Construction Declares…
In the vein of sustainability that seems to (thankfully) be gaining traction, I was reading the Arup newsletter and came across the ‘Construction Declares’ petition (https://www.constructiondeclares.com/).
The intent is ‘to unite all strands of construction and the built environment in a public declaration of the issues facing our planet and a commitment to take positive action to prevent climate breakdown and biodiversity collapse.’
Since June 2019 over 800 UK practices have made the declaration, with firms in 17 other countries (including Australia) beginning to sign up. With the construction industry contributing to 40% of global carbon emissions, this seems like a positive step. However, it has yet to set any SMART targets, remaining at present the start of a ‘wide-ranging declaration of intent’. Let’s hope it goes somewhere.
Arup have signed up and released a detailed internal sustainability plan. They have also incorporated performance indicators for the 17 UN ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs) into their design process and have project management tools to match.
I’d be interested to hear how other consultancies are treating the problem? Has your Phase 3 organisation signed up? Can you be your firm’s ‘Greta Thunberg’ and start the change from the inside (…and tick that UK-SPEC box)?
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
David, how are the targets set with regard to meeting the demands of the Clients? Or are the Clients being given a take it or leave it choice when they try and engage Arup to complete work on their behalf?
Jim, in my limited exposure so far, the SDGs aren’t even mentioned at the ‘tactical’ level. I can only assume they are considered as measurables or (cynically) remain strategic level corporate speak.
On the other hand, NABERS and Green Star are obsessed over by the Clients I have encountered so far. Whether that is because Clients not interested in ‘being green’ are filtered out higher up I am yet to determine – I’ll keep an eye out.
That being said – cost conquers all. I’ve already seen a slipping of targets to 5.5 stars, then 5 stars, in certain categories when costs to achieve the maximum standard became eye watering.
As Jon mentioned in his reply – I guess until government leans into it fully (and globally) change will remain dominated by profit.
Its interesting to note that the US and China are absent from all of this; although it is early days. Without backing from companies in countries like these I doubt it will change much, though I suppose you have to start somewhere. The cynic in me says that the political situation in both those countries will mean that construction companies will be unlikely to engage much with climate change issues until its too late (if not so already).
Also Sir Robert McAlpine don’t seem to be on there either. Something to investigate.
There was an interesting talk at the ICE about the project links to the SDGs and how actually on a project basis only 8% of the sub-goals are really applicable. The key to successful integration was to clearly define what success looks like and provide a clear, tangible quantifiable targets . However the problem is ensuring that the client will pay for it.
For more info on this there is an article by Mansell (2019) which defines how SDGs were integrated on a project basis, albeit a large one, called:
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS ’ IMPACT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – CASE STUDY OF A WATER-UTILITY COMPANY
I however think until the way is driven by Government Policy and until it makes it financially noncompetitive not integrate SDG planning into a project a client/consultant will naturally fall back onto trying to do stuff for the cheapest price to make the most profit!
On a side note there should be a CIRIA guide being released soon dealing with how clients should integrate the need for sustainability into their assessment of tenders, we shall see whether this makes a difference. I think not, in the short term at least.
Hey Dave, I have seen “Construction Declares” in my time out here; although I cant recall where as John Holland, nor my design consultant are signatories.
I found that at John Holland there was plenty of top down talk of environmental sustainability and the H&S manager had some ‘tick box’ deliverables to force the project to comply. As you and the other comments on this blog mention; it will only work if the client is keen, and often cost will dominate the discussion. That said there was a moment in phase 2 where construction was halted as it became clear that ground water being removed from a shaft excavation was not meeting the environmental standards agreed by the client – but this was driven by the law – as you said, it needed government to set the standard.
On phase 3, NDY signs up to Environmental Management System – ISO 14001; which I know little about currently. And there is a lot of idealistic talk amongst my peers, but they all acknowledge that they provide designs to be environmentally sustainable only by meeting the minimum requirements in the relevant Australian Standard because doing any more is usually economically less attractive. I am sure there must be an example where going over and above the standard has actually proved to be profitable in some way but I haven’t found it on attachment – anyone got a positive experience like that?