With the continued lack of clarity and transparency as to what ‘net zero’ actually means, combined with an ever-increasing focus on corporate sustainability, it is unsurprising that the questions as to whether we have become distracted by the green label attached to buildings rather than genuinely focusing on their intended purpose continue to circle.
Although there is no doubt that existing green standards and certifications are assisting in efforts to drive down carbon emissions, for example, BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Accreditation Method) assessed buildings are estimated to reduce operational carbon emissions by around 22%1, with forty percent of global emissions attributed to the built environment, there is no doubt we need to do more.
Other standards and certifications have emerged in the UK as a response to various factors, concerns and events. These include safety, structural integrity, environmental impact and, in more recent times, wellness.
However, this now wide and varied selection means the type of accreditation sought often appears to depend on the target audience, with a view to boosting market value and image, rather than any other factor.
While UKNZBCS (UK Net Zero Built Carbon Standard) will begin to help with the alignment of multiple targets for all major building types across the UK, we must temper our desire to seek perfect standards, as this could ultimately slow us down. The pace of our improvement is behind the pace of climate change, exampled by the fact that we have now passed the 1.5 degrees Paris Agreement following unprecedented high temperatures throughout 2024.
This point alone should give us the impetus to invest time and effort into change, but where do we begin? The first port of call should be exploring the processes we already have in place, and not being afraid to criticise their efficacy, even if they are well-intentioned.
Placing embodied carbon in the spotlight
Making up an estimated 20% of the UK’s built environment emissions alone, the country’s net-zero carbon and sustainable construction goals rely on change within the accreditation system for the embodied carbon lifecycle.
For example, in their current form, accreditations tend to better suit newer developments, given there is understandably a list of wider issues and different considerations for older properties. Further, as they stand, there is often very little focus on embodied carbon.
Although there are instances within retrofitting whereby embodied carbon can be preserved from historic construction projects, complexities can arise due to growing pressures on building owners to prioritise the requirements and expectations of occupiers and stakeholders, leaving this to fall by the wayside.
What can be seen as a downside for well-meaning accreditation and legislation is the occurrence of what some would say is misleading data and information, which can easily reap the reputational rewards of being ‘green’. For example, retrofit projects which maintain 25% of the original building and claim net zero are not uncommon. Obviously, completely rebuilding the remaining 75% means that a considerable amount of embodied carbon is present; so, carrying the label of ‘net zero’ is a real kicker to those genuinely trying to implement change.
The EPC dilemma
Remaining on the topic of mistaking good intentions for good results, we must unpack EPCs and their unfortunate unintended consequences.
Given the UK has a large percentage of buildings dating back to the Victorian Era, it can be harder to keep these compliant amongst the ever-updating efficiency guidelines. In fact, an estimated 70% of London’s commercial office buildings could become obsolete by the time the Minimum Energy Efficiency Regulations come into force, which will consequently require such buildings to have an EPC rating of C or above, before changing again to B or above, in 2030.
This hit will not only be felt in London, but other large cities throughout the country, including Bristol, Liverpool and Manchester. The likely outcome of this will be the demolition of buildings which have failed to meet standards, replacing them with new developments, which, in fact, goes against the intention of these crucial accreditations in the first place.
So, what can be done?
We have made great strides with existing accreditations when it comes to efficiencies in buildings, but we must take a more joined-up approach between realities and aims to make a real impact before time runs away with us.
For example, operational net zero can be achieved through renewables, but embodied carbon comes from the materials used to attain this. Many accreditation schemes are now outdated and therefore need to be updated. To counteract this, carbon spend should be dependent on a life cycle assessment (calculating embodied and operational carbon over a period of 60 years, to give a true picture of the whole life of carbon).
Whether for retrofit or new build, stepping back and focusing on the entire life story of a building is where our collective focus should lie - not the label on the building.
