free’ upgrades.

Of course, the big debate in IT is about data centres and the enormous power they consume and the energy they waste in heat. Whilst there is a great deal of good practice in consolidation, power management and heat reuse, there is still a risk that companies will choose to simply outsource their data centre carbon footprint to the far east and claim the benefit.

In all this, therefore, there must be a role for government and we are all braced for new regulations. Given the failure of market forces to control the banking sector there seems little hope in my view that market forces alone will bring about change in response to global climate issues until it’s too late.

So I am in favour of regulation to encourage ‘green’ behaviours and corporate social responsibility. But I am also a bit worried that regulation may be based on some of the misconceptions I’ve described, or at least some inadequate information about what really works.

Whilst recessionary pressures will inevitably pop the bubbles of any ‘green froth’, it will also stimulate considerable interest in technology to support more efficient ways of working, energy efficiency and more rigorous practices in acquisition, management and disposal of technologies. It might even encourage a wider and more sensible debate about how technology can contribute to more sustainable business practices and working behaviours. At least, that is my hope.



3.6 Green in the here and now can make a difference long term Glyn Evans, Assistant to the Chief Executive on Transformation, Birmingham City Council (Local Government Delivery Board, CIO Council)

I grew up in the shadow of The Bomb. Though for most people it had no tangible impact on daily lives, it was a constant companion; something over which you had no control but which could destroy not just you but everything you held dear in an instant.

It seems sometimes that global warming is the new Bomb. Most people don’t feel that they can contribute much to saving the planet (an interesting conceit in itself as, whatever happens, we’re not going to destroy Earth). And to a large extent they are right; whilst it might have an important symbolic role, turning off unneeded lights will have a marginal impact on carbon emissions.

I think we have the focus wrong. When it comes to ‘Green IT’, there are three main changes I would like to see.

First, let’s make the incentives clearer. National targets that set challenging commitments for 2050 will not necessarily result in the required actions being taken today. The more cynical might argue that’s precisely the point.

In Birmingham, we have set a target that we will reduce the city’s carbon emissions by 60% by 2026. Better, but it will still be hard to motivate people to strive for something that far in the future. In local government we’re used to the annual planning cycle, so let’s use it; build annual targets built into our business plans that are set at the required level.

A 4.5% annual carbon reduction will pretty well achieve Birmingham’s target, and sounds more realistic. And by working on an annual basis we can build the targets into performance management systems that will incentivise their delivery. Clearly, in such an environment carbon emission reductions will not all come from Green IT, but it will make an important contribution.

Second, we should emphasise the ‘no brainer’ aspects of ‘Green IT’. Almost all local government managers are faced with challenging efficiency targets. It doesn’t require significant intellectual ability to realise that reducing energy consumption will result in lower energy bills.

The problem for many is that the charge made to a cost centre for energy often bears little relationship to the energy consumed by that service, with bills often being aggregated and recharged within overall building costs. We need to make the linkage much closer – by using smart metering, for example – and managers can then see a direct link between energy savings and budget savings. They will soon be knocking at the IT manager’s door for tools to drive down the cost of running their PCs.

Third, and perhaps more controversially, I’d like to see a move away from the focus on ‘Green IT’. Not only does it paint IT (at least implicitly) as somehow vaguely disreputable when it comes to environmental credentials, but it only looks at one aspect of the issue.

What should concern us more is the total carbon footprint of particular public service. By focusing our attention on the IT we risk missing other, potentially greater, green opportunities. One example would be channel shift; if we move our customers to electronic self service from home rather than visiting the one‐stop shop, there is a reduction in carbon emissions.

And it’s cheaper for us too, so there are efficiency savings as well as environmental benefits.

In practice, green issues are rarely central within a local authority. The problem is that our priority is the here and now and not future generations. The answer is to recognise this. By making ‘Green’ a here and now issue, we may actually make a difference in the long term.



4. The Surveys

Following the Cabinet Office’s announcement in July of its aim to make the government ICT estate ‘carbon neutral’ within four years, and a recent flood of reports suggesting how local government ‘can go green’, the research programme, ‘Green Veneer or Green Revolution’, aimed to provide a snapshot of how local authorities were, today, approaching the issue of ‘greening IT’.

Unlike other research programmes and reports, this survey was specifically designed to gain quantitative results of action on the ground and best practice as it developed in the sector. To this end, the programme was undertaken and the results published in a short period of time. Questionnaires were issued and collated in August and September with the analysis undertaken in October and the final report produced in November 2008.

4.1 Methodology

LGITU and UKauthorITy.com’s publisher, IPL, maintains a database of subscribers to its stable of publications in the local government and local area agreement (LAA) organisation space. This currently comprises over 22,000 local government and other LAA organisation officers. This was used to identify and personally invite relevant local government officers and IT practitioners in all the UK’s 368 local authorities to participate in the research programme and outline their views and experiences on the issues. The aim was to garner a wide spread of views from technology through to finance and procurement and other council departments.

Invitations to participate in the web‐based survey were sent by personalised email, containing a link through to a personalised survey form, thus enabling the results to be analysed, if necessary, by council type, region, area of service and job function through use of key codes rather than the collection of new data. This also enabled the results to be anonymised whilst retaining comprehensive information about council type, geographical region and job function for analysis purposes.

4.2 Response

The survey forms were opened by 598 local government officers.

Only 197 of these forms, however, were fully completed. Officers that had not completed the forms were contacted with a ‘quick question’ survey to ascertain why they had shown initial interest but decided not to complete the survey. Of these, 162 responded.

The results from the exercise are therefore split into two parts:

‐ Quick questions – 162 respondents ‐ Main in‐depth survey – 197 respondents

Overall, 359 officers from 219 local authorities participated in the research programme, representing a 47% response rate from the UK’s 468 local authorities.

In general, the larger authorities showed most interest in the issue. Nearly nine in ten of the London boroughs (87.9%) and the metropolitan councils (88.9%) responded to the survey, with almost three quarters of the counties (73.5%) showing interest. The lowest response rates came from among the English districts (36.1%), Scottish unitaries (34.4%), Welsh unitaries (13.6%), with Northern Ireland showing least regional interest (3.8%).

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90% 73.5%

36.1%

66.7%

87.9% 88.9%

3.8%

34.4%

13.6%

% of Council Type Responding



English Counties,

15%

Northern Ireland, 0.3%

English Unitaries, 14.2%

Welsh Unitaries,

1.1%Metropolitan Councils, 17%

English Districts, 32.6%

Scottish Unitaries,

4.5%

London Boroughs, 15.3%

A number of councils showed a high level of interest in the issue. For example, eight officers from Birmingham responded; six from both Derby City and Hampshire; five each from Bedfordshire, Kensington& Chelsea and Leicestershire; and four from Calderdale, Fife, Kent, Lewisham and Trafford. A further 25 councils submitted three responses and 46 submitted two.

In terms of subdividing overall response, almost a third of the replies to the survey came from English district councils – despite the low response rate from this type of council (36.1%) this still represented 86 unique councils.

From a regional pint of view, most interest in issues related to the greening of councils’ ICT estate came from officers in councils in the south east (17%) and London (15.3%). The north west (11.1%), the west midlands (10%), south west (9.5%), east midlands (8.9%) and Yorkshire & Humberside (7.5%) showed keen interest, but the lower interest rates in Scotland (4.5%), Wales (1.1%) and Northern Ireland (0.3%) stood out:

Sample size: 359

A wide range of officers from these councils participated in the research, with responsibilities ranging from chief executive and head of IT to finance, procurement and departmental user:

East, 10%East Midlands, 8.9%

North East, 4.7%

London, 15.3%

Northern Ireland , 0.3%

North West, 11.1%Scotland, 4.5%

South East, 17%

South West, 9.5%

Wales, 1.1%

West Midlands, 10%

Yorkshire & Humberside, 7.5%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Economic Development ITEnvironmental IT

Customer Services ITChief Executives

Social Care ITWeb Managers

Social Care IT/Business/Project Officers

Heads of Transformation / Business ChangePublic Relations / Communications

Economic Develoment & RegenerationProcurement

FinanceHeads of IT

Performance & PolicyCustomer Services

EnvironmentalSenior IT/Business/Project Managers

0.6%0.6%1.1%1.7%1.7%2.2%2.5%2.8%2.8%2.8%

3.6%6.1%6.4%

7.2%9.7%

11.4%17.0%

19.8%



5. Quick Survey

Four hundred and one officers opened the main survey form but did not complete it.

