I find it amazing how many people are willing to spend not just marketing dollars, but construction and design dollars, on a piece of paper that says that they thought about the environment when they built out their space. Build two buildings exactly the same but get one LEED certified and you will likely be paying a 5% premium for that seal and certificate. You are no more green or efficient than the other building. You haven’t changed your impact on the environment. You simply funneled some money to a bunch of specialist validation firms and a not-for-profit (usgbc.org).
The mission and goal is good but it’s becoming the new ISO certification. Something you get because you have to, not because you need it or it really differentiates you. Sometimes it may actually be moving you towards less efficiency and innovation by forcing a rigid way of thinking about sustainability on you.
Why can’t you earn sustainability points for a work-from-home program that reduces your square feet occupied by 30%? That makes more of a sustainable impact than any number of building improvements. Where are the market acclaims when you run a commute study and reduce the miles driven by your employees by 10% by relocating your office to a more optimal location? If it was really about sustainability these are the things that would be encouraged – not the small, incremental steps that are construction focused. Especially as we see local codes enforcing greater and greater levels of building efficiency. Why can’t you get green points for upgrading an old building to simply increase utility efficiency by 15% even though it doesn’t get to “modern” standards? 15% should be 15%. Doing good is what’s important.
So when you’re in the market and thinking green, focus on what’s real. A piece of paper and a plaque from the USGBC makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside but doesn’t mean much anymore. It doesn’t mean that you are making the REAL choices that impact the environment.