Everyone deserves the chance to do their best work

Unfortunately, most office spaces are not designed for a diverse range of users - and that needs to change.

Advocating for the office space you need to do your best work is a form of radical self-advocacy. It’s also an active rejection of hustle culture. Let us be clear: you do not have to “suffer” with a workspace that does not meet your needs in order to be a “good” employee or climb the corporate ranks. In fact, the research is clear that you will perform better if your workspace works for you. We teach our clients how to advocate for, and build, great spaces that set everyone up for success!

It is an outdated narrative that you have to suffer with an uncomfortable workspace that doesn’t work for you. Reject this toxic, biased narrative and advocate for the ability to do your best work. You don’t have to be set up to fail; you can set yourself up for success.

Photo by Petr Magera on Unsplash

Here’s the reality: most office spaces are designed for straight, white, neurotypical, cis-gender men over about 50 - 55 years of age. These are the folks who do really well in "traditional" office spaces.

If this isn't you, you are, at best, not getting a fair chance to shine your light bright and share your talents with the world; and at worst, you are being set up to fail - and you deserve better. We have the research to back this up and the strategies to create spaces that work for a more diverse range of users. And these strategies can range in cost and impact - which means there are lots of options available - and they can also be adapted to a work from home or hybrid environment. There really just isn’t an excuse.

Taking control of, and advocating for, a workspace that works for you is an act of courageous rebellion against multiple structures designed to hold you back.

If you’re an employee struggling in a space that doesn’t work for you, we can teach you how to advocate for yourself. And if you are an employer, and you actually care about your employees, we can show you how to demonstrate that care through better office design.

Let’s break down each of these aspects, before explaining how to do better:

We are now an indoor species. On average, North Americans spend 90% of their time indoors and 1/3 to 2/3 of their waking hours in office spaces. These are pre-pandemic data points, so you likely spend more than 90% indoors, and while you’ve likely spent less time in office spaces over the past two-three years, this is why the Return to Office conversation must include considerations related to the inequities that are often associated with physical office spaces.

Again, most office spaces just don’t work for many users. Let’s walk through a few specific examples:

Temperature considerations or thermal comfort:

Have you ever been really cold at work; so cold that you’re uncomfortable, distracted and grumpy? There’s a reason for that:

There’s actually a very narrow range of temperature that supports optimal human performance. Thermal comfort “standards,” which govern facility operations in most commercial spaces, are based on the clothing choices and metabolic rates of cis-gender men in the 1960s. Yet the metabolic rate of women can be up to 32% lower.

This impacts your ability to work. As noted by the authors of Healthy Buildings:

“Researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found a 10 percent relative reduction in performance when the temperature fell out of this narrow optimal range.” [1]

This is one reason why “traditional” office spaces work really well for cis-gender men, but many others struggle in these spaces. Temperature differences disproportionately impact the performance of certain building users — particularly women. Work doesn’t have to be uncomfortable; you don’t have to be “tough” about your workspace - and as the research shows, you will perform better when you don’t have to - by about 10%.

And based on our experience, if you raised a concern about the temperature of your office, you were likely dismissed as “whiney” or “complainey,” if you were even able to get a response. Or if you raised a concern in the past and it wasn’t handled well or taken seriously, who can blame you for not trying again?

You have the right to be able to do your best work and that includes the right to a workspace where you are comfortable and can focus. And there are many ways (ranging in cost and complexity), to support diverse thermal comfort, including: flexible dress codes, thermal “zones” with different temperatures, and the ability to choose where you work best (and trust from your employer to do so).

Creating safer spaces

Office spaces have restrooms; they are the one room that we all need, because we all have to go to the bathroom. They are sort of a great equalizer, yet the impact of these rooms is highly disproprtionate.

Poorly designed spaces - including “gendered” restrooms (i.e. a “mens’” and a “women’s” room) - hurt and exclude many users. The research clearly links “gendered” restroom design to negative health outcomes. For example, the 2015 US Transgender Survey, the largest ever survey to record the experiences of transgender people in the United States yields some heartbreaking statistics. And if you have been paying attention to the news, attacks on the trans community have steadily increased since 2015, so we expect the updated results from the 2022 survey to provide even greater support for the argument that more inclusive restrooms are desperately needed. [2]

Example of an inclusive restroom with individual stalls and a common sink area. Photo courtesy Town Hall Seattle

The 2015 data demonstrates:

• “More than half (59%) of respondents avoided using a public restroom in the past year because they were afraid of confrontations or other problems they might experience.”

• “Nearly one-third (32%) of respondents limited the amount that they ate and drank to avoid using the restroom in the past year.”

• “Eight percent (8%) reported having a urinary tract infection, kidney infection, or another kidney-related problem in the past year as a result of avoiding restrooms.”

There are lower cost, lower impact strategies and higher cost, higher impact strategies (and everything in between), to be considered, and restroom redesign always requires associated training and education to help ensure safe and respectful experiences for everyone. These strategies can range from a complete redesign of a single restroom for all users (image to the right), to simply revising the signage (example below) to indicate what type of plumbing is in a certain space and inviting users to select which room meets their needs.

Signage Example: https://blog.bidadance.org/2018/07/gender-inclusive-restrooms.html (Boston Intergenerational Dance Advocates)

Support for a Neurodiverse Workforce

Most office spaces are designed for neurotypical folks; but neurdiverse folks are is a significant percentage of the workforce:

“Seventy million people in the United States have learning and thinking differences, such as dyslexia and ADHD, according to Understood.org. That’s roughly one in five people…. The current workplace is not set up for the neurodiverse to succeed, and they often encounter bias from others who dismiss them because they don’t follow the norm. This is a huge opportunity for companies, because when the neurodiverse are aligned with jobs they are most qualified for–they outperform their peers.” [3]

Designing a Neurodiverse Workplace, HOK, https://www.hok.com/ideas/publications/hok-designing-a-neurodiverse-workplace/

By failing to create office spaces that support neurodiverse workers, we are depriving folks of the ability to do their best work and missing out on all the creative and innovative ideas that could be brought to the table.

Design plays a big part in this conversation, and there are numerous design strategies that can be used to create more inclusive spaces, including those outlined in the box to the right. Among many other reasons, this is why we need professionals with diverse lived experience designing the spaces where we spend so much time.

The disproportionate impacts of a forced return to the office are elevated when neurodiverse folks - many of whom have created work from home spaces that work for them - are forced into traditional office spaces without proper support.

Everyone deserves the chance to do their best work, and we can do so much better.

Employers need to do better.

There are many other examples of the disproportionate impact on health and wellness of traditional office spaces. These impacts are particularly important in the context of the Return to Office conversation, because health and wellness are key values that employees are looking for. According to recent research by Deloitte, “Sixty percent of employees, 64% of managers, and 75% of the C-suite are seriously considering quitting for a job that would better support their well-being.” There’s also a significant disconnect between what employees are experiencing and how leadership is perceiving their experience, “Most employees say their health worsened or stayed the same last year, but more than 3 out of 4 executives believe their workforce’s health improved.” [4]

Employers are clearly not asking their employees how they are doing, or they aren’t listening.

Suffering in work environments that don’t work for you is a part of toxic burnout culture and a variety of other structures designed to hold certain groups back. You have a right to the opportunity to do your best work. And in some instances, such as licensed professions with fiduciary or standard of care obligations, there’s an increasing argument that these spaces are a necessary part of meeting those obligations - you need to think clearly and do your best work to meet those standards.

Everyone - everyone - deserves the chance to do their best work; and as we’ve shown above, the research demonstrates that traditional office spaces set many folks up to fail. If you’re a corporate leader and not providing diverse employees with safe spaces where they can succeed, you are not living your diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging values; and if you’re forcing employees back to “traditional” spaces in light of all the research that demonstrates the disproportionate impacts, you are potentially creating some serious liability issues.

Here at Sustainable Strategies, we are fearless champions for sustainable, inclusive spaces that support health and wellness. If you need support, reach out and we would be happy to schedule a call.

Notes and Resources:

[1] Allen and Macomber, Healthy Buildings:  how indoor spaces drive performance and productivity, Harvard University Press (2020); https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/is-your-thermostat-sexist; find original Lawrence Berkeley research

[2] https://www.ustranssurvey.org/reports This resource from the ACLU and this resource from UCLA’s School of Law. We will provide updated survey data on this website, as soon as it is available.

[3] Forbes: Neurodiversity:  Supporting the invisible disability in the workplace, https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelleyzalis/2023/07/25/neurodiversity-supporting-the-invisible-disability-in-the-workplace

[4] https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/talent/workplace-well-being-research.html. For more information on the impacts of poor air quality and spaces that lack natural elements, see this blog post https://www.sustainablestrategiespllc.com/on-our-minds/how-healthier-buildings-add-value.

I Started a Small Business Months Before the World Shut Down

What I wish I knew then, and that you can apply now

Photo by Edwin Hooper on Unsplash

I left a 13+ year legal career and launched a sustainability consulting company just months before a global pandemic shut the world down. After a series of pivots, long nights, and crying sessions, my business survived. As talk of a looming recession intensifies, I want to share what I learned, in hopes of helping others.

Lessons learned

So what’s it like to make a giant career shift?

• The bad news: it was nothing like I expected.

• The good news: It was nothing like I expected.

The even better news? My business is still here, and still growing. Here’s what you can learn from my experience.

Relationships matter, above all else.

This was really hard, having come from a legal background, where everything has to be in writing and skepticism rules the day.

Let me give you an example: I was once negotiating a consulting agreement, and I thought it was really important that I get paid in 60 days, not 90. I’m a small business owner, not a bank, right? In the end, standing on that payment clause almost cost me a relationship with that client.

Now, I know that my relationship with that client matters far more than whether I have to float costs for an additional 30 days. If I nurture that relationship, that client will want to work with me again. And they had good reasons why a 60 day clause made more sense to their business model. I just wasn’t listening, and that almost cost me a really valuable opportunity.

Authenticity matters, say what you mean, not what you think people want to hear.

When I first started my business, I thought I had to sound fancy so that fancy clients wanted to work with me. I was so wrong. Nobody listened when I said what I thought they wanted to hear.

People started listening when I said what I really thought — when I expressed my frustration over the apathy associated with a rapidly changing climate, and when I honestly shared how I was totally fed up with the legal system’s stall tactics when it comes to helping our clients mitigate climate change.

Once I found my voice, everything changed. When I started sharing my personal stories about inequitable building design, I got more clients looking to pursue innovative design strategies. I sweated through those conversations as I talked about how, for example, gendered restrooms negatively impacted me. Yet this authenticity brought real clients who wanted to hear real stories.

Do you know which of my company’s social media posts get the most engagement? Those that include my dog. What does my dog have to do with sustainability? Nothing. She’s a rescue dog who occasionally makes appearances in my company’s videos. These videos do the best, by far, because — just like stories about gendered restrooms — people want to know me as a business owner, so we can build an authentic relationship.

Everybody wins with partnerships; why compete when you can build a better, strong team, together.

Why compete when you can work together? Especially in fields like sustainability and climate change, where there is more than enough work for everyone.

I have found the greatest success combining my unique skill set with others who have unique skill sets, to build an all-star team. In my experience, working together is far more effective, and lucrative, then competing.

There’s more than enough work to do, let’s work together!

When you feel stuck, give; when you’re crying on the floor, give more.

A mentor once told me that if your business doesn’t make you cry, at least once a week (really once a day), you’re not trying hard enough. Inevitably, when I feel stuck and overwhelmed, someone will ask me for help. I consider it a sign that I’m on the right track, because someone needs me.

And let me be more clear about this one, I have had to learn to say “no,” and that was also a really hard lesson. But what I don’t say no to is folks who are genuinely asking for mentorship and support. So, so many people have helped me on this journey; when I feel stuck, helping someone else gets me unstuck and reminds me to be grateful for these small opportunities to share what I’ve learned along the way.

This is particularly true if the person asking for help is generally underrepresented in my field. Because, again, there’s no need to compete. Let’s work together to build bigger, better and more diverse teams so we can tackle the world’s problems.

Asking for help is OK; actually, it’s more than OK, it’s completely necessary.

This one was also really, really hard for me and the pandemic was really, really humbling in many ways.

I had to ask for, and accept, a lot of help during the pandemic, but that support allowed me keep myself afloat so I could keep my business going and so I can continue to fight some of the largest and most inequitable impacts of climate change.

And if you’ve “never had to ask for help,” it’s very likely because your privilege has already given you all the help you will ever need. I recognized my own privileges, told my ego to sit down, and I made sure that those who helped me were not disappointed.

I’ve asked many people for help: for their insights, for their time, for a listening ear, or to join me for a beer or a coffee so I could share what I was going through and ask for some advice. I am so, so grateful to each and every one of those people; you know who you are and you are forever in my heart and a part of my company’s journey.

Hopefully you can learn something from the lessons I’ve shared. And if you’re ever crying on the floor, feeling like you made a horrible decision to leave your corporate role, I’ll be the first to tell you, that was the best decision you’ve ever made. Life is short — do what you love with people who lift youup. And if you need someone to listen, or have a beer with, I will always make the time; you can contact me via our website.

Holistic Sustainable Development

Everything you wanted to know but were too afraid to ask

Photo by Cristofer Maximilian on Unsplash

Maybe that’s a bit much, but hopefully it got your attention. Around 2012, I wanted to drive greater collaboration among the building design and construction industries, to foster meaningful, sustainable innovation at scale. I created the course I still teach at the University of Washington, Department of Real Estate, entitled Risk and Reward in Sustainable Development.

Sustainable development has evolved significantly since 2014, and so has the course. In this post, I share the most important lessons I’ve learned — many of them from the amazing guest speakers who have volunteered their time and shared their talents with our students.

The most important part is that, as sustainability increasingly becomes business as usual, you can apply these lessons to add value to your organization.

While these aspects were developed in the context of sustainable development, they have broad applicability across industries.

The trick is learning to identify potential risks, so you can translate them into opportunities.

Everyone loves to talk about risk because it makes them sound smart and it means they don’t actually have to do anything. It’s “too risky” so don’t touch it. In the course of my career, I’ve found that folks use it as a permission slip to keep carrying on with old ways. Well, those “old ways” got us into this climate mess, so it’s time to innovate — or at least think of a better excuse.

In my experience, as a lawyer, sustainability consultant and educator, the following lessons on holistic sustainability are what you need to know to succeed in this ever-evolving industry.

Holistic sustainability

How we talk about sustainability has real impacts — define key terms to manage risk and include diverse perspectives

To test this theory, ask ten people to define a “green” building. You will get ten different answers — and inevitably someone will say “a building that is painted green.” And they wouldn’t be wrong.

Undefined terms and loose language present some of the biggest risks and, in my experience litigating construction and insurance claims, are at the root of most lawsuits.

Additionally, we all bring our assumptions and life experiences to how we use language and define terms. Including diverse voices drives better, clearer and more inclusive language.

How your customer / consumer thinks about sustainability matters and determines how they will engage with sustainable practices — understand the psychology of “green” behavior

Related to the above point, if we want people to engage with sustainability, we have to appeal to whatever issues and values are important to them. Figure out what those are, find a common ground, and root your stakeholder engagement strategy in shared values.

Watch this video to learn how to apply these strategies to climate change work.

There are opportunities for innovation — learn to identify them and take the leading edge

Sustainability is no longer a trend; it’s now necessary to our survival and quickly becoming business as usual. Real benefits will flow to the leaders, and the laggards will be at a significant loss when they (eventually) try to catch up.

Companies that start small and start early will be in a much better position over the long haul.

There are some “legal issues” associated with sustainable development — but most of them are grounded in traditional construction and design claims that these industries are well-equipped to manage

I have seen very few new, “green” claims, and thankfully “LEEDigation” never happened; what I have seen are the same issues applied to new contexts.

The trick is to study and understand the historical themes, so you can identify how they will be applied to the current context. Because almost everything is cyclical — here’s one example: at one time, we only built with wood products, then steel / concrete as we wanted to build taller, and now we are again pushing for wood products as we better understand (and measure) the impacts of embodied carbon.

Best practices like clear communication, a more integrated process, and education of all team members (early and often) are still some of the best ways to manage evolving legal risks.

And here’s a call to action for my fellow lawyers: the legal industry has a long way to go to becoming partners in climate work. We don’t need litigation, we need collaboration and strategic thinking. Bring these skills to the table.

The regulatory framework is rapidly changing, at all levels: federal, state, local — know the rules of the game or you’ll never be able to play

This is pretty straight-forward, but we need to know the landscape in order to drive the best outcome. This often means good old fashioned studying; I’m constantly challenging myself to better learn my craft.

It also often means expanding my network, so I can call on the collective knowledge for specific issues. The sustainability space is changing so quickly that you will likely need to reach out to other experts — it is really difficult to be an “expert” in all things sustainability (and if someone tells you they are, I would run away).

Many government entities want to drive sustainability, but there’s limits to what they can give — participate in the process, listen and get involved

We probably all wish that the “government” could just fund sustainable development at scale. That’s just not an option, for many, many, many, many reasons. Yet at least here in Seattle, I see valuable incentives go unused — real money is left on the table, all the time.

The most common reason: some undefined “risk.” Be a leader, study the potential risks and find ways to effectively manage them (see above). It’s not that hard.

Additionally, I tell my students that if they don’t participate in the process, they can’t complain if they are unhappy with the end result. There are many opportunities to provide public comment, or serve on technical advisory groups, committees and industry boards that work closely with regulators. If you’re not being of service, you’re slowing down the process; and we need everyone on board.

“Traditional” construction contracts, and the associated insurance programs, set sustainable projects up to fail — learn how to revise and leverage them in a way that sets your project up for success

Unfortunately, the construction and design industries were not originally designed to foster collaboration, and many “traditional” risk management tools, including contract language and insurance programs, are designed to do the opposite — preserve the right to sue other project participants.

This may have served some clients for some time, but it doesn’t drive the collaboration and integrated processes necessary for deep sustainability.

So we have to find a better way. There are contracts and risk / reward sharing clauses that support project teams that work together, towards a common goal. Seek these out and find the lawyers and brokers who understand how they work and their limitations — we are out there.

