This article was downloaded by: [Ryerson University]On: 03 December 2014, At: 02:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Building Research & InformationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20

Designing a ‘green’ building: expanding ambitionsthrough social learningThea S. M. Hojema, Knut H. Sørensena & Vivian A. Lagesena

a Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Norwegian University of Science andTechnology, N-7491 Trondheim, NorwayPublished online: 02 May 2014.

To cite this article: Thea S. M. Hojem, Knut H. Sørensen & Vivian A. Lagesen (2014) Designing a ‘green’ building: expandingambitions through social learning, Building Research & Information, 42:5, 591-601, DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2014.905168

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.905168

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

RESEARCH PAPER

Designing a ‘green’building: expandingambitions through social learning

Thea S.M.Hojem, Knut H.S�rensen and Vivian A. Lagesen

Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture,NorwegianUniversity of Science and Technology,N-7491Trondheim,Norway

E-mails: thea.hojem@ntnu.no, knut.sorensen@ntnu.no and vivian.lagesen@ntnu.no

The process of creating a specific building – Miljøbygget in Trondheim, Norway – is analyzed in order to understand

how the project team’s ambitions expanded to embrace ‘green’ issues and create new targets. The decisions and roles of

key actors are investigated regarding these goals and criteria. The analysis draws on two concepts. First, translation

theory is used to highlight the potential role of new knowledge or technology that originates outside of the project.

Second, the concept of social learning is employed to understand the process of expanding ambitions, developing

goals and criteria within the project, and how this is related to the collective exploration, discovery and analysis of

new practices. The wider implications are considered with respect to innovation in the construction industry. The

project’s initial moderate energy efficiency ambition was transformed, first into stricter energy efficiency goals, then

into broader environmental aims. The resulting innovation is an ambition-enhancing, experience-based and

enthusiasm-driven process of social learning in the project team, marked by interpersonal trust, including trust

regarding competence and contractual relations. Translation efforts were also found to be important for bringing

new knowledge into the project. The conclusion discusses some policy implications.

Keywords: ambition, construction industry, design process, innovation, social learning, stakeholder motivation,

sustainability, translation

IntroductionThe case study of a building called Miljøbygget (inEnglish, ‘the environmental building’) providesinsights into how moderate environmental ambitionswere expanded. The outcome was also seen as greenby outsiders.1 This process of expanding ambitions isexamined in order to describe its most important fea-tures as well as the context surrounding it. The paperexplores what initiated the unplanned dynamics thattook place, what motivated the actors involved andhow one may make sense of such innovation processesin the building industry.

These underlying social processes are vital componentsto address environmental and climate issues, includingthe sustainable use of energy. Also, the challenges ofconstructing green buildings are considerable (e.g.,Guy & Moore, 2005; Pitt, Tucker, Riley, & Longden,2009; Rohracher, 2001). These include motivatingclients, improving technologies and methods, appropri-ate training, and developing incentives (Hakkinen &Belloni, 2011; Hoffman & Henn, 2008).

The context of designing green buildings is ambiguous.There is political pressure to improve environmentalfeatures, particularly to reduce the energy consump-tion of buildings. This is reflected in stricter buildingcodes, which mandates the implementation of energyefficiency measures. Moreover, building codes are con-stitutive to building design practices (Hojem &Lagesen, 2011; Imrie, 2007; Imrie & Street, 2009),and many builders as well as other building industryactors see no reason to go beyond these standards(Ryghaug & Sørensen, 2009).

The conservative effect of building codes is oftenexplained by a pervasive pressure to cut costs. Archi-tects as well as consulting engineers claim that mostof their clients – but not all – are unwilling to payextra to exceed building codes (Hojem & Lagesen,2011; Ryghaug & Sørensen, 2009; Tøsse, 2013).Hakkinen and Belloni (2011) argue that the situationwith respect to costs is ambiguous. Fear of higherinvestment costs (capital expenditure) and unforeseenexpenses are an important barrier to green buildings,

BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION 2014

Vol. 42, No. 5, 591–601, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.905168

# 2014 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

but energy-efficient buildings may also offer major costsavings during operation. Additional economicbenefits may also exist, e.g. increased market value.Regardless, it seems that environmental concernsincreasingly are taken on board by builders and thebuilding industry (e.g., Gluch, Gustafsson, Thuvander,& Baumann, 2013; Moe, 2006). This is also reflectedin the growing interest in passive house standards(Muller & Berker, 2013).

Another driver and barrier for green building(Hakkinen & Belloni, 2011; Pitt et al., 2009) is clientunderstanding. Clients have a significant impact(Brandon & Lu, 2008; Winch, 1998), and theirrequirements related to sustainability may stimulategreen innovations (Hojem & Lagesen, 2011). Thus,there is a space for green design even though thecontext is ambiguous. A case study is presented herethat provides knowledge about the challenges andopportunities with respect to the planning and per-formance of green innovation in the building industry.

Many factors may influence the capacity for inno-vation, e.g. company culture, resources, management,learning and interaction as well as the role of externalactors (Manley, 2008). For example, the project-basedmode of action with its temporary work coalitions andthe ‘tyranny of project’ has been argued to be anobstacle to innovation in the building industry(Hardie, 2010; Jacobsson & Linderoth, 2010; Koch,2004). In addition, the time frame of a constructionproject may be too short for explorative innovation(Hartmann, 2006).

Architects are commonly given responsibility for func-tional and aesthetic aspects as well as the totality of thebuilding (e.g., Fischer & Guy, 2009; Guy & Farmer,2001; Owen & Dowey, 2008). Thus, the architect’srole has often been perceived as a conductor of theinvolved actors’ knowledge and as a coordinator ofthe project as a ‘whole’ (Ryghaug, 2003). However,architects may lack the professional authority neededto persuade other actors into engaging with sustainabledesigns (Kongsli, Ryghaug, & Sørensen, 2008). Whenarchitects consider aesthetics the core of architecturalpractice, this may marginalize green issues (e.g.,Cohen, Wilkinson, Arnold, & Finn, 2005; Owen &Dovey, 2008) and call on other professions to takethe lead. Occasionally, consulting engineers enter thisrole (Hojem & Lagesen, 2011; Kongsli et al., 2008).This paper considers the role of the involved pro-fessional actors and their intentions important to thedynamics of expanding green ambitions (also Hill,Lorenz, Dent, & Lutzkendorf, 2013).

