Zero-Carbon Buildings in Cities

Whole life carbon (WLC) policies are critical for reducing emissions across the life-cycle of buildings and achieving a sustainable built environment. Despite their growing importance, WLC policies remain underutilised and face numerous implementation barriers. To support policy makers in overcoming these obstacles, this chapter provides targeted recommendations to address six key challenges identified by the OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024):

• The first challenge is the lack of regulatory frameworks in most countries that explicitly address whole life carbon. This leaves the critical aspects of embodied carbon and circularity inadequately addressed.

• Second, setting reference and limit values for WLC is a complex task. Variations in building type, size, and energy intensity require extensive research and tailored benchmarks, delaying implementation.

• Third, insufficient Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) data undermines the accuracy of WLC assessments. Many manufacturers hesitate to invest in EPDs, particularly during the early stages of policy adoption, due to unclear economic incentives.

• Fourth, stakeholder burden and fragmented efforts present a major hurdle. Developers, architects, and construction firms often lack the expertise, resources, and time to conduct WLC assessments, which involve compiling data on tens of thousands of building components.

• Fifth, resource and expertise constraints at the local level hinder local governments from implementing WLC policies effectively. Misaligned policies, limited capacity, and institutional barriers exacerbate these challenges.

• Lastly, operational energy efficiency measures offer immediate advantages like cost savings and improved comfort, whereas addressing embodied carbon entails higher costs with minimal direct benefits for tenants or owners. This economic disparity reduces the appeal of whole life carbon initiatives, making them unlikely to succeed without strong collaboration beyond market forces or regulations.

This chapter lays out concrete policy recommendations to address each of these challenges. By tackling these barriers, governments can accelerate the adoption of WLC policies, align incentives and tools more effectively, and ensure a holistic approach to decarbonising the built environment.

Despite the critical importance of addressing WLC – which includes embodied carbon from construction materials and processes, as well as operational carbon from energy use – only a small fraction of countries have implemented comprehensive policies to tackle this issue. Current regulatory frameworks predominantly focus on operational carbon, largely overlooking issues of embodied carbon and material circularity.

This policy gap is evident in the findings of the OECD report Global Monitoring of Policies for Decarbonising Buildings: A Multi-level Approach (2024). The report highlights that while 89% of countries have established mandatory energy efficiency codes and 61% have adopted an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), only 21% have implemented regulations addressing WLC. This imbalance underscores the limited attention given to embodied carbon and circularity of materials. However, respondent countries anticipate a shift in priorities. While only 14% of countries currently consider embodied carbon as a key focus in the present, this figure is expected to rise to 43% in the future. Similarly, the prioritisation of material circularity is projected to increase dramatically, from 11% to 68% in the future. These trends indicate growing awareness of WLC but also highlight the urgent need for accelerated action (OECD, 2024[1]).

The urgency is particularly pronounced in rapidly urbanising regions in Africa and Asia, where the construction boom presents both a significant opportunity and a major risk. In Africa, the population is expected to grow to 2.4 billion by 2050 (African Development Bank, n.d.[2]), with the residential building stock projected to double to nearly 50 billion m² during the same period (IEA, 2023[3]). A staggering 80% of this new construction is anticipated to occur in urban areas, particularly in slums, where sustainable construction practices are often absent (Muggah and Kilcullen, 2016[4]). Similarly, Asia is poised to experience a dramatic rise in construction activity, with 65% of the current floor area projected to be built between 2020 and 2050 (IEA, 2022[5]). Much of this growth will occur in the residential sector, driven by population increases, rising incomes, and the expansion of household and appliance ownership (GlobalABC/IEA/UNEP, 2020[6]).

The risks of failing to address WLC in these regions are immense. Buildings have long lifespans, and decisions made during the design stage – such as the choice of materials and construction methods – can lock in carbon-intensive practices for decades. If projects continue to rely on carbon-intensive approaches, the cumulative emissions from these buildings could severely delay or even derail the global transition to low-carbon pathway.

Expanding the policy focus to WLC of buildings is crucial for achieving both immediate and long-term climate objectives. Reducing embodied carbon – emissions from materials and construction – delivers immediate CO₂ reductions, making it indispensable for meeting 2030 targets. In contrast, energy efficiency measures, such as improved insulation, are critically important for the medium to long term, particularly for buildings with lifespans of 50 years or more.

A comprehensive WLC approach addresses emissions across all stages of a buildings’ life-cycle, ensuring a balanced and effective decarbonisation strategy. This focus not only accelerates the transition to low-carbon construction but also fosters innovation in sustainable materials, and advances circularity. By taking into account emissions across buildings’ entire life-cycles, policy makers can deliver immediate climate benefits while paving the way for a sustainable and resilient future.

