MaSC: managing sustainable companies

Transcription

1 Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering Sustainability 157 March 2004 Issue ES1 Pages 15^21 Paper Received 26/10/2003 Accepted 19/12/2003 Keywords: environment/management Ruth Woodall Senior Consultant, Centre for Sustainable Construction, Building Research Establishment, Watford, UK Ian Cooper Partner, Eclipse Research Consultants, Cambridge, UK David Crowhurst Director, Centre for Sustainable Construction, Building Research Establishment, Watford, UK Mindy Hadi Senior Consultant, Centre for Sustainable Construction, Building Research Establishment, Watford, UK Steve Platt Chairman, Cambridge Architectural Research Ltd, Cambridge, UK MaSC: managing sustainable companies R. Woodall, I. Cooper, D. Crowhurst, M. Hadi and S. Platt The Department of Trade and Industry, under its Partners in Innovation programme, has sponsored the development of a set of self-assessment tools called MaSC (Managing Sustainable Companies) for helping organisations to assess their current progress in introducing sustainable practices and to plan what steps they need to take next to improve their performance. This paper describes the MaSC tools and reports their use by over 300 firms from across the demand and supply sides of the construction industry, through a series of industry workshops. The paper reports the average organisational profile of these organisations against the six key management areas measured by the MaSC matrix: strategy, responsibility, planning,, implementation and auditing. It also records what firms saw as the key external and drivers for provoking their organisations to adopt and develop more sustainable practices and the support they would need to implement change effectively. These findings are compared with the progress made using the wider set of MaSC tools, over an initial six-month period, by six test-bed organisations with whom the MaSC team worked to develop and evaluate the self-assessment tools. These organisations ranged from very large multi-national corporations to small companies and spanned both the demand and supply sides of construction. 1. SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSTRUCTION In the UK, sustainable construction is still primarily a policy imperative driven by the public sector (central and local government) rather than a market requirement demanded by private sector clients. The principles underlying this policy imperative were first set out explicitly by the UK Government in as. maintaining high and stable levels of economic growth and employment. prudent use of natural resources. effective protection of the environment. social progress that meets the needs of everyone. These principles were directly applied by the UK Government to construction in 2000, 2 to mean. being more profitable and more competitive. delivering buildings and structures that provide greater satisfaction, well-being and value to customers and users. respecting and treating its stakeholders more fairly. enhancing and better protecting the natural environment. minimising its impact on the consumption of energy and natural resources. Addressing these issues, which are often referred to as the triple bottom line of environmental, economic and social sustainability, can mean better, more successful. There is growing awareness that es that adopt sustainable policies can benefit from increased opportunities and improvements to bottom line performance. 3 For example, government is the single largest UK construction client, responsible for 40% of UK construction output, and has set sustainability targets for all public sector construction. 4 Suppliers and contractors must meet these sustainability requirements in order to win work. The government has also set out a Sustainable Communities plan, 5 which sustainable construction must play its part in delivering. Private sector construction clients are also starting to require more sustainable construction an example of one such client is discussed further below. However, many organisations find it difficult to know how to start introducing more sustainable practices, and which aspects to concentrate on first. When asked to identify what sustainability means for their companies, delegates at a series of recent workshops named a diverse range of areas including the following. 6 Economic. economic viability of the company. sustaining brand/gaining market edge. increasing profit through efficiency. Environmental. waste minimisation and recycling. energy efficiency. green transport. Social. empowering staff Engineering Sustainability 157 Issue ES1 MaSC: managing sustainable companies Woodall et al. 15

