Interview: Rohana Sarah, Founder & CEO, Green World Design

Most infrastructure and real estate developers in India have historically treated landscaping as a last-mile aesthetic decision — budgeted last, executed last, and often value-engineered out. When you founded Green World Design, what structural gap did you identify in how large developers and corporates were procuring and managing landscape infrastructure — and why did you believe that gap was large enough to build a premium, scalable firm around?
Most developers didn’t consciously underinvest in landscaping and biophilic design, it was never defined as an owned infrastructure scope. It sits between architecture, civil, and MEP, so accountability is fragmented. By the time it gets addressed, site decisions are already locked in, and what follows is largely a last-mile aesthetic adjustment. You would walk into a completed site and see the disconnect immediately.  Drainage working against the landscape instead of with it. Surfaces holding heat through the day. Large open areas that looked finished but weren’t actually used. After a point, it stopped feeling like project-specific issues. It was the same pattern repeating itself across different cities and projects. And once the site is built, you’re not really fixing it,  you’re working around it. That’s when I started looking at it differently. This wasn’t a design problem to solve at the end. It was an infrastructure layer that needed to be planned upfront. This was a large opportunity for us – by repositioning landscaping and biophilic design as an early-stage strategic decision, we could work with our clients to influence how the site performs- by standardizing outcomes, improving site performance, and compounding the long-term asset value.

You are operating in a sector — infrastructure-linked design-build — that has been almost exclusively male-dominated in India, both at the ownership and leadership level. Beyond the personal dimension, what does the absence of women founders in this space tell us about how the industry has historically defined ‘infrastructure expertise’ — and how has that definition constrained the kind of innovation that firms like Green World Design are now introducing?
The relative absence of women founders in infrastructure-linked design-build reflects how the industry has traditionally defined expertise. It has largely been anchored in core engineering and execution roles, with leadership pathways shaped around those functions. As a result, areas like landscaping and biophilic design were often positioned as complementary, rather than integral to infrastructure planning. That lens has, in some ways, limited how sites are approached. When landscape systems are not considered alongside grading, water management, and spatial planning, opportunities around microclimate, usability, and long-term performance tend to be underexplored. It’s not a gap in capability, but in how different disciplines have historically been integrated. What we’re seeing now is a gradual shift. Developers and architects are looking at sites more holistically, where environmental performance and user experience are part of core planning decisions. That shift is expanding both the definition of infrastructure expertise and the diversity of leadership shaping it, which is enabling more integrated and forward-looking approaches to development.

There is a growing body of evidence connecting biophilic design — the deliberate integration of natural systems into built environments — with measurable improvements in occupier productivity, mental health outcomes, and retention rates. For a CFO or a Head of Real Estate at a large corporate, how do you translate that evidence into a financial argument? What is the return-on-landscape, and how should developers be pricing it into their asset underwriting?
In my experience, for most CFOs or Heads of Real Estate, the conversation shifts when biophilic design is linked to financial metrics they already track: productivity, attrition, and space utilisation. Real estate is a small line item compared to what companies spend on people, but it directly influences how that workforce performs. Even modest improvements in productivity or retention start to have a disproportionate impact at that scale. Workspaces with better natural light, shaded outdoor areas, and integrated planting tend to see higher utilisation, lower churn, and stronger employee preference. In several Fortune 500 campuses and managed office environments we’ve worked on, these become the most consistently occupied parts of the asset, and often influence renewal decisions more than typical amenities. From a developer or asset owner’s perspective, this shows up in pricing power and tenant stickiness. The return isn’t a fixed percentage, it reflects in leasing velocity, renewal behaviour, occupancy stability, and how often the asset needs repositioning. That’s how it should be underwritten: as part of asset performance, not discretionary spend.

Climate adaptation is fast becoming a non-negotiable design constraint for Indian real estate — particularly in cities like Bangalore, Hyderabad, and Mumbai, which are simultaneously experiencing urban heat island intensification, water stress, and flood risk. How specifically does landscape infrastructure — green corridors, permeable surfaces, water-sensitive urban design — contribute to the climate resilience of a large mixed-use or commercial campus? And how do you quantify that resilience for developers who are accustomed to measuring performance in IRR and yield terms?
Climate adaptation shows up very quickly once a site is operational. Ground surfaces heat up, certain zones become unusable through the day, and during heavy rainfall, water either stagnates or overwhelms drainage. Across our projects in India and the US, these are no longer exceptions, they’re conditions developers are actively dealing with. Our response varies by market — whether it’s Bangalore, Mumbai, Hyderabad, or Chennai, but the principles stay consistent. Landscape infrastructure is planned at the ground level alongside engineering. Tree cover and shaded corridors reduce surface temperatures and improve usability. Permeable surfaces, bioswales, and grading strategies manage stormwater within the site instead of pushing it outward. Recharge zones and native planting help stabilise water use over time. For developers, this plays out operationally. Lower cooling loads, fewer disruptions during peak rainfall, and outdoor areas that remain usable. It doesn’t show up as a separate line item, but in how steadily the asset performs, and that stability is what ultimately supports yield.

