Abstract
This dissertation critically examines the actors, mechanisms, and structural dynamics shaping United Kingdom building standards, with particular focus on low-carbon housing policy. Through systematic literature synthesis, the study investigates how volume housebuilders and their representative bodies exercise disproportionate influence over regulatory outcomes, resulting in weakened or delayed green building requirements. The analysis reveals four principal mechanisms through which incumbent industry actors shape standards: deregulation discourse, cost-based impact assessments, performance-based regulatory frameworks, and privatised enforcement regimes. Findings demonstrate that successive governments have repeatedly softened zero-carbon housing commitments under pressure from the housebuilding industry, which leverages its position as the primary delivery vehicle for national housing targets. The research identifies this pattern as constituting a system failure, wherein government has failed to align regulatory instruments with stated climate objectives. The dissertation concludes that effective decarbonisation of new-build housing requires a fundamentally restructured regulatory regime characterised by greater independence from incumbent capture, robust enforcement mechanisms, and stable, mandatory national standards capable of driving genuine low-carbon innovation across the sector.
Introduction
The decarbonisation of the built environment represents one of the most significant challenges facing the United Kingdom’s climate policy agenda. Buildings account for approximately forty per cent of the nation’s total energy consumption and a substantial proportion of its carbon emissions, making the construction sector central to achieving legally binding net-zero targets (Committee on Climate Change, 2019). Within this context, standards governing new-build housing have become a critical policy battleground, where competing interests contest the pace and ambition of environmental requirements.
Recent developments have brought renewed attention to the politics of building standards. The Future Homes Standard, announced by the UK Government to ensure that new homes produce significantly lower carbon emissions from 2025, has been subject to ongoing negotiation and potential dilution. Reports that ministers may weaken certain green requirements, notably those concerning battery storage, exemplify broader patterns of policy contestation that have characterised this domain for over two decades (Greenwood, Congreve and King, 2017).
Understanding who shapes UK building standards carries profound academic, social, and practical significance. Academically, this question intersects critical debates in political economy, sustainability transitions research, and regulatory governance concerning how incumbent industries influence public policy outcomes. Socially, the standards applied to new homes will determine the quality of housing stock for generations, affecting fuel poverty, health outcomes, and community resilience to climate change. Practically, the coherence and stability of building regulations directly influences investment decisions by construction firms, technology providers, and financial institutions seeking to support the transition to a low-carbon economy.
The UK housing standards landscape emerges from a crowded field of actors. Central government departments set Building Regulations, with Part L specifically addressing energy performance. Volume housebuilders and their trade bodies engage extensively in consultation processes, frequently opposing cost-raising requirements. Materials, energy, and technology industries pursue their commercial interests through lobbying activities, whilst green non-governmental organisations and professional bodies advocate for more ambitious standards. Local authorities and innovative niche builders occasionally push beyond minimum requirements where powers permit, yet their influence remains structurally constrained (Gibbs and O’Neill, 2015).
This dissertation addresses a critical gap in understanding how these various actors interact within the regulatory system and why green building policies have been repeatedly weakened despite stated government commitments to environmental objectives. The analysis offers both theoretical insights regarding regulatory capture and practical implications for designing more effective policy frameworks.
Aim and objectives
Aim
The overarching aim of this dissertation is to critically analyse the actors, mechanisms, and political dynamics that shape UK building standards, with particular emphasis on understanding why low-carbon housing policies have been repeatedly softened or delayed despite stated environmental commitments.
Objectives
To achieve this aim, the dissertation pursues four specific objectives:
1. To identify and characterise the key actors involved in shaping UK building standards, examining their respective interests, resources, and influence within the policy-making process.
2. To analyse the principal mechanisms through which incumbent industry actors exercise influence over regulatory outcomes, documenting patterns of policy weakening and their relationship to industry lobbying.
3. To evaluate the coherence of UK low-carbon housing policy, assessing how policy mixes have evolved and examining the consequences of inconsistency for innovation and investment in sustainable building practices.
