Purpose: Growing awareness of the environmental performance of construction products and buildings brings about the need for a suitable method to assess their environmental performance. Life cycle assessment (LCA) has become a widely recognised and accepted method to assess the burdens and impacts throughout the life cycle. This LCA-based information may be in the form of environmental product declarations (EPD) or product environmental footprints (PEF), based on reliable and verifiable information. All of these use LCA to quantify and report several environmental impact categories and may also provide additional information. To better understand on the one hand existing EPD programmes (EN 15804) for each country and on the other the recent developments in terms of EU reference document (e.g. PEF), the authors decided to write this review paper based on the outcomes of the EPD workshop that was held prior to SB13 Graz conference. Methods: This paper presents the state of the art in LCA and an overview of the EPD programmes in five European countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland) based on the workshop in the first part and a comprehensive description and comparison of the PEF method and EN 15804 in the second part. In the last part, a general conclusion will wrap up the findings and results will provide a further outlook on future activities. Results and discussion: The high number of EPD programmes underlines the fact that there is obviously a demand for assessments of the environmental performance of construction materials. In the comparison between and experiences of the different countries, it can be seen that more similarities than differences exist. A comparison between PEF and EPD shows differences, e.g. LCIA impact categories and recycling methodology. Conclusions: Independent of raising awareness of the construction material environmental performance, the existence of so many environmental claims calls for clarification and harmonisation. Additionally, construction materials being assessed in the voluntary approaches have to follow the harmonised approach following the principles of the European Construction Products Regulation (regulated) not to foster barriers of trade. The authors therefore highly appreciate the most recent activities of the sustainability of construction works (CEN/TC 350 committee http://portailgroupe.afnor.fr/public_espacenormalisation/CENTC350/index.html) currently working on these issues at the EU level. Finally, the LCA community is further encouraged to increase the background life cycle inventory data and life cycle inventory modelling as well as the meaningfulness of certain environmental impact categories, such as toxicity, land use, biodiversity and resource usage.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to research the impact of sustainable office buildings on occupant's comfort and self‐assessed performance and work engagement.Design/methodology/approach: The research consists in an empirical study of 18 office buildings and is based on survey data from almost 1,500 employees.Findings: The study shows that the building itself has a clear impact on the comfort level of the building user. Also, the positive impact of certain features, such as operable windows and the absence of air conditioning, can be clearly identified. While productivity is not directly correlated to comfort levels, work engagement is. Generally, the analysis shows that specific building aspects seem to have an influence on user comfort and with that, also an impact on productivity; however, this impact appears to be limited.Originality/value: This is a very important insight since this shows the connection between employee and company and thus demonstrates that a high user comfort can reduce the turnover rate of employees. Therefore, additional planning towards user comfort and social sustainability can be shown to yield real returns.

The goal of this study was to identify drivers of environmental impact and quantify their influence on the environmental performance of wooden and massive residential and office buildings. We performed a life cycle assessment and used thermal simulation to quantify operational energy demand and to account for differences in thermal inertia of building mass. Twenty-eight input parameters, affecting operation, design, material, and exogenic building properties were sampled in a Monte Carlo analysis. To determine sensitivity, we calculated the correlation between each parameter and the resulting life cycle inventory and impact assessment scores. Parameters affecting operational energy demand and energy conversion are the most influential for the building’s total environmental performance. For climate change, electricity mix, ventilation rate, heating system, and construction material rank the highest. Thermal inertia results in an average 2–6% difference in heat demand. Nonrenewable cumulative energy demand of wooden buildings is 18% lower, compared to a massive variant. Total cumulative energy demand is comparable. The median climate change impact is 25% lower, including end-of-life material credits and 22% lower, when credits are excluded. The findings are valid for small offices and residential buildings in Switzerland and regions with similar building culture, construction material production, and climate.

Several building-stock modelling techniques have been employed to investigate the impact of energy efficiency measures (EEM), where the description of the building-stock generally consists of an age-type classification to specify building characteristics for groups of buildings. Such descriptions lack the appropriate level of detail to differentiate the potential for EEM within age groups. This paper proposes a methodology for building-stock description using building-specific data and measured energy use to augment an age-type building-stock classification. By integrating building characteristics from energy performance certificates, measured energy use and envelope areas from a 2.5D GIS model, the building-stock description reflects the heterogeneity of the building-stock. The proposed method is validated using a local building portfolio (N=433) in the city of Gothenburg, where modelled results for space heating and domestic hot water are compared to data from measurements, both on an individual building level and for the entire portfolio. Calculated energy use based on the building-stock description of the portfolio differ less than 3% from measured values, with 42% of the individual buildings being within a 20% margin of measured energy use indicating further work is needed to reduce or quantify the uncertainty on a building level