Two reports are now on the table, both of which paint an almost caricatural picture of the logistics sector. Precisely because distribution centres have become an interesting investment product, the focus can now be on making them more sustainable and better integrated into the living environment.

In its recent report on distribution centres in the Netherlands, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL in Dutch) takes the logistics sector to task. According to the authors of the report, this sector seems mainly interested in adding more square metres, has little or no concern for the living environment and focuses mainly on financial return on investment. In doing so, the Planning Bureau ignores the intentions, but mainly the concrete efforts of quite a few players in the sector, including service providers, developers, investors and users.

Shortly before that, the Board of Government Advisors also published a startling advice. The FD paid attention to it in an interview with state advisor Wouter Veldhuis. His thesis is, that the logistics sector must change radically. He thinks the logistics sector is no longer about distribution of goods, but about property development and creating investor value. This is nonsense, because the sector does revolve around the distribution of goods. And where investors are concerned: it is precisely this group that has taken the lead in a huge sustainability drive, even anticipating government policy.

Developers are investing heavily in sustainability

Distribution centres have become an investment product and this institutionalisation has contributed greatly to a focus on sustainability. Not because the government requires it, but because professional market players apply their own ESG criteria. A term that does not fall within the report, by the way. Significant investments have been and are being made by major developers - who also operate in our country - to make existing distribution centres more sustainable. For new distribution centres, they are, without exception, built according to the strict BREEAM sustainability standards, where energy savings, the use of sustainable building materials and reduction of CO₂ emissions are paramount. In fact, with no energy label obligation from the government, the sector has a higher percentage of BREEAM-certified stock than the Dutch office market.

Awareness of landscape integration long gone

In addition, terms like 'boxification', 'glazing' and 'petrification' caught my eye in the report. By their nature and size, distribution centres present a challenge when it comes to fitting into the landscape in an acceptable way. But investors, developers and builders also realised this some time ago, and this is reflected in the attention to design and colouring of new distribution centres, but also in the extent to which, for instance, cooperation with landscape architects and ecologists takes place. Almost all new developments explicitly take biodiversity in the immediate vicinity into account. More and more business parks have a park management organisation that spearheads issues such as sustainability and minimising traffic movements, but also aesthetics and landscape integration. This includes strict standards to be observed when developing distribution centres.

European view overlooked

Both the national government advisor and the PBL, incidentally, completely overlook the so-called EU Taxonomy, which aims to promote sustainable investments within the European Union and support the transition to a greener economy. This also leads to changes in the way (logistics) real estate is developed and financed. Investors who meet the taxonomy criteria - including climate adaptation and biodiversity restoration - can label their activities as sustainable in reports.

Fact-based dialogue for greater support

The logistics sector is vital to the Dutch economy, that much is certain. Its contribution to GDP and employment is considerable. The reality is that distribution centres are a vital part of it. This does not mean that the sector can simply step over objections from society regarding aesthetics and sustainability. But that is by no means happening either. Illustrative of the will to change is recent research among various players in the logistics sector. Among other things, this showed that the need for sustainable logistics real estate is considerable. For instance, almost 90 per cent of users of logistics real estate say they are willing to pay more for a building that is certified sustainable. Almost 70 per cent can even agree to a rental surplus of 5 per cent or more.

With its report, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency has above all provided a useful impetus for a more constructive dialogue on the present and future of the logistics sector. A dialogue in which the facts come first and where the common goal is to arrive at a sector that can count on well-earned public support.

Douglas van Oers, Co-Head Logistics & Industrial at Savills in the Netherlands