This article was downloaded by: [University College Dublin]

On: 25 October 2013, At: 02:38

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Building Research & Information

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20

Motivating stakeholders to deliver environmental

change
a
Raymond J. Cole
a
School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture , University of British Columbia ,
Canada
Published online: 05 Aug 2011.

To cite this article: Raymond J. Cole (2011) Motivating stakeholders to deliver environmental change, Building Research &
Information, 39:5, 431-435, DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2011.599057

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2011.599057

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2011) 39(5), 431 – 435
EDITORIAL
Motivating stakeholders to deliver
environmental change
Raymond J. Cole
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 02:38 25 October 2013
This special issue of Building Research & Information
is framed around ways of motivating stakeholders
directly and indirectly involved with the production
and operation of buildings to engage collectively in
delivering positive change in environmental perform-
ance. There is increasing recognition that technological
solutions, economic/business arguments based on
benefits and appropriate governance solutions are
often insufficient to deliver this change. A missing cat-
alyst is the social and organizational interplay amongst
and between different stakeholders. In particular, there
is a need to orchestrate the complex array of stake-
holders and to understand each other’s particular
motivations and drivers. While the idea for the
special issue was explored in one of four workshops
held at the 3rd International Holcim Forum, ‘Re-
Inventing Construction’, in Mexico City, 14 – 17
April 2010, the need stems from the concern regarding
the urgency associated with addressing climate change
and global environmental degradation. The workshop
involved presentations and participants from both
developed and developing countries and revealed the
stark differences in the type and scale of environmental
issues they face and how these translate into political,
institutional, and professional priorities and actions.
However, a number of common issues were also
evident during the presentations and breakout sessions,
including the importance of developing comprehen-
sive, context-specific approaches and ‘listening’ to a
multitude of perspectives and interests or concerns.
These sentiments are equally evidenced throughout
the papers within this special issue.
Climate change will influence every human endeavour
and solutions will also require individual engagement
and action played out at a local scale – and in every
building. Buildings represent both a major source of
anthropogenic emissions and also a highly significant
and cost-effective opportunity in terms of emissions
reduction. The United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognized buildings
Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ⁄ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2011 Taylor & Francis
http: ⁄ ⁄www.informaworld.com ⁄journals
DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2011.599057
as a distinct sector among the seven analyzed in its
2007 Fourth Assessment Report and suggested that,
through improved energy efficiency, approximately
30% of the projected greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
in the building sector can be avoided with a net econ-
omic gain (IPCC, 2007) and further reductions are
cost effective, especially when compared with other
sectors.
Given the pressing time-scale of anticipated significant
climate change, it is difficult to imagine that the trans-
formation of building design and construction in
response to the need for radical GHG emission
reductions will result from simply tweaking current
practice. The expectation will be for greater leaps in
building environmental performance in shorter time
frames. Implementing these necessary leaps in building
environmental performance requirements and nego-
tiating through the impending consequences of
climate change created through past human activity
will require a fundamental rethinking of the
approaches needed to secure the commitment and
actions of key stakeholders associated with the delivery
of buildings.
Climate change has global and far-reaching conse-
quences and any rationally planned solution will
require sustained international political commitment
and cooperation. To date, however, national leaders
have yet to achieve concerted and collective inter-
national agreement on the targets and measures to
curb global GHG emissions – the historical and
current inequitable distribution of emissions by
various countries and capacity to enact change, distrust
of the developed world by developing countries and
other complex issues continue to hamper negotiations
and thwart progress. Similarly, despite the clear econ-
omic potential benefits of improved building environ-
mental performance, markets remain slow to engage
emission reduction-related investment opportunities.
Here, again, a litany of reasons are widely
 Cole
acknowledged as deterrents for engagement and action
– the extensive multistage building life cycle and
associated future unknowns, the diverse, complex
