Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BRINGING GREEN HOME: A FEASIBILITY STUDY ON SUSTAINABLE BUILDING
PRACTICES IN THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING INDUSTRY
by
Jonathan Silcock
Bachelor of Arts – University of British Columbia 1999
PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
In the Faculty of Business Administration
© Jonathan Silcock, 2008
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Summer 2008
All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of the author.
APPROVAL
Name: Jonathan Silcock
Degree: Master of Business Administration
Title of Project: Bringing Green Home: A feasibility study on sustainable building practices in the residential building industry.
Supervisory Committee:
___________________________________________
Name Jeremy Hall Senior Supervisor Associate Professor of Strategy Segal Graduate School of Business
___________________________________________
Name Neil R. Abramson Second Reader Associate Professor of International Strategy Segal Graduate School of Business
Date Approved: ___________________________________________
ii
ABSTRACT
This paper is a feasibility study on sustainable building practices in the residential
real estate development industry. Sustainable, or “green,” building practices is an
emerging market sector within the building industry. The residential market has been
slower to implement green innovations than the non-residential market. This paper uses a
variety of academic theories and concepts to assess the new home industry with a focus
on innovation within the construction sector. The paper concludes that the residential
building industry structure and current business model do not align with the principles
and requirements for a successful implementation of widespread green building.
Keywords: Innovation, construction industry, residential real estate, green building, sustainable building
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper is an academic overview of the residential building industry with a
specific focus on the feasibility of sustainable, or “green” building practices. The paper
draws on concepts and theories related to economics, innovation and entrepreneurship
with a specific focus on construction industry research. These sources are employed in
conjunction with industry analysis to assess recommendations for the integration of green
building practices into the residential real estate industry. The paper assesses the North
America industry and uses examples from the British Columbia residential market. Due
to the variety and individual requirements of residential building types and styles, the
discussions and analysis focus on the feasibility of the outcome and not on the details. As
such, this paper does not attempt to examine the technical details of specific “green”
technologies or standards.
The intent of green building practices is to reduce this level of consumption and
waste through the creation of structures that are environmentally responsible and
resource-efficient throughout a building's life cycle. The development, construction and
long term operation of buildings and homes are a leading source of waste, electricity
consumption, extraction of natural resources and greenhouse gas emissions. The green
building movement seeks to change the impact of the built environment on the natural
environment. Green building practices have gained traction in the non-residential
building sector, but have had limited success in the residential sector.
iv
The feasibility of implementing green building practices is doubtful for the
residential industry under normal market conditions. The home builders and home buyers
do not have sufficient economic, social or political incentives to commit to a green
project and government and design professionals do not have sufficient power to
engender change. In addition, the green building movement has some liabilities of image
and definition that also act as barriers to widespread acceptance.
Green building practices are poorly defined by advocates and poorly understood
by the target market. There are too many organizations that offer rating systems for a
building concept that is difficult for the builder and homeowner to grasp. Buyers and
builders may be suffering from ‘green fatigue’ as green and sustainable buzzwords are
currently ubiquitous throughout the business, retail and marketing world. Consolidation
may occur in the green building rating organizations and this could result in a green
building definition that is easier to understand and obtain certification. The current
certification requirements are onerous, time consuming and thus expensive for the home
builder.
The speculative nature of development, the historical liabilities of the construction
industry and a lack of current consumer demand are some of the impediments that make
any green project implementation difficult. Existing data is limited and residential case
studies are largely anecdotal due to the newness of the green building sector.
Furthermore, this limited evidence does not make a convincing business model for a
profitable residential development. The benefits of a green home have not been proven to
provide enough value to the builder or the homeowner to overcome a perception of
higher costs. Green building practices has gained traction in the non-residential building
v
industry as that business model is less speculative and the developer is more likely to be
involved over the long term with an ability to recover the initial costs.
The construction industry is perhaps the least likely participant in green building
practices. The industry has an ingrained aversion to innovation; in fact, a recent study for
the National Research Council of Canada suggested that innovation in new home
building results in lower profitabity for firms (Seaden, Guolla, Doutriaux and Nash,
2001). This is likely the result of the dominant design-bid-build business model where the
“lowest bidder” wins the contract. This business model also creates the liability of
separation (Reichstein, Salter and Gann, 2005) that limits interaction between the
building life cycle participants of design, production and use. In addition, the
construction of a building of any type is a complex and time consuming process and the
work is completed by a diverse range of small companies. Gann (2001) argues that the
small size and resources of most firms limits the absorptive capacity to learn and make
technological advances. These construction industry characteristics are in conflict with
the green building practice which relies on technology innovation, interaction between
life-cycle participants and an ability to learn new concepts. These conflicts limit the
ability of a residential real estate developer to implement a successful and profitable
implementation of a green building project for new homes.
Today, a certified green residential project is not feasible in economic terms. The
new technologies and processes are too radical for the industry and this level of risk is
unappealing to buildings and homeowners alike. However, there is hope for future
financial viability of green building as changing consumer demands and government
involvement may shift the economics. Increasing awareness of environmental concerns,
vi
rising energy costs and health related concerns are issues that are addressed by green
building principles. An entrepreneurial firm can position itself for future success by
integrating green building principles into current business practices.
vii
DEDICATION
This paper is dedicated to my wife, Jen, and my new-born daughter, Elsie
Katelynn. Thank you for your ongoing love and support of my academic ventures.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Jeremy Hall, Ph. D. for his guidance and encouragement on
this paper. The end result of the learning process is not adequately summarized within the
limitations of this paper. This is an emerging industry sector and the learning continues.
I also express my gratitude to Team Summit – Jeff, Johan and Nina. Thanks for
pulling me through the program. My thanks also go to thank John Morley for being a
supporting and understanding boss over the past two years.
Finally, I need to thank my family and friends for the patience and support. Life
would have been a lot tougher without my support network.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Approval ............................................................................................................................ ii
Abstract............................................................................................................................. iii
Executive Summary......................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................... viii
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... ix
Table of Contents ...............................................................................................................x
List of Figures.................................................................................................................. xii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. xiii
Glossary .......................................................................................................................... xiv
1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................15 1.1 Purpose ..........................................................................................................15
1.1.1 A Changing Environment ..........................................................................16 1.1.2 Format of the paper....................................................................................18
1.2 Background....................................................................................................19 1.2.1 Residential real estate: evolution of an industry........................................19 1.2.2 Real Estate products ..................................................................................19 1.2.1 Developers and homebuilders – The supply side ......................................21 1.2.2 Homebuyers – The demand side................................................................22 1.2.3 Current Strategy for Home Building Industry ...........................................22 1.2.4 The Building Life Cycle ............................................................................24
1.3 What is Green Building? ...............................................................................27 1.3.1 Climate Change: The Inconvenient Truth .................................................30 1.3.2 Commodities in a global market................................................................32 1.3.3 Quality of life.............................................................................................33 1.3.4 Sustainability: A matter of definition ........................................................33
1.4 The Building Industry: A reluctant innovator ...............................................35 1.5 Recent developments.....................................................................................37
2: INDUSTRY ANALYSIS .............................................................................................39 2.1 Overview – Residential Building Industry ....................................................39 2.2 British Columbia Building Industry ..............................................................40
2.2.1 Industry size and growth............................................................................40 2.3 Value Chain Analysis – New Home Building Industry ................................42
2.3.1 The Developer: Minimal costs and maximum returns ..............................43 2.3.2 The Design Team.......................................................................................47
x
2.3.3 Government Agencies: Protecting the public interest ...............................49 2.3.4 Financiers: Risk and return........................................................................50 2.3.5 The Construction Contractor .....................................................................52 2.3.6 The Real Estate World: Marketing and Sales............................................57 2.3.7 The Purchaser ............................................................................................58 2.3.8 Value Chain Summary...............................................................................59 2.3.9 Value Chain and the Liabilities of Construction .......................................60
2.4 Five Forces Analysis of the new home building industry .............................62 2.4.1 Force 1: Threat of substitutes ....................................................................64 2.4.2 Force 2: Threat of new entrants .................................................................66 2.4.3 Force 3: Bargaining power of buyer..........................................................68 2.4.4 Force 4: Bargaining power of suppliers.....................................................70 2.4.5 Force 5: Industry rivalry ............................................................................71 2.4.6 Industry Attractiveness – potential for profit.............................................72
2.5 Key Success Factors (KSF) ...........................................................................73 2.6 Summary of Competitive Advantages...........................................................75 2.7 Opportunities and Threats .............................................................................76
2.7.1 Opportunities for the building industry .....................................................76 2.7.2 Threats for the building industry ...............................................................77
2.8 Strategic Options for the residential developer .............................................78
3: FEASABILITY ANALYSIS FOR GREEN BUILDING PRACTICES.................80 3.1 Overview of Green Building Practices - Shades of Green ............................80
3.1.1 Residential Green Building .......................................................................81 3.1.2 Standards and Technology.........................................................................83 3.1.3 First Costs ..................................................................................................85 3.1.4 Cognitive Legitimacy ................................................................................87 3.1.5 Socio-Political Legitimacy ........................................................................88
3.2 Green Building Practices – Drivers of Change .............................................89 3.2.1 Developer – Supply Side ...........................................................................90 3.2.2 The Design Professional – Supply Side ....................................................92 3.2.3 Construction Contractors – Supply Side....................................................94 3.2.4 The Home Buyer – Demand Side..............................................................96 3.2.5 Government and Society – Demand Side..................................................97
3.3 Supply and Demand Summary....................................................................100 3.4 Pathways and Barriers .................................................................................101
3.4.1 Barriers to Implementation ......................................................................101 3.4.2 Pathways to Sustainable Building Practices ............................................102
4: CONCLUSION AND STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS..............................105 4.1 Feasibility of Green Building in Residential Building ................................105 4.2 Profit Potential for a Green Building Company ..........................................108 4.3 Strategies to capture future demand ............................................................108 4.4 Tilting at Windmills ....................................................................................110
Reference List.................................................................................................................112 Works Cited..............................................................................................................112 Works Consulted ......................................................................................................116
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Residential Home Building Activity Chart .......................................................40
Figure 2 - Net Migration to BC 2003 to 2009 (Source: CMHC).......................................41
Figure 3 - BC new home building industry – units and dollar volume (Source: CMHC)..............................................................................................................42
Figure 4 – Residential Starts in BC by type, 2003 to 2009 (Source: CMHC)...................42
Figure 5 – Modified Design-Bid-Build Cycle ...................................................................45
Figure 6 – Construction contract flow chart ......................................................................55
Figure 7 - Porter Five Forces for New Home building industry........................................64
Figure 8 – BC Residential sales in annual volume and average price (Source: CMHC)..............................................................................................................66
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Residential building by product type (Source: CMHC) ....................................20
Table 2 – Value chain activities and estimated costs.........................................................43
Table 3 – Barriers to Innovation in Building Value Chain................................................61
Table 4 – Threat of substitutes...........................................................................................65
Table 5 – Threat of New Entrants to New Home Industry ................................................68
Table 6 – Bargaining power of buyer ................................................................................69
Table 7 – Bargaining power of suppliers...........................................................................71
Table 8 – Industry Rivalry .................................................................................................72
Table 9 – Key Success Factors (Source: Grant, 2008, p. 90) ............................................74
Table 10 – Sample of LEED checklist items (Source: USGBC, 2008).............................84
Table 11 – BDC 2007 survey results .................................................................................86
Table 12 – Green Goals Framework - Developer..............................................................91
Table 13 – Green Goals Framework - Design Professional ..............................................94
Table 14 – Green Goals Framework - Contractors............................................................95
Table 15 – Green Goals Framework - Homebuyer............................................................97
Table 16 – Green Goal Framework – Government and Society........................................99
xiii
GLOSSARY
CAGBC Canadian Green Building Council
CHMC Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation
LEED The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
USGBC U.S. Green Building Council
xiv
1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
This paper is an academic overview of the residential building industry with a
specific focus on the feasibility of sustainable, or “green” building practices. The paper
draws on concepts and theories related to economics, innovation and entrepreneurship
with a specific focus on construction industry research. These sources are employed in
conjunction with industry analysis to assess alternatives for the integration of green
building practices into the residential real estate industry. The paper assesses the North
America industry and uses examples from the British Columbia residential market.
Due to the variety and individual requirements of residential building types and
styles, the discussions and analysis focus on the feasibility of the outcome and not on the
details. As such, this paper does not attempt to examine the technical details of specific
“green” technologies or standards. The technology details are important to the process
and available elsewhere in numerous case studies of the green building industry. Instead,
the paper treats green building as an opportunity to trigger what Schumpeter called
“irresistible and irreversible innovation” (Schumpeter, 1934) in an industry that suffers
from a dearth of innovation.
15
1.1.1 A Changing Environment
The built environment, or a building, occupies a central place in human life and
activity. The Canadian climate is not always hospitable and it is estimated that Canadians
spend close to 90% of their time indoors (Lucuik, 2005). Buildings provide utility to
society as homes, schools and place of business, but these same buildings also have
externalities that are becoming more visible in the natural environment. The
development, construction and long-term operation of a building have a detrimental
impact on the natural environment. According to United Nations estimates, building
construction and operation accounts for 33% of global energy consumption, 65% of
electricity use, 50% of extracted natural resources while producing 35% of world
greenhouse gases (GHG), 20% of water effluents and 25% of solid waste in landfills
(Lighthouse, 2008).
The intent of green building practices is to reduce this level of consumption and
waste through the creation of structures that are environmentally responsible and
resource-efficient throughout a building's life cycle (USGBC, 2008; EPA, 2008). A green
building promotes a holistic approach to the creation of a building and focuses on an
integrated design, construction and operation concept. This integration does not need to
involve radical technologies and gizmos like geo-thermal heat systems, “green” roofs or
homes made of recycled materials; it can be a simple and subtle design change that
incorporates the impact and function of long-term operation into the base building
specifications. The term “green” building may conjure up images of radical hippy living,
but the term simply refers to an integrated approach to good and thoughtful home design.
16
Over the past few decades, homebuilding practices in North America have not
placed a high priority on environmental responsibility and material efficiency as there
was minimal consumer demand for a green home (BDC, 2003, Kannan, 2008). Today,
there is growing evidence that suggests both home builders and home purchasers want to
make environmental responsibility a higher priority when building or buying a new
home. (BDC, 2007, RCLCO, 2008)
In part, this shift in priorities can be attributed to the emergence of climate change
and sustainable business practices as some of the leading business, social and political
issues of the first decade of the twenty-first century (Rees, 1992, Elkington, 1994,
Marshall and Toeffel, 2005, Stern, 2007, IPCC, 2007). Numerous studies on existing
green building have shown that a green building can reduce material waste, increase
energy efficiency and produce a healthier indoor environment (Lucuik, 2005, BDC, 2006;
Lighthouse, 2008). Green building practices have the potential to reduce the “ecological
footprint”1 (Rees, 1992) of a home, but only if the practices are accepted and
implemented by both producer (the homebuilder) and consumer (the home purchaser)
alike.
In theory, a home constructed using green building practices would consume
fewer building materials, produce less waste and use less energy to construct and operate.
However, these theoretical benefits of a green building remain largely unproven. There is
limited empirical data as green building is only at the introduction phase of its life cycle
(Rogers, 1962). The acceptance of the nascent green building concepts would not only be
a paradigm shift for both home builders and home buyers, but it would also be a leap of 1 UBC professor Rees and his doctoral student are credited with developed the “ecological footprint” to
describe the needs of a human versus the carrying capacity
17
faith based on theory and technology that is in its infancy. In addition, there is no single
accepted definition or standard for green building, so both the home builder and the home
buyer are faced with confusing and competing claims, products and organizations.
It should be an easy decision to build or buy a new green home based on the
promise of lower operating costs, a feeling of environmental responsibility and a
healthier home. However, the acceptance of green building in residential building has a
multitude of barriers to overcome. The barriers relate to the structure of the building
industry, the number of participants, the legitimacy of green technology and the liabilities
associated with the construction process. These issues are examined in relation to
academic studies related to innovation and entrepreneurship with a specific focus on the
construction industry. These concepts include cognitive and socio-political legitimacy
(Aldrich and Fiol, 1994), liability of newness (Stinchcombe, 1998) and various liabilities
and uncertainties associated with the construction industry (Reichstein, Salter and Gann,
2005). This research is used in conjunction with Porter’s Value Chain and Five Forces
analysis to assess the feasibility of implementing green building practices in the
residential building industry.
1.1.2 Format of the paper
In the remainder of the introduction, I will touch on numerous topics to set the
context for the green building movement and describe the residential building industry.
Chapter 2 will provide an industry analysis using Porter’s Five Forces framework and
Value Chain analysis. Chapter 3 will analyse the green building sector to identify barriers
and pathways to implementation. Chapter 4 will provide recommendations and some
strategic pathways to overcome the previously identified barriers.
18
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Residential real estate: evolution of an industry
The residential real estate industry fulfils a basic human necessity – the need for
shelter. Over the millennia, the need for basic shelter evolved into a desire for homes,
offices, factories, airports, shopping malls and other buildings to support all manner of
human activity. In the modern global economy, the building industry creates employment
opportunities throughout a complex value chain that stretches around the world.