Most responding countries (8 out of 15) identify the task of setting reference and limit values for different building types as the most significant challenge in implementing WLC policies. The diversity of building stocks, which vary in size, energy intensity, and proportion within the overall stock, exacerbates the difficulty of the task. Developing differentiated reference and limit values requires extensive research to ensure that these benchmarks reflect the specific emission reduction potential of various building types, making the process both intricate and time-consuming. The OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024) indicated that developing databases, methodologies, and regulations requires the most resources in WLC policy development and implementation. The necessary cost, time, and effort pose a significant challenge to government capacity.

To address this challenge, it is essential to adopt a step-by-step approach. A step-by-step approach begins with the creation of a long-term roadmap that establishes clear, measurable goals and phased milestones, ensuring progress is tracked and adjustments can be made as necessary. This roadmap should establish a timeline for implementing key measures such as mandatory WLC declarations, requiring developers to disclose embodied carbon emissions for all new construction projects.

As the framework evolves, it should include the gradual adoption of carbon limit values, setting thresholds for embodied carbon emissions that tighten progressively over time to encourage innovation and reduce emissions. Furthermore, the roadmap must progressively expand targeted building types, encompassing a broader range of residential, commercial, and public buildings. Over time, these limit values should be strengthened in line with advancements in technology and industry practices, ensuring continuous progress toward decarbonisation.

Incorporating specific timelines and measurable goals within the roadmap is vital for ensuring accountability and providing stakeholders with the clarity needed to prepare for upcoming requirements. This approach enables policy makers, developers, and the construction industry to align their efforts, invest in capacity building, and adopt sustainable practices proactively.

For instance, starting with a 2017 roadmap, Finland set clear targets, such as carbon footprint limits for buildings, and introduced a WLC assessment method. Testing and feedback refined the assessment, while regulatory adjustments, including exemptions and delayed enforcement, balanced ambition with practicality. This adaptive strategy ensured progress while addressing implementation challenges, demonstrating that incremental, well-planned steps can effectively align policy with industry capacity and stakeholder needs (Bionova, 2017[7]; Eduskunta Riksdagen, 2024[8]).

Given the complexity of building stocks, categorisation is critical. Buildings should be grouped into types such as residential, commercial, and public, with reference and limit values tailored to reflect the varying potential for emission reductions. Initial efforts should focus on high-impact actions, such as climate reporting and emissions limit values, which can generate momentum and confidence. France’s RE2020 regulation illustrates the critical role of building stock categorisation in implementing WLC policies. Recognising the complexity of the building sector, France prioritised residential buildings as the initial focus due to their substantial climate impact (60% of operational carbon emissions) and the availability of reliable data. The phased introduction of RE2020, beginning with residential buildings, allowed for meaningful emissions targets to be implemented where data and feasibility supported immediate action (Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion, 2023[9]; Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion, n.d.[10]).

In addition, countries can start with simpler regulatory measures such as climate impact reporting, which allows incremental progress before moving towards stricter emission limits as data and enforcement capacities improve. Sweden’s approach to WLC policies began with mandatory climate declarations in 2022, focusing on upfront carbon emissions (A1 to A5) for their immediate impact and feasibility. Plans to expand system boundaries to later life-cycle stages by 2027 reflect a phased strategy, balancing complexity with readiness (Boverket, 2020[11]; Boverket, 2023[12]).

Stakeholder engagement is another vital element of this approach. Policy makers, developers, architects, contractors, and suppliers must be actively involved to align efforts, foster trust, and reduce uncertainty. Public-private partnerships can play a crucial role in mobilising resources and expertise. Embedding flexibility into the process ensures policies can adapt to innovations and address unforeseen challenges, maintaining their relevance and impact over time.

Denmark exemplifies effective public-private partnership. Denmark’s WLC policies highlight the central role of public-private partnerships in driving the green transition. In 2020, climate partnerships across 13 sectors, including construction, brought together businesses and the government to develop unified roadmaps. The construction sector’s roadmap, proposed in 2021, included mandatory CO₂ accounting for buildings and phased regulations starting in 2023, ensuring early compliance with minimal disruption (Regeringens Klimapartnerskaber, 2021[13]).

Public-private collaboration has also informed Denmark’s carbon limits for new buildings, set at 12 kg CO₂e/m²/year in 2023. This limit applies to buildings over 1 000 m², with plans for stricter limits and expanded coverage in 2025. Denmark’s collaborative approach ensured practical, phased regulations that align industry goals with ambitious climate targets (Nordic Sustainable Construction, 2024[14]).

