Strategic Assessment of Building-Integrated Photovoltaics Adoption: A Combined SWOT-AHP Approach

Abstract

The integration of renewable energy technologies into the building sector is critical for achieving climate and energy targets, particularly within the framework of the European Union’s decarbonization policies. Building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) offer a promising solution by enabling the dual function of building envelope components and on-site electricity generation. However, the widespread adoption of BIPV faces significant barriers, including high initial investment costs, design and integration complexity, fragmented standardisation and a shortage of skilled labour. This study systematically identifies, evaluates and prioritises the key factors influencing the implementation of BIPV technologies using a hybrid SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology. A comprehensive literature review and a modified Delphi method involving expert input were employed to select and rank the most relevant factors in each SWOT category. The results indicate that external factors—particularly regulatory requirements for energy efficiency, renewable energy adoption and financial incentives—are the most significant drivers for BIPV deployment. Conversely, competition from building-attached photovoltaics (BAPV), high investment costs and the complexity of integration represent the main barriers and threats, compounded by internal weaknesses such as a lack of qualified workforce and fragmented standardisation. The findings underscore the importance of targeted regulatory and financial support, standardisation and workforce development to accelerate BIPV adoption. This research provides a structured decision-making framework for policymakers and stakeholders, supporting strategic planning for the integration of BIPV in the construction sector and contributing to the transition towards sustainable urban energy systems.

1. Introduction

The European Union (EU) is legally bound to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, aiming to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. Buildings are responsible for around 40% of total global energy consumption and a similar share of CO₂ emissions, making them a key sector for the global transition to sustainable energy systems [1,2,3,4]. The building sector is covered by a wide range of European directives and regulations. The most important are the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) [5], the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) [6], the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) [7]. New buildings must meet net zero energy standards by 2030, while existing buildings require retrofitting with renewable energy sources. The building sector’s dependence on the energy sector will further increase, as will its potential to contribute to the flexibility of the power system and electricity generation through solar photovoltaic systems. It is estimated that the share of final electricity demand in buildings will rise from about one third in 2015 to 61–64% by 2040.

An important element of the 2030 plan is the increase in the share of renewable energy sources, with an average annual growth of 0.8% until 2025 and 1.1% annually from 2026 to 2030, according to Article 23 of the RED. The directive also emphasises the importance of phasing out fossil fuels for heating and the need to educate building professionals about renewable energy technologies (Article 18). To increase the share of renewable energy and meet the 2030 targets, additional efforts are needed, especially in member states with high energy demands for heating and cooling.

Against the context of increasingly stringent regulatory requirements for energy efficiency and decarbonisation, the integration of renewable energy sources in the building sector is becoming imperative, and the role of BIPV systems is particularly emphasised [8,9]. In contrast to conventional photovoltaic systems that are retrofitted to buildings (BAPV), BIPV technologies enable the replacement of conventional building materials with functional PV modules that simultaneously fulfil a building and an energy function [10,11]. Thus, BIPV systems not only contribute to on-site electricity generation, but also to improving the energy efficiency of buildings through functions such as thermal insulation, weather protection, sound insulation and aesthetic integration (EN 50583) [12,13].

Europe is leading the adoption of BIPV, with a focus on aesthetically appealing and energy-efficient commercial buildings. Other regions of the world have also recognised the potential of BIPV for the application of renewable energy sources at the location where energy is consumed, so regulatory incentives are being introduced for the wider adoption of BIPV. In Canada, for example, LEED certificates award additional points for BIPV projects, and most provinces have net metering policies that allow BIPV owners to receive credit for excess electricity fed into the grid [14]. In China, national programmes promote BIPV through subsidies and mandatory integration into public buildings. In 2025, China’s Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development mandated BIPV integration in new public infrastructure projects, including schools, metro stations and government buildings [15]. In North America and Asia, growth is driven by high incomes and advances in manufacturing technologies, while Latin America and China are experiencing growth due to government incentives and the expansion of the construction industry [16].

Despite the technical maturity and rapid market growth, the widespread adoption of BIPV technologies faces numerous challenges. Among the biggest obstacles are the high initial investment costs, the complexity of design and integration, fragmented standardisation and the lack of skilled labour [8,10,17,18,19]. On the other hand, increasing urbanisation, the growth of electromobility and the availability of financial incentives represent important opportunities to accelerate the implementation of BIPV solutions [4,9].

In order to identify and prioritise the key factors impacting the wider adoption of BIPV technologies, a systematic and multidisciplinary approach is required, involving the analysis of internal and external factors and the assessment of their relative impact on the market and technology development. In this context, the combination of SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) [20] and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has proven to be an effective method for strategic planning and decision-making in the renewable energy sector [21].

The aim of this study is to systematically identify, evaluate and prioritise the most important factors influencing the wider implementation of BIPV technologies. The SWOT-AHP method is applied, focusing on regulatory requirements, economic aspects, technological challenges and market opportunities. The research results provide a structured basis for decision-makers and stakeholders in the building and energy sector to accelerate the transition to sustainable urban energy systems.

Despite the growing number of scientific works on the technical, economic and regulatory aspects of BIPV systems, there are still significant gaps in the literature that hinder their wider implementation. Previous research has mainly focused on analysing the technical characteristics of BIPV modules, evaluating energy gains, or analysing individual regulatory frameworks or economic aspects [8,22]. However, an integrated, multidisciplinary approach that systematically incorporates technical, economic, regulatory and market factors and categorises them quantitatively according to their impact on the market penetration of BIPV technologies is lacking.

However, there is a lack of an integrated, multidisciplinary approach that systematically includes technical, economic, regulatory and market-related factors and categorises them quantitatively according to their influence on the market penetration of BIPV technologies. This gap is particularly evident in several key areas. First, the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods such as SWOT and AHP is insufficient to objectively identify and prioritise barriers and incentives to BIPV adoption. Furthermore, the interactions between internal factors (strengths and weaknesses) and external factors (opportunities and threats) on the wider adoption of BIPV have not yet been sufficiently explored, especially taking into account regional and regulatory specificities as well as market trends [4,9]. In addition, the impact of fragmented standardisation and lack of skilled labour on the uptake of BIPV solutions has often been overlooked in previous studies, although it could have a significant impact [8].

