Introduction to Embodied Carbon

Miren Etxeberria

Introduction
Embodied carbon is an accounting methodology which aims to find the total amount of
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and (CO2e) emitted during an entire product lifecycle. This
lifecycle includes raw material extraction, transport, manufacture, assembly, installation,
disassembly, deconstruction and/or decomposition. Along with cost, CO2 emissions
have become an important new metric by which materials and services are selected for
use. Consequently, there is an increasing requirement to squeeze carbon out the supply
chain, particularly when embarking on new-build construction and refurbishment
projects.
Keywords: Life Cycle Assessment, Embodied Energy, Embodied Carbon, Sustainability
Assessment, Global Warming, Construction Materials, greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.

Embodied carbon in buildings

Embodied carbon (EC) is just as important if not more important than operational carbon.
This is because the amount used to make a building can be as high as 65%, especially
as the operational load reduces through the tightening of the building regulations.
Unfortunately, there has been a lack of consensus on exactly how embodied carbon
should be defined and calculated. Undertaking embodied carbon assessments is not as
straightforward as it sounds and without a standard methodology, agreed rules, data and
data structures, clients have not been assured of consistent and evidenced results.
There are guides but they are either too high level or very complicated if a full lifecycle
assessment is undertaken[1].

Figure 1: Life cycle embodied carbon [2].

1
In the building life cycle embodied carbon is the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) or
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the non-operational phase of the
project. This includes emissions cause by extraction, manufacture, transportation,
assembly, maintenance, replacement, deconstruction, disposal and end of life aspects
of the materials and systems that make up a building. The whole life carbon of the
building is both the embodied carbon and the carbon associated with operation (heating,
cooling, powering, providing water etc). Understanding the relationships between
‘embodied’ carbon and ‘operational’ carbon can assist in determining the overall optimum
carbon reductions [3].

Figure 2: A methodology for measuring embodied carbon [4].

As we build increasingly energy efficient buildings that use less and less energy to run
and rely increasingly on locally-generated low or zero carbon heat and power sources,
the proportion of the building’s lifecycle carbon that comes from the embodied carbon
becomes more significant. In contrast to operational carbon emissions for new buildings,
which are regulated through Building Regulations, embodied carbon is currently not
regulated. However, embodied carbon is receiving increased attention at the European
level, with embodied energy defined as one of the proposed core indicators in the EU
Framework for Building Assessment, which is currently the subject of a consultation.
There remains a significant, and still largely untapped, opportunity to address the
embodied carbon of a building or project, alongside its operational efficiency, of a
building. The greatest opportunity for impact on embodied carbon comes at the design
stage, in particular in the building structure. If opportunities are not taken at this early
stage, the embodied carbon savings are lost for the entire lifetime of the building. The
below (purely for illustration) provides an idea of the potential breakdown of carbon
impacts at each stage of a building’s lifetime, for different building types [5].

2
Figure 3: Impact of the consequent life cycle stages on the overall carbon footprint for different types of
buildings, calculated over 30 years [5].