According to 2006 estimates, the global construction industry yields an annual
output of $4.6 trillion US, contributing to 8-10% of the Global Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) with a workforce of 120 million people (USGBC, 2008). In 2007 in Canada
alone, the construction industry accounts for 6.7% of total employment with 1.13 million
jobs and 6% of GDP at $72 billion CDN (StatsCan, 2008). Canadian residential
construction accounted for $23 billion CDN of the 2007 figure or about 33% of all
construction activity. By comparison, the 2006 figures for the US show the construction
industry as 14.2% of the $10 trillion US GDP. This includes all commercial, residential,
industrial and infrastructure construction. Commercial and residential
construction accounted for 9% of the GDP for total of over $900 billion US (US
Department of Energy, 2006).
1.2.2 Real Estate products
Within the North American building industry there are four main building types
identified by use and separated into two categories: residential and non-residential
(industrial, commercial, and institutional). A residential building is any building used as a
residence or dwelling. Industrial buildings include food-processing factories,
19
manufacturing plants and shipyards. Commercial buildings include office towers,
warehouses and shopping centres. Institutional properties include government buildings
such as schools, hospitals, government offices and prisons. There are currently 13.3
million residential homes and over 500,000 commercial and institutional buildings in
Canada (Natural Resources Canada, 2006). It is worth noting that developers and
operators of non-residential buildings have adopted green building practices more quickly
than their residential counterparts have.
In Canada, the residential real estate market has four product types: single family
home, semi-detached, townhouse and apartment (CMHC, 2008b).
Table 1 – Residential building by product type (Source: CMHC)
Residential Type
Description Construction Material
2007 Number of Starts2 in BC
Single – Detached Building containing only one dwelling unit
Concrete foundation, wood frame, 1 to 2 levels
14,474 (37%)
Semi – Detached One of two dwellings located side-by-side in a building,
Concrete foundation, wood frame, 1 to 2 levels
2,111 (5%)
Row or Townhouse
One family dwelling unit in a row of three or more attached dwellings
Concrete foundation, wood frame, 1 to 3 levels
4,175 (11%)
Apartment All dwellings other than those described above. Includes condominium and high-rises
Wood frame up to 4 levels. Concrete and steel for >4 levels.
18,435 (47%)
Total Starts in 2007 39,195 (100%)
2 A building “start” is defined as the start of work on a building usually when the concrete foundations are
poured. (CHMC, 2008) This signifies a credible commitment to the construction of the building.
20
Each building type has distinctive characteristics that require a different building process.
Generally, homes, townhouses and low-rise buildings use a wood frame structure with
mid- and high-rise condominiums and apartments use a concrete and steel structure.
Developers and homebuilders create these properties and buildings.
1.2.1 Developers and homebuilders – The supply side
In basic terms, a residential developer transforms an existing piece of property
into a new real estate product in the form of a single family, townhouse or apartment
style building. This new home is sold to a homebuyer. A homebuilder is the firm that
oversees the construction of the new home product for the developer. Developers and
builders in the residential sector have a dramatic range in size and scale. Some companies
are sole proprietors building one home at a time; other companies have hundreds of
employees building hundreds of homes and condominiums a year. Regardless of size, the
developer and builders operate in a competitive industry with low margins (Seaden,
Guolla, Doutriaux and Nash, 2001, Reichstein, Gann and Salter, 2005). As a result, the
real or perceived costs for green building innovation may be the single biggest obstacle
for green building acceptance on the producer side. According to a Reed Business
industry survey in 2007, 78 per cent of industry respondents believe that a green building
adds significantly to “first costs” than conventional buildings. This response differed
significantly from the 56 percent in 2006 and 44 percent in 2003. This is coupled with the
60 percent of respondents who answered that the “market is not willing to pay a
premium” for green building. (BDC, 2007) In a cost sensitive and competitive industry,
these beliefs present a significant obstacle to the adoption of green building.
21
1.2.2 Homebuyers – The demand side
According to real estate industry literature, a new homebuyer has three initial
criteria: location, size and price (Lewis, 2008; Marak, 2008). Only after these criteria
have been satisfied will a buyer consider other features such as countertops, bathroom
fixtures and green building features. However, recent surveys indicate that green building
features are becoming more important to purchasers. A 2007 survey by Royal LePage, a
real estate brokerage, indicated that 75 per cent of homebuyers want their next home to
be a green home and 63 per cent were willing to pay a premium for the benefit (Royal
LePage, 2007). Another recent survey by Robert Charles Lesser & Co (RCLCO), a real
estate research firm, identified that approximately one-third of US homebuyers could be
swayed towards purchasing a green home (Kannan, 2007).
A homebuyer is sensitive to price and relative value of real estate. A homebuyer
also has a choice in real estate products: the new home product offered by a developer, or
previously owned home, also known as a resale home. A resale home is typically
available in a greater volume and offers a wider selection of products at a lower price
point than a new home. However, a resale home is, by definition, an older and used
product that may require renovations and lacks modern features that the new home
product can offer. In addition, a yet to be built new home has the opportunity to use green
technology during construction whereas the existing resale home cannot. The homebuyer
is presented with a price-performance decision with the purchase of a new home.
1.2.3 Current Strategy for Home Building Industry
The current generic strategy in residential real estate development is to buy
inexpensive land in the best location possible and then build homes as inexpensively as
22
possible by using easy to replicate building designs and practices. The industry business
model is based on the design-bid-build process that originated in the nineteenth century
and is still the dominant model for real estate development in the western world (Seaden
et al., 2001). This model is explained in greater detail in Chapter 2, but works on the
“lowest bidder’ principle. As a result, developers and builders are constantly looking for
cost advantages to ensure a profitable venture. As in most “lowest bidder” industries, a
low cost operation is a competitive advantage in the building industry.
It is important to note that a developer does not receive any revenue until a
homeowner has completed the legal conveyance of the property at the time of
occupancy.3 There are some exceptions, but generally the developer is paid when the
home owner moves in. As a result, every dollar spent up to closing is a direct cost
incurred and carried by the developer. A significant amount of capital is required to fund
a project whether it is a single family home or a high rise apartment building. The
developer will use a mix of equity and leveraged debt from financial institutions or other
investors for funding. Real estate development is a high risk endeavour: expenses are
high, sales are uncertain, cash flow does not occur until the property is completed.
All these factors combine to produce an industry that works on speed of
construction at the lowest cost possible in order to get a homeowner into their home as
soon as possible. Once the homeowner takes possession, the developer is no longer
involved in the project aside from some warranty obligations: this is known as a “turn-
key” development. This term refers to the moment when a homeowner turns the key in
the lock of their new home. From that moment forward, the homeowner is responsible for 3 Occupancy refers to the issuance of an occupancy permit by the local building authority. A home does not
need to be occupied by a resident or tenant in order to have occupancy.
23
operation and maintenance of the new home. The industry business model that is
predicated on location, speed of delivery, low cost and “turn-key” delivery seems like a
poor fit for the integrated green building approach. The building life cycle reveals some
additional challenges for the building industry.
1.2.4 The Building Life Cycle
A simplified building life cycle is site selection, building design, construction,
operation, maintenance, renovation and the eventual demolition and removal of the
structure. This life cycle is a building-specific modification of the life cycle assessment
framework of design, production, use and dispose/recycle drawn from Matos and Hall
(2007). Depending on material and location, this life cycle could span decades to
centuries. A well-built wood frame home can survive for centuries with proper
maintenance and, as many people in Vancouver know, a poorly built and “leaky condo”
can need a complete renovation, and sometimes even demolition, within a decade.4 The
residential building life cycle has several notable economic and organizational features
that differentiate a residential from a non-residential building.
First, building costs are front end loaded and occur at start of the development.
These “first costs” relate to property acquisition, design and construction. These
significant costs are borne solely by the property developer until time of sale. Rarely will
the initial developer be the final home owner. This is different than a non-residential
building where the developer is often the long-term building owner and operator.
4 There were dozens of failures in the building envelope construction of residential buildings in Vancouver
between 1990 and 2005. These failures resulted in water ingress and damage to the structures through rotting and corrosion. These buildings were dubbed “leaky condos” by the media and residents and required significant, costly and ongoing repairs to correct.
24
Second, a residential property does not produce revenue for its owner as its
primary function. Its primary function is to serve as a dwelling. Moreover, the home
owner will incur continual operating and maintenance costs for the lifetime of the
building without an offsetting revenue stream. This is different from a non-residential
building whose primary function is the production of a revenue stream through rental or
industry. As a result, the developer of a non-residential property often remains the owner
and operator of the building to generate cash-flow and recover the initial investment
costs.
Third, the participants in the life cycle are separated from each other and do not
remain involved from start to finish. For example, the building designer will likely never
be in contact with the building operator or occupant. Likewise, the construction team will
not be involved in the maintenance. In their research on the construction industry,
Reichstein et al. (2005) refer to this disconnect between design, production and use as the
liability of separation. The separation limits integration, knowledge sharing and feedback
between participants and reduces the opportunity for improvement based on input from
all participants. Furthermore, the nature of the supply chain and construction practices
also creates the liability of assembly. Due to in-situ building assembly, this liability
discounts the involvement of off-site suppliers of materials and services such as
designers, architects and engineers. As a result, their contribution to product and process
development activity is often overlooked. Home construction and use of the building is
also tied to a specific piece of property. Reichstein et al, refer to this characteristic as the
liability of immobility and it limits the use of off-site automated factory technologies and
25
also exposes the building and workers to weather and climate conditions during
construction.
The life cycle relationships highlight a few issues inherent in residential building
industry. “First costs” are initially funded by the developer and not the eventual home
owner. Maintenance and operating costs are paid by the home owner and the property is
not intended to produce revenue. The liability of separation restricts the interaction and
knowledge sharing between participants in the building life cycle. The liability of
assembly and liability of immobility limit the use of off-site production facilities and
expose the production process to the local elements. These issues combine to create a
series of isolated functions within a residential building life cycle. As a result, both cost
and function are assessed in isolation from the other participants.
These “liabilities” limit the ability of a developer to respond to customer demand
just as it limits the ability of a home owner to request changes to the home product. This
creates a limited feedback mechanism within the building supply chain from design to
operation. Innovation and change are also stifled as the developer is unwilling to bear the
costs without knowing if the product will find a willing buyer. This factor is also termed
the liability of uncertain demand (Reichstein et al., 2005).
This is a brief overview of the residential building industry and the industry will
be examined in more depth in Chapter 2. The green building sector has found some
traction in the non-residential sector, but has had limited success in residential building
due in part to the liabilities that have been discussed.
26
1.3 What is Green Building?
The mainstream green building movement in North America is less than a decade
old. As a result, there is a cacophony of competing definitions, standards and
organizations as the sector emerges. The absence of a standard definition creates
confusion for both the homebuilder and the home purchaser. The US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) website provides a comprehensive definition of green building:
Green building is the practice of creating structures and using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building's life-cycle. This practice expands and complements the classical building design concerns of economy, utility, durability, and comfort. Green building is also known as a sustainable or high performance building. (EPA, 2008)
The EPA definition contains several important aspects about green building.
First, the philosophy of green building is applied throughout the building life-
cycle and embodies a holistic approach to the life-cycle that connects design to
construction and construction to operation. Green building is not an add-on feature to a
conventional building: green building practices are an integrated and long term approach
that involves changes throughout the life of a building that involves designers, builders,
contractors and purchasers.
Second, the “green” in green building is a misnomer and a distraction from the
intent of the building practice. The word “green” refers to the environmentalist roots of
this building philosophy and not necessarily the physical attributes of the building. A
green building does not need elaborate and expensive features such as a green roof, geo-
thermal heating and recycled water system– most changes are simple and subtle such as
operable windows to provide natural ventilation and larger roof overhangs to block solar
27
gains. A green building uses conventional building techniques and materials with an
integrated design approach for the long term functionality of the building and comfort of
the occupants. In fact, the French-Canadian wording of green building is perhaps a more
apt description as the French “bâtiments durables” translates to “durable buildings.”
Third, green building practice is also mindful of the importance of economics, and
by extension profitability, throughout the lifecycle by creating a functional building that
will perform at a high level over a long period of time.
These considerations can be translated into the three goals of effective green
building practices as provided by the US Green Building Council (USGBC):
1. Reduce the costs for construction, operation and maintenance through increased
resource and energy efficiency,
2. Reduce the impacts on human health and improve human comfort through
building location, non-toxic building materials, improved indoor air quality and
lighting,
3. Reduce the impact on the environment through conservation of resources,
energy and water at every stage of the building life cycle. (USGBC, 2008;
CAGBC, 2006)
As outlined early, buildings consume a significant amount of resources while creating
greenhouse gas emissions and waste. In the US, residential and commercial building
account for 72% of electricity consumption, 39% of energy use, 38% of all carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions, 40% of raw materials use, 30% of waste output (136 million
tons annually), and 14% of potable water consumption (USGBC, 2008). A reduction in
any or all of these areas through improvements in efficiency or conservation could have
significant economic and environmental impacts – the positive kind.
28
During the past decade, numerous green building organizations have emerged
with different agendas, standards and terms. In addition, multiple local, regional and
national organizations certify green projects including LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design), Green Globes, Built Green, Net Zero, Eco-Density and a host of
other independent or self-labelled “green” terms. The number of voices and lack of
coordination add to market confusion and reduce the legitimacy of a green building.
The green building sector could help establish a triple bottom line (TBL)
accounting framework for the building industry. First coined by John Elkington in 1994,
TBL expands on traditional financial performance by including social and environmental
performance in company accounting (Elkington, 1998). Looking towards the future, the
building industry needs a triple bottom line approach to combat the triple threat of
climate change, dwindling commodities and concerns about health and wellness.
This leads to the first proposition in this paper:
1. Climate change and environmental activism is one pathway that will promote
acceptance of green building principles for homebuilder and home purchasers..
2. The cost savings associated with energy conservation and resource efficiency by
homebuilders and homeowners will be accelerated by rising energy and
commodity prices.
3. The health and wellness benefits from a cleaner and toxic free home
environment have the potential to become the key marketing tool for the green
building concept.
The following sections contain additional information on these three concepts.
29
1.3.1 Climate Change: The Inconvenient Truth
Over the past several decades, the environmentalist movement has grown out of
people’s concern for the earth’s resources and the impact on the human population. Over
the past five years, the ideals of this former fringe group have moved to forefront of
public awareness. Suddenly, the environment, and more specifically global warming
caused by human activity, became a leading social, political and economic concern.
Three notable reports are worth highlighting for their contribution to the ongoing debate
on climate change.
In 2006, former US vice-president Al Gore turned his power point presentation on
global warming into an Academy Award winning movie. An Inconvenient Truth told the
direct and dire story about the consequences of global warming and the public responded
at the box office; the movie became the fourth highest grossing documentary of all time
(IMDB, 2006). Arguably, Al Gore used Hollywood to break through a psychological
barrier to reach the mainstream population about the crisis of global warming.
In October 2006, following on the heels of the Hollywood treatment of climate
change, Nicholas Stern, the former Chief Economist at the World Bank, released the
Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (2006). Stern’s report focused on the
economics implications of climate change and the report contained numerous conclusion
including “serious, irreversible impacts from climate change associated with business-as-
usual (BAU) paths for emissions,” (p. iii) and that climate changes threatens the basic
elements of life, water, food, health, for people around the world. Stern concluded with
an estimate that it would cost 1% of global GDP to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere
30
levels by 2050 to counteract global warming.5 If no action occurs, Stern estimates the
cost to the global economy is a loss of 11% to 20% of per capita consumption by 2050.
In February 2007, the UN and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) released its fourth assessment in a series on climate change.6 The report
contained numerous findings and made two claims based on scientific data and models.
First, “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” (IPCC, 2007, p. 5) Second,
anthropogenic, or human activity, is “the primary source of the increased atmospheric
concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel
use, with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution” (IPCC,
2007, p.2) In summary, the earth is heating up and human activity is a major cause.
The findings of the IPCC and Stern reports were generally accepted by scientific
and government bodies alike, although skeptics still exist. Stern’s report (2006) also
contains four recommendations for counteractive measures:
• Reducing demand for emissions-intensive goods and services
• Increased efficiency, which can save both money and emissions
• Action on non-energy emissions, such as avoiding deforestation
• Switching to lower-carbon technologies for power, heat and transport
Green building practices address all four areas of action suggested by the Stern report. In
addition, Stern’s figures show that buildings and power production accounted for 8% and
24% respectively of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2000. In order to make a
5 In June 2008, Stern revised his estimate to cost 2% of global GDP due to the faster than expected
accumulation of CO2 since 2006. 6 Incidentally, Al Gore and the IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 “for their efforts to build up and
disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." (Nobel, 2008)6
31
difference on the environment front, GHG associated with buildings and power
generation need to be cut dramatically.
1.3.2 Commodities in a global market
Rising raw material prices and increased energy costs can act as another catalyst
for the acceptance of green building practices. Based on existing green buildings and case
studies, a well-designed green building requires fewer resources to build and less energy
to operate (BDC, 2007). The increased efficiency of a green building translates into less
money and can insulate against future spikes in energy costs. In July 2008, the future
contract for a barrel of US light sweet crude oil peaked at $147 US a barrel (BBC, 2008);
a year earlier in July 2007 the same barrel cost $77 US and in September 2000, the price
was at $16 US. The long-term price for the cost of oil, gas, electricity and other
commodities such as lumber, cement and copper will continue to trend upward as world
demand increases with population growth and the supply of these non-renewable
resources decline.
