Is architecture evolving fast enough to meet today’s sustainability challenges? Daily conversations highlight energy-efficient buildings, green materials, and visionary design, yet firms themselves influence global carbon emissions in profound ways. The built environment produces around 40% of annual CO₂ emissions worldwide, and every choice—from office operations to the embodied carbon of each project—shapes that statistic.
Firms gain an edge by embracing sustainability. Clients expect it, and new regulations demand it. Whether your focus is attracting top-tier projects or strengthening compliance, a firm grasp on your carbon footprint can transform your business. In this blog, we explore the business rationale for sustainable architecture, cover emerging climate policies, examine the sector’s emissions profile, and offer best practices for carbon accounting.
The business impact of sustainable design
Sustainability stands out as a powerful driver of long-term profitability and brand value. Here’s how:
Client demand and financial performance
In a recent survey, 72% of architecture firms reported that sustainability is a top priority for their clients. This trend is fueling growth in green building markets—demand for sustainable architecture is projected to grow about 16% per year through 2027.
Clients today are also more sophisticated, demanding proof of actual performance over greenwashing. Many owners and tenants now seek buildings with verified environmental performance (energy use, low carbon materials, etc.), not just promises. In fact, tenants are often willing to pay a premium for green buildings—research by JLL found “green-certified” office spaces command 7-11% higher rents in major cities.
Even in a soft real estate market, sustainable buildings achieve higher occupancy and rental yields, as companies prefer spaces that help meet their climate goals. This strong market appetite means architecture firms that can deliver bona fide sustainability outcomes often gain a competitive edge in winning projects.
Embracing sustainability can bolster an architecture firm’s financial performance. Firms report that revenues from sustainable design services have been climbing. For example, the top 100 interior architecture firms focusing on sustainability (“Sustainability Giants”) saw their fees from sustainable projects jump 33% from 2022 to 2023, far outpacing overall industry growth.
Owners are increasingly linking sustainability to long-term asset value, which in turn drives more business toward architects with green expertise. Moreover, investors and insurers are starting to favor high-performance, low-carbon buildings (due to lower climate risk and operating costs), creating further financial incentive for sustainable design.
Architecture firms that integrate energy-efficient and low-carbon strategies into projects can help clients realize lifecycle cost savings (energy bills, carbon fees), making the firm’s services more valuable. In short, sustainable design capability has become a key business driver—enhancing firm reputation, attracting premium projects, and even commanding higher fees in some cases, as clients see clear return on investment.
Talent attraction, retention, and thought leadership
Sustainability leadership also pays off in the talent arena. Architecture firms with a clear environmental mission find it easier to attract like-minded top talent, especially among younger professionals passionate about climate action. The American Institute of Architects notes that creating a firm culture that values sustainable design can help in recruiting staff and winning projects.
In practice, many architects want to work for firms that are on the forefront of green building. For example, Perkins&Will—an award-winning firm attributed its sustainability ethos (what it calls “Living Design”)—taps into sustainability to attract some of the industry’s best and brightest sustainability talent to their team.
By publicizing commitments (like carbon neutrality goals) and showcasing innovative green projects, firms signal a purpose-driven workplace that appeals to employees seeking meaningful, impactful careers. Conversely, firms that lag on sustainability may risk losing talent to competitors that offer more opportunities to design with a positive environmental impact.
Clients increasingly request tangible evidence of success, rather than broad claims. Architectural studios that track and publish carbon metrics set themselves apart in a busy marketplace. Delivering on sustainability promises creates a lasting competitive advantage.
Climate policies and regulations affecting architecture firms
Architecture firms are navigating a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape as governments respond to climate change with new rules for buildings. Building performance standards and climate policies are tightening worldwide, which directly affects how architects design projects and operate their firms.
Some of the key regulatory developments include:
Urban building emissions laws
Cities are leading with aggressive climate laws for buildings. Notably, New York City’s Local Law 97, which took effect in 2024, imposing carbon emission caps on most buildings over 25,000 sq. feet. This law targets large buildings (about 50,000 properties responsible for roughly 50% of NYC’s building emissions) and will ratchet down allowed emissions through 2050, when net-zero is required.
Buildings that exceed the carbon limits face hefty fines, pressuring owners to invest in energy retrofits and efficient designs. Architects working in NYC (and other cities considering similar laws) must be ready to deliver designs that meet strict carbon benchmarks for building performance.
Building Performance Standards (BPS) across the U.S.
Beyond NYC, a wave of building performance standards is spreading across many jurisdictions. These are laws that set minimum energy or emissions targets for existing buildings, often with phased deadlines. As of mid-2024, around 50 U.S. cities have some form of energy or carbon requirement for buildings, and at least 9 local jurisdictions and 4 states have adopted robust BPS laws.
For example, Washington D.C., Boston, and Washington State all have building energy performance mandates rolling out in the coming years. This means architects nationwide will increasingly encounter codes that demand efficient, low-carbon design—not just for new construction but for major renovations as well. Firms must stay informed on local compliance targets (e.g. max kBtu/sf or CO₂/sf limits) and be prepared to help clients navigate compliance or face penalties.
