Is Sustainable Construction Still Optional in Thailand?

At TGRE26: Building Resilience, one of the most direct and contested questions raised was simple:

Is it reasonable to treat sustainable construction as optional in Thailand today?

The discussion brought together leaders from development, design, and advisory, reflecting different parts of the building value chain. Rather than aligning on a single position, the conversation exposed the underlying tensions that continue to shape how sustainability is approached in practice.

A Sector Moving, But Not Uniformly

Across TGRE26, a clear shift was evident. Thailand’s building sector is no longer debating whether sustainability matters, but how quickly it can be implemented at scale.

Regulatory and financial signals are accelerating this shift:

• Thailand’s Climate Change Act introduces binding emissions obligations

• The Thailand Taxonomy is influencing access to green finance

• International supply chain requirements are beginning to affect local development

At the same time, the risks of inaction are becoming increasingly tangible, from stranded assets to insurance exposure and regulatory non-compliance.

Yet despite these changes, sustainable construction is still not consistently applied across projects.

Where the Debate Becomes Real

The discussion focused less on whether sustainability is important and more on how decisions are actually made.

Participants examined:

• When sustainability enters the decision-making process

• Where trade-offs are introduced

• How financial considerations shape outcomes

These questions revealed that sustainability is often influenced long before design or construction begins, embedded within early-stage investment assumptions, cost structures, and project positioning.

Cost, Incentives, and Constraints

One of the central tensions is cost.

Sustainability measures often require upfront investment, raising questions about how these costs are allocated across stakeholders. In many cases, the distribution of cost and benefit is not aligned.

This is particularly visible in residential development, where split incentives between developers and buyers can slow adoption. In contrast, office and industrial assets may present clearer financial returns, making sustainability easier to justify.

While awareness of sustainability is increasing, willingness to absorb additional costs remains uneven across different segments of the market.

As a result, many decisions continue to follow financial logic, with sustainability evaluated in relation to project viability and expected returns.

From Environmental Concern to Financial Risk

A key shift highlighted during TGRE26 is the growing connection between sustainability and financial performance.

Buildings that do not adapt face increasing exposure to:

• Reduced access to green financing

• Regulatory compliance risks

• Higher insurance costs

• Potential asset devaluation

At the same time, buildings that demonstrate resilience and verified performance are better positioned to protect value and align with investor expectations.

This evolving landscape challenges the idea of sustainability as a purely environmental consideration. It is increasingly tied to how assets perform over time.

Climate Risk Is Already Shaping Decisions

Climate-related factors are no longer abstract.

Flooding, heat stress, and coastal exposure are already influencing:

• Site selection

• Design priorities

• Operating costs

• Insurability

These pressures are affecting decisions today, adding another layer to how sustainability is evaluated within projects.

What “Optional” Really Means

The debate ultimately pointed to a more nuanced reality.

Sustainability may still be considered optional in certain contexts, particularly where regulatory requirements are limited or where financial incentives are unclear.

However, the conditions surrounding that choice are changing.

The question is no longer only whether sustainability is required, but:

• Under what conditions it becomes unavoidable

• How quickly those conditions are evolving

• And which stakeholders are positioned to act first

A Sector in Transition

TGRE26 brought together over 100 participants across the building value chain, all engaging with a shared objective: future-proofing Thailand’s building sector.

Within that context, the question of whether sustainable construction remains optional does not have a single answer.

Instead, it reflects a sector in transition, where regulatory pressure, financial mechanisms, and market expectations are gradually reshaping what is considered necessary, viable, and competitive.

As these forces continue to align, the meaning of “optional” is likely to change with them.