Understanding and Mitigating Embedded Carbon in the Built Environment: A Comprehensive Analysis

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

Abstract

Embedded carbon, often interchangeably referred to as embodied carbon, represents the totality of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated across the entire lifecycle of building materials. This extensive report offers an in-depth examination of embedded carbon, elucidating its profound significance within the global construction industry. It meticulously details the methodologies employed for its accurate quantification, surveys the evolving landscape of global policy frameworks designed to mitigate its impact, and highlights the pioneering industry best practices aimed at substantially reducing this significant, yet often overlooked, component of a building’s overall carbon footprint. By fostering a deeper understanding of this critical issue, this report aims to contribute to more sustainable and climate-resilient building practices worldwide.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

The global climate crisis necessitates urgent and transformative action across all sectors of human activity. Among these, the construction industry stands as a particularly significant contributor to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, responsible for a substantial portion of global energy consumption and resource depletion. While traditional focus has largely centred on the operational carbon emissions associated with a building’s energy consumption during its use phase, there is a growing, critical recognition that embedded carbon—the emissions locked within the materials themselves—accounts for an increasingly pertinent share of a building’s total lifecycle environmental impact. As the world collectively strives to meet ambitious climate targets, such as those articulated in the Paris Agreement, a comprehensive understanding and proactive mitigation of embedded carbon have shifted from being a niche concern to an imperative for sustainable development.

This report delves into the intricate complexities of embedded carbon, exploring its multifaceted lifecycle from the genesis of raw materials to their eventual end-of-life disposition. It meticulously examines the sophisticated methodologies employed for its measurement, including Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and the increasingly prevalent Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). Furthermore, the report critically assesses the emerging landscape of policy interventions at global, national, and sub-national levels, highlighting their role in driving change. Finally, it spotlights innovative approaches to reduction, ranging from pioneering material science advancements to the adoption of sophisticated design and construction practices. Through this detailed exploration, the report aims to provide a robust framework for understanding and addressing embedded carbon, advocating for a holistic approach to decarbonising the built environment and accelerating the transition towards a low-carbon future.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

2. Understanding Embedded Carbon

2.1 Definition and Scope

Embedded carbon encapsulates all greenhouse gas emissions released during the entire lifecycle of building materials. Unlike operational carbon, which pertains to the energy consumed for heating, cooling, lighting, and ventilation during a building’s operational phase, embedded carbon represents the ‘upfront’ and ‘downstream’ emissions that occur before a building is even occupied and after its functional life concludes. This comprehensive scope ensures a ‘whole life carbon’ perspective, providing a more accurate assessment of a building’s true environmental burden. The emissions encompassed by embedded carbon span multiple critical stages:

• Raw Material Extraction: This initial phase involves the procurement of virgin raw materials from the Earth. It includes the energy expended in mining (e.g., for iron ore, bauxite, limestone), quarrying (e.g., for aggregates, stone), forestry (e.g., timber harvesting), and the extraction of fossil fuels (e.g., for plastics, asphalt). Emissions arise from the heavy machinery used, land disturbance, habitat disruption, and the energy required for initial processing at the extraction site. For instance, the extraction of bauxite for aluminium production, or limestone for cement, carries significant energy and land-use impacts.

• Processing and Manufacturing: Following extraction, raw materials undergo intensive industrial processes to transform them into usable building products. This stage is often highly energy-intensive and can involve significant chemical reactions. Examples include the calcination of limestone and clay in cement kilns, which is a major source of CO₂ emissions; the smelting of metals like steel and aluminium; the firing of clay bricks; and the production of glass, plastics, and insulation materials. These processes consume vast amounts of energy, often derived from fossil fuels, and can release direct process emissions, such as the CO₂ released when limestone breaks down during cement production. Furthermore, intermediate transportation between processing plants adds to the carbon footprint.

• Transportation and Installation: Once manufactured, building materials must be transported to construction sites. This involves a complex logistical chain utilizing various modes of transport: road freight (trucks), rail, sea (ships), and sometimes air freight. The emissions generated are directly proportional to the distance travelled and the fuel efficiency of the transport vehicles. Upon arrival at the site, further emissions are incurred during the installation phase, primarily from the energy consumed by on-site machinery (e.g., cranes, excavators, forklifts), power tools, and the generation of construction waste that requires collection and transportation for disposal or recycling. Even the energy for temporary site offices and worker commutes contributes to this phase.

• Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement (MRR): Over the operational lifespan of a building, materials and components invariably require maintenance, repair, and eventual replacement. Each of these activities carries its own embodied carbon footprint, as it involves the manufacturing, transportation, and installation of new materials. The frequency and extent of MRR activities are influenced by the durability, quality, and design life of the initial materials. For instance, a building designed with highly durable materials and robust construction may require fewer replacements over its lifecycle, thereby reducing its long-term embedded carbon. This phase underscores the importance of a ‘whole life cycle’ thinking from the outset of design.

• End-of-Life Disposal: This final stage accounts for the emissions associated with a building’s deconstruction or demolition and the subsequent handling of its materials. If materials are sent to landfills, emissions can include methane (a potent GHG) from the decomposition of organic matter, as well as CO₂ from transportation to the landfill. If materials are incinerated, emissions from combustion are released. Conversely, if materials are recycled or reused, the emissions associated with their processing into new products (e.g., crushing concrete for aggregate, melting steel) are typically lower than those for virgin material production, and the avoided emissions from new material production are counted as a benefit. Designing for deconstruction and promoting circular economy principles are crucial for minimizing end-of-life embedded carbon.

2.2 Significance in the Construction Industry

Historically, the climate discourse surrounding buildings has predominantly concentrated on operational carbon emissions, largely because these emissions are continuous and measurable throughout a building’s active life. Policy initiatives, such as energy efficiency standards and building codes, have traditionally targeted this aspect. However, as advancements in building technology and design have led to increasingly energy-efficient structures—often termed ‘nearly zero-energy buildings’ (NZEBs) or ‘zero-emission buildings’ (ZEBs)—the relative contribution of operational carbon to a building’s total lifecycle emissions has diminished. Consequently, the significance of embedded carbon has surged. In some highly efficient new builds, particularly those with renewable energy systems that offset operational electricity use, embedded carbon can constitute a staggering 50% to 80% of a building’s entire carbon footprint over a typical 60-year lifespan. This dramatic shift highlights a critical blind spot in traditional carbon management strategies.

