Building and Environment 37 (2002) 421–428www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Can ISO 14000 and eco-labelling turn the construction industrygreen?

Jonathan Ball ∗

The School of Construction, Property & Surveying, The Robert Gordon University, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, AB10 3UQ, UK

Received 7 September 2000; accepted 22 February 2001

Abstract

A growing awareness of the impact of buildings on the environment has created a greater need to take account of environmental factors.To address this e1ectively, the environmental impact of a building has to be a primary consideration of the design team. Two approachesare available to the design team to provide clients with assurance that ecological design principles are carried through to construction.These are the comparatively new international environmental management systems standard, ISO 14001, and the slightly older approachof eco-labelling. The two approaches are di1erent but aim at the same goal. This paper explores to what extent these two approaches canachieve their aim of sustainability with the construction industry and questions whether some of the wider issues of sustainability hasbeen ignored. c© 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sustainability; Materiality; Evaluation; Construction; Ecological design; Environmental management; Eco-labelling

1. Introduction

Burgeoning environmental awareness amongst clients andgovernment legislation requires the construction industry toask itself many questions: How can the industry respondto the increasing urgency and demand for a more environ-mentally sensitive design? What is the best practice in en-vironmental design and how can this be assured? How canthe added, non-monetary, quality of environmentally benignmaterials and practices be compared with more contempo-rary norms? Where are the suitable materials? How shouldenvironmental issues be managed within the overall designprocess? How can sustainability be achieved?This realisation has permeated all :elds as research :nd-

ings are translated into commitments. For instance, the EarthSummit in Rio, which highlighted many pressing concernsof the human interaction with the environment and resultedin Local Agenda 21 [1]. In the UK, like many other coun-tries, this was quickly translated into policy:

∗ Tel.: +44-1224-263-710; fax: +44-1224-263-777.E-mail address: j.ball@rgu.ac.uk (J. Ball).

“A more holistic approach is called for, involving acomprehensive procedure to identify total environmen-tal and social costs and alternative solutions to con-struction problems”. [2]

By the mid 1990s sustainability was :rmly on the politi-cal agenda. For instance, the British Government endorsedthe need for research into the integration of social and en-vironmental issues that clearly included the construction in-dustry. A more holistic approach to construction problemswas called for, which should involve comprehensive proce-dures to identify total environmental and social costs andalternative solutions [2].The moves towards urbanisation, industrialisation and

cross-cultural design inGuences have created a greater ten-dency for individual buildings to be considered in isolationfrom their traditional local inGuences. Planning authoritiesrepresenting the civic interest have the ability to controland direct development through the statement of generalguidelines within which development is constrained. Whilethe origins of planning legislation relate to the control ofpollution, subsequent planning policies relate more to eco-nomic factors and social planning with a more recent move

0360-1323/02/$ - see front matter c© 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 0360 -1323(01)00031 -2

422 J. Ball / Building and Environment 37 (2002) 421–428

to recognise current environmental issues. In addition, thedecisions relating to the siting, design and construction ofbuildings may be distorted by Governmental actions suchas subsidies and investment grants, or tax regimes whichfavour maintenance costs over capital investment inGu-ences; commercial inGuences such as land and propertyprices, possibly distorted by planning zones; and marketingpolicies which do not permit comparison of the “real cost”of materials or construction techniques based on sale price.Current structures, therefore, do not favour the promotionof ecologically sound development. Environmentally con-scious buildings still tend to be noted as exceptions ratherthan the commonplace. It is for this reason that the RoyalIncorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS) initiatedtheir environmental policy charter [3]. Can eco-labellingand=or ISO 14000 contribute to the solution of this problem,or is there still something missing?

2. The in construction bene�ts of better environmentalperformance

Since the industrial revolution, various activities arebelieved to have contributed to a gradual but accelerat-ing decline in the global environment. For example, theInter-government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is con-vinced that climatic change is taking place that will lead toless predictable weather systems, rising sea levels and risingtemperatures [4]. The impact that the construction industrycan have on the environment is well documented (e.g. [5–7]). It is also clear that the industry is not ignorant of theseimpacts [8]. Zhang et al. [9] show that total environmentaldamage can be signi:cantly reduced by the improvementof environmental performance in the construction industry.Within the scope of environmental damage they includedisruption to lives of dwellers juxtaposed to a works site,noise and competition for land with other activities suchas agriculture. This is in addition to more conventionaldamage.Improvements in environmental performance are often

seen as a cost burden to the operator, which they must eitherabsorb to maintain their competitive edge or pass on to thecustomer if they are to maintain their pro:t margin. Thereare cost implications for a business but this is a limitedview of why a company should strive for improvements inenvironmental performance. There are also many bene:tsin pursuing better environmental performance, not only forthe environment directly but also to the industry :nancially[10]. For example, in the area of waste minimisation andpollution prevention, these include a reduction of operatingcosts and lower overall costs in comparison to competitors[9]. The further :nancial motivator for “going green” is theimperative of legislation, usually backed by various forms of:nancial penalty. Avoiding :nes must be a strong incentivein any industry.