Traditional commercial leases do not address the unique considerations associated with sustainable, healthy and (most importantly) high-performing projects — revise them to foster collaboration, not litigation, and everyone wins

You can design and build the most sustainable project in the world, but if the occupants leave the lights on and the water running, you’ve lost the benefit of all that work. Your leases, just like your other contracts (because leases are contracts), are outdated and don’t appropriately address the current context or the unique needs of high-performing buildings.

So, what are some of the real risks?

With all of that said, there are some real, yet evolving risks that folks should be aware of. These risks are very manageable and they present opportunities to do better and add value.

In today’s market, greenwashing is one of the biggest business risks — know the regulatory guidance, and make sure all publicly-facing statements are defensible and data-driven

The Federal Trade Commission released the Green Guides in 2012, and they desperately need an update. More recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission has increased its focused on claims originating from, or related to, Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) reporting. And nobody wants to get a love note from the SEC.

Data will drive the next “green” revolution — and ESG is leading the way.

All publicly-facing statements regarding sustainability (and all other aspects of E, S and G) should be clear, defined (see above), transparent, data-driven and defensible. The standard is quickly approaching that of financial and accounting data.

And the SEC has recently demonstrated that it will consider not just documents filed with the SEC, but also sustainability reports, company websites and webinars.

And lest we forget the power of social media. Search for the hashtag #greenwashing on virtually any platform, and you will see just how quickly loose language on a website can lead to significant damage in the Court of Public Opinion. Consumers are more educated than ever; don’t underestimate them.

The volume of research that demonstrates just how toxic our indoor environments are, is rapidly increasing — get smart on healthier building materials and operations that support occupant health and wellness

Pre-pandemic, the average person in North America spent 90% of their time indoors. That percentage was higher during the pandemic and likely remains over 90% as we continue to battle variants. Thanks to widespread information on airborne viral transmission, the average real estate consumer is far more educated on the negative impacts of “traditional” buildings than ever before.

And as the research demonstrating the negative health impacts of the spaces where we spend so much time piles up, and the strategies, technologies and service providers that can help foster healthier spaces continue to come down in cost, proceeding with business as usual is increasingly risky. Put another way, ignore the research from Harvard’s School of Public Health at your peril.

Healthy buildings are not the future, they are in high demand — now.

The sustainability space has a serious diversity problem — firm leadership, in all industries, needs to start putting in the work, mentoring and elevating diverse voices and perspectives

Everyone deserves a chance to do their best work; and if you need another reason, the research is clear that diverse teams perform better. And we desperately need all ideas on the table to collaborate our way out of this climate crisis.

Sustainability is still a very white space, and that needs to change.

Related to this point, there are many ways that building design excludes various groups. We can — and should — do better. We simply choose not to, and that says a lot about us.

Educate yourself and your teams on the latest tools and resources that help foster safer, more inclusive spaces, for everyone.

That’s the secret sauce

Actually, it’s a high level summary of what I’ve learned working and teaching in sustainability for more than a decade. If you need help or want more specifics, reach out via our website.

Diversity is Good for Business

But don’t make my word for it, I’m clearly biased

It’s Pride month, and here’s what I have to say about that…

Owning a small, diverse business is an awakening. A journey. It’s own special hell. The list goes on. Starting that small business just months before a global pandemic is a hard lesson in what really matters. Here’s what I’ve learned about the importance of diversity to the future of business.

If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always gotten

So, the question is: do you like the results you’re getting from your current vendors? Or are they just “OK?”

If you think you could be happier with another vendor, or if you think there may be better options out there, it’s time to start looking. Or, maybe you’re sick of being presented with warmed-over versions of the same ideas, for an ever-increasing fee.

Diversity of ideas, perspectives and professional experience matters. Diverse vendors and suppliers bring a fresh perspective to any project.

Let me give you an example. I spent a lot of time talking about the importance of inclusive restrooms and advocating for design that serves a broader set of users. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, read our earlier blog post, “We Need to Talk About Restrooms.”

Every time I’m working on a project, and discussing why gendered restrooms are harmful (again, read the article above) and I share my personal experience with safety and harassment issues in gendered, public restrooms, inevitably at least one stakeholder will say, “I had no idea that was an issue.” Exactly. Because it’s not an experience that we share.

And I represent only one aspect of lived experience; there are many, many, many others.

Let’s get all those voices in the room.

The risks associated with doing what you’ve always done and getting what you’ve always gotten probably ring most true for those of us working in climate change. What we have been doing is clearly not working; it’s time to shake things up. Arguably, it’s way past time, but, let’s just get going.

Diverse teams perform better

I know this to be true, but don’t take my word for it, just ask…

• Harvard Business Review (Why Diverse Teams are Smarter)

• Fast Company (The Creative Genius of Diverse Teams)

• Forbes (New Research: Diversity + Inclusion = Better Decision Making at Work)

Digging a little further into the Forbes article, here are a few highlights:

• Inclusive teams make better business decisions up to 87% of the time.

• Teams that follow an inclusive process make decisions 2X faster with 1/2 the meetings.

• Decisions made and executed by diverse teams delivered 60% better results.

This quote from Harvard Business School Professor Francesca Gino also really hit home for me:

“That our decisions get sidetracked by biases is now well established. While it is hard to change how our brains are wired, it’s possible to change the context of decisions by architecting the composition of decision-making teams for more diverse perspectives.”

What does this all mean? Architect a better way. Diversify your supply chain and vendors because every business (1) the research shows the results will be better and (2) every business deserves a chance to succeed. New approaches and fresh perspectives drive better outcomes, for all.

Collaboration is key

This one comes from personal experience: as a consultant, I have found the most success by partnering with others — leveraging our separate expertise and building something greater than the sum of its parts.

Especially, and unfortunately, with respect to climate work, there is so much work to do — there really isn’t a need to be competitive. There is a need to call on everyone’s expertise to get a really big job done as quickly as possible.

A livable climate is a shared resource, let’s work together to ensure a common future.

What does this mean for you? Diversify your supply chain and include small and diverse businesses on your teams. I’ve done it, it’s easy and it’s been very successful. Start by bringing in an outside consultant for one aspect of a project where you may be lacking expertise (hint: that consultant could be us).

Money spent on small businesses goes further

If you need more reasons to diversify your supply chain, here’s a big one: every dollar you spend on a small business goes so much further.

I was recently invited on a colleague’s podcast, and she asked what I was most proud of since starting my business, as a global pandemic was brewing.

My answer? we’re still here. My company is still here.

And that was — and is — the honest answer. Who was hit hardest by the pandemic? Small businesses: restaurants, retail, and niche consultants like myself. Even when times are good, our margins are so slim that it is no wonder the pandemic disproportionately impacted those who bring so much vibrancy to our communities. The corporate behemoths? They were fine.

Again, you don’t have to take my word for it. American Express estimates that for every dollar spent at a small business, an average of $0.67 stays in that business’s local community.

Diversifying your supply chain manages risk and boosts value

Diversifying your supply chain, including service providers and vendors, helps manage supply chain risks. If you are all in with one or two companies, what happens when they are at capacity or a technology they rely on shuts down? You should diversify your vendors, consultants and suppliers to bolster your resilience to climate, regulatory and market shocks.

And let’s not forget about Environmental, Social and Governance or ESG. If you haven’t yet heard about ESG, don’t worry, soon it will be all you hear (if you need a quick primer, read this article). It is quickly becoming the benchmark for business and asset valuation and risk assessment, and it encourages — among many other things — diversity in many different forms, from Board composition to supply chain metrics. Failing to get smart on ESG, which has completely disrupted the financial industry, is a huge risk.

Key Take-Aways

• If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always gotten; so maybe it’s time to switch it up.

• Diverse teams perform better; the research is clear.

• Collaboration is key; there’s room for everyone and combining separate expertise creates a sum more innovative than its parts.

• Money spent on small businesses goes further; where are you spending your dollars?

• Diversifying your supply chain manages risk and boosts value; prepare for climate and market shocks and capture the benefits of widespread adoption of ESG.

Sustainable Strategies is a Certified Women’s Business Enterprise and LGBT Business Enterprise. Let’s work together!

What ESG Practitioners Can Learn from the SEC's Latest Complaint

I read the nearly 100 page Complaint, so you don’t have to — here’s the key takeaways that all ESG practitioners need to know.

Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash

As a lawyer and sustainability consultant, I spent a lot of time helping my clients understand and manage risk. One major risk that all businesses want to avoid: a lawsuit. More specifically, and for purposes of this article, an enforcement action brought by a regulatory agency.

As Environmental, Social and Governance, or ESG, is now the acronym du jour, business owners should be aware of the corresponding risks.

And I’ll be the first to say that ESG done correctly — meaning transparent and data driven reporting of material metrics — is an effective risk management strategy.

But don’t take my word for it, even insurance carriers see the risk-reduction benefits of a robust ESG strategy. Marsh insurance was one of the first to “recognize companies that take a proactive approach to managing ESG risks, potentially enabling them to secure enhanced terms and conditions in their directors and officers liability (D&O) insurance policies.”

So, what can we learn when ESG is done incorrectly, to drive better ESG reporting, financial decision-making and risk management?

The Securities and Exchange Commission

ESG done incorrectly, presents significant risks. And as regulators have stepped further into the ESG space, the risk of running afoul of regulations that relate to ESG reporting has increased. Earlier this year, the SEC issued proposed rules on The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors, which are currently open for public comment (until June 17, 2022).

In advance of these proposed rules, in March, 2021 the SEC announced the formation of the Climate and ESG Task Force in the Division of Enforcement. You can learn more about the Task Force, here. The Task Force was charged with identifying material gaps or misstatements in issuers’ ESG disclosures, and the SEC’s latest Complaint starts to reveal exactly what that means.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Vale S.A.

The Task Force’s work recently resulted in the SEC’s filing of a Complaint against Vale S.A., a publicly traded Brazilian mining company (and one of the world’s largest iron ore producers), in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The Complaint is seventy-six pages in length and you can read the entire Complaint here. The Summary section provides an overview of the issues:

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2022/comp-pr2022-72.pdf

For purposes of what ESG Professionals can learn from this matter, we will focus on the 5th bullet, “false and misleading statements to investors.”

What lessons can we learn?

How can we use the information in the Complaint to be better ESG practitioners and manage the regulatory risks associated with ESG reporting?

The key allegations with respect to ESG reporting give some helpful insights:

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2022/comp-pr2022-72.pdf

The importance of good data

There is also numerous reminders in the Complaint regarding something all ESG professionals should understand: the importance of good data. The SEC’s Complaint contains multiple references to how many issues stemmed from reliance on flawed data, “purposeful use of unreliable data, rendering the resulting stability certifications false.” Para. 229 (many other references).

The importance of materiality

Note the number of references to “material” in the summary, above. Poor data problems are made even worse when inaccurate or incomplete data is used to report on issues that are material to investors:

The SEC is also increasingly scrutinizing a company’s own assessment of what is and is not material to investors. In 2021, the SEC released a sample letter followed by actual letters to various companies, asking them for, among other things, to specify what aspects they deem “material,” and explain why certain issues are not “material.”

Sample letter, https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/sample-letter-climate-change-disclosures

The Sample Letter goes on to request discussion or explanation of various topics, “if material” or “to the extent material.” The SEC’s recent activity, and the Vale Complaint, reinforce the importance of paying close attention to materiality. If you are going to claim that additional disclosures were not required because an issue is not “material” to investors, you need to have a solid foundation for that position.

The SEC will look at the totality of the circumstances

Additionally, the Vale Complaint really demonstrates that the SEC will look beyond the “four corners” of SEC filings, and consider all public-facing statements.

The Complaint specifically referenced not only SEC filings, but Sustainability Reports and even Webinars:

Vale’s webinar content was also considered by the SEC, which specifically called out an “ESG Webinar” published on Vale’s website.

The lesson is that it is that not just SEC filings that matter; related documents, and public-facing statements will, apparently, be considered by the SEC.

Corporate representatives will want to pay attention

The Vale Complaint also details what key Executives knew or should have known. If formalized into a final rule, the SEC’s proposed rules on The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors expand the scope of various disclosures. As such, Executives will want to pay even closer attention to all SEC disclosures, as well as the information in all public-facing documents (Sustainability and ESG reports, as explained above), which are incorporated into these disclosures by reference.

If we use Starbucks’ 2021 Form 10-K as an example, this is what key executives have to attest to:

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000829224/d2de114a-49d6-4994-8675-8454e5dd2289.pdf

As noted above, Executives would be wise to spend even more time reading and understanding not only the SEC forms, but also the related documents, including CSR and Sustainability reports, and webinars, before signing the attestation forms.

Key Takeaways

So what can we learn from the SEC’s latest Complaint? Here’s my top takeaways:

• The importance of good data — this should be the bare minimum, starting point.

• Materiality matters— companies need to be able to back up their position that an issue is not “material” to investors.

• The SEC will look at the totality of the circumstances — ensure all publicly-facing statements — including websites and webinars — are grounded in data and not misleading.

• Corporate representatives will want to pay even closer attention to all publicly-facing representations regarding Environmental, Social and Governance aspects — liability increases when these documents are incorporated by reference into SEC filings.

What Lawyers and Law Firms Need to Know About ESG

Photo by Melinda Gimpel on Unsplash

Business is changing — for good — and the legal industry needs to adapt to stay relevant and compliant.

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) is everywhere. It has completely changed the landscape of modern business. This evolving landscape presents opportunities and challenges for the legal community.

What do we mean by Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)?

That’s a great question.

ESG is a broad and (at least of this writing) largely undefined term that relates to data collection and reporting on a variety of factors, which broadly fall into the “buckets” of environmental, social and governance. One touchstone of ESG is that it expands corporate accountability beyond shareholders (the traditional limit of accountability) to include external stakeholder expectations on a variety of topic areas that fall into these buckets.

While the collection and public reporting of this type of data is not necessarily new — it has existed in various forms, including Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), for many years — the push from the private sector, arguably led by Blackrock’s Larry Fink, and the introduction of numerous reporting frameworks (SASB, GRI, TCFD, CDP, and many others), is new. Also new, and largely driven by the fact that financial institutions and insurance companies are very interested in this data, is that robust ESG reporting more closely resembles verified financial and accounting standards.

And while the number of reporting frameworks currently presents challenges and confusion, the move towards consolidation is helping to create clarity and streamline what can be an onerous process.

ESG is also a risk management strategy because it forces organizations to review their performance on key issues and introduces some amount of transparency and accountability with respect to a broad range of risks — ranging from poor governance to data security, and human rights violations to unsustainable or carbon-intense business practices.

Smart legal practitioners will see ESG as an opportunity to manage risk and drive positive change, both for their clients and their own firms.

So what does this really look like?

The rise of ESG presents various risks — and opportunities — for your clients.

The great majority of clients are collecting and reporting ESG data, whether or not their lawyers know it.

I recently spoke at a continuing legal education seminar where I noted that, “if you haven’t read your client’s ESG report, and made yourself aware of any climate, EDI, or other commitments, you are putting them at risk,” and I stand behind that statement.

Nearly every company — and many other entities like public and private institutions — are issuing some type of sustainability report. In 2019, 90% of the S&P 500 published some type of corporate sustainability report — up from about 20% in 2011.¹

“Virtually all of the world’s largest companies now issue a sustainability report and set goals; more than 2,000 companies have set a science-based carbon target; and about one-third of Europe’s largest public companies have pledged to reach net zero by 2050.”

The question for legal practitioners and law firm leaders is whether they are evolving their practice — and their guidance — accordingly. And for reasons I’ll explain below, every practitioner should be asking these questions.

Your clients need your “climate cooperation” to meet their climate targets.

Because climate is a shared resource, we need to work collaboratively to address climate change.² Companies are looking to their vendors and suppliers to help them meet their climate goals — this includes their lawyers and law firms. Why? Because of what we call “Scope 3” emissions.

When a company makes a climate commitment (i.e. “net zero by X date”) — a commitment that nearly one-fifth of the world’s largest public companies have made — they quickly realize that they need to get a handle on their Scope 3 emissions, or they will never meet that commitment.

Scope 3 Emissions

This section requires some background. When we talk about Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG), we are really referring to at least three big “buckets,” or sources of those emissions. We generally refer to these as “Scopes” 1, 2 and 3 (there are others, let’s focus on the Big Three). This chart provides some additional detail and examples.

If we take a hypothetical technology client and look at the above chart from their perspective, Scope 1 would be all the assets (buildings, vehicles) they own, Scope 2 would be all the energy and fuels they purchase to power those assets, and Scope 3 would be everything else up and down their supply chain.

Scope 3 is a big deal, because for many companies it is estimated to be the largest source of emissions, and for most companies, it is a complete unknown.

• Walmart, for example, estimates that about 95% of its emissions fall into Scope 3.

• For most law firms, about 90% of their emissions are estimated to fall into Scope 3.

Again looking at the above chart from the perspective of a hypothetical technology client, service providers like law firms fall into the technology client’s Scope 3 “bucket.” So do all the customers who use the technology company’s products, all the carbon produced by manufacturing and shipping their products, all employee travel, and much, much more.

Scope 3 is a really big deal, and lawyers and law firms have a part to play, both with respect to their clients’ goals and their own risk management.

New contractual mechanisms

So how do companies plan to get a handle on their Scope 3 emissions? Among other strategies, they are increasingly leveraging new types of contractual provisions.

Salesforce has been a leader in this regard, so let’s dive into that example.

In late 2021, Salesforce introduced a “Sustainability Exhibit.” Below is the introduction and recital section of that Exhibit:

The Sustainability Exhibit has four main aspects to it:

https://www.salesforce.com/content/dam/web/en_us/www/documents/legal/sustainability-exhibit.pdf

1. Requires customers to set Science-Based Targets. A Science-Based Target is “in line with what the latest climate science deems necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement — limiting global warming to well-below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C”;

2. Actively work towards those targets (“develop and implement a plan for continuous improvement,” Sec. 2.1.2);

3. Publicly disclose Scope 1, 2 and 3 Emissions (Sec. 2.3.5); and

4. Penalties of cost of carbon offsets for any emissions above zero, or 0.5% invoiced to Salesforce over past 12 months (“Climate Neutrality Fee”).

While not explicitly stated, the reason Salesforce is pushing its suppliers is that in order to meet its own carbon goals, Salesforce has to get a handle on its own Scope 3 emissions.

So what does this have to do with law firms?