2 . generating long-term relations with clients.. improved working environment. Different organisations have widely varying sustainability issues to address. MaSC (Managing Sustainable Companies) has been developed in response to this, to help es to manage the introduction and development of more sustainable practices as appropriate to their. Starting from their current situation, MaSC helps es to incorporate sustainability into their core. MaSC treats the introduction and development of more sustainable practices in the same manner as any other continuous improvement initiative such as partnering, lean construction or risk management, that organisations may have tackled over the past decade. The intention here is to lessen the mystique that surrounds sustainability by sequencing it into a series of small steps, each of which can be easily achieved. MaSC addresses similar management issues to ISO (environmental management system) and ISO (quality management system), but it does not involve formal certification, so tends to be less onerous. It allows es to focus on areas that are likely to bring the greatest benefits to them, and would help them to decide whether to pursue formal systems such as ISO and ISO Because MaSC addresses sustainability as a whole rather than concentrating on isolated elements of it, a wide range of potential benefits can be opened up to es that use it. 2. HOW WAS MaSC DEVELOPED? MaSC was developed collaboratively by the Centre for Sustainable Construction at the Building Research Establishment, Cambridge Architectural Research Ltd and Eclipse Research Consultants. The funding for the development of MaSC was provided by the Department of Trade and Industry Partners in Innovation programme. MaSC was originally developed and tested with a range of es involved in the construction process, from clients through to designers, consultants and contractors (see below). Despite its construction provenance however, MaSC is made up of a set of generic tools that can be applied to organisations of any size and in any sector of the economy. 3. WHAT IS MaSC? MaSC is a set of simple self-assessment tools for helping managers to introduce and develop more sustainable practices in their organisations. MaSC has two principal tools MaSC matrix The MaSC matrix is shown in Fig. 1. Filling in the matrix, produces an organisational profile that provides a snapshot of the current progress of a against each of the six column headings of the matrix. These headings identify the key management areas that need to be addressed in order to make practices more sustainable. The columns are considered in the context of sustainability, namely the economic, environmental and social impacts. In addition to reviewing current progress on the three strands of sustainability, the matrix is also used to help to identify the progress the wants to achieve over a 12 month period (or longer/shorter as appropriate) and set targets and benchmark performance at regular intervals on an on-going basis. The matrix is completed by considering each of the six columns in turn, drawing a cross in the box that most accurately reflects the current position of the, and joining the crosses to produce an organisational profile. The rows represent increasing levels of sophistication in dealing with each issue, so moving up the matrix signifies progress in each of these areas. Ideally progress is made in a balanced way, moving forward evenly against each of the columns on the matrix rather than progressing rapidly in one area while not paying attention to any of the others. However, the columns are arranged chronologically, so it would not be unusual for progress to be made first in the left-hand columns, with those on the right being developed slightly later One-page plan The second tool is the MaSC one-page plan (see Fig. 2). This is completed during a strategic review day, held to help a to accelerate its understanding of what it needs to do to achieve the improvements it is seeking. The one page plan records how performance is to be improved and is based around a brainstorming exercise. The first step in completing it is to identify the current position of the in terms of environmental, economic and social sustainability (top lefthand corner of the plan). Next, the opportunities that are open to the to make progress in these areas are identified, followed by the threats that are likely to prevent it from doing so. A proposed set of actions is then agreed on, that the can take immediately to make its performance more sustainable. Next, responsibilities for implementing these changes are allocated. The strengths and weaknesses associated with the proposed actions are identified, and finally, as a result of the above discussions, a target position that the wants to reach in 12 months time is developed. During the strategic review day, a one-page plan is completed for each column in the matrix. At the end of the review, all of the day s decision-making is summarised into a single one-page plan (as illustrated in Fig. 2) which serves as a clear record and reference point, and which can be useful for obtaining/ maintaining commitment at board level. Getting key individuals from across the organization together to focus on sustainability in a structured way proves to be a very effective means of ensuring engagement across the organization and rapidly moving the agenda forward. 4. BENCHMARKING CURRENT PROGRESS ON SUSTAINABILITY IN UK CONSTRUCTION With sponsorship from the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB), MaSC was presented at a series of five regional briefings to managing directors (MDs) of construction firms, (architects, engineers, contractors, and suppliers) held in late 2002 and early 2003 to raise awareness of sustainability as a senior management issue. In addition, MaSC has subsequently been presented at a range of other seminars for construction clients, planning authorities and staff responsible for implementing more sustainable practices in construction firms. 16 Engineering Sustainability 157 Issue ES1 MaSC: managing sustainable companies Woodall et al.