By adopting this structured, step-by-step approach, countries can effectively navigate the complexities of introducing WLC policies. This method addresses the diversity of building stocks, fosters collaboration, and provides a sustainable pathway to decarbonising buildings while overcoming the challenges associated with setting reference and limit values.

The survey revealed two major challenges affecting the effectiveness of WLC policies. Setting limit values emerged as the primary challenge during policy development, whereas the lack of EPDs is a significant challenge during policy implementation pointed out by 7 out of 16 respondent countries and cities. These findings underscore the importance of ensuring the availability of both EPD data and assessment results. Developing strategies to collect such data is essential for successful policy implementation.

EPD data plays a pivotal role in enhancing the quality of WLC assessment. However, the lack of EPDs remains a significant bottleneck in many surveyed countries and cities, primarily due to limited capacity within the industry. This trend is most pronounced in the early stages of WLC policies, as manufacturers often cannot expect enough return on investment for pursuing EPDs.

To address this challenge, the Netherlands introduced a financial aid programme called "Filling the Gaps", which incentivises SMEs to obtain EPDs by offering a financial support of EUR 2 500 (Nationale Milieudatabase, n.d.[15]). Similarly, Denmark implemented a subsidy programme to support EPD acquisition for a limited period from 1 January 2022 until 30 September 2022. Denmark’s approach focused on supporting manufacturers during the early stages of WLC policies (Social- og Boligstyrelsen, 2022[16]). Now, with the successful implementation of WLC policies in the country, manufacturers are proactively pursuing EPDs without needing financial support.

Another approach to incentivise manufacturers is to set national generic emission data at a more conservative level than the average emission values. This approach is used in Denmark, Finland, France, and Sweden. For instance, Finland’s generic emission data is 20% more conservative than the actual emission data. This means that there is an advantage of using EPDs to have lower emission calculations (Nordic Sustainable Construction, 2023[17]). Similarly, in the Netherlands, the Nationale Milieudatabase puts a 30% surcharge on category 3 datapoints that are unspecific and based on the international database. This is expected to encourage developers to utilise more materials with EPDs in their buildings, prompting manufacturers to pursue EPD certification as well.

As the number of EPD-declared products increases in the market, it will become increasingly important for manufacturers to obtain EPDs to maintain competitiveness. Furthermore, if the calculation and reporting of WLC are mandated by regulation, developers will have a natural incentive to adopt products with EPDs. To support this environmental shift in the market, governments may need to develop strategies that facilitate this transition.

Collecting assessment results is equally crucial, as it enables the monitoring of policy effectiveness and helps identify optimal reference or limit values for building carbon emissions that are both ambitious and achievable.

The Greater London Authority (UK) has developed a standardised template for its mandatory reporting system, provided in Excel format. This template includes information sheets where applicants can input the required data and submit it via an online platform. Boverket in Sweden has also launched a digital platform with an automatic import function for XML files, allowing developers to register climate declarations. Similar to the Greater London Authority, Boverket provides an Excel template for applicants to input the required information, which can then be imported directly into the system for registration. The standardised template for mandatory reporting not only simplifies the process for applicants, but also enables the authority to efficiently compile the submissions and leverage the data for analytical purposes to support further policy development.

To enable a smooth introduction and an effective implementation of WLC policies towards achieving zero-carbon buildings, governments should develop digital tools that enable more efficient and precise WLC assessment of buildings. WLC assessments place substantial workload on stakeholders: a single detached house typically consists of over ten thousand individual building components, sourced from approximately 20 to 30 different manufacturers (NEC Corporation and Home Eco Logistics Co., Ltd., 2014[18]; Daiwa House Group, n.d.[19]).

The OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024) identifies workload placed on stakeholders to conduct WLC assessments as the most common challenge at the policy implementation stage. Leveraging digital assessment tools is crucial to overcome this challenge.

The development of a comprehensive database is essential for conducting WLC assessments of buildings in a standardised and comparable manner, but the respondents of the OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024) report it as the second most pressing challenge at the policy development stage. In addition to the database, the availability of assessment tools is another key enabler for the industry, as it can significantly reduce the workload associated with WLC assessments.

Public-private-academic partnership is key to addressing these challenges as the partnership fosters collaboration among diverse stakeholders. By pooling resources, expertise, and perspectives, these partnerships drive innovative solutions to complex issues. The Netherlands’ Nationale Milieudatabase serves as an example of a database developed through a strong public-private partnership, bringing together a diverse range of stakeholders to assess the energy performance of buildings and civil engineering structures within the construction sector. The NMD is managed by the Netherlands Policy Committee on Environmental Performance (BMNL), which comprises 18 stakeholder organisations, including public and private players, industry data suppliers, and data users such as architects, engineers, and software providers. Through this collaborative governance structure, the NMD has been developed as a nationwide database, which is set to be mandated for use in WLC assessments of buildings for regulatory purposes across the country (Nationale Milieudatabase, 2024[20]).

A similar approach is observed in the French INIES database, which is managed by the non-profit organisation HQE (Haute Qualité Environnementale). HQE receives funding both from public and private sectors, including from key actors within the construction and environmental sector. What the Dutch NMD and the French INIES examples have in common is that their websites do not only function as simple databases but also as knowledge-sharing platforms for all stakeholders (INIES, n.d.[21]).

Effectively engaging stakeholders from various sectors throughout and beyond the buildings and construction sector in a collaborative initiative can foster knowledge exchange, increase resource efficiency, and bring better solutions. This collaboration, in turn, will enable the development of more efficient, effective, and user-friendly digital platforms.

To reduce workload and improve efficiency, it is also crucial to support industry towards the digital transition. Utilising Building Information Modelling (BIM) in WLC assessment is being mainstreamed worldwide, as it centralises data, automates calculations, and enables real-time collaboration among stakeholders. However, the low adoption rate of BIM, particularly among SMEs, presents a challenge in utilising it for WLC assessments, especially in countries that have not yet implemented WLC policies.

France’s BIM Plan (Plan BIM) was launched at the beginning of 2022 to support the digital transition of SMEs by expanding the use of digital technology in the construction industry and promoting the development of professionals’ skills. BIM should be used across all construction projects by standardising practices and stakeholders should have clear and balanced definitions of each party’s expectations and responsibilities. Accessibility is key for the French approach: BIM is to be deployed across all regions and made accessible to everyone through appropriate tools (Ministères Territoires Ecologie Logement, 2024[22]).

Japan exemplifies another approach for promoting BIM utilisation. The BIM Acceleration Project by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism (MLIT) offers financial support to companies, targeting SMEs in particular. Through this project, the government provides subsidies for BIM implementation costs for building projects that meet specific criteria, such as when multiple organisations collaborate to generate architectural BIM data (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, 2021[23]). In particular, Japan focuses on BIM’s usability for LCA at the planning and designing stage; and on the ability of BIM to facilitate architects’ revisions of designs depending on climate impacts. This approach reduces long-term costs and environmental impacts while promoting better regulatory compliance (OECD, 2024[1]).

Countries such as Denmark require the use of BIM to strengthen their construction industries’ adherence to environmental regulations. The national building regulation BR18 serves as the cornerstone of Denmark’s BIM framework, which includes rigorous LCAs and mandatory documentation of the climate impact of new buildings. To comply with these requirements, the architecture, engineering and construction industries use software tools that ensure data accuracy and support interoperability through open standards such as the Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) format, enabling seamless data exchange between different BIM software systems (OECD, 2024[1]).

Standardising BIM protocols across all stakeholders at the national level, coupled with financial or capacity building support, will accelerate BIM adoption within the industry. Widespread BIM adoption across the supply chain will allow seamless data exchange among different levels of stakeholders, leading to more efficient and accurate WLC assessments.

Cities possess a range of strengths in advancing WLC policies for buildings, presenting an opportunity to pioneer ambitious initiatives. However, effective policy implementation cannot be achieved without robust vertical co-ordination mechanisms. Therefore, national governments should i) establish a coherent national policy framework, combined with a standardised methodology, assessment tool, and database; ii) establish platforms to exchange information and data with subnational governments; and iii) support local governments’ capacity building.

Cities should leverage their specific local advantages to drive WLC initiatives. These enabling factors allow municipal governments to adopt place-based policies, leveraging local strengths to drive innovation and address local challenges effectively. These structural advantages include: i) ownership of public buildings; ii) responsibility for local regulations and knowledge of the local building stock; and iii) proximity to citizens and local businesses.

As a result, cities’ structural advantages enable them to take the lead in pursuing initiatives, often setting more ambitious WLC standards than national guidelines. Chapter 5 highlighted three types of pioneering city-led initiatives: innovative approaches, faster policy implementation, and more ambitious targets. These initiatives have driven stricter limit values and expanded carbon assessment boundaries in construction, outpacing national governments. Tampere (Finland) undertook a unique approach by setting carbon footprint as a criterion for design selection of public projects. One of the enabling factors was the city’s ownership of 70% of the inner-city land, which has a significant influence on most construction projects (Tampereen kaupunk, 2022[24]). Helsinki (Finland) and Vancouver (Canada) implemented limit values earlier than their national governments, given the former’s authority over city planning through its “local detailed plan” and the latter’s ability to adopt its own Building By-law (City of Helsinki, 2023[25]; City of Vancouver, 2023[26]; City of Vancouver, 2024[27]). Similarly, Greater London (UK) implemented mandatory reporting ahead of its national government through its Greater London Plan (Greater London Authority, 2021[28]; Greater London Authority, n.d.[29]). The survey also shows that Malmö (Sweden) implemented requirements of mandating assessment both at building permit stage and after completion that are more ambitious than at national level, driven by the strong relationship with local stakeholders (LFM30, 2019[30]; Boverket, 2020[11]).

As cities are pioneering whole life carbon initiatives, national governments can amplify successful local practices to achieve broader impact. For instance, Canada’s federal government demonstrates the potential of harnessing local initiatives by adopting city-level guidelines on embodied carbon for federal buildings (National Research Council of Canada, 2024[31]).

Leveraging cities as testbeds can enable national governments to implement ambitious decarbonisation policies for buildings and identify scalable measures (OECD, 2024[1]). However, the OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024) shows that incoherent policies, the lack of vertical co-ordination mechanisms, and limited capacity of subnational governments hinder effective implementation of WLC policies.

To fully leverage the potential of cities, national governments need to establish a coherent national policy framework for WLC of buildings. Simple and accessible assessment tools, combined with a standardised methodology and a national database, should be the key components of a comprehensive national policy framework. These elements are essential to avoid confusion among private stakeholders and improve market efficiency. As indicated by the survey, disparities across WLC assessment methods may disrupt market performance and even expose subnational governments to legal risks, including potential litigation challenges from construction companies. National governments can provide cities with clear guidelines and tools to ensure efficient policy implementation and avoid duplicative efforts. Tokyo (Japan) demonstrates how co-ordinated efforts between different levels of government can minimise inefficiencies and duplicative efforts in policy development and implementation. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government has been actively preparing for the rollout of a national WLC policy, expecting the national government to develop comprehensive calculation guidelines and establish a robust data collection system. In line with this preparatory effort, Tokyo has adopted the Japan Carbon Assessment Tool for Building Lifecycle (J-CAT), which was launched by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism and the Zero Carbon Building Promotion Committee in 2024 (IBECs, 2024[32]; Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, 2024[33]), to implement city-level measures.

The availability of a national WLC methodology can drive impactful change at the local level. Helsinki (Finland) leveraged the calculation method developed by the national government, which served as a practical demonstration of the method before its broader application at the national level. The City of Helsinki has communicated with the national government and shared information on its experience about limit values (City of Helsinki, n.d.[34]), showcasing the effectiveness of sharing national resources and expertise to bolster local WLC initiatives.

Furthermore, effective vertical co-ordination mechanisms are essential for communicating local experience and challenges to the national government, as the survey shows that local governments face distinct obstacles regarding workload and shortage of WLC experts but only one-third of surveyed countries have implemented vertical co-ordination mechanisms to engage with subnational governments.

To address this challenge, national governments should establish platforms to foster exchanges of information and data across levels of government. Regular dialogues enable national governments to identify and acknowledge the distinct challenges faced by subnational authorities, facilitating more effective designation of roles and responsibilities across levels of government. Surveyed countries have put in place the following mechanisms to discuss and co-ordinate actions with subnational governments: i) regular meetings or committees; ii) dedicated taskforces or working groups; iii) online collaboration platforms or fora; and iv) joint projects or initiatives.

It is equally important to build the institutional, technical, and operational capacity of subnational governments. While the survey finds that supervision and monitoring are the most prevalent capacity building support that national governments provide to local governments, these measures alone are insufficient to unlock the potential of cities to implement WLC policies. Moreover, the survey reveals that only two out of seven city respondents – Espoo (Finland) and Vancouver (Canada) – receive support for capacity building and technical assistance from the national government.

Providing financial aid to subnational governments is another effective policy instrument to boost local efforts for WLC assessment of buildings. For instance, the City of Vancouver (Canada) received CAD 2.98 million in funding through the Codes Acceleration Fund from the federal government for the adoption and implementation of Canada’s first embodied carbon code and existing building GHG emission regulations (Government of Canada, 2024[35]). This support addresses gaps in energy code compliance through assisting subnational governments in adopting the highest feasible energy performance tiers within building codes to reduce GHG emissions and energy use.

National governments can also provide education and training to subnational governments. The survey shows that Espoo (Finland), which has implemented more stringent policies than the national government, has received various types of support from the national level. These include funding for training programmes and workshops, annual conferences on WLC policy implementation, as well as toolkits and guidelines tailored to local government needs. In addition, all three surveyed countries that have implemented WLC policies for buildings (Denmark, France, and Sweden) offer WLC training programmes for local governments on buildings. This shows that support from the national level is a key enabler for effective implementation of WLC policies across regions within a country.