and fragmented stakeholder networks, etc. These two
levels of action – the ‘top-down’ leadership and
changes offered by government agencies and the
‘bottom-up’ initiatives and activities by building indus-
try stakeholders – are clearly both necessary.
However, solutions and actions emanating from indus-
try can make it easier for political leaders to have con-
fidence to commit to negotiations because they can
envision the potential for delivering outcomes. And
even with ‘top-down’ change, motivating stakeholders
to create ‘bottom-up’ change is still a necessary precon-
dition before legislation or other policy mechanisms
are implemented. Motivation, it would seem, is the
key for developing the necessary capabilities and preci-
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 02:38 25 October 2013
pitating subsequent action.
While manifest directly and indirectly in terms of
resource depletion, degradation of ecosystems and
climate change, current environmental issues have
their roots in human activity. If change is to occur,
then it will be through changes in human values and
attitudes and subsequent individual and collective be-
haviour and actions. Moreover, while the past
debates have often centred around the difficulties and
barriers to change – those points within the project
delivery process and building operation that inhibit
attaining higher environmental performance – it is
now necessary to take a more fundamental look at
the key stakeholders (including the silent ones) and
their relationships, and explore how to motivate
them to deliver the necessary change.
This special issue contains seven papers that collec-
tively offer insights into the current and potential
responsibilities of, and relationship between, the
various stakeholders associated with the creation of
buildings. Two of the papers – those by du Plessis
and Cole, and Feige, Wallbaum and Krank – have
their roots directly in the Mexico workshop and rep-
resent an elaboration of the workshop working paper
(Wallbaum et al., 2010). The other papers were sub-
sequently commissioned to capture a broader set of
perspectives on stakeholder engagement. Rather than
dwell on the difficulties and barriers to change, the
expectation of the papers, individually and collectively,
is both to reveal and offer constructive direction for
creating significant and timely improvement in the
environmental performance of buildings.
The individual papers directly and indirectly reference
the current stakeholder context as one of varying
degrees of engagement, fragmented and risk-averse,
shaped by a general lack of awareness of the serious-
ness of environmental issues and their potential for
affecting positive change. Moreover, in general indus-
try parlance, stakeholders are typically described in
432
terms of roles: architect, developer, government
agency, financial institutions, etc. It is also usual to
consider these groups as homogeneous with all its
members sharing common priorities and motives.
Lützkendorf, Fan and Lorenz’s paper dispels this
notion in their analysis of financial stakeholders
arguing that they are ‘very heterogeneous’ and:
have diverging individual or institutional goals,
different fields of activities and responsibility as
well as different areas of influence and possible
courses of action.
(p. 485)
Such a characterization is equally applicable to the
other stakeholder groups. Any progress in both under-
standing and motivating the various stakeholder
groups must, it would seem, move away from broad
generalizations and develop more refined understand-
ing of their diverse makeup.
Changing buildings requires changing the context in
which buildings are developed, designed and operated
and, by implication, the role that various stakeholders
play within this process – both internally within their
distinct realms of responsibility and within the larger,
overall multi-stakeholder context that they operate.
While the participants within various stakeholder
groups are diverse, they are closely interconnected
among themselves (e.g. investor –bank; design con-
sultants, etc.) but also work with and are dependent
on representatives within other stakeholder groups
and rely on effective information exchange. Although
new stakeholders can be identified and included in
the decision-making process, existing stakeholders
cannot be easily reinvented and as such it requires
identification of stakeholder’s role in specific situ-
ations, rethinking how they see themselves and
rethinking their relationship(s). A key issue in further-
ing sustainable building practice centres on what
Lützkendorf et al. identify – the need to develop
‘new forms of cooperation and information exchange’
(p. 496). Accepting that greater communication and
dialogue are necessary, then the issue shifts what is
being communicated. While building environmental
assessment methods have proved enormously valuable
in forging a common language between design prof-
essionals, Lützkendorf et al. identify that the outputs of:
are generally not compatible with the banks’
internal methods and tools for risk analysis and
property rating.
(p. 496)
A key issue appears to be the resolution of the interests
and responsibilities of the individual stakeholders
identified above and those of a larger overarching ‘con-
stellation’ of stakeholders. Notions such as improved
cooperation and dialogue, partnering, inclusion,