According to Keeping and Shiers [11], :nancial bene:tsfor the client can include lower energy costs, lower mainte-nance costs and a reduction in employee absenteeism as aresult of “healthier” buildings. This strong motivator of :-nancial gain from being seen to be ‘green’ is a factor that hasnot escaped the marketing community, in which the view isheld that market penetration can be increased when an organ-isation emphasises environmental concerns [12,13]. How-ever, it does not necessarily follow that the introduction ofan eco-labelling scheme or environmental management sys-tem certi:cation automatically leads to increased sales [13].Raising client and design team awareness of ecological

issues to a level where these issues are ranked as priorityfactors is a precursor for the wider development of envi-ronmentally benign buildings. In many cases this will re-quire clients to recognise long-term interests in favour ofshort-term bene:ts. The perception of ecologically sounddesign as something to be aimed for and valued has to bepopularised rather than it being considered unusual, idiosyn-cratic and possibly ‘cheap and nasty’. However, even whena client has a commitment to ecologically sound design it isnot easy for them to con:rm whether their objectives havebeen achieved. When considering the :nancial implicationsof a building’s design the client has the relatively simplemeasure of price, which is stated in monetary terms and canbe compared directly with other options. Although someapproaches have been developed to measure various envi-ronmental and ecological aspects they tend to relate to com-ponent parts and no single or simple measure is availablewhich popularly conveys the ecological worth of a particu-lar design solution.

3. Overview of ISO 14001 and the ISO 14000 “family”

There are many “cook-books” for the implementation ofISO 14001 (e.g. [14–16]) so this section will restrict itself toan over-view of ISO 14000. Development of the “ISO 14000family” set of standards began in 1996 and continues. Thefocus is often on ISO 14001 because this is the speci:cationand guidance for use of environmental management systems(EMS). ISO 14001 bears many similarities to the BritishStandard BS 7750. An important contrast to eco-labelling isthat it is not a product standard and ISO actively discouragesattempts by organisations to use their certi:cation in thisway [17]. The same applies for the ISO 9000 standards. ISO9000 is often mentioned in the same breath as ISO 14000 asthe former is primarily concerned with quality management.ISO 9000 does not relate to quality in environmental termshowever [18] but there are many similarities both in terms ofmanagement implications and also the registration process[19].‘Environmental management’ in the context of ISO 14000

means what an organisation does to minimise harmful e1ectson the environment caused by its activities [18]. It is a statedobjective of the ISO to support the objective of “sustainable

J. Ball / Building and Environment 37 (2002) 421–428 423

Table 1Steps to implementation of ISO 14000 environmental standards

Step Objective Comments

1 Obtain senior management commitment If the top management levels of an organisation are not committed toto environmental concerns environmental concerns, employees at lower levels are usually

powerless to e1ect change2 Set up an environmental steering Such a committee must carry authority within the organisation and

committee should contain accounts, legal and internal auditing personnel3 Determine the extent of the company’s An increasing number of major companies and governmental

environmental outlays and requirements departments are insisting that their suppliers register for ISO 140014 Train the environmental team and Well-informed ISO 14000 trainers are a premium. Training is an

employees on-going process that often includes a paradigm shift in employeeand management mind sets

5 Establish an e1ective environmental An e1ective EMS cannot only reduce impacts but can also reducemanagement system (EMS) :nancial costs in the long term (promoted by steps 6–10)

6 Establish environmental policies These should reGect the organisation’s environmental missionsand procedures and goals and be continually reviewed

7 Create sound environmental An EMS is often made up of a number of programmes, each of whichmanagement programmes requires the allocation of resources, a timescale, identi:cation of

responsibilities and training8 Maintain correct documentation of the This is a speci:c requirement for conformity with ISO 14000

environmental management system9 Establish a functional process of Accurate evidence must be available on: compliance with environmental

recording for the EMS laws, communication of goals, training, inspection and maintenanceschedules, emergency preparedness, incidence reports, etc.

