Why Sustainable Designers Lead the Way
For the majority of the last twenty years, sustainability in architecture has primarily focused on energy. This focus has included thermal insulation, window glazing, optimized cooling, and enhanced controls. Interior designers were excluded from that discussion, as the items they specify do not utilize electricity. That framework has disintegrated, and the rationale ought to restructure the discipline's self-perception.
As the cleanliness of operational energy improves, the carbon embedded in materials constitutes a greater portion of the issue. Due to the frequent replacement of interiors throughout a building's lifespan, in contrast to its enduring structure, the total carbon footprint of specified interior designs can equal that of the building itself.
The individual selecting the finishes is no longer positioned after the sustainability inquiry. They are contained within it.
Why Sustainable Designers lead the way?
Sustainable designers take the lead because they, rather than engineers or operators, make specification decisions that determine a building's largest remaining carbon burden.
The built environment accounts for approximately 37% of global energy-related carbon emissions, and as operational efficiency improves, embodied carbon from materials becomes the dominant share, accounting for more than half of the total life carbon for new buildings. Critically, while structure and substructure account for up to 80% of a building's upfront embodied carbon, the rapid replacement of interiors due to tenancy and turnover means that total embodied carbon from interiors can reach a similar order of magnitude over the building's lifetime.
Embodied carbon is also locked in during construction and cannot be retrofitted, making early design decisions irreversible in contrast to operational decisions.
The scale of the problem
The headline figures should be stated precisely because different sources count differently, which causes confusion. The global building and construction sector is responsible for roughly 37% of global carbon dioxide emissions and nearly 50% of global material extraction (Global Design Consulting, 2026, citing GlobalABC, IEA, and UNEP, 2025).
According to a widely cited earlier breakdown, buildings account for 39 percent of global energy-related carbon emissions, with 28 percent coming from operations and 11 percent from materials and construction (World Green Building Council, 2019).
According to more recent accounting, the built environment accounts for 42 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions, with 27 percent coming from operations and 15 percent from materials and construction processes (GRESB, 2026).
The direction of travel is more important than the exact split. Embodied carbon from building materials reached 3.6 gigatonnes of CO₂ in 2023, a figure that has remained constant even as operational energy efficiency has increased (Sustainability Atlas, 2026, citing UNEP, 2024). Embodied carbon in new buildings can account for more than half of total life cycle carbon. The impending expansion exacerbates the situation.
The global building stock is expected to grow by approximately 241 billion square meters between 2020 and 2060, which is roughly equivalent to adding an entire New York City to the world every month for forty years (GRESB, 2026).
The finding that puts interiors at the centre
Here is a number that should alter how an interior designer perceives their own work. A building's structure and substructure typically account for the majority of its upfront embodied carbon, up to 80 percent depending on the building type.
However, because of the relatively quick renovation of building interiors associated with tenancy and turnover, the total embodied carbon from interiors can account for a comparable order of emissions over the building's life (Global Green Growth Institute, 2024).
The arithmetic is simple once stated. A structure is built once and lasts for 50 years or more. As tenants change and brands refresh, an interior is installed, stripped out, and reinstalled several times over the same time period. Each cycle bears its own extraction, manufacturing, transportation, installation, and disposal costs.
Multiplying a moderate figure by many cycles results in a large figure incurred only once. This cost is formally captured in life cycle assessment as use-stage embodied carbon, which includes maintenance, repair, replacement, and refurbishment and can add 10 to 30% to a building's total depending on the building type and replacement cycles (Sustainability Atlas, 2026).
As a result, interior designers control a share of built-environment emissions comparable to structural engineers, despite the fact that the majority of the profession is unaware of this.
Why timing makes it urgent
Embodied carbon has another property that distinguishes it from operational carbon: it eliminates the option of later repair.
Operational emissions can be reduced over time through efficiency upgrades and grid decarbonization. Embodied emissions are fixed once a building is constructed, so reducing them as soon as possible is critical (Global Green Growth Institute, 2024).
