Environmental product declarations are already shaping construction procurement decisions, and their role will only grow. Regulations across Europe and beyond are moving toward mandatory EPD requirements for public projects, meaning concrete manufacturers and precast producers who treat EPDs as optional documentation today may find themselves excluded from tenders tomorrow. The sections below address the most common questions about EPDs in construction, from how they work now to where they are heading.
How are EPDs already shaping construction procurement decisions?
EPDs in construction are already influencing procurement by giving clients and specifiers a standardised way to compare the carbon footprint of construction materials across competing products and suppliers. Public sector clients in particular are increasingly using EPD data to set carbon thresholds in tender documents, meaning a product without a verified environmental product declaration may simply not qualify for consideration.
Several European countries have introduced voluntary or semi-mandatory carbon requirements for public buildings, and EPDs provide the verified product-level data needed to demonstrate compliance. In practice, this means concrete manufacturers supplying precast elements to infrastructure or residential projects are being asked to provide Type III EPDs as part of standard procurement documentation, not as an optional extra.
Beyond regulatory pressure, EPDs are also shaping procurement commercially. Developers and contractors with their own sustainability commitments are setting carbon budgets for projects and using EPD data to track embodied carbon across material categories. Precast concrete producers who can present a verified, product-specific EPD with a lower global warming potential than a generic industry average gain a measurable competitive advantage at the tender stage.
What will EPD requirements look like in future regulations?
EPD requirements in future regulations are expected to shift from voluntary disclosure toward mandatory thresholds, with public procurement leading the transition. The EU’s Construction Products Regulation revision and the Level(s) framework both point toward carbon performance limits becoming a condition of market access for construction materials, not simply a reporting exercise.
In practical terms, this means the direction of travel is toward:
- Mandatory EPDs for construction products used in publicly funded buildings and infrastructure
- Maximum allowable global warming potential values embedded in technical specifications
- Harmonised EPD formats and calculation rules across EU member states to enable cross-border comparison
- Integration of EPD data into building-level whole-life carbon assessments required for planning or certification
The timeline varies by country. Nordic markets are furthest ahead, with Sweden and Denmark already embedding carbon requirements into public procurement frameworks. Other European markets are following, and industry experience suggests that regulations that begin in public procurement tend to migrate into private sector specifications within a few years as clients align their own standards with public benchmarks.
For concrete manufacturers, this regulatory direction means that EPD preparation is not a one-time exercise. As calculation methodologies are updated and thresholds tighten, producers will need to update their EPDs regularly and invest in the data infrastructure required to generate accurate, product-specific environmental declarations.
How do EPDs compare to other carbon disclosure methods?
EPDs differ from other carbon disclosure methods by providing verified, product-specific environmental data calculated according to a standardised methodology, rather than company-level or project-level estimates. Where corporate carbon reporting covers an organisation’s total emissions across all activities, an EPD focuses on a single product type and quantifies its environmental impact across defined life cycle stages.
Other disclosure methods used in construction include:
- Corporate sustainability reports: Cover an organisation’s overall emissions but do not provide the product-level granularity needed for procurement comparisons
- Whole-life carbon assessments: Calculate the carbon impact of a complete building, drawing on EPD data as an input rather than replacing it
- Carbon labels and ratings: Simplified consumer-facing tools that typically summarise EPD data but lack the technical detail needed for procurement verification
- Self-declared environmental claims: Manufacturer statements without third-party verification, which carry limited credibility in formal procurement processes
EPDs carry weight in procurement precisely because they are independently verified against an internationally recognised standard, ISO 14025, and follow a product category rules document that ensures comparability within a material type. This makes them more useful than self-declared claims and more granular than corporate-level reporting when a specifier needs to compare two concrete products on carbon footprint.
What’s the difference between a Type III EPD and a generic EPD?
A Type III EPD is a verified, product-specific environmental declaration produced by a manufacturer for their own product, while a generic EPD represents an industry average calculated from data across multiple producers and products. The key distinction is specificity: a Type III EPD reflects the actual materials, processes, and energy inputs used in a particular factory, whereas a generic EPD provides a baseline that may not accurately represent any single product.
