Brown, N; Malmqvist, T and Wintzell, H (2016) Owner organizations' value-creation strategies through environmental certification of buildings. Building Research & Information, 44(8), pp. 863-874. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The existing literature (mostly referencing heuristics of the valuation profession) provides little evidence on how property owners and managers themselves perceive value creation from environmental certification (EC) of buildings. To address this issue, questionnaire and interview data from non-residential EC building owners in Sweden are gathered and related in a strategy map' that explains their perceived value creation from EC. The mapping process also considers the four standard perspectives of the balanced scorecard, prompting researchers and owners to evaluate EC in terms of its contribution to long-term strategy, measuring it according to financial and non-financial metrics of organizational performance. The study confirmed that tenant demand is an important EC driver for property owners (particularly for large organizations) and therefore that increased EC awareness amongst tenants is important for EC and for further value creation. It was found that tool developers, property owners and valuers could all benefit from more closely aligning valuers' documentation requirements with those for accreditation with EC tools. Energy efficiency contributes significantly to value creation, but owners use energy management programs in addition to EC, possibly as a result of the performance gap phenomenon.;The existing literature (mostly referencing heuristics of the valuation profession) provides little evidence on how property owners and managers themselves perceive value creation from environmental certification (EC) of buildings. To address this issue, questionnaire and interview data from non-residential EC building owners in Sweden are gathered and related in a 'strategy map' that explains their perceived value creation from EC. The mapping process also considers the four standard perspectives of the balanced scorecard, prompting researchers and owners to evaluate EC in terms of its contribution to long-term strategy, measuring it according to financial and non-financial metrics of organizational performance. The study confirmed that tenant demand is an important EC driver for property owners (particularly for large organizations) and therefore that increased EC awareness amongst tenants is important for EC and for further value creation. It was found that tool developers, property owners and valuers could all benefit from more closely aligning valuers' documentation requirements with those for accreditation with EC tools. Energy efficiency contributes significantly to value creation, but owners use energy management programs in addition to EC, possibly as a result of the performance gap phenomenon.; The existing literature (mostly referencing heuristics of the valuation profession) provides little evidence on how property owners and managers themselves perceive value creation from environmental certification (EC) of buildings. To address this issue, questionnaire and interview data from non-residential EC building owners in Sweden are gathered and related in a 'strategy map' that explains their perceived value creation from EC. The mapping process also considers the four standard perspectives of the balanced scorecard, prompting researchers and owners to evaluate EC in terms of its contribution to long-term strategy, measuring it according to financial and non-financial metrics of organizational performance. The study confirmed that tenant demand is an important EC driver for property owners (particularly for large organizations) and therefore that increased EC awareness amongst tenants is important for EC and for further value creation. It was found that tool developers, property owners and valuers could all benefit from more closely aligning valuers' documentation requirements with those for accreditation with EC tools. Energy efficiency contributes significantly to value creation, but owners use energy management programs in addition to EC, possibly as a result of the performance gap phenomenon.;
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | property owners; environmental assessment; valuation; environmental certification; management; buildings; strategy; value creation; performance measurement; performance evaluation; green buildings; environmental management; certification |
| Index terms: | mapping, property owner, performance gap, profession, program, value creation, organizational performance, questionnaire, evidence, green building, energy management, environmental assessment, performance evaluation, environmental management, manager, performance measurement, interview, energy efficiency, balanced scorecard, heuristic, valuer, certification, owner, tenant, strategy, environmental certification, Sweden, documentation |
| Subjects: | environmental impact, practitioner, institututions, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, profession, risk assessment, sustainability and energy, Geography, professional development, design practice, sustainability assessment, management, economic development, performance measurement, spatial and geospatial analysis, software systems, performance management, administrative processes, sociology |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Contract Administration, Information Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Business Strategy, Sustainability, Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here