Researchers argue that delaying reduction efforts in both new construction and refurbishment wastes a portion of the remaining global carbon budget.
A poorly specified fitout does not improve as the electricity supply improves. Carbon was emitted during the production of the material.
What a designer actually controls
Four levers sit squarely within the interior designer's authority.
Retention. The lowest carbon intervention is the one that reuses what exists. Keeping serviceable partitions, ceilings, floors, and furniture avoids the entire manufacturing burden of replacements.
Research on extending building lifespans through renovation has found substantial embodied carbon savings from this approach at a national scale (GLOBUS, 2024). Applied to interiors, the principle is that a refurbishment brief should begin by asking what can stay.
Material selection. Cement manufacture is responsible for around 7 percent of global carbon emissions and steel for 7 to 9 percent (Global Green Growth Institute, 2024), and timber substitution has been shown to deliver meaningful reductions where structurally and practically appropriate (Churkina et al., 2020).
Interior specifications rarely involve structural quantities of either cement or steel, but they do include aluminum, glass, plasterboard, adhesives, and composite panels; environmental product declarations now make comparison possible where previously it was guesswork.
Design for disassembly. Buildings demolished and sent to landfill carry a higher end-of-life carbon than those deconstructed for material reuse (Sustainability Atlas, 2026).
An interior detailed with mechanical fixings rather than adhesives can be taken apart and its components recovered. Such an approach is a long-term decision that takes years to pay off.
Longevity. Specifying for durability and designing for aesthetic endurance both extend the replacement cycle, which is the single most effective way to reduce the cumulative figure described above.
The circular argument, and where it actually bites
Circularity is the most common framework in this field, so it is important to specify what it means for an interior rather than simply repeating the diagram.
A circular interior's components can be reused. During the design stage, three things are required: separable components, identifiable materials, and a record of what was installed.
The first is a detailing decision, the second is a specification decision, and the third is an information decision, all made by the designer. The material passport is the opposite concept, a record of what a building contains and how it can be recovered, transforming it into a documented material store rather than a future waste stream (Debacker et al., 2016).
Without such a record, recovery is contingent on someone in thirty years being able to identify a laminate simply by looking at it. This is more easily argued than pure carbon reduction because of the commercial dimension.
Furniture and fittings that are retained, refurbished, or resold have residual value, and lease structures in some markets now consider fit-out elements to be assets rather than sunk costs.
A designer who can demonstrate to a client the resale or reuse value of a specification is making a financial argument rather than an ethical one, and financial arguments typically survive value engineering.
The second axis: material health
Carbon is not the only metric, and interior designers bear special responsibility for the other. Interior finishes, adhesives, and furniture are the primary sources of volatile organic compounds in occupied spaces, so specification decisions have a direct impact on indoor air chemistry. Research has associated reductions in total volatile organic compound concentrations with measurable improvements in occupant cognitive function, and reviews of ventilation and indoor pollutant exposure have long linked indoor environmental quality to health and productivity outcomes (Fisk, 2000), implying that low emission specification produces a health benefit that is separate from and additional to any carbon saving.
A sustainable interior that harms the people who inhabit it has failed on its own terms. The two axes need to be held together.
The Indonesian situation
Indonesia's position combines urgency, opportunity, and a known gap.
In November 2016, the country committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions with its first Nationally Determined Contribution, which included an unconditional target of 29%. Buildings in Southeast Asia, China, and India accounted for 27% of total final energy consumption and 24% of total carbon dioxide emissions in 2018 (UNEP, 2021; cited in Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 2023).
The gap is specific, indicating a professional opportunity. According to research on embodied energy and carbon in Indonesian public apartment buildings, there is no emphasis on carbon dioxide emissions from building materials or construction in the Indonesian building sector, and the national roadmap for energy-efficient and low-carbon buildings identifies the development of a building material emissions database as a necessary step (Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 2023).
