Our first GRI-based Sustainability Report was published at the G3.1 level in 2012. In 2017, we committed to transitioning to the GRI Standards (Core “In Accordance”) report, while integrating all detail to a web-based format. We anticipate this model to allow for simple performance updates moving forward.
The majority of data contained herein is based on a fiscal reporting cycle and highlights year-to-year comparisons and to provide context for our progress. For certain performance indicators, only data by calendar year or another annual period were available. In such cases, the reporting period is clearly indicated. Though the boundary of detail may also shift per metric, all falls under UTA’s operational control and is separate from the rest of the University of Texas system.
This report covers UTA’s significant economic, environmental, and social impacts along with topics that influence the assessments and decisions of its stakeholders. To ensure that this report incorporates UTA’s significant impacts along with the concerns of its stakeholders, the process involved includes mapping its value chain, evaluating its sustainability context, comparing its performance to peers, engaging with stakeholders and validating our final set of material issues. These activities are instrumental in determining not only UTA’s significant impacts, but also where and when they occurred. Data provided, if not explicitly referenced otherwise, is being generated, managed provided by UTA.
UTA is not seeking external assurance on this report at this time.
Report Development Process
1. Evaluating Sustainability Context
In applying GRI’s Principles for Defining Report Content and by harnessing the richness of our intellectual property, we were able to assess what our material issues mean to us and how they are managed (including our Governance)
2. Mapping the Value/Supply Chain
To better understand our critical impacts and contributions to the world around, we analyzed our chain of control and influence.
3. Peer Performance
UTA evaluates its performance against its peer institutions that report under the AASHE STARS Framework and GRI Standards to establish benchmarks for performance and best practice for change. These schools include nationally recognized institutions of higher learning and our peers from the UT community.
4. Stakeholder Engagement
UTA maintains a continuous dialog with its stakeholders, which include faculty and staff, students, alumni, state and local agencies, and local community members. Since our last survey distributed to stakeholders in 2012, we have made a concerted effort to engage on a continuous basis on the topics outlined in this report and beyond.
5. Validating Material Issues
Our step-by-step process for determining materiality was reinforced by ISGI’s validation of the following topics, which also align to our larger Strategic Plan 2020 and Our Campus Master Plan. These include economic value generated for our campus community, labor, and issues related to our environmental footprint.