European net-zero building mandates
In the EU, climate policy is accelerating transformational change in the built environment. In 2024 the EU formally adopted an update to the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), which sets an ambitious course: all new buildings in EU member states must be zero-emissions by 2030 (and new public buildings by 2028).
This means architects in Europe will by the end of this decade be required by law to design buildings that operate without fossil fuels (using efficient design, heat pumps, renewables, etc.). The EPBD revisions also call for phasing out fossil-fuel heating systems entirely by 2040 and massively scaling up building renovations. For existing buildings, EU countries must set targets to renovate the worst-performing stock (e.g. require energy upgrades for the bottom 15-25% of buildings by 2030-2033).
Architecture firms working in EU markets will need to integrate energy modeling, passive design, and renewable energy systems as standard practice to meet stringent codes.
Carbon disclosure and reporting requirements
Indirectly, new corporate transparency rules are also influencing architecture and construction. Regulators are moving toward requiring companies to publicly report their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks. In the EU, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requires large companies (including some large AEC firms or their clients) to disclose carbon footprints and environmental impacts.
This push for disclosure cascades to architecture: many architecture firms work for clients who now must track and reduce Scope 3 emissions (which include buildings). Thus, architects are being asked to provide data on the carbon impacts of their designs and to improve those impacts over time. Additionally, government RFPs and contracts (at federal and local levels) are starting to include sustainability criteria.
All told, regulatory pressure—from local building codes to international climate commitments—is raising the bar. Architects must keep abreast of these policies to ensure designs are compliant and to advise clients on future-proof solutions (e.g. designing today for the stricter codes of tomorrow).
Finally, industry standards are also evolving in tandem. For example, LEED v5 (launching in early 2025) will devote half of its credits to carbon reduction strategies, aligning certification with climate goals. While voluntary, such standards often prefigure future codes.
The bottom line is that climate regulations are quickly shifting from encouragement to enforcement. Architecture firms that proactively adapt—by designing ultra-efficient, low-carbon buildings now—will be better positioned as these rules take hold, avoiding financial penalties and seizing opportunities in the growing market for climate-resilient design.
Carbon footprint data: Architecture’s emissions in context
The built environment is one of the largest contributors to global carbon emissions, and understanding the data behind this is critical for architects. According to Architecture 2030, the buildings sector (construction + operations) is responsible for about 40% of annual global CO₂ emissions. This includes roughly 27% from building operations (heating, cooling, lighting, etc. in use) and another ~15% from embodied carbon in building materials and construction activities.
Similarly, the United Nations Environment Programme reports buildings account for ~37% of energy-related CO₂ emissions worldwide. In sum, nearly two-fifths of the world’s greenhouse emissions come from the design, construction, and usage of buildings, underscoring the huge responsibility—and opportunity—for the architecture industry to drive reductions.
In the United States, the pattern is comparable. Buildings (residential and commercial) produce an estimated 40% of U.S. energy-related carbon emissions, making them the single largest sector of emissions nationally. Urban centers often have even higher proportions: for example, in New York City buildings generate over two-thirds of the city’s greenhouse gases. These statistics clarify why climate policies focus so heavily on buildings, and by extension, on the practices of architecture and engineering firms.
Every design decision—from site orientation to insulation levels to choice of steel vs. timber—influences this carbon footprint. But what about the architecture firms’ own carbon footprint (i.e. their business operations)?
Architecture firms are typically office-based service organizations, so their direct emissions (office energy use, business travel, etc.) are modest compared to the emissions of the buildings they design. Still, many firms are measuring and disclosing their operational emissions as part of industry climate action.
For example, one mid-sized UK architecture studio, Haworth Tompkins, reported an office carbon footprint of ~79 tCO₂e for 2022-2023, about 0.83 tCO₂ per employee. Another data point: the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) recorded its own 2023 operational emissions at 419 tCO₂, roughly 1.68 tCO₂ per staff member.
These per-employee emissions are in the range of what one average person’s annual activities might emit in a developed country. Many architecture firms are now committing to reduce such operational footprints further—through energy-efficient offices, renewable energy purchases, and low-carbon travel policies—as part of the profession’s credibility in fighting climate change.
However, the far bigger impact of architecture firms lies in the carbon outcomes of their projects. A single large building can embody tens of thousands of tons of CO₂ in its materials and emit thousands of tons annually in operation. Thus, an architecture firm’s “carbon handprint” (the potential emissions avoided through sustainable design) vastly outweighs its direct footprint.
This is why collective initiatives like the AIA’s 2030 Commitment emphasize design performance: as of 2023, over 1,350 architecture firms have pledged to target net-zero emissions in their projects by 2030. Through this program, firms track the predicted energy use and carbon emissions of their designs—effectively accounting for the carbon impact of tens of thousands of projects globally.
Progress is evident: in 2023, AIA firms reported design data for 23,000+ projects, with many now including embodied carbon metrics as well. The growing dataset is helping quantify how much carbon architects collectively influence and how much they are cutting via efficiency and innovation.
In summary, the architecture industry’s carbon footprint has two layers:
- Direct emissions from firms’ own operations—relatively small (on the order of 1–2 tCO₂ per employee annually), but still important to manage for leadership and integrity.
