Key Findings

THEME 1:

Understanding Social Sustainability in an FM Context

Overview

Across the interviews, social sustainability in FM was rarely described as a standalone strategy or program. Instead, it emerged as a deeply embedded, often implicit dimension of FM practice, closely tied to how people experience safety, dignity, stability and belonging in and around the workplace.

Participants consistently described social sustainability not as something new that FM needs to “add,” but as something FM has always delivered, albeit without clear language, mandate or recognition. This tension between practice and articulation sits at the heart of the theme.

In many cases, social sustainability was framed as what happens when FM is done well. When environments are safe, clean, functional and responsive, people feel protected and supported. When those conditions fail, the social consequences are immediate and visible. As one participant put it succinctly, “Facilities touches everything, whether people realize it or not.”

What differs across contexts is how explicitly this social role is acknowledged, and whether it is treated as foundational, aspirational or optional.

Subtheme 1.1: Social Sustainability as Foundational Care

A dominant framing across regions was that social sustainability begins with non-negotiables: health, safety and basic dignity. Participants were clear that no amount of well-being programming or community engagement can compensate for unsafe or degrading conditions.

In this sense, social sustainability was positioned as a baseline condition, not a higher order ambition. This was especially evident in contexts wherein failure has serious consequences, such as higher education campuses, remote sites and emerging economies.

One participant emphasized that safety must always come first, noting that FM leaders lose credibility when social initiatives appear disconnected from operational realities. Another framed it even more plainly: “Sustainability has to be grounded in reality, not ideology.”

In emerging market contexts, this baseline framing became even more pronounced. Employment, income and safe working conditions were seen as the most immediate and meaningful social outcomes FM can deliver.

This reveals a critical insight: social sustainability is often understood hierarchically, with safety and stability forming the base upon which all other social outcomes depend.

Subtheme 1.2: Human Experience, Belonging & Everyday Interactions

Beyond safety, participants increasingly connected social sustainability to how people feel in the spaces FM creates and maintains. This included experiences of inclusion, connection, respect and belonging, particularly for those whose work keeps facilities running but who remain largely invisible.

Several participants highlighted that FM shapes social experience not through grand gestures, but through everyday interactions and design decisions. As one participant reflected, “You can design the most sustainable building, but if people don’t feel connected or included, then something is missing.”

Here, FM leaders spoke about emotional labor, trust and care as intrinsic to the role. This was exemplified in university facilities, where participants noted further factors of belonging and voice. ­

Subtheme 1.3: Employment, Livelihoods & Social Mobility

In many regions, particularly Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia Pacific (APAC), social sustainability was most strongly associated with employment itself.

Participants emphasized that FM is a major employer, often providing entry level or accessible jobs that support entire households. “One job in FM often supports an entire household,” as one African participant explained. In Latin America, FM was described as a direct contributor to social stability: “Facility management creates a lot of jobs, and that has a direct social impact.”

In APAC, this employment lens evolved into a broader narrative of social mobility. FM was described as a pathway, not a dead end. “Facility management is fundamentally about protecting people,” one leader stated, adding that in the local context, FM can offer dignity, skills and progression in an otherwise precarious labor market.

This dimension of social sustainability is often missing from formal ESG discourse, yet it was among the most consistently cited forms of social impact across the dataset.

Subtheme 1.4: Implicit Practice vs. Explicit Strategy

A recurring tension across interviews was the sense that social sustainability is already happening, but largely unacknowledged and under leveraged.

In public sector environments, participants described social responsibility as “just part of doing our job.” In private sector contexts, social contributions were often framed as by-products of operational excellence rather than intentional outcomes.

This creates a structural challenge. When social sustainability remains implicit:

  • It is difficult to protect during cost pressure
  • It is rarely measured or rewarded
  • It depends heavily on individual champions
  • It is vulnerable to leadership change

As one participant noted, “Facilities is still seen as a cost center in many organizations.” Without explicit articulation, FM’s social role struggles to gain strategic relevance.