ESG disclosure frameworks — including BRSR in India, LEED, WELL, and emerging SEC and SEBI climate risk mandates — are increasingly requiring corporates and developers to account for biodiversity, green cover, and ecological performance within their asset portfolios. How is Green World Design positioning landscape infrastructure as a measurable ESG asset rather than a compliance checkbox — and what data architecture do you build into projects to support future ESG reporting?
ESG frameworks are pushing developers to report more rigorously, but on site, landscape is still often reduced to green cover numbers. Two projects can report similar green percentages and perform very differently, one runs cooler, manages water better, and stays usable; the other doesn’t. That difference doesn’t show up in basic reporting today. At Green World Design, we treat landscape infrastructure as a working system. We track canopy density, water retention and reuse, soil behaviour, and how planting impacts heat and microclimate. These aren’t post-completion audits, they’re built into design and execution so performance can be observed over time, not just documented at handover. From a data standpoint, we align this with what developers already track: water consumption, heat load, and site efficiency. But more importantly, we structure this at the design stage itself, so these parameters can be measured, monitored, and reported over the lifecycle of the asset. The intent isn’t to create new ESG layers, but to make landscape performance visible within existing frameworks and starts influencing how the asset is evaluated.

India is in the midst of a large-scale commercial real estate expansion — with Grade A office supply, business parks, and industrial corridors being developed at an unprecedented pace under programmes like the National Infrastructure Pipeline and PM Gati Shakti. Yet much of this supply is still designed to conventional, engineering-first templates. How do you see the role of landscape and biophilic design evolving within large-scale EPC and infrastructure projects — and what would it take for it to be embedded at the master-planning stage rather than retrofitted at the end?
A large part of new commercial supply is still driven by standard engineering templates, building efficiency is tightly resolved, but the site outside it is often left to be figured out later. By the time landscape and biophilic design come in, road levels, basements, and services are already frozen. At that point, you’re not planning the ground, you’re adjusting to it. You can see the impact on site. Movement feels fragmented, open areas don’t connect well, and environmental strategies like shading or water management become harder to integrate. In projects where we’re brought in earlier, the role shifts, landscape starts organising circulation, managing heat, and structuring how people actually use the campus. For this to become standard, it has to move into the master-planning stage, before grading and services are locked. It also needs clear ownership, not split across multiple consultants. Once landscape and biophilic design sit alongside civil and MEP in early planning, the site works differently. And that’s difficult to replicate if it’s left to the end.

The managed office and flex space sector in India — operators like The Executive Centre, WeWork, and others — has become a significant client vertical for Green World Design. This sector is particularly interesting because occupier churn is high, and operators must continuously justify premium pricing through the quality of the environment. What does this tell us about the relationship between landscape quality and real estate pricing power — and are we beginning to see landscape design function as a lease-conversion and retention tool in the way that amenities or F&B already do?
We work with leading managed office operators across India, and this is where the relationship between environment and pricing becomes very clear. Because occupier churn is relatively high, operators get immediate feedback on what converts and what doesn’t, and spaces with access to daylight, planting, and usable outdoor areas tend to perform better. What stands out is that this isn’t about how the space looks on day one. It’s how it holds through daily use. Work areas connected to green terraces or shaded breakout zones get used consistently — people step out for calls, informal meetings, or just a change in environment. That starts influencing how teams experience the workplace over time. We’re now seeing landscape and biophilic design function much like core amenities, but with more staying power. Amenities can be added or replicated; environmental quality is built into the asset. For operators, that directly impacts conversion, renewals, and ultimately how confidently they price the space.

Green World Design has achieved 200% year-on-year revenue growth — a trajectory that is unusual in the design-build sector, which is typically characterised by project-by-project revenue and high execution risk. What was the strategic decision — whether in pricing, client selection, service architecture, or geographic expansion — that most directly drove that growth rate? And how do you ensure that scaling execution capacity does not dilute the quality and accountability standards that distinguish GWD from conventional landscape contractors?
We have been fortunate to partner with high quality clients over the last few years. Over the last year we expanded significantly across 8+ cities in India and USA, but our core DNA of customer centricity and deep focus on execution is what enabled this growth. A large part of our growth came from changing how the scope is positioned. We don’t enter as a landscaping vendor, we engage as a design-build partner early in the project, where decisions around grading, circulation, and site performance are still open. That shifts both the scale of projects and the clients we work with — developers and corporates who are thinking beyond delivery, towards long-term asset value. Our service architecture is structured end-to-end: from biophilic and landscape strategy, to landscape architecture, hardscaping and softscaping, through to execution and aftercare. That continuity allows us to control outcomes, not just drawings. It also makes the model scalable across geographies including residential, corporate, commercial, hospitality, and infrastructure-led developments. Scaling execution comes down to ownership and team culture. The same teams stay accountable from design through site delivery. This culture of high ownership and strong financial discipline is what makes the growth sustainable.

