As energy use continues to increase, so has interest, research and adoption of green buildings and materials. And while many studies (e.g., Mate 2006, Gale 2011, Hayles 2015) show that most designers agree that sustainable design is the future (90% of those
surveyed in the 2006 Mate study), a substantial number of them do not work with GBRS or sustainable materials (less than half (45%) in the Mate (2006) study had value systems that were in keeping with this statement). Further, in a 2011 study of architects, facility managers, and interior designers, Gale observed that 90% of practitioners interviewed in her study had no to limited understanding of certification programs, even though 81% stated they had moderate to good understanding of environmental design strategies (Gale 2011). In a review of current metrics in green buildings, Marjaba & Chidiac (2016) state that not only do LEED and BREEAM not address all areas of sustainability, they also have yet to produce metrics that are repeatable, reproducible, and a true reflection of the building performance. What manufacturers, architects, designers and purchasers require is objective and unbiased environmental information presented in a manner that eases comparisons between similar products (Underwriters Laboratories Inc. 1a 2011).
For many professionals designing built environments, it is a challenge to make a strong connection between material choices and the impacts they may have on the
environment. It may be difficult to fully understand “…a material with high embodied energy and the resulting environmental degradation created by the mountain top mining of coal, the production of greenhouse gases, and release of toxic mercury.” (Steig 2006). The environmental burdens resulting from design and material choices are large and broad, leading to dozens of considerations architects and designers must make, which are echoed in the dozens of different labels, certifications and databased currently available.
A primary issue in ecolabels related to environmental performance is validity. Kang & Geurin (2009) found that fast and easy access to material data was considered an important factor in material specification and those surveyed were found to rely heavily on manufacturers’ literature because of its availability. It has already been established that manufacturers are looking to sell product, so the information they provide may be inaccurate, make false claims, or promise environmental benefits which do not exist (Golden et al. 2010). This is seen with the C2C proprietary clause: companies seeking C2C product certification may choose not to disclose all of the materials or ingredients
22
of a product if they are proprietary. This goes against the whole idea of transparency and disclosure that is central to making informed material choices. Standards in
certification length is also an issue with ecolabels: once a product is certified, there is no standard for the length of time the manufacturer is allowed to display the label before reassessment. In the single-attribute category, 45% of labels offer certification that lasts one to two years, 16% of labels last less than one year, and 14% last forever (Golden et al. 2010).
In 2009, Kang et al. investigated the current state of environmentally sustainable interior design through an online survey of American Society of Interior Designers, with 305 completed results. The findings of this study revealed that sustainable interior materials were less frequently applied components of environmentally sustainable interior design than indoor environment quality. It also appeared that interior designers were not aware of environmental issues related to the entire life cycle of interior materials. Two of the processes available for architects and interior designers to address product lifecycle are the C2C certification system and LCAs. Challenges in the adoptability of C2C and LCA approaches are presented in the study Designing Cradle-to-Cradle Products: A Reality Check (Bakker et al. 2015). The conclusions of this study are that LCA and C2C can and should be used as complementary tools. C2C is an objective method (physical
measurements with repeatable results), but it is deficient in its assessment of global warming potential and it omits certain life cycle phases that are included in an LCA (such as the energy consumption of products) (Bakker et al. 2010). Braungart et al (2007) argue issue of life cycle assessment (LCA) is not ignored by the C2C Institute, rather, the process of C2C does not fit into the LCA approach; “…is an unsuitable approach for generating eco-effective products and processes because its linear nature does not allow for optimization in the context of cradle-to-cradle design.” However, it has been suggested that energy consumption during use is responsible for most of the life-cycle impacts of energy-related products (Llorach-Massana et. al. 2015), making the overall environmental preference of the C2C label questionable.
