| Overall Rating | Bronze - expired |
|---|---|
| Overall Score | 36.89 |
| Liaison | Kevin Crosby |
| Submission Date | Feb. 15, 2012 |
| Executive Letter | Download |
Taylor University
OP-12: Office Paper Purchasing
| Status | Score | Responsible Party |
|---|---|---|
|
0.42 / 2.00 |
Kevin
Crosby Coordinator of Stewardship & Sustainability Facilities Services |
"---"
indicates that no data was submitted for this field
None
Does the institution have an institution-wide stated preference to purchase recycled content office paper?:
No
None
The URL where the recycled paper policy, directive, or guidelines are posted:
---
None
A brief description of steps the institution has taken to ensure that the purchasing policy, directives, or guidelines are followed :
---
None
Does the institution wish to pursue points for Part 2 of this credit (expenditures on recycled paper)?:
Yes
None
Expenditures on 10-29 percent recycled-content office paper :
9,001.52
US/Canadian $
None
Expenditures on 30-49 percent recycled-content office paper :
47,433.69
US/Canadian $
None
Expenditures on 50-69 percent recycled-content office paper :
0
US/Canadian $
None
Expenditures on 70-89 percent recycled-content office paper (required if claiming points for Part 2):
0
US/Canadian $
None
Expenditures on 90-100 percent recycled-content office paper :
801.31
US/Canadian $
None
Total expenditures on office paper :
76,549.64
US/Canadian $
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
This answer is based on reasonable estimations. Data on the quantity and weights of paper purchased during one year was available, but not the cost of each type. However, we were able to determine the total expenditures on office paper for the year. It was determined what percentage of the paper fell within each of the recycled content categories based on weight. The estimation came when these percentages were multiplied against the total expenditure to get the expenditures for each category. This is a conservative assumption because the paper with higher recycled content is usually more expensive, therefor a comparison based on weight will tend to underestimate the expenditures on paper with high recycled content.
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.