Without local material emissions data, Indonesian designers must either rely on foreign databases that misrepresent local manufacturing and transportation or make decisions without evidence.
Building that evidence base is unglamorous, necessary, and currently unclaimed labor. Indonesia also has its own rating tool, the Green Building Council Indonesia, whose Greenship system was developed to reflect local climate and construction practices rather than importing criteria wholesale (Green Building Council Indonesia, 2013), and Jakarta implemented mandatory green building requirements for larger buildings through provincial regulation in 2012 (Government of DKI Jakarta, 2012).
Jakarta's situation exacerbates the case. A dense commercial market with frequent tenancy turnover results in the rapid fit-out cycles that make interior embodied carbon important, and the country's strength in timber, rattan, and bamboo provides material options with distinctly different carbon profiles than imported alternatives.
The limits
Three cautions are warranted, because this field attracts more claims than evidence.
Life cycle assessment depends on assumptions. The end-of-life credit stage, which accounts for potential benefits from reuse and recycling, is reported separately precisely because it relies on assumptions about what will happen decades in the future and remains contentious (Sustainability Atlas, 2026).
Data quality varies enormously. An environmental product declaration from one manufacturer is not directly comparable to a generic database figure, and regional variation in energy grids changes results substantially.
Certification is a proxy, not proof. Rating systems reward documented processes that correlate with but do not guarantee outcomes, and analysis of green-certified buildings has found a real but partial relationship between certification and measured performance (MacNaughton et al., 2017).
A designer who understands the underlying physics will make better decisions than one optimizing for points.
What the discipline requires
A unique combination is required for sustainable interior design. Instead of focusing solely on appearance and cost, material literacy must include provenance, manufacturing process, and end-of-life considerations. It necessitates quantitative proficiency because the work involves comparing figures with varying boundaries and assumptions.
Detailing skills are required because disassembly design is expressed in junctions rather than intentions. Distinguishing between substantive claims and marketing requires judgment. Much of this is built upon by studying Interior Design in conjunction with Business Administration, Visual Communication Design, and Psychology, which connects specification decisions to cost, how they are communicated to clients, and how occupants respond.
Teaching by practicing professionals is important because regulations and measurement standards are rapidly changing, and industrial attachment through the Center of Professional Development exposes students to real-world specification decisions and constraints.
The reason this discipline leads rather than follows is structural, not aspirational.
The majority of the remaining carbon in the built environment is decided at the specification stage, which occurs early and cannot be reversed. Whoever holds the pen determines the outcome, and in an interior, that is the designer.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much carbon does the built environment produce?
The global building and construction sector is responsible for approximately 37% of global CO₂ emissions and nearly 50% of global material extraction.
According to other estimates, the built environment accounts for 42 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions, with building operations accounting for approximately 27 percent and materials and construction processes accounting for 15 percent.
What is embodied carbon?
Embodied carbon is the carbon emitted during the extraction, manufacture, transportation, assembly, maintenance, replacement, and end-of-life disposal of building materials, rather than operational carbon produced by heating, cooling, and powering a structure.
For new buildings, it can account for more than 50% of total life carbon.
Why do interiors matter so much for embodied carbon?
Because they are replaced frequently. Structure and substructure typically account for up to 80% of a building's upfront embodied carbon, but the rapid renovation of interiors due to tenancy and turnover can lead to total embodied carbon from interiors reaching a similar order of emissions over the course of a building's life.
Why is embodied carbon more urgent than operational carbon?
Because it cannot be repaired later. Operational emissions can be reduced over time through efficiency improvements and cleaner electricity, but embodied emissions are fixed once construction is completed and consume a portion of the remaining global carbon budget.
What can an interior designer actually do about it?
Four things: keep and reuse existing elements rather than replace them, choose materials based on environmental product declarations rather than assumptions, detail disassembly with mechanical fixings so components can be recovered, and specify durability and esthetic longevity to extend the replacement cycle.