10 Review of the EMS by management ISO 14001 requires continual review to identify new challenges11 Initiate and conduct environmental De:ned by ISO 14010 as “the systematic documented veri:cation

auditing process of objectively obtaining and evaluating audit evidence todetermine whether speci:ed environmental activities, events, conditions,management systems, or information about these matters conform withaudit criteria and communicating the result of this process to the client”

12 Select the appropriate standard from the 14001 & 04 Environmental management systemsISO 14000 family [21] 14010, 11, 12, 15 Environmental auditing

14020, 21, 22, 24, 25 Environmental labelling14031, 32 Environmental performance evaluation14040, 41, 42, 43, 48, 49 Life cycle assessment14050 Vocabulary14061, 64 Guides

13 Decide on a registration strategy Many organisations will have to integrate an EMS into the wholeorganisation. However some may be able register particular locations,sections or branches

14 Register to ISO 14001 Certi:cation is carried out by accredited third-party bodies and not byISO. Therefore there is no such thing as “ISO-certi:cation” or “ISOregistered” [23]

15 Integrate ISO 14000 with ISO 9000 Environmental management should always be considered a part ofquality management. Furthermore, integration can ease the process ofregistration and lower the cost of auditing

development” that emerged from the United Nations con-ference on the Environment and Development, commonlyknown as the “Earth Summit”. The development of ISO14000 is steered by the ISO technical committee ISO=TC207. However, the standards are developed by experts from“the business sectors most interested in implementing theeventual standards” [18].The process of implementing ISO 14001 EMS can be

achieved in a step-wise approach and can be divided into15 steps and is summarised in Table 1 with reference toRezaee and Elam [20], Sheldon [16] and ISO [21]. The pur-pose of the ISO 14000 family is the integration of betterenvironmental management practices into business. It fos-

ters self-organisation and self-regulation, which representsthe groundwork from which it is hoped that continuous im-provement of environmental performance can be sustained.ISO 14001, in particular, tries to encourage a di1erent andmore e1ective environmental ethic to the design of prod-ucts and processes from the selection of materials and thelogistics of transportation [15].Within the ISO 14000 family, there is a set of standards

speci:cally aimed at life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA pur-ports to analyse the environmental impacts of a materialfrom “cradle to grave”. Full LCAs have four stages, whichare: goal de:nition, inventory, impact analysis and valua-tion [22]. The accuracy or usefulness of LCA depends on

424 J. Ball / Building and Environment 37 (2002) 421–428

accurate and available data on both a global and local basisfor each stage. LCA also needs a clear de:nition of systemboundaries which, in itself, raises questions as to whetherthose boundaries have been set appropriately [22]. Despitethe potential problems of LCA, it is still an extremely use-ful technique and therefore one that sits well within the ISO14000 family.A signi:cant positive environmental aspect of ISO

14001 from the perspective of a “green” construction in-dustry is the encouragement it provides for the protectionof non-renewable natural resources. It aims to foster thedevelopment of a reverse distribution system driven byeconomics. This has always presented problems for theconstruction industry but the most often cited reason is thatthere is little demand for recycled and reclaimed materi-als, particularly in a low-cost, low-pro:t industry [8]. Thatdemand is perhaps now being instituted by ISO 14001.However, Zhang et al. [9] assert that very few construc-

tion companies have actively pursued certi:cation partic-ularly in Australia. This is slightly at odds with the ISOsurvey, which shows the construction industry as having the:fth highest growth area for certi:cation [23] with almostdouble the number of certi:cates in 1999 as 1998. Whateverthe number of individual companies currently certi:cated,certi:cation is being actively pursued. The :ve countriesmost actively pursuing the ISO 14000 standard, in order, areJapan, UK, Sweden, Spain, Australia and the USA; with theUK accounting for over 20% of all the European ISO 14000certi:cates and over 10% of worldwide certi:cates [23]. Incomparison with the uptake of ISO 9000 certi:cates, ISO14000 appears to be the less attractive of the two schemeswith ISO 9000 attracting 16 times the number of certi:ca-tions as ISO 14000 in the :rst 5 years since the respectiveintroductions of the two schemes (accounting for the factthat the ISO cycles only stabilised to a calendar year end inDecember 1995). This is quite a positive picture and it isreasonable to expect that the ISO would want to portray the‘new’ standards in their best light. In terms of actual numberof certi:cates (as opposed to rates of growth), there appearsto be more justi:cation in the assertion of Zhang et al. thatthere is sluggishness in the industry with regard to certi:-cation [9]. Clearly, the awareness of environmental issues,whether on the design side or the client side, still needs tobe addressed. The evidence from ISO 14000 certi:cationwould suggest that there is a lag in appreciation by the in-dustry in the bene:ts of better environmental performance.

