好色先生TV

It has been just over two years since the Green Construction Board, a vehicle to carry forward the government鈥檚 Sustainable Construction Strategy, sprang into life. In that time the board has published its Infrastructure Carbon Review report and laid out a detailed route map for achieving an 80% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050.

But its work is not over: the board was given a two-year extension to its life in February this year, and last month it announced a shake-up of its membership with new members from Marks and Spencer, Hammerson and Willmott Dixon.

However, while the initiatives of the first two years are broadly supported and give the industry a high-level direction, the board鈥檚 effect on the ground is less clear. Sustainability expert and consultant David Strong says: 鈥淚鈥檓 not convinced that the Green Construction Board has served much useful function - it seems to have spent a great deal of time debating issues, but has provided few meaningful outputs.鈥�

Strong describes it as a 鈥渢alking shop鈥� that hasn鈥檛 achieved as much to advance the industry as the Movement for Innovation (M4i) that was tasked with taking forward the actions from John Egan鈥檚 Rethinking Construction report in 1998.

Other say the work of the Green Construction Board lacks a direct impact on their day-to-day business or are unaware of what it has been doing for the last two years.

I鈥檓 not convinced that the green construction board has served much useful function - it鈥檚 spent a lot of time debating issues, but provided few meaningful ouputs

David strong, sustainability expert

But John Tebbit, former Green Construction Board member and managing director of Robust Details, is more sanguine. He argues the policy environment in the last two years would have been 鈥渨orse鈥� without the Green Construction Board. 鈥淚 certainly think that if the Green Construction Board had not been there we would have needed to invent it,鈥� he says. So who is right?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the man who has co-chaired the board alongside business minister Michael Fallon for the last two years, Mike Putnam, Skanska UK president and chief executive, believes a lot of useful work has been done. He points to the board鈥檚 Infrastructure Carbon Review, which presents practical steps to reduce carbon across the supply chain, as one of its most impressive achievements.

鈥淚t makes clear that in the infrastructure space if you focus on delivering [low] carbon, it has the added impact of lowering cost, which is quite unique compared with anything in the building sector, where we talk about the premium of green,鈥� he says.

鈥淲e were able to show quite a number of case studies to back it up and get commitment from firms to the whole approach of the infrastructure carbon review,鈥� he adds. That commitment, signed by the Treasury, Costain and Balfour Beatty, among others, pledged to 鈥渃ommit our organisations to releasing the value of lower carbon鈥� through 鈥渓eadership, innovation and procurement鈥� and to 鈥渋ncorporate carbon reduction objectives within their infrastructure projects and programmes by 2016鈥�.

Action plan

The figures back up Putnam鈥檚 upbeat view. The board鈥檚 primary purpose has been monitoring  the delivery of a 162-point action plan from the Department for Business Innovation and Skills created as a response to the 65 recommendations of the Low Carbon Construction Innovation and Growth Team, chaired by former chief construction adviser Paul Morrell in 2010.

Two years into that plan 94 of the actions are complete, 63 are in progress and five have not been started. Completed actions include anything from the elementary (having the board鈥檚 first meeting) to the problematic (developing the policy underpinning for the commercial Green Deal).

Putnam assesses the completion rate as 鈥減retty damn good鈥� but confirms that those that have not been started will now be dropped. Among them are actions to

encourage the voluntary use of display energy certificates; 鈥渄iscuss the use of the Ska Rating for fit-out of buildings with government鈥�; and a project to determine whether 鈥渋t is possible to deliver, using collaborative working principles, a sustainable retrofit of a school that achieves a 70% reduction in carbon emissions for the same capital cost as refurbishment to 好色先生TV Regulations standards鈥�.

Several board members that 好色先生TV spoke to, who did not wish to be named, said that political opposition to sustainability within government had 鈥渇rustrated鈥� the

board鈥檚 progress. Some said the board had not been as 鈥渞obust鈥� as it should have been with putting the industry鈥檚 view across to government. Others though expressed hope that the 2015 election would make sustainability a more palatable policy area to champion and the board鈥檚 mission more politically acceptable.

There have, however, been a number of notable actions completed by government in the plan. These include changing regulations to improve compliance with the requirement to complete energy performance certificates when selling buildings, the launch of the renewable heat incentive and the launch of the Green Deal.

Putnam also makes the point that there are many other organisations focused on lobbying the government for greater levels of support for green construction, such as the UK Green 好色先生TV Council, and next to that the board鈥檚 function is to be a forum for discussion and driving actions where there is a consensus. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think that鈥檚 unhealthy. It鈥檚 fairly normal to have those different roles,鈥� he adds.

Tebbit says: 鈥淚t鈥檚 very easy for others to say it has not been as robust as it could have been but if it hadn鈥檛 been there, what do you think would have happened? [Policy] would have been worse.鈥�

But some say the biggest action is yet to be taken by government. 鈥淚f government wants to influence industry, then don鈥檛 just give us money,鈥� Tebbit says. 鈥淏uy stuff that chimes with what you want the industry to do.鈥� Tebbit argues the board needs to include those setting government procurement policy if it is to have the maximum influence on the industry.

A communications issue

What is obvious when you ask people in the supply chain is that knowledge of the board鈥檚 initiatives is lacking. 鈥淚鈥檓 aware of it [the Green Construction Board] but that鈥檚 about it,鈥� one sustainability expert, who does not wish to be named, tells 好色先生TV.

Both Putnam and Tebbit concede that the communication of the board鈥檚 work to a wider audience, particularly those further down the supply chain, has room for improvement. Tebbit says: 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think enough resources or planning was put into communicating with people.鈥�

Putnam accepts that the board鈥檚 mission is broad and diverse and that that makes communicating it difficult. He says the next two years will see the board鈥檚 members take a more high-profile public role. 鈥淲e are trying to get out and about as much as we can. It鈥檚 not just about me - it鈥檚 about the whole board getting out and about and being more visible,鈥� he says.

So what does the future hold? Putnam champions the link with the industry-government Construction Leadership Council and its Construction 2025 strategy, but admits the board鈥檚 work will need a 鈥渘arrower and sharper鈥� focus to help deliver the targets held in the 2025 strategy.

Paul Morrell says the board鈥檚 role alongside the Construction Leadership Council is important because it offers 鈥渂oth government and the industry an opportunity to demonstrate that they can think about two things at the same time鈥�. 

Rob Lambe, Green Construction Board member and managing director of Willmott Dixon Rethinking, adds that the recent changes to bring the chairs of the board鈥檚 working groups on to the board itself will help provide a more practical focus. He says: 鈥淚 think there鈥檚 a general agreement that there鈥檚 a great opportunity to do more with the Green Construction Board and that it needs to work in a slightly different way than it has in the past two years.鈥�

Putnam hopes that upcoming initiatives to give the sector a leg up - the board recently published a top 10 tips for reducing waste - will prove an easier thing to sell to the wider industry.

Whether the 94 completed actions of the board over the last two years have made significant impact on the industry is hard to judge, partly because much of its work is to hold government to account on commitments in the action plan and fill research gaps that others do not - neither of which are likely to give it a big profile.

So while Putnam is justified in viewing the board鈥檚 mission as part of a 鈥�20-year agenda鈥�, at some point the board will need to have a more public face and a concrete record for its members to claim it has been a success. It has spent two years finding its feet. The next two years will be about establishing if it can stand tall and be seen to make a difference.