6
EcoBroker standards: got transparency?
Sarah Gardner reported on the EcoBroker Program this afternoon on Marketplace. The program attempts to address two critical issues in combating greenwash: 1) it defines what criteria an agent must meet to be a green real estate agent, passing an exam covering their 18-hour curriculum related to residential energy and environmental issues, and 2) it certifies agents who have met their criteria.
Unfortunately, the criteria are not that transparent at the moment. From what I could see on the EcoBroker website, you have to take their proprietary classes in order to see what criteria they're using to define green expertise. I would like to see their criteria clearly articulated / published and open for peer review, similar to the approach taken with development and refinement of green building rating programs. I think that transparency and objectivity is critical to broad acceptance and adoption of the program.
That said, I think this is a great step in the right direction. I think it both signifies that there is a market for green homes, and the program itself can help grow that market.
Critical next steps are more transparency in defining the expertise required to become an EcoBroker (ideally, EcoBroker would publish this criteria and simply administer the agent certification test), and adoption of concrete standards on the property listing side (what does it take for a property to qualify as a green home).
Janne- I completely agree with your frustration re: greener living options in the Twin Cities.
As an EcoBroker and general contractor, I work with my buyers to find the "green potential" in every home. We start with energy efficiency and prioritize from there.
For sellers, it's critical to frame the "green traits" of that home in a way that is quantifiable- either through certification or documented energy consumption- so we're not confusing buyers with our interpretation of green.
Until there is a way for buyers to search the MLS for a green home (certified or by HERS rating), we will be battling this issue of subjectivity.
Although the EcoBroker curriculum was not all encompassing, it is a step forward. However, it's only a starting point. It's up to the individual agent to take that information and expand their knowledge themselves.
As the Chair of MN GreenStar's Education Committee, I can say that there are many opportunities to increase the level of public awareness, not only for our agents, but our consumers, trades, and vendors as well. By providing learning opportunities, and thereby reducing greenwashing and consumer confusion, we're bound to make some progress.
As the first and so far only EcoBroker® in Amador County CA, I have been rather impressed with the certification. I was worried that it would be just so much greenwashing or fluff. It tured out that the classes are quite good, and focus on other things than you might expect. While the basics are hit early on, much of what is covered is specific to AGENCY, how to help clients in ways that are in the clients best interests. To say that <i>"Adding a "green" broker to the equation only serves to complicate things for home buyers - after all, the broker isn't going to make the home any greener than it was in the first place."</i> shows that you are not looking at the bigger picture -- buyers don't always know what to look for or even why. Buyers are swamped with the process. Having a well-informed agent working for them helps. And don't forget, most homes sold are not new homes.
So to say <i>"Homes are green when they are certified, not when a "EcoBroker" says it is."</i> is factually false. Houses have green traits, and a very small number of those houses have any rating or certification.
And what about EEM programs? Upgrades before selling? Who to hire to do things like blower testing? And how to best market your green property?
It seems to me that this EcoBroker certification is kind of useless. As it stands right now, there are three rigorous national certification programs for homes already: the National Association of Home Builders' <a href="http://nahbgreen.org/"> NAHB Green Program</a>, the USGC's LEED-H Program and DOE's Energy Star Program. These third party-verified certifications exist because they use standards to define what exactly a green home is, thus making it easy for consumers to determine just what they are buying, and freeing builders and architects from the slippery slope of having to self define what exactly a "green" home is. This can be very tricky for home builders especially as what is defined as "green" has yet to be fully litigated. Adding a "green" broker to the equation only serves to complicate things for home buyers - after all, the broker isn't going to make the home any greener than it was in the first place. Homes are green when they are certified, not when a "EcoBroker" says it is.
Hampton - Those standards are useful, but what do you do if there are no available houses where you're buying that have any of the certifications? Or, if none of them meet your neighborhood needs (for example, are within biking distance of your job, or walking distance of a school, or are on a bus line?)
Isn't it useful to have brokers that can help you choose the greenest house of the homes you are interested in, rather than being limited to the very, very few that meet the green standard you're citing?
I agree that the EcoBroker is a big step in the right direction. I disagree with Jim that a definition for what makes a house "green" is needed, however.
As we've written about here many times, there's no clearcut definition of what makes something sustainable. In all cases, energy efficiency is a prerequisite, but beyond that, there are many approaches. Because what buyers want varies - and what's available varies - the best role for an EcoBroker is to understand the principles of green homes and help buyers find homes that meet their needs.
Let's look at some examples of what might make a home green. It might be a location that is walkable and busable. For someone with chemical sensitivities, it might be about finishes and indoor air quality. In some parts of the country, it might be all about water, with xeriscaping and super low-flow faucets. Sustainability priorities vary from person to person,and location to location.
For me, location is the most important (I don't want to have to buy a car), with energy a close second and indoor air quality third. Jim probably would prioritize things a different way.
Additionally, at the moment, there is no where in the country (with the possible exception of some parts of Colorado) where there are enough green homes to meet the demand for them.
There aren't any all-the-way green homes in locations that work for me, or in my price range. So - I picked an old home in a great location with hardwood floors (better for air quality), and over time, I'll get the energy efficiency improved and ensure there's plenty of ventilation as I go.
Given the variability of "sustainability," and the lack of green housing stock, the biggest challenge is for home buyers and brokers to be able to communicate about what the buyer cares about, sustainability-wise. My recent experience with brokers suggests that the vast majority are clueless about what "green" means. Better than an EcoBroker being able to say, "This home is green and this one is not," is for an EcoBroker to be able to say, "If you care about healthy indoor air quality, you want these sorts of finishes and this level of ventilation," and be able to explain the principles to the buyer and help the buyer find what they want.
From the descriptions of courses on the EcoBroker site, it sounds to me like that is what the courses aim to educate brokers about.
Jim, well said. And I think your point about understanding green rating systems in the Realtor's locale is key to the feedback loop as this trend moves forward. If there is objectivity on multiple fronts/levels then a greenwashed house or product has less of a chance of making it to market with its "dirtscreen" in tact.