Key Takeaways

  • Social sustainability in FM is primarily understood as foundational care, dignity and stability
  • FM already delivers significant social value, often without naming it
  • Employment and livelihoods are central social outcomes in many regions
  • Belonging and representation shape how social sustainability is experienced
  • The absence of explicit strategy leaves social value vulnerable
  • A shared, context sensitive language is essential for progress

THEME 2:

How FM Operations Support Community Well-being, Inclusion & Resilience

Overview

Across the interviews, community well-being, inclusion and resilience were rarely described as formal objectives of FM. Instead, they emerged as consequences of how FM operates in place. Participants consistently showed that FM affects communities not only through deliberate outreach, but through the everyday design, operation and governance of facilities as social infrastructure.

This theme makes the FM Beyond Walls concept concrete. It demonstrates that FM contributes to community outcomes when facilities are understood not as isolated assets, but embedded in neighborhoods, labor systems and civic life. In many cases, social impact occurred quietly, informally or out of necessity, rather than through labeled community programs.

What varies across regions is not whether FM affects communities, but whether that impact is acknowledged, intentional and protected.

Subtheme 2.1: Facilities as Community Anchors & Shared Social Infrastructure

A strong pattern across public sector, campus and large portfolio environments was the positioning of facilities as shared community assets. In these contexts, FM decisions directly shape who can access space, under what conditions and with what sense of dignity.

In some university facilities, FM was described as managing not only teaching and research space, but sports facilities, cultural venues, religious spaces, gardens and public realm infrastructure used daily by the wider community. One participant noted, “As a public institution, there’s an expectation that our spaces are used by the wider community.” In this setting, FM becomes a custodian of civic infrastructure, not just an internal service provider.

Importantly, community access was not always formalized. Several participants described quietly permitted use of facilities by homeless individuals, protest groups or displaced communities during crises. These practices were framed not as policy innovations, but as pragmatic responses to place-based realities.

This highlights a critical insight: FM often delivers community well-being through discretion and judgement, rather than through formal programs.

Subtheme 2.2: Inclusion Through Design, Access & Everyday Operations

Inclusion emerged most strongly through how facilities are designed, adapted and operated for diverse users, rather than through standalone inclusion initiatives.

  • Participants described FM enabling inclusion by:
  • Providing culturally appropriate spaces and protocols
  • Designing for accessibility, faith practice, gender and climate
  • Adapting operations to reflect who uses the space, not who it was originally designed for

In corporate and commercial contexts, inclusion was more fragile and often depended on individual FM leaders advocating for adjustments that fell outside standard specifications. Several interviewees noted that inclusion efforts were easiest to sustain when they could be justified through safety, access or operational efficiency.

Inclusion is therefore most durable when it is embedded in operational logic, not treated as an add on.

Subtheme 2.3: Community Well-being Through Safety, Continuity & Crisis Response

A powerful but understated contribution of FM to community well-being was its role in maintaining continuity during disruption.

  • Participants described FM teams as:
  • Keeping buildings safe during extreme weather
  • Supporting evacuation and sheltering during fires and floods
  • Maintaining sanitation, power and access during crises
  • Adapting facilities rapidly to new social conditions, particularly during COVID

As one participant observed, “A lot of what facilities does from a social perspective only becomes visible when something goes wrong.”

In Africa, this was amplified, as FM operations were described as stabilizing forces in regions where public infrastructure is limited. Employment continuity, food provision, water systems and medical access all became part of FM’s community facing role.

This positions FM as a resilience function, operating at the intersection of infrastructure, people and place.

Subtheme 2.4: Employment as a Community Well-being Intervention

Across multiple regions, community well-being was linked directly to employment generated through FM operations.

  • Participants emphasized that FM jobs:
  • Support households and extended families
  • Anchor local economies
  • Reduce vulnerability in informal labor markets
  • Provide entry points into stable work

In Latin America and Africa, this employment effect was described as immediate and material. “Facility management creates a lot of jobs, and that has a direct social impact,” one participant explained. In these contexts, community well-being was not abstract; it was measured in income stability and daily survival.

