Why the built environment needs to change how we discuss sustainability

Rising costs, viability pressure and political uncertainty are forcing developers and investors to focus more sharply on certainty, return and deliverability. The British Property Federation reflected this when it warned that development viability across the UK is “in crisis”, with construction cost inflation, interest rates and regulatory uncertainty contributing to a sharp fall in new starts. At the same time, regulation, lender expectations and occupier demand are increasing scrutiny on long-term asset performance.

We at Mace Consult invited a range of leaders across private sector organisations to discuss how sustainability and wider social impact ambitions stack up against the reality of modern business.
While all remain committed to putting sustainability at the heart of their programmes, we also highlighted that there needs to be a clear shift in how it is being framed and how Sustainability can ultimately articulate and amplify asset value.

Against competing pressures, sustainability is being tested more rigorously against viability, resilience and value. We as an industry need to rise to this to keep sustainable initiatives at the heart of future decision making.

Why sustainability is under pressure

Across the industry, sustainability historically has been framed as a cost or competing priority. When schemes come under pressure, sustainability measures are often among the first to be challenged, scaled back or deferred, creating gaps between original aspiration and what is delivered. 

While difficult decisions have to be made on specification and design due to viability pressures, siloed thinking can mean the link between Sustainability’s and value is overlooked, across CAPEX, OPEX, asset value and desirability. This can downplay its role in derisking schemes, from supporting planning through best practice social impact strategies to ensuring schemes meet local need and demand.   

The result is not that sustainability disappears, but that it can be de-prioritised when it has the greatest influence on future asset performance.

We need to continue to reframe ‘sustainability’

Over the past decade, as the importance of sustainability has fluctuated and matured, strategies and approaches have evolved to become more targeted, focusing on key metrics while placing greater emphasis on balancing consistent frameworks and KPIs with the specific characteristics of individual sites and schemes. The continued focus on achieving this is essential to ensuring sustainable outcomes and overall scheme success. 

Sustainability needs to remain central to decision-making, articulated in a way which demonstrates its risk, value, performance and resilience. The ability to quantify sustainability in the same way as traditional metrics is critical. When sustainability is connected to commercial outcomes, it becomes easier to defend in investment committees and prioritise in delivery strategies.

Reframing sustainability is not limited to environmental matters, thinking on social impact and value is also evolving away from headline metrics and ‘pound signs’ towards demonstrating long-term outcomes that emphasise the importance of the scheme to its surrounding communities. 

In practice, that means moving beyond broad ambition statements and showing how sustainability supports resilience, protects value and reduces exposure to avoidable risk.

What this means for investment decisions

Climate exposure, regulatory tightening and evolving occupier expectations are no longer distant considerations. Projects that fail to account for them face greater risk of delay, redesign, weaker demand and higher upgrade costs over time.

If sustainability options can be quantified and considered early, it can be embedded in investment decisions and reduce the risk of not meeting future regulation and demonstrate its role in providing resilience, adaptability and stronger operational performance.

In that context, sustainability is less a standalone ambition and more a means of protecting liquidity, supporting occupier appeal and helping portfolios remain aligned with market expectations.

This strengthening link between sustainability, risk and value, is expected to come further into focus as customers and the market grow in understanding the gap between vision and in-use performance, especially in relation to energy bills. When assets underperform operationally, both ESG outcomes and commercial returns suffer.

Closing this gap means creating a clearer line of sight from design decisions to operational outcomes. A more strategic approach can also help assets respond to changing user needs, regulation and market cycles without redesigning from the ground up.

Turning performance data into business value

One reason sustainability still loses out in decision-making is that the industry does not consistently evidence its value in commercial terms.

Too often, sustainability is measured through fragmented reporting that does not translate easily into logic for programme directors or decision makers to take forward. 

What is needed is high quality data that directly links sustainability interventions to cost, value and risk outcomes. That means:

• Building evidence across portfolios
• Developing robust proof points
• Aligning Sustainability advice and quantification with wider design and cost advise

Without a stronger evidence base, sustainability risks remaining a supporting narrative rather than a core part of investment strategy.

However, while data enables decisions it is also critical that accountability for delivering sustainable outcomes is felt and owned across the programme. At Mace Consult, one of the strongest indicators of how sustainable a project will be is the culture within the project and client team. 

Where sustainability is owned centrally by the Programme Director and senior leadership, we see the greatest outcomes and innovation achieved.

What developers and investors can do now

For organisations that want sustainability to remain central to decision-making, the priority is not necessarily to do more, but to connect it more clearly to commercial outcomes and secure ownership outside of just sustainability consultants through:

• Embed ESG in commercial decisions, not parallel workstream
• Prioritise real-world performance, not paper commitments
• Focus metrics on investment outcomes, not reporting volume
• Invest in data capability, building clear evidence across projects
• Take a whole-life view of value, not just upfront cost
• Embed into leadership early, building strong relationships and trust with sustainability experts

Better decisions, stronger assets

The language around sustainability simply must keep adapting to the times, shaped by a market demanding clearer links between ambition and asset performance.

In a constrained environment, sustainability is more likely to hold its place when it is tied directly to viability, resilience and long-term value. If we continue down current paths where it is treated as a competing priority, organisations risk making short-term decisions that weaken future performance and increase exposure to regulatory, operational and market risk.

The opportunity is to move the conversation on, away from sustainability as a standalone ambition, and towards sustainability as a contributor to better investment choices and more future-ready assets.

For developers, investors and asset owners, the next advantage will come from showing, with greater confidence, how sustainability supports commercial outcomes. That is what will keep it central to decision-making.