This research makes an original contribution to the scientific and professional community by performing the following:

• Applying the integrated SWOT-AHP methodology to systematically identify, assess and rank key factors (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) influencing the adoption of BIPV technologies. This enables a quantitative assessment of the relative importance of the individual factors, which is not yet common in the literature.
• Use of the modified Delphi method to objectify the results by incorporating expert opinions, thereby increasing the credibility and relevance of the priorities identified.
• Development of a structured basis for strategic decision-making by stakeholders in the construction and energy sector with concrete recommendations for overcoming identified weaknesses (e.g., standardisation, staff training) and exploiting opportunities (e.g., regulatory incentives, growth of electromobility).
• Linking regulatory, technical and market aspects into a single analytical framework that enables a better understanding of the complexity of BIPV implementation in practice, especially in the context of the European market and current decarbonisation policies.
• Contribute to the development of the methodology for strategic planning in the renewable energy sector, opening the possibility to apply a similar approach to other innovative technologies in the building and energy sector.

2. Materials and Methods

In research, “method” and “methodology” are related terms, but they refer to different aspects of the research process. Methodology refers to the overarching framework or philosophy that guides the research process, i.e., methodology involves a planned way of collecting and analysing data in the research process. Methodology thus explains why we use x, y, or z methods that are relevant to a particular research. A method is a specific technique or procedure used to collect and analyse data. It refers to the tools and procedures that researchers use to gather information and conduct their study. Examples of methods include surveys, questionnaires, experiments, interviews, participant observation and statistical analyses.

Following the definition of the research objective and the problem framework in the introduction, the methodology of this study comprises the following processes and methods that lead to the results of the study:

• Initial literature search in the databases WoS and Scopus according to the given criteria.
• The research methodology initially comprised a literature review to obtain information on the use of the hybrid SWOT-AHP method in strategy formulation and selection. This was followed by a systematic literature search in the Web of Science and Scopus databases using the Boolean operators (“building integrated photovoltaics” OR “BIPV”) AND (“EN 50583”) AND (“SWOT-AHP” OR “multi-criteria analysis”). The inclusion criteria prioritised peer-reviewed articles (2015–2024). Additional information was taken from technical reports and studies from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the International Energy Agency (IEA-PVPS) and similar sources.
• Collecting and analysing data from the selected literature. The data are sorted into groups according to regulatory, technical, economic and ecological aspects of BIPV technology and correlated with the SWOT analysis and the Delphi method.
• Additional literature research based on the references of the previously analysed literature (the so-called snowball method). Also, the use of the “Google search engine” to collect the additional literature on specific parts of the analysed topic, e.g., “economic aspects of BIPV”.
• Definition and elaboration of the technical, economic and ecological aspects of BIPV technology.
• Application of the SWOT model to determine influential factors for BIPV technology adoption. Firstly, the authors identified 43 influential factors on the basis of the literature analysis.
• Application of the modified Delphi method. In the second round, the authors analysed 43 factors and identified the seven most influential ones within each SWOT category, resulting in a total of 28 factors. In the second round, a questionnaire was developed that included the seven selected factors for each SWOT category. This questionnaire was distributed to experts, who were asked to prioritise the factors by ranking them from most to least influential in each category. Experts assigned points from 1 to 7 to each factor, with 1 indicating the least influential and 7 indicating the most influential factor. The final score for each factor was calculated as the arithmetic mean of the scores of all experts’ ratings. This process enabled the identification of the four most influential factors in each SWOT category. In the third round, a new questionnaire was developed featuring the four most important factors identified in the previous round. Experts were asked to rate these factors on linear Likert scales ranging from 1 to 7, where 1 represented the lowest importance and 7 the highest [23]. The final score for each factor was calculated as the arithmetic mean of all expert judgements. Based on these results, the relative importance (expressed as a percentage) of each factor within its respective SWOT category was determined. The overall (global) importance of all analysed factors was then calculated.
• Application of the AHP method to the results obtained in the previous step but taking into account the opinions of the authors of this study.
• Discussion of the results obtained.
• Recommendations to stakeholders and policymakers regarding the green transition and BIPV systems. Assessment of the implementation of the BIPV system in the coming period.

The SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) has become an increasingly popular strategic assessment tool in the technical sciences, particularly in the energy sector. By systematically identifying and evaluating both internal factors (strengths and weaknesses) and external factors (opportunities and threats), SWOT analysis provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the dynamics that influence energy systems and technologies [24].

This approach enables a holistic understanding of the complex interactions between technological, economic, environmental and social dimensions. Research has shown, for example, the effectiveness of integrating the SWOT method with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The result is the SWOT-AHP model for analysing development strategies and management solutions for renewable energy projects [25]. The SWOT analysis has already been successfully applied to a variety of energy technologies and systems. In one study, it was used to assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of solar, wind and hybrid tree solutions [26]. In the field of energy storage, researchers have combined a rigorous SWOT analysis of supercapacitors with forward-looking perspectives and innovative concepts [27]. In addition, SWOT analysis has been used to provide a comprehensive overview of the key players related to smart grids and virtual power plants [27,28].

Overall, the SWOT analysis has proven to be a valuable tool for assessing the feasibility, potential and strategic positioning of new energy technologies. It is often used to analyse current conditions and support future planning for the promotion of renewable energy initiatives [29,30,31].

The Delphi method is a structured communication method used to obtain expert opinions and reach a consensus on a specific topic or prediction [32,33,34,35]. Unfortunately, there is no universal standard for consensus. In general, the Delphi method is applicable when there is no specific solution to a particular policy problem and the purpose is to explore the problem with the relevant experts. The experts answer a series of questionnaires (rounds) anonymously. After each round, a moderator summarises the answers and passes them on to the group. This process is repeated over several rounds until a consensus is reached or the answers stabilise. The anonymity of the participants is a key feature that helps to minimise the influence of dominant individuals and encourage honest feedback.

The modified Delphi method is a group consensus strategy that systematically relies on a literature review, the opinion of stakeholders and the judgement of experts in a field to reach a consensus. In the second or third phase, a questionnaire is developed and sent to a group of experts. The method can include anonymous surveys as well as face-to-face meetings or group discussions. This reduces anonymity and enables a more direct discussion between the participants, which can lead to more comprehensive results. The modified Delphi method is often more flexible in terms of how data are collected and analysed, adapting to the requirements of the particular research topic or group dynamics [36,37].

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to prioritise the selected most influential coefficients. This method was introduced by Thomas L. Saaty in 1977 and further specified in 1987 [38] as a multi-criteria decision-making tool to facilitate complex decision processes with multiple conflicting criteria [39]. Its main purpose is to structure and solve unstructured problems by breaking them down into a hierarchy of sub-problems, each of which can be analysed independently. This structure allows decision-makers to quantify and prioritise alternatives and criteria using pairwise comparisons and mathematical techniques [40]. Using online software to apply the AHP method can help researchers to optimise time and resources.

The implementation of the AHP comprises several important steps [39,41,42]:

(a)

Building the hierarchy: Define the main objective at the top level, the criteria and sub-criteria at the intermediate levels and the alternatives at the lowest level.

