1. Yeo Bi Jun (U1210782K)
Ow Jia’en Sharon (U1210536D)
Tan Wei Xian May (U1210335C)
Mirnawaty (U1210139J)
Linda (U1210339B)
1

2. •
•
•
•
•
Electricity
Waste disposal
Water Usage
Paper Consumption
Transportation
2

3. • Singapore is ranked third in the world that produces the highest
carbon footprint, after Luxemburg and USA.
• NTU is currently producing too much carbon footprint.
• As a technological university, NTU should harness technology to
reduce carbon emission to achieve Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) which is in line with their vision.
3

4. NTU
Future
employers
Staff
Stakeholders
Society
Students
Government
4

5. Evaluation
criteria
Elaboration
Impact on
stakeholders
/?
NTU: goal congruent – “technological “ university
Staff: Additional workload from planning and
using online resources
Students: easily receptive among them because
they are technologically savvy
Government: goal congruent in reducing carbon
footprint
Society: nurturing a green-conscious generation
Future employers: fresh graduates will be
equipped with IT skills and green knowledge
5

6. Evaluation
criteria
Elaboration
Feasibility
/?
Cost-efficiency:
Short run - experimenting fees using IT tools will
be expensive
Long run - cost savings on classroom – teaching
expenditure
Situational factors: Very rapid adoption and
advancement in technology ; market is saturated
with software developers (getting cheaper); strong
monetary support from the government
Effectiveness in
reducing carbon
footprint
According to a research, an online class for 100
students reduces CO2 by 5-7 tonnes.[1]
6

7. Evaluation
criteria
Elaboration
Impact on
teaching
pedagogy
Variation in results because different students have
different learning abilities
Corporate social
responsibility
/?
Short Term: CO2 is reduced
Long Term: Nurture socially and environmentally
responsible future generation; possible work from
home (maximize convenience); minimizing cost
7

8. Evaluation
criteria
Elaboration
Impact on
stakeholders
/?
NTU: higher cost incurred; ineffective in reducing
carbon footprint
Staff: environmentally-conscious staff will be
concerned with NTU’s reputation
Students: inculcating wrong values
Government: goal incongruent in reducing carbon
footprint
Society: concerned that this may discourage green
behaviour
Future employers: fresh graduates will be
ignorant towards green initiatives
8

9. Evaluation
criteria
Elaboration
Feasibility
/?
Cost-efficiency:
Short run – incur more costs
Long run – no improvement (vicious cycle)
Situational factors: growing economies may be
too profit-driven to consider green issues
Effectiveness in
reducing carbon
footprint
No improvement and possible increase in carbon
footprint
9

10. Evaluation
criteria
Elaboration
Impact on
teaching
pedagogy
No impact
Corporate social
responsibility
/?
Short Term: CO2 is not reduced; future potential
increase in carbon footprint
Long Term: No effort made in CSR and promoting
green initiatives
10

11. Evaluation
criteria
Elaboration
Impact on
stakeholders
/?
NTU: Improve reputation of institution
Staff: Effort and determination required to pick up
and sustain green habits
Students: Effort and determination required to
pick up and sustain green habits
Government: goal congruent with reducing
carbon footprint
Society: nurturing a green-conscious generation
Future employers: fresh graduates will be
equipped with green knowledge
11

12. Evaluation
criteria
Elaboration
Feasibility
Cost-efficiency:
Short run – costly marketing expenditure
Long run – if successful, cost savings can be
reaped from green initiatives
Situational factors: Multiple attempts across
nationwide to raise awareness on reducing carbon
footprint
Effectiveness in
reducing carbon
footprint
/?
If successful, not only can we promote NTU as a
“green” institution, we can envision to be a “green”
nation.
12

13. Evaluation
criteria
Elaboration
Impact on
teaching
pedagogy
No impact
Corporate social
responsibility
/?
Short Term: CO2 is reduced
Long Term: Nurture socially and environmentally
responsible future generation; minimizing cost
13

14. [1] Campbell, D. E., & Campbell, J. E. (2009, May). Environmental benefits associated
with online instruction. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=csusymp
2009&seiredir=1&referer=http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.calp
oly.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1022%26context%3Dcsusymp2009&
sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFhxvArRqttisq3hWZGfEZQvzHa6w
14

15. • Main Issues: NTU is a technological university hence adoption
of IT resources will be congruent with NTU’s vision.
• Recommendations: The first recommendation would be to
transfer classrooms to online platforms. The second one would
be to raise green awareness and promote green initiatives.
• Benefits:
• 1. Inculcating green values in the newer generations and
preparing for the future careers of the students.
• 2. Achieve sustainability for the university in the long run
through CSR in terms of cost reductions, preserving the planet
and creating a more inclusive and people-oriented society.
15