In procurement terms, this distinction matters considerably. Generic EPDs are useful for early-stage design when specific products have not yet been selected, but they cannot be used to demonstrate that a particular product meets a carbon threshold. A specifier who sets a maximum global warming potential value in a tender document will require a Type III EPD from the product manufacturer to verify compliance.
For precast concrete producers, investing in a product-specific Type III EPD rather than relying on a generic industry figure has two practical benefits. First, it allows the producer to reflect genuine improvements in their mix design, such as reduced cement content or the use of supplementary cementitious materials, which a generic EPD would average away. Second, it provides a credible, third-party-verified document that can be submitted directly into procurement processes without qualification.
The process of producing a Type III EPD requires collecting primary data on material inputs, energy use, and transport, then working with a programme operator to verify the calculation against the relevant product category rules. This involves an upfront investment of time and cost, but the resulting document has a defined validity period and can be updated as production processes change.
How can concrete manufacturers prepare for EPD-driven procurement?
Concrete manufacturers can prepare for EPD-driven procurement by building the data collection systems needed to support accurate life cycle assessments, starting with primary data on cement content, supplementary cementitious materials, energy use, and transport distances. Reliable input data is the foundation of a credible EPD, and producers who already track this information systematically are significantly better positioned to produce and update environmental declarations efficiently.
Practical preparation steps include:
- Auditing current data collection processes to identify gaps in material and energy records
- Engaging with a recognised EPD programme operator early to understand the relevant product category rules
- Reviewing mix designs to identify opportunities to reduce cement content through supplementary cementitious materials or alternative binders, which directly improves EPD outcomes
- Investing in process monitoring tools that generate the real-time production data needed for accurate and updatable EPD calculations
- Training production and quality teams to understand how process changes affect carbon footprint figures
Producers who treat EPD preparation as a documentation exercise rather than a process improvement opportunity tend to find the results less competitive. The carbon footprint figures in an EPD reflect real production decisions: how much cement is used, where materials come from, and how the curing process is managed. Manufacturers who actively work to reduce those figures before calculating their EPD will produce declarations that are both credible and commercially advantageous.
The Carbonaide Service Platform is designed with this in mind: it tracks CO₂ flow and mineralisation data in real time, providing the product-level records that feed directly into EPD calculations and carbon reporting.
Will EPDs eventually include carbon removal and carbon-negative claims?
EPDs can already reflect carbon removal in principle, and the methodological frameworks for including permanent CO₂ mineralisation in life cycle assessments exist. However, the standardised treatment of carbon-negative claims within EPD programmes is still developing, and the credibility of such claims depends entirely on the quality and permanence of the carbon removal method being reported.
The distinction between carbon reduction and carbon removal is important here. Reducing cement content in a concrete mix lowers the global warming potential figure in an EPD by decreasing emissions from raw material production. Carbon removal, by contrast, involves permanently capturing CO₂ and storing it in a form that will not return to the atmosphere. Both can be reflected in EPD calculations, but they require different types of evidence and verification.
CO₂ mineralisation in precast concrete is one of the few carbon removal methods that meets the permanence criteria required for credible EPD inclusion. When CO₂ is mineralised into concrete during the curing process, it converts to stable carbonate minerals that remain bound within the product indefinitely. This is fundamentally different from biological storage methods such as forestry, where carbon can be released through decay, fire, or land use change.
As EPD methodologies mature, the expectation is that carbon removal through verified mineralisation will be treated as a negative emission contribution to a product’s global warming potential, enabling genuinely carbon-negative EPD figures for products where the stored CO₂ exceeds the emissions from production. Carbonaide’s technology already achieves this in practice: the CO₂ curing process mineralises carbon dioxide permanently into precast concrete, and the resulting carbon storage is independently verified and certified, providing the documentation needed to support carbon-negative claims in EPDs and carbon credit markets alike.
For concrete manufacturers thinking about EPD strategy over the coming years, the direction is clear. EPDs are becoming a procurement requirement, carbon thresholds are tightening, and the producers who can demonstrate verified carbon removal rather than emission reduction alone will occupy a distinct position in the market.