Moreover, embedded carbon emissions are ‘front-loaded’—they occur upfront, before a building even becomes operational. This temporal aspect is crucial; these emissions are released immediately into the atmosphere, contributing to the global carbon budget at a critical juncture when rapid decarbonisation is required to avert the worst impacts of climate change. Unlike operational emissions, which can be mitigated over time through efficiency upgrades or a cleaner energy grid, embedded emissions are largely ‘baked in’ once materials are specified, manufactured, and installed. This front-loaded impact means that decisions made at the design and procurement stages have an immediate and lasting consequence on the planet’s carbon budget, making the reduction of embedded carbon an urgent priority.

Addressing embedded carbon presents unique challenges compared to operational carbon. The supply chains for building materials are complex, globalized, and often opaque, making it difficult to trace the origins and associated emissions of every component. Furthermore, the construction industry is highly fragmented, with numerous stakeholders—designers, material manufacturers, contractors, developers, and policymakers—who may not always have aligned incentives or comprehensive knowledge regarding embodied carbon impacts. Despite these complexities, the increasing awareness and policy drivers are compelling the industry to adopt a more holistic ‘whole life carbon’ approach, recognizing that true sustainability in the built environment can only be achieved by tackling both operational and embedded emissions in tandem.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Methodologies for Quantifying Embedded Carbon

Accurate and consistent quantification of embedded carbon is a foundational prerequisite for developing effective mitigation strategies and for making informed decisions throughout the building lifecycle. Several methodologies and tools have been developed to assess these emissions, each with its specific strengths and applications.

3.1 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is the most comprehensive and widely accepted systematic methodology for evaluating the environmental impacts associated with all stages of a product’s or system’s life, from raw material acquisition (‘cradle’) to processing, manufacturing, distribution, use, repair, maintenance, and finally, disposal or recycling (‘grave’). For building materials and entire buildings, LCA provides a holistic and quantitative understanding of their environmental footprint, encompassing various impact categories, with Global Warming Potential (GWP) (expressed as CO₂ equivalents, or CO₂e) being the primary metric for embedded carbon.

LCA is structured around four distinct phases, as standardized by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) under ISO 14040:2006 (Principles and Framework) and ISO 14044:2006 (Requirements and Guidelines):

1. Goal and Scope Definition: This initial phase establishes the purpose of the study, the system boundaries (e.g., ‘cradle-to-gate’ for a material, ‘cradle-to-grave’ for a building), the functional unit (e.g., 1 square meter of external wall over a 60-year lifespan, or 1 tonne of concrete), and assumptions. Clearly defining the boundaries is critical, as it determines which processes and flows are included or excluded.
2. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Analysis: This phase involves the collection of data on all relevant inputs (e.g., energy, water, raw materials) and outputs (e.g., emissions to air, water, and soil; waste) associated with each stage of the product’s life cycle within the defined boundaries. This data can be primary (measured directly from specific processes) or secondary (from existing databases, literature, or industry averages). This is often the most resource-intensive and data-demanding phase.
3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA): In this phase, the LCI data is translated into environmental impacts. The inventory data (e.g., amount of CO₂ released, amount of nitrogen oxides released) is characterized and aggregated into various environmental impact categories, such as global warming, ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication, and resource depletion. For embedded carbon, the focus is specifically on the Global Warming Potential (GWP) category, which quantifies the climate impact of all GHGs in terms of CO₂ equivalents.
4. Life Cycle Interpretation: The final phase involves a critical review of the results from the LCI and LCIA phases. It includes identifying significant environmental impacts, evaluating the completeness and consistency of the data, conducting sensitivity analyses to understand uncertainties, and drawing conclusions and recommendations based on the findings. This iterative process helps in making informed decisions, identifying environmental hotspots, and guiding improvements.

While LCA provides a comprehensive view, it is not without its challenges. Data availability and quality can vary significantly, especially for niche or regionally specific materials. The complexity of defining system boundaries and allocating impacts in multi-product systems can lead to methodological variations. Despite these challenges, LCA remains the gold standard for robust environmental assessment, facilitating evidence-based decision-making in material selection, design optimization, and policy development. The European standard EN 15804, ‘Sustainability of construction works – Environmental Product Declarations – Core rules for the product category of construction products’, further refines LCA methodologies specifically for construction products, ensuring consistency across the European market.

3.2 Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs)

Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) are standardized, third-party verified documents that communicate the environmental performance of products based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) data. They serve as transparent and comparable reports, providing quantitative, verifiable information about the environmental impacts of a product over its entire lifecycle. EPDs are increasingly becoming a cornerstone of sustainable building procurement, enabling architects, engineers, contractors, and building owners to make informed choices about material selection.

An EPD typically follows the structure and requirements of ISO 14025:2006, ‘Environmental labels and declarations — Type III environmental declarations — Principles and procedures’, and for construction products, often adheres to EN 15804. Key features and benefits of EPDs include:

• Standardization: EPDs are developed according to specific Product Category Rules (PCRs), which are guidelines for a specific product group (e.g., cement, insulation, windows). PCRs define the scope of the LCA, the methodologies to be used, and the types of data to be reported, thereby ensuring comparability between different products within the same category. This standardization is crucial for avoiding ‘greenwashing’ and providing reliable information.
• Third-Party Verification: A critical aspect of EPDs is their independent third-party verification. This process ensures the accuracy, completeness, and adherence to relevant standards of the LCA data and the EPD itself, lending credibility and trustworthiness to the declaration.
• Transparency: EPDs typically include detailed information about the product, its functional unit, the manufacturing process, material composition, and the environmental impacts across various life cycle stages (e.g., raw material supply, manufacturing, transport, installation, use, end-of-life). The impact categories usually include global warming potential (for embedded carbon), acidification, eutrophication, ozone depletion, and others.
• Comparability: By providing a consistent framework for reporting, EPDs allow stakeholders to directly compare the environmental performance of similar products from different manufacturers. This facilitates the selection of materials with lower environmental footprints, driving demand for more sustainable options.

EPDs are rapidly gaining traction in procurement policies worldwide. For instance, Colorado’s HB21-1303, known as the ‘Buy Clean Colorado Act,’ is a pioneering example in the United States. This legislation leverages EPDs to require state agencies to consider the embodied carbon of materials such as steel, concrete, and asphalt when purchasing for public projects. Similarly, numerous municipalities, like Toronto, Canada, have mandated the disclosure of EPDs and set limits on embodied carbon for new city-owned buildings. This policy trend reflects a growing recognition that leveraging standardized environmental data is essential for incentivizing the market towards low-embodied-carbon materials.