What is the situation in Indonesia?
Indonesia committed to reducing emissions through its first Nationally Determined Contribution in 2016, but research indicates that the Indonesian building sector has no established focus on carbon emissions from building materials, and the national low-carbon buildings roadmap identifies the development of a building material emissions database as a necessary step.
That gap represents a professional opportunity.
Marketing Manager
References
Allen, J. G., MacNaughton, P., Satish, U., Santanam, S., Vallarino, J., & Spengler, J. D. (2016). Associations of cognitive function scores with carbon dioxide, ventilation, and volatile organic compound exposures in office workers. Environmental Health Perspectives, 124(6), 805 to 812. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510037
Buildings and Cities. (2022). Embodied carbon emissions in buildings: Explanations, interpretations, recommendations. https://journal-buildingscities.org/articles/10.5334/bc.257
Global Design Consulting. (2026). Embodied carbon: The half of a building's carbon footprint the industry is still ignoring. https://www.greendesignconsulting.com/single-post/embodied-carbon-the-half-of-a-building-s-carbon-footprint-the-industry-is-still-ignoring
Global Green Growth Institute. (2024). Understanding embodied carbon in buildings. Asia Low Carbon Buildings Transition. https://alcbt.gggi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/3.2-Understanding-Embodied-Carbon-in-Buildings.pdf
Churkina, G., Organschi, A., Reyer, C. P. O., Ruff, A., Vinke, K., Liu, Z., Reck, B. K., Graedel, T. E., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2020). Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nature Sustainability, 3, 269 to 276. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4
Debacker, W., Manshoven, S., Peters, M., Ribeiro, A., & De Weerdt, Y. (2016). Circular economy and design for change within the built environment: Preparing the transition. Buildings as Material Banks. https://www.bamb2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/D1_Synthesis-report-on-State-of-the-art_20161129_FINAL.pdf
Fisk, W. J. (2000). Health and productivity gains from better indoor environments and their relationship with building energy efficiency. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25, 537 to 566. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.537
GLOBUS. (2024). Global building renovation potential by 2070. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.04133
Government of DKI Jakarta. (2012). Peraturan Gubernur Nomor 38 Tahun 2012 tentang Bangunan Gedung Hijau. https://jdih.jakarta.go.id/
Green Building Council Indonesia. (2013). Greenship rating tools. https://gbcindonesia.org/greenship
GRESB. (2026). What is embodied carbon in the real estate sector and why does it matter? https://www.gresb.com/what-is-embodied-carbon-in-the-real-estate-sector-and-why-does-it-matter/
Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering. (2023). Embodied energy and carbon assessment of existing affordable apartments in Indonesia. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13467581.2023.2278481
MacNaughton, P., Satish, U., Cedeno Laurent, J. G., Flanigan, S., Vallarino, J., Coull, B., Spengler, J. D., & Allen, J. G. (2017). The impact of working in a green certified building on cognitive function and health. Building and Environment, 114, 178 to 186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.041
Raffles Jakarta. (2026a). Interior design. https://www.raffles-indonesia.com/interiordesign
Raffles Jakarta. (2026b). Programs offered. https://www.raffles-indonesia.com/programmes
Raffles Jakarta. (2026c). International academic team. https://www.raffles-indonesia.com/international-creative-practitioners
Raffles Jakarta. (2026d). Raffles career development. https://www.raffles-indonesia.com/raffles-career-development
ScienceDirect. (2025). Promoting decarbonisation in the construction of new buildings: A strategy to calculate the embodied carbon footprint. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352710225002736
Sustainability Atlas. (2026). Embodied carbon in buildings: What it is, how to measure it, and why it matters. https://sustainableatlas.org/post/explainer-embodied-carbon-buildings-measurement-why-it-matters-1428
World Green Building Council. (2019). Bringing embodied carbon upfront: Coordinated action for the building and construction sector to tackle embodied carbon. https://worldgbc.org/climate-action/embodied-carbon/
