UK Green Building Company - news

back to homepage

UKGBC Scoping Study Reveals Problems Ahead

A scoping study put together by Cranfield University, has probed the future of the UK Green Building Council, revealing some possible problems. Because the UK has a broad range of organisations already monitoring and regulating green building standards and practices, the UKGBC faces an uphill struggle to find its place among the other organisations. One of the largest problems is which environmental assessment tool to use. 

When the role of the UKGBC is developed they will probably need an assessment tool. The scoping study recommends that there are no barriers to the new GBC to take on an alternative to the BRE's BREEAM or Ecohomes assessment methods, such the American LEED or Australian Green Star, (which are largely based on BREEAM anyway). Jules Saunderson, co-author of the report, says ‘Whatever system the UK-GBC decided to go with, an arrangement would need to be worked out with the organisation that controls that system…so the relationship between BREEAM and any UK-GBC would have to be negotiated with [the] Sustainability Board.’ It may involve payments for the rights to use it though, putting a greater strain on the financial position.

And the financial position could be problematic also. Instead of larger trade groups buying membership for their members on mass, the report says ‘It is clearly not in the interests of a UKGBC to allow thousands of potential paying customers to be represented by proxy through their membership to a Trade Association,’ (p. 9). The potential buyers of membership for the new UKGBC is not a clearly defined area in this report. Its financial projections are extremely vague, leading me to presume that the current trade associations present a clear threat to the viability of the UKGBC. The report ‘…expressed concern at the “plethora of bodies in the field, and [recommended] that these should be reviewed and simplified”, implying that the UKGBC should automatically take the lead role among the existing organisations; something which could upset the other groups.

All in all the report is vague in parts and presumptuous in others, leading me to think that the scoping study, wasn’t in depth enough to really give a full picture of what is being asked. I also think that they have presented the basis of argument to support the idea that a UKGBC isn’t needed. It does go on to say that ‘Strategic alliances need to be formed “between members, key industry stake holders, research and technology organisations and government at national and local level”’ (UK GBC 2004; p.3).

In summary it appears a UKGBC will initially struggle to find a role for itself. It will need a dedicated and determined team to make it a success. An alternative maybe the expansion of existing organisations, otherwise the UKGBC is in danger of repeating work already being done and failing to achieve the financial stability it needs.

back to homepage