Your questions and our answers

An ecoverity LCA combines rigorous modelling with a lean, digital project process. We do not work from rigid templates. Instead we structure your product data so that bespoke construction products, variants and special cases can all be represented cleanly. That relies on internal automation, standardised data logic and close coordination with your team. The process stays efficient and easy to follow, with a person to talk to throughout.

We work primarily with the current version of ecoinvent. For construction product data we add suitable data sets per project, for example from ÖKOBAUDAT or other recognised sources. Which database fits depends on what the LCA will later be used for. If an EPD to EN 15804+A2 is planned, we make sure while building the inventory that the data basis will connect cleanly and stay consistent with the requirements of the relevant programme operator.

For a clearly bounded cradle-to-grave scope we usually reckon with 1 to 2 weeks from data release. The biggest time factor is normally not the modelling but the availability and quality of the input data. That is why we set out early which information is needed, which data is realistically available and which assumptions have to be documented properly.

Rework within the agreed LCA project is included in the price, including when it comes up later through queries, internal review or follow-on use. That covers corrections, methodological explanations, smaller adjustments or additional evidence for the existing calculation. If the product itself changes, through a new formulation, different suppliers, new production data or additional variants, the LCA data basis has to be updated technically. That does not require a completely new LCA, but a targeted follow-on assignment building on the existing model.

The functional unit (FU) is the reference quantity all environmental impacts are normalised to, for example one square metre of installed insulation assembly at a U-value of 0.24 W/(m²K) over a 50-year service life. It decides whether comparisons between products are methodologically admissible at all. For construction products EN 15804+A2 additionally requires a declared unit, for instance 1 kg of material, for the background calculation. A poorly chosen FU makes an LCA practically useless for comparison.

The modules of EN 15804+A2 break the life cycle of a construction product into stages: A1-A3 (cradle to gate, covering raw materials, transport to the plant and manufacturing), A4-A5 (transport to site and installation), B1-B7 (use, maintenance, repair, replacement and energy consumption), C1-C4 (deconstruction, transport, processing and disposal) and D (loads and credits beyond the system boundary). A complete EPD to EN 15804+A2 declares at least A1-A3 as mandatory, while further modules are declared depending on the product category or the product itself.

An external critical review to ISO 14040/14044 makes sense when the LCA will be used for comparative statements towards third parties, for example marketing comparisons between product variants or against competitor products. It is not compulsory for producing an EPD alone, because third-party verification to EN 15804+A2 covers the methodological check. Anyone comparing against alternative assemblies during planning gains additional weight from a critical review.

Yes. Many manufacturers start with a cradle-to-gate LCA to identify hotspots internally or compare reduction options before committing to a published EPD. The data basis is methodologically identical to the later EPD model, so no work is duplicated.

An Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) is a verified data sheet documenting the environmental impacts of a construction product across its life cycle. It is based on an LCA and follows the form and language of EN 15804+A2. It is increasingly requested by lead planners, public sector clients and certification systems such as DGNB, BNB or LEED, and by large customers down the supply chain who need EPD data for their own CSRD Scope 3 reports. Under the EU Construction Products Regulation it becomes mandatory for many product categories from 2027, staged through delegated acts.

With us an EPD normally takes about 1 to 2 weeks from data release. That assumes the relevant product data is complete: bills of materials, energy consumption, supplier data, packaging and production information. Where it is not, we support data collection during a factory visit. We agree the exact sequence and project duration with you bindingly at the kick-off.

The price depends mainly on product complexity, data availability and the chosen programme operator. An EPD for a clearly bounded single product costs less than a product family EPD covering several variants, layer structures or production sites. We are happy to send you our price list on request. After a first data review we can set the scope more precisely and prepare an individual, non-binding quote.

Yes. Several variants can be combined in a product family EPD where it makes methodological sense to represent them together. This matters particularly for construction products with a similar structure but different thicknesses, formats, formulation shares or performance classes. We check at the start whether a family EPD is possible or whether separate EPDs make more sense. The aim is a solution that stays methodologically sound while reducing the maintenance effort.