Of these, 162 subsequently returned a ‘quick questions’ survey looking at why they did not complete the main survey.

The majority felt that it was either not their personal area of work; that the questions were too complex; or that they were unable to answer on behalf of the council.

Said one: “As we are a small Borough there is no single officer that deals with 'green' issues and would therefore be able to respond on the Borough's behalf.”

The researchers felt that, overall, the picture was of an issue that held great interest for officers, but was one in which real/positive actions were not always far enough advanced and solid information/plans were not to hand.

Said one respondent: “Maybe this is something we will be able to respond to in the future.”

Other comments received at this point included:

“I suspect that plans are not always far enough advanced to answer such questions, however I expect all councils will be working towards more greener working.”

“The reason I didn't fill in the questionnaire is that I have just been given the task of delivering the Sustainability Strategy for the Council and developing this into a programme. I am currently getting to grips with identifying the project portfolio from projects already running and those that need to be put in place and then prioritising these into short, medium and long term delivery against our corporate objectives and available resources. Because it is such early days I did not feel that I could give you accurate answers. I can confirm that one of the Council's top priorities is a clean, green and sustainable environment and that this has been developed further within the priorities of the administration.”

“We have attempted to answer the questions but despite consultation with business areas we don’t actually have that level of data available at the moment “

“I will add that although we are committed to ‘going green’ there is a lot of work going on at the moment but it is still in its infancy in technology terms so that the business can truly benefit from the technology aspects of 'going green'.”

“The council have initiated some green initiatives but I feel it is more to tick a box rather than properly investing in it.”

“Sorry, started the questionnaire but not in the position to complete, too IT focused!”

“We are very interested in this area and have an IT rep looking at Greening up all the IT services, so were pleased to get latest newsletter with information in, which he has too. Have a new network of Environment Champions doing a Big Switch off campaign in Oct which will include IT equipment.”

This 162 went on to answer four key questions for researchers.

5.1. Do you feel adequately informed about Green issues?

The majority, (60.5%) felt that they were adequately informed about green issues.

However, this leaves a substantial minority (39.5%) that do not feel that they have enough information on green issues in general.

Reason %.

Not area of work 27

Too complex 23

Unable to answer for council 23

No time 7

Not an influencer therefore no point 4

Council does not have this info 3

Unable to answer some questions 3

Other 10

TOTAL 100%

Don't Know, 16%

Yes, 60.5%

No, 23.5%



Don't Know, 15.4%

Yes, 81.5%

No, 3.1%

Don't Know, 13%

Yes, 84.6%

No, 2.5%

5.2. Are Green issues important to your council?

Over eight in ten (81.5%) stated that green issues were important to their council.

Just 3.1% said that green was not of interest. A further 15.4% did not know. In light of the almost universal inclusion of green targets within Local Area Agreement (LAA) plans this suggests councils need to do more to spread the importance of green concerns internally.

5.3. Do you feel your council is committed, in action, to Going Green?

Almost three quarters (74.7%) felt that their council was committed, in action, to ‘going green’.

Again, as the majority of LAAs contain targets against National Indicator 186 on reducing per capita emissions of CO2 in their areas (of between four and 15% of the 2005 baseline), the surprise here is that over a quarter either didn’t know, or did not feel, that their council was committed to going green.

5.4. Do you think that technology has a part to play in Going Green?

A resounding 84.5% thought that technology had a part to play in ‘going green’ for their council.

The researchers were pleasantly surprised that this was the ‘biggest’ yes in this group of questions. More respondents thought that technology had a part to play in going green than felt that their council was committed to green issues, or that their council truly saw green issues as important, or felt themselves to be informed about green issues in the first place.

Don't Know, 17.3%

Yes, 74.7%

No, 8%



Limited or No Importance

Some Importance

Central Importance

4.1%

46.7% 49.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%50%60% 70% 80%90%100%

Employee pressure ‘to go green’

Community pressure ‘to go green’

Pursuing goal of ‘carbon neutral’ ICT within four years

Desire to trailblaze green innovation in the community

Desire to play part in global climate control challenge

Central government mandate/targets

Desire to champion/lead local environmental responsibility

Desire to ensure local sustainability

Seeking cost savings/efficiencies

Desire to play part in conserving local environment

10%

9.5%

21%

8%

5%

3%

4%

4%

4%

2%

29%

20.5%

26%

17%

13.5%

7%

6%

5%

7%

4%

43%

49%

32.5%

34%

27%

33%

23%

19%

27%

21%

15%

18%

16%

24%

29.5%

30%

35%

39%

29%

36%

3%

3%

4.5%

17%

25%

27%

32%

33%

33%

37% Not a DriverMinor DriverA DriverMajor DriverKey Driver

6. Main Survey

1. How important are Green issues to your council's wider organisational strategy?

No. of users who responded to this question: 195 (98.98%)

Green issues are seen as important throughout the organisation in the vast majority of UK local authorities.

Almost half (49.2%) of respondents felt that green issues were of central importance to their council’s wider organisational strategy. A further 46.7% said that green issues were of some importance.

Just 4.1% of respondents said that green issues were of limited or no importance to the wider organisational strategy.

2. What are the key drivers for pursuing Green initiatives within your authority?


A desire to play a part in conserving the local environment was a major or key driver for almost three quarters of respondents (73%).

Seventy two percent also indicated that the desire to ensure local sustainability, and 67% the desire to champion/lead local environmental responsibility, were major or key drivers.

The desire to play a part in the global climate control challenge, however, was seen as a key driver by fewer: just over half (54%). Still less important was a desire to trailblaze green innovation in the community – just 40% felt that this was a major or key driver.

Pursuing the goal of ‘carbon neutral’ ICT within four years was least likely to be a driver for green initiatives in local authorities today – just under half (47%) said that it was either not a driver or was only a minor driver to such initiatives.

However, the need to seek cost savings and efficiencies through green initiatives was a major or key driver for over six in ten (62%). Central government mandate/targets also had a role to play as a driver for pursuing green initiatives.



Employee and community pressure to ‘go green’ was seen as ‘a driver’ by 43% and 49% respectively, but was seen as neither a ‘key driver’ nor ‘not a driver’ by few. This view is reinforced with the results of later questions pertaining to internal and external reporting of green progress – both of which are rare.

A number of other drivers for embarking on green initiatives were mentioned by respondents at this point: councillor champion, energy team's recommendations, linking development to carbon neutrality, local manifesto pledge, own green travel plan, partnership working, political commitment to EMAS (Eco‐Management and Audit Scheme), public health, recycling only items that will make a profit (only now thinking of recycling cardboard and plastic), and reducing the council’s carbon footprint.

One respondent said that their council had a major role promoting sustainability in procurement and ICT through Peer Support Funding and other partnership work.

Another said that the key issue was to link strategies ‐ accommodation, IT, flexible working, procurement, efficiency, community, Aalborg Commitments etc.

One, perhaps more jaded, respondent said: “To get another tick in another box”.

3. How are green issues regarded in your authority in relation to the following policy agendas?


Over half (55%) of the survey respondents felt that green issues were seen as complementary to the Gershon efficiency drive.

Almost a quarter did not know whether it was complementary, 13% said that green issues had no relation to the efficiency agenda and almost one in ten (8%) felt that the green agenda conflicted with efficiency efforts.

Just over six in ten (61%) felt that green issues were complementary to the current transformation agenda. Just 3% felt that ‘going green’ could conflict with the current drive to transform both council operations and service delivery.

Over a third, however, felt that green issues either had no relation to the transformation agenda (14%) or just did not know if it was relevant (22%).

Interestingly, just one quarter (25%) felt that green issues complemented Varney’s customer service aspirations.

Over a quarter (27%) felt that green and Varney bore no relation to each other, and three percent that they were in conflict with each other. However, almost half (45%) did not know whether the two agendas were complementary.

More respondents felt that the green agenda complemented the regeneration/place shaping policy agenda (63%) than felt it complemented any other – but only slightly more than felt it complemented the transformation agenda (61%).

Almost a quarter (24%) did not know if the two issues were complementary, just four percent felt that green issues conflicted with regeneration/

Comple‐mentary 55%No Relation

13%

Conflicts With8%

Don't Know24%

Gershon efficiency drive

Comple‐mentary 63%

No Relation9%

Conflicts With4%

Don't Know24%

Regeneration/Place Shaping


No Relation14%

Conflicts With3%

Don't Know22%

Transformation agenda


No Relation27%

3%, Conflicts With

Don't Know45%

Varney customer focus



place shaping, and nine percent that it bore no relation to it.