(b)

Pairwise comparisons: Evaluate the relative importance of criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives using a predefined Saaty scale.

(c)

Prioritisation: Use mathematical methods (often the eigenvector approach) to derive the weights and priorities for each criterion and alternative.

(d)

Consistency check: Evaluate the logical coherence of the comparative judgements.

(e)

Synthesis and decision: Summarise the results to determine the best alternative that meets the objective.

In this research the AHP hierarchy comprised four levels (see Figure 1):

Goal: Optimal BIPV deployment strategy.

Criteria: SWOT categories (S, W, O, T).

Sub-criteria: 16 identified factors by the modified Delphi method.

Alternatives: Critical factors.

The authors used Klaus Goepeepel’s online AHP calculator for the pairwise comparisons, the calculation of local and global priorities and the consistency check [43].

Based on the authors’ expert judgement, a pairwise comparison of the factors was carried out using the Saaty scale. This scale defines nine levels of relative importance between factors as follows:

• 1 stands for equal importance;
• 3 stands for medium importance;
• 5 stands for high importance;
• 7 stands for very high importance;
• 9 stands for extreme importance;
• 2, 4, 6, 8 stands for intermediate values.

It should be noted that in most cases the percentages could not be accurately converted to integer values on the Saaty scale, resulting in some inconsistency as measured by the consistency ratio (CR). Using all pairwise comparisons, the online AHP calculator generated the comparison matrices and calculated both the local and global priorities of all factors. The global priority vector is calculated by multiplying the local weightings of the factors by the category group weighting to determine the priority ranking of the SWOT factors.

Global Weight of Factor = Local Weight of Factor × SWOT Category Weight

(1)

So, as result of process we obtained, the following:

• Local weights: Factor prioritisation within each SWOT category.
• Global weights: Cross-category prioritisation.

The validation of the results of the AHP model was performed by checking the consistency ratio (CR) for all pairwise comparison matrices using the Alonso and Lamata method integrated into the online software [44].

$$CR={\displaystyle \frac{{\lambda }_{max}-n}{2.7699·n-4.3513-n}}$$

(2)

where n is the number of factors being compared.

3. Results

3.1. Technical Aspects of BIPV

Photovoltaic (PV) systems are considered building-integrated if the PV modules meet the requirements for BIPV modules according to EN 50583, Part 1 [12], and thus become a construction product that fulfils a function defined in the European Construction Products Regulation (CPR 305/2011) [45,46]. In the context of BIPV, such modules may have one or more of the following:

• Ensuring the mechanical strength and stability of the structure;
• Protection from weather influences such as rain, snow, wind and hail;
• Contributing to energy efficiency through shading, natural lighting or thermal insulation;
• Fire protection;
• Noise reduction;
• Separation of indoor and outdoor space;
• Increasing the safety and comfort of users.

BIPV systems are integrated into building elements such as roofs and façades, enabling the simultaneous generation of electricity and the replacement of conventional building materials [10,17,18,47]. The simplest way to integrate PV systems from the outside is to mount modules above windows or glass surfaces, depending on the architectural solution. Integration with shading systems is particularly attractive due to the ease of installation and lower costs compared to other approaches (see Figure 2).

One of the major limitations in the design of BIPV systems is the inhomogeneity of solar radiation across the entire system of modules that make up the system and the more frequent partial shading than in conventional ground or roof-mounted PV systems [48].

Although façade PV systems receive less solar radiation than rooftop systems, the large surface area of façades in urban environments enables a significant contribution to the energy balance [18,49]. This fact, along with decreasing production costs and design innovations, has led the BIPV industry to record an annual growth rate of 40% since 2009 [17,18]. BIPV modules are based on crystalline silicon (c-Si) technologies [50], thin-film amorphous silicon (a-Si) [51], copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) [52] or cadmium telluride (CdTe) [53]. By technology, the thin-film solar cells segment is projected to dominate the global building integrated photovoltaics market with a 39.2% share in 2025 [15].

Innovations such as coloured, semi-transparent and textured modules enable modern design across various architectural styles. Semi-transparent perovskite systems combine energy generation with natural lighting, reducing the need for artificial lighting by 25% [54]. With most technologies, semi-transparency can be achieved in curtain walls or skylights either by spacing opaque c-Si solar modules or by the transparency of the thin-film layer. However, as transparency increases, module efficiency decreases because the photovoltaic layer absorbs less sunlight, resulting in lower electricity production [53]. It should be emphasised that perovskite represents the most promising emerging photovoltaic material used in the field of transparent or semi-transparent solar cells [55]. BIPV façades often include multi-layered glass with a UV filter, reducing the need for air conditioning by 25–30 [56]. Additionally, standardised BIPV modules (modular construction) enable quick installation on steel frames, reducing time by about 30%.

An important aspect can be the integration of the BIPV system with the infrastructure for charging electric vehicles, which contributes to reduce the load on the power grid and increase the self-sufficiency of buildings [49,57,58,59]. BIPV systems are being used in a growing number of building renovation projects to replace outdated façades and roofs on commercial buildings, thereby increasing the energy efficiency and aesthetic value of the building at the same time. This strategy is particularly pronounced in European cities, where BIPV is being used to modernise business centres and industrial facilities [60].

The industrial sector represents one of the key end-users in the BIPV technology market. Industrial facilities have high energy demands and are continuously seeking ways to reduce operational costs and increase energy independence. BIPV solutions enable the on-site generation of a significant portion of electricity, thereby reducing peak power demand and energy costs, as well as dependence on the power grid. Furthermore, the integration of BIPV into industrial facilities allows for the reduction in CO₂ emissions and related costs (ETS2), as well as a decrease in air pollution. Industrial facilities often use advanced BIPV technologies, including thin-film and flexible panels, due to their lower weight and the ability to integrate them onto large roof surfaces, façades and even windows. For rooftop installations, BIPV modules are installed instead of steel or concrete roof panels, thereby simultaneously creating protective layers and generating electricity [48,61]. For example, photovoltaic modules (PV-coated steel) combine wind and corrosion resistance with energy production. On flat roofs, when combined with mounting structures for optimal tilt (10–30°), BIPV systems achieve high utilisation of sunlight with minimal impact on the structure [62]. Façades and curtain walls involve the integration of semi-transparent PV modules into exterior walls, enabling both natural lighting and energy generation. This is particularly applicable in warehouses with large glass surfaces [48,63] (Figure 3).

Warehouses with glass façades can reduce energy requirements for lighting by 30–50% by integrating photovoltaic systems, while offsetting 15–20% of total energy consumption through on-site energy generation [64].