You have expanded Green World Design’s footprint to the United States — specifically the San Francisco Bay Area — while simultaneously scaling across eight Indian cities. These are radically different regulatory environments, procurement cultures, and client expectations. What does cross-market expansion demand of a design-build firm in terms of talent architecture, local partnerships, and project governance — and what has the US market taught you about landscape as infrastructure that you have applied back to the Indian context?
Expanding across the US and multiple Indian cities requires very different operating models. In India, we typically lead end-to-end: from biophilic and landscape strategy through to design-build execution and aftercare. In the US, our role is more focused on design: we work on landscape and biophilic strategy, and partner with leading developers, contractors, and architects for execution. That shift requires a different approach to talent and partnerships. Our core team anchors design thinking and standards, while local partners enable execution in each market. This allows us to stay consistent in intent, while adapting to local regulations, procurement structures, and site conditions. What the US market reinforces is discipline in early planning and clarity of scope. Landscape is treated as part of site infrastructure; aligned with grading, stormwater systems, and long-term maintenance from the outset. There’s also far more emphasis on lifecycle thinking, how the landscape performs five or ten years down the line, not just at handover. That’s something we’re actively bringing into our work in India, especially with developers who are planning for long-term asset performance.

India’s cities are under structural ecological stress — the loss of tree cover in Bangalore alone over the past two decades has materially worsened the urban heat island effect, altered local rainfall patterns, and contributed to water scarcity. At the same time, India’s urban development pipeline is accelerating, with millions of square metres of new commercial and residential inventory being added annually. How do you see landscape and biophilic infrastructure being integrated into urban master planning at the city level — not just at the project level — and what policy or regulatory mechanisms would need to change to make that a structural requirement rather than a developer choice?
There has already been meaningful progress from policymakers in recognising sustainability and climate resilience as part of urban development. Frameworks around green cover, water management, and environmental compliance are evolving, and that’s an important foundation to build on as cities continue to expand. Today, most landscape and biophilic decisions are still taken at the project level, which limits their impact. You may see well-designed campuses or residential developments, but they operate in isolation. For city-scale impact, these systems need to connect: continuous tree cover, green corridors, and water-sensitive networks that extend across developments and align with broader urban infrastructure. The next step is integration at the planning level. Landscape infrastructure needs to sit alongside transport, drainage, and utilities when masterplans are defined. From a policy perspective, this could evolve from prescriptive norms to more performance-linked frameworks: canopy targets, permeable surface ratios, on-site water management. When these are embedded into approvals and incentives, landscape moves from a design choice to a structural part of how cities are planned.

Sustainability-linked financing — green bonds, sustainability-linked loans, and ESG-indexed REITs — is beginning to reshape how Indian real estate assets are capitalised. For a developer or asset manager looking to access this capital, what role does landscape and ecological performance play in meeting the thresholds required by green certification bodies and sustainability-linked lenders? And how do you see the valuation premium for biophilically-designed assets evolving over the next five years as institutional capital increasingly prices in ESG risk?
Sustainability-linked capital is already influencing how real estate is underwritten globally. Across our conversations in the US and Europe, access to green bonds and ESG-linked financing is closely tied to measurable environmental performance: not just certifications, but how assets actually operate over time. Landscape systems are evaluated in terms of stormwater management, heat mitigation, biodiversity, and long-term maintenance efficiency. We’re starting to see a similar shift in India. For developers looking to access this capital, landscape and ecological performance play a more direct role than before. Water-sensitive design reduces external dependency, planting and shading strategies impact heat loads, and site-level biodiversity contributes to frameworks like LEED and WELL. These are increasingly part of how projects meet financing thresholds. Over the next few years, the premium will come from consistency of performance. Institutional capital is moving towards assets that demonstrate lower environmental risk and more predictable operations. Biophilic design supports that by improving how the asset performs on a day-to-day basis, which compounds into long term asset valuations.

Looking at the trajectory of India’s infrastructure and real estate development over the next decade — the scale of the National Infrastructure Pipeline, the acceleration of commercial real estate, the growing severity of urban climate risk, and the increasing institutionalisation of ESG — where do you believe the industry is most fundamentally misunderstanding the role of nature in the built environment? And what would you want every developer, EPC contractor, and urban planner in India to rethink about the relationship between ecological design and long-term infrastructure performance?

A large part of the industry still treats nature as a compliance or design layer, not as a performance driver. Projects today are highly engineered across structure, services, and execution, but ecological systems are rarely given the same level of integration in early decision-making. As a result, landscape is often evaluated in terms of green cover or certification, not in terms of how it influences heat, water, or long-term site behaviour.

Over the next decade, that separation will become difficult to sustain. Climate risk, operating costs, and institutional capital are all pushing in the same direction. Across projects, we’re already seeing that when tree cover, water systems, and ground conditions are planned early, the site behaves differently. It stays cooler, manages water better, and remains usable through the day. If there’s one shift I would call out, it’s this:nature is not external to infrastructure. It’s part of how infrastructure performs. For developers, EPC contractors, and planners, the question is no longer how much greenery to add, but how the site is designed to function over time. This will determine long-term asset performance and valuations.