Abstract
This dissertation examines how property developers evidence whole-life carbon (WLC) claims for buildings and assesses the prevalence and consistency of independent verification practices. Adopting a literature synthesis methodology, the study analyses peer-reviewed research, policy documentation, and industry standards to establish current evidence and verification norms within the built environment sector. Findings reveal that developers predominantly rely upon project-specific life-cycle assessments (LCAs) constructed from bills of quantities, design drawings, and standardised emission factor databases such as Ecoinvent and the Inventory of Carbon and Energy. However, significant methodological variability persists, with data source selection alone capable of altering embodied carbon estimates by up to 100% for certain materials. The research demonstrates that independent third-party verification remains sporadic rather than systematic, occurring primarily through voluntary certification schemes, emerging monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) technologies, and corporate assurance services driven by reputational considerations rather than regulatory mandate. The dissertation concludes that whilst WLC assessment practices have matured considerably, the absence of standardised verification protocols undermines the credibility of carbon claims and impedes meaningful progress towards decarbonisation targets within the construction industry.
Introduction
The built environment accounts for approximately 39% of global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, with embodied carbon from construction materials and processes representing a substantial and growing proportion of this total (World Green Building Council, 2019). As operational energy efficiency improves through regulatory requirements and technological advancement, the relative significance of embodied carbon intensifies, necessitating comprehensive approaches to carbon accounting that encompass the entire building lifecycle. This paradigm shift has catalysed widespread adoption of whole-life carbon assessment methodologies within the property development sector, with developers increasingly making claims regarding the carbon performance of their projects.
Whole-life carbon encompasses all greenhouse gas emissions associated with a building throughout its existence, from raw material extraction and manufacturing through construction, operation, maintenance, and eventual demolition or deconstruction. The European standard EN 15978 provides the methodological framework for such assessments, delineating life-cycle stages A through D, wherein modules A1–A3 address product manufacture, A4–A5 cover construction processes, B encompasses use-phase emissions including operational energy and maintenance, C addresses end-of-life processes, and D captures benefits or loads beyond the system boundary (CEN, 2011). This standardised approach theoretically enables comparison between projects and tracking of sectoral progress towards decarbonisation objectives.
However, the proliferation of WLC claims raises fundamental questions regarding their evidential basis and reliability. Property developers operate within commercial contexts where demonstrating environmental credentials may confer competitive advantages, access to green finance mechanisms, and compliance with emerging regulatory requirements. The United Kingdom’s proposed Future Buildings Standard and the European Union’s revised Energy Performance of Buildings Directive both signal movement towards mandatory WLC reporting, heightening the stakes associated with carbon claims (HM Government, 2021; European Commission, 2021). Within this context, understanding how claims are substantiated and whether verification mechanisms ensure their accuracy becomes critically important for policymakers, investors, and the broader pursuit of climate mitigation objectives.
The construction industry’s fragmented structure, involving multiple stakeholders with varying capabilities and incentives, creates conditions where information asymmetries may persist. Unlike operational carbon, which can be measured directly through energy consumption data, embodied carbon relies upon modelled estimates derived from complex supply chains and material compositions. This inherent complexity introduces significant scope for methodological variation, data quality issues, and potential misrepresentation, whether intentional or inadvertent. Understanding current evidence practices and verification prevalence therefore assumes considerable academic and practical significance.
Aim and objectives
This dissertation aims to critically examine how property developers evidence whole-life carbon claims for buildings and to assess the prevalence and consistency of independent verification practices within the sector.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives have been established:
1. To identify and analyse the primary methodological approaches employed by developers when evidencing whole-life carbon claims, including data sources, system boundaries, and reporting formats.
2. To evaluate the extent of methodological variability in whole-life carbon assessments and its implications for the reliability and comparability of carbon claims.
3. To determine the current prevalence of independent third-party verification of whole-life carbon claims at both project and corporate levels.
4. To assess emerging initiatives and technologies designed to enhance the standardisation and verification of whole-life carbon data within the built environment sector.
5. To identify gaps in current practice and propose recommendations for strengthening the credibility of whole-life carbon claims through improved evidence and verification mechanisms.
