PAINTSQUARE BLOG

South America’s largest stadium, Maracanã in Rio de Janeiro, has been certified LEED Silver. The USGB says that World Cup 2014 is spotlighting the success of high-performing buildings.

Eight construction workers have been killed on World Cup stadium sites. The latest was Muhammad Ali Maciel Afonso, 32, who was was electrocuted May 8 while working at Arena Pantanal in Cuiaba.

Two workers were killed Nov. 27 in a crane collapse at the Arena Corinthians in Sao Paulo. An international labor union says that World Cup 2022 in Qatar will have more construction worker deaths than players.

The International Trade Union Confederation estimates that more than 4,000 migrant workers could die in Qatar while working on construction projects for the World Cup there.

Joseph Blatter is president of FIFA, which has been accused of ignoring human rights violations. Critics have urged FIFA to withdraw the 2022 World Cup from Qatar.

Comment from John Fauth, (6/30/2014, 8:46 AM)

Two trains have left their respective stations, traveling towards each other on the same track. Let's all watch as the wreck ensues.

Comment from Andrew Piedl, (6/30/2014, 11:26 AM)

I must be missing something - what is the connection between LEED and Qatar - football?

Comment from Robert Kobet, (6/30/2014, 7:51 PM)

First, I hope it is not a train wreck. My premise is very simple. FIFA has jurisdiction over where the World Cup Championships are played. In the case of Qatar, there is already ample evidence the workers building the infrastructure for the games have been subject to numerous human rights violations, and, to date, there is no reason to believe they will abate as the venues themselves are constructed. FIFA is complicit in these violations and thereby responsible by association. Unless this changes, I feel the USGBC should withhold LEED certification of any venue associated with the FIFA sponsored World Cup games. There is ample time for the USGBC to work with FIFA to address these violations. I would like to see the USGBC assume a leadership role in championing human rights. One vehicle for this is the Social Equity Credit under development, which I feel should be a prerequisite. Then, if human rights are violated in any way, the project is not eligible for LEED certification. To me, insuring human rights and social equity are more important than adding to the LEED certified building inventory, despite the high profile, size or level of innovation inherent in the subject buildings.

Comment from John Fauth, (7/2/2014, 8:30 AM)

Robert, the real tragedy is this kind of thinking turns every industry organization into an activist for political and social engineering. Will they withhold LEED certification in countries with repeated and obvious human rights violations... like China and Saudi Arabia? How about certain cities in the US that aren't politically correct? Social equity? What the hell is that? Is social equity prevalent in India? You'll have to be a contortionist to twist yourself into the knots this kind of logic requires. Pass the popcorn... this is going to be entertaining.

Comment from Andrew Piedl, (7/3/2014, 11:51 AM)

One person’s suffering is another person’s entertainment. It’s ok when an industry organization turns into an activist organization to squash LEED by political lobbying (Ohio)? I've worked on a few LEED projects, and don't love the whole process; it can be argued that the benefits are marginal, but at least there are some people willing to try to make improvements. Here's what I do, whether the project is LEED, or not, or if the task at hand is buying sneakers or groceries: educate yourself. Make sound and ethical decisions. It is very easy to find out about a company, their culture, environmental record, political influencing. If you don't agree with their agenda, don't buy their product. You vote for a president once every four years. You vote for your values every time you open your wallet.

Comment from John Fauth, (7/7/2014, 8:50 AM)

Andrew, I completely agree with you about making everyday personal choices to spend your hard earned money on products made by companies that reflect your values. On the other hand, there's been boatloads of public money wasted on the concept that it's necessary to "do something" (ie: do anything, just so we can be seen as doing something). When results are divorced from revenue sources (ie: when it's someone else's money), a lot of unethical people get rich.

Comment from Robert Kobet, (7/8/2014, 12:17 PM)

First, I appreciate everyone who has contributed to this blog. Please know I have struggled with the question of human rights and social equity in what I do for some time. I have worked in twelve countries on five continents and have seen much of the human condition others only see in 30 second bits on the news. Working in emerging countries means navagating a whole other set of social, economic and cultural constructs that take time and energy to understand. I'm still working on that, human rights and social equity being a part of it. What I am hearing about in Qatar may not be on par with what I saw in Rwanda after the genocide, but I don't think it is right. Working on Hopital Albert Schweitzer in Haiti was more about the people than the facility itself, but I know advocating for energy, material and resource efficient facilities better enabled the physicians and support staff to do their humanitarian mission. LEED was never mentioned, as we all knew the money was better spent on penicillin. The USGBC has made a great deal of the LEED Platinum School constructed in post Haiti after the earthquake, and that is OK. I wish they would recognize Hopital Albert Schweitzer as a world heritage site, and put the same amount of resources into it, given it's 60 year history of serving the needy in that country. To John's point, I have also worked in Dubai, as a USGBC LEED workshop facilitator and private consultant. It was ten years ago in Dubai the issue of working conditions in Qatar's part of the world was brought to my attention by an UAE national. It was disturbing, and got me thinking about the broader issues I am attempting to deal with now. I also worked on the Beijing Olympic Village, a housing development near Shanghai, and a new town development near Guilin. In each case the projects were built with local labor, not conscripted foreign laborers, and I did not sense the working conditions to be life threatening. I know the interest in LEED is growing in China; I have seen it first hand. China is grappling with enormous environmental problems directly related to development. Whether adopting development model that includes LEED, sustainability and human rights eventually tempers their attitude toward their very homogeneous population remains to be seen. I'm not suggesting for a moment the issues are simple, or straight forward. I am not that naive. To the contrary, I know they are complex. My personal stance at this point (subject to change as I educate myself further or as opportunities to precipitate change present themselves) is that while I cannot influence national politics per se, I am free to work or not work for individuals, companies or organizations in any country who overtly violate human rights or allow dangerous working conditions. So, while I may not be able to change Qatar's position on exploiting immigrant workers, I do not have to work for FIFA, directly or indirectly. I fully understand the USGBC's mission and drive to increase the number of LEED certified buildings, but I find overtly praising FIFA something I cannot support. I was raised to believe you are either part of the answer or part of the problem. I have already reached out to the USGBC committee working on the LEED Social Equity credit and anticipate my first conversation with them this week. I'm not sure what social equity is in every respect, John, but I am willing to work for the possibility of the USGBC and LEED advancing what I intuitively sense is good. However small the impact might be, I believe it will be better than accepting the status quo. In that regard, I know my voice pales in comparison with the statement the USGBC could make.

Comment from John Fauth, (7/17/2014, 9:10 AM)

Robert, I appreciate your sincere description of grappling with your response to the realities of human rights around the world. Personally, I do much the same. I'm actually one of "those people" who reads the label on the shirt I might buy, looks at the North American (and where possible, US) content of the vehicle I purchase, considers how a prospective employer treats people around the world, etc. But too many people (I'm certainly not suggesting you) find it tedious to do so, and want someone else to have a conscience for them. It's an interesting contrast evident in people who don't want the US to exploit its social and economic constructs around the world, but can't live with the results and want some other "agency" to do so for them. Sometimes an environmentally friendly construction project should be just that. Make a contribution to the Peace Corps or a human rights advocacy group. And don't make them accountable for quality construction practices.

Comment from Robert Kobet, (7/22/2014, 2:06 PM)

Thank you, John. Well said. Clearly, we need to "Be the change we want to see" We'll see if the USGBC, Green Globes or the Living Building Challenge choose(s) to make a statement, or stake a position re: human rights, trafficking, dangerous working conditions, etc. The more I research FIFA, the less they seem like an organization that has these interests at heart, so I don't think the change will come from them.

Join the Conversation: