| Overall Rating | Platinum |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 85.88 |
| Liaison | Sam Lubow |
| Submission Date | March 3, 2022 |
Stanford University
PA-4: Reporting Assurance
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
1.00 / 1.00 |
Melissa
Maigler Sustainability Coordinator Sustainability & Energy Management |
Has the institution completed an assurance process that provides independent affirmation that the information in its current STARS report is reported in accordance with credit criteria?:
Did the assurance process include internal review, an external audit, or both?:
The name, title, and organizational affiliation of each reviewer:
REVIEWER 1: Moira Zbella, Scope 3 Emissions Program Manager, Stanford University
REVIEWER 2: Tammy Lee Mahan, SEM Business Systems Analyst, Stanford University
A brief description of the institution’s assurance process:
Stanford used two internal reviewers to satisfy this credit. Both reviewers were provided with the STARS v2.2 Technical Guide, the STARS 2.2 Reporting Assurance Review Template, Stanford's prior full STARS report from 2019, Stanford's new drafted full STARS report, and sample Affirmation Letters from other institutions.
One internal reviewer, Moira Zbella, reviewed all but three of the credits. Moira conducted her review and provided back the Review Template with designations for each credit of Meets Criteria, Suggestions for Improvement, or Requires Correction. Moira also provided thorough comments for the latter two designations. Edits were made to the STARS credit content based on Moira's feedback, and a revised Review Template and full report were shared with her. Moira reviewed the edits and confirmed all changes were Completed or now Meet Criteria.
Another internal reviewer, Tammy Lee Mahan, reviewed the final three credits, which were the Emissions Inventory & Disclosure, Reporting Assurance, and Executive Letter credits. Notably, Tammy took on the Emissions Inventory & Disclosure review since Moira provided Scope 3 data for that credit, and we wanted to ensure there was not conflict of interest in the review process for that credit.
Affirmation from the reviewer(s) that the report has been reviewed in full and that all identified inconsistencies and errors have been successfully addressed prior to submitting it to AASHE:
Completed STARS Review Template:
Affirmation from the reviewer(s) that the report has been reviewed in full and that all identified inconsistencies and errors have been successfully addressed prior to submitting it to AASHE (2nd review):
Completed STARS Review Template (2nd review):
Affirmation from the reviewer(s) that the report has been reviewed in full and that all identified inconsistencies and errors have been successfully addressed prior to submitting it to AASHE (3rd review):
Copy of completed STARS Review Template (3rd review):
Website URL where information about the institution’s reporting assurance is available:
Additional documentation to support the submission:
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.