4 - 2020 - ISCouncil

Report | Why Australia’s economic rebound will be aided by sustainable infrastructure

Thursday 30 April 2020, Sydney: Infrastructure will play a central role in Australia’s economic recovery – and sustainable infrastructure can deliver an even bigger rebound, finds new research commissioned by the Australian Infrastructure Sustainability Council (ISCA).

ISCA’s study, IS Rating Scheme Return on Investment, finds infrastructure projects rated under the IS Rating Scheme will deliver up to $2.40 in benefit for every dollar spent.

According to Ainsley Simpson, Chief Executive Officer of ISCA, the economic multiplier effect for infrastructure expenditure is well documented – but this fresh research underscores an even bigger upside.

“Over the next few years, infrastructure will play a mission critical role in our economic rebound – but we must ensure the money we spend today can be leveraged to maximise environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits tomorrow,” Ms Simpson says.

“Governments know that public infrastructure is a great economic multiplier – and that every dollar they invest in public infrastructure delivers around four dollars in GDP value over the life of the asset.

“Over and above this productivity dividend, our research finds IS Ratings are set to deliver a minimum of $1.60 in benefit for every dollar spent – and this figure could be as high as $2.40 in benefit.”

ISCA’s IS Rating Scheme was launched in 2012, and has since measured the social, environmental, governance and cultural outcomes delivered by more than $170 billion major infrastructure projects.

The independent cost benefit analysis undertaken by RPS Group monetised benefits such as carbon, water, ecology and air emissions. IS-certified as-built assets have delivered accumulated reductions of 14% in energy, 27% in water and 31% in materials when compared to standard practice.

Ms Simpson says the ROI study does not quantify wider social value such as health outcomes and human capital development.

“Our study makes the business case clear: sustainability and profitability are not mutually exclusive. Importantly, the non-market benefits of infrastructure should not be limited to major projects. If uptake of the IS Rating Scheme was doubled, the net benefit would soar to $90.7 million. All infrastructure – urban and regional, large and small, new and ageing – can deliver more for our communities.”

“What we also know from the research is that pursuing an IS Rating upskills the workforce, encourages innovation and drives process improvements. Applying the IS Rating scheme to infrastructure projects trains people to think more strategically across the asset lifecycle, which in turn enhances procurement and supply chain efficiencies.”

Given the central role that infrastructure will play in the next wave of fiscal stimulus, ISCA is calling on all governments to rebound with continued determination and decisive leadership, with five practical actions:

  1. Mandate sustainability: Set the policy default for all infrastructure to sustainable and resilient, as well as economically productive
  2. Prioritise productivity multipliers: Invest in projects that that deliver both productivity multipliers  and non-market (benefits, including sustainability and liveability
  3. Leverage procurement: Stimulate local economies by developing skills and capacity and drive nation-wide innovation across the supply chain
  4. Commit to best practice: Adopt recognised standards on all shovel-ready projects to measure and achieve best practice sustainability performance
  5. Embrace transparency: Use assured performance data to communicate the outcomes delivered for business, communities and the workforce.

“Infrastructure investment can help us achieve strong economic outcomes for Australia as we bounce back from the Covid-19 crisis. But we need to ensure we are spending our money wisely,” Ms Simpson adds.

“Infrastructure Australia estimates that $20 billion worth of infrastructure projects were delayed, cancelled or mothballed over the last decade due to community opposition. Construction fatigue has put pressure on communities and jeopardised the industry’s social license.

“By mandating the IS Rating Scheme, governments can help us pivot from past practices and invest in sustainable infrastructure that de-risks assets, boosts financial performance and, most importantly, builds a better future for generations.”

Download the ISCA’s full cost benefit analysis and executive summary.

ISCA | Blog: Sustainable infrastructure set to deliver big dividends in our economic rebound

The twin crises of the Black Summer bushfires and Covid-19 have tested the resilience of Australia’s systems and recalibrated business-as-usual. The challenges and consequences ahead are interconnected – but so are the dividends that sustainable infrastructure can deliver to communities.

In few short months, we’ve stress-tested the systems and structures that underpin our nation. We’ve exposed weaknesses in our supply chains, inequities in our distribution of essential services and gained a new appreciation of social infrastructure at the heart of our communities.

Now, as governments gear up to stimulate the economy, we know spending on infrastructure will play a central role in our economic rebound. But just as the challenges we face are complex and interconnected, our infrastructure investment must deliver on a host of complex and interconnected priorities.

Governments know that public infrastructure is a great economic multiplier – and that every dollar they invest in public infrastructure delivers around four dollars in GDP value over the life of the asset.