In many regions, the industrial sector has access to government incentives and subsidies for the implementation of renewable energy sources, which accelerates the adoption of BIPV technologies [65]. Industrial applications of BIPV are experiencing steady growth due to a combination of regulatory requirements, economic benefits and technological advances, and the industry is expected to be one of the fastest growing end-users in the coming years.

BIPV can also be applied in agriculture, most commonly through the concept of agrivoltaics (APV), where PV systems are integrated into agricultural buildings or infrastructure, enabling the simultaneous production of food and electricity [66,67]. The most common applications are integration into greenhouses and agricultural facilities. Semi-transparent or selectively transmitting BIPV modules can be installed on the roofs and walls of greenhouses [68]. These systems allow the passage of a portion of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) needed for plant growth, while simultaneously generating electricity [69]. Research shows that for certain crops (e.g., basil, petunia), it is possible to maintain quality yields if the transmission of PAR through BIPV modules is optimised. However, for more sensitive crops (e.g., tomatoes), even a small reduction in PAR can significantly decrease yield, which requires careful selection of materials and design [69]. BIPV is being integrated into commercial buildings by installing it on the roofs and façades of warehouses, farms and other agricultural buildings, reducing the carbon footprint of the economy and enabling decentralised energy generation [70]. Rooftop BIPV systems still account for the largest market share (approximately 44.7% in 2024), but strong growth is expected in façade and window solutions due to technological innovations and architectural aesthetic requirements [16,71]. Polycrystalline type BIPV leads the market with around 68.9% market share in 2024 due to high efficiency and affordability. Other types of solar technologies, such as thin-film and perovskite solar cells, have also gained traction for their use in BIPV systems.

BIPV technologies are continuously experiencing improvements and innovations. Since 2020, significant advancements have related to progress in materials, enhanced energy efficiency due to the introduction of new PV cell technologies [72], innovations in design and integration, recycling and increased market competitiveness. Progress in materials particularly refers to perovskite PV cells. An efficiency of over 31% has been achieved under laboratory conditions, with the potential for cheaper production compared to traditional silicon. These materials enable the production of lightweight and flexible modules suitable for façade integration [73]. Semi-transparent photovoltaic window systems have also been developed with 12–15% efficiency, which retain 40–60% of visible light and are suitable for commercial buildings [73,74]. Modules with organic and dye-sensitized solar cells are flexible and lightweight, with 18% efficiency, and can be applied to curved surfaces [73]. However, innovative materials often lack the required longevity, which is a significant drawback. Additionally, requirements for structural strength and fire resistance limit the use of innovative thin-film technologies [18].

Improvement of energy efficiency includes the development of hybrid BIPV/T systems: The combination of photovoltaic and thermal systems increases the overall energy yield by 25–40%, utilising waste heat for heating or cooling. The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms optimises real-time consumption, reducing grid dependency by 35% in pilot projects in Berlin [74]. Advanced anti-reflective coatings are used on BIPV modules in new commercial projects to increase the efficiency of solar energy capture. Double and triple insulating glass is also increasingly being applied in BIPV façades, which enhances the building’s energy efficiency and thermal insulation. An example of innovation in design and integration are modular BIPV systems. Standardised elements enable faster installation, reducing labour costs by 20% [47,75]. Innovations also include PV façade textures: these are designer-customised PV panels that mimic natural stone or wood, with an energy output of 80–120 W/m² [73,74]. Regarding the recyclability of BIPV modules, according to the Technical Guidelines of IEA-PVPS Task 15, it is possible to recycle 95% of silicon and 100% of glass, reducing waste by 40% [47,75].

As an example of the latest developments in the BIPV industry, TrinaSolar Co., Ltd. from Shanghai, China has launched four new products for public, industrial and infrastructure projects. These include PV modules, industrial walls, PV sound barriers and tinted PV glass. All are based on TOPCon PV technology and achieve efficiencies of up to 21.9% [71]. In May 2025, Tesla Energy and First Solar jointly unveiled ultra-lightweight thin-film BIPV modules designed for seamless integration into glass façades and sloped rooftops. These modules feature improved conversion efficiency and are compatible with smart building systems. This innovation is enhancing the aesthetic and functional appeal of BIPV in urban infrastructure, expanding adoption in residential and commercial building projects and boosting demand for next-generation thin-film solutions [15]. In April 2025, a consortium of European research institutions developed self-cleaning BIPV modules using nanostructured coatings to improve performance in dusty and humid environments. This technology extends the life span and efficiency of BIPV systems, especially in regions with high pollution or humidity increasing attractiveness and return on investment (ROI) [62,76].

3.2. Economic Aspects of BIPV

The development of the BIPV market is generally considered a niche market for all EU countries, but BIPV rooftop solutions with standard-sized modules (sometimes referred to as “in-roof systems”) could be on the cusp of commercial growth in some countries. Other applications, particularly parapets and balustrades, are still more in the demonstration phase [74]. Statistics show that BIPV has had a positive annual growth rate of 40% since 2009. Thanks to mass production, the life cycle costs (LCOE) of BIPV systems have fallen from USD 0.15/kWh (2020) to USD 0.09/kWh (2024) [77]. A techno-economic study of BIPV systems in Scotland [78] found Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) ranging from USD 0.083/kWh (optimal conditions) to USD 0.31 kWh (suboptimal sites), with payback periods of 7.2–17.4 years. Comparable conventional PV systems in similar regions average GBP 0.04–0.08/kWh with 5–10-year paybacks. For industrial systems, the LCOE is reported to be USD 0.06–0.13/kWh, which is 25% lower than conventional PV systems [79,80].

Pricing in the global market for building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) in 2025 reflects a balance between falling costs for solar modules and the premium nature of architectural integration. While prices for photovoltaic materials, particularly thin-film technologies, have fallen due to production improvements, BIPV systems remain more expensive than traditional PV systems due to the customised design, architectural integration and complexity of installation. On average, BIPV systems are 15–30% more expensive than conventional rooftop solar systems [15,74,81] due to the following:

• BIPV modules require specialised materials and designs to function as building envelope components (e.g., roofing, façades), increasing manufacturing costs compared to standard PV modules [22].
• Integration demands weatherproofing, structural support and aesthetic customization, adding 10–25% to hardware expenses [81].
• BIPV systems faces “double certification” requirements: compliance with both building safety (ISO) and electrical (IEC) standards, creating redundant testing and administrative burdens [12]. This adds 5–15% to total system costs due to fragmented regulations across regions [81].
• Design and installation complexities (e.g., alignment with building architecture, custom mounting) elevate labour costs by 8–12% [12,22].
• Supply chain immaturity for BIPV-specific components further inflates prices [81].

