C OLLABORATION AROUND GBC-DK AND DGNB

When the GBC-DK was started, initial research was done on new buildings with several dif-ferent certification systems in order to establish which system was to be chosen for the Dan-ish building industry cf. interview with Klaus Hansen. To do this research, GBC-DK initiated partnerships with different actors in the industry to gain support for the system that would be chosen after the research was done (Birgisdottir, Hansen, Haugbølle, Hesdorf, Olsen, &

Mortensen, 2010).

There are a lot of legitimate reasons for stakeholders in the industry to form a partnership and join together behind a single certification system. The obvious one is that a partnership like this would be for the betterment of all stakeholders involved, including the end-consumers as the growth of a single certification system would create transparency.

An integral part of making and categorising the DGNB system as a dominant design in Den-mark would be to gain as much support as possible. So now, the question can be asked of how GBC-DK can grow and use their already established partnerships to promote the DGNB certification system to gain industry wide acknowledgement. With this challenge in mind, we can look towards Struben & Sterman (2008), who have analysed the challenges of changing systems within an industry.

From our case of the DGNB system in Denmark, we can analyse how GBC-DK can, along with their partners, persuade other actors in the industry to get behind DGNB as the main system in Denmark to push it towards becoming a dominant design. There are differences between the theory and the case of DGNB but there are also similarities, which makes it a relevant perspective. Struben & Sternan (2008) chose to analyse how the willingness of regular con-sumers to change to alternative fuel vehicles can change effected by a number of factors. In this section we can use this research to analyse how GBC-DK can affect the willingness of stakeholders in the industry to support and acknowledge the DGNB system as the main certi-fication method of sustainable building projects in Denmark.

Struben & Sterman (2008) states with their paper that total exposure to a platform, which in this case would be non-participants’ exposure to the DGNB certification system can arise from three components as explained theory chapter of this thesis. Firstly we can take a look at the ‘marketing’ perspective of this theory:

Marketing

In the preliminary phases of introducing a certification system of sustainable projects in Den-mark a partnership was started with Realdania who agreed to fund the research groundwork for choosing the right system (Birgisdottir, Hansen, Haugbølle, Hesdorf, Olsen, & Mortensen, 2010). This was all done with the intention to create the GBC-DK, which eventually would be a non-profit organisation. With the help from researchers connected to state functions, the

choice in the end fell on DGNB as the best system, which could show that the choices made was with the best intentions in mind cf. interview with Klaus Hansen. With GBC-DK being a non-profit organisation the choice was made from a neutral position, which meant that there were consensus towards DGNB being the best and most suitable system. In the end what matters here is that funding from different stakeholders did not coerce the choice.

Secondly, we can analyse the ‘word-of-mouth from participants’ factor of the theory against our case:

Word-of-mouth from participants

From the three factors from the theory of exposure to a platform, the ‘word-of-mouth from participants’ might be the most important one of the three. This factor shows potentially how successful the DGNB system can become, by the already participating members of GBC-DK.

When becoming a member of the GBC-DK the participants of the organisation shows com-mitment towards the DGNB system, and at the same time supports the further growth and expansion of the system.

The key thing when it comes to the members of the GBC-DK organisation is keeping them well informed and essentially ‘happy’. The members must see the positives of supporting the DGNB system and how it is the best option for the Danish building industry to commit to.

Knowledge sharing within the organisation and its members is crucial to keep growing the organisation and the acknowledgement of the system in Denmark. If members of the organi-sation are pleased with the project, and the see the upsides, this could spread to other ‘non-participants’, which could steer other actors in the industry to support the DGNB system.

Lastly, the effect of ‘word-of-mouth from non-participants’ towards the system are analysed below:

Word-of-mouth from non-participants

This last factor in theory is the least relevant for our case, as non-participants would have little to no incentive to actively speak out against the DGNB system. However as the systems are in a sense, competitors, we can assume that actors supporting other certification systems are inclined to speak better of those systems.

With this in mind, we will not look closer at the last factor ‘word-of-mouth from non-participants’ as it is not really relevant for the analysis of this theory.