In the Llorach-Massana et al. (2015) study, the authors examined products which had both C2C certification and a completed LCA report. LCA results were analyzed to see if the stages with the highest environmental impact from each product category are the same that C2C requirements address: raw materials and end of life. The two major findings from this research reiterate that the C2C approach does not support a full life- cycle approach, thus a C2C certification do not always reflect the life-cycle distribution of environmental impacts for products. The second conclusion is that there is a direct relationship between energy consumption during use and the increase of the global environmental impact for almost all impact categories. C2C certification, which does not take into account energy intensity, may not be appropriate for products with high energy intensity. In another study analyzing the C2C approach, the authors looked to The Netherlands, as that country began to implement the C2C approach to reduce the environmental impact of buildings in 2008. However, many of the professionals
attempting to implement the theory found complex difficulties in adopting the C2C suggesting the concepts and principles are hard to grasp and implement (van Dijk et al., 2014). Many companies involved in the building industry find C2C quite intangible and have difficulties putting it into practice due primarily to the complexity of building
projects, complexities which vary from buildings to interiors. Mentioned in Section 2.3 by Bribián et al. 2011 and Yeheyis et al. 2013 often building structures and interior materials are fastened in a way that does not make reuse or recycling a feasible option
(especially for interior materials who durability does not make reuse possible).
Golden et al., (2010) recognize the limitations of LCA reports, stating, “Labels that cut across the product life cycle to include the consumer use phase make a lot of
assumptions about how consumers will use the product, so the environmental impact assessment of the product is, at best, a guess.” Furthermore, life- cycle information is frequently unavailable, and LCA tools have elicited criticism for not adequately accounting for chemical hazards (Henrik et al. 2007, Niederl-Schmidinger & Narodoslawsky 2008). Looking to navigate through a very complex assessment, designers commonly use streamlined LCA (with single-score assessments), as these require little sustainability expertise and can be executed relatively quickly. The single
24
score gives an (aggregate) indication of the product’s environmental impacts (Bakker et al., 2010).
Buildings, and the materials in them, are complex and multi-faceted, with the end-of-life phase being particularly challenging to model due to the high uncertainty of processes that will occur in the future (Silvestre et al. 2014). However, understanding this end-of-life phase is essential in order to have a complete LCA understanding of the building.
Silvestre et al. (2014)conclude that the majority of EPDs only provide one end-of-life scenario and that, despite being informative, they should be complemented by at least one more scenario, preferably concerned with recycling (Silvestre et al., 2014). A 2012 study by Hossaini & Hewage explores the emergy (the energy of one kind (usually solar energy) that is used, directly or indirectly, to make a product or service)) in relationship to LCA and LEED systems. The study scope narrows down to the rapidly renewable materials credits in LEED and includes bamboo and linoleum floor materials as study materials. The results show that the rapidly renewable materials, which can be worth credits within LEED, should not be chosen blindly without considering their broader overall environmental impacts (i.e., transportation and material manufacturing may have higher impacts in a renewable material, compared to a non-renewable material). They also surmise that the durability of material (life time) is an essential element of
sustainability, since a longer building life span corresponds to lower annual energy inflow for material manufacturing stage (Hossaini & Hewage 2012).
Although there is debate on the actual costs of completing green building rating certifications, as evidenced in Section 3.5, cost is still very much perceived to be a
barrier to green design and buildings. In the 2014 study done by Matisoff et al., engineers stated that LEED has reduced costs for higher levels of certification by driving the
market, changing norms, and making it easier to pursue certain credits (Matisoff et al. 2014). Much of the additional expense of building green comes from costs associated with the third-party verification process (Mills et al. 2004, D'Antonio 2007, Morris &
Matthiessen 2007), a finding that bodes well for those working to see more green interior materials, in that the actual materials themselves do not necessarily cost more.
It is worthwhile to address the other positive attributes of green buildings, outside of strictly environmental impacts, including capital expenditures. Advocates justify green building on operating cost reductions in water, wastewater, and energy expenditures (hard cost benefits), and improved performance of building occupants (soft cost
benefits) (Hoffman & Henn 2008). This improved performance, health, and happiness of building occupants has been documented in numerous studies (e.g., Hoffman & Henn 2008 Kang & Guerin 2009). Healthy indoor environments can increase employee health, which, in turn, can increase their productivity. This has a tremendous effect on overall employer costs, as workers are the largest expense for most companies (Kang & Guerin, 2009): one study saw an increase in occupant performance in green buildings by 6% - 26% (Hoffman & Henn, 2008). Also, rental and sales premiums tend to increase with GBRS certification (Eichholtz et al. 2010b).