Energy Policy 168 (2022) 112920

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

A review of existing policy for reducing embodied energy and greenhouse

gas emissions of buildings
Katie Skillington *, Robert H. Crawford , Georgia Warren-Myers , Kathryn Davidson
Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The building sector is a significant contributor to global energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions and thus
Embodied energy has a major role in combating climate change. To date, efforts to address this issue have focussed on reducing
Embodied greenhouse gas emissions energy demand during building operation, resulting in significant reductions in this area. However, recent
Buildings
studies have shown that substantial improvements to operational energy efficiency have increased the relative
Policy
Governance
significance of indirect or embodied energy demands and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Subsequently,
policies addressing this next frontier of energy and emissions reductions are emerging. To understand different
approaches and inform future development, this study reviews existing policy mechanisms targeting embodied
energy and greenhouse gas emissions in the building sector for four countries – Australia, Canada, USA and
United Kingdom. The study found that voluntary instruments dominate the policy landscape, with regulatory
measures largely absent at national levels and confined to inconsistent application across lower levels of
governance. Signals of change emerging from the analysis include growing private sector investment and
increasing quantitative targets for reduction. The study concludes with the challenges facing this sector of energy
governance, alongside recommendations for regulated caps, mandatory LCA reporting, prerequisite requirements
in voluntary instruments, data accessibility and resolving methodological inconsistencies.

1. Introduction of performance – the share of embodied energy (EE) and embodied GHG
(EGHG) emissions is becoming more significant. Forecast economic and
In developed countries, building and construction is often one of the population growth will see an additional 230 billion square metres of
most energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) intensive sectors (International floor area constructed globally by 2060, further highlighting the sig­
Energy Agency, 2014). Buildings are responsible for approximately 32% nificance of EE and EGHG emissions reduction as a key strategy for
of global final energy use, 17% of direct CO2 emissions and one third of mitigating the climate impact of buildings (UN Environment and In­
indirect emissions (International Energy Agency, 2013; Lucon et al., ternational Energy Agency, 2017). Therefore, to achieve significant
2014). As such, the sector is under pressure to significantly adapt current future reductions in energy demand and GHG emissions within the
practice to align with global efforts to combat climate change. Recently, building sector and subsequently contribute to global climate change
a range of measures have been developed to address these concerns, action, it is essential that EE and EGHG emissions are addressed.
from mandatory regulations to voluntary assessment tools. However, There is an increasing amount of literature concerning the reduction
the majority have concentrated on reducing operational energy demand of EE and EGHG emissions in buildings, ranging from the stand­
and associated GHG emissions of buildings (i.e. those associated to ardisation of calculation methods to the use of smart retrofit proposals in
heating, cooling, cooking, appliances and lighting), leaving energy/GHG decarbonising the sector (Tarabieh and Khorshed, 2019). However,
emissions associated with the embodied life cycle stage (i.e. the initial limited research has examined policy or governance considerations for
construction of the building and the recurrent replacement/mainte­ EE and EGHG emissions reductions. Studies that have adopted this focus
nance of its materials throughout its life) largely ignored (De Wolf et al., fail to provide a detailed comparative review of policy mechanisms
2017). As the operational efficiency of buildings has increased – due to across multiple regions and levels of governance. An understanding of
advances in standards, regulations and technologies targeting this area existing efforts will help the sector identify signals of change, create

* Corresponding author. Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
E-mail address: k.skillington@student.unimelb.edu.au (K. Skillington).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112920
Received 16 August 2021; Received in revised form 15 February 2022; Accepted 14 March 2022
Available online 21 June 2022
0301-4215/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Skillington et al. Energy Policy 168 (2022) 112920

policy mechanisms that mutually reinforce one another, and build 2.2. Growing importance of embodied energy in the move to zero energy
synergies across borders to achieve global objectives. In the interests of buildings
propelling further development in EE and EGHG emissions abatement
within the building sector, this study addresses this gap by undertaking a Depending on the building typology, location, material use, assess­
comparative analysis of EE/EGHG emissions policy mechanisms across ment method and assumptions, Chastas et al. (2016) demonstrated that
four countries. the share of EE in the total life cycle energy of a building can range from
The paper is structured as follows: a background on EE and EGHG 26% for some low-energy buildings to almost 100% for nearly zero
emissions (including definition), followed by articulation of the frame­ energy buildings (nZEB). In some regions – particularly where the en­
work for the policy analysis, which is applied to a detailed analysis of EE ergy grid is decarbonised or rapidly transitioning to decarbonisation –
and EGHG emission policies across four countries: Australia, the United EGHG emissions are more likely to be higher than operational GHG
States of America (USA), Canada, and the United Kingdom (UK). This emissions (Bionova Ltd, 2018).
policy analysis identifies possible signals of change and is followed by a To date, policy actions associated with buildings have largely
discussion of key priorities moving forward in regulating EE and EGHG concentrated on operational energy and related GHG emissions, rather
emissions. The paper concludes with consideration of potential future than broader life cycle concerns such as EE and EGHG emissions.
actions that decision makers can take to address building-related EE and Governance of building-related operational energy use and GHG emis­
EGHG emissions. sions is common in many regions. For example, 41 countries have
mandatory residential building codes for operational energy, and in at
2. Background on embodied energy and greenhouse gas least 85 countries building energy certifications, ratings or labels are
emissions present (Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction et al., 2019).
However, as industry and governments continue to focus on reducing
2.1. Definition the operational energy requirements of buildings through the creation of
building codes and promotion of low-energy buildings strategies, the
This paper defines a building’s embodied energy (EE) as the sum of share of embodied energy in the total life cycle of buildings is increasing
all energy required by a building in the production, construction, (Chastas et al., 2017).
refurbishment or maintenance, and end-of-life stages – including energy Net-zero or low-energy principles in building design and construc­
necessary for raw material extraction, manufacturing, transportation, tion are often reliant on more energy- or carbon-intensive building
construction, and demolition. It is typically reported in non-renewable fabric or assemblies to ensure buildings remain fit-for-purpose (Seo
primary energy terms to capture the depletion of non-renewable re­ et al., 2016). Increasingly, aims for net-zero or low-energy buildings are
sources and acknowledge differences in electricity generation between making their way into policy mechanisms of major jurisdictions or exist
countries (International Energy Agency, 2016). Embodied greenhouse in popular voluntary instruments. For example, the Government of
gas (EGHG) emissions are the total greenhouse gases emitted from British Columbia have established the BC Energy Step Code as part of a
processes involved in the life cycle stages of a building listed above roadmap to ensure buildings are net-zero energy ready by 2032 in the
(International Energy Agency, 2016). This has also been referred to as province (Government of British Columbia, 2018), and the City of
embodied carbon by some researchers and organisations (United Sydney is developing standards that aim for net-zero energy in their
Kingdom Green Building Council, 2017). In this study, the term EGHG statutory planning system (City of Sydney, 2021). Although there re­
emissions is used synonymously with embodied carbon, although the mains a need to continually lower operational energy, without concur­
former is a more scientifically accurate representation of what is being rent oversight of EE and EGHG emissions there is potential for these
measured. operational savings to be offset by more EE and EGHG emissions
A common tool used to quantify EE and EGHG emissions of products intensive materials and assemblies.
and processes is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA evaluates the po­
tential environmental effects of products holistically, including direct 3. Methodology
and supply chain effects (Lenzen et al., 2014). LCAs of buildings quantify
relevant inputs (such as water, energy and raw materials) and the sub­ The purpose of this study is to analyse the extent to which EE and
sequent outputs (such as atmospheric emissions and waste) to determine EGHG emission reductions are included in policy mechanisms targeting
environmental effects across the selected life cycle stages of a building. the building sector in four key countries. A broad definition of ‘policy’ is
While consideration of EE and EGHG emissions of buildings is adopted in this study and encompasses mechanisms instigated by pri­
growing, it is generally limited to the selection of low EE or EGHG vate (non-government organisations, registration bodies, and private
emission materials. Full LCAs of buildings remain uncommon and thus companies) and public sector entities (governments, regulatory au­
the life cycle implications of material and assembly choices are not often thorities). The study examines policy mechanisms that explicitly address
addressed. Several reasons exist for the limited consideration of EE/ EE/EGHG emissions of buildings and does not include draft proposals
EGHG emissions in buildings, including uncertainties and in­ for future EE/EGHG emission abatement, policies from allied industries
consistencies in EE/EGHG emission quantification techniques, and the (such as manufacturing) or broader environmental policies (such as
sector’s long-term focus on operational energy consumption and related economy-wide carbon taxes). Categories of policy mechanisms vary
GHG emissions (International Energy Agency, 2016). Furthermore, across different fields and literature, however those examined in this
historically it was believed that EE/EGHG emissions of buildings were study are divided into three categories: regulatory measures, voluntary
comparatively insignificant, representing as little as 10% of a building’s instruments, and economic incentives (Fig. 1). Each category has its own
life cycle energy demand and associated emissions (Ramesh et al., merits and weaknesses depending on the objectives under which it is
2010). The development of more sophisticated assessment techniques evaluated and the context of its conceptualisation, application and
(Crawford et al., 2018) and improved building operational efficiency has enforcement.
shown that EE and EGHG emissions can represent a significant propor­ The countries considered in this study are Australia, Canada, USA,
tion of the total life cycle energy demand and emissions of a building and the UK. The selection of these four countries was motivated by their
(Crawford, 2014). shared characteristics; all use English in policy documents, each has
developed an internationally recognised green building rating tool
(Kibert, 2016, p. 132), and each respective country’s total GHG emis­
sions are amongst the highest in the OECD (OECD, 2020). While pro­
gression in policy is not necessarily correlated with high environmental

2
K. Skillington et al. Energy Policy 168 (2022) 112920

Fig. 1. A description of the three categories of policy mechanisms - adapted from Costantini et al. (2017); Kaufmann-Hayoz et al. (2001); Kibert (2002).