In parts of Asia Pacific, this employment lens extended further into social mobility and skills development, with FM positioned as a pathway rather than a dead end. This reframes community well-being as something that unfolds over time, through progression and capability building.

Subtheme 2.5: Resilience Beyond the Building Line

Several participants explicitly connected FM operations to community resilience beyond the facility boundary.

Examples included:

  • Training local suppliers and micro enterprises to support FM operations
  • Aligning waste systems with local circular economies
  • Supporting local food production through procurement
  • Maintaining purchasing from communities during political or security disruptions

One example from Africa described how FM teams helped villages develop cottage industries such as baking, brick making and farming, creating resilience that extended well beyond the original contract. Another described maintaining supplier relationships during conflict to prevent economic collapse.

This reinforces the idea that FM can be an active resilience builder, not just a responder.

Key Takeaways

  • FM supports community well-being primarily through everyday operations, not programs
  • Facilities often function as shared social infrastructure
  • Inclusion is strongest when embedded in design and operations
  • FM plays a critical but under-recognized role in crisis response and resilience
  • Employment through FM has direct community level impact
  • Regional context shapes how community well-being is delivered and understood
  • Outside-in thinking makes these contributions visible and intentional

THEME 3:

Adopting an Outside-in Lens to Address Regional Social & Economic Conditions

Overview

Across the interviews, the idea of adopting an outside-in lens was widely understood in principle but unevenly practiced. Participants described outside-in thinking as a way of seeing: an ability to recognize how social, economic, cultural and regulatory conditions outside the facility shape what happens inside it.

For many interviewees, outside-in thinking was framed less as innovation and more as situational awareness. It involved understanding where people come from, how they travel, what risks they face, what systems fail them, and how FM either mitigates or amplifies those conditions.

Subtheme 3.1: Outside-in Thinking

Participants were clear that outside-in FM is not an abstract concept. It is grounded in practical knowledge of place, including:

  • local labor markets and wage realities
  • transport infrastructure and commuting burdens
  • housing conditions and worker accommodation
  • regulatory enforcement and political volatility
  • cultural norms shaping hierarchy, gender and voice

In emerging economies, this contextual awareness was described as unavoidable. One stated plainly that FM operations are “part of the wider local ecosystem, not isolated workplaces.” Another emphasized that ignoring community conditions would make FM delivery impossible.

By contrast, in more mature or highly commercialized markets, outside-in thinking was often described as aspirational but constrained, acknowledged intellectually but difficult to operationalize.

Outside-in thinking is therefore not evenly distributed, because the necessity to practice it varies dramatically by context.

Subtheme 3.2: Workforce Realities as the Primary Outside-in Trigger

The most consistent entry point for outside-in thinking across regions was the FM workforce itself.

Participants repeatedly described FM workers as living at the intersection of:

  • low or moderate wages
  • long or complex commutes
  • insecure housing
  • family dependency
  • limited access to services

In this sense, the workforce becomes the carrier of outside conditions into the facility.

Examples included:

  • transport decisions shaping attendance, fatigue and safety
  • accommodation quality affecting well-being and retention
  • shift patterns interacting with caregiving responsibilities
  • language and cultural barriers shaping training effectiveness

In the Middle East, this lens was strongly shaped by migrant labor systems. FM leaders described outside-in thinking as inseparable from understanding worker accommodation, transport, health access and regulatory welfare requirements.

Subtheme 3.3: From Inside-out Defaults to Outside-in Design

Despite widespread recognition of outside-in logic, many participants acknowledged that FM still defaults to inside-out operating models.

These models prioritize:

  • contract scope
  • asset performance
  • cost efficiency
  • client defined KPIs

Outside-in considerations often enter late, if at all, and are treated as constraints rather than design inputs.

Several interviewees described this as a timing problem. FM is brought in after decisions about location, layout, staffing models or service design have already been made. As one participant reflected, “If facilities isn’t involved early, then the opportunity to influence well-being is already limited.”

