Building on the Paris Agreement: making the case for embodied carbon intensity targets in construction

Abstract

Progressive clients are targeting embodied carbon reduction through the introduction of carbon intensity targets (CITs). CITs challenge design teams to deliver buildings with supply chain carbon emissions below a set level per functional unit. Despite CITs acting as catalysts for innovation, there are few drivers for their use and substantial variations in their implementation. There is also no means for ensuring consistency between project CITs and national mitigation targets, nor a mechanism for ratcheting up ambitions as anticipated by the Paris Agreement on climate change. This paper discusses these concerns and suggests how CITs could in future be determined, implemented and enforced.

Full text

BUILDING ON THE PARIS AGREEMENT: MAKING THE CASE FOR EMBODIED
CARBON INTENSITY TARGETS IN CONSTRUCTION
Jannik Giesekam1, Danielle Densley-Tingley2, and John Barrett1
1 Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds,
Leeds, UK.
2 Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, University of Sheffield
ABSTRACT
Progressive clients are targeting embodied carbon
reduction through the introduction of carbon intensity
targets (CITs). CITs challenge design teams to deliver
buildings with supply chain carbon emissions below a
set level per functional unit. Despite CITs acting as
catalysts for innovation, there are few drivers for their
use and substantial variations in their implementation.
There is also no means for ensuring consistency
between project CITs and national mitigation targets,
nor a mechanism for ratcheting up ambitions as
anticipated by the Paris Agreement on climate change.
This paper discusses these concerns and suggests how
CITs could in future be determined, implemented and
enforced.
INTRODUCTION
The UK’s principal construction strategy,
Construction 2025, sets a target of halving greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions from the built environment over
the coming decade (HM Government, 2013). This is
with a view to achieving longer term reductions
consistent with the national target of an 80% reduction
in GHG emissions by 2050 compared with 1990 levels
(Climate Change Act, 2008). The Green Construction
Board’s Low Carbon Routemap for the Built
Environment set out the steps required to achieve this
and called for an increased focus upon embodied
carbon mitigation (GCB, 2013). A recent update on
Routemap progress found a widening gap to sector
targets and restated the need to achieve reductions in
embodied carbon in addition to operational emissions
(Steele et al., 2015). The update recommended the
introduction of embodied carbon intensity targets
(CITs). CITs challenge design teams to deliver
buildings with supply chain carbon emissions below a
set level per functional unit and can act as a significant
driver of innovation. However, the approach by which
CITs should be determined, implemented and
enforced remains unclear. This paper addresses a
number of outstanding questions on this topic.
The first two sections briefly outline the embodied
GHG emissions associated with UK construction
activity and current carbon assessment practice. The
third section highlights a number of inconsistencies in
the current determination of CITs. The fourth section
proposes measures to improve the future
determination of CITs, and the fifth section considers
the corresponding drivers for their use. The final
section draws together some outstanding questions
that should be the subject of future research.
EMBODIED CARBON IN THE UK
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Over recent years, embodied carbon emissions in the
construction supply chain have typically accounted for
a quarter of total GHG emissions from the built
environment and are comparable in magnitude to
annual tailpipe emissions from all cars on UK roads
(see Figure 1). Analysis of their distribution reveals
that the bulk of emissions are associated with material
production and a significant proportion occur overseas
(see Figure 2). This restricts the scope of policies
addressed at UK and European material producers
(such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme) to
achieve substantial emission reductions. With the
Government’s central estimates suggesting that the
UK population will increase by 14 million by 2050
(ONS, 2011), demand for housing and infrastructure
is expected to markedly increase. DCLG projects an
additional 3.6 million households will require new
homes by 2030 (DCLG, 2015); meanwhile the
National Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2016-2021 sets
out projected infrastructure investments of £483
billion (IPA, 2016b). This increased construction
output is likely to incur signficant embodied carbon
emissions. Scenario analysis with the UK Buildings
and Infrastructure Embodied Carbon model (UK
BIEC), developed at the University of Leeds, reveals
that anticipated reductions in the carbon intensity of
the electricity supply are unlikely to offset the impacts
of this increased construction activity (Giesekam et al,
In Press) (see Figure 3). Consequently, sizeable
reductions in embodied carbon intensity will need to
be achieved through design changes across projects of
all types if the targets set out in the GCB Routemap
are to be achieved whilst meeting anticipated increases
in demand. The required reductions in carbon intensity
will be even greater if carbon capture and storage
technology continues to be uneconomic for material
producers.

