From Code to Climate Action: Evaluating the Energy Efficiency Performance of the Saudi Building Code Across Climatic Zones and Its Alignment with Vision 2030 Sustainability Targets

Abstract

The built environment in Saudi Arabia accounts for approximately 78% of the country’s total electricity consumption, positioning building energy performance as one of the most consequential levers available to policymakers pursuing the kingdom’s net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target for 2060 and Vision 2030’s sustainability agenda. Despite the progressive introduction of the Saudi Building Code (SBC) energy chapters SBC 601, SBC 602, and the Saudi Green Building Code (SgBC 1001), a persistent gap remains between regulatory intent and measurable outcomes across Saudi Arabia’s five distinct climatic zones. Building codes are, by design, generic policy instruments encompassing structural, fire, accessibility, and energy provisions; this paper focuses specifically on the energy and sustainability dimensions and critically examines how the SBC’s update cycle and prescriptive compliance architecture shape actual performance outcomes. This study presents three explicit research questions: (RQ1) What zone-differentiated energy savings does SBC implementation deliver across residential typologies? (RQ2) How does the Mostadam national rating system compare with international benchmarks in the Saudi context, and what caveats govern that comparison? (RQ3) What evidence-based policy interventions are needed to transition from compliance-led to performance-led building energy governance? Drawing on a systematic synthesis of 53 building energy simulation models (2018–2025), official programme data, and a structured comparative analysis of Mostadam against LEED v4.1 and BREEAM, the study finds EUI reductions of 5–25% from SBC compliance, with the largest savings in the hot–humid coastal zone. Seven prioritised policy recommendations are proposed, addressing code revision, financial incentives, digital monitoring, renewable energy thresholds, and capacity building.

1. Introduction

Buildings are, by a wide margin, the largest consumer of energy in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Electricity Regulatory Authority reported that in 2023, the building sector was responsible for roughly 78% of the nation’s total electricity consumption, a figure considerably higher than the global average of approximately 40% and a direct consequence of extreme climatic pressures on cooling systems across one of the world’s hottest inhabited environments [1,2]. For a country committed to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2060 and to deriving 50% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 under Vision 2030, the performance of its building stock is not a technical footnote but a strategic priority [3].

It is important to contextualise the Saudi Building Code (SBC) at the outset. Building codes are generic policy instruments: they address structural integrity, fire safety, accessibility, and mechanical and electrical systems alongside energy and sustainability requirements [4]. The energy and sustainability provisions, principally SBC 601 (Energy Conservation Requirements), SBC 602 (Residential Energy Standards), and the Saudi Green Building Code (SBC 1001), represent one critical strand within a broader regulatory architecture [5,6]. This distinction matters because it defines the trade-offs that practitioners navigate: a building that meets SBC structural and fire requirements but falls short of its energy performance target may nonetheless receive a compliance certificate, since different chapters are assessed on independent inspection tracks. The absence of integrated whole-building performance verification across all SBC chapters is itself a governance gap that shapes the outcomes this paper analyses.

The SBC was first introduced in 2007 and has undergone several revisions since. The energy chapter (SBC 601) was last substantively updated in 2018, while SBC 1001 was revised most recently in 2024 after a significant hiatus reflecting a review cycle of approximately 5 to 7 years [7,8]. In a context where building technology, material science, and climate modelling are advancing rapidly, this update frequency creates a lag between emerging best practice and codified requirements.

In parallel with the mandatory code, the Ministry of Housing launched the Mostadam national green building rating system in 2019 as a voluntary performance framework built directly from the SBC chapters, designed to incentivise performance beyond code minimums within a locally calibrated instrument suited to the Saudi climate, culture, and regulatory conditions [9,10,11,12,13]. The comparison with international rating systems such as LEED and BREEAM is informative but must be approached with appropriate caveats: these are globally portable systems not originally designed for the Saudi built environment, and their relative advantages in market maturity or net-zero pathway sophistication do not diminish Mostadam’s suitability for local application. The analysis in this paper treats Mostadam’s local calibration as a substantive strength while identifying areas where it requires further development.

This paper addresses three explicit research questions: (RQ1) What zone-differentiated EUI savings does the SBC deliver across Saudi Arabia’s five climatic zones and principal residential typologies? (RQ2) How does Mostadam compare with LEED v4.1 and BREEAM International in the Saudi built environment context, and what caveats govern that comparison? (RQ3) What prioritised policy interventions are needed to transition Saudi Arabia’s building energy governance from compliance-led minimum standards toward performance-led outcome targets? The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents a systematic literature review. Section 3 describes the methodology. Section 4 analyses SBC performance by climatic zone. Section 5 evaluates Mostadam. Section 6 presents policy recommendations. Section 7 discusses implications, limitations, and future research directions. Section 8 concludes.

2. Literature Review

Table 1. Summary of key studies informing the analysis (2005–2025).