4. Overview of eco-labelling

There have been a number of attempts to initiateeco-labelling schemes around the world as a response tothe need to provide information on and evaluation of theenvironmental performance of products and services. Aweakness from which many eco-labelling schemes su1eris an over emphasis on politically driven value judgements

rather than scienti:c data [24]. The European CommunityEco-labelling scheme attempted to answer this need butrequires some reinterpretation if it is to fully embrace theprinciples of environmental design [25]. The scheme was ageneric pass=fail system, which raises questions particularlyfor construction materials.Many early eco-label schemes su1ered from a number of

problems [26] to which their lack of success, as it was :rstintroduced, might be attributed. The lessons that are still be-ing learned from these attempts can be distilled as their lackof credibility. Eco-labelling boards have often been over rep-resented by the groups whose products they assess and haveno representation by consumers. Manufacturers were able toinGuence the criteria to be set at levels that they can alreadymeet as it happened in the case of the EU eco-label for wash-ing machines. Such a lack of representation of consumersin the process is in contravention of the principles of stake-holder inclusion promoted by Agenda 21. Top–down im-position does not recognise the variety of non-transferrablelocal inGuences and standards, particularly in the buildingindustry, established through local cultural responses to localresources. Negotiation between regions is not possible withgeneric criteria. For example, in 1992 the Nordic Council(covering Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden) set strictcriteria for the limits of the amount of fresh :bre that couldbe used in the manufacture of tissue paper and speci:edchlorine free chemicals to bleach the pulp. The EuropeanTissue Symposium considered the criteria to be too restric-tive and merely withdrew from the Nordic scheme.The :rst eco-labelling scheme for buildings was begun

by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in the UK[27]. This scheme tried to assess the overall impact of thebuilding on the environment. The assessment included notonly energy but also other factors such as the emission of‘greenhouse gases’, recycling and indoor air quality. The USEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) building energyscheme (“Energy Star”; [28]) is another more recent schemeand is undergoing beta-version trials. However, clearly, theBRE scheme attempts to be more holistic as it includes manymore factors than energy. The holy grail of low energy hasmesmerised many assessments of ecological design to thevirtual exclusion of other environmental impacts. Energyis probably the most easily measured and addressed in theconstruction industry but it is by no means the only factorof sustainability. Indeed, it is probably the very fact thatenergy is an easily quanti:ed commodity that it is such apopular measure of the environmental credentials of a ma-terial or building. Nonetheless, the savings in energy areoften achieved at the expense of an equal or greater envi-ronmental impact elsewhere, for instance in the manufac-ture and eventual disposal of synthetic insulation materiallike polystyrene. The EPA scheme could contribute a valu-able energy assessment protocol to a building eco-labellingscheme but it cannot be considered as a true eco-labellingscheme in its own right. In Hong Kong, the more holisticBRE model (UK BREEAM) has been adopted in the prepa-

J. Ball / Building and Environment 37 (2002) 421–428 425

ration of the Hong Kong building environmental assessmentmodel (HKBEAM) not least because of the additional ad-ministration costs and confusion that the amalgamation of anumber of labelling schemes needed for a holistic approachtends to cause [29].There are many eco-labelling schemes in operation

worldwide. Many countries have their own schemes run-ning alongside other schemes. For instance, in additionto the EU eco-labelling scheme, Germany has the “BlueAngel” and “Green Dot” programmes. France has the“NF-environment mark” and Spain has its “AENOR MedioAmbiente” scheme. Regional schemes have positive bene-:ts in identifying regional appropriateness in cultural andeconomic responses to the environment [25] but they alsocan lead to confusion and reduce the scope for comparisonsbetween products labelled by di1erent schemes.The constant introduction of new schemes also has a ten-

dency to move away from the original ideals of holism andtowards further fragmentation as evidenced by the plethoraof schemes currently in existence, the USA having no lessthan 21 separate groupings of labels [28]. The net result is adilution of the very information that the schemes aim to pro-vide and which is a premium in addressing environmentalconcerns [25]. The basis on which eco-labels are awarded isusually some form of life cycle analysis (LCA). In the dis-cussion of ISO 14000, it was mentioned that there can be pit-falls for LCA and this is highlighted by the fact that LCAwasone of the areas of the major revision the European Com-mission instigated in the beleaguered EU Eco-label AwardScheme [30].Inevitably, eco-labelling schemes cannot cover all ma-