CURRENT EMBODIED CARBON
ASSESSMENT PRACTICE
Embodied carbon assessment has been commonplace
in certain sectors of the industry, such as water and
sewerage, for some time (Keil et al., 2013). Though,
in recent years there has been increasing interest
throughout the industry, reflected in a number of well
attended cross industry events (UKGBC, 2014;
UKGBC, 2015b). This proliferation of embodied
carbon assessment has been supported by improved
guidance for designers and clients (e.g. RICS, 2012;
Clark, 2013; UKGBC, 2015c), and development of
resources that facilitate project-level benchmarking
(RICS, 2012; WRAP & UKGBC, 2014). The recent
launch of PAS 2080: Carbon Management in
Infrastructure seeks to instate a common language and
carbon management process for the entire
infrastructure value chain. A growing number of
clients are also targeting carbon reduction in project
briefs through CITs. At the time of writing 53
organisations had signed up to the Infrastructure
Carbon Review and over 30 companies had introduced
commitments relating to embodied carbon assessment
or reduction in buildings.
One of the principal objectives of the UK Government
Construction Strategy 2016-2020 is to “enable and
drive whole-life approaches to cost and carbon
reduction” (IPA, 2016a). This includes a specific
commitment (Objective 3.6) to “develop data
requirements and benchmarks for measurement of
whole-life cost and whole-life carbon (embodied and
operational)” with a view to ultimately forming
“recommendations for a future approach”. Though
regulators, such as Ofwat, have begun to include
reporting requirements on some infrastructure
projects, similar requirements have yet to be put in
place for buildings. However, precedents have been
set elsewhere. For instance, the Netherlands
introduced embodied carbon reporting requirements
for residential and office developments over 100m2 in
2013 and LCCAs have been compulsory on publicly
funded German buildings since 2008. The European
Commission has also proposed including embodied
carbon as part of a suite of common indicators for
assessing the environmental performance of buildings
(EC, 2014).
Assessment of embodied carbon can be conducted at
different stages of the project development. Best
practice is to track embodied carbon throughout the
project from an initial design phase estimate through
procurement and construction to a final assessment
upon project completion. For a practical example of
this see the publicly available embodied carbon
tracking report from British Land’s 5 Broadgate
development (Arup, 2014). Whilst this represents best
practice, in most cases where embodied carbon is fully
assessed by the UK industry it tends to be only after
the building has been constructed (Moncaster &
Symons, 2013). Despite the introduction of BS EN
15978 in 2011, approaches to assessment are still far
from standardised with many practitioners using
different system boundaries, assumed life times and so
on (Gavotsis & Moncaster, 2015). Consequently the
bulk of current research on embodied carbon focusses
on standardising assessment procedures or developing
integrated tools to support real time assessment.
Though some of this research has called for additional
drivers, such as regulation (Gavotsis & Moncaster,
2015; Giesekam et al., 2016), little work has been
done to develop robust policy proposals (Battle,
2014), or understand how CITs should best be
determined, implemented and enforced.
CURRENT DETERMINATION AND USE
OF CARBON INTENSITY TARGETS
Though the use of CITs so far has been sporadic,
examples have demonstrated that CITs can be an
effective driver of innovation. For instance, the
introduction of CITs in Anglian Water has motivated
major changes in established design and construction
practice and the use of alternative materials. CITs
supported the achievement of a 54% reduction in
embodied carbon by 2014 against the company’s 2010
baseline (Anglian Water, 2015). Comparable
reductions have been achieved on some building
projects, such as the University of East Anglia
Enterprise Centre (Pearson, 2015). On this project the
client set the design team a whole life carbon target of
500 kgCO2/m2 emitted over the anticipated 100-year
life of the building. This motivated radical changes in
design, including extensive use of bio-based materials
(>70%), and resulted in an achieved footprint of 440
kgCO2/m2 – around a quarter of the typical footprint
of an equivalent university building. The
Infrastructure Carbon Review has strongly advocated
that this innovation, reduced material and energy use
also yields cost savings (HM Treasury, 2013). Setting
assessment or reduction targets can also encourage
good on site practice and skills development amongst
contractors (Davies et al., 2014). Therefore, at a
project level, there are clear benefits associated with
the introduction of CITs.