Just over four in ten (42%) felt that green issues were complementary to the social inclusion agenda. However, almost three in ten (28%) felt that they bore no relation to this particular agenda, with four percent feeling that green conflicted with it and over a quarter (26%) saying that they did not know how the two agendas sat in relation to each other.

Said one respondent: ”All of the above are led by the City's Sustainable Community Strategy where 'green' issues underpin much of the action. We still need to consider the other listed issues in more detail.”

4. Does your authority currently have green targets?


Encouragingly, almost seven in ten (68%) said that their councils currently had green targets embedded within overall corporate targets. A further two in ten (21%) planned to embed targets in this way.

The figures for those documenting green targets in the corporate sustainability strategy (64% current, 25% planned) and embedding them in the overall business strategy (60% current, 25% planned) were also encouraging signs of the importance being afforded to green issues by councils today.

However, when it came down to individual departmental targets level, just over a third had no such green targets, and had no plans to set them. Only approximately one third (36%) currently had departmental level targets, with a further third (33%) planning to instigate them.

Even less encouragingly, when it came to embedding green targets within specific IT department targets, just three in ten (30%) of councils currently did this. Just over a third (34%) not only had no IT department targets, but had no plans to do this. The remainder 36% had plans to instigate green targets within IT.

5. Does your authority have a clear understanding of the green impacts of its operations?


The majority of respondents did not feel that their authority had a clear understanding of the green impacts of its current operations and working practices. Just 41.5% could say with confidence that they did; however, a further 24 % planned to have the ability to track this soon.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Documented in corporate

sustainability strategy

Embedded within overall

business strategy

Embedded within overall corporate targets

Embedded within specific IT

department targets

Embedded within individual departmental

targetsYes 64% 60% 68% 30% 36%

No 11% 15% 11% 34% 30%

Planned 25% 25% 21% 36% 34%


No Relation28%

Conflicts With4%

Don't Know26%

Social inclusion



Just over a third had a clear understanding of the green impacts of their e‐government developments (34%) with again just over a third having a clear understanding of the potential impacts of their future plans for working practices/service delivery initiatives (36.5%) or future plans for e‐services (34%). However, interestingly, almost a further third (32.5%) had plans to work out the potential green impact of future plans relating to working practices/service delivery.

Nearly four in ten (39%) felt that their council had a clear understanding of the green impact of their current ICT operations, and just over a third (34%) that they could assess the green impact of future plans. A further 20% and 24% respectively had plans to enable this type of assessment.

6. How is the measurement of sustainability tracked?


Half (51%) of respondents claimed that their councils were tracking and measuring sustainability within the council’s wider strategic performance process; a further 15% said that their council planned to track green issues within the wider performance process.

Nearly six in ten (57%) said that this was tracked within existing council performance indicators, with 16% saying that there were plans to track in this way.

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

Its current operations and

working practices (service delivery)

Future plans for working practices /

service delivery initiatives

Its e‐government

develop‐ments

Future plans for e‐services

Its current technology

(ICT) operations

Future plans for its technology (ICT) operations

Yes 41.5% 36.5% 34% 34% 39% 34%

No 16% 15% 20% 20% 18% 18%

Planned 24% 32.50% 21% 21% 20% 24%

Don't Know 18.5% 16% 25% 25% 23% 24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

The council’s wider strategic performance management

process

Council performance indicators

Separate sustainability/

green measures

Carbon Footprint

calculations

Carbon accounting

global reporting initiative

framework

Green house gas protocol accounting

tool

Local Area Agreement

Yes 51% 57% 52% 34% 6% 6% 36.5%

No 9% 8% 8% 14% 24% 27% 13%

Planned 15% 16% 18% 23% 19% 12% 13%

Don't Know 25% 19% 22% 29% 51% 55% 37.50%



0%20%40%60%80%100%

Economic case Environmental case Social case No business case required

Yes 81% 83% 54% 5%

No 3% 2% 15% 53%

Don't Know 16% 15% 31% 42%

Over a third (36.5%) stated that green issues were tracked within their Local Area Agreement; 13% said plans were in place to do so.

Just over a third of responding councils used carbon footprint calculations, with a further third having plans to do so. Just six percent currently used a green house gas protocol accounting tool; however 12 percent indicated that they had plans to do so.

7. Which of the following elements are required to be considered within a business case for green initiatives?


Just five percent of respondents said that a business case was not required for green initiatives within their council.

Over eight in ten said that business cases for green initiatives required an economic case (81%) and an environmental case (83%), with 54% also needing a social case to be presented.

8. Who leads within your authority on green issues at the following levels?


There appears to be little consistency over who leads within a local authority on green issues at either a strategic or operational level – except for when it comes to technology. Overwhelmingly, the head of IT or CIO was responsible for leading on green technology issues.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Vision Strategy Operations Technology Perf'ce Measuring Monitoring AnalysisChief Exec 30% 28% 7% 4.5% 12% 6.5% 7% 6%

Lead Member 39% 15% 6% 1% 8% 5% 4% 1%

Head of IT/CIO 1% 4% 6.5% 60% 4% 3% 4% 4%

Head of Finance 1% 1% 3% 1% 4% 4% 2% 2%

Sustainability Officer 10% 23% 30% 11% 29% 35.5% 38% 42%

Specific Green Team 12% 17% 27.5% 12.5% 21% 28% 28% 30%

Other 7% 12% 20% 10% 22% 18% 17% 15%



When it came to Vision, the chief executive led in three out of ten councils, with the lead member taking on that role in almost four in ten (39%).

For strategy there was no clear lead – chief execs (28%) were almost as likely as a sustainability officer (23%) to be setting the pace.

Unsurprisingly, operationally, the responsibility was more likely to lie with sustainability officers (30%) or a specific green team (27.5%). A similar pattern was seen when it came to performance, measuring, monitoring and analysis, with increasingly less involvement from senior officers or members. Other officers suggested as leading in these various areas were:

• in vision and strategy: heads of services/directors (5), strategic management board/chief officers (4), head of environment services (4), head of policy (2), assistant director ‐ sustainable communities , head of performance and strategic development

• in operations/performance/measuring/monitoring/analysis: the performance team (3), AONB officer, lead officers in departments, local environment programme manager, performance manager, policy and performance dept, policy officer, service leads environment/recycling, service managers, technical services

Encouragingly, one respondent said, “It is included as part of internal audit function, teams set up within each department to meet specified targets as designated by chief executive/elected members.”

Explained another: “The sustainability officer leads but is supported by member and director level champions and the senior management team.”

However, worryingly, a number of respondents made negative, or world‐weary, comments on this issue:

“Probably no one, it's not visible if it is done.” “There is no vision for anything, including 'green' issues.” “There doesn't currently appear to be a lead on green initiatives within my organisation.” “No vision. No performance lead.”

9. How important is technology seen in terms of being a key enabler of sustainability throughout your council?


Almost nine in ten (87%) see technology as either of some or great importance as a key enabler of sustainability council wide.

Just one percent believe that technology has no importance in this respect, with just over one in ten (12%) believing that technology has little importance when it comes to enabling sustainability throughout the council.

10. What type of technology specific green initiatives are underway and/or planned for the next 12 months?


Technology’s ability to enable greener working practices through mobile and flexible working has been recognised by most councils in recent years. The green benefits from such styles of working are undeniable and almost three quarters (74.5%) of respondents stated that their council currently had initiatives underway in this area, with a further 19% planning them.

Other technologies that have obvious green benefits include video‐conferencing and telehealth; however councils have made less progress in implementing initiatives with these technologies – 33.5% and 9% respectively, with a further 26% and 10% (respectively) planning to explore initiatives.

Of great importance

38%Of some

importance 49%

Of little importance

12%

Of no importance

1%



In terms of reducing the carbon footprint of technology itself, the purchase of energy efficient desktops was common practice in almost six in ten (57%) councils, with a further 16% planning to implement such initiatives. However, almost three in ten (27%) were not aware of any such council initiative.

Technology refresh initiatives were underway in almost half of councils (47%), with a further 21% planning to put this into practice shortly.

Thin client computing was implemented in 42.5% of councils with a further 19.5% planning to move to this model. Virtualisation was also of high interest: almost four in ten (38%) already had such initiatives, a further 21% were planning to implement the technology.

