Beyond certification: an integrated vision
Testo in italiano al seguente link
Introduction
The need for a certification standard focusing on sustainability reflects the inability of the construction industry to implicitly and routinely address and resolve a wide range of environmental and social issues (which are becoming increasingly urgent) in the course of its activities. In the absence of an incisive (and shared) approach that leverages awareness, this inability makes it necessary to introduce guidance tools, if not coercion and control, to get the various players to consider these issues. Added to this is the tendency to make decisions only by breaking them down into small parts for quantification, when what is needed is a global and interconnected view of the systems involved, with considerations that do not use numbers (or the labels that derive from them) as a basis for decision-making. Therefore, each certification must be considered as a transitional tool capable of stimulating not only concrete applications but also broader transformative reflections (including criticism of current systems), not an end in itself.
The framework
The establishment of a specific sustainability standard for the construction sector is a trend that began internationally decades ago (BREEAM, LEED and DGNB are among the best known and most widespread)1. As is often the case in Switzerland, rather than passively assimilating standards developed elsewhere, a local version has been developed in line with the country's unique cultural and regulatory context. Swiss sustainable construction experiences have therefore been incorporated into the SNBS standard, which is structured around three areas: Society, Economy and Environment. These areas are perfectly aligned with the ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) criteria used to extend traditional decision-making factors in the financial and investment fields, thus making the content of SNBS clearly recognisable to the economic world.
This process took an important turn in 2022, when the Swiss standards then in force in the field of energy efficiency and building sustainability were rationalised and harmonised, sharing much more than just compliance with federal and cantonal laws and SIA technical regulations. CECE, Minergie and SNBS (the latter two in the “Building” and “Neighbourhood” variants) now share principles, methodologies and calculation tools while maintaining specific areas of application and distinct purposes. Ref. IMM 1
A slight but significant legislative change
In Switzerland, there is a mandatory legal basis for energy in buildings represented by the Model Energy Requirements of the Cantons (MoPEC).
Recently revised (the 2014 version has now been updated by the 2025 version), the new MoPEC not only limits energy consumption during operation and strengthens the production of renewable energy at the expense of fossil fuels, but also introduces limitations on grey energy expressed in greenhouse gas emissions (EGES).
It is interesting to note that this change is taking place by making a basic requirement of Minergie-Eco certification mandatory, recognising, after 15 years of application, both its procedural soundness and the pioneering role that voluntary labels can play, which, in addition to consolidating virtuous practices, often anticipate the trends towards which the future of construction will move and, with them, future legislative obligations.
This change necessitates an integrated design approach that is no longer the prerogative of voluntary standards alone. Environmental issues are deeply embedded in the design process and affect fundamental choices regarding construction and materials (think of the controversial use of concrete on a large scale and the search for alternative materials to replace it where possible). While the current version of the Regulation on Energy Use (RUEn, based on MoPEC 2014) still allows designers, albeit with some difficulty, the possibility of downplaying environmental issues by delegating concepts, choices and the sizing of insulating materials and systems to other parties, the presence of MoPEC 2025 requires more in-depth reflection on the construction process (and its decommissioning), which affects the entire substance of the building and, at the same time, the collaborative approach of the project team.
If MoPEC 2025 timidly paves the way for a now necessary paradigm shift, SNBS can be a tool to accompany the upcoming legislative changes, framing them in a broader and more conscious context. Ref. IMM 4
Applying SNBS: the tools are there
The standards currently in place in Switzerland have a specific autonomy and purpose but, at the same time, thanks to shared calculation procedures, they are integrated into SNBS which, without any forcing, constitutes the most comprehensive assessment grid available today, in line with the international standards already mentioned. For the practical implementation of environmental issues, SNBS defines various application tools: most of these are already familiar to designers (SIA standards, recommendations, guidelines, instrumental tests). Ref. IMM 2
Despite this structured framework, SNBS applications are extremely limited in the Canton of Ticino (as are those of Minergie-Eco, even though the latter is a privileged way to achieve the most comprehensive SNBS certification). The Ticino context is still too tied to compliance with simple legislative energy requirements and is not very enthusiastic about taking a more diversified, mature and ultimately more effective approach to sustainability.
The spread of SNBS could initiate a process of literacy on sustainability issues through their practical application: it is a methodology suited to a construction context that is reluctant to conceptualise innovation and requires immediate responses in the field.