Study	Focus Area	Journal/Source	Method/Scope	Contribution to This Paper
[7]	EUI simulation all 5 CZs	Energy Build.	46 locations; 3 typologies; SBC vs. baseline	Largest dataset on SBC residential EUI; core source for Table 2
[14]	Energy efficiency paradox Saudi buildings	Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun.	Conceptual + survey	Identifies financing, behavioral, and split-incentive barriers
[15]	Institutional building EE Riyadh	Sustainability	Single-building simulation; SBC 401	LED savings 74%; insulation reduces EUI to 58% of baseline
[16]	SBC impact on construction costs	Buildings (MDPI)	Survey—developers, architects, citizens	Cost premium of SBC; gap with construction practice
[17]	Mostadam stakeholder perceptions	Sustainability	Survey—Saudi construction professionals	61% would adopt Mostadam; limited awareness among SMEs
[18]	Thermal insulation materials KSA	Build. Environ.	Laboratory + simulation	Reference for envelope material performance in hot climates
[19]	Net-zero pathway for Saudi buildings	Energy Sustain. Dev.	Scenario modelling to 2060	Floor space doubling projection; net-zero policy implications
[20]	Building energy codes 22 countries	PNNL Report	Cross-country policy review	Performance-based paths outperform prescriptive-only regimes

summarises the key studies informing this paper, providing a structured overview of their focus areas, methods, and specific contributions to the analysis.

2.1. Building Energy Governance: International Context

The relationship between building codes and national energy outcomes is well established. Evans et al. [20] surveyed 22 countries and found that performance-based compliance consistently outperformed prescriptive-only regimes in delivering measured energy savings. The EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD, 2024 recast) mandates near-zero-energy standards for all new buildings and introduces minimum energy performance standards for existing stock [21]. A recurring theme across the international literature is the implementation gap, the distance between regulatory text and actual building performance arising from weak enforcement capacity, split-incentive problems, and informational asymmetries [14,22].

The energy efficiency paradox, first articulated by Jaffe and Stavins [23] and revisited extensively since, captures the apparent irrationality of under-investment in efficiency measures with clear positive net present values. In the Saudi context, this paradox is shaped by three structural barriers identified by Belaïd [14]: split incentives between developers bearing construction costs and occupants bearing energy costs; informational asymmetries preventing buyers from accurately pricing energy performance; and high upfront cost premiums that create financing barriers for otherwise rational actors. Understanding these barriers is essential for calibrating effective policy responses.

Recent advances in building envelope technology have further complicated the adequacy of prescriptive compliance paths. Research on dynamic envelope systems, including insertable passive thermal switches that can modulate heat flow through building envelopes, as demonstrated by [24] in Cell Reports Physical Science, and contact-based passive thermal switches with high rectification ratios, published in ACS Engineering Au, suggests that fixed R-value and U-value requirements cannot adequately capture the thermal performance achievable by adaptive systems [24,25]. Performance-based compliance paths are better suited to recognising and incentivising such dynamic behaviour.

2.2. The Saudi Building Code: Development and Evidence Base

The SBC was formally adopted in 2007, adapted from international model codes with significant modifications for Saudi climatic and cultural contexts [18]. The code is organised across multiple technical chapters, with energy provisions in SBC 601, SBC 602, and SBC 1001, as detailed in

Table 2. Energy and sustainability chapters of the Saudi Building Code (SBC): scope and update history.

SBC Chapter	Title	Scope & Update Frequency
SBC 601	Energy Conservation Requirements	Envelope performance (U-values, SHGC), HVAC efficiency, lighting, domestic hot water. Applicable to all occupancy types. Updated 2018.
SBC 602	Residential Energy Standards	Low-rise residential-specific energy standards; thermal envelope; cooling loads. Reviewed every 3–5 years.
SBC 1001 (SgBC)	Saudi Green Building Code	Mandatory sustainability chapter; foundation of Mostadam. Most recent edition: 2024. Covers site, water, energy, materials, IEQ.
SBC 501	Mechanical Requirements	HVAC system design, ventilation, thermal comfort. Interlinked with SBC 601 compliance pathways.
SBC 401	Electrical Requirements	Electrical installations, EER labelling, metering. Reviewed alongside energy chapter updates.

. The review cycle for energy chapters has been approximately 5 to 7 years, with notable delays: SgBC 1001’s 2024 revision followed a gap of several years during which green building practice in the kingdom evolved significantly [8].

Olawale et al.’s [7] comprehensive simulation study, which constitutes the primary empirical source for this paper’s performance analysis, modelled three standard residential typologies (villa, attached duplex, apartment) across 46 Saudi locations using the EnergyPlus validated simulation platform. Their findings demonstrated EUI reductions ranging from 5% in the mild highland zone to 25% in the hot–humid coastal zone, with the city of Jizan recording the highest pre-SBC EUIs at 191–263 kWh/m²/year. A parallel study by Ismaeil and Sobaih [15] on an institutional building in Riyadh found that LED lighting replacement alone yielded 74% reduction in lighting energy consumption, while advanced polyurethane insulation reduced total building energy use to 58% of the uninsulated baseline.

A critical limitation of the existing evidence base must be acknowledged upfront: virtually all available quantitative performance data derive from building energy simulation rather than post-occupancy measurement. The performance gap between simulated and actual energy consumption in buildings was estimated at 20–30% in international studies, but that has not been systematically quantified for Saudi Arabia due to the absence of a national post-occupancy monitoring system [22]. The values synthesised in this paper should therefore be interpreted as code-implied performance estimates rather than verified empirical outcomes.