impact, and in fact, the opposite could be argued, the selection will help
Table 1
provide insight into current policy actions in countries where it is most
Attributes of policy mechanisms considered in the analysis.
needed.
Policy mechanisms were initially identified by searching the Inter­ Attribute Description

national Energy Agency’s (IEA) Policy Database and limiting results to Name Name of the mechanism examined
those mechanisms in-force and pertaining to buildings. The IEA is a Type Type of mechanism following the three categories described in
Fig. 1
long-established, intergovernmental organisation that has been noted as
Administrator Organisation or institution responsible for the creation or
a leading agency in global energy policy and governance (Florini, 2011; administration of the mechanism
Van de Graaf, 2012). Cues, institutions, and themes identified from the Scale Scale of application (e.g. city-based/local government, state/
IEA Policy Database search results were subsequently used to locate province/territory, national, regional, international)
further mechanisms and initiatives via web search. This method of Typology The building typology to which the mechanism is applied
Target The goal, target or objectives of the mechanism
obtaining and sampling policy mechanisms via a two-stage search was Date Date of the mechanism being published and/or (if applicable)
adopted due to the diversity and rapidly changing nature of the infor­ implementation date
mation being sought. As the policy landscape for EE/EGHG emission
reduction in buildings is in its infancy, the available information is
fragmented. As such, this study presents the mechanisms that were implementation). An analysis that solely considers the quantity of pol­
identified, but cannot be deemed an exhaustive review of all mecha­ icies and disregards policy output may lead to an erroneous under­
nisms present at the time of publication. standing of a country’s progress in EE/EGHG emission governance. For
Policies from the following levels of administration were considered: example, one country may have a significant quantity of low-intensity
city/local government, state/province/territory, and national. Policies policies, whereas another may have fewer yet more intense policies.
developed by national bodies located in one of the four countries but Therefore, dimensions of density and intensity were considered
applicable internationally were not excluded. Policies examined were concurrently to mitigate the risk of misrepresenting progress. The den­
limited to those focussed on the construction, design or performance of a sity and intensity of the policies reviewed have been determined by the
building as the end-product and/or functional unit. In this review, authors using a grading scale described in Table 2.
‘building’ refers to a habitable structure of any scale but excludes It is important to note that this analysis does not consider the effect of
infrastructure such as roads. The building typologies considered in this the policies assessed, and in this sense is an ex-ante assessment. This is
analysis are adapted from the National Construction Code’s Building
Classifications Classes 1 through 9 (Australian Building Codes Board, Table 2
2020) and include residential, commercial, public, and industrial. In the Grading scale used for qualitative assessment of policy intensity.
description of policies, residential is disaggregated between single- (e.g., Intensity – Refers to the targets of the policy. The ‘intensity – targets’ measures
houses) and multiple-residential (e.g. apartments) buildings as they are Targets the extent of reduction in EE and EGHG emissions in the policy
often evaluated differently in policy mechanisms. Policies that are more objectives.
narrow-in-focus – for example, standards for appliances or singular Low (Low) No quantitative measure is offered for reductions, but it is
building products – were excluded. In Appendix A summary tables, very encouraged in policy wording
similar policies have been grouped into one-line items for brevity (for Med (Medium) A quantitative target of up to a 25% reduction in EE or EGHG
emissions compared to a baseline is included
example, statutory planning policies that make mention of EE/EGHG
Hi (High) Net zero objectives are included for either EE or EGHG emissions;
emission reduction in a limited way). or a quantitative target of more than 25% reduction in EE or
The review adopted a similar method to Ürge-Vorsatz et al. (2007), EGHG emissions compared to a baseline is included
whereby descriptive information for policies was extracted and tabu­ Intensity – Refers to the scope of the policy’s extent of application. The ‘intensity
lated to summarise and compare each of the policies examined (refer to Scope – scope’ measures the number of typologies affected by the policy and
Table 1). The object of this analysis was the policy output, which is is adapted from Knill et al. (2011). In this study: scale and scope are
defined as the objectives (ends) and mechanisms (means) of the policy used to determine ‘intensity – scope’.

(adapted from Howlett and Cashore, 2009). Low (Low) The mechanism is for a singular typology (e.g. commercial
To help identify signals of change in EE and EGHG emission gover­ buildings) at a local-based scale (e.g. city, shire or local
government area)
nance, two dimensions were assessed: policy density (the number of
Med (Medium) The mechanism is for multiple typologies at a local-or state-
policies in a particular country), and policy intensity, which is dis­ based scale, or for a single typology (e.g. public buildings) at a
aggregated between intensity of targets (the extent of reduction state, national or international scale
required/proposed by the policy) and intensity of scope (the degree of Hi (High) The mechanism is for at least 3 building typologies (including
penetration with respect to building typology and scale of one type of residential as a minimum) at a national or
international scale

3
K. Skillington et al. Energy Policy 168 (2022) 112920

due to the infancy of the EE and EGHG emission policy landscape for the EE and EGHG emissions are not yet in train, and there are not any direct
building sector and the fact that policy impact is typically affected by a or indirect incentives being offered.
plethora of exogenous factors, which are not accounted for in this work.
5. Embodied energy and GHG emissions governance in Canada
4. Embodied energy and GHG emissions governance in Australia
As summarised in Table A.2 of Appendix A, policies in Canada
Although Australia is the smallest nation by population and gross directly targeting EE and EGHG emissions vary in intensity. EE/EGHG
domestic product (GDP) of the four countries examined, a comparable emissions are also addressed in a range of ways in policy mechanisms –
quantity of policy mechanisms exists across all levels of governance. from consideration of EE and EGHG emissions during material specifi­
However, most of the mechanisms identified were voluntary in­ cation to quantitative reductions in comparison to a baseline. Similar to
struments, in the form of guidelines, rating tools and strategic planning Australia, Canada has no enforceable regulation of EE and EGHG
advice (as opposed to enforceable planning regulations). Furthermore, emissions in mandatory building codes such as the National Building
intensity (by scope and target) is weak, pronounced by a lack of na­ Code. Although the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and
tional, compulsory policy mechanisms that explicitly provide targets for Climate Change (PCFCGCC) acknowledges the potential for timber to
EE/EGHG emissions. Table A.1 in Appendix A outlines the policy store carbon and encourages its use in new construction (Environment
mechanisms that were identified in the Australian context and describes and Climate Change Canada, 2016a, p. 22), nothing beyond encour­
their key characteristics. agement is present. This is despite a working group informing PCFCGCC
The most significant gap identified is the absence of enforceable EE/ development remarking that carbon intensity targets for construction
EGHG emission regulation at a national and state level. The current would give greater attention to embodied carbon (Environment and
building code for Australia – known as the National Construction Code – Climate Change Canada, 2016b, pp. 146–151) and think-tanks advo­
has no mechanism for enforcing EE/EGHG emissions targets. The na­ cating for embodied carbon caps to be integrated into building codes
tional plan for low-energy buildings – the ‘Trajectory for Low Energy (Frappé-Sénéclauze, 2020). Despite the lack of code-based action, na­
Buildings’ – also focusses solely on operational emissions and energy tional leadership was identified in the Greening Government Strategy,
demand. The absence of a national strategy directing the sector on how which calls for a 30% reduction in embodied carbon of structural ma­
to manage EE/EGHG emissions is echoed at lower levels of governance, terials in new government construction projects (Government of Can­
with state and city/local based policies typically offering guidance and ada, 2021).
advice, rather than enforceable regulatory measures. At the province/state and city-based levels, there are further mech­
At the city/local and state levels of governance, a common theme anisms that demonstrate awareness of EE and EGHG emissions abate­
identified is the recommendation to select/specify materials low in EE ment. For example, the City of Vancouver’s Green Buildings Policy for
during the planning and design phase of a building. In these measures, Rezoning (City of Vancouver, 2018) aims to develop a contextually
quantitative targets, a baseline to measure performance from, definition relevant evidence base to support future EGHG emissions reduction, and
of what constitutes a low-EE material, and details regarding enforce­ the Climate Emergency Big Move #5 (City of Vancouver, 2019) targets a
ment are typically not provided. For example, a guidance note published 40% reduction in EGHG emissions by 2030. These actions signal
by the South Australian state government outlines the EE of various commitment to long term planning with respect to EE/EGHG emissions
materials, yet the origin of the information is ambiguously cited as from reduction in the city and aligns closely with the visions of several in­
‘several international sources’ (Department of Planning, Transport and dependent bodies. Voluntary instruments – such as rating schemes and
Infrastructure, 2017, p. 9), thus ignoring the importance of accounting certifications – are also found in some regulatory measures for prov­
for local energy contexts and the various methods of calculating EE. ince/state and city-based jurisdictions, specifically for their government
Signals of change can however be seen in efforts from key industry operations. For example, in seven provinces/territories, 34 separate
organisations, namely the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) municipal governments require that municipal owned or funded pro­
and their new Green Star Buildings (GSB) rating tool. Guided by their jects attain LEED certification as part of their procurement and/or
Carbon Positive Roadmap released in 2018, the new GSB tool has renovation (Canada Green Building Council, 2017, p. 17). Yet the
incorporated upfront (embodied) carbon emissions as part of the mini­ credit-based approach used by many green rating programs means
mum expectations for buildings seeking a rating. Using a LCA or alter­ stakeholders can opt-out of specific categories. For example, the use of
native documentation, GSB requires a 10% reduction of upfront carbon LEED doesn’t necessarily equate to action on EE/EGHG emissions as the
emissions in comparison with a reference building. This benchmark will credits associated with the relevant criteria are not mandatory.
progressively increase to 20% by 2030, and further credits are available These voluntary instruments and their stakeholders demonstrate that
for offsetting remaining emissions. Another voluntary instrument – signals of change are emerging. As an additional example, the Canada
EnviroDevelopment – holds similar ambitious quantitative targets that Green Building Council’s (CaGBC) Zero Carbon Building (ZCB) Standard
may be demonstrated via LCA, but EE/EGHG emission reduction is not v2 has a pathway for motivating EGHG emissions reduction in de­
mandatory and alternative compliance pathways exist. Although these velopments. The ZCB Design program includes the reporting of
targets remain part of voluntary mechanisms, the mandatory reduction embodied carbon in a proposed development using a LCA and the option
of embodied carbon emissions in the GSB tool is novel in the Australian to obtain further credit if the proposal can demonstrate a 20% reduction
context and a signal that private actors in the Australian building sector of embodied carbon in reference to a baseline building (Canada Green
are changing the way they perceive EE/EGHG emissions. Building Council, 2020a). Further, the ZCB Performance program builds
Although there is a notable lack of intensity in the policies that were on this reporting, by offering certification to buildings that can
identified in this review, demand for change has been advocated by demonstrate zero net CO2-eq emissions over a 12-month period with
several private sector stakeholders – including LendLease, the Australian embodied emissions needing to be offset (Canada Green Building
Sustainable Built Environment Council, Planning Institute of Australia, Council, 2020b). To support adoption of this mechanism and help offset
and the Property Council of Australia. Several of these stakeholders have concerns regarding upfront capital investment, the CaGBC has published
advocated for more stringent control and regulation of EE/EGHG data showing that ZCBs can result in a positive financial return over a
emissions in the Australian context, either through their endorsement of 25-year period (Canada Green Building Council, 2019). However,
the World Green Building Council’s (WGBC) Bringing Embodied Carbon despite the presence of these voluntary instruments, supporting data and
Upfront report (Adams et al., 2019) or via original publications (for information, there is an absence of other policy mechanisms providing
example: Lendlease Building, 2020). However, despite stakeholders’ direct or indirect incentives for EE/EGHG emissions abatement.
efforts, legislation and mandatory compliance mechanisms addressing As noted by Zizzo et al. (2017) the groundwork for considering EE