3 Strategy Responsibility Planning Communication Implementation Auditing 5 Published policy with targets, reviews and active commitment Fully integrated into general management Outcomes regualarly reviewed against annual plan and external Communication Procedures and promoted and updated Company-wide audit scheme linked to review of annual plan 4 Internal statement with some targets Clear delegation and accountability throughout the Communication with routine All aspects of audited with some 3 Written statement without targets Delegated responsibility but authority unclear in some parts of the Piecemeal without Most aspects of audited with some 2 Informal guidelines Some informal support Ad-hoc planning in some parts of the Ad-hoc awareness raising Informal ad-hoc Ad-hoc audits with little 1 No written policy No one responsible No intergration into planning No awareness or dialogue Compliance with regulated issues only No management audits of performance Fig. 1. MaSC matrix Delegates at all of the above seminars were asked to draw the current organisational profile for their firms using the MaSC matrix; Fig. 3 shows the average profile from these groups. Of course, averages hide wide variations, and there are notable differences between average profiles from different organisation types, with clients and regulators generally currently seeing themselves as being more advanced at making their practices more sustainable than the construction firms (who services they seek or control) do. At the CITB briefings, MDs were asked to identify what they saw as the most significant drivers currently capable of promoting the adoption of sustainable practices in their organisations. Fig. 4 presents the drivers, which relate to environmental, economic and social benefits, highlighted by the 145 MDs who attended the five briefings. MDs see legislation as the primary driver, but although a policy imperative, direct legislation on sustainability is not imminent. Central government wants the transition to sustainable production and consumption to be delivered by the market, to occur as the result of voluntary activities, not mandatory impositions. Increased profitability is the next most frequent driver, indicating that firms want sustainability to be -led by delivering immediate and direct financial benefits. Next comes another market-based issue client demand, particularly in the form of pre-qualification questionnaires for applying for preferred supplier status, closely followed by long-term survival. These are then followed by a swathe of drivers, matters that firms could already be addressing without necessarily having signed up to the broader sustainability agenda of the triple bottom line, such as reducing risk, cutting waste, enhancing reputation, winning market share and keeping up with competitors. Drivers specifically associated with social sustainability, empowering staff and fostering community relations, are ranked lowest. Yet MaSC experience with test-bed companies suggests organisations driven by and social aspirations are likely to make more progress and have a higher profile on sustainability than those driven solely by external economic or environmental considerations. Other sources 9 have also recognised that those companies that are most serious about corporate social responsibility, which goes hand-in-hand with achieving more sustainable practices, are increasingly concentrating Engineering Sustainability 157 Issue ES1 MaSC: managing sustainable companies Woodall et al. 17

4 Current position Environmental policy in place, but need to raise awareness of content within company. Current health and safety training includes aspects of Turnover, profit and completion on time are measured and recorded. KPIs have been used in work for British Airport Authority for the last five years. Have purchased a gas-powered mini-bus for their work at Gatwick. Are trialing other alternative fuel vehicles. The proportion of pre-qualification tender forms which are received that include environmental questions are increasing. Target position Produce selected environmental and social indicators which should then be measured, recorded and used to set targets for performance. Add sustainability as an area to cover in management review meetings Report externally on performance in terms of sustainability and produce marketing material to highlight engagement in Review purchasing against sustainability criteria. Opportunities Reduced costs through waste management. Increased competitiveness. Market opportunity. Strengths Existing systems can be built on to incorporate Threats Reduced turnover/company image if fail to meet targets set. Possible increased costs. Much of sustainable construction is felt to be outside D&B s control designers and clients have more inpact. Weaknesses Financial gain from engagement in sustainability is yet to be demonstrated. Resistance to change from clients and within the. Increased administration. Pressure of work takes priority over Proposed actions Set up a sustainability working party Increase degree of monthly reporting to the board on environmental and social issues. Amend environmental policy to include areas of sustainability that are not currently included. Produce environmental and social indicators, which should then be measured, recorded and targets for improvement set. Adopt monthly reporting form for contracts managers to complete to include Review purchasing against sustainability criteria. Responsibility Managing Director amend monthly reporting form for contracts managers to include Contracts managers report monthly on sustainability using amended reporting form. Sustainability working party produce environmental and social indicators; produce submission document/statement of intent on sustainability; produce short, glossy sustainability statement. Health and Safety rep/working party rep report monthly on sustainability to the board. Fig. 2. Summary one-page plan (as completed by Dyer and Butler, a small civil engineering contractor) their efforts towards their workforce, as opposed to more external or market-based issues, and that this is likely to grow in importance within these companies. Delegates who attended a second series of CITB-funded seminars for those tasked with implementing more sustainable practices into organisations across the construction sector were asked to identify the support they would need in order to introduce more sustainable practices most effectively. Fig. 5 shows the support that was identified as being required by the 35 people that took part in the exercise. The most important form of support needed was senior management commitment; over 90% of delegates considered this to be required. This is not unexpected; it is unlikely that any change in practices could be fully and effectively implemented without this commitment. Staff support was identified as being the second most important, with clear delegation of responsibilities and integration into the planning process, third and fourth respectively. MaSC is a very effective means of engaging staff as well as helping to agree and assign responsibilities. Interestingly, the need for financial resources was ranked lower than the above, in fifth place. 18 Engineering Sustainability 157 Issue ES1 MaSC: managing sustainable companies Woodall et al.