2.3. Mostadam and the Green Building Rating System Ecosystem in Saudi Arabia

Mostadam was developed from the three SBC chapters most directly relevant to environmental performance: SBC 501, SBC 601, and SBC 1001 [7,26]. This structural foundation distinguishes it from LEED and BREEAM, which require varying degrees of adaptation to comply with Saudi regulatory requirements. Stakeholder survey evidence found that more than 61% of Saudi construction professionals would choose Mostadam if available for their projects, and that awareness is growing, particularly among larger developers [17].

However, it is important to recognise the appropriate scope and caveats of any comparison between Mostadam and international systems. LEED and BREEAM were designed for global portability and have accumulated decades of market experience across diverse regulatory environments. Their advantages in net-zero pathway sophistication and third-party verification infrastructure reflect this maturity, not a fundamental superiority for the Saudi context. Mostadam’s local calibration, its direct SBC derivation, Saudi-specific climatic zones, and Arabic-first bilingual structure represent a substantive advantage for domestic deployment that globally standardised systems cannot replicate. The analytical value of the comparison lies not in ranking the systems overall but in identifying specific dimensions where Mostadam would benefit from targeted development.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design and Research Questions

This study employs a mixed-methods analytical framework combining systematic documentary review, secondary data synthesis, and comparative policy analysis. The framework is designed to address three explicit research questions stated in Section 1 and is structured across five phases as illustrated in Figure 1.

3.2. Systematic Literature Review Protocol

The literature synthesis underpinning the EUI performance analysis followed a structured selection protocol. Databases searched included Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar, supplemented by direct review of official documents from the Saudi Energy Efficiency Center (SEEC), the Saudi Building Code Centre, and the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs and Housing (MOMAH).

Inclusion criteria for simulation studies required: (i) peer-reviewed publication between 2018 and 2025; (ii) coverage of at least one Saudi climatic zone; (iii) simulation of at least one residential typology; (iv) use of a validated energy simulation platform (EnergyPlus, IDA ICE, or DesignBuilder); and (v) reporting of EUI values in kWh/m²/year. Studies were excluded if they did not report numerical EUI data, if simulation inputs were not described, or if they addressed only non-residential typologies without residential benchmarking. The resulting synthesis draws on 53 validated simulation models distributed across all five climatic zones, as detailed in

Table 3. Synthesised EUI data by Saudi climatic zone: pre- and post-SBC compliance (n = 53 simulation models; source: [7] and allied studies).

Zone	Climate/Key Cities	Pre-SBC EUI (kWh/m2/yr)	Post-SBC EUI (kWh/m2/yr)	Reduction (%)	No. of Models	Key Sources
CZ-1	Hot-Humid (Jeddah, Yanbu)	191–263	121–235	20–25	12	[7,17]
CZ-2	Hot-Dry (Riyadh, Qassim)	150–220	120–175	18–22	15	[7,15]
CZ-3	Composite (Madinah, Hail)	130–195	112–165	12–18	9	[7,18]
CZ-4	Mild-Highland (Abha, Taif)	57–113	46–112	5–10	7	[7,27]
CZ-5	Hot-Coastal East (Dammam, Al-Khobar)	170–240	140–198	15–20	10	[1,7]

.

3.3. EUI Data Synthesis and Normalisation

EUI values from eligible studies were extracted and organised by climatic zone and residential typology (villa, attached duplex, multi-family apartment). The synthesis process followed a structured three-stage procedure to ensure comparability across studies that differed in scope, simulation platform, and reporting convention.

Stage 1—Data extraction and classification. For each eligible study, EUI values were recorded for every reported combination of climatic zone, city, and building typology, alongside the number of distinct simulation models or building variants from which those values were derived. “Sample size” in this context refers to the number of individually simulated building configurations per zone—that is, the count of unique location–typology combinations modelled within a given study, not the number of studies. For example, Olawale et al. [7] simulated three typologies across 46 locations, yielding up to 138 model outputs distributed across the five climatic zones; each individual simulation constitutes one unit in the sample. This definition is consistent across all eligible studies, since each included study reported EUI at the level of individual simulation runs rather than zone-level aggregates.

Stage 2—Weighted mean calculation. Where multiple studies reported EUI values for the same climatic zone and typology, a weighted mean was calculated to prevent studies with larger simulation samples from being systematically under-represented relative to studies based on smaller samples. The weighting formula applied was:

EUI_weighted = Σ(EUI_i × n_i)/Σn_i

where EUI_i is the mean EUI reported by study i for a given zone–typology combination, and n_i is the number of simulation models underlying that reported mean. In practice, Olawale et al. [7]—with its 46-location, three-typology design—carries the greatest weight in the CZ-2 and CZ-1 calculations, while studies covering single cities or fewer typologies (e.g., Ismaeil and Sobaih [15] in Riyadh; Skyline Holdings [28] in 24 cities) contribute proportionally smaller weights. The reported EUI ranges in Table 3 represent the minimum and maximum values observed across all eligible individual simulation models for each zone, irrespective of study, providing a measure of within-zone variability rather than uncertainty in the weighted mean itself.