4. To develop evidence-based recommendations for regulatory reform that could enhance policy coherence and reduce vulnerability to incumbent capture whilst maintaining effective housing delivery.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology to analyse the actors and mechanisms shaping UK building standards. Literature synthesis represents an appropriate methodological approach for examining complex, multi-dimensional policy questions where empirical evidence is dispersed across multiple disciplinary perspectives and research traditions (Snyder, 2019). This approach enables the integration of findings from political science, geography, construction management, and sustainability transitions research to develop a comprehensive understanding of the research questions.
Search strategy and source selection
The literature search prioritised peer-reviewed academic sources published in recognised journals, supplemented by authoritative government publications and reports from established research institutions. Primary databases interrogated included Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, using search terms combining “building standards,” “housing policy,” “low-carbon homes,” “zero-carbon housing,” “housebuilding industry,” “regulatory capture,” and “UK construction” in various combinations.
Source selection followed explicit quality criteria. Peer-reviewed journal articles constituted the primary evidence base, with particular emphasis on empirical studies examining UK building regulations and their governance. Government publications, including consultation documents and impact assessments, provided essential context regarding formal policy positions. Sources were excluded if they lacked clear methodological approaches, demonstrated obvious commercial bias, or appeared in non-peer-reviewed outlets without established academic credibility.
Analytical framework
The analysis employed a thematic synthesis approach, systematically coding sources according to their treatment of key actors, influence mechanisms, and policy outcomes. This process involved three stages: initial coding of source content, organisation of codes into descriptive themes, and development of analytical themes that transcended individual sources to generate higher-order interpretations (Thomas and Harden, 2008).
The sustainability transitions literature provided a theoretical framework for understanding how incumbent actors and institutional arrangements shape the pace and direction of sectoral transformation (Geels, 2014). This perspective proved particularly valuable for analysing how the volume housebuilding industry has maintained its dominant position whilst resisting technological and regulatory changes that might challenge established business models.
Limitations
Several limitations warrant acknowledgement. Literature synthesis necessarily depends upon the quality and focus of existing research, potentially reproducing any systematic biases in the field. The dominance of England-focused studies in the available literature means that findings may not fully reflect experiences in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland, where devolved administrations exercise certain regulatory powers. Additionally, the rapidly evolving policy landscape means that some recent developments may not yet have received scholarly attention.
Literature review
The regulatory framework for building standards
Building Regulations in England and Wales establish minimum standards for construction, with Part L specifically addressing the conservation of fuel and power. Central government departments, currently operating under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, hold responsibility for setting these regulations and determining how far to tighten or relax requirements (Greenwood, Congreve and King, 2017). This centralised system reflects a deliberate policy choice favouring national consistency over local variation, though it also concentrates lobbying opportunities around a single decision-making node.
The regulatory framework has evolved significantly since the 1990s, when energy efficiency first became a major consideration in building standards. Pan and Garmston (2012) document how successive revisions to Part L have progressively tightened notional requirements, whilst simultaneously revealing persistent gaps between designed performance and actual outcomes. This performance gap reflects both technical limitations in compliance assessment and structural weaknesses in enforcement regimes.
Performance-based regulation has become the dominant approach, replacing prescriptive requirements that specified particular construction methods or materials. Cass and Shove (2018) critically examine this shift, arguing that performance-based standards create wide discretion for industry actors, often locking in high-energy designs that satisfy minimum requirements without advancing genuine sustainability. The authors question whose interests such standards ultimately serve, noting that flexibility ostensibly designed to encourage innovation frequently benefits incumbent practices.
Key actors and their interests
Understanding the politics of building standards requires systematic analysis of the actors involved and the resources they bring to policy contestation. The literature identifies several categories of significant actors operating with distinct interests and varying degrees of influence.
