Concrete Europe and ERMCO have developed a comparative analysis of different methodologies used to calculate the Whole-Life Global Warming Potential (GWP) of buildings.

The analysis examines how methodological choices – including system boundaries, reference study periods, service life, durability, maintenance and replacement, end-of-life scenarios, carbonation, reuse and recycling – can influence the results of lifecycle carbon assessments.

A key message of the guide is the importance of properly considering the durability and service life of construction materials. Long-lasting materials and solutions that require fewer replacements and interventions can help reduce impacts over the building’s lifecycle, and these benefits should be appropriately reflected in Whole-Life GWP calculations.

The comparison highlights that different methodologies and assumptions can lead to different GWP results. Consistent system boundaries, transparent assumptions and appropriate consideration of durability and replacement cycles are therefore essential for meaningful comparisons between building and material solutions.

The guide supports a whole-life approach that looks beyond initial embodied carbon and considers the environmental performance of buildings and materials throughout their entire service life.

Whole-Life GWP should reflect not only how a building is constructed, but also how long its materials last and perform.

Documents

Full Guide – Comparative Analysis of Whole-Life Carbon Assessment.
The complete Concrete Europe and ERMCO analysis, including the methodologies compared, key parameters, assumptions and detailed findings.

Short Version – Comparative Analysis of Whole-Life Carbon Assessment.
A concise summary of the main findings, methodological differences and recommendations, including the importance of durability and service life in Whole-Life GWP assessments.