Sustainable Buildings Charge More, but Perhaps Not Because They’re Sustainable

In Mexico City, more than one in five Class A+, A, and B office buildings holds a sustainability certification, according to SiiLA data. These properties—whose certification has been associated with 25% to 30% energy savings in the United States—have maintenance fees that are, on average, 12.5% higher than those of noncertified buildings. But is that difference really attributable to certification?

The data suggest not necessarily. When factors such as building class, location, age, size, and occupancy are taken into account, the estimated difference in maintenance fees falls from roughly 50 cents to just six cents per square meter per month, a result that is not statistically significant. This suggests that much of the initial difference is related to the properties’ characteristics rather than their sustainability certification.

The distribution of certified buildings helps explain why. Nearly nine in 10 are Class A+, the category with the highest maintenance fees in Mexico City. By contrast, among noncertified properties, only about one in seven falls into that category.

Rents, however, tell a different story. Certified buildings have asking rents that are 16.7% higher on average, and although that difference narrows to around 5% after accounting for the same property characteristics, it remains statistically significant. This does not prove that certification alone lets landlords charge higher rents, as other building characteristics not captured by the analysis, such as the quality of facilities, equipment, or services, could also play a role.

Still, higher rents in certified buildings do not necessarily mean occupants pay more overall, since more efficient infrastructure can reduce electricity, water, and other utility consumption. However, determining whether those savings offset the rent differences requires knowing how much occupants actually save at each property.

But even if those savings exist, a sustainable building’s economic benefit depends not only on how much it saves but also on who receives those savings. For example, a company that pays its electricity bills directly can benefit from more efficient infrastructure without those savings being reflected in maintenance fees. At the same time, the property owner could recoup the investment through higher rents. Thus, the same improvement can save the occupant money and create an opportunity for the owner to earn more.

Distinguishing between these costs and benefits could matter more in Mexico City, where, since May 2026, environmental regulations have allowed the Mexican Environment Secretary to require buildings with at least 100,000 square meters of construction or 5,000 square meters of land to join its sustainable building certification program. Although this system differs from LEED and other certifications, and its application is not automatic, the measure could make sustainability a legal requirement for some of the capital’s largest properties.

To learn more about Mexico’s commercial real estate market, visit SiiLA Market Analytics or email us at contacto@siila.com.mx.