Anthony Hickling On Managing Embodied Carbon in Construction

Anthony Hickling is a key figure in sustainable building practices and carbon management. As the Executive Director of the Carbon Leadership Forum, he oversees efforts to address

 the environmental impacts of buildings by reducing embodied carbon and improving materials efficiency. The Forum works on building the capacity of the construction sector to create and adopt low-carbon solutions, emphasizing practical strategies and strong collaboration across the industry.

Beyond his role at the Forum, Anthony has been instrumental in initiatives aimed at cutting carbon emissions in construction and fostering policy advancements in sustainability. He has guided projects that use tools like EC3 for managing scope 3 emissions and has provided input on the importance of incorporating embodied carbon analysis into early project planning to achieve meaningful emission reductions.

In today’s episode, we discuss Anthony’s take on effective carbon management in construction, cover the role of data in guiding sustainable decisions, and explore key strategies for engaging stakeholders in low-carbon projects. Whether you’re in construction, policy-making, or simply interested in sustainability, this conversation provides valuable insights into reducing the carbon impact of the built environment.

Anthony Hickling joins Carbon Accounting & Management Podcast to discuss:

1. Selection of building materials and tools
2. EC3 tool for carbon accounting
3. Embodied Carbon Definition and Importance
4. Usage scope of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs)
5. Public Procurement’s impact on demand for lower carbon material

Here is a summary of the discussion from the podcast.

Can you tell us a little bit about yourself, where you work and the work that you do there.

I am Anthony Hickling, the Managing Director at the Carbon Leadership Forum. Before diving into the work we do, it’s helpful to understand the significant impact of the building industry on global carbon emissions. Buildings are responsible for approximately 40% of total energy-related greenhouse gas emissions.

Source: carbonleadershipforum.org

To put this into perspective, over the next 40 years, we plan to construct the equivalent of a new New York City in size every month. The greenhouse gas emissions associated with the creation of building materials and the construction process are expected to be roughly equal to the operational emissions of the buildings themselves.

At the Carbon Leadership Forum, we focus on developing research and resources that help stakeholders understand the emissions related to building materials and construction practices, as well as strategies for reducing them. For more information, you can visit our website at Carbon Leadership Forum.

As you mentioned, this issue is incredibly important right now. You did a great job highlighting the significant impact buildings have on carbon emissions. When considering the current housing shortage, especially in the U.S. and globally, it’s essential to recognize that while we aim to address this human problem, we also need to tackle the carbon aspect.

The work your organization does is invaluable and powerful, and I appreciate you sharing your insights with us today. A good starting point for our discussion is the concept of buildings. While there’s a clear direct impact from the energy used in construction, we also need to consider Scope 3 emissions. What is your perspective on how builders can conceptualize Scope 3 emissions? How can they capture what’s important without getting bogged down in the details, while still focusing on what truly matters?

Sure. To provide more context around Scope 3 emissions in the built environment, it’s important to note that this segment of the carbon footprint has been largely neglected for a long time. For example, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) reported that supply chain emissions for corporations are, on average, 11.4 times higher than a company’s operational emissions.

Many places are beginning to require both disclosure and, in some cases, actual reductions in Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Our work focuses primarily on Scope 3 emissions, particularly those related to the materials used in buildings and the impacts associated with the construction process.

Historically, when assessing the total impact of the built environment and discussing green buildings, much of our efforts have concentrated on improving the operational efficiency of our buildings. This includes adding solar panels and enhancing insulation. You’ve likely heard terms like “net zero building” or “net zero ready building.” These initiatives are fantastic because buildings contribute significantly to global greenhouse gas emissions.

Source: rmax.com

However, Scope 3 emissions—those associated with the materials used in construction—have been largely overlooked from both academic and practical perspectives, as well as in policy discussions. Our goal is to help businesses understand all their emission scopes. In places like California, addressing these emissions is becoming increasingly necessary.

We aim to clarify how Scope 3 relates to the built environment and identify strategies for reducing these emissions. I can provide more details about specific strategies if you’d like. Please let me know how deep you want to go into this topic.

It would be helpful to take a step back and discuss how the EC3 tool was developed. I was reviewing the embedded carbon tool on the website and was impressed by its capabilities. As I understand it, it’s a free resource for companies to utilize. Could you elaborate on what the tool does, how to use it effectively, and perhaps provide some insight into the methodology behind its construction? 

