The R word and sustainability

This blog has now moved. Please visit Zerochampion.com and update your bookmarks

I don't know about you but it's been pretty gloomy year so far. And now the R word enters stage left. Yes recession appears on the cards. So where does this leave clients, both in the private and public sectors, and their decisions on future sustainable budgets? Will the talk be cheap or will the rhetoric really turn to reality?

The answer will be pretty vital and will test the commitment of many who have made very public announcement on how they will act in future. Building's lead news story in the magazine last Friday is an indication of how housebuilders are coping with the credit crunch or impending slowdown/recession. Leading players such as Barratt, Bellway and Taylor Wimpey are urging subcontractors to cut costs, and you wonder just what will give. Will intended Code levels be dropped? Will technology or innovation be value-engineered out? This will be a severe test as to whether there are coherent business cases as yet for sustainable buildings and developments and or whether the environment element is a marketing add-on, liable to be lopped off when economic conditions worsen.

Comments

[Michael Townsend]

I think this is a very real concern, and it will be interesting to see which way it goes.

Of course, if sustainability is perceived as a "nice to have", requiring additional expense, then in many cases we may see some good intentions come to nothing.

If, on the other hand, we view sustainability as another opportunity to drive efficiency and reduce cost, then surely we will see the approach gain momentum? Surely sustainability and efficiency are one and the same thing; for example if we reduce carbon, we reduce energy and consequently reduce cost? Commercially, the sustainable option has to be the way forward.

Ah yes, I hear the challenge, but that depends on how one measures cost and value; while the whole life cost should be the cheaper option, what about the capital cost? If this is higher, in order to meet the more stringent codes, the additional cost will surely have to be passed on to the customer, and in a tight market this will hardly be attractive?

Again this presents an opportunity; we can always challenge any cost situation. In my experience there are only a limited number of reasons why there will be a premium (in addition to scope/scale); usually a combination of:
a) Level of specification
b) Lack of economies of scale
c) Genuine recovery of investment
d) Market exploitation

These are of course in addition to any of the hidden forms of "waste" inherent within all cost structures (commonly cited as somewhere between 20-40%) in construction.

Whatever the reason, even with a higher specification, the good news is that it is possible to do something about it - by making all these factors visible and then looking at ways to improve.

I would urge all organisations to keep being innovative and seek ways to drive efficiency and sustainability improvements.

This becomes even more important in the face of a "down turn" or even the "R" word. This is a time when we all need to keep our heads and keep being innovative; after all, isn't the glass half full?

[Phil Clark]

Keep up the positive thinking Michael. You've convinced me. Hopefully the industry can follow.