Methodology
This dissertation adopts a literature synthesis methodology, systematically reviewing and integrating findings from peer-reviewed academic literature, policy documentation, technical standards, and authoritative industry publications. This approach is particularly appropriate given the research questions’ focus on understanding current practices, identifying patterns, and synthesising knowledge across multiple studies and jurisdictions.
The literature search strategy employed multiple academic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, using search terms encompassing “whole-life carbon,” “embodied carbon,” “life cycle assessment,” “buildings,” “verification,” “assurance,” and related terminology. The search prioritised publications from 2018 onwards to capture contemporary practices whilst incorporating seminal earlier works where relevant to establishing theoretical foundations. Grey literature from governmental sources, international organisations, and professional bodies supplemented the academic corpus, providing policy context and practice-oriented perspectives.
Quality assessment criteria guided source selection, with preference afforded to peer-reviewed journal articles, publications from recognised academic institutions, government documentation, and reports from established professional organisations. Sources were excluded where methodological transparency was insufficient or where publication venues lacked credible peer review processes.
The synthesis process involved thematic analysis of extracted data, identifying recurrent patterns in evidence practices, methodological approaches, and verification mechanisms. Comparative analysis examined variations across jurisdictions, building typologies, and assessment purposes. The synthesised findings were structured according to the research objectives, enabling systematic examination of how developers evidence claims and the prevalence of independent verification.
Limitations of this methodology include potential publication bias, wherein studies demonstrating methodological problems may be more likely to achieve publication than those confirming consistent practices. Additionally, rapid evolution in policy and practice means that some recent developments may not yet be reflected in the academic literature. These limitations are acknowledged in interpreting findings and drawing conclusions.
Literature review
Theoretical foundations of whole-life carbon assessment
Life cycle assessment provides the methodological foundation for whole-life carbon quantification in buildings. Originating in industrial ecology, LCA enables systematic evaluation of environmental impacts across product or system lifecycles, from raw material acquisition through production, use, and disposal. The International Organization for Standardization codified LCA methodology in the ISO 14040 series, establishing principles of goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation (ISO, 2006). For buildings specifically, the European Committee for Standardization developed EN 15978, which adapts LCA principles to construction works and provides the modular structure (stages A–D) now widely adopted for WLC assessment (CEN, 2011).
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ professional statement on whole-life carbon assessment reinforces this framework within UK practice, mandating EN 15978 compliance for RICS-certified assessments and establishing minimum requirements for data quality and reporting (RICS, 2017). Similarly, the London Energy Transformation Initiative developed the LETI Climate Emergency Design Guide, which provides benchmarks and assessment guidance specifically calibrated to achieve net-zero carbon targets within the UK context (LETI, 2020). These frameworks collectively establish the theoretical basis for WLC claims whilst acknowledging inherent uncertainties and methodological choices that influence results.
Evidence approaches in developer practice
Developers predominantly evidence WLC claims through project-specific life-cycle assessments covering the EN 15978 life-cycle stages. These assessments quantify emissions in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per square metre (kgCO₂e/m²) or total tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO₂e) over specified reference study periods, typically 60 years for buildings (Hart, D’Amico and Pomponi, 2021; Hawkins et al., 2021; Al-Habaibeh et al., 2025).
The input data for such assessments typically comprises bills of quantities derived from design documentation, energy models predicting operational consumption, and material-specific emission factors obtained from databases or product-specific environmental product declarations. Commonly utilised databases include Ecoinvent, the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) developed by the University of Bath, and governmental datasets such as those published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Hart, D’Amico and Pomponi, 2021; Pomponi, Moncaster and Wolf, 2018; Keyhani et al., 2023). Environmental product declarations, conforming to EN 15804, provide manufacturer-specific data verified to ISO 14025 requirements, theoretically offering greater accuracy than generic database values for specific products.
Evidence documentation typically encompasses three core components: quantified WLC figures disaggregated by life-cycle stage, explicit statements identifying data sources employed, and documentation of scenario assumptions regarding building lifespan, component replacement cycles, and end-of-life treatment pathways (Hart, D’Amico and Pomponi, 2021; Pomponi, Moncaster and Wolf, 2018; Keyhani et al., 2023; Hawkins et al., 2021; Greene et al., 2022). The completeness and transparency of this documentation varies considerably across projects and jurisdictions, reflecting the absence of universally mandated reporting formats.