The question of which criteria to fulfil remains a chal-lenge when designing a green building. Several well-established assessment frameworks exist (Berardi,2012; Cole, 1999, 2012; Retzlaff, 2008, 2009).

BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environ-mental Assessment Methodology) was officially intro-duced in Norway as late as October 2011.2 PreviousNorwegian studies suggest that the making of greenbuildings largely has been shaped by local preferencesand available competence, in addition to buildingcodes (Kongsli et al., 2008; Moe, 2006).

To summarize, the making of a green building like Mil-jøbygget, which transcends the relevant building codes,should not be expected to be a straightforward andstandardized process in terms of criteria, technologicalpreferences and leading actors. Rather, as alreadysuggested, this project appeared to develop into adynamic process with expanding green ambitions.The paper studies the actual features of this processand how it may be characterized, following Rohra-cher’s (2001) suggestion of employing socio-technicalperspectives. Such perspectives are particularly usefulto identify the heterogeneous features of innovationactivities and how they unfold over time.

Socio-technical perspectives: translationtheory and social learningWhat kind of socio-technical perspectives can be use-fully employed in the analysis of the process of design-ing a green building? By framing this as an innovationactivity, the role of new techno-scientific knowledge(including new objects) can be examined. Thisapproach considers to what extent the dynamic ofexpanded ambitions is produced within the buildingproject through the introduction of new knowledgeand new technologies. An alternative could be tofocus on the processes of social learning – the local dis-covery and enactment of potential improvementswithin the project team – taking place over time aspart of the design and construction efforts. Thisapproach considers the extent of expanded ambitionsthat result from social learning related to local actionand reflection.

Both approaches are pursued in this paper as they high-light different but potentially complimentary aspects.The concept of translation is used to study the pro-cesses of bringing new techno-scientific knowledgeinto the project. It is taken from classic actor-network theory (Callon, 1986; Latour, 1987) butsomewhat modified for the purposes of the paper.The study of translation entails an exploration ofhow techno-scientific knowledge is made interesting,relevant, available and applicable to the Miljøbyggetproject. Human actors as well as objects may contrib-ute to such translation (Latour, 2005; Tryggestad &Georg, 2011), bringing outside knowledge resourcesinto the project. The analysis of the increasing ambi-tion dynamic will focus on two types of situationswhere translation could be important. First, if the

Hojem et al.

592

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

project made use of new knowledge (i.e. from researchscientists, research articles, etc.). Second, if the projectwas influenced by the introduction of new technologyor objects.

The social learning approach is grounded in the idea ofsocial shaping of technology (Williams & Edge, 1996)but it introduces a focus on local socio-technicalchanges emerging over time from learning by doingand using. Thus, social learning is a temporal processwhere given technologies or knowledge may bechanged, reconfigured or further developed from theexperience of the involved actors. Learning may takeplace among experts involved in a particular inno-vation effort as well as in their interaction with userswho also may contribute to the innovation (Hyysalo,2009; Sørensen, 1996; Williams, Slack, & Stewart,2005). Consequently, this kind of social learningdiffers from organizational learning through commu-nities of practice, where the main objective is to shareand enhance individual competence through legitimateperipheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In theapproach adopted in this paper, social learning entailscollective discovery and is negotiated as well asmanaged enactment of new practices or ideas aboutsuch practices. The particular focus is on the designand construction of a green building – Miljøbygget.This should be helpful in characterizing the innovationprocess related to green design, not least since sociallearning may directly lead to the expanded ambitionsthat result in a greener building.

A primary concern is the social learning that occursamong the main actors in the design and constructionprocess, and their ambitions with respect to energy effi-ciency and other environmental issues. These actors donot constitute a community of practice where theyindividually learn from each other or from the mostexperienced expert. Rather, social learning with afocus on socio-technical practices implies that theactors collectively form a learning community thatdoes not offer legitimate peripheral participation(cf. Lave & Wenger, 1991). What such a communitylearns is usually how to apply a given technology,often in new ways that lead to improvements (e.g.energy efficiency). The concept of social learning isused here to analyze how the building actors collec-tively – possibly orchestrated by the builder, the con-tractor or others – develop their understanding ofhow to design a green building.

To summarize, the process of designing a specificbuilding – Miljøbygget – with expanding green ambi-tions is analyzed. In particular, the paper investigatesdecisions regarding goals and criteria and the role ofparticipating actors. In doing so, the analysis drawson two concepts. First, translation theory is used tohighlight the potential role of new knowledge or tech-nology that originates outside of the project. Second,

the concept of social learning is employed to help inthe understanding of the process of expanding ambi-tions/developing goals and criteria internally in theproject and how this is related to the collective discov-ery of new practices to improve the green qualities ofthe building, or ideas of such practices. An additionalaim is to reflect on the effects of the context on thiskind of process of designing a green building and thewider implications of this, in particular with respectto green innovations in the building industry.

MethodThe research is based mainly on in-depth interviewswith key actors in the five main building industry com-panies involved in constructing Miljøbygget in Trond-heim, Norway. The decision to study the processresulting in this building was based on its selection asNorway’s Building of the Year 2009. This award wasbased on the predicted consumption of energy. Atthat time Miljøbygget was the most energy-efficientoffice building in the country.3 The focus of thisstudy is on the particular qualities of the process ofdesigning and constructing Miljøbygget. Above all, ithas proved instructive to investigate the temporaldynamics of the environmentally related goals,reflected in the expanded ambitions in the project.