Stage 3—Assumption alignment and uncertainty estimation. A recognised limitation of cross-study synthesis is that simulation models do not share identical input assumptions. The eligible studies applied broadly similar occupancy and operational profiles—cooling setpoints in the range of 22–24 °C, residential occupancy schedules reflecting Saudi household patterns, and HVAC sizing based on ASHRAE 90.1 equipment efficiency benchmarks—but varied in their assumptions regarding infiltration rates (ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 ACH across studies), internal load densities, and window-to-wall ratios. To assess the sensitivity of the weighted mean EUIs to these cross-study assumption differences, a conservative uncertainty estimate of ±3–5% was derived by recalculating weighted means after excluding, in turn, the study contributing the highest and lowest individual EUI values per zone. This range captures the practical variability introduced by differing modelling assumptions without overstating precision and is reported explicitly in Table 3 to allow readers to assess the robustness of the zone-level EUI estimates. It should be emphasised that these values represent code-implied performance estimates derived from simulation, not measured post-occupancy outcomes; as noted in Section 2.2 and Section 7.3, the actual in-use performance gap is estimated at 20–30% relative to simulated values [22].

3.4. Climatic Zone Framework

Saudi Arabia spans five principal climatic zones as classified by the SBC: hot–humid coastal (CZ-1), hot–dry interior (CZ-2), composite transitional (CZ-3), mild highland (CZ-4), and hot-coastal eastern (CZ-5) [7,18]. Key meteorological characteristics of each zone are presented in Figure 2. It is important to note that intra-zone variability is significant: within CZ-2 alone, for example, coastal Jeddah experiences substantially different humidity and wind conditions from inland Riyadh, and the urban heat island effect in Riyadh adds 1–2 °C to ambient temperatures relative to rural benchmarks. The analysis applies the five-zone classification consistently but acknowledges that these zones represent planning approximations rather than uniform microclimates, and that future code revisions should consider sub-zone differentiation, particularly for altitude-affected locations.

3.5. Comparative Rating System Analysis

The comparative analysis of Mostadam, LEED v4.1, and BREEAM International draws on published technical documentation for each system and stakeholder survey data from Balabel and Alwetaishi [17] and allied studies. Eight comparison criteria were selected by the authors to capture dimensions of direct relevance to the Saudi regulatory and market context, recognising that globally portable criteria may not adequately reflect local deployment suitability. The resulting comparison in

Table 4. Comparative analysis of Mostadam, LEED v4.1, and BREEAM: Saudi-context suitability assessment.

Criterion	Mostadam	LEED v4.1	BREEAM	Analytical Note
Governance body	Ministry of Housing/Sustainable Building Prog.	USGBC (USA)	BRE Group (UK)	Mostadam best aligned with KSA regulatory authority
SBC alignment	Direct—built from SBC 501, 601, 1001	Partial—external adaptation required	Partial—external adaptation required	Critical advantage for mandatory compliance integration
Climate sensitivity	High—Saudi-specific zones (5 CZs)	Moderate—global baseline	Moderate—global baseline	Mostadam avoids costly recalibration
Local content reward	Yes—credits for KSA materials	No	Limited	Directly supports Vision 2030 localisation goals
Net-zero pathway	Developing (2030/2060 aligned)	LEED Zero add-on	BREEAM Net Zero	Key gap requiring strengthening
Certification levels	5 levels	4 levels	6 levels	Comparable depth
Language	Arabic-first bilingual	English	English	Significant advantage for wider KSA practitioner adoption
Market maturity (KSA)	Growing rapidly (64% YoY 2025)	Established—80+ countries	Established—Middle East strong	LEED/BREEAM hold legacy advantage
Caveat	Best suited to KSA; limited portability	Global portability; requires local adaptation	Global portability; requires local adaptation	Local vs. international systems serve different purposes

and Figure 3 should be read as a Saudi-context suitability assessment rather than a global performance ranking: Mostadam’s apparent lower scores on market maturity and net-zero pathway reflect its stage of development, not any fundamental inadequacy for local application.

3.6. Policy Recommendation Framework

The seven policy recommendations in Section 6 were derived through a three-stage process: identification of performance gaps from the quantitative evidence synthesis; mapping of institutional responsibilities and existing policy instruments; and gap-bridging through proposals calibrated to the Saudi governance context, Vision 2030 timelines, and international best practice. Recommendations are prioritised by expected aggregate impact on building sector energy intensity (★★★ = high, ★★ = medium, ★ = foundational enabler) rather than institutional complexity or political feasibility, which are treated as separate implementation considerations.

3.7. Systematic Literature Review Protocol

The literature synthesis underpinning the EUI performance analysis followed a structured selection protocol adapted from PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.

Identification: Three sources were searched in February–March 2026: Web of Science and Scopus (searched simultaneously using Boolean operators), yielding 312 records; Google Scholar forward-citation tracking from four anchor papers, yielding 89 additional records; and grey literature comprising official documents from the Saudi Energy Efficiency Center (SEEC), the Saudi Building Code Centre, and the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs and Housing (MOMAH), yielding 41 records. After automated and manual duplicate removal, 386 unique records were retained.

Screening: Title and abstract screening were applied to all 386 records against two broad criteria: Saudi Arabian geographic context and energy performance subject matter. Of these, 265 records were excluded—118 for non-Saudi context, 87 for addressing only non-residential building types without residential benchmarking, and 60 for failing to report any quantitative EUI-related outcome—leaving 121 records for full-text review.

Eligibility: Full texts of all 121 records were assessed against five pre-specified inclusion criteria: (i) peer-reviewed publication between 2018 and 2025; (ii) coverage of at least one Saudi climatic zone; (iii) simulation of at least one residential typology (villa, duplex, or apartment); (iv) use of a validated energy simulation platform (EnergyPlus, IDA ICE, or DesignBuilder); and (v) reporting of EUI values in kWh/m²/year. A further 68 records were excluded at this stage—18 for non-validated simulation models, 14 for publication date outside the 2018–2025 window, 13 for absence of a residential typology, 12 for not reporting numerical EUI values, and 11 for insufficient description of simulation inputs.

