sustainability the green agenda To effectively manage an issue it needs


to be defined, repeatable and capable of continuous, consistent benchmarking. The IPD Environment Code was created as a free-to-use tool for property managers to be able to define a core set of environmental performance data with which to drive improvement. The code includes definitions of core quantitative measures – energy, carbon, water, waste – as well as a health-check tool which allows property managers to assess the environmental credentials of their building stock, organisational behaviour and management practices. Combined with financial and operational data, property managers can take a view on which buildings are good or bad and where either investment or changes in practice will get to generate the improvement. Through consultation with some of the


6,000 property professionals globally who downloaded the first edition of the code, IPD was able to identify three areas of focus for property managers: • The need for landlords and tenants to work collaboratively to improve total building performance; • The need to hold a single consistent dataset to support regulatory and accreditation purposes; • The need to benchmark performance internationally on a consistent basis. In developing these applications of the


code, the IPD has identified a number of challenges for property professionals.


Total building view: who is responsible?


Although the Environment Code was developed primarily for occupiers, landlords and property managers have also adopted the code as a ready means of assessing the quality of building stock


Figure 1: Content analysis of global accreditation standards (IPD health-check identified).


priorities due to financial pressures, and societal pressure.


An immense amount of resource is IPD Environment Code


Measuring the Environmental Performance of Buildings


In association with:


typically used to capture and report on environmental data, as each requirement is pulled together separately. Organisations struggle to get good quality data, and to reconcile figures produced in different reports. It would surely be much better to develop a single well-managed information base which can serve a multitude of reporting requirements. A comprehensive dataset should include: • Energy consumption details by source/type; • Water consumption (eg, including bottled, and re-used/re-cycled); • Waste arisings by stream and disposal method; • Property details (eg, age, size, specification); • Occupancy details (eg, workstations, occupants, hours); • Management practice details (eg, EMS, building settings); • Staff satisfaction feedback (temperature, noise, light, air quality). Armed with this information the


The IPD Environment Code, the second edition of which will be launched in September, can be adopted as a model to disentangle the Green Agenda for corporate occupiers.


and management quality. This raises one of the most important issues around sustainability: who is responsible? There is confusion in regulation in this


area, with Display Energy Certificates identifying the need for tenants to identify emissions for which they are responsible, and the Carbon Reduction Commitment based on the energy for which a tenant directly pays. The IPD Occupiers databank identifies a


long-term trend towards leasehold property, which could create a grey area between landlords and tenants. While tenants drive the need for energy, the landlord will often own and manage the factors of production (plant and equipment). Green leases are a mechanism for this to happen, but the nervousness of landlords to commit to potentially onerous clauses may make this a less effective means of driving improvement. It would make sense for both landlords and tenants to use tools such as the Environment Code to work collaboratively to improve total building performance.


One size fits all


Figure 2: Comparison of classifications and scoring between accreditation standards and IPD health-check.


For an organisation in the UK, there is a wide range of reporting requirements which need to be fulfilled. While many focus purely on energy and carbon (CRC, DEC), issues such as waste management and water resources will become higher


24 l Property Management Select l september 2010 l www.pm-select.co.uk


organisation can then make a decision on the balance between profit and planet, long-term and short-term, as well as pursuing certification. Property managers should be helping the organisation identify what is right for it, rather than just managing to minimum requirements.


A global solution


Climate change is a global problem, faced by an increasingly global economy. Multi- national organisations currently struggle to view environmental performance in a consistent way across regions. IPD reviewed the three main global accreditation standards currently in use: BREEAM – in use (prevalent within EMEA); LEED – existing buildings (Americas and India); and Greenstar (Australia, South Africa).


Analysis found significant similarity in


content between these approaches, both in subject and weighting (see figures 1 and 2), although differences were identified. Nine main areas were identified as common between these standards (see figure 2). Although this provides some reassurance that a green building will be judged as such by each standard, certification is a relatively resource-intensive process, and will not be right for all organisations. All organisations need to understand how their real estate assets and management practices influence their environmental impacts however. The key principles of the health-check are that it should give an indication of


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68