5 Strategy Responsibility Planning Communication Implementation Auditing 5 Published policy with targets, reviews and active commitment Fully intergrated into general management Outcomes regularly reviewed against annual plan interna and external Procedures and promoted and updated Company-wide audit scheme linked to review of annual plan 4 Internal statments without targets Clear delegation and accountability throughout the with routine All aspects of audited with some 3 Written statement without targets Delegated responsibility but authority unclear in some parts of the Piecemeal without Most aspects of audited with some 2 Informal guidelines Some informal support Ad-hoc planning in some part of the Ad-hoc planning in some parts of the Informal ad-hoc Ad-hoc audits with little 1 No written policy No one responsible No integration into planning No awareness or dialogue Compliance with regulated issues only No management auits of performance Fig. 3. Average construction industry matrix profile Primary drivers for promoting sustainability in UK construction (n = 145) Reducing risk Cutting waste Reducing costs Aspiration doing the 'right thing' Top down directive Fostering Community relations Empowering staff Legislation (current or anticipated) Keeping up with competitors Enhancing reputation Market edge winning market share Client demand Long-term survival Increased profitability % of delegates identifying each option as a key driver for sustainability in their organisation Fig. 4. Primary drivers for promoting sustainability in UK construction Engineering Sustainability 157 Issue ES1 MaSC: managing sustainable companies Woodall et al. 19

6 Support needed to introduce more sustainable practices in UK construction (n = 35) % of delegates More information Financial resources Supply chain encouragement Client encouragement Staff support Head of department support Embedding into existing structure Integration into planning process Experienced facilitator Effective working party Clear delegation of responsibilities Strong champion Senior management commitment Fig. 5. Support needed to introduce more sustainable practices in UK Support needed 5. THE PERFORMANCE OF TEST-BED COMPANIES Although the MaSC matrix can be used for between organisations as discussed above, it is primarily intended to encourage discussion within a firm about its own current performance and how this can be improved. The matrix and other MaSC tools were developed and tested with six widely differing companies within the construction industry. (a) Bovis Lend Lease: a large, international contractor. (b) Crispin & Borst: initially a medium-sized contractor subsequently purchased by Vinci, Europe s largest contractor. (c) Dyer & Butler: a small civil engineering contractor. (d) Levitt Bernstein: a medium-sized architectural practice (but small by construction standards). (e) The Peabody Trust: a large social housing provider. ( f ) The WSP group: the third largest engineering consultancy in the UK. In each organisation, a strategic review workshop was undertaken with broadly-based groups of staff, which included senior management. At the beginning of the workshop, participants were asked to agree the organisation s current profile and identify where they thought it should be six months later using the MaSC matrix. At the end of this period, the organisations were revisited and asked to redraw their profiles. Fig. 6 shows the progress that two of the test-bed companies, Peabody Trust and Dyer and Butler, reported they had made in this very short period. Although only six months had elapsed, all six of the test bed organisations made some progress. Peabody Trust made the most progress. It treated sustainability as the central focus of its Before After 5 Fig.6.ReportedprogressofPeabodyTrustandDyerandButlerinsixmonths(-----,PeabodyTrust;öö,DyerandButler) 20 Engineering Sustainability 157 Issue ES1 MaSC: managing sustainable companies Woodall et al.

