 |
Economics Drives Sustainability in Existing Buildings
by Christopher P. Hodges
If you've been watching the political landscape lately, you can't help but notice the sea-change in American politics.
Rather than debating climate change and what we can do about it, the presidential candidates' platforms are narrowly focused on energy conservation, alternative energy exploration, and yes, even a reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels. The next few months will show if these stated initiatives will truly set the agenda for the coming years, or whether they are but a means to a political end.
One fact is clear; energy conservation and sustainability have made it to the top of the American political agenda. This sends a clear signal of support to the sustainability movement in the built environment. However, it remains to be seen whether this is a permanent or a temporary commitment. Regardless of the political climate, facility managers live in a world of shrinking operating budgets, reduced capital expenditures, and personnel cutbacks that seem to ebb and flow with the economy and their organizations' relationships to the national and global economy. These days, it's even more critical for facility managers and executives to stay in alignment with corporate strategies so that they can anticipate and respond to national and international economic changes. Consequently, sustainability is playing an increasing role in corporate strategy.
Conversion has been lagging
The market transformation toward sustainability in new construction is well documented and has been gaining steadily for the last few years. Programs such as the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) LEED® for New Construction have been gaining traction and appears (delete the s) to have set the new standard for sustainable buildings in the United States. However, the conversion of existing buildings to sustainable status has been lagging. As of August 2008, the USGBC had certified only about 80 buildings under the LEED for Existing Buildings rating system. With a current inventory of about 5 million commercial buildings in the country, that's not, by anyone's standards, a very impressive rate of adoption.
Why the slow pace? The answer to that question is like most issues, complex and multi-faceted. There are many barriers to making our existing building stock sustainable. The first is our attitude toward the infrastructure in the United States. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has been publishing a report card on America's infrastructure for the past several years. With news of bridge collapses, talk of inadequate levees to protect against storms, deteriorating roadways, and a weak power grid, it shouldn't be a surprise to most Americans that ASCE's grades for the U.S. infrastructure has been in the "D" range with an occasional "C" and "F". Anyone familiar with our children's school grading system would not be impressed with how we're rated on maintaining our infrastructure.
Facility Managers are all too aware of this dilemma. In facility management, new construction is king, as it is in most other areas of physical asset management. Maintaining our existing buildings is not usually at the top of the list when it comes to funding; so day-to-day and long-term maintenance and repair suffers. This attitude is also slowing the conversion of our existing buildings to sustainable and high-performance status. As we continue to adopt programs such as LEED for Existing Buildings, we would do well to recognize the pressures faced by the average facility manager and account for those issues when monitoring the pace of change, or "market transformation", in existing buildings.
There is no doubt that market transformation in existing buildings will be driven, in part, by the desire to save money. It is important to balance the cost of the initiative and the amount of time necessary to realize the required return. The commitment to the Triple Bottom Line—i.e. our environment, our people, and our financial motivations—will continue to drive decision-making in existing buildings. But, the implementation process will vary across organizations. The reality of this situation is that corporate commitment to the three components of the Triple Bottom Line is not always equal. Which driver will control our attitudes: the environmental motive, the people motive, or the profit motive?
Environmental concerns motivate
One of the major barriers to market transformation in existing buildings is our attitude toward our existing infrastructure, and the role it and sustainability plays in our strategic planning. What are the drivers that change attitudes? Certainly, environmental concerns motivate lots of Americans to save energy, conserve natural resources, and undertake initiatives to protect the planet. This motivation seems to be growing and should have a positive impact on the sustainability movement as more Americans become aware of our man-made impact on the planet.
Others have different but complementary motivations. For example, rising food costs, gas at $4 to$5 a gallon, and increasing energy prices also act as drivers of change. Michael Mandelbaum, Professor at Johns Hopkins states, "People don't change when you tell them there is a better option. They change when they conclude they have no other option." This attitude is also supported by Daniel Esty and Andrew Winston in Green to Gold. They state that the "world's biggest, toughest, most profit-seeking companies" are changing their attitude toward the environment because "they have to." It's not necessarily corporate social responsibility that is driving the world's largest organizations; it is the awareness level of their customers, employees, and the general public; and these stakeholders demand change.
