Why Laboratory Sustainability Efforts Need Better Data, Not Just Better Technology

Laboratory owners have spent years pursuing sustainability goals through more efficient HVAC systems, advanced controls, lighting upgrades, water conservation measures, and renewable energy investments. Yet many organizations are discovering an unexpected obstacle when they attempt to measure results, secure incentives, or demonstrate compliance with increasingly stringent building performance requirements: they lack the historical data needed to prove what their improvements actually achieved.

As jurisdictions across North America adopt building performance standards, benchmarking programs, and emissions reporting requirements, the conversation is shifting beyond technology selection. Increasingly, the success of sustainability initiatives depends on whether facility teams can establish and maintain reliable performance records throughout a building's lifecycle.

For laboratory facilities, where energy consumption is significantly higher than in conventional office buildings, the stakes are especially high.

The missing baseline problem

Many sustainability projects begin with a simple question: How much improvement did the investment deliver?

The answer becomes surprisingly difficult when a facility lacks a documented baseline. Without clear records of pre-project conditions, facility teams may struggle to quantify savings, justify future investments, or demonstrate the value of completed upgrades.

According to Trevor Vick, CEO of UMIP, Inc. and founder of the Global Infrastructure Identity Standard (GIIS), this challenge is more common than many owners realize.

“Laboratories, like all complex commercial buildings, depend on a continuous, verifiable performance record to make the case for efficiency investments—and that record is exactly what most facilities lack,” Vick tells Lab Design News.

The consequences extend beyond internal reporting. Contractors may be reluctant to offer performance guarantees when baseline conditions are unclear. Utility rebate programs and tax incentives often require documented evidence of savings. Leadership teams evaluating capital requests increasingly expect measurable returns supported by data.

Without that documentation, even successful projects can become difficult to validate.

Why laboratories face greater risk

The data challenge is particularly acute in research environments because laboratory buildings consume significantly more energy than typical commercial facilities. Ventilation systems, specialty equipment, process loads, and strict environmental requirements create a complex operating environment where efficiency improvements can generate substantial savings.

At the same time, those potential savings often require extensive verification.

“The potential savings from efficiency upgrades are larger, but so is the evidentiary burden required to capture rebates, satisfy auditors, or justify capital expenditure to leadership,” Vick says.

HVAC systems illustrate the challenge. Heating and cooling systems account for a substantial portion of building energy use, making them a common target for optimization efforts. Yet without documented operating conditions before a retrofit, accurately measuring improvement afterward can be difficult.

The same issue applies to lighting upgrades, building automation improvements, envelope enhancements, water conservation projects, and onsite renewable energy systems.

Treating building records as infrastructure

Historically, project documentation has often been viewed as an administrative requirement rather than a long-term operational asset. That mindset may need to change.

Vick argues that facility teams should approach performance records with the same level of importance as physical building systems.

“A building's historical performance record needs to be treated as essential infrastructure, not paperwork assembled after the fact,” he says.

For renovation and retrofit projects, this means capturing key information before work begins, including existing system conditions, operating performance, project scope, implementation dates, and post-project results.

Maintaining those records over time is equally important. As buildings change ownership, undergo renovations, or experience operational shifts, historical information can become fragmented or difficult to locate. In some cases, critical documentation may disappear altogether.

The result is a growing gap between what organizations are expected to prove and what they can actually substantiate.

Designing for future compliance

The challenge does not begin when a building reaches the end of its useful life. In many respects, it starts during planning, design, and commissioning.

As sustainability reporting and benchmarking requirements expand, project teams may need to think more strategically about how building information will be managed over decades of operation.

“Infrastructure identity, record continuity, and verifiable lifecycle histories may need to become as foundational to building operations as financial recordkeeping is to corporate governance,” Vick says.

For architects, engineers, and laboratory planners, this suggests that data management should be considered part of the building deliverable—not merely an operational responsibility handed off at project completion.

Commissioning documentation, asset inventories, system identifiers, and performance records can all play a role in supporting future audits, compliance reporting, and capital planning decisions.

The financial dimension of building data

The importance of reliable facility records is no longer limited to operational efficiency. Increasingly, it influences financial decisions as well.

Lenders, insurers, investors, and sustainability-linked financing programs are placing greater emphasis on verified performance data when assessing risk and evaluating eligibility for incentives or financing opportunities.

As a result, the quality of a facility's documentation can affect more than compliance. It can influence access to capital, participation in incentive programs, and the credibility of sustainability claims.

For laboratory owners planning major capital investments, the ability to demonstrate performance improvements through verifiable records may become a competitive advantage.

The broader lesson for the laboratory industry is clear: achieving sustainability goals requires more than efficient equipment and innovative design strategies. It also requires the data infrastructure necessary to document, verify, and communicate results over the long term.

As performance regulations continue to evolve, the facilities best positioned for success may be those that treat building data as a strategic asset from the very beginning.