public involvement and others are often seen as critical
elements in shaping a more effective collective system.
Boström et al. (2011) identify a range of resulting
potential benefits: enabling them to make an impact
in policy-making; to protect their interests and con-
cerns; to learn about policies and matters; to develop
their social networks; and to make themselves visible
and increase their own status. ‘Participation’, they
suggest, ‘can thus be seen as a way to keep an eye on
other stakeholders’ (p. 8).
The increasing scientific understanding of the potentially
catastrophic consequences of uncontrolled climate
change is currently proving insufficient motivation for
collective and concerted efforts by all stakeholders in
the building industry. Similarly, while voluntary mech-
anisms have enjoyed remarkable success over the past
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 02:38 25 October 2013
decade or so, it is doubtful that that they will create the
necessary changes in building performance in a timely
manner. Watson (2009), for example, indicates that:
LEED’s green impact shows some impressive
numbers, but relative to the problem still is not
providing sufficient contribution to halting
unmanageable climate change.
(p. 3)
Institutional mechanisms – public policies, property
rights, contracts, etc. – together with the financial
sector exercise considerable influence over and, to a
large extent, currently determine the conditions for
building construction and use. It would seem necessary
that institutional regimes need to be revisited as necess-
ary and complementary requirement to voluntary
approaches and initiatives by stakeholder groups.
Nicol’s paper uses an ‘institutional regimes approach’
to analyze seven case study housing stocks in Switzer-
land, Germany and Spain and gain knowledge regard-
ing what she considers the:
largely unknown influence of institutional
regimes . . . on the sustainability of multifamily
residential buildings.
(p. 459)
The results reveal the mechanisms by which such
regimes define and permit decision-making manoeuvr-
ings to achieve sustainable goals and that their content
and characteristics are, like those of the financial
systems, key for establishing the conditions that are
conducive for positive change. As with other authors,
Nicol portrays the issue of motivating stakeholders to
deliver positive change as a ‘complex challenge with
no single solution’ and concludes that an:
an integrated regime (one with high extent and
high coherence), an understanding of the prop-
erty rights that shape the room for manoeuvre
for management decisions, and clarity regarding
Editorial
actor roles and responsibilities are therefore the
necessary conditions that must be established
before actors can be motivated to change . . ..
(p. 472)
The understanding of the body of knowledge on inno-
vation along with its underlying policies and practices
can also provide insights into both change and motiv-
ation. Whyte and Sexton argue that:
policy-makers have found it difficult to promote
changes that require cooperation from numerous
dispersed actors with divergent interests
(p. 473)
that are found particularly within the built environ-
ment but suggest that policy-makers are:
becoming aware of the limitations of narrow
economic view of innovation and are embracing
multiple level perspectives.
(p. 478)
Their paper draws on several streams of innovation lit-
erature to identify some new possible directions for
research that examines the motivations of different
actors to understanding the nature and potential of
innovation in the built environment. Importantly,
they recognize that there needs to be engagement
between different (parallel) research communities in
this endeavour.
Throughout the papers there appears to be a funda-
mental distinction between actions that are of benefit
for the collective good and those pursued on the basis
of self-interest. Hunt and Townshend (2011) argue
that international agreements directed at the curbing
of GHG emissions have been largely about ‘sharing a
global burden’ and that, within this context, national
governments invariably strive to minimize their
respective share. Referencing the recently published
Globe Climate Legislation Study (Townshend et al.,
2011), they suggest that the UN process:
has diverted focus from national capitals, where
significant domestic global-warming legislation
is advancing.
Pointing to a growing realization that domestic legis-
lation on climate change can be in the national interest
– including ‘strengthening energy security, increasing
resource-efficiency, improving air quality and securing
a competitive advantage in new markets for clean and
low-carbon technologies, goods and services’ (Hunt
and Townshend, 2011) – they signal self interest is a
potent basis for engaging in environmental activity. A
comprehensive international climate change agree-
ment, they suggest, ‘will probably be possible only
when a critical mass of countries is committed,
433
 Cole
because of self-interest rather than perceived altruism,
to taking sufficient action’. Within the report, the Rt.
Hon. John Gummer (Lord Debden), President of
GLOBE International, further emphasizes that inter-
national agreements ‘will only reflect political con-