Sure, I can start with the EC3 tool and provide some context around it. The EC3 stands for Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator, which is essentially a database of environmental product declarations (EPDs) for common building materials. It compares these declarations to nutrition labels, providing insight into the carbon and environmental impacts of building materials.

Before EC3, obtaining embodied carbon declarations involved requesting them from manufacturers, often resulting in inconsistent formats.

Information was typically shared in different units, complicating comparisons. Collecting EPDs for assessing carbon impacts was cumbersome.

The EC3 tool digitizes environmental product declarations, making them easily accessible and comparable. It allows users to evaluate multiple suppliers for building materials, facilitating carbon impact comparisons.

Once materials are identified, carbon should be a crucial factor in decision-making. Organizations need to consider whether to construct new buildings or retrofit existing ones, as this can lead to significant carbon savings. The design and materials chosen can greatly affect embodied carbon emissions.

Prior to utilizing EC3, there are various tools available that aid design professionals in assessing potential impacts, including:

• Tally: Helps estimate embodied carbon based on materials and designs.
• EPIC and CARE: These tools compare the benefits of retrofitting existing buildings versus new construction.

By integrating these resources early in the project, organizations can make informed decisions about the materials and designs they choose to implement, ultimately reducing their carbon footprint.

I realized that, while we’ve talked about embodied carbon, we didn’t fully define it for those in the group who may not understand it. So let’s take a step back and discuss embodied carbon: what it is and why it’s important. Let’s cover the 101 basics quickly.

Embodied carbon refers to all emissions associated with manufacturing materials, transporting them, and their eventual disposal. For instance, consider straw bales as an alternative to traditional materials like Styrofoam. When evaluating the embodied carbon of Styrofoam or straw bales, we need to consider their production processes.

1. Raw Material Extraction: What emissions occur during the mining or growing of the material?
2. Manufacturing Process: What emissions are generated when the raw material is processed into a usable product?

Next, the material is transported to a job site for installation. This stage can also contribute to emissions. Ideally, the material will serve as a building component for as long as possible. However, ultimately it may be discarded, incinerated, or sent to a landfill.

Embodied carbon encompasses all these emissions, particularly for materials like concrete and steel, which require high temperatures for production. Additionally, concrete production involves process emissions; for instance, the creation of cement releases CO2 during the heating and chemical separation processes. Therefore, a key focus is to identify how we can encourage the use of lower carbon materials in buildings while reducing energy consumption. And that can really be done in a lot of different ways.

That’s a great overview and an excellent way to conceptualize it. In some of our previous podcast discussions, we’ve talked about spend-based methodologies and how many companies are trying to utilize this approach to capture their Scope 3 emissions. I appreciate how embodied carbon provides an alternative, more precise and actionable method.

This approach can inform purchase decisions and product strategies, making it more effective than simply reducing spending, which is the only way to decrease carbon in a spend-based technique. I believe this perspective allows those using a spend-based method to consider alternatives for building out their inventories.

Yeah, I mean, I’ll just say that for the spend-based approach, the embodied carbon of building materials is one of the key examples of why it doesn’t work effectively. For instance, if your accounting method is spend-based, you could be disincentivized to spend any kind of cost premium for a greener material. Take the greener cement or concrete that you’re using, which has a 1% premium. Now, if your Scope 3 emissions look like they just increased by 1%, you might overlook the fact that this concrete is actually 50% better than the alternative. This highlights the necessity to be more specific when evaluating cost and its relationship to carbon emissions in building materials.

That’s a good point, and I appreciate you bringing that up for the listeners. It sounds like you recognize the importance of ensuring that the planning process is executed well and that the end use of the building is considered. To add to your point, how does using an existing building versus starting from scratch impact this?

Have you worked with groups that have successfully integrated stakeholders, and what does that process look like to ensure you capture all the necessary information during the design planning phase? What are some key points or stakeholders you would recommend considering?

Everyone involved has a role in the process. At the very beginning, we look at building owners and developers. They determine where the project will be located, its size, and the requirements for that specific project. They can incorporate embodied carbon as a criterion for what a successful project looks like. Organizations like the Urban Lands and Land Institute work with owners and developers to help them evaluate the impacts of their portfolios and identify opportunities to reduce embodied carbon from their perspective.

Once we know what building is going to be built, the developers and owners collaborate with engineers and architects. Ultimately, they’re also working with contractors, who play a different role in the process. For example, engineers contribute to the structural design.