The following actors were interviewed for the study:the project director from the developer; the projectmanager from the architects’ office; the projectmanager from contractor X who had overall responsi-bility for the project; and the engineering managerfrom contractor X who was in charge of the practicalengineering aspects of the construction project. Inaddition, three engineers were interviewed from twodifferent consulting engineering companies (CEC):one from CEC 1 engaged in the pre-project phaseand two from CEC 2 who were involved in theproject work. A further follow-up telephone interviewwith the developer’s project director was undertaken inSeptember 2011.

The interviewees were asked about how they and theircompanies became involved in the project and theirrole in shaping it to become green. The interviewsfocused on how green qualities were understood andhow relevant indicators were identified in the project.In addition, the interviewees were asked to describehow and by whom green aspects were integrated inthe project, from the initial tenders through contract-ing to the actual building process. Thus, the interviewscovered the main aspects of the design process from thetranslation (bringing new knowledge and technologyinto the project) as well as the social learning perspec-tive, the latter emphasizing activities within the projectteam. The interviews were conducted between October2009 and February 2010 and lasted 60–90 min. They

Designing a ‘green’ building

593

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

were taped and transcribed verbatim, with quotestranslated into English by the authors.

Retrospective interviewing raises problems regardingvalidity, since memory may be biased and some inci-dents forgotten. However, the interviewees provideddetailed information with a high level of internal con-sistency, and the main facts were checked with writtensources.4 Also, the interviews took place shortly afterthe building was finished. Thus, the accounts providedshould be sufficiently accurate for the purpose of thispaper.

The analysis was inspired by the concept of abduction(Dubois & Gadde, 2002). This means theory can beused as a tool of discovery, while still being sensitiveto new theoretical observations emerging fromcoding the data. In this case, the concepts are trans-lation and social learning. This moving back andforth between theory and empirical analysis hasresulted in a conclusion that partly draws on trans-lation and social learning but with additional ways ofcharacterizing the actual process of designing Miljø-bygget as a green building. Given the emphasis on tem-porality in social learning theory, the empiricalnarrative has been structured chronologically. Thus,the next sections provide background to the Miljøbyg-get project.

Developing a green designMiljøbygget is a six-floor 16400 m2 office building thatwas completed in September 2009 after a two-year con-struction process. It began as a turnkey contract of 215million Norwegian kroner (NOK) (approximately E27million). In a turnkey contract the essential design ema-nates from, or is supplied by, the contractor. Even-tually, Miljøbygget became, with an estimated energyconsumption of 83 kWh/m2/year, the most energy-effi-cient office building in Norway at the time of com-pletion. In 2013, it was still considered a thoroughlygreen building with a focus on a range of environmentalfactors besides energy efficiency, such as buildingmaterials, construction waste management, etc.5

As noted above, besides the building codes withrequirements regarding energy efficiency, buildersand building industry professionals have considerablediscretion with regard to criteria for green design. Itis known from previous studies that often one ormore environmental enthusiasts promote some greendesign criteria, which are decided through processesof negotiations within the project (Moe, 2006;Kongsli et al., 2008). This paper asks about the charac-ter of this process. How did the criteria for energy effi-ciency and other green concerns develop throughexpanding ambitions? What was achieved through

translation, bringing in new knowledge and technol-ogy, and project-based social learning?

Initially, Miljøbygget was to be the third of five con-struction phases in an area in Trondheim called Tekno-byen (‘Technocity’). The developer’s project directorstated that already in the early planning stages therewere ideas about developing the Teknobyen area in atechnologically innovative and environmentally con-scious way. What was implied in this stated ambition,and how was the ambition dealt with?

The Norwegian context is ambiguous with respect toencouraging green buildings. Building professionalscomplain about clients lacking interest in supersedingcurrent building codes as well as cost restrictions(Ryghaug & Sørensen, 2009; Hojem & Lagesen,2011). Current policy is mostly concerned withclimate issues, prioritizing energy efficiency and pro-viding some economic incentives to increase the levelof energy efficiency beyond the requirements of thebuilding codes. Thus, green design has been givensome attention in Norway (Kongsli et al., 2008;Hojem & Lagesen, 2011), and Muller and Berker(2013) note an increasing interest in low energybuildings.

In this case, the developer remained interested in greenissues at a general level and decided to organize anurban ecology seminar with representatives from thelocal government, scientists and other experts:

We ended up discussing how the buildingsshould look. How should they be physicallyplaced on the site? [ . . . We] decided that weshould use the qualities of nature and thenatural environment.(developer’s project director, 1 December 2009)

The measures considered as indicators of environ-mental friendliness at this stage of the project includedblending the building into its environment with regardto topography and infrastructure (noise and exhaustpollution from cars were among the environmentalproblems to be addressed) and technological solutionslike natural ventilation. But as the developer’s projectdirector pointed out, it was all ‘a bit raw and incom-plete’ and clearly less ambitious in terms of green qual-ities than what the Miljøbygget project came to be.However, it represented a point of departure for theensuing process of social learning in the project team.

Early on the builder wanted an office building thatwould exceed the energy consumption requirement ofTEK07 of 165 kWh/m2/year. This reflected thecontext with energy efficiency as a political priority.Therefore, the tender specified a maximum energy con-sumption of 150 kWh/m2/year. This choice was motiv-ated by the developer’s idea that to take extra measures

Hojem et al.

594

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

to reduce energy consumption was the right thing to dofrom an environmental perspective.

In addition, they had seen indications that the marketwas ready for more sustainable buildings:

The plan was to build a well-functioning com-mercial office building. [ . . . ] Good flexibility.Economical. Commercially attractive. Such cri-teria, but not specifically a building with lowenergy consumption, beyond existing require-ments. We did have some focus on energy con-sumption, but not beyond what you find inother building projects.(developer’s project director, 1 December 2009)

Regardless of the focus on energy consumption, theplanned office building had to attract renters whomight be more concerned about a flexible layout andrental costs. At this stage most developers would prob-ably have chosen to abandon the goal of 150 kWh/m2/year and gone for well-known solutions to keep costsat bay. This would have limited the space for bothtranslation and social learning. However, the scenarioof an energy-efficient office building with low energycosts for renters was considered attractive, and thisambition was laid down in the tender.

