Embodied carbon is now a part of many BIM workflows. But if you’re only working with material category averages, you’re measuring the problem, not solving it. It’s time to put product-level data into the model while design decisions are still open, says Phanos Hadjikyriakou, co-founder of 2050 Materials
Embodied carbon has moved from the edge of BIM into everyday design work. According to the NBS Digital Construction Report 2025, three in five construction professionals now measure embodied carbon digitally, and over half use digital tools for life-cycle assessment (LCA), up from one in three two years earlier.
That is progress, but much of it rests on generic material factors. These show what a material category costs in carbon on average, not which product, from which manufacturer, gives the lowest figure while still meeting the brief. For architects, design managers, and quantity surveyors working towards a carbon target, that second question delivers meaningful reductions.
Generic carbon values can only take us so far
The industry has worked hard to make measuring embodied carbon easier. Generic material factors have their place, because they let teams attach a carbon value to model elements from the concept stage, long before any product is chosen. That matters, because the biggest savings are made early. But a category average has limits. Two products can meet the same performance spec with very different carbon footprints. A generic value treats them as one.
Consistency has long been a weak point too. An AECOM assessment for the government found embodied carbon results varied by up to 70% depending on the method used. With averaged inputs and differing methods, reporting is hard to defend.
What product-level carbon data changes
Environmental product declarations (EPDs) close the gap between benchmarks and reality. An EPD is a third-party verified record of one manufacturer’s product, reporting the impacts it declares against the lifecycle modules in BS EN 15804, from raw materials and manufacturing through transport, installation, repair and replacement to eventual disposal, reuse or recycling. Bring EPD data into BIM, and teams can compare like-for-like products against the same brief, see a fuller lifecycle picture and trace numbers back to source.
This matters more as LCA tools get smarter. Automated analysis, scenario modelling and AI can all speed up assessment, but any tool is only as good as its data. If the inputs are averages, no amount of processing will tell one product from another. There’s also a behavioural benefit. When data for the lower-carbon option already sits inside your tool, no one has to go hunting for it. The more sustainable choice becomes the easiest choice.
Turner & Townsend and Mott MacDonald: product data where decisions are made
Turner & Townsend treats cost and carbon as the ‘dual currencies’ of construction. Its Embodied Carbon Calculator (ECC) produces embodied carbon assessments aligned with RICS WLCA v2, covering every building element.
Carbon analysis in the ECC starts at RIBA Stage 2, while design options are still open, so teams see the cost and carbon impact of each option together and avoid redesign later. To do that at scale, Turner & Townsend needed a reliable, digital material data backbone.
In early 2026, Turner & Townsend connected its ECC to 2050 Materials. The 2050 Materials platform collects EPDs from many programme operators in different formats, then normalises them into one consistent dataset of over 200,000 products. ECC now queries a single data layer, and manual reconciliation is a thing of the past. Each product carries harmonised values for the EPD modules it reports (A to D), along with validity dates, manufacturer details and a direct link to the original EPD. Mark Rogers, Head of Net Zero Carbon, Cost Management UK at Turner & Townsend, says the integration strengthens the firm’s ability to measure embodied carbon “with the same discipline as cost”.
Mott MacDonald’s Moata Carbon Portal, an infrastructure carbon calculator aligned to PAS 2080, also draws on 2050 Materials, which was the first EPD source added to the portal. Users can bring manufacturer-specific products into their carbon designs alongside other datasets and track embodied carbon from early design through to completion.
Closing construction’s carbon reporting gap
The case for better data is getting stronger. The Carbon Budget and Growth Delivery Plan signals that the government will begin promoting whole-life carbon assessment from 2028, the start of Carbon Budget 5.
Beyond this, category averages will be hard to justify wherever product data exists. For design teams, the practical step is to use generic factors early, switch to manufacturer EPDs as products are specified, and record the source of every figure. Manufacturers, BIM library providers and software developers all have a part to play in getting verified product data into the model, and much to gain from doing so early.