The architects iterate on this collaboration. Both architects and contractors have tools they can use, like the EC3 tool, which I mentioned earlier. It’s important that from the outset, it’s clear that reducing embodied carbon is a priority throughout the project. This means understanding what the developer wants, and then ensuring everyone else follows suit. If reducing carbon isn’t prioritized from the beginning, everyone should still aim to find ways to incorporate it without changing the project’s scope.

That makes sense. As we revisit the EC3 tool and consider those product labels, how can we determine the accuracy of the reported information? What methods can companies use to ensure that the data is reliable and meaningful?

That’s a great question. Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) are third-party verified, and there are systems in place to ensure their proper development. Before an environmental product declaration is established, it’s governed by what are called Product Category Rule (PCR) committees, which determine rules for comparability across materials. For instance, it makes sense to compare certain types of structural steel against one another, but it wouldn’t be appropriate to compare them to carpet tiles due to differing data reporting processes and scopes.

We can currently rely on third-party verified EPDs as a means to estimate the impacts of the materials we purchase. However, it’s essential to recognize that EPDs have varying levels of specificity. Some may present an industry average EPD, stating that the average carbon emissions for a particular type of material is X. In contrast, others may be facility-specific, detailing the exact energy inputs and total carbon emissions from a specific facility.

When using EPDs, ensure that you’re comparing similar materials and that you understand the scope included within the EPD. Where EPDs are available, they serve as an excellent tool to aid in making informed decisions about material choices.

That is such a powerful thing to be able to comprehend and have the EC3 tool in the belt to be able. As I think about this more, I’m curious if you have any examples that you’re allowed to share. For instance, has an organization been able to look at EPDs and say, “We wanted this, but we got that, and here were some positive outcomes from that decision”? This could relate to the carbon aspect or even the cost efficiency side. Do you have specific examples or insights you could share?

I can share that it’s happening all the time. I don’t know of any reports currently that compile case studies—specifically for General Contractors (GCs) examining EPDs and making reductions based on that. However, this trend is reflected in the growth of EPD availability and the increasing user base of EC3. I last checked, and it was around 30,000 users for EC3, but I’m sure it’s much higher now.

Many individuals are using this tool regularly as part of their procurement decision-making process to source lower carbon materials. I believe there are examples out there, though I’m not aware of a single source that consolidates these instances.

What role do you think policy plays in the use of these tools? Obviously, the California law has been a significant topic in construction. It likely touches on a variety of downstream suppliers, including not just large builders but also their subcontractors. How have you seen policy influence these impacts, and where do you think it will have the most positive effect?

That’s a good question. Over the years, various leading private groups have focused on voluntary reductions and have demonstrated that these reductions can be made. Personally, I believe that these efforts need to be complemented by policy to ensure that emission reductions are scaling. This is starting to happen.

You mentioned California. There are several pieces of legislation or programs, broadly speaking, that have been introduced or are being implemented in California, which have significantly impacted the concept of reducing embodied carbon. This is achieved through policy mechanisms that drive substantial reductions. For example, in California, legislation passed in 2017—specifically the “Buy Clean” policy—requires the disclosure of EPDs for certain commonly used construction materials in public projects. Ultimately, this will help inform the baseline that gets set for those materials.

Over time, reductions are going to be required. Now that this program has been implemented, they are collecting data and ensuring that it meets a specified benchmark. Another relevant example is California’s recent passage of the CalGreen code, which is a different approach. It applies to all projects, specifically those over 100,000 square feet and, in some cases, those over 50,000 square feet for educational facilities.

There are several mechanisms to comply with this policy. If I remember correctly, there are material approaches that involve EPD disclosure and a whole-building lifecycle analysis, which examines how you are designing the building and the projected impact of the embodied carbon in the final building design. This is an important consideration in the overall process.

Hi listeners, quick interlude here. I want to clarify a couple of points about the California Green Code, or CalGreen. First, it applies to all newly constructed residential buildings and any additions or alterations that increase a building’s conditioned area, interior volume, or size. Essentially, it covers any facility that provides sleeping accommodations.

Additionally, there are three main ways for developers to comply with this code:

1. Building reuse: This involves utilizing existing structures rather than constructing new ones.
2. Whole Building Lifecycle Assessment (WBLCA): This method evaluates the environmental impacts of the entire building over its lifespan.
3. Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs): Developers can use these declarations to disclose the environmental impacts of the materials used in construction.