terials, so many fall through the system, including somewhich have better environmental credentials than others thatreceive an award. This is evidenced in relation to the recla-mation of materials, which is highlighted under the EURecycling Protocol as a more sustainable option than land-:ll. A recent attempt to harmonise recycling of materials inEurope has highlighted the important cultural and regionaldi1erences in reclamation practice within the EU [25].Reclamation is not on the agenda for many countries, notablyGermany and France. It is part of the culture in the UKwhere ‘recycling’ however, in the popular context of theterm, is still only now gaining some acceptance. No mentionof reclamation has been made in the European Community’sown recycling objectives [31]. This e1ectively outlaws suchmaterials because the Construction Products Directive re-quires Governments to limit the trade in materials that lackan EU standard in preference for materials which do.There is a cruel bind with product-based environmental

labelling schemes. It is that, to be regionally and cultur-ally appropriate requires a regional network of schemesif the danger of merely replacing the “modern materialshomogeneity” seen in speculative building with a “greenhomogeneity” with no reference to regionality is to beavoided. However, fragmentation of information leadsto redundancy and confusion within the system. It is

similar to the paradox of the “subtle destruction” broughtby universalisation that Frampton discusses in his essay onarchitectural regionalism [32].

5. Sustainable construction through ISO 14000 andeco-labelling?

The main debate on how to reconcile the needs of eco-nomic growth with ecological maintenance has centred onthe popular and over-used concept of “sustainable devel-opment” above which a question mark hangs. Few peoplewould admit to not being supporters of sustainable develop-ment but the phrase has been too glibly used to have muchreal meaning anymore without carefully considering its def-inition and context. Sir Martin Holdgate, President of theZoological Society of London, observed [33]:

“‘Sustainable development’ has become one of thepolitically-correct theses of our era. Everybody isin favour of it—and everybody de4nes the term, onHumpty Dumpty’s principle, to mean what they wantit to mean”.

Indeed, the pedant might argue that, by de:nition and giventhe :nite nature of the globe, development cannot be main-tained inde:nitely and is, therefore, not sustainable [34]. Bethat as it may, it is clear that the notion of sustainable de-velopment is important and therefore rightly high on theagenda.The concept of sustainability in its modern guise was :rst

developed in response to impacts on the natural environ-ment, where the loss of a certain species or even life as awhole became a threat. One of the most quoted de:nitionsof sustainability comes from the report of the United Na-tions World Commission on Environment and Development(WCED) usually referred to as the Brundtland Report [35].Whatever the de:nition, sustainability is a prerequisite forcontinued existence, whether human or not. However, sus-tainable development is a broader concept than sustainabil-ity and includes issues on the quality of life [36] and theintegration of social, economic and environmental spheresof activity. Indeed, sustainable development need not al-ways be seen as restrictive to choice. The Scottish OTcehighlighted a need to identify regions within Scotland, whateach could o1er and how this could be exploited in newways commercially [37]. Regionality in both sustainability([25,38,39]) and construction ([40,32,41]) are well docu-mented. The “Rio package” called for community involve-ment, which is place speci:c by de:nition, in environmentalmanagement, being desirable and necessary for the formula-tion of policy and practice in sustainable development. Thisis the principle of stakeholder inclusion, which the construc-tion industry is increasingly being forced to accept.The principles that emerge include regionality, inclusion

of culture in sustainability and the basis for cultural ma-teriality within the languages of architecture. From these

426 J. Ball / Building and Environment 37 (2002) 421–428

discussions it is possible to conclude, :rstly, that the en-vironment is su1ering from unsustainable practices and re-source exploitation and these unsustainable practices a1ectnot only the natural environment but communities and theirculture as well. It follows that, if regionality is acknowl-edged, a greater appreciation of regional resources, environ-mental and social carrying capacities and the interaction ofenvironmental and social systems is necessary for planninga holistic environmental strategy.To what extent do ISO 14000 and eco-labelling ad-

dress sustainability in the construction industry? Bothschemes have elements of LCA. However, the ‘product’of the construction industry is too complex to satisfacto-rily give eco-labels to buildings despite the hopes of theUKBREEAM and HKBEAM schemes. A building is notso much a shelter but the means by which humans enterinto negotiation with their environment. A building, and acommunity development more so, is better thought of asa process than a product. Furthermore, the building whenconsidered as a product, is never :nished, evolving andchanging as it does through cycles of occupancy. Giventhe range and nature of the inGuences on design it is inap-propriate to consider buildings and aspects of buildings inisolation, rather, a holistic approach to design is required.However, the ability to integrate the diverse and often con-Gicting aspects that impinge on building design is at bestdiTcult to achieve.In his solution space model [42] provided a diagram-

