Zero-Carbon Buildings in Cities

Governments play a crucial role in reducing WLC emissions of buildings, by creating an enabling environment and implementing regulatory measures. Indeed, some of the leading countries and cities in WLC policies have already introduced mandatory reporting or limit values as effective regulatory measures. However, implementation of such regulations must come after sufficient preparations.

This chapter will examine what kind of regulatory measures – such as mandatory reporting and carbon emission limits – have been introduced and implemented in leading countries and cities, as well as how governments are leveraging key elements of an enabling environment to make the introduction of these regulations feasible and effective. The following analysis draws on results from the 2024 OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings.

Regarding WLC policy development, respondents of the 2024 OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings reported the following main challenges: setting reference and limit values (9 out of 16 respondents), the development of a database, co-operation with developers and construction companies, and alignment with international policies (Figure 2.1).

One of the reasons that explain these difficulties is the wide variation in building types. Indeed, buildings differ in aspects such energy intensity, size as well as the proportion of a given type in the building stock. This diversity calls for a detailed analysis to categorise building types and differentiate between them in a meaningful way. To effectively reduce emissions, limit values must be tailored to each building type, as their potential for emission reductions varies significantly.

As for WLC policy implementation, a major challenge identified by survey respondents is the additional workload imposed on industry stakeholders for WLC assessment (13 out of 18 respondents), followed by the lack of EPD data, the shortage of WLC experts in the private sector, and the workload imposed on local authorities (Figure 2.2).

These challenges arise mainly because WLC is a relatively new approach in decarbonising buildings, which many stakeholders are unfamiliar with. To comply with WLC policies, the industry must invest time and human resources in gaining expertise, collecting data, and conducting assessments, which adds to their workload.

This chapter provides a comparative analysis of regulatory measures – such as mandatory reporting, and limit values – in the countries and cities that responded to the survey and discusses how these measures address the above-mentioned challenges and help foster an enabling environment.

A mandatory climate report is a document used to report the environmental performance of a building, often serving as a preliminary step toward the implementation of limit values. In leading countries, mandatory climate reporting is either already in use or being developed alongside or ahead of limit value regulations. However, the specific requirements for what, how, and when information should be reported vary across countries. This inconsistency influences how reporting systems are implemented and the mechanisms required to ensure compliance. The need for verification and potential sanctions depends on the stage of intervention – whether during the building permission phase or post-handover – as well as on the clarity of reporting requirements and the authority designated to review them. Key elements requiring verification in the report include inventory data, projected scenarios, environmental data, and calculation methodologies (Nordic Sustainable Construction, 2024[1]).

In Sweden, developers must submit a climate declaration (mandatory reporting) to the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (Boverket) through its online platform, which reports carbon emissions from product stage and construction stage, i.e. upfront carbon (A1-A5), in order to receive a final approval, with a few exceptions such as buildings smaller than 100 m² or industrial buildings. The provisions apply to buildings where a building permit application was submitted on or after 1 January 2022 (Boverket, n.d.[2]) (Boverket, 2023[3]). Upon submission, Boverket issues a confirmation of receipt, which must in turn be sent to the local authority to obtain final approval. If a confirmation document for the climate declaration is not submitted to the local authority during the final approval phase, the authority may issue a provisional approval, specifying a deadline by which the confirmation must be submitted. This allows the building to be used temporarily before final approval (Boverket, 2024[4]).

Greater London (UK) has also implemented a mandatory requirement for the assessment and reporting of WLC emissions of buildings as part of the London Plan. This process requires report submission in three distinct phases: pre-application stage, planning application submission stage, and post-construction stage. The Greater London Authority (GLA) provides a standardised reporting template on its website. This template, developed as an Excel document, includes separate tabs corresponding to each submission stage – pre-application stage, planning application submission stage, and post-construction stage (Figure 2.3). The template is designed to guide applicants in understanding the information required at each submission stage and assist them in completing the necessary documentation. Alongside the template, London Plan Guidance outlines the basic information to fulfil the requirement as well as necessary steps for the application and submission procedure. The guidance also includes WLC benchmarks for the most common building types. At the pre-application stage, applicants are required to provide a baseline estimate of their project’s WLC emissions. Following project completion, the applicants must compare the actual post-construction WLC emissions with these benchmark and baseline emissions, and any discrepancies must be explained within the reporting document. Box 2.1 showcases the content of required information at each submission stage (Greater London Authority, 2022[5]).

In Germany, mandatory assessment of WLC of buildings was first introduced in 2011 for certain federal construction projects – office, administrative, educational and laboratory buildings – in the form of an Assessment System for Sustainable Building (BNB: Bewertungssystem Nachhaltiges Bauen in German). The obligation was extended to all major civil federal construction measures in 2013.

The core criteria of the BNB system were developed by the former Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), with scientific support from the Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBSR), in a two-year co‑operative collaboration with the German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB). In the BNB system, five evaluation groups - ecological, economic, sociocultural, technical and process qualities – and location profiles are examined, with WLC assessment results falling under the ecological section. The building is assessed by individual criteria, described in criteria profiles. These include objectives, relevance and evaluation methodology, the evaluation standard and, if necessary, explanatory annexes.

The evaluation standard defines a target value (maximum 100 points), a reference value (50 points) and a threshold value (10 points) for each profile, whereby in the minimum, compliance with the threshold value must be demonstrated for certification. All federal buildings must therefore conduct a WLC assessment and register the results to obtain a BNB certification. The evaluation standards for WLC emissions are defined for each building type: office buildings, educational buildings, laboratory buildings, and outdoor facilities. Table 2.1 shows the standard values set by BNB for office buildings.

The degree of fulfilment in the criteria groups is calculated from the individual results of the criteria profiles. The final score is determined based on overall fulfilment of criteria in the five evaluation groups, which take into account the defined weighting factors. The degree of fulfilment is then used to assign the gold, silver or bronze quality standard. Civil federal construction projects must achieve at least the BNB’s “silver” quality standard. While Germany has not yet introduced limit values of climate impacts from buildings yet, federal construction projects are encouraged to lower the WLC emissions. This is achieved through a minimum requirement of attaining a silver standard, with further incentives for striving toward achieving the gold standard (Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community, 2019[6]).

A limit value sets out the upper limit of emissions from a building, usually in kgCO₂e/m² or in kgCO₂e/m²/year. It can act as a strong driver for innovation in low-carbon products and designs, making it one of the most effective policy instruments for reducing embodied carbon. However, the successful implementation of limit values requires comprehensive feasibility studies and capacity building within the industry to ensure readiness and efficacy.

In Denmark, limit values were initially introduced in 2023 for buildings larger than 1 000 m². In May 2024, the Danish government agreed to tighten these limits, with new regulation taking effect from July 2025 onwards (Table 2.2) (Danish Authority of Social Services and Housing, 2024[7]). The agreement does not only tighten limit values but also expands the scope to cover a broader range of building types. A preliminary study conducted by the Danish Authority of Social Services and Housing has revealed that nearly 90% of construction projects in Denmark do not comply with the upcoming limit values, implying a change in practices for the majority of construction projects to comply with the new limit values (Figure 2.4) (Danish Authority of Social Services and Housing, 2024[7]).

France is taking a similar approach to Denmark. RE2020, the current regulatory standard for energy and environmental impact of buildings, calls for reducing the carbon impact of new constructions by 2031 by a gradual implementation of limit values (Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion, 2022[8]). When the limit value requirement was first introduced in January 2022, it covered only residential buildings. However, the requirement has been since expanded to include offices, primary and secondary educational buildings, and small projects (Table 2.3). Studies are currently underway to expand the scope further to cover other tertiary buildings, such as commercial buildings, restaurants, and nurseries.

Ensuring compliance with climate reporting and limit value regulations is key for effectively reducing emissions. Some countries and cities require stakeholders to submit building emission assessments at both or one of two main stages: design stage and after-completion stage. Requiring submission at design stage can yield stronger impact on promoting low-carbon construction design, but also potentially inaccurate results due to insufficient information on materials and quantities thereof. By contrast, controlling emissions at the after-completion stage allows for accurate measurement and reduction of emissions from the actual building material data. However, this will require closer collaboration across the entire value chain and the co‑ordination of voluntary assessments to ensure that buildings comply with regulations.

Denmark, France and Sweden only mandate submission of assessment results at after-completion stage, while Helsinki (Finland) mandates both at design stage and after-completion stage and Greater London (UK) at the pre-application, application and after-completion stage (Table 2.4).

Before implementing comprehensive policies for WLC of buildings, it is crucial to refine the methodology to assess the energy and environmental performance of buildings. According to the OECD Global Monitoring of Policies for Decarbonising Buildings (2024), 61% (17 out of 28) of respondent countries have developed WLC assessment methodologies (OECD, 2024[9]). Governments often begin by initiating pilot projects involving various stakeholders to develop a methodology that is suitable for subsequent national application. This step-by-step approach enables iterative enhancements, integrating feedback and expertise from pilot initiatives and expert consultations.

In all surveyed countries and cities, the development of methodologies for building life-cycle assessment (LCA) is grounded in either ISO 21930, an international standard, or EN 15978, a European standard. As this process includes defining system boundaries, identifying targeted building components, and determining the approach to biogenic carbon – carbon sequestered from the atmosphere into biological materials – within the assessment, governments need to co‑operate with academia and private companies. These methodological choices are shaped by each country’s specific priorities or industry requirements.

