The myth of above-legal requirements

Agreeing on a common language is quickly read as imposing new standards, sees Jan Willem van de Groep in these Guidelines. As if improving a measurement instrument automatically heralds stricter requirements.

In the construction industry we remarkably often talk past each other, precisely at times when there is a need for clarity with which we can move forward. This is rarely due to unwillingness or ignorance. It runs deeper than that.

It lies in language that chafes, in roles that get mixed up and in the reflex to immediately politicize technical choices. It is striking that discussions often get bogged down before they become truly substantive. The conversation gets derailed the very moment we try to agree on the rules of the game. This is no coincidence, but the result of a persistent misconception that plays out in several places at once.

One misconception, two arenas

This misconception occurs in two different arenas that I often find myself in the middle of. It always has the same source. On the one hand, it is about normalizing measurement and calculation through determination methods. Whole Life Carbon, MPG and the energy performance calculation are ways to unambiguously define what we measure and how we compare results. On the other hand, it's about normalizing actions. What are municipalities allowed to do with that information, and how do they steer for public goals through programming and procurement.

In both arenas, agreeing on a common language is quickly read as imposing new standards. As if improving a measurement tool is automatically a harbinger of stricter requirements, and as if using information in public choices is tantamount to imposing above-legal obligations. As long as this confusion persists, we will get stuck technically and administratively.

Measuring is not yet steering

Life-cycle thinking has come a long way in recent years. It forces designers, clients and manufacturers to look beyond building costs. It makes visible where environmental impacts really occur and prevents us from optimizing on one aspect while causing damage elsewhere. In that sense, it broadens the view. But a determination method is not a policy goal. It is grammar. You agree on how to measure and calculate so that comparisons have meaning. Having a Whole Life Carbon calculation does not yet mean steering. At best, it is a prerequisite for meaningful steering at all.

Yet that is precisely where the tension is often felt. As soon as a method becomes sharper, the fear arises that a standard will follow tomorrow. Normalization is experienced as a threat, while the political choice only comes afterwards. On what do you want to steer. At what pace. With what goal. And at what level of scale.

Choosing is not imposing above-legal

The same misconception crops up in administrative practice. Many municipalities do not want to make higher demands than those permitted by law. They want to be able to make better choices. They want to select quality, program ambitions in advance and deploy public resources in a targeted manner. This is not an increase in standards, but normal commissioning practices.

Yet even that is increasingly being framed as above-legal. This cramp is now also visible politically. The coalition agreement presents the imposition of so-called supra-legal requirements as a problem for pace and affordability. But not every steer is an extra standard, and not every standard automatically leads to delay. Imposing additional requirements is different from selecting quality within existing rules. Tightening a performance requirement is different from using a determination method to compare variants. And public control is different from arbitrariness.

Solution

What falters here is not a lack of instruments. It is a lack of order. We measure as if we are already steering. We steer as if we are imposing norms. And we distrust public choices because we don't resolve language confusion. Perhaps this is the time to restore order. First normalize so we know what we mean and what we are talking about. Then have the political debate about performance levels, timing and ambition. And meanwhile act where we can, using the tools that public parties already have.

First normalize. Then standardize. And above all, know when to measure and when to steer.

This article was written by Jan Willem van de Groep, program maker, future thinker and publicist. In his Zichtlijnen column, he gives his views on the big picture in construction.