132 P O’Malley
Calculating sustainability
As with definitions of sustainability there is a seeming consensus on the
appropriate methodology for ascertaining environmental costs (that is, calculating the level of sustainability). Called life-cycle assessment (LCA), this
measures the environmental impact of a product or service throughout the
duration of its operation, and is usually contrasted with cost-effectiveness
analysis. (Robbins et al. 2009, p. 78). The insurers, fire brigades, developers,
and fire protection manufacturers all endorse and employ LCA. However,
the politics of sustainability reveal themselves again when focus is directed
away from what appears as a common methodological practice, towards the
assumptions and inputs that make it up.
At first glance, LCA could appear as anathema to developers’ interests
since they are solely concerned with the construction of buildings, and
not with environmental impacts over their lifetime. However, it has been
seen that developers work with an economised definition of sustainability
that promotes buildings with reduced operating costs. This renders LCA
an attractive methodology for developers, and explains their enthusiastic
uptake of a seemingly antithetical means of operationalising sustainability.
However, this should not conceal the fact that minimising capital expenditures at the construction stage remain the developers’ chief concern, provided all safety regulations are met. Because of this, a specific aspect of
LCA methodology lends itself particularly well to the developers, namely:
‘cradle-to-gate assessment.’
This is where the environmental impacts are calculated beginning from
the point of resource extraction (cradle) until when the product arrives at the
factory gate (gate). Basically, it calculates the environmental impacts of the
resource extraction and production phase. Calculation of sustainability is
thus based on sustainability costs to the point of delivery. It thus does not
incorporate the environmental impacts of the building’s use phase, nor of its
disposal phase: for example if it burns down and/or is demolished. Cradle-togate assessment is contrasted with cradle-to-grave assessment, which is the
calculation of environmental impacts throughout the product’s life cycle,
from resource extraction (cradle) to product disposal (grave). Carbon emissions in the construction phase are priced, and their minimisation effectively
becomes a question of cost minimisation. Cradle-to-gate assessment, in the
hands of the developers, thereby is transformed into a methodological justification of their minimal investment in fire safety. Similarly, environmental
impacts in the use phase are priced, and so minimisation also emerges as a
question of cost minimisation. Cradle-to-grave ecological assessment is thus
transformed into a methodological justification of their minimisation of
building operating costs. Having economised the concept of sustainability,
and having defined sustainability in such a way that it involves reducing initial capital costs and minimising building operating costs, developers have
thus merged traditional cost-effectiveness analysis with LCA. Developers,
Calculating sustainability
As with definitions of sustainability there is a seeming consensus on the
appropriate methodology for ascertaining environmental costs (that is, calculating the level of sustainability). Called life-cycle assessment (LCA), this
measures the environmental impact of a product or service throughout the
duration of its operation, and is usually contrasted with cost-effectiveness
analysis. (Robbins et al. 2009, p. 78). The insurers, fire brigades, developers,
and fire protection manufacturers all endorse and employ LCA. However,
the politics of sustainability reveal themselves again when focus is directed
away from what appears as a common methodological practice, towards the
assumptions and inputs that make it up.
At first glance, LCA could appear as anathema to developers’ interests
since they are solely concerned with the construction of buildings, and
not with environmental impacts over their lifetime. However, it has been
seen that developers work with an economised definition of sustainability
that promotes buildings with reduced operating costs. This renders LCA
an attractive methodology for developers, and explains their enthusiastic
uptake of a seemingly antithetical means of operationalising sustainability.
However, this should not conceal the fact that minimising capital expenditures at the construction stage remain the developers’ chief concern, provided all safety regulations are met. Because of this, a specific aspect of
LCA methodology lends itself particularly well to the developers, namely:
‘cradle-to-gate assessment.’
This is where the environmental impacts are calculated beginning from
the point of resource extraction (cradle) until when the product arrives at the
factory gate (gate). Basically, it calculates the environmental impacts of the
resource extraction and production phase. Calculation of sustainability is
thus based on sustainability costs to the point of delivery. It thus does not
incorporate the environmental impacts of the building’s use phase, nor of its
disposal phase: for example if it burns down and/or is demolished. Cradle-togate assessment is contrasted with cradle-to-grave assessment, which is the
calculation of environmental impacts throughout the product’s life cycle,
from resource extraction (cradle) to product disposal (grave). Carbon emissions in the construction phase are priced, and their minimisation effectively
becomes a question of cost minimisation. Cradle-to-gate assessment, in the
hands of the developers, thereby is transformed into a methodological justification of their minimal investment in fire safety. Similarly, environmental
impacts in the use phase are priced, and so minimisation also emerges as a
question of cost minimisation. Cradle-to-grave ecological assessment is thus
transformed into a methodological justification of their minimisation of
building operating costs. Having economised the concept of sustainability,
and having defined sustainability in such a way that it involves reducing initial capital costs and minimising building operating costs, developers have
thus merged traditional cost-effectiveness analysis with LCA. Developers,