7 next annual plan and developed a detailed sustainability strategy containing wide ranging and highly aspirational targets. By reduce waste by 50% on sites, offices and estates. improve energy efficiency of stock by 20%. produce clean electricity for 700 homes. substitute cars in fleet by environmentally friendly vehicles. an ecology plan for all estates to maximise plants and wildlife. a social and economic plan for 40% of estates. a community regeneration programme for up to residents. a rolling programme for investing in staff. By a carbon-neutral, zero-waste. Its Chief Executive summed up the benefit of engagement in MaSC to the Trust as, MaSC has shown that, despite the mystique that surrounds it, sustainability is achievable, we leapt a considerable number of months if not years through engaging in the process. The Peabody Trust are a clear example of a construction client that is taking sustainability very seriously. Dyer and Butler, a civil engineering company, also moved forward, and are an illustration that a much smaller company can make real progress in this area. Some of their clients are now starting to ask them to demonstrate their sustainability performance, so moving towards more sustainable practices will help them to win as well as becoming more efficient. Fig. 2 provides a summary of the targets they set themselves at the MaSC review workshop. Since the workshop, they have appointed an enthusiastic health, safety and environment manager who helped them to integrate sustainability across their ; in addition a director was made responsible for sustainability issues. A key reason why both Peabody Trust and Dyer and Butler were as successful as they were in moving towards more sustainable practices is that they had senior management commitment. Both brought their managing director or chief executive to the strategic review workshop. Both also addressed the other key support mechanisms identified in Fig. 5, which helped them embed sustainability into their. 6. CONCLUSIONS Based on the responses of those delegates who attended the MaSC briefings, MDs tend to want sustainability to be immediately -friendly, delivering both increased profitability and reducing costs. Many of the drivers for sustainability that they cite, such as reducing risk, cutting waste or keeping up with competitors, only address economic and environmental Few firms are currently addressing the third component of the triple bottom line, social Yet MaSC experience to date suggests that those that do address all three components because they are driven by aspirations rather than external factors are likely to make more progress and have a higher profile than those prompted by just economic or environmental considerations. Senior management commitment has been identified as a key component in successfully embedding more sustainable practices into organisations; staff support is another key component if it is to be effective, as is clear delegation of responsibilities, both of which MaSC can help companies to achieve. The use of the MaSC matrix for inter-organisational comparisons indicates that, even among the leading edge and early adopters (defined here as those who choose to attend events on sustainability), there is still much progress to be made. Despite the advanced guard of the industry, such construction firms are typically less than half-way on the journey to current best practice. 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Department of Trade and Industry funded the development of MaSC through its Partners in Innovation scheme. The Construction Industry Training Board funded industry workshops to introduce MaSC. REFERENCES 1. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS. A Better Quality of Life: a Strategy for Sustainable Development in the UK. DETR, London DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS. Building a Better Quality of Life: a Strategy for Sustainable Construction. DETR, London CROSSLEY R. Reputation, Risk and Reward: the Business Case for Sustainability in UK Property and Construction. A Report for the Sustainable Construction Task Group SGTG, London, See < for further details. 4. GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION CLIENTS PANEL Achieving Sustainability in Construction Procurement: Sustainability Action Plan. Office of Government Commerce, London OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER. Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future. ODPM, London See < for further details. 7. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTIUTION. Environmental Management System. BSI, 1996, ISO BRITISH STANDARDS INSTIUTION. Quality Management System. BSI, 2000, ISO SLATER N., KNIGHT P. and PROPER S. Directions #3, Trends in CSR Reporting A joint report by Salter Baxter and Context, Salter Baxter and Context, London, Please , fax or post your discussion contributions to the secretary by 1 September 2004: kathleen.hollow@ice.org.uk; fax: +44 (0) ; or post to Kathleen Hollow, Journals Department, Institution of Civil Engineers, 1^7 Great George Street, London SW1P 3AA. Engineering Sustainability 157 Issue ES1 MaSC: managing sustainable companies Woodall et al. 21