With global carbon emissions continuing to rise, leaders in sustainable design and building must drive forward the innovation needed to accelerate the transformation of how we design and build.

In a roundtable exploring the future of mass timber, initiated by DeSimone Consulting Engineering, a group of cross-industry experts explored the critical shifts needed for mass timber to be more widely adopted in construction. 

The underlying feeling was that the narrative must move from abstract "sustainability" towards tangible climate resilience. This is a necessary recalibration of how we position the positive impacts of using engineered-wood products effectively. By strategically communicating the material’s role in reducing emissions, improving wellbeing, promoting biodiversity, and fostering circularity, we can challenge environmental lip service and fight for the right solutions for communities. 

Participants in the discussion highlighted that when an upfront premium is paid to develop a highly sustainable building, the tangible benefits don't always reach the end users. If the benefits aren't made clear to the residents or commercial tenants who pay for innovative solutions, what’s going to drive the demand for mass timber developments? 

This disconnect between investment and tangible reward is a significant hurdle. Mass timber has a role to play—but with the right checks and balances. 

Consistent Metrics Beyond the Hype 

As outlined in the Timber in Construction Roadmap, there’s a timely opportunity to scale up the use of timber to aid the government's agenda for new housing and environmental sustainability. 

But Timber Development UK (TDUK) has warned that we must accelerate the speed of change and integrate timber construction into the UK's plans for boosting affordable housing, enhancing carbon storage, and streamlining the planning process, creating a cohesive strategy to decarbonise the built environment and achieve net-zero by 2050. 

These calls, however, are not made without challenges. Points of contention expressed during our roundtable included choices regarding the use of mass timber at scale, particularly in taller buildings, and a lack of equivalence in decision-making. 

For example, while the carbon-sequestration benefits of wood are lauded by those championing the material, engaging in a crucial "apples-to-apples" comparison is often found wanting from a benefit/cost analysis in the early phases of a development. 

Whether evaluating different timber projects against each other or contrasting timber with concrete and steel, inconsistent metrics can lead to misjudgements that slow down the adoption of mass timber. 

Meeting this challenge, the Using Wood Well project led by Change Building, University of Stuttgart and Waugh Thistleton Architects, funded by Built by Nature, has defined two practical metrics that can be integrated into existing frameworks: Wood Use Intensity and Wood Use Renewal Rate. Research-based metrics like these are a key lever for opening further dialogue on the road to meaningful change. 

Even when the long-term benefits of timber, such as lower carbon emissions, faster construction, and higher asset value, are demonstrated, we continue to face a significant hurdle across the built environment. A combination of higher upfront costs, insurance, and perceived risks related to fire and moisture often tips short-term financial models in favour of more ‘familiar’ materials, making it difficult to convince developers. 

As a result, timber is an option regularly value-engineered out of the process. It’s up to design professionals to challenge this script. 

Timber is the Most Sustainable Option, Except for When it’s Not 

From a structural engineering perspective, the belief that timber is always the most sustainable choice over concrete or steel is a common misconception. Its true impact is entirely context-dependent. 

For example, a CLT office in London might lose its embodied carbon edge if panels are shipped from Austria, while a mid-rise residential project could see schedule gains erased by local labour premiums and project delays caused by a contractor’s inexperience with timber. In short, a whole lifecycle assessment is required to effectively evaluate factors such as total carbon footprint, cost, speed, and adaptability to determine whether timber is the optimal choice for a project. 

Considered decisions require an agreement on the metrics we're optimising for, be it embodied carbon, speed of construction, or lifecycle considerations. 

Our roundtable also explored the benefits and risks associated with using the material to build at scale. The common view in the industry is that the optimal use of mass timber or hybrid mass timber is in low-to-mid-rise buildings. As such, there’s debate about whether tall timber buildings make sense. Without proper planning, taller projects often end up incorporating significant amounts of concrete and sometimes steel, undermining the original intent. 

The ongoing challenge, therefore, lies in communicating and demonstrating the broader, long-term value proposition of mid-scale mass timber developments to developers and funders. 

On a visit to the Netherlands for the CTBUH Conference earlier this year, I toured SAWA in Rotterdam. As a large-scale, all-timber residential development, it demonstrates how mass timber can reduce embodied carbon by over 50%, accelerate construction schedules through prefabrication, and deliver biophilic spaces that attract residents and investors. Beyond the environmental gains, the development’s modular design supports future adaptability—and builds a strong case for timber as a resilient, high-value asset class. 

Design, Standardisation, and Competency 

Perhaps one of the most vital takeaways discussed concerned mitigating risk. Participants agreed that the inherent risk isn't in the material itself, or an aversion to it on the part of insurers. Instead, the true vulnerabilities of mass timber lie in the lack of standardisation across the design and construction industries. 

Without consistently applied, high-quality design processes and a highly skilled workforce, any material can pose challenges and risk, whether timber, concrete, masonry, or steel. 

Prioritising the establishment of robust design standards and investment in the training and development of skilled professionals will be key to unlocking the full potential of mass timber. 

An Orchestrated Industry Response 

Meeting the commitments of the Paris Climate Accord is challenging, but global and local policies are accelerating the shift toward low-carbon construction. Examples range from the EU Green Deal and its taxonomy regulations to the imposition of stricter embodied carbon reporting in the UK (SECR)—and more widely across Europe. Political momentum and investor pressure find closer alignment as the years pass, as governments push for net-zero targets and green financing becomes increasingly tied to demonstrable reductions in carbon. 

Even so, an orchestrated industry response is equally important. Design teams play a critical role in translating these pressures into actionable building solutions through intentional material selection and innovative design strategies. 

By focusing on resilience, demanding rigorous comparisons, understanding the nuances of scale, and prioritising design standardisation and competency, leaders shaping the built environment can move the needle towards developing truly low-carbon, future-proof places. 

As an outcome of the discussion, we intend to establish a Special Interest Group with the NLA. Watch this space!