Finally, national governments should also channel resources to support small- and medium-sized cities in adopting WLC policies. Although the survey shows that cities are leading the way with ambitious WLC policies, these initiatives are often spearheaded by larger cities that have the necessary financial resources and technical expertise. In contrast, smaller cities often lack the capacity to develop and implement comprehensive WLC policies.

The OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024) showed that three to seven ministries and agencies are involved in WLC assessment of buildings in the surveyed countries, making the WLC policy arena complex and fragmented. A recent study shows that WLC of buildings involves 32 key stakeholders and 47 distinct roles with competing interests (Falana, Osei-Kyei and Tam, 2024[36]). Given the complexity of the policy landscape, robust public-private-academic partnerships are required to gather different stakeholders and facilitate effective collaboration across various sectors, clarifying roles and responsibilities in developing and implementing whole life carbon policies.

Further complicating the issue is the economic disparity between operational energy efficiency measures and WLC initiatives. While operational energy measures provide immediate benefits such as cost savings and enhanced comfort for occupants, addressing embodied carbon involves higher costs and offers limited direct benefits for tenants or building owners. This imbalance diminishes the appeal of WLC policies, making them unlikely to succeed without strong, coordinated efforts that extend beyond market forces or standalone regulations.

City governments can engage in inter-municipal partnerships to promote their perspectives and advance their policy goals. As demonstrated by Sweden’s “Climate Municipalities”, inter-municipal collaboration facilitates knowledge-sharing and can create political momentum at the national level, ultimately driving more effective WLC initiatives across different subnational governments (Klimatkommunerna, 2024[37]).

National governments can also establish inter-ministerial collaboration mechanisms. Horizontal collaboration across ministries and agencies within the government structure is crucial for delineating a coherent long-term vision, breaking down ministerial siloes, and engaging a wider range of stakeholders. Japan’s Inter-Ministerial Liaison Meeting for Building Life-cycle Carbon Reduction demonstrates that political will and inter-ministerial co-operation is essential for achieving coherent national roadmaps (Cabinet Secretariat, 2024[38]). In addition, different ministries and government agencies can demonstrate their collective ambition to achieve a low-carbon built environment by working collaboratively.

National governments can collaborate to align WLC policies for buildings. Initiatives like the Nordic Sustainable Construction show that sharing expertise accelerates policy development, standardises methodologies, and fosters consistent legislation (Nordic Sustainable Construction, 2023[17]). Inter-governmental platforms and joint programmes streamline efforts and create political momentum for harmonised approaches.

Governments should leverage public-private-academic partnerships to develop various policy instruments for a successful implementation of WLC policies. Governments can mobilise resources and technical knowledge from private sector and academia particularly for: i) developing calculation methodologies; ii) developing a standardised, national database; iii) developing LCA tools; and iv) conducting pilot projects.

The example of Vancouver (Canada) demonstrates that one of the success factors of city-led initiatives in WLC of buildings is the strong support of local and international industry leaders, as well as the involvement of private sector and research institutes in developing methodologies. Public-private-academic partnerships have the potential to facilitate the development of WLC databases, assessment tools, and conducting pilot projects. Brazil’s Information System for Environmental Performance in Construction (SIDAC) shows that partnerships involving public agencies, private companies, and researchers are key to develop a national database on EPDs and life-cycle assessment (SIDAC, 2024[39]; Fernanda Belizario-Silva, 2023[40]; CECarbon, 2020[41]). Additionally, Japan’s public-private-academic partnership demonstrates effective collaboration in developing WLC calculation tools, such as J-CAT (IBECs, 2024[32]; Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, 2024[33]).

Governments should also leverage industry knowledge and expertise to provide training and upskill the construction sector. By making use of the industry’s expertise, governments can develop training programmes that address specific skill gaps. This collaborative approach enhances the long-term competitiveness of the construction industry while fostering a culture of continuous improvement and innovation. As revealed by the survey, the buildings and construction industry can offer resources and demonstrates eagerness to provide training to its members.

For instance, industry stakeholders in the Nordic countries have developed educational materials on sustainable building practices for vocational schools through Skills4Reuse, an online platform which provides comprehensive introductory courses on the reuse and recycling of wood and brick (Skills4Reuse, n.d.[42]). Available industry knowledge and expertise present a valuable opportunity for governments to address critical issues in the sector, particularly labour shortages and upskilling challenges.

Governments should identify and involve stakeholders at the early stage of policy development and implementation to allocate clear roles and responsibilities throughout the building life-cycle. The complex landscape of stakeholders involved in the entire life-cycle of buildings creates a multifaceted policy environment that requires clearly defined roles and responsibilities for various actors. A mapping of stakeholders across the buildings policy arena prior to policy development and implementation will be instrumental in minimising competing interests as well as obstacles due to miscommunication and unclear roles.