For example, J-CAT, a Japanese WLC assessment tool, was launched in 2024 by a consortium organised through a public-private partnership, building on the basis of a decade of academic work (IBECs, n.d.[10]). In Sweden, the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building, and Planning (Boverket) oversees the development and implementation of national regulations and guidelines for buildings and urban planning. Boverket, which sits under the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure, can make suggestions for further policy advancements targeting WLC reduction in the building sector. As part of its role, Boverket collaborates with experts, academia, and other key stakeholders to develop and refine methodologies for assessing the climate impact of buildings. This collaborative approach ensures that the guidelines are grounded in scientific research and practical expertise, promoting consistent and reliable life-cycle approach (LCA) practices across the industry (Boverket, 2023[11]).

Boverket’s LCA guidance assesses a building’s climate impact in a standardised way by establishing specific methodologies, reference values, and calculation frameworks. This guidance includes the selection of system boundaries, such as which building elements to include in the assessment, and how to account for different stages of a building’s life-cycle. The guidelines also address how to consider biogenic carbon, reflecting Sweden’s priorities and industry demands (Boverket, 2023[11]).

System boundaries are a framework that specifies which processes and flows will be included in the assessment. Setting system boundaries for LCA is critical, as it determines the scope of the LCA by including or excluding certain life-cycle stages, flows, and impacts. System boundaries can be divided into five categories: i) A1-A3 product stage, ii) A4-A5 construction stage, iii) B1-B8 use stage, iv) C1-C4 end-of-life stage, and v) D benefits and loads beyond the system boundaries.

Table 2.5 highlights the range of system boundaries covered by WLC policies in various respondent countries and cities. The system boundaries applied give a clear indication on the strategies of individual countries and cities, notably which scope is prioritised for carbon reductions. These strategies may vary depending on a number of factors, such as industry capacity and the maturity of the assessment methodology.

Among surveyed countries and cities, the system boundaries applied in Sweden’s mandatory climate declaration put greater emphasis on reducing upfront emissions, i.e. A1-A5 product and construction stages. Limit values, which are expected to be implemented in 2027 at the earliest, will also apply exclusively to these stages due to several factors. First, mandating an assessment of A1-A5 will steer more focus on decreasing emissions that occur today, resulting in immediate reduction. Second, A1-A5 stages account for a high proportion of emissions over the life-cycle of a building. What’s more, there is no established methodology for stages beyond A1-A5 (Boverket, 2023[3]).

In Singapore, where the lifespans of buildings tend to be shorter due to urban renewal, the embodied carbon emissions of buildings can constitute up to 40% of emissions over the lifespan of the building (Singapore Green Building Council, n.d.[12]). Due to the large share of embodied carbon emissions, Singapore developed the BCA Green Mark 2021, which is a green buildings certification scheme tailored to Singapore’s climate conditions. Launched in 2021 and revised in 2024, the scheme provides one standardised methodology for all buildings and emphasises sustainability outcomes beyond energy efficiency (building intelligence, health and wellbeing of the occupants, WLC, design for maintainability, resilience). The methodology therefore allows scoring of buildings on their WLC performance, including embodied carbon. The carbon section of BCA Green Mark guides project teams on accounting for carbon over the lifetime of a building. The voluntary climate declarations are made both at the design and after-completion stage, to reflect reality as precisely as possible. The minimum scope requirement of a WLC assessment consists in considering modules A1-A3 (product stage), A4-A5 (construction stage), B2 (maintenance), B4 (replacement) and B6 (operational energy). The life-cycle analysis, which remains voluntary, is applicable to both new construction projects and major retrofits as its purpose is to recognise the effort of forerunning developers (Building and Construction Authority, 2024[13]).

Reference study period (RSP) is a critical factor in ensuring the comparability of results in WLC assessment of buildings, particularly for comparable quantification of impacts associated with the use stage of a building (module B). It defines the number of years over which the environmental impacts of a building are assessed. The RSP allows for consistent benchmarking by aligning assessment periods across different projects and scenarios, ensuring that life-cycle stages and associated emissions are analysed over a uniform timeframe.

Among the surveyed countries, Denmark and France currently adhere to a fixed RSP of 50 years, which aligns with the standard established in Level(s) – a European assessment and reporting framework for sustainability performance of buildings – and is the most commonly applied time frame at the international level. Currently, Sweden does not require RSP in its climate declaration, as it only addresses upfront impacts. However, the planned extension of the declaration to include operational stages in 2027, proposed by Boverket, will also adopt an RSP of 50 years (Boverket, 2023[11]). In contrast, Greater London (UK) and Vancouver adopt a 60-year RSP, aligning with the standards set by BREEAM and LEED, two globally recognised certification schemes for building sustainability assessment (Mayor of London, 2023[14]; City of Vancouver, 2023[15])

While longer building lifespans significantly reduce overall climate impacts, current regulations in the surveyed countries or cities rely on assumed fixed lifespans for WLC assessments. This approach prioritises comparability of results but fails to recognise the potential for greater climate benefits from buildings that last beyond the assumed lifespan. For example, the guidelines provided by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) for WLC assessments, which form the basis of Greater London’s regulatory framework, allow for assessing climate impacts against optional service life, but the result has to be reported as an additional information to the assessment result based on the mandatory RSP of 60 years for comparability (RICS, 2023[16]). Similarly, Denmark recognises that a fixed RSP is essential, regardless of whether a building’s actual lifespan is shorter or longer, to ensure comparability and effectiveness of the introduced limit values (VCBK, 2022[17]).

Reference unit is another important concept in WLC assessment to ensure the comparability of results. For example, climate impact calculated per gross floor area (GFA) and climate impact calculated per heated floor area (HFA) will give different results and therefore cannot be compared. In Sweden, where only upfront carbon emissions (modules A1-A5) are taken into account, GFA is used as the reference unit. A reference value study conducted in Sweden examined whether buildings with underground storeys and those without would exhibit differences in climate impact when assessed per square meter of GFA and per square meter of HFA. The findings indicated no significant differences in the results when calculated using GFA. However, the study noted a tendency for buildings with storeys below ground level to be disadvantaged if HFA were used as the reference unit. This suggests that GFA provides a more equitable basis for comparison across building types under the current scope of the climate declaration regulation (Boverket, 2023[11]).

Denmark employs two distinct area metrics to assess the total climate impact of buildings: GFA for embodied carbon emissions and HFA for operational carbon emissions (module B6). This differentiation is based on the specific nature of the emissions being evaluated. Operational carbon emissions are primarily driven by energy used for heating, cooling, and maintaining comfortable indoor conditions. Heated floor area directly correlates with these energy demands, providing a more precise basis for calculating emissions in this category. In contrast, gross floor area encompasses the total built-up area and is better suited for embodied carbon assessments, which include materials and construction processes irrespective of energy consumption during operation (Nordic Sustainable Construction, 2024[1]).

Unlike Sweden or Denmark, France’s RE2020 employs distinct area measurement units tailored to building types: habitable surface (French: surface habitable, SHAB) for residential buildings and usable surface (French: surface utile, SU) for non-residential buildings. SHAB emphasises core living spaces, excluding areas such as walls, partitions, staircases, and spaces with a ceiling height below 1.8 meter. In contrast, SU encompasses the habitable area plus additional usable spaces, such as storage rooms, provided they meet specific criteria, such as a minimum ceiling height or temperature control (Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion, 2024[18]).

However, in the EU, the revised EPBD introduces the possibility of mandating the use of useful floor area (UFA) by referencing Level(s), a European framework that standardises the assessment and reporting of building sustainability performance. The UFA definition is aligned with the International Property Measurement Standards (IPMS). As Level(s), the EU Taxonomy, and the EPBD evolve, regulatory frameworks in European countries that currently use different reference units may need to adapt their standards to comply with EU regulations (EU, 2024[19]; Nordic Sustainable Construction, 2024[1]).

The selection of targeted building components is critical in WLC assessment, as different components contribute varying levels of embodied and operational carbon throughout a building’s life-cycle. Focusing on high-impact components, such as structural elements, façades, and energy systems, allows for identifying significant carbon reduction opportunities. Early design choices, material efficiency, and consideration of durability and end-of-life impacts play a key role in minimising emissions. By starting with components with the greatest carbon footprint, WLC assessments can more effectively guide sustainable design strategies and optimise carbon performance across the building’s lifespan.

For example, the climate declaration introduced in Sweden in 2022 focuses on building components that typically have higher climate impacts, mandating the inclusion of the building’s envelope, load-bearing structures, and interior walls, while excluding technical equipment. According to Boverket's proposal, the limit values expected to be introduced in 2027 will expand to cover all building components, from the building’s foundations and its insulation, but will continue to exclude solar cells and fixed equipment. However, the climate impact of solar cells, whether integrated into construction products or surface-mounted, still must be reported in the climate declaration.

Inclusion of biogenic carbon in WLC of buildings can have a big impact on the outcome of the assessment and subsequently, influence the decisions of industry stakeholders. These implications are significant because competition between biogenic construction materials and mineral-based products impacts influential industrial and economic players, such as the forestry industry and the concrete sector (Nordic Sustainable Construction, 2024[1]).