However, limitations exist. The quality and availability of EPDs can vary, and generic EPDs (representing industry averages) may not always accurately reflect the performance of a specific product from a particular manufacturer. Furthermore, the sheer volume of products on the market means that comprehensive EPD coverage is still a goal rather than a reality. Despite these challenges, EPDs remain indispensable tools for promoting transparency and informed decision-making in the pursuit of lower embodied carbon.

3.3 International Green Construction Code (IgCC) and Green Building Rating Systems

The International Green Construction Code (IgCC) provides a comprehensive framework for sustainable building practices, moving beyond traditional prescriptive energy codes to encompass a broader range of environmental impacts, including embodied carbon. Developed by the International Code Council (ICC) in collaboration with ASTM International and ASHRAE, the IgCC is an overlay code designed to be adopted and adapted by jurisdictions to support green building standards. Its aim is to reduce the negative environmental impact of buildings by addressing various aspects throughout their lifecycle, from site development and water efficiency to energy conservation and material resource conservation.

Within the context of embodied carbon, the IgCC encourages the use of materials with lower environmental impacts. It supports the integration of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) principles and references the use of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) as mechanisms for demonstrating compliance and fostering the selection of more sustainable materials. The code’s emphasis on material resource conservation includes provisions for waste reduction, reuse of existing structures, and the use of recycled content, all of which indirectly contribute to lower embodied carbon.

Beyond the IgCC, numerous green building rating systems globally play a significant role in driving embodied carbon reduction through their certification criteria. These systems, while distinct in their regional focus and methodologies, share a common goal of promoting sustainable design and construction:

• LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design): One of the most widely recognized green building certification programs globally, LEED, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), has evolved to incorporate embodied carbon considerations. Its ‘Materials and Resources’ credit category encourages the use of materials with EPDs, those with high recycled content, and salvaged or reused materials. More advanced credits reward projects that perform whole-building LCA to demonstrate reductions in embodied carbon compared to a baseline.

• BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method): Originating in the UK, BREEAM is Europe’s leading sustainability assessment method for buildings. It includes detailed criteria related to ‘Materials’ that reward the specification of materials with lower embodied impacts, based on robust LCA data or certified environmental management systems. BREEAM encourages designers to consider the full lifecycle impacts of materials, promoting responsible sourcing and waste reduction.

• Living Building Challenge (LBC): Often considered the most rigorous green building standard, the LBC, developed by the International Living Future Institute (ILFI), emphasizes regenerative design. Its ‘Materials’ petal includes ‘Red List’ chemicals to avoid and encourages projects to source materials locally and with minimal embodied carbon. It pushes for deep consideration of the social and ecological impacts throughout the material supply chain, often requiring transparency beyond typical EPDs.

• Green Star (Australia/South Africa): This rating system includes credits for responsible material sourcing, waste management, and the use of materials with lower embodied energy and carbon. It promotes the use of LCA tools to evaluate material impacts and encourages innovation in material selection.

These codes and rating systems serve as powerful market drivers. By setting benchmarks and offering recognition for superior environmental performance, they incentivize designers, developers, and manufacturers to prioritize embodied carbon in their decision-making. They translate complex LCA data into actionable criteria, fostering innovation in material science and construction practices, and ultimately accelerating the industry’s transition towards a more sustainable and decarbonised future.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Global Policy Frameworks Addressing Embedded Carbon

Effective policy interventions are paramount for accelerating the reduction of embedded carbon in the construction industry. While the issue has gained prominence relatively recently compared to operational carbon, a growing number of global, national, and sub-national frameworks are emerging to address this challenge, reflecting increasing political will and environmental awareness.

4.1 European Union Initiatives

The European Union has positioned itself as a global leader in climate action, and its policy landscape increasingly reflects a comprehensive approach to building decarbonisation, extending beyond operational energy to encompass embodied carbon. Several key directives and initiatives contribute to this shift:

• Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD): While primarily focused on operational energy efficiency, the EPBD has evolved to implicitly and explicitly address embodied carbon. Its original iterations pushed for ‘nearly zero-energy buildings’ (NZEBs) by 2021, dramatically reducing operational energy demand. The latest revision of the EPBD (as of late 2023/early 2024 proposals) explicitly mandates a ‘zero-emission building’ (ZEB) standard for new buildings by 2030, and it introduces a requirement for Member States to establish a ‘whole life carbon’ reporting framework for new buildings from 2027 and progressively expanding thereafter. This signifies a fundamental shift, moving embodied carbon from a voluntary consideration to a mandatory reporting and, eventually, a regulatory target, ensuring that carbon emitted during a building’s entire lifecycle is accounted for. The EPBD also promotes the use of building renovation passports and digital building logbooks, which can track material information and facilitate future reuse.

• Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP): As a cornerstone of the European Green Deal, the CEAP (2020) aims to transform the EU into a circular economy, reducing waste and increasing resource efficiency. Within this plan, the ‘Strategy for a Sustainable Built Environment’ specifically targets construction and demolition waste, which accounts for over a third of all waste generated in the EU. By promoting material reuse, recycling, and design for durability and disassembly, the CEAP directly mitigates embedded carbon. It encourages the development of markets for secondary raw materials and calls for improved data on material flows, which will enhance LCA and EPD development.

• EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities: This regulation provides a classification system for environmentally sustainable economic activities, aiming to guide investments towards green projects. Within the building sector, the Taxonomy includes criteria related to both operational and embodied carbon, requiring buildings to meet stringent performance standards or demonstrate significant embodied carbon reductions. By providing a clear definition of what constitutes a ‘green’ building, the Taxonomy helps to de-risk sustainable investments and incentivize the adoption of low-carbon materials and practices.

• National-level policies: Several EU Member States have introduced pioneering national legislation. For example, France’s RE2020 regulation, implemented in 2022, is one of the most ambitious, setting progressively stringent limits on both operational and embodied carbon for new residential and commercial buildings. It introduces a ‘carbon score’ for buildings and encourages bio-based materials. Denmark has also introduced mandatory lifecycle carbon assessments for new buildings, with specific limits for larger constructions. The Netherlands’ Building Materials Decree focuses on environmental performance indicators, including embodied energy and emissions. These national policies demonstrate a strong commitment to integrating embodied carbon into regulatory frameworks, serving as models for other regions.