Volume housebuilders constitute the dominant private sector actors in UK housing production. Operating primarily as land developers rather than construction companies in the traditional sense, these firms have developed business models predicated upon land banking, sales rate optimisation, and cost minimisation (Adams, 2004). Goodchild (2021) observes that this oligopolistic market structure, wherein a small number of large firms produce a disproportionate share of new homes, concentrates industry influence whilst limiting competitive pressure for quality improvement.
Trade bodies representing volume housebuilders, including the Home Builders Federation, engage extensively in government consultations and maintain ongoing relationships with relevant departments. Gibbs and O’Neill (2015) document how these bodies have consistently opposed regulations perceived as cost-raising, framing their concerns in terms of housing supply impacts and affordability considerations that resonate with government priorities. This lobbying leverages the industry’s position as the main delivery vehicle for housing, exploiting governmental anxiety about slowing completions.
Materials, energy, and technology industries represent a more diverse set of actors whose interests do not always align with volume housebuilders. Pickvance (2009) analyses how these sectors sometimes advocate for standards that would expand markets for their products, creating potential countervailing pressure for higher requirements. However, the influence of technology industries appears less institutionalised than that of housebuilders, with lobbying often occurring through broader sustainability coalitions rather than direct policy engagement.
Green non-governmental organisations and professional bodies, including organisations such as the UK Green Building Council, advocate for more ambitious environmental standards. Gibbs and O’Neill (2015) note that these actors bring technical expertise and moral authority to policy debates, though their influence remains constrained by limited resources and the absence of direct economic leverage comparable to that exercised by major employers.
Local authorities occupy an ambiguous position within this landscape. Greenwood, Congreve and King (2017) document how some authorities have attempted to impose requirements exceeding national minima through planning conditions, only to face central government restrictions on such local discretion. Madeddu and Clifford (2022) observe similar patterns in relation to permitted development rights, where central government has progressively limited local authority powers to influence development standards.
Niche builders and self-build projects demonstrate that higher standards are technically achievable when regulatory constraints are removed. Lane et al. (2020) examine social innovation in the self-build sector, finding that projects operating outside mainstream market structures achieve significantly better energy performance. These examples serve as proof of concept whilst highlighting the structural barriers that prevent such approaches from scaling within the volume housebuilding system.
Mechanisms of influence and policy softening
The literature identifies four principal mechanisms through which incumbent industry actors shape regulatory outcomes, each operating through distinct political and institutional channels.
Deregulation and “red tape” discourse has provided a powerful rhetorical framework for opposing environmental standards. Greenwood, Congreve and King (2017) analyse how Coalition Government policies from 2010 explicitly linked housebuilding regulation to broader deregulation agendas, framing standards as bureaucratic impediments to housing supply. This discourse proved particularly effective in justifying the abandonment of zero-carbon homes targets in 2015, with ministers citing the need to reduce regulatory burdens on builders. Goodchild (2021) documents how this rhetorical strategy recurs across different policy periods, adapting to prevailing political sensibilities whilst consistently serving incumbent interests.
Impact assessment and cost concerns constitute a second mechanism through which ambitious proposals become diluted. Rezaeian, Pinkse and Rigby (2024) examine how the regulatory impact assessment process systematically privileges quantifiable industry costs over diffuse environmental benefits, creating structural bias against ambitious standards. The 2013 revision to Part L exemplifies this pattern: initial proposals for approximately fifty per cent tightening of energy requirements were reduced to six per cent following industry representations about implementation costs (Greenwood, Congreve and King, 2017). This outcome reflected not technical impossibility but political choices about whose costs should be prioritised.
Performance-based and light-touch regulatory approaches provide industry with wide discretion in compliance, often undermining regulatory intent. Pan and Garmston (2012) demonstrate that the shift towards calculated energy performance rather than prescriptive requirements created opportunities for design optimisation that satisfies regulations whilst minimising actual energy efficiency investment. This approach allows builders to meet standards on paper through calculation methodologies that may not reflect real-world performance, effectively weakening regulations without formal policy change.