In 2005 architect office A won the tender for the archi-tectural component of designing a low energy officebuilding. However, environmental concerns beyondthose relating to energy efficiency were still not adefined part of the project:

The tender did not put emphasis on environ-mental aspects. [ . . . ] Still, we did include suchaspects in our description of the project, likespace efficiency and how we planned to designthis building [with regard to green features].

(architect, 11 November 2009)

Thus, the architect included some other qualities to beexpected from a green building, thus inviting trans-lation activities and/or social learning.

In 2006, the Norwegian energy directorate, Enova,introduced a programme called Forbildebygg (‘ModelBuildings’). This was designed to promote passiveand low energy buildings. Enova was concernedabout the lack of good case examples of such projectsand saw a need to improve relevant competence inthe building industry. Implicitly, this was an argumentin support of both translation activities to bring in newknowledge and technology and social learning amongbuilding industry actors. The directorate also hopedthat the development of innovative and cost-effectiveenergy solutions would attract the building industryto improved energy efficient design. The programmewould fund up to 40% of extra costs incurred to

reduce a building’s energy requirements beyond theprevailing regulation (TEK07).6

The discovery of this programme confirmed thedecision to build a low energy office building and toapply for financial support. The efforts to write theapplication resulted in a further specification of theenergy efficiency criteria that were to be applied.Thus the process of social learning and increasingambitions with respect to energy efficiency was stimu-lated by external policy-making. Initially the developeronly articulated a rather vague goal of making anenvironmentally friendly and energy efficient officebuilding. However, the Forbildebygg programme andthe consequent application produced more outspokenambitions, to which the paper now turns to enquireabout the performance of translation and sociallearning.

Developing a green design through sociallearningFrom the interviews it was evident that the decisionto pursue energy efficiency beyond the buildingcodes in the design of the building was the result ofsocial learning within the project team – the collec-tive experience of finding new ways of using existingtechnology to improve the energy efficiency of thebuilding and thus finding it realistic to expand ambi-tions. The possibility of economic support initiated aprocess where the builder faced challenges to providethe technical specifications needed for the appli-cation. According to the developer’s project directorand the architect, the Forbildebygg programme’scriteria for energy efficiency in buildings were notclearly defined:

We faced some challenges with Enova and theirguidelines. [ . . . ] The energy calculations,should it be about net energy use or grossenergy use? Or is it defined by the commercialneed for energy? Bought energy? [ . . . ] So therewere a lot of unclear factors.(developer’s project director, 1 December 2009)

Since the project at that stage lacked relevant compe-tence to answer all these questions, a CEC alreadyknown to the developer was hired to work with theForbildebygg programme application and definingthe initial environmental and energy requirements ofthe contracts. This involved decisions about how theenergy goals should be met and the relative importanceof insulation, control technologies, etc.

During the process of hiring a contractor, the initialproject team had several meetings discussing how theenergy efficiency goal could be achieved, includinginterviews with potential contractors:

Designing a ‘green’ building

595

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Throughout the contracting period we had meet-ings and interviewed the potential contractors:how are you going to solve this? How will youmake sure we reach the energy consumptiongoal? So it permeated everything. [ . . . ] Thedeveloper had, in addition to the regular con-tracting meetings, meetings devoted only to ques-tions regarding energy solutions and energyconsumption in this building. That was unique,both to the contractor and developer.

(consulting engineer, CEC 1, 19 November2009)

Thus, the project was organized to facilitate sociallearning, particularly with respect to how energy effi-ciency might be increased. Still, one might ask if thesubsequent developments could be expected to followthe same pattern of emphasizing social learningwithin the design and construction team, that thedesign process should be ‘a combined act of discoveryand analysis, of understanding and meaning, and oftinkering and the development of routines’ (Sørensen,1996, p. 6). It was suggested above that the conceptof translation might be employed to sensitize towardsthe importance of new knowledge and technology.The use of this concept allows an exploration of howparticular pieces of techno-scientific knowledgeamong outside actors may be made interesting, rel-evant, available and applicable in the project. Towhat extent did the increased ambitions result frominteraction with scientific expertise and new techno-logical objects?

After contractor X won the tender and a turnkey con-tract was signed at the end of 2007, social learning con-tinued to be the main feature of the project. X hadalready been party to the earlier stages of the develop-ment of Teknobyen and had previously worked withthe developer. However, the low level of energy useasked for by the developer was considered a challenge,since the contractor previously had not built buildingswith such strict requirements:

In the beginning, the goal was 150 kWh per m2,which was a little bit lower than the [legal]requirements of 165. And we had no idea whatthis entailed. [ . . . ] So we couldn’t enter a con-tract on this premise, as we didn’t know if itcould be achieved. [ . . . ] It was a new technicalrequirement that nobody had yet built to.(contractor’s project manager, 23 October 2009)

Consequently, the energy consumption measure was setas a goal but not made part of the contract as none of theparties really knew how and if the 150 kWh/m2/yearcriteria could be met. In this way, social learningabout energy efficiency was established on the basis ofa hopeful aim. However, technical features such as insu-lation and other building code features, which were

expected to contribute to reaching the goal, wereincluded in the contract. Reaching the goal of150 kWh/m2/year was another matter. In this respect,all the interviewed actors emphasized the importanceof their collective social learning taking place withinthe building project. They talked about themselves asa community discovering opportunities and examiningpossibilities to implement energy-efficient designs, inaccordance with the temporal development expectedfrom a process of social learning. At the same timethey became inspired by this positive experience of actu-ally discovering and learning about new possibilitiesregarding energy efficiency to bring other green featuresinto the building process. The developer’s project direc-tor emphasized the dynamic, expanding features of theeffort: ‘The road was built as we went along, in the sensethat we discovered new opportunities in collaborationwith the contractor’ (developer’s project director, 1December 2009). This may be typical of such sociallearning in project teams.