The current process of determining boundaries and
values for building CITs varies widely between clients
and projects. Some CITs apply only to embodied
carbon, others target whole life carbon. The specific
target boundaries also vary, with some CITs
encompassing all embodied emissions, others only
targetting key materials or ‘carbon hot-spots’. For
example, the British Land 2014 sustainability brief
required that embodied carbon in “concrete, steel,
rebar, aluminium and glass” be reduced by 10%
compared to the concept design (British Land, 2014).
In comparison Marks and Spencer target the “carbon
hotspots in walls, ceilings and floors” (Marks and
Spencer, 2014). Whereas the Crown Estate adopt a
simple headline project target in kgCO2/m2/yr (The
Crown Estate, 2013). Where headline targets such as
this are adopted the baseline can also be determined in

different ways. Some baselines are determined against
an initial project design. Others are against a notional
reference building. Some are compared with past
projects the client has been involved in. Others are
determined from comparison with similar buildings or
benchmark data from the WRAP database and similar
sources (RICS, 2012; WRAP & UKGBC, 2014). The
desired reduction against this baseline is also often
determined in an arbitrary manner. Commonly a
simple percentage reduction is set based on the client’s
intuition or past experience. In some cases a specific
round value is selected. In other cases, highly specific
targets have been instated through a desire to offset
operational emissions. For instance, on the Westgate
Oxford development a CIT for embodied emissions
reduction against the RIBA Stage C design was set
equal to the anticipated regulated operational carbon
over the building life.
Should these differences be considered as welcome
variety or as frustrating inconsistencies? It can
reasonably be argued that for different project types
with different distributions of carbon, adopting
different functional units and assessment boundaries
makes sense. However, this can increase complexity
for project participants and reduce the comparability
of results between projects. Even ignoring these
concerns, the typical relative comparison between one
building design and another allows for benchmarking
but does not indicate if the design’s emissions are
consistent with sectoral or national mitigation targets.
Furthermore, whilst an individual client or design
team is principally concerned with determining an
appropriate CIT for their current project, firms,
educators and product developers must prepare for the
implications of deep long-term reductions. This may
require significant changes in design and construction
practice and the workforce must be skilled
accordingly. This requires an appreciation of how
targets may change over time and the concomitant
changes in materials and design practices.
This discussion highlights a number of problems.
Firstly, how should the approach to setting CITs be
standardised (if at all)? Secondly, how can target
setters ensure consistency with sectoral or national
targets? Thirdly, how should these targets be adjusted
over time in response to changes in international
ambition or developments in other sectors of the
economy? The following section addresses these
questions in turn.
FUTURE DETERMINATION OF CITS
Standardising the approach
An ongoing Innovate UK funded project
‘Implementing Whole Life Carbon In Buildings’
seeks to address a number of outstanding issues in the
standardisation of embodied carbon assessment.
However, in the case of CITs, the priority must be
standardising project practices not assessment
boundaries and methodologies. On different projects,
particular building elements may contribute more or
less to the project total, requiring a more or less
detailed assessment. Accordingly, clients must set CIT
boundaries that encompass the principal sources of
carbon whilst avoiding excessive assessment time and
thus expense. For instance the Embodied Carbon Task
Force propose a common set of boundaries that
encompass product and construction stage emissions
for substructure and superstructure (Battle, 2014).
Irrespective of boundary differences, there are
potential benefits to adopting a more standardised
approach to establishing, introducing and reporting
against project CITs. This could be done by adopting
a common set of project embodied carbon
checkpoints, such as those suggested by the GLA
(2013) and Doran (2014). An example set is presented
in Figure 4 against the 2013 RIBA Plan of Work.
Under such an approach an initial project CIT would
be introduced at RIBA Stage 1. The early introduction
of a target will influence the initial concept design and
ensure low carbon solutions are embedded early in the
project. This high level target could subsequently be
translated into a carbon plan (analogous to a cost plan)
that breaks down the carbon budget by building
elements. Subsequent steps would ensure routine
reporting against the target throughout the project.
Ensuring consistency with sectoral and national
targets
With targets currently set largely on an ad hoc basis
by a selection of clients relative only to a baseline
design or a comparable building, there is no means to
ensure consistency with sector or national mitigation
targets. Firstly, the sample of assessments is too small
to reasonably assess the status quo across the sector.