Depending on building type, by the time a building is occupied somewhere between 30%
and 70% of its lifetime carbon may already have been accounted for (the higher end of
this range is most likely in buildings such as warehouses and distribution centres or those
built to Passivhaus standards, which have low operational carbon requirements).
Recognizing this opportunity for carbon savings that is being missed, progressive clients,
developers and contractors are increasingly measuring, managing and reducing the
embodied carbon in building projects.
Embodied Carbon and sustainability
A significant proportion of the EC of a building is concentrated in the manufacture of
materials and construction. Addressing the embodied carbon can provide cost-effective
potential for carbon savings and cost savings over and above those traditionally targeted
through operational savings. Reduction in embodied carbon is not subject to ongoing
building user behaviour in the way that operational carbon savings are. As a result,
embodied carbon benefits can be more accurate and identifiable than predicted
operational carbon reductions, particularly the final occupant of the building is not known
at the time. Embodied carbon savings made during the design and construction stage
are also delivered today. This contrasts with operational emissions savings which are
delivered over time in the future. Defra data[6] shows that a Kg of CO2 saved over the
next 5 years has a greater environmental value than a kg saved in say 10 or more years’
time. Embodied carbon assessment can also contribute to other sustainability targets
and priorities beside carbon. For example, use of recycled content, recyclability of
building materials, and reduced waste materials to landfill can all result from a focus on
embodied carbon and also contribute to waste targets. Similarly, benefits to the local
community can accrue from reduced on-site energy generation and cleaner fabrication
processes which mitigate the impact of the development site on the local area; the use
of more local sourcing and local supply chains can also support jobs and the economy
in the locale (or if not local, at regional or national level).[4]
Identifying which elements of the building hold the most significant proportion of the
overall embodied carbon the 'hotspots' can provide ‘shortcuts’ to significant reductions.
The illustration below, based on British Land’s Leadenhall Building[7], shows that, as
might be expected, the structure holds the key to a large proportion of the embodied
carbon.

3
Figure 4: Proportions of embodied carbon in the different elements of the Leadenhall [7]

For homes, in both timber frame and masonry home construction types, the impact of
the foundations and ground floor dominates the embodied carbon impact. In masonry
construction, unsurprisingly, the external walls also have a major impact. These
elements are expected to last the lifetime of the home. Due to their shorter lifetime and
more frequent replacement cycle windows, doors, and floor finishes were also found to
have a relatively large impact. This hotspot identification further illustrates the need to
include an embodied carbon assessment as early as possible in the concept design
stage since structural hotspots can usually not be modified at later stages in the design
process. As the Figure 5 below illustrates, although a large part of the building’s lifetime
carbon is locked in to its construction phase, significant opportunities occur at major
refurbishment or replacement cycles which are typically every 7-15 years. Beyond these
major cycles, smaller remodelling, fit-out and shop-fit events, typically on shorter cycles,
provide further opportunities [7].

Figure 5: Average Building Lifetime Emissions 100 years[4]

Embodied carbon in construction materials

The construction industry requires the extraction of vast quantities of materials and this,
in turn, results in the consumption of energy resources and the release of deleterious
pollutant emissions to the biosphere. Each material has to be extracted, processed and
finally transported to its place of use. The energy consumed during these activities is
critically important for human development, but also puts at risk the quality and longer
term viability of the biosphere as a result of unwanted or ‘second’ order effects. Many of
these side-effects of energy production and consumption give rise to resource
uncertainties and potential environmental hazards on local, regional or national scales.
Energy and pollutant emissions such as carbon dioxide (CO2) may be regarded as being
‘embodied’ within materials. Thus, embodied energy can be viewed as the quantity of
energy required to process, and supply to the construction site, the material under
consideration. In order to determine the magnitude of this embodied energy, an

4
accounting methodology is required that sums the energy inputs over the major part of
the material supply chain or life-cycle [8].
The data presented in Table 1 were extracted from the peer-reviewed literature [8] on
the basis of a defined methodology. The database was made publicly available via an
online website [9] and has attracted significant interest from industry, academia,
government departments and agencies, among others. The variation in published data
stems from differences in boundary definitions (including geographic origin), age of the
data sources and rigour of the original life-cycle assessments. Although principally
directed towards UK construction, the material set included in the database is of quite
wide application across the industrial sector.
All values in the table refer to the amounts of Embodied Energy (EE) and Embodied
Carbon (EC) for each kg of production of the materials unless another specific unit is
indicated.
Table 1: Embodied carbon and embodied energy of common building construction materials
(http://www.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/6/8/17687809/ice_v2.0_-_jan_2011.xls) [9]