How was this dynamic, expansive process possible,given the limiting role of contracts so frequentlyobserved in building projects (Ryghaug & Sørensen,2009)? While the contract specified certain energysystem features, the interviewed actors said thatthroughout the project they introduced solutionsinitially not in the contract: ‘As we went along, wesaw other alternative solutions’ (interview with con-sulting engineer, CEC 1, 19 November 2009). Thisresulted in discussions where a multitude of ideasabout more energy-efficient and green designs wereaired. Also, through the project meetings with the con-tractor, the original contract was discussed and revisedwith regard to cost:

The developer has experienced this as veryunique. Normally, what you deliver is exactlywhat you have included in the contract.However, in this process the developer has beeninvolved and has been able to change or adddesigns and measures. While they had beendesigning this building for two years, we cameinto the project with a fresh pair of eyes andsaw opportunities to make further savings,which again could be invested into the product.The building has been optimized.(contractor’s project manager, 23 October 2009)

This flexible situation with respect to the contract wasdefinitely a prerequisite of benefitting so extensivelyfrom social learning.

In the first meeting called by the contractor, 15–20people were present, including representatives fromthe developer, architect, suppliers and Enova. Thepurpose of the meeting – an explicit social learningevent – was to find ways of reaching the goal of150 kWh/m2/year as well as the other requirements

Hojem et al.

596

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

of Enova to provide support from their Forbildebyggprogramme.7 Afterwards, contractor X’s engineeringmanager sorted all the proposed measures, small andlarge, into a simple spreadsheet that was sent to all par-ticipants for feedback. An energy consultant was thenhired to use a new computer calculation programme,Simien, ‘which made it possible to calculate the cost–benefit of every point on the list’ (engineeringmanager for the contractor, 20 October 2009).Simien proved to be an important tool:

[Contractor X] had a goal for their energyaccount. 150 [kWh/m2/year]. Then we had todo the calculations to prove that this goal couldbe achieved. So, when we had done the initialcalculations we could start making adjustments.Like better windows, how would that affect thecalculations? And other measures to lower theenergy consumption of the building. Windproof-ing, what effect could that have. And so on.(interview with a consulting engineer, CEC 2, 1February 2010)

Such issues were discussed at regular meetings, wherethe consulting engineers performed new calculationsrelated to energy consumption:

We discovered that by going from a U-value of1.2, which is standard, down to 0.8 we couldsave 50 000 kwh per year, which would bepaid off within five years. The builder was like:‘Yes, let’s do it!’ So we worked through all thepotential measures this way – cost/benefit. Sothe list was very important.(contractor’s project manager, 23 October 2009)

Enova also played an important role in encouragingstricter energy efficiency measures. The developer’sproject director emphasized that:

We got signals from Enova, saying ‘We’d like tosee you take this even further!’ When we startedconstructing in 2007/08, they felt that 150 kWh/year wasn’t as ambitious a goal as it could be andhad us look at the possibility to get even lower.We took this very seriously and had another goat the energy measures list and did a new roundof calculations.(developer’s project director, 28 September 2011)

As nobody really knew what level of energy saving waspossible, the project team engaged in learning by trialand error – typical of social learning with respect totechnology (Sørensen, 1996). This kind of social learn-ing demands considerable trust among team members,and the accounts of the interviewees clearly suggestedthat a high level of confidence had been present.There was little mention of failure in the accounts,maybe because the project turned out to be successful.

On the other hand, the proposed measures were calcu-lated by the Simien program, which led to the inclusionof some suggestions and the rejection of others. Argu-ably, the program was important in the management ofpotential failures since it could theoretically precludesuggestions that could be mistakes. Overall, theprogram proved to be an important translation actor.Its use was a translation activity since Simien was afairly new technology that made use of new scientificknowledge for which it was important to assess thevarious energy efficiency options. The contributionfrom Simien was considered to be very important bymost of the project team. External research scientistswere occasionally consulted but did not appear tohave made very visible translation efforts. This is inaccordance with Hojem’s (2012) finding that CEChave limited interaction with research communitiesand suggests that technologies may be the most impor-tant translation actors with respect to bringing newknowledge into the building industry.

The successes that the involved actors experienced withrespect to improving energy efficiency of the buildingthrough their collective social learning led to consider-able enthusiasm in the team. The researchers were toldthat this enthusiasm spilled over with regard to disco-vering other opportunities to design the building inan even greener fashion. What were these opportu-nities, and how were they addressed?

From an energy e⁄cient to a ‘green’ buildingAs a turnkey contract, the project had a budget itemfor energy measures. However, after including thewished-for elements from the energy measures list,the contractor faced extra costs of about NOK7million (approximately E0.9 million). In dealing withthis challenge, it was important that the enthusiasmas well as a moral commitment to making this buildingproject extraordinary had grown among the involvedactors:

We had a designated budget item for energymeasures, since we knew that this was somethingwe wanted to work on and would entail extraexpenditures for [the developer]. But this sumwas soon exceeded. [ . . . ] Still, we decided toincrease our budget with those seven millions,because, as we now had said A, we were com-mitted to saying B.(developer’s project director, 28 September 2011)

Importantly, the contractor also wanted to transcendthe contract:

We saw that we were facing large unforeseencosts for energy consulting, as we were enteringuncharted territory. We agreed to look at the

Designing a ‘green’ building

597

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

energy consulting costs, as they were not part ofour initial calculations. And our offer, as this alsorepresented an opportunity for us to learn andupgrade the expertise in our organization, wasto cover 50% out of our own pocket and thatthey [the developer] should pay 50%. And wedid that. It was a gentlemen’s agreement.(contractor’s engineering manager, 20 October