ditions in the major economies, not define them’ (p. 2).
Lützkendorf et al. similarly suggest that:
it is also likely that financial stakeholders’ engage-
ment in and contributions to further developing
the built environment towards more sustainable
development will increase in the coming years
(p. 498)
but that this will not be:
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 02:38 25 October 2013
due to altruistic reasons but in order to meet their
very own interests and goals.
(p. 498)
Again, it is unlikely that such motives will be unique to
the financial stakeholders but be key drivers for all
those associated with the production of buildings.
Climate change creates greater uncertainty about the
future and, with this, increased risks for all stake-
holders – design professionals entering into
uncharted areas and performance requirements,
more difficult risk assessment within the financial
sector, etc. Clearly more widespread experience by
design professionals and greater evidence on the
actual sustainability performance of buildings will
instil greater confidence. On the other hand,
however, new business and design possibilities open
up as investors search for sustainable and socially
responsible investment opportunities. Currently,
the real or perceived risks seem to carry greater
weight and these are not solely in the domain of the
financial institutions. Christie, Donn and Walton,
for example, discuss the findings from a New
Zealand-based research project directed at
understanding the reasons why homeowners are not
adopting sustainability innovations despite these
offering numerous benefits – reducing environ-
mental problems, improving health, comfort,
productivity together with economic and social
well-being. Their research identified that a large
proportion of homeowners demonstrate apparently
unreasonable behaviour due to an exaggerated
perception of risk. Surprisingly, in addition to the
obvious risks that innovative green technologies
‘might not suit their house or that the financial
return would not occur’, the homeowners participat-
ing in the survey seemed averse to being seen to be
different from the average homeowner.
There are an increasing number of examples wherein
greater stakeholder engagement and commitment
434
translates into significant and successful change, two
of which are reported in this special issue. Feige, Wall-
baum and Krank describe the ‘Network for Sustainable
Construction Switzerland’ designed to influence
business and enhance the share of sustainable construc-
tion in that country. The aim of this initiative is to
create a network with all of the relevant stakeholders
in the construction sector working collectively on a
set of measures to foster sustainability. A strong
network permits the different and often conflicting
points of view and interests of the stakeholders to be
considered while adhering to a common purpose.
Given that the Network was officially launched in
2011, it is too early to judge its impact or ultimate
success. However, Feige et al. identify that stake-
holders support the need for a structured network
and a multi-incentive approach which offers the possi-
bility for active stakeholder involvement, opportunities
to have their needs and interests discussed, to over-
come several uncoordinated activities and uncertain-
ties, and to counter the current ‘circle of blame’
existing between different stakeholders. An important
conclusion in their review is, like that identified by
Nicol, that stakeholder motivation cannot be created
by a single initiative and that a variety of actions,
ideally coordinated, are required to deliver change
successfully.
Nishida and Hua’s paper reports on the Tokyo Metro-
politan Government’s recently introduced Cap-and-
Trade Program to reduce energy consumption-related
CO2 emissions at the city level. This is the first
scheme to cover buildings in the commercial, industrial
and public sectors. Its implementation presented a
challenging process of navigating through the consul-
tation process involving open discussions among stake-
holders to gain the necessary consensus. Stakeholder
engagement was solicited during both the design and
planning of the programme and during its introduc-
tion. Fairness in various aspects proved crucial, such
as fair cap setting compared with other sectors, fair
emission target setting for each facility among partici-
pants, and fair assessment for reduction efforts.
Although buildings vary in age, use and ownership,
the emission reduction targets are set in a simple way
based on the observations that such variations are to
be included in the baseline emissions, and fairness
among participants regarding their reduction targets
seems to be secured. Cap-and-trade affords building
owners, operators and tenants more latitude to
deliver substantive change while at the same time
devolving the decisions and actions on which specific
interventions are appropriate to a particular facility.
It presents an attractive hybrid of ‘top-down’ and
‘bottom-up’ approaches and has overcome what were
previously perceived to be intractable problems in the
built environment sector. This positive example of
hybrid governance demonstrates both the importance
of a process for stakeholder engagement and that

