What's one international building code approach that you believe should be adopted more widely? How would this specific regulation improve building safety or sustainability?

As an architect, I was always taught to experience a space as a user before starting the design process. This ensures that every small detail can be visualised and addressed. Speaking of international standards, I believe ISO 21542 should be widely adopted. This code ensures that buildings are designed to be accessible and usable by people with diverse physical and sensory abilities. When you imagine yourself in their place, you quickly realise how many current designs remain exclusive. Inclusive spaces should be accessible without relying solely on stairs; ramps should be integrated seamlessly, hallways should be wider, and restrooms must be fully accessible. Furthermore, the use of tactile pathways, Braille elevator buttons, and both audio and visual alarms are necessities, not luxuries. I have realised that when we design according to these regulations, a building becomes "universally friendly" for all age groups and ability levels. More importantly, it significantly improves building safety and inclusivity. Such a design remains functional for a diverse population throughout the entire lifecycle of the structure.

One international building code approach I believe should be adopted more widely is the "airtightness testing" requirement used in places like the UK and parts of Europe. In simple terms, it mandates a blower door test to measure how much air leaks out of a home before final approval. I've walked into plenty of remodels where everything looked great on the surface, but you could feel drafts around windows and attic penetrations—those hidden gaps kill energy efficiency and can lead to moisture problems over time. On one project, we tightened up the building envelope intentionally—sealing seams, improving insulation transitions—and tested it, and the difference in comfort and HVAC performance was immediate. Making airtightness testing standard would push contractors to pay attention to details that usually get overlooked. It improves indoor air quality, reduces energy bills, and prevents long-term structural issues from condensation. It's a small added step that forces higher accountability and delivers a noticeably better-performing home.

The one approach I'd push for wider adoption is mandatory guardrail and fall protection standards for residential construction — specifically the height-trigger thresholds used in European EN 13374 standards, which are more protective than what most North American codes require for residential decks and balconies. In our work installing railings and fencing, we see the gap between what's code-compliant and what's actually safe play out regularly. The IBC sets 42-inch guardrail height for commercial applications, but residential decks under certain occupancy types can still be built to 36 inches in many jurisdictions. That six-inch difference matters when a child leans against a rail. Countries that have standardized higher minimums with load-testing requirements across both residential and commercial projects have measurably better outcomes on fall-related injuries. The specific piece I'd adopt broadly is the requirement for physical load-testing documentation on railings and guardrails post-installation — not just design specifications on a permit. When contractors know the work will be tested and not just inspected visually, the quality of the installation goes up significantly.

One building code approach that deserves wider adoption is the mandatory installation of residual current devices (RCDs) across all residential circuits, not just selected ones. In Australia, RCD protection has become standard for modern homes because it significantly reduces the risk of electric shock and electrical fires. An RCD can detect current leakage in milliseconds and shut the circuit down before someone is seriously injured. In older buildings or regions where RCD protection is limited to specific circuits, the risk of electrical accidents remains much higher. Expanding mandatory RCD protection across all circuits would dramatically improve electrical safety in homes, especially where DIY electrical modifications or ageing wiring systems are common. From a safety standpoint, it is one of the most effective and relatively low-cost upgrades a building can have.

If I could import one rule into every building code, it's making whole-home leak detection and an automatic shutoff normal in new builds. In places that treat leak detection as a standard part of plumbing design, a burst hose or failed fitting becomes a phone alert and a closed valve, not a ceiling collapse and mould. It improves safety by cutting slip hazards and electrical risk from flooding, and it improves sustainability because you stop wasting thousands of litres while you're asleep or away. The only downside is cost and maintenance, but compared to one serious water event, it's a smart trade.

What is one international building code approach that you believe should be adopted more widely? One approach that deserves broader adoption is the stronger emphasis many international building codes place on moisture management and ventilation inside wall systems and living spaces. In several countries, construction standards require more deliberate ventilation pathways and moisture barriers within walls, flooring systems, and roofing assemblies. These codes recognize that moisture is one of the most common causes of structural deterioration and indoor air quality problems. By designing buildings to manage humidity and airflow properly, these systems help prevent mold growth, structural rot, and premature material failure. How would this specific regulation improve building safety or sustainability? Better moisture and ventilation standards improve both the safety and lifespan of a building. When moisture is properly controlled, materials such as flooring, cabinetry, drywall, and framing maintain their structural integrity for much longer periods of time. From a sustainability perspective, this reduces the need for frequent repairs and material replacement, which ultimately lowers long term resource consumption. In practical terms, it also creates healthier indoor environments for occupants because improved ventilation reduces trapped humidity and airborne contaminants. A building that manages moisture effectively tends to perform better over decades rather than just the first few years after construction.