Powerdown initiatives were implemented by almost four in ten (38%) of councils, with a further 28% planning to instigate this.

Meanwhile, there is significant recognition that ICT’s environmental impact continues long after the hardware reaches the end of its useful life: 74% currently have sustainable IT disposal initiatives underway.

Use of a green scorecard was limited to under one council in ten (9.3%), with little interest in exploring this (19.3%).

Other comments made relating to this question indicated that some councils were also implementing energy efficient street lighting, instant communication, culture change programmes, power management; a Green IT policy; and print reduction initiatives (including replacement of printer fleet with MFDs).

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Mobile & flexible working

Videocon‐ferencing

Telehealth Virtualisation Thin client computing

Underway 74.5% 33.5% 9% 38% 42.5%

Planned 19% 26% 10% 21% 19.5%

Don't Know 6.5% 40.5% 81% 41% 38%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Power down Technology refresh

Purchasing of energy efficient

desktops

Sustainable IT disposal

Green scorecard

Underway 38% 47% 57% 74% 9.3%

Planned 28% 21% 16% 9% 19.3%

Don't Know 34% 32% 27% 17% 71.4%



11a. To what extent do green/sustainability issues influence technology procurement?


Over four in ten (42%) of councils currently specify green/sustainability issues within the tender process.

A further 25% state that such factors will be specified within the next 12 months, with 11.5% stating that they expect this to be so within the next four years.

Just 13.5% felt that green or sustainability issues had no place within the tender process.

Other comments made at this point included: “As we use an outsourced IT supplier there is not necessarily a formal tender process for technology.” “A factor to consider but not a strong one as most hardware suppliers claim 'green' credentials.” “We are awaiting publication of Sustainable Procurement Strategy.” “Complete green equipment refresh underway within an existing thin client environment.” “It is a general part of all procurement decisions.”

11b. If currently specified in your procurement process, what proportion of the decision scoring do green factors typically play?


Of those that currently specified green factors in the procurement process the majority (64%) allocated ten percent or under of the decision scoring process to ‘green’ issues.

Just less than two in ten (18%) said that green factors played a part in 11‐15% of the process. A further one in ten (12%) said that this accounted for up to 20% of the decision scoring, and six percent said that over 20% of the decision scoring was related to green factors.

0% 20% 40% 60%

Other

Have no place within tender process

Will be specified within tender process within 4 years

Will be specified within tender process within next 12 months

Currently specified within tender process

8%

13.5%

11.5%

25%

42%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Zero

1%‐5%

6%‐10%

11%‐15%

16%‐20%

More than 20%

12%

20%

32%

18%

12%

6%



0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Other lowest cost

A combination of quality and cost Whole life costing

6%15%

62%17%

12. Does your authority require evidence of green accountability from its suppliers?


Almost a third of respondents (32%) currently expect suppliers to provide evidence of green accountability during the purchasing process. A further 21% stated that they will do so within the next 12 months, with a further four percent expecting this to be a prerequisite within four years.

Just over four in ten (43%) did not currently look at this aspect of supplier activity and had no expectations of doing so within the next four years.

13. Does your authority tend to make best value procurement based on whole life costing, lowest cost purchasing or another basis?


Only 17% of responding councils currently use whole life costing when assessing best value procurement options. The majority, 62%, used a combination of quality and cost, with a further 15% making decisions based on ‘lowest cost’ alone.

Other criteria suggested for this question included: a quality/price matrix that varies from purchase to purchase; five year period assessment; all of the above; and whole life costing plus quality.

14. If whole life costing, does this include:


If whole life costing being practiced, respondents were most likely to consider elements relating to power consumption (64%), WEEE compliant disposal costs (63.5%), recyclability (62%) and environmental responsibility (57%).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Will do within 4 yearsWill do within 12 months

No, not currentlyYes

4%21%

43%32%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Disposal costs (WEEE

compliant)

Recyclability factors

Power consumption

Increasing energy costs

Estimated emissions

Environmental responsibility

Carbon costs of acquisition

Yes 63.50% 62% 64% 48% 43% 57% 41.50%

No 3.50% 6% 6% 15% 16% 8% 14.50%

Don't Know 33% 32% 30% 37% 41% 35% 44%



Less than half would consider increasing energy costs (48%), estimated emissions (43%) or carbon costs of acquisition (41.5%).

15. Is the finance team involved in the following activities?


In the majority of councils, the finance team is not actively involved in carbon footprint calculation (6%), carbon accounting/budgeting (11%) or sustainability reporting (9%).

The finance team is also likely to have limited involvement in whole life costing exercises (31%) and tracking performance measures/KPIs (29%).

However, the finance team is likely to be included in preparing the business case (45.5%) and other procurement decisions (62%).

16. Does your organisation report regularly on its sustainability performance?


Reporting of the organisation’s sustainability performance both internally and externally was poor. Despite its apparent importance, only six in ten (62%) of councils currently reported sustainability performance regularly to top level management.

Two in ten councils (21%) did not report performance to top level management at all; nearly four in ten (38%) did not report performance internally to staff; and one third did not report achievements to their citizens.

Less than one in ten (7%) reported progress to citizens quarterly and only three percent every six months. Just four in ten (41%) of councils currently reported achievements to citizens annually.

0%10%20%30%40%50%

Quarterly Six Monthly Annually Doesn't report

Plans to start within 12 months

Centrally to top level management 34% 11.5% 16.5% 21% 17%

Internally to staff 18% 11% 17% 38% 16%

Externally to citizens 7% 3% 41% 33% 16%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Whole life costing

Other procurement decisions

Preparing the business case

Carbon accounting / budgeting

Carbon footprint

calculations

Tracking performance measures /

KPIs

Sustainability reporting

Yes 31% 62% 45.50% 11% 6% 29% 9%

No 21% 13% 24.50% 37% 44% 31% 47%

Don't Know 34% 21% 26% 46% 44% 36% 40%

Not Applicable 14% 4% 4% 6% 6% 4% 4%



Internally, currently less than half (46%) of councils report on sustainability performance and progress internally to staff.

This lack of reporting appears in direct contradiction to subsequent responses relating to the importance of senior level and end user buy in to such initiatives as a precursor to success.

17. What are the key enablers of success for your green initiatives?


Embedding green initiatives within the corporate strategy was seen as the most important enabler for success in delivering a ‘green council’, with 68% scoring it as very or vitally important.

Having a senior champion was seen as essential by 64.4%, engaging and involving employees by 65% and then dedicating resources to the issue (59%) and communicating how the initiative fits within the overall council strategy (55%) were also key factors for ensuring success of the initiative.

Having quantifiable targets and performance reporting (54%), engaging and involving the community (53%) and communicating and celebrating success (54%) were also seen as important by just over half of respondents.

Information and communication technology was currently seen as the least important of these factors by the majority of respondents, with under half (46%) suggesting that they were very or vitally important.

18. What are the key barriers to successful implementation of your green initiatives?


Overwhelmingly, insufficient resource/budget was seen as the biggest barrier to the success of a council’s successful implementation of its green initiatives – 69.5% said that it was a main or major barrier, with a further 19% stating it was ‘a barrier’. Just 1.5% said that this was not a barrier.

Insufficient priority/importance given to green initiatives was seen as a main or major barrier to success by 45%, existing corporate culture by 42%, and a lack of clear targets by 33.5%. The requirement for quick ROI/short term initiatives was cited by 36.5% and a current inability to monitor or measure progress was highlighted by 35.5%.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Information & communication technology

Communication of fit within overall strategy and programme

Engaging and involving the community

Communicating and celebrating successes

Quantifiable targets and performance reporting

Dedicating resources to the issue

Engaging and involving employees

Senior champion(s)

Embedded within corporate strategy

5%

8%

8%

5%

4%

5%

4%

6.8%

6%

16%

6%

11%

11%

6%

11%

7%

6.8%

6%

33%

31%

28%

30%

36%

25%

24%

22%

20%

30%

38%

36%

33%

33%

33%

36%

28.8%

26%

16%

17%

17%

21%

21%

26%

29%

35.6%

42%

1 ‐Not Important

2

3 ‐ Important

4

5 ‐ Vital Importance



Possibly34.5%

Don’t Know 31%

Probably 17.5%

No 12%

Yes 4%

Other 1%

The existing, legacy technology infrastructure was cited as a main or major barrier by four in ten respondents (41%).

Other barriers to success were listed as the economic realities of remote communities, political resistance and a lack of buy in from senior management.