matic representation of how a design could develop. Themodel suggests that all possible design solutions are con-tained within an area of solution space. The designer im-poses various constraints through which the total possiblesolution space is reduced to a subset of options, which ide-ally includes the optimum design. The imposition of furtherecologically based constraints upon the solution space modelmay assist in determining the ultimate design. However,the solution space indicated by the ecologically based con-straints may not coincide or may not be in balance with theconventional constraints and an imbalance will be created inthe design. In other words, the solution space of ecologicaldesign is not necessarily a subset of the total conventionalsolution space. This possibility is illustrated in the resultsof research cited by Stevenson [43], which showed that theconventional constraint of achieving energy improvementin housing projects was negated by up to 20% by the eco-logically based constraint of embodied energy. The point iseven more obvious when CO2 emission is considered wherethe direct saving was negated by up to 80% when embodiedenergy was considered [43].To compound the problem illustrated by the solution space

model, both Barrett and Curado [44] and Strachan [45] warnagainst the pitfalls of a mechanistic over reliance on imposedsystems. Signi:cant progress is unlikely where organisa-tions follow a prescriptive quality assurance style approach[45]. Despite this Barett and Curado warn against puttingaside such systems because of the guiding inGuence they

can have in the change process with a company [44]. Or-ganisations that most successfully implement environmentmanagement standards are those that treat them as learningframeworks and not as mechanistic control systems [45].This is a clear danger that faces the implementation of ISO14000 much more than the adoption of eco-labelling. How-ever, it is not insurmountable if management can adopt theethos of a learning organisation.The conGicts between solution spaces illustrated above

are inherent in many eco-labelling schemes. Additionally,it is a criterion of a successful eco-labelling scheme thatthe label and declarations take account of the life cycle ofthe product [29]. Buildings and complexes have life cyclesconsiderable in excess of that of their constituent parts. If abuilding eco-label is to take account of maintenance cycles,alterations and other changes associated with occupancy andchanges of use, it is more appropriate that all these factorsbe brought together as an environmental management sys-tem. In other words, ISO 14001 appears to o1er a betterapproach for the construction industry than eco-labelling. Iflabelling is required there are mechanisms within the ISO14000 family to accommodate it.

6. Conclusions

Environmental management and sustainable develop-ment, whatever the de:nitions applied to them, are usuallydistilled down to the minimisation of harmful e1ects on theenvironment as a result of human activities. At the outsetthere is a problem that must be raised, whatever the suc-cess of the scheme at reducing impacts. This is the choiceof language that, in keeping with eco-labelling and mostother monitors of environmental impact, excludes restora-tion. It is about more than just managing what is left oreven minimising impact. To really address the concernsraised at the Rio Summit the subject of restoration needsto be addressed. Most proponents of eco-labelling and ISO14000 would argue that they are pro-active schemes [46].So they are, but only in as much as they are active in re-ducing impact. Eco-labelling and ISO 14000 are importantsteps towards environmental management but, by de:ni-tion, without restoration they are reactive to the situation ofglobal environmental destabilisation. On a positive note, arestorative culture must :rst be one that is environmentallyaware. A society that is working towards the minimisa-tion of harmful environmental impacts, whether througheco-labelling or EMSs must be considered to be at leastenvironmentally awakening.There is a strong interest within the construction indus-

try for a single well respected scheme for product labellingand performance standards [8]. Adoption of ISO 14000, andISO 14001 in particular, seems to be a much better wayof steering the construction industry towards improved en-vironmental performance than purely label-based schemes.The former is more holistic in its consideration by tackling