According to EN15804+A2, the European standard for producing EPDs for construction products, there are three approaches to biogenic carbon consideration in LCA: i) the 0/0 approach, ii) the -1/+1 approach, and iii) the “dynamic” approach. The 0/0 approach considers neither fixation nor releases of biogenic carbon, whilst the -1/+1 method, recommended by EN15804+A2, accounts for the fixation of biogenic carbon in the production stage and its release at the end of life (Table 2.6. Overview of biogenic carbon calculation methods). There are also variants of these two approaches depending on end-of-life scenarios. For example, in the case of recycling or landfill at the end of life, sequestered biogenic carbon is considered at the production stage, but no (or not all) biogenic carbon is considered as an emission at the end of life. This third approach, called the dynamic approach, considers time-dependency of climate impacts according to the time of emissions, discounting future emissions (Ouellet-Plamondon et al., 2023[20]).

France’s RE2020 has introduced a unique methodology of “dynamic LCA” where climate impacts are weighted according to the time of emission release (Box 2.2) (Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion, 2023[21]). France’s dynamic LCA is based on the idea that the same consumption or the same emission can have a different impact depending on the date on which it takes place. The rationale is that early emissions are considered more harmful than future emissions, considering the climate urgency and the increased cumulative impact due to the persistence of CO₂ in the atmosphere (Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion, 2024[18]). This perspective also encourages the storage of biogenic carbon within buildings, promoting designs that incorporate materials capable of sequestering carbon, thereby reducing immediate emissions and contributing to long-term carbon storage (Guldner, 2019[22]).

Developing a national database is one of the most effective ways to ensure consistency and comparability of LCA throughout the country. Life-cycle carbon of buildings is usually assessed by using two broad types of environmental data: EPD and generic emission data. An EPD is a standardised document aligning with ISO 14025, the international standard on EPDs. Based on quantitative data from the LCA of a specific product, ISO 14025 communicates the environmental performance of a product throughout its life-cycle (Ecochain, n.d.[23]). Generic emission data are based on the average of typical products and are therefore less accurate compared to EPD data. Generic data are used only when EPD data is not available for a specific product.

While several countries have already developed a national database for WLC assessment, their approaches vary. Table 2.8 provides a detailed overview of databases developed by respondent countries. Among them, France and the Netherlands have more stringent standardised databases compared to others. Both countries run their own national EPD programmes integrated into these databases, which restricts the inclusion of international EPDs. In the Netherlands, EPDs are based on the European standard EN 15804, and in line with the development of Construction Product Regulation (CPR). In principle, assessors are not able to use other data sources than this national database. Germany maintains a dedicated national database called ÖKOBAUDAT, developed and operated by the Federal Ministry for Housing, Urban Development, and Building (BMWSB). This database adheres to its own rigorous standards based on EN 15804+A2, and serves as a mandatory resource for BNB, the above-mentioned nationwide certification system for sustainable building (Bundesministerium für Wohnen, Stadtentwicklung und Bauwesen, n.d.[24]). In contrast, the database in Finland primarily consist of generic emission data and do not include EPD data.

Accepted data sources for LCA vary across countries and cities. For example, France and the Netherlands only allow the use of data from their national databases. This approach enhances coherence and comparability of LCA results within each country, but may limit openness to the global market, as these databases exclude international EPDs. In contrast, Denmark, Finland, and Greater London (UK) allow the use of international EPD data for LCA, supporting global market integration but potentially reducing coherence and comparability in LCA results.

As WLC of a building is assessed by multiplying environmental data of each material or product by its quantity, the accuracy hugely relies on the availability of products-specific environmental data. Therefore, it is crucial to have a sufficient volume of EPD data to facilitate more accurate assessment. According to the OECD Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024), most respondent countries and cities have stated that the lack of EPDs has been a major challenge at the early stage of policy implementation. Denmark, Finland, France, and Sweden establish national generic emission data in a more conservative way than average emission values. For instance, Finland’s generic emission data includes an additional 20% (Nordic Sustainable Construction, 2023[25]). Similarly, Nationale Milieudatabase (NMD) puts a 30% surcharge on category 3 datapoints that are unspecific and based on the international database (Box 2.3). This is expected to encourage developers to utilise more materials with EPDs in their buildings, prompting manufacturers to pursue EPD certification as well.

Figure 2.6Figure 2.3 illustrates the steady rise in French EPDs within the INIES (Information sur les Impacts Environnementaux et Sanitaires) database over time. A significant increase in verified EPDs occurred between 2016 and 2017, coinciding with the introduction of the E+C- certification label, a state-funded certification scheme aimed at trialling LCA. Another sharp increase appeared between 2021 and 2022, aligning with the implementation of RE2020, a new regulation that introduced specific limit values for WLC emissions of buildings.

Costa Rica, which is in an initial stage of developing a WLC approach, is working to promote EPD acquisition through public procurement. In January 2015, Costa Rica became the first country in Latin America to publish a National Policy on Sustainable Public Procurement, aiming at improving the economic, environmental and social performance of services and goods, taking into account the participation of SMEs (MINAE, MIDEPLAN and MREC, 2018[26]). As part of the implementation of this policy, an Agreement was issued in 2019 called “National Environmental Labelling and Energy Efficiency Programme of Costa Rica and Creation of the Technical Committee on Environmental and Energy Labelling”. It aims to establish a national EPD programme, operated by an accredited public body, to promote public procurement as a tool for consumers to select better environmental and energy performance products and services. The Sustainable Public Procurement Guide 2022 explicitly refers to type III environmental labels, i.e. EPDs, as a reliable verification method for the implementation of sustainable public procurement (DIGECA, 2022[27]).

Along with environmental databases, the development of a national assessment tool facilitates the implementation of WLC assessment, enhances the quality of the assessment and ensures comparability among different results. Table 2.10 shows in which countries a national assessment tool is available, i.e. a tool developed by a governmental body or a commissioned organisation, and which types of approved tools exist in terms of regulatory compliance in different countries.

The LCAbyg, a freely available national LCA tool in Denmark, has been developed by the Department of the Built Environment (BUILD) at Aalborg University since 2014, with the financial support of the Danish Authority of Social Services and Housing. The LCAbyg library incorporates a generic emission database, which is in accordance with a Danish building regulation called BR18, as well as with Danish and Norwegian EPDs. The tool also allows for importing other EPDs in ILCD+EPD format, a widely used data format developed by the European Commission with ILCD indicates (instead of users having to input the data manually). ILCD refers to the International Reference Life-Cycle Data System. Based on the information about the building and the building’s components, waste, transportations, construction works as well as the building’s energy use, LCAbyg will conduct an LCA, and compile the results in a document that is in accordance with BR18. The generated LCA document can be downloaded as a pdf file. Despite the availability of a national LCA tool, Denmark does not restrict the use of other assessment tools in the market, if the results are aligned with the requirements of BR18 (BUILD - Institut for Byggeri, By og Miljø, Aalborg Universitet, 2023[28]).

Similarly, the Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL), a non-profit organisation, has developed a tool called Byggsektorns Miljöberäkningsplattform (BM – Building Sector Environmental Calculation Tool), which is fully compliant with the Swedish climate declaration regulations (Nordic Sustainable Construction, 2023[25]). However, building owners remain free to select any tool available in the market, provided it can generate the required data for the climate declaration, with calculations based on either Boverket’s generic data or EPD data (Boverket, 2024[29]).

In Germany, a national eLCA tool has been developed by the Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs, and Spatial Development (BBSR), which operates under the Federal Ministry for Housing, Urban Development, and Building (BMWSB). All public construction projects are mandated to conduct an LCA to comply with the Assessment System for Sustainable Building (BNB). The assessments have to be carried out using the eLCA tool and have to be based on ÖKOBAUDAT, the federal EPD database (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, 2014[30]; BBSR, 2019[31]). While BNB mandates the use of eLCA, QNG – a voluntary nation-wide quality seal for buildings – allows the use of other assessment tools that are verified by the Quality Assurance Association for LCA Tools for Buildings e.V., a certification body accredited for the QNG (Nachhaltige Gebäude, 2023[32]). The Association was founded in 2023 with the aim of testing and confirming the quality of tools for the preparation of standard-compliant and QNG-compliant LCAs for buildings using scientific methods for validation. Currently, two LCA softwares developed by the private sector are deemed conform with QNG standards (Güte- und Qualitätsgemeinschaft Ökobilanzierungswerkzeuge für Gebäude e.V., n.d.[33]).

While Denmark and Germany have developed national assessment tools, France does not possess a specific national tool. Instead, RE2020 mandates the use of assessment tools that have been pre-approved by the relevant ministries to ensure regulatory compliance. This approval can be obtained on the basis of an assessment by the Centre for Studies on Risks, the Environment, Mobility and Urban Planning (Cerema), a public institution dedicated to supporting policies, under the supervision of the Ministry for Ecological Transition and Regional Cohesion. The objective of this evaluation is to improve the quality of the assessment and to ensure that the results are in accordance with RE2020 standards. The evaluation procedure is composed of a self-check followed by additional checks by Cerema, allowing publishers to obtain an opinion on the technical quality of their software. The first approval is valid for two years, followed by a periodic review that may result in renewing the approval with an extended validity period between two to five years. If the software largely deviates from RE2020 standards, the approval can be withdrawn (Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion, 2024[34]).

