Materials as Infrastructure: The Office Decisions That Shape Health, Operations, and Tenant Trust Over Time

Source: Unsplash

Materials Are the Hardest Office Decisions to Undo

In commercial office buildings, some decisions are easy to change. Furniture can be replaced. Amenities can be refreshed. Technology can be upgraded. Materials are different. Once installed, they are costly and disruptive to modify, and often impractical to reverse without significant operational impact [1], [2].

In this context, materials include not only visible finishes like flooring and furnishings, but also the products and surfaces that occupants and facility teams interact with every day, from wall systems and sealants to cleaning and maintenance products [1], [3].

Flooring, finishes, furnishings, and operational products shape how a space feels long after a design team has moved on and long after a tenant has signed a lease. These choices influence indoor air quality, comfort, maintenance practices, and the day-to-day experience of everyone who works in the building  [4], [5]. They also shape what happens years later, during renovations, tenant improvements, and system upgrades, when existing materials are disturbed or replaced [6], [7], [8].

Frameworks such as the WELL Building Standard place materials at the center of healthier workplace design by focusing on reducing exposure to hazardous chemicals, improving transparency, and supporting safer day-to-day operations. The emphasis is not on aesthetics or specialty finishes, but on long-term performance and risk reduction [1].

For owners, investors, and property teams, materials are best understood as long-term commitments. When approached intentionally, they support healthier interiors, smoother operations, and greater flexibility over time. When treated as an afterthought, materials can quietly contribute to operational friction, occupant complaints, and avoidable cost [2], [9].

Why Materials Fall Between Design and Operations

Materials are often ignored because they fall between responsibilities, not because teams or management don't care. 

In most projects, material decisions are finalized early, often under tight schedules and budget constraints. Once selections are made, attention shifts to visible features, leasing priorities, or operational systems. Materials are treated as a one-time design task rather than an ongoing performance consideration [1], [2].

Responsibility is fragmented. Designers focus on aesthetics and specifications. Contractors focus on availability and installation. Operations teams inherit the outcomes years later, managing cleaning, maintenance, and tenant concerns without having been part of the original decisions. Over time, materials become background conditions, noticed only when something goes wrong [3], [4].

Cost perceptions reinforce this pattern. Healthier materials are often assumed to be expensive or niche, even though many WELL-aligned strategies rely on commercially available products increasingly available within Class A office portfolios. As a result, materials are evaluated primarily on first cost rather than on how they affect comfort, complaints, renovation disruption, and long-term risk [2], [9].

Timing compounds the issue. Material-related problems often surface after occupancy, when odors linger following renovations, when tenants report irritation or discomfort, or when legacy materials complicate future upgrades. At that point, fixes are more disruptive and more costly than if considerations had been integrated earlier [5], [6].

This is why materials deserve a different lens. Rather than viewing them as a completed checklist item, leading owners are beginning to treat materials as foundational infrastructure. This approach aligns with broader industry expectations reflected not only in WELL, but also in frameworks such as LEED and Fitwel. Together, these frameworks signal a market shift toward healthier, more transparent material choices as a baseline expectation rather than a premium add-on [1], [7], [8].

How Material Choices Compound Over a Building’s Life

The effects of material decisions rarely show up all at once. Instead, they accumulate gradually, influencing how a building performs and how occupants experience it long after initial occupancy [1], [5].

Materials affect indoor environments through multiple pathways. Finishes, furnishings, and surface treatments contribute to emissions that influence indoor air quality. Cleaning and maintenance products interact with those surfaces daily, shaping ongoing exposure for occupants and facility staff. As materials age, wear, or are repeatedly cleaned, even those that initially seemed benign can become sources of odor, irritation, or discomfort [3], [4], [11].

These impacts are often most visible during moments of change. Renovations, tenant improvements, and system upgrades disturb existing materials, releasing trapped dust or residual chemicals and amplifying exposure. What once felt manageable can quickly become disruptive, leading to complaints, temporary relocations, or unplanned mitigation measures [6], [7], [8].

Operational consequences follow. Materials influence cleaning frequency, maintenance intensity, durability, and replacement cycles. Products that degrade quickly or require aggressive upkeep increase labor demands and long-term operating costs, even when their upfront price was lower [2], [3].

For tenants, these dynamics shape trust. Occupants may not identify specific products, but they notice how a space feels over time. Persistent odors, discomfort, or repeated disruptions undermine confidence in building management and weaken the credibility of wellness or sustainability claims. Conversely, spaces that feel consistently comfortable and well maintained reinforce a sense of care and professionalism [5], [9].

Taken together, these impacts show why materials matter far beyond the design phase. They influence health, operations, and perception in ways that are gradual but cumulative, shaping building resilience over the life of the building [1], [9].

Materials as the Backbone of Building Performance

Seen through this lens, materials are often discussed as finishes or products, but in practice, they function more like infrastructure. They continuously shape indoor conditions, influence how buildings are operated, and determine the resilience of a space as it evolves over time [1], [5].

When materials are approached as infrastructure, the focus shifts from appearance to performance. Decisions are evaluated based on how they support indoor air quality, durability, cleanability, and long-term occupant comfort. Materials interact with ventilation systems, cleaning protocols, and daily use patterns, forming the physical baseline on which other wellness strategies depend [1], [3], [4].

