Mix Roundtable: What is the industry getting wrong about sustainability?

Sometimes, despite best interests, what we call ‘sustainable’ is evolving into ‘not so terrible for the planet’ – a term so flung around it’s hard to truly define and even harder to measure accurately. From the sins of greenwashing to the barriers posed by certifications and accreditations, are our decisions as an industry influenced by misleading information and box-ticking exercises?

In partnership with CDUK, we assembled a collection of industry experts at ING Media’s Shoreditch HQ to discuss the common missteps when it comes to sustainable – and not so sustainable – design practices.

Accreditations: box ticking exercise or useful tool?

“I find when going through the process of accreditations on projects, it feels so often like a box ticking exercise,” says Oktra’s Martha Gray, “and I don’t really believe the answers that we’re giving are truly sustainable.”

Targets like BREEAM have forced the design sector to explicitly consider sustainability, and for Arup’s Stephen Hill, these accreditations are a useful framework – but can be confused with an outcome instead of a governance process. “We need to put a framework around what good looks like and understand how to measure it. I think our approach would always be top down, and BREEAM sits at the bottom. I think if you put them at the top, you end up with a slightly contrived conclusion.”

Each project is unique, and waiting until the end of the building design to consider certifications can lead to the need for last-minute additions to meet a higher target, Hill notes. For Barr Gazetas’ Tom Lacey too, it’s better to embed a series of principles in the ethos of the project, instead of chasing a series of accreditation targets.

“I think a target BREEAM rating is a bad place to start. As a briefing principal for a project you end up with a patchwork approach. I think it’s much more helpful to start with four or five core principles that drive environmental benefits, or benefits for the tenant or occupants. It means you can’t value engineer it – it’s a hell of a lot harder to unpick if it’s embedded from the get-go.”

HLW’s Jonce Walker agreed that sustainability goals need to be built-in from the outset: “There needs to be a sustainability charter, as we call it. Ask what the client’s values are from an ESG perspective and create a charter that everyone collectively agrees upon. It’s really important to do it straight away, and not forget about it – you need to consistently bring it up.”

“I also believe we should make information more accessible, especially for younger members of staff – it’s an intimidating process,” says Gray. “Simplifying the information and providing additional resources could address this challenge and encourage broader involvement.”

“Plus it’s also expensive to get EPDs, cradle to cradle, et cetera,” adds Walker. “So, you may have really amazing manufacturers who might be a little smaller who can’t afford it, and they’re automatically disqualified even if their product is amazing.”

Hill agrees. “We need a little bit more granularity in terms of the certification so that you can do something to get you on the ladder, which at least needs a degree of recognition – it’s all or nothing at the moment.”

Transparency is key

Greenhushing is a relatively new term, targeting companies that remain silent about their sustainability goals and initiatives, from the fear of being labelled as ‘greenwashers’ or simply unable to meet internal sustainability targets. And so, for clients and gathered sustainability experts alike, does the fear of greenwashing or getting it wrong stall progress on sustainability-driven projects?

“There is this risk of decision-making paralysis, because everybody wants to make sure that the most sustainable decision has been made,” says Hill. “We need to get a sense of scale, it’s more important to get the concrete specification right at the construction stage than get a door handle right. [For each project] we have a certain amount of time and headspace, and you must start with the most important thing and work your way down. It’s about it being data driven and understanding where the big impact lies.”

For Conran and Partners’ Chris Thornley, the hospitality industry in particular has a long way to go when it comes to being open and honest about its sustainability footprint. “The big issue is transparency – people can see a lot more what they’re doing, and what they’re committing to, and it’s daunting. They do want to change and they are starting to take the right steps – they don’t have a choice, or they won’t succeed.”

Right on paper, wrong in practice

Designing to last is best practice, right? But if we already know spaces are going to torn out and updated, is that the most sustainable choice? For tp bennett’s Lucy Bagshaw, the focus lies too heavily on the carbon emissions at the construction phase and doesn’t consider the accumulative energy costs of interior fit outs.

“The lifespan of an office is, on average, five years, and tenancies just two. Whereas the building will last 50 or 60 years. Whilst it might be high in embodied carbon due the steel or the concrete, all the stuff that’s inside is going to add up to way, way more than that; about 30% of offices fix out is in the furniture, fixtures and fittings – it has a huge impact.”

“If you’re a base-build designer you’re much more comfortable with where the carbon sits, and how you can improve it,” comments Hill. “It feels like we’re at the beginning of that journey in terms of fit outs and CAT B.”

“That’s where the importance of the overlap comes in,” says Fletcher Priest Architects’ Lucy Priest, “through conversations about what you are putting in a base build, so you’re not doing it twice and then ripping it out at the start of a fit out. As interior designers we’ve got a responsibility to be leading those conversations and demonstrating that value to a client as well. We use a lot of VR to demonstrate what can be done with a small adjustment. Rather than the actual materials, perhaps the way the space is programmed at the moment is making it feel old fashioned.”

“We’re really invested in being able to refurbish and repair,” comments Corian’s Andy Adams, “and saving further energy by doing it in situ with the fabricators, instead of taking it back to a workshop. If we can increase the life of the products in different ways, it could generate the desire for repurposed over new when it comes to the ‘rip-out’.”

“It’s seeing the value in that material,” Bagshaw adds. “Take back schemes are significant. If it has value, they can make it into something new; they can resell or repurpose it. It’s fantastic that a product can last for that long, but actually I’d be far more interested in a product that’s got that circularity and the reusability story.”

Sustainability goes beyond the environmental

While the planet is burning there’s a clear emphasis on environmental sustainability, but do we do enough to consider the societal and economic impact of a project? Great buildings and spaces have the power to shape not only skylines, but entire communities.

“One of the things that frustrates me about the way people define sustainability is thinking about environmental,” says Hill. “It’s not. You’ve got to look at and focus as much on social outcomes as well. Sustainability is always a balance – if you focus too much on carbon, at the exclusion of other things like wellbeing and social value, you get some quite perverse outcomes. It could be commercial value, which has a social benefit, in terms of generating income and jobs. It could be wellbeing. For example, what’s the carbon impact of generating better air quality in an office? You have to recognise that balance.”

“I see that from a materials perspective too,” comments Corian’s Adams. “More and more people are asking, is it low in VOC and what does it contain? Not just for the people who are living with it, but also the people that are producing it.”