Building Information Modelling (BIM) is a digital technology that creates detailed 3D representations of buildings, enhancing the construction, maintenance, and management phases of building life-cycles. These software tools enable precise architectural design, simulations, and evaluations, optimising both design and construction processes. BIM is more than a tool for initial planning; it plays a crucial role in addressing sustainability challenges in the construction industry, particularly through its contributions to the LCA (OECD, 2024[9]). However, BIM models are currently not as fully utilised in the LCAs as they could be. Data required for LCA may either be missing from the models or modelled in a non-standardised way, limiting their comprehensiveness and coherence (Lavikka et al., 2024[35]).

Overall, the use of BIM in most respondent countries and cities is driven by the industry. However, there is a spectrum of national strategies to further integrate the use of BIM in national policies. In Japan, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism (MLIT) actively promotes BIM implementation by offering incentives, particularly targeting small- and medium-sized enterprises. Recognising BIM’s potential to enhance efficiency and quality in construction, the Japanese government provides substantial economic support through its BIM Acceleration Projects, reflecting a strong commitment to expanding BIM use throughout the construction sector (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, 2021[36]). BIM in Japan focuses on optimising the entire building life-cycle, enhancing data management and operational efficiency (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, 2019[37]; OECD, 2024[9]). Japan is particularly focused on BIM’s usability for LCA at the planning and designing stage; and 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[9]).

In Finland, an open data model, called IFC file format, has been designed to facilitate the exchange of BIM content across different software programmes, and will become compulsory for building permits with the new Building Act that will come into force at the beginning of 2025. This is made possible by the model specifications and inspection rules set out by RAVA3Pro project, a collaborative project with building control authorities and Solibri, a Finnish BIM software company (SOLIBRI, n.d.[38]). This approach entails strong enforcement for stakeholders to move towards BIM-based design and modelling in a standardised manner. This unified format of building permit is expected to simplify data collection as well as monitoring processes once limit values have been implemented.

France’s BIM Plan (Plan BIM) was created at the beginning of 2022 to support the digital transition of SMEs by generalising the use of digital technology in the building industry and promoting the development of professionals’ skills. The Plan is in line with PTNB (Plan Transition Numérique dans le Bâtiment), a guideline set by public authorities to promote the digital transition of the construction sector through BIM utilisation. The BIM Plan provides concrete methods and tools to expand the use of digital practices around two priority areas. First, the use of BIM should be generalised across all construction projects by standardising practices and stakeholders should have clear and balanced definitions of each party’s expectations and responsibilities. Second, BIM is to be deployed across all regions and made accessible to everyone through appropriate tools (Ministères Territoires Ecologie Logement, 2024[39]).

Training and education for both industry stakeholders and regulatory authorities are critical for building the capacity needed to effectively implement whole life-cycle carbon regulations for buildings. However, few governments provide direct support to the industry, such as on-site technical assistance, grants, incentives, or certification programmes, to help these groups acquire the necessary knowledge and skills for conducting WLC assessments. Instead, governments are more focused on indirect support, such as publishing educational materials or guidance on their platforms, as well as providing financial support to commissioned organisations for them to support industry on behalf of governments (Figure 2.7).

In Denmark, a sum of DKK 50 million was allocated to advancing sustainable construction between 2021 and 2024. The Knowledge Centre on Climate Impacts of Buildings (VCBK: Videncenter om Bygningers Klimapåvirkninger) received DKK 11.4 million from this funding in order to spread information about buildings’ carbon footprint and educate industry stakeholders. While the VCBK is under the Danish Authority of Social Services and Housing, it is a politically impartial body. To ensure the organisation’s independence, the VCBK is presided by a consortium consisting of the Danish Technological Institute, BUILD (Aalborg University), as well as private companies (VCBK, n.d.[40]). The VCBK platform provides various materials free of charge, including guidelines for LCA and the climate requirements of BR18, the latest Danish building regulation, in the form of publications, webinars, and short videos. It also provides a comprehensive set of teaching materials, including a PowerPoint presentation, Excel-based exercises, exercises using LCAbyg (a Danish LCA tool), and a selection of EPDs used in the exercises. These resources are designed for educational institutions or companies to utilise in delivering both internal and external courses for educational purposes (VCBK, n.d.[41]).

Similarly, Boverket in Sweden provides an online training platform, which offers digital handbooks, visuals, videos, training courses, as well as a national climate database, primarily aiming at helping developers and contractors apply regulation on climate declaration for buildings. The learning content for climate declarations is estimated to take about two hours and consists of three parts: i) introduction to climate declarations; ii) details of climate calculations; and iii) template for climate calculations and processes of Boverket’s supervision of the submitted declarations. Following the completion of the training on the platform, Boverket issues a certificate to the individual (Boverket, 2024[4]).

In France, the MOOC Sustainable Building platform (MOOC Bâtiment Durable) was launched as the result of a collaborative project of professionals in the building sector, the Sustainable Building Plan (Plan Bâtiment Durable) and the French Agency for Ecological Transition (ADEME). The MOOC serves as a training platform dedicated to sustainable building and real estate (MOOC Bâtiment Durable, n.d.[42]). The platform provided several RE2020 training sessions in 2021 and 2024, with financial support from the Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion. The training course is structured over four weeks, with an estimated time commitment of one and a half hour per week, plus an additional week for completing all learning modules. This programme is specifically tailored for project managers, equipping them with a comprehensive understanding of the context and challenges of RE2020. Participants gain insights into the new regulations across three key dimensions: energy, carbon, and summer comfort. Additionally, the training clarifies the responsibilities at each phase of a project and provides guidance on making informed decisions as a project manager. Participants are evaluated on the basis of their responses to a quiz and receive a certificate of successful completion of the course if they achieve an average score of 60% or more (MOOC Bâtiment Durable, n.d.[43]).

Unlike Denmark, Sweden, and France, the British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT) in Canada – a public post-secondary institution funded by the Province of British Columbia – offers a programme focused on LCA of buildings. The programme is offered as a micro-credential that certifies mastery in a specialised area, and requires the payment of tuition fees, aiming at upskilling industry professionals and recent graduates (BCIT, n.d.[44]; BCIT, 2022[45]). Developed in partnership with the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, a membership-based non-profit research organisation based in North America, the micro-credential consists of four courses delivered online by experienced LCA professionals through a combination of self-paced work and virtual live lectures. Through the programme, students gain foundational knowledge of life-cycle assessment, as well as methods to calculate the carbon impact of building materials using Athena’s free LCA software. Participants are expected to complete the micro-credential with a final project in which they have to undertake a thorough WLC assessment of a building and produce a comprehensive report in compliance with the National Whole-Building Life-Cycle Assessment Practitioner’s Guide, federal document adapted from Vancouver’s Embodied Carbon Guidelines (National Research Council of Canada, 2024[46]).

As WLC assessment of buildings is a relatively new concept, it requires effective financing mechanisms to incentivise investment. Existing financing mechanisms range from the development of assessment tools to innovation in low carbon products. Stable financial incentives designed and implemented by governments can also ensure policy stability, which is key for actors on both the supply and the demand side (Kerr and Winskel, 2020[47]).

Unlike improvements in building energy efficiency, which deliver direct benefits to residents (such as lower utility costs and enhanced comfort), efforts to reduce embodied carbon offer no obvious immediate co-benefits for occupants. Consequently, assessing and reducing embodied carbon often represents a direct cost increase for stakeholders in the construction sector, with limited direct returns for end users. However, according to a report by the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), mid-sized commercial building projects can achieve reductions in embodied carbon of up to 46% at a cost premium of less than 1% by replacing conventional materials with low-emission alternatives (Esau et al., 2021[48]). This finding suggests that significant reductions in embodied carbon can be accomplished in an affordable way, making it more feasible for developers committed to sustainable building practices. However, this can only be possible when companies have enough capacity to conduct assessments and comparisons of different designs, which typically lack in SMEs in terms of human and financial resources. This challenge is evident in the limited availability of EPD data that countries are typically suffering from during the early stages of LCA policy implementation. Obtaining EPDs can be costly, time-consuming, and requires specialised expertise, making it particularly challenging for SMEs to pursue.

The OECD Global Survey on Whole Life Carbon of Buildings (2024) shows that the majority of the countries and cities that have already implemented LCA policies have not used financial incentives. Among respondent countries and cities, the Netherlands is one of the few countries that has a financial aid scheme for SMEs to obtain EPDs. Through the “Filling the Gaps” compensation scheme (in Dutch: Witte Vlekken vergoedingsregeling), the Netherlands incentivises life-cycle analysis. The scheme offers EUR 2 500 to producers of construction products and materials for the development of an LCA. The main aim of the project is to increase the number of category 1 and 2 environmental statements in the Nationale Milieudatabase (see earlier Box 2.3). While the compensation scheme is a financial incentive for manufacturers to pursue EPDs, the 30% surcharge on category 3 data works as a means to incentivise manufacturers to differentiate their product from generic data by acquiring EPDs (Nationale Milieudatabase, n.d.[49]). Similarly, Denmark has implemented a subsidy scheme to support EPDs, although it was available only for a limited period during the initial phase, from 1 January 2022 until 30 September 2022 (Social- og Boligstyrelsen, 2022[50]). In France, to support the integration of LCA in the building sector, the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME) has been subsidising the development of French EPDs (Fiches de Déclaration Environnementale et Sanitaire, FDES) since 2019 through targeted calls for projects. The first three funding rounds facilitated 26 projects, leading to the creation of 42 environmental declarations and configurators, as well as three Product-Specific Rules (PSRs), which serve as standardised reference frameworks for producing Product Environmental Profiles (PEPs) within specific equipment categories.