4.2 United States Policies

While the United States has traditionally approached climate policy with a more fragmented, state- and local-driven strategy compared to the EU’s top-down directives, there is a growing momentum around embodied carbon, particularly through ‘Buy Clean’ initiatives and procurement policies.

• Federal Initiatives: The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), as the largest public real estate organization in the U.S., plays a significant role in federal procurement. The GSA has launched its own ‘Buy Clean’ initiatives, requiring suppliers of certain high-carbon materials (e.g., concrete, steel, asphalt) for federal construction projects to provide Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) and meet lower embodied carbon thresholds. This federal purchasing power aims to drive market transformation by creating demand for low-carbon materials across the supply chain.

• State and Local Policies (Buy Clean Acts): Several states and municipalities have enacted or are developing ‘Buy Clean’ legislation, which mandates or incentivizes the use of lower embodied carbon materials in public infrastructure and building projects. These policies typically leverage EPDs to compare material impacts and set maximum acceptable carbon intensity limits for specific products.

  • Colorado’s HB21-1303, the ‘Buy Clean Colorado Act,’ enacted in 2021, is a landmark example. It requires state agencies to establish maximum acceptable Global Warming Potential (GWP) limits for eligible construction materials (initially steel, concrete, and asphalt) used in state-funded projects. Manufacturers bidding on these projects must provide EPDs, allowing the state to select lower-carbon alternatives. This act is phased in, allowing manufacturers time to adapt and providing a strong market signal.
  • California’s AB 262, the ‘Buy Clean California Act,’ predates Colorado’s and was enacted in 2017. It requires the Department of General Services to establish maximum acceptable GWP limits for specific materials (carbon steel rebar, flat glass, mineral wool board insulation, and structural steel) used in state infrastructure projects. This policy has been instrumental in raising awareness and driving data collection within the supply chain.
  • Washington State’s HB 1102 (2021) and Oregon’s HB 4118 (2022) are other examples, demonstrating a regional trend towards ‘Buy Clean’ policies in the Pacific Northwest, focusing on materials like concrete and steel and often requiring EPDs for public procurement.
  • Local Initiatives: Cities are also leading the way. Toronto, Canada, for instance, mandated lower-carbon construction materials in all new city-owned municipal buildings from 2023, setting explicit limits on embodied carbon from new construction projects. Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington, have implemented similar policies through their city planning and procurement processes.

• Inflation Reduction Act (IRA): While not directly targeting embodied carbon, the IRA (2022) includes significant tax credits and incentives for clean manufacturing processes and materials. By supporting the decarbonisation of heavy industries like steel, cement, and aluminium production, the IRA indirectly contributes to reducing the embodied carbon of building materials. It also provides funding for federal agencies to purchase low-carbon materials.

These diverse policies, ranging from federal procurement to state mandates and local city ordinances, are creating a mosaic of regulatory pressure and market incentives, slowly but surely transforming the demand landscape for low-embodied-carbon building materials across North America.

4.3 International Agreements and Global Targets

Global agreements provide overarching frameworks that, while not always explicitly mandating embodied carbon reductions, exert significant indirect influence on the construction sector’s approach to decarbonisation. These agreements set the stage for national and sectoral policies and foster international collaboration on climate action.

• The Paris Agreement (2015): This landmark international treaty, adopted by 196 Parties at COP21, sets a long-term goal to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. Each signatory country commits to Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which outline their climate action plans. While most NDCs initially focused on energy and land-use change, the increasing emphasis on ‘whole life carbon’ means that the construction sector’s emissions—both operational and embodied—are becoming increasingly relevant to achieving these national targets. The imperative to reduce overall GHG emissions drives countries to look beyond operational energy and address material-related emissions.

• The Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GlobalABC): Launched at COP21, GlobalABC is a leading platform for governments, industry, and civil society to accelerate the decarbonisation of the buildings and construction sector. It promotes the development of national and regional roadmaps for decarbonisation, which increasingly integrate embodied carbon reduction strategies. GlobalABC facilitates knowledge sharing, promotes best practices, and advocates for policies that address the entire building lifecycle, including material production and end-of-life.

• World Green Building Council (WorldGBC): The WorldGBC is a global network of national Green Building Councils working to transform the built environment. Its ‘Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment’ has been a significant driver, initially focusing on operational carbon. However, the commitment has evolved to encourage signatories to also address embodied carbon, with targets for reducing upfront embodied carbon for new construction and major renovations. The WorldGBC’s advocacy and research play a crucial role in pushing for more ambitious embodied carbon policies and best practices globally.

• International Decarbonisation Roadmaps: Various international bodies and industry associations are developing roadmaps for specific material sectors (e.g., Global Cement and Concrete Association’s Roadmap to Net Zero Concrete, World Steel Association’s climate action plans). These roadmaps outline technological pathways and policy needs to decarbonise the production of high-carbon materials, which directly impacts their embodied carbon footprint in buildings.

Despite these international efforts, specific mandates for embodied carbon reduction are still nascent on a global scale. The primary challenge lies in the political complexity of setting universal standards and the varying economic development levels and construction practices across countries. Further political commitment, harmonized methodologies, and robust policy development are essential to translate these high-level agreements into tangible, widespread reductions in embodied carbon, crucial for meeting 2030 targets and beyond. The slow pace of progress in spurring deep industrial emissions reductions through international climate talks, as noted by Reuters in December 2024 concerning COP29, underscores the need for more direct and enforceable mechanisms.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Industry Best Practices for Reducing Embedded Carbon

The construction industry, increasingly aware of its environmental responsibility, has begun to adopt a range of best practices designed to mitigate embedded carbon throughout the building lifecycle. These practices span from the initial conceptualization and design phases to material selection, construction execution, and ultimately, end-of-life management.

5.1 Material Selection

Choosing materials with a lower embodied carbon footprint is one of the most impactful strategies. This involves a shift from conventional, high-carbon materials to more sustainable alternatives, considering their entire lifecycle from extraction to disposal.