Methodological variability and its implications
Despite standardisation efforts, substantial methodological variability characterises WLC assessment practice. Research by Pomponi, Moncaster and Wolf (2018) demonstrated this variability through an industry-academia collaborative project wherein three independent consultants assessed identical buildings using the same drawings and quantity information. The results revealed significant discrepancies across all life-cycle stages, indicating strong assessor-dependence of outcomes even when ostensibly following common methodological frameworks.
Data source selection represents a particularly significant source of variation. Keyhani et al. (2023) compared WLC assessments for a typical UK residential building using alternative embodied carbon databases, finding that choice between BEIS factors and ICE/EPD data could alter material emission estimates by up to approximately 100% for certain products. End-of-life stage calculations proved especially sensitive to data source selection, given differing assumptions regarding waste treatment and recycling rates embedded within alternative databases.
System boundary inconsistencies compound data source effects. Despite EN 15978 specifying comprehensive coverage of stages A through C, many assessments omit particular modules. Stages A5 (construction-installation process) and C (end-of-life) are frequently excluded despite potentially contributing 6–15% each to total WLC (Pomponi, Moncaster and Wolf, 2018; Hawkins et al., 2021; Al-Habaibeh et al., 2025). Partial cradle-to-gate scopes, covering only stages A1–A3, remain common in practice, particularly for preliminary assessments, but risk underestimating total lifecycle impacts.
Hegarty and Kinnane (2022), in their whole-life carbon quantification of the Irish built environment, emphasised the critical importance of transparent methodological documentation to enable meaningful comparison between assessments. Their findings reinforced concerns regarding comparability when assessments employ divergent system boundaries, data sources, and modelling assumptions.
Independent verification at project level
At the individual building level, formal third-party technical verification of WLC claims is not yet routine practice. The comparative research by Pomponi, Moncaster and Wolf (2018) highlighted that even instances of independent assessment—wherein different consultants re-assess the same project—occur rarely in practice. When such cross-checking does occur, the large spread of results underscores weak verification norms and the difficulty of establishing definitive “correct” values against which to audit claims.
Certification schemes provide one mechanism through which verification may occur. The Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) both incorporate whole-life carbon criteria within their assessment frameworks, requiring third-party assessor review of submitted evidence (BRE, 2023; USGBC, 2021). However, such review typically focuses on procedural compliance—confirming that assessments have been conducted using appropriate methodologies—rather than technical verification of underlying calculations and data accuracy.
The Institution of Structural Engineers’ guidance on embodied carbon verification acknowledges this gap, noting that current practice lacks consistent mechanisms for ensuring the accuracy of reported figures (IStructE, 2020). The guidance recommends that structural engineers develop competence in reviewing carbon calculations but stops short of mandating independent verification.
Verification at corporate level
At the corporate level, where carbon disclosures inform investment decisions and stakeholder reporting, independent assurance of greenhouse gas statements has grown but remains voluntary. Fan, Tang and Pan (2020) conducted an international study examining carbon information asymmetry and independent carbon assurance, finding that firms characterised by greater information asymmetry are more likely to purchase carbon assurance services. This pattern suggests that verification is selective and driven by reputational or disclosure risk rather than representing a universal norm.
The major accounting firms offer carbon assurance services conforming to ISAE 3410 (Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements), providing limited or reasonable assurance opinions on corporate carbon disclosures (IAASB, 2012). However, the scope of such engagements typically encompasses Scope 1 and 2 emissions, with Scope 3 emissions—which include embodied carbon in construction projects—often excluded or subject to limited assurance levels given data complexity and reliance on estimated factors.
The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures has accelerated corporate attention to carbon reporting, and mandatory climate disclosure requirements emerging in the UK, EU, and elsewhere will likely increase demand for assurance services (TCFD, 2017). Nevertheless, the gap between corporate-level disclosure assurance and project-level WLC verification persists, with limited mechanisms connecting individual building assessments to aggregated corporate reporting.
Emerging standardisation and data infrastructure initiatives
Several national and regional initiatives are developing more standardised approaches to WLC assessment, though their focus primarily addresses methodology and data infrastructure rather than systematic project-by-project auditing. Železná et al. (2024) documented the process of defining Czech national benchmarks for whole-life carbon assessment, establishing reference values against which building performance can be compared. Such benchmarks provide context for interpreting individual project claims but do not themselves verify the accuracy of those claims.
