Embodied Carbon Benchmarking for Buildings Explained

Blogs 11 may 2026

Embodied carbon is now a measurable requirement in building performance.

Across Europe, it is being integrated into regulation, ESG reporting, and investment decision-making, with frameworks such as CSRD and the EU Taxonomy requiring transparent, auditable data at asset level.

Most projects can calculate embodied carbon using Life Cycle Assessments (LCA). The challenge is interpreting those results.

A carbon value on its own does not indicate whether a building is performing well, where the main impacts lie, or how it compares to other assets.

Embodied carbon benchmarking provides that context.

Defining embodied carbon across the building lifecycle

Embodied carbon refers to the greenhouse gas emissions associated with materials and construction processes throughout a building’s lifecycle.

This includes:

A1-A3: raw material extraction, transport, and manufacturing
A4-A5: transport to site and construction processes
B modules: maintenance, repair, and replacement
C modules: demolition, waste processing, and disposal
D module: reuse, recovery, and recycling potential beyond the system boundary

In current practice, most assessments focus on A1-A5, where the majority of emissions occur. However, modules C and D are increasingly relevant for evaluating circularity and long-term impact.

What is embodied carbon benchmarking?

Embodied carbon benchmarking is the process of comparing a building’s carbon performance against defined reference points.

These references can include:

industry benchmarks (e.g. typical kgCO₂e/m² ranges by building type)
regulatory thresholds and national targets
internal portfolio benchmarks set by asset owners or investors

Benchmarking converts absolute carbon values into relative performance insights, making it possible to evaluate and improve outcomes.

Why benchmarking is required for meaningful LCA results

Life Cycle Assessments produce detailed carbon calculations, typically expressed in kgCO₂e per square metre (kgCO₂e/m²).

Without benchmarking, these results remain difficult to interpret.

For example, a value of 650 kgCO₂e/m² does not indicate:

whether the building meets expected performance levels
which materials or systems drive the highest emissions
how it compares to similar assets
what actions should be prioritised

Benchmarking addresses this gap by placing carbon data within a comparable and decision-relevant framework.

Data requirements for reliable benchmarking

Embodied carbon benchmarking depends on data quality, consistency, and structure.

Four conditions are essential:

1. Accurate material quantities

Carbon calculations are derived from material volumes and mass.

This requires:

detailed quantity take-offs or bill of materials
consistent classification systems (e.g. IFC, UniClass)

2. Verified emission factors

Each material must be linked to a reliable emission factor, ideally based on Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs).

3. Consistent calculation methodology

Comparisons require alignment in:

lifecycle boundaries (A–D modules)
calculation standards (e.g. EN 15978)
assumptions and data sources

4. Structured, asset-level datasets

Data must be stored in a format that allows:

aggregation at building level
comparison across multiple assets
reuse across lifecycle stages

Without these conditions, benchmarking results become inconsistent and difficult to act on.

Project-level assessments vs. portfolio-level benchmarking

Most LCAs are conducted at individual project level, often as one-time assessments.

Benchmarking requires extending this approach to portfolio level, where multiple buildings can be analysed together.

At this level, asset owners and investors can:

compare carbon performance across assets
identify outliers and high-impact buildings
track performance against internal or regulatory targets
prioritise interventions based on measurable impact

Portfolio-level benchmarking transforms carbon data into a management and investment tool.

The role of material data in embodied carbon benchmarking

Embodied carbon is directly determined by material composition and quantity.

Materials such as concrete, steel, aluminium, and finishes contribute significantly to a building’s footprint.

Reliable benchmarking therefore depends on material data that is:

complete (covering all major building elements)
quantified (accurate volumes and weights)
structured (consistent across assets)
maintained over time

When material data is fragmented or incomplete, carbon calculations rely on assumptions, reducing accuracy and comparability.

When material data is structured and connected, benchmarking becomes evidence-based and scalable.

Applications of embodied carbon benchmarking

Design optimization

Benchmarking enables comparison of design scenarios, supporting lower-carbon material and system choices early in the project.

Procurement and specification

Material selections can be evaluated based on both performance and carbon impact.

Portfolio management

Asset owners can assess carbon performance across multiple buildings and set measurable reduction targets.

ESG reporting and compliance

Benchmarking supports alignment with:

CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive)
EU Taxonomy
national and regional carbon regulations

Current challenges in implementation

Despite increasing adoption, embodied carbon benchmarking faces several challenges:

inconsistent data formats across projects
limited availability of high-quality, product-specific EPDs
fragmented data between design, construction, and operation
lack of standardised benchmarks across regions and asset types

These challenges highlight the need for structured data management across the building lifecycle.

How Madaster supports embodied carbon benchmarking

Madaster structures material data at building and portfolio level, creating a consistent foundation for carbon analysis.

This enables:

integration with LCA tools and workflows
consistent datasets across multiple assets
transparency into material composition and quantities
comparable carbon insights at portfolio level

Madaster supports reliable and scalable embodied carbon benchmarking by linking material data to lifecycle performance.

Conclusion

Embodied carbon benchmarking enables stakeholders to interpret, compare, and manage carbon performance across buildings.

It provides the context required to move from isolated LCA results to data-driven decision-making at both project and portfolio level.

Its effectiveness depends on one key factor: the availability of structured, consistent material data.

As regulatory requirements increase and expectations around transparency grow, benchmarking will become a standard component of building performance assessment.

For the built environment, this marks a transition from measuring carbon to actively managing it.