In addition to its use as fuel, oil is a direct or indirect component of every material
used in the building industry. Some building materials such as roof shingles, asphalt
paving and plastic piping contain oil products in the material. All other goods are
fabricated, shipped, driven or otherwise handled by a piece of equipment that runs on an
oil-based product such as gasoline or diesel fuel.
Green building practices aim to use building resources more efficiently through
better material selection, innovative building practices and recycling. Moreover, a green
building uses high performance heating and cooling systems that aim to reduce the
32
energy requirements for building operation. A common and simple change that fits the
“green” criteria is the switch from the fluorescent light bulb to the compact fluorescent
light bulb. The desire of the homebuilder to reduce building costs by using fewer
materials and the desire for a homeowner to save money on utility bills are two economic
reasons to support a residential green building.
1.3.3 Quality of life
There are multiple health related crises emerging across North America and
around the globe. Preliminary studies show that green building can minimize and
mitigate some of the risks by improved the indoor building conditions at work and at
home (Lucuik, 2005). Natural air circulations system, natural lighting and non-toxic
paints, mutagen free carpets and upholsteries are some of the examples of simple
improvements that can improve the quality and comfort of an indoor space. Studies have
shown that a higher quality of indoor space can lead to improved productivity in the
workplace (CAGBC, 2006) by more research is needed to prove the long-term
relationship.
Environmental responsibility, cost savings and health benefits are three pathways
for homeowners and homebuilders to create both supply and demand for a green building
product. In turn, these three pathways could produce a more sustainable business model
for residential building, but sustainability carries some problems as well.
1.3.4 Sustainability: A matter of definition
Similar to the term “green”, the term “sustainability” has become a ubiquitous and
almost meaningless buzzword. Many companies across many industries apply the generic
33
terms “green” or “sustainable” to their products, when neither the company nor the
consumer may understand the term (Marshall and Toeffel, 2005). The same confusion is
present for the green building industry as competing standards and definitions result in a
variety of claims. When an industry cannot agree on its purpose, then it is unrealistic to
expect consumers and producers to understand the value of green building. This matter of
ambiguous and poorly defined terms and concepts is an impediment to industry and
consumer acceptance.
The term “green building” presents a paradox; although a green building may be
more environmentally friendly than the traditional home, the only truly green building is
the one that is never built. Likewise, “sustainable development” is not applicable to the
building industry as a building is incapable of self-repair or regeneration. However, in
this paper, the terms “green building” and “sustainable development” are used in the
spirit of the 1987 Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development definition
of sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World
Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).
However, this definition is also an elusive concept as “sustainability” in the terms
of real estate development incorporates value-driven issues of personal preference and
not necessarily issues of human survival. Accordingly, in our North American consumer
society “green” and “sustainable” become synonyms for “good” or “quality” whereas for
others, the word “sustainable” equates with basic human survival and health (Marshall
and Toeffel, 2005). This may seem to be a matter of semantics, but a consumer is
confused and also sceptical when an American oil company describes itself as sustainable
34
in the same manner that a non-governmental organization (NGO) describes a clean
drinking water project in sub-Saharan Africa as sustainable. In this context, it is not
surprising that consumers, producers and industry are confused and sceptical to accept
the plethora of definitions and products. This scepticism has resulted in the term
“greenwash” which refers to products that have dubious and unsubstantiated claims of
sustainability.
It will take some time before consolidation occurs for the accrediting bodies and
government agencies before the public understands the green building concept. Until
then, confusion and competing claims will only damage the legitimacy of not only the
“green building” movement, but also all things “green.”
1.4 The Building Industry: A reluctant innovator
Building practices have not changed significantly in centuries. In fact, some
construction research suggests that the industry structure has not evolved from nineteenth
century practices and institutions (Bowley, 1966; Seaden, et al., 2001). Incremental
changes in technology have altered the appearance of a modern building, but the basic
material and construction process have changed minimally as architects, contractors and
trades people have the same roles they had a century ago. Bowley (1966) suggests that a
lingering Victorian era societal hierarchy exists within the construction industry that
stifles innovation and change that she refers to as “the system.” A professionally trained
architect or engineer is at the top of the hierarchy with the trades people and labourers at
the bottom. “The system” shares similarities with the liability of separation (Reichstein et
al., 2005) as it creates barriers to innovation, and diminishes incentives to pursue change.
These observations have merit and are backed by recent empirical studies on innovation
35
from Canada and the UK that suggest that the construction industry lags behind over
industries in innovations due to a number of industry liabilities. (Seaden et al., 2001,
Reichstein et al., 2005) Seaden el al. (2001) finds the construction industry is
characterized by “low levels of expenditures on activities associated with innovation,
such as research and development” (p. 631). The classic definition of an innovation
comes from Schumpeter (1934) and pertains to the commercialization of a new idea or
invention, which in the case of the building industry can be new products, processes, or
industrial organization. Green building is an example of an innovation that incorporates
all those ideas, but needs to make the transition from idea to commercial viability.
Green building practices have the potential to change the building industry
through the integration of design and construction process, but a change to the building
industry is a formidable challenge. The industry participants are reluctant to invest time
and money into a new and unproven area such as green building. These issues are
explored in greater detail in Chapters 2 and 3. A change in the building industry attitudes
towards environmental responsibility may provide an opportunity for the industry to
engage in innovation that can lead to what Baumol (1990) refers to as “productive
entrepreneurship,” or a change through innovation that creates a net social benefit for
society. Traditionally, the building industry has engaged in “unproductive
entrepreneurship,” or rent-seeking behaviour. When externalities including contributions
to climate change and environmental degradation are included, then the industry may
even be considered a “destructive entrepreneur” (Baumol, 1990). Recent events in the
global housing market may confirm that residential developers may be considered
“destructive.”
36
1.5 Recent developments
Since the start of research for this paper in 2007, the North American housing
market and subsequently the global credit markets have collapsed on a scale not seen
since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The US new home real estate market is the
epicentre of this collapse. Fuelled by easy credit, low interest rates and exotic mortgages,
the US housing market experienced double-digit growth in sales and volumes in every
year since 2003. Homebuilders responded with the construction of nearly 2 million new
homes a year in 2005 and 2006. Similar properties booms took place in Canada, the UK
and Europe. This housing boom came crashing to a halt in 2007 when concerns over US
sub-prime mortgage risks surfaced.
However, the world population continues to grow. The UN predicts world
population to grow from 6.6 billion people in 2005 to 9.2 billion people in 2050 (UN,
2006). Although the forecast are subject to revision, US new housing starts are still
forecast at nearly a 1 million new homes a year for the next 5 years (USHBA, 2007).
Locally, the Vancouver forecast is a net migration of over 35,000 people over the next 3
years (CMHC, 2008f). People need homes and eventually the current inventory of homes
for sale will be used. Demand will outstrip supply and the building industry will recover.
The timing of this recovery is unknown. In the meantime, the development industry has
time to assess its current business model. Arguably, some aspects of the current model
are responsible for the current financial crisis and rapid decline of new home starts. On
the flipside, the consumer also has an opportunity to assess their needs in a housing
product. Size, features, location and affordability are all concerns.
37
This is a snapshot the current and dynamic state of the global economy and the
building industry. Chapter 2 presents an industry analysis that assumes static and
predictable conditions or “business as usual.” The building industry that emerges from
the current crisis may look different.
38
2: INDUSTRY ANALYSIS
This chapter contains an industry overview of the residential building industry in
British Columbia. The main sections of this chapter are an industry analysis using
Porter’s Value Chain and Five Force models. These analytic tools identify the key
success factors for the home building industry.
2.1 Overview – Residential Building Industry
The residential building industry involves a series of complex relationships
among government, financial institutions, property owners, construction contractors,
design professionals, real estate agents and homeowners. Each of the aforementioned
groups has its own supply chain that includes numerous other suppliers, services and
manufacturing industries. The inputs from this collection of industry and services
combine to create the output of a new home. As previously discussed, there are several
types of new home products including the single family home, townhouses and apartment
units. Although the final home product may appear different, the industry process of
development and construction follows a similar path.
39
Figure 1 - Residential Home Building Activity Chart
Developer
Financial Institution and
InvestorsDesign Team
Construction Contractor and
Trades
New Home
Sales
Home Owner
Government
Bank
Marketing
2.2 British Columbia Building Industry
2.2.1 Industry size and growth
New home construction in BC occurred at record levels over the past five years, but
building starts are forecast to decline over the next few years. The BC trends follow
similar trends across Canada and the US; however, the financial uncertainty precipitated
by the “sub-prime mortgage” collapse has rendered short-term forecasts obsolete. Long-
term growth is predicted to recover, but the timing is uncertain. As shown in Figure 4
housing starts of all types peaked in 2007 and are forecast to decline over the next few
40
years (CMHC, 2008b). Despite the market uncertainty, BC’s economy is forecast to
grow moderately over the next several years and outpace the national average. Population
is also forecast to grow with a net migration of over 50,000 people a year as shown in
Figure 2.
Figure 2 - Net Migration to BC 2003 to 2009 (Source: CMHC) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008(F) 2009(F)
Net migration to BC 35,850 39,721 48,444 48,276 52,999 56,200 56,900Net migration to Vancouver 23,661 26,216 31,973 31,862 34,979 37,092 37,554
Economic and population growth should result in a continued long-term demand
for housing. According to a recent report by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing
Corporation (CMHC), there were 41,301 units under construction in BC at the end of
June 2008, up 14.1 per cent over 2007 levels (CMHC, 2008a). CHMC (2008e) also
reported a shift towards denser housing forms such as apartments due to high land and
building costs.
CMHC volume and sales figures since 2003 provide an estimate of the residential
new home industry size in BC. Increased home starts in combination with a rise in
property prices have doubled the value of new home activity over the past five years from
estimated revenue of $10 billion in 2003 to over $20 billion in 2008 (See Figure 3).
The industry generates significant economic activity for BC. The following
section contains a value chain analysis that highlights the extent of this activity.
41
Figure 3 - BC new home building industry – units and dollar volume (Source: CMHC)7
Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008(F) 2009(F) 2010(F) Volume of Starts 26,174 32,925 34,667 36,443 39,195 35,800 31,500 Average New Home Price 385,000$ 410,000$ 435,000$ 510,000$ 550,000$ 598,000$ 598,000$ Total Dollar Volume (Billions) 10.08$ 13.50$ 15.08$ 18.59$ 21.56$ 21.41$ 18.84$
Figure 4 – Residential Starts in BC by type, 2003 to 2009 (Source: CMHC)
Residential Dwelling Starts in BCPercentage by type
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Uni
ts
ApptRowSemi DetSingle Det
Appt 9,272 12,420 14,698 14,295 18,435 18,200 15,600
Row 3,297 4,387 4,459 4,476 4,175 3,850 3,000
Semi Det 1,353 2,062 1,791 2,239 2,111 1,950 1,400
Single Det 12,252 14,056 13,719 15,433 14,474 11,800 11,500
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 (F) 2009 (F)
2.3 Value Chain Analysis – New Home Building Industry
There are numerous participants in the new home building industry. This section
will highlight six primary stakeholders: the developer, the design team, government, real
estate agents, the construction contractor and the purchaser.
Porter (1984) suggests that a dominant part of strategic management is “how a
firm can actually create and sustain a competitive advantage in its industry” (as cited in
Grant, 2008, p. 78). He also suggests that competitive advantage grows out of value a
7 Methodology - Housing starts from the previous year are used as a proxy for sales. CMHC uses MLS to
track house sales and many new homebuilders do not use licensed real estate agents or MLS.
42
firm is able to create for its buyers in excess of the firm’s cost of creating it. Following on
these comments, the objective of a development company is to create a real estate
product where the value of the product exceeds the cost of the inputs required to create it.
2.3.1 The Developer: Minimal costs and maximum returns
A residential developer creates a speculative real estate product. A developer
takes a piece of land and creates one or more buildings that are sold to purchasers. The
real estate sale to a customer generates the eventual revenue, but economic profit is
created by adding value to the original piece of property through a series a transformative
activities. These value-adding activities can include an advantageous property
acquisition, re-zoning of the property, infrastructure improvements and constructing
vertical structures such as new homes and apartments. Due to speculative nature of
development and the uncertainty of future demand (Reichstein et al., 2005), market
research and intelligence is a value adding feature. The production of the right product in
the right location is critical to the success of a development. Development companies and
their projects vary dramatically in size, scope and market. The developer of a single
family home in Fort St. John goes through a similar series of steps to a high-rise
apartment builder in Downtown Vancouver. The following is a list in Table 2 of the
traditional sequence of activities that developers will coordinate.
Table 2 – Value chain activities and estimated costs
Description % Estimated Cost
Step 1: Market research <1%
Step 2: Property selection <1%
Step 3: Economic analysis <1%
43
Step 4: Property acquisition 10% to 20%
Step 5: Project design 6%
Step 6: Permits, approvals and entitlements 1%
Step 7: Financing 8%
Step 8: Construction 55% and up
Step 9: Sales and Marketing 6%
2.3.1.1 Development Organizations
In the residential industry, there are two segments of developers: the traditional
developer and the integrated developer. A traditional developer will outsource most
activities to outside firms. An integrated developer will keep most activities within the
company. These two organizational structures result in different companies with different
competitive advantages and strategies, but the main difference is the approach to the
construction and building activities. The construction component of a development
project has the largest proportion of total costs, contains the most complex systems and
subsequently carries the most risk.
Both organization types follow the industry business model known as design-bid-
build. This system originated in the nineteenth century and is still the dominant model for
real estate development in the western world (Seaden et al., 2001). The business model
works on the “lowest bidder” principle to transfer risk and liability across the various
participants in the building value chain. The design-bid-build model uses a competitive
bidding process to determine the “winner” of the respective contract. The winner is then
required to complete the contracted scope of work for the money stipulated in the
contract. The developer conducts this process for the design team, the construction
contractor, real estate agents and eventually the homebuyer. Figure 5 illustrates the
design-bid-build process with the associated participants.
44
Figure 5 – Modified Design-Bid-Build Cycle
CONCEPT BID ON DESIGN DESIGN BID ON
BUILD BUILD BID ON HOME NEW HOME
DEVELOPER
DESIGN PROFESSIONAL
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR
HOME OWNER
The traditional and integrated developer each takes a slightly different approach
to the design-bid-build process. A traditional developer uses the market to mitigate the
risk and financial exposure of the real estate project. However, the developer incurs
transaction costs associated with each market interaction as search costs and negotiations
with suppliers have a transaction cost (Coase, 1937). In addition, the supplier takes a
portion of the risk away from the developer. As a result, the traditional developer usually
trades profit margin for risk mitigation within the value chain. An example of a
traditional developer is Vancouver-based Westbank Projects. For their Woodward’s
Redevelopment Project, Westbank conducted Steps 1 to 4 in-house, but hired Henriquez
Partners as the architect, Intertech Construction as the general contractor and Rennie
Marketing Systems for the marketing and sales (Westbank, 2008). The terms vary for
each of the suppliers, but the contracts have a series of incentives, bonuses and penalties
that will motivate each firm to work towards the successful and timely completion of
their scope of work. According to Dewald, Hall, Chrisman and Kellermanns (2007), this
“quasi-integration” is a form of governance where Westbank, as the dominant firm, can
retain “a degree of managerial control” over its suppliers “without the associated costs
45
and rigidities of ownership” (p. 281). Westbank spreads the risk and shares the reward
with numerous suppliers through market contracts; however, Westbank also cedes
potential profit margin to its suppliers and incurs transaction costs.
An integrated developer will keep as many of the activities within the company as
possible as well as the associated control, risk and potential profit margins. An example
of an integrated Vancouver based developer is Solterra Developments. Solterra’s strategy
is an attempt to maintain a greater amount of control, but also an attempt to avoid market
related transaction costs. Building on the work of Coase (1937), Grant (2008) suggests
that, “If the transaction costs associated with organizing across markets are greater than
the administrative costs of organizing within firms, we can expect the coordination of
productive activity to be internalized” (p. 342). This theory can help explain Solterra’s
internal design department, internal construction management division and internal sales
team. Furthermore, within the construction division, there is a drywall company, a pre-
manufactured wall plant, a window plant, a plumbing company and several other
construction related trades. Solterra’s vertical integration allows the developer to retain a
larger amount of control over the supply chain. In Solterra’s case, it has integrated
backward into the design, construction and sales activities. This integration is also a
source of competitive advantage as the company can develop specialized activities and
expertise within the company. A notable exception to Solterra’s vertical integration of the
design team occurs with the architect. This is a matter of reputation and another source of
differentiation discussed in the Design Team section.
46
2.3.2 The Design Team
The design team is a collection of architects, engineers and consultants from
various disciplines that are required in the planning, design and construction of a safe and
functional building. The essential consultants are a collection of university trained and
professionally licensed consultants that include the architect, surveyors and the
professional engineers.8 Not only does this group need to follow the laws of physics, but
the architect and engineers must follow the local, national and international building
codes and guidelines. The design professional group is legally required to design, inspect
and certify that their building project meets the minimum required standards for the
health and safety for human occupancy. A failure to meet these standards can be costly to
rectify and sometimes deadly in the rare event of a building failure due to design errors.