4
K. Skillington et al. Energy Policy 168 (2022) 112920

and EGHG emissions in the Canadian context is already present, indi­ Building Challenge (LBC), Zero Carbon Standard (ZCS), and Green
cating that the market may be ready for more stringent targets. Notes Globes. Although these instruments are applicable to multiple building
and actions from industry – such as think-pieces (O’Connor, 2020) and typologies, the extent to which EE and EGHG emissions abatement is
projects commissioned by industry bodies (Zizzo et al., 2017) – required varies. LEED – which is the most popular green building cer­
demonstrate that efforts to regulate EE and EGHG emissions would not tification (Wu et al., 2017) – includes credits for demonstrating re­
be wholly unexpected. However, in the absence of mandatory, ductions in GWP (measured in kg CO2-eq) using a whole-building LCA,
code-based regulation, substantial reduction in EE and EGHG emissions but the credits are not compulsory and the reductions are demonstrated
may remain gradual in the Canadian context for the foreseeable future. against a reference building rather than an absolute limit or cap. The
LBC takes a more hard-line approach requiring a 20% reduction in
6. Embodied energy and GHG emissions governance in the embodied carbon. However, market penetration of this mechanism is
United States of America (USA) low; by 2020, just 26 projects had achieved full LBC certification
worldwide (Living Future Institute Australia, 2020). The ZCS is a further
Examination of the USA policy landscape demonstrated an absence signal of change as it provides pathways to demonstrate net-zero life
of mandatory regulatory action on EE and EGHG emissions abatement at cycle carbon; however, compliance is partially attained by purchasing
a national level, however state and city-level leadership on the issue is offsets and installing renewables, with only a 10% reduction in reference
emerging. Although the USA is home to significant advocacy and to a baseline/cap of 500 kg CO₂-eq/m2 required to be achieved via
research efforts addressing EE and EGHG emissions in the building design and construction practice.
sector – including Architecture 2030 and the Carbon Leadership Forum – Although multiple policies were identified, the intensity of policies in
voluntary instruments such as rating tools, declarations and certifica­ the USA is limited. It is suggested that this is possibly due to the regu­
tions dominate the policy landscape. As seen in Table A.3 in Appendix A, latory landscape being highly fragmented (Eisenberg et al., 2009). No
policy density remains limited relative to the size and value of the na­ economic incentive-based policies were identified to encourage the
tion’s building sector. However, the actions of some states and cities sector to engage in EE/EGHG abatement. Future progress for this
indicate that change is occurring, as policy mechanisms to reduce EE/ high-emission, high-consumption nation will likely be driven by private
EGHG emissions are present at these lower levels of governance. Several sector investment and innovation, and environmentally progressive
voluntary instruments also cater for multiple typologies at national and local or state governments.
international scales, however in most of these policies the EE/EGHG
emissions component is optional. 7. Embodied energy and GHG emissions governance in the
Not unlike other countries examined in this study, nationally appli­ United Kingdom
cable EE and EGHG emissions abatement is absent from building codes
applicable to most states in the USA (the International Building Code The United Kingdom’s efforts to address EE and EGHG emissions in
[IBC] and the International Residential Code [IRC]). An overlay code to the building sector consists of several voluntary instruments and regu­
the IBC and IRC – the International Green Construction Code (IgCC) – latory measures as shown in Table A.4 in Appendix A. Initially, the
has been adopted by 14 states, however life cycle GHG emissions density of policies appears limited, however, this may be attributed to
reduction is an optional pathway within the regulation. One federally several jurisdictions adopting BREEAM (a voluntary instrument) in their
issued, national regulatory measure was identified – Guiding Principles policies, as opposed to creating their own scheme(s). The policy mech­
for Sustainable Federal Buildings – however, compliance appears to be anisms identified have similar characteristics to other countries exam­
optional, goals are internally set by the project team, and monitoring ined – national regulatory measures are lacking, voluntary instruments
compliance is discharged to individual government agencies. will typically not make EE/EGHG emissions abatement compulsory, and
Further action is seen at the state and city level, particularly in the regulatory measures largely encourage low EE/EGHG emissions mate­
states of California, Washington and the city of Austin, Texas. The Buy rials. Furthermore, no explicit financial incentives for reducing EE/
Clean California Act (BCCA) is one such example. Although the BCCA EGHG emissions of buildings were identified.
examines building elements – rather than the whole building, which is As the home nation of the first green building assessment tool to
the focus of this study – it has been included in this analysis as it oversees achieve mainstream success (BREEAM), the UK has a culture of volun­
multiple materials concurrently. From 2021, the Act requires state- tary instruments, assessment schemes and rating programs initiated by
funded projects to comply with published maximum acceptable global the private sector. Like other countries examined, voluntary instruments
warming potential (GWP) limits (reported as kg CO2-eq) of key building such as BREEAM have also been integrated into government procure­
elements, including structural steel, flat glass, steel for concrete rein­ ment practices and local planning policy. For example, the UK Gov­
forcement and mineral wool board insulation. The specific targeting of ernment’s Common Minimum Standards for construction of public
materials high in EE/EGHG emissions in the BCCA is aligned with sector buildings (Government of the United Kingdom, 2017) requires
Simonen’s (2011) recommendations for stimulating low-carbon con­ BREEAM assessments on most projects. Furthermore, several local plans
struction by limiting scope to high-embodied impact or large volume released by councils mandate the use of BREEAM for projects of a certain
materials. Despite the BCCA being limited in its scope of application, size/type (Goodey and Gent, 2019). However, in the UK context, few
learnings from the BCCA process – including adoption, costs and voluntary instruments mandate the reduction of EE/EGHG emissions,
reception – may serve to inform other jurisdictions pursuing similar with associated credits generally being voluntary and comprising a small
outcomes. Attempts to install an act similar to the BCCA have occurred – amount of the total credits available. In the case of BREEAM, EE/EGHG
including Oregon in 2017, Washington in 2018, and Minnesota in 2019 emissions are not mandatory for certification at present, therefore its
– however, these efforts were not passed into law (Carbon Leadership potential to contribute to significant EE/EGHG emissions reductions
Forum, n.d., 2018a). may remain unrealised.
In the absence of broader regulatory leadership on the issue of EE At the city level of governance, further progress can be seen in ac­
and EGHG emissions governance, the USA has several voluntary in­ tions by local governments and unitary authorities such as Blackpool
struments such as building rating and certification schemes that may Council, Brighton and Hove Council, Bracknell Forest Borough, the
encourage public and private sector action. In some instances, these Greater London Authority, Leeds City Council, and Manchester City
voluntary instruments have been rolled into the regulatory environment Council. In these cases, specification of materials that are low in EE or
for particular states (Cowie, 2020) or are used to assess newly con­ EGHG emissions and/or retention of existing structures to mitigate
structed, federally owned facilities (U.S. General Services Administra­ additional EE or EGHG emissions expenditure are encouraged in Sup­
tion, 2021). These voluntary instruments include LEED, the Living plementary Planning Documents. However, there is little detail in these