However, these higher prices are offset in major markets such as North America and Europe by government incentives, tax credits and net zero energy building codes that lower the actual cost of installation. Labour, permits and custom design remain important price drivers, especially for façade-integrated systems. Despite current cost barriers, increasing competition, economies of scale and advances in prefabricated BIPV components are expected to drive prices over time and make BIPV more accessible to residential and commercial building owners who favour energy-efficient construction.

The greatest market opportunities for BIPV systems are primarily in the commercial sector, but residential applications are also seen as a major opportunity. Opportunities should also be sought in the combination of rooftop and façade BIPV systems, which reduce LCOE by 28% and increase annual electricity production by 41% compared to stand-alone systems [19,82].

BIPV components replace conventional building elements (e.g., roof coverings, façades), so they must have the same service life as the building itself—usually 30–50 years. The high initial costs of BIPV systems are only justified by long-term energy savings. The electricity generation must exceed the investment, which requires stable operation for at least 25–35 years. In addition, the short lifespan of BIPV systems means that components need to be replaced more frequently, resulting in more waste and emissions from the production of new modules. Due to the possibility of phased installation, conventional rooftop PV systems can be adapted to the needs of consumers without structural changes, whereas this is not the case with BIPV systems [60,61]. Integration into the electricity grid is also more complex for BIPV systems than for conventional rooftop PV systems [83]. An important challenge is therefore to extend the lifetime of BIPV systems to 35 years [47,75].

3.3. Envinromental Aspects of BIPV

BIPV can make a significant contribution to decarbonisation targets. BIPV significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions by generating renewable energy on site, replacing fossil fuel-dependent grid electricity. Studies show that operational emissions for optimised systems are as low as 33 g CO₂/kWh, which is many times lower compared to current average grid emissions [84]. The general grid average (USA) is 225 g CO₂ per kWh [85] in 2024. The European average values for 2023 are between 200 and 300 g CO₂ per kWh [86] and are around 20% lower than in 2022. It should be noted that grid emissions in the EU vary greatly from country to country depending on the share of renewable energy sources in the grid. In combination with lithium-ion storage, BIPV systems improve self-consumption and further reduce emissions, although battery degradation affects long-term sustainability [84]. However, it should be noted that bifacial PV systems outperform BIPV in terms of emissions (14.9 g CO₂/kWh compared to the higher impact of BIPV) [87]. Also, BIPV production has greater embedded emissions than conventional PV due to material integration [87].

BIPV systems contributes to decarbonisation by the following:

• Reducing carbon emissions during operation: in practice (e.g., at the Active Office in Swansea), emissions are 70–80% lower than grid-connected systems [84].
• Adaptation to future electricity grids: As electricity grids are decarbonised, the carbon footprint of BIPV systems is expected to decrease by ~40% by 2050 (e.g., from 30.2 g CO₂/kWh in 2022 to 17.5 g CO₂/kWh) [87].
• Optimising the energy use of buildings: Predictive algorithms for the generation and consumption of solar energy can minimise grid dependency and thus improve the reduction in emissions [84].

BIPV is in line with the principles of the circular economy, as it achieves the following:

• Extending the lifespan: Extending the lifespan of the modules reduces the need for new materials by >10% and energy consumption by 24%. In the CIRCUSOL project, for example, PV components are reused or remanufactured, thereby extending the product life cycle [88,89].
• Closed recycling loop: Recycling rates of over 90% for materials such as silicon minimise waste. However, this requires a higher energy input, which makes it necessary to analyse the return times [88,90].

In summary, BIPV systems are of great importance for sustainable urbanisation, as they offer advantages both as a building material and as an energy generator. Circular strategies—especially life extension—maximise emission reduction while minimising resource consumption [88,89,90].

3.4. Aesthetic Aspects of BIPV

Aesthetic considerations in building-integrated photovoltaics have proven to be a decisive factor for acceptance, going beyond pure functionality and becoming an important design element. Recent research has shown that aesthetics is critical to consumer acceptance and architectural integration. Studies have found a direct correlation between visual appeal and market penetration [91]. The basic components of aesthetics include colour, shape and surface texture, which are manipulated by architects to achieve visual harmony with the building structure [91,92]. Colour matching between PV modules and façade materials, for example, reduces visual clutter, while textured surfaces can mimic traditional building materials such as brick or timber [92]. Design principles such as balance, rhythm and proportion allow BIPV to act as deliberate architectural elements rather than technical additions. Contrast principles are increasingly used to create deliberate focal points in façades and transform energy infrastructures into aesthetic statements [91,93].

At the urban level, BIPV system must convince through contextual compatibility:

• Material coherence: matching reflection and lustre to the surrounding buildings [91].
• Rhythmic patterns: repetition of PV elements to match existing street geometries [93].
• Balance and proportions: PV installations must respect the proportions of the façade to avoid visual dominance [91].
• Adaptation to scale: modular designs that respond to the character of the neighbourhood [92].

Studies emphasis that successful urban integration requires the assessment of PV installations not only at the building level but also in the streetscape, where inappropriate installations can lead to visual dissonance [92,93]. New research results show a paradigm shift towards a performance-integrated design in which

• Custom-shaped PV tiles create roofing patterns that are indistinguishable from conventional materials [93].
• Semi-transparent modules replace windows while maintaining daylight quality [93].
• Dynamic façades adjust opacity depending on the position of the sun, combining utility with kinetic art [92,93].

This synergy transforms BIPV from a technical compromise into a desirable architectural feature, especially in projects seeking sustainability certification and where aesthetic excellence complements energy metrics [92].

To summarise, it can be said that the aesthetics of BIPV have evolved from a marginal issue to a decisive factor for acceptance. Research confirms that visual appeal significantly influences consumer decisions and architectural acceptance. Successful integration requires adherence to basic design principles at various levels, supported by new rating systems that quantify aesthetic performance. Future development paths point towards profound material innovations and contextualised designs that completely dissolve the boundaries between energy infrastructure and architectural expression.