To mitigate this risk and liability, each group has its own governing institution for
ongoing training and certification. In order to practice in good standing, each architect
and engineer is required to carry a significant amount of professional liability insurance.
The developer requires this group to open a building and pays a hefty transaction cost to
transfer a large amount of liability onto the shoulders of the architect and engineers.
The developer retains other consultants to enhance the aesthetic properties of the
building and property such as interior designers, landscape architects, acoustic and
lighting consultants to name a few. These consultants are not required to hold a
professional designation or provide a certificate of work. While paint, furniture and
landscaping may add to the look of the building, the structural integrity is more important
to the health and safety of the occupants. Thankfully, structural integrity of a building is
8 A professional engineer carries the designation of ‘P.Eng’ in one of various disciplines including
geotechnical, civil, structural, mechanical and electrical
47
not a selling feature; it is an implicit requirement that a new home will stay standing.
However, attractive colour palettes and a carefully manicured landscape feature are
selling features that most purchasers of a new home expect and appreciate; the framing
and plumbing of a building are rarely a concern for a home purchaser (until something
goes wrong).
The developer assembles a design team of professional and other consultants
through a bid process based on a basic building concept. Each design team member will
have a variety of roles throughout the design and construction of the building. First, they
receive input on the functional requirements and budget constraints from the developer.
Second, the design team takes the developer’s requirements and creates a series of plans
and specifications that meet the local code and zoning requirements specific to the
property location. These plans become the blueprints for the building. Third, the design
team will interact and oversee the construction of the building by providing answers and
direction to the construction team during the tender period and the construction phase of
the building. Finally, the design team, most notably the architect and engineers, conducts
inspections and certification for the building for both the developer and the building
authorities prior to occupancy by the public. This is a simplistic overview of a lengthy,
costly, complicated and iterative process that is difficult to value.
There is a large degree of consolidation within the design professional industry
and this can be attributed to the strong price competition and lack of bargaining power
with developers for projects. Developers will solicit proposals and award fixed price
contracts from the various design companies. Although the majority of firms compete on
price, a few architects and interior designers are able of extracting superior rents due to
48
reputation. Arthur Erickson is an example of a Vancouver-based architect who can
command a design fee that is significantly higher than the industry standard based on
reputation. Another example is the local interior design firm of Alda Pereira Design. Ms.
Pereira was featured on the Oprah Winfrey Show and was able to use that visibility to
raise both her reputation and fees. A celebrity architect or interior designer can also
provide a competitive advantage for a developer as a way to differentiate the real estate
product.
2.3.3 Government Agencies: Protecting the public interest
There are multiple levels of municipal, provincial, national and even international
agencies that have a myriad of rules, regulations and approvals for various aspects of a
property development. For a project in the City of Vancouver, multiple levels of
government regulations must be satisfied and various permits and approvals obtained at a
series of sequential gates that can take months to years. At the design stage, the architect
must follow the City of Vancouver building guidelines, the British Columbia Building
Code (BCBC) and the National Building Code of Canada. At the development permit
stage, a project must obtain neighborhood approval through a series of public hearings,
City approval of the form and character of the building and City planning confirmation
that the development fits into the Official Community Plan (OCP). If the project is
located near parks or water, then the provincial and federal government can be involved
from the BC Ministry of the Environment and the Federal Department of Fisheries and
Oceans. During the construction process, the City building inspectors need to inspect and
approve a series of sequential steps, WorkSafeBC (formerly the Workers Compensation
49
Board) enforces regulation for worker health and safety and a variety of national and
international standard associations conduct assessments of the quality of work.
Government agencies also receive revenue from building permits, property
transfer taxes and other building industry related fees. In addition, developers are often
required to provide infrastructure upgrades to city and municipal services around the new
building site. These additional requirements are often listed as “Voluntary Gifting
Agreements” (VGA) and form part of the development permit requirement, although
there is rarely anything “voluntary” about the requirements. The VGA work can include a
range of services that generally include upgrades to local sanitary, water and sewer
connections, but may include park, green space and other off-site improvements. To
paraphrase Adam Smith (1776), rarely does a developer commit a community act out of
benevolence; the developer builds parks and rehabilitates fish habitat out of self interest
to satisfy government requirements.
2.3.4 Financiers: Risk and return
Financing a real estate development is a major component of the value chain. A
developer needs a large amount of capital and financial institutions and investors are the
best source of capital. A typical financing scenario involves the developer using the land
and some equity as collateral and a lending institute provides the financing for the
construction portion of the project. Construction costs account for the largest portion of
the development budget, often over 80 per cent of the total budget.9 The construction
loan proceeds are released on a progress completion basis. The developer will submit a
progress draw to the bank, the bank will verify the progress through a Quantity Surveyor 9 Figures based on author’s industry experience and cannot be specified due to confidentiality issues.
50
and then the funds will be released to the developer. The developer in turn will pay
suppliers and contractors on a similar progress completion basis. The progress draw
occurs once a month and usually takes 30 days to process, but may take 60 days; this
means that a contractor may wait for over two months before receiving payment for
completed work.
Securing construction financing may also depend on sales and this involves the
pre-selling or “pre-sale” of residential units. The level of pre-sales provides a measure of
security to the financial institutions that the project will be successful. Pre-sale thresholds
vary, but some Vancouver-based banks require 60 to 70 per cent of units sold through
pre-sales.10 Projects that fall short of this threshold will continue to spend sales and
marketing dollars until this level is achieved. Overwhelming success during the pre-sale
stage can be a mixed blessing for several reasons. The Woodward’s project is an example
of a pre-sale success. All available units were sold on the first day of pre-sales in 2006 for
a building that will not be ready for occupancy until 2010.
A sellout presents two problems. First, a rapid sell-out indicates that the units
were potentially under-priced and the developer could have extracted more revenue from
the demand curve. Second, the developer has now fixed the future revenue of a project
that may take years to complete. This is a real problem in an inflationary economy as
rising construction costs can quickly erode the fixed sales revenue and force the
developer into a negative financial position before construction has even started. This
situation has recently put forced some Lower Mainland developers to cancel pre-sale
contract or even declare bankruptcy (Penner, 2007, CBC News, 2007). Experienced
10 Figures based on author’s industry experience and cannot be specified due to confidentiality issues.
51
developers will secure a fixed price construction contract prior to the pre-sale event. This
allows the pre-sale price to reflect the actual project costs. After securing financing and
achieving pre-sale success, the developer must now manage the construction portion of
the project.
2.3.5 The Construction Contractor
The construction of the building is the largest cost component, involves an
enormous amount of people and carries the most risk. The integrated developer will use
the in-house construction team and the traditional developer will use the services of a
general contractor. A general contractor (GC) is a construction management company
that will coordinate the sequencing of material and labour required to construct a building
according to the design. Regardless of the route, the developer needs two essential items:
an accurate construction cost budget and reliable construction schedule.
2.3.5.1 The Bid process: winners and losers
An accurate and secure construction contract is one of the most important steps in
the development process as it allows the developer to set the sales price of the new home
product. The award of a construction contract is an elaborate undertaking that is ruthless
in competition and Byzantine in complexity. There are numerous forms for a contract
such as a fixed price, stipulated sum, contract management, cost-plus and these types of
contracts can be awarded through a competitive bid process or through negotiation. A
common scenario for the traditional developer involves a competitive bid process that
results in the award of a fixed price contract to a general contractor. The process starts
when the developer solicits interest from a series of general contractors.
52
Each interested GC receives the plans and specification for the building and
works to compile a bid price by a specified deadline or “closing.” Just as the developer
will solicit numerous bids, the GC will also solicit numerous quotes from the different
subcontractors within the construction industry. For example, the GC will ask four or five
electrical contractors to provide a price for the electrical component of the building.
These subcontractors may also be providing prices to other GCs. This process occurs
with dozens of subcontractors on each building as each subcontractor operates in a
narrow specialty known as sub-divisions of work. In most cases, a subcontractor employs
licensed and certified trades people such as plumbers, electricians, gas fitters and
carpenters for that field of expertise. In addition to the various subcontractors and trades,
the GC must also make allowances for supervisory and administrative staff as well as a
contingency factor for unforeseen events.
On bid closing date, the GC decides on the best combination of subcontractor
prices and then compiles all the individual quotations into one price. This price represents
the dollar amount that the GC is willing to accept in order to complete the construction of
the building. The closing day is a frantic and stressful day as secrecy and signals between
the trades and the GCs continue up until the deadline. The developer will then award the
construction contract based on numerous factors including sub-trades, schedule,
reputation and, of course, price. Although, the developer will likely choose the lowest
bidder there is no obligation to do so.
Subcontractors and even the general contractors tend to be small companies with
only few employees and limited professional staff. For instance, a drywall company may
consist of a few workers and the owner who operates out of a truck. In this scenario there
53
is no office, no accountant and low barriers to entry or exit. One estimate suggests that
over 99% of construction contractors employ fewer than five technical staff (Gann,
2000). The lowest bidder process awards a fixed price contract to a small company with
little to no barriers to exit. The developer’s attempt to transfer risk often results in a larger
liability through a contract with a small contractor with limited resources.
There is a large transfer of risk in this process and an associated large transaction
cost. The GC has committed to build a building for a fixed amount of money with little
recourse for changing conditions and cost overruns. As a result, the GC and all of the
related trades include a contingency factor on top of their profit margin. This helps
protect the GC, but also increases the cost. The developer incurs this increased price as a
transaction cost in return for the transfer of the largest cost and risk to the GC. Once the
GC is awarded the contract by the developer, the GC will then award the smaller
component contracts to the individual subcontractors. The developer has a single contract
with the GC and the GC then has dozens of contracts with the subcontractors (Figure 6).
A similar process occurs with the integrated developer, but with some obvious
differences. There is no bid process with a third-party GC, but there is the same need to
obtain pricing and contracts from the various trades. Even a highly integrated developer
does not possess all the construction capabilities within the company and requires outside
contractors. This process is just as important for the integrated developer as the
construction costs need to be established and fixed prior to the real estate sales process.
54
Figure 6 – Construction contract flow chart
DEVELOPER
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
01-General Condition
11-Equipment
10-Specialties
09-Finishes
08-Doors & Windows
Thermal Moisture
Protection
06-Wood & Plastics
05-Metals
04-Masonry
03-Concrete
02-Site Work
16-Electrical
15-Mechanical
13-Special Constructio
n
12-Furnishings
14-Elevators
TRANSFER OF CONTRACT RISK AND LIABILITYSub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade
Sub-trade Sub-trade
Sub-trade Sub-trade
Sub-trade
Sub-trade Sub-trade
Sub-trade Sub-trade
Sub-trade Sub-trade
Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade Sub-trade
Off-site Material
Suppliers
OWNER CONTRACTOR MAJOR TRADESDESIGN SUB-TRADES SUPPLIERS
55
2.3.5.2 Construction: The Build
The construction of a building is a juggling act of schedules and budgets. The
construction of all buildings follows a predictable sequence that starts from the
foundations, and works upwards and outwards. Subcontractors and trades build on the
work of previous trades. If one trade arrives too early, then trades are working in
competition, if a trade arrives late, then subsequent trades will be delayed. For example,
the roofer can only work once the framer is complete and the framer follows the
foundation crew. All tasks needs to start as soon as possible in order to meet a project
deadline.
Another proposition for this paper: a successful (on-time and on-budget)
construction project is directly related to the completeness of the contract bid documents.
A contractor is asked to assign a fixed price to a three dimensional building that is based
on a series of two dimensional blueprints and an encyclopedia of specifications from the
architect, structural engineer, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, civil engineer,
interior designer and a host of other consultants. It is important to realize that every
separate discipline issues a separate set of drawings and specifications; the architect
produces one set of drawings and specifications, the electrical engineer produces one set
of drawings and specification and so on for every engineer and consultant.11
In theory, the plans are coordinated and complete; however, in reality, time and
budget constraints result in incomplete and poorly coordinated drawings and
specifications. The contractor is expected to interpret and translate and incorporate these
11 Technology and software advances in the production, coordination and distribution of plans will make
the bid process more transparent and save a lot of paper. Ideally, a three dimensional or virtual representation of a building is required to visualize the final product.
56
incomplete plans into an accurate price. If the contractor misses an item and does not
seek clarification before the contract is signed, then the ‘winner’ of the bid process can
quickly turn into the financial ‘loser.’ The developer and consultants will attempt to make
the contractor cover any omissions in the contract. In the reverse situation, if a required
element is not specified on the drawings, then the contractor will seek a change order to
the original contract for this extra work. Disputes, delays and claims for extra work
based on discrepancies in the drawings are commonplace on a construction project. The
author suggests that the time and money to produce complete drawings prior to the bid
process may have the best return on investment for the entire building process. An on-
time construction project also helps the sales team.
2.3.6 The Real Estate World: Marketing and Sales
Real estate marketing for a new home project can be simple or elaborate with the
corresponding cost. Marketing requires a cost-benefit analysis by the developer as the
return on investment is often hard to quantify. Some developers use advertising and
promotion for the product and some developers rely on the on-site “presentation centre.”
A typical presentation centre is a small building constructed on the project site in advance
of the pre-sale process. The building often contains a model suite that represents the
future product for potential purchasers to examine. The model unit provides an effective
medium for the purchasers to experience and visualize the room sizes, kitchen cabinet
colors, carpet styles and bathroom fixtures. The presentation centre also serves as the
sales centre and is staffed by a sales agent.
Sales agents are the distribution channel for the developer to the home purchaser.
An important point to note about the sales team for a new home project: the sales staff
57
does not need to be a licensed real estate agent; they merely need to be employed by the
development company. A traditional developer will outsource and use a licensed real
estate broker whereas an integrated developer will use in-house staff. Both types of sale
staff work on commission, but a licensed broker will command a higher fee based on
better training and a better sales network. For example, a licensed realtor can use the
Multiple Listing Service (MLS) to list new home properties and the developer sales staff
cannot. Both situations require the sales staff to interact with and inform the potential
purchasers with the ultimate goal of a home sale.
2.3.7 The Purchaser
The development and building process culminate when a consumer purchases a
new home. The new home purchaser occupies numerous markets segments of product
types, demographics and price points. Buying a new home is the largest purchase that
most people will make in their lives and it is not a decision that is taken lightly by the
consumer. Real estate agents segment their clients into two main categories: location
driven and budget driven (Lewis, 2008, Marak 2008). Location dictates many of the
decision criteria for the consumer; commute time to work, proximity to a good school,
access to public transit and neighbourhood safety are all important criteria for a
homebuyer. For many homebuyers, a preferred neighbourhood is selected and then the
buyer adjusts expectations on price point and home features. That is, the homebuyer
places location as first priority and will sacrifice home size and features in order to make
the location work within their budget.
58
2.3.8 Value Chain Summary
The building industry has a complex value chain that is complicated by the
individual nature of each building. There are several key points that emerge from the
analysis:
• The building process involves the coordination and collaboration of dozens, if not
hundreds of firms, suppliers and agencies.
• The Design-Bid-Build industry structure has not changed for decades. This
structure is designed to transfer risk along the value chain from the owner all the
way to the sub-trades and suppliers.
• The risk transfer and lowest bidder system have transaction costs and create
adversarial conditions, as participant battle over scopes of responsibilities.
• The construction and design industries compete on a price structure that is based
on previous experience from similar projects.
• Pre-sale finance conditions allows the developer little room to adjust to rising
construction costs
• Most contractors are small firms with limited resources.
In summary, the above key points discourage innovation as the building industry
is valued on the cost of time; that is, each participant and contractor competes on a price
structure based on previous schedules. An innovation to process or technology at any
point in the value chain will affect all the linkages and result in cost uncertainty and
added schedule risk. For example, a common LEED standard requires all ventilation
ducts to remain sealed until the ventilation system is operational. This keeps the dust and
contaminants from the construction process out of the air circulation of the building. How
would a contractor price this method the first time? The innovation may increase material
costs and may take more time to install. The innovation may in fact require less time and
59
fewer materials, but the cost of the innovation is unknown until after the first
implementation. In addition, innovation requires a learning period. Most firms in the
building industry are small and have limited resources to spend on learning a new process
when the old process will also work.
The inherent uncertainty of innovation compromises the ability of a participant to
win a lowest bidder contract while mitigating the risk of the new product. There are
alternative contract methods for estimating and paying for the cost of an innovation, but it
will not be a fixed-price low bid. In the building world, the easiest approach will be to
avoid the innovation if possible rather than risk a new unknown variable.
The pre-sale condition of financing also places constraints on any innovative
methods such as green building technology. Sales revenue is fixed before the production
of the new home and revenue must exceed future costs to return a profit to the developer.
Any innovation that could jeopardize future costs will not be embraced by the speculative
real estate developer or the cost and schedule sensitive contractor.
2.3.9 Value Chain and the Liabilities of Construction
The Value Chain analysis revealed areas within the development process that act
as barriers to innovation and entrepreneurship. Primarily, the construction industry
operates from past experience and is unable to assign a price to forward looking change.
Innovation would change the price structure and this would make a competitive bid
process more complex. The industry is also separated into conflicting production
segments by the design-bid-build structure. The project relationships are often adversarial
and innovation has limited opportunity to develop as shown in Table 3.
