The credit intent states the following: Encourage any and all members of the project team to promote and further social equity by integrating strategies that address identified social and economic needs and disparities among those working on the project by: • Creating more equitable, healthier, and more supportive environments for construction workers during project construction through: o Ensuring fair and equitable pay and benefits for work performed o Promoting employable skill development o Promoting personal financial and health stability • Promoting corporate social responsibility at an organizational level by the firms of the project owner, financier, architects/engineers, contractors, product manufacturers, etc. However, the two credit options address different aspects of the intent. Option 1 addresses ‘Creating more equitable, healthier, and more supportive environments for construction workers’ and Option 2 addresses “Promoting corporate social responsibility.” Would this credit be better served as an “and/or” credit, with a potential for up to two points? Or, should this credit remain combined or be separated into two discrete social equity credits?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Perhaps offering an Option 1 or Option 2 or Weighted option. Then perhaps if 40% of the construction team and 10% of the design team meets the credit could be earned.
I am curious how many teams pursue option 1 versus option 2. I assume there is a preference to limit most pilot credits to 1 point, so if the options were split into two distinct social equity credits, it would be interesting to see how many project teams pursued both.
Add new comment
To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.