-Aug-16-2023-12-30-41-3641-PM.png?width=75&name=MicrosoftTeams-image%20(3)-Aug-16-2023-12-30-41-3641-PM.png)
.jpg?width=75&name=sigvardsson_220628_0008_small_webb%20(1).jpg)
.jpg?width=75&name=magnus%20andersson_550x550%20(1).jpg)
-4.png?width=75&name=MicrosoftTeams-image%20(3)-4.png)
Embodied carbon is a sustainability parameter that has only recently gained recognition in the building industry. It is likely not a parameter that is well-known across the typically large project organisations, and there seems to not yet be a decision-making process that fully takes it into consideration. However, we believe the industry has reached a level of maturity to prioritise embodied carbon emissions and now need to incorporate the parameter into the entire decision-making process. Let our expert, Caroline Jacobsson, Circular Business Director at Swegon, explain.
Throughout a project, multiple stakeholders make numerous decisions that impact key parameters such as performance, cost and sustainability. While each stakeholder makes decisions with the best intentions and expertise, it seems that project requirements and overarching objectives do not always filter through the entire organisation. This seems to be valid to sustainability as such, and embodied carbon especially. Hear us out.
The result of making decisions on the key parameters
A construction project’s budget plays a crucial role and influences almost every decision. But when financial considerations take precedence then cost-effectiveness essentially dictates the entire decision-making process. Cost-saving choices can then end up affecting other parameters. This does not necessarily mean that other parameters will suffer, but exceeding performance and thorough sustainability measures typically come at a price.
A similar challenge arises with energy efficiency. Modern large-scale projects often have clearly defined energy efficiency targets, primarily to ensure long-term cost savings for property owners, but it also increases the perception of a building being sustainable. These two seemingly attractive outcomes may suggest that a well-thought-out decision focusing on energy efficiency can satisfy more than one project goal. However, technical installations designed with the latest technology for energy-efficiency are not always the cheapest options at the time of investment. And more importantly, newly manufactured products may leave a significant environmental footprint before they are even put into use.
These examples show that it is difficult to balance many parameters without making compromises.
Understanding embodied carbon emissions
Manufacturing a product requires resources in one way or another, use of raw materials, transportations and production processes all contribute to its environmental impact and is referred to as embodied carbon emissions.
Over time, various national, regional and global regulations, such as those from the EU, have been introduced to limit embodied carbon emissions. This relatively new focus complements traditional concerns about energy consumption, also called operational carbon, and has led the industry to measure built-in carbon as part of a product’s total environmental impact, and further also a building’s aggregated impact.
One method for determining embodied carbon emissions is Life cycle assessments (LCAs). The results of such an analysis are to be verified by an independent organisation and serve as the foundation for a product’s Environmental product declaration (EPD). An EPD provides transparency and valuable information about a product’s built-in carbon footprint.
"It's important to note that products with the best performance or highest energy efficiency don't necessarily have the lowest embodied carbon emissions. It rather depends on factors such as material choices and product design. Meaning, two products with the same energy efficiency can have vastly different environmental footprints due to differences in build-in carbon levels."
Caroline Jacobsson, Circular Business Director, Swegon
Embodied carbon in the entire decision-making process
As mentioned, it is often difficult to balance key parameters such as performance, cost and sustainability, without making compromises. Further, if sustainability from now on is viewed as two factors, energy efficiency and embodied carbon, it becomes evident that embodied carbon emissions are often deprioritised in decision-making. Perhaps in favour of other considerations, or because decisions are made with good intentions but without a full perspective of their impact.
To achieve truly sustainable projects across the industry, the targets concerning reduced embodied carbon emissions must be incorporated into the entire decision-making process. If not, isn’t there a risk that sustainability efforts remain on a strategic high-level? Isn’t there a risk that project stakeholders are so focused on a single decisive parameter that they lack the incentive or knowledge to prioritise, for instance, embodied carbon emissions? Last but not least, isn’t a diminished sustainability focus risking to unintentionally create unforeseen challenges for projects?
Communication, or possibly alternative contracting models
At Swegon, we have extensive industry experience, and we recognise that effective communication often is key in understanding how different decisions impact both individual elements of a project and a project as a whole. We believe it is essential to establish clear frameworks and guidelines to ensure that project goals and requirements are effectively communicated and monitored. Greater stakeholder awareness and shared understanding improve decision-making and enable relevant compromises.
With this in mind, and in order to seriously address the ambitious climate targets and future sustainability requirements, we may need to rethink project structures altogether. The key to balancing the, now four, key parameters - performance, cost, energy-efficiency and embodied carbon – is perhaps found in new or alternative contracting models. Models that allow for better established project requirements, prioritisation processes and performance evaluations. Because it is no longer an option to not prioritise embodied carbon emissions if we are to meet sustainability targets today and tomorrow.
Find out more about embodied carbon and Swegon on our website.
