How the private sector can drive policy for clean air

Global air pollution is a major health crisis, causing 8 million premature deaths globally. It is the single largest environmental risk factor for premature deaths globally. The World Bank estimates that dirty air is responsible for a 6.1% reduction in global GDP. And the drivers behind air pollution are often the drivers of climate change. 

Transportation, fuel burning (domestic and industrial), and manufacturing are key causes behind air pollution. Targeted policies continue to evolve to try to address these sources, such as the EU’s sustainability reporting standards. But not as fast as we need.  

See the UNEP Pollution Action Note, which displays the global state of air pollution.

So where should we be accelerating progress? Which air polluting activities are falling through the policy and regulatory cracks? And what is the role of the private sector in engaging with policy as a lever of change? 

Life sciences companies: key to private sector action 

These questions led to a new report from Forum for the Future, Clean Air Fund and iovoli pharmaceutical consulting, which highlights how we can align enthusiastic businesses in the UK’s thriving life science sector with policy conditions to accelerate progress on clean air.   

We explored the role of policy (international, national, organisational, voluntary and mandatory) in shaping action to constrain or compel private sector activities that contribute to outdoor air pollution. Our focus took us to outdoor air pollution caused during the construction phase of life science buildings.  

Life sciences companies – industries that apply biology and technology to improve health – are critical for tackling the major causes of death and disease. The life sciences sector champions an excellent science base, while leading research and development initiatives worldwide. At their ‘strategic’ foundation, life science industries are passionate about health outcomes. So if their ‘bricks and mortar foundations are a source of pollution that is unregulated or unaccounted for, these industries risk harming communities in the locations where they operate.  

While building emissions are increasingly accounted for and managed in some aspects by businesses, a gap exists in scrutinising emissions for the construction phase of buildings.  

Considerations for driving change  

• Systemic root causes – the wider operating context of our global economic systems shapes how business activity plays out, and what outcomes get prioritised. At the most macro level, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) dominates as the primary measure of progress. GDP measures all activities as ‘good growth’, whether good or bad for our air. This mindset of our global systems facilitates business expedience, while normalising negative social and environmental outcomes at every level of the system. Because profits and growth take priority over environmental and social impacts, progress on air quality is inhibited.
• Governance and accountability – how performance is monitored, managed and used to drive improvements is critical for effective policy (whether organisational, national or international, voluntary or mandatory). In recent years, governance as a route to transformation has emerged as one of the most critical drivers of change. Governance encompasses both “hard” forms and structures (such as hierarchies, policies and procedures, budgets), and “soft” cultures and practices (such as relationships, leadership vision, culture and identity). Both are essential to creating the conditions for thriving clean air policies. 
• Health equity – areas with the highest air pollution are frequently home to people experiencing acute socio-economic deprivation. Those with co-morbidities, such as pre-existing cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, are particularly vulnerable to the effects of poor air quality. Understanding community context and health equity issues, and fostering meaningful stakeholder engagement, are key for businesses wanting to minimise or eliminate their negative impacts, and maximise the potential for positive impacts. 

• Place-based approaches – life science and business parks share many similarities with cities in terms of their infrastructure, economic activity, innovation ecosystem, and that they are placed in communities. Emerging trends in urban policies and engaging local communities should inspire and guide life science parks. In this way, life science companies can build more robust measures to reduce emissions, promote sustainability, and create healthier, more resilient environments for their stakeholders and surrounding communities. 

Recommendations  

Our report makes a series of recommendations for businesses and those advocating for regulatory reform relating to outdoor air pollution. To explore more recommendations, and to read business case studies that bring some of these approaches to life, read the report and case studies. 

 Businesses should: 

• Engage and develop the capability and understanding within leadership teams (Boards, C-Suites, divisional leaders) around social and environmental impact, aligned with company purpose. Visionary leadership is a key enabler that flows down to tactical choice points, such as adoption of ambitious voluntary standards. 
• Ensure clear lines of responsibility and accountability, and associated reporting mechanisms to ensure standards on air pollution are being adhered to across company operations. 
• Adopt voluntary standards for your buildings and operations – such as LEED, BREEAM and B Corps certification. 
• Advocate, through public affairs teams, for national regulation on outdoor air pollution in countries of operation to “raise the floor” of private sector operations. 
• Develop company-wide global policies to mitigate air pollution associated with building design, construction, use, and demolition. Incorporate air quality mitigation and monitoring actions within procurement criteria for contracting developers and construction companies. 
• Engage in meaningful community stakeholder engagement around operational sites to explore health equity implications. The guidance for water stewardship provides a potential template for community stakeholder engagement on air pollution.   

NGOs and philanthropies should: 

• Engage with leading green building certification schemes – such as LEED and BREEAM – to strengthen and mandate criteria on outdoor air pollution during construction and design. 
• Engage with B Labs (B Corp certification scheme) to influence the adoption of external air pollution indicators. 
• Engage with national governments to influence specific regulation on external air pollution indicators that relate to building construction.
• Consider co-funding models with life science companies to explore how air pollution from construction affects local health outcomes in communities, and specifically in vulnerable climate exposed minority groups. 
• Expand the boundaries of policy making advocacy work to more place-based approaches that recognise specific challenges, opportunities, or priorities within a particular geographical area or community.
• Engage with those organisations who are advocating for, and shaping, alternatives to GDP approaches, such as the Wellbeing Alliance, and the Doughnut Economics Action Lab (DEAL). 

If you’re interested in finding out more about this report, and how businesses are taking action on outdoor air pollution, join us for a webinar on the 31st October – sign up here.