This perspective is increasingly reflected across the building industry. The WELL Building Standard emphasizes materials as a core contributor to occupant health through reduced chemical exposure, transparency, and safer operational practices. LEED reinforces this approach through low-emitting materials and disclosure, while Fitwel highlights the importance of ongoing operations and maintenance. Together, these frameworks signal that healthier materials are becoming an expected component of high-performing buildings [1], [7], [8].

From an operational standpoint, this shift is critical. Organizations such as the International Facility Management Association emphasize that healthy buildings must be actively managed, not just well designed. Facility teams are responsible for maintaining indoor conditions, responding to occupant concerns, and navigating renovations with minimal disruption. Materials influence all of these responsibilities [3], [10].

Treating materials as foundational infrastructure also improves coordination across teams. When owners, designers, and operators align on material performance goals, early decisions are more likely to support long-term operational realities and preserve the credibility of wellness commitments [1], [9].

Lifecycle Cost, Not First Cost

Materials are often perceived as a cost center, particularly when healthier options are assumed to be more expensive or harder to source. This perception pushes decisions toward first cost rather than long-term value, even though materials frequently have a greater influence on lifecycle cost than many visible upgrades [2], [9].

Upfront pricing tells only part of the story. Materials affect cleaning requirements, maintenance effort, durability, and replacement cycles. Over time, these operational factors often outweigh modest differences in initial material cost [2], [3].

Lifecycle thinking reframes the question. Instead of asking which product is cheapest to install, the focus shifts to how a material will perform over years of occupancy, cleaning, and change. Materials that are durable, easier to maintain, and compatible with safer cleaning protocols reduce operational friction and simplify future renovations [1], [3], [11].

Disruption is another hidden cost. When material-related issues emerge after occupancy, fixes may require after-hours work, temporary relocations, or accelerated schedules. These disruptions affect tenants directly and strain relationships, even when problems are resolved. Proactive material planning reduces the likelihood of these downstream surprises [2], [9].

Importantly, healthier material strategies do not require wholesale replacement or premium finishes. Many improvements can be phased in during routine refresh cycles or tenant improvements, allowing owners to manage costs strategically while reducing long-term risk [1], [9].

How Building Teams Are Integrating Materials Into Operations

Across global office portfolios, a consistent pattern is emerging. Owners and operators are embedding healthier material strategies into broader planning, operations, and renovation cycles [1], [9].

In retrofit projects, many buildings start with transparency rather than wholesale replacement. Teams inventory existing materials, prioritize high-impact areas, and align new selections with healthier emissions and durability criteria. This phased approach improves performance without major disruption [1], [7].

New construction projects apply similar principles earlier. By setting material performance goals upfront, teams reduce last-minute substitutions and better align specifications with real-world cleaning and maintenance practices [1], [2].

Another clear signal is the growing role of operations teams. Facility managers are increasingly involved in evaluating how materials interact with cleaning protocols, maintenance schedules, and future upgrades. This operational lens helps avoid choices that look good on paper but create long-term challenges [3], [10].

What stands out is consistency, not novelty. Buildings that plan materials with a long-term lens experience fewer complaints, smoother renovations, and more predictable operations, reinforcing tenant confidence over time [2], [9].

Closing Takeaway

Materials rarely command the same attention as lobbies, amenities, or technology upgrades. Yet they are among the most enduring decisions made in an office building, shaping indoor conditions, operations, and tenant experience for years.

For owners and operators, the opportunity is not perfection, but intention. Viewing materials as long-term commitments helps reduce downstream risk, support healthier daily operations, and preserve flexibility as buildings evolve. It also strengthens the credibility of wellness and sustainability efforts by aligning what is marketed with what occupants actually experience.

As expectations around health, transparency, and performance continue to rise, materials are becoming a quiet differentiator. Planned and managed well, they represent a practical investment in resilience, trust, and long-term value.

References

[1] International WELL Building Institute, WELL Building Standard v2: Materials Concept, New York, NY, USA, 2023.

[2] National Institute of Standards and Technology, Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program (Handbook 135), Washington, DC, USA, 2020.

[3] National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cleaning Chemicals and Worker Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2012.

[4] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Volatile Organic Compounds’ Impact on Indoor Air Quality, Washington, DC, USA, 2017.

[5] J. Allen and J. Macomber, Healthy Buildings: How Indoor Spaces Drive Performance and Productivity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020

[6] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule, Washington, DC, USA, 2021.

[7] U.S. Green Building Council, LEED v4.1 Interior Life-Cycle Impact Reduction and Low-Emitting Materials, Washington, DC, USA, 2020.

[8] Center for Active Design, Fitwel for Commercial Buildings, New York, NY, USA, accessed 2025.

[9] International WELL Building Institute, Investing in Health Pays Back, New York, NY, USA, 2020

[10] International Facility Management Association, North America Operations & Maintenance Benchmarking Report, Houston, TX, USA, 2022.

[11] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Safer Choice Program: Standard and Product Criteria, Washington, DC, USA, 2023.