For instance, the Netherlands has successfully implemented multi-stakeholder institutions to identify and clarify these roles, particularly in setting life-cycle assessment methodologies. The Netherlands’ NMD exemplifies the benefits of a multi-stakeholder governance structure with clear roles and responsibilities in setting methodologies on life-cycle assessment in maintaining independence from policy making and political decisions on regulations (Nationale Milieudatabase, 2024[20]). Stakeholder participation in the development of whole life-cycle methodologies and databases contributes to a more coherent policy framework and efficient resource allocation across different stages of the building life-cycle.

[2] African Development Bank (n.d.), Human Development, https://www.afdb.org/en/knowledge/publications/tracking-africa%E2%80%99s-progress-in-figures/human-development#:~:text=By%202050%2C%20the%20African%20population,by%20more%20than%20fertility%20rates.

[7] Bionova (2017), Tiekartta rakennuksen elinkaaren hiilijalanjäljen huomioimiseksi rakentamisen ohjauksessa, https://ym.fi/documents/1410903/38439968/Tiekartta-rakennuksen-elinkaaren-hiilijalanjaljen-huomioonottamiseksi-rakentamisen-ohjauksessa-4B3172BC_4F20_43AB_AA62_A09DA890AE6D-129197.pdf/1f3642e1-5d58-8265-40c1-337deeab782d/Tiekartta-rakennuksen-elinkaaren-h (accessed on 28 November 2024).

[12] Boverket (2023), Limit values for climate impact from buildings and an expanded climate declaration, https://www.boverket.se/globalassets/engelska/limit-values-for-climate-impact-from-buildings-and-an-expanded-climate-declaration.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2024).

[11] Boverket (2020), Regulation on climate declarations for buildings, https://www.boverket.se/globalassets/publikationer/dokument/2020/regulation-on-climate-declarations-for-buildings.pdf (accessed on 22 October 2024).

[38] Cabinet Secretariat (2024), 建築物のライフサイクルカーボン削減に関する関係省庁連絡会議, https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/building_lifecycle/index.html.

[41] CECarbon (2020), Sobre a CECarbon, https://cecarbon.com.br/about.

[25] City of Helsinki (2023), Hiilijalanjäljen raja-arvo talonrakentamisen ohjauksessa, https://ahjojulkaisu.hel.fi/712749CF-D40E-CD43-9541-88FBB070000D.pdf.

[34] City of Helsinki (n.d.), Carbon Footprint Limit Value, https://www.hel.fi/en/urban-environment-and-traffic/plots-and-building-permits/applying-for-a-building-permit/carbon-footprint-limit-value (accessed on 28 October 2024).

[27] City of Vancouver (2024), Vancouver Building By-law (CBO), https://vancouver.ca/your-government/vancouver-building-bylaw.aspx.

[26] City of Vancouver (2023), Embodied Carbon Guidelines, https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/embodied-carbon-guidelines.pdf.

[19] Daiwa House Group (n.d.), , https://www.daiwahouse.co.jp/factory/index.html.

[8] Eduskunta Riksdagen (2024), Board proposal HE 101 /2024 vp, https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/HallituksenEsitys/Sivut/HE_101+2024.aspx (accessed on 28 November 2024).

[36] Falana, J., R. Osei-Kyei and V. Tam (2024), “Towards achieving a net zero carbon building: A review of key stakeholders and their roles in net zero carbon building whole life cycle”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.108223.

[40] Fernanda Belizario-Silva, L. (2023), “The Sidac system: Streamlining the assessment of the embodied energy and CO2 of Brazilian construction products”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 421, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138461.

[6] GlobalABC/IEA/UNEP (2020), GlobalABC Regional Roadmap for Buildings and Construction in Asia 2020-2050, https://globalabc.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/Asia_Buildings%20Roadmap_FINAL.pdf.

[35] Government of Canada (2024), Funded initiatives announced with the Canada Green Buildings Strategy, https://www.canada.ca/en/natural-resources-canada/news/2024/07/funded-initiatives-announced-with-the-canada-green-buildings-strategy.html.

[28] Greater London Authority (2021), The London Plan, https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_london_plan_2021.pdf (accessed on 28 October 2024).

[29] Greater London Authority (n.d.), Referral process for LPAs, https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/planning/planning-applications-and-decisions/referral-process-lpas (accessed on 28 October 2024).

[32] IBECs (2024), J-CAT／Japan Carbon Assessment Tool for Building Lifecycle, https://www.ibecs.or.jp/english/JCAT/index.html.