Another possible financial incentive is a subsidy for low carbon constructions. Vancouver’s (Canada) NearZero programme, launched in 2018, offers a financial incentive for low-rise houses that achieve 30%+ embodied carbon reduction, aiming at helping inform policy and building industry capacity. The programme was originally developed to support high-performance construction, including in terms of energy efficiency. Following the success of this initial stream, the programme has grown both in geographic range and in scope (Zero Emissions Innovation Centre, n.d.[51]):

• Stream 1: high performance homes/low operational carbon (2018-2021, province-wide)

• Stream 2: low embodied carbon home construction (2023-present, City of Vancouver)

• Stream 3: fuel switching gas fired domestic hot water equipment to electric (2023-2024, City of Vancouver)

• Stream 4: assessing energy usage of high-performance homes and dual fuel heat pump retrofits (2023-present, province wide).

Six out of fifteen surveyed countries and cities have started or will start with voluntary certification prior to the implementation of regulatory measures, often as a preparatory phase to collect data or test industry’s readiness.

In Denmark, a “sustainability class” (Bæredygtighedsklasse) was launched for specific new buildings and renovation projects in May 2020. It functioned as a test phase to gather experience that can form the basis for introducing sustainability requirements in the building regulations, ending in November 2023. The requirements in the sustainability class include mandatory reporting of LCA, life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis, as well as requirements on indoor climate and daylight levels. When applying for a building permit and reporting the completion of a building, participating developers must submit both initial and final results of the assessment of overall climate impacts of a building. During the test phase, 73 construction projects were registered across various types of buildings, including residential buildings, commercial buildings, office buildings, single-family houses, as well as institutions and other types of buildings (Social- og Boligstyrelsen, n.d.[52]).

The Sustainable Building Quality Seal (QNG: Qualitätssiegel Nachhaltiges Gebäude), developed by the German Federal Ministry of Housing, Urban Development and Building (BMWSB), promotes a uniform understanding of sustainability, and at the same time, creates a legally secure basis for the allocation of subsidies. The basic requirement for the quality seal is proof of compliance with general and special requirements in terms of the ecological, socio-cultural and economic quality of buildings. The QNG is awarded in two quality levels – above-average quality (QNG-PLUS) and significantly above-average quality (QNG-PREMIUM) – on the condition of certification with a registered assessment system for sustainable construction which includes a requirement on GHG emissions in the whole life-cycle of the buildings. It sets out a benchmark of the GHG emissions in the building life-cycle for residential buildings to achieve QNG-PLUS and QNG-PREMIUM, respectively. For non-residential buildings, considering the wide range of building types and significant differences among them, the benchmark is determined at a project-specific level (BMWSB, 2023[53]).

In France, the Low Carbon Building Initiative (LCBI) was established as a voluntary certification to address the lack of a unified European methodology for assessing and comparing the carbon footprints of buildings. Recognising this gap, LCBI developed a comprehensive life-cycle assessment methodology with defined limit values to measure carbon emissions across all phases of a building. By acting as a common language, LCBI simplifies the quantification, comparison, and benchmarking of buildings' carbon footprints, ensuring greater transparency and consistency across the sector. The harmonisation of carbon assessment methods sends a strong market signal, encouraging real estate stakeholders to adopt sustainable practices and unlocking greater private sector investment in low-carbon buildings (Low Carbon Building Initiatitve, 2024[54]).

Adopting a circular economy approach is crucial for whole life carbon policies as it directly tackles the environmental impact of the construction sector. The circular economy can be defined as a guiding framework whereby: services (e.g. from water to waste and energy) are provided making efficient use of natural resources as primary materials and optimising their reuse; economic activities are planned and carried out in a way to close, slow and narrow loops across value chains; and infrastructures are designed and built to avoid linear lock-in (e.g. district heating, smart grid, etc.) (OECD, 2020[55]).

As highlighted in the OECD Circular Economy in Cities and Regions: Synthesis Report (2020[55]) (Box 2.4), adopting a circular approach presents multifaceted advantages. It provides an opportunity to “do more with less” by better using available natural resources and transforming waste into new resources. In addition, it can help promote new job opportunities and tackle inequalities. Governments are therefore increasingly adopting a circular approach, with the built environment pinpointed as one of the key sectors. In fact, 75% of respondents to the OECD Survey on the Circular Economy in Cities and Regions (2020[55]) indicated that their initiative includes the built environment.

Applying circular principles in the building sector implies rethinking the whole value chain: both upstream and downstream emissions. Upstream emissions come from construction, while downstream emissions are linked to the use and demolition of a building. Adopting circular practices in the building sector can help significantly lower embodied carbon – CO₂ emissions produced during material production, transportation, and construction processes. Reusing materials helps eliminate emissions associated with extracting raw materials and manufacturing new ones. Indeed, the construction sector is a major contributor to waste, generating 37% of the total waste in the EU alone (European Union, 2023[56]). Adopting a circular approach in the building sector also implies new forms of collaboration amongst designers, constructors, contractors, real estate investors, suppliers of building materials and owners, while looking at the life-cycle from construction to end of life. Circular economy approaches in the building sector can be divided in the following manner: i) strategies that promote a holistic approach to building circularity; ii) policies addressing retrofit and idle capacity of buildings; iii) policies targeting design, planning and construction; and iv) policies focusing on end of life of buildings.

Figure 2.8 shows the types of measures that national and local governments are implementing to promote and enhance circularity in the built environment. Most respondent countries and cities are aware of the importance of adopting a circular approach in the building sector and are adopting diverse measures in this respect. Surveyed countries and cities are overwhelmingly privileging regulation that mandates circularity of building materials: 11 out of 15 (73%) responding governments state that they implemented a regulatory measure concerning reuse of existing materials, and 9 out of 15 (60%) responding cities and countries introduced standards for voluntary initiatives.

Circularity roadmaps can be implemented both at the national level and at the city level to address local conditions more efficiently. At the national level, for example, Costa Rica promotes circularity through the National Circular Economy Strategy (ENEC), which serves as a guideline for voluntary initiatives. The ENEC was developed by the Intersectoral Committee for Circular Economy (CIEC) with the co-ordination of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE), and with the support of the Climate Technology Centre & Network (CTCN) of the United Nations and of different public, private and industrial entities. Under the section on circular construction and resilient infrastructure, it seeks to promote the adoption of a circular economy throughout the entire construction and infrastructure industry, from the extraction of raw materials to operational management, maintenance and subsequent demolition of buildings. Their strategic component considers action plans that gradually transform the construction industry at all stages, incorporating design strategies, clean technologies and sustainable construction processes. Strategic actions include enhancing the circularity of both public and private works, establishing revaluation mechanisms for construction and demolition waste, as well as incorporating sustainable design and construction principles into architecture and engineering degrees (Intersectoral Committee for Circular Economy, 2023[57]).

At the city level, Malmö’s (Sweden) LFM30 platform functions as a local roadmap for a climate-neutral construction sector. Initiated by the city government and bringing together over 200 stakeholders from the construction sector, LFM30 covers six priority areas of work. Area 2 “Circular economy and resource efficiency” strives to enhance circularity in the construction sector. Malmö’s goal is to be climate‑neutral by 2030 and the transition to a circular economy is seen as crucial to achieving this goal. Malmö sees its role as going beyond a local initiative: it strives to be a testbed for policies that could later be implemented on the national level. While Sweden’s economy is not emission-heavy, only 3.4% of the resources used within the country are cycled back into the economy after use. Sweden’s extraction rates per capita are the fourth largest in the world (Circle Economy, 2024[58]), highlighting the need to adopt a circular economy approach. Malmö’s LFM30 platform serves as a pilot project that has the potential to be upscaled to the national level.

To make progress within the six priority areas, LFM30 set up a working group for each area. Working Group 2 focuses on introducing a circular approach in the construction sector the local reuse market, inventories of reused materials as well as circular procurement requirements. To help both companies and private individuals in implementing principles outlined in Malmö’s roadmap, the city has made available a compilation of guidelines that focus on reuse and circularity. The guidelines address four different areas (LFM30, n.d.[59]):

• Working methods for circular construction,

• Procurement and public activities,

• Dismantling for reuse,

• The effects of reuse

Doing more with less is a key principle of a circular economy. This implies thorough investigation in early phases of projects to find out whether new construction is needed, in accordance with the principle of sufficiency. Sufficiency aims to optimise the use of existing buildings to create a built environment that is attractive, affordable, and aligned with the actual space and the accessibility needs of occupants, while abiding by planetary boundaries. In cities, a number of dismissed buildings can have a second life, avoiding new constructions (OECD, 2020[60]).