Included: The final synthesis draws on 53 simulation models derived from 17 eligible studies. These 53 models are distributed across the five Saudi climatic zones as follows: CZ-1 Hot-Humid (n = 12), CZ-2 Hot-Dry (n = 15), CZ-3 Composite (n = 9), CZ-4 Mild-Highland (n = 7), and CZ-5 Hot-Coastal East (n = 10). Typology coverage across the 53 models is: villa (53 models), attached duplex (46 models), and multi-family apartment (38 models); not all typologies are represented in every study, which is reflected in the sample size weighting described in Section 3.3.

4. The Saudi Building Code: Architecture, Evolution, and Energy Performance

4.1. Code Architecture and the Sustainability Dimension

The SBC’s energy and sustainability provisions are organised across five chapters (Table 4). It is important to contextualise these within the broader code architecture: the SBC simultaneously governs structural safety, fire protection, accessibility, and environmental performance, and the energy chapters represent one strand within this comprehensive regulatory instrument. The compliance regime for energy provisions currently operates largely independently of other chapters, with no requirement for integrated whole-building performance verification across the full SBC scope. This siloed compliance structure means that buildings can satisfy all mandatory energy prescriptions and still perform at levels above the code’s implicit EUI assumptions, particularly where other structural or aesthetic decisions influence thermal performance.

The SBC review cycle of approximately 5 to 7 years creates a structural tension with the pace of building technology innovation. The 2024 revision of SgBC 1001 addresses several gaps from the previous edition, including expanded renewable energy provisions and updated thermal envelope requirements. However, given that the next review is not expected before 2029–2030, provisions for emerging technologies such as dynamic building envelopes and building-integrated photovoltaics will need to be addressed through performance-based compliance pathways rather than prescriptive updates.

4.2. EUI Performance by Climatic Zone

Table 3 presents a systematic synthesis of EUI data across all five climatic zones, drawing on 53 validated simulation models distributed across 46 Saudi locations. Figure 4 visualises the zone-differentiated outcomes.

Three findings merit emphasis. First, the SBC delivers the largest absolute EUI reductions in the zones where energy demand is most acute. In CZ-1, pre-SBC EUIs reach 263 kWh/m²/year for villa typologies in Jizan; code-compliant designs reduce this to 121–235 kWh/m²/year, with savings of up to 25% in the most thermally responsive scenarios [7]. This is a material result confirming the code’s value in the highest-demand zones. Second, performance in CZ-4 (Abha, Taif) is markedly different: baseline EUIs of 57–113 kWh/m²/year are already relatively modest, and SBC savings of 5–10% reflect the lower marginal value of prescriptive thermal envelope improvements in a mild climate where heating loads contribute non-trivially to annual energy use. Third, the performance gap between villa typologies and apartment buildings is consistently larger than the inter-zone variation within any typology, reflecting the disproportionate surface-area-to-volume ratio of detached villas and the correspondingly greater sensitivity of their total energy use to envelope quality (Figure 5).

It is important to note that intra-zone variability means that a single EUI target per zone is likely insufficient for a performance-based compliance regime. Sub-zone differentiation, for example, distinguishing coastal Jeddah (CZ-1 humid) from inland Red Sea towns (CZ-1 transitional), and sensitivity analysis for altitude, urban heat island intensity, and dust load, would strengthen the technical basis for zone-specific targets. This represents a priority for the forthcoming SBC 601 revision.

4.3. Limitations of the Current Prescriptive Compliance Framework

The prescriptive compliance architecture of SBC 601 and SBC 602 creates three structural limitations. The first is the fixed-specification problem: prescriptive requirements specify minimum insulation R-values, maximum window U-values and solar heat gain coefficients, and minimum system efficiencies, but they do not specify the aggregate EUI outcome that these specifications are intended to achieve. A building can comply fully with every prescriptive provision and still perform significantly above or below the implied EUI.

The second limitation is particularly significant in light of recent advances in building envelope science. Dynamic building envelope systems, including insertable passive thermal switches capable of modulating the effective thermal resistance of wall assemblies in response to ambient conditions [24], and contact-based passive thermal switches with rectification ratios that enable directional heat flow control [25], offer performance benefits that cannot be captured by fixed R-value and U-value requirements. A prescriptive path inherently cannot credit dynamic thermal behaviour, since it measures material properties rather than performance outcomes. This is a structural argument for the performance-based compliance path proposed in Section 6.

The third limitation is the absence of post-occupancy performance verification. Once a building receives a compliance certificate, there is no mandatory obligation to measure actual energy consumption relative to code-implied levels. This prevents the feedback loops necessary for evidence-based code calibration and means that the synthesised EUI reductions in Table 3, which are simulation-based, may overstate actual in-use performance by 20–30% [22].

5. The Mostadam Rating System: Suitability, Performance, and Comparative Position

5.1. Design Philosophy and Alignment with the SBC

Mostadam’s design philosophy rests on a deliberate decision to build upward from the SBC rather than operate as a parallel or competing framework. Its direct derivation from SBC 501, 601, and 1001 creates a theoretically coherent performance ladder in which the SBC establishes the floor, and Mostadam provides the aspirational ceiling [7,26]. This architecture has a practical advantage that international systems do not share: practitioners navigating both mandatory SBC compliance and voluntary Mostadam certification work within a single integrated technical reference rather than two separate frameworks requiring reconciliation.