• Prioritizing Low-Carbon Materials: This includes a broad category of materials that require less energy to produce, sequester carbon, or are derived from renewable or recycled sources. Examples include:

  • Bio-based materials: Timber (especially sustainably sourced and certified wood products like FSC or PEFC), bamboo, straw, hempcrete, and mycelium-based composites. These materials not only have a lower initial embodied carbon but also sequester atmospheric carbon during their growth phase, offering a unique carbon sink potential. Integrating a larger share of bio-materials into a building’s design can significantly reduce its embodied energy, estimated by some studies to be around 20% or even higher for highly timber-intensive structures.
  • Materials with High Recycled Content: Utilizing steel with high recycled scrap content, concrete containing recycled aggregates or supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) like fly ash or ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), and recycled glass or plastics, significantly reduces the demand for virgin resources and the energy associated with their extraction and primary processing.
  • Locally Sourced Materials: Reducing the transportation distance from raw material extraction and manufacturing sites to the construction site directly lowers emissions from freight. This also supports local economies and can enhance supply chain transparency.
  • Salvaged and Reused Materials: Giving a second life to materials from deconstructed buildings (e.g., bricks, timber beams, doors, windows, steel components) drastically reduces the need for new material production, representing the ultimate form of embodied carbon reduction. This requires robust material recovery processes and markets for salvaged goods.

• Material Performance and Durability: Selecting durable materials that require less frequent maintenance, repair, and replacement over the building’s lifespan indirectly contributes to lower whole life embodied carbon. A material that lasts longer, even if it has a slightly higher initial embodied carbon, may prove to be the lower-carbon option over a 60-year lifespan than a cheaper, less durable alternative requiring multiple replacements.

• Material Passports: Developing ‘material passports’ or digital inventories of materials used in a building can facilitate future reuse and recycling. These passports contain information about the material composition, source, and potential for reuse, making deconstruction and circular economy practices more efficient.

5.2 Design Optimization

Design choices exert the most profound influence on a building’s embodied carbon footprint. By integrating embodied carbon considerations from the earliest conceptual stages, architects and engineers can significantly reduce material consumption and optimize structural efficiency.

• Efficient Structural Design: Structural engineers can minimize the quantity of materials used without compromising safety or performance. This includes:

  • Optimizing structural grids and spans: Designing efficient column layouts and beam depths to reduce material requirements.
  • Using high-strength materials strategically: Employing materials like high-strength concrete or steel only where their properties are truly needed, rather than over-specifying.
  • Voided slabs: Incorporating voids within concrete slabs to reduce concrete volume while maintaining structural integrity.
  • Lightweight structures: Opting for lighter building envelopes or structural systems where appropriate to reduce the load on foundations and primary structural elements, thereby reducing their material requirements.
  • Adaptive Reuse: Prioritizing the renovation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings over new construction. The embodied carbon of an existing structure is effectively ‘sunk’ and reusing it avoids the significant upfront emissions of new materials.

• Design for Disassembly (DfD) and Adaptability: DfD involves designing buildings and their components in a way that allows for easy and efficient deconstruction rather than demolition at the end of their useful life. This facilitates the recovery, reuse, and recycling of materials. DfD principles include:

  • Using mechanical fasteners over adhesives or welding where possible.
  • Standardizing dimensions and connections.
  • Making components accessible for removal.
  • Designing for future flexibility and adaptability, allowing a building to evolve to new uses, thus extending its lifespan and deferring demolition.

• Minimizing Waste through Design: Designing with standard material dimensions to minimize off-cuts, optimizing material cutting patterns, and integrating modular components can drastically reduce on-site construction waste, lowering both disposal-related emissions and the need for new materials.

• Integrated Design Process: Fostering collaboration among all project stakeholders—architects, structural engineers, mechanical engineers, contractors, and material suppliers—from the outset. This allows for holistic decision-making where embodied carbon implications of different design choices can be modelled and optimized collaboratively.

5.3 Construction Practices

Beyond material selection and design, the actual construction phase offers opportunities to reduce embedded carbon through efficient processes, waste minimization, and responsible site management.

• Waste Reduction and Management: Implementing robust waste management plans on site, including:

  • Minimizing off-cuts: Precise ordering and cutting plans for materials like drywall, timber, and steel reduce waste.
  • On-site segregation and recycling: Separating construction and demolition waste streams (e.g., concrete, metals, timber, plasterboard) for recycling or reuse, diverting them from landfills.
  • Just-in-time delivery: Minimizing excess material storage on site reduces potential damage and waste.
  • Prefabrication and Modular Construction: Manufacturing building components or modules off-site in a controlled factory environment can significantly reduce waste compared to traditional on-site construction. Factory settings allow for greater precision, optimized material use, bulk purchasing, and easier recycling of scrap materials. This also reduces on-site labor and associated transportation.

• Efficient Logistics and Transportation: Optimizing the transportation of materials to the construction site:

  • Consolidating shipments: Combining deliveries to reduce the number of truck trips.
  • Optimizing routes: Using software to plan the most fuel-efficient delivery routes.
  • Promoting local sourcing: As mentioned in material selection, sourcing materials from closer manufacturers reduces transportation distances.

• Energy-Efficient Site Operations: While operational carbon of the building is the main focus, the energy consumed during construction also contributes to the project’s overall carbon footprint. Best practices include:

  • Utilizing electric or hybrid construction equipment where feasible.
  • Connecting to the grid for electricity rather than relying on diesel generators.
  • Optimizing energy use for temporary site offices, lighting, and heating.

• Quality Control and Skilled Labor: High-quality workmanship and skilled labor reduce errors, rework, and material damage, all of which contribute to waste and increased embodied carbon.

5.4 End-of-Life Management

Strategic planning for a building’s end-of-life phase is critical for completing the circular economy loop and minimizing disposal-related emissions. This involves shifting from linear ‘take-make-dispose’ models to circular ‘recover-reuse-recycle’ approaches.

• Designing for Disassembly (DfD): As detailed in Section 5.2, this is the cornerstone of effective end-of-life management. By ensuring materials and components can be easily detached and salvaged, DfD vastly increases the potential for reuse and high-value recycling.

• Deconstruction vs. Demolition: Prioritizing deconstruction over demolition. Demolition typically involves rapidly tearing down a structure, often resulting in mixed waste streams sent to landfills. Deconstruction, conversely, is a methodical process of carefully dismantling a building to salvage valuable materials for reuse or recycling. This extends the lifespan of materials and avoids the embodied carbon associated with new material production.

