SUSTAINABILITY: ARE YOU RED OR BLUE?
A month before the 2024 election, certain architects and engineers were not speaking with each other beyond what was necessary to complete their projects, or their managerial and administrative responsibilities. Firm management believed they had a clear policy on politics intruding in the workplace: No signs, no distribution of brochures, not solicitation on behalf of a candidate. This time was different. Although adhering to the guidelines, the sense each side had about the rightness of their position (and/or the danger of the others’ position) crept into conversations. No one was willing to “agree to disagree” or admit their party or candidate might be “the lesser of two evils.” All the contentious issues had become existential.
At the early October partners meeting, the longstanding policy was modified to preclude posting political cartoons and wearing political buttons. One partner tried to lighten that meeting’s mood by recalling that this problem did not exist during the COVID pandemic, once everyone was working remotely, and there seemed to be no time for casual, non-work-related conversations. Another then suggested everyone work from home during the remaining three weeks until the election. On a more serious note, a partner worried about the fallout depending which candidates were ultimately elected. Trying to sound hopeful, the Director of Business Engagement offered that these political conflicts may be souring the firm’s culture, but at least they were not affecting delivery of services to their clients.
The VP of Operations quickly disagreed with the last supposition. She recounted reports from project managers that recommendations to incorporate sustainable building design, construction and operations strategies were highly dependent on the political views of the architect or engineer presenting these options. Somehow, the efforts to reduce carbon footprints and reach net zero energy consumption, and possibly net zero water use and waste generation, were now viewed as Democratic Party positions. While there were few in the firm that doubted that climate change existed and there was a manmade component to its rapid pace (and possible slowdown), what was encouraged for clients to consider could be tracked to self-identified or suspected political party affiliation. This included project managers whose advocacy to cross sell LEED certification as an additional service (and a profitable one for the firm) could be predicted from what was known of their political leanings.
Further noted was that those who participated in associations centered on greening the built environment were all known or suspected to be Democrats. Democrats were “green,” ergo Republicans could not be. As nonpartisan professional associations embraced sustainable design as policies to promote among their members and lobby with state and federal governments, those same professionals who were reticent about embracing sustainable systems were now choosing not to renew their association memberships, even as a firm-paid benefit. This had possible implications in the firm’s access to continuing education required for license renewal as well as to unrelated lobbying efforts of those professional organizations.
The Manager of Human Resources then offered another troubling perspective. While confirming the drop in firm individual memberships in such organizations as the US Green Building Council (USGBC), those who maintained that membership were becoming most likely to leave the firm. Looking at the partners around the room, he also noted that the firm had recently dropped its sponsorship of USGBC events, as well as no longer had a staff member serve on its local board. The same was true of its presence at many of the professional associations. As one of the top five architectural-engineering firms in the region, the practice no longer had a leadership presence comparable to it nearest sized competitors. This had the added detriment of not meeting young professionals at these association events who might be recruited to join their firm. Anecdotally, he reported, one newly licensed candidate turned down a very generous employment offer because of her understanding that the firm was “anti-LEED.”
The Director of Business Engagement rejoined the conversation by disclosing their discomfort in promoting the firm’s services to companies that were seeking sustainable facilities. Many of those companies’ principals were known to be large donors to one or both political parties, and were striving to appear as sustainable as practical to respond to the leanings of their shareholders, customers and employees. They further reminded the partners that the firm had not had a LEED certification awarded to a facility in three years, and that many of the engineering departments no longer had a LEED-accredited professional. Nor were all the current partners LEED-accredited.
The Managing Partner summarized the observations as a challenge that was not likely to disappear in a month or two when the election was over and the losers had finally conceded. There was a danger that the firm might be generally labeled Republican or anti-sustainability. The client pool and design talent pool in the firm’s catchment area were too small to forgo those wanting to be associated with a firm whose services were limited by political beliefs. The firm need to appear enthusiastic in aggressively pursuing sustainable initiatives in the buildings it designed, just as they would not decline to design certain houses of worship, or want to be known as avoiding clients with certain religious affiliations.
The suggestion was offered that all partners complete LEED accreditation in the next six months to demonstrate senior management commitment to offering sustainable design services. Another partner proposed that they resume their support of the USGBC and the professional associations at levels comparable to their competitors, just as they supported the Chamber of Commerce or United Way, regardless of any individual’s perception of the effectiveness of these institutions. Perhaps such nonpartisan support will temper the partisan effects in the office, as the partners emphasized the importance of diversity of political affiliations to the firm’s long term financial success. Red or Blue? How about Red-White-and-Blue?