In practice, however, the separate institutional homes of the two instruments, SBC under the Saudi Building Code Centre and Mostadam under MOMAH, create coordination costs. SBC revisions do not automatically flow through to Mostadam credit thresholds, meaning that the 2024 SgBC 1001 update has not yet been fully reflected in the current Mostadam certification standards. Strengthening this coordination mechanism is a prerequisite for Mostadam to function effectively as a performance ladder above an evolving code baseline.

5.2. Adoption Trajectory and Market Reach

Figure 6 illustrates Mostadam’s adoption trajectory from 2022 to Q1 2025. The Sustainable Building Programme reported 28 projects covering approximately 7 million square metres assessed in Q1 2025, representing a 64% year-on-year increase [29]. However, contextualising these figures against Saudi Arabia’s construction pipeline, with over 5200 active projects at a combined value of approximately USD 819 billion, reveals that certified projects represent a fraction of the stock entering operation annually. Uptake remains concentrated in Riyadh, Jeddah, and the Eastern Province, with limited diffusion into secondary cities and the small-scale private developer segment that collectively accounts for the majority of new residential construction.

5.3. Comparative Analysis: Mostadam in the Saudi Context

Table 4 presents a structured comparison of Mostadam against LEED v4.1 and BREEAM across nine criteria. Figure 3 visualises the comparison as a radar chart. An important caveat governs the interpretation of this comparison: it is specifically a Saudi-context suitability assessment, not a global performance ranking. LEED and BREEAM’s advantages in market maturity and net-zero pathway sophistication reflect their longer operating histories rather than superior technical foundations for local application. Mostadam’s lower scores on these dimensions reflect its stage of development and do not constitute arguments for its replacement with international alternatives. The analytical objective is to identify where targeted development investment would most effectively strengthen Mostadam as Saudi Arabia’s primary green building instrument.

The scores in Figure 3 were assigned through structured expert judgement based on published technical documentation, peer-reviewed stakeholder survey data [17], and the regulatory context established in Section 2 and Section 5.

Table 5. Scoring rationale for the multi-criteria radar comparison (Figure 3): Mostadam, LEED v4.1, and BREEAM International (1 = Low; 5 = High suitability for the Saudi built environment context).

Criterion	Mostadam Score	Rationale	LEED v4.1 Score	Rationale	BREEAM Score	Rationale
SBC Alignment	5	Derived directly from SBC 501, 601, and 1001; no adaptation required; mandatory SBC compliance is a prerequisite for Mostadam certification	2	Developed under ASHRAE/IBC framework; requires country-specific adaptation and reconciliation with SBC provisions	2	Developed under UK Building Regulations; requires significant adaptation for SBC compliance; no direct SBC integration
Climate Sensitivity	5	Built around Saudi Arabia’s five-zone climatic classification; zone-specific performance benchmarks; Arabic-language climate guidance	3	Global baseline applicable to hot climates; ASHRAE 90.1 foundation provides partial relevance; no Saudi-specific zone calibration	3	Global baseline; BREEAM International version addresses hot climates generically but lacks Saudi-specific zone criteria
Local Content Reward	5	Explicit credits for locally sourced materials and services; directly aligned with Vision 2030 National Industrial Development objectives	1	No credits for local content; global material sourcing treated equivalently	2	Limited regional sourcing credits available in some BREEAM International versions; not calibrated to the Saudi supply chain
Net-Zero Pathway	2	Net-zero pathway provisions under active development; 2024 SgBC 1001 revision advances renewable energy requirements but lacks a formalised net-zero certification route	4	LEED Zero add-on programme provides established net-zero operational carbon certification with measurement and verification protocols	4	BREEAM Net Zero framework available with granular M&V protocols; recognised by green bond market and sustainability-linked finance
Market Maturity	2	Rapidly growing (64% year-on-year in Q1 2025) but still early-stage in Saudi Arabia; limited practitioner certification infrastructure; third-party assessor base developing	5	Established in 80+ countries; deep Saudi market presence particularly in commercial and hospitality sectors; large pool of accredited professionals	4	Strong Middle East market presence; established in Saudi Arabia, particularly through commercial and institutional projects; BREEAM assessor network available
Third-Party Verification	3	Assessment framework exists; Sustainable Building Programme administers compliance verification; independent third-party assessor network smaller than international systems	5	Robust third-party verification infrastructure; GBCI-accredited professionals globally; recognised by capital markets for green finance	5	Independent BREEAM-licensed assessor network; strongly recognised by institutional investors and lenders for ESG reporting
Arabic Accessibility	5	Arabic-first bilingual documentation; all technical guidance, credit interpretations, and assessment tools available in Arabic; culturally adapted for Saudi professional context	1	English-language system; Arabic translation of selected documents available but technical guidance remains primarily in English	1	English-language system; no systematic Arabic documentation; practitioners in Saudi Arabia require translation of technical content

provides the explicit scoring rationale for each criterion and system. All criteria were weighted equally, consistent with the absence of empirical weighting data for the Saudi market context; this is acknowledged as a limitation in Section 7.3. Readers are encouraged to apply the rationale table to assess the sensitivity of the radar chart pattern to alternative scoring assumptions. It should be noted that higher scores for LEED and BREEAM on market maturity and net-zero pathway criteria reflect the longer operational histories of those systems globally and do not imply that they are more suitable for deployment in the Saudi built environment—Mostadam’s advantages on SBC alignment, climate sensitivity, local content, and Arabic accessibility are substantive and not reducible to a single aggregate score.