19. Will your council be able to match Central Government's 'carbon neutral ICT within four years' goal?


Just four percent of respondents felt that their council would definitely be able to match central government’s ‘carbon neutral within four years’ goal.

Less than two in ten (17.5%) thought that their council would ‘probably’ make this target. A further third (34.5%) felt that their council would ‘possibly’ reach the goal. But almost a further third just didn’t know.

More than one in ten (12%) were quite certain that their council would not make their IT estate carbon neutral within four years.

The ‘other’ option was taken by one percent, who explained that with approaching reorganisation for their authority it was difficult to predict whether carbon neutral IT would be a reality within that timescale.

20. Do you have any other comments that you would like to make on the importance of green ICT to local government?

Comments made by respondents fell into a number of broad categories (each with example quotes):

♣ Green is efficient:

“It should be married to cost efficiency ‐ we are wasting our own money, we need to be finding a way to use it more efficiently.”

“We are looking at rationalising the number of servers that we have at present as well as investing in thin client although comment has been made about increased heating bills if we remove PCs from offices!”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Inability to monitor/measure progress

Requirement for in year ROI/short term initiatives

Legacy technology infrastructure

Culture

Lack of clear targets

Insufficient priority/importance

Insufficient resource/budget

12.5%

13.5%

6%

6%

15.5%

11%

1.5%

22%

20%

22%

11%

21.5%

15%

10%

30%

30%

31%

41%

29.5%

29%

19%

23%

22%

26%

27%

18%

23%

28.5%

12.5%

14.5%

15%

15%

15.5%

22%

41%

Not a Barrier

2

3 ‐ A Barrier

4

5 ‐Major Barrier



“Budget pressures mean that 'Green IT' is not really a priority in procurement. We are implementing things under the 'Green' banner, eg Power Down, but the real reason for doing this is to save costs.”

♣ There are more pressing priorities than green:

“There are far more pressing issues to tackle and we have neither the will, funds or resources to deal with additional requirements, especially when they are so ill defined.

♣ Unitary reorganisation will affect green issues:

“We are becoming a Unitary authority with five DCs & BCs joining the county council. How green issues will figure once the Unitary is working is unknown, but I would assume it will be one of the many considerations.”

♣ Green is over hyped:

There are benefits in some aspects such as power saving, but much of the 'green agenda' is over hyped, lacks credibility, and is promoted by those with a vested interest. Anything that is done is either a knee‐jerk reaction or a box ticking exercise.”

“Lots of hype and misinformation which tends to cloud real issues and benefits. There is an inability to look at the overall impact, especially with external influences – a tendency to jump on latest bandwagon. See the LCD monitor situation for an example.”

♣ Green is not understood:

“It is not understood by decision makers (our Head of ICT does, but can't seem to get adequate support as ICT itself is not valued).”

♣ Green hasn’t reached IT:

“Whilst we have significant 'green' policies & practices at a corporate level, the impact of the IT infrastructure has not been significantly considered yet!”

♣ Green actions are restricted by suppliers:

“Whatever we try to do within the Authority is restricted by the developments being made by our suppliers.”

♣ Technology is not always green:

“This statement is almost an oxymoron, it is very easy to be non‐green with technology.”

♣ Green burden:

“The measurement of 'greenness' is yet another unwelcome additional layer of cost and complexity, when virtually everything that drives efficiency will already feed into a reduction in carbon footprint. Direct measurement and targets for anything will always lead to an immediate distortion of how the business is run. It becomes even more important that Chief Officers and politicians have bought into a sustainable strategy for the delivery of sustainable solutions. The total lack of strategy in many public organisations means that solutions that meet green targets are NOT being enabled in the most efficient way. This requires governance over business transformation AND strategic IT.”

♣ Green needs sponsorship:

“Members need to prioritise green issues and the rest will follow.”

“Seems to be left to individuals or department, not an overall strategy that all follow willingly ‐ ie try to get people to switch off PCs at night!”



♣ ICT has vital green contribution:

“We recognise that ICT has a vital contribution to make both in terms of reduction of energy consumption and as an enabler to other initiatives.”

“Green ICT is one aspect (ie efficient datacentres, PCs, power downs etc) but ICT has a wider role to play in reducing travel, making buildings more energy efficient etc as an innovation driver.”

“Can't quantify the importance as it's paramount.”

♣ Going green works:

“North Tyneside Council’s early engagement with Keysource has resulted in the implementation of a free cooling system solution representing potential savings of £55,000 per annum. An equivalent saving of 300 tonnes of CO2 based on National Grid emissions.”



7. Councils Greening ICT in the News (From LGITU magazine, January to September 2008)

Councils take up green challenge

The government is praising local authorities for having ‘risen to the challenge of climate change’ as it publishes statistics for the 2006 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions at local authority and government office region level.

The majority of Local Area Agreements (LAAs) now contain targets against National Indicator 186 on reducing per capita emissions of CO2 in their areas, of between four and 15 percent of the 2005 baseline.

"Climate change is a global issue, but the only way to fight it effectively is if people make positive choices and work together to make a difference in their local community. Local authorities are not only ideally placed to enable this positive work but also, through their own hard work and dedication, are able to set a good example through their own actions,” said climate change minister, Phil Woolas. www.defra.gov.uk

Leeds leads green charge

Leeds' ICT team has instigated new environmental criteria, based on the EPEAT Gold standard, into its ICT procurement process – all new laptops, for example, must contain a number of recyclable elements. It currently has a refresh target of 100 PCs and monitors each week with zero waste thanks to partner Computacenter’s environmentally friendly disposal service

Last year the ICT team also used a variety of initiatives to reduce energy consumption in their department by 10% and have saved 172,000kWh. A review of its servers found that 138 were suitable for virtualisation: the team has now reduced down to ten servers. This has not only improved business processes but will also save 767 tonnes of carbon emissions over the next three years

In a cultural change washing through the council Leeds plans to boost its ‘green’ credentials even further over the next year through initiatives such as print management. On the basis that ‘every little counts’, the council’s ICT service delivery manager has gone as far as selling his car and chooses to cycle his 16‐mile daily commute.

Hillingdon cuts IT carbon footprint

Hillingdon has cut its hardware footprint by 97 percent, and carbon emissions by 20 percent, in just 18 months with help from Compellent and VMware.

Faced with 100 percent year‐on‐year data growth ‐ driven by expanding employee email boxes, use of digital images and need to retain ever more documentation – it has replaced its disparate array of servers and storage hardware with a greener virtual environment. It has reduced 94 production servers to just three, and the number of server rooms from three to two. The subsequent power reduction from 34kW to 1.1kW is saving £20,000 annually.

“We were looking for a new storage solution that could automatically manage data and drive down the cost per TB of stored data over the life of the SAN. It had to provide us with affordable system resilience and also contribute to a greener IT infrastructure,” explained Roger Bearpark, assistant head of ICT at the council.

Meanwhile, Hillingdon’s enhanced ICT Service Desk operation, implemented with help from the Service Desk Institute, has enabled a significant increase in the take up of staff homeworking agreements, saving 55,000 travel kilometres in the past year alone.

The council has also delivered £6m of capital through sales of now redundant council buildings – with an additional £0.45m saved in annual revenue and £1.1m in cost avoidance through the closure of non‐central office space by the end of 2008.



Keeping cool in North Tyneside

North Tyneside Council has significantly reduced energy usage and found efficiency savings of up to 20 percent through implementation of a new server room from Keysource.

The resilient and innovative energy efficient 36 rack ‘free cooling’ solution, using in‐row chilled water cooling technology for both low and high density contained zones, has already achieved a more efficient Power Usage Effectiveness measurement of 1.6, representing a potential saving of £55,000 per annum and equivalent to 300 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

Staffordshire turns off PCs to save money

An in‐house development by Staffordshire County Council’s ICT department has saved the council over £40k a year by automatically enforcing PC shutdown at the end of the working day.

Says developer, Peter Kear, “It’s a really simple concept of taking readily available utilities and writing a program around them.”

Kear is using PSShutdown (free for corporate use) to shut down computers that his solution has first identified as on but not in use. A summary report also tracks how many computers were left switched on when the programme is run, council‐wide at 8pm every night. The next step is to send an automated email to all users that have left their computers switched on – reminding them to switch off before they leave next time. [email protected]

Brent donates PCs to Africa

Schools and hospitals in Africa are benefiting from over 500 PCs, laptops and monitors donated by the London Borough of Brent via Computer Aid International.

