Climate change is no longer seen as a peripheral issue, but as a strategic and existential risk. The 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 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. “Construction does not only answer today’s needs. It locks in ways of living for decades. A sustainable built environment must work for people over time, not just perform against short‑term environmental metrics.” 09 08
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTA2Nw==