Mostadam’s principal development priorities are its net-zero certification pathway and its third-party verification infrastructure. Both LEED Zero and BREEAM Net Zero offer established frameworks with granular measurement and verification protocols that financial institutions require for green bond eligibility and sustainability-linked financing. Developing analogous Mostadam provisions drawing on the technical work already embedded in the 2024 SBC 1001 revision would substantially strengthen its position in the institutional and commercial property market.

6. Policy Recommendations: Toward Performance-Led Building Energy Governance

Table 6. Prioritised evidence-based policy recommendations for Saudi Arabia’s building energy governance (★★★ = high impact; ★★ = medium impact; ★ = foundational enabler).

#	Priority	Recommendation	Lead Agency	Timeline	Evidence Base/Rationale
P1	★★★	Mandate climate-differentiated EUI targets per zone in SBC 601 revision	Saudi Building Code Centre	2026–2027	Addresses core prescriptive path limitation; highest potential aggregate impact
P2	★★★	Expand Mostadam mandatory scope to all new commercial buildings > 1000 m2	Ministry of Housing	2026	Directly increases market penetration beyond giga-projects
P3	★★	Introduce performance-based compliance path alongside prescriptive path	Saudi Building Code Centre	2027–2028	Enables dynamic envelope technologies; recognises diverse typologies
P4	★★★	Link Mostadam certification to REDF mortgage incentives	Ministry of Finance/REDF	2026–2027	Addresses financing barrier—most structurally impactful for private residential
P5	★★	Establish national post-occupancy monitoring database (BMS/smart meter)	SEEC/MOMAH	Ongoing	Closes accountability gap; enables evidence-based future code revision
P6	★★	Integrate minimum PV thresholds for buildings >500 m2 into SBC 601	SEEC/Saudi Building Code Centre	2027	Embeds renewables as standard design element; supports 50% RE target by 2030
P7	★	Develop capacity-building programmes for code compliance inspectors	Saudi Building Code Centre/Universities	2025–2026	Addresses enforcement gap; prerequisite for P1–P3 effective implementation

summarises seven prioritised policy recommendations. Recommendations are ordered by expected aggregate impact on building sector energy intensity (★★★ = high, ★★ = medium, ★ = foundational enabler) rather than by institutional complexity, reflecting the primacy of energy outcomes in the Vision 2030 and net-zero framework.

6.1. P1: Mandate Climate-Differentiated EUI Targets (★★★)

The most technically impactful reform available in the forthcoming SBC 601 revision is the introduction of zone-specific EUI performance targets alongside or in partial replacement of current prescriptive provisions.

6.2. P2: Expand Mandatory Mostadam Scope (★★★)

Extending mandatory Mostadam certification to all new commercial buildings exceeding 1000 m² would directly address the market concentration problem documented in Section 5.2. The 1000 m² threshold captures meaningful commercial developments while exempting small retail and service projects where compliance costs would be disproportionate. A phased approach beginning with government and semi-government buildings and extending to private commercial over 2 years would allow for the assessment of infrastructure to scale without creating certification bottlenecks.

6.3. P3: Performance-Based Compliance Path (★★)

A formalised performance-based compliance path within SBC 601—accepting energy simulation output as the primary compliance demonstration—would unlock additional savings beyond prescriptive compliance and, critically, would enable recognition of dynamic building envelope technologies such as passive thermal switches [24,25] that fixed R-value and U-value requirements cannot capture. The infrastructure required is less a new code provision than an operational architecture: validated reference models for each climatic zone and typology, an approved simulation tool list, and a cadre of certified energy modellers capable of third-party verification. This reform directly addresses the dynamic envelope limitation identified in Section 4.3.

6.4. P4: Link Mostadam to REDF Mortgage Incentives (★★★)

The upfront cost premium for green building measures, estimated at over SAR 1200 per m² for comprehensive upgrades [30], creates the financing barrier identified by Belaïd [14] as the most structurally significant driver of the energy efficiency paradox in Saudi Arabia. A direct linkage between Mostadam certification and preferential financing terms through the Real Estate Development Fund (REDF) would create a market signal capable of driving Mostadam uptake into the private residential sector at scale. International evidence from UK, Dutch, and Singapore green mortgage programmes confirms that interest rate differentials of 25–50 basis points can measurably shift developer and buyer behaviour.

6.5. P5: National Post-Occupancy Monitoring System (★★)

The most fundamental accountability gap in the current framework is the absence of systematic post-occupancy energy performance measurement. SEEC and MOMAH should jointly establish a national building performance database drawing on smart meter data, BMS integration for certified buildings, and reporting obligations linked to expanded mandatory Mostadam scope. This database would enable evidence-based code revision, create market transparency for property buyers and investors, and provide the empirical foundation needed to validate or revise the simulation-based EUI estimates in Table 3.