60
Table 3 – Barriers to Innovation in Building Value Chain
Construction Liability List
Reichstein et al. (2005)
Barriers to Innovation in Value Chain
Liability of Separation Separation of participants in building life cycle;
restricts interaction between design, production and
use
Liability of Uncertain
Demand
Future sales are unknown and unpredictable; the same
applies to future contracts for construction and design
team
Liability of Assembly Assembly occurs on site, but suppliers are located off-
site; suppliers do not interact with final product to
learn, but supply chain is a leading source on
innovation
Liability of Projects Team of low bidders in assembled for a single project
and then disbanded; relationship and learning do not
continue
Liability of Immobility Production takes place in-situ and limits the ability to
use manufacturing and factory style technologies
Liability of Smallness
(Stinchcombe, 1965)
Companies have scarce resources that are allocated to
the immediate job; no resources for training or R&D
This barrier analysis assumes that innovation adds value to the building industry
value-chain, and that the current model needs improvement. Arguably, the participants in
the building industry do not want innovation as any change will alter the delicate balance
of pricing and cost structure within the vast array of contractors and subcontractors. In
fact, Seaden et al., (2001) found that the more profitable residential trades tend to be less
innovative than their less profitable industry counterparts. The opposite was found in
non-residential trades and contractors where innovation was positively related with
61
profitability (Seaden et al., 2001). This suggests that a residential builder is more
profitable by sticking with the industry ‘system’ rather than trying something new. The
lowest bidder business model is only profitable if the contract work can be completed for
less money than the contract price. A change through innovation has the potential to
disrupt the sensitive time and price estimate of a firm or contractor. The innovation may
create a higher quality product or reduce the overall project cost, but the innovative
disruption may harm the profitability of the individual contractor. From the construction
industry’s perspective, this disruption can be called the liability of innovation and refers
to the unknown effect of an innovative change on cost and schedule estimates. The ability
to produce an accurate cost estimate and schedule is a competitive advantage in the
building industry. Any disruption can affect the ability to win the next bid, and this is a
historical legacy of the building industry. The current system has survived with only
incremental innovation over the past two centuries and an architect or a contractor from
the nineteenth century would recognize the design-bid-build business model of today. An
innovation such as green building practices threatens to disrupt the status quo of the
industry, but is the status quo a source of success or of stagnation in the building
industry? This idea will be discussed at the end of the chapter after the Five Forces
analysis.
2.4 Five Forces Analysis of the new home building industry
The Five Forces of Competition framework was developed by Porter to assess
“the ultimate profit potential of an industry” (Porter, 1979, p.2). According to Porter,
“every industry has an underlying structure or a set of fundamental economic and
technical characteristics that give rise to these competitive forces” (p. 3). The five forces
62
are the threat of substitute products, the threat of new entrants, the bargaining power of
suppliers, the bargaining power of buyers and the rivalry from existing competitors. The
analysis assumes a normal market condition or a balanced market. The conditions and
power relationship will change dramatically in an overheated sellers’ market or a
depressed buyers’ market
Porter’s framework is used to assess the industry attractiveness and assess the
profit potential for the new home building industry. The analysis is from the perspective
of the traditional or integrated developer.
63
Figure 7 - Porter Five Forces for New Home building industry
Threat of New Entrants
Intensity of Rivalry
Bargaining Power of Buyer
Bargaining Power of Suppliers
Long-term ROI
High capital investment (Entry)
High sunk costs (Exit)
Low volume - 2 to 3 purchase in a lifetimeLimited knowledge
Highly differentiated product
Commodity inputs
High industry information
High switching costs
Construction contractor has a lot of power
Threat of Substitutes
MODERATELimited substitutes
Competes against real estate resales of lower price and higher volumeEasy for buyer to compare price and quality
Porter’s Five Forces Residential Building Industry
MODERATE
MODERATE MODERATEMODERATE
2.4.1 Force 1: Threat of substitutes
The threat of substitutes in the residential building industry is moderate. A
prospective home buyer has two market segments to choose from: the new home market
or the used “re-sale” home market. A re-sale home is a close substitute to a new home,
but the products have differences on price, availability and selection. The new home
product is more expensive, less available and offers a limited range of selection;
however, there is value in the “newness” of the home. No one else has lived in the home,
the appliances are modern and the home will not require immediate renovations. The
64
average new home price premium in BC between 2003 and 2008 ranged from 18 to 32
per cent more than the average re-sale price. This suggests a “price-performance trade-
off” (Porter, 1979) as a purchaser will pay a premium for the newer home with newer
features. Conversely, the purchaser of a re-sale home may not value the newness enough
to pay the premium.
The purchaser of a re-sale home also has a wider range of housing product with
better availability. Annual new home building represents less than 1 per cent of total
housing stock in Canada (CMHC, 2008a). Of course, not all of the housing stock is for
sale at any given time, but the available re-sale product outnumbered new home product
by a 3 to 1 margin based on sales figures in BC from 2003 to 2007 (See Figure 8). These
figures also suggest that the re-sales product would offer a wider range of home types. In
addition, a re-sale home is available within a short time, if not immediately. A new home
product may not be built and even with a completion date, the delivery of a construction
product is uncertain and the industry suffers from a perception of being consistently late
to deliver. The availability of the re-sale home would appeal to the estimated 35,000 new
migrants to Vancouver each year (CHMC, 2008f). These people need a place to live
when they arrive. A yet to be built new home product does not provide this immediate
need and the new migrant will likely purchase a re-sale home. Of course, new home
product does have standing inventory that can be sold, but not necessarily in an amount
or product mix to satisfy demand.
Table 4 – Threat of substitutes
Five Forces Assessment Criteria
Substitute Assessment Threat of Substitute is:
Rating (1=low, 3=high)
65
1 Buyer propensity to substitute
Resale home market is well established, accepted and marketed
Moderate 2
2 Relative price and performance of substitutes. (price-performance trade-off)
Resale home is, on average, less expensive to purchase, but will have a lower relative performance as it is a used product with older features and materials.
Moderate 2
3 Availability of substitutes Resale volume exceeds new home sales on an annual basis.
Moderate 2
Average Rating Moderate 2
Figure 8 – BC Residential sales in annual volume and average price (Source: CMHC)
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Uni
ts
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Dolla
r Val
ue
Resale Volume 93,095 96,385 106,310 96,671 102,805 86,300 85,000
New Home Volume 26,174 32,925 34,667 36,443 39,195 35,800 31,500
Average Resale Price 259,968 289,107 332,224 390,963 439,119 472,300 488,000
Average New Home Price $385,000 $410,000 $435,000 $510,000 $550,000 $598,000 $598,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008(F) 2009(F)
2.4.2 Force 2: Threat of new entrants
The threat of new entrants is moderate in the residential building industry. In real
estate development, the barriers to entry are moderate, but arguably the barriers to exit
are higher. Porter identifies six sources of barriers to entry.
66
1. Economies of scale – Scale is a factor in the construction and marketing of
homes. The building and selling dozens of homes or town houses at a time
would offer volume advantage over smaller projects.
2. Product differentiation – Each real estate development is differentiated by virtue
of geographic location, design and quality of finish. However, there is little
brand or company recognition that accompanies a developer or homebuilder.
3. Capital requirements – Massive amounts of capital are required over a long
period for any real estate development. Revenue is not generated until a home is
purchased and occupied by a homeowner.
4. Cost disadvantage independent of size – Developers who bought property at
opportune moments in time and space can realize cost advantages over
competitors. Land acquired at cheap prices decades ago in the Fraser Valley can
yield significant profits for the fortunate or forward-looking developer.
5. Access to distribution channels – Real estate agents are accessible to any
developers, but agents will follow the best commissions. There is competition
for developers to offer better rates and easier ways to collect commissions. The
distribution channel is not limited by a traditional shelf space, nor is there any
significant fixed cost for a real estate agent to carry additional product.
6. Government policy – All levels of government play a factor in real estate
development. Geographic location can produce different policy problems for
different developments. For example, a developer may want to develop a parcel
of land, but there may be environmental or community concerns that prohibit
development. In contrast, some local governments may encourage developers
by offering incentives through tax and permit reductions. Furthermore,
developers are beholden to governments to provide compensation and
infrastructure upgrade to access the property.
The six categories detail some moderate barriers to entry and suggest some
barriers to exit, most notable the capital requirements. Real estate projects have a long
life cycle; sales revenue is only realized at the very end with profit margins are always in
doubt. Therefore, exit from a project prior to completion is difficult and costly. An early
67
exit from a development amounts to a ‘fire-sale’ situation; the developer will invariably
take a substantially discounted price to walk away from the future liabilities of the
project. The same combination makes a developer very reluctant to lower prices on a new
home product regardless of market conditions.
Table 5 – Threat of New Entrants to New Home Industry
Five Forces Assessment Criteria
New Entrant Assessment New Entrant Threat is:
Rating (1=low, 3=high)
1 Supply side economies of scale
Larger companies have volume purchasing power and scale advantages for marketing campaigns
Low 1
2 Product differentiation Not based on brand or company
High 3
3 Capital requirements Large amounts of capital required for long period
Low 1
4 Cost disadvantage independent of size
Inexpensive land purchase, but this is not common (requires foresight or luck)
Medium 2
5 Unequal access to distribution channels
Real estate agents are independent industry and accessible to anyone
High 3
6 Restrictive government policy
Permits and regulation process lengthy and potentially costly
Low 1
Average Rating Moderate 1.8
2.4.3 Force 3: Bargaining power of buyer
The bargaining power for a homebuyer is low under normal market conditions.
Grant (2008) expands on Porter’s framework (1979) by stating that the buyers’
bargaining power is assessed on two factors: buyers’ price sensitivity and relative
bargaining power. A homebuyer is sensitive to price as a home is low volume, high cost
68
and highly differentiated purchase. For most people, buying a home is usually the largest
purchase one will make in a lifetime. A home purchase is also a low volume event: the
average Canadian will buy 2 to 3 homes in a lifetime (find stat). A new home product is
also highly differentiated as no two products or projects are the same. In normal markets,
competition among buyers is low and in a strong real estate market, the buyer is often in
bidding wars with other buyers. The only market that buyers have any bargaining power
is a depressed market, otherwise known as a “buyers market.”
This leads to the relative bargaining power of the buyer. According to Grant
(2008), “bargaining power rests, ultimately, on refusal to deal with the other party.” (p.
79) High inventory levels and a low turnover rate are indicative of a buyers market and
sellers may be more willing to negotiate on price and other incentives. The size and
concentration of home buyers fluctuates with market conditions, but supply and demand
are generally well balanced. Buyers also have little information on the actual cost of the
home product. A buyer can compare products, but the differentiation makes a true
comparison difficult. In addition, the limited number of lifetime transaction also limits
the industry knowledge. This lack of industry information and knowledge makes a
homebuyer a very limited threat to integrate. A buyer may consider building their own
single family home, but most buyers lack the knowledge and resources to compete on
price with a developer.
Table 6 – Bargaining power of buyer
Five Forces Assessment Criteria
Buyer Power Assessment Buyer Power is:
Rating (1=low, 3=high)
1 Cost of product relative to New home is the total cost High 3
69
total cost 2 Product differentiation Product is differentiated,
companies are not differentiated
Moderate 2
3 Competition between buyers
Highest bidder system Low 1
4 Size/Concentration of buyers relative to producers
Low volume and low relative balanced
Moderate 1
5 Buyers’ switching costs Large transaction cost to move homes
High 3
6 Buyers’ information Price is always known, quality is visible
High 3
7 Buyers’ ability to backward integrate
Extremely rare Low 1
Average Rating Moderate 2
2.4.4 Force 4: Bargaining power of suppliers
The bargaining power of suppliers is medium-high. The pool of suppliers is
diffuse and varied, but several key groups can exert more bargaining power than others
can, notably the construction contractor. In addition, this group includes consultants,
financiers and marketing firms. The construction general contractor has higher power
compared to the light bulb supplier due to proportional costs and switching costs. Once
the project has started, the bargaining power of suppliers’ increases as switching costs
become more expensive for the developer. A design professional provides a differentiated
service and creates lock-in with high switching costs once the project has started.
Similarly, a construction contractor has a large amount of power once a contract has been
awarded due to the high switching costs. Suppliers in the building industry also have
information about the price and industry structure that can aid in negotiations.
70
Suppliers also diminish their collective bargaining power due to the competitive
price structure and commodity-style treatment of services. As previously shown, some
contractors are also a threat to either forward or backward integrate into land subdivision
and/or real estate sales.
Table 7 – Bargaining power of suppliers
Five Forces Assessment Criteria
Supplier Power Assessment
Supplier Power is:
Rating (1=low, 3=high)
1 Cost of product relative to total cost
Construction is majority of total cost (70 to 80%) after land purchase
High 3
2 Product differentiation Limited differentiation between suppliers
Moderate 2
3 Competition between suppliers
Competitive bid environment
Low 1
4 Size/Concentration of suppliers relative to buyer
Size and concentration varies with supplier group. Many subcontractors have very low barriers to entry.
Moderate 2
5 Industry importance to supplier
Building is only industry for most suppliers
Low 1
6 Suppliers’ information Industry knowledge High 3 7 Suppliers’ ability backward
integrate Possible, but occurs rarely Low 1
Average Rating Moderate 2
2.4.5 Force 5: Industry rivalry
The rivalry is moderate. The diversity of products and the range in size of
developments allows many firms to compete within the same markets. Within any given
market, a single-family homebuilder who produces three homes a year may be competing
with a multi-family builder who produces a hundred units a year. This difference in size
71
and relative power allows each company to find a different market segment. Industry
growth across North America was robust leading into 2007; however, the recent financial
crisis was precipitated by an overheated housing market. A home is a unique and highly
differentiated product it is also a low volume or “once in a lifetime” purchase; hence, the
developer is rarely looking at a homeowner as a repeat customer. At the same time, the
new homeowner needs to be satisfied for the sake of the developer’s reputation.
Generally, supply and demand stay in balance and there is rarely excess capacity or
inventory in the real estate industry. An important point to note is that exit barriers are
high relative to entry barriers.
Table 8 – Industry Rivalry
Five Forces Assessment Criteria
Industry Rivalry Assessment
Rivalry Intensity is:
Rating (1=low, 3=high)
1 Concentration of firms Highly fragmented High 3 2 Diversity of competitors Very diverse High 3 3 Product differentiation Every home is unique, but
little differentiation Moderate 2
4 Exit barriers Revenue at end of project makes exit difficult
High 3
5 Cost conditions Idle firm has low fixed costs, a home project is a high variable cost
Low 1
Average Rating Moderate 2.4
2.4.6 Industry Attractiveness – potential for profit
The Five Forces framework suggests that the new home building industry can be
moderately profitable for a real estate developer. The barriers to entry and exit are high
and this limits the threat of new entrants, suppliers have moderate to high power, buyers
have moderate power, the power of substitutes is moderate and the degree of rivalry is
moderate.
72
The barriers to entry are a high hurdle; however, once a large-scale development
is established, then the potential for above average returns have increased as the
competition is limited. The supplier bargaining power is also skewed by the construction
contractor, who can exert a large amount of power over the developer. A developer needs
to have deep pockets, a knowledgeable staff, a high tolerance for risk and patience to
succeed.
2.5 Key Success Factors (KSF)
Hofer and Schendel (1977) identified a key success factor as “those variables that
management can influence through its decisions and that can affect significantly the
overall competitive positions of the firms in the industry” (p. 77). The Value Chain
analysis and the Five Forces framework provided a wealth of information about the
industry structure. The resulting information can be used to determine the industry KSF
for a typical development firm. According to Grant (2008), a KSF can be identified
through two criteria for the firm. First, the firm must supply what the customer wants to
buy; second, it must survive competition. This means identifying the firm’s customers
and determining what they want in a new home product. It also involves an assessment of
the industry competitiveness, as well as how a company can survive against the
competition.
73
Table 9 – Key Success Factors (Source: Grant, 2008, p. 90)
Prerequisites for success
What do customers want? How does the firm survive competition?
Analysis of demand Q. Who are our customers? A. New homes purchasers Q. What do they want? A. A quality home product to live
in Q. How do they choose between competing offerings? A. Price, location, features and
availability
Analysis of competition Q. What drives competition? A. Sales of new home product Q. What are the main dimensions of competition? • Value of home product of size, features
vs. price • Market research • Performance of suppliers, especially the
construction contractor and design team Q. How intense is competition? A. Moderate Q. How can the firm obtain a superior competitive position? • Increase scale of operation to lower
average costs • Cost advantage through lower land prices
and easy to build unit styles • Deliver product sooner and at a lower
cost. Key Success Factors
• Purchase or negotiate for inexpensive land • Production of standardized and easy to build home product • Control of accurate construction costs • Control of reliable construction schedule • Improve product delivery time and reliability • Larger firm size to create scale advantages • Market research to accurately predict purchasers’ demands for size, location
and features
74
2.6 Summary of Competitive Advantages
The industry value-chain analysis, the Five Forces framework and the resulting
key success factors present an in-depth summary of the required competitive advantages
for a firm to succeed in the industry. In response to the KSFs, a firm could gain a
competitive advantage through better supply chain management and better use of market
research to determine the proper product for the market. The integrated developer
appears to possess greater competitive advantages and a potential to capture more of the
economic profit within the value chain, but also carries a greater risk burden. The
construction and development industry has survived and thrived in its current form for
the past two centuries without any major evolution (Seaden et al., 2001). The industry is
mature, stable and ideal for the Porter tools of analysis. This is part of the problem and
perhaps the factors identified for success are instead factors of stagnation. In fact, a large
part of success is the production of easy to replicate, low cost buildings that have been
built the same way for decades, if not centuries. From this perspective, the KSFs are more
likely to be industry characteristics than success factors to gain market share and increase
profitability moving into the future. Can the same factors predict future profitability?