• Material Reuse and Recycling: Establishing and utilizing robust systems for the collection, sorting, and processing of construction and demolition waste. This includes:

  • Direct reuse: Salvaged components like timber beams, bricks, windows, doors, and plumbing fixtures can be directly incorporated into new projects with minimal processing.
  • High-value recycling: Materials like steel, aluminium, and concrete (crushed for aggregate) can be recycled back into new products, significantly reducing the demand for virgin resources and their associated embodied carbon.
  • Energy recovery: As a last resort, non-recyclable waste can be used for energy recovery (waste-to-energy plants), which is preferable to landfill but still results in emissions.

• Material Passports and Digital Twins: The use of material passports, as discussed, provides vital information for managing materials at end-of-life. Furthermore, ‘digital twins’—virtual models of buildings that are continuously updated with real-time data—can store detailed information about every material, its properties, and its location, making deconstruction and material recovery highly efficient.

By embracing these best practices across all stages of a building’s lifecycle, the construction industry can significantly reduce its embedded carbon footprint, contributing meaningfully to global climate goals and fostering a more resilient and sustainable built environment.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Innovations in Low-Carbon Materials

The drive to reduce embodied carbon has spurred significant innovation in material science, leading to the development and increased adoption of novel low-carbon alternatives. These advancements are crucial for decarbonising the material supply chain and offering sustainable choices for future construction projects.

6.1 Sustainable Concrete

Concrete is the most widely used man-made material on Earth, with global production exceeding 10 billion cubic meters annually. However, the production of Portland cement, its primary binder, is responsible for approximately 8% of global anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, primarily from the calcination of limestone and the energy required for the high-temperature kilns. Innovations in sustainable concrete aim to drastically reduce this footprint.

• Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs): The most immediate and widely adopted strategy is the partial replacement of Portland cement with SCMs. These industrial by-products, often with latent hydraulic or pozzolanic properties, react with the calcium hydroxide produced during cement hydration to form additional binding compounds, improving concrete’s long-term performance while significantly reducing its carbon footprint. Common SCMs include:

  • Fly Ash: A by-product of coal combustion, rich in silica and alumina. Its use diverts waste from landfills and reduces clinker content.
  • Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag (GGBS): A by-product of steel manufacturing, which can replace a substantial portion of cement in concrete mixes.
  • Calcined Clay: Particularly calcined kaolinitic clays, when combined with limestone, can form a high-performance, low-carbon binder system (LC3 or Limestone Calcined Clay Cement) with significantly lower embodied carbon than traditional Portland cement. This technology has immense potential as clay is abundant globally.

• Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) in Concrete Production: Emerging technologies are exploring ways to capture CO₂ directly from cement plant emissions and either permanently store it or utilize it within concrete production. Carbon capture and utilization (CCU) technologies can inject CO₂ into concrete during the mixing or curing process, chemically binding the CO₂ into the concrete matrix (carbonation curing), effectively mineralizing it. This not only reduces emissions but can also enhance the concrete’s strength and durability. Companies are also exploring using captured CO₂ as a feedstock for aggregates or other cementitious materials.

• Novel Binders (Geopolymers and Alkali-Activated Materials): Geopolymer concrete uses industrial by-products (like fly ash, GGBS, or metakaolin) activated by alkaline solutions (e.g., sodium silicate, sodium hydroxide) to form a binding material without the need for Portland cement. These materials can achieve comparable or superior performance to traditional concrete with a significantly reduced carbon footprint (up to 80-90% less embodied CO₂) as they avoid the energy-intensive clinker production. While still somewhat niche, their application is growing, particularly in precast elements and specialized civil engineering projects.

• Recycled Aggregates: Replacing a portion of virgin sand and gravel with recycled concrete aggregates (RCA) from demolition waste reduces the embodied carbon associated with new aggregate extraction and processing, while also diverting waste from landfills. Research, such as the study by Ament, Witte, Garg, and Kusuma (2023), further demonstrates the potential for data-driven approaches like Bayesian Optimization to identify optimal concrete mixes that balance compressive strength with lower global warming potential, showcasing the role of advanced computational methods in material innovation.

6.2 Bio-Based Materials

Bio-based materials are derived from renewable biological resources, offering a sustainable alternative to traditional fossil-fuel-intensive building materials. Their key advantage lies in their ability to sequester atmospheric carbon during their growth phase, effectively storing it within the building structure for the duration of its lifespan.

• Mass Timber: This category includes engineered wood products like Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT), Glued Laminated Timber (Glulam), and Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL). These products are manufactured by bonding layers of wood together to create strong, large-format structural elements suitable for multi-story buildings. Mass timber has a significantly lower embodied carbon footprint than steel or concrete and acts as a carbon sink. Beyond its environmental benefits, mass timber offers advantages in construction speed (prefabrication), seismic performance, and aesthetic appeal. While fire resistance is a common concern, research shows that large timber sections char slowly on the exterior, retaining their structural integrity.

• Hempcrete: A biocomposite material made from the woody core of the hemp plant (hemp hurds) mixed with a lime-based binder and water. Hempcrete is lightweight, possesses excellent insulation properties, is breathable (regulating humidity), and is carbon-negative over its lifecycle due to the carbon sequestered by the hemp plant. It is primarily used for non-structural infill, insulation, and acoustic panels in buildings.

• Mycelium Composites: Mycelium, the root structure of fungi, can be grown on agricultural waste (e.g., sawdust, corn stalks) to create lightweight, rigid, and biodegradable materials. These composites can be molded into various shapes and are being explored for use as insulation panels, acoustic tiles, and even non-structural building blocks. Mycelium-based materials offer unique opportunities for truly circular, biodegradable construction components.

• Straw Bale Construction: An ancient building technique experiencing a modern resurgence, straw bales (a by-product of grain farming) are used as structural or non-structural insulation infill, often rendered with natural plasters. Straw bale walls provide exceptional thermal performance, are breathable, and sequester significant amounts of carbon. Its cost-effectiveness and local availability make it attractive for certain projects.

• Bamboo: Known for its rapid growth rate and exceptional strength-to-weight ratio, bamboo is a highly renewable resource. Engineered bamboo products, such as laminated bamboo lumber, can be used for structural applications, flooring, and finishes, offering a low-carbon alternative to traditional timber and other materials, particularly in regions where it is natively abundant.