[3] IEA (2023), Energy Efficiency for Affordability: Improving people’s lives through delivery of a modern sustainable energy system in Kenya, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/e283fa7f-9c09-4248-a4da-6b14124ded93/EnergyEfficiencyforAffordability.pdf.

[5] IEA (2022), Roadmap for Energy-Efficient Buildings and Construction in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, https://www.iea.org/reports/roadmap-for-energy-efficient-buildings-and-construction-in-the-association-of-southeast-asian-nations.

[21] INIES (n.d.), Who are we?, https://www.inies.fr/en/inies-and-its-data/who-are-we/.

[37] Klimatkommunerna (2024), Our mission, https://klimatkommunerna.se/in-english/.

[30] LFM30 (2019), How we collectively develop a Climate Neutral Building and Construction Industry, https://lfm30.se/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Local-Roadmap-LFM30-English.pdf.

[22] Ministères Territoires Ecologie Logement (2024), Bâtiment et numérique, https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/politiques-publiques/batiment-numerique.

[9] Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion (2023), , https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/Proposition%20de%20feuille%20de%20route%20de%20decarbonation%20du%20batiment.pdf (accessed on 28 October 2024).

[10] Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion (n.d.), , https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/catalogue?page=dataset&datasetId=6513f0189d7d312c80ec5b5b (accessed on 29 October 2024).

[33] Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (2024), 建築物のライフサイクルカーボン算定ツール試行版を公開しました！, https://www.mlit.go.jp/report/press/house04_hh_001226.html.

[23] Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (2021), BIM/CIM related standards and guidelines, https://www.mlit.go.jp/tec/tec_fr_000079.html.

[4] Muggah, R. and D. Kilcullen (2016), These are Africa’s fastest-growing cities – and they’ll make or break the continent, World Economic Forum, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/05/africa-biggest-cities-fragility/.

[31] National Research Council of Canada (2024), National whole-building life cycle assessment practitioner’s guide, https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/view/object/?id=533906ca-65eb-4118-865d-855030d91ef2.

[20] Nationale Milieudatabase (2024), Organisation NMD, https://milieudatabase.nl/en/about-us/organisation/.

[15] Nationale Milieudatabase (n.d.), Filling the Gaps Compensation Scheme, https://milieudatabase.nl/en/database/project-blanc-spots-in-the-nmd/.

[18] NEC Corporation and Home Eco Logistics Co., Ltd. (2014), 建材物流効率化の仕組みを実現するIT活用の検討と構築　事業報告書, https://www.logistics.or.jp/jils_news/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E9%9B%BB%E6%B0%97_%E3%83%9B%E3%83%BC%E3%83%A0%E3%82%A8%E3%82%B3%E3%83%BB%E3%83%AD%E3%82%B8%E3%82%B9%E3%83%86%E3%82%A3%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9.pdf.

[14] Nordic Sustainable Construction (2024), Harmonised Carbon Limit Values for Buildings in Nordic Countries, https://pub.norden.org/us2024-415/us2024-415.pdf.

[17] Nordic Sustainable Construction (2023), Roadmap: Harmonising Nordic Building Regulations concerning Climate Emissions, https://www.nordicsustainableconstruction.com/Media/638302229397775948/Roadmap%20for%20harmonising%20Nordic%20Building%20Regulations%20concerning%20Climate%20Emissions.pdf.

[1] OECD (2024), Global Monitoring of Policies for Decarbonising Buildings: A Multi-level Approach, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/global-monitoring-of-policies-for-decarbonising-buildings_d662fdcb-en.html.

[13] Regeringens Klimapartnerskaber (2021), Klimapartnerskab for bygge og anlaeg, https://www.em.dk/Media/638252007355613356/sektorkoereplan-for-klimapartnerskab-for-bygge-og-anlaeg.pdf (accessed on 28 October 2024).

[39] SIDAC (2024), About Us - Development of SIDAC, https://sidac.org.br/quem_somos/desenvolvimento.

[42] Skills4Reuse (n.d.), About Skills4Reuse, https://www.en.skills4reuse.com/about-us.

[16] Social- og Boligstyrelsen (2022), Tilskud til udvikling af miljøvaredeklarationer af byggevarer (EPD’er), https://www.sbst.dk/nyheder/2022/tilskud-til-udvikling-af-miljoevaredeklarationer-af-byggevarer-epder.

[24] Tampereen kaupunk (2022), Kiinteistöt, tilat ja asuntopolitiikka 2022-2025, https://www.tampere.fi/sites/default/files/2022-09/Tampereen%20kaupungin%20asunto-%20ja%20maapolitiikan%20linjaukset%202022-2025_web%20%281%29_0.pdf.