What’s driving the demand for infrastructure digital twins – and what’s holding them back?
16 July 2026
Here’s why we’re not using EPDs properly yet in construction
4 August 2026
A single headline carbon figure isn’t enough to make an informed decision about this or that product.
The construction industry has more sustainability data at its disposal than ever before. Designers, contractors and procurement teams are increasingly expected to justify material choices with objective evidence, helping clients meet ambitious environmental targets while complying with a growing number of frameworks and standards.
Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) have become one of the most important tools supporting those decisions. By providing independently verified environmental data, EPDs have brought greater transparency to the supply chain and made it easier to compare products on a like-for-like basis.
That is undoubtedly progress. The industry has long needed greater consistency around environmental reporting, and EPDs have helped move procurement away from empty marketing claims and towards evidence-based decision making.
In simple terms, an EPD measures and reports the environmental impact of a product across defined stages of its lifecycle. This can include everything from raw materials and transport, through to use, maintenance and what happens at the end of the product’s life.
Depends how long it lasts
However, in practice, much of the attention is often placed on the Product Stage (A1–A3), which covers raw materials, transport to manufacturing and the manufacturing process itself. This provides valuable information about a product’s upfront impact, but it only tells part of the story.
As the influence of EPDs continues to grow, there is therefore a risk that this complex information becomes oversimplified into a single headline carbon figure. Carbon is, of course, a vital measure of embodied environmental impact, but it is only one part of the sustainability picture. When procurement decisions are driven primarily by a single number, important considerations such as product lifespan can receive far less attention than they deserve.
A material with a lower carbon impact during manufacture may initially appear to be the more sustainable option, but if it requires replacing significantly sooner than an alternative, its overall environmental impact can look very different. Manufacturing, transport, installation and disposal will all have to be repeated each and every time that product reaches the end of its service life.
The same principle applies to durability and maintenance. Products that require regular treatment, repair or replacement inevitably consume additional resources throughout their lifetime. By contrast, products that remain in service for decades with minimal maintenance may ultimately have a lower environmental impact, even if their initial embodied carbon figure appears less favourable.
Timber or plastic?
The comparison between timber and recycled plastic products illustrates this well. Timber can often demonstrate a lower manufacturing carbon footprint but, depending on the application, exposure to moisture, insects and weathering may require ongoing maintenance or eventual replacement. Recycled plastic alternatives typically require little or no maintenance and can remain in use for several decades. Looking only at the upfront carbon figure therefore risks overlooking a significant part of the overall sustainability picture.
This is where the conversation around EPDs needs to evolve. Rather than treating them as a single environmental scorecard, the industry should view them as one source of information within a broader assessment of product performance. Their real value lies not in one headline figure, but in the wider context they provide.
There is also a broader challenge around consistency. Although internationally recognised standards underpin EPDs, variations in methodology, scope and assumptions can still make direct comparisons more difficult than they appear.
None of this diminishes the value of EPDs. On the contrary, they remain one of the most significant advances in sustainable construction, giving specifiers and contractors access to robust environmental information that simply was not available at this scale a decade ago.
Look at all the data
The challenge now is how that data is used. Procurement teams need the confidence to interpret EPDs beyond the headline figures, while manufacturers have a responsibility to present environmental data clearly and consistently. Continued progress towards greater standardisation across reporting frameworks will further strengthen confidence in the comparisons being made.
As sustainability expectations continue to evolve, the industry’s decisions will become increasingly data driven. That should be welcomed, but only if we recognise that sustainability cannot be defined by a single metric. Carbon matters enormously, but it is only one part of a much broader conversation that also includes durability, maintenance, resource efficiency and product longevity.
EPDs have given the construction sector a far stronger evidence base for making environmental decisions. The next step is ensuring they are used as intended: as decision-making tools that encourage better-informed procurement, rather than simply a race to achieve the lowest carbon number.
Keep up to date with DC+: sign up for the midweek newsletter
Story for Digital Construction Plus? Get in touch via email:
[email protected]