Law firms should expect to see these types of clauses incorporated into their engagements in the very near term. In fact, Salesforce is hoping for exactly that type of circularity: Patrick Flynn, Salesforce’s VP of Sustainability, has publicly stated that he hopes the Sustainability Exhibit (or similar terms) comes back to Salesforce from one of its customers, not knowing that it originated from Salesforce.

The question for the legal community is: are you prepared to counsel your clients with respect to these types of clauses, and are you prepared to sign these types of agreements on behalf of your firm?

What are the opportunities?

As explained above, companies that have made climate commitments (the great majority) have quickly realized that they need to engage their supply chain in order to meet their climate targets — this includes their legal service providers.

Professional service providers, including law firms, are receiving RFPs and other inquiries that relate to not just Scope 3 — although carbon emissions is one of the most commonly requested metrics— but also with respect to other ESG factors and issues.

These requests are increasingly common, as demonstrated by the latest surveys:

“As part of clients’ supply chains, law firms factor into a company’s total carbon footprint and environmental impact, even if indirectly. Many clients are now asking for sustainability credentials or requesting information on law firms’ ESG policies in order to remain compliant with their own reporting requirements, whether self-imposed or mandated by a third party. In a 2021 Landscape Survey conducted by the Law Firm Sustainability Network, 87% of responding law firms indicated that they had received requests for proposals that included the firm’s environmental efforts.”

Multinational law firm Baker Makenzie’s CSO, Alyssa Auberger, recently noted that her firm is, “seeing an increase in client requests for information about its carbon management program…in part because clients are reassessing their own impact on the environment, including their supply chain”.

These types of requests are so prevalent that many companies are making it easier for their customers to track emissions data. For example, the Wall Street Journal recently highlighted the efforts of the “Big-Three” cloud computing providers to make data center emissions (which would be Scope 3 for customers of cloud-computing providers) more available:

“[T]he company introduced a carbon-tracking tool for AWS users that estimates a customer’s emissions based on where they are and the share of green electricity powering the data centers they are using. It also estimates emissions of their data-center use from before the tool was introduced, and the carbon savings they have made since switching to the cloud.”

Similarly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, Salesforce recently introduced it’s Net Zero Cloud (formerly Sustainability Cloud 2.0), a tool that claims to, “Get investor-grade data all in one place with detailed dashboards for Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions in addition to waste management.” Salesforce invented a new type of contractual requirement, then created the tool to make compliance easier— it’s a brilliant business strategy.

Law firms that are early adopters of tracking and accurately reporting their emissions (and other key ESG metrics), will have a real market advantage.

With all these tools and resources available, the question for law firm leadership then becomes, “what are you waiting for?” Failing to take action in this space also raises ethical considerations, which we will cover in the next section.

ESG is an important issue for employees and it presents emerging ethical issues

Your current and future employees care about ESG

Lawyers and legal staff are increasingly inquiring with respect to both the firm’s own commitments (or lack thereof) on key ESG issues and the types of clients law firms are serving.

As highlighted in a recent Reuters article:

“ESG can also be part of the formula for attracting and retaining talent, especially younger generations of attorneys and staff. In the same way that many potential new hires are now routinely asking questions around diversity, equity, and inclusion, many are also beginning to inquire about firms’ environmental policies. Having a clearly stated and well thought out ESG strategy can help to differentiate firms vying for up-and-coming, socially conscious talent.”

And it’s not only pressure from clients and staff, attorney ethical obligations can also be impacted.

Ethical obligations are evolving to reflect this new business reality

As the ESG landscape continues to evolve, so will legal ethical obligations.

Every lawyer and law firm should be asking themselves the question posed by Larry Fink in his latest letter to CEOs:

“Every company and every industry will be transformed by the transition to a net zero world. The question is, will you lead, or will you be led?”

How are you preparing for and participating in the net zero transition?

While there is not (yet) a specific ethical obligation with respect to climate change, there are two potential “hooks” that lawyers need to be aware of.³

First, ABA’s Resolution 111. While not an enforceable standard, is certainly a clear signal to legal practitioners (at the right):

Second, Model Rule 1.1, adopted in many states, informs the context in which lawyers practice — and ESG is rapidly changing that context.

Rule 1.1 Competence

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

Here is the key question: if you do not know your clients’ climate and other commitments, and if you have not read your clients’ ESG reports and related disclosures, how can you provide competent representation?

And even if not explicitly stated in ethical rules, given the overall context of the ESG landscape, lawyers should begin to question whether they are putting their clients and risk, or perhaps even practicing to the standard of care?³

This area will continue to evolve as ESG becomes even more mainstream and ESG disclosures become increasingly mandated.

So what should you do?

At a minimum, get up to speed on ESG generally, and start asking your clients if they have made climate or other public commitments. Read their ESG and related reports, to make sure you can provide competent representation.

Examine your own firm’s operations and get a handle on your firm’s basic ESG metrics. Gather robust and defensible data on key metrics and seek support from outside experts and consultants.

[1] The key phrase here is obviously, “some type,” and an unstandardized (currently) and unregulated area is ripe for greenwashing. A recent review of data submitted to the Climate Disclosure Project found that nearly all climate-related corporate disclosures are inadequate.

[2] While ESG covers a broad range of categories, my work generally focuses on climate, so this article will lean heavily towards the “E” in ESG.

[3] There are other potential ties into attorney ethical rules. At least one author has argued that precedent surrounding disclosure rules (ABA 1.6) could be applicable to harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions, potentially requiring attorneys to counsel their clients to cease these activities and in some instances, withdraw. This may be particularly true for lawyers assisting clients with regulatory or other filings and disclosures.

I Took Harvard's Leading ESG Course...Here's What I Learned

My top take-aways and why you should consider taking it

ESG is a key skill set for any professional.

Photo by Scott Graham on Unsplash

Environmental, Social and Governance, or ESG, is everywhere. As a consultant and instructor, I wanted to skill up on this key aspect of modern business and learn as much practical information as I could.

So, I researched the top ESG courses and Harvard Extension School’s course, Creating, Implementing, and Improving Corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance Reporting, kept floating to the top. After taking a closer look at the syllabus, I decided to register.

Key aspects of the course

The two instructors — Kevin Hagen (Iron Mountain) and Kevin Wilhelm (Sustainable Business Consulting) — are both seasoned practitioners who bring a wealth of real world experience and case studies to the course content. They also leveraged their extensive networks and invited world-class guest speakers to provide additional insights.

For me, what really made the course valuable is the emphasis on practical skills. I had the opportunity to actually do the work. The course consisted of in-class exercises as well as group assignments that involved working through reporting and data collection skills for a specific company. I also had the opportunity to explore the various ESG frameworks (SASB, GRI, TCFD, CDP, SBTi, etc.), try these skills in a safe environment and learn from my peers.

I am also a teacher (sustainable real estate at the University of Washington), and I know how difficult it can be to teach real-world skills in the academic environment. It’s like trying to teach someone how to fly a plane without ever leaving the ground — it’s just not the same. But in my opinion, this course came as close as you can and the instructors and guest lecturers gave color and texture to the core concepts.

Another key aspect of this course was the cohort of students. My fellow students were other professionals, with varying degrees of experience in ESG, and who were all looking to develop this skill set and make connections. I really enjoyed getting to know the other students and made what I hope are lasting connections.

If it isn’t obvious, I highly recommend this course.¹ If you are looking to skill up on ESG reporting, you should consider taking it. In the interim, here are my key take-aways.

Key take-aways

There were many key lessons in this course. These are my top five.

ESG can be a way to bring people together and drive profitability.

ESG is often framed as a negative (i.e. why would we do things differently / we don’t have the staff / this is not the way it has always been done / this will cost money). It is our job as practitioners to demonstrate the business value associated with robust data collection and reporting, and to use that data to develop future business opportunities. Skilled ESG professionals will search for ways to translate potential risks into meaningful business opportunities.

Develop a compelling vision of the future and a solid rationale as to why the new way will ultimately drive profitability.

Make data collection as easy as possible.

There are many different ESG frameworks and the ESG reporting landscape continues to evolve. To avoid having to go back and get more or additional data sets, try to gather all the data you might need, the first time around. Consider related data or data that is germane to other frameworks to help expedite reporting.

This can be tricky but the key is trying to understand why the entities are asking for certain information. This will help guide you to the data you need to collect. And keep in mind that each framework may use slightly different language, but they are all generally trying to get to the same data points (i.e. GHG emissions). The end goal should be to create a data collection processes that is automated (to the extent possible) and repeatable, and ultimately as robust as financial reporting data.

Going through the process of answering the reporting questions can be daunting; try to focus on the process, not the score, and know that the first report will always be the most difficult.

Lead with transparency and authenticity.

Sustainability often gets worse before it gets better. Tracking down data can sometimes reveal blemishes within your organization. Keep in mind that no company is perfect and every organization has to start somewhere.

The key is to set a business-wide expectation of transparency early on in the process.

As you go through the data collection process, resist the urge (and potentially some pressure) to bury bad data or greenwash. Instead, be transparent with stakeholders and the public about areas that need improvement, outline a plan of action that includes priorities, and explain why that plan makes sense given the overall context.

Transparent reporting and a willingness to show imperfections bolsters credibility.

Engage all stakeholders in meaningful conversations — and listen to them.

A robust ESG strategy will ensure that all key stakeholders are identified and engaged. This may require you to use different outreach strategies for different audiences. Keep in mind that tools like materiality assessments can help organizations figure out which areas to prioritize.

Good ESG practitioners help stakeholders understand how the data is not arbitrary, by telling a data story in a way the target audience can hear.

Understand the importance of good Governance.

E, S, and G are all important to complete reporting. That said, the “G” often gets overlooked. Challenge yourself and your organization to think of good governance as the “behind the scenes” structure that drives the rest of the program, long term.

Governance structure is key to achieving environmental and social goals, and can support deeper work and greater accountability with respect to the “E” and the “S.”

[1] This hopefully goes without saying, but these are just my take-aways based on my experience. Additionally, I have no financial or other interest in this course. I paid full price, and only want to share my experience, for the benefit of other practitioners who may also be looking to skill up in this critical area.

Healthy Building Strategies that Manage Risk

A closer look at the specifics, including examples from The WELL Building Standard™

Photo by Uneebo Office Design on Unsplash

I talk a lot about how healthier buildings are a risk management strategy, and unhealthy buildings are a liability. If you are looking for more background on that, read this article and this article.

With that background in mind, I am often asked for examples of the risks that healthier buildings manage, and the specific strategies.

In this article I tie risk management strategies to specific Features of The WELL Building Standard™ (WELL). The goal is not to provide an exhaustive list, but to give practitioners a more informed way of identifying and evaluating risk, and examples of tools they can leverage to advocate for healthier buildings.

Risk should always be analyzed in context.

Before we get into the specifics, I need to give a little bit of context about risk in the context of “green building.” Early in the green building movement, around 2008, there was some concern that a rush of litigation would originate from green projects, leading some practitioners to coin the term “LEED-igation.”

I’m a lawyer and sustainability consultant and I’ve read the “green building cases” that are out there. I put “green building cases” in quotes — not to be obnoxious — but because based on my review, these cases are just traditional design and construction claims that happen to originate from projects that were pursuing some type of sustainable outcome.

Put simply, LEED-igation never happened. And in my opinion, that is because the design, construction and insurance industries — which have been around for a significant period of time — are well-equipped to manage the evolving nature of their work. New construction products and processes have been introduced into the market for centuries, the industries have responded appropriately, and we have continued to design, build and insure projects.

The legal industry is really the one stifling sustainable innovation, by unnecessarily applying a “risk” label that often fails to consider the overall context.

This does not mean I am an advocate for recklessly ignoring risks; I’m actually quite risk averse in my own practice. That said, the great majority of times I have heard an allegation of “risk” originating from a green project or product, it was really just a potential, manageable issue that the lawyer (or insurance company) didn’t want to take the time to understand.

So they just labeled the issue a “risk,” and moved on. This type of blanket allegation is really the greatest risk of all, particularly when it comes to a tool like green buildings, which, given the significant contributions of “traditional” buildings to climate change, present so much opportunity.

Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of the wasted time that comes with stalling innovation via abstract claims of risk.

So, I’ll say it again, “healthy buildings are a risk management strategy, unhealthy buildings are a liability,” and in this article, I’ll give some specifics.

Healthy Building strategies that manage risk.

In this article, I pull examples from WELL because (1) it has experienced incredible market adoption (as I explain below) and (2) as a WELL AP, I’m very familiar with that framework. That said, WELL is obviously not the only healthy building certification program, and no one program is perfect.

Below are my top six risks and risk management strategies and the corresponding Features in WELL v2 (Q4 2021 Addendum and including Beta features):

• Early identification and resolution of potential issues.

• The evolving nature and importance of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors.

• The risk of poor air quality

• Failing to provide spaces that support occupants’ mental health and wellbeing.

• Failing to create spaces that support a neurodiverse workforce.

• Failing to adequately prepare for emergencies.

For those who are new to WELL, it is organized by big-picture Concepts (Air, Water) and specific strategies under each of those concepts, called Features.

I break the issues down by big picture risk, overall management strategy, and (a non-inclusive list of) examples of WELL Features that support the risk management strategy or strategies.

There are obviously more and other risks and Features, but this is a good starting point based on the most common issues that I saw in my previous work litigating construction cases and that I see in my current work as a sustainability consultant. It is also important to note that while I break these issues and strategies out into groups, largely for organizational purposes, they are inter-related and work together — we only pull them apart for academic purposes.

The Risk of Obsolescence

Before we dive into the top six risks that I see, I want to spend a few minutes on a general risk: the “risk of obsolescence.” This is really the risk that commercial and residential spaces will sit vacant because nobody wants to lease them.

We manage this risk by following the market and planning for spaces that provide services and support systems that are both needed now and will be needed in the future — many of the examples that follow fit into that category. The reality is that development and construction of commercial and residential spaces takes time — years, in fact.

So managing this risk means looking back at historical trends, combining that information with the current market, and applying a forward-looking lens.

Health and wellness in building design and operations

This should be obvious from the fact that this article focuses on healthy buildings, but it is worth highlighting the significant market opportunity that healthy buildings present.

Missing this market opportunity, or dismissing it as a fad, is a huge business risk.

Image courtesy International WELL Building Institute

Let’s use WELL’s explosive growth as an example:

As this chart demonstrates, the demand for WELL grew significantly during the pandemic and remains very high.

Giving some project specific context to this data, when David Levinson, chairman and CEO of L&L Holding, the developer of the first new office building on Park Avenue in 50 years (425 Park) was interviewed for the book Healthy Buildings, How Indoor Spaces Drive Performance and Productivity, he talked about how healthy buildings manage this type of risk.

He noted, “In an up market, I get the premium. In a down market, I get the tenant.”¹

This type of forward looking “future-proofing” is a key risk management strategy. Healthy buildings are not a fad. Just like “green” buildings, what the term “healthy” means will evolve and expand (it already has), but it will not go away.

So if you think about healthy buildings in the context of this demand, exploring any opportunity to improve the health and wellness of building occupants seems to like a pretty reasonable risk management strategy.

The top risks and strategies

With that context and background in mind, let’s take a closer look at the top six risks and strategies.²

Early identification and resolution of potential issues.

With limited exceptions, nearly every construction project is unique. This means that despite the best planning, there will inevitably be issues. Whether these issues turn into problems often depends on how early they are identified: generally speaking, issues that are identified earlier in the process are often easier (read: cheaper) to resolve.

What’s the risk(s): issues are not identified until they are expensive and / or irresolvable problems.

How do we manage: emphasize and incentivize communication and input from all project team members as early in the process as possible.

Specific Features that help manage these risks:

• C02 Integrative Design — requiring an inclusive and collaborative planning process.

• I01 Innovate WELL — opportunity to push the envelope and develop strategies that honor the unique challenges and opportunities of every project.

• I02 WELL Accredited Professional (WELL AP) — leverage training to identify issues.

The evolving nature and importance of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors.

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) is clearly here to stay and quickly becoming (it arguably has already) business as usual. Failing to keep up with the latest regulatory and market drivers is one of the biggest risks for businesses.

This means that failing to set projects up to align with ESG factors also presents significant business risk.

ESG is everywhere, it is already mandated in the EU, and ESG mandates are soon expected in the US.

And, while some ESG factors are policy-driven, we can translate certain ESG objectives into the design of physical spaces. One key example is inclusive restrooms, which I will discuss later.

To meet the existing market demand and the expected regulatory requirements, the International WELL Building Institute (IWBI) has created various resources that demonstrate alignment of WELL with ESG reporting metrics. You can download and view those resources here, here and here. These resources detail how WELL Features align with common ESG reporting frameworks, including UN Sustainable Development Goals (WELL-alignment resource, here), GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards, GRESB, and others.

Companies are already leveraging these resources. Here’s one example, from Uber’s 2020 ESG report:

Workplace wellness: We believe the health and wellness of Uber’s workforce is and integrally related to environmental sustainability in the workplace. We are pursuing the LEED and WELL building certifications for close to 3 million square feet of office space around the globe. Key features of focus include enhancing indoor air and water quality, designing the space to maximize daylighting, increasing occupant thermal and audio comfort, and preferencing non-hazardous, recycled materials in our furniture and materials. (p. 36)

Here’s another example from Prologis’ 2020 Sustainability Report, in a section that highlights WELL as a tool to solve customer labor shortages:

As e-commerce continues to grow, our customers consistently tell us that attracting and retaining qualified logistics talent is one of their biggest pain points. We can help. By leveraging our scale, reach and future-oriented thinking, Prologis is driving innovative new solutions that benefit our customers, their employees, and our local communities…

Designing our buildings for sustainability doesn’t just benefit the planet and our customers’ utility bills; it also provides safe, healthy and appealing environments for the people who work there. We optimize factors such as indoor air quality and lighting and provide natural outdoor amenities, so that our buildings promote workforce wellness, boost engagement and productivity and support our customers’ talent attraction and retention efforts. (p. 32)

Again, because WELL Features are third-party verified by Green Business Certification Inc. (GBCI), either via documentation or on-site testing, the data reporting is already more robust and closer to the level that is expected for ESG reporting.

What’s the risk(s): falling behind on ESG reporting, missing the real market opportunity to differentiate your company / project, and being ill-prepared for regulatory mandates.