But now, a new cost benefit analysis undertaken by RPS Group illustrates how sustainable infrastructure can deliver an even bigger dividend.

ISCA’s IS Rating Scheme was launched in 2012, and has since measured the social, environmental, governance and cultural outcomes delivered by more than $200 billion major infrastructure projects.

The study, IS Rating Scheme Return On Investment, finds infrastructure projects IS-rated projects are set to deliver a minimum of $1.60 in benefit for every dollar spent – and this figure could be as high as $2.40 in benefit.

What’s more, if the uptake of the IS Rating Scheme was doubled, the net benefit would soar to $90 million.

The independent analysis monetised benefits such as carbon, water, ecology and air emissions, because we know  IS-certified as-built assets deliver average savings of 18% in energy, 29% in water and 31% in materials when compared to standard practice.

While the study does not quantify wider social value such as health outcomes and human capital development, we have emerging evidence that illustrates the many qualitative benefits.

We know pursuing an IS Rating upskills the workforce, encourages innovation and drives process improvements. People learn to think more strategically across the asset lifecycle, which in turn enhances procurement and supply chain efficiencies. IS ratings also de-risk assets and boost financial performance.

Most importantly, infrastructure that considers emissions, resilience, liveability and long-term community value builds a better future for generations.
ISCA has embarked on a campaign that calls on all governments to embrace five practical actions:

  1. Mandate sustainability: Set the policy default for all infrastructure to sustainable and resilient, as well as economically productive
  2. Prioritise productivity multipliers: Invest in projects that that deliver both productivity multipliers  and non-market (benefits, including sustainability and liveability
  3. Leverage procurement: Stimulate local economies by developing skills and capacity and drive nation-wide innovation across the supply chain
  4. Commit to best practice: Adopt recognised standards on all shovel-ready projects to measure and achieve best practice sustainability performance
  5. Embrace transparency: Use assured performance data to communicate the outcomes delivered for business, communities and the workforce.

Over the next few years, infrastructure will play a mission critical role in our economic rebound. But we must ensure the money we spend today leverages not only the economic benefits, but the environmental, social and cultural benefits too.

Download the study below 
ISCA ROI Study_Exec Summary 2020
ISCA ROI Study_Full report 2020

New Zealand’s First Sustainable Sports Park | IS Thought Leadership: Toto Vu-Duc

Sustainable Procurement
Scott Point Sustainable Sports Park

By Toto Vu-Duc

What was the opportunity?

Hobsonville is undergoing significant development to help accommodate Auckland’s growing population. Over 16 hectares of land in the north-western suburb of Scott Point was identified to build New Zealand’s first certified sustainable sports park, a feature the community can be proud of and will demonstrate Auckland Council’s commitment to a sustainable future.

This context created an ideal opportunity for Council to undertake a procurement process fully leveraging the organisation’s sustainable procurement framework, seeking a lead contractor to “achieve this vision and be responsible for the day-to-day delivery of the construction works in a fully sustainable manner,” as was advertised in the original request for interest.

Sustainable Procurement at Auckland Council

Sustainable procurement differs from business-as-usual contract procurement in its valuation criteria. Sustainable procurement emphasises a “triple bottom line” (economic, environmental and social values) which is more comprehensive than the standard procurement that only focuses on the “bottom line” (financial cost).

At Auckland Council, our Group Sustainable Procurement Framework goes beyond a triple-bottom-line to include cultural values, outlining a total of four “well-beings” used for procurement evaluation and contract management (Figure 1). Auckland Council is committed to valuing and promoting Māori identity under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Auckland Plan. Therefore the framework was designed to deliver positive Māori outcomes and align with the key role played by mana whenua in a sustainable Auckland across these four well-beings:
null

Figure 1 Auckland Council Group Sustainable Procurement Framework well-beings

Under the framework, sustainable procurement is tailored to the services procured, monitored and measured throughout the procurement lifecycle to achieve maximum benefit for Aucklanders.

___________

 

What did we deliver?

The early contractor involvement procurement phase tailored the Group Sustainable Procurement Framework to address specific selection criteria under its four well-beings and included guidance to support interested parties with their submissions. The response forms provided in the tender package covered all four well-beings and examples of acceptable evidence. Excerpts from this guidance included:

Cultural well-being

Acceptable evidence included company policies, procedures, statistics and reporting demonstrating how the applicants actively supports Māori and Pasifika-owned businesses (e.g. He Waka Eke Noa engagement), or the embedding of tikanga and/or te reo Māori into its business protocols.

Economic well-being

Evidence examples included description of a previous project yielding whole-of-life savings, either through whole-of-life modelling in decision-making or the use of innovative technology.