Greater London (UK) encourages developers to reuse and retrofit as a first principle, focusing on optimising the use of existing buildings before considering any new construction. The London Plan includes a section entitled Policy D3 “Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach”, which sets the order in which actions should be considered. Policy D3 lays out a Circular Economy Hierarchy for Building Purposes, which orders actions as follows: developers should first retain existing buildings, then consider refitting, refurbishing, reclaiming and only after that, remanufacturing, and recycling (Greater London Authority, 2021[61]).

Similarly to Greater London, Oslo’s (Norway) Guidelines for Real Estate Developers, first introduced in 2020 and updated in 2024, prioritise retaining and retrofitting existing buildings. The Guidelines serve simultaneously as a recommendation for developers and as a tool for city officials to evaluate planning projects. Each new building project must be justified: the Guidelines require carrying out calculations on whether emissions from demolishing and building anew are lower than retaining and renovating the existing building (City of Oslo, 2024[62]).

Repurposing properties is also a priority for the city of Glasgow (United Kingdom). City Property Glasgow, a dedicated arm’s length external organisation (ALEO) of Glasgow City Council, oversees the management of all 800 properties that belong to the city. Glasgow City Council sees the possibility of maximising the use and making profitability from its estate in order to provide hubs, workspaces and premises for circular economy actors (OECD, 2021[63]).

While circular economy initiatives are devoting attention to sustainable waste management (OECD, 2020[55]), well-designed building components can reduce waste generation in the first place.

In the EU, the newly adopted Construction Products Regulation (CPR) supports building circularity and whole life carbon (WLC) policies by mandating life-cycle data reporting, integrating digital tools such as the Digital Product Passport (DPP), and harmonising sustainability requirements across the EU. In November 2024, the Council of the EU approved a revised CPR, establishing harmonised rules for the marketing and use of construction products. The revision comes into effect by the end of 2024 (European Commission, 2024[64]).

This revision ensures the smooth circulation of construction products within the EU single market while upholding stringent standards in terms of safety, sustainability, and environmental performance. These updates enhance the CPR’s role in advancing the EU’s green and digital transition, contributing to the development of a resource-efficient, circular economy. Furthermore, the CPR aligns with the principles of the EU Circular Economy Action Plan to reduce the environmental footprint of the construction sector (European Union, 2024[65]).

A cornerstone of the revised CPR is the declaration of performance and conformity, which has been expanded to include the environmental sustainability performance of construction products. This declaration now addresses the life-cycle impacts of products, including packaging, as outlined in Article 15. The phased implementation of Annex II’s essential characteristics ensures a structured approach, starting with the immediate inclusion of characteristics such as climate change effects, with additional criteria to be added over the coming years. Accessible electronically or through the Digital Product Passport, the declaration promotes transparency by providing readily available life-cycle performance data. This accessibility supports regulatory compliance while incentivising manufacturers to design lower-carbon, resource-efficient products. The integration of life-cycle sustainability data into the declaration enhances accountability, ensuring alignment between manufacturers’ practices and WLC reduction objectives (European Union, 2024[65]).

The introduction of the Digital Product Passport marks a transformative development in managing life-cycle and product information. The DPP consolidates essential data, including the declaration of performance, technical documentation, safety information, and unique product identifiers, giving stakeholders comprehensive access to product details. By enabling real-time updates and dynamic accessibility, the DPP ensures that life-cycle and environmental performance data remain accurate and up-to-date. It also supports circular economy principles by facilitating the sharing of data that are crucial for reuse, recycling, and remanufacturing. This system fosters product designs that prioritise circularity, encouraging recyclability, ease of deconstruction, and the minimisation of mixed materials. The DPP increases transparency throughout the value chain, supporting informed decision-making and traceability of environmental impacts (European Union, 2024[65]).

In addition to these individual contributions, the CPR creates significant synergies with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), which aims to reduce life-cycle GWP and improve operational energy efficiency at the building level. The CPR’s declarations of performance and conformity provide essential product-level data required for the EPBD’s building-level WLC assessments, ensuring accurate accounting of embodied carbon in construction materials. Furthermore, the alignment of digital tools – such as the integration of the Union Construction Products Database with the DPP – streamlines life-cycle GWP calculations, enabling buildings to comply more efficiently with EPBD requirements. By 2030, the mandatory disclosure of life-cycle GWP under both the EPBD and CPR will establish a cohesive regulatory framework, ensuring that both construction products and buildings meet net-zero targets. This alignment bridges the gap between material-level sustainability and building-level performance, creating a unified approach that advances consistent sustainability goals across the construction sector (BPIE, 2024[66]).

Oslo (Norway) has set a target of reducing emissions that physically occur within the city by 95% by 2030 compared to 2009 levels (City of Oslo, 2024[67]). A key aspect of this strategy is the emphasis on reuse and sustainable material choices in construction, designed to lower emissions across buildings’ whole life-cycle. These policies prioritise a holistic approach, from planning to construction and operation, aligning with the broader goal of reducing the city’s overall climate footprint. Oslo’s Guidelines for Real Estate Developers encourage the reduction of a building’s climate and environmental impact over the life-cycle through the use of more sustainable materials, such as reused materials and the use of wood, biomass-based or wood-based products, low-carbon concrete and recycled metals. Chosen materials should have a long lifespan to withstand future climate change (increased precipitation, temperature increase, drought etc.) (City of Oslo, 2024[62]).

In 2010, Oslo along with Bergen, Trondheim and Stavanger launched the FutureBuilt programme to support climate friendly urban development. The goal of the programme is to complete 100 pilot projects that fulfil the standards set by FutureBuilt. As of October 2024, 77 projects are part of the programme, including 44 that have been completed. FutureBuilt projects have to cut emissions from transport, energy and materials by at least 50% compared to the regulatory requirements and common practice, adopt a circular approach as well as implement sustainable water management. The programme includes two sets of criteria: i) FutureBuilt ZERO, pertaining to emission reduction; and ii) FutureBuilt Circular, aimed at addressing the problem of material reuse. FutureBuilt Circular states that pilot projects that are part of the programme should facilitate resource utilisation at the highest possible level and aim for a minimum of 50% circularity. In order to quantify the requirements, FutureBuilt has developed a circularity index, which applies to both new construction and retrofit. It is a comprehensive set of criteria that addresses all stages of the construction process, from choosing monomaterials and components easy to dismantle to making material passports. Decisions on conservation, demolition, or rehabilitation of existing buildings are based on an assessment to determine what the best environmental option is in terms of conservation, degree of transformation, rehabilitation, or demolition (FutureBuilt, 2024[68]).

In Vancouver (Canada), the city’s WLC policy aims to enhance circularity in construction. The Embodied Carbon Guidelines, introduced in 2023, are aligned with the 2022 revision of the Vancouver Building By-law (VBBL), which requires designers to calculate, limit, and report embodied carbon in new buildings. This applies to large buildings (>600 m² of building area and more than 3 floors) and those in which care, treatment and essential services are provided. The Guidelines build on the VBBL, providing detailed information on modelling embodied carbon emissions. To reward circular solutions, the Embodied Carbon Guidelines allow for assuming zero-embodied-carbon emissions for reused elements and 50% reduction of end-of-life emissions for design for disassembly/adaptability. The possibility of offering embodied carbon reduction credits for salvaging materials and designing for deconstruction is under discussion as part of embodied carbon requirements for 2025 (City of Vancouver, 2024[69]).

In Flanders (Belgium), the Public Waste Agency (OVAM), in collaboration with the Walloon Public Service (SPW) and the Brussels Environment Agency (Brussels Environment), has developed an online open-access calculation tool called “Tool to Optimise the Total Environmental Impact of Materials” (TOTEM). The TOTEM helps architects, designers and builders assess the environmental impact of building materials to increase the material and energy performance of buildings. Amsterdam (Netherlands) applies smart design for buildings more suitable for the repurposing and reuse of materials and improves efficiency in the dismantling and separation of waste streams to enable high-value reuse and create a resource bank and marketplace where materials can be exchanged between market players. Paris (France) has established a circular economy certification for the construction sector. To obtain the certification, construction projects have to reach at least 40% of the points established in a “circular economy profile” (e.g. inclusion of a waste management plan, use of recycled materials, development of life-analysis calculations, eco-certification of wood, considering deconstruction processes, establishing synergies with local actors in the surrounding areas, among others) (OECD, 2020[60]).

In a circular economy, the end of life of a building creates a new use for the waste material produced. Different levels of circularity can be identified: sometimes the existing asset, its components and materials are repurposed with no major transformations and in the same location, whereas at other times, components and materials from a building are used in a different location (OECD, 2020[60]). As evidenced by Figure 2.8 above, both local and national governments are prioritising regulation that mandates the reuse of existing building materials, thus minimising waste.

In the EU, the EU Taxonomy promotes circularity in the building sector to reduce waste and enhance sustainability. It established a set of technical screening criteria to ensure that the industry transitions towards a circular economy. For demolition activities, the EU Taxonomy requires thorough pre-demolition planning, including audits and waste management plans that prioritise selective deconstruction and sorting of waste streams. Operators must ensure that at least 90% of demolition waste is reused or recycled, with separate collection and preparation processes for different material types. Compliance with these requirements is tracked through standardised reporting using EU Level(s), the framework for assessing and reporting on the sustainability performance of buildings (European Commission, n.d.[70]).

