Accréditation Sans Frontières · ASF Health Standards 9.0
Standard 16 · Sustainable Care
7 criteria · base standard
Base standard. 7 criteria, of which 0 non-negotiable. Each criterion is numbered 16.Y, with its classification and verification questions.
Criteria
- 16.1 Environmental Impact Is Reviewed at Strategic Level (STANDARD)
- 16.2 Staff and Patients Are Informed of Sustainability Goals (STANDARD)
- 16.3 Sustainability Progress Is Reported to Governance (STANDARD)
- 16.4 Procurement Considers Responsible Stewardship of Resources (CORE)
- 16.5 Energy Use Is Monitored, With a Move Toward Renewable Sources (STANDARD)
- 16.6 A Carbon Footprint Baseline Exists (STANDARD)
- 16.7 The Facility Plans for Environmental and Climate Resilience (CORE)
16.1 Environmental Impact Is Reviewed at Strategic Level
STANDARD
Facility leadership undertakes a strategic-level review of the facility's environmental impact and the sustainability of how it delivers care — not an assumption that environmental questions are someone else's concern or a problem for another department.
VERIFICATION QUESTIONS
- Has leadership conducted a documented review of the facility's environmental impact, not left the question entirely unaddressed?
A strategic review, not an assumption that this falls outside the facility's own responsibility. - Does the review identify specific negative environmental impacts arising from the facility's own activities?
Specific findings, not a generic statement of good intent with no actual content. - Does the review identify realistic ways the facility could mitigate those impacts, even partially?
An actionable finding, not analysis that stops short of identifying what could change.
16.2 Staff and Patients Are Informed of Sustainability Goals
STANDARD
The facility's approach to environmentally sustainable care, and its goals in this area, are communicated to staff and patients — not confined to an internal policy document nobody outside senior management ever sees.
VERIFICATION QUESTIONS
- Is the facility's sustainability approach and its goals communicated to staff, not confined to a policy document?
Visible communication, not information technically available but never shared. - Is the same information available to patients who want it, not withheld as an internal-only matter?
Patient-facing transparency, not sustainability treated as purely an internal concern. - Can staff asked directly describe at least one specific sustainability goal the facility is working toward?
Tests whether communication reached staff, not just whether it was technically issued.
16.3 Sustainability Progress Is Reported to Governance
STANDARD
Progress against the facility's environmental sustainability goals is reported to governance on a defined schedule — not tracked informally by whoever happens to care about it, with no visibility at the level that sets institutional priorities.
VERIFICATION QUESTIONS
- Is progress against sustainability goals reported to governance on a defined schedule?
A reporting cadence, not tracking that exists informally with no visibility upward. - Does governance review this progress, not simply receive it as an unexamined item?
Review, not a report circulated and filed without engagement. - Can the facility show a recorded example of a governance-level decision informed by sustainability progress data?
A concrete example, not a theoretical reporting line with no actual influence on decisions.
16.4 Procurement Considers Responsible Stewardship of Resources
CORE
The facility's procurement and supply decisions take environmental and social responsibility into account — reducing wasteful use of supplies, considering supplier environmental practices, and reviewing single-use equipment decisions against patient and staff safety requirements — rather than treating sustainability as irrelevant to purchasing choices.
VERIFICATION QUESTIONS
- Do procurement decisions take supplier environmental and social responsibility practices into account?
A documented consideration, not a purchasing process blind to anything beyond unit price. - Is wasteful use of supplies
packaging, single-use items, unnecessary ordering — reviewed and reduced where safely possible? — Reduction efforts, not an assumption that current purchasing patterns are already optimal. - Where single-use equipment is reconsidered, is patient and staff safety
infection control, manufacturer guidance — protected throughout? — Safety must never be compromised for an environmental goal, and this must be verified, not assumed.
16.5 Energy Use Is Monitored, With a Move Toward Renewable Sources
STANDARD
The facility monitors its use of electricity, gas, and other fuel sources, and takes steps toward reducing reliance on fossil fuels where this is practically possible — not energy use left entirely unmeasured and unmanaged as a fixed, unexamined operating cost.
VERIFICATION QUESTIONS
- Is the facility's use of electricity, gas, and other fuel sources monitored, not left entirely untracked?
Ongoing monitoring, not energy treated as an unexamined fixed cost. - Has the facility taken any concrete step toward reducing fossil fuel reliance where practically possible?
A specific action, not a stated aspiration with no actual change behind it. - Where renewable energy options exist locally, has the facility assessed their feasibility?
An assessment, not an assumption that renewable transition is automatically impractical.
16.6 A Carbon Footprint Baseline Exists
STANDARD
The facility has carried out an assessment of its carbon footprint — even based on a minimal dataset such as energy use alone — to establish a baseline for monitoring and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, not treating carbon impact as something too complex to ever measure.
VERIFICATION QUESTIONS
- Has the facility carried out a carbon footprint assessment, even a minimal one based on energy use?
A documented baseline, not an assumption that measurement is too complex to attempt. - Is this baseline used to monitor change over time, not calculated once and never revisited?
Ongoing tracking, not a one-time exercise with no follow-through. - Is there a realistic plan to extend the carbon footprint assessment as facility resources allow?
A forward plan, not a minimal baseline treated as a permanent ceiling on ambition.
16.7 The Facility Plans for Environmental and Climate Resilience
CORE
The facility considers its resilience to major environmental, climate, or health emergencies that could disrupt service delivery — heatwaves, flooding, extreme storms, pandemic outbreaks — and plans a range of actions in response, not assuming such disruptions are too remote to prepare for.
VERIFICATION QUESTIONS
- Has the facility considered its resilience to major environmental or climate emergencies relevant to its location?
A specific assessment, not an assumption that such events are too remote to plan for. - Does a plan exist for situational assessment and response that protects patient safety and continuity of care during such an emergency?
An actionable plan, not a general statement of intent with no content. - Is the plan reviewed and updated, not written once and left unexamined as conditions change?
Periodic review, not a static document assumed to remain adequate indefinitely. ————————————————————