EMBODIED CARBON AND EMBODIED ENERGY SUMMARY

EMBODIED ENERGY (EE) AND EMBODIED
MATERIALS CARBON (EC) COEFFICIENTS
EE EC EC
MJ/kg kgCO2/kg kgCO2e/kg
General
Aggregate 0,083 0,0048 0,0052
(Gravel or Crushed Rock)
General 155 8,24 9,16
Aluminium Virgin 218 11,46 12,79
Recycled 29 1,69 1,81
Asphalt, 4% (bitumen)
2,86 0,059 0,066
binder content (by mass)
Asphalt, 5% binder
3,39 0,064 0,071
content
Asphalt Asphalt, 6% binder
3,93 0,068 0,076
content
Asphalt, 7% binder
4,46 0,072 0,081
content
Asphalt, 8% binder
5 0,076 0,086
content
Bitumen General 51 0.38 - 0.43 0.43 - 0.55
General 44 2.46 2.64
Brass Virgin 80 4.47 4.80
Recycled 20 1.12 1.20
General (Common Brick) 3 0,23 0,24
6.9 MJ per 0.53 kgCO2
Bricks EXAMPLE: Single Brick 0,55
brick per brick
Limestone 0,85 - -
General (UK weighted
4,5 0,73 0,74
average)
Cement
Average CEM I Portland
5,5 0,93 0,95
Cement, 94% Clinker

5
 6-20% Fly Ash (CEM II/A- 0.88 (@ 6%) to
5.28 to 4.51 0.89 to 0.76
V) 0.75 (@ 20%)
21-35% Fly Ash (CEM
4.45 to 3.68 0.74 to 0.61 0.75 to 0.62
II/B-V)
21-35% GGBS (CEM II/B-
4.77 to 4.21 0.76 to 0.64 0.77 to 0.65
S)
36-65% GGBS (CEM
4.17 to 3.0 0.63 to 0.38 0.64 to 0.39
III/A)
66-80% GGBS (CEM II/B) 2.96 to 2.4 0.37 to 0.25 0.38 to 0.26
Fibre Cement Panels -
10,4 1,09 -
Uncoated
Fibre Cement Panels -
15,3 1,28 -
(Colour) Coated
Mortar (1:3 cement:sand
1,33 0,208 0,221
mix)
Mortar (1:4) 1,11 0,171 0,182
Mortar (1:5) 0,97 0,146 0,156
Mortar (1:6) 0,85 0,127 0,136
Mortar (1:½:4½
1,34 0,2 0,213
Cement:Lime:Sand mix)
Mortar
(1:1:6 Cement:Lime:Sand 1,11 0,163 0,174
mix)
Mortar (1:2:9
1,03 0,145 0,155
Cement:Lime:Sand mix)
Cement stabilised soil @
0,68 0,06 0,061
5%
Cement stabilised soil @
0,83 0,082 0,084
8%
General 10 0,66 0,7
Fittings 20 1,07 1,14
Ceramics
Sanitary Products 29 1,51 1,61
Tiles and Cladding Panels 12 0,74 0,78
General (Simple Baked
3 0,23 0,24
Clay Products)
Tile 6,5 0,45 0,48
General 0,75 0,1 0,107
16/20 Mpa 0,7 0,093 0,1
20/25 MPa 0,74 0,1 0,107
Concrete 25/30 MPa 0,78 0,106 0,113
28/35 MPa 0,82 0,112 0,12
32/40 MPa 0,88 0,123 0,132
40/50 MPa 1 0,141 0,151
EU Tube & Sheet 42 2,6 2,71
Virgin 57 3,65 3,81
Copper Recycled 16,5 0,8 0,84
Recycled from high grade
18 1.1 -
scrap

