IMHO: Planning for the next generation of buildings

Succession planning is a familiar concept for boards. Directors devote time to identifying future leaders and ensuring continuity of governance. Yet there’s another form of succession that deserves equal attention: planning for the future of our buildings.

Every decision a board endorses today on capital projects, procurement or asset management will shape the physical legacy its organisation leaves behind. In a climate-constrained world, that legacy must be measured not only in square metres or cost per tonne, but in carbon and resilience.

Long-term foresight

Boards are charged with long-term stewardship. They oversee investments that may last 50 years or more, and they sign off on strategies that determine how those assets perform, depreciate and eventually decommission. In that sense, governance over the built environment is climate governance in practice.

If directors are to meet their climate obligations, they need visibility over how materials are sourced, verified and designed for reuse. The question is no longer simply “what will this building deliver for us?” but “what will this building deliver for future generations when we’re gone?”

The construction sector is responsible for roughly 10% of global emissions, and embodied carbon – the emissions generated in producing materials – is now a critical measure of performance. But too often, carbon accounting stops once a project is completed.

Designers and specifiers have begun to cut embodied carbon through smarter design and verified low-carbon materials. However, the industry still risks repeating an old mistake: optimising for the build, not for the building’s future. Focusing only on upfront numbers can ignore what happens when materials reach the end of their useful life.

That is a governance blind spot. A product that looks sustainable today can become a liability later – financially or environmentally – if its materials cannot be reused, recycled or safely disposed of.

There is a balance-sheet benefit too. Materials with high verified recoverability, such as structural steel designed for adaptive reuse or repurposing, and documented through tools such as materials passports, retain residual value rather than becoming a disposal cost. As circular-economy markets mature, end-of-life recovery becomes a financial return instead of a liability. This is simply prudent stewardship – shifting spend from short-term capex optimisation to long-term value protection and risk reduction.

Smarter specification

The Sustainable Steel Council’s Responsible Products Audit programme was created to bring greater transparency to material choice. It allows builders and fabricators to verify that the steel they use meets rigorous low-carbon and sustainability standards. For boards, it offers assurance that procurement decisions are evidence-based, not driven by marketing claims.

Yet verification is only one part of the story. Boards should also ask management how projects are designed to optimise material use. Structural steel in New Zealand has often been specified at double the required strength, an approach born of outdated design rules and risk aversion. In an era of carbon scrutiny, overspecification represents both wasted capital and avoidable emissions.

Design for optimisation doesn’t compromise safety – it strengthens the case for stewardship. Cutting excess material by 15 or 20% can reduce embodied carbon while improving project economics. Directors would question a similar cost overrun; they should apply the same discipline to unnecessary material input.

Materials that endure

The Glenbrook steel mill’s transition to an electric arc furnace in 2026 will further reduce the carbon intensity of domestic steel production. Coupled with renewable energy and increased scrap use, it positions New Zealand to supply world-class low-carbon steel.

When combined with documentation systems such as the materials passport being developed by the Heavy Engineering Research Association, this enables a radical shift in thinking: seeing buildings as materials banks. Every beam and column can be catalogued as an asset that retains value at end of life. Unlike treated timber, which often ends up in landfill, steel can be reused or remelted indefinitely without losing quality or strength.

This mindset turns sustainability from a compliance cost into an investment strategy. A building’s residual material value can be forecast on the balance sheet, aligning environmental responsibility with sound commercial judgement.

Directors frequently rely on headline sustainability ratings such as Green Star. These frameworks are useful, but they can also obscure accountability. Whole-of-building assessments evaluate the project as a single entity, not the long-term fate of each material. The real test of leadership lies in embracing whole-of-product thinking – looking beyond the building to the life cycle of its components.

For boards, this means ensuring management teams:

• • Prioritise optimisation and verified low-carbon options for each material
  • Require design-for-disassembly principles
  • Document materials to enable reuse
  • Report not only on construction emissions but also on circular potential and end-of-life plans

In practice, this shifts the conversation from “What’s our rating?” to “What will happen to this asset in years to come?” It’s a reframing directors are well equipped to lead.

Stewardship and legacy

Sustainable construction is not a competition between materials. Timber, steel, concrete and composites all play roles in resilient design. What matters is transparency about their impacts and pathways.

Boards that apply kaitiakitanga (stewardship) and kotahitanga (collective purpose) can ensure their organisations invest in assets that serve communities long after their tenure. That means asking tough questions:

• • Has the project avoided overspecification?
  • Is every material selected verifiably the best low carbon option?
  • Can components be recovered, recycled or repurposed?
  • Are end-of-life costs, liabilities and opportunities disclosed?

These are governance questions as much as engineering ones. They reflect a director’s duty to protect value and manage risk.

Succession planning for people ensures continuity of leadership. Succession planning for buildings ensures continuity of value. Both depend on foresight.

When boards approve projects that embrace whole-of-product thinking, they leave behind assets that continue to deliver social, economic and environmental benefits long after the directors themselves have moved on.

In the end, governance is about legacy. The structures we authorise today – through strategy, oversight and procurement – will stand as monuments to our priorities. The challenge for directors is simple: will those monuments celebrate short-term outcomes or enduring stewardship?

Jeremy Sole MInstD is an experienced director and CEO. He is working towards a Doctor of Business Administration at University of Otago and has completed doctoral level studies in sustainable and socially responsible business. He is currently working with the Sustainable Steel Council promoting sector wide environmental practices.