5
K. Skillington et al. Energy Policy 168 (2022) 112920

policies outlining how these measures are to be achieved, what consti­ - Use of quantitative targets to enforce monitoring and measurement,
tutes ‘low’ (as no caps, targets or minimum standards are mandated), or typically demonstrated using LCA;
whether policy compliance is mandatory. - Investment in long-term strategic development by developing an
Policies in their current form will serve to increase awareness of and evidence base for future EE/EGHG emission reductions (except
interest in EE/EGHG emissions, however given that numerous private Australia);
sector stakeholders already advocate for more ambitious action (see - Leadership through exemplar practices in public or government
Craigforth (2020); Embodied Carbon Industry Task Force (2014); funded buildings; and
Grosvenor Britain & Ireland (2020); United Kingdom Green Building - Private sector investment and research via green building tools.
Council (2015a)), regulation in the UK could be more progressive.
However, one notable private sector governing body – the Royal Insti­ A signal that organisations are moving towards more strict moni­
tution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) – has taken leadership through toring and measurement of EE/EGHG emissions in buildings was
their professional standards and guidelines. The European standard for exemplified through the inclusion of quantitative targets for EE/EGHG
assessing the environmental sustainability of construction, namely emissions reductions in several mechanisms identified (n = 22).
EN15978 (Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of envi­ Importantly, mechanisms that included a quantitative target for EE/
ronmental performance of buildings - Calculation method), is a EGHG emission reduction were generally dated post-2017, whereas
commonly specified standard or reference in voluntary instruments like those that did not pursue quantitative reductions were largely dated pre-
BREEAM and Green Star (Australia). As a result, RICS has developed a 2017. This emphasises the recent shift towards more ambitious goal
standardised interpretation and implementation methodology. RICS setting in this area. Quantitative targets also varied, including absolute
members are required to adhere to the approach as outlined in their reductions against a reference building ranging from 5 to 50% or net-
professional standards and guidance document ‘Whole Life Carbon zero as the mechanism’s goal. Inconsistency in policy mechanisms’
Assessment for the Built Environment’ when undertaking calculations characteristics and implementation exists across countries, including the
required to comply with EN15978. composition of the reference building, the methodology used to quantify
With the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union (EU), EE/EGHG emissions, and the timeframe for meeting the target. These
the potential for EU directives for sustainable buildings and actions of inconsistencies make comparison across borders difficult to achieve.
many European countries (such as The Netherlands, Belgium, France, However, it is noted that the RICS professional standards and guidelines
etc. – refer Zizzo et al. (2017) and Bionova Ltd (2018) for more detail) has tried to address this by prescribing a standardised approach for
translating into similar UK action is diminishing. This is emphasised by adherence by all RICS members when undertaking calculation for
the UK Government’s reversal of several sustainable building strategies EN15978. Non-specific, qualitative goals are present in all countries,
in the last 10 years, an example being the Zero Carbon Homes pro­ particularly in the UK, Canada and Australia. A common requirement
gramme announced in 2007 and retracted in 2015 (United Kingdom was for projects to use low-EE/EGHG emitting materials, however such
Green Building Council, 2015b). Further to this, the UK Government’s requirements were typically accompanied by minimal detail regarding
most recent initiative – the Future Homes Standard – neglects to enforcement. While these non-specific goals are useful in fostering
consider EE/EGHG emissions; again, despite industry calling for more awareness of EE/EGHG emissions in the building sector, it is unclear
ambitious targets (Royal Institute of British Architects, 2020). what effect these policies have.
In Canada, the United Kingdom and USA, several mechanisms appear
8. Discussion of key findings from the policy analysis to be investing in a long-term strategy for EE/EGHG emissions gover­
nance, by developing an evidence base for EE/EGHG emission re­
Overall, the policy analysis of the four countries identified that EE ductions through the inclusion of reporting as part of their
and EGHG emissions reductions are starting to emerge in current policy implementation (for example, the BCCA [USA], the City of Vancouver
mechanisms related to the building sector. This indicates that the sector Green Buildings Policy for Rezoning [Canada], and RICS’s Whole Life
and policy makers have begun to recognise its significant contribution to Carbon Assessment for the Built Environment professional standard
global GHG emissions and are open to making efforts to adapt current [UK]). Although these mechanisms don’t necessarily result in an im­
practices. Table 3 outlines a summary of the intensity of targets and mediate reduction in EE/EGHG emissions from the building sector,
scope of the 40 policy mechanisms identified in this study. Broadly, the establishing an evidence base will aid decision makers in developing the
USA has the greatest density of policies of the four countries (n = 16), next stage of their policy frameworks: benchmarks, targets and caps.
with Australia (n = 9), United Kingdom (n = 8) and Canada (n = 7), Leadership from governments was another signal of change identi­
demonstrating similar numbers of policy mechanisms identified. For fied, through several policy mechanisms specifically addressing public-
further detail on each of these policy mechanisms, refer to the tables in funded buildings or government operations. In Australia, Canada and
Appendix A. Across the four countries, the policy mechanisms identified the USA, selected mechanisms encouraged the use of low EE/EGHG
demonstrated a range of scope and intensity. Of the policy mechanisms emitting materials in public-funded buildings. State based policies in
reviewed, voluntary instruments (n = 20) were dominant, compared to Minnesota (Minnesota B3, 2017) and California (State of California,
regulatory measures (n = 14) or hybrid mechanisms that spanned across 2018) in the USA go further than encouragement and include targets/­
regulatory, economic and/or voluntary classifications (n = 6). No policy caps for the GWP of a building or building elements in state-funded
mechanism solely classified as an economic incentive was identified in projects. Governments further utilised voluntary instruments – LEED
any of the countries. in Canada, BREEAM in the UK and Green Star in Australia – as a means
All countries except Australia had one mechanism that achieved a to assess, benchmark, or drive adoption of green building practices in
high (green) rating for both policy intensity scope and targets. However, their operations at multiple levels of governance (for example: Canada
two of these mechanisms – the Zero Carbon Standard in the USA and the Green Building Council, 2017; Green Building Council of Australia, n.
UKGBC Net Zero Carbon Framework – include the use of purchased d.). This leadership demonstrates that from a regulatory perspective,
offsets to reach net-zero status. One regulatory measure achieved a high governments of various levels understand the importance of EE/EGHG
rating for scope and targets without the need for offsets: the Canadian emissions abatement and are thus keen to demonstrate model behaviour
Government’s Greening Government Strategy. However, this is a in their own procurement practices. As Koski and Lee (2014) identified,
mechanism solely for government-owned projects. this ‘policy by doing’ may help stimulate behaviour in the private sector,
Common characteristics for signals of change in the policies and their but even more so at a level of government that is closer to the consumer
implementation were identified across all countries; these included: (e.g. local/city government).
Whilst governments appear to be signalling change, efforts in

6
K. Skillington et al. Energy Policy 168 (2022) 112920

Table 3
Summary of policy mechanisms identified and analysed as part of this study.
Country Name Type Scale Typology I - Scope I - Targets Source
a
AUS Green Star Buildings V N All Hi Med Green Building Council of Australia (2020)
AUS GBCA Carbon Positive Roadmap V N Commercialb, Med Med Green Building Council of Australia (2018)
Institutional, Public
(government)
AUS Australian Institute of Architects – V N All Hi Low Australian Institute of Architects (2008)
Sustainability Policy
AUS EnviroDevelopment V N All Hi Med Urban Development Institute of Australia (2019)
AUS Environmentally Sustainable Materials V S Public (government) Med Low Government of South Australia (2017)
- Selection
AUS General Design Standards for Justice, R S Public Med Low Government of Western Australia (2012a)
Health and Public Buildings
AUS Education facilities design standards R S Public (education) Med Low e.g. Queensland Government (2014); Government
Architect New South Wales (2018); Government of
South Australia (2020); Government of Western
Australia (2012b)
AUS Various Office or Government R S Public (government) Med Low Victorian Government (2007); Office of the
Accommodation Standards/Guidelines Queensland Government Architect (2010)
c
AUS Various Planning Schemes/Policies RV C Projects subject to Unclear Low e.g. NSW Government (2020); Department of
relevant scheme Environment, Land, Water and Planning (2021)
CAN Canadian Green Building Council – V N All except residential Med Med Canada Green Building Council (2020a, 2020b)
Zero Carbon Building (ZCB) Program (ZCBDes)
(Design; Performance) Hi
(ZCBPerf)
CAN Greening Government Strategy R N Varies (buildings in Hi Hi Government of Canada (2021)
government portfolio)
CAN Built Green VE N Residential Med Low Built Green (n.d.)
CAN Charte du boisd R S All except single Med Low Gouvernement du Québec (2019)
residential
CAN City of Vancouver Climate Emergency R C N/A Unclear Hi City of Vancouver (2020)
Report
CAN City of Vancouver Green Buildings R C N/A Unclear Low City of Vancouver (2018)
Policy for Rezoning
CAN Waterfront Toronto Green Building R C All Med Low Waterfront Toronto (2021)
Requirements
USA LEED (v4.1) Building Design & V I All Hi Med U. S. Green Building Council (2021)
Construction
USA Living Building Challenge (LBC) V I All Hi Med International Living Future Institute (2019b)
Version 4.0
e f
USA Zero Carbon Standard V I All Hi Hi International Living Future Institute (2020)
USA Core Green Building Certification V I All Hi Med International Living Future Institute (2019a)
USA Envision Sustainable Infrastructure V I Infrastructure projects Med Hi Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (2018)
Framework v.3
USA Carbon Smart Building Declaration V I N/A N/A N/A Carbon Leadership Forum (2018b)
USA Green Globes New Construction V I All Hi Med Green Building Institute (2019)
USA National Green Building Standard V N Residential Med Med National Association of Home Builders of the United
States (2020)
USA Guiding Principles for Sustainable R N Varies (federally owned Med Low Council on Environmental Quality (2020)
Federal Buildings buildings)
USA International Green Construction Code VR IS All except low-rise Med Med International Code Council and ASHRAE (2018)
(IgCC) residential
USA C40 Clean Construction Declaration V IC N/A Med Hi C40 Cities (2020)
USA Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond VR S Varies (state-funded Med Med Minnesota B3 (2017)
(B3) Guidelines buildings)
USA Buy Clean California Act (BCCA) - R S Varies (state-funded Med Med State of California (2018)
Assembly Bill No. 262 buildings)
USA California Green Building Standards V Rg S Non-residential Med Low California Building Standards Commission (2019)
Code 2019 (aka CalGreen)
USA State of Washington Executive Order R S Varies (state-owned Med Low Inslee (2018)
18-01 buildings)
USA City of Austin Energy Green Building R C Residential Med Med Austin Energy (2020)
Rating System Commercial
UK Home Quality Mark (HQM ONE) V N Residential Med Medh Building Research Establishment Limited (2018)
UK BREEAM UK – New Construction Vi N All except single Hi Medj Building Research Establishment Limited (2019)
Standards residential
UK BREEAM UK – Refurbishment and Fit- Vk N Varies (refurbishment Hi Low Building Research Establishment Limited (2016,
Out (Domestic and Non-Domestic) and fit-out) 2020)
l
UK UKGBC Net Zero Carbon Framework - V N All Hi Hi United Kingdom Green Building Council (2019)
Construction
UK Whole Life Carbon Assessment for the Rm N All Hi Low Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (2017)
Built Environment
UK Code for Sustainable Homes Vn N Residential Med Low United Kingdom Government (2010)
UK London Plan – Sustainable Design and R C Not specified Unclear Low Greater London Authority (2014)
Construction Supplementary Planning
Guidance
UK Various UK Planning Regulations for V Ro C Varies Varies Low e.g. Bracknell Forest Council (2008); Leeds City
Councils, Unitary Authorities, Cities Council (2011)

7
K. Skillington et al. Energy Policy 168 (2022) 112920

Key: Low (Low), Med (Medium), Hi (High).