6
 Recycled from low grade
50 3.1 -
scrap
Primary Glass 15 0,86 0,91
Secondary Glass 11,5 0,55 0,59
Glass
Fibreglass (Glasswool) 28 1,54 -
Toughened 23,5 1,27 1,35
General Insulation 45 1,86 -
Mineral wool 16,6 1,2 1,28
Insulation Paper wool 20,17 0,63 -
Rockwool 16,8 1,05 1,12
Wool (Recycled) 20,9 - -
Iron General 25 1.91 2,03
Asbestos 7,4 - -
Cotton, Fabric 143 6,78 -
Grit 0,115 0,007 -
Ground Limestone 0,62 0,032 -
Carpet Grout 30,8 - -
Miscellane Glass Reinforced Plastic -
ous 100 8,1 -
Fibreglass
Mineral Fibre Tile
37 2,7 -
(Roofing)
Silicon 2355 - -
Slag (GGBS) 1,6 0,083 -
Water 0,01 0,0008 -
General 70 2,42 2,91
Paint Waterborne Paint 59 2,12 2,54
Solventborne Paint 97 3,13 3,76
Paperboard (General for
Paper 24,8 1,29 -
construction use)
General 80,5 2,73 3,31
General Polyethylene 83,1 2,04 2,54
Plastics Polycarbonate 112,9 6,03 7,62
PVC General 77,2 2,61 3,1
PVC Pipe 67,5 2,56 3,23
Rubber General 91 2,66 2,85
Sand General 0,081 0,0048 0,0051
General - UK (EU)
Average Recycled 20,1 1,37 1,46
Steel Content
Virgin 35,4 2,71 2,89
Recycled 9,4 0,44 0,47
0.30fos+0.41bi 0.31fos+0.41bi
General 10
o o
0.37fos+0.35bi 0.39fos+0.35bi
Timber MDF 11
o o
0.42fos+0.65bi 0.45fos+0.65bi
Plywood 15
o o

7
Due to the great quantity and diversity of types and constructive processes, it is advisable
to compare the information with different available databases, which allow us to have in
a more approximate way values of EC that can be better adjusted to the project to which
we want to apply. For this reason we present other databases for the calculation of EC
that includes all materials, the life cycle database (DB LCI) [10] of building materials, as
provided in the DB LCI developed by the Institute of Industry and Korea Environmental
Technology according to the ISO 14044 process, and the national D/B for environmental
information.

8
Table 2 Embodied carbon of representative materials [10]

EC from representative materials (kg CO2e/m2)

Construction materials min max median mean
Ready-mixed concrete 242,83 672,53 359,89 374,77
Rebar 25,02 64,69 36,08 38,72
Cement 10,15 199,66 40,3 52
Plaster board 0,001 5,85 0,68 1,11
Plywood 0,002 15,33 0,72 1,81
Granite 4,88 353,41 54,9 95,15
Insulation 0,40 29,15 4,38 7,17
Glass 0,06 40,19 6,58 8,25
Paint 0,02 4,73 0,82 0,98

In the table 2, a bill of quantities (BOQs) was collected for buildings with reinforced
concrete structures according to the sample scope. To ensure diversity, they were
collected for buildings of various use types, such as residential, commercial, and
educational buildings. Further, buildings whose construction began less than 10 years
ago or that was currently under construction were studied. A total of 43 cases were
collected from 11 detached houses, 10 apartment complexes, eight public offices, seven
commercial buildings, and seven educational buildings. In the case of educational
buildings, data were collected for four elementary schools, one middle school, and two
high schools.
The values in this table represent the amount of EC of each material for each m2 of
construction performed; these values are found statistically based on the values of the
cases that were taken as reference in this study.

Table 3: Embodied carbon using representative materials in case buildings. [10]

Total EC and EC using representative materials in case buildings (kg CO2e/m2)

Detache Apartment Public Commercia Educationa Communit
Item
d houses s offices l buildings l facilities y facilities
(A)
1158,12 704,04 673,67 457,93 419,74 960,35
Total EC
(B)
Representativ 911,22 647,49 611,69 436,43 376,08 938,81
e materials EC
(B/A) 90,80
78,68% 91,97% 95,30% 89,60% 97,76%
Proportion %

For more accurate, with the detailed and comprehensive understanding of the
characteristics of CO2 emissions of buildings in materialization stage, for estimates of
EC are presented in a general database, based on studies that collect large amounts of
engineering quantity data of office building construction in China [10].