2009)

Thus, the contractor also saw the situation as anopportunity to upgrade their competence in a fieldthat seemed to be of increasing importance to futurecustomers. Miljøbygget came to be considered anexperiment or innovation activity, with potentiallyinteresting gains for all involved parties. This recog-nition of the collective social learning seemed to motiv-ate the involved actors to go further in their ambitions:

I started thinking: Why do we only focus onenergy? In the future it won’t only be energythat’ll be important. We have to include theenvironment. [ . . . ] But what is it? I didn’tknow much about it, so [ . . . ] we ended upwith an environmental audit [of the buildingand the building process].(developer’s project director, 1 December 2009)

The environmental audit, a technology that was intro-duced following the hiring of an external consultingcompany, proved to be another translation actor, pro-viding suggestions of how to improve the building’sgreen qualities. An example of this was proposalswith regard to the construction site, e.g. to engagewith recycling. With the energy efficiency measures,cost–benefit analysis was important. However, whentrying to find a unified definition of ‘environmental’or green, the project team encountered new challenges.As one of the consulting engineers stated: ‘There’s a lotof confusion around different concepts. What’s energyuse, what are environmental measures, what’s [ . . . ]something else?’ (CEC 2, 1 February 2010). Whenthe ambitions expanded through social learning, theunderstanding of what constituted a green buildingchanged and went beyond energy efficiency.

Besides the translation efforts of the environmentalaudit, bringing into the project new environmentalknowledge, the widened understanding and proposedsolutions were often based on initiatives from theinvolved experts. For example, the architects devel-oped a different design of the facade using less glassthan initially planned for. The architects also wantedthe building to represent sustainability visibly byusing colours and natural materials. A rock facadewas designed to face towards the highway in order tomuffle some of the traffic noise. In this manner, thearchitects tried to use technological elements to visual-ize the green achievements. The contractor also

introduced new measures to meet the expanded greenfocus, like waste management and the use of environ-mentally friendly materials, in line with the translationefforts of the environmental audit technology.

The environmental audit proved to be an effectivetranslation actor with respect to features of the build-ing as well as the construction process. Audit require-ments meant that the contractor had to meet strictenvironmental criteria at the construction site. Forexample, they had to build according to the guideline‘Rent Tørt bygg’ (Clean Dry construction).8 Toqualify for the environmental audit stamp of approvalwas demanding, but as the developer’s project directorsaid:

I wanted to know that we really could do this, tofulfil the ambitions and be able to call this a greenbuilding. ‘Miljøbygget’ is an impressive title,which commits.

(1 December 2009)

Conclusion: the importance of sociallearningThis paper has studied how to make a green buildingwith features that transcend building codes through aprocess of expanding ambitions based on a combi-nation of translation – new knowledge brought intothe project by being made relevant, available and effec-tive – and social learning in the project team, the col-lective act of exploration, discovery and analysis toimprove the green features and being encouraged toset new, even stricter aims. With the standard type ofturnkey contract this would not have been possible.Such a contract would require that all the mainaspects of a green design could be put down in aformal manner at the very start of the buildingprocess, which dramatically would have reduced thespace for translation and social learning. This is notto say that green buildings cannot be made throughstandard contracts, since there are many available sug-gestions about criteria for them (Cole, 2012).However, the Norwegian energy directorate Enova’sForbildebygg programme clearly articulated a needfor space for social learning, from design to construc-tion of green buildings. Social learning and also trans-lation activities contribute to develop adequatecompetence.

The experience from the case of Miljøbygget providesanother lesson. The green design was realizedthrough repeated social learning within the projectteam to reach energy efficiency goals and laterbroader environmental aims. This was supported andsupplemented by the translation efforts of the compu-ter program Simien and the environmental audit. Itwas shown that Miljøbygget was not only an

Hojem et al.

598

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

outcome of social learning of the project team fromthem solving problems. Through the social learningthat underpinned the emergent design of Miljøbygget,the involved actors discovered that they could expandtheir ambitions, realize them and then expand theirambitions again. Without such licence to learn, Miljø-bygget would never have become an award-winninggreen building.

How can this kind of social learning process be charac-terized? It happened in a team context, managed by thedeveloper and the contractor, but in a congenial spirit.A high level of trust between actors was important, indi-cated by the way the building contract was renego-tiated. This renegotiation was also a centralprerequisite of the licence to learning. The importanceof the policy context, where Enova pushed for the devel-opment of improved competence with respect to moreenergy-efficient buildings, should be recognized as well.

A main feature of the resulting innovation process wasthe expanding ambitions for the project. Usually,within a project team, social learning with respect tosocio-technical change is geared either to increasinguser efficiency (e.g., productivity) or to finding newways of applying an artefact (Sørensen, 1996). Theprocess of social learning in the case of Miljøbyggetwas, as has been argued, driven by repeated experienceof achievements, which then fuelled increased levels ofambition. At first, the aims that were related to energyefficiency became increasingly stricter. Of course, thisreflected an energy-focused understanding of whatconstitutes a green building but also a collective recog-nition that they were able to push the goals to higherlevels of energy efficiency. Then, the achievementswith respect to energy efficiency inspired the introduc-tion of a wider set of green goals. This role of expandedambition in a process of social learning has previouslybeen given too little consideration.

Few traces of translation efforts from scientific com-munities were observed and they may be a commonsituation in the Norwegian building industry (Hojem,2012). There is no clear explanation why this is so,other than that there seems to be a lack of time andresources to make new scientific knowledge relevantwithin the kind of timeframes characteristic of buildingprojects. However, object-based translation effortswere important to supplement or support the sociallearning in the case of Miljøbygget. Above all, asnoted, the Simien program and the environmentalaudit were useful translation actors in making newknowledge relevant to the design choices as well asthe actual process of construction. Also, the avail-ability of improved building technology elementsmade the resulting features of Miljøbygget possible.