Where outside-in thinking was embedded earlier, FM was able to:

  • influence site selection based on commute patterns
  • advocate for accessible transport and amenities
  • shape service models around workforce realities
  • adapt global standards to local conditions

This reinforces the idea that outside-in FM is not just a mindset shift, but a governance and inclusion issue.

Subtheme 3.4: Outside-in FM in Highly Regulated Contexts

In some regions, particularly the Middle East, outside-in thinking was driven less by organizational choice and more by regulatory mandate.

Participants described how changes in labor law, accommodation standards or welfare requirements rapidly reshaped FM practice. In these contexts, FM leaders emphasized the need to stay closely attuned to policy signals, enforcement patterns and government priorities.

This creates a distinctive model of outside-in FM:

  • externally imposed
  • highly structured
  • quickly scalable
  • but also highly contingent on political direction

While this limits discretion, it also demonstrates that outside-in FM can be accelerated at scale when regulation and enforcement align.

Subtheme 3.5: Limits, Trade-Offs & Ethical Tension

Participants were candid about the limits of outside-in practice. Key constraints included:

  • low margins and cost driven procurement
  • lack of authority relative to HR, finance or real estate
  • fragmented client ownership of social outcomes
  • fear of politicization or ideological capture

In some cases, outside-in social initiatives were often described as vulnerable to political polarization. FM leaders expressed concern that social action could be misinterpreted as political signaling, undermining credibility or stakeholder trust.

Key Takeaways

  • Outside-in thinking in FM is a form of contextual intelligence
  • Workforce realities are the strongest trigger for outside-in thinking
  • Timing and governance determine whether outside-in insights are actionable
  • Regulation can accelerate outside-in practice at scale
  • Political and commercial constraints shape what is possible
  • Outside-in FM requires judgement, not one-size-fits-all solutions

THEME 4:

Practical Examples of Socially Impactful FM Initiatives

Overview

Across the interviews, socially impactful FM initiatives were rarely described as standalone programs or philanthropic activities. Instead, they were most effective when embedded directly into everyday FM operations. Participants repeatedly emphasized that the strongest social outcomes emerged when FM used the levers it already controls: procurement, workforce design, training, waste, space and service continuity.

Rather than creating new structures, socially impactful FM initiatives tended to repurpose existing operational decisions to deliver broader social benefit. This made them more durable, more defensible and less vulnerable to cost pressure.

Importantly, these initiatives were not uniform across regions. They reflected local social needs, market maturity and regulatory context, reinforcing the need for place-sensitive models rather than universal best practice.

Subtheme 4.1: Employment & Skills Pathways Embedded in FM Operations

One of the most consistent and impactful forms of social FM practice was the use of employment and skills development as intentional social levers.

In many regions, FM was described as an accessible entry point into formal employment, particularly for individuals with limited educational credentials. Social impact increased significantly when FM organizations went beyond job creation to design progression pathways.

Examples included:

  • Apprenticeship and trainee programs aligned with FM service lines
  • Skills certification embedded into induction and ongoing training
  • Clear progression routes from frontline roles into supervision and management

This shows that FM’s employment impact becomes socially transformative when work is intentionally designed, not merely offered.

Subtheme 4.2: Social Value Through Procurement & Local Supply Chains

Procurement emerged as one of FM’s most powerful, yet underutilized, social impact mechanisms.

Participants described using FM purchasing power to:

  • Prioritize local suppliers and small enterprises
  • Support minority-owned or community-based businesses
  • Create stable demand for emerging suppliers
  • Maintain supplier relationships during disruption

In Latin America and parts of Asia Pacific, procurement decisions were described as central to workforce welfare, particularly in outsourced service models wherein underpayment and informality are common risks. One participant warned that “some of the biggest social risks in FM sit in the supply chain,” highlighting the ethical responsibility FM holds beyond direct employees.

This reinforces the idea that preventing harm through responsible procurement is as socially impactful as creating positive initiatives.

Subtheme 4.3: Facilities as Platforms for Community Access & Participation

Another recurring pattern was the use of FM-managed spaces as platforms for community participation.