Privatised and weak enforcement completes this quartet of influence mechanisms. Pan and Garmston (2012) find systematic compliance gaps in new-build housing, with significant proportions of dwellings failing to achieve designed energy performance. Goodchild (2021) attributes these failures partly to the privatisation of building control functions, which created competitive pressures among private approved inspectors that may discourage rigorous enforcement. When industry clients can choose among competing compliance assessors, incentives naturally favour those perceived as more accommodating.
Policy coherence and green requirements
Research consistently identifies policy incoherence as a defining characteristic of UK low-carbon housing policy. The trajectory of zero-carbon homes policy illustrates this pattern with particular clarity.
The zero-carbon homes target, initially announced in 2006 with full implementation intended for 2016, underwent repeated revision and ultimate abandonment. Greenwood, Congreve and King (2017) document how the definition of “zero carbon” was progressively weakened through successive consultations, with allowable solutions expanding to include off-site carbon offsetting rather than on-site renewable generation. This definitional drift reduced the practical implications of the target whilst maintaining its rhetorical appeal, creating what the authors characterise as “watering down” disguised as “streamlining.”
The Code for Sustainable Homes, introduced as a voluntary standard allowing assessment against criteria exceeding Building Regulations, was withdrawn in 2015 alongside the zero-carbon target. Gibbs and O’Neill (2015) argue that this withdrawal undermined the market positioning of firms that had invested in higher-standard production, rewarding those who had delayed improvement and punishing early movers. Such policy reversals damage regulatory credibility and discourage the investment in organisational capabilities necessary for sustainability transitions.
Heffernan et al. (2015) surveyed construction industry perceptions of zero-carbon homes policy, finding widespread confusion about future requirements and scepticism about government commitment. This uncertainty itself became a barrier to innovation, as firms rationally hesitated to invest in capabilities that might prove unnecessary if standards were further weakened. The resulting lock-in to conventional practices reinforced industry arguments against ambitious requirements, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of implementation difficulty.
Kivimaa and Martiskainen (2018) characterise this policy trajectory as an “arduous transition,” wherein the interplay of changing governments, industry lobbying, and administrative fragmentation has prevented the emergence of a coherent, sustained approach to low-energy homes. The authors identify multiple points of policy failure, including inadequate coordination between building regulations and energy policy, insufficient attention to skills development, and failure to address the structural characteristics of the housebuilding industry that impede innovation.
System failure and incumbent resistance
Drawing upon sustainability transitions theory, Rezaeian, Pinkse and Rigby (2024) characterise UK housing decarbonisation policy as constituting a system failure. This diagnosis reflects the persistent gap between stated policy objectives and actual outcomes, attributable not to technical limitations but to governance arrangements that privilege incumbent interests.
The concept of incumbent resistance illuminates how established industry actors respond to policies threatening existing business models. Rezaeian, Pinkse and Rigby (2024) analyse how volume housebuilders have adapted their strategies in response to zero-carbon policy, finding that most firms pursued minimalist compliance or lobbying for policy weakening rather than genuine business model transformation. This response reflects rational profit-maximising behaviour within a regulatory environment that failed to credibly commit to long-term standards.
Geels (2014) theorises that sustainability transitions require destabilisation of existing regimes alongside support for emerging alternatives. UK housing policy has notably failed on the destabilisation dimension, with government unwilling to challenge the fundamental structure of the housebuilding industry or its land-based business model. Lane et al. (2020) observe that niche innovations in energy-efficient construction remain marginal precisely because policy frameworks continue to privilege volume builders operating conventional approaches.
The implications extend beyond individual policy episodes to the overall credibility of environmental regulation. Gibbs and O’Neill (2015) argue that repeated policy reversals have created a credibility problem, wherein industry actors rationally discount future environmental commitments based upon observed historical patterns. This credibility deficit itself becomes a barrier to transition, as investment in greener business models depends upon confidence in sustained regulatory demand.