The resulting process of innovation was iterative wherepractical achievements with respect to improved

sustainability fuelled enthusiasm in the project; thisin turn motivated even stricter goals towards makingthe building a green one, and so on. In this cycle ofreinforcement, the role of enthusiasm should be high-lighted as a link between practical achievements anddecisions to go for stricter green criteria. Such practicalachievements seem to have played a seductive role, aneffect that may be underestimated in culturesembedded in waterfall project management thinkingwhere all important decisions are made at the earlystages of planning. Consequently, the innovationprocess in the case of Miljøbygget could be labelledan ambition-enhancing, experience-based and enthu-siasm-driven process involving social learning and, tosome extent, translation, taking place in a context ofinterpersonal trust including also trust regarding com-petence and contractual relations.

It is an interesting policy issue how one may stimulatesuch processes of encouraging private actors to buildgreen buildings. This paper has argued that thecontext of green design of buildings is ambiguous butalso that the Norwegian government’s emphasis onclimate mitigation and energy efficiency is an impor-tant driver. To some extent, this is also articulated innew and stricter building codes.

However, the Forbildebygg programme of the Norwe-gian energy directorate Enova was launched to providefinancial support to encourage building industry actorsto pursue higher levels of ambition with respect to,above all, energy efficiency. Supposedly, this wouldmake such actors improve their competence to reachsuch goals. The case of Miljøbygget strongly suggeststhe importance of facilitating ambitious social learningas wells as translation in order to develop relevantcompetence. In turn, this requires adequate economicand organizational opportunities. As previouslynoted with respect to changing the contract for Miljø-bygget, both the builder and the contractor made posi-tive assessments of future market opportunities relatedto green buildings and said such assessments motivatedthem to use Miljøbygget to develop better competenceand new knowledge about green design.

Policy-makers may influence such positive assessmentsas well as creating more opportunities for the kind ofsocial learning and related translation activitiesobserved in Miljøbygget. First, programmes like For-bildebygg used to stimulate green efforts seem tohave a good effect. Second, policy-makers may contrib-ute by requiring that new public buildings should begreen and provide space for ambition-enhancingsocial learning. Third, they could launch long-termplans for making building codes stricter. This willinfluence building industry actors to prepare forchanges they expect to come, which may encouragemore social learning as well as to search for know-ledge inputs (Hojem & Lagesen, 2011). Fourth,

Designing a ‘green’ building

599

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

policy-makers should encourage initiatives to ease thetransfer of new knowledge and technology to thebuilding industry by facilitating translation activities.

A final issue is the importance of flexibility in buildingcontract conditions as was observed in the case of Mil-jøbygget. The accounts of the interviewees suggest thatpresent standard building contract templates should bereconsidered to facilitate the social learning that prob-ably is needed to design and construct green buildings.

AcknowledgementsThe research was funded through the Research Councilof Norway (Grant numbers 183575 and 209697). Theauthors are grateful for the very useful comments madeby the three anonymous reviewers.

ReferencesBerardi, U. (2012). Sustainability assessment in the construction

sector: Rating systems and rated buildings. SustainableDevelopment, 20(6), 411–424. doi:10.1002/sd.532.

Brandon, P., & Lu, S. (Eds.) (2008). Clients Driving Innovation.Chichester: Blackwell.

Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation:Domestication of the scallops and fishermen of St. BrieucBay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief (pp. 196–233). London: Routledge.

Cohen, L., Wilkinson, A., Arnold, J., & Finn, R (2005). ‘Remem-ber I’m the bloody architect!’ Architects, organizations anddiscourses of profession. Work, Employment & Society,19(4), 775–796. doi:10.1177/0950017005058065.

Cole, R. J. (1999). Building environmental assessments methods:Clarifying intentions. Building Research & Information,27(4/5), 230–246.

Cole, R. J. (2012). Transitioning from green to regenerativedesign. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 39–53.doi:10.1080/09613218.2011.610608.

Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: Anabductive approach to case research. Journal of BusinessResearch, 55, 553–560. doi:10.1016/S0148–2963(00)00195–8.

Fischer, J., & Guy, S. (2009). Re-interpreting regulations: Architectsas intermediaries for low-carbon buildings. Urban Studies,46(12), 2577–2594. doi:10.1177/0042098009344228.

Gluch, P., Gustafsson, M., Thuvander, L., & Baumann, H. 2013.Charting corporate greening: Environmental managementtrends in Sweden. Building Research & Management.doi:10.1080/09613218.2014.855873.

Guy, S., & Farmer, G. (2001). Reinterpreting sustainable architec-ture: The place of technology. Journal of Architectural Edu-cation, 54(3), 140–148. doi:10.1162/10464880152632451.

Guy, S., & Moore, S. A. (Eds.). (2005). Sustainable architectures:Cultures and natures in Europe and North America.New York: Spon Press.

Hakkinen, T., & Belloni, K. (2011). Barriers and drivers for sus-tainable building. Building Research & Information, 39(3),239–255. doi:10.1080/09613218.2011.561948.

Hardie, M. (2010). Influences on innovation in small Australianconstruction businesses. Journal of Small Business andEnterprise Development, 17(3), 387–402. doi:10.1108/14626001011068699.

Hartmann, A. (2006). The context of innovation management inconstruction firms. Construction Management and Econ-omics, 24(6), 567–578. doi:10.1080/01446190600790629.

Hill, S., Lorenz, D., Dent, P., & Lutzkendorf, T. (2013). Profes-sionalism and ethics in a changing economy. BuildingResearch & Information, 41(1), 8–27. doi:10.1080/09613218.2013.736201.

Hoffman, A. J., & Henn, R. (2008). Overcoming the social andpsychological barriers to green building. Organization &Environment, 21(4), 390–419. doi:10.1177/1086026608326129.