This took multiple forms:

  • Opening sports, cultural and recreational facilities to the public
  • Hosting community events, education programs and cultural observances
  • Providing safe, accessible space during crises or displacement
  • Supporting faith, cultural and civic practices through design and policy

These practices were most visible in public sector environments, where FM leaders described community access as a responsibility rather than a bonus. However, similar, though more constrained, examples appeared in corporate settings through client-led open days, tours or partnerships.

Notably, some of the most impactful community use was informal and discretionary, such as allowing access to washrooms, shelter or facilities during extreme weather or emergencies. These actions were rarely measured or reported, yet they played a significant role in community well-being.

Subtheme 4.4: Circular Economy Practices With Social Co-benefits

Several participants described FM initiatives that intentionally linked environmental sustainability with social outcomes, particularly through circular economy practices.

Examples included:

  • Food waste composting connected to community reforestation
  • Waste segregation aligned with local recycling micro enterprises
  • Reduction of single-use materials combined with workforce training
  • Energy and water projects that included local skills transfer

These examples illustrate that FM is uniquely positioned to deliver integrated “E” and “S” outcomes, especially where circular practices are adapted to local capacity rather than imported wholesale.

Subtheme 4.5: Resilience Building Through FM-led Initiatives

Some of the most compelling examples of socially impactful FM came from resilience-focused initiatives, particularly in contexts of instability or crisis.

Participants described FM teams:

  • Maintaining employment and supplier relationships during conflict
  • Adapting service delivery during insurgency or political disruption
  • Supporting emergency response infrastructure
  • Ensuring continuity of essential services under extreme conditions

These initiatives were rarely labeled as social sustainability, yet they represent some of FM’s most profound social contributions.

Key Takeaways

  • The strongest social FM initiatives are operationally embedded
  • Employment and skills pathways are among FM’s most powerful levers
  • Procurement can create or prevent social harm
  • Facilities can act as platforms for community participation
  • Circular economy practices can deliver social co-benefits
  • FM plays a critical role in resilience and continuity
  • Practical social impact is often invisible but highly consequential

THEME 5:

How FM Contributes to CSR & ESG Performance

Overview

Across the interviews, there was strong consensus that FM already makes a material contribution to CSR (corporate social responsibility) and ESG outcomes, yet participants were equally clear that this contribution is poorly recognized, unevenly measured and often structurally sidelined.

FM was repeatedly described as the operational engine behind many ESG commitments, particularly those related to workforce well-being, supply chains, health and safety, and Scope 3 emissions. However, participants highlighted a persistent imbalance: while environmental metrics are increasingly standardized and rewarded, social contributions remain fragmented, contextual and undervalued.

Subtheme 5.1: FM as the Operational Backbone of ESG Delivery

Participants consistently positioned FM as the function that translates ESG intent into lived reality.

Examples included:

  • Workforce health, safety and welfare
  • Diversity and inclusion in frontline roles
  • Ethical labor practices across outsourced supply chains
  • Energy, water and waste performance at asset level
  • Daily behaviors that determine whether ESG policies succeed or fail

Several participants noted that FM teams are responsible for enforcing standards they did not design, often without recognition or authority. As one interviewee observed, facilities teams “touch everything, whether people realize it or not,” yet are rarely named explicitly in ESG narratives.

In emerging markets, this operational role was even more pronounced. FM was described as the front line of ESG, where global commitments encounter local labor realities, regulatory gaps and cultural norms.

This establishes FM not as a peripheral contributor to ESG, but as a critical delivery layer.

Subtheme 5.2: The Imbalance Between Environmental & Social Measurement

A dominant pattern across interviews was frustration with the uneven maturity of ESG metrics, particularly the dominance of environmental indicators over social ones.

Participants acknowledged that environmental sustainability has advanced because it:

  • Can be quantified
  • Can be benchmarked
  • Aligns with cost, risk and efficiency narratives

By contrast, social sustainability was described as:

  • Context dependent
  • Relational
  • Long term
  • Difficult to reduce to universal indicators

One participant articulated this imbalance clearly, noting that while their organization was scored highly on carbon reduction, “all the good things we were doing from a social perspective weren’t scored.”