J. Ball / Building and Environment 37 (2002) 421–428 427

the management and processes of the company rather thancomparing a product to a restricted set of quantitative crite-ria. However, organisations implementing ISO 14000 musttry to become learning organisations and avoid treating thestandards as a mechanistic control system.For all the positive steps that ISO 14000 and eco-labelling

might be making, there are issues that still remainun-addressed. The most important of these are culturalsustainability, regionality and materiality, environmentalrestoration and, as far as construction is concerned, theconsideration of buildings not just in the environment butas a part of ecological systems. The solution space modelillustrates how these important issues are both out withthe conventional subset of possible solutions but could becontained within a new paradigm if the boundaries of thesubset of possibilities under consideration are moved. Toachieve a harmony between the built environment and thenatural environment, each must be seen truly as a systemwithin ‘The Environment’ meta system. This is partly alegislative issue, partly an issue of changing the businessgestalt and partly an issue for new research, or re-discovery,of materials and construction methods.Sustainable development of the construction industry

and associated businesses would be enhanced by the devel-opment of a new vernacular architecture [37] based on aregionally appropriate approach to environmentally benignbuilding materials [25]. This is in opposition to the widelyheld ethos of globalisation and uni:cation of standardsand materials, or harmonisation as the process is often eu-phemistically called, producing as it does a disharmony withthe environment at the local level. The construction indus-try and planning, impinging as they do directly on peoples’life-styles and expectations, have a great potential to leadthe way in doing more than just reducing their impact onwhat is left. They have one of the greatest capacities of anymajor industry to become a proactive force in restoration.

References

[1] United Nations. Agenda 21: programme of action for sustainabledevelopment: Rio declaration on environment and development.United Nations Department of Public Information, New York, 1993.

[2] OTce of Science & Technology. Progress through partnership:construction. Technology Foresight Report No. 2. London: HMSO,1995.

[3] Bevan R. RIAS set to adopt environmentally friendly credo. BuildingDesign 1997; 1308 (Friday, May 16).

[4] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change, 1995:the science of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1995.

[5] Spence R, Mulligan H. Sustainable development and the constructionindustry. Habitat International 1995;19(3):279–92.

[6] Terolar G. The environmental impact of construction—a casestudy. Australia and New Zealand Architectural Science Association(ANZScA), Sydney 1996, p. 1–95.

[7] Cole R. Emerging trends in building environmental assessmentmethods. Building Research Information 1998;26(1):3–16.

[8] DETR. Sustainable development: opportunities for change—sustainable construction. Department of the Environment, Transportand the Regions. London: HMSO, 1998.

[9] Zhang ZH, Shen LY, Love PED, Treloar G. A frameworkfor implementing ISO 14000 in Construction. EnvironmentalManagement and Health 2000;11(2):139–48.

[10] OU. Pro:t from environmental management: a business guide toe1ective environmental review. The Open University EnvironmentalManagement Course Team, Milton Keynes, 1995.

[11] Keeping M, Shiers D. The ‘Green’ refurbishment of commercialproperty. Facilities 1996;14(3=4):15–9.

[12] Erskine CC, Collins L. Eco-labelling: success or failure?. TheEnvironmentalist 1997;17:125–33.

[13] Lathrop KW, Centner TJ. Eco-labeling and ISO 14000: an analysisof US regulatory systems and issues concerning adoption of type IIstandards. Environmental Management 1998;22(2):163–72.

[14] Roberts H, Robinson G. ISO 14001 EMS implementation handbook.Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 1998.

[15] Whitelaw K. ISO 14001 Environmental systems handbook. Oxford:Butterworth Heinemann, 1997.

[16] Sheldon C. Installing environmental management systems: astep-by-step approach. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd, 1998.

[17] ISO. Publicising your ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 certi:cation. Inter-national Standards Organisation General Secretariat, Switzerland,1998 (available on-line at: http:==www.iso.ch=9000e=pub9k14ke.pdfcited on 30 July 2000).

[18] ISO. The magical demystifying tour of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000.International Standards Organisation General Secretariat, Switzerland,2000 (available on-line at: http:==www.iso.ch=9000e=magical.htmcited on 30 July 2000).

[19] Picard RR. Environmental Management: what’s auditing got to dowith it? Internal Auditor 1998, June. p. 32–6.

[20] Rezaee Z, Elam R. Emerging ISO 14000 environmental standards:a step-by-step implementation guide. Managerial Auditing Journal2000;15(1=2):60–7.

[21] ISO. ISO 14000—meet the whole family! International StandardsOrganisation General Secretariat, Switzerland, 1998 (availableon-line at: http:==www.iso.ch=9000e=iso14000.pdf cited on 30 July2000).

[22] Erskine CC, Collins L. Eco-labelling: politics or science in Europe’semerging environmental policy In: Liddell H, editor. Proceedings ofthe First UK Building Biology Conference: Eco-labelling in Europe.The Robert Gordon’s University and The Scottish Ecological DesignAssociation, Aberdeen, 1995.

[23] ISO. The ISO survey of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000Certi:cates: ninth cycle—1999. International Standards OrganisationGeneral Secretariat, Switzerland, 2000 (available on-line at:http:==www.iso.ch=presse=survey9.pdf cited on 30 July 2000).