9
 Table 4: Analysis of the consumption and CO2 emissions of construction materials [11].

Analysis of the consumption and CO2 emissions of construction materials

Super High-rise
Multi-story buildings High-rise buildings Weighted averge
buildings
Item
EC EC EC EC
Material Material Material Material
(kgCO2/m2) (kgCO2/m2) (kgCO2/m2) (kgCO2/m2)

Steel (kg) 53,18 47,58 64,51 57,72 72,60 64,96 56,64 22,43
Cement
0,36 97,08 0,43 116,92 0,58 157,52 119,89 47,48
(m3)
Plaster
65,55 44,95 54,36 37,28 39,49 27,08 37,19 14,73
(kg)
Brick
0,46 15,54 0,44 14,69 0,21 7,19 13,45 5,33
(m3)
Template
0,85 0,29 1,03 0,35 1,35 0,46 0,36 0,14
(m2)
Windows
0,30 8,21 0,34 9,73 0,45 19,08 11,16 4,42
(m2)
Insulation
0,01 2,28 0,01 2,56 0,02 4,21 2,81 1,11
(m3)
Others - 9,57 - 10,85 - 13,46 11,04 4,37
Total - 225,50 - 250,10 - 293,96 252,54 100,01

The table 4 shows the consumption and CO2 emissions of construction materials of Civil
Engineering. We can find the followings: the higher the building is, the higher the
consumption of steel and concrete. The steel consumption per unit area of super high-
rise office building is 40% greater than that of multi-storey building, and the concrete
consumption 60% greater. Higher building requires higher structural strength and it will
increase steel consumption because steel is the major structural material of reinforced
concrete structure; with the increase of building height, the cross-sectional area of
architectural beam and column rises dramatically and the concrete consumption will
increase because concrete is a compressive material of building structure. Steel
reinforcement and concrete are the major construction materials of reinforced concrete
building, and when they are calculated in CO2 emissions, it can be found that CO2
emissions of steel reinforcement and concrete of high-rise buildings are 1.2 times that of
multi-storey buildings while CO2 emissions of super high-rise buildings are 1.5 times that
of multi-storey buildings [11].
Table 5: CO2 emissions per unit area of each itemized project and the proportion they make up [11].

CO2 emissions per unit area of each itemized project and the proportion they make up
Super High-rise
Item Multi-story buildings High-rise buildings Weighted averge
buildings
EC EC EC EC
(%) (%) (%) (%)
(kgCO2/m2) (kgCO2/m2) (kgCO2/m2) (kgCO2/m2)
Civil
215,93 79,39 239,25 78,04 280,51 69,83 241,50 76,32
Engineering
Water supply
and sewage 2,02 0,74 2,59 0,84 7,45 1,85 3,39 1,07
Engineering
Electrical
2,22 0,82 3,45 1,13 9,99 2,49 4,41 1,39
engineering
HVAC
4,35 1,60 6,82 2,22 21,47 5,34 9,04 2,86
engineering
Decoration
28,93 10,64 30,15 9,83 36,62 9,12 31,10 9,83
engineering
Building
18,54 6,82 24,30 7,93 45,66 11,37 27,00 8,53
construction
Total 271,99 100 306,56 100 401,70 100 316,44 100

10
On the basis of statistical results, of the EC that produces each building material and the
EC produced at each stage of a particular project, we can obtain the proportion of circular
graphs of CO2 emissions, approximately in the stage of formation of the building and of
the CO2 emissions of the main building materials, as shown in Fig. 6. This shows clearly
which material in the stage of building formation generates the greatest amount of CO2
emissions. These values are variable as mentioned before but they are a very important
tool to know where to start the EC analysis in a construction Project.

Figure 6: The proportion pie charts of CO2 emissions of each itemized project in building formation stage
and of CO2 emissions of major construction materials [12]

Collective housing building

Figure 7: Decomposition of collective housing building in functional elements [12]

It is very difficult to quantify the values of embodied energy and embodied carbon and
above all generalizes it to use directly in the construction of houses, buildings or any type
of structure, since there are many specific variables in each type of construction that is
done. But it is very important to have an initial parameter so it is advisable to refer to the
available databases, as in the case of collective housing construction, (figure 7), each of
the which has been defined in terms of the constitution of materials, which varies
according to each region in which it is analysed. It should be noted that this process step
can be repeated for other building practices and / or for other types of buildings. The
building elements taken into account in this approach generally represent approximately
60% of the EE of a building and 70% of its CE [12].