Greater London (UK) has taken a similar approach to the EU. The London Plan sets targets to minimise waste and promotes waste prevention by reusing components and materials. . Large developments, which are referable to the Mayor of London, are mandated to submit a Circular Economy Statement. Particular attention is paid to waste management of the projects. Construction, demolition and excavation works account for 9.7 million tonnes of waste in London annually, representing 54% of all waste generated in the city. To address this problem, the London Plan requires referable applications to recycle at least 95% of construction and demolition waste, thus ensuring that materials are managed at their highest value (Greater London Authority, 2021[61]).

In Helsinki (Finland), the transport of materials and waste at different stages of the life-cycle, the energy consumption of the construction site, and the demolition of the building and the treatment of demolition waste typically account for approximately 15% of the carbon footprint of the entire life-cycle of a residential building. The city therefore encourages developers to minimise construction site waste and improve recycling and recovery rates. Reducing waste is not only beneficial from the perspective of use of resources, but it also decreases transport emissions (City of Helsinki, 2024[71]).

In France, the building sector generates approximately 42 million tonnes of waste each year, which is more than households’ combined waste (30 million tonnes). More than 90% of building waste comes from demolition or rehabilitation work (INIES, n.d.[72]). The Anti-Waste for a Circular Economy (AGEC) law, enacted in 2020, set up the Products, Equipment, Materials and Waste (MDPE) diagnosis. The aim is to support the principle of the AGEC law by promoting sustainability and responsible management of resources, reducing waste produced by the building sector by encouraging reuse. The MDPE tool provides information on the products, equipment, materials and waste expected from demolition or significant renovation operations. The priority is to reuse building materials, but if that is not possible, they can be recycled. MDPE therefore also indicates reuse or management, and recovery channels and recommends additional analysis to ensure the reusability of these products, equipment and materials. The diagnosis applies to the demolition or significant renovation of buildings: i) with a cumulative floor area of more than 1 000m²; ii) where an agricultural, industrial or commercial activity took place; and iii) where dangerous substances were stored, manufactured or distributed.

The project owner is subject to the regulatory obligation to carry out the MDPE diagnosis prior to the submission of an application for a planning permission, and at the end of the demolition or renovation work. The project owner is then required to document the nature and quantities of the products, equipment and materials reused or intended to be reused and those of the waste, effectively reused, recycled, recovered or disposed of (Ministères Territoires Écologie Logement, 2024[73]).

The 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games serve as an example of sustainable construction practices, particularly in terms of recycling and reusing building materials. Developed on a reclaimed industrial site, the Olympic Village’s initial phase prioritised deconstruction over traditional demolition, ensuring maximum material recovery in line with circular economy principles. Unlike conventional demolition, deconstruction enables the systematic recovery and reuse of materials, reducing waste and minimising environmental impact. As a result, over 860 tonnes of materials were salvaged and repurposed. A target of 90% reuse and recovery of waste from the Olympic and Paralympic construction sites was set and achieved, demonstrating a strong commitment to resource efficiency and sustainability. Moreover, timber was used extensively in the Athletes’ Village, especially in structures under 28 meters in height, where it was used as a primary structural material. By mandating at least 30% of the wood be sourced from French eco-managed forests, the initiative not only advanced the use of sustainable construction practices but also supported the local timber industry (SOLIDEO, 2024[74]). 

In addition, the Aquatics Centre, the only permanent sports facility built specifically for the Paris 2024 Games, exemplifies low-carbon, bio-based construction. The Centre features a structure made from bio-sourced materials, a timber frame that complements the future green spaces of the area, and a 5,000 m² roof equipped with photovoltaic panels. This makes it one of the largest urban solar farms in France. Its interiors have been crafted from recycled materials (SOLIDEO, 2022[75]).

While Greater London (UK), Helsinki (Finland) and France mandate the reduction of construction waste and only account for the negative externalities of the construction and demolition process, Finland also considers these processes as an opportunity. To take into account the positive climate impacts that would not arise without the construction project, Finland proposes the “carbon handprint” concept. Contrary to the notion of carbon footprint, carbon handprint refers to module D elements. Module D consists of all potential benefits and loads occurring beyond the system boundaries: recycling (D1), energy recovery (D2) and surplus energy generation (D3). These elements are supplemented with other benefits such as biogenic carbon storage (D4) and cement carbonation beyond system boundaries (D5). This incentivises developers to introduce innovative solutions, for instance by using the excess energy generated by construction (Nordic Sustainable Construction, 2024[1]).

In Vancouver (Canada), the Green Demolition Bylaw differentiates buildings on the basis of their age and sets different requirements regarding the salvage of materials. The Bylaw mandates recuperating 3 tonnes of wood from heritage-listed or pre-1910 houses, and requires 75% recycling for pre-1950 houses, and 90% recycling for pre-1950-character houses (City of Vancouver, 2023[76]). In addition, the Rebuild Hub run by the Vancouver branch of Habitat for Humanity offers a place to donate and source high quality salvaged materials, facilitating the co-ordination between construction companies. Habitat for Humanity helps individuals and companies navigate the deconstruction process. Donors receive a tax receipt for the value of the salvaged goods to mitigate additional costs involved with deconstruction as opposed to demolition (Habitat for Humanity, n.d.[77]). Similarly, in Malmö (Sweden), the local government in co-operation with the private sector has founded the Malmö Reconstruction Depot to increase reuse of building materials. The Depot receives and sells used building materials, such as roof tiles, bricks, windows, doors, cabinets, insulation, timber and others. From 2024 onwards, some of the Depot’s products can also be purchased online to increase the Depot’s attractiveness and convenience (Malmö Återbyggdepå, n.d.[78]).

[31] BBSR (2019), ÖKOBAUDAT Basis for the building life cycle assessment, https://www.oekobaudat.de/fileadmin/downloads/0068G_en_BF_200106ms.pdf.

[45] BCIT (2022), What are microcredentials and who are they for?, https://commons.bcit.ca/news/2022/05/what-are-microcredentials/.

[44] BCIT (n.d.), Governance, https://www.bcit.ca/about/leadership-vision/governance/.

[53] BMWSB (2023), Qualitätssiegel Nachhaltiges Gebäude (QNG), https://www.bmwsb.bund.de/SharedDocs/downloads/Webs/BMWSB/DE/publikationen/bauen/qng-neubau-und-modernisierung-von-wohn-und-nichtwohngebaeuden.html.

[4] Boverket (2024), Online training on climate declarations, https://www.boverket.se/sv/klimatdeklaration/utbilda/webbutbildning/.

[29] Boverket (2024), Questions and answers about climate declarations, https://www.boverket.se/en/start/building-in-sweden/developer/rfq-documentation/climate-declaration/questions/.

[3] 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 (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.

[2] Boverket (n.d.), PBL and climate declarations, https://www.boverket.se/sv/klimatdeklaration/om-klimatdeklaration/pbl-och-klimatdeklarationer/.

[66] BPIE (2024), How to establish Whole Life Carbon benchmarks: Insights and lessons learned from emerging approaches in Ireland, Czechia and Spain, https://www.bpie.eu/publication/how-to-establish-whole-life-carbon-benchmarks-insights-and-lessons-learned-from-emerging-approaches-in-ireland-czechia-and-spain/ (accessed on 22 November 2024).

[28] BUILD - Institut for Byggeri, By og Miljø, Aalborg Universitet (2023), LCAbyg User Guide.

[13] Building and Construction Authority (2024), Green Mark 2021 Technical Guide, https://www1.bca.gov.sg/docs/default-source/docs-corp-buildsg/sustainability/20240101_wholelifecarbon_technical_guide_r2.pdf?sfvrsn=8b82a43b_0.

[24] Bundesministerium für Wohnen, Stadtentwicklung und Bauwesen (n.d.), ÖKOBAUDAT, https://www.oekobaudat.de/en.html.

[58] Circle Economy (2024), The Circularity Gap Report: Sweden, https://www.circularity-gap.world/sweden#download.

[71] City of Helsinki (2024), Vähähiilisyysopas suunnittelijoille ja rakennus-hankkeeseen ryhtyville, https://www.hel.fi/static/att/helsingin-ohje-elinkaaren-hiilijalanjalkilaskelmiin.pdf.

[67] City of Oslo (2024), Climate Budget 2024, https://www.klimaoslo.no/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/08/Climate-budget-2024.pdf.

[62] City of Oslo (2024), Kriterier for vurdering av klimakonsekvenser iplanprosessen, https://www.oslo.kommune.no/getfile.php/13372564-1712062712/Tjenester%20og%20tilbud/Plan%2C%20bygg%20og%20eiendom/Byggesaksveiledere%2C%20normer%20og%20skjemaer/Klimakriterier%20%E2%80%93%20veileder.pdf.

[69] City of Vancouver (2024), Embodied Carbon in Vancouver Building Bylaw 2025, https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/proposed-embodied-carbon-requirements-vancouver-building-by-law-2025.pdf.

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

[76] City of Vancouver (2023), Green Demolition By-law, https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/11023c.pdf.

[7] Danish Authority of Social Services and Housing (2024), Ny aftale stiller ambitiøse klimakrav til nyt byggeri, https://www.sm.dk/nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2024/maj/ny-aftale-stiller-ambitioese-klimakrav-til-nyt-byggeri.