Secondly, the intermediate link between project level
assessments and aggregate sector emissions is not yet
in place. The form of such a link has been proposed
with the UK BIEC model (Giesekam et al., In Press),
but the available data remains insufficiently granular
to return detailed project targets. Even once such
targets are computed, the best means of
communicating these to the industry has yet to be
determined.
One potential form would be the preparation of a
series of common documents, or an online resource,
that compiled headline targets, example carbon plans
and benchmark data for a set of standard building
typologies. This resource would be updated
periodically and adminstered by a respected industry
body, such as the RICS. This would provide clients
with an advised target, consistent with national targets,
which they could choose to use or exceed.
Establishing such a common, central resource would
allow clients to set appropriate targets without
particular expertise in this area, enabling a swifter
propagation of best practice.
Developing a ratchet mechanism
If such a resource was established, periodic updates
could incorporate the impacts of progressive grid

decarbonisation, additional building assessment data,
and adjustments to sector targets based on national
mitigation progress. The introduction of future Carbon
Budgets and any changes in national targets motivated
by the Paris Agreement ratchet mechanism could be
translated into new project targets using the
intermediate model.
In addition to significantly reducing current emissions,
the construction industry must also be prepared to
deliver a large volume of carbon sinks in order to meet
the Paris Agreement goal of achieving “a balance
between anthropogenic emissions by sources and
removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second
half of this century” (United Nations, 2015). The
market for sinks is potentially lucrative given the
anticipated growth in the price of carbon. In the UK
these sinks will likely take the form of increased
forestry, and the resultant wood could in part be used
for construction. The emergence of other bio-based
building materials, such as hemp-lime and modular
straw bale, into mainstream construction may also
contribute to achieving the long-term net zero goal
(MacDougall, 2008). This should be supported by
further development of products incorporating UK
resources such as: CLT from domestic wood species
(Crawford et al., 2015), brettstapel (Smith, 2013) and
novel biocomposites (NetComposites Ltd, 2014). The
potential is sizeable, with one report estimating that
net carbon sequestration of up to 22 MtCO2e could be
achieved by 2050 through policies promoting wood
products alone (Sadler & Robson, 2013).
DRIVERS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
CITS
In addition to addressing concerns with current
practice, the research community must consider the
drivers needed to replicate best practice across the
industry. This will require proposals for long-term
policy and market drivers that ensure widespread
implementation and enforcement of CITs. Let us
consider the critical characteristics of such drivers.
Client led drivers
Clients must be seen to value this issue if CITs are to
be introduced and enforced. Clients can demonstrate
leadership by providing a strong inventive for other
members of the supply chain. For example, the scoring
of tenders based upon sustainability credentials
provides a competitive advantage for designers and
contractors that can deliver embodied carbon
assessment and mitigation. The introduction of shared
targets and rewards in contract documents also
motivates the requisite collaboration and exchange of
ideas across the supply chain. Motivated members of
the client team must also work internally to ensure
organisational buy in. This is critical to ensure CITs
exist beyond the project brief and are reported against
throughout the project.
However, clients cannot be expected to seek out and
develop expertise in this area in the absence of strong
financial or regulatory drivers. Progressive clients
need additional support from the research community
and proactive recommendations from designers and
contractors. Industry institutions must also provide a
better platform for clients to share experiences and
standardise approaches. The development of a
centralised information source – containing guidance,
benchmark data and suggested targets (as proposed in
the previous section) – could also support engagement
from smaller clients with less organisational capacity.
Were such a central resource to be introduced,
complementary drivers may also be required to
encourage clients to specify CITs beyond the
recommended levels. Potential incentives could be
perceived reputational benefits and positive marketing
opportunities, through facilitating claims such as
completing a ‘2050-ready’ building. Alternately,
competition could be encouraged between firms
through a public league table of carbon commitments.
In the longer term, measures such as extending listed
company emissions reporting to include principal
sources of Scope 3 emissions, could provide a strong
financial driver. Voluntary initiatives that promote
early action also offer clients the opportunity to be
ahead of the curve with regards to any future
regulation.
Regulation
In a recent industry survey respondents highlighted
that regulation is potentially the greatest driver of
embodied carbon reduction (Giesekam et al., 2016).