Discussion
The evidence synthesised in this dissertation reveals a structurally powerful volume housebuilding lobby operating within a political context characterised by deregulation imperatives, cost sensitivity, and weak enforcement mechanisms. This configuration has enabled industry actors to repeatedly soften or delay green building ambitions, producing persistent policy incoherence that undermines both environmental objectives and market confidence.
Addressing objective one: identifying key actors
The analysis confirms that UK building standards emerge from contestation among identifiable actor categories with distinct interests and resources. Central government holds formal authority but exercises this authority within constraints imposed by its dependence upon volume housebuilders for housing delivery. This structural dependency creates asymmetric bargaining power, enabling industry actors to frame regulatory proposals as threats to housing supply and thereby secure policy concessions.
The dominance of volume housebuilders reflects not merely their economic significance but also their organisational capacity for sustained political engagement. Trade body lobbying, consultation responses, and ongoing relationships with officials provide institutionalised channels through which industry preferences enter policy-making. By contrast, actors favouring stronger standards—green NGOs, professional bodies, and innovative niche firms—lack comparable resources and access, limiting their effectiveness as countervailing forces.
Local authorities emerge as frustrated actors within this system, possessing local democratic legitimacy and sometimes stronger environmental commitments than central government, yet finding their powers progressively constrained. The centralisation of building standards in Westminster reflects a deliberate choice that favours national industry actors over local variation, removing regulatory diversity that might otherwise enable experimentation with higher standards.
Addressing objective two: mechanisms of influence
The four mechanisms identified—deregulation discourse, cost-based impact assessment, performance-based regulation, and weak enforcement—operate synergistically to constrain regulatory ambition. Deregulation discourse establishes the political legitimacy of concern for industry costs. Impact assessment processes then operationalise this concern, systematically translating industry objections into policy modifications. Performance-based approaches provide flexibility that enables compliance without substantive change. Weak enforcement ensures that even softened requirements may not be fully realised in practice.
This analysis suggests that regulatory weakening operates through multiple, reinforcing channels rather than single points of failure. Addressing any one mechanism whilst leaving others intact would likely prove insufficient, as industry influence would flow through alternative routes. Effective reform therefore requires comprehensive attention to the political economy of standard-setting rather than technical fixes to individual procedures.
The performance gap between designed and actual energy efficiency deserves particular attention. Pan and Garmston (2012) demonstrate that significant proportions of new homes fail to achieve their calculated performance, meaning that real-world energy consumption exceeds regulatory expectations. This gap represents a hidden form of regulatory weakening, wherein formal standards remain intact whilst actual outcomes fall short. Strengthening enforcement and verification would require challenging the privatised building control system and potentially creating new public capacities.
Addressing objective three: policy coherence
The trajectory of zero-carbon homes policy exemplifies the policy incoherence that has characterised UK approaches to sustainable building. Targets announced, diluted, and ultimately abandoned have created an environment of regulatory uncertainty that discourages innovation and rewards delay. Firms that invested in higher-standard production found themselves competitively disadvantaged when requirements were weakened, whilst those pursuing minimalist compliance faced no penalty.
This pattern reflects deeper tensions in UK political economy between environmental objectives and housebuilding promotion. Successive governments have attempted to reconcile these through policy designs that promise environmental progress without imposing significant costs on incumbent actors. Such approaches consistently fail because genuine decarbonisation does impose transition costs, which must be distributed among actors including builders, purchasers, and taxpayers. Refusing to acknowledge this reality produces policies that promise more than they deliver.
The role of policy mixes deserves emphasis. Effective sustainability transitions typically require combinations of regulatory standards, economic incentives, information provision, and innovation support that work coherently towards common objectives. UK housing policy has instead featured fragmented interventions that often work at cross-purposes, with ambitious targets undermined by inadequate implementation instruments and vulnerable to reversal as political priorities shift.
Addressing objective four: implications for reform
The analysis suggests that effective decarbonisation of new-build housing requires not merely better technical standards but a fundamentally restructured regulatory regime less vulnerable to incumbent capture. Several principles emerge from the evidence.