Those are a couple of examples from California. There’s also a lot of work happening in other states and at the federal level. Typically, this work is material-specific, focusing on setting baselines and requiring reductions over time for materials used in publicly procured projects. This has a significant impact. For instance, concrete and steel contribute about 15% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. Public procurement accounts for roughly half of all cement CO2 emissions and about 18% of steel emissions. This policy encourages disclosure and ultimately drives reductions for materials used in public projects, influencing demand for lower carbon materials.

This approach proves the concept that we can guide the market in a specific direction. It makes sense for the private sector to follow suit, especially considering the marketing benefits of achieving reduction targets.

Is there anything a builder can do? If someone is just beginning to think about these issues, where should they start? What materials should they prioritize?

The starting point depends on the region. In some areas, EPDs are abundant and accessible, while in others, they are not. It’s evident that structural materials play a significant role. For a contractor or builder, I recommend looking for available EPDs in your area. These documents provide valuable data on structural materials used in construction, which significantly impact global climate emissions. There are also important considerations related to refining existing structures, particularly regarding interior materials. Focus on mechanical, electric, and plumbing equipment as well.

Depending on who you are asking for this data, it can serve as a strong starting point. If the data doesn’t exist yet, your request sends a demand signal to the market, indicating that this information is valued and that suppliers should work on making it accessible if they haven’t done so already.

For example, I recently reviewed an email from a prominent architecture firm that forwarded correspondence with a material supplier. The supplier mentioned that when the firm inquired about environmental product declarations a couple of years ago, those documents didn’t exist. However, due to the firm’s inquiries, the supplier took steps to ensure they could provide that data.

Starting by requesting data wherever possible is crucial, especially in identifying gaps. This is a key step in promoting transparency and accountability. Focusing initially on structural materials is an effective way to address significant impacts, while also recognizing that other materials are important as well.

Are there any newsletters, websites, or professional organizations that you recommend for folks in the industry to follow?

Definitely! At the Carbon Leadership Forum, we prioritize ensuring that people are engaged with our work in ways that are relevant to them. Here are some key resources:

• Carbon Leadership Forum Website: Our main hub for information and updates is carbonleadershipforum.org, where you can sign up for our newsletter.
• Local Hubs: We have local chapters where individuals can focus on embodied carbon in their regions and join discussions through our website.
• Online Community: There is an active online community filled with resources for architects, developers, and policymakers. We offer toolkits and reports that contextualize the current lifecycle assessment (LCA) and embodied carbon data ecosystem.

These resources can help you start your journey in learning about embodied carbon and guide you through the 201 and 301 levels of information necessary to take the next step.

Do you have any good recommendations for conferences?

This year, we’re not sure if we’re co-hosting or supporting as a partner, but we will participate in the Getting to Zero forum organized by the New Buildings Institute. There will be a significant focus on embodied carbon at that conference, so it’s worth attending. It takes place in North Carolina from May 21st to 23rd.

Have you found any surprising or unconventional sources of data for carbon accounting? Or perhaps the most useful data sources? You folks are a significant source of data, but has anything surprised you in the aggregation process?

Our researchers are often surprised by the data. In terms of data sources, we currently rely on firms that collect and share data. This allows us to analyze market trends for reducing embodied carbon emissions at scale. Organizations like the Carbon Leadership Forum can help anonymize the data to ensure it’s usable and accessible while sharing findings that contribute to reducing embodied carbon.

Have you heard of any interesting and inventive ways that an organization has engaged its stakeholders to collectively push towards a lower carbon project?

Be clear about the goal to reduce embodied carbon or address it in various ways, such as tracking it. Some firms encourage internal competition, where teams aim for significant reductions in their projects and showcase creativity. I’m not sure how institutionalized these competitions are, but I believe friendly competition is healthy for organizations when everyone is aligned on the goals.

 If there’s just one takeaway for our guests from this conversation, what should it be?

Talk about embodied carbon. Everyone has a different role to play, whether you’re a public company, a small business, a contractor, or an architect. Each of these roles impacts total carbon emissions within the scope you control. It’s crucial that everyone is aware of this impact and encourages decision-makers to actively participate in reducing embodied carbon.

Ask for environmental product declarations and inquire with your designers about their plans for incorporating embodied carbon reductions into their designs. This approach needs to be scaled regularly in how we design and build.

Lastly, where can our listeners find more information about your work and your organization?

Take a look at the Carbon Leadership Forum’s website at leadershipforum.org. This is the best place to sign up for our newsletter, learn about regional hubs, and access resources that can assist you in your journey toward carbon reductions.