If we specify it, are we responsible?

Specification has always carried weight in the built environment. Drawings, schedules and performance criteria shape what gets made, sourced and installed. But in an industry facing tighter budgets, fragile supply chains and growing ethical scrutiny, a harder question sits beneath the technical detail: if we specify it, are we responsible for what follows? 

Earlier this year, Agilité’s design manager, Matteo Bonotto joined More The A Building’s NextGen cohort for a panel discussion on this very topic – and here are his key takeaways.

The honest answer is uncomfortable for many of us. Because responsibility does not end with intent, nor with documentation. It plays out in procurement conversations, substitution meetings, site pressures and, ultimately, in how a building performs – and is treated – long after handover.

Specification is the start, not the finish 

Sustainability is often framed at concept stage – material palettes, carbon targets, ethical sourcing statements – and on paper, everything aligns. But, in reality, this is where responsibility runs the risk of becoming fragile. 

Programme constraints compress lead times, costs fluctuate, products become unavailable, and as a result, specifications are quietly diluted – sometimes for reasons that feel justified in the moment. The ethical timber becomes a cheaper alternative. The locally sourced, hand-made product is swapped for something imported yet readily available because it “keeps things moving.” Responsibility is not proven by what we ask for; it is tested by what we accept.

When sustainability, cost and programme collide. 

Of course, trade-offs are unavoidable – and anyone who claims otherwise has not delivered a project recently. So, the question is not whether compromises happen, but how visible they are.  

Too often, the industry treats sustainability as something to be protected in public narratives but quietly negotiated away in private. A more responsible approach is simpler, if less comfortable – honesty. If a product cannot be delivered within budget or programme, say so, early and clearly. Present alternatives with their real implications – cost, carbon, durability, labour conditions – and allow informed decisions to be made. 

In recent years, frameworks like B Corp have become more visible across the sector. Used badly, they can devolve into shorthand for virtue, but when used properly, they offer something far more valuable – a way of structuring decisions when competing pressures collide. 

The most useful contribution of frameworks like B Corp is not a logo for your website, but instilling the discipline of asking better questions and striving for continuous improvements. Who bears the risk down the chain? What happens if this material fails early? Are we optimising for short-term delivery or long-term performance? Who benefits – and who absorbs the harm – from this decision? 

Crucially, these questions apply as much to procurement and supplier relationships as they do to material selection. Responsibility is not embedded in certificates alone. It lives in behaviours, contracts, and how pressure is distributed.

Shared accountability, not downstream blame. 

One of the industry’s persistent habits is pushing responsibility downstream. Clients look to designers. Designers look to contractors. Contractors look to suppliers. By the time an issue emerges, accountability is so diluted that no one feels able – or obliged – to address it. 

Agilité prides itself on being ‘solutions focused’ and we’re advocates of shared influence (and responsibility) in the sense that designers influence what is possible, clients influence what is prioritised, contractors influence how choices are translated into reality, and suppliers influence what can actually be delivered responsibly.  

No single party controls the outcome, but every party shapes it. And, when this is acknowledged openly, conversations change and teams start asking: what needs to happen for this to work responsibly in the real world?

Suppliers as intelligence, not just inputs. 

If responsibility extends beyond specification, then suppliers cannot sit at the end of the chain. They are not ‘just’ providers of products but holders of critical delivery intellige

nce. Suppliers know where labour risks sit, which lead times are credible, which certifications are robust and which look good only on paper. But they will only share that insight if the environment makes it safe to do so. 

If every risk raised is treated as a commercial weakness, suppliers quickly learn to say what teams want to hear but by contrast, early engagement, clear expectations and genuine two-way feedback allow issues to surface when they can still be addressed.  

Agilité’s supplier forums – held in each of our European locations – seeks to bring together that discourse, providing a place for contractor and suppliers to meet and discuss opportunities,  challenges, ideas and experiences.

Longevity is a sustainability issue. 

Perhaps the most persistent blind spot in specification-led thinking is time. A project can achieve impressive sustainability metrics and still be deeply wasteful if it is designed to be stripped out in three to five years. Conversely, a modest material palette, chosen for durability and adaptability, can outperform more “sustainable” choices over decades. 

Designing for adaptability, disassembly and reuse is not a niche concern, it goes to the heart of responsibility. If we know a space will need to evolve, then fixing everything permanently, or in ways that destroy value during change, is a failure of design intent. 

So, are we responsible? Probably, yes, but not in the way the question is often framed. We are not responsible because we specified a product once, but we’re responsible if we fail to follow its journey, if we ignore substitutions, accept opaque trade-offs, or design spaces with no regard for how they will be used, adapted or dismantled. 

Specification creates influence, and responsibility lies in how that influence is exercised – collaboratively, transparently and with an understanding of real delivery constraints. The industry does not need louder claims or more polished documents, it in fact needs quieter, harder conversations about what actually happens when intent meets reality. 

Because responsibility, in the end, is not proven by what we say we want to build – but by what we are willing to stand behind when the pressure is on.