First, mandatory national standards appear essential given the structure of UK housebuilding markets. Voluntary approaches, including the defunct Code for Sustainable Homes, have failed to drive widespread adoption because oligopolistic market structures and weak consumer demand limit competitive pressure for quality improvement. Only mandatory requirements create the level playing field that enables investment in higher-standard production without competitive disadvantage.
Second, regulatory credibility requires institutional independence from short-term political cycles and industry lobbying. Current arrangements, wherein departmental officials develop proposals subject to ministerial override following industry representations, create systematic vulnerability to capture. Arm’s-length bodies with statutory independence, comparable to the Office for Budget Responsibility in fiscal policy, might provide greater insulation from these pressures.
Third, enforcement mechanisms require strengthening through public provision and adequate resourcing. The privatised building control system creates incentive structures poorly aligned with rigorous compliance verification. Public investment in enforcement capacity, potentially including post-completion performance testing, would improve real-world outcomes and increase deterrence against non-compliance.
Fourth, policy stability requires explicit commitment devices that constrain future governments’ ability to weaken requirements. Legislative frameworks that establish binding trajectories for standard improvement, comparable to carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act, might reduce the uncertainty that currently deters innovation investment. Such frameworks would need to incorporate mechanisms for technical adjustment whilst preventing the wholesale policy reversals that have characterised past practice.
Limitations and alternative interpretations
The interpretation advanced here emphasises structural and political factors in explaining regulatory outcomes, potentially understating technical constraints on rapid standard improvement. Industry representatives argue, with some validity, that construction skills shortages, supply chain limitations, and technology costs create genuine implementation challenges that must be considered in regulatory design. A more sympathetic interpretation might view government responsiveness to these concerns as appropriate pragmatism rather than capture.
However, this alternative interpretation struggles to explain the pattern of policy reversal documented in the literature. If concerns about implementation capacity were primary, one would expect policies designed to address these constraints—through skills investment, supply chain development, or transitional arrangements—rather than outright abandonment of environmental objectives. The observed pattern of target announcement, dilution, and withdrawal suggests political rather than technical drivers.
The analysis also focuses primarily on England, with limited attention to devolved administrations that exercise certain building standards powers. Scotland has maintained somewhat more ambitious requirements, providing a natural experiment whose outcomes warrant closer investigation. Comparative analysis across UK jurisdictions might illuminate which institutional arrangements better support regulatory ambition.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined who shapes UK building standards, analysing the actors, mechanisms, and political dynamics that have produced persistent weakness in low-carbon housing policy. The evidence demonstrates that volume housebuilders and their representative bodies exercise disproportionate influence over regulatory outcomes, operating through multiple channels including deregulation discourse, cost-based impact assessment, performance-based regulatory frameworks, and privatised enforcement regimes.
The four research objectives have been addressed through systematic literature synthesis. The analysis has identified key actors including central government, volume housebuilders and trade bodies, materials and technology industries, green NGOs, local authorities, and niche builders, documenting their respective interests and influence resources. The mechanisms through which incumbent actors shape standards have been analysed, revealing a mutually reinforcing system of influence that operates through political, procedural, and technical channels. Policy coherence has been evaluated, confirming that UK low-carbon housing policy exhibits persistent incoherence characterised by announced and abandoned targets, withdrawn voluntary schemes, and credibility-damaging reversals. Finally, implications for reform have been developed, emphasising the need for mandatory standards, institutional independence, strengthened enforcement, and policy stability mechanisms.
The significance of these findings extends beyond academic debates to urgent practical questions about how the UK will achieve its legally binding climate commitments. Buildings constructed today will remain in use for many decades, locking in their energy performance for generations. Continued weakness in new-build standards creates a growing legacy of homes requiring costly retrofit interventions that could have been avoided through more ambitious initial requirements. The apparent short-term savings from weaker standards represent costs deferred rather than avoided, with interest accumulating in the form of higher future emissions and retrofit expenses.