new forms of stakeholder engagement hold high poten-
tial for delivering significant environmental results
over relatively short timeframes.
Change will require reinventing the framework and
dynamics within which stakeholder’s operate – the
value system, lifestyles, the institutions and economic
models. Moreover, motivating change is context
specific, ultimately driven by the core value participat-
ing individuals and requires shared vision, shared own-
ership and shared responsibility. Du Plessis and Cole’s
paper argues that the broader framing of the decision-
making processes of stakeholders within a sustainabil-
ity debate calls for a paradigm shift that acknowledges
the world as a complex dynamic system and founded
on holistic and flexible strategies. While such a funda-
mental shift may take time to unfold, a whole systems
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 02:38 25 October 2013
view would seem a necessary and valuable means to
understand better the roles and relationship of stake-
holders. Although stakeholders, disciplines and
groups with different concerns, knowledge, and experi-
ences can provide insight on different aspects, clearly
none of them individually can know the appropriate
combination of building-related strategies for addres-
sing climate change (Boström et al., 2011). Indeed,
when viewing the papers collectively, much of the con-
structive direction relates to the connections and flows
between stakeholders as being of equal, if not more,
importance as the individual actions. Although a stake-
holder-wide consensus on a common or shared
language for green building is unlikely in the near
future (Dammann and Elle, 2006), the papers in this
issue collectively suggest that an enhanced understand-
ing of other stakeholders’ parameters and needs is
clearly a necessary and attainable objective.
It is generally accepted that any transition to a sustain-
able future will require both cultural and technological
advances, accompanied by innovation in the design of
social and institutional systems and systems of pro-
duction and consumption. And these complex
systems will necessarily help nurture and subsequently
develop within the context of a qualitatively different
value-system called for by du Plessis and Cole.
Editorial
Strategies, actions and formulation of research ques-
tions are likely to be qualitatively different in a
period of transition and rapid change than in those
where slower, more incremental situations exists or is
permitted. As in other fields, the papers herein advo-
cate a more comprehensive, systems approach and
associated inclusiveness as the basis for understanding
stakeholder engagement, particularly as the built
environment is exemplified by a large and diverse
range of stakeholders. If the emphasis thereby shifts
to the relationships between the stakeholders and
their constituent members, one will invariably see the
redefining of practices, the acceleration of the change
process to meet challenges of a shortened timeframe
presented by global warming and the generation of
new research questions.
Raymond J. Cole
School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture,
University of British Columbia, Canada
rcole@sala.ubc.ca
References
Boström, M., Dreyer, M. and Jönsson, A.M. (2011) Challenges
for stakeholder participation and communication within
regional environmental governance: comparing five environ-
mental risks in the Baltic Sea, in Proceedings of the Colorado
Conference on Earth System Governance: Crossing Bound-
aries and Building Bridges, Colorado State University
(available at: http://cc2011.earthsystemgovernance.org/
CC2011-title-index.htm).
Dammann, S. and Elle, M. (2006) Environmental indicators:
establishing a common language for green building. Building
Research & Information, 34(4), 387–404.
Hunt, J. and Townshend, T. (2011) Climate change: self-interest
may save us, Guardian Newspaper, Monday 6 June 2011, p. 25.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4),
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wallbaum, H., Silva, L., du Plessis, C., Cole, R.J., Hoballah,
A. and Krank, S. (2010) Motivating stakeholders to deliver
change, in Proceedings of Reinventing Construction,
Mexico City, Mexico, pp. 141–157.
Watson, R. (2009) Green Building Market Impact Report 2009,
Greener World Media, Oakland, CA.
435