11
Table 6: Composition of collective housing building’s functional elements and associated characterization
factors [12].

EMBODIED
FUNTIONAL EMBODIED CARBON
COMPOSITION ENERGY
ELEMENT FACTOR
FACTOR
Shallow foundations - reinforced
Foundations - concrete 2749 MJ/m3 272 kgCO2e/m3
Footings
Footings: 80 cm x 40 cm section
Foundations - Base Reinforced concrete walls: 20 cm 638 MJ/m2 62 kgCO2e/m2
Reinforced concretelsab-on-grade: 20
Basement - Floor 547 MJ/m2 54 kgCO2e/m2
cm
Basement -
Reinforced concrete walls: 20 cm 3190 MJ/m3 311 kgCO2e/m3
Structure
Basement - Walls Reinforced concrete walls: 20 cm 638 MJ/m2 62 kgCO2e/m2

Reinforced concrete slab: 25 cm

Ground floor 908 MJ/m2 85 kgCO2e/m2
Insulation: 16 cm rock wool
Intermediate floors Reinforced concrete slab: 20 cm 609 MJ/m2 67 kgCO2e/m2

Reinforced concrete slab: 20 cm

Bituminous vapor barrier
Roof Insulation: 20 cm polyurethane 1731 MJ/m2 134 kgCO2e/m2
Coating of asphalt sealant
Terrace roof concrete tiles
Reinforced concrete wall: 20 cm
Exterior walls Insulation: 14 cm glass wool 766 MJ/m2 67 kgCO2e/m2
Plaster lining: 1.3 cm plasterboard
Windows Double glazed PVC windows 3440 MJ/m2 137 kgCO2e/m2
Structure Reinforced concrete walls: 20 cm 3190 MJ/m3 311 kgCO2e/m3
Plasterboards (2x1.3 cm) on metal
Partitions 630 MJ/m2 28 kgCO2e/m2
framework

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

“Life Cycle Assessment is potentially the most important method for assessing the overall
environmental impact of products, processes or services. It is the principle tool used to
assess the environmental impacts of a product, process or service from design to
disposal i.e. across it entire lifecycle” (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2009 link). [3]

Figure 8: Life Cycle Assessment process (dcarbon8, 2009) [13]

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is one of the most accepted and widely used tools to
evaluate and quantify the material and energy flows in a building. The system boundaries
normally drawn in LCA are cradle to cradle. As stipulated in ISO 14040, LCA comprises
of four stages namely; Goal and Scope definition, Life Cycle Inventory (LCI), Impact

12
assessment and, Interpretation. Figure 8 shows stages of LCA as stipulated in ISO
14040, 2006.

Figure 9: LCA Stages as per ISO 14040, 2006[14]

In the above four stages, second stage involves in quantification of material and energy
inputs, third stage involves impact assessment due to these inputs. Impact assessment
is then interpreted in terms of energy consumption and GHG emissions in aggregation.
There are two commonly accepted LCA methods, Process method and Input-output
method. Both these methods have their own limitations due to lack of reliable data
available and various processes involved.
In the simplest terms, embodied carbon is calculated by finding the quantity of all
materials needed for the building’s lifetime and multiplying this by the carbon factor
(expressed in kg CO2e per kg of material/product) for each material to produce the
embodied carbon figure.
The complexity arises from the fact that there is no one single source of accurate and
exhaustive data, based on the same parameters of assessment. Not all carbon factors
for materials/products consider the carbon associated with the same boundaries of life
cycle. Some carbon factor calculations consider the carbon from “cradle to gate”, others
from “cradle to completed construction” and others consider the carbon from “cradle to
end of life and recycling/reuse”.
In this study we will focus on the study of embodied carbon mainly in the stage called
"cradle to completed construction", since analyzing the entire life cycle of building
materials requires additionally consider the operational carbon that is based on many
variables additional necessary to consider a complete stage "Cradle-to-gave", which are
outside the study range of this literature review.[15]

