Commercial buildings: Offices need more than greenwash

Much has been made of the role of airlines and oil companies in the fight against climate change, but few think of the built environment.

Yet property is thought to account for nearly half of all carbon emissions and about half of those come from commercial buildings.

Last year’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report highlighted the construction sector as that with the most potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in the most cost effective way.

In the past, companies building new premises were driven by the desire to be seen as good corporate citizens. Swiss Re, the insurance company, made much of its association with the 30 St Mary Axe building in London – better known as the Gherkin – and its widely publicised self-cooling mechanism.

A recent report from Knight Frank, the estate agency, suggests that customers and legislation are driving demand for more greener buildings in the UK.

The two are related. “The property investment community recognises that green buildings have higher asset values because of the way government regulation is going,” says Paul King of the UK Green Building Council. “As well as reducing energy costs, a green building can protect its owner against having to adapt to probable future regulation.”

Helen Garthwaite, head of Taylor Wessing’s construction legal practice, says regulations will only grow more onerous. “The speed at which the rules are coming out is very rapid indeed,” she says. “Investors looking at property are worried about a two-tier market for buildings, where those without green credentials are worth less than those that have them.”

The move she describes is towards so-called “zero carbon” buildings, a certification which dictates that structures must be built to run on the least amount of energy as possible, and source any remaining needs from renewable sources. The trend has played into the hands of companies that can engineer complex structures.

“Buildings have always been about a set of factors, such as costs, aesthetics, acoustics – to that you now have to add environmental impact,” says Keith Clarke, chief executive of Atkins, the engineering company behind the wind turbine-clad Bahrain World Trade Centre. “What we now see is that the environmental factor has changed the question about what needs to be designed.”

Organisations such as the Green Building Council have tried to show that environmentally-friendly properties are good for business. As well as reducing energy bills, a recent Australian GBC study found that green offices command higher rents and increase occupant productivity.

Promoters of green buildings also point to the decreasing premium required to build a zero carbon building. “What we’ve seen in the past few years is that those costs have come down dramatically,” says Peter Head of Arup, the engineers that helped build the Gherkin. “The cost of building green was high because it was the first time some things were tried.”

Paul King of the GBC agrees: “Traditionally, the building premium has been inflated because the starting premise was that new technology would be added on to old buildings. By definition that made green buildings more expensive. Our experience now is that we can also take a lot of cost out.”

However, there are detractors. One criticism is that savings can be exaggerated. As the Knight Frank report stresses: “Rising energy costs are seen by some as an important driver of corporate tenant demand but, in reality, they represent a tiny part of operating costs, typically 1 per cent.”

Others point out that existing buildings are not affected, even though modifications there might be more cost-effective than higher standards for new edifices.

One architect, who admits to have used “greenwash” while pitching work, explains: “A lot of what people describe as ‘green building’ is just good architectural practice, nothing more.”

He adds: “I’ve seen so many projects that, in order to install a few solar panels that would never make a difference, have to factor in extra concrete structures. And the designers know how bad concrete is for the environment, but they won’t put that in the brochure.”

Even Keith Clarke of Atkins can strike a hesitant note: “Ninety per cent of wind turbines are a waste of money, but you have to admire the intentions of those that built them.

“Everyone talks about solar panels like they are the solution, but we’ve found that designing elevators more efficiently has a far bigger impact on the green bottom line. There’s nothing glamorous about reducing the weight of an elevator, or slipstreaming it, or better controlling its speed, but in truth that’s where a lot of the difference comes from.”