“Given that changes in industry structure tend to be long term and are the result of
fundamental shifts in customer buying behavior, technology, and firm strategies, we can
use our current observations to identify emerging structural trends” (Grant, 2008, p.81).
75
2.7 Opportunities and Threats
2.7.1 Opportunities for the building industry
There is opportunity for innovation and change throughout many parts of the
building industry. The building industry presents many opportunities for an entrepreneur
and the oopportunities are not restricted to green building.
The barriers to entry are high for a large developer, but the barriers for a
subcontractor are minimal. The Canadian building industry is a heterogeneous and
fragmented industry dominated by small firms and short term relationship (Seaden et al.,
2001). The processes, the structures and the technology of industry present many areas
that would benefit from new ideas. Green building principles offer an integrated approach
to the organization of the building team that focuses on the life-cycle operation and costs.
Green building would represent a shift towards innovation that is absent from the
building industry.
Perhaps, the largest opportunity is to change the industry perceptions of success.
The current business model of design-bid-build with the lowest bidder as the winner
rewards speed, low cost and the status quo over performance and innovation. Arguably,
the KSFs for the industry result in stagnation rather than success. An innovation such as
green building practices threatens to disrupt the status quo of the industry.
Developers and construction contractor have the opportunity to gain several
benefits from a move towards green building practices that could translate into
competitive advantages including.
• Future proof against potential (and likely) changes to building codes and emission
regulations that are imposed on the building industry
76
• Improved reputation through a commitment to reducing impacts on the environment
• First mover advantage for increased demand from homebuyers as surveys indicate
more homebuyers are aware of green building features
• Cost savings at construction stage through more efficient use of building materials.
This is in theory, but at a minimum, recycling and waste reduction of construction
garbage will save money in transfer fees.
• Product differentiation in a competitive industry that currently competes on cost
• Adoption of integrated design and building technologies. Factory assembled modular
wall panels are an example of a product that would improve quality and reduce costs
on a wood frame building.
2.7.2 Threats for the building industry
Residential real estate development is a speculative business and the largest threat
is always a fluctuating market. An overheated market can cause inflationary problems as
construction costs will rise and push home prices to unaffordable levels. A declining
market will always strand some developers and builders at the peak of the market where
they paid high costs for land and construction and now sell at a loss.
Another market related threat is changing customer preference. Customer demand
has shifted from single family homes to condo style apartments due to affordability and
location demands of the homebuyer. A similar trend could emerge in the green building
industry. The developer must accurately forecast market demand as the delivery of a new
home product takes months to years to complete.
The antiquated tendering and contract system is threat to the long –term success
of the industry. The industry has survived in the status quo for decades, but there have
been few advances in automation and assembly. The technology exists to improve the
77
construction process in cost, quality and schedule but the current system rewards the
status quo.
Changes to government regulations present another threat to the building industry.
Local zoning bylaws, provincial building codes and national pollution regulations are all
examples of government regulation that is subject to change. Environmental standards
and energy conservation are two items may soon impact the building industry.
2.8 Strategic Options for the residential developer
The Five Forces and Value Chain analysis created a comprehensive description of
the residential new home building industry. The Key Success Factors that emerged from
the analysis form part of an industry business model that is based on low cost production.
The business model has a large reliance on the performance of the construction
contractors to deliver a new home on time and on budget.
A firm operating in this industry is forced to compete on price due to the
prevalence of the lowest bidder system, so there is little opportunity for differentiation
between developers or between contractors. Some companies look for cost advantages
through organization changes such as the integrated developer. A few strategic options
are available for developers and builders that emerge form the key success factors and the
opportunities and threats.
1. Focus on the industry model of a low cost firm. Concentrate on the competitive
advantages of an accurate estimate, reliable schedule and control of construction
contractors. This is the same as the current model
2. Consolidate sectors to create economies of scale and barriers to entry. Both the
development and construction industry are fragmented and lack dominant and
78
large firms. This strategy could apply to small contractors or home builders. The
acquisition of small firms is problematic as the main source of competitive
advantage is derived from labour. The small firms prevalent in the building
industry have minimal assets, patents or long-term contracts.
3. Develop or promote a technological or process innovation. This strategy has the
potential to create a focus strategy (Porter, 1980) that lower costs through the
innovation while providing a differentiated product or services. This is the
strategic options where green building practices would fit.
Chapter 3 will focus on providing an in depth explanation of green building
practices as well as an assessment of the pathways and barriers to the implementation of
green building in the residential building industry. Chapter 3 will build on the industry
analysis information and assess the feasibility of industry innovation and adoption of
green building practices.
79
3: FEASABILITY ANALYSIS FOR GREEN BUILDING PRACTICES
This chapter examines the building industry characteristics against the
characteristic of the emerging green building sector to assess potential barriers and
pathways to integration. This analysis focuses on the supply side and demand side
participants of the industry. In addition, the previously identified key success factors for
the development industry are compared against the green building sector. The feasibility
analysis seeks to assess two items:
1. Identify pathways to diffuse green building technology into the new home
building industry.
2. Assess the potential profitability of a firm in the green building sector.
3.1 Overview of Green Building Practices - Shades of Green
There is no consensus on what constitutes a green building within the green
building industry sector. There are a number of organizations that exist to promote and
certify green building. These groups vary in philosophy, building standards and
technologies. Some promote radical departures from the existing industry and others
promote incremental integration of new technologies and design.
In addition, these organizations are all new and are in competition with each other
for market share of membership and certification of building. This emerging market
sector is subject to network externalities as the value of a green standard increases with
the number of members and certified buildings. This could lead to a possible “standards
80
war” over building certification (Grant, 2008). Many of the green standards are
compatible with one another and a consolidation of certification organizations is likely to
occur as the industry matures. Regardless of the degree of “greenness,” the unifying
philosophy among all the organizations is to minimize the impact of built structures on
the natural environment throughout a buildings’ life cycle. This philosophy can be
translated into three specific goals that focus on a healthy natural environment, a healthy
human environment and a healthy economic building. These goals were previously
mentioned but worth revisiting:
1. Reduce costs for construction, operating and maintenance through increased
resource and energy efficiency,
2. Reduce the impacts on human health and improve human comfort through
among other features building location, improved indoor air quality and
lighting,
3. Reduce the impact on the environment through conservation of resources,
energy and water at every stage of the building life cycle. (USGBC, 2008;
CAGBC, 2006)
The following sections will examine how these goals fit into the residential
product as well as a brief investigation into different green building methods and
technologies.
3.1.1 Residential Green Building
The creation of a new home using green building practices is a challenge. The
“turn-key” new home product and the liability of separation (Reichstein et al., 2005)
between design, production and use creates additional barriers that do not exist in the
non-residential building sector. Green building practices have found a some market
81
success in the non-residential building sector in particular government, institutional and
commercial office space. There are numerous reasons for the traction in these building
types, and economics and health benefits are the leading reasons. Numerous case studies
and detailed business models on existing non-residential green buildings indicate a green
building saves on utility costs, increase the net present value of the property and increases
worker/occupant productivity (Kats, 2003, Davis Langdon, 2004, Lucuik, 2005). A green
building saves money, has a higher property value and is a better place to work;
subsequently, some building owners have been able to charge a higher rent for these
benefits (Davis Langdon, 2004, Lucuik, 2005). This is the crucial difference between the
business model for the residential and non-residential building industries. A non-
residential building developer, whether private or public, will likely be the long term
operator and occupant of the building. The non-residential developer is more willing to
pay the first costs associated with the green building as the future cost savings will be
returned as a positive net present value (NPV) (Kats, 2003). The speculative residential
developer will look to sell the new home product as soon as possible and has no
involvement in the long term operation.
The “turn-key” new home developer is faced with a different business model and
a shorter time horizon for return on investment. The new home developer does not
benefit from future benefits as the new home business model relies on a one time sale to
generate immediate revenue. There is no positive NPV based on future energy savings for
a “turn-key” developer; the developer is concerned with minimizing first costs to increase
margins. Likewise, occupant health benefits are not valued by the developer. The short
term involvement of the “turn-key” developer makes a life cycle design concept a
82
difficult sell especially if there are higher initial costs with an uncertain return. Moreover,
the building life cycle is segmented into separate portions in residential building whereas
non-residential building has a higher degree of participant integration over a longer time
horizon. There is an opportunity for the turn-key developer to monetize the NPV and
health benefits, but the math is uncertain due to the variety of unproven claims of new
standards and technology.
3.1.2 Standards and Technology
This section will provide some examples of the technology details for green
building practices. The following checklist is part of the US Green Building Council
(USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification
program. The rating system has been embraced both nationally and internationally as the
green building design standard with over 36,000 accredited professionals since its
inception in 1993 (Kats, 2003, WGBC, 2007). Arguably, LEED is the industry standard
and USGBC has the first-mover advantage as well as critical mass in any pending
“standards war.” However, LEED does not have a certified rating system for residential
building; a residential pilot project launched in 2007 and the results and data are not yet
available.
The LEED system utilizes a list of 34 potential performance based “credits” worth
up to 69 points, as well as 7 prerequisite criteria, divided into six categories:
• Sustainable Sites
• Water Efficiency
• Energy and Atmosphere
• Materials and Resources
83
• Indoor Environmental Quality
• Innovation & Design Process
Four levels of LEED certification are possible; depending on the number of
criteria met, and indicate increasingly sustainable building practices:
• LEED Certified 26-32 points
• LEED Silver 33-38 points
• LEED Gold 39-51 points
• LEED Platinum 52+ points
Table 10 offers some selected examples of the 34 potential credits.
Table 10 – Sample of LEED checklist items (Source: USGBC, 2008)
Description Value 1 Urban Redevelopment 1 point2 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 1 point3 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 1 point4 Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Roof 1 point5 Light Pollution Reduction 1 point6 Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants 1 point7 Low-Emitting Materials, Paints 1 point8 Ventilation Effectiveness 1 point9 Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Shell 1 point10 Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% 1 point11 Innovation in Design (Modular building systems for example) 1 point
The LEED list combines innovative technology with some simple and easy to
implement design principles. Items such as providing bike racks and operable windows
are not major changes, but other items such as a diversion of 75% of construction waste
and a green roof require some significant effort, planning and costs. The major concern
for a residential homebuilder is the applicability of some of the items. Items such as bike
rack and urban redevelopment may work for an apartment building, but will likely be of
84
little use to a single family home. Any one single green change can be adopted as an
incremental changes, but taken collectively the green changes become a disruptive force
to the existing structure. These are not a radical and competency-destroying technology
developments when compared to other innovations such as nanotechnology, digital
cameras and genetically modified food (Hall and Martin, 2005), but green building
practices have the potential to re-combine the industry structure and participants as well
as implement new technologies. It may not be accurate to label green building practices
as radical technological development, but green building technology will have a
disruptive impact on the building industry. However, the nature of the building product
with liabilities of assembly and immobility make radical change difficult to envision with
current technology.
Although not radical, a rating system such as LEED is a change to conventional
building and there are some barriers to acceptance starting with costs.
3.1.3 First Costs
There has been a widespread perception in the real-estate industry that building
green is significantly more expensive than traditional methods of development. As noted,
there is no residential rating system within LEED and the data from other residential
programs such as Green Globes and Built Green is equally unavailable. At best, there are
survey results from various firms. Case studies from the non-residential sector indicate a
2 to 8 per cent premium in construction costs for a green home that meets minimum
LEED standards (Kats, 2003; Davis Langdon, 2007). However, industry surveys show
that contractors believe the cost to build green is 15 to 20 percent higher than
conventional construction (BDC, 2006, 2007). One of the most reliable with a time series
85
is the Building Design + Construction Annual Green Building Report. Some survey
results from the 2007 survey are detailed in Table 11. The question was, “What are
building owners and developers saying about barriers to incorporating sustainable or
green design into their projects?”
Table 11 – BDC 2007 survey results
Response Year % Sample Size
“Adds significantly to first costs” 2007 78% 631 2006 56% 872 2004 52% 519 2003 44% 490 “Market not willing to pay a premium” 2007 60% 631 2006 52% 872 2004 43% 519 2003 42% 490 “Too complicated, too much paperwork” 2007 54% 631 2006 36% 872 2004 23% 519 2003 16% 490
The responses to the same question over time show a consistent direction trend
since 2003. Building industry respondents believe that green building cost more, and that
the market will not pay a premium to cover the increased cost. In addition, more
respondents believe that the paperwork required for the various accreditation
organizations (LEED, Green Globes, etc.) is too much paperwork and too complicated.
This matches an interesting trend that in BC projects where non-residential buildings
register with the LEED program, but few actually obtain certification (Lighthouse, 2008).
The reasons for these trends are not clear, but the building industry response indicates
that green building has become a tougher sell to owners since 2003. Several potential
explanations include a lack of life cycle costing and insufficient technical information
86
about the new technology as well as onerous and costly certification requirements. These
issues warrant further investigation.
Other less technologically and cost-based explanations draw from the fields of
sociology and psychology and endeavour to describe the initial challenges for
innovations and the entrepreneurial firms. Aldrich and Fiol (1994) use the work of
Stinchcombe (1965) to describe the vulnerabilities of new firms, “New companies are
always vulnerable to the liabilities of newness, but such pressures are especially severe
when an industry is in its formative years” (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994, p. 645). Liability of
newness is a term borrowed from ecological organization by Stinchcombe (1965) and
describes the high risk of initial failure that declines as the organization ages. For
business, the theory describes a similar high chance of initial failure as the entrepreneur
struggles to develop stable relationships with customers and suppliers. Any green
building innovation will have a liability of newness until the proof of product is
acceptable to all project participants. The authors suggest that establishing cognitive and
socio-political legitimacy as soon as possible will help industries and firms survival the
initial stages.
3.1.4 Cognitive Legitimacy
Neither the building industry nor the general public is familiar with green building
practices, the related technologies or their accreditation standards. This demonstrates a
lack of cognitive legitimacy, which refers to the spread of knowledge about an innovation
or new company (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994). The authors suggest that cognitive legitimacy
can be assessed by measuring the level of public knowledge about a new activity. Aldrich
87
and Fiol (1994) propose several entrepreneurial strategies to overcome a cognitive
legitimacy deficit.
These strategies include links with established educational curriculum,
development of symbolic language and encouraging convergence around a dominant
design. Green building organizations like the US Green Building Council pursue the
education component as they attempt to integrate into the design professional and
construction trade training. The development of a symbolic language is problematic until
a clear definition of green building and sustainable building practices emerges. Similar,
the convergence towards a dominant design is unlikely to occur in the near term.
Currently, the USGBC and LEED appear to be the dominant design, but they do not have
a residential rating system and their other rating systems appear cumbersome based on
user surveys (BDC, 2007).
The green building movement needs to develop recognition and a common
language in order to gain cognitive legitimacy with homebuilders and homeowners.
According to Aldrich and Fiol (1994), the highest level of cognitive legitimacy is
achieved when a product is taken for granted. This acceptance will be important in the
change-resistant building industry and green building entrepreneurs will meet
considerable resistance as they struggle to overcome skepticism and the industry status
quo.
3.1.5 Socio-Political Legitimacy
Socio-political legitimacy refers to the process by which key stakeholders, the
public, key opinion leaders or government officials accept a venture as appropriate and
88
right, given existing norms and laws (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994). There is growing political
and social concern over environmental issues such as climate change; this concern
presents an opportunity for green building to gain socio-political legitimacy as a reliable
and appropriate method to combat environmental degradation. The authors suggest that
legitimacy can be obtained through consistent stories, collective action, lobbying efforts
and interaction with other industries. Again, the current fragmented state of the green
building movement will hinder the acceptance of the technology as a reliable alternative
to a convention home. There is no consistent and well-defined story within the movement
and even long time advocate are unsure of movement direction12. Green still carries the
tinges of environmental activist and is associated with marginal political parties and the
movement’s ability to negotiate and interact with government and other industries will be
compromised until the green product is proven or disproven as effective.
3.2 Green Building Practices – Drivers of Change
The analysis in Chapter 2 looked at the building industry value-chain and
presented some key success factors for the residential building industry. The industry
level key success factors can help analyse the profit potential of a firm within the
industry. Based on the factors presented, a successful firm has a business model that
creates an easy to build home with known components, known markets, known margins,
known schedules and predictable profits. In addition, the key success factors must
account for customer demand; in this case, the homeowner looks for price and location of
home first and then assesses the features. Both supply and demand are sensitive to price;
12 The paper’s author is a long time advocate of integrated green building principles and is unsure of a
future direction or a consistent story.
89
ultimately location, construction schedules and features contribute to the price point of a
new home. As discussed in previous sections, the residential building industry is
particularly resistant to innovation. The price sensitive and change resistant building
industry creates barriers for innovation and innovation is one of the central tenets of the
green building movement.
