Building the future: How real-estate developers perceive their role in climate-friendly and social sustainable urban planning

The ongoing process of urbanization, coupled with the urgent need for a profound climate transition, underscores the timeliness and necessity of integrating sustainability considerations within the building sector. Real-estate projects are responsible for about 36% of CO2 emissions in the European Union ( European Commission, 2019 ). This study investigates how public and private real-estate developers conceptualize their responsibilities in promoting climate-friendly and socially sustainable urban development, and whether these perceptions differ across actor groups. The analysis is situated within a Nordic context, focusing on Norway—a country characterized by a neoliberal housing market in which substantial responsibility for detailed planning and housing production has been delegated to private real-estate firms. Drawing on a unique quantitative dataset comprising responses from both public and private developers, the findings suggest an emerging, more nuanced understanding of sustainable construction practices. While the dominant focus remains on energy efficiency, technical performance, and functional standards, developers increasingly incorporate broader sustainability principles, such as reuse and circularity. Notably, environmental concerns related to biodiversity and nature preservation appear to be the least developed among the actors. The study also reveals a growing awareness within the building sector regarding its role in fostering socially sustainable urban environments, except ensuring inclusive housing markets. One of the most unexpected findings was the convergence in perspectives between public and private developers, suggesting a shared set of values despite differing formal mandates. • The article surveys public and private real‑estate developers, showing a sustainability responsibility in both groups. • The strongest responsibility awareness is found in energy efficiency and functional requirements, but weaker in circularity. • There is a recognition of the sector’s role in social sustainability; as housing quality and community‑building provisions. • There is a marked similarity in the two groups’ approaches, suggesting shared value orientations despite differing mandates.