Overall Rating Gold
Overall Score 68.42
Liaison Austin Sutherland
Submission Date Feb. 18, 2025

STARS v2.2

University of Pennsylvania
PA-4: Reporting Assurance

Status Score Responsible Party
Complete 1.00 / 1.00
"---" indicates that no data was submitted for this field

Please note that assured reports are still subject to review by AASHE staff prior to publication, which may require additional revisions. AASHE reserves the right to withhold points for this credit if it is determined that the assurance process was clearly unsuccessful in identifying and resolving inconsistencies or errors (e.g., when AASHE staff identify a significant number of issues that were either not mentioned in the completed review template or not resolved successfully).

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?:
Yes

Did the assurance process include internal review, an external audit, or both?:
Both internal review and an external audit

The name, title, and organizational affiliation of each reviewer:

Shane Stennes
Chief Sustainability Officer
University of Minnesota


A brief description of the institution’s assurance process:

The STARS Reporting team has implemented a decentralized approach to data reporting for its STARS submission. Data reporting responsibilities were distributed among 20 individuals and departments across campus. Each reporter was tasked with gathering, compiling, and inputting data into a centralized data collection spreadsheet. The reporting process required rigorous review and multi-tiered approvals to ensure accuracy and compliance.

  1. Review and Approval Process:

    • Once data was finalized by the reporter, it was first reviewed and signed off by a designated reviewer (a total of 15 reviewers participated in the process).
    • Following reviewer approval, the data underwent a second review by an approver, typically an executive-level individual (e.g., Vice Provosts, Vice Presidents). A total of 11 approvers were involved in this phase.
    • Both the reviewer and the approver ensured that the data adhered to accuracy standards and aligned with institutional policies before submission to the STARS Reporting Team.

  2. Documentation and Verification:

    • The process emphasized traceability and transparency. Each submission was documented using a standardized Data Verification Form, which required signatures from the reporter, reviewer, and approver. Signatories confirmed the data’s accuracy and compliance with institutional data standards and acknowledged the public nature of the submission.
    • Supporting documentation and verification records were attached to each submission, cross-referenced for accuracy, and stored systematically using the Penn+Box file system for future audits.

  3. Data Collection Workflow:

    • Reporters followed a structured submission process, compiling detailed datasets and completing a comprehensive Data Verification Form. This form captured data points, signatures, and supporting documents with clear cross-references for ease of review.
    • Penn Sustainability reviewed all submissions for completeness and cataloged them within the institution’s Penn+Box file system, assigning unique identifiers for each data point or metric. 

This assurance process reflects a commitment to accountability, accuracy, and thorough documentation, ensuring that the submitted STARS report meets the highest data integrity standards. Supporting materials such as the Data Verification Form and Data Documentation Process guidelines reinforce the institution’s and sustainability office's meticulous approach.

 

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 AASH​E:
UPenn_STARS_Affirmation_Letter.pdf

Completed STARS Review Template:
UPENN_STARS_2.2_Review_Template.xlsx

Optional

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.