Hojem, T. S. M. (2012). Bridging two worlds? The troubledtransfer of new environmental knowledge from science toconsulting engineers. Acta Sociologica, 55, 321–334.doi:10.1177/0001699312460252.

Hojem, T. S. M., & Lagesen, V. A. (2011). Doing environmentalconcerns in consulting engineering. Journal of EngineeringStudies, 3(2), 123–143. doi:10.1080/19378629.2011.585161.

Hyysalo, S. (2009). Learning for learning economy and sociallearning. Research Policy, 38, 726–735. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.003.

Imrie, R. (2007). The interrelationships between building regu-lations and architects’ practices. Environment and PlanningB: Planning and Design, 34, 925–943. doi:10.1068/b33024.

Imrie, R., & Street, E. (2009). Regulating design: The practices ofarchitecture, governance and control. Urban Studies, 46(12),2507–2518. doi:10.1177/0042098009346068.

Jacobsson, M., & Linderoth, H. C. J. (2010). The influence of con-textual elements, actors’ frames of reference, and technologyon the adoption and use of ICT in the construction projects: ASwedish case study. Construction Management and Econ-omics, 28(1), 13–23. doi:10.1080/0144619090 3406154.

Koch, C. (2004). The tyranny of projects: Teamworking, knowl-edge production and management in consulting engineering.Economic and Industrial Democracy, 25(2), 277–300.doi:10.1177/014383104042492.

Kongsli, G., Ryghaug, M., & Sørensen, K. H. (2008). Miljøarki-tekten: Dirigent eller deltaker?. Nordisk Arkitekturforskn-ing, 20(3), 7–20.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. How to follow scientists andengineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open UniversityPress.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction toactor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate periph-eral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Manley, K. (2008). Against the odds: Small firms in Australia suc-cessfully introducing new technology on constructions pro-jects. Research Policy, 37(10), 1751–1764. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.07.013.

Moe, H. T. (2006). Tro, hap og hybrid ventilasjon. Mal pa miljø-vennlighet i bygninger. PhD dissertation 2006: 63, Norwe-gian University of Science and Technology.

Muller, L., & Berker, T. (2013). Passive house at the crossroads:The past and the present of a voluntary standard thatmanaged to bridge the energy efficiency gap. EnergyPolicy, 60, 586–593. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.057.

Owen, C., & Dovey, K. (2008). Fields of sustainable architecture.Journal of Architecture, 13(1), 9–21. doi:10.1080/13602360701865373.

Pitt, M., Tucker, M., Riley, M., & Longden, J. (2009). Towardssustainable construction: Promotion and best practices. Con-struction Innovation: Information, Process, Management,9(2), 201–224. doi:10.1108/14714170910950830.

Retzlaff, R. C. (2008). Green building assessment systems. A fra-mework and comparison for planners. Journal of the Amer-ican Planning Association, 74(4), 505–519. doi:10.1177/0885412209349589.

Retzlaff, R. C. (2009). Green buildings and building assessmentsystems: A new area of interest for planners. Journal of Plan-ning Literature, 24, 3–21. doi:10.1177/0885412209349589.

Hojem et al.

600

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Rohracher, H. (2001). Managing the technological transition tosustainable construction of buildings: A socio-technical per-spective. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,13(1), 137–150. doi:10.1080/09537320120040491.

Ryghaug, M. (2003). Towards a sustainable aesthetics: Architectsconstructing energy efficient buildings. PhD dissertation,Department of Sociology and Political Science, NorwegianUniversity of Science and Technology.

Ryghaug, M., & Sørensen, K. H. (2009). How energy efficiencyfails in the building industry. Energy Policy, 37(3), 984–991. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008November 20001.

Sørensen, K. H. (1996). Learning technology, constructingculture. Socio-technical change as social learning. STS-working paper, 18/96, Trondheim: Department of interdisci-plinary studies of culture.

Tryggestad, K. & Georg, S. (2011). How objects shape logics inconstruction. Culture and Organization, 17(3), 181–197.doi:10.1080/14759551.2011.569383.

Tøsse, S. E. (2013). Concern and confidence. Architects makingsense of climate adaptation. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design, advance online publication, doi:10.1068/b38054.

Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technol-ogy. Research Policy, 25(6), 865–899. doi:10.1016/0048–7333(96)00885–2.

Williams, R., Slack, R., & Stewart, J. (2005). Social learning in tech-nological innovation – Experimenting with information andcommunication technologies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Winch, G. (1998). Zephyrs of creative destruction: Understand-ing management of innovation in construction. BuildingResearch and Information, 26(5), 268–279. doi:10.1080/096132198369751.

Endnotes1Since the paper is not an evaluation of the outcome of the con-struction efforts, it uses the actors’ own labelling. They shiftedbetween ‘green’, ‘sustainable’, ‘environmental’ and ‘environ-mental friendliness’. However, these concepts may be givendifferent meanings (e.g. Cole, 1999, 2012). To avoid confusion,the label ‘green’ is used to designate the relevant activities andtheir outcome.

2Retrieved from http://www.tu.no/bygg/2011/10/17/nytt-miljomerke-lanseres-i-norge/. Accessed January 18, 2014.

3This paper is not concerned with the technical specificationsas such. In that respect the building is probably too old to beinteresting.

4Retrieved from http://www.arkitektur.no/miljobygget/. AccessedMay 12, 2013.

5Retrieved from http://www.arkitektur.no/miljobygget/. AccessedDecember 5, 2013.

6The programme required, in addition to energy efficiencyachievements, that the projects should be suitable for profilingand demonstration as well as inspiring repetition and possiblyproviding ripple effects. Retrieved from http://naring.enova.no/forbildeprogram/. Accessed September 19, 2011.

7See endnote 5.

8Retrieved September 19, 2011, from http://www.rif.no/nettbutikk.html?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&category_id=10&product_id=40/. Accessed September 19,2011.

Designing a ‘green’ building

601

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

2:34

03

Dec

embe

r 20

14