Entrepreneurial green firms in development, design and construction will
approach the industry with various innovations that use new materials, new sequences
and new technologies. Green building practices have the potential to disrupt the current
business model primarily by altering the price structure of the predictable design-bid-
build process. Given these facts, is there an opportunity in the residential building
industry for a firm based on green building principles? The next section uses the industry
participants from the Chapter 2 value chain in order to assess the receptiveness to change
and innovation. The three goals of the green building movement of reduced
environmental impact, reduced construction costs and improved occupant health and
comfort are compared against the KSFs of the industry participants. The aim of this
analysis is to identify opportunities and formulate potential strategies for entrepreneurial
firms to enter the building industry with the use of green building technologies.
3.2.1 Developer – Supply Side
The goal of the residential developer is to transform a piece of property into a
saleable real estate product. The developer needs the sales revenue to exceed the
development inputs in order to return a profit. The profit margins increase if the
“turnkey” new home product is easy to build and easy to sell. The home product
competes largely on price, but efforts are made to differentiate the product due to the
90
intensity of competition. A green home product presents an opportunity to differentiate
based on perceived value instead of competing on cost. However, the cost recovery of the
higher first costs are unproven and a price premium is doubtful.
Due to the liability of separation, the developer and the homeowner have minimal
interaction and this only lasts for a limited warranty period of two years (HPO, 2001).13
Warranty claims, insurance and ongoing legal liability are concerns for all developers and
a green building developer may create additional exposure through marketing campaigns
and the use of green technology. Homeowners may not experience the promised lower
utility bills and better indoor air quality. Does the homeowner have legal recourse for
false advertising? In addition, the uses of non-standard materials and advanced
technologies have potential issues if they do not perform as promised or require extensive
maintenance. Alternatively, items such as solar panels and geo-thermal heat systems may
require costly annual maintenance.
A review of the Green Goals framework shows a minimal alignment between a
developer and a green building. Marketing and construction benefits are unproven and
the other goals benefit the long-term occupants and not the developer. This indicates that
a residential developer is unlikely to initiate a green building project.
Table 12 – Green Goals Framework - Developer
Green Building Goals
Developer Goals Green Alignment
Reduce building construction and
-Minimize construction costs, but theory not proven
Partial
13 The BC Homeowners Protection Office provides a 2-5-10 warranty for licensed builders. 1 years on
labour and material, 2 years on distribution systems, 5 years on building envelope and 10 years on structure.
91
operating cost -Operating costs and potential savings belong to homeowner, but may be a selling feature.
Reduce environmental impact
-Potential for green home to provide differentiated product and appeal to ‘forest green’ market segment. - Cost recovery unknown.
Varies
Improve occupant health and comfort
- Potential for green home to provide differentiated product and appeal to ‘healthy green’ market segment. - Cost recovery unknown.
Minimal
3.2.2 The Design Professional – Supply Side
Architects and engineers receive extensive training and education to obtain their
qualifications. This group of well educated professionals appear to be the leading
advocates within the green building movement. Moreover, this group appears to be
motivated by environmental responsibility and not necessarily monetary gains.
According to 2007 membership figures for the Canadian Green Building Council
(CAGBC), design professionals account for 75% memberships. In comparison,
contractors are the second largest group at 9% of membership and real estate at 1%
(CAGBC, 2006). The US Green Building Council (USGBC) shows similar ratios. This
suggests that the design professionals represent an “educated and alert” (Hall, 2008)
component of the green building movement. They seek knowledge and are aware of the
opportunity for green building.
The design professional is also part of the design-bid-build that competes on a
fixed fee. Innovation and any change to the established structure will disrupt the estimate
numbers. In addition, historical legacy of a construction hierarchy inhibit trades from
collaborating with design professional (Bowley, 1966) and academic research (Gann,
92
2001). Institutional rigidity within the architectural and engineering institutes may also
resist a change to the training curriculum based on new technologies. These new
technologies are unproven and the consultant industry has a high concern for errors and
omissions and the resulting legal liability. The green design professionals may be in
conflict within their own institutes. The classic conflict of “white collar worker” and
“blue collar worker” may need to include a “green collar worker.”
Gann (2001, p. 328) further suggests that professional institutes may impair
innovation by adhering to “outmoded notions of narrowly defined discipline-based
activities.” These professional institutes are the training schools for architects, engineers
and other building technicians. This learning impairment applies to the two biggest hopes
for industry innovation: the construction firm and the design team. Gann identifies these
industry limitations, but, unfortunately, he does not have any solutions to the problems. 14
The educated background of the design professional makes them a likely
candidate to accept new building practices. In addition, they dominant the membership
ranks of green building organizations. This suggests that the design industry may have a
critical mass of green building participants, but are unable to find interested clients. They
are boxed in by developers on one side and construction contractors on the other. One
side is not interested in paying for the services and the other side may not be capable of
implementing change.
14 Gann suggests that construction organizations need to develop better learning mechanism, education and
training. However, these are the same activities that the firms are unlikely to accept.
93
A review of the goal alignment show there is minimal incentive for a design
professional to promote green building technology aside from a sense of environmental
responsibility.
Table 13 – Green Goals Framework - Design Professional
Green Building Goals
Design Professional Goals Green Alignment
Reduce building construction and operating cost
- Limit design liability. - Deliver design within fixed fee contract
No
Reduce environmental impact
- Seek a sense of environmental responsibility Varies
Improve occupant health and comfort
- May help limit future liability claims Minimal
3.2.3 Construction Contractors – Supply Side
The Canadian construction industry is large, heterogeneous and fragmented
(Seaden et al., 2001) and dominated by small firms. This industry composition should
provide many opportunities for a green building entrepreneur to develop a service or
products for the industry. Small incremental changes may be possible, but it is unlikely
that the construction industry is willing or capable to accept a high degree of innovation
such as green building. The unknown variables associated with this change are difficult to
value and price in a competitive bid process where the lowest bidder will get the work.
Similar to the design professional construction trades have training institutes. The
training institutes follow a rigid curriculum designed to teach current building practices
based on the building code requirements. A plumbing or electrical contractor employs
qualified trades people in order to conform to building code and to limit legal liability
and risk exposure. Many green building technologies do not conform to building codes,
94
not for the fact that the practices are unsafe, but because the practices are unproven. Any
change is difficult in an industry where the contractor strategy is shaped by risk
avoidance tactics.
Gann (2001) suggests that few construction firms have the absorptive capacity
(Cohen and Levinthal, 1989) to absorb and act upon the academic research in the UK.
The firms that have the capabilities are likely “to have a critical mass of professionally
qualified practitioners” (Gann, p.328). Gann estimates that less than 1% of construction
firms have the critical mass that he defines as more than five people with technical
qualifications.
A review of the green goal framework shows there is minimal incentive for a
construction contractor to embrace green building technology. The findings of Seaden et
al., (2001) that suggest the more profitable residential trades tend to be less innovative is
further evidence that the construction industry will not accept green building technology.
Table 14 – Green Goals Framework - Contractors
Green Building Goals
Contractor Goals Green Alignment
Reduce building construction and operating cost
- Always wants lower construction costs, but green benefits unproven - No involvement in operation
Partial
Reduce environmental impact
- May seek a sense of environmental responsibility
Varies
Improve occupant health and comfort
- No involvement in occupancy No
95
3.2.4 The Home Buyer – Demand Side
The industry analysis in Chapter 2 identified some of the customer requirements
when purchasing a new home; price and location top the list. The features of a new home
are appealing and a useful marketing tool, but are of lower importance. For instance, a
stainless steel gas range is unlikely to sway a home buyer if the home is in the wrong
neighbourhood and too expensive.
A 2007 survey by Royal LePage, a real estate brokerage, indicated that 75 per
cent of homebuyers want their next home to be a green home and 63 per cent were
willing to pay a premium for the benefit (Royal LePage, 2007). Another recent survey by
Robert Charles Lesser & Co (RCLCO), a real estate research firm, identified that over
one-third of US homebuyers could be swayed towards purchasing a green home (Kannan,
2007). The results of the RCLCO survey were further analysed into three segments that
correspond to the three green building principles of environment, economics and health.
• A “Forest Green” is a purchaser with environmental responsibility as the primary
purchasing criterion. RCLCO identified 6.1 percent of potential homebuyers
consider the environment a motivating factor and their ability to pay a premium to
protect the environment for the environment’s sake alone is questionable
(Kannan, 2007).
• A “Greenback Green” is a purchaser motivated by potential of lower utility bills
through energy savings. RCLCO identified 21.8 percent of potential homebuyers
in this category. This segment has some marketing challenges for green building,
as the fluctuating economics of commodities are difficult to quantify, let alone
explain to a homebuyer.
• A “Healthy Green” is a purchaser motivated by self-interest in their health and
wellness. This was a group that represented 8.5 percent of homebuyers, but was
identified by RCLCO as the segment with the most potential to “convert” into
96
green homebuyers. In fact, RCLCO indicated that health and wellness spending is
one of the largest expenditures of discretionary income nationwide in the US.
Moreover, 91 percent of the survey respondents indicated they would spend more
money for perceived health or wellness benefits; 41 percent indicted they would
do so even if they never recovered their investment (Kannan, 2008).
These three groups offer some specific markets for interested developers to target,
or conversely these three groups are drivers of demand for different products.
A review of the green goal framework shows there is a high level of alignment
with the homebuyers’ goals. This indicates that all homebuyers could be potential green
home buyers based on cost savings and other long-term benefits.
Table 15 – Green Goals Framework - Homebuyer
Green Building Goals
Homebuyer Goals Green Alignment
Reduce building construction and operating cost
• Lower home cost (in theory)
• Lower utility bills
Yes
Reduce environmental impact
• Seek a sense of environmental
responsibility (monetary value varies
with beliefs)
Varies
Improve occupant health and comfort
Homeowner is the occupant Yes
3.2.5 Government and Society – Demand Side
Government is a leading source of green building demand as current and future
regulations from all levels of government has the potential to become a leading driver of
innovation in the building industry. Today, many municipal, provincial and federal
governments are actively seeking environmental and sustainable initiatives in response to
the threat of climate change (CMHC, 2008, Lighthouse, 2008). The building industry is a
97
leading source of greenhouse gas emissions, waste, resource extraction and electricity
consumption. As a result, it is likely that governments will enact industry wide
regulations to reduce the environmental impact of the construction and operation of
residential and non-residential buildings.
The governments can use a combination of the carrot and the stick approach to
increase a demand for green building. The “carrot” approach is used to offer rewards and
incentives in the form of tax rebates to homeowners and density bonuses for developers.
The “stick” approach is used to impose regulation or fines to alter current behaviour.
Government regulation such as building codes, zoning approval and energy
requirements are a constant source of change for the building industry. Porter and van der
Linde (1994) suggest, “Properly designed environmental standards can trigger
innovations that lower the total cost of a product or improve its value” (p. 120). As an
example, annual building code revisions require all the industry participants to adapt their
design and production methods. This type of incremental change can be absorbed by the
industry structure, but major changes can cause disruption. According to Hall and
Vredenburg (2003), incremental change is acceptable as it allows a firm to continue to
profit from “their proven technology and organizational competency base” (p. 63).
The 1973 OPEC crisis and the subsequent concerns over energy supply and
consumption spurred a complete revision of the National Building Code of Canada
(Heldenbrand, 1976). Previously, building codes were limited to life safety issues, so this
government intervention represented a departure from the industry norms. Although the
changes do not qualify as competency destroying, the code changes were significant.
Among the changes were revisions to minimum insulation values for walls and ceiling,
98
added vapour barriers to the building envelope and an appliance rating system in an effort
to create a more energy efficient home and reduce the burden on energy sources. The
changes increased costs and changed the construction sequence, but the industry accepted
and adapted.
Given the industry structure, it is likely that the building industry will oppose any
radical changes whether they are labelled as “green” or otherwise. The other choice is for
the industry, or more specifically entrepreneurial firms, to innovate in anticipation of the
future regulations. There is a risk that the firm may not correctly anticipate the exact
contents of regulation, but there are enough government-sponsored green building
organizations to provide proper guidance. Not only will this innovate approach create a
first mover advantage, but innovation is acknowledged as a primary means of achieving
sustainable business growth (Porter and van der Linde, 1995, Hall and Vredenburg,
2003). Innovation in the building industry can help achieve both a sustainable
environment and sustainable business practices; Hall and Vredenburg (2003) describe
this combination as sustainable development innovation (SDI). They suggest that SDI can
also become a source of sustained competitive advantage for the innovative firm.
In summary government regulations on energy consumption, emission controls
and building code revisions have the potential to spur innovation as the “waves of
creative destruction” envisioned by Schumpeter (1934). That is, environmental pressures
may force construction firms to embrace the ideals of green building.
Table 16 – Green Goal Framework – Government and Society
Green Building Goals
Government Goals Green Alignment
99
Reduce building construction and operating cost
Lower cost of housing and utilities gives more
spending power to consumers
Yes
Reduce environmental impact
Externalities of pollution and degradation borne
by society
Yes
Improve occupant health and comfort
Reduce burden on health system and increase productivity of society
Yes
3.3 Supply and Demand Summary
The developer is unlikely to implement green building practices due to conflicts
with the industry low cost business model and the segregated industry structure. The
goals of the green building movement do not align with the goals of the developer or
contractor. The developer may be able to differentiate the new home product based on
green features, but the ability to capture a premium for this product is unproven. The
residential developer has a short term relationship with a home product and this does not
work with the integrated life-cycle approach.
The contractor is also unlikely to implement green building practices for the same
cost and structural issues as the developer. Arguably, the contractor views innovation as a
liability and not a benefit as any change is a disruption to the price structure. The lack of
absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1989) also hinders the ability of the contractor
to benefit from new information.
The design professional is an interesting case. This educated group shows an
interest in green building as they comprises over three-quarters of the membership in
green organizations. However, they may be powerless to enact change due to their fee
100
structure and low bargaining power in the building process. This group is a potential
source of influence in the future.
The green home buyer is segmented into three groups of environment, economic
and health concerns Kannan (2007). These groups in isolation or combination would
appeal to almost every homebuyer through monetary or health related benefits.
Government will likely influence the demand for green housing through a series
of regulations and incentives for both the supply side and the homebuyer. The three green
building goals would have a net social benefit for society by helping the conservation of
the environment, reducing emissions and improving the health of the population.
3.4 Pathways and Barriers
3.4.1 Barriers to Implementation
Based on the existing research, surveys and the information provided in the
industry analysis, the following five barriers items are identified as barriers to green
building acceptance by both developers and purchasers:
1. Perception of a cost premium for green building. This problem affects both the
homebuilder and the homebuyer. Builders believe that a green building will cost
more money and they need assurance that enough consumers are willing to pay
a premium to buy a green home. There is not enough data or homes built to date
to confirm either figure.
2. Residential Real Estate business model. Speculation, a “turn-key” business
model and the liability of separation (Reichstein et al., 2005) creates a
disconnection between homebuilders and home purchaser in the new home
market. As a result, the developer would bear the “first costs” of green building
practices while the homeowner would realize any long-term operating savings.
101
This cost-benefit structure does not provide an incentive for the home builder to
invest in green building.
3. The liability of innovation. Green building practices requires a departure from
the current building business model and a change in construction practices in
both technology and process. The construction industry is the most powerful
supplier in the value chain and the inherent resistant to innovation is a major
obstacle.
4. Brand confusion. Both the consumer and developer are confused over the
variety of “green” definitions, standards and metrics. There are too many
competing and overlapping organizations that offer green certification. There is
also the perception of “greenwash” or misleading claims in today’s marketplace.
5. Legitimacy – The lack of cognitive and socio-political legitimacy (Aldrich and
Fiol, 1994) impedes acceptance. The public does not have enough knowledge
and understanding of the green building concept and the process does not yet
have widespread social and political support.
3.4.2 Pathways to Sustainable Building Practices
In response to the identified barriers, I propose some potential pathways that may
help the integration of green building into the residential real estate market.
1. Re-package green building – A holistic and integrated approach is a noble idea,
but this is a radical and poorly defined concept. Instead, divide green
innovations into technology, process and production categories.
o Focus on technology as it is easy to grasp and understand. Many
homebuilders and developers are employing green building technology
without necessarily knowing it. Low flow fixtures, compact fluorescent
light fixtures, energy star appliances are all widely in use. Add in a few
other health features such as low VOC paints, carpets free of mutagens
and toxins and the home fulfils the intent of green building principles.
102
o An example of a green building production innovation would be factory
built wall panels.
o The process of an integrated design is difficult to promote because it is
difficult to understand. It is also a radical change to the building industry
and may or may not be beneficial to a residential builder.
2. Government involvement in green standards –Government involvement in the
certification of green building practices would lend legitimacy to the process.
Government needs to establish a definition for the terms green and sustainable
as applied to consumer products and services. A government initiated
consolidation of the green rating agency may help and prevent a looming
“standards war.”
3. Government support of green building - Government support is required to
change the entrenched processes. Incentives, density bonuses, reduced permit
fees and other inventive solutions can help developers on the supply side. Low
interest loans, lower insurance rates, manufacturer rebates, tax credits can help
consumers on the demand side.
4. Frequent building code updates - Building codes are outdated and do not keep
pace with technologies and practices that encourage innovation. Current
schedule of five year versions is not frequent enough.