It is crucial to consider the full life cycle of bio-based materials, including harvesting practices, processing energy, and transportation distances, to ensure their true sustainability. Sustainable forest management practices, for instance, are vital for ensuring that timber is a genuinely renewable resource. Additionally, careful consideration of the end-of-life scenario for bio-based materials (e.g., whether they are responsibly biodegraded, incinerated for energy, or ideally, reused) influences their net carbon impact.

6.3 Other Innovative Materials and Technologies

Beyond concrete and bio-based options, innovation is transforming other material sectors:

• Recycled Metals: While steel and aluminium production are energy-intensive, materials with high recycled content (e.g., electric arc furnace steel from scrap) have significantly lower embodied carbon. The industry continues to improve recycling rates and energy efficiency in secondary production.

• Low-Carbon Insulation: Innovations include insulation made from recycled textiles (e.g., denim), cellulose (recycled paper), sheep’s wool, and even seaweed, offering natural, often carbon-sequestering, alternatives to conventional foam plastics or mineral wool.

• Emerging Technologies: Research continues into truly novel materials such as self-healing concrete (which incorporates bacteria or polymers to repair cracks, extending lifespan), bioconcrete (using bacteria to precipitate calcium carbonate for binding), and phase-change materials (for thermal regulation, reducing the need for active heating/cooling and thus potentially reducing the need for high-carbon mechanical systems).

These innovations collectively represent a promising pathway to drastically reduce the embodied carbon footprint of the built environment, fostering a more resilient, resource-efficient, and climate-friendly construction sector.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

7. Challenges and Future Directions

Despite the growing awareness and the promising innovations in low-carbon materials and practices, significant challenges persist in the widespread reduction of embedded carbon. Addressing these hurdles effectively will dictate the pace of decarbonisation within the built environment.

7.1 Data Availability and Quality

One of the most fundamental challenges is the inconsistent availability and variable quality of data required for accurate embodied carbon assessments.

• Limited Comprehensive LCA Data: While the number of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) is growing, comprehensive, robust, and universally accepted LCA data for the vast array of building materials, components, and construction processes remains incomplete. Many smaller manufacturers, or those in developing regions, may not yet have EPDs for their products.
• Specificity vs. Genericity: Generic EPDs, representing industry averages, are useful for early-stage design estimates but may not accurately reflect the actual performance of a specific product from a particular manufacturer, especially if that manufacturer has invested in greener production methods. Obtaining project-specific EPDs can be time-consuming and costly.
• Supply Chain Transparency: Tracing the environmental impacts through complex, multi-tiered global supply chains is notoriously difficult. A material may pass through several countries and processing stages before reaching the construction site, making it challenging to attribute emissions accurately.
• Dynamic Nature of Data: The embodied carbon of a material can change over time due to advancements in manufacturing processes, shifts in energy grids (e.g., increasing renewable energy), and changes in raw material sourcing. Keeping databases updated and relevant is an ongoing challenge.
• Lack of Standardized Databases: While efforts exist (e.g., Ecoinvent, GaBi), a globally harmonized, comprehensive, and accessible database of material embodied carbon values, consistent in its methodology and regularly updated, is still lacking. This hinders consistent reporting and comparability across different regions and projects.

7.2 Standardization and Harmonization

The lack of consistent standards and methodologies across different regions and even within the same country poses significant barriers to widespread adoption and comparison.

• Varying LCA Methodologies: Different LCA standards (e.g., ISO 14040/14044, EN 15804 in Europe, different regional PCRs) can lead to variations in how environmental impacts are calculated and reported. This makes ‘apples-to-apples’ comparisons between materials or buildings assessed under different frameworks difficult.
• EPD Comparability: While EPDs aim for comparability, variations in underlying PCRs, the scope of assessment, and the impact assessment methods used by different EPD program operators can still lead to inconsistencies. This can create confusion for designers and procurers trying to select the most sustainable option.
• Regulatory Alignment: A fragmented policy landscape, where different jurisdictions implement varying embodied carbon targets, reporting requirements, or ‘Buy Clean’ policies, can create compliance burdens for manufacturers and project teams operating across multiple regions. Harmonization of regulations would significantly streamline efforts.
• Lack of Consensus on Whole Life Carbon: While the concept of whole life carbon is gaining traction, the specific methodologies for its calculation, including how to account for end-of-life benefits (e.g., avoided emissions from recycling), lifespan assumptions, and discount rates for future emissions, still require further standardization and consensus.

7.3 Market Demand and Economic Barriers

Despite the environmental imperative, economic factors and market dynamics continue to pose significant challenges to the widespread adoption of low-carbon materials and practices.

• Cost Perception: Low-carbon materials, especially novel ones or those with lower production volumes, are often perceived as more expensive than conventional alternatives. While their whole-life cost might be lower (due to durability or performance benefits), the upfront capital cost can be a deterrent for developers and clients, particularly in cost-sensitive markets.
• Limited Supply Chain and Availability: The supply chains for many innovative low-carbon materials (e.g., mass timber in some regions, geopolymer concrete) are still nascent, leading to limited availability, longer lead times, and potentially higher costs compared to established conventional material markets.
• Risk Aversion and Lack of Familiarity: The construction industry is inherently risk-averse. Designers, contractors, and building owners may hesitate to specify or use unfamiliar low-carbon materials due to perceived risks regarding their performance, durability, compliance with building codes, or lack of established track records.
• Split Incentives: Often, the party responsible for material specification and procurement (e.g., the developer or contractor) may not be the same party who benefits from the long-term environmental or operational savings of low-carbon choices (e.g., the building owner or occupier). This ‘split incentive’ can hinder investment in upfront embodied carbon reductions.
• Procurement Models: Traditional procurement models often prioritize lowest upfront cost, inadvertently penalizing low-carbon materials which might have a slightly higher initial price but offer long-term environmental benefits.

7.4 Future Directions

Addressing these challenges requires a concerted, multi-pronged approach involving continuous innovation, robust policy frameworks, and unprecedented industry collaboration.

• Enhancing Data Quality and Accessibility:

  • Developing Standardized Global LCA Databases: Investing in and collaborating on the creation of comprehensive, publicly accessible, and regularly updated databases of material embodied carbon values, adhering to harmonized LCA methodologies.
  • Promoting Project-Specific EPDs: Incentivizing manufacturers to develop and disclose project-specific EPDs through policy and market demand.
  • Leveraging Digitalization: Utilizing Building Information Modeling (BIM) platforms and digital twins to integrate LCA data directly into design and construction workflows, enabling real-time embodied carbon tracking and optimization.