Let's take a look at some of the drivers for market transformation in existing buildings. In The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman speaks of "horizontalization". Horizontalization is the concept that new technologies and ideologies take a long time to implement once the idea has taken hold. Friedman uses two examples: the development of the personal computer and the invention of the electric light bulb. In the case of the introduction of personal computers to the workplace, most of us expected an immediate and positive impact on productivity. That increase was slow, and many expressed disappointment. One reason for the slow uptake in productivity was that the hardware capabilities came along before the software was available. But the PC spawned a software revolution that required some time on the market. This, in turn, led the way to new, productivity-enhancing software applications that made the PC incredibly useful for the average user.
In the case of the light bulb, it took decades for this important invention to have an impact on business, manufacturing, and in the home. At the time, our infrastructure was set up for natural gas, steam, and oil to deliver light and power to our buildings. The process that led to pervasive use of the light bulb – electrification - took massive changes in building infrastructure and delivery systems. It also took the growth of a critical mass of designers, builders, and operators who understood these new systems before electrification could deliver the economic and productivity improvements we now take for granted.
Perhaps we are facing the same issue of horizontalization in the greening of our existing facilities. Although the building infrastructure changes needed for sustainable facilities are not nearly as challenging as the electrification process was in the early 1900s, there are a number of significant improvements required. It takes time and money to change an existing building infrastructure. Our standards that measure sustainability in existing buildings focus on energy use and the quality of the indoor environment. Both of these issues rely heavily on the existing building infrastructure to provide energy efficiency and a quality indoor environment. For the most part, the features of the building that control these two important issues are not easily changed or updated.
Change requires capital investment
In making our existing buildings sustainable, we often have to make infrastructure changes that require large capital investments. These investments are needed to swap-out inefficient mechanical systems, improve the delivery of the indoor environment, improve lighting from either natural or man-made sources, remove hazardous materials, and so on.
There is no doubt that there are a number of other factors and barriers that affect our ability to make our existing building stock more sustainable. However, until we are able to address these two major drivers – our attitude toward conservation, and the need for infrastructure changes (which cost money) – the pace of change will remain slow.
Where do we go from here? Each organization must evaluate its needs and drivers with regard to sustainability improvements in its total building portfolio. As organizational leaders often shape our attitudes, we should agree that continuous communication and ongoing education in sustainable building initiatives should take top priority. The education of the workforce will lead to substantial positive changes in how we manage our facilities. And although we cannot expect immediate changes, even small, rapid, incremental adjustments in the way we manage our facilities can have lasting positive impacts.
Overcoming the obstacles of major infrastructure changes are more challenging and problematic. Greening of our existing buildings requires significant investment in both time and money. Accepting that the payback is not always immediate is a difficult obstacle to overcome. If we are to make significant progress, we must take the long-term view. Ultimately, those that are committed and who invest for the long haul will be the ones credited with true "market transformation."
Are we in the midst of a "horizontalization" with regards to sustainable buildings? I suspect we are. I also believe that the answer to the adoption of sustainability in our existing buildings will be accelerated with education—particularly workforce education. So, what are we waiting for?
Chris Hodges is a founding principal of Facility Engineering Associates in Fairfax, Virginia, with over 25 years of experience in engineering and facility management. His operational areas of expertise are in commissioning, energy management, Operations and Maintenance (O&M), sustainability, Sustainable Facility Management, LEED for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB), facility strategy development and implementation, and application of the Balanced Scorecard in sustainability and facility management. Hodges is an IFMA course developer and instructor and serves as an instructor in the George Mason University Certificate Program in facility management. He is a LEED™ Accredited Professional (U.S. Green Building Council), and currently serves on the IFMA Board of Directors. He can be reached at hodges@feapc.com |