5. Education – Education is needed at many levels to promote the benefits of green
buildings to consumers, producers and educators. Education will be a key way
to increase cognitive and socio-political legitimacy for green building.
o Public - Identify the impacts of energy consumption in a conventional
home such as the current BC Hydro Power Smart program. (BC Hydro,
2008) additional public knowledge about the impact of buildings on the
environment can add pressure on developers to produce new green
homes
103
o Industry – Trade and technical training programs can teach green
building practices. Education will encourage diffusion through
construction trades programs.
o Post-secondary – Business and management schools can teach
sustainable business and innovation practices to the future leaders of
industry. The next generation of leaders will be more aware of
environmental concerns and present an opportunity to
6. Promote health component – Identify and promote the health benefits of a green
home. Create a campaign along the lines of DeBeers diamonds, “It’s only two
months salary, but a diamond is forever.” Could be “it’s only another two years
on your mortgage, but your health is forever.”
7. Re-branding – “Green” is not the correct marketing label. “Durable” or “high-
performance” may be more applicable and carry less of a stigma. “Sustainable”
building has marketing and overuse, but less marginalized than “green.” The
sample brands based on the identified market segments are shown in the table
below.
8. Jumpstart the industry - Anticipate regulation. Carbon tax, increased fees for
water use and sewage discharge, higher transportation costs are all coming in
the future. A green home that can mitigate these rising costs.
Overcoming the barriers and following the pathways may lead to a wider
acceptance of the benefits of green building practices, but acceptance is dependant on
proof of profitability to the building industry. The feasibility and profitability are
discussed in Chapter 4.
104
4: CONCLUSION AND STRATEGY RECOMMENDATIONS
A firm operating in the building industry that wishes to pursue a green or
sustainable business model will face challenges. The residential building industry does
not currently value a green product and the homebuyer has not yet created enough
demand. However, opportunities do exist for an entrepreneurial firm to pursue and
implement innovations in anticipation of the future demand for green building technology
in new home construction.
4.1 Feasibility of Green Building in Residential Building
The feasibility of implementing green building practices is doubtful for the
residential industry under normal market conditions. The home builders and home buyers
do not have sufficient economic, social or political incentives to commit to a green home
and government and design professionals do not have sufficient power to engender any
change. In addition, the green building movement has some liabilities of image and
definition that also act as barriers to widespread acceptance.
Green building practices are poorly defined by advocates and poorly understood
by the target market. There are too many organizations that offer rating systems for a
building concept that is difficult for the builder and homeowner to grasp. Buyers and
builders may be suffering from ‘green fatigue’ as green and sustainable buzzwords are
currently ubiquitous throughout the business, retail and marketing world. Consolidation
may occur in the green building rating organizations and this could result in a green
105
building definition that is easier to understand and obtain certification. The current
certification requirements are onerous, time consuming and thus expensive for the home
builder.
The speculative nature of development, the historical liabilities of the construction
industry and a lack of current consumer demand are some of the impediments that make
any green project implementation difficult. Existing data is limited and residential case
studies are largely anecdotal due to the newness of the green building sector.
Furthermore, this limited evidence does not make a convincing business model for a
profitable residential development. The benefits of a green home have not been proven to
provide enough value to the builder or the homeowner to overcome a perception of
higher costs. Green building practices has gained traction in the non-residential building
industry as that business model is less speculative and the developer is more likely to be
involved over the long term with an ability to recover the initial costs.
The construction industry is perhaps the least likely participant in green building
practices. The industry has an ingrained aversion to innovation; in fact, a recent study for
the National Research Council of Canada suggested that innovation in new home
building results in lower profitability for firms (Seaden, Guolla, Doutriaux and Nash,
2001). This is likely the result of the dominant design-bid-build business model where the
“lowest bidder” wins the contract. This business model also creates the liability of
separation (Reichstein, Salter and Gann, 2005) that limits interaction between the
building life cycle participants of design, production and use. In addition, the
construction of a building of any type is a complex and time consuming process and the
work is completed by a diverse range of small companies. Gann (2001) argues that the
106
small size and resources of most firms limits the absorptive capacity to learn and make
technological advances. These construction industry characteristics are in conflict with
the green building practice which relies on technology innovation, interaction between
life-cycle participants and an ability to learn new concepts. These conflicts limit the
ability of a residential real estate developer to implement a successful and profitable
implementation of a green building project for new homes.
The developer, the construction contractors and the home buyers currently believe
that the costs of green building are greater than the benefits. However, the metric for this
evaluation is based on dollars and there are other intangible values of green building that
are difficult to value. A sense of environmental responsibility and occupant comfort are
two intangible benefits of a green home. So far, neither buyer nor seller is able to assign a
dollar value to these benefits and this stalemate also limits the adoption of green building.
Action by government and industry pressure from the design professional group
has the potential to increase the rate and range of adoption in the new home market.
Examples from the non-residential sector show that government incentives and
regulations can spur or force developers and builders into new practices and reward
consumers for following. The design professionals appear to be a group committed to
green building as a matter of principle rather than purely monetary reasons.
Today, a certified green residential project is not feasible in economic terms. The
new technologies and processes are too radical for the industry and this level of risk is
unappealing to buildings and homeowners alike. However, there is hope for future
financial viability of green building as changing consumer demands and government
involvement may shift the economics. Increasing awareness of environmental concerns,
107
rising energy costs and health related concerns are issues that are addressed by green
building principles. An entrepreneurial firm can position itself for future success by
integrating green building principles into current business practices.
4.2 Profit Potential for a Green Building Company
Green building research tends to focus on the feasibility on entire building and not
the profitability of the company level participants. Moreover, there are very few
examples of building or development companies that are dedicated entirely to green
principles and any related financial information is also limited. There is also a vast array
of homebuilders, designers, contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers whose product
may already be compatible with green building principles, or conversely, may never be
compatible with green building principles. As such, predictions on the specific margins
and returns of a yet to be identified business are not possible.
However, a changing public and government awareness of potential benefits of
green and sustainable business ideas will create opportunities for the entrepreneur. A shift
in public policy or a change in energy prices could provide further incentive for buildings
and buyers to consider a green home. Individual firms can position themselves in
anticipation of future demand.
4.3 Strategies to capture future demand
There are several strategies for an entrepreneurial residential company interested
in green building practices. The shared component is anticipating future demand for
green building products and services.
108
1. Adapt current green technology into the existing business model. The
focus of this strategy is to find market niches that work on incremental
acceptance of green products. Meanwhile the green entrepreneur can
establish legitimacy as an expert without threatening the larger
contractors.
2. Learn from non-residential buildings. Construction trades do not
differentiate between residential and non-residential buildings. There are
numerous commercial and institutional buildings that are currently seeking
LEED or other certifications across North America. An entrepreneur can
learn form these projects and find a way to diffuse this technology into the
residential home building sector
3. Focus on retrofits to existing homes. New homes account for less than 1
per cent of the Canadian housing stock of 13 million home. Green
building technology will appeal to the forest greens, the greenback greens
and the healthy greens of the existing home market. The knowledge and
market research can be used in the new home building industry.
It is unlikely that green building technology will diffuse into the new home
industry in the short term, but there are opportunities for the innovative entrepreneur to
create a business with a view to future acceptance. This short term opportunity will help
establish legitimacy, reputation that should translate into a competitive advantage when
green building practices become accepted by industry and consumers.
109
4.4 Tilting at Windmills
A clear, concise and globally understood definition of green building remains an
elusive concept. A movement that emerged from environmental activism is evolving into
a market segment of one of the world’s largest industries, but it is still a difficult concept
to explain. The movement has noble intentions, but the benefits are debatable at this early
stage and acceptance is tempered.
In Cervantes seventeenth century novel, Don Quixote, the delusional title
character attempts to slay windmills which he believes to be giants. The phrase “tilting at
windmills” has been used to describe an act of futility ever since. The modern day
construction industry is similar to Cervantes’ windmills; it is regarded as slayable to
some while it is clearly an immovable object to others.
The construction industry has not modernized its product to keep pace with
technological advances in other industries. This aversion to innovation is endemic and
has created a stagnant industry that is content with the status quo from last century. Green
building practices offer an opportunity for the residential and non-residential building
industry to innovative in response to a global catastrophe in this sector.
Stern (2006) warns of the economic and environmental implications of “business
as usual” practices. The economic projects show that the cost of doing nothing to reduce
our current levels of consumption will far exceed the cost of taking preventative action
today (Stern, 2006). Green building practices will not solve global warming by itself, but
it can help contribute to a global solution. The construction and operation of a building
produces waste and consumes resources at an unsustainable rate. A stagnant industry
with a lack of innovation and the threat of climate change present the ideal combination
110
for Baumol’s (1990) “productive entrepreneurship.” Building innovation in technology
and production could create a net social benefit while creating a competitive advantage
for the entrepreneur.
Arguably, the current financial crisis is a direct result of the speculative real estate
market in the US and other locations. There are thousands of identical unoccupied homes
and apartments across the continent all likely built by the lowest bidder in the fastest
manner possible. Green building practices would not have prevented this crisis, but there
is an opportunity for the building industry to re-assess the entire industry business model.
Looking towards the future, the building industry needs a triple bottom line approach to
combat the triple threat of climate change, dwindling commodities and concerns about
health and wellness. The integrated design approach promoted by green building places
an emphasis on good design rather than low cost and speed.
Eventually, Schumpeter’s (1934) “waves of creative destruction” will crash across
the building industry and cause a re-combination of production and process. The
technology and knowledge exist today to radically transform the industry. How, when
and by whom are all answers that are unknown. The concept of green building may
change or even disappear, but at least it has forced the industry and the consumer to
consider other building methods. The industry participants that are alert to opportunities
and innovative thinking will be at the forefront of the next industry leaders.
111
REFERENCE LIST
Works Cited
Aldrich H, Fiol C. (1994), Fools rush in? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation. Academy of Management Review. October 1994;19(4):645-670.
Baumol, William J. (1994), Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, No. 5, Part 1 (Oct. 1990), 893-921
BBC News (2008), Oil hits new high on Iran fears. Retrieved October 14 2008 from, http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7501939.stm
Bowley, M (1966). The British Building Industry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Building Design + Construction (BDC) (2006). Green Buildings and the Bottom Line, A supplement Building Design + Construction. November 2006
Building Design + Construction (BDC) (2007). Green Buildings Research White Paper. A supplement Building Design + Construction. October 2007
Canadian Green Building Council (CAGBC) (2006) An introduction to Canada Green Building Council. Retrieved April 2008 from, http://my.cagbc.org/uploads/CAGBC%20About%20Us_2006.pps
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) (2008a),Monthly Housing Statistics, April 2008
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) (2008b),Monthly Housing Statistics, October 2008
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) (2008c), Housing Now – BC Region. First Quarter, 2008. Released
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) (2008d), Housing Now – BC Region. Second Quarter, 2008.
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) (2008e), Housing Now – BC Region. Third Quarter, 2008.
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) (2008f), CHS – Demography 2007. Released May 2008
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) (2008g), Housing Market Outlook, British Columbia Region Highlights, Third Quarter 2008.
112
CBC News, Vancouver developer pulls out of condo projects due to financing difficulty. Last Updated: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 | 7:50 PM ET Retrieved October 25, 2008 from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/11/26/bc-condo.html
Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4, 386–405.
Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective of learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 128-52
Davis Langdon (n.d.) “The Cost and Benefit of Achieving Green Buildings”
Davis Langdon (2007) “The Cost of Green Revisited.”
Dewald, J., Hall, J., Chrisman, J. & Lellermanns. (2007) The Governance Paradox: Preferences of Small Vulnerable Firms in the Homebuilding Industry, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, March 2007, p. 281 to 299
Elkington J. Partnerships from Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st-Century Business. Environmental Quality Management [serial online]. September 1998;8(1):37-51. Available from: Business Source Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed October 21, 2008.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2008. EPA website. Retrieved June 2 2008 from, http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/about.htm
Gann, D.M. (2000) Building Innovation: Complex Constructs in a Changing World, Thomas Telford, London
Gann, D.M. (2001). Putting academic ideas into practice –technological progress and absorptive capacity of construction organizations. Construction Management and Economics, 19, 321–30.
Gann, D.M. (2003). Guest editorial: innovation in the built environment. Construction Management and Economics, 21, 553-555
Grant, R. (2008).“Contemporary Strategy Analysis.” Blackwell Publishing. Carlton, Australia. 6th edition, 2008.
Hall, J. & Vredenburg, H. (2003). The challenges of innovating for sustainable development. MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall, 2003, Vol. 45 No. 1, 61-68
Hall, J. & Vredenburg, H. (2005). Managing Stakeholder Ambiguity, MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall, 2005, Vol. 47 No. 1
Hall, J. & Martin, M. (2005). Disruptive technologies, stakeholders and the innovation value-added chain. R&D Management Review, 35, 3, 273-284
Heldenbrand, J. Design and evaluation criteria for energy conservation in new buildings. National Bureau of Standards, 1976. Retrieved on October 24 2008 http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/sp958-lide/html/260-265.html
113
Homeowners Protection Office (2001). “2-5-10 Year Home Warranty Insurance,” 2001 http://www.hpo.bc.ca/PDF/Bulletins/2-5-10.pdf
IMDB (2006) An Inconvenient Truth, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/business
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “Fourth Assessment Report”, 2007. Retrieved June 22 2008 from, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Kannan, S. (2007, June). Unveiling the green homebuyer. Urban Land, 66, 6, 106-109
Kats, G. (2003) The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings A Report to California’s Sustainable Building Task Force. October 2003
Lewis, R. (2008) A phone interview on realtor and homebuyer trends in Vancouver on October 4 2008.
Lighthouse Sustainable Building Centre (2008) Green building in British Columbia: State of the industry report – 2007/2008. Company publication.
Lucuik, M. (2005). A business case for green buildings in Canada. Company publication by Morrison Hershfield, March 2005.
Marak, R. (2008) A phone interview on realtor practices at Royal LePage on October 11 2008.
Marshal, J. & Toffel, M., (2005) Framing the Elusive Concept of Sustainability: A Sustainability Hierarchy, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2005, p.673-682
Matos, S. & Hall, J. (2007) Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 1083 – 1102
Natural Resources Canada, “Energy End Use Data Handbook 2006” http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/tableshandbook2/res_00_11_e_2.cfm?attr=0
Penner, Derrick (2007, July 11). Condo project faces lawsuit. The Vancouver Sun Retrieved October 25, 2008 from http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=b08c24ea-4cb7
Porter M. (1979). How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review. March-April 1979. Available from: Business Source Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed October 21, 2008.
Porter M. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review [serial online]. January 2008;86(1):78-93. Available from: Business Source Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed October 21, 2008.
114
Porter, M. & van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved July 13, 2008, from http://info.cba.ksu.edu/sheu/MANGT810/MT810%20SC%20Reading/GreenCompetitive%20Porter.pdf
Reichstein, T., Salter, A., & Gann, D. (2005). Last among equals: a comparison of innovation in construction, services and manufacturing in the UK, Construction Management and Economics. 23, 631-644
Schumpeter, J.A., The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1934.
Schumpeter, J. A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New York: Harper & Row, 1942
Seaden, G., Guolla, M., Doutriaux, J. & Nash J., (2001) Analysis of the Survey on Innovation, Advanced Technologies and Practices in the Construction and Related Industries. Stats Canada. Accessed online October 21 2008 http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-in/downpub/listpub.cgi?catno=88F0017MIE2001010
Seaden, G., Guolla, M., Doutriaux, J. and Nash, J. (2003) Strategic decisions and innovation in construction firms. Construction Management and Economics, 21, 603–12.
Stern, Nicolas, Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, Executive Summary. October 30 2006, Retrieved on October 7 2008 http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/6513.htm
Statistics Canada, Gross Domestic Product by Industry – July 2008, Catalogue no. 15-001-X p.45, Retrieved October 7 2008 from, http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/ind01/l3_2621_1803.htm?hili_none
Stinchcombe, A.L. (1965) Social structure and organization, in March, J. (ed.) Handbook of Organizations, Rand McNally, Chicago, 142-93
US Green Building Council (2008) Green building by the numbers. September 2008. Retrieved October 6 2008, from http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3340
US Department of Commerce. (2008, February 20). New Residential Construction in January 2008; US Census Bureau News. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/newresconst
Winch, G. (2003). How innovative is construction? Comparing aggregated data on construction innovation and other sectors. Construction Management and Economics, 21, 651-654
Westbank Developments (2008) Westbank Corp. website. Accessed October 11 2008 http://westbankcorp.com/residential.cfm?projectid=29
115
World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK 1987.
Works Consulted
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), Profile and Prospects of theFactory-Built Housing Industry in Canada, July 2006.
Crossan, M, Fry, J & Killing, P. “Strategic Analysis and Action.” Pearson. Toronto, ON. 2005
Gavetti, G. & Rivkin, J. (2005). How strategists really think: Tapping the power and analogy. Harvard Business Review.
Hart, S.(1997) Beyond greening: strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Business Review 1997; January –February: 67–76.
Hart, S, & Milstein (1999). Global sustainability and the creative destruction of industries. Sloan Management Review, Fall, 1999, 23-33
Lockwood C. Building the Green Way. Harvard Business Review [serial online]. June 2006;84(6):129-137. Available from: Business Source Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed October 21, 2008.
Newton, J. (2008) Strategic analysis of a new venture: innovation in the residential construction industry. Simon Fraser University.
116