By placing the specialist charity at the heart of its IT disposal strategy, the council is both enhancing its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programme and ensuring that unwanted equipment is disposed of in accordance with the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) regulations. Computer Aid also guarantees 100 percent data removal from any hard disk, which meets all recognised international data destruction standards.

Duncan McLeod, director of finance at Brent, says, “Donating is a simple process but one that can make a huge difference in developing countries. Using Computer Aid’s asset tracking service we can see the positive effect that our old equipment is having in poverty‐reduction projects and actively communicate this to staff.” www.computeraid.org

Birmingham recycles IT into community

Service Birmingham has launched a scheme to recycle up to 20,000 council computers as and when they are updated.

The council’s computers will be disposed of in an environmentally friendly and secure manner. Where possible they will be recycled and refurbished for use in the local community for a nominal charge payable to the charities.

“This new recycling initiative demonstrates the commitment by Service Birmingham to reduce the environmental impact of technology. We’re also delighted to be working with these local organisations that have such a positive impact on our community”, said Helen O’Dea, chief executive of Service Birmingham.

The way they work: Hertfordshire County Council is implementing a cross‐county conferencing and collaboration solution from a&o which will use telephone and video conferencing and secure instant messaging to improve communication and productivity between 20,000 staff. The move forms part of the council’s ‘The Way We Work’ project, which aims to consolidate over 50 existing council offices to just three whilst creating a more flexible working environment.



Green print: Hartlepool Council will save more than £100,000 each year thanks to its new Northgate Information Solutions ‘Managed Print Solution’ ‐ which optimises the number of print and copy devices needed, thus allowing the council to manage its corporate print function centrally while returning both cost and efficiency saving.

Bournemouth winning with green: Bournemouth Borough Council is on track to represent the UK in the European Business Awards for the Environment. The council is among the major winners in the Green Apple Environment Awards – one of the few accredited feeder schemes into the international campaign. Said councillor Stephen MacLoughlin, Bournemouth leader, “As a council we are constantly striving to improve our recycling record and the partnership with M&S means we can provide enhanced services and send a strong environmental message to all those who live, work and visit Bournemouth.

Green monitoring: Merton Council is pioneering an innovative new scheme, in partnership with experts and students from Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), Massachusetts, to measure how much renewable energy is produced across the borough. The monitoring system was unveiled at a national environment conference at Merton civic centre where delegates had the chance to see a demonstration of the web‐based green energy database.

Orkney Islands Council has teamed up with the Orkney Renewable Energy Forum to raise awareness of the environmental impact of computer equipment. Councillor Ian Johnstone, chair of the information services subcommittee, said: “Computer technology can have positive effects on emissions if well‐managed. It can facilitate flexible working, eliminate the need for some business travel and can help some business processes be more efficient. However it is clear that we should do what we can to reduce emissions due to computers; doing so will help the environment, and may also reduce the costs of owning equipment.”



Appendix I

1. Councils Responding to Survey

English Counties

Bedfordshire County Council (5) Buckinghamshire County Council Cambridgeshire County Council (2) Cheshire County Council (3) Derbyshire County Council (2) Dorset County Council Durham County Council East Sussex County Council Essex County Council (2) Gloucestershire County Council Hampshire County Council (6) Hertfordshire County Council Kent County Council (4) Lancashire County Council Leicestershire County Council (5) Lincolnshire County Council North Yorkshire County Council Northumberland County Council (2) Nottinghamshire County Council Oxfordshire County Council Somerset County Council (2) Staffordshire County Council (3) Surrey County Council (3) Warwickshire County Council Worcestershire County Council (3)

English Districts

Babergh District Council Basildon District Council Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council Broadland District Council Bromsgrove District Council (2) Burnley Borough Council Canterbury City Council (2) Caradon District Council Carlisle City Council Carrick District Council Cheltenham Borough Council (2) Cherwell District Council Chesterfield Borough Council Chester‐le‐Street District Council Chichester District Council Corby Borough Council Crawley Borough Council Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council Dacorum Borough Council Daventry District Council (2) Durham City Council East Devon District Council (2) East Hampshire District Council East Hertfordshire Council (2) East Lindsey District Council (2) Eastleigh Borough Council Eden District Council (3) Exeter City Council Fenland District Council Forest of Dean District Council Gedling Borough Council Gosport Borough Council Guildford Borough Council (2) Hambleton District Council Harlow Council (2) Hart District Council Hertsmere Borough Council Ipswich Borough Council Kennet District Council Kettering Borough Council King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Cncl (2) Macclesfield Borough Council Mid Suffolk District Council New Forest District Council (3) Newcastle‐under‐Lyme Borough Council North Hertfordshire District Council (3) North Kesteven District Council Norwich City Council Oxford City Council Pendle Borough Council Preston City Council Purbeck District Council (2) Reigate & Banstead Borough Council Ribble Valley Borough Council Rossendale Borough Council Runnymede Borough Council Rushcliffe Borough Council Ryedale District Council (2) Selby District Council Shepway District Council Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council South Bedfordshire District Council South Bucks District Council South Cambridgeshire District Council South Northamptonshire Council (2) South Oxfordshire District Council South Shropshire District Council South Staffordshire Council (2) Stevenage Borough Council (2) Stroud District Council Suffolk Coastal District Council (2) Surrey Heath Borough Council Taunton Deane Borough Council Teignbridge District Council (3) Tendring District Council Test Valley Borough Council (2) Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council (2) Vale of White Horse District Council (3) Wansbeck District Council Warwick District Council (3) Wealden District Council West Oxfordshire District Council (2) Winchester City Council Wycombe District Council (2) Wyre Borough Council



English Unitaries

Bournemouth Borough Council (2) Bracknell Forest Borough Council Brighton & Hove City Council Bristol City Council Darlington Borough Council Derby City Council (6) East Riding of Yorkshire Council (2) Halton Borough Council Herefordshire Council (2) Hull City Council Isles of Scilly Council Isle of Wight Council (2) Leicester City Council (3) Luton Borough Council Medway Council Middlesbrough Council Milton Keynes Council North Somerset Council Nottingham City Council (2) Plymouth City Council (2) Poole Borough Council (3) Portsmouth City Council Reading Borough Council South Gloucestershire Council Stoke on Trent City Council Swindon Borough Council Telford & Wrekin Council (2) Torbay Council (2) Warrington Borough Council West Berkshire Council (2) Wokingham Borough Council York (City of) Council (2)

London Boroughs

Barking & Dagenham London Borough (3) Barnet London Borough (3) Bexley London Borough Brent London Borough Bromley London Borough Camden London Borough City of London Corporation (2) Croydon London Borough (2) Ealing London Borough Enfield London Borough Greenwich London Borough Hackney London Borough Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough (3) Haringey London Borough (2) Havering London Borough Hillingdon London Borough Hounslow London Borough Islington London Borough (2) Kensington & Chelsea Royal Borough (5) Kingston Upon Thames RBC Lambeth London Borough Lewisham London Borough (4) Merton London Borough Newham London Borough (2) Redbridge London Borough (2) Sutton London Borough (3) Tower Hamlets London Borough (2) Waltham Forest London Borough (3) Wandsworth London Borough (3)

Metropolitan District Councils

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council Birmingham City Council (8) Bolton Council (2) Bradford City Council (3) Bury Metropolitan Borough Council Calderdale Council (4) Coventry City Council Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (2) Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (5) Gateshead Council (3) Kirklees Council (3) Leeds City Council Liverpool City Council Manchester City Council (3) North Tyneside Council (3) Rochdale MBC (3) Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Salford City Council Sefton Council Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council South Tyneside Council (2) St Helens Council Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Sunderland City Council Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council Trafford Council (4) Wakefield City Council Wigan Council Wirral Council Sheffield City Council

Scottish Unitaries

Dumfries & Galloway Council (2) Dundee City Council East Dunbartonshire Council East Lothian Council Edinburgh (City of) Council Fife Council (4) Moray Council Renfrewshire Council Scottish Borders Council West Lothian Council (2) Stirling Council



Welsh Unitaries

Conwy County Borough Council Denbighshire County Council Flintshire County Council (2)