13
Cradle to completed construction. - Cradle to gate plus delivery to the site construction
and assembly on-site.

Figure 10: Boundaries of life cycle assessment in stage cradle to completed construction. (Image adapted
from Tata Steel and BCSA, Steel construction: embodied carbon) [15]

The study of the “cradle to complete construction” stage requires the analysis of many
databases that mainly consider the step-by-step analysis from the extraction of the
materials and the monitoring of the embodied carbon within the other phases (eg
transport of product to site, storage of products, wastage, waste processing of packaging
and product waste, installation of product in the building including ancillary materials and
water and energy required) until the construction stage has been completed. The
following diagram shows the main points to be considered in order to obtain much more
real embodied carbon values that in turn allow us to know in which part the most
embodied carbon is produced and how we can reduce as much as possible to achieve
project of low environmental impact [14].

Figure 11: Basic outline of production and transportation of materials and building components [16].

14
Carbon Footprinting Buildings
Buildings comprise over 45% of the UK’s total CO2 emissions and the UK Government
has committed to a reduction of 34% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 against 1990 levels. For
buildings this includes not only the CO2 emitted during the ongoing operation of a
building but also those emissions associated with manufacture and construction of the
building. The sum of these two parts is the Total Carbon Footprint.
Total Carbon Footprint = Initial net embodied CO2e + Lifetime net operational CO2e
As previously mentioned, the objective of this literature review is to focus on the study of
embodied carbon, since day by day the embodied carbon and its great environmental
impact are taking much more importance in many countries. Similarly, when we consider
the total carbon footprint to speak of embodied carbon, it is to speak of what is called
"initial net embodied CO2e". In the following figures you can see a clear example that
shows as a percentage the large amount of embodied coal that is produced and
generally this example are replicated in a similar way in many of the construction projects
that are carried out around the world.

Figure 12: Carbon Footprinting example; Sainsbury’s Retail Store, Dartmouth [17]

In Figure 12, Example Sainsbury’s Retail Store, Dartmouth published by (dcarbon8,

2009) can be seen the example of Carbon Footprint in which we can see that the
embodied carbon corresponding to 96%, the embodied carbon created and the 4%
corresponds to the estimated carbon produced by demolition and other activities not
estimated in the other groups.

15
Figure 13: Example; Kingdom St, Paddington Basin, London [13]

In Figure 13, Example Kingdom St, Paddington Basin, London published by (dcarbon8,
2009) can be seen the example of Carbon Footprint in which we can see that the
embodied carbon in material corresponding to 85%, the embodied carbon created in the
construction it represents 13% and the 2% corresponds to the estimated carbon
produced by demolition.
To date, the focus has been on reducing operational CO2 emissions through energy
efficiency and renewable energy initiatives. To a large extent, the embodied carbon
element has been ignored, however as buildings become more efficient the relevant
importance of measuring and tackling carbon within the supply chain is increasing.
The operational CO2 savings that are designed into a new building span the life of the
building which is typically 60 years or more. Embodied carbon savings, which are made
by both low carbon material specification and by engagement with the supply chain, are
immediate. Hence embodied carbon is should be regarded as being as important as
energy efficiency during design phase of new buildings. This factor has become the
fundamental pillar in order to achieve the maximum reduction of CO2e emissions, which
is not only the objective that is expected at the local level, but is also the great objective
that is sought worldwide to achieve sustainable development.

16
References
[1] S. Lockie and P. Berebecki, “Methodology to calculate embodied carbon of materials” RICS QS
Constr. Stand., no. 1st, pp. 1–33, 2012. (https://www.fgould.com/uk-europe/articles/embodied-
carbon-q-sean-lockie-director-carbon-and- (visited december 2017).

