Both German and European authorities set ambitious CO2 reduction targets for the building sector. Short deadlines, insufficiently defined and often changing rules, along with fragmented regulations, complicate economic modernization in the building stock. The same applies to constructing new living and commercial spaces. Positive incentives like reliable and targeted funding for energetic renovation are still lacking.

In the construction sector, financing climate protection measures should be assisted through funds like the Climate and Transformation Fund or via the federal budget. Transforming buildings offers CO2 emission reductions and promotes circular economy practices, especially in building materials. Companies demand practical guidelines for climate goals with freedom in choosing techniques and materials, reducing burdens from certification.

Companies advocate focused localized measures over central standards, lowering KfW standards and ensuring transparency in pricing district heating. Legislative improvements are required here.

Standardized cost-benefit calculations by energy advisors could enhance project planning reliability. On an EU scale, standardizing energy efficiency classifications would improve investment comparability in energy-efficient technologies, reducing administrative complexities, enhancing competitiveness.

With the goal of increasing housing supply for skilled workers, companies are currently focusing intensively on 'employee housing.' Positive incentives could be set here through tax measures; however, care must be taken to ensure that land use conflicts do not arise.

Germany's homeownership rate, which is low by European standards, should be increased. A higher rate of homeownership could revitalize the construction industry and, through increased investment in maintenance and modernization, promote economic growth. This would also improve planning security for companies.

For several companies, reducing property transfer tax would be a crucial lever to free up liquidity for more investments (see chapter Tax policy). Legislative competence for lower tax rates lies with the federal states. In addition, they should be given further opportunities to provide lower tax rates for the transfer of rental apartments or owner-occupied residential property.

The tax classification of expenses for repair and modernization measures carried out within three years after purchasing the building and exceeding 15 percent of the acquisition cost—as so-called acquisition-related production costs—currently makes renovations unattractive after purchase, as the expenses can only be depreciated over the useful life of the building. Immediate deductibility could trigger an investment impulse. Aligning accounting with commercial law would also lead to bureaucratic relief for companies. The sector expects larger purchasing incentives and higher investments in energy-efficient renovations as a result.

Long planning processes, deadlines, strict regulations, and high standards increase the costs and delay the construction and modernization of residential and commercial spaces. Practical approval assumptions—where a positive decision is assumed if an authority does not object within a legally stipulated time—are being recommended by the economy to streamline processes. Individual procedural steps should be legally provided with deadlines and binding schedules. This could apply to declarations of completeness, requests for additional documents, and participation of authorities and the public. Existing exceptions in building law, procedural exemptions, and simplified approval processes should be extended to as many construction projects as possible. These policies would facilitate not just residential construction but also numerous commercial construction projects. Whenever businesses find greater legal security in a building permit, voluntary application pathways should remain available. To accelerate development planning, simplified and expedited procedures should be extended, and project-specific procedures should be facilitated. Likewise, conversions should allow innovative approaches and concepts to create affordable housing and mitigate conflicts over land use.

Businesses highlight the nationwide lack of skilled personnel in municipal administrations. Bureaucracy reduction measures would also ease the workload of approval authorities (compare chapters "Planning and Approval Procedures" and "Digitization and Internal European Market"). In addition, unified regulations from the model building code should be implemented nationwide as much as possible. Building types approved in one federal state should also be permissible in another. Standardized residential buildings anchored in state building codes would accelerate housing construction.

Major investment obstacles are due to missing deadlines and lack of preclusion rules. Due to late objections or changes in factual or legal circumstances, many plans or permits are halted or entirely annulled. Companies and the public often lack clarity in procedures regarding when objections or oppositions can be submitted. Therefore, businesses demand clear deadline regulations and preclusions, i.e., the loss of the right to object if it has not been exercised within a set statutory time frame.

Consistent digital processes are also expected to accelerate construction measures. The digital building application should be implemented nationwide. Written form requirements should be eliminated. During the construction process itself, companies must comply with numerous regulations. Hence, the economy calls for reduction and flexibilization of these requirements, such as incorporating passive noise protection measures in "Technical Noise Guidance".

From the perspective of some businesses, all norms and standards should be scrutinized for efficiency and effectiveness. This includes fire protection, building technology, noise protection, parking spaces, and nature and climate protection requirements.

The EU Building Directive (EPBD) contains high requirements for new building standards. Similarly, the EU Taxonomy has formulated high expectations for companies in the construction industry. Whether these specifications can be ultimately applied in practice remains questionable. In the new legislative period, the EU Commission will be challenged to significantly reduce the excessive regulations of recent years.

With their planning sovereignty, municipalities are key players in creating building land. The federal and state governments should ensure local authorities have as much leeway as possible. However, simplified and accelerated procedures should uniformly increase planning and legal certainty for companies and investors.