Note: V: Voluntary, R: Regulatory, E: Economic Incentive; I: International/Intergovernmental, N: National, S: State, C: City/County/Borough; I-Scope: Intensity –
Scope; I-Targets: Intensity – Targets; N/A: Not Applicable or Not Specified in Policy.
a
An exceptional performance pathway - which requires a 20% reduction and all remaining emissions to be offset - is an optional net-zero objective, but not
compulsory or core to the mechanism.
b
Excluding specialist commercial buildings such as data centres.
c
Although this is in a regulatory document – a planning policy – it is encouraged and not enforced.
d
Known as the Quebec Wood Charter in English – under review as of mid 2020.
e
The amount of offsets/reduction required varies depending on the building typology.
f
Net zero can be attained through offsets. Offsets may be onsite energy generation and/or the purchase of offsets from third-parties.
g
The Code itself is a regulatory measure, but the pathway for LCA integration is voluntary.
h
The quantitative target is in an Ecopoint unit, making it difficult to understand what the actual reduction is on a percentage level without understanding the
methodology to calculate Ecopoints.
i
Although technically voluntary, the BREEAM suite of standards is used or referenced in multiple planning schemes policies.
j
The quantitative target is comparison to a BREEAM benchmark, which is unique to the BREEAM tool.
k
Although technically voluntary, the BREEAM suite of standards is used or referenced in multiple planning schemes policies.
l
Net zero can be attained through offsets. Offsets may be onsite energy generation and/or the purchase of offsets.
m
Regulatory in the sense that if you are a member of RICS, you must conduct the assessment on projects under their purview.
n
Prior to 2015, the Code for Sustainable Homes was a mandatory measure in the UK, however following a change in government policy that sought to lower the rules
and restrictions on home builders, the code transitioned to a voluntary model.
o
The planning policy itself is a regulatory measure, but the integration of LCA assessments, EE or EGHG emission reporting/reduction is often voluntary.

addressing EE/EGHG emissions in the building sector are also being materials used should be ‘low’ in EE or EGHG emissions. Consistently,
championed by the private sector, particularly in the UK, Australia and little to no guidance on what constitutes ‘low’ in that specific context nor
USA. These efforts are seen in voluntary instruments – such as LEED, any method for validating compliance was provided in these policies.
Green Star, BREEAM – where the inclusion of EE/EGHG emissions re­ The lack of contextualisation makes it difficult for those implementing
ductions in their respective tools is a signal that they recognise its this directive and concurrently, difficult to enforce. Moving forward,
importance and perceive a willingness in stakeholders to consider EE/ policymakers need to ensure that terminology in policy mechanisms is
EGHG emission reductions as part of certification. However, EE/EGHG clearly defined using common, accepted standards and measurable
emissions reductions are one of several pathways to achieve certification thresholds.
or credits, with the exception of Australia’s Green Star where a mini­
mum expectation is required. In the absence of clearly defined targets or 9.2. Methodologies, data and uncertainty
mandatory considerations of EE/EGHG emissions, the private sector
leads action with ambitious visions set out by the WGBC and GBCA For those policy mechanisms (voluntary or otherwise) that do
(Adams et al., 2019; Green Building Council of Australia, 2018), require a cradle-to-grave LCA to report or demonstrate EE and/or EGHG
research by LendLease and the World Wildlife Fund (Lendlease Building, emissions reductions, inconsistencies exist due to the variation in
2020; Waters et al., 2020), and advocacy work by Architecture 2030 and calculation methods and/or Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) databases that
the Carbon Leadership Forum. However, as many of these actions are may be used. Although international standards to guide the LCA process
not yet policy mechanisms, most do not feature in this analysis. – including the ISO14040 series and the CEN TC350 standards including
EN15978 – have been developed and accepted by the sector, in­
9. Key challenges moving forward consistencies and lack of consensus remains in the methodologies used
by many stakeholders and in the calculation of EE/EGHG emissions
Reflecting on the policy mechanisms identified, this section discusses values within LCI databases. These inconsistencies result in a large
the common challenges that have emerged and would require attention variability in the assessment of EE and EGHG emissions for buildings,
in order to progress efforts in EE and EGHG emissions governance. These with Säynäjoki et al. (2017) and Crawford (2008) demonstrating that
challenges include defining terminology; methodologies, data and un­ the choice of method – process, input-output, hybrid – may influence an
certainty; benchmarking, caps and targets; and financial incentives/ assessment outcome significantly. Although widely discussed in aca­
costs. demic literature, the variability of different methods, the subjectivity of
the assessor’s assumptions, the differences between calculation tools,
9.1. Defining terminology and the uncertainty that these factors may collectively place on assess­
ment outcomes is often not highlighted in practice. In some cases, a
From the policies analysed, a lack of clarity in the definition of policy’s guidance on conducting the LCA itself is sparse, with many only
various terminology was observed, providing opportunity for in­ offering information on which third-party calculation tools they deem to
consistencies to emerge. These inconsistencies pertain to the boundary be compliant with their model, or information directing assessors to
as to what constitutes ‘embodied’ and the metrics that define ‘low’. The follow international standards for conducting an LCA with locally rele­
most fundamental term – embodied – can have varying interpretations if vant data. If methodological inconsistencies continue to persist,
the policy instrument is not explicit in defining which life cycle stages it comparability between assessments and tracking of policy outcomes will
covers. Moncaster and Symons (2013) noted in their study that remain difficult.
embodied may mean cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-grave, or cradle-to-cradle
if end-of-life stages are included. It was generally observed that when a 9.3. Benchmarking, caps and targets
specific assessment method was stipulated in a policy, ‘embodied’ was
defined by referencing stages in EN15978. Whereas policy mechanisms Variability in methodologies and data give rise to another issue: the
that were less specific in their method did not reference a common ability to establish benchmarks for EE and EGHG emissions. Bench­
standard. The inconsistency in defining ‘embodied’ may limit compa­ marking can inform caps and targets that limit permissible EE or EGHG
rability between assessments and across policy outcomes. Further emissions on a material, assembly, or whole building level. However, the
obscurity was identified in numerous guidelines encouraging reductions variability of LCA methodologies, LCI databases, and inconsistent use of
via material specification, with multiple mechanisms noting that uncertainty analysis in LCAs, makes it difficult to benchmark

8
K. Skillington et al. Energy Policy 168 (2022) 112920

performance across different policy mechanisms and geographic regions tending to occur at a municipal, city or state level. Voluntary mecha­
(De Wolf et al., 2017). In the review, it was identified that several policy nisms tended to be more rigorous with more clearly defined targets and
mechanisms attempt to overcome these difficulties by demonstrating detail. Much of this was found to be driven by private sector investment
EE/EGHG emissions reduction using reference buildings as a benchmark and innovation. Common signals of change occurring in the public
or baseline. Verification using a reference building (VURB) is not un­ sector were centred on mandatory reporting to build an evidence base
common in regulatory frameworks for building performance and and leadership by example. This has the potential to stimulate further
building codes, as it is useful in accommodating the unique circum­ behavioural change in the private sector.
stances that each project or site presents. However, the VURB method The review identified a range of challenges that currently exist in the
limits comparability beyond individual projects or LCAs, as the LCA development and implementation of EE and EGHG emissions gover­
methodology, LCI database, software used, assessor’s assumptions, and nance. These included a lack of clarity in the definition of terminology
the objectives of the policy mechanism itself would likely differ. Efforts used in policy mechanisms targeting EE/EGHG emissions reduction,
to establish databases of EE/EGHG emissions benchmarks are underway inconsistent methodologies and data for EE/EGHG emissions quantifi­
in some European countries – e.g. Switzerland, Germany, France as cation, incomparable benchmarks and targets, and an absence of
discussed by Zizzo et al. (2017) – however, as outlined by Simonen et al. financial incentives.
(2017), significant areas of uncertainty exist in database establishment, We propose a range of recommendations for future progress in the
particularly relating to data, scope, and methodology. Without harmo­ governance of EE/EGHG emissions. Although these recommendations
nisation of LCA characteristics, benchmarking efforts will continue to be originate from the analysis of the four countries examined in this study,
challenged by these issues. their applicability can be extended to other developed economies that
demonstrate similar methods of building procurement, governance
9.4. Financial incentives and costs structures, level of private sector participation, and maturity of policies
targeting EE/EGHG emissions reduction. The following recommenda­
Another challenge to EE/EGHG emissions reduction was the absence tions are less relevant to contexts where EE/EGHG emissions-related
of direct or indirect financial incentives. The voluntary nature of several policy is further advanced (e.g., Europe – see Zizzo et al., 2017) or
policy mechanisms combined with the perception of increased project where multi-level governance and/or private sector participation in
costs presents a possible disincentive for stakeholders seeking to engage green building strategies is less developed.
with EE/EGHG emissions reduction in building projects. Although the
specification of low-EE/EGHG emitting products may not result in an From the analysis, short-term recommendations include:
increase of total project cost (Giesekam et al., 2016), there remains a • Elemental caps as part of building regulations – national building codes
perception in industry that such materials introduce an ‘uncertainty may specify limits to EE/EGHG emissions for specific building ele­
premium’ and are thus more expensive than comparative incumbents ments (such as super-structure, finishes etc.);
(Lendlease Building, 2020). Provision of incentives to compel or induce • Mandatory reductions of EE/EGHG emissions in voluntary instruments
stakeholders to implement EE/EGHG emission reduction measures via LCA – including ambitious targets set for achieving certification;
might assist in overcoming the perceived higher risk, possible higher • Mandatory LCA reporting in building regulations – to demonstrate
financial costs, or low upfront benefit to investors. In the policy mech­ compliance with regulatory targets, compare project performance
anisms examined, no evidence of standalone financial incentives for and establish nationally relevant databases of building LCAs that
EE/EGHG emission abatement were identified, whether direct (such as may be used for benchmark creation. This action must be accom­
monetary support via tax relief, rebates, grants or loans); or indirect panied by the remedying of methodological inconsistencies in EE/
(such as administrative and market-based bonuses that may hold a EGHG emissions calculation and reporting (see below); and
financial reward, including expedited planning approval, or density • Requirements for EE/EGHG emissions mitigation via material selection
bonuses/floor-area-ratio (FAR) uplift). In green building practice embedded in statutory planning documentation – a requirement for the
generally, financial incentives have been cited as a means to overcome selection of low EE/EGHG emitting materials or materials with a
barriers to implementation (Darko and Chan, 2017). As such, consid­ high recycled content or recyclability potential to be reported,
ering the limited implementation of financial incentives in the contexts documented and rigorously assessed.
studied, offering of incentives may stimulate stakeholders to address
EE/EGHG emission reductions. Potential longer-term solutions include:
• Remedying of methodological inconsistencies, including standardisation
10. Conclusion and policy implications of calculating and reporting of EE/EGHG emissions – use of robust,
comprehensive, consistent EE/EGHG emissions quantification tech­
The EE and EGHG of buildings are significant and growing contrib­ niques, based on agreed, standardised parameters and definitions of
utors to the environmental effects of the building sector. While the focus terminology, improving comparability between analyses, bench­
on mitigating EE and EGHG emissions in this sector has been limited to marks and targets;
date, there is increasing interest and action in this area. Governance of • Whole building targets/caps as part of building regulations – establishing
EE and EGHG emissions will have an important role to play in global benchmarks and targets for EE/EGHG emissions performance for
efforts to mitigate the environmental burden of human activity. This different building typologies;
study reviewed the EE and EGHG emissions policy mechanisms in-force • Diversity and network of policies across governance type and level of
across four countries – Australia, Canada, USA and the UK – with the aim jurisdiction – establishing a range of policy mechanisms to address the
of identifying signals of change occurring across public and private diverse range of contexts and compliance routes; and
sectors. • National EPD and co-efficient databases – accessible, transparent, and
Existing mechanisms were found to range from voluntary in­ consistent data for quantifying EE and EGHG emissions.
struments (incl. ratings and certifications) to mandatory regulatory
measures, each varying in scale, scope and prescribed targets. The re­ In addition to these higher-level policy-related mechanisms, signifi­
view assessed the intensity of existing mechanisms in relation to scope cant reductions in EE and EGHG emissions within the building sector
and targets and found that there was a lack of enforceable regulations in will not be possible without practical, project-based solutions. Devel­
mandatory building codes. Mandatory mechanisms tended to focus on opment and specification of materials and products aimed at reducing
smaller subjective targets, such as encouraging the use of low EE/GHG the EE and EGHG emissions of buildings across their lifetime will be
emissions materials, with more stringent and quantitative requirements needed, along with education, increased awareness, behavioural