In Spain, Soust-Verdaguer et al. (2025) described the development of data infrastructure for whole-life carbon emissions baselines, creating standardised methodologies and traceable data systems to support consistent assessment practice. These efforts emphasise data integrity and methodological harmonisation as prerequisites for meaningful comparison and eventual verification.
Technological approaches offer potential for enhanced verification capabilities. Luo et al. (2024) developed a blockchain-empowered information management system for building life-cycle carbon monitoring, reporting and verification in Hong Kong. The system leverages blockchain’s immutability and traceability characteristics to create auditable records of carbon data throughout the building lifecycle. Whilst promising, such technologies remain emergent and have not yet achieved widespread adoption.
Artificial intelligence applications are also being explored to accelerate WLC assessment processes. Al-Habaibeh et al. (2025) investigated how AI could support more rapid and consistent whole-life carbon assessment, potentially reducing methodological variability through automated calculation processes. However, these technologies introduce their own verification challenges regarding algorithmic transparency and the provenance of training data.
Discussion
The evidence landscape: achievements and limitations
The synthesis of literature reveals that WLC evidence practices have matured considerably over the past decade. The widespread adoption of EN 15978 as the methodological framework, combined with increasingly sophisticated databases and professional guidance, has established common foundations for carbon quantification. Developers can now evidence claims through structured assessments that quantify emissions across life-cycle stages, document data sources, and articulate scenario assumptions. This represents meaningful progress from earlier practices characterised by ad hoc calculations and inconsistent scope definitions.
However, the evidence also demonstrates that standardisation remains incomplete. The finding that data source selection alone can alter embodied carbon estimates by up to 100% for certain materials fundamentally undermines the comparability of claims across projects (Keyhani et al., 2023). When two assessments of identical buildings can legitimately produce substantially different results depending solely on database selection, the evidentiary value of individual carbon claims becomes questionable. This variability is not a function of uncertainty regarding physical emissions—the actual carbon released during cement production, for example, is a measurable quantity—but rather reflects inconsistencies in how databases compile, update, and present emission factors.
The methodological variability identified by Pomponi, Moncaster and Wolf (2018) extends beyond data sources to encompass modelling approaches, interpretation of assessment boundaries, and treatment of uncertainty. The demonstration that three qualified consultants produced significantly discrepant results when assessing identical projects suggests that current evidence practices contain substantial subjective elements that evade standardisation. This assessor-dependence raises concerns not only about the accuracy of individual claims but about the broader validity of sectoral carbon accounting and progress tracking.
The verification deficit and its consequences
The research findings confirm that independent verification of WLC claims remains sporadic and methodologically inconsistent. At project level, formal third-party technical checking is exceptional rather than routine, with existing mechanisms—primarily certification scheme reviews—focusing on procedural compliance rather than substantive accuracy. At corporate level, whilst independent assurance services are increasingly available, their uptake remains voluntary and typically excludes the embodied carbon most relevant to construction companies’ WLC claims.
This verification deficit has several consequential implications. First, it permits the persistence of methodological variability by removing the accountability mechanism that verification would provide. Without systematic checking, assessors face limited consequences for methodological choices that favour lower reported emissions, whether through optimistic assumptions, selective system boundaries, or advantageous database selection. Second, the absence of verification undermines market mechanisms that might otherwise incentivise genuine carbon reduction. If claims cannot be reliably compared, investors and occupiers cannot meaningfully differentiate between high and low carbon buildings, attenuating the commercial benefits of carbon reduction investment. Third, the verification gap impedes effective policymaking by providing regulators with unreliable data regarding sectoral emissions and the effectiveness of interventions.
The pattern identified by Fan, Tang and Pan (2020), wherein verification uptake correlates with information asymmetry and reputational risk rather than carbon performance, suggests that current assurance mechanisms serve signalling functions rather than quality assurance purposes. Firms with greater exposure to stakeholder scrutiny purchase assurance to demonstrate credibility, regardless of underlying performance. This dynamic may perversely reward sophisticated reporting capabilities over genuine emissions reduction.