Environmental well-being

Applicants could demonstrate this well-being through company reporting including energy, water, waste and carbon, policies and procedures that demonstrate a commitment to sustainability. Relevant independent certifications (e.g. ISO 14001 or Enviromark Diamond) were also acceptable.

Social well-being

As with environmental well-being, applicants could also demonstrate social well-being using a relevant independent certification (e.g. EDGE, Rainbow Tick, ISO 26000).We also accepted company policies, reporting, and career pathway programmes as evidence of commitment to a diverse and inclusive workforce and social well-being.

___________

 

The Result

After a robust procurement process, HEB Construction was successful in winning the contract for the next phase of the park development. In addition to providing evidence of their technical ability to deliver the project, HEB’s tender package included business reporting on climate action (such as an environmental outcome of reducing their company fleet’s fuel consumption by 10% during their previous financial year) and social well-being (as demonstrated by career pathway development through Māori & Pasifika Trades Training). The tender team also proposed sustainable innovation ideas specific to Scott Point, as seen in the background plan. Overall, the proposal package showcased HEB’s experience that will enable them to deliver the requested services for this project. The package also outlined how they provided that service on a day-to-day level to deliver sustainable outcomes across the company and specifically for the tendered project.

For more information contact Toto Vu-Duc at toto.vu-duc@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz.
Energy Efficiency & Sustainability, Community Facilities
__
Want to learn how to enable Sustainable Procurement in your Project or Organisation? visit our Virtual Instructor Led Training courses here.

Sustainable Procurement – Easier Said Than Done?

Sustainable Procurement – Easier Said than Done?

Sustainable procurement is an integral part of delivering sustainable business practices within projects and organisations.  Integrating a sustainable procurement approach into your project or organisation presents an opportunity to provide better outcomes through reducing risk, adding value and encouraging innovation. Done well, sustainable procurement adds positive environmental, social and economic impacts throughout the whole lifecycle of an asset, goods and services. At a practical level it also encourages cooperation, buy-in and better communication between purchasers, suppliers and stakeholders.

The steps to achieving sustainable procurement require an understanding that sustainability needs to be integrated as a holistic concept across a project or organisation, not as an add-on or afterthought to tradition business as usual practices. Over the past three decades, many iconic companies that have publicly professed to be leading practitioners of sustainable behaviour have then been nailed to the wall over their ignorance, complacency or naiveté around what is happening in their supply chains. Some of the underlying causes of this include:

  • A narrow interpretation of the boundaries around sustainability, accountability and organisational risk;
  • A limited awareness of which suppliers represent the highest risks in terms of sector, location and product/service;
  • Risk management systems that struggle to acknowledge or deal with sustainability-related risk in supply chains; and
  • Sustainability managers/departments that sit in isolation to other managers and departments within the very same project or organisation that are dealing with risk and procurement.

There are some fundamental questions that projects and organisations need to be asking of themselves so the efforts they make to address risk and encourage sustainable practices within their supply chain are well focused and meaningful, rather than futile and wasteful “window dressing”. These questions include:

  • What are we really asking of our suppliers?
  • Where do we begin?
  • How should we design and then test our approach?

While there are no generic answers to these, I can offer some thinking to help contextualise such questions so that you can start considering the best way forward. My involvement has been primarily to help organisations and projects develop and implement policies to encourage sustainable supplier practices, writing supplier codes of conduct, and designing and delivering supplier audit programs. My comments below are based on what those experiences have revealed.

What are we really asking of our suppliers? 

What are we trying to do and why?  

Many supplier programs are vague about their intended goals for the project and desired outcomes for the suppliers; ending up unfocussed, expensive and lacking performance measures. Are you trying to manage real risk in your supply chain or sending a message to the market about your commitment to responsible business behaviour?

Being clear on this helps you to decide whether you should be going down a ‘compliance’ style approach setting minimum acceptable standards of supplier performance, or an ‘encouragement’ based approach supporting suppliers to progressively change their behaviour, and go beyond compliance. If it is be more compliance focused, will your approach be punitive (comply or else) or more one of ‘gently’ raising the bar over time (recognising your likely limited resources and that of your suppliers)? If you’re looking to be ‘supportive’, what are you prepared (and resourced) to do for suppliers by way of helping them?

Do as we say, or do as we do? 