How do we manage: focus on Features that align with ESG frameworks and support ESG metrics.

Specific Features that help manage these risks:

In addition to the third-party verified nature of WELL, and the alignment with ESG reporting frameworks, there are some specific Features worth highlighting.

• I05 Green Building Rating Systems — balancing commitment to environmental sustainability with human health. Because we cannot ignore the impacts of carbon emissions on human health (and the built environment’s significant contributions to those emissions), both buildings and human health have to be a part of any climate conversation.

• I06B Carbon Disclosure and Reduction — recognizing organizations that set and make progress towards carbon goals.

• C12 Diversity and Inclusion — implement and report on policies that support diversity and inclusion.

• C13 Accessibility and Universal Design — integrate Universal Design principles to create more inclusive spaces.

Risk of poor air quality.

This risk really has two parts.

First, the latest research demonstrates that humans do not perform well in spaces with poor air quality and that even minimal improvements in building design and operations can significantly improve performance.³ Not capturing this opportunity is a business risk and ignoring this research presents the risk of potential liability for fostering unsafe spaces. You can read more about that research and the associated risks, here and the articles I linked at the beginning.

Second, for now, and into the foreseeable future, any Features that reduce airborne viral transmission are key risk management strategies and also critical for getting occupants back into office spaces (and realizing the value of these spaces). They also build resilience into the building and the organizations that utilize those spaces, as we work to manage the impacts of the current pandemic and future pandemics.

What’s the risk(s): reduced performance and increased absenteeism due to poor air quality; increased costs and potential liability for poor air quality and potential viral transmission.

How do we manage: focus on Features that address air quality.

Specific Features that help manage these risks:

• Essentially all Features in the Air Concept, including those that increase filtration and ventilation and control air pollution sources, specifically:

A01 Air Quality, A03 Ventilation Design, A05 Enhanced Air Quality, A06 Enhanced Ventilation Design, A07 Operable Windows, A08 Air Quality Monitoring and Awareness, A12 Air Filtration, A13 Enhanced Supply Air.

• Features in the Materials Concept that relate to air quality and pollution source control:

X01 Material Restrictions, X02 Interior Hazardous Materials Management, X05 Enhanced Material Restrictions, X06 VOC Restrictions, X07 Materials Transparency, X08 Materials Optimization, X11 Cleaning Products and Protocols.

Failing to provide spaces that support occupants’ mental health and wellbeing.

Experts have noted that beyond the physical impacts of the pandemic, there will be long lasting mental health impacts of an unprecedented scale.

Buildings play a key role in this discussion, because they are designed to bring people together — the exact behavior we need to avoid during this pandemic. Going back to the places we have been advised to avoid for more than two years is, to say the least, daunting and stressful.

There are many ways we can design spaces to support mental health — including but not limited to, the transition back to the office, in whatever format that ultimately takes. These strategies generally translate to both support services/policies and quiet, safe spaces where occupants can seek a moment (or more) of refuge.

What’s the risk(s): distracted, unhappy, and generally unwell employees who need support, are at greater risk of a variety of issues, and more likely to leave the organization.

How do we manage: create spaces that foster mental health and overall wellbeing.

Specific Features that help manage these risks: there are various Features (both policy and design driven)⁴ within the Mind Concept that provide mental health support.

• A few of the relevant Features in the Mind Concept are:

M01 Mental Health Promotion, M02 Nature and Place, M03 Mental Health Services, M04 Mental Health Education, M05 Stress Management, M06 Restorative Opportunities, M07 Restorative Spaces, M08 Restorative Programming, M09 Enhanced Access to Nature, M11 Substance Use Services.

Additionally, many Features from the Movement Concept, and general strategies that relate to concepts such as Biophilic design, access to nature, views and daylight (in addition to M02 and M09), also provide support for occupants. A few additional examples:

• L03 Circadian Lighting Design — exposure to light that is consistent with a natural day/night cycle.

• L05 Daylight Design Strategies — integrating natural daylight and providing access to windows.

Failing to create spaces that support a neurodiverse workforce.

Everyone deserves the opportunity to do their best work. Yet, we have historically designed spaces that only support a narrow range of the human experience. This needs to change.

Additional research, largely from designers at HOK, has been published which outlines the design strategies that can provide support for a neurodiverse workforce and highlights the companies that have benefitted from implementing design strategies that support all users.⁵

What’s the risk(s): spaces that do not adequately provide support for all users.

How do we manage: implement strategies focused on lighting, acoustics and access to nature, as well as clear way-finding and appropriate (not overwhelming) levels of color and pattern.

Specific Features that help manage these risks:

• L04 Electric Light Glare Control

• L07 Visual Balance — creation of a visually comfortable lighting environment.

• L08 Electric Light Quality — accounting for light characteristics including color rendering and flicker.

• S02 Maximum Noise Levels

• S03 Sound Barriers

• S04 Reverberation Time

• S05 Sound Reducing Surfaces

• S06 Minimum Background Sound

With the increasing demand for spaces that better support all users, those that don’t will quickly become obsolete.

Failing to adequately prepare for emergencies.

Was your organization prepared for the pandemic? Very likely not. Do you now understand how resilience is a key part of sustainability, health and wellness? Very likely yes.

This one is pretty self-explanatory, but worth noting.

What’s the risk(s): business interruption and all the associated impacts to employees and tenants from an emergency, whether viral, environmental, climate-related, or technological.

How do we manage: ensure a robust emergency plan is implemented, updated and communicated to all users.

Specific Features in the Community Concept that help manage these risks:

• C03 Emergency Preparedness, C14 Emergency Resources, C15B Emergency Resilience and Recovery

Circling back to the point about future-proofing and a forward-looking lens, I would be remiss if I did not mention the importance of water conservation, capture and storage to any conversation around resilience. Currently, there is a Beta Feature, W09B Onsite Non-Potable Water Reuse that is worth noting.

The bottom line is that sustainable, healthier buildings don’t create risks; they help manage those that already exist and some that we largely choose to ignore.

Apply these tools and strategies to advocate for more inclusive spaces that support the health and wellness of all users. Because everyone deserves the opportunity to do their very best work and have their best lived experience; the physical spaces where we spend 90% of our time should be a key part of those conversations.

[1] Allen and Macomber, Healthy Buildings: How Indoor Spaces Drive Performance and Productivity, Harvard University Press (2020), p. 168.

[2] I need to be really clear that this is not an all-inclusive list of risks or strategies, and I’m not saying that green or sustainable or even healthy buildings are risk-free; I’m saying that the potential risks are often outweighed by the benefits of innovation, given the context of a rapidly changing climate (among other factors). If you are looking for more explanation, read the articles linked in the introduction.

[3] You could also argue the same is true for aspects like thermal comfort and lighting, but based on my review, the research regarding air quality is so strong that it is the biggest risk, which is why I’m highlighting it here.

[4] I mention both policy and design strategies because if a project is already far along in construction, it is important to note that there are still opportunities to provide policy support, even if the opportunity for design changes has passed.

[5] For more information on the importance of inclusive restroom design, read this article, here. And check out resources like the REFUGE app, here.

This article is not legal, medical or any other type of advice. Please utilize common sense.

We Need to Talk About Restrooms

“Gendered” spaces exclude and hurt a lot of people; we can — and should — design better.

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

There are many ways that public spaces hurt and exclude people. Binary gender restrooms are just one example that I can speak to based on both personal experience and professional expertise. There are many others, and they all deserve attention, so I welcome other voices to contribute to this space.

Restrooms are a very unique type of space — they are the one place where we all do the one thing that we all do.

In an odd way, they sort of unite us. Restrooms can be a great equalizer (everyone needs them), but they also perpetuate a lot of inequity.

This happens to me all the time

Let me tell you a story to help frame some of these issues. A few weeks ago, while my flight was delayed in Minneapolis, I needed to use the restroom. This seems like a pretty normal, mundane task, but for people like me (and many others, for many different reasons), it can be an incredibly stressful situation that is loaded with trauma.

To paint a better picture for you, I am six feet, two inches tall, and present in a way that many people would describe as androgynous. I don’t necessarily disagree with that characterization — in fact, I’m proud of the work I’ve done in therapy to finally be happy with myself. I identify as female and use she/her pronouns. I also use the “women’s” restroom when presented with binary options.

After I exited the stall, I went to the row of sinks to wash my hands. As I was washing my hands, an airline employee walked in, looked right at me, and loudly said, “am I in the right restroom?” This question was clearly directed at me. And I was so embarrassed because there were other people in the restroom, all looking at me for the answer.

Suddenly, I felt really, really small and unsafe.

But I was forced to answer, “yes, I’m a woman,” because everyone was looking at me for the answer to her very public question. I can’t tell you how embarrassing this type of situation is.

But when she saw the look of embarrassment on my face, instead of acknowledging her harassment (because that’s what it was) — she said, “oh, I saw your short hair.” This just made things worse. My hair is not my gender, and instead of apologizing, which is what she should have done, her comment was really an attempt to excuse her hurtful words.

I had been traveling all day, my flight had been delayed multiple times, I was traveling with my rescue dog during a global pandemic with a raging variant. I was stressed out and just wanted to get home to visit my family. But suddenly I was forced to defend myself and my identity in front of a bunch of strangers, in a really vulnerable place?

What’s even more confusing when this happens is that her question is really about her, not me. I have no idea if she’s in the “right” restroom. Why is she asking me?

And this is by no means a unique situation. This happens to me all the time — to the point that I, and other members of my community, have developed a variety of strategies to manage or avoid it, including:

• Waiting to use the restroom until it is empty (and then hoping no one comes in).

• Literally running out of the restroom as fast as I can.

• Awkwardly waiting in the stall until everyone leaves, which generally results in me being late for a meeting or a class.

• Talking in as high pitched a voice as I can even if it’s only to myself.

For the last strategy, I often use the “buddy system” and only use the restroom with a friend or partner who I can have a conversation with, so people hear my voice. It’s really awkward.

This happens to me so often that I can tell you every restroom in downtown Seattle (where I live), where I feel safe; and I lost track of the number of meetings or classes I’ve missed because I had to employ one of these strategies or go far out of my way to use a safe restroom.

Does this all seem ridiculous? That’s because it is.

Yet every time I share a story like this, so many people reach out and say they can’t believe this happens. If you take one thing away from this article, I hope it is a greater understanding that this type of harassment (and many others) happens all the time.

The second key take-away is that this situation — which originates from an extremely outdated and exclusionary design strategy — is not just embarrassing, it has direct and negative health impacts to certain users.

Put another way, poor building design can be directly tied to negative health outcomes. Let me explain some of the research.

Building design impacts human health.

My work focuses on creating sustainable, healthy and inclusive spaces. So I spend a lot of time researching how spaces, and specifically buildings, impact human health and wellness.

While there are many ways that restrooms, and particularly gendered (i.e. “men’s” and “women’s”) restrooms exclude and hurt various groups, in this article I am going to focus on the trans community.

The research clearly links gendered restroom design to negative health outcomes.

The 2015 US Transgender Survey, the largest ever survey to record the experiences of transgender people in the United States yields some heartbreaking statistics:

• “More than half (59%) of respondents avoided using a public restroom in the past year because they were afraid of confrontations or other problems they might experience.”

• “Nearly one-third (32%) of respondents limited the amount that they ate and drank to avoid using the restroom in the past year.”

• “Eight percent (8%) reported having a urinary tract infection, kidney infection, or another kidney-related problem in the past year as a result of avoiding restrooms.”

Read that again: nearly a third of the trans community limits their intake of food and water to avoid the harassment, intimidation, and worse, that occurs when forced to use a “gendered” space.

This research is critical for advocates because it directly connects poor restroom design to negative health impacts.

We can do better — we just choose not to, and that says a lot about us.

Every time I share these stories and statistics, folks ask what they can do. I see at least two things you can do:

First, raise awareness that this happens all the time. Every time I consult with companies looking to pursue more inclusive design, they are shocked by these stories and statistics. And I need to be clear that restrooms are just one way that buildings exclude certain groups and welcome others; unfortunately there are many other examples and many other groups who are hurt by poor and discriminatory building design.

Be on the lookout. Be a safe space. Speak up when you see and hear harassment.

Design detail from an inclusive restroom at PCC Community Markets

Second, elevate examples of inclusive, health-forward design. There are two excellent examples of welcoming restroom design in Seattle that I would like to share: PCC Community Markets and Town Hall Seattle.

The design detail on the right shows an inclusive, non-gendered restroom at PCC Community Markets, a co-op grocer in the greater Seattle area. It has single stalls, common sinks and does not force users to choose from a binary gender designation. One bathroom, for everyone.

The image below is from Town Hall Seattle, a cultural center and performance hall. This design also consists of one main entrance which flows into a series of single stalls with floor to ceiling doors, and ends in a row of sinks. The only sign on the door is “restroom,” and traffic easily flows through the space and out the common exit.

Image courtesy of Town Hall Seattle.

Another key feature of these examples is that the inclusive design benefits all users, and it does not force users to disclose confidential information in order to get the support they need from these spaces.

Put another way, a user should not have to disclose, for example, that they are transgender in order to use the restroom. This often happens when a person who may present as male chooses to use a single-stall, non-gendered restroom over a “men’s” room. Other building occupants may make assumptions about them based on their choice. Good design does not force users to disclose private information.

These examples demonstrate that case studies exist, which really begs the question, “what is our excuse for not doing better?”

Design change versus behavior change.

Circling back to my story about Minneapolis, I am well aware that while part of the issue is the design of the space, the other part is training for the benefit of the airline employee who used those hurtful words. But, if the space had a more inclusive design, there would be no question as to whether I, or anyone else, was in the “right” restroom, because there is only one restroom. One restroom, for everyone.

UPDATE: the 2022 US Trans Survey Early Insights report was just released.

The report has updated information and data on the health impacts of poor design. Read the full report by clicking the button below.

Why Law Firms Should Get Serious About Sustainability

The business case for a more profitable, resilient law firm (and happier, healthier lawyers)

Photo by Giammarco on Unsplash

The business of business is changing

Customers and regulators are increasingly demanding more sustainable practices and transparent reporting of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors. Law firms of all sizes should pay close attention, because there are numerous risks and opportunities associated with this evolution. One key opportunity: capturing the benefits of healthier office spaces.

The market is increasingly demanding sustainable practices and robust, transparent disclosures.

Consider this: an estimated 90% of S&P 500 companies published some type of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) report in 2019 (a significant increase from 2011, when just 20% reported).¹

In addition, groups like the Institute for Wellbeing in Law are gaining an increased presence, job candidates are “interviewing the building” as well as the employer,² data on building operations is everywhere (there have been reports of parents putting CO2 sensors in their kids’ backpacks),³ and the Securities and Exchange Commission is incredibly active with respect to ESG.

Put simply, your employees and clients are paying attention to more than just the legal services your firm provides.

All of that said, the latest research clearly demonstrates that the design and operation of your office space — a significant monthly expense, especially for law firms with a strong preference for private offices — can actually improve your firm’s bottom line.

In this article, we explain the how and the why.

ESG reporting is changing the way every industry does business (and it’s about time)

Environmental, Social and Governance is essentially an investing (and risk management) framework that brings a broad range of what have traditionally been considered “non-financial” factors into financial decision-making.

ESG factors expand corporate accountability beyond shareholders and to include external stakeholder expectations on a variety of factors such as climate change, use of consumer data and racial justice (among many others).⁴

ESG factors and the associated frameworks (SASB, GRI, TFCD) are increasingly recognized as best practice. So much so that even insurance carriers are acknowledging the correlation between robust ESG initiatives and reduced risk.

In October, 2021, Marsh, “announced the launch of a new directors and officers liability (D&O) insurance initiative that will recognize US-based clients with superior environmental, social, and governance (ESG) frameworks.”⁵

As further explained by Maureen Gorman, Managing Director in Marsh’s D&O Practice:

“Our clients have endured one of the most challenging D&O markets in decades, and the risk landscape is only intensifying, especially as it relates to ESG issues like climate change and diversity…As clients continue to invest in ESG initiatives, it is right that they be recognized as a better risk by underwriters. By working with these select law firms, we are ensuring clients have access to leading independent ESG expertise that can help validate and elevate their ESG efforts, becoming eligible for more favorable coverage.”⁶

This financial incentive can have real benefits, especially as virtually all other forms of insurance increase in cost. For example, “Global property insurance premiums have grown by a double-digit percentage in each of the past seven quarters as real estate portfolios sustain physical damage from natural disasters.”⁷

How to stand out in the current market

Capture opportunities to better serve existing clients

Clients are increasingly asking all service providers — including law firms — questions related to their commitment to a variety of ESG factors. Both public and private clients, when selecting or renewing contracts with their outside legal counsel, are inquiring about not only their experience with the legal issues associated with ESG, but also substantive questions about the firm’s own commitments with respect to ESG factors.⁸

Additionally, future employees are asking questions, “Pressure to act on sustainability has also come from law firm recruits targeting firms’ choice of clients. Last year students at top U.S. law schools boycotted Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison for representing ExxonMobil in high-profile climate-change lawsuits. But clients can exert a different kind of leverage when it comes to firms’ own practices.”⁸

These types of inquiries (who are your clients and what are your firm’s values) are expected to increase. This is especially true as sustainability — and particularly carbon impacts — gain increased attention and scrutiny.

What is important to keep in mind is that when an organization makes a commitment with respect to reducing or eliminating carbon impacts, this commitment impacts all product and service providers in the supply chain.

For example, in early 2021, Salesforce introduced what it refers to as a “Sustainability Exhibit” into its supplier contracts.⁹ This Exhibit requires all suppliers to set science-based carbon targets — and actively work towards them — or face potential penalties (including the cost of carbon offsets of 0.5% of the amount invoiced to Salesforce over the past 12 months). Below is the preamble to the Exhibit:

https://www.salesforce.com/content/dam/web/en_us/www/documents/legal/sustainability-exhibit.pdf

These types of requirements will trickle down the supply chain to law firms and other service providers. In fact, they already are, “As pressure on corporations to cut carbon emissions grows, some companies are expecting their outside law firms, as vendors contributing to their footprint, to pull their weight.”¹⁰ And Salesforce is not unique in this type of contract language; other companies who have made bold carbon commitments have realized they need to engage their entire supply chain in order to meet their targets.

