Voluntary building classification systems and certificates dealing with construction sustainability and environmental impact have become common as good tools for self-regulation and evaluation of different impact categories. At their best, they promote, among other things, the reduction of the environmental impact of construction, the circular economy and material efficiency, as well as health. Setting even ambitious goals, they also have their place in information control as a supplement and replacement for slowly progressing regulatory control.
However, the problem with environmental classifications has been the confusion of criteria and the lack of uniformity, i.e. harmonization, of evaluation methods. The most recent example is the proposal for criteria for the Swan Label for buildings that was in the statement. The criteria have already been familiar to the real estate and construction sector since their first version. The construction industry RT and its members provided extensive comments and suggestions for changes and improvements already in 2018, as they do now, in a statement filed in March.
The criteria intended to be used in Finland should refer to the standards established by us and preferably to European standards as well. All eco-labels should strive towards this harmonization. In addition, the criteria should make use of long-standing, generally accepted national evaluation methods. Examples of these are the life cycle assessment of buildings and the S1 indoor climate classification and the related M1 emission classification of construction products, which are based on EN standards. This avoids the presentation and use of overlapping, even contradictory assessments and methods in the assessment of the same impact categories.
In environmental classifications, we often come across criteria for which no scientific basis and transparent justifications have been presented. The requirements may be completely missing the connection to the presented positive environmental effects. For example, in the proposal currently in the opinion, additional points are not awarded for the use of low-carbon concrete and steel, but they are still earned for wood construction. The same problem can be seen in the additional scoring of certain energy forms and systems.
However, the criteria simultaneously introduce a life-cycle carbon footprint assessment, the goal of which is of everyone improving the life-cycle environmental performance of materials, products and energy systems and their sub-assemblies and reducing environmental impacts. This should happen without sub-optimization, which is specifically represented by favoring individual materials and technologies. The criteria for the Joutsenmarki should also be material and technology neutral in nature.
In the future, environmental labels should focus on demonstrating real benefits on transparent grounds. In cases of doubt, additional clarifications should be made to support the criteria. The different views and interpretations of the other Nordic countries should not be single-mindedly relied upon.
The most blatant example in the Joutsenmarki criteria is the ban on the use of copper water pipes. There are no actual health or environmental grounds for it, which was unequivocally shown by the investigation by the Finnish Environment Agency, funded by TEM. The amount of copper dissolved from the pipes was found to be so low that its effects on health and the aquatic environment cannot be considered generally significant and harmful. In the name of qualitative credibility alone, the prohibition requirement in question should be removed at least from the Swan Mark criteria for buildings in Finland.
The different environmental classifications have also arisen in the criteria development of the EU taxonomy, i.e. the sustainable finance classification system. It has only approved the first delegated act (the so-called climate package) in December 2021. The national applicability and interpretation of the taxonomy criteria is still in progress, so claims about the taxonomic coverage of the environmental classifications' own criteria are rather bold and questionable.
This also applies to the criteria for the Swan Mark. If references to coverage are used, in relation to the EU taxonomy, it should be stated more precisely which items meet the environmental classification criteria and which do not, as well as where they possibly exceed the requirements of the EU taxonomy.
In order to be easily applicable in practice, environmental labels must, in addition to the unification goals presented above, also aim for light reporting. This can be achieved, for example, by utilizing the results of various aspects of construction sustainability and the results of metrics developed to improve quality. In this way, unnecessary workload and bureaucracy are avoided and it is possible to produce comparable results for evaluations. Environmental labels with their ambitious criteria and goals certainly defend their place, but the common goal should be the criteria's realism and general acceptability at the same time. A more open dialogue is needed between those who develop the criteria and those who implement them in practical projects. This is also what the statement of Rakennusteollisuus RT and its members aim for.
Pekka Vuorinen
environment and energy director
Confederation of Finnish Construction Industries (CFCI)
Construction Industry RT's statement on Joutsenmerki's criterion proposal
New buildings: Residential buildings, educational buildings and office buildings
Write a comment