However, if regulations promoting embodied carbon
measurement or reduction are to emerge a number of
issues must first be resolved. These principally
concern ownership, advocacy, narrative development,
and evidence gathering.
Ownership and advocacy
No Government department has sole ownership of this
issue. Whilst DECC notionally formulates plans for
climate mitigation, BIS are tasked with determining
industrial strategy. Policies affecting new build are
principally set by DCLG and local authorities.
Meanwhile numerous other departments, such as the
Department for Transport and DEFRA, determine the
overall demand for new buildings and infrastructure
through their investment decisions. In addition to the
present lack of cross-departmental strategy and
collaboration, even within departments it is difficult to
identify individuals whose remit could sensibly
include embodied carbon. Consequently, for
advocates within the industry lobbying for action it is
difficult to distinguish appropriate points of influence.
Embodied carbon has yet to garner serious
consideration within mainstream policy circles and, in
many ways, remains an issue without a home.
Similarly, within the industry there are few suitable
organisations who can take effective ownership of this
issue. Many of the actions advocates propose to drive
forward this agenda, such as establishing and
maintaining a common UK LCI and EPD database,

require investment and long term commitments to
maintenance from an impartial and respected source.
This source must be willing to demonstrate leadership
and be seen to represent firms spanning the full supply
chain. Recent movements from professional
institutions such as the RICS, and membership
organisations such as the UKGBC, have been positive
but there remain few commercial advantages to
demonstrating leadership on this issue at the present
time. If progress is to be made, it will require not just
leadership from a handful of high profile firms but
sustained support and coordination from a cross
industry group. One potential solution could be the
establishment of a formal body, such as a UKGBC
Task Group. In the meantime, it remains difficult for
the current assortment of small and isolated advocates
to develop the requisite social and political capital.
Narrative development
It is essential for advocates to consider the narrative
and framing of potential policy options. In the absence
of a broader strategic narrative for climate change in
the UK, it is impossible to appeal to the benefits of
action addressing embodied carbon purely in terms of
climate mitigation (Bushell et al., 2015). In order to
secure engagement from a multitude of actors across
the complex industry supply chain, it may be
necessary to simultaneously appeal to numerous co-
benefits or to a broader narrative of improved
competitiveness. Whilst the most prominent narrative
to date ‘reducing carbon reduces cost’ has inspired
some action; the majority of embodied carbon
assessment has been undertaken by a small number of
exemplar firms: ‘the usual suspects’ (UKGBC, 2015a
p. 12). Many within the industry remain sceptical that
the demonstrated cost and carbon savings on these
projects can be replicated at scale outwith this group
of innovative firms. To overcome this, it is imperative
that advocates develop more effective means of
ennumerating and expressing the other co-benefits
associated with the more sustainable use of building
materials. The current political narrative of
deregulation to “keep Britain building” (Osborne,
2015) is also a substantial hurdle.
If the strategic political narrative does change, it is
imperative that an evidence base is already in place
that can support appeals to the new narrative.
Effectively capitalising on changes in narrative
requires a prolonged accrual of evidence, rather than a
frenetic response to opportunities presented by
consultations and the like. This requires a structured
process of data collection and input from a multitude
of stakeholders.
Evidence gathering
Despite growing industry interest and expertise, the
evidence base that could inform policy making
remains limited. The aggregate number of assessments
to date remains insufficient to form detailed
benchmarks, and there is no central depository for
information on costs incurred. Consequently, there is
insufficient evidence to undertake the sort of
economic analysis required under a typical policy
impact assessment. Encouraging sufficient
assessments to form a robust evidence base may
require additional stimuli. However, additional stimuli
are unlikely to be introduced without a robust
evidence base. Overcoming this catch 22, in an
environment where funding for exemplar projects is
limited, will likely require leadership from industry
institutions alongside support from the research
community. This will require extensive collaboration
and a willingness to share data and experiences.
In the long term, a multi-level response will likely be
required, with local authorities and a small cohort of
firms initially demonstrating best practice, introducing
progressively more stringent requirements,
assembling an evidence base for policy makers, and
disseminating their experiences to the mainstream
industry. Only once respected advocates are
identified, a robust evidence base is in place, and an
appropriate narrative determined, is national
regulation likely to proceed.
