As corporate emphasis grows on eco-friendly structures, questions arise about the true impact of green building certifications. Do they actively reduce carbon emissions, or are they primarily boosting the market value of green buildings? Georgia Sandom, operations and ESG director at Office Space in Town, explores
Over the past decade, a growing emphasis on corporate sustainability has transformed the global green building market into a far-reaching worldwide industry, expected to surpass $377bn by 2026.
Leading this movement are certifications such as BREEAM and LEED, widely considered to be the gold standards for environmentally friendly structures.
However, as the corporate world becomes increasingly fixated on sustainability, a shadow of scepticism grows over the efficacy of these certifications in fulfilling their primary mission: reducing carbon emissions.
Have these certifications genuinely reduced carbon emissions? Or have they become mere tokens, inflating the investment value of green buildings? In light of these questions, we need to consider challenging the prevailing norms and reevaluate the green building certification landscape.
Why do we need to go green?
While I advocate for a move away from the current saturation of green building certifications, it is important to recognise the role they have played to date in corporate sustainability.
In principle, green building certificates seem like a commendable idea, representing a step toward sustainability in an industry responsible for 39% of global energy carbon emissions.
Brought to the market in the 1990s with the launch of BREEAM, green building certificates are aimed at minimising the negative impacts of the global construction industry on the environment.
While there is skepticism on whether these certificates reduce carbon emissions, they have played a vital role in sparking conversations and raising awareness about the importance of sustainability, both in the construction industry and for corporations as a whole.
Why are green building certificates popular?
The allure of green-certified buildings has led to a strong corporate interest in obtaining green certifications. For many firms, these certificates provide an opportunity to enhance their eco-friendly image.
It is a box-ticking exercise that can enhance their reputation and meet regulatory requirements without diving deeper into the firm’s actions or environmental impact. After all, if I have a green building certificate, I’m one of the good guys, right?
For those not incentivized by the ‘sustainability’ of these certificates and how they may boost their PR, there are financial benefits. Green building certificates have been shown to inflate the investment value of green buildings, which now sell for approximately 26% more than their less sustainable counterparts.
Of course, multiple truths can be held at the same time. Buildings can have a positive impact on our environment while also having financial and reputational benefits. This is an ideal situation, as firms that are genuinely doing good should be praised and rewarded, incentivizing others to do the same.
However, there is increasing skepticism around whether green building certificates result in tangible reductions in carbon emissions.
This is where the current approach misses the mark – because for these certificates to have a positive environmental impact, they should be significantly reducing carbon emissions. After all, this is their primary goal. Firms should not reap the financial and PR benefits if these certificates are not reaching these goals.
Why green building certificates are missing the mark?
Scepticism around green building certificates has been intensified by a variety of factors beyond their financial and ‘optics’ benefits. A lack of independent data on the impact of these certificates, combined with an absence of standardised reporting, hampers the true impact of green building initiatives.
Moreover, the demand for green building certificates has led to the proliferation of different certification regimes, saturating the market. The abundance of these certificates, each with its own criteria and standards, has resulted in the devaluation of the green building market and has created confusion around what buildings need to achieve to be considered ‘sustainable’.
For example, there are notable differences between BREEAM and LEED, the two leading certificates. The key difference is in the evaluation process – BREEAM requires licensed assessors to guide developers through the assessment and judgment process, while LEED depends on the building design team for evaluation.
Having different third parties responsible for the evaluation of the two main certificates diminishes its legitimacy.
Another major concern is the constant changes in regulatory systems, seemingly prioritising profit-driven motives over genuine environmental impact. Take, for instance, demands for businesses to consider measures on resistance to natural disasters in their evaluations, most of which are highly unlikely to affect UK-based companies – a stark example of misplaced priorities.
A further challenge is the ever-changing criteria for green building certifications, making it difficult for businesses to maintain consistent assessments of their environmental impact. The high costs associated with certifications, often exceeding £10,000, compound the problem.
Businesses find themselves entangled in lengthy negotiations and administrative processes, leaving little time for meaningful sustainability measures.
Exploring alternative approaches to green building certifications
The time and resources invested in achieving green building certifications would be better directed towards holistic approaches.
In light of these challenges, I advocate for a shift towards all-encompassing business certifications, such as Planet Mark or B Corp. These comprehensive certifications integrate a broader spectrum of sustainability criteria, offering a more accurate reflection of a company’s commitment to environmental responsibility.
Moreover, alternative solutions -such as investing in values-aligned maintenance companies – can yield similar environmental impacts without the bureaucratic hurdles associated with green building certifications.
By focusing on practical, tangible measures, businesses can make more immediate and meaningful contributions to carbon reduction. These firms must not be afraid to challenge the status quo when rethinking their approach to sustainability.
As we become more critical, we must ensure that we bridge the gap between rhetoric and tangible results, searching for genuinely effective tools in the fight against climate change.
A shift towards low-carbon retrofitting within the construction industry will be a critical step in reducing embodied carbon from demolition works, cutting the use of new materials and minimising waste generated in the construction process.
As businesses grapple with the urgency of climate change, I encourage a revaluation of the role of green building certifications in their contributions to meaningful carbon reduction.
Rather than relying solely on certifications, it’s time for businesses to get creative and explore practical, impactful measures that contribute substantively to carbon reduction.
