The demand for technical and verified documentation of buildings and building materials is growing, along with the increasing focus on sustainability in the built environment. However, despite a common wish to build sustainably, it is still found that EPDs and LCAs are not always similarly interpreted, leading to misunderstandings on how they should be used to quantify and verify sustainability along with being a competitive parameter when choosing materials. To overcome this barrier this project seeks to discover: 1. How can EPDs be used as a competitive parameter within the sustainable built environment? 2. How can product specific EPDs, used as an input to building-level LCAs, help to quantify the concept of ‘circular economy’? 3. How do some countries seem to succeed in introducing EPDs to industry while others only succeed to a lesser extent? By involving the Danish building-industry’s value-chain through qualitative interviews, workshops and reference groups, as well as by contacting EPD programme operators throughout Europe and USA, a mapping has been performed on the tendencies of how and to what extend EPDs are used to quantify and support material decision-making in buildings. Further, the drivers as to why EPDs are used in some countries is investigated along with suggestions on how to boost the development, use and integration of EPDs with the aim of quantifying and documenting sustainability in the built environment.

Purpose Sustainable building design suffers from a lack of reliable life cycle data. The purpose of this paper is to compare life cycle costs of sustainable building projects, examine the magnitude of various cost drivers and discuss the implications of an emerging shift in cost drivers. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on data from 21 office buildings certified in Denmark according to the sustainable certification scheme DGNB. Findings The paper supports previous findings that construction costs and running costs each roughly make up half of the life cycle costs over a 50-year period. More surprising is the finding that the life cycle costs for cleaning are approximately twice as high as the supply costs for energy and water. Research limitations/implications The data set is based on actual construction costs of office buildings constructed in 2013-2017. Although all running costs are calculated rather than measured, they are based on a more detailed, specific and industry-supported set of calculation assumptions than is usual for life cycle costing studies because of extensive collaborative work in a number of concomitant national research and development projects. Practical implications Authorities, clients and building professionals heavily emphasise energy-saving measures in new Danish buildings. The paper suggests redirecting this effort towards other more prominent cost drivers like cleaning and technical installations. Originality/value This paper provides a notable contribution to the academic understanding of the significance of different cost drivers as well as the practical implementation of life cycle costing.