Is there a trade-off between occupant experience and net-zero carbon objectives - or can you achieve both?
The immediate answer is that we need to achieve net-zero objectives first and foremost; this is essential and should be prioritised. However, with the right technology and smart building strategy, both an excellent occupant experience and an environmentally positive building should be possible to achieve.
We recently attended the Smart Building Show in London, and this topic was discussed in various formats throughout the two-day event. The healthy building mantra that we have discussed previously includes a focus on hygiene, ventilation, wellbeing and creating the best working environment for occupants. This has accelerated since Covid, as people are more aware of their environments and how it impacts their health.
However, an often conflicting topic is the global crisis around climate change and the need for significant action to be taken before 2030. Siloed, unsophisticated building systems often drain energy as data is not shared or connected to create a more reactive solution. Also, traditionally, building operators don't know how to get the best out of their systems, which often results in high energy consumption, as they attempt to make the best environment for their occupants by increasing ventilation, etc., but this often results in more environmentally negative buildings.
On top of this, since the pandemic forced people to work from home, real-estate owners face pressure to attract people back to offices now that we're no longer confined to our homes. But this forced change actually offered an improved work/life balance for many people, and they found they preferred it. Lots of companies now offer hybrid working, which means they can downsize their office space, or some companies are allowing their employees to work from home permanently, therefore potentially leaving a lot of office space empty. Occupants that do want to return have a lot of demands; they require additional services that were previously just seen as 'nice to have' but not essential. Estate owners are complying with these demands because they need to attract and retain tenants – but could these additional services and improved experiences be detrimental to net-zero carbon building targets? How do we overcome this battle?
Rob from SSE discussed this in a recent podcast we recorded with him:
We have no choice here. The world is on fire; we have got to decarbonise buildings and our daily lives. We have to do this now. We can affect things quickly if we use things we have got already. Generally, we have found that within moments of walking into an existing building, we can come up with a plan to reduce their impact on the environment. This is often a win-win because it means lower energy consumption too, which results in cost savings.
Maybe there is an argument that occupants will have to feel a little bit warmer on those hot summer days and a bit cooler in the winter if it means they're in a more energy-efficient building. The primary cost in any business is the people, but maybe if we do our bit, the people will be happy that the corporate is doing the right thing for the environment, even if that means they have to wear a jumper on a cold day.
I think in the end, with the right tech, you can score all of these points. The tech is there to provide fabulous experiences within a building. Attitudes are changing a lot in general; people would be more willing to compromise because they're a lot more environmentally aware. However, building owners should still provide comfortable, safe buildings with clean air etc., that should be a given.
It's exciting times; this urgency will really drive innovation. It's there; we've just got to get on with it. We've got to be brave; we need to find brave clients and show others what is possible.
You can listen to the podcast in full here.
Our smart lighting and building partner, Molex, also touched on this in a recent podcast:
I think the two go hand in hand. We've seen numbers as high as 80% in energy savings when a good network lighting control system is installed, which is valuable and ecologically responsible, but I think a great user experience can also lead to greater cost savings not just on the energy side but on the real-estate side and on the productivity of the employees too. I always refer to the 3,30,300 rule, which means that energy costs are roughly $3 per sq. ft., real-estate costs approx. $30 per sq. ft. and employee costs are about $300 per sq. ft.. So, although the energy savings are great, if we can make more efficient use of the office footprint and then increase employee satisfaction and productivity, that provides benefits by an order of magnitude greater than energy savings.
You can listen to the podcast in full here.
It is clear that a connected building that removes the historical silos will provide more insight which is essential for creating more environmentally friendly buildings. Rob states that 'you could take any building that is 10 years old or newer and could probably shave 20% off of their exposure without hardly doing a thing other than optimising what they already have'. This speaks volumes and is a great starting point for many buildings. We can all do more to reduce our carbon footprint and meet the target for net-zero carbon, but smart technology and IoT have shown us that doesn't necessarily have to mean that it creates a bad user experience – we can have it all. The key is in the planning. Engage with experts to create the optimal strategy for your building; every building is bespoke; therefore, the technology, services and decarbonising methods will be too.
