The Intention Gap

Name it to tame it, then we all can slay it!

By Kathleen Egan, CEO ecomedes

Our preschool taught parents a strategy to help struggling children:

NAME IT TO TAME IT

When young children feel an unfamiliar emotion, which happens a lot, naming it helps frame their problem.  Giving “IT” a name gives them some agency, some perspective, and some tools to move forward.  

I’d like to give these gifts of agency, perspective, and coping tools to the entire building product industry and NAME our biggest challenge that no one talks about.  The Intention Gap.

The Intention Gap - the space between what we say and what we do.  In this case we say we care about what we buy.  It applies to both B2B and B2C.  This piece will focus on the big ticket items, B2B procurement, specifically of building products for: facility operations and maintenance; new construction of facilities; and remodeling/tenant improvements.  

In the past decade, sustainability intentions have accelerated at extraordinary speed including phrases like:

• Net zero by 2050

• Scope 3 reductions

• Low-toxicity commitments.

• Water neutrality

• AIA 2030 Pledge

• Science-Based Targets

• Supplier codes of conduct

The language is sophisticated. The pledges are public and publicized. 

The ambition seems real.

And yet… 

• Emissions continue to grow

• Toxic chemicals are embedded in products and showing up everywhere, our bodies, brains, food, wildlife, and even our water supply (see PFAS map below).

• Biodiversity declines 

• Ocean acidification weakens the entire biosphere balance sheet, and is accelerating. 

If intentions are rising, why are outcomes worsening?

It’s the Intention Gap, the measurable distance between stated sustainability goals and the real-world impact of purchasing decisions.

It is not a moral failing.

It is not hypocrisy.

It is not a lack of care.

It is a systems gap.

And we cannot keep pretending it’s not there.  We cannot let corporations slide by on this gap anymore.  Until we name it, we cannot close it.

Where the Gap Lives

The Intention Gap shows up most clearly on the buy-side of materials:  procurement teams, developers, architects, contractors, corporate real estate, and enterprise supply chains.

An organization may:

• Publicly commit to net zero.

• Sign the AIA 2030 Commitment.

• Announce low-carbon or low-toxicity procurement policies.

• Publish a sustainability report with detailed targets.

Yet when purchasing decisions are made:

• Products are selected without verified environmental performance data.

• Carbon intensity is unknown or assumed.

• Health impacts are ill defined and anecdotal at best.

• Water footprint is not considered.

• Cost and schedule pressures override environmental intent.

The purchase order, not the pledge, determines the real impact.

That delta, between aspiration and transaction is the Intention Gap.

Evidence of the Gap

We can observe the Intention Gap at scale.

• Corporations with set net-zero targets, yet Scope 3 emissions but 70–90% of total impact remain largely unmanaged.

• Architecture firms pledge carbon reductions, yet embodied carbon from materials continues to rise as buildings scale in size and complexity.

• Procurement policies call for “sustainable materials,” but lack measurable thresholds, verification standards, or enforcement mechanisms.

• Hospitals working on cancer put carcinogenic pains in the oncology department

In each case, the intention is there! The hospital wants to reduce cancer!  But, the purchasing infrastructure does not operationalize it. So,the hospital is actually causing carcinogen exposure for the paint factory workers, the people who live around the factory, the painters, and every patient who visits that hospital.  

This is not because leaders don’t care. Well, maybe some of them don’t care. But for most, it is because systems were not designed to translate lofty environmental intent into actionable, measurable, quantifiable purchasing decisions.

Why the Gap Persists

The Intention Gap persists for several structural, interdependent reasons:

1. Data Friction: Environmental data is fragmented, inconsistent, and difficult to compare at the product level.  

2. Incentives: Procurement and project teams are rewarded for cost, speed, and risk mitigation not for lifecycle carbon or toxicity reduction.

3. Complexity Overload:  Carbon accounting, health certifications, embodied energy, water consumption, ingredient toxicity, fair labor, and more drive a cognitive burden.

4. Diffused Accountability: Sustainability teams set goals. Procurement teams execute purchases. Finance controls budgets. No single function owns the full translation. 

5. Status Quo Bias:  The design and construction industry are used to doing things in a similar fashion that they have done on the last project, and the one before that.

6. Loss Aversion Bias:  The cost for mistakes in construction drives an asymmetric bias to prevent loss than to achieve greatness.

7. Perception Of No Agency:  No one feels in control, even the executives. They bump it “down the chain of command”.  But without top down leadership, none of this changes.

Our goals evolved faster than our operating systems.

Why Naming It Matters

When we call something by name, it becomes measurable.

When it becomes measurable, it becomes manageable.

The Intention Gap helps reframe the conversation. Instead of asking:

“Do we have a sustainability pledge?”

We need to ask:

“What percentage of our purchasing decisions measurably align with our stated goals?”

That question changes everything.

Because now:

• The unit of analysis becomes the transaction, weighted by $s

• The benchmark becomes historical verified data

• Goals are connected to out comes

Closing the Gap: From Pledge to Purchase

Closing the Intention Gap requires operational capabilities.  Compared to a lot of societal problems, these are very achievable:

1. Set measurable criteria for building product purchases (they will be imperfect but that is OK! It's better to start, iterate, and lean that to sit on the side lines).

2. Make impact visible at the point of decision: Carbon, toxicity, and water data must sit alongside cost and schedule.

3. Set measurable thresholds: Not “prefer sustainable products,” but “reduce embodied carbon intensity by 30% per project.”

4. Align incentives: Reward teams for impact performance, not just budget adherence but compliance with stated goals.

5. Create feedback loops: Track whether aggregate purchases move enterprise metrics.

6. Simplify complexity through tools: Decision systems must meet the pace of business and reduce cognitive load.

The encouraging news is that tools are coming to help close The Intention Gap. Product transparency is growing through third party verification, certifications, and more data. Demand from the best real estate owners is driving this 

The challenge is no longer awareness.

It is execution.

Closing

Some might say that my views are cynical.  I say that they are optimistic.

The Intention Gap is not an indictment. It is a recognition of progress and readiness to move to the next phase, rapidly. Are CRE enterprises like pre-schoolers, where naming a situation will help fix it? Well, it's human nature and these firms are made up of humans so yes. If we can convert fear from the amygdala to activate the rational prefrontal cortex and action, then yes!

We do not have an “apathy gap.”

We do not have a “product availability gap.”

We have an intention and implementation gap.

This is solvable!

If you are interested in being part of the solution, reach out to me at kathleen@ecomedes.com. We are continually adding manufacturers, building owners, A&Ds, and contractors to our network.