One international building code approach that deserves wider adoption is the requirement for continuous exterior insulation in building envelopes, a standard commonly used in parts of Europe and Canada. Instead of relying only on insulation placed between wall studs, this method adds a consistent layer of insulation across the entire exterior surface of a building. That extra layer helps eliminate thermal bridging, which happens when heat escapes through structural materials like wood or steel framing. Thermal bridging may seem like a small technical issue, yet it can significantly reduce the energy efficiency of a building and create cold spots that lead to condensation or moisture problems inside walls. When continuous insulation becomes part of building code requirements, the impact reaches beyond energy savings. Buildings maintain more stable indoor temperatures, heating and cooling systems operate more efficiently, and long term structural durability improves because moisture control becomes more reliable. Renovation and construction teams often see how small design changes can create lasting benefits. Companies like Accurate Homes and Commercial Services frequently evaluate insulation performance when upgrading older properties, especially in commercial renovations where energy efficiency affects operating costs year after year. A code standard that encourages continuous insulation would push more builders to adopt practices that protect building performance while reducing long term energy consumption for property owners.

From my perspective working in high-end residential properties across Marin County, the building code approach I'd most like to see adopted widely is mandatory indoor air quality standards for new construction — specifically requiring low-VOC materials and ventilation benchmarks that go beyond basic ASHRAE minimums. We clean homes every week where the occupants are unknowingly living with off-gassing from finishes, adhesives, and synthetic materials, and the difference in air quality between a thoughtfully built green home and a conventional one is striking. Tying indoor air quality thresholds to occupancy permits the way fire safety codes do would be a meaningful shift for both health and sustainability outcomes.

One international building code approach I believe should be adopted more widely is the mandatory use of performance-based energy efficiency standards, as seen in parts of the European Union. Unlike prescriptive codes that dictate specific materials or methods, performance-based standards require that a building meet measurable energy and sustainability outcomes, allowing designers flexibility while ensuring actual performance. This approach drives innovation in insulation, HVAC, and renewable energy integration, rather than simply checking boxes on construction plans. Adopting this regulation more broadly would significantly reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions across the built environment, especially in urban centers with high-density housing. By focusing on measurable outcomes, it also prevents the disconnect between theoretical efficiency on paper and real-world performance, which is a major shortcoming in many current codes. From a safety perspective, performance-based codes often encourage integrated building systems and smarter monitoring, which can alert occupants and operators to potential hazards like overheating, ventilation failures, or structural strain before they become critical. This proactive, outcome-oriented focus improves resilience against environmental stressors and extreme weather events. Wider adoption would also create a global benchmark for sustainable construction, making it easier for architects, engineers, and developers to implement consistent best practices across borders. It encourages a culture of accountability, innovation, and long-term thinking that benefits occupants, communities, and the planet alike.

The International Green Construction Code (IgCC) is the one global code approach I believe should be adopted far more widely because it gives jurisdictions a practical, enforceable pathway to embed sustainability and resilience into every stage of building design and construction. From a corporate social responsibility and ESG (environmental, social, governance) reporting leadership perspective, the IgCC is a critical lever for reducing the environmental and operational risks that organizations face, especially as buildings account for a significant share of global emissions and resource use. The Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction reports that buildings contribute 39% of global energy related carbon emissions, with 28% from operations and 11% from materials and construction. This underscores why a code based solution is essential for meeting climate commitments, advancing responsible resource management, and strengthening long term community well being. The IgCC directly targets these drivers by establishing minimum requirements for energy efficiency, water conservation, materials, site impacts, and indoor environmental quality, creating a consistent baseline that reduces long term operating costs and improves resilience across portfolios. Its energy provisions can reduce operational energy use by 10-14% beyond standard code baselines, and its water efficiency measures can cut indoor water consumption by 20% or more, an increasingly important factor for water stressed regions and for companies prioritizing responsible water stewardship. Requirements for construction waste diversion, often 50-65% minimum thresholds, support circularity and reduce landfill reliance, while indoor air quality protections improve occupant health and reduce maintenance risks, aligning directly with the social dimensions of ESG. What makes the IgCC especially valuable from a corporate sustainability standpoint is its scalability and jurisdictional flexibility. Organizations can operate across multiple markets with a unified sustainability standard, while local authorities can tailor elective provisions to climate risks and community priorities. Wider adoption would reduce compliance complexity, accelerate high performance building practices, and strengthen both environmental and financial resilience, advancing the core objectives of CSR, ESG, and long-term value creation.

In my opinion, every new building should be constructed as a Passive House, according to the standards of the Passive House Institute. This involves creating an extremely airtight building envelope with minimum thermal bridges, and minimizing heat loss through the use of a high insulation level and highly efficient window design, to keep heating and cooling demands to a minimum. Although the concept of the Passive House was developed in Europe, it can now be applied worldwide to almost all climatic conditions. Increasing the performance standard of buildings in building codes will result in significant energy savings from the building stock, while at the same time providing a healthier indoor air environment for occupants. Ultimately, more stable temperatures are achieved, mechanical heating and cooling requirements are lowered, and overall emissions from the building's life cycle are decreased. It's a regulation that provides real benefits to the present and future environment, as well as to the occupants of the buildings.