Subtheme 5.3: Formalization of Social Value Measurement

Unlike many other regions, Europe (and particularly the U.K.) stood out in the interviews as a context wherein social sustainability has become increasingly formalized, systematized and measurable.

European participants expressed that social value is no longer treated as an informal or discretionary outcome, but as a contractual, reportable and auditable requirement, particularly in public sector procurement and large commercial contracts.

One U.K.-based participant observed that social value in FM has become “much more visible… because of policy and procurement,” noting that clients are now actively requesting evidence of social outcomes, not just commitments. This reflects the growing use of formal social value frameworks, scoring mechanisms and data-capture systems that sit alongside traditional cost and performance metrics.

Another participant highlighted that environmental sustainability gained traction precisely because it could be measured and linked to cost and risk and argued that social sustainability [in the U.K.] is now following a similar trajectory, albeit more slowly and imperfectly.

The rise of social value models represents an attempt to make the “S” legible to decision-makers, even if it risks simplification. Another interview further illustrated how these systems are reshaping FM practice. Social value is increasingly embedded into:

  • Bid evaluation criteria
  • Contract performance reviews
  • Supplier reporting requirements
  • Client accountability mechanisms

This marks a significant departure from regions where social value remains largely implicit or narrative driven.

Subtheme 5.4: Global ESG Frameworks vs. Local Social Value

Participants were particularly critical of the way global ESG frameworks flatten local social realities.

Several interviewees described how:

  • Global rating tools privilege standardized metrics
  • Local social impact is difficult to evidence within predefined categories
  • Community development, livelihoods and dignity are poorly captured

In Africa, FM leaders highlighted how community enterprise creation, skills transfer and household level impact were effectively invisible in ESG scoring models. In Asia Pacific, weak enforcement environments meant that ethical practice often exceeded regulatory expectations yet received little formal recognition.

Subtheme 5.5: FM’s Exclusion From ESG Governance & Strategy

Despite FM’s central role in ESG delivery, participants consistently noted that FM is often:

  • Brought in late
  • Tasked with execution, not design
  • Absent from ESG steering groups
  • Framed as a cost center rather than a strategic partner

This exclusion limits FM’s ability to:

  • Shape meaningful social indicators
  • Advocate for context sensitive metrics
  • Align ESG ambition with operational reality

As one participant noted, FM leaders are often “invited after the fact,” when key decisions about assets, locations and service models have already been made.

Subtheme 5.6: Political Sensitivity & the Fragility of the “S”

In some regions, participants described ESG and social sustainability as increasingly politically sensitive.

Concerns included:

  • Social initiatives being interpreted as ideological
  • Leadership reluctance to engage publicly with social issues

This political context further destabilizes the social dimension of ESG, making it more vulnerable to shifting priorities than environmental targets. Several participants emphasized the need for grounded, nonideological framing, linking social sustainability to safety, risk, performance and continuity.

This again highlights the importance of FM’s operational lens as a stabilizing force.

Key Takeaways

  • FM is a critical delivery layer for ESG outcomes
  • Europe shows that social value can be formalized
  • Measurement increases visibility but risks oversimplification
  • Global ESG frameworks struggle to capture local social impact
  • FM’s exclusion from ESG governance limits impact

THEME 6:

Barriers Limiting FM’s Ability to Drive Social Impact

Overview

While participants consistently recognized FM’s potential to deliver social impact, they were equally clear that this potential is structurally constrained. Barriers did not stem from a lack of intent or awareness, but from commercial models, governance arrangements and systemic blind spots that limit FM’s agency.

Across regions, FM leaders described operating in environments where social impact is expected rhetorically but not enabled operationally. Outside-in thinking was often dependent on individual champions, fragile in the face of cost pressure and difficult to sustain without structural support.

This theme reveals that the challenge is not whether FM can drive social value, but whether systems allow it to do so.

