ILPC 2027

The construction industry is responsible for 40% of European Union end-use emissions, yet considerable obstacles to achieving low energy construction (LEC) are evident across Europe, to a greater extent in some countries than others. These obstacles include: a performance gap between design intention and on-site energy performance; sharp occupational interfaces where the main heat losses occur; declines in the level, breadth and quality of construction vocational education and training (VET); and the lack of a learning infrastructure on sites. Compared to traditional construction, LEC requires greater ‘thermal literacy’ of all occupations, higher qualification levels, broader occupational profiles, integrated teamworking rather than self-employment and extended subcontracting chains, and better communication given the complex work processes involved. The paper dissects the construction VET systems, employment structures and social partner arrangements in three European countries – Britain, Denmark, and Germany – for their capacity to meet these requirements. Particular comparison is made of the audits of labour availability carried out through the Build-up Skills initiative, with National Reports leading to National Roadmaps, focussed on social rather than technical obstacles, especially with regards to upskilling the existing workforce through continuing training. The paper also draws on research on Green Transitions for the Built Environment for the Canadian-coordinated project on Climate Change and Work and on interviews on construction sites and in colleges, as well as with trade unions. In order to evaluate policies towards LEC and to gauge the strategies implied for labour in each country, the results of this comparison are then considered in relation to the three possible transition pathways to an energy efficient future identified by Hampton (2015). The first market based pathway seeks to avoid state-led investment and promotes strategies focused on adjusting the market context through instruments such as carbon pricing to ease the cost of transition or create jobs. In terms of low energy construction, this means relying on the premise that skill shortages will be filled by market demand mechanisms, with skills seen as work-based and training dependent on the individual employer and on-the-job learning. The second ‘ecological modernization’ transition framework involves policies for employment and social justice, training and retraining, and learning and skills development, acknowledging the need for proactive government investment in green jobs and for a ‘just transition’ towards them. The third framework in turn implies radical transformation of institutional structures of VET and employment through a coalition of societal actors and stakeholders, developing the capacity of labour to become a more active agent with real autonomy to champion the reduction in carbon emissions. The paper argues that, whilst LEC implies transformation of VET and employment structures in each country, this needs to be far less radical in a country like Denmark than in Britain, given the regulation, policies, and institutions already in place and the involvement of labour in the construction process. Hampton P. (2015) Workers and Trade Unions for Climate Solidarity: tackling climate change in a neoliberal world, Routledge, London and New York