News

Restoration is the New Construction!

When we talk about sustainable buildings, the most common image that comes to mind is a brand-new project: high-tech systems, solar panels, and smart water-reuse technologies.

But … what if the most sustainable architecture isn’t the one still to be built —but the one that has already stood for 100 years?

Reuse Is More Than Recycling

In construction, we often talk about recycling debris, reusing materials, or working with reclaimed wood. But there’s an even more powerful way to “recycle”:

→ Reuse an entire building.

By avoiding demolition and rehabilitating an existing structure, you save energy, prevent waste, and drastically reduce embodied carbon — the emissions locked into materials and construction processes.

Even better: restoration preserves memory, revitalizes city centers, and prevents uncontrolled sprawl into peripheral areas.

The Invisible Carbon That Weighs Tons

Have you heard of embodied carbon? It represents all the emissions released to extract, produce, and transport the materials used in construction.

A new building, even a “green” one, carries a heavy carbon footprint from the start. And what do the numbers say?

Studies show it can take anywhere from 10 to 80 years for a new building to offset the carbon emitted during its construction — even with top energy efficiency.

That means: when you restore an old building, you avoid this initial carbon spike and extend the useful life of an asset that already has cultural, historical, and structural value.

Sustainability and Heritage: Conflict or Partnership?

Many people think restoring historic buildings is incompatible with modern standards of performance, comfort, and safety. But that’s not true.

Yes, there are limits — especially when it comes to energy retrofits. But the key is in the approach. Restoration doesn’t mean blocking modernization; it means doing it with sensitivity, respect, and technical intelligence.

Because here’s the reality: a building that no longer meets today’s needs is destined for abandonment — and in that case, neither restoration nor sustainability survives.

Pre-Black Friday UGREEN

Early Access to an Unprecedented Offer!

Before the official Black Friday, UGREEN is opening a deal never seen in 9 years of history!

→ More than 30 complete courses in architecture, urbanism, and sustainable construction, all bundled into a lifetime package.

And there’s more: 10% of profits will be directed to social impact initiatives. This way, you invest in your career while also creating positive change.

✅ All UGREEN courses in one lifetime access
✅ Up-to-date content on sustainability, innovation, and certifications
✅ Immediate access to study at your own pace
✅ Contribution to a social impact campaign

⚠️ Attention: This is the Pre-Black Friday Offer
Lots change every week — the earlier you secure your spot, the better the deal!

Opinion

Integrated Multidimensional Taxonomy: A New Path to Balance Climate and Social Justice in Investment Decisions

For a long time, climate dominated the sustainability debate. The climate emergency, IPCC reports, and net-zero commitments took center stage — and rightly so.

But what about nature? What about people?

The truth is: prioritizing only emission reductions can create serious side effects — deforestation for biofuel crops, energy transitions that exclude communities, or “green” solutions that ignore local biodiversity.

This is where the Integrated Multidimensional Taxonomy (IMT) comes in: a new framework to define what is (and isn’t) truly sustainable — putting climate, nature, and social equity on the same level of importance.

What Is This New Taxonomy?

At its core, the IMT is simple in idea but profound in execution:

Any activity considered sustainable must meet three simultaneous conditions:

• Substantial Contribution to at least one pillar (Climate, Nature, or Social);

• No Significant Harm to the other two — extending the DNSH principle (“Do No Significant Harm”) with a social dimension: DSNS (“Do No Significant Social Harm”);

• Compliance with clear, verifiable technical criteria.

In other words: a project that reduces emissions but creates social injustice or degrades ecosystems does not pass the test of full sustainability.

Climate, Nature, and Equity ar the Same Level

The current European Union (EU) Taxonomy recognizes six environmental objectives and requires that any activity contributing to one must not harm the others. But the social pillar is still treated only as a “minimum safeguard” — a baseline requirement, not an active criterion of contribution.

The IMT proposes something different: it gives social equity equal normative weight, with clear and measurable criteria. This includes, for example, promoting decent work, raising incomes, and reducing territorial, racial, and gender inequalities. Instead of acting only as a brake, the social pillar becomes a positive driver of transformation.

This is a leap in ambition — and Brazil, with its Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy (BST), has already started down this path.

A Global South Example: The BST

While many countries still debate how to include equity in their taxonomies, Brazil has launched a proposal already designed with this integrated DNA.

The BST treats the social dimension as a positive contribution criterion, not just a barrier. It sets clear objectives, such as reducing regional and social inequalities, and acknowledges that sustainable development in Brazil must consider territory and people — not just carbon.

This territorial and inclusive approach demonstrates that it is possible to design a sustainability taxonomy aligned with the real challenges of the Global South.

A New Way to Classify Sustainable Projects

In practice, the IMT proposes three main pillars of evaluation — each with its own Substantial Contribution (SC) criteria:

Climate Pillar

• Focus on robust reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, alignment with the 1.5°C target, and adaptation to extreme climate events.

• Criteria are well established, based on quantitative metrics and internationally recognized thresholds.

Nature Pillar

• Aims to protect and restore ecosystems, ensure responsible use of water and soil, and deliver “Nature-Positive” results — meaning not just conservation, but restoration.

• Requires structured management plans and measurable outcomes.

Social Pillar

• Promotes fair work above minimum legal standards, reduces social and territorial inequalities, and ensures access to essentials such as housing and healthcare.

• The challenge lies in creating indicators that capture real social impact and are comparable to environmental criteria.

Each contribution must be measurable, combining quantitative indicators (e.g., wages, hectares restored) with qualitative ones (e.g., management plans, stakeholder inclusion).

But How Do We Measure All This?

That’s the most challenging part. Measuring carbon is relatively straightforward. But what about biodiversity? What about social justice?

The answer lies in a hybrid model of metrics:

• Hard indicators such as social security coverage, guaranteed minimum income, or restored ecosystem area.

• Contextual indicators such as leadership diversity or the level of community involvement in a project.

• Process-based approaches, like the TNFD’s LEAP framework, which helps map nature-related impacts and dependencies and develop evidence-based action plans.

The message is clear: what cannot be fully quantified can — and must — still be verified with rigor.

Conclusion: Sustainability Cannot Stand on a Single Pillar

The Integrated Multidimensional Taxonomy sends a powerful message: it is not enough to reduce emissions if, at the same time, a project fuels ecosystem destruction or deepens social inequalities.

Focusing only on climate while ignoring biodiversity or social impacts is no longer acceptable. Likewise, it is incoherent to claim “sustainable development” without addressing regional asymmetries, labor rights, and the well-being of affected communities.

This new approach urges us to think of sustainability as a tripod: climate, nature, and social equity. Each pillar must carry equal weight when classifying, financing, and executing any so-called sustainable activity.

It’s not about adding parts together. It’s about changing the logic itself.