3.5. Safety Aspects of BIPV

BIPV present unique safety considerations compared to BAPV and Building-Integrated Photovoltaic Thermal (BIVT) systems, primarily due to their integration into the building envelope and multifunctional nature. The safety aspects of BIPV focus heavily on fire safety, electrical safety and structural integrity, regulated by a combination of building codes and electrical standards. General safety aspects of BIPV include the following:

• Fire Safety: BIPV modules must comply with stringent fire safety standards because they form part of the building envelope, which is subject to local building codes and international standards such as EN 13501 (fire classification of construction products) and IEC 61730 (photovoltaic module safety) [94,95]. The 2020 international standard IEC 63092-1 [96] specifically addresses BIPV module requirements, focusing on fire safety and electrical properties relevant to building integration [97,98]. Fire safety testing for BIPV is more rigorous than for conventional PV modules due to their direct impact on building fire performance and occupant safety [99].
• Electrical Safety: BIPV systems must mitigate risks such as overcurrent, short circuits, arc faults and improper grounding, which can lead to fires or electrocution. Standards like UL 1699B (arc-fault protection), UL 6703 (connectors) and UL 4703 (wiring) apply to PV components [100,101,102], and system installation must follow local electrical codes (e.g., NEC in the US, AS/NZS 5033 and 3000 [103,104] in Australia and New zeland) [97]. Proper grounding and insulation are critical to prevent electrical hazards.
• Structural Safety: Since BIPV modules are part of the building’s structure, they must meet load-bearing and durability requirements (e.g., resistance to wind, seismic activity and fire-induced structural weakening). Standards such as IEC 63092-2 [105] cover the mounting systems and structural integration aspects. Fire can weaken supporting structures, so BIPV design must consider collateral loads and fire resistance of framing materials [97].
• Regulatory Framework: BIPV products are regulated under both construction product regulations (e.g., European CPR 305/2011) and electrical safety directives (e.g., Low Voltage Directive 2014/35/EU). Compliance requires passing both building-related and electrical tests [106].

The most important points regarding the security challenges of BIPV are as follows:

• Fire safety is a major challenge for BIPV due to its multifunctional role in the building envelope and the complexity of harmonising different local fire safety regulations at a global level [97].
• BIPV requires extensive testing in accredited laboratories to ensure compliance with electrical and building product standards [97].
• Proper installation and maintenance by trained professionals are essential to prevent electrical faults, ensure grounding and maintain structural integrity over time.
• BIVT systems are even more complex due to the integration of thermal components and require additional safety considerations for combined thermal and electrical systems [98].

3.6. SWOT Analysis

A SWOT analysis was carried out to identify the key factors influencing the further development and implementation of BIPV systems. As mentioned in Section 2, in the first round the authors identified a total of 43 relevant factors through an extensive literature review. From this pool, the seven most important factors within each SWOT category were selected for a detailed assessment—a process that proved to be complex and challenging. These selected factors were incorporated into a questionnaire that was distributed to over 100 experts from various professional groups, including mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, civil engineering and architecture. A limited number of experts responded to the questionnaire and some responses were excluded due to incomplete or incorrect answers. The majority of valid responses were submitted by mechanical and electrical engineers. Of the accepted responses, 50% came from university professors, while the remaining 50% were submitted by industry experts. The results of the questionnaire with the criteria categorised by importance are presented below.

Strengths:

• S1: Multiple Functionalities. BIPV modules replace building materials (façades, glass surfaces, roof panels) and at the same time generate energy, let light into the rooms and reduce overall construction costs.
• S2: Material and Design Innovation. Ongoing advances in solar cell materials (such as perovskites and thin films) are making BIPV systems more efficient, lightweight and flexible, broadening their application in diverse building types. Modular and adaptable solutions expand application possibilities in retrofits and new builds.
• S3: Environmental Benefits. BIPV generates clean, renewable energy on-site, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, lowering greenhouse gas emissions and supporting climate change mitigation efforts. Also, it supports circular economy initiatives in building construction and materials.
• S4: Aesthetic Versatility. BIPV products are available in a variety of colours, shapes, sizes and surface finishes, allowing architects to enhance the visual appeal of buildings without compromising on design. They can be seamlessly incorporated into modern and historic architecture alike.
• S5: Urban and Land-Use Efficiency. In dense urban environments, BIPV leverages existing building surfaces, mitigating land-use conflicts and allowing solar power deployment where rooftop or ground space is limited.
• S6: Support for Distributed Generation and Energy Independence.
• BIPV helps diversify the energy mix and enhances building owners’ energy autonomy, increasing resilience against grid outages or price volatility.
• S7: Material and Construction Cost Savings. By substituting traditional building materials, BIPV can reduce materials and labour costs during construction, potentially speeding up building processes and lowering overall expenditures over the building life cycle.

Weaknesses:

• W1: High Acquisition Costs. BIPV systems generally have higher upfront costs versus conventional PV due to custom design, additional components, double certification and labour-intensive installation. Soft costs, such as project planning and design complexity, remain high. The lack of cost reduction at scale means BIPV often remains less economically competitive than standard PV and traditional building materials.
• W2: Complex and Fragmented Regulatory Frameworks. BIPV technology must meet standards of both the PV and construction sectors. Existing codes and standards are poorly aligned, requiring double certification and creating legal and compliance uncertainty. Lack of harmonised technical standards across regions complicates labelled entry and product development.
• W3: Integration and Design Challenges. BIPV requires project-specific solutions, complicating both retrofit and new construction projects. This increases design time, risk and the need for cross-sector expertise. Specialised installation procedures and integration with building envelopes may create technical incompatibility or demand costly custom materials.
• W4: Underdeveloped Skills and Low Awareness. There is a significant lack of skilled professionals familiar with BIPV design, installation and maintenance. Low awareness and understanding among architects, developers, building officials and end-users delay labelled acceptance and the development of best practices.
• W5: Uncertain Long-term Performance and Maintenance. Lack of long-term data on durability, performance and cost over the product life cycle leads to uncertainty for investors and building owners. BIPV systems are harder to replace or repair due to their integration into the building envelope.
• W6: Performance and Yield Limitations. BIPV modules are often installed at suboptimal orientations, inclinations or shaded positions to meet architectural needs, reducing system efficiency and output compared to optimal PV.
• W7: Lacks large-scale demonstration products. The BIPV labelled is dominated by custom projects, lacks large-scale demonstration and suffers from a fragmented ecosystem.

Opportunities

• O1: Growing regulatory requirements for energy efficiency and renewable energy sources in the building sector.
• O2: Incentives and Subsidies for Renewable Energy and Green Construction.
• O3: Urbanisation. Efficient Use of Building Surfaces. As urban density increases, BIPV enables large-scale solar deployment without competing for land, transforming rooftops, façades and other building surfaces into productive energy assets.
• O4: Expansion of electric mobility. The need for EV charging infrastructure is encouraging cities to implement BIPV systems with energy storage.
• O5: Supportive Building Codes, Energy Standards and Circular Economy Principles.
• Evolving building codes and sustainability certifications (e.g., LEED, BREEAM, nZEB) increasingly recognise and promote BIPV, while fostering adoption of circular economy principles through material reuse and life cycle extension.
• O6: Technological Innovation. Modular, Flexible and Aesthetic Solutions. Rapid advances are yielding highly efficient, visually appealing and customizable BIPV products—broadening labelled access and architectural applications from historical retrofits to cutting-edge new builds.
• O7: Cost Reduction through Economies of Scale and Prefabrication. As manufacturing matures and BIPV-specific supply chains expand, economies of scale and prefabrication are rapidly decreasing costs, making BIPV more competitive with both conventional PV and standard construction materials.

