At the start of 2021 there was one signatory to the contractors commitment (thanks Leopardo!). Today, there are 12 companies participating, representing over $24 Billion in total revenue.
We don’t always give ourselves enough credit or take enough time to savor our accomplishments because there is always more to do. But, this is a big accomplishment. And, we all had a hand in this, so please, take a moment to pat yourself on the back.
As we barrel towards 2022 and the end of the pilot year, it makes sense to ask the question: When and how do we want to make upgrades?
Broadly speaking, there are probably two types of changes: Those providing clarification and consistency, and those providing changes of substance.
The recommendations I have heard so far are to:
- Make all changes now in advance of 2022 to have a refined document for the 2022 calendar year
- Wait to receive data from 2021, and make adjustments at that point for the C.C. moving forward. This would be in the March / April 2022 timeframe.
- Make any changes needed for clarification purposes now, and wait until 2023 to make changes of substance.
I tend to try to follow Conor McGuire’s advice to keep things simple, and that you can increase stringency or effectiveness without increasing complexity.
I do feel there are opportunities to simplify the C.C., and I would personally like to see that happen sooner than later. But, this is a group effort, and we want group feedback. If you have an opinion please weigh in.
It would seem the most likely method for making changes will be convening a digital group discussion for all interested parties to weigh in, which can then get distilled down into proposed changes. Similar to how our summit worked when forming the C.C., but a much more condensed version.
However, in the spirit of excessively long emails, I’m going to put down my thoughts here for all the see, and perhaps others may feel compelled to do the same. So the questions are: How do we want to propose making changes, what should the timeline be, and do you have any immediate thoughts or feedback.
My General Thoughts on the C.C.
- One thing I think is missing that could be a great benefit is that if you become a signatory part of the process is you have to create a Sustainability Action Plan for your company if you don’t have one. We don’t need to have guidelines, and I’m indifferent as to whether or not it would need to be shared, but the AIA 2030 Commitment made this a requirement for signatories and I think it is a very powerful tool to force stakeholders to chart their destiny without forcing a series of check boxes on people.
- The 30% requirement is more challenging than I expected. Mostly because I want to implement the C.C. on new projects, when revenue is low. Maybe it’s 30% of projects by revenue by year 3? I’m open to suggestions / thoughts. Also, we should provide clarification where the 30% number might provide conflict, like in the carbon category where you’re tracking company activities, or the water category where you’re tracking # of water fine incidents by company.
- One of the things I like about JUST is that the first entry point in most categories is that you have a written policy. I think putting strategy on paper can be one of the most effective tools to help guide people and hold them accountable, and customize approach for their company (as mentioned about the action plans). This approach manifests in the Materials and Water categories, and these also end up being two of the simplest categories. I’d like to see this applied to the Wellness and Waste categories to help simplify them, and maybe the Carbon category.
My Thoughts by Category
Carbon
No immediate big picture feedback. This one is complex, but I think that’s unavoidable. My only comments are just providing clarification for a few things. Also, a previous post mentioned some divergence from CDP protocol. Any possibility for alignment with other standards is likely beneficial.
Wellness
Probably the category with the biggest opportunity for simplification. My opinion is that we don’t need requirements for Air, Nourishment, Fitness, Mind, and Weather in all Good, Better, Best categories. I.E. maybe weather only shows up in Good, nourishment only shows up in Good & Better, etc. I think that approach could significantly condense and simplify this category. Already noted that having a custom policy approach might also help simplify the number of check boxes here.
Waste
Lots of good stuff, just a little long in my opinion. I think this is another one where trying to balance equal requirements across Good, Better, Best led to too many check boxes. LEED just greatly simplified their approach – hit a diversion rate or a # of pounds / sq ft generated. I think we can try to emulate some of that.
Water
I like the Project Water Plan idea, and establishing a zero-incidents goal. I also like that it’s relatively short.
Materials
This one is one of my favorites. Easy entry point. Requires a strategy policy in the Good tier. Forces education, internally and externally. I’m not sure I would change anything.