For law firms, in addition to travel, sprawling lobbies and private office spaces can be a large source of carbon emissions.¹¹ Office space can be used far more efficiently and the latest research also demonstrates that office space can be leveraged to deliver health and wellness benefits to employees.

Leverage your office space as a health and wellness tool.

There are quantifiable benefits to more sustainable office spaces and many ways to leverage office space to promote health and wellness. In addition, many healthy building strategies are in alignment with ESG factors and frameworks.

Your employees care about health and wellness

“In fact, Gallup recently asked employees what they look for most in an employer. The data showed that employees of all generations rank “the organization cares about employees’ wellbeing” in their top three criteria. For millennials and Generation Z, it’s their №1 workplace want. Also high on their list are diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and ethical corporate behavior.”¹²

In addition to wellbeing, your firm’s bottom line depends on engaged employees:

“Gallup Corporation has done years of research showing that worker well-being in the form of engagement is linked to a host of organizational success factors, including lower turnover, high client satisfaction, and higher productivity and profitability. The Gallup research also shows that few organizations fully benefit from their human capital because most employees (68 percent) are not engaged. Reducing turnover is especially important for law firms, where turnover rates can be high.”¹³

The high turnover rate for law firms can be incredibly expensive, which makes “enhancing lawyer health and well-being is good business and makes sound financial sense.”¹⁴

The good news is that we can create office space that supports occupant health, wellness and cognitive performance and increases employee engagement. One way to do that is through “healthy building” strategies.

What is a “healthy” building?

Healthy buildings take the concept of a “green” building and increase the focus to strategies designed to support the health and wellness of the building occupants. Put another way, healthy buildings aim to support both environmental and human health.

There are many different ways to describe a healthy building. As one example, researchers at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health have developed the “9 Foundations of a Healthy Building”:

1. Ventilation

2. Air Quality

3. Thermal Health

4. Moisture

5. Dust and Pests

6. Safety and Security

7. Water Quality

8. Noise

9. Lighting and Views¹⁵

Each of these Foundations is supported by underlying strategies. This framework is just one way to define a “healthy” building. There are may others, including certification programs like The WELL Building Standard™ and Fitwel.¹⁶

The quality of our buildings is of critical importance, given that we spend an average of 90% of our time indoors¹⁷ and one half to one third of our waking hours in office spaces. And these pre-pandemic figures are expected to increase as we increasingly seek refuge from the impacts of a changing climate.¹⁸

So where’s the data?

A 2015 study from Harvard’s School of Public Health outlines the benefits that healthier spaces can deliver to building occupants, and particularly to knowledge workers like lawyers.

In this study, a variety of knowledge workers were asked to complete their daily tasks in a controlled office setting. The researchers compared a baseline, “traditional” office building to what they called “Green Building days” and “Green Building+ days.”

• On the Green Building days, the researchers lowered the levels of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) — one of the most pervasive indoor air pollutants that can originate from everything from printers to furnishings.

• On the Green Building+ days, the researchers lowered the VOC levels and increased the ventilation rates (brought in more fresh air).

The results were quite striking:

“On average, cognitive scores were 61% higher on the Green building day [low VOC] and 101% higher on the two Green+ building days [low VOC + higher ventilation rates] than on the Conventional building day [high VOC]….”¹⁹

Moreover, "The largest effects were seen for Crisis Response, Information Usage, and Strategy, all of which are indicators of higher level cognitive function and decision-making...."²⁰

What does this really mean? Healthy building strategies have real benefits, particularly if you care about things like responding to crises, utilizing information and developing strategies. And this study was recently expanded to a one year timeline, and including 6 countries, 42 buildings, 30 cities, and 302 participants. As explained by one of the researchers of this second study:

“Our research consistently finds that the value proposition of these strategies extends to cognitive function and productivity of workers, making healthy buildings foundational to public health and business strategy moving forward.”²¹

Taking this research one step further, co-authors Joseph Allen and John Macomber argue in their book Healthy Buildings, How Indoor Spaces Drive Performance and Productivity, that improved indoor air quality can increase productivity by 2–10%.²² They then use a conservative estimate of productivity (3%), and argue that if healthy building strategies are implemented, the bottom line net income for a service-based consulting firm would increase by more than 10%.²³

What does this all mean?

The latest research demonstrates that healthy building strategies can positively impact a business’s bottom line. They also help manage risk to the point that insurance carriers are noticing.

You should explore and implement healthy building strategies in your office space if you want to:

• Attract top talent

• Retain that talent (and your investment in them)

• Get the best performance out of lawyers and staff

• Build resilience and reduce business interruption

• Better serve existing clients and attract new ones.

And to take a deeper dive, explore the resources footnoted below.

[1] https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/corporate-social-responsibility-statistics

[2] Allen and Macomber, Healthy Buildings: how indoor spaces drive performance and productivity, Harvard University Press (2020), pp. 234–35.

[3] https://www.businessinsider.com/why-parents-smuggle-air-quality-monitors-into-schools-covid-report-2021-10

[4] See ESG Investing: What Every MBA Needs to Know (Dec. 16, 2020), https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/edge/2020/12/16/esg-investing-what-every-mba-needs-to-know/

[5] Businesswire, Marsh to Recognize Clients with Robust ESG Frameworks, October 25, 2021, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211025005276/en/

[6] Businesswire, Marsh to Recognize Clients with Robust ESG Frameworks, October 25, 2021, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211025005276/en/

[7] ESG & Real Estate: Top 10 Things Investors Need to Know, CBRE Research, October 2021, p. 11

[8] Westlaw Today, Corporate Pressure to Cut Carbon Trickles Down to Law Firms (January 30, 2021), https://today.westlaw.com/Document/I6b82de80629511eba8cab51f2e1abe3d/View/FullText.html

[9] https://www.salesforce.com/news/stories/salesforce-urges-suppliers-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-adds-climate-to-contracts

[10] Westlaw Today, Corporate Pressure to Cut Carbon Trickles Down to Law Firms (January 30, 2021), https://today.westlaw.com/Document/I6b82de80629511eba8cab51f2e1abe3d/View/FullText.html

[11] Westlaw Today, Corporate Pressure to Cut Carbon Trickles Down to Law Firms (January 30, 2021), https://today.westlaw.com/Document/I6b82de80629511eba8cab51f2e1abe3d/View/FullText.html

[12]Gallup Workplace, Employees Want Wellbeing From Their Job, and They’ll Leave to Find It (August 3, 2021), https://www.gallup.com/workplace/352952/employees-wellbeing-job-leave-find.aspx

[13] https://lawyerwellbeing.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Lawyer-Wellbeing-Report.pdf, p. 8

[13] https://lawyerwellbeing.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Lawyer-Wellbeing-Report.pdf, p. 8

[14] https://lawyerwellbeing.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Lawyer-Wellbeing-Report.pdf, p. 8

[15] https://9foundations.forhealth.org/

[16] https://www.wellcertified.com/ and https://www.fitwel.org/

[17] https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/indoor-air-quality

[18] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/subtopics/coronavirus-and-climate-change/

[19] “Associations of Cognitive Function Scores with Carbon Dioxide, Ventilation, and Volatile Organic Compound Exposures in Office Workers: A Controlled Exposure Study of Green and Conventional Office Environments,” Joseph G. Allen, Piers MacNaughton, Usha Satish, Suresh Santanam, Jose Vallarino, John D. Spengler, Environmental Health Perspectives, October 26, 2015, doi: 10.1289/ehp.1510037

[20] “Associations of Cognitive Function Scores with Carbon Dioxide, Ventilation, and Volatile Organic Compound Exposures in Office Workers: A Controlled Exposure Study of Green and Conventional Office Environments,” Joseph G. Allen, Piers MacNaughton, Usha Satish, Suresh Santanam, Jose Vallarino, John D. Spengler, Environmental Health Perspectives, October 26, 2015, doi: 10.1289/ehp.1510037

[21]Joseph Allen, Associate Professor, Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/office-air-quality-may-affect-employees-cognition-productivity/

[22–23] Allen and Macomber, Healthy Buildings: how indoor spaces drive performance and productivity, Harvard University Press (2020)

The New WELL AP Exam is Here!

Why you should take it, what it covers, and how to set yourself up for success.

Photo by Pawel Czerwinski on Unsplash

Since its launch in 2014, The WELL Building Standard™ (WELL) has experienced exponential growth. According the International WELL Building Institute™ (IWBI), the entity that delivers WELL, as of November, 2021, there are approximately 30,500 WELL projects, constituting 2.93 Billion square feet, in 98 countries.¹ That’s nearly 3 Billion square feet in seven years.

To give you a sense of scale, the Empire State Building, one of the largest office buildings in the world, is 2.7 Million square feet.²

This growth in demand, along with other factors like improvements in technology, an increasingly sophisticated consumer and practitioner base, and shifts in the overall public awareness around healthy buildings, meant that it was time to update WELL. And after completion of a Beta phase in June, 2020, the second version of WELL — WELL v2 — graduated out of Pilot³ and into the marketplace.

This naturally created the need for an updated WELL Accredited Professional™ (WELL AP) exam to align with WELL v2.

I am very excited about the launch of this new exam, and in this article, I explain why.

Healthy buildings in context.

Explosive growth

If you’re thinking about getting the WELL AP credential, you should, for at least two reasons.

First you would be in good company. To date, IWBI reports nearly 11,000 WELL APs.⁴

Image courtesy of International WELL Building Institute

Second, healthier buildings are having a moment that is not expected to end any time soon. Here’s a more detailed visualization of the exponential growth WELL has experienced over the past seven years.

This chart really speaks to the growth of the healthy buildings industry, as well as the pandemic’s role. And the demand for healthy buildings will continue to grow as we learn how to manage the lasting impacts of the pandemic.

Healthy buildings are a key aspect of ESG

Additionally, Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors will continue to increase the demand for both healthy buildings and professionals to advise project teams and support certification.

ESG metrics are quickly becoming standard business practice, and an increasing volume of industry research demonstrates that healthy buildings are a key factor in investment decisions.

For example, leading commercial real estate services and investment firm, CBRE, noted in its latest report — ESG & Real Estate: Top 10 Things Investors Need to Know — how “health & wellness is influencing building design and operation.”⁵ And there are many other examples of the demand for more sustainable, healthier buildings, and their role in larger ESG conversations.⁶

If you are looking for a new job, or considering a career transition, there are many opportunities in ESG, to the point where sustainability leaders have claimed there is a “war for ESG talent.”⁷ There are also significant opportunities: in June, 2021, accounting firm Price Waterhouse announced it would invest $12 Billion over the next five years to create 100,000 jobs in the ESG space.⁸

The intersection of ESG and healthy buildings presents significant opportunity. Now is the time to act on the significant investments that key stakeholders are making in ESG.

In fact, as climate risk becomes an increasing focus for investors, the industry’s attention to the role the built environment plays has steadily increased, raising questions of resilience, equity, energy, carbon and many more — all factors that can be tied back to healthier building strategies.⁹

One way to capture this demand for practitioners who can support design and development of healthier buildings, is to sit to the WELL AP exam.

What’s covered in the new WELL AP exam?

Whenever I need to study for an exam, I want to make sure I understand the universe of information that could potentially be covered.

Three documents contain the scope of information covered on the new WELL AP exam:

1.The WELL Building Standard, WELL V2 with Q4 2020 addenda (link below). All features except Beta Features are open to testing. Exam takers will need to know every Feature, how to achieve each Feature and the relevant measurements within that Feature (with exceptions contained in Embedded Content, as outlined below).

WELL v2 | Q4 2020

2. The WELL Certification Guidebook with Q3 — Q4 addenda (link below). Only processes related to WELL v2 are open to testing. Exam takers will need to demonstrate their understanding of the certification process, including pursuit of innovation Features, Alternative Adherence Paths, etc.

WELL Certification Guidebook | Q3-Q4 2020

3. WELL Portfolio Guidebook with Q4 2020 addenda (link below). Again, only processes related to WELL v2 are open to testing.

WELL Portfolio Guidebook | Q4 2020

All this information is covered in the document, “Get to Know the New WELL AP Exam,” which you should read carefully (link below). And there is additional information on this website, Everything you need to know about the WELL AP v2 beta exam.

Get To Know The New WELL AP Exam

Why is the new WELL AP exam “better?”

I am very excited about the format of the new exam because as both a WELL AP and educator, I know that good exams prepare practitioners to actually do the work. And better prepared practitioners can elevate an entire industry.

Moving away from memorization and towards application

In my experience, exams that simply test a student’s ability to memorize are generally not helpful in the real world. This is because in the real working world, we don’t just spit out a list of facts.

Imagine if your boss asked you a question and you just rattled off a list of somewhat-related facts. You would very likely be fired because you wouldn’t be doing your job.

In the real world, practitioners are generally asked to apply what they know to different circumstances and contexts, by calling on their training and past experience, conducing research, and recalling some of the frequently-used facts that they hold in their brains.

Yet, we often test in a way that really only tests the ability to memorize.

As an example, in addition to my work in sustainability and education (I’ve taught sustainable development to graduate and undergraduate students), I’m also a lawyer, which means that I took (and passed) the Washington State Bar Examination, back in 2006. At that time, this two and a half day (closed book) exam largely tested a student’s ability to memorize certain basic legal concepts across a variety of topic areas.

This was so ineffective that there was a saying going around that, “the LSAT is nothing like law school; law school is nothing like the bar exam; and the bar exam is nothing like practicing law.”

I personally found this adage to be very accurate. And, among other challenges, it made for a very difficult learning curve as a new lawyer.

Tests that are nothing like the actual work, or that do not test a student’s ability to apply necessary skills, are really just testing the skill of memorization.

That’s a problem because if I practiced law from memory, without consulting the latest resources, checking for relevant updates, and applying this information to new contexts, I would be working well below the relevant standard of care. My ability to memorize had very, very little to do with my ability to effectively practice law, yet that’s what I was tested on — there was a real disconnect.

And in many ways I feel like the extensive amount of time I spent studying, and money I spent on a test preparation course, was just to check a box, not to help me in my future career.

High-value study time

Time spent studying for exams that test practical skills, including a student’s ability to apply those skills to real world scenarios, is far much more valuable than time spent memorizing. This is because studying for practical, skills-based exams looks much more like actual practice.

This type of preparation and exam structure also helps get past the vicious cycle of “how do you get experience without any experience?”

You do that by creating study materials and tests that more closely align with what practitioners will be expected to do in the real world. This type of exam — that moves away from memorization and towards skill development and application — produces practitioners who are better able to do the actual work, from Day 1.

What’s different about the new WELL AP exam?

There are two key differences in the second iteration of the exam, and both are designed to move away from memorization and towards testing application and analytical skills.

Reference materials available during the exam

Unlike the prior structure, during the new exam students will have access to two resources.

• Project Scenario. A short “Project Scenario,” relevant to some of the application and analysis questions, will pop up and be available for review during the exam. Exam takers will be presented with one of two available Project Scenarios they can reference during the exam. However, the Project Scenarios will not be available prior to the exam.¹⁰

• Embedded Content. A summary of some key facts and figures, referred to as “Embedded Content,” will also be available for reference during the exam. Candidates will not need to memorize Embedded Content, but they will be tested on their ability to analyze project scenarios and apply the Embedded Content to answer some of the questions.

Knowing what you do not have to memorize will save you time and make your study time more valuable, so let’s look more closely at what’s in the Embedded Content.

The Embedded Content is outlined on pages 8–14 of “Get to Know the New WELL AP Exam” (linked above). Pay close attention to the “Content Exclusions” to make sure you know what information will be available during the exam.

Below is a summary of what is and is not included:

Summary of Embedded Content

• WELL v2 Concepts and Features — Note that only Concepts and Features are listed; the Feature intents and whether a Feature is a Precondition or Optimization is not included in the Embedded Content, but may be tested. Beta features are not tested.

• Scoring and Certification Levels — the total points, minimum points per concept and level of certification for WELL Certification and WELL Core Certification. Additional information regarding limits on points per concept, total points, and opportunities for Innovation points are also included in the Embedded Content.

• Table displaying the thresholds that appear in A01 Air Quality: Parts 1–4 (p. 12–14 of WELL v2; Part 5 is not included).

• Filtration levels table in A12 Air Filtration: Part 1 (p. 39 of WELL v2).

• Table displaying thresholds that appear in W02 Drinking Water Quality: Parts 1–2 (p. 50–51 of WELL v2).

• Artificial ingredients table in N05 Artificial Ingredients: Part 1 (p. 82–83 of WELL v2).

Note that, consistent with a focus on application as opposed to memorization, for A01, A12, W02 and N05, only the Tables are included, other related information, including the Intent, Summary, Issue and Solutions; Titles / Descriptors; Notes; and WELL Core Guidance are not included in the Embedded Content but can be tested.

Again, the Embedded Content is outlined on pages 8–14 of “Get to Know the New WELL AP Exam” (linked above), and a more detailed summary chart is to the left.

Knowledge Domains

Additionally, and particularly helpful for busy exam-takers, IWBI created Exam Specifications which outline the knowledge and skills that WELL APs will need for each of the 10 Concepts (Air, Water, etc.), plus WELL Certification and WELL Portfolio. This information is on pages 3–7 of the Get to Know the WELL AP Exam document.

Exam takers can think of these skills and knowledge domains as learning objectives, and use them to structure their study, as they outline the key skills, organized by topic and heading.

For example, for Domain 8: Materials, the knowledge needed to become a WELL AP includes:

• Impacts of materials and environmental contamination on human health and wellbeing.

• Regulations and restrictions of hazardous material ingredients.

• Compounds and chemical classes.¹¹

And the skills needed to become a WELL AP include (among others):

• Assessing product documentation to ensure compliance with material requirements.

• Providing guidance on implementing third-party assessments of project environment and site.

• Recommending strategies for managing hazardous waste.¹²

Again, all of this information is available in Get to Know the New WELL AP Exam, linked above.

Current status, plan forward and study materials

The Beta exam process

As of the date of this article, (November 2021), the WELL AP exam is currently in its Beta phase. During this phase, the exam is 150 questions and exam takers have 3 hours to complete the test. The WELL AP exam is predicted to leave its Beta phase and be republished in early 2022. When it is republished, it will consist of 115 questions and exam takers will have 2.5 hours to complete the test.¹³ With an increased focused on application-based questions, exam takers should have sufficient time to think through their answers.