Northern Ireland

Newry and Mourne District Council

2. Officers Responding to Survey (In alphabetical order, de‐duped, ie no indication of quantity)

Account Manager Accounting Assistant Acting Group Manager Procurement Acting Head of Performance & Democracy Acting Head of Property Services Administration Manager Analyst/Programmer Application & Information Manager Applications Development Manager Assistant Area Manager of Libraries Assistant Chief Executive (Policy & Scrutiny) Assistant Customer Services Manager Assistant Director ‐ Development Strategy Assistant Director ‐ Golden Gates Housing Assistant Director Central Finance Assistant Director of Strategy & Performance Assistant Director Social Services Assistant Dir Strategic Planning & Partnership Assistant Head of Service Assistant to the Chief Executive on Business Asst Director ‐ Corporate Information Services Transformation Audit & Exchequer Manager Audit Manager Benefits Manager Benefits Manager Broadband Project Manager Interim Corporate Services Mgr (Financial) Interim Head of Technology Solutions Building Control Manager Business & IT Development Analyst Business Analyst Business Change Manager Business Partner Business Protection Manager Business Support Manager Business System Consultant Category & Review Manager Category Manager Change and Performance Officer Chief Executive Chief Information Officer Chief Internal Auditor Children & Community Services Manager Cinderford Regeneration Manager City Informed Project Manager Communications & Information Officer Communications Officer Community Projects Officer Community Web Manager Complaints & Compliance Manager Contracts Officer Corporate Administration Manager Corporate Manager Corporate Procurement Manager Corporate Projects Officer Corporate Research & Consultation Office Corporate Sustainability Officer Council Alliances Officer Council Transformation Programme CRM Development and Support Officer Customer Excellence Customer Service Manager Customer Services Development Manager Customer Services Manager ‐ Contact Centre Customer Services Officer Customer Services Project Consultant Customer Services Section Manager Customer Services Supervisor Deputy Town Clerk Desktop Support Officer – Corporate Development Librarian Director of Community Services Director of Customer Services Director of District Development Director of Environment Director of Libraries Director of Public Affairs & Communications Director of Services to the Community Divisional Director ‐ Urban Regeneration Divisional Manager Home Authority E‐Care Project Manager e‐Communications Officer Economic Development Manager Economic Development Officer Economic Policy Officer E‐Government Officer E‐Government Strategy Manager E‐Government Officer; Strategy & Partnerships Electrical / Mechanical Engineer E‐Services Programme Manager ‐ Social Care Engineering Services Manager Environment Team Leader Environmental Health Coordinator E‐Services Manager eStandards Assistant Executive Director Executive Head of Customer Services Executive Head of Information Technology Finance Manager ‐ Legal Services Finance Officer Financial Systems Officer



GIS Project Manager Group Manager ‐ Business Development Group Manager ‐ Business Transformation Head of Adult Social Care Head of Audit Head of Business Improvement Head of Children's Social Care Head of Communications Head of Corporate Planning & Performance Head of Corporate Procurement Head of Customer Services & Communications Head of Development Services Head of Division for Young People Head of Economic Development Head of Economic Regeneration & Property Head of Economic Strategy Head of e‐Government & ICT Head of Environmental Protection Head of Finance Head of Housing & Council Tax Benefits Head of ICT Head of IM/IT & Improvement Head of Investment & Regeneration Head of IT Head of IT Service Delivery Head of IT Services Head of IT Strategy Head of Learning Head of Libraries Head of Planning & Transport Head of Planning Services Head of Policy & Performance Head of Procurement Head of Research & Intelligence Head of Revenues & Benefits Head of School Improvement Head of Scrutiny & Performance Health & Safety Officer Head of Strategic Procurement & Risk Management Housing Benefits Appeals & Complaints Officer Housing Systems Coordinator HR Project Officer ICT / Strategic Client Coordinator ICT Assets Manager ICT Business Analyst ICT Client Account Manager ICT Development Manager ICT Manager ICT Production Services Manager ICT Programme Manager ICT Project Manager ICT Project Team Leader ICT Service Provision Manager ICT Strategy & Monitoring Manager ICT Strategy Officer IM & IT Manager, Community Services Information & Communications Assistant Information Assistant Information Manager Information Manager & ICT Manager Information Officer Information Support Team Leader Information Systems Consultant Information Systems Officer Interim Chief Finance Officer Interim Head of IT Interim Director for Finance, Information Interim Service Development Manager Systems & Property Internal Auditor Internet Editor IS Support Officer IT Business Integration Manager IT Client & Strategy Manager IT Department IT Manager IT Officer IT Procurement Consultant IT Project Manager (E‐Government) IT Services Manager Joint Head of ICT LA 21 Officer, Planning & Env’tal Strategy Land and Property Systems Manager Lead Scrutiny Officer Leisure Service Manager Librarian Library Information Services LLPG Custodian LLPG/ Principal Planning Officer Local Strategic Partnership Local Taxation Manager Management Information & ICT Systems Mgr Manager ‐ Benefits Accounts & IT Manager (Support Services) Manager Web Development Team Manager of Audit and Risk Management Services Marketing Coordinator Media Relations Manager Monitoring Team Leader Network & Telecommunications Manager Network Services Manager Operations Librarian Operations Manager Economic Investment Operations Support Manager – Education Organisational Development Consultant (IT) Paris Implementation Project Manager Parking Section Performance & Customer Services Manager Performance & Improvement Service Officer Performance & Measures Unit Performance & Partnership Manager Performance & Projects Manager Performance Management Officer Performance Monitoring Officer Planning Assistant (Forward Planning) Planning Enforcement Officer Planning Officer Planning Policy Manager Planning Technician Policy & Performance Manager Policy Advisor Policy Analyst Policy Manager Policy Officer Policy Support Officer



Press & PR Officer Preventative Technology Development Officer Principal Environmental Health Officer Principal Financial Support Officer Principal Housing Benefit officer Principal ICT Consultant Principal ICT Officer for Planning Control Principal IT Consultant Principal IT Projects Officer Principal Officer for Sustainability Principal Operations Consultant Principal Performance Officer Principal Planner (Policy Information) Principal Service Development Manager Principal Strategic Information Manager Principal Technical Specialist Principal Trading Standards Officer Private Sector Housing Co‐ordinator Process Lead – ICT Procurement & Risk manager Procurement Assistant Procurement Implementation Manager Procurement Manager Procurement Officer Project Management Officer Project Manager Project Officer Project Officer ‐ IT Department Property Systems Programme Manager Quality & Performance Manager Quality Systems Officer Research & Information Officer Research Officer Resource Pool Manager Revenues Manager Revenues Team Manager SAP Procurement Specialist Section Manager Transport & Development Senior Accountant Senior Administration Officer Senior Corporate Performance Officer Senior Development Officer Senior Economic Development Officer Senior ICT Portfolio Manager Senior IT Projects Officer Senior Planning Technician Senior Policy Analyst Senior Procurement Officer Senior Project & Business Analyst Senior Systems & Performance Officer Senior Systems Analyst Senior Technical Support Officer Senior Trading Standards Officer Service Account Manager Service Delivery Analyst Service Delivery Manager Service Development Manager Service Director ‐ Strategic Procurement Service Lead ‐ Leisure & Green Spaces & E‐Services Service Lead ‐ Shared Services & Procurement Service Manager ‐ Business Support Service Manager, ICT Service Manager; Contract Management Services Operator CRMO Source & Supply Software Development Manager Strategic Accountant Strategic Procurement Manager Strategy Development Manager Supplies Officer Support Services/Finance Manager Support Unit Manager Sustainability Manager Sustainability Officer Sustainability Team Leader Sustainable Development Officer Systems & Projects Manager Systems & Searches Team Leader Systems Administrator Systems Development Officer Systems Software Engineer Systems Support Manager Systems Support Officer Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader Better Government/Democracy Team Leader, Trading Standards Technical Design Authority Technical Officer (Housing & Environment) Technology & Transformation Transport/Stores Manager Vitality Index Secondee Waste Management Officer Web & Intranet Development Manager Web Developer Web Operations Manager Web Project Manager Workwise Project Manager



Appendix I ‐ Questionnaires

1. Quick Questionnaire

Dear *******,

On analysing the results from our survey on greening local government technology I noticed that you initially opened a survey form but did not complete it. A number of your local government colleagues did the same and I am very interested to explore whether this was because the questionnaire was too complex or whether it was because, although interest in the topic may be high, practical plans are not always far enough advanced to answer such questions.

To that end, would you mind just quickly replying to my email with a 'Y' or 'N' in the box below as relevant?