- Indirect emissions from the built environment that architects shape—enormously significant, around 40% of global CO₂. Reducing this chunk is critical to meeting climate targets, making architects pivotal players in global decarbonization efforts. The data makes it clear that every architectural decision in design and material selection counts toward the broader climate impact.
Best practices for carbon accounting in architecture firms
To rise to the climate challenge, architecture firms are increasingly adopting rigorous carbon accounting and management practices. These industry-specific best practices help firms measure, report, and ultimately reduce emissions both in their own operations and through their projects. Key best practices include:
Track operational emissions (Scopes 1, 2, 3)
Firms are implementing Greenhouse Gas Protocol standards to inventory their operational carbon footprint—tracking fuel use, purchased electricity, business travel, employee commuting, even paper use. This accounting provides a baseline to manage reductions.
Many firms are setting science-based emissions targets or joining initiatives like the SME Climate Hub’s Race to Zero, committing to halve operational emissions by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050. Regular carbon audits and transparency (e.g. publishing an annual carbon report) are becoming the norm, even if not yet required by law.
Integrate whole-life carbon assessment in design
A leading trend is to account for carbon across the entire lifecycle of buildings—from material production and construction (embodied carbon) through operation and eventual end-of-life. “Whole-life carbon accounting” is emerging as a service offering and in-house capability at forward-thinking firms.
For example, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) launched a Whole-Life Carbon Accounting service that evaluates and measures a project’s emissions from cradle to grave, and seeks design alternatives to reduce carbon at each stage.
Best practices here involve conducting Whole Building Life Cycle Assessments (WBLCA) for projects: using software tools like Greenplaces or databases like EC3 to calculate the kgCO₂ associated with different design options.
By comparing materials (e.g. steel vs. timber, conventional vs. low-carbon concrete) and systems, architects can make data-informed choices to minimize embodied carbon. Leading firms start this analysis early in design and iterate throughout the project, updating the carbon tally as the design evolves.
Prioritize low-carbon materials and construction methods
Carbon accounting efforts often reveal that a handful of materials (cement, steel, aluminum) dominate a project’s embodied carbon. Best practice is to specify lower-carbon alternatives wherever feasible.
Emerging solutions include using mass timber or bamboo in place of steel/concrete when appropriate, high-recycled-content or “green” concrete mixes, and other innovative materials that store carbon or emit less in production.
These best practices extend to construction methods: optimizing structural design to use less material, preferring renovation/adaptive reuse over new build (to avoid demolition and new material emissions), and working with contractors on efficient construction techniques. By accounting for and openly comparing the carbon impacts of different design choices, architects can drive the supply chain toward more sustainable options.
Leverage industry frameworks and reporting tools
Architecture firms don’t have to invent their own approach—several industry frameworks provide guidance and accountability. The AIA 2030 Commitment is one such program where firms pledge to track and annually report the performance of their whole project portfolio, moving toward carbon-neutral design by 2030.
Participating firms use the AIA’s Design Data Exchange (DDx) platform to input each project’s energy model results, predicted energy use intensity, renewable energy, etc., which translates to estimated operational carbon. In 2023, 154 firms even reported detailed embodied carbon data for over 7,000 design projects via this platform—a huge increase that reflects best practice sharing.
Likewise in the UK, the RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge provides architects with specific performance targets (for operational energy, water, and embodied carbon per square meter) and tools to assess designs against those benchmarks.
Adhering to such frameworks helps standardize carbon accounting across the industry and lets firms benchmark their progress against peers. Many firms are also pursuing green building certifications (LEED, BREEAM, Passive House, etc.) for projects, which require documenting carbon-related metrics. Even when clients don’t want to pay for certification, firms often internally apply these metrics to ensure a project meets equivalent sustainability goals.
Invest in education, tools, and specialized roles
Because carbon accounting is a new competency for many, top firms are training staff and hiring experts to build this capacity. Embodied carbon analysis, for instance, might be done by sustainability specialists or a “carbon analyst” on the team. Best practices include educating all project architects on reading LCA reports, understanding carbon data, and using it in design trade-offs.
Firms are also adopting dedicated carbon accounting software like Greenplaces to track their firm-wide emissions and project impacts in one place. The goal is to make carbon considerations as integrated into the design process as cost or structural safety—a routine part of project meetings and decision-making. Currently, only a small share of projects (estimated ~7%) actively track embodied carbon as part of design, but this is inching up (it was ~5% the year before). The firms on the leading edge are pushing to normalize carbon tracking on 100% of projects, treating carbon budgets with the same importance as financial budgets.
Architecture shapes the spaces where people live, work, and learn—and shapes the planet’s future as well. Every schematic and contract holds an opportunity to reduce carbon, champion efficiency, and align projects with emerging regulations.
Forward-thinking firms view carbon accounting as more than a courtesy or trend. By systematically measuring, reporting, and optimizing emissions, architecture offices strengthen their business resilience, attract discerning clients, and uphold their role as stewards of the built environment. It’s a path that sparks creativity and fosters meaningful change—one well-planned design at a time.