If you are going down the ‘compliance’ route, you may be putting your credibility on the line. “Do as we do”, rather than “do as we say” should always underpin such an approach – firstly by checking and demonstrating that your own house is in order on the social, environmental and governance performance areas that you’re expecting suppliers to meet in order to avoid a classic and often highly visible double standard. If there are significant shortcomings in your own sustainability performance, you have two choices: wait until your own act is together before demanding compliance from your suppliers, or transparently acknowledge to your suppliers that your business still has work to do to lift its sustainability game, and encourage them to work with you to improve outcomes.

Where do we begin? 

Identify the breadth or focus of your approach; 

A successful approach is predicated on tying together program intent, available resources and risk evaluation.  Are you intending to engage your whole supply chain? Should your focus be primarily on your high spend, first tier suppliers, or on suppliers operating in particularly high risk sectors (e.g. PPE gear, labour contracting, etc.) or in geographical regions known for poor labour, governance, safety or environmental standards? It is worth identifying what information currently resides in your procurement department about supplier performance that can help identify higher risk or habitually poorly performing suppliers. If supplier risk information is lacking, then your top 10 or 20 suppliers by spend may be a useful starting point.

Supplier sustainability schemes can be overly ambitious in what they are trying to achieve. Several years back I read with interest a major bank’s elaborate plans to launch a sustainable supply chain program involving multiple supplier audits in the first year. By the end of year one, they announced a grand total of one supplier had been audited (from the tone of their report I don’t think they quite understood the actual message that outcome sent to the market). Most, if not all, organisations have to rationalise their program scope and intent with their available resources, so don’t try to do it all at once.

Align and marshal your forces 

Many projects and organisations make the mistake of running supplier sustainability programs as a solo exercise out of their sustainability departments. To get the best possible outcomes you need to engage both your risk function and your procurement team in the development of the approach, including where to target the program and how it will be delivered. You will also likely benefit from the public endorsement of your Board or senior executive to give it the legitimacy it needs to be taken seriously both internally and externally.

Get your corporate communications team on board to align and promote the program with other corporate initiatives and help you craft a clear and unambiguous message to suppliers about what you are planning to do, when and why. Suppliers will no doubt have questions about this, so be prepared to respond to them in a coordinated, consistent manner across the business.

How should we design and then test our approach? 

Engage your internal and external stakeholders in designing the approach 

Trying to design a supplier program in isolation from those who will use it (internal stakeholders) and those who will be subject to it (suppliers) is not particularly smart. Sustainable supplier policies, supplier codes of conduct, supplier questionnaires, and supplier audit models all need to be considered from both the user and the recipient point of view. Getting them engaged not only provides invaluable feedback on aspects such as relevancy of criteria, affordability, practicality and integration but also creates buy-in to the process on both sides. Suppliers should have a say in what you are asking of them.  There is, for many suppliers, a high degree of discomfort with what can be perceived as a client essentially imposing their values and principles on them. To then be held to account for something they had little or no say in developing can be particularly challenging for them.

Run a pilot and assess the results 

To be successful, all the elements of your supply chain sustainability program need to integrate seamlessly. For example; your policy, code of conduct, audit tools and audit approach all need to be consistent and complete before you can confidently roll out the program across your chosen suppliers. The only way to gain this confidence is to test them in a controlled, contained and ‘safe’ manner. Running a pilot amongst a select group of suppliers or within one particular procurement area provides such an opportunity to demonstrate what works and what doesn’t.

I would also urge you to consider piloting a range of different models of auditing if you are heading down the supplier performance verification route. Supplier audit programs are a trade-off between adequate coverage of your supplier base versus sufficient evidence-gathering so as to minimise risk. “Light touch” audit approaches (usually largely desktop review-based) are relatively cheap and cheerful but are barely worth the money they cost. In many cases they are worse than no audit at all as they run a significant risk of creating a false sense of security and comfort for you about your suppliers. Some sort of onsite verification is usually essential, given our experience that suppliers are highly variable in relation to the “accuracy” of their responses to questionnaires.

But ‘onsite’ doesn’t necessarily mean expensive. You may want to have a ‘lighter’ touch model for your low risk or low spend suppliers, but at the same time retain something significantly more intensive (and therefore more cost and time demanding) for high risk, high spend, major suppliers.

…….and stick with it

Be prepared to change your approach if it isn’t delivering the outcomes and confidence you need. There is little doubt that your process will (and needs to) evolve over time as you gain more experience, or take it offshore, or commence second round audits of suppliers. And do continue to seek input from your suppliers, both during and well beyond the pilot phase, to determine whether they are truly gaining some benefits too. Bringing suppliers together to compare experiences with your approach can be a useful exercise, but be prepared for a range of views and be willing to respond to that feedback.