All Beta exams have to be scored before the exam can graduate, which is why Beta test takers will not receive results until 2022.¹⁴ When the exam is republished, exam takers will receive their scores immediately.

This type of Beta process is normal and provides test developers with critical information. For example, if a very high number of candidates answer a question incorrectly, IWBI may revisit that question or exclude it from the final version.

How to plan your studying

The above information and linked resources provides the tools and structure you need to prepare for the exam.

While the amount of study time needed is different for everyone, a good starting point is budgeting 2–3 hours per week over a three month period; or accelerating the timeline to 6 hours per week over a four week period.

Of course, the quality of study time and each individual’s baseline knowledge and skill level will heavily influence the time required to properly prepare for the exam.

There are also several LinkedIn groups for folks studying for the WELL AP exam and IWBI has indicated they plan to develop a knowledge base, update existing articles and FAQs, and develop a forum where current and future WELL APs can create community, answer questions and provide mutual support.¹⁵

Now, go register for the WELL AP Exam and become a part of this growing industry! And if you need exam prep support, check out our latest course!

This article was current as of November, 2021.

Want to learn more and sign up for our study materials? Follow this link to learn more about our Accelerated WELL AP Exam Prep Course!

Sources and Resources:

[1] Data tracked and updated at the bottom of this website, https://www.wellcertified.com/ (this data is frequently updated, but current as of the publishing of this article [ADD DATE]).

[2] https://www.esbnyc.com/sites/default/files/esb_fact_sheet_4_9_14_4.pdf (A Billion is one thousand Million)

[3] https://www.wellcertified.com/certification/v2/governance

[4] Data tracked and updated at the bottom of this website, https://www.wellcertified.com/ (this data is frequently updated, but current as of the publishing of this article [ADD DATE])

[5] ESG & Real Estate: Top 10 Things Investors Need to Know, CBRE Research, October 2021

[6] See, IWBI, Driving Better Investment Decisions, https://resources.wellcertified.com/tools/driving-better-investment-decisions/; IWBI Press Release, IWBI and GRESB Deliver Report Demonstrating Alignment Between WELL and GRESB 2020 (July 30, 2020), https://resources.wellcertified.com/press-releases/iwbi-and-gresb-deliver-report-demonstrating-alignment-between-well-and-gresb; The New York Times, “As Risks of Climate Change Risk, Investors Seek Greener Buildings,” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/business/climate-change-sustainable-real-estate.html; even insurance carriers are recognizing the tangible, risk-reduction benefits of robust ESG frameworks, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211025005276/en/Marsh-to-Recognize-Clients-with-Robust-ESG-Frameworks

[7] https://www.greenbiz.com/article/inside-war-esg-talent

[8] https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/pwc-planning-hire-100000-over-five-years-major-esg-push-2021-06-15/

[9] See, IWBI, Driving Better Investment Decisions, https://resources.wellcertified.com/tools/driving-better-investment-decisions/

[10] See, WELL AP Candidate Handbook p. 7, available here https://resources.wellcertified.com/tools/well-ap-candidate-handbook/

[11]Get to Know the New WELL AP Exam, page 6, https://resources.wellcertified.com/tools/get-to-know-the-new-well-ap-exam/

[12] Get to Know the New WELL AP Exam, Page 6, https://resources.wellcertified.com/tools/get-to-know-the-new-well-ap-exam/ (the Materials Domain contains several additional skills, three examples were selected for this article).

[13] Webcast, “WELL AP: Olympian Dana Vollmer-Grant,” https://resources.wellcertified.com/webcasts/meet-a-well-ap-olympian-dana-vollmer-grant/; https://resources.wellcertified.com/articles/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-well-ap-beta-exam/

[14] https://resources.wellcertified.com/articles/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-well-ap-beta-exam/

[15] Webcast, “WELL AP: Olympian Dana Vollmer-Grant,” https://resources.wellcertified.com/webcasts/meet-a-well-ap-olympian-dana-vollmer-grant

How Healthier Buildings Add Value

Strategies that build resilience, improve access, reduce risk and capture emerging opportunities.

Healthier buildings matter.

Healthier buildings are a risk management strategy; unhealthy buildings are a liability, and most buildings are pretty unhealthy. In previous posts, I’ve explained this from a big picture standpoint — in this article, I drill down on the specifics, and provide tools and strategies practitioners can use to advocate for healthier buildings.¹

What risks are we even talking about?

“Risk” can mean a lot of different things, but for purposes of this article, I will focus on three:

1. Risks to human health from a rapidly changing climate.

2. Risks to a business’s bottom line, when employees perform below their potential (or leave).

3. The increasing risk of liability for owning, operating and perpetuating “unhealthy” spaces.

It is important to note that underlying these risks is the greatest risk of our time— a rapidly changing climate.

Because buildings present such a significant contribution to climate emissions (around 40%), strategies that reduce the building sector’s climate impacts are climate risk management strategies. Additionally, because a changing climate presents a variety of risks to human health, healthier building strategies are an important part of any climate-risk conversation.

I’m often asked for the “business case” for healthier buildings. This is a frustrating question, because healthy spaces should be a basic human right. But if answering this question leads to the creation of more, healthier spaces, and for more communities, I’m happy to weigh in.

Smart employers will leverage these strategies to take advantage of an increasingly competitive market for talent, and to avoid the high costs associated with employee turnover and presenteeism. Unhealthy, distracted employees simply cannot perform at their very best.

Healthier building strategies also foster more resilient employees, who create more resilient companies, better able to handle the unknown impacts of an uncertain future. And these same principles apply to schools, and now residential spaces, which have largely become a hybrid of home, work and school.

Below I outline six risks, and explain how healthier building strategies help manage these risks.

Risk: ambiguous and evolving terms.

When “green” buildings first began to gain broad market adoption, one of the most noted risks was a lack of clarity as to what, exactly, “green building” meant. Green building certification programs, like LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) helped manage this risk because they created a sort of definition, and a common language around “green buildings.”

As the industry has continued to evolve, we now have third-party certification programs that are focused on healthier building strategies, such as the WELL Building Standard. Similar to the early days of green building, this type of third-party verified program helps manage some of the risks inherent in otherwise ambiguous terms like “healthy.”

It is critical that practitioners apply lessons learned from the green building movement to “healthy buildings.” This is because health is such a personal concept, and it means so many different things to so many different people, it is arguably even more ambiguous than “green.”

If we define a “healthy” building by appropriately referencing an external standard, like the WELL Building Standard or Fitwel, the risks associated with unmet or misaligned expectations are significantly reduced.

Opportunity: Because a term like “healthy” can mean so many different things, it is important to manage expectations and create as much clarity as possible. Parties can manage this risk by defining key terms — consider referencing an external standard, like a third party certification program, preferably one that is also third-party verified.

Risk: the impacts of poor air quality.

There is an ever-increasing amount of research that clearly demonstrates the negative impacts of “traditional” buildings on human performance. From a risk and liability standpoint, it is important to note that this research also shows that even relatively minor (and inexpensive) improvements to the quality of indoor spaces can significantly improve the health and performance of the humans who inhabit those spaces.

For example, in a joint study conducted by Harvard and Syracuse University, known as the COGfx (cognitive effects) study, researches analyzed the impacts of two variables on the cognitive function of office workers.

You can learn more and read the full study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, here. As a summary, when compared to a “traditional” office spaces, there were two key findings relevant to risk management:

1. When researchers reduced the levels of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), one of the most common indoor pollutants, cognitive scores increased by 61%.

2. When the VOC levels were reduced, and ventilation rates increased (i.e. more fresh air was brought in), these scores increased by 101%.

From a risk management standpoint, what’s even more important is that the largest increases in cognitive scores were in the following areas: crisis response, information usage and strategy.

What does this mean from a practical standpoint?

“Traditional” office buildings impede human performance and create an environment that perpetuates real business losses, as outlined by Allen and Macomber, in their book Healthy Buildings, how indoor spaces drive performance and productivity. The connection drawn by the research is clear — better air quality improves employees’ ability to respond to crises, utilize information and strategize; aspects that virtually every business owner would value. Conversely, employees working in environments with poor air quality are not performing at their best with respect to these critical aspects, and perhaps even committing increased errors. And while this research was conducted in an office setting, the same results would likely hold true for schools and work from home spaces.

In addition to improved cognitive output, the researchers found that increased ventilation rates were associated with 1.6 fewer sick days per year and that productivity increased 2–10% with improved air quality. Using an analytical tool that translates these numbers to a typical profit and loss statement, they argued that even when conservative estimates for improved productivity were used (3% of the 2–10% range), the bottom line net income for a service-based consulting firm increased by 10%. These results are outlined in their Healthy Buildings book,² and you can run the numbers yourself by utilizing this tool.

This research directly connects unhealthy buildings to business impacts, but there are also other, more indirect risks. While a pathway to liability is not (yet) entirely clear, as this body of research continues to increase, and the general public becomes more educated on the impacts of unhealthy buildings, owners, property managers, consumers and even insurance companies ignore it at their peril.

One way I explain it is that if I was a business owner, property manager or apartment landlord, I would not wait for my employees or tenants to ask, “why is our space not healthy?”

Opportunity: There are real business risks associated with failing to implement basic healthier building strategies, particularly for knowledge workers. There is also potential liability for failing to implement basic strategies with demonstrated, positive impacts.

Risk: sterile environments that are void of natural elements.

As humans, we have an innate affinity for the natural world — we crave nature and are drawn to natural elements (including symbols and images). This is why many people vacation and recreate in the mountains or near the ocean, why properties with views are so valuable, and why many people say a wood accent wall is “warm and inviting.”

This connection is known as biophilia, or a love of nature. Yet, the average American spends 90% of their time indoors, away from nature.

As a result, it makes sense that when designers incorporate natural elements into the spaces where we spend so much of our time, occupants report numerous benefits. Researchers have also documented a variety of positive outcomes, “including greater educational progress in schools, faster processing speed by call centre workers and, in office settings, improved sleep, greater working memory capacity, and fewer reports of fatigue and other health complaints.” This body of research continues to grow, and companies like Stantec, which have implemented recommendations based on this research, report significant benefits.

Even images of natural elements have been shown to have positive impacts.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that views of nature — through windows — are one of the most sought-after office perks. In a report published by commercial real estate giant CBRE, survey results revealed that the top two most valued perks or amenities at the office were views of the outdoors and access to natural light. These results clearly demonstrate that people want access to nature; far more than they want other common amenities like snacks and game rooms — they really just want to be treated like humans, and humans crave nature.

Research demonstrating the benefits of biophilic design strategies continues to increase. Expanding on the above example with respect to improved air quality, when research clearly demonstrates a better way, the potential liability for failing to put that research into practice, increases. This is really the root of what we know as the standard of care. And I think about it like a domino effect:

An increasing volume of research can create a sort of domino effect.

Opportunity: A steadily increasing body of research demonstrates that employees perform better, have reduced stress levels and report increased happiness and improved productivity in spaces that incorporate natural elements and / or views of nature. Failing to incorporate biophilic design means less productive employees who miss work more frequently, and the associated costs, as well as the increasing potential for liability.

Risk: design elements that fail to support all users.

The research demonstrates that diverse teams perform better.³ If a company wants to get the very best out of its people, it will hire a diverse group of folks, and create a safe and inclusive space where they can all excel.

All humans deserve access to safe and healthy spaces, and the opportunity to do their very best work.

Yet there are many ways that physical spaces can cause stress, anxiety and feelings of exclusion. There are many aspects of this conversation; in this article, I will focus on two: neurodiversity and safety.

Neurodiversity

Historically, office spaces have been relatively homogenous in design — you can probably picture an “office space” in your mind — and only a certain group of folks can perform well in these spaces. But beyond that group is an innovative and diverse spectrum of human experience that also deserves supportive spaces. In fact, “Neurodiverse individuals represent at least 20% of the adult population and…neurodiversity cuts across race, gender, and orientation as well.”⁴

There is so much value associated with the innovation that results from a diverse workforce that is provided the tools — including physical spaces — they need to succeed. We need to create and foster spaces where everyone can do their best work; businesses that fail to set all employees up for success miss out on these important contributions.⁵

The importance of creating safe spaces

Employees also cannot do their best work when they feel unsafe. It is important to acknowledge the fact that “safe,” like “healthy,” is a very personal term and that there are numerous ways that spaces can make occupants feel unsafe.

Individuals, particularly those who have experienced safety issues in buildings, often look for clues to assess whether they are welcome in a space. These can be as obvious as a sticker on a door (as in the image below) or more subtle, environmental cues that users are — or are not — welcome.

Photo of a sticker commonly found on the door of local businesses. This example comes from Bend, Oregon.

And unsafe spaces have real and direct impacts on occupant health and wellness. As just one example, the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, the largest ever survey to record the experiences of transgender people in the United States, found that:

• “More than half (59%) of respondents avoided using a public restroom in the past year because they were afraid of confrontations or other problems they might experience.”

• “Nearly one-third (32%) of respondents limited the amount that they ate and drank to avoid using the restroom in the past year.”

• “Eight percent (8%) reported having a urinary tract infection, kidney infection, or another kidney-related problem in the past year as a result of avoiding restrooms.”⁶

This data clearly shows negative health impacts that directly result from spaces that are unsafe for certain groups.

We can — and should — do much better for these users. And this is just one example; there are many others.⁷

Resource are widely available.

There are a range of resources available, and there is no excuse for failing to give everyone — not just groups that thrive in “traditional” office spaces — the opportunity to show up as their whole selves, and do their best work.

Opportunity: all building users have the basic human right to safe spaces that allow them to do their best work. Homogenous spaces that only support certain users are not only discriminatory, they also deprive the community of the valuable ideas and contributions of a large percentage of our population.

Risk: Environments that are distracting and uncomfortable.

Two key aspects of healthier buildings that are often overlooked are thermal and acoustic comfort. These two aspects are critical to occupant wellness and a company’s bottom line, because, if not properly addressed, they result in distracted employees.

Thermal considerations

I worked in a commercial office space in downtown Seattle for most of my career. As a person who loves the outdoors, few things made me more grumpy than when I would walk to work on a beautiful, warm and sunny summer day (a real treat in Seattle), into an office that was so cold, dry and sterile that I had to put a down jacket on — and all my coworkers did the same. I knew these conditions impacted my mood, but it wasn’t until I began working from home that I realized the magnitude of the impact. And I can say with confidence that my mood and distraction impacted my work, my interactions with my clients and my overall health and wellness.

That’s just my personal experience, but there is also a growing body of research that demonstrates there is a very narrow range of temperature that supports optimal human performance. As noted by the authors of Healthy Buildings, above, “Researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found a 10 percent relative reduction in performance when the temperature fell out of this narrow optimal range.”⁸ There are humidity and other reasons why the air in commercial spaces sometimes needs to be kept at a certain temperature, but completely ignoring or brushing off valid comfort concerns has real performance impacts to any business.

Moreover, these aspects disproportionately impact the performance of certain building users — particularly women. This is because our current thermal comfort “standards,” which govern facility operations in most commercial spaces, are based on the clothing choices and metabolic rates of men in the 1960s. Yet the metabolic rate of women can be up to 32% lower.

Failing to adjust environmental conditions to support all building users, or provide tools such as personal fans and heaters, has significant and disproportionate impacts.

Acoustic challenges

Research demonstrates that office workers lose up to 28% of productive time to interruptions and distractions, and 53% of workers report acoustic comfort issues.⁷ Read that again: more than half of office workers report acoustic comfort issues. This is unacceptable, particularly when implementation of basic strategies can significantly improve these issues and, as a result, productive time.

Strategies that improve acoustics are also a great example of how healthy building strategies can benefit all users (there are many other examples). Approximately 15% of adults report some difficulty hearing. With building-wide improvements, folks who may not experience challenges at a level that is defined as a “hearing difficulty”— or may not want to disclose these challenges — benefit from improved acoustics.

Opportunity: Employees who are distracted and uncomfortable cannot do their best work, and designs that rely on outdated standards have disproportionate impacts on certain users. Complaints about thermal comfort should be appropriately addressed, and spaces should be designed such that employees do not have to disclose health information in order to get the support they need.

Inaccessible environments are simply unacceptable.

A building is not “healthy” if only certain groups of users have access to it — and others are excluded. Yet this happens all the time and in a variety of ways. This topic could (and should) be the subject of a much larger conversation, and is beyond the scope of this article, but I at least want to raise a few points.

There are many ways that buildings can be “inaccessible,” and it’s important to move beyond baseline code compliance and towards the creation of truly accessible spaces, taking a broad interpretation of accessible that includes financial, mobility, temporal, geographic and other aspects. Spaces that are inaccessible to certain groups, or perpetuate stereotypes like “healthy for the wealthy” are clearly not in alignment with larger equity, diversity and inclusion work.

Everyone deserves safe, healthy spaces to live, learn and work.

Employers and employees benefit when employees can show up as their whole selves to safe workspaces that allow them to do their very best work —and the same is true for schools. Conversely, employees and students suffer when spaces are exclusive, homogenous and unsupportive.

Opportunity: Spaces that exclude certain users are simply unacceptable and expose businesses to potential liability. There is also an opportunity to take a leadership role in promoting greater access to healthy spaces.

NOTES:

[1] Most of the risks, benefits and strategies in this post are in the context of commercial office spaces, but, generally speaking, they also translate to educational and residential spaces. For example, the results of the COGfx study can (and should) be applied to residential and educational settings. And, if you’re looking for how these big picture strategies tie into specific strategies as outlined in third-party certification programs, message me, as I’m developing a chart.

[2] Allen and Macomber, Healthy Buildings: how indoor spaces drive performance and productivity, Harvard University Press (2020), p. 63–70 (spreadsheet).

[3] And in the overall context of a rapidly changing climate, and the associated risks, we need all the new ideas and perspectives that are out there, and a diverse set of minds working together to solve the climate crisis.

[4] CSRWire, Why There Has Never Been a Better Time for Neurodiversity, https://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/708931-why-there-has-never-been-better-time-neurodiversity (12/3/20)

[5] And there really is no excuse for failing to implement design strategies that support a neurodiverse workforce. Entities like HOK have created and shared resources, including “Designing a Neurodiverse Workplace.”

[6] 2015 US Transgender Survey, Executive Summary, https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Executive-Summary-Dec17.pdf (pages 14–15).