OTHER CHALLENGES
In addition to addressing the outlined concerns, the
research community must:
 Articulate a vision for the construction industry
in a net zero emissions future.
 Develop alternative low carbon building
materials and design approaches, particularly
for high-rise structures, which currently have a
very limited range of viable materials.
 Improve the understanding of current barriers to
uptake of alternative and re-used materials
 Develop a range of policy options for
addressing whole life carbon emissions
CONCLUSIONS
Substantial reductions in embodied carbon will be
required to meet sectoral and national climate
mitigation goals. These reductions must be motivated
by the introduction of project CITs. Examples to date
show CITs can encourage innovation; however, a
number of issues must be addressed if CITs are to
achieve widespread adoption consistent with targeted
emission reductions. Approaches to target setting and
reporting should be further standardised, steps must be
taken to link sector and project level targets, and
additional drivers for embodied carbon reduction must
be introduced. This paper has offered initial insights
on these topics, proposed some potential solutions and
highlighted a number of areas requiring further
research.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The contribution of the first and third authors forms
part of the research of the CIEMAP centre, funded by
the RCUK Energy Programme (EP/K011774/1).

REFERENCES
Anglian Water (2015). Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Annual Report 2015. Available from:
http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/_assets/media/g
hg_emissions_report_2015_H_res.pdf
Arup (2014). 5 Broadgate Embodied Carbon
Tracking Report. Available from:
http://www.britishland.com/~/media/Files/B/Br
itish-Land/downloads/2014/BL Arup 5
Broadgate Embodied Carbon Report 2014.pdf
Battle, G. (2014). Embodied Carbon Industry Task
Force Recommendations. Proposals for
Standardised Measurement Method and
Recommendations for Zero Carbon Building
Regulations and Allowable Solutions.
British Land (2014). Supporting Communities and
Enhancing Environments: Sustainability Brief
for Developments. Available from:
http://www.britishland.com/~/media/Files/B/Br
itish-Land/downloads/investor-downloads/bl-
sustainability-brief-2014.pdf
Bushell, S., Colley, T. and Workman, M. (2015). A
unified narrative for climate change. Nature
Climate Change. 5(11), 971–973
Clark, D. (2013). What Colour Is Your Building?
RIBA Publishing. ISBN 9781859464472
Climate Change Act 2008 (2008) Elizabeth II. Her
Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, UK
Crawford, D., Hairstans, R., Smith, S. and
Papastravou, P. (2015). Viability of cross-
laminated timber from UK resources.
Proceedings of the ICE - Construction
Materials. 168(CM3), 110–120.
Davies, P.J., Emmitt, S. and Firth, S.K. (2014).
Challenges for capturing and assessing initial
embodied energy: a contractor’s perspective.
Construction Management and Economics.
32(3), 290–308.
DCLG (2015). Household projections, United
Kingdom, 1961-2037. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-
data-sets/live-tables-on-household-projections
DECC (2014). Green Book supplementary guidance:
valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas
emissions for appraisal. Electricity emissions
factors to 2100. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/v
aluation-of-energy-use-and-greenhouse-gas-
emissions-for-appraisal
Doran, D. (2014). Linking construction embodied
carbon assessment to the UK carbon budget –
from the top-down. Report to the BRE Trust.
EC (European Commission) (2014). Communication
from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee of the
Regions on Resource Efficiency Opportunities
in the Building Sector. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/Sust
ainableBuildingsCommunication.pdf
Gavotsis, E. and Moncaster, A. (2015). Improved
Embodied Energy and Carbon Accounting:
Recommendations for Industry and Policy.
Athens Journal of Technology & Engineering
2(1), 9-23.
Green Construction Board (2013). Low Carbon
Routemap for the UK Built Environment.
Available from:
http://www.greenconstructionboard.org/otherd
ocs/Routemap final report 05032013.pdf
Giesekam J, Barrett J, Taylor P, and Owen A (2014)
The greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation
options for materials used in UK construction,
Energy and Buildings. 78, 202-214
Giesekam, J., Barrett J. and Taylor, P. (2016).
Construction sector views on low carbon
building materials. Building Research and
Information. 44(4), 423-444
Giesekam J, Barrett J, and Taylor P. (In Press)
Scenario analysis of embodied carbon in UK
construction. Proceedings of the ICE -
Engineering Sustainability
GLA (Greater London Authority) (2013) Construction
Scope 3 (Embodied) Greenhouse Gas Accounting
and Reporting Guidance
HM Government (2013). Construction 2025. URN
BIS/13/955
HM Treasury (2013). Infrastructure Carbon Review.
