If we point that out, are we responsible?
Specifications entail much more than one might think: Matteo Bonotto, Design Manager at Agilité, discusses what responsibility truly means in the real estate sector.
Specifications have always carried considerable weight in the construction industry. Drawings, bill of materials, and performance criteria determine what is manufactured, purchased, and installed. But in an industry facing increasingly tight budgets, fragile supply chains, and growing ethical scrutiny, a more difficult question lies behind the technical details: if we specify it, are we responsible for what follows?
Earlier this year, Matteo Bonotto, Head of Design at Agilité, joined More The A Building’s NextGen group for a roundtable discussion on this very topic—and here are his key takeaways.
The honest answer is unsettling for many of us. Because responsibility doesn’t end with intent or documentation. It manifests itself in procurement discussions, design review meetings, on-site pressures, and, ultimately, in how a building functions and is treated long after it is completed.
The Specification: A Starting Point—Not an End in Itself
Sustainability is often defined right from the design phase—through material selection, carbon targets, and commitments to ethical sourcing—and, on paper, everything seems to add up. But in reality, that’s where accountability can start to fall apart.
Program constraints shorten deadlines, costs fluctuate, products become unavailable, and, as a result, specifications are quietly scaled back—sometimes for reasons that seem justified at the time. Ethically sourced wood becomes a less expensive alternative. Locally sourced, handcrafted products are replaced by imported but readily available ones, because this “keeps things moving.” Responsibility is not measured by what we demand; it is measured by what we accept.
When sustainability, cost, and scheduling clash
Of course, compromises are inevitable, and anyone who claims otherwise hasn’t completed a project recently. The question, then, isn’t whether compromises are made, but to what extent they are visible.
All too often, the industry treats sustainability as an issue to champion in public but to negotiate discreetly in private. A more responsible approach is simpler, though less comfortable : honesty. If a product cannot be delivered on budget or on schedule, say so—early and clearly. Present the alternatives along with their real-world implications—such as cost, carbon footprint, sustainability, and working conditions—and enable informed decision-making.
In recent years, certification standards such as B Corp have gained prominence across the industry. When misused, they can be reduced to little more than a token of virtue, but when used wisely, they offer something far more valuable: a way to frame decisions when conflicting pressures come into play.
The most valuable contribution of frameworks like B Corp isn’t a logo for your website, but the establishment of a discipline focused on asking better questions and striving for continuous improvement. Who bears the risk further down the supply chain? What happens if this material fails prematurely? Are we optimizing for short-term delivery or long-term performance? Who benefits from this decision, and who bears the negative consequences?
It is important to note that these issues apply just as much to procurement and supplier relationships as they do to the selection of materials. Responsibility is not limited to certificates; it is reflected in behavior, contracts, and the way responsibilities are allocated.
A shared responsibility, not a blame game
The industry has a deeply ingrained tendency to shift responsibility down the chain. The client looks to the designer. The designer looks to the company. The company looks to the supplier. When a problem arises, responsibility is so diluted that no one feels capable of—or obligated to—take action.
At Agilité, we believe in shared influence and responsibility. Designers define the scope of possibilities. Clients set the priorities. Companies translate choices into action. Suppliers determine what can be delivered responsibly. No one controls the outcome alone, but everyone helps shape it. Recognizing this changes the nature of the conversation: teams stop looking for someone to blame and start asking how to make it work in practice.
Suppliers: Partners in Knowledge, Not Just in Supply
If liability extends beyond the statute of limitations, suppliers can no longer be pushed to the bottom of the chain. They are key players who possess valuable knowledge: they know where social risks lie, what deadlines are realistic, and which certifications are robust and which are purely cosmetic. But they must feel empowered to speak up.
If every issue raised is perceived as a weakness or a business risk, suppliers will quickly learn to say what we want to hear. Conversely, early engagement, clear expectations, and open communication allow problems to be brought to light while there is still time to act.
With this in mind, Agilité organizes supplier forums at each of its European locations: spaces where companies and suppliers can freely discuss opportunities, challenges, ideas, and feedback.
Lifespan: A Key Aspect of Sustainability
The most persistent sticking point in the specifications is time. A project can boast excellent environmental metrics yet still be deeply wasteful if it is designed to be dismantled in three to five years. Conversely, simple materials chosen for their durability and adaptability can prove far more sustainable than options marketed as more “sustainable.”
Designing for adaptability, disassembly, and reuse is not a marginal option; it is a matter of fundamental responsibility. If we know that a space is bound to change, to freeze it in place permanently—or in a way that destroys value during transformations—is to betray the very intent of the project.
So, are we responsible? Most likely, but not in the sense that the question is often asked. It is not the act of prescribing a product that makes us responsible. It is failing to track its journey, allowing substitutions to go unnoticed without reacting, accepting compromises without acknowledging them, or designing spaces without considering their use, their evolution, or their end of life.
The specification has an impact. Responsibility lies in how it is exercised: collectively, transparently, and with an eye to the realities on the ground. The sector does not need more grand statements or more elaborate documents. It needs more candid conversations about what really happens when intentions collide with reality.
Because, ultimately, responsibility isn’t demonstrated by what we say we want to build, but by what we’re willing to defend when the pressure mounts.
You may also like...