Emerging solutions and their limitations
The national benchmark initiatives documented for the Czech Republic and Spain represent important steps towards standardisation, establishing reference values and common methodologies that can enhance comparability (Železná et al., 2024; Soust-Verdaguer et al., 2025). However, benchmarks address comparability rather than verification per se—they enable contextualisation of claims but do not confirm their accuracy. A project claiming performance below benchmark values still requires verification to ensure that the claim reflects actual characteristics rather than methodological manipulation.
Blockchain-based MRV systems, such as that developed for Hong Kong by Luo et al. (2024), offer potentially transformative capabilities for verification through immutable and traceable data records. By creating auditable chains of custody for carbon data—from material manufacturer through construction to building operation—such systems could enable verification that currently proves impractical. However, technological solutions face adoption barriers including cost, technical complexity, and the requirement for data sharing across supply chains with limited traditions of transparency.
Artificial intelligence applications may reduce methodological variability through standardised calculation processes, but introduce new verification challenges. Algorithmic decision-making in carbon assessment requires transparency regarding model architectures, training data, and assumption hierarchies. Without such transparency, AI-generated carbon claims may prove even more difficult to verify than conventional assessments, substituting one form of opacity for another.
Implications for meeting research objectives
The discussion above demonstrates achievement of the research objectives whilst identifying significant gaps in current practice. Regarding objective one, the research clearly identifies LCA based on bills of quantities and emission factor databases as the primary evidence approach, with EN 15978 providing the methodological framework and various databases and EPDs supplying emission factors. Regarding objective two, the extent of methodological variability has been established as substantial, with data source effects of up to 100% for certain materials and significant assessor-dependence even with controlled inputs. Objective three has been addressed through documentation of verification’s sporadic and voluntary nature, concentrated in certification schemes and corporate assurance services rather than systematic project-level checking. Objective four has been met through analysis of emerging initiatives including national benchmarks, blockchain MRV systems, and AI applications, whilst noting their current limitations. The gaps identified through objectives one through four inform the recommendations that will be elaborated in the conclusions, thereby addressing objective five.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined how property developers evidence whole-life carbon claims for buildings and assessed the prevalence of independent verification. The research confirms that WLC claims are predominantly evidenced through project-specific life-cycle assessments based on design documentation and emission factor databases, following the EN 15978 methodological framework. Evidence typically encompasses quantified emissions by life-cycle stage, explicit data source statements, and documented scenario assumptions. These practices represent considerable advancement in carbon accountability within the construction sector.
However, the research also reveals significant limitations in current practice. Methodological variability remains substantial, with data source selection alone capable of altering results by up to 100% for certain materials, and assessor-dependence producing significant discrepancies even when identical projects are evaluated. System boundary inconsistencies persist, with frequently omitted life-cycle stages potentially representing 6–15% each of total WLC.
Independent verification of WLC claims is sporadic rather than systematic. At project level, formal third-party technical checking is not routine, with existing mechanisms focusing on procedural compliance rather than substantive accuracy. At corporate level, independent assurance services are growing but remain voluntary and selective, driven by reputational considerations rather than universal norms. Where cross-checks do occur, they frequently reveal substantial variation, underscoring the weakness of current verification practices.
Emerging initiatives—including national benchmarks, blockchain-based MRV systems, and AI applications—offer potential pathways towards enhanced standardisation and verification, but face adoption barriers and do not yet provide systematic project-level auditing capabilities.
These findings carry significant implications for policy, practice, and research. Policymakers should consider mandatory verification requirements as WLC reporting obligations expand, learning from the evolution of financial audit practices. Professional bodies should strengthen guidance on verification procedures, moving beyond procedural compliance towards substantive accuracy assessment. Database developers and standard-setters should prioritise harmonisation of emission factors to reduce data-source variability that currently undermines comparability.
Future research should investigate the cost-effectiveness of alternative verification approaches, examine barriers to verification uptake, and assess the accuracy of emerging AI-based assessment tools. Longitudinal studies tracking the evolution of verification practices as regulatory requirements intensify would provide valuable insights into policy effectiveness.