Yes/No

1. Do you feel adequately informed about Green issues?

2. Are Green issues important to your council?

3. Do you feel your council is committed, in action, to Going Green?

4. Do you think that technology has a part to play in Going Green?

If you have any other comments on either the survey or the topic I would also be very keen to hear them! By way of thanks I will add your name to a quick prize draw for a further £50 Amazon book voucher.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Helen Olsen Managing Editor Local Government IT in Use (LGITU) magazine

2. Main Survey Questionnaire

Welcome to our survey!

1. How important are Green issues to your council's wider organisational strategy?

Of central importance to the council

Of some importance to the council

Of limited importance to the council

Of no importance to the council

2. What are the key drivers for pursuing Green initiatives within your authority?

(On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Not a factor, 3 = A driver and 5 = Key driver)

1 2 3 4 5

Central government mandate/targets

Desire to play part in global climate control challenge



Desire to ensure local sustainability

Desire to play part in conserving local environment

Desire to champion/lead local environmental responsibility

Desire to trailblaze green innovation in the community

Seeking cost savings/efficiencies

Employee pressure ‘to go green’

Community pressure ‘to go green’

Pursuing goal of ICT becoming ‘carbon neutral’ within four years

Other

Please give details for 'other'

3. How are green issues regarded in your authority in relation to the following policy agendas?

Complementary to No relation Conflicts with Don't know

Gershon efficiency drive

Transformation agenda

Varney customer focus

Regeneration/Place Shaping

Social inclusion

Other (please specify below)


4. Does your authority currently have Green targets?

NB ‐ 'Planned' = plans to within 12 months

Yes No Planned

Documented in its corporate sustainability strategy

Embedded within its overall business strategy

Embedded within its overall corporate targets

Embedded within specific IT department targets

Embedded within individual departmental targets

5. Does your authority have a clear understanding of the green impacts of:


Yes No Planned Don’t know

Its current operations and working practices (service delivery)



Future plans for working practices/service delivery initiatives

Its e‐government developments

Future plans for e‐services

Its current technology (ICT) operations

Future plans for its technology (ICT) operations

6. Is the measurement of sustainability tracked within:


Yes No Planned Don’t know

The council’s wider strategic performance management process

Council performance indicators

Separate sustainability/green measures

Carbon Footprint calculations

Carbon accounting global reporting initiative framework

Green house gas protocol accounting tool

Local Area Agreement

Other


7. Which of the following elements are required to be considered within a business case for green initiatives?

Yes No Don't Know

Economic case

Environmental case

Social case

No business case required

8. Who leads within your authority on green issues at the following levels?

Chief

executive

Lead member

Head of IT (CIO)

Head of finance

Sustainability

officer

Specific Green team

Other

Vision

Strategy

Operations

Technology

Performance

Measuring

Monitoring



Analysis


9. How important is technology seen in terms of being a key enabler of sustainability throughout your council?

Of great importance

Of some importance

Of little importance

Of no importance

10. What type of technology specific green initiatives are underway and/or planned for the next twelve months?

Underway Planned Don't Know

Mobile & flexible working

Videoconferencing

Telehealth

Virtualisation

Thin client computing

Power down

Technology refresh

Purchasing of energy efficient desktops

Sustainable IT disposal

Green scorecard



11a. To what extent do green/sustainability issues influence technology procurement?

Currently specified within tender process

Will be specified within tender process within next 12 months

Will be specified within tender process within 4 years

Have no place within tender process

Other

11b. If currently specified in your procurement process, what proportion of the decision scoring do green factors typically play?



Zero 1%‐5% 6%‐10% 11%‐15% 16%‐20% More than 20%

.

12. Does your authority require evidence of green accountability from its suppliers?

Yes

No, not currently

Will do within 12 months

Will do within 4 years

13. Does your authority tend to make best value procurement based on whole life costing, lowest cost purchasing or another basis?

(NB. Whole life includes financial and carbon costs of acquisition, operation, maintenance and disposal.)

Whole life costing

A combination of quality and cost

lowest cost

Other

14. If whole life costing, does this include:

Yes No Don't know

Disposal costs (WEEE compliant)?

Recyclability factors

Power consumption

Increasing energy costs

Estimated emissions

Environmental responsibility

Carbon costs of acquisition

Other


15. Is the finance team involved in the following activities?

Yes No Don't know Not applicable

Whole life costing

Other procurement decisions

Preparing the business case

Carbon accounting/budgeting



Carbon footprint calculations

Tracking performance measures/KPIs

Sustainability reporting

16. Does your organisation report regularly on its sustainability performance?

Quarterly Six

monthly Annually

Doesn't report

Plans to start within 12

months

Centrally to top level management

Internally to staff

Externally to citizens

17. What are the key enablers of success for your green initiatives?

(On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = not important, 3 = important and 5 = vital importance)

1 2 3 4 5

Embedded within corporate strategy

Senior champion(s)

Communication of fit within overall strategy and programme

Engaging and involving employees

Engaging and involving the community

Dedicating resources to the issue

Communicating and celebrating successes

Quantifiable targets and performance reporting

Information & communication technology



18. What are the key barriers to successful implementation of your green initiatives?

(On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = not a barrier, 3 = a barrier and 5 = major barrier)

1 2 3 4 5

Insufficient resource/budget

Insufficient priority/importance

Lack of clear targets

Inability to monitor/measure progress

Requirement for in year ROI/short term initiatives

Legacy technology infrastructure

Culture





19. Will your council be able to match Central Government's 'carbon neutral ICT within four years' goal?

Yes

Probably

Possibly

No

Don’t Know

Other

20. Do you have any other comments that you would like to make on the importance of green ICT to local government?

21. Survey report and findings

The final report will be published in pdf format. An event will be held to discuss the findings and share best practice at CIMA in central London on 6 November 2008.

Yes No Maybe

Would you like to receive the report on this survey’s findings?

Would you like to attend an event to discuss the findings of this survey?



Appendix III – Project Partners

1. Informed Publications Ltd

Informed Publications Ltd (IPL) publishes LGITU (Local Government IT in Use) magazine, the only magazine to focus solely on the use of IT within UK Local Government and the Transformation of Local Service Delivery. Read by 22,000 senior officers in the UK’s 468 local authorities, LGITU provides an independent forum for the development of the transformational local government vision and the application of technology to the efficiency agenda.

IPL also publishes the www.UKauthorITy.com online news service, the Town Hall subscription‐only newsletter and the ComCord database. Managing editor, Helen Olsen, was also editor of www.localtgov.org.uk (formerly www.localegovnp.org.uk) and its associated newsletter and writes for the Guardian’s ePublic on a freelance basis. Editor, Tim Hampson, has over 18 years’ experience in writing about and analysing the local government/IT marketplace. [email protected]

2. SAS UK

SAS is the leader in business analytics software and services, and the largest independent vendor in the business intelligence market. SAS® solutions are used by over 2,000 public sector bodies worldwide to ‘do more with less by working smarter’ in

all areas of their operations including strategy and policy formulation, compliance and reporting, safety and security, fraud and risk, efficiency and effectiveness, customer intelligence and social inclusion and overall performance management. In addition, SAS solutions for IT intelligence and sustainability management are helping customers to reduce both financial and carbon costs of their IT systems and also to manage and improve the sustainability performance of the wider organisation. Since 1976 SAS has been giving customers around the world THE POWER TO KNOW®. www.sas.com/uk

3. Sun Microsystems Sun Microsystems develops the technologies that power the global marketplace. Guided by a singular vision – “The Network is the Computer” – Sun drives network participation through shared innovation, community development and open source

leadership. Sun can be found in more than 100 countries and on the Web at http://sun.com

4. CIMA

CIMA, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, is the only international accountancy body with a key focus on business. It is s world leading professional institute that offers an internationally recognised qualification in

management accounting with a full focus on business, in both the private and public sectors. With 164,000 members and students in 161 countries, CIMA is committed to upholding the highest ethical and professional standards of its members and students.

CIMA is a member body of International Federation of Accountants (IFAC).

5. Socitm

The Society of Information Technology Management is the professional association for ICT managers working in and for the public sector. Members are

drawn primarily from local authorities but also from the police and fire services, housing authorities and other locally delivered public services. With nearly 2000 members from around 500 different organisations including 98% of all UK local authorities, Socitm provides a widely respected forum for the promotion, use and development of ICT best practice. It is also playing a leading role in the implementation of the UK’s transformation strategy and runs the Local Government CIO Council.

Documents

Green Veneer or Green Revolution?