6.6. P6: Minimum PV Thresholds in SBC 601 (★★)

Saudi Arabia’s solar resource horizontal irradiance consistently exceeds 2000 kWh/m²/year in most populated areas, positioning building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) as among the most cost-effective means of reducing net building energy consumption [16]. Introducing minimum PV generation thresholds for new buildings exceeding 500 m² in the SBC 601 revision would embed renewable energy generation as a standard design element rather than an optional premium, advancing the 50% renewable electricity target while improving the financial case for Mostadam certification by reducing operating cost gaps.

6.7. P7: Capacity Building for Code Compliance Inspectors (★)

Implementation gaps in building energy codes are at least as often products of enforcement capacity constraints as of regulatory inadequacy. The Saudi Building Code Centre should complement code revision with structured capacity-building for municipal building inspectors, covering energy performance verification methods, simulation literacy, and Mostadam assessment procedures. Professional certification pathways for energy auditors potentially linked to King Saud University, the Saudi Green Building Forum, and TVET institutions would build the practitioner base required for a larger-scale mandatory certification regime. This recommendation is foundational: without it, the more ambitious reforms in P1–P3 face systematic implementation barriers.

7. Discussion

7.1. Implications for Vision 2030 and Net-Zero Commitments

The findings carry direct implications for Saudi Arabia’s climate commitments. Building sector energy demand will face pressure from a projected doubling of national floor space by 2060 [19]. Achieving aggregate EUI reductions at the upper end of the simulated range, 25% in CZ-1 and 22% in CZ-2, across the full building stock would constitute a substantial contribution to the energy efficiency target, but only if the current voluntary and fragmented adoption trajectory is replaced by the systematic mandatory framework outlined in the recommendations. The Q1 2025 Sustainable Building Programme data, while showing impressive growth, confirm that the current pace will not reach the required scale within Vision 2030 timeframes without structural policy intervention [29].

7.2. The Energy Efficiency Paradox and Policy Design

The three barriers identified by Belaïd [14], split incentives, informational asymmetries, and financing barriers, map directly onto the policy recommendations. P4 (REDF linkage) addresses the financing barrier most directly. P5 (post-occupancy monitoring) addresses informational asymmetry in the property market. P1 and P3 (EUI targets and performance paths) address the code compliance process’ own informational limitations. Together, they constitute a coherent multi-barrier intervention rather than a set of isolated reforms.

7.3. Limitations

Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the quantitative EUI synthesis draws on simulation rather than post-occupancy data, introducing a potential performance gap of 20–30% between modelled and in-use values. Second, the climatic zone analysis treats five broad zones as internally homogeneous, which understates intra-zone variability driven by altitude, humidity, urban heat islands, and dust load. Third, the comparative rating system assessment is a structured qualitative scoring rather than a quantitative weighting model, and the criteria weightings were assigned by the author. Fourth, the policy recommendations have not been subjected to structured stakeholder validation through Delphi panels or expert interviews, which would strengthen their feasibility assessment.

7.4. Future Research Directions

Several research priorities emerge from this analysis. First, post-occupancy energy performance studies for SBC-compliant buildings across all five climatic zones are urgently needed to validate or revise the simulation-based performance estimates in Table 3. Second, sub-zone climate analysis would provide a stronger technical basis for differentiated EUI targets, particularly in CZ-1 (coastal vs. inland hot-humid) and CZ-2 (Riyadh urban core vs. peri-urban and desert edges). Third, empirical evaluation of dynamic building envelope technologies, passive thermal switches, vacuum insulation panels, and phase-change materials in Saudi climatic conditions would directly support the case for performance-based compliance path adoption. Fourth, a systematic cost–benefit analysis of the seven policy recommendations, quantifying the aggregate EUI savings achievable if each reform were implemented at a national scale, would provide stronger quantitative support for the policy priorities identified here.

8. Conclusions

This paper has evaluated the energy efficiency performance of Saudi Arabia’s building code framework across five climatic zones, critically examined the Mostadam national green building rating system in its Saudi context, and derived seven prioritised policy recommendations for advancing performance-led building energy governance.

Three principal conclusions emerge. First, the SBC delivers demonstrable EUI reductions of 5–25% depending on zone and typology, with the greatest impacts in the hot-humid coastal zone where pre-code EUIs approach 263 kWh/m²/year. These reductions are meaningful but simulation-based, and the absence of a national post-occupancy verification system means their correspondence to actual in-use performance remains uncertain. Second, Mostadam is well-suited to the Saudi built environment, and its local calibration is a substantive strength rather than a limitation. However, targeted development in three areas is needed: its net-zero certification pathway, its third-party verification infrastructure, and the institutional coordination mechanism connecting it to ongoing SBC revisions. Third, the transition from compliance-led to performance-led governance requires a coordinated multi-barrier intervention: EUI targets (P1) and performance paths (P3) address the prescriptive architecture’s structural limits; REDF mortgage linkages (P4) address financing barriers; and the national monitoring system (P5) creates the evidence base for adaptive management.

From a policy implementation perspective, the three highest-priority recommendations, P1 (climate-differentiated EUI targets), P2 (mandatory Mostadam expansion), and P4 (REDF linkage), are both technically grounded and institutionally feasible within current governance structures. Their combined implementation would substantially accelerate Saudi Arabia’s trajectory toward the building energy performance levels needed to honour its net-zero 2060 commitment and Vision 2030 sustainability targets.