[2] Architecture 2030, “2030 Challenge for Products: Critical Points” p. 5, 2011. ?(
https://www.buildinggreen.com/news-article/new-hub-information-and-action-embodied-carbon-
and-2030-challenge-products) (visited december 2017),

[3] D. McNicholl, “Embodied Carbon in construction materials” pp. 2–4, 2009.

(https://www.2degreesnetwork.com/groups/2degrees-community/resources/embodied-carbon-
construction/attachments/8444/) (visited december 2017).

[4] UK Green Building Council, “Tackling embodied carbon in buildings” no. 1135153, 2015.
(https://www.ukgbc.org/sites/default/files/Tackling embodied carbon in buildings.pdf) (visited
december 2017).

[5] RICS, Global Methodology to Calculate Embodied Carbon. 2014.

(http://www.rics.org/nz/knowledge/professional-guidance/guidance-notes/methodology-to-
calculate-embodied-carbon-global-guidance-note-1st-edition/) (visited december 2017).

[6] Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, “Defra Open Data Strategy Refreshed as part
of the UK Open Government Partnership (OGP) Action Plan” no. December, p. 29, 2013. (https://uk-
air.defra.gov.uk/data/) (visited december 2017).

[7] J. Anderson and J. Thornback, “A guide to understanding the embodied impacts of construction
products” Constr. Prod. Assoc., pp. 1–53, 2012. (http://www.c-a-b.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/Guide_understanding_the_embodied_impacts_of_construction_products.pdf)
(visited december 2017)

[8] G. P. Hammond and C. I. Jones, “Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials” Proc. Inst.
Civ. Eng. - Energy, vol. 161, no. 2, pp. 87–98, 2008.(
http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/10.1680/ener.2008.161.2.87) (visited december 2017).

[9] C. Hammond, G. & Jones, “Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE) version 1.5 Beta, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, UK.” p. 136, 2006.
(http://www.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/6/8/17687809/ice_v2.0_-_jan_2011.xls) (visited december
2017)

[10] G. Kang, T. Kim, Y. W. Kim, H. Cho, and K. I. Kang, “Statistical analysis of embodied carbon
emission for building construction” Energy Build., vol. 105, pp. 326–333, 2015.

[11] Z. Luo, L. Yang, and J. Liu, “Embodied carbon emissions of office building: A case study of China’s
78 office buildings” Build. Environ., vol. 95, pp. 365–371, 2016.

[12] M. Lotteau, P. Loubet, and G. Sonnemann, “An analysis to understand how the shape of a concrete
residential building influences its embodied energy and embodied carbon” Energy Build., vol. 154,
pp. 1–11, 2017.

[13] T. Siantonas, “Carbon impacts in design and and constructions: Greeening spply chains and
manging embodied carbon,” (Deloite dcarbon8), no. October, 2010.(
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/results?searchtext=life cycle assessment 2009) (visited december 2017).

[14] A. Sabnis and M. R. Pranesh, “Life Cycle Energy Analysis in Buildings and Sustainability
Assessment : A Literature Review American” Am. J. Eng. Res. ( AJER ), no. 6, pp. 123–135, 2017.

[15] Barrett-Byrd Associates, “STEEL CONSTRUCTION Embodied Carbon,” Slimdek UKC are
trademarks Tata Steel, no. September, 2014.(
http://www.steelconstruction.info/index.php?title=Special:ImagePage&t=Steel+construction+-
+Embodied+Carbon.pdf&internal_link=1) (visited december 2017).

[16] G. Heravi, T. Nafisi, and R. Mousavi, “Evaluation of energy consumption during production and
construction of concrete and steel frames of residential buildings” Energy Build., vol. 130, pp. 244–
252, 2016.

[17] T. Siantonas, “Sustainable Future Sustainability Services, (Deloite Group services),” Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu (“DTT”), no. November, 2010.
(http://www.policyreview.tv/document_stream.php?document_id=3378&conf_id=474.) (visited
december 2017).

17