It was against this backdrop that BPIE and VELUX co-hosted two workshops in Brussels and London in June. The goal was not simply to reflect on the challenges, but to further develop our Healthy Buildings Barometer framework. Building on the five dimensions we’ve identified – improving mental and physical health, designed for human needs, sustainably built and managed, resilient and adaptive, and empowering people —the workshops asked: how do we make these concepts actionable for policymakers, practitioners, and citizens? And what would it take to ensure resilience, sustainability and affordability are treated as core to building performance goals, not optional extras? 

From efficiency to resilience 

For decades, building policy in Europe has focused on keeping homes warm in winter. This has been vital for energy efficiency and tackling fuel poverty, but discussions at the workshops highlighted that this approach leaves us unprepared for the opposite challenge: keeping buildings cool and people safe during extreme heat. Discussions in Brussels underlined this gap, highlighting the need to embed summer comfort and resilience into everything from Energy Performance Certificates to national renovation strategies. 

Participants also noted a broader evolution underway. With the 2024 revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), we have already expanded our vision of performance to include whole-life carbon. But should we go further? A truly future-proof definition of building performance might mean not only low emissions, but also resilience to climatic and geographic conditions, and health and wellbeing at its core. 
 

Health and equity at the centre 

Both workshops reinforced that resilience is not only about buildings -it is about people. At risk populations such as low-income households, the elderly, and people with chronic health conditions often live in the least prepared homes. Renovation programmes and funding mechanisms must prioritise these groups, ensuring upgrades deliver not only energy savings but also comfort, safety and health.

At the London Climate Week workshop, the conversation zoomed in on the very definition of a “healthy building”. Without shared standards, clear indicators and accessible data, it remains difficult to embed health into building codes or financing criteria. Yet opportunities are within reach: 

• Health indicators could be integrated into renovation grants and public procurement rules. 

• Local authorities could bring health expertise into planning committees. 

• More industrialised construction methods could make renovations faster, safer, and less disruptive. 

These are practical ways to ensure health becomes a structural part of decision-making, not an afterthought. 

Affordability: an urgent, open question 

Affordability –  a key component to the first of the five dimensions of a healthy building, ‘improving mental and physical health, was another key theme. With the EU Affordable Housing Plan expected in 2026, the timing is critical. But as several participants asked: affordable for whom? Too often, affordability is reduced to upfront costs, while ignoring operational costs or the wider benefits of healthy, resilient housing. 

The discussions surfaced a need for greater clarity: 

• How can we demonstrate and safeguard that our approach to sustainability and affordability are mutually reinforcing? 

• How can affordability metrics capture the long-term savings of resilient and healthy housing?  

• And how can housing policy and climate policy be better aligned, so affordability is not treated in isolation from resilience or energy efficiency and operational performance?  

These are not questions we can answer alone. But they are central to the work ahead. 

Shared takeaways 

Across both Brussels and London, participants converged on a few core insights: 

1. Climate resilience must be mainstreamed, not marginal. 
Extreme heat is no longer a future scenario, but a lived reality. Yet overheating remains largely absent from building codes, renovation strategies and financing schemes. Participants stressed the need to integrate heat resilience into Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), public procurement rules, and future EPBD revisions. That means not just tightening rules, but also providing simple, user-friendly tools and clear data so authorities, builders, and designers can actually apply them in practice. Just as policy once shifted to prioritise winter warmth, it now needs to rebalance toward summer safety. 

2. Passive and nature-based solutions must come first – supported by smart design. 
There was consensus that low-tech measures such as shading, natural cross-ventilation, thermal mass, green facades and trees are often the most cost-effective and impactful ways to prevent overheating. But these cannot stand alone: passive strategies need to be reinforced by smart technologies (such as automated shading) and integrated into wider urban planning. The challenge is not a lack of solutions, but the silos that divide different professional communities. Designers, engineers, construction firms and nature-based experts need to work together. Otherwise, efficiency gains are lost through fragmentation. 

3. Health and equity must shape renovation priorities. 
Both workshops underscored that at risk groups such as low income households, the elderly, children, people with existing health conditions, are at the greatest risk from poor indoor environments. Retrofitting schools, elder-care facilities, hospitals, and older social housing should therefore be top priorities. Participants also called for cross-ministerial taskforces to break down institutional silos and ensure that health is not left out of energy or housing policy. 

4. From vision to action: clearer definitions, standards and accountability. 
The Healthy Buildings Barometer offers a strong framework, but a recurring theme in London was the lack of common definitions and measurable indicators. What exactly qualifies as a “healthy building”? Which health outcomes – comfort, productivity, reduced medical costs – should be tracked? Without clarity, policies remain fragmented and hard to enforce. Participants called for minimum health performance requirements in renovation grants, harmonised standards for Indoor Environmental Quality, and better monitoring and post-occupancy evaluation. 

5. Affordability and health are inseparable. 
With the EU Affordable Housing Plan on the horizon in 2026, affordability was repeatedly raised as a decisive issue. The challenge is not just upfront costs, but the long-term operational savings and wider social benefits of resilient, healthy housing. Participants highlighted the need for financial tools that reflect this broader value—such as health-linked loans or mortgages, and incentives that support deeper renovations rather than short-term bill reductions. The open question remains: how do we define “affordable” in a way that works for people, policymakers and markets alike? 

What comes next?

The June workshops were only the beginning. Together with stakeholders and experts, BPIE will continue refining the Healthy Buildings Barometer, exploring how its five dimensions can shape future policies and buildings practices across Europe and the UK, with a particular view to ensuring a practical and integrated approach to resilience and affordability. Having championed energy efficiency in buildings for years, we know from experience that progress was hard-won. Resilience, by contrast, resonates with everyone – not just policy experts or the buildings community – because it addresses a challenge people feel in their daily lives: sleepless nights during heatwaves, stifling homes and workplaces. This shared urgency offers a unique opportunity to turn policy into action in ways that truly matter to people.