Threats:

• T1: Competition from BAPV Technologies. Systems mounted on existing roofs dominate with an 89% labelled share due to lower CAPEX costs.
• T2: Design and Integration Complexity. BIPV requires collaboration between multiple sectors (architecture, construction, electrical engineering), increasing complexity in design, logistics and maintenance. The lack of experts with interdisciplinary knowledge further slows implementation.
• T3: Technical and Safety Concerns. These include fire resistance issues, property degradation over time, glare that may affect traffic safety and building user comfort and electrical safety risks. The combined electrical and structural nature of BIPV introduces unique fire and safety risks.
• T4: Maintenance Challenges. Limited access to façade modules in tall buildings significantly increases maintenance costs.
• T5: Product Reliability, Warranty and Insurance Barriers. Scarcity of long-term performance data and robust warranties undermines client and investor trust in BIPV for critical building infrastructure.
• T6: Regulatory and Standardisation Uncertainty. Fragmented, evolving or conflicting regulations slow labelled entry and increase costs due to double certification requirements for both PV and construction standards. Approval processes are often lengthy and complex, leading to project delays and higher risks for investors and developers.
• T7: Low Awareness and Skills Shortages. A lack of skilled architects, engineers, installers and inspectors with BIPV experience can lead to poor project outcomes, lower quality and reputational risk for the entire sector.

A high consensus was observed in the Opportunities category, in which the first four factors received ratings between 6.67 and 4.33 (on a nominal scale of 7 to 4). This was followed by the Threats category, where the top four factors scored rated between 5.67 and 4.17. There was also remarkable consensus in the Weaknesses category, where the top four factors ranged from 5.35 to 4.5. Respondents’ agreement was lowest in the Strengths category. However, the first four factors, which ranged from 4.50 to 3.67, still showed a satisfactory level of consensus.

In the third round, the experts were sent a questionnaire with the four most influential factors in each SWOT category. Using the Likert scale from 1 to 7, the experts rated all factors, as well as the main SWOT categories. The score for each factor was calculated as the arithmetic mean of all responses. As in the previous round, the results calculated in this way showed the highest consensus for the Threats category and the lowest consensus for the Strengths category. The results are shown in

Table 1. Local (LP) and global (GP) subcategory weights for the Delphi method.

Category	Category Weights	Subcategory	LP	GP
Strength (S)	0.16	S1	33%	5.28%
		S2	18%	2.88%
		S3	29%	4.64%
		S4	20%	3.20%
Weakness (W)	0.26	W1	40%	10.40%
		W2	18%	4.68%
		W3	17%	4.42%
		W4	25%	6.50%
Opportunity (O)	0.27	O1	45%	12.15%
		O2	25%	6.75%
		O3	15%	4.05%
		O4	15%	4.05%
Threat (T)	0.31	T1	44%	13.64%
		T2	26%	8.06%
		T3	16%	4.96%
		T4	14%	4.34%

.

According to the results obtained, the six most influential factors are T1, O1, W1, T2, O2 and S1.

3.7. AHP Analysis for Defined SWOT Categories and Subcategories

In the author’s opinion, the AHP method was used to determine the priorities within the defined SWOT categories, as described in Section 2. The Saaty scale (1–9) was applied and the consistency of all the decision matrices was checked (the condition is that the consistency ratio CR < 0.1). The consistency check shows that the highest value of the coefficient CR = 0.017 (for strengths), which confirms that all decision matrices are highly consistent, i.e., that the procedure was performed correctly.

The pairwise comparison matrix for major categories as well as the global weights (GP) are listed below (

Table 2. Decision matrix for major categories.

	S	W	O	T
S	1	1/4	1/5	1/6
W	4	1	1	1
O	5	1	1	1
T	6	1	1	1

and

Table 3. The resulting weights for the criteria based on pairwise comparisons.

Category		Priority	Rank	(+)	(−)
1	Strengths (S)	6.34%	4	0.8%	0.8%
2	Weakness (W)	29.64%	3	3.2%	3.2%
3	Opportunities (O)	31.22%	2	1.3%	1.3%
4	Threats (T)	32.80%	1	3.6%	3.6%

).

Consistency check: λ_max = 4.016, CR = 0.006 (<0.1 → acceptable).

The pairwise comparison matrices as well as the local weights (LP) and the global weights (GP) for all subcategories are listed below (

Table 4. Decision matrixes for internal factors (strengths and weaknesses subcategories).

	S1	S2	S3	S4		W1	W2	W3	W4
S1	1	3	1	2	W1	1	4	4	2
S2	1/3	1	1/2	1/2	W2	1/4	1	1	1/2
S3	1	2	1	2	W3	1/4	1	1	1/2
S4	1/2	2	1/2	1	W4	1/2	2	2	1

,

Table 5. Decision matrixes for external factors (opportunities and threats subcategories).

	O1	O2	O3	O4		T1	T2	T3	T4
O1	1	2	7	3	T1	1	2	3	5
O2	1/2	1	4	2	T2	1/2	1	2	3
O3	1/7	¼	1	1/2	T3	1/3	1/2	1	2
O4	1/3	1/2	2	1	T4	1/5	1/3	1/2	1

and

Table 6. Local (LP) and global (GP) subcategory weights.

Category	Consistency Ratio	Category Weights	Subcategory	LP	GP
Strength (S)	CR = 0.0168	0.0634	S1	35.64%	2.26%
			S2	12.43%	0.79%
			S3	32.57%	2.06%
			S4	19.36%	1.22%
Weakness (W)	CR = 0.00	0.2964	W1	50.0%	14.82%
			W2	12.5%	3.70%
			W3	12.5%	3.70%
			W4	25.0%	7.41%
Opportunity (O)	CR = 0.0035	0.3122	O1	50.08%	15.64%
			O2	27.80%	8.68%
			O3	7.18%	2.24%
			O4	14.94%	4.66%
Threat (T)	CR = 0.005	0.3280	T1	48.3%	15.84%
			T2	27.2%	8.92%
			T3	15.7%	5.15%
			T4	8.8%	2.89%

).

4. Discussion

Based on the results of the SWOT-AHP analysis, the most important global factors for BIPV were identified (Figure 4).