Future research should investigate several questions that remain underexplored. Comparative analysis of building standards governance across countries might identify institutional arrangements that better insulate regulatory processes from incumbent capture. Quantitative assessment of the long-term costs of weak standards versus upfront investment in higher-performance construction would strengthen the evidence base for policy reform. Investigation of successful counter-examples, wherein regulatory ambition has been maintained despite industry opposition, could illuminate strategies for building and sustaining political support for environmental requirements.
The transition to low-carbon housing ultimately requires confronting the structural characteristics of UK housebuilding that currently impede innovation. This means challenging the land-based business models of volume builders, developing alternative delivery mechanisms less dependent upon incumbent actors, and constructing regulatory institutions capable of maintaining ambition across political cycles. Such reforms face formidable political obstacles, yet the evidence assembled here suggests that incremental approaches within existing institutional arrangements have repeatedly failed. Bolder intervention, though politically difficult, may represent the only realistic path toward achieving the housing decarbonisation that climate commitments demand.
References
Adams, D., 2004. The changing regulatory environment for speculative housebuilding and the construction of core competencies for brownfield development. *Environment and Planning A*, 36(4), pp. 601-624. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3557
Cass, N. and Shove, E., 2018. Standards? Whose standards?. *Architectural Science Review*, 61(5), pp. 272-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1502158
Committee on Climate Change, 2019. *UK housing: Fit for the future?*. London: Committee on Climate Change. Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/uk-housing-fit-for-the-future/
Geels, F.W., 2014. Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: Introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. *Theory, Culture and Society*, 31(5), pp. 21-40.
Gibbs, D. and O’Neill, K., 2015. Building a green economy? Sustainability transitions in the UK building sector. *Geoforum*, 59, pp. 133-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.12.004
Goodchild, B., 2021. Housing quality and design standards in England: the driving forces for change and their implications. *People, Place and Policy Online*. https://doi.org/10.3351/ppp.2021.4964445474
Greenwood, D., Congreve, A. and King, M., 2017. Streamlining or watering down? Assessing the ‘smartness’ of policy and standards for the promotion of low and zero carbon homes in England 2010-15. *Energy Policy*, 110, pp. 490-499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.08.033
Heffernan, E., Pan, W., Liang, X. and Wilde, P., 2015. Zero carbon homes: Perceptions from the UK construction industry. *Energy Policy*, 79, pp. 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.01.005
Kivimaa, P. and Martiskainen, M., 2018. Dynamics of policy change and intermediation: The arduous transition towards low-energy homes in the United Kingdom. *Energy Research and Social Science*, 44, pp. 83-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.032
Lane, M., Van Der Horst, D., Tingey, M., Smith, C. and Webb, J., 2020. Social innovation in the shadow of policy failure: Energy efficiency in self-build housing. *Global Transitions*, 2, pp. 214-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2020.08.001
Madeddu, M. and Clifford, B., 2022. The conversion of buildings to housing use: England’s permitted development rights in comparative perspective. *Progress in Planning*, 166, 100730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2022.100730
Pan, W. and Garmston, H., 2012. Building regulations in energy efficiency: Compliance in England and Wales. *Energy Policy*, 45, pp. 594-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.010
Pan, W. and Garmston, H., 2012. Compliance with building energy regulations for new-build dwellings. *Energy*, 48(1), pp. 11-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.06.048
Pickvance, C., 2009. The construction of UK sustainable housing policy and the role of pressure groups. *Local Environment*, 14(4), pp. 329-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830902764712
Rezaeian, M., Pinkse, J. and Rigby, J., 2024. Transition policy mixes and business model adaptation: Incumbent firms’ response to zero-carbon policy in the housing sector. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 33(4), pp. 3456-3472. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3870
Snyder, H., 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. *Journal of Business Research*, 104, pp. 333-339.
Thomas, J. and Harden, A., 2008. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. *BMC Medical Research Methodology*, 8(45), pp. 1-10.
