16
insights
within the whole-building focus of BREEAM. Alan Yates explains why BRE Global undertook the review:
“We looked at how best practice in standards setting has evolved and saw that BREEAM needed to enhance its approach to take account of the progress made in this important area. There was also the fact that many of these schemes have evolved over time and they want to be recognised and rewarded for their strengths.” He admits concerns that specifiers “probably have a glossy
view of what these responsible sourcing schemes actually mean and may read more assurance into them than the label can actually provide.” In a post-Modern Slavery Act context this is important for any UK business procuring construction materials. According to Yates, most FSC labelled construction timber on the market is likely to be covered by FSC’s ‘60 per cent certified’ label. This means that up to 40 per cent may simply be legally harvested, benefitting little from the scheme’s robust forest management requirements. As such this does not provide the guarantee that many think it does about the sourc- ing of timber on a building. Yates says that this is why it’s essential that the label is not
automatically seen as a comprehensive guarantee of responsible sourcing. Whilst FSC does operate a 100 per cent certified label, this is rare in construction materials. The same limitations occur for all other schemes reviewed although, asserts Yates, the reasons for this are clear.
Sector-specific issues
Yates confirms that since the emergence of the FSC labelling scheme in the 1990s, there has been an increasing interest in this issue and a growth in responsible sourcing schemes in the market. He says this has been characterised by an understandably variable approach to standard setting which can lead to significant differences when one material is being compared to another. He adds that the relative immaturity of responsible sourcing and resultant ad hoc and sector-specific development of schemes has meant they are “at different stages along the journey” when it comes to their robustness. Yates explains further: “Each of these schemes has set out its
own objectives of how it is trying to help its customers whether it is the specifier or the person in the supply chain e.g. the steel mill. They all come at it in a slightly different angle and this influences their criteria for measuring success. “Sector-specific schemes are fine when comparing apples
with apples, but BREEAM has a need to look at responsible sourcing at a whole building,” says Yates. While most schemes are focused on the organisational level issues throughout the supply chain, he says that BREEAM’s focus is different, namely on whether “the material that arrives on site gets incorporated into the building, and delivers the impacts embedded within that material.” He explains that the new process “isn’t intended to say that
one scheme is better than another one, as each sector starts from a different place in terms of the risks and complexity of its supply chain. It’s simply that from the perspective of BREEAM in a building that scheme is more robust in ensuring that, for
www.architectsdatafile.co.uk
‘(The new process) isn’t intended to say that one scheme is better than another one, as each sector starts from a difference place’
example, people have been paid decent wages in the supply chain.”
Key criteria in BREEAM
The BREEAM review which BRE has just carried out is the product of several months working with the respective scheme operators. Alan Yates is at pains to stress that its purpose is not to say what the level of responsible sourcing in each case or dictate universal standards, but whether the processes being used by the RSCSs in setting their standards and operating their schemes are adopting best practice. The review of schemes includes the following criteria in judging their robustness for scoring within BREEAM:
•how the RSCS bodies have engaged with stakeholders; •the way the standards process works, and whether internationally recognised best practice has been followed;
•scope of the scheme – how many issues are covered; is it fully holistic (using the British Standard BS 8902:2009 as the framework for what those issues should be); •the openness and transparency of the scheme.
These have been used to carry out a detailed review of each scheme, and the findings will be used to determine the contribution that materials covered by each scheme can make to a BREEAM assessment of a building or infrastructure project. Yates explains the importance of the transparency aspect of the criteria: “If you’ve got an open and transparent system with representative stakeholders then people ask awkward questions, and you don’t get away with whitewashing anything.” Yates says that this represents a “positive, constructive”
endeavor in partnership with the scheme operators, and it has taken several iterations to get to the current review stage which will produce a new BREEAM Guidance Note used for all BREEAM assessments moving forward. While he says this is a “line in the sand,” schemes will continue to develop and new schemes will be launched for other materials sectors. They will in due course be able to update BRE on any changes to their schemes and further Guidance Note revisions will take account of these changes. For specifiers, the review should be an important step to
clarify how robust the schemes really are and make clearer whether claims of responsible souring between different material groups can be compared. As well as further highlight- ing the importance of responsible sourcing, it will raise the level of understanding of this increasingly important issue amongst specifiers and constructors, by taking account of the varying processes and standards that lie behind the familiar labels, as a part of the BREEAM assessment process.
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 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108