When we spoke to Nicole Sullivan recently, the Sydney based impact director at sustainability consultancy thinkstep-anz, had just returned from a trip to head office in New Zealand to take part in a meeting to set the strategic direction for the year ahead. We’re still in tea leaf-reading mode, so wanted to hear her views on how the industry might fare this year.
Nicole Sullivan has been deeply embedded in the battle for more sustainable materials for many years, starting with her professional studies in chemical and process engineering and more than 23 years at Bluescope Steel, where she worked on that toughest of challenges, finding ways to make steel more sustainable.
She’s now about to notch up more than six years at thinkstep-anz, a trans-Tasman company with offices in Australia and New Zealand, a long connection with the building products industry and about 40 staff on its books across the two countries.
In the intervening, Sullivan worked at the Green Building Council of Australia, sat on various committees, and held board membership of the Australian Life Cycle Assessment Society (ALCAS).
So with that background, where does she see the industry heading this year?
Among her concerns, it seems, is both greenwash and greenhushing. There’s the problem of how to make successes known in a credible way, but also how to share failures, because this is how we learn, not just individually but collectively.
The greenwash trap is real, Sullivan says of the negative media that hits companies that don’t deliver what’s on the sustainability tin.
But the “greenhushing” it’s engendered is equally dangerous. This is the practice of keeping your good deeds under lock and key; you be singled out for not going far enough, or they be criticised in some other way.
“One of the really big things that’s coming now is the need for credibility behind your statement: ‘put your money where your mouth is’, so to speak. People are very suspicious of greenwash.
“People really want to see the proof, not just the promise that we’ll do good things [such as] ‘we’re going to set this beautiful net zero at 2050 target’, but actually, what does that look like? And what are your steps? And how are you being credible when you’re making these big promises?”
Most people don’t engage in intentional greenwash, Sullivan says, but if proof can be added to the promise, it’s a big plus.
The pendulum swing
But the pendulum may have swung too far, and we’re now heading towards greenhushing – where even good news is buried, in case of backlash.
Sullivan agrees that this is not a way to stimulate the often competitive spirit that works so well in the property and built environment sector.
But there’s more at stake.
“The best way that we can get to a better future is by learning from each other, sharing.”
And this, whether things worked or didn’t work.
Fear of failure
“One of the things that we’re finding that is hampering decarbonisation is people don’t know what’s been done before or what’s been tried before.”
It’s all about risk. But if someone can say they’ve tried something before and this was the result, then everyone can benefit.
“That’s a brilliant platform to leap from for the next trial.
“At the moment, we’re scared of admitting that we got things wrong, or maybe we didn’t get things perfect.”
The bigger outlook is positive
We also wanted to know from Sullivan how she and the team in New Zealand felt about the back-peddling we saw on sustainability last year.
First, it’s not as prevalent as people think, she says. It’s just that some action is just happening “a little more quietly, but people haven’t stopped acting.”
Pressure is coming from the board down, as sustainability is integrated into conversations about risks and opportunities.
A big rising concern is circularity
Circularity is much more on the front foot these days, Sullivan says. And while carbon might have slipped a bit from the public eye thanks to the rancour that surrounds it, the battle to slash waste is rising to the fore.
This is a new conversation, and it needs large minded thinking
“When we start talking about circularity and using our resources, it’s actually a whole different conversation,” Sullivan says.
“It is a more systemic change across the whole way that we look at and use resources.
“We have to remove a concept like end of life from our vocabulary – it’s just the end of use for those resources, and then they need to find another purpose.”
So very different to a property owner taking responsibility for their own actions.
“We need to be working across sectors, across company boundaries, on how to deliver genuinely circular solutions. Because any individual company or even individual sector is not going to conquer this on their own, we actually have to get really large minded about how we attack this.”
The company is working on how to help. Jim Goddin, the company’s head of circularity, for instance, is rolling out MCI Pro, a “verificatioin ready” tool that builds on the materials circularity indicator and the latest standards.
Durability is another rising topic of conversation, along with “emotional durability”, how long we’re willing to keep something in service for.
In Europe, buildings can have a 1000 year lifespan, not just 15.
We’re often battling in Australia – and elsewhere – the inclination to tear buildings down and replace them, because “they’re not in vogue anymore”, she said.
But getting beyond that inclination is a job that’s well beyond any individual rating or measurement – and perhaps one for the complex systems and collective thinking that lies at the heart of a true circular economy.