ISBN 978-1-909790-44-5
IPA (Infrastructure and Projects Authority) (2016a).
Government Construction Strategy 2016-20.
IPA (2016b). National Infrastructure Delivery Plan
2016-2021.
Keil, M., Perry, H., Humphrey, J. and Holdway, R.
(2013). Understanding embodied greenhouse
gas emissions in the water and sewerage
sectors. Water and Environment Journal. 27(2),
253–260.
Marks and Spencer (2014). Plan A Report 2014.
Availablefrom:http://planareport.marksandspen
cer.com/downloads/M&S-PlanA-2014.pdf

MacDougall, C. (2008) Natural Building Materials in
Mainstream Construction: Lessons from the
UK. Journal of Green Building, 3(3), 3–14
Moncaster, A. and Symons, K.E. (2013). A method
and tool for ‘cradle to grave’ embodied carbon
and energy impacts of UK buildings in
compliance with the new TC350 standards.
Energy and Buildings. 66, 514–523.
NetComposites Ltd (2014). “BioBuild”. Available
from: http://biobuildproject.eu/ [Accessed
26/11/15].
ONS (2011). 2010-Based National Population
Projections. Available from:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/national-
population-projections/2010-based-
projections/rep-2010-based-npp-results-
summary.html#tab-Results [Accessed
30/03/15].
Osborne, G. (2015). Chancellor George Osborne’s
Budget 2015 speech. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chan
cellor-george-osbornes-budget-2015-speech
[Accessed 08/10/15].
Pearson, A. (2015). No compromise – Passivhaus
Enterprise Centre in Norwich. CIBSE Journal.
Available from:
http://www.cibsejournal.com/case-studies/no-
compromise/
RICS (2012). Methodology to calculate embodied
carbon of materials IP 32/2012.
Sadler, P. and Robson, D. (2013). Carbon
Sequestration By Buildings. Available from:
http://www.asbp.org.uk/uploads/documents/res
ources/ASBP_Carbon sequestration by
buildings.pdf
FIGURES
Smith, S. (2013). Grown in Britain - a review of the
use of timber in UK construction. The
Structural Engineer. 31, 54–56.
Steele, K., Hurst, T. and Giesekam, J. (2015). Green
Construction Board Low Carbon Routemap for
the Built Environment 2015 Routemap
Progress Technical Report. Available from:
http://www.greenconstructionboard.org/otherd
ocs/2015 Built environment low carbon
routemap progress report 2015-12-15.pdf
The Crown Estate (2013). Development
Sustainability Principles. Available from:
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/5214/u
rb-development-sustainability-principles.pdf
UKGBC (2014). Embodied Carbon Week – Seeing
the whole picture. Available from:
http://www.ukgbc.org/resources/publication/e
mbodied-carbon-week-2014-report
UKGBC (2015a). COP21 Special The Knowledge(3)
UKGBC (2015b). Embodied Carbon Conference:
Review. Available from:
http://www.ukgbc.org/sites/default/files/Embod
ied Carbon Conference review.pdf
UKGBC (2015c). Tackling embodied carbon in
buildings. Available from:
http://www.ukgbc.org/resources/publication/tac
kling-embodied-carbon-buildings
United Nations (2015). Adoption of the Paris
Agreement. Available from:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/
l09r01.pdf
WRAP and UKGBC (2014). WRAP Embodied
Carbon Database. Available from:
http://ecdb.wrap.org.uk/Default.aspx [Accessed
12/10/14]
Figure 1 – Carbon emissions attributable to the UK built environment 1990-2013

Figure 2 –Distribution of UK built environment supply chain GHG emissions in 2007
(based upon data from Giesekam et al., 2014 and Giesekam et al., In Press)
Figure 3 – Projections of future embodied GHG emissions from UK construction. All
demand projections taken from scenario analysis with UK BIEC model (Giesekam et
al, In Press) including decarbonisation of the electricity supply at the rate projected
by DECC (2014).

Figure 4 – Suggested project embodied carbon checkpoints, adapted from GLA (2013) and Doran (2014).