9
K. Skillington et al. Energy Policy 168 (2022) 112920

change, and improvements to design, construction practices and waste Australian Building Codes Board, 2020. Building Classifications. Australian Building
Codes Board. https://www.abcb.gov.au/sites/default/files/resources/202
management.
0//UTNCC_Building_classifications.pdf.
Support for the above recommendations would also be enhanced if Australian Institute of Architects, 2008. Sustainability Policy. Australian Institute of
stakeholders adopted a systems perspective to EE/EGHG emissions Architects. https://www.architecture.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Sustainabili
governance that considers the contribution of broader environmental ty-Policy.pdf.
Bionova Ltd, 2018. The Embodied Carbon Review - Embodied Carbon Reduction in 100+
policies and efforts in allied sectors. While this review has not consid­ Regulations and Rating Systems Globally. Bionova Ltd.
ered policies targeted at reducing EE/EGHG emissions that may exist in Bracknell Forest Council, 2008. Sustainable Resource Management Supplementary
related sectors, such as manufacturing or mining, these will affect the Planning Document. Bracknell Forest Council. https://www.bracknell-forest.gov.
uk/sites/default/files/documents/sustainable-resource-management-supplementar
EE/EGHG emissions intensity of and ability to reduce EE/EGHG emis­ y-planning-document.pdf. (Accessed 22 February 2021).
sions within the building sector due to their closely connected supply Building Research Establishment Limited, 2016. BREEAM Refurbishment Domestic
chains. For example, a shift to a more renewable, low emissions fuel mix Buildings Technical Manual 2.2. Building Research Establishment Limited.
Building Research Establishment Limited, 2018. Home Quality Mark ONE Technical
in the mining or manufacturing sector may significantly reduce the Manual. Building Research Establishment Limited.
EGHG emissions associated with construction materials. As such, pol­ Building Research Establishment Limited, 2019. BREEAM New Construction. Building
icies focusing on reducing EE/EGHG emissions associated with the Research Establishment Limited.
Building Research Establishment Limited, 2020. BREEAM UK Refurbishment Non-
building sector must be part of a coordinated, multi-sector response to domestic Buildings Technical Manual 2.2. Building Research Establishment Limited.
EE/EGHG emissions governance and consider mechanisms that may be Built Green. (n.d.). Rewarding Innovation. Built Green Canada. https://www.
applicable across the broader economy. builtgreencanada.ca/rewarding-innovation?mid=942. (Accessed 20 October 2020).
C40 Cities, 2020. Clean Construction Declaration. C40 Cities Group. https://www.c40.
In conclusion, this study has revealed that although some signals of
org/clean-construction-declaration. (Accessed 25 November 2020).
change in the consideration of building-related EE and EGHG emissions California Building Standards Commission, 2019. California Green Building Standards
exist in the four major economies examined, further effort from the Code, Title 24, Part 11. International Code Council. https://codes.iccsafe.org/c
building sector, allied industries, and policy stakeholders is needed. ontent/CAGBSC2019/. (Accessed 19 February 2021).
Canada Green Building Council, 2017. LEED in Motion: Canada. Canada Green Building
Greater policy attention that encompasses ambitious targets/caps, data Council. https://www.cagbc.org//cagbcdocs/advocacy/LEED_IN_MOTION_CAN
transparency, a consistent methodological approach, multi-sector ADA_2017_UPDATE.pdf. (Accessed 24 September 2020).
participation, and a diversity of policy mechanisms is urgently Canada Green Building Council, 2019. Making the Case for Building to Zero Carbon.
Canada Green Building Council. https://www.cagbc.org/cagbcdocs/advocacy/Maki
required. This is particularly critical in the context of delivering zero ng_the_Case_for_Building_to_Zero_Carbon_2019_EN.pdf. (Accessed 25 September
energy/emissions buildings and global efforts to address climate change. 2020).
Realisation of these aims can only be achieved with concurrent attention Canada Green Building Council, 2020a. Zero Carbon Building - Design Standard v.2.
Canada Green Building Council. https://www.cagbc.org/cagbcdocs/zerocarbon/v2/
to operational energy and EE/EGHG emissions, and via a coordinated CaGBC_Zero_Carbon_Building_Standard_v2_Design.pdf.
policy approach that encompasses all levels of governance. Canada Green Building Council, 2020b. Zero Carbon Building - Performance Standard
v.2. Canada Green Building Council. https://www.cagbc.org/cagbcdocs/zerocarbon
/v2/CaGBC_Zero_Carbon_Building_Standard_v2_Performance.pdf.
CRediT authorship contribution statement Carbon Leadership Forum, 2018a. Initiative: Buy Clean Washington. University of
Washington, Carbon Leadership Forum. https://carbonleadershipforum.org/buy-cl
Katie Skillington: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal anal­ ean/. (Accessed 2 November 2020).
Carbon Leadership Forum, n.d.. CLF Embodied Carbon Policy Toolkit. University of
ysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing –
Washington. https://carbonleadershipforum.org/clf-policy-toolkit. (Accessed 15
review & editing. Robert H. Crawford: Conceptualization, Methodol­ February 2020).
ogy, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Carbon Leadership Forum, 2018b. Carbon Smart Building Declaration. University of
Writing – review & editing. Georgia Warren-Myers: Conceptualization, Washington, Carbon Leadership Forum. https://carbonsmartbuilding.org/de
claration. (Accessed 15 February 2021).
Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Kathryn Chastas, P., Theodosiou, T., Bikas, D., 2016. Embodied energy in residential buildings-
Davidson: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, towards the nearly zero energy building: a literature review. Build. Environ. 105,
Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.040.
Chastas, P., Theodosiou, T., Bikas, D., Kontoleon, K., 2017. Embodied energy and nearly
zero energy buildings: a review in residential buildings. Procedia Environ. Sci. 38,
Declaration of competing interest 554–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2017.03.123.
City of Sydney, 2021. Planning of Net Zero Energy Buildings. City of Sydney. https
://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/surveys-case-studies-reports/planning-for-net-ze
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial ro-energy-buildings. (Accessed 19 July 2021).
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence City of Vancouver, 2018. Green Buildings Policy for Rezonings. City of Vancouver.
the work reported in this paper. https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/G015.pdf. (Accessed 24 September 2020).
City of Vancouver, 2019. Climate Emergency Response. City of Vancouver. https://
council.vancouver.ca/20190424/documents/cfsc1.pdf. (Accessed 24 September
Acknowledgements 2020).
City of Vancouver, 2020. Climate Emergency Action Plan - Recommendations for How
We Move. City of Vancouver. https://council.vancouver.ca/20201103/documents
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge contributions by
/p1.pdf. (Accessed 18 February 2021).
Mariko Kimura in preliminary data acquisition and Monique Schmidt for Costantini, V., Crespi, F., Palma, A., 2017. Characterizing the policy mix and its impact
participation in draft writing for an earlier iteration of this paper. on eco-innovation: a patent analysis of energy-efficient technologies. Res. Pol. 46
(4), 799–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.02.004.
Council on Environmental Quality, 2020. Guiding principles for sustainable federal
Appendix A. Supplementary data buildings (CEQ-OFS-2020-1). Office of Federal Sustainability. https://www.sust
ainability.gov/pdfs/guiding_principles_for_sustainable_federal_buildings.pdf.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. Cowie, L., 2020. LEED Legislation by City: See where LEED Certification is Required.
Everblue Training Institute. https://everbluetraining.com/cities-requiring-or-
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112920. supporting-leed-2015-edition/. (Accessed 22 November 2020).
Craigforth, 2020. National Planning Framework 4 - Analysis of Responses to the Call for
References Ideas. Scottish Government, Planning and Architecture Division. https://www.gov.
scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/consultation-analysis/20
20/08/npf4-analysis-reponses-call-ideas/documents/national-planning-fram
Adams, M., Burrows, V., Richardson, S., 2019. Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront.
ework-4-analysis-responses-call-ideas/national-planning-framework-4-analysis-res
World Green Building Council.
ponses-call-ideas/govscot%3Adocument/national-planning-framework-4-analysis-
Austin Energy, 2020. Austin Energy Green Building Guidebooks. City of Austin.
responses-call-ideas.pdf.
https://www.greenbuildingsystem.austinenergy.com/. (Accessed 19 February
Crawford, R.H., 2008. Validation of a hybrid life-cycle inventory analysis method.
2021).
J. Environ. Manag. 88 (3), 496–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2007.03.024.