A clear legacy of the SNBS experiences in Ticino is the need to clearly formulate objectives and methods of intervention for each actor in the process, but also the need for professional development which, given the broadening and deepening of the issues addressed, is objectively necessary at all levels.
For the working group that promotes, designs, implements and manages an intervention, it is no longer a question of resolving environmental issues as specific aspects due to legislative requirements (usually through bilateral relations between designers and specialists), but of sharing and addressing them collectively, and only then refining them individually, according to one's own skills, to guarantee the final result. Ref. IMM 3
Applying SNBS: a strategy for getting started
The reality in which we operate is objectively complex, and tackling it can be daunting. However, it is not by rejecting or trivialising it that we will resolve environmental and social emergencies. Applying SNBS as a mere adherence to a checklist in search of points to obtain recognition expressed by the scale of preciousness of the metal (silver, gold or platinum) has a purely consolatory effect at best and greenwashing at worst.
SNBS should be seen as a practical aid that can lead to a real transformation in the way we define and meet our needs2.
In an embryonic stage of development such as that in Ticino, it would be appropriate to adopt a selective approach to the application of the standard, starting with the areas that are most familiar or those that have the most significant effects in the local context, without however losing sight of the overall vision. This is also an effective way to enhance the specificities of each individual intervention without forcing it and not through achieving compliance only “on paper”. When the requirements are met synergistically, their concrete effect is real, whereas if compliance is forced, the positive effects are much more limited.
This broadens the range of situations and achievements that can be concretely certified by SNBS, removing the aura of excellence from the standard because, except for certain technical constraints that could prevent certification, every project today can (and must) address and resolve the issues contained in the SNBS standard.
Deconstructing the abstract and inflated goal of sustainability into more limited, understandable and controllable issues makes it easier to apply. The flexibility of SNBS allows, with minimum compliance with all (or almost all) requirements, the possibility of concentrating efforts on specific issues. We can therefore rely on the EU Taxonomy3 and identify “Climate protection”, “Pollution prevention and control” or “Climate change adaptation” as concrete objectives to be achieved, or formulate other strategic approaches such as “Circularity/circular economy”, “Sufficiency/sobriety” or “Quality of indoor spaces”.
. For Ticino, at this stage, having a plurality of projects that meet the standard on the basis of specific, diversified and well-structured objectives, including from a conceptual point of view, would not be a limitation but a source of wealth that would contribute to the growth of regional collective knowledge and responsibility (it is extremely important to raise that of clients and the construction supply chain). This experience, which is necessary but hopefully short-lived, should be preparatory for a subsequent, more advanced phase that will hopefully be more culturally and scientifically vibrant and more concrete in its achievements at the regional level than the current one.
In conclusion, two aspects deserve at least a mention:
- SNBS certification, which focuses on environmental performance, does not exempt us from designing projects according to architectural and urban planning quality criteria and with procedures that can protect this quality; institutional entities and/or those with greater “specific weight”, even if not obliged, must feel involved in this sense;
- SNBS “Quartiere” certification finally attempts to correct the limitation of most established certifications which, although understandable in historical retrospect, have focused on individual buildings (and energy aspects alone), cultivating concepts that are excessively based on isolation (real and figurative) with negative repercussions on settlement criteria, effectively supporting excessively individualistic approaches instead of a more relational approach based on understanding flows on a larger scale, which is essential for implementing adaptation strategies that are now a priority.
Notes
1.BREEAM, Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, since 1990 (UK)
LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, since 1998 (USA)
DGNB, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen, since 2007 (Germany)2.It is essential to renew the emphasis not so much and not only on strategies that lead to a reduction in the use of energy and resources to meet current needs, but above all on the need to rethink those needs.
3."Regulation (EU) 2020/852 establishes criteria for assessing the environmental sustainability of economic activities within EU Member States. With the European taxonomy, the EU is pursuing the same objectives that must be achieved globally with the ESG criteria and the Paris Climate Agreement. This regulation is a central component of the European Green Deal. In turn, it aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels and to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. This makes taxonomy a central element of the European Union's climate policy. It can be assumed that the resulting requirements will also have a direct impact on the requirements of the Swiss financial market and will therefore be essential for the standards applied in Switzerland. The taxonomy therefore also affects the Swiss real estate sector. Source: ‘Description of SNBS-BUILDING Criteria’ September 2024 version