You are not likely to see substantive change overnight in terms of sustainable supplier behaviour. Many of your suppliers, even some of the smaller ones, are probably doing okay from a sustainability perspective already, and may even be doing better than your own organsiation. It’s the laggards that you’re most trying to reach, assess, influence or remove.

Be smart about not painting all suppliers with the one brush. Acknowledge and reward good supplier performance more often than berating those who fall short. Celebrate and promote their achievements to their peers in your supply chain – a particularly effective means to stimulate a response. A PwC survey some years back revealed that 81 per cent of businesses who rate sustainability as important favour collaborating with their suppliers to create a responsible supply chain footprint and procurement framework.

The skeleton doesn’t have to stay in the closet. Or at least check that both the skeleton and the closet were made sustainably. 

Where can we get help? 

ISCA has developed a virtual training course that enables participants to understand how they can implement a more sustainable approach to procurement aligned to the IS Rating criteria, with the aim of creating procurement outcomes that reduce negative externalities while supporting contractual requirements, financial targets and risk management.

This course aims to equip participants with the tools and skills to enable sustainable procurement in their workplace, with a focus on implementing the procurement criteria embraced within the IS Rating tool. This is not just in relation to IS ratings but also in relation to general procurement practices within organisations to enhance social and environmental impacts and drive better economic outcomes. This virtual training is targeted at Sustainability Managers, Project Managers, Procurement Managers, and Sustainability Consultant.

A mixture of instructional presentations and practical exercises will help participants to: 

  • Identify and implement sustainable procurement in your business or project
  • Develop a tailored procurement strategy
  • Assess and select sustainable suppliers, goods and services
  • Manage suppliers to ensure compliance with sustainability requirements

If you would like to better develop your skills in sustainable procurement, register here.

Wanted! Creative Children for Auckland’s Big Rail Project

Wanted! Creative Children for Auckland’s Big Rail Project

Kiwi kids from Cape Reinga in the far north all the way to Bluff in Southland have the chance to be part of New Zealand’s biggest-ever transport infrastructure project – the City Rail Link (CRL) in Auckland.

Children between five and 11 are invited to paint and draw images that will be then be fired onto ceramic tiles and used to decorate walls in a new underground railway station in the middle of Auckland.

“Children are fantastic dreamers with great imaginations, and we want them to fire up those skills as artists and give us pictures of where they would like to go by train once our  underground railway is built,” says the Chief Executive of City Rail Link Ltd CRL Ltd), Dr Sean Sweeney. “Their journeys could be anywhere – taking the train down the road from home to the local diary or heading off into outer space or anywhere they like in between.”

Dr Sweeney says it is easy for children to show off their artistic skills.

  • They can use paints, crayons, pencils or pastels
  • Their artwork needs to be square shaped as it will be printed onto 10cm x 10cm tiles to be built into the station.
  • Artwork can either be scanned or photographed and sent by email to art@cityraillink.govt.nz
  • Artwork should also include the artist’s name, their age and school they go to
  • If possible, City Rail Link Ltd would love to receive short videos of tamariki holding up their art and explaining what they have drawn so that it can be shared on CRL’s social media channels and website
  • More information can be found at www.cityraillink.co.nz/resources-for-students-teachers-city-rail-link

Dr Sweeney says there are a couple of reasons why City Rail Link wants to connect with the country’s youngest artists.

“They will be part of the biggest art project in New Zealand. If they don’t live here already, there’s a good chance they are likely to visit the city on holiday when they can see their picture.  It’s also a chance for children to be part of one of the country’s most important building projects –  CRL is  important for Auckland but building a railway under a city is complicated and our workers will be learning new skills on the job that they can then use on other building sites all over New Zealand.”

Dr Sweeney says children’s artwork will be displayed permanently at the Aotea Station, which will be New Zealand’s busiest when it opens in four years.

“Tens of thousands of people will walk past the children’s art wall every day on their way to work, or to home, but we have a very big wall to fill.  We’ve already got 3,000 fantastic and colourful pictures but we need thousands more to fill the space and make the wall an exciting part of the station.

“With the Easter break coming up and schools still closed because of the lockdown we hope there is plenty of creative time for children to show off their awesome artistic talents. The tiles will be an important part of CRL – a fantastic legacy lasting 100 years or more,” Dr Sweeney says.

The City Rail Link is New Zealand’s first underground railway line. It is 3.45 kilometres long and its tunnels are being built under central Auckland.

It will change the iconic Britomart Transport Centre in downtown Auckland from a dead-end one-way station into a two-way through station that connects with other lines to allow more trains and more people to get in and out of the city. Aotea is one of two underground stations being built on the line, which is planned to open in 2024.

More information about CRL can be found at https://www.cityraillink.co.nz/