10
K. Skillington et al. Energy Policy 168 (2022) 112920

Crawford, R.H., 2014. Post-occupancy life cycle energy assessment of a residential Greater London Authority, 2014. Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary
building in Australia. Architect. Sci. Rev. 57 (2), 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Planning Guidance - London Plan 2011 Implementation Framework. Greater London
00038628.2013.819556. Authority. https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destin
Crawford, R.H., Bontinck, P.A., Stephan, A., Wiedmann, T., Yu, M., 2018. Hybrid life ation/Sustainable%20Design%20%26%20Construction%20SPG.pdf. (Accessed 22
cycle inventory methods – a review. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1273–1288. https://doi. February 2021).
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.176. Green Building Council of Australia, n.d.. Local Government. Green Building Council of
Darko, A., Chan, A.P.C., 2017. Review of barriers to green building adoption. Sustain. Australia. https://new.gbca.org.au/policy/local-government/. (Accessed 4 March
Dev. 25 (3), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1651. 2021).
De Wolf, C., Pomponi, F., Moncaster, A., 2017. Measuring embodied carbon dioxide Green Building Council of Australia, 2018. A Carbon Positive Roadmap for the Built
equivalent of buildings: a review and critique of current industry practice. Energy Environment. Green Building Council of Australia. https://gbca-web.s3.amazonaws.
Build. 140, 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.01.075. com/media/documents/carbon-positive-roadmap-discussion-paper-fa.pdf.
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2021. Melbourne Planning (Accessed 13 December 2020).
Scheme. Victorian Government. https://planning-schemes.api.delwp.vic.gov.au/__ Green Building Council of Australia, 2020. Green Star Buildings Submission Guidelines.
data/assets/pdf_file/0007/485134/Melbourne_PS_Ordinance.pdf?_ga=2.10389593 Green Building Council of Australia, Sydney, Australia.
6.145101124.1613617759-1738966198.1613617759. (Accessed 18 February Green Building Institute, 2019. Green Globes for New Construction 2019 Technical
2021). Reference Manual. Green Building Initiative.
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, 2017. Environmentally Grosvenor Britain & Ireland, 2020. Future Homes Standard: Grosvenor’s Response.
Sustainable Building Materials - Selection. Government of South Australia. htt Grosvenor Group. https://www.grosvenor.com/news-and-insight/all-articles/futur
ps://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/293688/Environmenta e-homes-standard-grosvenor-s-response. (Accessed 15 October 2020).
lly_Sustainable_Building_Materials.pdf. (Accessed 18 February 2021). Howlett, M., Cashore, B., 2009. The dependent variable problem in the study of policy
Eisenberg, D., Persram, S., Spataro, K., 2009. Code, Regulatory and Systemic Barriers change: understanding policy change as a methodological problem. J. Comp. Pol.
Affecting Living Building Projects. Cascadia Region Green Building Council. htt Anal.: Research Practice 11 (1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/
ps://living-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Code-Regulatory-Systemi 13876980802648144.
c-Barriers-Affecting-LB-Projects.pdf. (Accessed 25 November 2020). Inslee, J., 2018. Executive Order 18-01 State Efficiency and Environmental Performance.
Embodied Carbon Industry Task Force, 2014. Proposals for Standardised Measurement State of Washington. https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/exe_order/1
Method and Recommendations for Zero Carbon Building Regulations and Allowable 8-01%20SEEP%20Executive%20Order%20%28tmp%29.pdf. (Accessed 19 February
Solutions. Embodied Carbon Industry Task Force. https://asbp.org.uk/wp-content 2021).
/uploads/2016/01/Embodied-Carbon-Industry-Task-Force-Proposals_June-2014_Fi Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, 2018. Envision: Sustainable Infrastructure
nal.pdf. (Accessed 27 November 2020). Framework Guidance Manual. Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. https://sus
Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2016a. Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean tainableinfrastructure.org/wp-content/uploads/EnvisionV3.9.7.2018.pdf. (Accessed
Growth and Climate Change: Canada’s Plan to Address Climate Change and Grow 19 February 2021).
the Economy. Government of Canada. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/coll International Code Council, & ASHRAE, 2018. International Green Construction Code
ection_2017/eccc/En4-294-2016-eng.pdf. (IgCC). International Code Council & ASHRAE, Club Hills, USA.
Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2016b. Specific Mitigation Opportunities International Energy Agency, 2013. Transition to Sustainable Buildings: Strategies and
Working Group Final Report. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/con Opportunities to 2050. OECD/IEA, Paris, France.
tent/dam/eccc/migration/cc/content/6/4/7/64778dd5-e2d9-4930-be59-d6db7d International Energy Agency, 2014. Technology Roadmap Energy Efficient Building
b5cbc0/wg_report_specific_mitigation_opportunities_en_v04.pdf. Envelopes. OECD/IEA, Paris, France.
Florini, A., 2011. The international energy agency in global energy governance. Global International Energy Agency, 2016. Evaluation of Embodied Energy and CO2eq for
Policy 2 (S1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2011.00120.x. Building Construction (Annex 57). Institute for Building Environment and Energy
Frappé-Sénéclauze, T., 2020. Carbon Metrics in Codes and Alignment with Energy Conservation, Tokyo, Japan.
Disclosure Tools [Submission to Public Code Review]. Pembina Institute. https International Living Future Institute, 2019a. Core Green Building Certification.
://www.pembina.org/reports/building-codes-carbon-metrics-2020.pdf. (Accessed International Living Future Institute. https://living-future.org/wp-content/uploads/
13 March 2020). 2019/08/Core-Standard_v09.pdf.
Giesekam, J., Barrett, J.R., Taylor, P., 2016. Construction sector views on low carbon International Living Future Institute, 2019b. Living Building Challenge 4.0. International
building materials. Build. Res. Inf. 44 (4), 423–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Living Future Institute. https://living-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Li
09613218.2016.1086872. ving-Building-Challenge-4.0.pdf.
Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, International Energy Agency (IEA), & International Living Future Institute, 2020. Zero Carbon Standard. International Living
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2019. 2019 Global Status Report Future Institute.
for Buildings and Construction: towards a Zero-Emission, Efficient and Resilient Kaufmann-Hayoz, R., Bättig, C., Bruppacher, S., Defila, R., Di Giulio, A., Flury-
Building and Construction Sector. United Nations Environment Programme. Kleubler, P., Friederich, U., Garbely, M., Gutscher, H., Jäggi, C., Jegen, M.,
Goodey, M., Gent, A., 2019. BREEAM Local Plans – South West. AES Sustainability Mosler, H.-J., Müller, A., North, N., Ulli-Beer, S., Wichtermann, J., 2001. A typology
Consultants. http://aessc.co.uk/blog/breeam-local-plans-south-west/. (Accessed 27 of tools for building sustainability strategies. In: Kaufmann-Hayoz, R., Gutscher, H.
November 2020). (Eds.), Changing Things — Moving People: Strategies for Promoting Sustainable
Gouvernement du Québec, 2019. The Wood Charter: Taking Stock. Gouvernement du Development at the Local Level, pp. 33–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-
Québec. https://mffp.gouv.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/BilanCharteduBois_anglais. 8314-6_3. Birkhäuser Basel.
pdf. Kibert, C.J., 2002. Policy instruments for a sustainable built environment. J. Land Use
Government Architect New South Wales, 2018. Design Guide for Schools. New South Environ. Law 17 (2), 379–394.
Wales Government. https://www.governmentarchitect.nsw.gov.au/resources/ga/ Kibert, C.J., 2016. In: Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery, 4th.
media/files/ga/design-guides/design-guide-for-schools-2018-05-14.pdf. (Accessed Wiley, New Jersey, USA.
18 February 2021). Knill, C., Schulze, K., Tosun, J., 2011. Measuring Environmental Policy Change:
Government of British Columbia, 2018. BC Energy Step Code. Government of British Conceptual Alternatives and Research Implications. University of Konstanz, Vienna,
Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/construction-industry/ Austria.
building-codes-standards/energy-efficiency/energy-step-code. (Accessed 10 March Koski, C., Lee, T., 2014. Policy by doing: formulation and adoption of policy through
2020). government leadership. Pol. Stud. J. 42 (1), 30–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Government of Canada, 2021. Greening Government Strategy: A Government of Canada psj.12041.
Directive. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. https://www.canada.ca/en/treasur Leeds City Council, 2011. Building for Tomorrow Today Sustainable Design and
y-board-secretariat/services/innovation/greening-government/strategy.html. Construction Supplementary Planning Document. Leeds City Council. https://www.
(Accessed 28 February 2021). leeds.gov.uk/docs/01.%20%20building%20for%20tomorrow%20today%20spd%20
Government of South Australia, 2017. Environmentally Sustainable Building Materials - (complete).pdf. (Accessed 22 February 2021).
Selection. Government of South Australia. https://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/asset Lendlease Building, 2020. Low Embodied Carbon in Construction Materials - What’s
s/pdf_file/0009/293688/Environmentally_Sustainable_Building_Materials.pdf. Stopping Us? Lendlease Building. https://www.lendlease.com/au/better-places/lo
(Accessed 18 February 2021). w-embodied-carbon-in-construction-materials/-/media/b4990c03a40e488fa4
Government of South Australia, 2020. Education Facilities Design Standards. 60e9ed3aa15032.ashx. (Accessed 14 August 2020).
Government of South Australia. https://www.education.sa.gov.au/sites/default/fi Lenzen, M., Geschke, A., Wiedmann, T., Lane, J., Anderson, N., Baynes, T., Boland, J.,
les/decd-design-standards.pdf?v=1606094394. (Accessed 18 February 2021). Daniels, P., Dey, C., Fry, J., Hadjikakou, M., Kenway, S., Malik, A., Moran, D.,
Government of the United Kingdom, 2017. Common Minimum Standards for Murray, J., Nettleton, S., Poruschi, L., Reynolds, C., Rowley, H., Ugon, J., Webb, D.,
Construction [Policy Paper]. Government of the United Kingdom. https://www.gov. West, J., 2014. Compiling and using input–output frameworks through collaborative
uk/government/publications/common-minimum-standards-for-construction. virtual laboratories. Sci. Total Environ. 485–486, 241–251. https://doi.org/
(Accessed 27 November 2020). 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.062.
Government of Western Australia, 2012a. OGA Advocacy Design Standards. Government Living Future Institute Australia, 2020. Annual Report. The Living Future Institute of
of Western Australia. https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2021-05/OGA_Genera Australia. https://living-future.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2020
l_Design_Standard_01.pdf. (Accessed 15 October 2020). -LFIA-Annual-Report_final.pdf. (Accessed 25 November 2020).
Government of Western Australia, 2012b. OGA Education Design Standard. Government Lucon, O., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Akbari, H., Bertoldi, P., Cabeza, L.F., Eyre, N., Gadgil, A.,
of Western Australia. https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/DepartmentofPlanningLandsHe Harvey, D., Jiang, Y., Liphoto, E., Mirasgedis, S., Murakami, S., Parikh, J., Pyke, C.,
ritage/media/Documents/About/OGA/OGA_Education_Design_Standard_02.pdf. Vilariño, M., 2014. Buildings. In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y.,
(Accessed 15 October 2020). Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P.,