Subtheme 6.1: Cost-center Positioning & Commercial Pressure

The most pervasive barrier across the dataset was FM’s positioning as a cost center.

Participants described how:

  • Tight margins constrain experimentation
  • Cost reduction remains the dominant procurement driver
  • Social initiatives are vulnerable during contract renegotiation
  • Value beyond scope is rarely rewarded

In outsourced environments, this pressure was amplified. FM providers described “cutthroat” markets where even modest social initiatives were difficult to justify unless explicitly priced in. As one participant noted, when margins are extremely low, “anything that’s not in the contract is at risk.”

This commercial logic reinforces inside-out delivery, wherein compliance and efficiency trump contextual responsiveness.

Subtheme 6.2: Procurement Models That Prioritize Price Over Place

Procurement emerged as both a lever and a barrier. Participants highlighted that traditional procurement models:

  • Reward lowest cost rather than long-term value
  • Separate social outcomes from core service delivery
  • Treat community impact as optional or peripheral
  • Limit supplier flexibility and discretion

Even in regions where social value is formally embedded into procurement, participants cautioned that scoring systems can become tick-box exercises, encouraging performative compliance rather than meaningful engagement.

This creates a paradox: procurement can mandate social outcomes, but poorly designed models can also hollow them out.

Subtheme 6.3: Measurement Gaps & the Difficulty of Evidencing Social Value

Across themes, participants returned to the challenge of measurement. Social value was described as:

  • Context dependent
  • Long term
  • Relational
  • Difficult to aggregate

While environmental metrics benefit from established standards, social outcomes often lack shared definitions. Several participants emphasized that “we can’t measure something that doesn’t have a standard.”

Subtheme 6.4: Governance & Exclusion From Strategic Decision-making

A recurring structural barrier was FM’s limited presence in strategic forums. Participants described FM being:

  • Engaged late in decision processes
  • Tasked with implementation rather than design
  • Absent from ESG and sustainability steering groups
  • Positioned below functions such as finance, real estate and HR

This exclusion limits FM’s ability to introduce socially impactful insights early, when decisions about location, design, staffing and service models are still malleable. As one participant reflected, once decisions are locked in, “the opportunity to influence well-being is already limited.”

Subtheme 6.5: Fragmentation Across Organizational Functions

Participants frequently pointed to functional silos as a barrier to outside-in social value. Social outcomes sit at the intersection of:

  • FM
  • HR
  • Procurement
  • Sustainability
  • Real estate
  • CSR

Yet these functions often operate independently, with misaligned incentives and reporting lines. FM leaders described carrying responsibility for outcomes they do not control, such as workforce conditions shaped by HR policy or supplier behavior governed by procurement contracts.

Without cross-functional alignment, social initiatives remain fragmented and fragile.

Subtheme 6.6: Dependence on Individual Champions

In many organizations, socially impactful FM initiatives were driven by individual leaders, not systems.

Participants acknowledged that:

  • Champions can enable rapid progress
  • But impact disappears when individuals leave
  • Social value becomes personality dependent rather than institutionalized

This dependence creates risk and inconsistency, particularly in volatile or cost pressured environments.

Subtheme 6.7: Political, Cultural & Ideological Sensitivities

In some regions, participants described social sustainability as increasingly politically charged.

Concerns included:

  • Social initiatives being interpreted as ideological
  • Fear of backlash or reputational risk
  • Leadership reluctance to engage publicly

In contrast, regions where social outcomes are regulation driven, such as parts of the Middle East, experienced greater stability, albeit with less discretion.

Key Takeaways

  • Cost-center positioning and procurement models are major constraints
  • Measurement challenges distort or suppress social value
  • FM is often excluded from strategic governance
  • Functional silos weaken outside-in initiatives
  • Reliance on individual champions creates fragility
  • Political context shapes what is possible

International Facility Management Association (IFMA) supports over 25,000 members in 140 countries. Since 1980, IFMA has worked to advance the FM profession through education, events, credentialing, research, networking and knowledge-sharing.