In my experience, developing industrial real estate projects, addressing the life cycle of materials and reductions in operating costs have made the job of selling the importance of sustainable building design to hesitant clients.

When a client wants to cut costs at the expense of sustainability, it’s essential to navigate this dilemma thoughtfully. I prioritize both financial efficiency and environmental responsibility. I would start by discussing the long-term benefits of sustainable practices, such as reduced operational costs and increased brand loyalty. I’d present alternative solutions that maintain sustainability while still addressing budget concerns. For instance, we can optimize resources and suggest eco-friendly options that are cost-effective over time. By emphasizing the importance of a balanced approach, I can help clients see that investing in sustainability can lead to greater savings and a positive impact.

It is completely understandable that the client wants to cut the budget for sustainable features on the project, since several of the systems are expensive. However, the best way to convince the client is indicating the *value* of the system and of making their project a green building, not the initial cost. Also a case study of a project similar in use and dimensions can convince the client. We have to indicate to the client the ROI that they will get, the 4% or more of the value of the property, even without mentioning the special loans that the banks offer to sustainable projects. And finally, it will show a big compromise of the Client's company, showing a compromise the sustainable design and construction.

Cutting costs or avoiding the "more expensive" sustainable approach is essentially a short-term focused strategy - it does not pay off in the long term. Whereas, the integration of social and environmental sustainability in the approach is a medium-long term focused strategy - it does pay off in the medium-long term. One could also argue that the "cutting cost" approach is not rightly priced, as it does not integrate the negative effects of its un-sustainability in the medium-long term. The right approach would be to price in all the medium-long term effects, positive and negative - then we would realise that the "more expensive" sustainable approach is in reality the cheaper one in the medium-long term.