Standards › ASF Health Standards v10 › Standard 2C
Standard 2C
Sustainability
Environmental responsibility: strategy, reporting, procurement, energy use and climate resilience.
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.
Why it matters. Sustainability decisions made one purchase at a time never add up to a strategy. A strategic review, held by leadership, looks at the facility’s whole environmental impact and decides what to change.
What the surveyor checks
- Has leadership conducted a documented review of the facility’s environmental impact, not left the question entirely unaddressed?
- Does the review identify specific negative environmental impacts arising from the facility’s own activities?
- Does the review identify realistic ways the facility could mitigate those impacts, even partially?
Documents
E-learning
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
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.
Why it matters. Staff and patients can help a sustainability goal only if they know what it is. Communicating the goals in plain words makes the approach something people do, not something on paper.
What the surveyor checks
- Is the facility’s sustainability approach and its goals communicated to staff, not confined to a policy document?
- Is the same information available to patients who want it, not withheld as an internal-only matter?
- Can staff asked directly describe at least one specific sustainability goal the facility is working toward?
Documents
E-learning
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
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.
Why it matters. Goals that are never reported to the people who govern the facility are easily dropped. A set reporting schedule to governance keeps progress visible and acted on.
What the surveyor checks
- Is progress against sustainability goals reported to governance on a defined schedule?
- Does governance review this progress, not simply receive it as an unexamined item?
- Can the facility show a recorded example of a governance-level decision informed by sustainability progress data?
Documents
E-learning
No course linked yet.
Planned course: Reporting sustainability progress to governance. New course planned.
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
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.
Why it matters. Purchases carry environmental and social costs: wasteful packaging, disposable products, and suppliers who exploit workers. Procurement that considers these reduces both.
What the surveyor checks
- Do procurement decisions take supplier environmental and social responsibility practices into account?
- Is wasteful use of supplies (packaging, single-use items, unnecessary ordering) reviewed and reduced where safely possible?
- Where single-use equipment is reconsidered, is patient and staff safety (infection control, manufacturer guidance) protected throughout?
Documents
E-learning
- Environmental Sustainability Standards for ASF Accreditation (ENV-001)
- Supplier Evaluation and Purchasing (T-13)
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
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.
Why it matters. A facility that does not measure its energy use cannot reduce it. Monitoring electricity, gas and fuel, and taking steps away from the most polluting sources, is the first practical step.
What the surveyor checks
- Is the facility’s use of electricity, gas, and other fuel sources monitored, not left entirely untracked?
- Has the facility taken any concrete step toward reducing fossil fuel reliance where practically possible?
- Where renewable energy options exist locally, has the facility assessed their feasibility?
Documents
E-learning
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
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.
Why it matters. A carbon footprint shows where a facility’s greenhouse emissions come from. It does not need to be perfect; a basic baseline from energy and travel data is enough to start measuring change.
What the surveyor checks
- Has the facility carried out a carbon footprint assessment, even a minimal one based on energy use?
- Is this baseline used to monitor change over time, not calculated once and never revisited?
- Is there a realistic plan to extend the carbon footprint assessment as facility resources allow?
Documents
E-learning
No course linked yet.
Planned course: Carbon footprint baseline. New course planned.
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
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.
Why it matters. Floods, heatwaves, power cuts and disease outbreaks can stop a facility from working. Thinking ahead about how the service would keep running is part of keeping patients safe.
What the surveyor checks
- Has the facility considered its resilience to major environmental or climate emergencies relevant to its location?
- Does a plan exist for situational assessment and response that protects patient safety and continuity of care during such an emergency?
- Is the plan reviewed and updated, not written once and left unexamined as conditions change?
Documents
E-learning
Planned course: Climate and environmental resilience planning. New course planned.
References
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Expert Committee consensus on Standard 1. (E-009)
- Accréditation Sans Frontières (2026). ASF Policy Framework v1.2. (E-006)
Back to ASF Health Standards v10 · Standards Map · E-learning by standard · References