• T1: Competition from BAPV systems
• BAPV systems are standardised, often cheaper and easier to implement than BIPV, which makes them a strong competitor in the market. Due to market habits and greater availability, BAPV may limit the growth of BIPV.
• O1: Growing regulatory requirements for energy efficiency and renewable energies
• Increasingly stringent regulations and standards for energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy in buildings create a strong external opportunity for BIPV growth, as BIPV helps investors and building owners to meet these requirements.
• W1: High initial costs
• BIPV requires higher initial investment due to the specific manufacturing, design and integration into building elements, which is a significant inherent weakness and barrier to wider adoption.
• T2: Complexity of design and integration
• The design and integration of BIPV is more complex than conventional PV solutions and requires more expertise and coordination between the various participants (architects, engineers, installers), which increases risk and costs and can deter investors.
• O2: State and incentives for RES
• Financial incentives, subsidies, tax breaks and other measures make BIPV more economically attractive and can mitigate the high initial costs and thus accelerate market penetration.
• W4: Lack of qualified labour
• The lack of qualified engineers, planners and installers for BIPV is a serious weakness and an obstacle to market expansion, as without sufficient expertise the risk of unsuccessful projects and user dissatisfaction increases.
• S1: Multiple functionality (low rank of performance)
• Although multiple functionality (simultaneously building element and energy source) is recognised as a strength of BIPV, it is assigned a low global importance (2.2%) in this analysis, suggesting that the market or experts do not currently perceive this benefit as critical.

The results of this study confirm that external drivers—particularly regulatory requirements for energy efficiency, renewable energy adoption and financial incentives—are the most significant factors accelerating BIPV deployment. This finding is consistent with previous research, which has repeatedly identified policy support and regulatory frameworks as critical enablers for the adoption of BIPV and other renewable energy technologies. For example, IEA-PVPS reports [12,74] emphasise that stringent building codes and targeted subsidies are essential for overcoming initial cost barriers and stimulating market growth, especially in the European context where the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) and Renewable Energy Directive (RED) set ambitious targets for renewable integration. Conversely, the main barriers and threats identified—competition from BAPV, high investment costs and integration complexity—are also widely reported in the literature. This study highlights that BIPV’s higher upfront costs and technical integration challenges, compared to conventional BAPV systems, remain persistent obstacles [82]. The lack of skilled labour and fragmented standardisation, identified here as key internal weaknesses, have also been noted by previous authors as factors that slow market uptake and hinder widespread implementation [12].

The finding that standardisation and workforce development are critical for overcoming internal weaknesses aligns with the recommendations of IEA-PVPS [106], which advocate for harmonised standards and targeted training programmes to facilitate BIPV integration.

Opportunities identified in this research, such as the growth of electromobility and urbanisation, are also supported by recent studies [4,9], which suggest that the convergence of BIPV with emerging trends in smart cities and electric mobility can create new market synergies and accelerate adoption.

A notable contribution of this research is the quantitative prioritisation of SWOT factors using the Delphi and AHP method, which is less common in the existing literature. While prior works have qualitatively discussed drivers and barriers, few have systematically ranked them based on expert consensus and multi-criteria analysis. By integrating the modified Delphi method, this study increases the objectivity and relevance of the prioritisation, addressing a gap previously highlighted by authors such as [107].

The weakness of this study is the low participation of the experts in completing the questionnaire and the inevitably subjective attitude of the author in prioritising the factors using the AHP method. However, as the results of both methods are very similar, it can be said that the degree of subjectivity is still within acceptable limits.

Strategic Recommendations Based on Results

(a)

Focus on external opportunities (O1, O2)

• Actively monitor regulatory changes and incentives and make use of them: adapt business models and projects to make the best use of all available grants, tax incentives and subsidies for BIPV projects.
• Engage in public consultations and advocate for favourable policies that further promote BIPV as a standard in new buildings and renovations.

(b)

Mitigate the weaknesses (W1, W4)

• Reduce the high initial costs: develop partnership financing models (leasing, PPA, ESCO models), use innovative materials and processes to reduce costs and actively inform investors about the long-term savings and return on investment.
• Invest in the training and training of professionals: launch internal and external training programmes, collaborate with universities and vocational schools and promote certification and specialisation in BIPV technologies.

(c)

Threat reduction strategies (T1, T2)

• Stand out from the BAPV competition: clearly communicate the benefits of BIPV (aesthetics, integration, long-term savings) to target groups that value sustainability and design, and develop niche products for specific market segments.
• Simplify the design and integration processes: Develop standardised BIPV modules and design software tools and plug-and-play solutions that facilitate collaboration between architects, engineers and installers.

(d)

Improve strength communication

• Better promotion of multiple functionality: Although not currently perceived as a key strength, there is a need to emphasise the long-term benefits of BIPV through marketing activities and market education, especially for projects where aesthetics and sustainability are high priorities.
• The mechanisms for informing the public about BIPV are the publication of case studies, the establishment of conferences, fairs, seminars, workshops, working groups and other educations dedicated to BIPV, the provision of financing opportunities for research and commercialization of BIPV solutions and the development of software platforms.

5. Conclusions

In this study, the key factors influencing the adoption of BIPV at a global level were systematically identified and prioritised using a combined SWOT-AHP approach and the Delphi method. This methodology provides a novel, structured framework to quantitatively assess and prioritise the factors influencing BIPV market penetration and fills methodological gaps identified in previous research.

The results demonstrate that external drivers—most notably regulatory requirements for energy efficiency, renewable energy adoption and financial incentives—play a decisive role in accelerating the deployment of BIPV technologies. Conversely, the most significant barriers and threats include competition from BAPV, high initial investment costs and the complexity of design and integration, further compounded by internal weaknesses such as a lack of qualified workforce and fragmented standardisation.

The findings underline the need for holistic policy measures, standardisation efforts and targeted educational initiatives to overcome barriers and unleash the full potential of BIPV in the transition to sustainable urban energy systems. BIPV needs to be promoted more strongly, emphasising the technical advantages of these systems and the latest technological developments related to BIPV. Targeted professional training for engineers involved in the design of new buildings or the renovation of existing buildings would contribute to a better understanding of the potential of BIPV systems.

This study’s findings are in strong agreement with the broader body of literature, confirming that regulatory and financial incentives, along with technical and workforce development, are pivotal for the successful adoption of BIPV technologies.

This study can provide a good basis for a structured and quantitative framework for strategic decision-making in the field of BIPV. The methodology and insights presented can support stakeholders in identifying priority actions and formulating effective policies to overcome obstacles and capitalise on opportunities in the BIPV market.

Future research should focus on expanding the analysis to different regional contexts, incorporating dynamic market trends, regional policy differences and developing practical guidelines for the implementation of BIPV in both new and existing buildings. Future research should also involve a much larger number of experts from different professions and fields of work. Additionally, further work is needed to refine standardisation processes and to evaluate the long-term performance and socio-economic impacts of BIPV technologies. Through such efforts, BIPV can play a pivotal role in the transition towards sustainable, energy-efficient and resilient urban environments.