[7] Read more about inclusive restroom design in our article, “We Need to Talk About Restrooms,” https://sustainablestrategiespllc.medium.com/we-need-to-talk-about-restrooms-e15c612a810b

[8]Allen and Macomber, Healthy Buildings: how indoor spaces drive performance and productivity, Harvard University Press (2020), p. 96 (thermal health).

[9] NAIOP, Health is Not New — Use This Moment to Drive Productivity and Value, June 29, 2020; citing The Cost of Not Paying Attention: How Interruptions Impact Knowledge Worker Productivity, Jonathan Spira.

How Healthier Buildings Manage Risk

We spend most of our time in very unhealthy spaces.

A green, living wall on an apartment building in Seattle, Washington

As concepts like “green” and “green buildings” appropriately expand to include aspects specifically focused on human health and wellness, these changing terms naturally intersect with both risks and opportunities.

As a lawyer and sustainability consultant, I apply a legal and risk management lens to these issues. And given the current state of the market, and based on my review of the available research, I can say with confidence:

Healthier buildings are a risk management strategy; unhealthy buildings are a liability. And almost every building is unhealthy in one way or another.

In this article, I break down what this means, and provide strategies that practitioners can leverage to advocate for healthier buildings as the risk management tools they really are.

Healthier buildings — what are we even talking about?

First, notice that I try to use the term “healthier.” What I’m really doing is managing my own risk — because I think it is extremely difficult to claim that any building is completely “healthy.”

As an example, buildings are designed to bring people together — to live, learn and work. But as the pandemic has taught us, bringing people together can be very, very unhealthy. Like many things, it all depends on context.

Additionally, using terms like “healthy” can be problematic, because while there are certain ranges of human experience that encompass health, health is also a very personal concept.

What is “healthy” to me, may not be healthy to you, for a variety of reasons ranging from genetics to geography.

There are ways that we can make buildings “healthier,” but can we ever really make a building completely “healthy?” Probably not.

Even I sometimes slip and use the phrase “healthy building.” It’s one syllable shorter and it makes more sense to a wider audience, but when I’m trying to make a point, I try to be mindful of my language and use “healthier.”

One additional point with respect to language: while these terms are still evolving, when practitioners like myself talk about healthier buildings or healthier building strategies, we are really talking about two aspects of “health:”

• Human Health — direct health benefits to the building occupants. There are a range of health benefits that flow from healthier building strategies such as increased natural daylighting, improved air quality and incorporation of biophilic design elements.

• Environmental Health — indirect, environmental benefits that support human health. We know that climate change creates severe and disproportionate health impacts. Because a livable climate is a shared resource, any strategy that mitigates climate change also supports human health.

With that background, how do healthier buildings manage risk and why are unhealthy buildings a liability? At least two reasons: first, the pandemic created very educated real estate consumers; and second, our buildings and occupants face new and evolving risks that new tools like healthier buildings, can manage.

The pandemic created a highly educated consumer base

The pandemic forced the general population—many for the first time — to consider how indoor spaces, and specifically indoor air quality, impacts their health.

This information was deeply embedded into popular culture. For example, businesses, including restaurants, started to advertise “clean” air.¹

Sign outside a Seattle area restaurant, touting the air quality.

This educated consumer base arguably drove a very high demand for healthier buildings. For example, the International WELL Building Institute (IWBI), the entity that administers the WELL Building Standard (WELL), reported in early 2021 that, “WELL projects have now crossed the 1.5 billion square foot mark across more than 80 countries.” This is incredible growth for a program that was launched in 2014.

The flip side of this growth is that there is real risk in missing out on the benefits of capturing this market demand for healthier buildings. There is also the risk of obsolescence as projects that fail to implement basic healthier building strategies will be left behind.

In an interview with David Levinson, the CEO of L&L Holding, developer of 425 Park Avenue — the first new office building on Park Avenue in 50 years and the first WELL-certified commercial office building in Manhattan — summarized the potential for missed opportunities:

“Levinson is not just thinking about what his tenants will want this year or next. He is thinking about the tenants 5, 10, and 20 years from now. His major concern is that if he doesn’t take these steps toward health now, his building will be outdated in a few short years, surpassed by the next ‘latest and greatest’ in building. In some ways, it’s a risk-management decision. He is future-proofing his building.”

As Levinson further explained, “In an up market, I get the premium. In a down market, I get the tenant.”²

Risk just isn’t what it used to be

Related to future-proofing and risk management is the fact that risks are changing — they just aren’t what they used to be.

We have historically defined risk as a resulting “bad” outcome: a lawsuit, increased costs, damages, injuries, insurance claims, delays, negative press, etc. But we tend to under value — and at times completely ignore — the risks associated with a rapidly changing climate.

And this is a huge mistake.

The “new” risks that climate change presents to buildings and the humans that inhabit them are of a scope and scale that our brains don’t like to comprehend. This largely unprecedented scale means that the tools we have traditionally used to manage risk — like insurance — no longer fit the current context.

As an example, in response to the 2019 and 2020 wildfire seasons, the Insurance Commissioners in Western states like California had to step in a declare a moratorium on non-renewals of policies in certain fire-prone areas. Wildfires in these states have increased in frequency and severity to the point that insurance companies can no longer profitably manage the risk for their insured homeowners. The insurance industry’s response? Pull out of these markets, to the point where regulators have to step in.

We can flip this response to instead try to identify opportunities. We know that a changing climate puts all assets (insured or not) at greater risk of loss or damage. What this means is that any strategy that slows climate change (or supports climate predictability) should be considered a risk management strategy. Because it is.

This includes basic healthier building strategies like reducing reliance on fossil fuels by improving building energy performance and converting to clean energy. It also includes healthier building strategies aimed at supporting occupant health, such as controlling indoor pollution sources, because the reality is, we already spend 90% of our time indoors; this percentage will increase as we seek refuge from our rapidly changing climate.

Healthy building certifications are a key part of the conversation

One of the most important things I learned from practicing construction and insurance coverage law is that at the core of most lawsuits is an unmet or misaligned expectation. One party delivered one thing and the other party expected something else.

It’s both that simple and that complicated.

I can boil a 13-year legal career down to one key lesson: managing expectations is a critical risk management strategy. We do this all the time; through conversations, contracts, confirming emails, meetings and even design charrettes. But in this time of evolving risks, we can and likely should do better.

One often-overlooked aspect of managing expectations is utilizing precise language.

Sustainability is actually a very broad discipline and we are rich with both acronyms and specialized terms. And while we have, to some degree, developed a common language, there is lots of room for ambiguity and the resulting increased risk of misaligned expectations.

For example, if I asked 10 people to define a “green” building, I would very likely get 10 different answers, and at least one person would say it was a building that was literally painted green. There’s one in every bunch.

That said, over the past 20 years or so of “green” building, the industry has developed a sort of common language around “green,” largely driven by third party certification programs like LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). LEED created an external standard that practitioners could point to, which helped manage stakeholder expectations by creating consistency in the market.

As the definition of “green building” has expanded to include concepts of heath and wellness, as well as resilience (among others), the industry has developed specialized certification programs that focus on human health and wellness, such as WELL, Fitwel and others.³

An external standard that is respected in the market helps manage expectations while also honoring the fact that these terms change over time. Certification programs naturally and appropriately evolve as technology advances, new research is published and the various support industries develop their skills and gain experience. This is demonstrated by the fact that LEED is now on version 4.1 and WELL v2 was launched in 2020.

Third party certification programs focused on health and wellness are creating a common language around ambiguous terms like “healthy buildings,” which helps manage the risks associated with unmet or misaligned expectations. For example, if you agreed to develop, construct or operate a “healthy building,” what, exactly, is that?

Widespread adoption of ESG will make unhealthy buildings obsolete

One more point about risk: there is real risk in missing market opportunities. Disclosure drives competition, and while I cannot predict the future, I can say with high confidence that disclosure and evaluation/assessment of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) indicators will become increasingly regulated and the accepted business standard, as companies like Salesforce continue to take strong leadership roles.

The climate risk assessments of real estate porfolios will be a key part of ESG disclosures and healthier, more resilient buildings, which manage a variety of risks while also doing better in the market, will rise to the top.

This market shift also underscores the importance of a common language, as discussed above and noted in the recent report, A New Investor Consensus: The Rising Demand for Healthy Buildings:

“Third-party healthy building certifications will increasingly be relied upon to offer a viable framework for consistently tracking and integrating health-related ESG metrics.”³

This report is widely cited as of one of the largest surveys of commercial real estate investors, with over $5.75 trillion in assets under management. Healthier buildings are clearly here to stay.

Healthier buildings manage a variety of risks

We need to start leveraging healthier spaces as the risk management tools they really are. To effectively do so, it is important to be clear about terms like “healthy,” meet consumers’ expectations for these spaces, capture market opportunities, leverage certification programs to create a common language, and consider the natural evolution of risks.

In later articles, I’ll outline and prioritize specific healthier building strategies, including the features of the leading certification programs, and explain how they manage a variety of risks.

[1] Demonstrative of consumer demand, an Alexa skill was developed where users could request outdoor air quality information for their area.

[2] Both quotes from Allen and Macomber, Healthy Buildings: how indoor spaces drive performance and productivity, Harvard University Press (2020), p. 165–168.

[3] Report available for download at this link: https://www.fitwel.org/new-investor-consensus/

What I Wish You Knew About Sustainability

Seven common roadblocks — and what you can do about it.

I have been working, teaching and advocating in the sustainability space for more than a decade. As both a lawyer and sustainability practitioner, I have connected with a broad range of activists, other experts and community members. There are so many things that hold us back from real change and deep climate work. Below are the seven things I wish everyone knew:

1. Clear language is incredibly important.

Terms like “green” and “eco-friendly” get tossed around all the time. The problem with these terms is that they mean so many things that they essentially mean nothing. When I ask 10 people to describe a “green” product I get 10 different answers — I have tried this many times and never gotten the same answer.

Different definitions may not seem like a problem, but the power of language means that these types of broad, undefined terms can be at best confusing and at worst misleading. Marketing products as “green,” when they only reflect superficial sustainability hurts consumers, competitors who truly are “green” and so many others.

What you can do: pay attention to the language you use and the language that advertisers use to market sustainable products. If a term like “eco-friendly” is not clear, ask for clarification or look elsewhere.

2. Companies are constantly competing for your “green” dollars.

Related to the above, companies are always looking to capture a consumer market that is increasingly searching for “more sustainable” products. To do this, they often over-state or mis-state the positive environmental impacts of a product or service (or claim that it has no negative impacts) — this is greenwashing. A classic example is “Earth Rated” or “Earth Approved.” The “Earth” does not rate or approve anything; companies do, and the standards they use vary wildly.

What you can do: this one is harder because while many companies are now disclosing far more information about their products, this information can be difficult to find and interpret. Ask questions, advocate for your right to know what is in the products you bring into your home, and if you don’t get clear answers, spend your money elsewhere. Bonus points if you let the less-than-transparent company know you’ve gone elsewhere.

3. Recycling is a complex topic that requires a hands-on approach.

Just like “green,” terms like “recyclable” can mean many different things. Recycling is a very complex issue, and because there is no federal, standardized recycling program, what is “recyclable” varies drastically depending on where you are.

The issues surrounding recycling have even led to new terms like “wishcycling,” which is essentially the good-intentioned hope (or overestimation) regarding the types of products that can actually be recycled. Most people believe that it is better to try to recycle something that *may* be recyclable than to put a potentially recyclable item in the trash. While we do not want to discourage recycling, this can lead to a contaminated recycling stream that ultimately just gets landfilled.

What you can do: research local resources that help you understand what can be recycled in your area. Many cities and counties actively try to educate consumers. For example, King County, Washington has a helpful “what do I do with” website, where users type in a specific product, such as “lightbulb” or “batteries,” and the proper disposal process is outlined. In addition to researching tools in your area, you can support the push for manufacturers to reduce plastic use from the beginning.

4. Your individual action really does make a difference.

The global aspect of environmental issues can make them feel overwhelming and difficult to engage with. Here’s the truth: your individual conduct, actions and choices actually make a difference, because scale matters.

Think about it this way: if you reduce your individual driving habits, that may seem like a drop in the bucket. However, as outlined in the New York Times, if every American drove 10% less, this would be the equivalent carbon savings of taking 28 coal-fired power plants offline for an entire year. It’s all about scale and how you think about the impact of the changes you make.

What you can do: realize that your conduct actually does make a difference and start somewhere. Then increase the scale of your impact by sharing your sustainable choices with your community. Humans gravitate towards what they think “everyone else” is doing, so having conversations with your community will increase the impact of your individual choices.

5. Sustainability can be really complicated, but simple solutions are just as important.

Much of my work focuses on buildings, and, as an example, a truly sustainable and regenerative building is a pretty complicated thing. And many other aspects of sustainability dive deep into complex chemistry and integrated processes. But there are also really simple, and really important aspects of sustainability. Reusing just one thing is sustainable. Keeping one item out of the waste stream is sustainable. These small, simple acts often get overlooked, but they are just as important, particularly when they compound (see item 4, above).

What you can do: start somewhere, start where you are, and find beauty in the analog. Sustainability doesn’t have to be fancy, it just needs to happen.

6. The latest research demonstrates tangible benefits from incorporating nature into our everyday lives.

The benefits of natural light and views of nature are not new, they are just gaining more attention as the research — from reputable institutions — solidifies what you probably already know and experience. An increasing body of research has shown that exposure to nature has a variety of positive benefits ranging from lower blood pressure and heart rate, to improved stress recovery (ability to quickly “bounce back” from a stressful experience).

What you can do: if you’re skeptical, try it out for yourself. Spend more time in nature or incorporate images of nature or natural elements into your workspace. This could be as simple as moving your desk to capture more natural light or adding a small plant to your desk. Chances are you will feel the benefits.

7. It is not too late, but it is really, really close.

While it is not too late to make a difference, we do have a lot of work to do in a short amount of time. Climate change can feel really overwhelming and difficult to connect with. A rapidly changing climate is scary, and even I have my moments where I feel like we should just give up. I think it is important to acknowledge that we have hard work ahead of us, but also that we can do this work.

What you can do: focus on opportunities instead of challenges. Start small, start with what matters to you, and try to scale up small changes (see items 4 and 5 above). Practice what I called “inspired urgency,” and operate from a place of collective empowerment, not fear.

These seven aspects will change and evolve over time. Let’s consider this a starting point and an opportunity for further conversation. If everyone who reads this article implements just one of these strategies, I’ll call that a win.

Proactive Risk Management 101: Get and Stay Ahead of Future Regulation

The benefits of an often-overlooked, yet highly effective risk management strategy.

Much of my work focuses on helping clients manage the risks of sustainable innovation. This can be done by leveraging various strategies. One key strategy is attempting to get and stay ahead of future regulation.

But what does that mean?

It generally means avoiding the costs of late-in-the-game compliance and adding value by capturing market and other opportunities created by regulatory activity. These costs and missed opportunities are very real business risks that can and should be managed.

The first step to implementing this strategy is learning how to identify the “guideposts” or indicators that suggest future regulation.

Guideposts that suggest future regulation

Climate change is a good, if obvious, example of a guidepost.

President Biden has made it clear that climate will be a priority during his Administration. And nearly every industry — from textiles to architecture — contributes to climate change (in one way or another) and, as a result, nearly every industry will be impacted by regulation intended to mitigate climate change impacts. If you are not paying attention to this clear indicator from the Executive, and taking at least some steps toward mitigating your business’s contributions, you are putting your business at risk.

Proclamations from government and other regulatory entities are also important guideposts, because once a city, state or other government entity commits to a certain climate benchmark, such as climate neutral by 2030, they have to regulate to achieve that goal or benchmark.

Another guidepost is when industry leaders take strong, public positions on certain issues. For example, asset management firm BlackRock gained significant attention in 2020 by taking very public positions with respect to sustainable investing and incorporation of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) risk analysis, in a series of letters to clients and CEOs. BlackRock has continued to take this position in 2021. And the Securities and Exchange Commission’s recent appointment of a new senior policy advisor, whose work will focus on climate and ESG issues, bolsters this cue from the private sector that ESG will be subject to increased regulation.

A final example is automotive industry leader General Motors committing to sell only Zero-Emission vehicles by 2035. The following quote from a recent New York Times article captures the significance of this Zero-Emission pledge:

Leaders could point to G.M.’s decision as evidence that even big businesses have decided that it is time for the world to begin to transition away from fossil fuels that have powered the global economy for more than a century.

Businesses can look to industry leaders and bold, public proclamations as key guideposts that regulation is forthcoming, particularly from companies in the business of identifying and managing risk — like financial institutions and insurance companies. With these regulatory guideposts in mind, it is important to start implementing strategies to manage these risks and minimize the associated costs.

So how do we manage the risks of future regulation?

With respect to sustainability, most companies don’t know what they don’t know, which reinforces the importance of tracking data and simply starting somewhere. Government and other regulatory entities will often take this “start with data” approach, which is why it is important for businesses to do the same.

If we use the built environment as an example, buildings are one of the most significant contributors to climate change emissions. As a result, many state and local governments have appropriately focused regulation on building energy use, by following a pathway that begins with a guidepost followed by data collection.

If we use the City of Seattle (and state of Washington) as an example, the pathway looks like this:

• City makes bold climate proclamations, and identifies largest contributors to climate change emissions, in this example, large, existing commercial buildings.

• City first requires owners of these buildings to track and share data on their (fossil fuel-based) energy usage.¹

• City then requires building owners to identify and make low to no cost improvements to existing buildings.

• State of Washington (with authority over buildings in the City of Seattle) enacts the Clean Buildings Act, which, among other things, requires buildings to meet specific energy use targets (EUI).²

If we put this pathway in a more visual form, it would look like this:

Example regulatory pathway that can inform risk management strategies.

The point is that businesses can manage the risk of future regulation by taking voluntary measures that track this expected pathway. This means at least tracking data and preferably implementing basic, low to no cost sustainability strategies — before they are required.

While this example comes from buildings, we expect regulation of other industries to follow a similar pathway.

There are two sides to this conversation: while there are costs associated with regulatory compliance, including labor, equipment and reporting costs, there are also benefits associated with staying ahead of the regulatory curve.

