The accusation could be levelled we’ve been complacent on carbon

To answer this we need to find out what we’ve managed so far. In 2007, our industry and government came together within the Strategic Forum for Construction where we committed to a four-year 15% carbon reduction target. But we needed to know how to get there so a group of us, which I chaired, came together as the “Carbon” working group, later to become part of the Green Construction Board’s Greening the Industry Group.

At first we were in unchartered territory so we had to agree the scope of what the target should cover, define construction processes and associated transport, and agree the methodology to create a baseline, from which we could assess future performance. Based on a first assessment, (which covered only England), we went on to identify sources of emissions for the industry so that we could try to meet any target, let alone 15%.

We have now reported our 2012 assessment and, disappointingly, instead of meeting the 15% target, we have only managed a 6% reduction. This is because over the period our emissions as an industry actually decreased by 6%, so when you take into account that the construction industry’s output fell 9% in the same period, we actually have seen a 2% increase, so our performance has worsened.

I should qualify this with some good news. As an industry we achieved big carbon reductions in freight logistics (down 17%), offsite and modular assembly (14%) and the biggest saving of all was in business travel which fell by a third. However, “onsite construction” activities, which account for over 40% of total emissions, rose by 13%. 

I can’t deny this is a real worry, particularly when you consider all parts of the supply chain should be seeking to improve operational excellence and drive down costs. These figures tell a story that as an industry we are putting too little effort into energy inefficiency in plant, welfare accommodation and temporary power generation. All the more disappointing as there are clear quick wins in this area and the business case for energy efficiency and cost savings makes clear sense.

But there are some grounds for optimism, despite this bad news. First, I do think we have significantly improved measurement and reporting of our carbon emissions. Wearing my Balfour Beatty hat I can say that Tier 1 and 2 contractors do recognise the importance of an evidence-based approach in winning work and demonstrating to customers that we are managing our impacts responsibly. Indeed this could be the biggest factor. If you compare both the 2008 assessment with the 2012 assessment they have one thing in common: a low level of data samples, specifically for individual projects from companies. Some major contractors, clients and industry bodies like CECA did send in data.

But the reality is we have only got a small proportion [of emissions data]. This reflects a reluctance to disclose data in our industry and it is an ongoing area of concern, especially as the amount and quality of data we received for the 2012 assessment has decreased since 2008, heightening the margin for error.

And accurate and reliable data is crucial. If, as an industry, and I’m talking about everyone from biggest to the smallest players, we don’t genuinely believe we can improve our sharing of sustainability data, then our ability to meet the government’s Construction 2025 target has to be severely in doubt. Now, more than ever, we need to drive operational excellence and cut our carbon using the ideas generated by the Green Construction Board (GCB). As Tier 1 suppliers we have an active group of clients and supply chain achieving some amazing results in producing low carbon, affordable infrastructure.

However, it requires leadership at all levels to drive the changes required starting at the top with government as well as other clients, who need to make sure their procurement strategies drive and reward behaviours and outcomes.

Then, as an industry, we can renew our efforts. I’m pleased that the 28 contracting members of UKCG, including Balfour Beatty, have made environment commitments which have been signed by their boards which will include regular reporting of carbon emissions and other environment impacts. Now this needs to be enforced and happen, and we will certainly be doing this at Balfour Beatty.

Aside from what the big players are doing, our supply chain is making great efforts in this area. They are investing in cutting out both waste and energy, providing clear evidence of how their products are more sustainable, often with the help of their trade associations and their various sustainability strategies. And the Supply Chain Sustainability School, set up in 2012, is doing great work in our supply chain to improve their sustainability performance through specialist training. The school now has more than 7,000 members, including, for the first time this year, some large customers such as National Grid and Grosvenor.

Our clients too are on to the agenda. Led by the likes of the Highways Agency, Network Rail and United Utilities, sustainability is now being costed and planned into tenders right the way through the cycle of design, construction, operation and maintenance of assets, and it is at this planning stage that the most can be done to reduce carbon emissions.

Finally, let’s not underestimate the public who, through their reaction to the IPPCC report shown through polls such as the recent Populus poll commissioned by DECC, are clearly expecting more action to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

The first term report isn’t good and the accusation could be levelled that we have been complacent, especially in the light of the IPCC’s latest report referred to at the beginning of this article. But we are making progress and now we must get on in learning and applying our lessons, to actually lower our carbon emissions in real-terms. Before, as the IPCC says, it’s too late.