{"id":126878,"date":"2021-03-12T15:00:09","date_gmt":"2021-03-12T20:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.constructionspecifier.com\/?p=126878"},"modified":"2021-03-15T15:43:51","modified_gmt":"2021-03-15T19:43:51","slug":"the-growing-demand-for-transparency-in-buildings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.constructionspecifier.com\/the-growing-demand-for-transparency-in-buildings\/","title":{"rendered":"The growing demand for transparency in buildings"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Photos<\/a>
Photos \u00a9 Legrand<\/span><\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

by Patrick Ford<\/strong><\/p>\n

As buildings become more complex and connected, the demand for building materials supporting high-performance facilities has also increased. This includes building controls, lighting, electrical and digital infrastructure, audio\/visual (A\/V), and other aspects of the structure.<\/p>\n

A high-performance building<\/a> is one that \u201cintegrates and optimizes all major high-performance building attributes, including energy efficiency, durability, life-cycle performance, and occupant productivity.\u201d At the same time, green building certifications, such as the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, the WELL Building Standard, and the Living Building Challenge (LBC) have pushed all built environment stakeholders, from suppliers and manufacturers to specifiers, architects, and owners, to change the way they make decisions about the materials making up a structure.<\/p>\n

One of these changes has been the push for increased transparency into the environmental and health impacts of materials, and also the drive for manufacturers to optimize their chemical and sustainability profiles. To date, these demands have sometimes overlooked materials in the categories referenced above, either due to their complexity or placement in the building. However, the case for seeking transparency documentation and proof of optimization for these technologies is evident more so today than ever before. This highlights the importance of ensuring the selection of materials that enable increased building functionality, flexibility, and connectivity includes consideration of the environmental and material health attributes.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/a>
The demand for high-performance building controls, lighting, electrical, and digital infrastructure is rising.<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Environmental and material health impact of building materials<\/strong><\/p>\n

From an environmental impact standpoint, the demand has been driven by the desire to better understand the embodied carbon of materials going into buildings. According to the Carbon Action Network (materialsCAN), embodied carbon is defined as \u201cthe carbon dioxide [CO2<\/sub>] emitted during the extraction, manufacture, and transport of building materials.\u201d Between now and 2050, Architecture 2030 (a nonprofit that is advocating for sustainable and carbon-neutral planning and design in the built environment) estimates that \u201cembodied carbon will be responsible for almost half of new construction emissions (49 percent).\u201d Unlike operational carbon (i.e.<\/em> the carbon emitted from heating\/cooling, lighting, and other activities while the building is in use), embodied carbon cannot be reduced once the material is installed. This change, coupled with the fact the embodied carbon from building materials<\/a> and construction makes up approximately 11 percent of annual global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, heightens the importance of reducing the carbon intensity of buildings.<\/p>\n

Turning to material health, in their 2018 report, \u201cPrescription for Healthier Building Materials: A Design and Implementation Protocol,\u201d the American Institute of Architects<\/a> (AIA) cites several research studies that point to growing concerns about the amount of time people spend indoors (90 percent) and the prolonged exposure to chemicals\u2014some of which are known to be hazardous to humans and the environment\u2014found in building materials. This concern has precipitated the need for all construction stakeholders to not only better understand the material makeup and health impact of building products, but also to look for viable substitutes or designs that avoid chemicals of concerns altogether.<\/p>\n

Several green building rating systems are steering the demand for transparency, such as LEED v4 and v4.1, WELL v2, and LBC v3.1 and v4.0. Manufacturers are also publishing many forms of transparency, including environmental product declarations (EPDs), product environmental profiles (PEPs), health product declarations (HPDs), Declare Labels, Cradle to Cradle (C2C) and Material Health Certificates, and the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Product Lens Certifications.<\/p>\n

LEED<\/strong><\/p>\n

Administered by the United States Green Building Council<\/a> (USGBC), LEED is considered to be \u201cthe most widely used green building rating system in the world.\u201d There are options for LEED certification<\/a> for nearly all building types, and the focus of the rating system is on creating \u201chealthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings.\u201d There are currently three active versions of LEED: v3 (2009), v4, and v4.1, but this article focuses only on the last two.<\/p>\n

\"Green<\/a>
Green building certifications are to changing the way industry professionals make decisions about products and materials that make up their buildings.<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

LEED v4<\/em><\/p>\n

In LEED v4, the two main credits focus on product transparency\u2014Building Product Disclosure and Optimization (BPDO) \u2013 Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) and BPDO \u2013 Material Ingredients. Although multiple choices are available for these credits, this section focuses only on the first option for both, since, according to Nadav Malin, president of independent consultancy BuildingGreen<\/a>, the others are unachievable at this time for most project teams. There is also one additional BPDO credit within LEED\u2014Sourcing of Raw Materials. More information on this credit can be found on the USGBC website.<\/p>\n

LEED v4 BPDO \u2013 EPDs<\/strong><\/p>\n

Within BPDO \u2013 EPDs, the first option is to use at least 20 permanently installed products, sourced from at least five different manufacturers with environmental transparency documentation. Acceptable forms of documentation include life-cycle assessments (LCAs), industry-wide EPDs, and product-specific type III EPDs. However, each form can count as a different number of equivalent products, ranging from one-quarter of a product for LCAs to one whole product for product-specific type III EPDs. There is also an option to utilize PEPs, which are EPDs for the electric, electronic, and heating and cooling industries. When externally verified, PEPs count as one product, and when internally verified, counts as three-quarters of a product. In practice, this means that design professionals can select different forms of documentation from multiple types, as long as they total 20 equivalent products (i.e.<\/em> two industry-wide EPDs would be needed to earn credit for one product).<\/p>\n

LEED v4 BPDO \u2013 Material Ingredients<\/strong><\/p>\n

Turning to the LEED v4 BPDO \u2013 Material Ingredients credit, the first option is to use at least 20 permanently installed products, sourced from at least five different manufacturers, with their chemical inventory disclosed down to at least 0.1 percent (1000 ppm). Acceptable forms of documentation include a manufacturer inventory, HPD, C2C certification, C2C Material Health Certificate, Declare Label, the American National Standards Institute\/Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association (ANSI\/BIFMA) e3, Furniture Sustainability Standard<\/em>, UL Product Lens Certification, and Facts \u2013 NSF\/ANSI 336, Sustainability Assessment for Commercial Furnishings Fabric<\/em>.<\/p>\n

When v4 was first developed, the intention of including these credits was to incentivize the selection of products with transparency documentation. However, their acceptance by project teams has been low when compared to other credits. This is likely due to two factors, confusion regarding the types of forms available and the perception EPDs and material transparency documentation are hard to find. USGBC has addressed the first factor in LEED v4.1, which will be discussed next, and the second factor will be addressed later in the article.<\/p>\n

LEED v4.1<\/em><\/p>\n

According to USGBC, LEED v4.1\u2014released as a beta version in early 2019\u2014is \u201cfocused on the implementation, applicability, and agility of LEED,\u201d and has the following goals:<\/p>\n