“Construction is one of the most influential sectors in shaping the future.”

For a long time, sustainability in construction has focused on environmental performance and
carbon indicators. While this approach has led to progress in practices, it often overlooks the
impact of buildings on people’s lives over time. The Triple Bottom Line framework⁽¹⁾ (people,
planet, prosperity) has helped shift the debate toward a more holistic vision of sustainability, one that considers not only environmental outcomes but also social value, human flourishing, and our relationship with the planet.

---

Why has sustainability in construction so often been reduced to environmental performance?

---

J.E.: To understand this, it helps to look back. When I was trained as a city planner nearly fifty
years ago, climate change was barely visible on the horizon. The construction sector, like many
others, paid little attention to environmental limits. As sustainability gradually entered the
mainstream, it initially did so as an environmental agenda.

From the 1970s onwards, environmental impact assessments played a decisive role. They
introduced structured processes that forced developers, architects and planners to consider
environmental consequences. Over time, this shaped how sustainability was understood and
operationalized. Comparable tools for assessing social, cultural or human impacts simply did not
exist. There was also a pragmatic element: environmental performance felt more manageable.
Carbon emissions, energy use and pollution could be measured, regulated and audited. Human
experience, by contrast, is far more complex and politically sensitive. As a result, sustainability
became closely associated with what could be quantified, even if that meant narrowing its
original scope.

---

Has this environmental focus nonetheless played a positive role for the construction sector ?

---

J.E.: Yes, absolutely. The environmental focus has forced progress in sectors that are among
the most carbon-intensive in the global economy, such as cement, steel and construction. These
industries are difficult to transform, and sustainability pressure has pushed them to innovate,
sometimes in quite radical ways. It has also helped shift perceptions.

Climate change is no longer seen as a peripheral issue, but as a strategic and existential risk.
Science is blindingly clear. Even in periods of political backlash, many large companies continue
to work on climate issues behind the scenes because they understand that the risks are real
and not disappearing. In that sense, the environmental agenda has helped mainstream
sustainability. It has created a shared language, common metrics and a sense of urgency.
Without that foundation, it would be very difficult to have a broader conversation today about
resilience, long-term value and human well-being.

---

What dimensions of sustainability have been sidelined as a result of this narrow focus?

---

J.E.: The most obvious casualty has been the human dimension. Environmental performance is
easier to quantify than social well-being, cultural relevance or mental health. As a result, these
aspects have often been treated as secondary or optional. In construction, this has very
concrete consequences.

Too many buildings are designed with short time horizons, driven by efficiency and cost
considerations rather than long-term quality of life. We build places that are technically
functional but psychologically poor, monotonous or disconnected from how people actually live.

Construction does not simply meet immediate needs. It shapes patterns of living, mobility and
social interaction for decades. When we ignore these long-term human effects, we risk embedding stress, isolation and fragility into the built environment. These costs may not appear
on balance sheets, but they are very real for societies.

---

How does your Triple Bottom Line help broaden this perspective for the built environment?

---

J.E.: The Triple Bottom Line⁽¹⁾ was designed to encourage integration. In the context of
construction, it helps highlight the fact that environmental performance, social well-being and
long-term economic value are deeply interconnected. When the framework is used purely as a responsibility tool – a way of doing slightly less harm – it rarely leads to transformation.

But when it is applied through the lens of resilience and regeneration, it becomes much more
powerful. It prompts different questions: Will this building remain useful over time?

Can it adapt to new uses? Is it sufficiently resilient? This kind of thinking moves sustainability toward long-term value creation. It recognizes that buildings and cities are systems that evolve, not static objects designed for a single moment in time.

---

What does this mean in practical terms for how we design cities today?

---

J.E.: In practical terms, it means rethinking time horizons. Much of what we build today is
designed for relatively short operating lives and rushed by the housing crisis. That is a serious
problem, because buildings often remain in place far longer than originally intended and in that
sense, we are just creating the problems of the future. Designing with adaptability in mind is
essential. The same applies at the urban scale. Cities that work well over time tend to be those
that evolved gradually, rather than those imposed through rigid, industrialized planning models.
It also means paying attention to how places feel to live in and the existing heritage.

Human experience, renovation of older structures, cultural relevance and a sense of belonging
are not luxuries; they are central to long-term resilience and social anchoring. Ignoring them
may save time or money in the short term, but it creates vulnerabilities that are difficult to correct later.

---

Looking ahead, what needs to change?

---

J.E.: The most urgent shift is a change in mindset. Sustainability is not only a technical
challenge; it is a psychological and cultural one. We are naturally inclined to focus on short-term
problems and immediate returns, even when long-term risks are far more significant. Leaders in
the construction sector need to invest much more time in learning and immersion in real world
experiments aiming to create sustainable settlements. Education is not just for the young!
Construction leaders need to visit projects that successfully integrate environmental, social and
cultural dimensions, often in contexts very different from their own. Ultimately, construction is
one of the most influential sectors in shaping the future. It builds not just structures, but ways of
living. A truly sustainable approach must therefore think in terms of people and time —
imagining how environments will support human life not just today, but for generations to come.

Ultimately, construction is one of the most influential sectors in shaping the future. It builds not
just structures, but ways of living. A truly sustainable approach must therefore think in terms of
people and time, imagining how environments will support human life not just today, but for
generations to come.

⁽¹⁾The Triple Bottom Line is a framework for analyzing organizational performance based on three inseparable dimensions (economic, social, and environmental), aimed at measuring overall value creation beyond financial results alone. Take an in-depth look at the Triple Bottom Line framework.

Also read:

Quality of life and the environment: the same battle

What does sustainable construction mean to the next generation of architects?

2026 Sustainable Construction Barometer: Industry Trends Revealed

Photo credits: Shutterstock; Julia Hailes; Atak Architekti