Verification is carried out by an independent, accredited third party. We prepare the EPD documents and the background documentation and handle the queries during the review, but the verification itself is external. Typical programme operators in the construction products sector are the following. First, IBU (Institut Bauen und Umwelt), an established German programme operator for EPDs. IBU reviews and publishes EPDs with independent third-party verification and has a particularly strong position in the German construction products market. Second, Kiwa-Ecobility Experts, an international EPD programme operator within the Kiwa group. Kiwa offers EPD programmes and verification for construction products and is also active in the context of the Construction Products Regulation. Third, ift Rosenheim, a programme operator with a strong focus on windows, doors, facades and building elements. Published EPDs list ift Rosenheim as the programme operator, while older declaration codes use the abbreviation AFT among others.

An ecoverity EPD combines rigorous modelling with a lean, digital project process. We do not work from rigid templates. Instead we structure your product data so that complex construction products, variants, layer structures and special cases can all be represented cleanly. That relies on internal automation, standardised data logic and close coordination with your team. The process stays efficient and easy to follow, with a person to talk to throughout.

An EPD to EN 15804+A2 is normally valid for five years. We handle the update through our EPD updates service and come back to you in good time before it expires. If the product, formulation, suppliers or production data change substantially, an update can be sensible or necessary before the five years are up. The existing data basis does not have to be rebuilt for that, it can be updated selectively.

The LCA is the methodological foundation, a full analysis across every impact category (global warming potential, acidification, eutrophication, resource consumption and others) to ISO 14040/14044. The PCF, or product carbon footprint, is a reduced view covering only the CO₂ effect, usually to ISO 14067 or the GHG Protocol. The EPD is the standardised, verified publication format of an LCA in the language of EN 15804+A2 for construction products. If you have an EPD, the PCF comes with it. The reverse does not hold.

Methodologically the PCF is a subset of the EPD. The global warming potential values from module A1-A3 of the EPD, or a wider set, correspond functionally to the cradle-to-gate PCF. With a verified EPD you can use the global warming potential figures directly for PCF requests, provided the calculation scope matches what the request asks for. On request we extract PCF data from running EPD projects without modelling anything twice.

The PCF of a construction product supplies inputs for several ESRS E1 data points, particularly Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) on the customer side, and for your own Scope 1, 2 and 3 balances where plant data feeds into the PCF. In practice, product-specific emission factors replace blanket sector averages and noticeably improve data quality in CSRD reporting. Direct one-to-one transfer is not possible though, because the ESRS require a different aggregation logic from a product-level PCF.

Where supplier data is missing we work with a hierarchy of default values: specific database values first (Ökobaudat, ecoinvent), then sector studies, and finally conservative estimates with the assumption documented. Every gap and every assumption is stated explicitly in the background documentation. That is a precondition for verification and makes later improvements, once real supplier data arrives, possible without rebuilding the model.

The CSRD applies in stages: large capital-market-oriented companies from financial year 2024, all large companies under the EU accounting directive from 2025 (meeting two of three criteria: more than 250 employees, more than €50 million revenue, more than €25 million balance sheet total), listed SMEs from 2026 and non-EU companies with substantial EU activity from 2028. The European Commission's Omnibus initiative has opened ongoing discussions about delays and threshold changes. We track the current state of play in the regulatory cockpit.

No. ESRS E1 does not require EPDs, it requires emission figures with a documented method. EPDs are the highest-quality carrier for that data, though, because they are verified and therefore give audit certainty. Equipping only your high-revenue products with EPDs and working with well-documented internal PCFs for the rest is often the most efficient route.

Not strictly, but for the climate data points in ESRS E1 dependable product-level emission data makes the biggest difference. With an LCA or a PCF you fill Scope 3 category 1 with auditable values rather than sector averages. Without that data basis we work with conservative defaults in the first year and prioritise product- and plant-specific refinement in the years after.