• Policy Development and Harmonization:

  • Establishing Mandatory Embodied Carbon Limits: Moving beyond voluntary disclosure to mandatory embodied carbon limits for new construction and major renovations, akin to current operational energy codes. These limits should become progressively stringent over time.
  • Expanding ‘Buy Clean’ Policies: Implementing ‘Buy Clean’ legislation across more jurisdictions and extending them to cover a wider range of materials in public and, eventually, private procurement.
  • Performance-Based Codes: Shifting from prescriptive material requirements to performance-based codes that set embodied carbon targets, allowing innovation in material selection and design.
  • Financial Incentives and Disincentives: Introducing tax credits, grants, and subsidies for low-carbon materials and practices, alongside potential carbon taxes or landfill levies for high-carbon alternatives and waste.
  • Supporting Circular Economy Principles: Implementing policies that incentivize material reuse, repair, and high-value recycling, such as extended producer responsibility schemes and targets for construction and demolition waste diversion.

• Industry Collaboration and Capacity Building:

  • Cross-Sector Partnerships: Fostering collaboration between material manufacturers, designers, contractors, developers, research institutions, and policymakers to share knowledge, overcome technical barriers, and co-develop solutions.
  • Education and Training: Investing in comprehensive education and training programs for architects, engineers, contractors, and building owners on embodied carbon assessment methodologies, mitigation strategies, and the benefits of low-carbon materials.
  • Research and Development: Continuing to fund research into novel low-carbon materials, advanced manufacturing processes, and efficient construction techniques.
  • Market Transformation Initiatives: Creating market demand for low-carbon products through collective procurement commitments and industry-led initiatives that showcase successful projects.

• Lifecycle Thinking: Embedding whole-life carbon assessment into standard design and procurement processes, moving beyond simply upfront embodied carbon to consider maintenance, repair, and end-of-life implications from the very outset of a project.

By systematically addressing these challenges and pursuing these future directions, the construction industry can accelerate its transition towards a truly decarbonized built environment, playing a pivotal role in achieving global sustainability goals.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

8. Conclusion

Embedded carbon represents a critical, yet historically underappreciated, dimension of the construction industry’s environmental footprint. As buildings become increasingly energy-efficient, the upfront emissions associated with material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, and construction activities now constitute a substantial, often dominant, portion of a building’s total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. Recognizing this ‘front-loaded’ impact underscores the urgency of addressing embodied carbon as a foundational element of climate action within the built environment.

This report has meticulously detailed the multifaceted nature of embedded carbon, elucidating its scope across the entire material lifecycle. It has highlighted the indispensable role of robust quantification methodologies, primarily Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), as foundational tools for transparent assessment and informed decision-making. Furthermore, the burgeoning landscape of global, national, and sub-national policy frameworks—from the European Union’s ambitious whole life carbon reporting requirements to the pioneering ‘Buy Clean’ initiatives in the United States and Canada—demonstrates a growing political will to mandate and incentivize embodied carbon reductions. Concurrently, the industry is responding with a diverse array of best practices, encompassing strategic material selection, optimized design for material efficiency and deconstruction, lean construction practices, and advanced end-of-life management strategies.

Crucially, the rapid advancements in material science, particularly in sustainable concrete and innovative bio-based materials like mass timber and hempcrete, offer tangible pathways to significantly reduce the embodied carbon of future constructions. These innovations, coupled with the potential of digital tools like BIM and AI for enhanced analysis and optimization, hold immense promise for a truly decarbonized built environment.

Despite this progress, significant challenges remain, including data quality and availability, standardization inconsistencies, and prevailing economic barriers. Overcoming these hurdles will require sustained research, clear and harmonized policy development, and an unprecedented level of collaboration among all stakeholders—from material manufacturers and designers to policymakers and developers. The journey towards a net-zero built environment is inherently iterative and collaborative. By embracing a comprehensive, whole-life carbon perspective and committing to continuous innovation, the construction sector can not only mitigate its environmental impact but also foster a more resilient, resource-efficient, and ultimately, sustainable future for human habitation.

Many thanks to our sponsor Focus 360 Energy who helped us prepare this research report.

References

• American Institute of Architects. (2020). ‘Policies for Embodied Carbon: An International Snapshot’.
• Ament, S., Witte, A., Garg, N., & Kusuma, J. (2023). ‘Sustainable Concrete via Bayesian Optimization’. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18288.
• Arnold, W. (2021). ‘We need a Part Z to regulate embodied carbon’. Building Design.
• Bio-based building materials. (2023). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-based_building_materials
• California Air Resources Board. (2017). ‘Buy Clean California Act (AB 262)’.
• Colorado General Assembly. (2021). ‘HB21-1303: Buy Clean Colorado Act’.
• European Commission. (2020). ‘Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD)’. Official Journal of the European Union.
• European Commission. (2020). ‘Circular Economy Action Plan’. COM(2020) 98 final.
• European Committee for Standardization. (2019). ‘EN 15804:2019+A2:2019, Sustainability of construction works – Environmental Product Declarations – Core rules for the product category of construction products’.
• International Code Council. (2015). ‘International Green Construction Code (IgCC)’.
• International Organization for Standardization. (2006). ‘ISO 14025:2006. Environmental labels and declarations — Type III environmental declarations — Principles and procedures’.
• International Organization for Standardization. (2006). ‘ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework’.
• International Organization for Standardization. (2006). ‘ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines’.
• Lewis, M. (2021). ‘States Act to Reduce Embodied Carbon in Public Procurement’. Carbon Leadership Forum.
• Reuters. (2024, December 10). ‘Policy watch: COP29 comes up short on spurring reduction in industrial emissions’. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/policy-watch-cop29-comes-up-short-spurring-reduction-industrial-emissions-2024-12-10/
• Rocky Mountain Institute. (2021). ‘Colorado Passes Embodied Carbon Legislation – The Most Important Climate Solution You’ve Never Heard of’.
• Toronto City Council. (2023). ‘Toronto Limits Embodied Carbon in New City Buildings’. The Energy Mix.
• U.S. Green Building Council. (2023). ‘LEED v4.1: Materials and Resources Credit’.
• Washington State Legislature. (2021). ‘HB 1102: Concerning Buy Clean Washington’.
• World Green Building Council. (2023). ‘Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment’.