The credibility of the construction industry’s contribution to climate mitigation depends upon the reliability of its carbon claims. Current practices, whilst representing genuine progress, remain insufficiently robust to provide the assurance that investors, regulators, and the public require. Strengthening evidence standards and establishing systematic verification mechanisms must be priorities for the sector’s continued development.
References
Al-Habaibeh, A., Manu, E., Clement, T., Shakmak, B., Selvam, J. and Lin, T., 2025. Accelerating whole life carbon assessment in construction with artificial intelligence. *Energy Catalyst*. https://doi.org/10.61552/ec.2025.004
BRE, 2023. *BREEAM New Construction Technical Manual*. Watford: Building Research Establishment.
CEN, 2011. *EN 15978:2011 Sustainability of construction works – Assessment of environmental performance of buildings – Calculation method*. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
European Commission, 2021. *Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the energy performance of buildings (recast)*. COM(2021) 802 final. Brussels: European Commission.
Fan, H., Tang, Q. and Pan, L., 2020. An international study of carbon information asymmetry and independent carbon assurance. *British Accounting Review*, 53(1), p.100971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2020.100971
Greene, J., Hosanna, H., Willson, B. and Quinn, J., 2022. Whole life embodied emissions and net-zero emissions potential for a mid-rise office building constructed with mass timber. *Sustainable Materials and Technologies*, 31, p.e00528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2022.e00528
Hart, J., D’Amico, B. and Pomponi, F., 2021. Whole‐life embodied carbon in multistory buildings: Steel, concrete and timber structures. *Journal of Industrial Ecology*, 25(2), pp.403–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13139
Hawkins, W., Cooper, S., Allen, S., Roynon, J. and Ibell, T., 2021. Embodied carbon assessment using a dynamic climate model: Case-study comparison of a concrete, steel and timber building structure. *Structures*, 33, pp.90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.013
Hegarty, R. and Kinnane, O., 2022. Whole life carbon quantification of the built environment: Case study Ireland. *Building and Environment*, 226, p.109730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109730
HM Government, 2021. *The Future Buildings Standard: Consultation on changes to Part L (conservation of fuel and power) and Part F (ventilation) of the Building Regulations for non-domestic buildings and dwellings*. London: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
IAASB, 2012. *ISAE 3410 Assurance Engagements on Greenhouse Gas Statements*. New York: International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board.
ISO, 2006. *ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework*. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
IStructE, 2020. *How to calculate embodied carbon*. London: Institution of Structural Engineers.
Keyhani, M., Abbaspour, A., Bahadori‐Jahromi, A., Mylona, A., Janbey, A., Godfrey, P. and Zhang, H., 2023. Whole life carbon assessment of a typical UK residential building using different embodied carbon data sources. *Sustainability*, 15(6), p.5115. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065115
LETI, 2020. *LETI Climate Emergency Design Guide*. London: London Energy Transformation Initiative.
Luo, Y., Shen, J., Liang, H., Sun, L. and Dong, L., 2024. Supporting building life cycle carbon monitoring, reporting and verification: A traceable and immutable blockchain-empowered information management system and application in Hong Kong. *Resources, Conservation and Recycling*, 205, p.107736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107736
Pomponi, F., Moncaster, A. and Wolf, C., 2018. Furthering embodied carbon assessment in practice: Results of an industry-academia collaborative research project. *Energy and Buildings*, 167, pp.177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.02.052
RICS, 2017. *Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment*. 1st ed. London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Soust-Verdaguer, B., García-Martínez, A., Rey-Álvarez, B., De Diego, B., De La Fuente, A. and Röck, M., 2025. Data infrastructure for whole-life carbon emissions baselines of buildings in Spain. *Energy and Buildings*, 312, p.116307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2025.116307
TCFD, 2017. *Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures*. Basel: Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.
USGBC, 2021. *LEED v4.1 Building Design and Construction*. Washington, DC: U.S. Green Building Council.
World Green Building Council, 2019. *Bringing embodied carbon upfront: Coordinated action for the building and construction sector to tackle embodied carbon*. London: World Green Building Council.
Železná, J., Felicioni, L., Trubina, N., Vlasatá, B., Růžička, J. and Veselka, J., 2024. Whole life carbon assessment of buildings: The process to define Czech national benchmarks. *Buildings*, 14(7), p.1936. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14071936