Three things. First, we build on your existing methodological data basis rather than creating a parallel reporting world alongside the LCA and PCF work. Second, we supply methodological documentation that holds up to a limited assurance audit, without you having to buy reporting infrastructure for it. Third, we build the report so management can use it as a steering instrument between reporting years, not only as a compliance duty.

For a mid-sized company with a focused product portfolio, typically 4 to 6 months from project start to the audited report, assuming the LCA and PCF data basis and the plant KPIs exist in acceptable shape. The first year is the structural work. Following years are considerably leaner, typically 2 to 3 months, because the data point mapping, materiality matrix and method are already in place.

We advise against relying on delays, because the ESRS data points are already the market standard in substance. Many large customers, banks and insurers ask for them regardless of the legal date. Building now means having a presentable reporting basis rather than an empty folder if it is delayed, and no rushed project if it is not.

Yes. Many of our mid-sized clients are not formally subject to the CSRD yet, but large customers ask them for similar data points through supply chain due diligence (LkSG, CSDDD) and ESG ratings. A slimmed-down ESRS Set 1 report serves those requests and positions the company in advance for the day the obligation arrives.

A dependable hotspot analysis, meaning an LCA that shows which life cycle stages and which materials are actually the drivers. Without that basis you prioritise on gut feel and often invest in measures with little effect. A cradle-to-gate LCA is enough for most product-level reduction decisions. For products where the use phase matters, such as insulation with an energy-saving effect, we add modules B and C.

We work along three axes. First, effect: how large the impact on the overall balance is. Second, effort: what implementation costs in money, time and organisational risk. Third, maturity: whether the material or process already exists on the market or still has to be developed. That matrix produces a path with quick wins, medium-term measures and long-term material substitution options. We do not decide for you. We supply the data basis that makes your decision defensible.

We start with blanket database values, identify the hotspot suppliers and then work with your purchasing team on targeted data requests, typically for the two to five materials that contribute most. We supply question templates suppliers can realistically answer, and we integrate real supplier PCFs into the model as soon as they arrive verified. Methodologically that is the single biggest lift for data quality.

Reduction means less CO₂ arises in the first place, through material substitution, more energy-efficient processes or circular design. Offsetting means emissions that have already arisen are balanced outside your own value chain, usually through certificates. Both have their place, but they are not interchangeable. The EU Green Claims Directive and new ISO standards sharpen the requirements on offsetting claims considerably. We advise looking at reduction before offsetting every time, and communicating offsetting separately from product claims.

Three principles. First, claims are quantified and tied to a clear reference, for example "23 per cent lower global warming potential than variant X across A1-A3" rather than "climate friendly". Second, the data basis is verified, or at least externally checkable. Third, claims are kept in context, because "reduced CO₂ in manufacturing" without mentioning high use-phase loads is methodologically vulnerable. The EU Green Claims Directive turns these requirements into a regulatory duty from 2026. We already work to them today.

Only in a very limited way. Given where the Green Claims Directive stands in the EU, such statements will soon be practically impossible without very tight substantiation. Instead of absolute claims we advise communicating relative, precise ones, such as "global warming potential A1-A3: X kg CO₂ equivalent per functional unit, Y per cent lower than the previous generation". Those are defensible, checkable and survive changes in regulation.

The revised EU Construction Products Regulation (the CPR recast, in force since 2025) brings several obligations staged up to 2027 and beyond: extended life cycle data requirements, with EPD data becoming mandatory in time, the Digital Product Passport for many categories, and new verification and market surveillance rules. The detail comes through delegated acts published per category, so the timetable depends on your product category. Without meeting the requirements there is no EU market access for the categories affected.

The revised EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (the EPBD recast) has been in force since 2024 and has to be transposed into national law by member states by May 2026. Among other things it requires the life cycle global warming potential, or whole-life carbon, to be calculated for new buildings: from 2028 for large new builds and from 2030 for all new builds. Construction products with an EPD will be in demand as the data carriers for that calculation.