The benefits of staying ahead of the regulatory curve

Generally speaking, it costs less to stay at pace than to try to catch up. The analogy of a set of stairs can be helpful: it costs less to take one stair at a time than to jump up several stairs.

In the below example, the steps represent increasingly stringent reductions in energy use. It is easier (i.e. costs less) to go from step A to B, B to C, and C to D than it is to jump from A to D.

Example of steadily increasing regulatory requirements.

Waiting until the last minute to comply with regulation (having to jump from A to D) also exposes business to other risks. If we continue with our example of buildings in Washington state, in order to comply with the Clean Buildings Act, many owners will need to enlist the help of outside consultants and other support specialists. For owners who wait until the last minute, these supporting consultant firms could easily become overwhelmed and lack the capacity to meet crunched deadlines. Missed deadlines can expose owners to a variety of risks, including penalties and other costs.

And these penalties can be significant — for the Clean Buildings Act, up to $5,000 plus $1 per gross square foot, per year. For a 50,000 square foot building, that’s an unacceptable level of avoidable exposure.

Continuing with our example, the Clean Buildings Act also contains an early adoption incentive for certain buildings. Building owners that comply with the regulation early can receive a one-time incentive payment. However, this incentive is capped at $75M total. Once this pool of free money is used up, it is gone. Thus the name “early adopter.” For projects that are eligible, leaving this type of free money on the table is a significant and avoidable risk. Yet I would be incredibly surprised if there were enough early adopters to actually exhaust this incentive.

Missing these types of opportunities has traditionally been considered an acceptable business risk based on short-term thinking. However, this type of thinking no longer fits the current reality, and these types of risks need to be reframed and placed in the appropriate context.

Summary

Attempting to get and stay ahead of future regulation is an important and effective risk management strategy. Smart business owners will want to look for guideposts, expect (and plan for) a data-first pathway and take advantage of early adopter benefits. In the current climate, the “wait and see” approach is no longer a viable option.

[1] In fact, regulations related to energy benchmarking and disclosure have steadily increased over time. According to a Bloomberg report, the “square footage of commercial building space covered by such policies jumped from 9% in 2017 to 13% in 2019, covering around 11 billion square feet.”

[2] This type of legislation is commonly referred to as a Building Performance Standards (BPS).

We have a toxic relationship with buildings

We need to innovate our way out of an outdated “risk loop”

Buildings present significant risks to human health and wellness. But instead of finding innovative ways to manage these risks, we stall sustainable innovation by convincing ourselves that innovation is the source of the risk, when in reality, innovation is the only solution.

Let’s break this down.

We know that the built environment — buildings and all the related structures that connect and support them — is one of the largest contributors to climate change emissions. The way we build and operate buildings has, and continues to, cause our climate to change in significant and disproportionate ways.

We also know that we spend a significant amount of time within buildings— on average, humans in North America spend 90% of their time indoors. This percentage will go up as we increasingly seek shelter from the harsher conditions and more powerful storms that are associated with a changing climate.

Running in the background is the fact that there is a steadily increasing volume of research to support the numerous risks that our indoor environments present to our health and wellness. For example, studies show that levels of common pollutants can be two to five times higher indoors than outdoors.

I visualize this toxic, cyclical relationship like this:

We seek shelter from climate impacts in spaces that negatively impact our health; yet these spaces also cause climate impacts, by releasing a significant amount of climate change emissions (GHG).

We seek shelter from climate impacts in spaces that negatively impact our health; yet these spaces also cause climate impacts, by releasing a significant amount of climate change emissions (GHG).

There is a simple strategy to manage this cyclical risk—recognize it for what it is and prioritize building and developing more sustainably, at scale.

And we can do this — we have proven that we can build highly sustainable, even regenerative projects, that also support human health and wellness — we simply choose not to. And the risk inherent in that choice is much too high. This failure to take action, when we know that we can, and in light of the well-documented impacts, would be unacceptable in virtually any other context.

If you start to think about these types of risks in a more holistic way, you start to reframe your thinking and (correctly) see virtually any sustainability strategy as a risk management strategy.

So what do we do?

To break out of this “risk loop” we first need to recognize our own confirmation bias towards the assumption that sustainable buildings are somehow “riskier.” This just isn’t true: whereas innovative, sustainable technologies and strategies can sometimes lack clear precedent, when balanced against the well-documented risks of a rapidly changing climate, the balance tips towards innovation. And as the body research that solidifies the negative impacts “traditional” buildings have on health and wellness continues to grow, the risk of maintaining the status quo — excessively high indoor pollutant levels as just one example — is outweighed by the benefits of innovation.

I visualize this tipping of the scales like this:

To support this work, we also need to reframe the way we think about risk to more appropriately account for broader risks like a rapidly changing climate, so we can develop innovative strategies to manage these broader risks. For example, climate change subjects all buildings — from large commercial properties to single family homes — to many of the same risks, albeit at different scales. Given the built environment’s significant contributions to climate change emissions, working to reduce these emissions, even at the individual building level, is in any property owner’s best (self-serving) interest. It is also in the best interest of any entity in the development, design and construction industries, as well as the manufacturers, suppliers and service providers (from leasing agents to janitorial crews) that support these industries.

In this new type of framework, private and public entities will need to design, fund and deliver strategies that improve sustainable aspects of their buildings and that benefit the overall collective. Yes, some of these benefits will flow to others because all of us are impacted by the same climate. This type of community-level thinking is not the way that businesses usually operate and it is not the way that risk management strategies generally frame things — but those old strategies no longer work.

I think about it like this:

In this new paradigm, some of the up front “costs,” a term that also needs to be redefined, flow to other entities, as climate does not respect property lines or jurisdictional boundaries.

In this new paradigm, some of the up front “costs,” a term that also needs to be redefined, flow to other entities, as climate does not respect property lines or jurisdictional boundaries.

This is a longer-term, wider-spread risk management strategy — but it better aligns with longer-term, wider-spread risks, like the impacts of a changing climate.

Think about it this way; we have been doing the opposite for a very long time, capturing the benefit of the common resource of a livable climate, for free. We need to flip this old paradigm on its head. New tools and risk frameworks are needed to do this work, and in later posts, we will describe two: the Cost of Inaction and the Cost of Catching Up. These costs (risks) have not been traditionally accounted for, but are now a necessary part of our modern world and risk analyses.

Building Owners: Engage Your Tenants Like an Airline

Or miss an important opportunity (and expose yourself to liability)

In the new year, building owners will continue to face a daunting task: incentivize (and enforce) tenant behavior that complies with regulatory and other guidance regarding viral transmission. As we continue to develop the pathways back to commercial office spaces (in whatever capacity that looks like), there will be many challenges. In addition to design challenges, owners and managers will need to find creative ways to ensure tenants comply with expected behavior, or face significant liability, potential fines and a host of other issues.

During this challenging time, creative building owners can look to other industries, particularly those that have historically been highly-regulated — like airlines — for guidance. These industries have been developing strategies for engagement and compliance for decades.

Alaska Airlines recently released an excellent example of the right way to manage these issues. In the promotional video below, Alaska does the following:

• Uses a catchy song and bright visuals to get — and hold — your attention

• Clearly explains necessary information (verbally and reinforced with written text)

• Includes examples of employees modeling expected behavior (wearing masks, six feet apart)

Alaska Airlines Safety Dance video, https://youtu.be/b9w_paUjzKs

For building owners and operators, there are two additional points worth noting.

Intersection with sustainability

First, while building systems and protocols that address viral transmission are relatively new (at least at this level), sustainable certification frameworks and protocols have a more established place in the market.

While we continue to implement safety protocols as we reimagine the workplace in 2021, we can — and should — encourage related strategies that foster sustainable, healthy spaces long term, and employ strategies that encourage tenants to support sustainable objectives.

Why is this opportunity so critical? Because the sustainability community has historically struggled with negative framing and engagement —the messaging almost always contains a theme of sacrifice or shame: give up comfort to be more sustainable; shame your peers for taking too many single-occupant trips.

The strategies employed in the video flip this script and instead make the desired behavior the preferred choice — sustainability practitioners take note and capture the opportunity to use these strategies to promote safety and sustainability.

Landfill and recycling containers at a grocery store in Portland, Oregon

In addition to the strategies highlighted in the video, there are at least three key ways to foster greater engagement with sustainable behavior:

• Tie human-scale conduct to a larger cause — explain how individual conduct aggregates for a greater impact

• If possible, leverage the power of storytelling — people engage with and have far better recall when information is shared in the form of a story

• Transparently track data regarding performance — this helps identify new strategies (and necessary course-corrections) while inspiring larger goals

The importance of signage.

Second, it is important to specifically call out the importance of clear signage with respect to these issues. As demonstrated in the video, signage can be a powerful and cost-effective form of engagement and reinforcement of verbal instructions. Good signage explains the purpose of a directive and answers common questions.

For example, if you want (or need) your tenants to place certain types of waste in certain bins, use clear signage, and even examples (as demonstrated below), to help them make the correct choice. This type of signage is also a form of risk management, if, for example, there is a potential for fines as a result of contaminated recycling streams.

Signs are so important that certification programs like the Living Building Challenge require “interpretive signage that teaches visitors and occupants about the project.”¹

Living Building Challenge signage at a PCC store in Seattle, Washington

This new year will continue to force building owners and operators to face an evolving array of issues. In addition to the strategies above, I highly encourage building owners and managers to carefully consider both sustainable objectives and necessary signage as part of their tenant engagement, and overall risk management, plans.

[1] Core Imperative 20, Education and Inspiration, https://living-future.org/lbc/

Then, there are examples of confusing signage that could be done better. For example, these “updated” trash and recycling cans that were distributed throughout the City of Seattle. The trash cans also have what is widely recognized as a “recycling” logo.

Climate change is a social justice issue.

And lawyers have an obligation to mitigate its disproportionate impacts.

Climate change is inherently difficult to engage with. It does not align with how our brains work; it is abstract, overwhelming in scope and scale, and difficult to visualize. Climate change plays perfectly into our short-sightedness, selfishness and survival instincts, because it is difficult, if not impossible, to see how our individual conduct could have any type of meaningful impact on such a large-scale problem — either positive or negative. To make matters worse, the framing around climate change is always rooted in sacrifice, fear, or shame.

Climate change is also continuously running in the background. If you have not yet felt the impacts of a climate change, it is because you have the resources to temporarily insulate yourself. You have climate privilege.

The Bullitt Center in Seattle, Washington

This can be a complicated conversation, but the reality is that the impacts of a changing climate hit minority and marginalized communities first and hardest.

These communities are also often un or under-insured, without the necessary resources to repair or rebuild in response to its impacts. Access to insurance should not be a privilege, but it is.

Climate change does not just put physical assets at risk, it also has severe — and disproportionate — impacts on human health and wellness.

Those in a position of privilege have an ethical obligation to work to mitigate these disproportionate impacts.

It can be difficult to regulate ethics. One exception is licensed professionals, who must abide by ethical and other governing rules as a condition of licensure or other rights.

These rules can serve as a pathway to connect the inequities of climate change to the individual practitioner’s ability — and responsibility — to make a positive impact.

The architectural community has already taken a leadership role in this space. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) creates, updates and enforces the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, which governs the conduct of AIA members. The 2018 updates to the Code of Ethics contains several additional Obligations to the Environment, including Rule 6.501, “Members shall consider with their clients the environmental effects of their project decisions.” Rules are mandatory, and violations are grounds for disciplinary action by the AIA. While there are questions as to what this Rule actually requires, and its impact since implementation, its inclusion sends a strong message to practitioners.

The legal community should follow suit. While not explicitly stated in the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct (RPCs), there are arguably broader themes that cut towards a similar obligation, particularly given climate change’s disproportionate impacts. These generally fall within the RPC’s broader themes of competency, advocacy, and improving the profession.

While the Preamble does not rise to the level of a Rule, it does outline several of these important themes:

• “As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession.” [6, emphasis added]

• “A lawyer should be mindful of deficiencies in the administration of justice and of the fact that the poor, and sometimes persons who are not poor, cannot afford adequate legal assistance.” [6, emphasis added]

• “A lawyer should strive to attain the highest level of skill, to improve the law and the legal profession and to exemplify the legal profession’s ideals of public service.” [7, emphasis added]

Perhaps the most relevant Rule is that of competence. Specifically, “A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.” RPC 1.1 — Competence.

Climate change will — and already does — impact all areas of practice, from estate planning (is this asset at climate risk), corporate law (climate disclosure requirements), intellectual property (new climate technologies) and even issues of criminal law (new types of environmental crimes).

Competence requires that lawyers understand climate impacts and advise their clients accordingly. As advisors, lawyers can also look to even broader themes:

RPC 2.1 — Advisor, “In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client’s situation.” (emphasis added).

Given the inequities of climate change, these themes require that lawyers seek to better the profession by developing and supporting strategies that mitigate their clients’ contributions.

Lawyers have both the opportunity and obligation to use their position of privilege to mitigate the disproportionate economic and health impacts of a changing climate, through the practice of law and in their role as trusted advisors.

Healthy Buildings: language matters, here’s why!

What is a “healthy building?”

That’s a good question. But to answer it, we need to look at a few different aspects.

First, greenwashing is everywhere, and it has become more prevalent and more egregious, which has led to greater regulatory enforcement (more on that in a minute). And now we also have greenwashing’s cousin, “well washing” or “healthy washing.”

So what can we credibly call a “healthy” building?

I’m also a lawyer, so I like to nerd out about language - I can’t help myself. “Healthy” is an interesting term, and in the context of buildings, there’s little precedent.

So here’s a quick historical anecdote:

In 2017 I was part of the team that launched the Materials Matter series in Seattle - exploring materials transparency and risk, as Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) and Health Product Declarations (HPDs) were new to the market and there was some concern regarding the designer’s obligations now that “health” information regarding building products was widely available in the marketplace.

Since there was so little precedent to look to, during that presentation, I talked about a series of warning letters that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had sent to Kind bars in 2015, regarding some of their “health-related” claims. Essentially, and I’m simplifying the issues here, the FDA felt that Kind could not market its bars as “healthy” because the nuts in Kind bars pushed them outside of the nutrient guidelines and (outdated) standards that did not account for healthy fats.

Here is an excerpt from the original FTC warning letter:

Kind bars pushed back, the FDA changed its tune (and its standards), and the original warning letter has been taken down (here is a link to a Time article summarizing the issues).

More recently, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has cracked down on health-related claims (a helpful article from our friends at Davis Wright Tremaine is available here) and the FTC is also in the process of developing much-needed updates to its “Green Guides.” This is all running in the background while we wait for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to finalize rules related to Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG), which will also shape how we define numerous terms that fall under E, S and G. SO many acronyms, so little time.

So, what’s the point of all this?

Standards evolve and so does language; this is why we need to be mindful of how we talk about things like “healthy” buildings.

Additionally, health-related claims can be difficult because health can be a very personal issue. While we do have some population-level health metrics - like air quality - certain aspects - like nutritional needs - are very person-specific.

Because healthy buildings are, relatively speaking, still sort of new, the language is still nascent. Similar to how LEED gained widespread market adoption, and has created a common language around sustainable building, third party verified programs like WELL and Fitwel have a similar impact on healthy buildings. They are starting to develop a common language and understanding of what constitutes a “healthy” building, in the absence of specific regulation of this term.

So what can you do?

Be mindful of language:

• When using terms like “healthy,” consider the difference between “safe” and “safer.” Or an example I often give: is water “safe?” We need water to survive, yet according to the Centers for Disease Control, on average 11 people die of drowning each day (approx. 4,000 per year). This is a bit of an extreme example, but hopefully you get the point: language matters.

• Stay current on the latest regulatory changes related to language; including the FTC, FDA, SEC and related guidance at the state level. Any easy way to do this? Follow this blog and follow us on social media (here and here).

• Certification programs like The WELL Building Standard can help support the validity of healthy building claims, because WELL is third-party verified, evidence-based and grounded in the latest research. And the process for developing the standard is transparent and informed by numerous leading experts. These types of certification programs improve consistency and clarity in language; and, they evolve over time as technology, industry and market expectations, practitioner and vendor skill and related inputs also change. These updates - WELL is currently on version 2 - are very appropriate and help ensure that language keeps pace with market expectations (i.e. the Kind bars example and evolving dietary guidance).

#wearewell

Sustainable Strategies does not provide legal advice of any kind. This blog is not legal advice; it is for educational and informational purposes only.

Photo by Monika Grabkowska on Unsplash

ESG - Animal, Vegetable or Mineral?

Environmental, Social and Governance or ESG is the acronym that everyone loves to hate and yet no one can define. So what is it?

ESG can be difficult to understand, because it really is difficult to define:

• Is it an animal, vegetable or mineral?

• Person, place or thing?

• Is it a noun (report or framework), verb (process), probably not an adjective, that’s a tough one.

• Is it a process? Or an end product? Or both?

• A way of thinking about risks and opportunities (internal and external)?

• All (or some) of the above?

I work a lot with students at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. And as ESG steadily becomes a larger part of virtually all industries, they need to have a baseline understanding. But it can be (understandably) really difficult for audiences with little to no background or context to understand ESG - something that is inherently multi-faceted and multi-disciplinary. You have to pull a lot of themes together for it to make sense, and that can require the lens of experience.

Heck, I have often joke that if you asked ten different ESG practitioners to define ESG, you would get ten different definitions, and none of them would be wrong (by the way, I asked ChatGPT to define ESG, and here’s what it said).

ESG is tough for all of us to define, but particularly tough for professionals who are just starting out on their career path, because ESG touches so many disciplines disciplines: sustainability, finance, risk management, climate change, law and policy, and on, and on, and on…. If you don’t yet have the background, it’s really hard.

So what is ESG?

I generally think of ESG as a process: collecting, analyzing and sharing a variety of metrics that loosely fall into three “buckets” of Environmental, Social and Governance. And hopefully improving on those metrics (and your process) over time. Generally, this information is shared in the form of a report (or a collection of reports and required filings, depending on the circumstances).

We currently lack a single standard to look to; which means we don’t (yet) have a common language. And I hate to be a skeptic, but I just don’t see how the SEC’s forthcoming regulations will provide much clarity. They may provide some structure, and a floor, but that’s about it.

So when I try to explain ESG to my students, the best I can come up with is that it is a process. What do you think? Drop a (respectful) comment below…

Photo by mk. s on Unsplash