11
K. Skillington et al. Energy Policy 168 (2022) 112920

Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlömer, S., von Stechow, C., Zwickel, T., Minx, J.C. Tarabieh, K., Khorshed, M., 2019. Optimizing evaluation methods for the embodied
(Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of energy and carbon management of existing buildings in Egypt. Buildings 9 (9), 90.
Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9040090.
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. UN Environment and International Energy Agency, 2017. Towards a Zero-Emission,
Minnesota, B.3, 2017. Minnesota B3: Buildings, Benchmarks and beyond - Guideline M.1: Efficient, and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. Global Status Report. UN
Life Cycle Assessment. University of Minnesota. https://www.b3mn.org/guidelines/ Environment and International Energy Agency. https://www.worldgbc.org/sites/
3-2/m_1/. (Accessed 19 February 2021). default/files/UNEP%20188_GABC_en%20%28web%29.pdf.
Moncaster, A.M., Symons, K.E., 2013. A method and tool for ‘cradle to grave’ embodied United Kingdom Government, 2010. Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide.
carbon and energy impacts of UK buildings in compliance with the new TC350 United Kingdom Government. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governme
standards. Energy Build. 66, 514–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nt/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5976/code_for_sustainable_home
enbuild.2013.07.046. s_techguide.pdf. (Accessed 22 February 2021).
National Association of Home Builders of the United States, 2020. ICC 700-2020 National United Kingdom Green Building Council, 2015a. Tackling Embodied Carbon. United
Green Building Standard. National Association of Home Builders of the United Kingdom Green Building Council. https://www.ukgbc.org/sites/default/files/Tackl
States, Washington, DC, USA. ing%20embodied%20carbon%20in%20buildings.pdf.
NSW Government, 2020. Sydney Environment Plan 2005. NSW Parliamentary Counsel. United Kingdom Green Building Council, 2015b. UK-GBC Briefing: Zero Carbon New
https://legacy.legislation.nsw.gov.au/~/pdf/view/epi/2005/810/effective2020-12 Buildings Policy [Briefing Note]. United Kingdom Green Building Council. https://
-11/whole. (Accessed 18 February 2021). www.ukgbc.org/sites/default/files/Zero%20carbon%20policy%20member%20brie
Office of the Queensland Government Architect, 2010. Design Guidelines for fing%20-%20July%202015.pdf.
Government Buildings. Queensland Government. https://www.hpw.qld.gov.au/ United Kingdom Green Building Council, 2017. Embodied Carbon: Developing a Client
__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/5557/designguidelinesgovernmentbuildings2010.pdf. Brief. United Kingdom Green Building Council. https://www.ukgbc.org/wp-co
(Accessed 21 March 2021). ntent/uploads/2017/09/UK-GBC-EC-Developing-Client-Brief.pdf.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2020. Air and United Kingdom Green Building Council, 2019. Net Zero Carbon Buildings: A Framework
Climate: Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Source [Online Database]. https://doi.org/ Definition. United Kingdom Green Building Council. https://www.ukgbc.org/
10.1787/data-00594-en. wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Net-Zero-Carbon-Buildings-A-framework-definition.
O’Connor, J., 2020. What Can We Do about Embodied Carbon?. Canadian Architect. pdf.
https://www.canadianarchitect.com/1003753921-2/. (Accessed 25 September Urban Development Institute of Australia, 2019. EnviroDevelopment National Technical
2020). Standards. Urban Development Institute of Australia. http://envirodevelopment.
Queensland Government, 2014. Design Standards for DETE Facilities. Queensland com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/UDIA0037-EnviroDevelopment-Technical-St
Government. https://qed.qld.gov.au/our-publications/standards/Documents/design andards_2019.pdf. (Accessed 17 February 2021).
/design-standards-dete-facilities.pdf. (Accessed 18 February 2021). Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Koeppel, S., Mirasgedis, S., 2007. Appraisal of policy instruments for
Ramesh, T., Prakash, R., Shukla, K.K., 2010. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an reducing buildings’ CO2 emissions. Build. Res. Inf. 35 (4), 458–477. https://doi.org/
overview. Energy Build. 42, 1592–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 10.1080/09613210701327384.
enbuild.2010.05.007. U.S. General Services Administration, 2021. Sustainable Design. U.S. Government. https
Royal Institute of British Architects, 2020. Building Regulations Proposals Fail to Meet ://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/design-construction/design-excellence/sustainability
Scale of Climate Change - Says RIBA. Royal Institute of British Architects. htt /sustainable-design. (Accessed 15 February 2021).
ps://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/r U.S. Green Building Council, 2021. LEED v4.1 Building Design and Construction. U. S.
iba-responds-to-future-homes-standard-consultation-2020. (Accessed 22 November Green Building Council. https://build.usgbc.org/bd+c_guide. (Accessed 18 February
2020). 2021).
Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, 2017. RICS Professional Statement: Whole Life Van de Graaf, T., 2012. Obsolete or resurgent? The International Energy Agency in a
Carbon Assessment for the Built Environment. Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors changing global landscape. Energy Pol. 48, 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(RICS) [Industry standard]. https://www.rics.org/globalassets/rics-website/media enpol.2012.05.012.
/news/whole-life-carbon-assessment-for-the–built-environment-november-2017. Victorian Government, 2007. Victorian Government Office Accommodation Guidelines
pdf. (Accessed 13 December 2020). 2007. Victorian Government Department of Treasury and Finance. https://www.dtf.
Säynäjoki, A., Heinonen, J., Junnila, S., Horvath, A., 2017. Can life-cycle assessment vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-02/Office-Accommodation-Guidelines.pdf.
produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector? Environ. Res. Lett. 12 (1) (Accessed 25 September 2020).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa54ee. Waterfront Toronto, 2021. Green Building Requirements. Waterfront Toronto. https
Seo, S., Passer, A., Zelezna, J., Birgisdottir, H., Lützkendorf, T., Mistretta, M., Oka, T., ://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm/connect/waterfront/db7b12c6-3155-4f55-a
Chae, C.-U., Houlihan Wiberg, A., Malmqvist, T., Frischknecht, R., Moncaster, A., 545-9ae0f24869f2/Waterfront+Toronto+Green+Building+Requirements+%
2016. Evaluation of Embodied Energy and CO2eq for Building Construction (Annex 28GBR%29+Version+3.0+-+January+2021.pdf?
57). Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation. http://www.iea-e MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=db7b12c6-3155-4f55-a545-9ae0f2
bc.org/Data/publications/EBC_Annex_57_Results_Overview.pdf. (Accessed 30 April 4869f2. (Accessed 18 February 2021).
2020). Waters, B., Worsley, H., Richter, M., 2020. The Time Is Now: Tackling Embodied Carbon
Simonen, K., 2011. Motivating Low-Carbon Construction: Opportunities and Challenges - in the Building and Construction Sector. World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Australia.
A Road Map for Rapid and Significant Impact. University of Washington [White Wu, P., Song, Y., Shou, W., Chi, H., Chong, H.-Y., Sutrisna, M., 2017. A comprehensive
Paper]. https://carbonleadershipforum.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/01/ analysis of the credits obtained by LEED 2009 certified green buildings. Renew.
2011-Simonen-Motivating-Low-Carbon-Construction.pdf. (Accessed 25 November Sustain. Energy Rev. 68, 370–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.007.
2020). Zizzo, R., Kyriazis, J., Goodland, H., Pasanen, P., 2017. Embodied Carbon of Buildings
Simonen, K., Rodriguez, B.X., De Wolf, C., 2017. Benchmarking the embodied carbon of and Infrastructure - International Policy Review. Foresty Innovation Investment.
buildings. Technol. Arch. Design 1 (2), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/ https://c40.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#36000001Enhz/a/1Q000000MfBT/DDTl
24751448.2017.1354623. bqgxtorp23za23K5GH3EwMhVz39fZTVCVF4O180. (Accessed 25 September 2020).
State of California, 2018. Buy Clean California Act. State of California. https://www.dgs.
ca.gov/PD/Resources/Page-Content/Procurement-Division-Resources-List-Folder/
Buy-Clean-California-Act. (Accessed 15 February 2021).

12