The Digital Product Passport is becoming steadily more relevant through the new EU Construction Products Regulation. There is not yet a blanket obligation for all construction products from a fixed date. What matters is when the technical rules, data requirements and implementing acts for each product group are in place. What is clear is that the DPP will be introduced for construction products step by step, and that it will make product information available digitally, in a structured, machine-readable form. Manufacturers who start early avoid high costs and long waiting times.

Yes, and that is exactly the sensible move. Even though not every mandatory field is settled, the building blocks are already foreseeable: product master data, material information, environmental indicators, recycling notes, technical evidence and supply chain information. A DPP project therefore creates clarity today. Which data do you already hold? What is missing? Which information comes from ERP, PIM, EPD or LCA? And what would a data model look like that can be adapted to the final requirements later?

The Empowering Consumers Directive (EU 2024/825) applies bindingly from 27 September 2026. Generic claims such as "climate neutral", "environmentally friendly", "eco" or "green" are prohibited without scientifically substantiated, clear and verifiable evidence. Climate neutrality claims resting solely on offsetting are no longer admissible. Forward-looking claims such as "climate neutral by 2030" need a credible, documented implementation plan. The Green Claims Directive originally announced as a complement was shelved by the European Commission on 20 June 2025, which leaves EmpCo as the central active lever against greenwashing. Anyone communicating today on the basis of verified EPD, LCA and PCF data is already largely EmpCo-compliant in method.

The Qualitätssiegel Nachhaltiges Gebäude (QNG) is the German state recognition scheme and a condition for funding such as the KfW climate-friendly new construction line. The QNG requires building-level life cycle calculations that draw on product-level EPDs, primarily from Ökobaudat. Manufacturers with an EPD published in Ökobaudat are therefore preferred in QNG-relevant construction projects. That is a genuine differentiator, because it makes them directly comparable against competitors in tenders.

The ESPR has been in force since 2024 and sets the legal framework for product-specific requirements on durability, repairability, recyclability, energy and resource efficiency, and for the Digital Product Passport. The concrete requirements are set in delegated acts per product group. Construction products are addressed partly through the EU CPR and partly directly through the ESPR. Which route applies to your product is something we establish per category in the regulatory cockpit.

Thirty minutes by video or phone. You outline your product, the question and what prompted it: a tender, a customer request, regulatory pressure or your own initiative. We listen, work through the methodological steps with you, what comes first and what comes later, and say plainly whether we are the right partner or whether another route makes more sense. No sales pitch, no slide deck, no questionnaire loop.

The standard is a fixed price per service (LCA, EPD, PCF, reduction study), based on the data review. That gives you predictability and us a clear scope. For ongoing support, such as CSRD reporting across several reporting periods, we work with quarterly retainers. We only use hourly rates for clearly bounded extra work outside the agreed scope.

Yes. The services are cut so they can be commissioned individually while still building on each other methodologically. You can start with an LCA, derive an EPD from it later, then continue with CO₂ reduction, or begin with any single service. We check each time whether the preceding stages hold, and say so plainly when they do not.

For an LCA or EPD, typically: bills of materials and formulations per product variant, energy data at the plant (electricity, heat and fuels where relevant), a supplier list with the main materials and transport routes, plus details on packaging and, where relevant, installation and disposal scenarios. We supply data request templates that match the data quality of your plant and ERP systems. You do not need to bring any LCA vocabulary with you.

Sensitive plant and supplier data stays confidential to the project and is never reused for other engagements. The LCA model and the background documentation belong methodologically to both sides: to you for internal use and updates, to us for maintenance if the work is extended. On explicit request we export the model in full in an editable format, to hand over to you or to another provider.

As standard we sign an NDA before every project starts, on our template or yours. Plant data, formulations, supplier contracts and product strategy information are used solely for the agreed project. They are never named in marketing material or reference lists and never passed to third parties. Anything published, whether a case study or a mention of an EPD, happens only with your explicit approval.

Yes. For manufacturers with a larger product portfolio or a continuous CSRD reporting need we offer framework agreements with defined service blocks per quarter. That makes budget planning more reliable and reduces the onboarding effort for each individual assignment. We set up the first framework after at least one completed pilot project, so both sides can judge realistically what makes sense.