Passive House certification standards from Germany deserve wider global adoption. This approach mandates airtight building envelopes with mechanical ventilation and heat recovery systems that reduce energy consumption by up to 90 percent compared to conventional construction. What sets it apart is the focus on building physics rather than just material selection. A Passive House stays warm in winter and cool in summer with minimal mechanical systems because the structure itself manages thermal performance. This reduces both operating costs and carbon emissions while improving indoor air quality. Countries that have adopted similar standards like Austria and Scandinavia have demonstrated that the modest additional construction cost is recovered within a few years through dramatically lower energy bills.

One international approach that deserves far wider adoption is performance based fire safety design, which is more commonly embraced in regions like Australia and parts of Europe, where instead of strictly following prescriptive rules, buildings are engineered to meet defined safety outcomes through modeling, simulation, and real world performance criteria; this allows for more adaptive, resilient structures that account for modern materials, complex layouts, and actual occupant behavior rather than relying solely on standardized assumptions. What makes this especially valuable is that it encourages innovation without compromising safety, enabling designers to optimize evacuation times, smoke control, and structural integrity in ways that rigid codes often cannot accommodate. "The safest buildings are not the ones that follow the rules most closely, but the ones designed to perform under real conditions." Broader adoption of this approach would not only improve fire safety outcomes but also support more sustainable construction by reducing overengineering and allowing smarter use of materials based on how buildings actually behave in critical scenarios.

I would advocate for an international code requiring minimum building envelope air sealing and insulation standards for new construction and major renovations. In my work helping clients reduce utility costs I have seen simple sealing upgrades deliver immediate, substantive savings without changes to daily routines. Making these measures a baseline requirement would lower energy use and reduce peak heating and cooling demand. Paired with encouragement for annual utility audits, the rule would help owners identify cost effective fixes and track ongoing performance.

Building standards often reflect the priorities of the regions that develop them, and some approaches demonstrate clear benefits when viewed more broadly. One example is the widespread adoption of performance-based energy codes, used in several European countries, which focus on the overall energy efficiency of a building rather than prescribing only specific materials or construction methods. Instead of requiring a fixed set of solutions, these codes define measurable performance targets for insulation, energy use, and emissions. Architects and engineers are then free to design creative solutions that meet or exceed those benchmarks. This flexibility encourages innovation while still maintaining strong environmental standards. Adopting this approach more widely could significantly improve both sustainability and long-term building performance. By focusing on measurable outcomes rather than rigid prescriptions, performance-based codes allow designers to integrate new technologies and materials while still ensuring that buildings operate efficiently and responsibly over time.

France's RE2020 model, which looks at a building's whole-life carbon (not just energy usage after construction) is one building code approach that should be used more widely. In addition, buildings often appear to be using energy efficiently in operation yet still produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gas emissions through the materials from which they are constructed (i.e., concrete, steel, and insulation) during the construction phase. Enacting this type of regulation will promote sustainability by requiring developers and designers to measure the carbon impact of their projects earlier in the design process, thus providing them with the information necessary to make more informed decisions about the materials they will use and the design approaches they will take. In addition, by requiring developers and designers to look at the whole-life carbon of a building, it will encourage the use of lower-carbon products; simpler structural systems; and more efficient construction practices, which both will result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the long term and will enable the development of safe and resilient buildings over time.

A building-code approach that deserves much wider adoption is mandatory energy-performance standards, like the ones used in parts of the EU. Instead of encouraging efficiency, they require buildings to meet a minimum performance threshold and improve over time. It forces the market to deal with the reality that most buildings waste enormous amounts of energy. These standards cut emissions, lower operating costs, and make buildings more resilient, all without waiting for voluntary action or one-off incentives. Raising the floor on all building performance is far more impactful than celebrating the handful of buildings that reach the ceiling.

One international building code approach I believe should be adopted more widely is mandatory green roof or reflective roof standards, a policy I call the "cool-cover mandate." By requiring roofs to either reflect sunlight or support vegetation, buildings reduce heat absorption, lower energy demand, and mitigate urban heat islands. For example, cities in Germany and Singapore have implemented such codes with measurable benefits: reduced cooling loads, improved stormwater management, and longer roof lifespan. Wider adoption would improve building sustainability, lower energy costs, and enhance urban resilience to extreme temperatures. The takeaway: integrating simple, science-backed roof standards into building codes globally can significantly boost safety, energy efficiency, and environmental impact without requiring radical redesigns.