IBA editorial team The building sector is one of the biggest levers in the fight against the climate crisis. At the same time, it is under increasing pressure to transform: decarbonisation, the circular economy, ESG reporting and the EU taxonomy are fundamentally changing the requirements. The IBA Forum editorial team spoke to Michael Wiebelt, M.O.O.CON, about why existing buildings play a key role—and how companies who take a stance can reduce not only emissions but also costs and risks.
Mr. Wiebelt, the climate crisis also poses major challenges for the property and construction sector. Where do we stand?
We’re at a decisive turning point. The construction sector is responsible for around 40% of global CO₂ emissions—from the production of building materials to construction and operation. At the same time, this sector holds enormous potential for reducing emissions. The technology for climate-friendly construction is available, but there is often a lack of consistent implementation. Now is the time to act, with a clear strategic mindset—we at M.O.O.CON call this Mind:Shift. Buildings need to be rethought: circular, resource-saving and resilient.
What regulatory developments are currently driving this change?
The EU taxonomy in particular is bringing a powerful dynamism to the market. It obliges companies to disclose the environmental impact of their activities and aims to channel capital into sustainable projects. In practice, this means that anyone constructing or renovating buildings must prove that environmental goals such as climate change mitigation, resource conservation and biodiversity are taken into account and that none of these goals are significantly impaired. The impact on financing, valuation and ESG reporting is significant. Sustainability is becoming a prerequisite for future viability—not only ecologically, but also economically.
Decarbonisation is a major keyword here. Where do you see the main levers for reducing emissions?
The most important lever lies in the consistent use and further development of existing buildings. This is because the majority of CO₂ emissions are generated during the construction phase, particularly of the shell structure. If the load-bearing structure is retained and used sensibly, considerable emissions can be saved—without reducing the function or quality of an office building. A second lever is the intelligent use of office space: It’s not about fewer offices, but about better, more effective spaces—adapted to new ways of working and needs. The office remains a central place of culture, collaboration and identification. With well thought-out concepts, space potential can be exploited without diminishing the role of the office. A third lever is the choice of materials: Buildings should be conceived as circular systems from the outset—with materials that can be dismantled, reused and documented. Digital tools such as BIM help to ensure this transparency for the entire life cycle. In this sense, decarbonisation does not mean doing without, but rather strategic planning for long-lasting, adaptable and responsibly used working environments.
What role does the circular economy play in all this?
A very central one, especially with regard to office buildings, which create identity over many years in lots of companies and serve as a stable infrastructure. Circularity means planning buildings in such a way that their materials are documented, unmixed and recyclable—and can therefore be returned to the material cycle. Office buildings that are designed or further developed with this perspective in mind can be used and adapted flexibly over decades—a clear added value for companies that want to be prepared for change. We increasingly see buildings as urban mines, as valuable stores of resources for the next generation. This requires systems such as material databases, take-back systems and a complete life cycle analysis.
In addition to environmental issues, it’s also about cultural change: How are companies’ attitudes and aspirations changing?
Today more than ever, companies have a responsibility to society, to investors and, last but not least, to their own employees. The climate crisis is not only an environmental challenge, but also a business challenge. Buildings will become a calling card of a company’s stance: Are they an expression of responsibility? Do they promote health and cooperation? Do they stand for future-oriented action? Sustainable architecture is no longer a purely technical issue, but a question of strategic positioning and thus of brand and corporate identity.
How do you view sufficiency—the principle of using fewer resources through conscious reduction?
Sufficiency is one of the most effective, but also most uncomfortable levers. It’s not about sacrificing quality, but about rethinking what we really need. Does an office building have to enable 100 percent occupancy at all times or is an intelligent mix of spaces for concentrated work, for meetings and for hybrid working sufficient? Less space, but better utilisation—that’s the motto.
What advice would you like to give planners and decision-makers?
Plan buildings consistently from a life cycle perspective. Question routines—both in planning and in use. Check whether a new building is really necessary or whether a creative approach to the existing building might offer even more potential. And network with all relevant players at an early stage: architecture, technology, operation, sustainability and financing. This is the only way to create solutions that are sustainable in the long term. Sustainability must not be an add-on—it must be the starting point.
Thank you for talking with us.
Architect and engineer Michael Wiebelt is a partner at M.O.O.CON and supports organisations in the strategic development of sustainable property and working environments. For further information, visit https://www.moo-con.com/.
Copyrights: M.O.O.CON/Simon Hofmann
