Within the engineering practice there has been an increasing focus on the environmental impact of new buildings, with the construction sector contributing to a massive 38% of the total global emissions (in 2019). This has led to the introduction of LEED and BREEAM certification to ensure these buildings are focused on their environmental impact. However, these certification schemes are not perfect.
Research has shown that LEED certified buildings can often be less energy efficient than a non-certified case; this is due to the flawed marking scheme for unweighted token environmental changes to construction. The flaws are further highlighted by supplying additional points for companies hiring LEED advisors; one study found that 99.7% of all successful applications used this to their advantage. Further, after the building has achieved its certification, any negative changes can be implemented without affecting their environmental rating.
Our team proposes a replacement of the certification process that eliminates the exclusivity of these existing certifications. A more accessible certification process will allow smaller businesses an opportunity to become part of a globally responsible construction sector by encouraging the design of more environmentally friendly buildings. Addressing smaller companies will create a more equitable playing field in the construction sector. This certification will focus on and highlight companies actively being more sustainable throughout a building’s full lifecycle, rather than using gestures that do not genuinely reduce a company’s emissions.
Rather than giving large tax breaks to companies that have certifications, companies that don’t meet the criteria should be taxed. The tax could be based on a company’s total emissions, thus encouraging larger companies to further reduce their emissions, and avoiding small companies being disproportionately affected. This tax can then be used locally to fund regenerative schemes in deprived areas.
This is a strong concept, well done.
It's not clear from your concept how BREAM & LEED (amongst others) are detrimental to small businesses. That seems to be your fundamental premise, make it clearer.
The key question to keep in mind is:
"How should/could this certification process be utilised to make global engineering more accountable"?
The 4 key principles to keep in mind are:
Responsible - Important questions would be; How would the certification process maintain EFFECTIVE responsibility? The current situation is a business situation but is it irresponsible? How would your process of taxing be managed to make it more responsible? Think hard on this, so far, you have presented an ideology not a solution.
Pursposeful - Think about how would your certification process consider wider impacts from project inception to end of life; And encourage both global and local considerations? There's a sense of it from the concept but I would be very interested to hear more of your ideas here.
Inclusive - Make it clear how this would be more inclusive. It currently appears to be excluding larger industries, (where the bulk of governing money comes from). How would you include them?
Regenerative - This is very clear from your concept. Run with it, what would you target? This is a very good idea, tell us more about how it would work.
As a rule, discuss ideas with people outside your disciplines, hone it until they understand it; Then your pitch is more likely to be persuasive and hold merit.
I'm looking forward to this one Tomas.
Hi there. I really like this idea - it's always good to see something challenge the status quo and increase accessibility!
You've done a great job outlining the flaws in the LEED/BREEAM certification, but I'd like to see a bit more on how your certification will work and what metrics it will be focused on. It sounds like the certification will be lower cost, which is great. But how will it achieve this reduced cost? Removing the hire of specialised advisors is one way, but I am sure you have other ideas!
Along those lines, can you please provide concrete examples of "gestures that do not genuinely reduce a company’s emissions"? Not that I disagree at all, but you could really strengthen your pitch by adding in how you would like to change things.
It would also be good to see how you will measure impact over the entire life cycle. Would you require a certificate that is renewed each year to ensure that building maintenance and renovation is keeping up with its green promise? If so, how will you deliver this so that it is still accessible and low cost? And if not, how will you ensure that no negative changes are made after your initial certification?
Again, this is a really good idea, and I think it would be very cool to see implemented! With a bit of refinement I think you'd be good to go.