Managing sustainability through architectural design decision processes: Influences of values and frames

Sustainability ambitions in AEC often fall short of both regulatory potential and stakeholders’ initial intentions. While technical requirements set baseline standards, additional sustainability progress relies on discretionary decisions shaped by human factors. Prior research indicates that cognitive constraints and non-technical barriers undermine higher sustainability aspirations, yet empirical work linking human values to decision outcomes remains limited. This study addresses that gap by examining how individual values and communication framing both influence real-world sustainability decisions in architect–client interactions. Using a case-based grounded approach, the research introduces a theoretical framework combining human values—understood as individually significant ideals or goals—with communication frames—which shape the meaning of decision problems and options. Through interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires, the study documents how architects perceive and navigate values and frames during typical project discussions. Values-influence pathways were mapped to observe how stakeholders’ values, expressed or inferred, interacted with frames to shape sustainability-related choices. The findings show that opportunities for individually meaningful sustainability choices emerge or disappear depending on how frames align with decision-makers’ values. Early in projects, architects commonly (though tacitly) identify client values and adjust framing to support sustainability-oriented decisions during aspirational briefing and early design. However, at later stages, new frames centred on cost, risk, conflict, complexity, and financial priorities tend to override earlier sustainability-oriented values. These later, problem-focused frames activate values less supportive of sustainability, leading to the erosion of previously agreed sustainable measures. The study concludes that values-and-frames, both separately and combined, exert substantial yet typically unrecognised influence on sustainability outcomes. Actively acknowledging and coordinating them can protect and expand the interpersonal space for more meaningful, values-based choices. Decisions grounded in personally significant values—and framed accordingly—are more likely to persist throughout a project. The research therefore contributes novel insights into how values-and-frames dynamics both limit and can be leveraged to enhance sustainability decision-making in architectural practice.