[24] The Ends Report. The elusive consensus on life-cycle assessment.Ends Report 1994;231:20–1.

[25] Stevenson F, Ball J. Sustaiability and materiality: the bioregional andcultural challanges to evaluation. Local Environment 1998;3(2):191–209.

[26] West K. Eco-labels: the industrialisation of environmental standards.The Ecologist 1995;25(1):31–47.

[27] Prior J. editor. Building research establishment environmentalassessment method (BREEAM), New OTces. 2nd ed. BuildingResearch Establishment Report, version 1=93, 1993.

[28] EPA. Environmental labelling issues, policies and practices world-wide. US Environmental Protection Agency, OTce of Prevention,Pesticides and Toxic Substances 1998; EPA 742-R-98-009 (avai-lable on-line at: http:==www.epa.gov=opptintr=environmental-labeling=docs=wwlabel3.pdf cited on 26 July 2000).

[29] Chau CK, Burnett J, Lee WE. Eco-labelling scheme for buildingsin Hong Kong. Facilities 1999;17(3=4):120–6.

428 J. Ball / Building and Environment 37 (2002) 421–428

[30] European Commission. Guidelines for the application of life cycleassessment in the EU eco-label award scheme. Prepared by theGroupe de Sages, European Commission, 1997.

[31] Kay T. EC reclamation policy. Salvo Monthly, March, 1993.[32] Frampton K. Towards a critical regionalism; six points for an

architecture of resistance. In: Foster H, editor. The anti-aesthetic.Bay Press, Port Townsend, WA 1983, p. 16–30.

[33] Holdgate M. Standards, sustainability and integrated land use. The21st Macaulay lecture. In: Slater DJ, Maxwell TJ, editors. TheMacaulay Land Use Research Institute, 10th Anniversary Lectures,Gilcomston Litho, Aberdeen, 1997.

[34] McBurney S. Ecology into economics won’t go: or life is not aconcept. Hartland: Green Books, 1990.

[35] WCED. Our common future. The United Nations Department ofPublic Information, 1987 (aka “The Brundtland Report”. The WorldCommission on Environment and Development was charted by theUnited Nations and Chaired by Norwegian Prime Minister GroHarlem Brundtland between 1984 and 1987).

[36] English Heritage. Sustainable development for archaeology and thehistoric environment. Consultation Paper, English Heritage, 1995.

[37] Scottish OTce. Rural Scotland: people, prosperity and partnership.Edinburgh: HMSO, 1995.

[38] Sale K. Dwellers in the land: the bioregional vision. San Fransisco:Sierra Club Books, 1985.

[39] McGinnis MV. Boundary creatures and bounded spaces. In:McGinnis MV, editor. Bioregionalism. London: Routeledge, 1999p. 61–80.

[40] Naismith RJ. Buildings of the Scottish Countryside, study for thecountryside. Commission for Scotland. Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1989.

[41] Ujam F, Barati W, Ryan T. Language and the Organisation of theBuilt Environment, Environment, (University of Waterloo, Ontario)1997;25(1):41–51.

[42] Brandon P. A framework for cost exploration and strategic costplanning in design. Chartered Surveyor: Building and QuantitySurveying Quarterly 1978;5(4):60–63.

[43] Stevenson F. The dislocation of embodied energy and CO2emissions from energy eTciency concerns in Britain. In: Liddel H,editor. Proceedings of the First UK Building Biology Conference,Eco-Labelling in Europe, The Robert Gordon’s University and TheScottish Ecological Design Association, 1995.

[44] Barrett PS, Curado MT. Quality and environmental management:how should the construction industry face new paneceas? CIBW89 Beijing International Conference, 21–24 October, ConferenceProceedings, 1996.

[45] Strachan P. Should environmental management standards be amechanistic control system or a framework for learning?. TheLearning Organisation 1997;4(1):10–7.

[46] Briggs RB, Nestel GK. ISO 14000: proactive building blocks forachieving global sustainable development. West Chester, PA: RoyF. Weston Inc, 1996.

Vitae

Dr Ball is currently a Research Fellow and Manager of a new research unit focussing on the application of geographical information systems in theSchool of Construction, Property and Surveying at the Robert Gordon University. Dr Ball has a background in landscape ecology and the processes ofcommunication and information management in environmental policy and planning as part of the progress towards sustainability formed the basis of hisdoctorate. Other research interests have included masonry conservation and the deterioration of building sandstones and granites.