[27] DIGECA (2022), Guía de Compras Públicas Sostenibles, Dirección de Gestión de Calidad Ambiental, http://www.digeca.go.cr/sites/default/files/documentos/guia_compras_publicas_sostenibles_2022.pdf.

[23] Ecochain (n.d.), Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) - The complete guide, https://ecochain.com/blog/environmental-product-declaration-epd-basics/#:~:text=EPD%20reports%20are%20standardized%2C%20verified,comparison%2C%20and%20decision%2Dmaking.

[48] Esau, R. et al. (2021), Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings: Low-Cost, High Value Opportunities, RMI, https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2021/08/Embodied_Carbon_full_report.pdf.

[19] EU (2024), DIRECTIVE (EU) 2024/1275 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 24 April 2024 on the energy performance of buildings (recast), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401275.

[64] European Commission (2024), Conference on the new Construction Products Regulation 2024, https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/construction/construction-products-regulation-cpr/review/conference-new-construction-products-regulation-2024_en.

[70] European Commission (n.d.), Demolition and wrecking of buildings and other structures, https://ec.europa.eu/sustainable-finance-taxonomy/activities/activity/396/view (accessed on 19 November 2024).

[65] European Union (2024), Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules for the marketing of construction products and repealing Regulation (EU) No 305/2011.

[56] European Union (2023), COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2023/2486 of 27 June 2023, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32023R2486 (accessed on 19 November 2024).

[30] Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (2014), Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, https://www.nachhaltigesbauen.de/fileadmin/pdf/Systainable_Building/LFNB_E_160309.pdf.

[6] Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community (2019), Guideline for Sustainable Building, https://www.bnb-nachhaltigesbauen.de/fileadmin/publikationen/BBSR_LFNB_E_komplett_KOR1_190503.pdf.

[68] FutureBuilt (2024), What is FutureBuilt, https://www.futurebuilt.no/English.

[5] Greater London Authority (2022), London Plan Guidance Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessments, https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/lpg_-_wlca_consultation_report.pdf.

[61] 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).

[22] Guldner, L. (2019), GE3: Stockage temporaire du carbone Rapport du groupe d’expertise, http://www.batiment-energiecarbone.fr/IMG/pdf/ge3_stockage_temporaire_carbone_rapport_final.pdf.

[33] Güte- und Qualitätsgemeinschaft Ökobilanzierungswerkzeuge für Gebäude e.V. (n.d.), Test bestanden: Gütegemeinschaft Ökobilanzierungswerkzeuge e.V. validiert mit CAALA und LEGEP erste Software-Lösungen, https://guetegemeinschaft-lca.de/test-bestanden-guetegemeinschaft-oekobilanzierungswerkzeuge-e-v-validiert-mit-caala-und-legep-erste-software-loesungen/.

[77] Habitat for Humanity (n.d.), The Rebuild Hub, https://www.habitatgv.ca/rebuildhub.

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

[72] INIES (n.d.), The circular economy.

[57] Intersectoral Committee for Circular Economy (2023), National Circular Economy Strategy, https://minae.go.cr/organizacion/vicegestionestrategica/SEPLASA/Documentos/Estrategia%20National%20Economia%20Circular.pdf.

[47] Kerr, N. and M. Winskel (2020), “Household investment in home energy retrofit: A review of the evidence on effective public policy design for privately owned homes”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 123, p. 109778, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2020.109778.

[35] Lavikka, R. et al. (2024), BIM for Building, Enhancing Nordic Sustainable Construction through Digitalisation, Nordic Sustainable Construction, https://www.nordicsustainableconstruction.com/Media/638616414274636915/BIM%20for%20Building%20LCA_Enhancing%20Nordic%20Sustainable%20Construction%20Through%20Digitalisation.pdf.

[59] LFM30 (n.d.), Cirkulär ekonomi och resurseffektivitet, https://lfm30.se/cirkular-ekonomi-och-resurseffektivitet/.

[54] Low Carbon Building Initiatitve (2024), Low Carbon Building Initiatitve New Construction Scheme, https://www.lowcarbonbuilding.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-01-25-lcbi-certification-scheme-new-construction-v10-a.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2025).

[78] Malmö Återbyggdepå (n.d.), , https://aterbygg.nu/.

[14] Mayor of London (2023), Whole life-cycle carbon (WLC), Circular Economy (CE) and retrofit, https://consult.london.gov.uk/pflp-stakeholder/brainstormers/whole-life-cycle-carbon-wlc-circular-economy-ce-and-retrofit.

[26] MINAE, MIDEPLAN and MREC (2018), Política Nacional de Producción y Consumo Sostenibles 2018 -2030, https://cdn.climatepolicyradar.org/navigator/CRI/2018/national-policy-of-sustainable-production-and-consumption-2018-2030_7ee0a623a48631c13b239c8bb8a51d79.pdf.

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

[73] Ministères Territoires Écologie Logement (2024), Le diagnostic « produits, équipements, matériaux et déchets » (PEMD), https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/politiques-publiques/diagnostic-produits-equipements-materiaux-dechets-pemd.

[34] Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion (2024), Evaluation des logiciels, https://rt-re-batiment.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/evaluation-des-logiciels-a619.html?lang=fr (accessed on  2024).

[18] Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion (2024), Guide RE2020, https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/guide_re2020_version_janvier_2024.pdf (accessed on 25 October 2024).

[21] Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion (2023), , https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/experimenter-construction-du-batiment-performant-demain-0 (accessed on 17 April 2024).

[8] Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion (2022), GUIDE RE2020 Réglementation Environnementale, Centre d’études et d’expertise sur les risques l’environnement la mobilité et l’aménagement (Cerema), https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/guide_re2020_version_janvier_2024.pdf.

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

[37] Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (2019), Vision for the Future and Roadmap to BIM, https://www.mlit.go.jp/jutakukentiku/content/001351970.pdf.

[42] MOOC Bâtiment Durable (n.d.), About us, https://www.mooc-batiment-durable.fr/fr/annexe/a-propos/.

[43] MOOC Bâtiment Durable (n.d.), RE2020: Prepare for the new environmental regulations, https://www.mooc-batiment-durable.fr/fr/formations/re2020-preparez-vous-la-nouvelle-reglementation-environnementale/.

[32] Nachhaltige Gebäude (2023), Anhang 3.2.1.1 zur ANLAGE 3 Bilanzierungsregeln des QNG für Nichtwohngebäude, Stand 01.03.2023, https://www.qng.info/app/uploads/2023/03/QNG_Handbuch_Anlage-3_Anhang-3211_LCA_Bilanzregeln-NW_v1-3.pdf.

[46] 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.

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

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

[25] 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.

[9] 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.

[63] OECD (2021), The Circular Economy in Glasgow, United Kingdom, OECD Urban Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7717a310-en.

[55] OECD (2020), The Circular Economy in Cities and Regions: Synthesis Report, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/the-circular-economy-in-cities-and-regions_10ac6ae4-en.html.

[60] OECD (2020), The Circular Economy in Cities and Regions: Synthesis Report, OECD Urban Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/10ac6ae4-en.

[20] Ouellet-Plamondon, C. et al. (2023), Carbon footprint assessment of a wood multi-residential buidling considering biogenic carbon, https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271750/1-s2.0-S0959652623X00201/1-s2.0-S0959652623009927/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjENL%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQDdKUAgiSCPgkGQnCKHyCICiXgG%2FcKJfy%2Bziv7KHo%2BURQIgAI9LGn.

[16] RICS (2023), Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment, https://www.rics.org/content/dam/ricsglobal/documents/standards/Whole_life_carbon_assessment_PS_Sept23.pdf.

[12] Singapore Green Building Council (n.d.), Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront, https://www.sgbc.sg/embodied-carbon/.

[50] 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.

[52] Social- og Boligstyrelsen (n.d.), Den frivillige bæredygtighedsklasse, https://www.xn--bredygtighedsklasse-lxb.dk/.

[38] SOLIBRI (n.d.), RAVA3Pro and Solibri collaborate toward digital building permitting process in Finland, https://www.solibri.com/articles/rava3pro-and-solibri-collaborate-toward-a-digital-building-permitting-process-in-finland.

[74] SOLIDEO (2024), Le Village des Athlètes, un nouveau quartier durable et confortable, https://www.ouvrages-olympiques.fr/village-athletes-nouveau-quartier-durable-confortable (accessed on 7 February 2025).

[75] SOLIDEO (2022), EXCELLENCE ENVIRONNEMENTALE, https://www.ouvrages-olympiques.fr/sites/default/files/fichiers/SOLIDEO_RAPPORT_ENVIRONNEMENTALE_VDEF-complet-BD.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2025).

[17] VCBK (2022), LCA ifølge klimakravene, https://byggeriogklima.dk/media/04pnc2uj/vcbk_2022_lca-publikation.pdf.

[40] VCBK (n.d.), About VCBK, https://byggeriogklima.dk/om/.

[41] VCBK (n.d.), Knowledge, https://byggeriogklima.dk/viden/.

[51] Zero Emissions Innovation Centre (n.d.), NearZero research and incentive programs for BC residents, https://zeic.ca/programs/near-zero/.