Go to content

Summary and Recommendations


The Nordic region has long been a pioneer for life-cycle-oriented building assessments. A legal framework for disclosing life-cycle GHG emissions, with or without limit values, is planned to be introduced in all Nordic countries by the beginning of 2025. This means that all Nordic countries will probably have had at least two years of experience with mandatory national life-cycle regulation before the expected implementation of the revised Energy Performance of Building Directive (EPBD) with mandatory assessments for buildings greater than 1000 m2 in 2028, and all buildings in 2030. By 2027, EU member states must publish a roadmap for progressive carbon limit values for new buildings towards the EU climate neutrality goal in 2050. By 2030, binding carbon limits have to be introduced. With Denmark issuing the earliest limit values in 2023, and Sweden and Finland with plans to follow in 2025, all Nordic countries are preparing themselves to take the next step in order to exploit the climate protection potential of the building sector and initiate innovations.
Nordic countries currently exhibit different approaches to limit values. Harmonising methods is crucial for fair competition to mobilise the market to develop the most efficient low carbon solutions. Therefore, the following recommendations are proposed:
A cost-effective implementation strategy
  • There is an urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions drastically in the Nordic countries if the countries are to reach the Paris Agreement. Limit values for the climate impact of buildings need to combine a high ambition level with a smooth adoption by the industry.
  • Currently, Denmark and Sweden are the Nordic countries with an implemented plan for how and when limit values are introduced into regulation and tightened progressively. Two distinct strategies are observed in order to facilitate the adoption of climate declarations and limit values at the time of their introduction. (a) First introduce a declaration without limit value, and then introduce a somewhat ambitious limit value a few years later (i.e. Swedish approach), or (b) introduce a limit value from the beginning alongside the climate declaration, but ensure that the limit value initially can be met by most  "regular" building projects without particular efforts. Then, tighten the limit value over time (i.e. Danish approach).
  • Either way, it is particularly important for politicians to send a clear signal about future milestones of the building stock decarbonisation pathway (e.g. timeline and ambition level for future updates to the limit values). A cost-effective process of tightening the limit values should be established. If countries start with a limited scope (in terms of life cycle modules and building elements covered) and/or a limited number of building types and sizes, countries should also include milestones related to the expansion of the scope for the limit value, as in Sweden, for example.
  • Although Nordic countries serve as positive examples in the EU with respect to proactive and coordinated development of climate regulation for buildings to be consistent with the Paris Agreement, building stock decarbonisation pathways need to show a higher level of ambition than what is currently implemented or planned. In addition, limit values need to be tightened rapidly in order to mitigate climate impacts in the building sector.
Carbon limit differentiation per building type
  • Although Denmark so far has introduced one limit value for all building types, most recent limit value studies in both Sweden and Denmark show more obvious differences between several building categories. Nonetheless, it is expected that differentiation will be necessary at the point where limit values begin to put pressure on the way we build. It would be unreasonable to set the same limit value for building types that are already optimised and the types presenting a higher decarbonisation potential.
Carbon regulation of renovations
  • A great interest in learning more about the climate impact of deep renovations is observed in Nordic countries, with The Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (Swedish name: Boverket) proposing to include renovation projects in the climate declaration in Sweden from 2027. A stakeholder panel in Denmark has recommended a pathway for carbon regulation starting with climate declarations of larger renovations in 2025 and eventually leading to limit values by 2027. However, discussions and analyses are ongoing and no official policy for additional carbon regulation of renovations has been issued.
Building reference area
  • While Denmark, Norway and Sweden consider the gross floor area (GFA) as the reference area unit of climate declarations, with differences in how common facilities in multi-units and external spaces are considered, Finland and Estonia are applying the heated floor area (HFA). For uniformity with Level(s) and EPBD, the reference unit per m2 useful floor area should ideally be used in addition to the units currently determined in the various Nordic methods. Whether the definition of the useful floor area will be common among all EU countries, or there will be freedom in how to define it nationally is expected to be clarified by 2025 as part of the Delegated Act to be adopted by the European Commission. It is recommended that, in any case, the Nordics work towards harmonising this aspect by 2025, to be ready for an implementation by 2027 according to the EPBD.
Upfront carbon
  • The rationale for special attention to upfront emissions is firstly that this is the part of the life cycle that can be confirmed with real values at the building delivery. Second, it places the emphasis on reducing emissions today, not far in the future. Third, the ongoing transition of energy systems and industry towards low emissions means that future emissions are likely to be comparatively low. At the moment, Nordic countries use varying approaches for upfront carbon emissions. Sweden is the only country restricting the limit value scope to upfront carbon. As the Swedish limit value report proposes an extended declaration of remaining modules in 2027, the remaining Nordic countries could increase harmonisation by a separate declaration of upfront embodied carbon emissions in addition to the planned whole life carbon limit value. Upfront carbon declaration requires data developed after the latest EN 15804:2012+A2:2019 EPD standard. For those products, where updated data is not available, a temporary solution has to be developed for the remaining products declared after the old standard, where biogenic carbon is not declared separately.
Biogenic carbon
  • The Nordic countries currently use varying definitions of carbon emissions (Global Warming Potential, GWP). Finnish and Danish legislation use GWP-total, which includes biogenic emissions and emissions from land-use and fossil fuels. Sweden and Norway only include emissions from land-use and fossil fuels in their indicator GWP-GHG. In the case of Sweden where only upfront carbon is included, biogenic carbon cannot be included as it is based on the complementary modules A1-3 and C3 for the carbon calculation. Estonia proposes using GWP-fossil or GWP-GHG. A separate upfront carbon declaration requires the use of the latest EN 15804:2012+A2:2019 EPD standard, see also upfront carbon above.
Conservative standard values for building components and systems
  • Conservative standard values support the introduction of industry-wide carbon declaration by providing preliminary inventory data for the building model in early design stages and where specifications are not available. While standard built-ups can be provided by authorities or marked actors, the question is what standard solutions may be used directly in climate declarations and what the threshold between standard and specific as-built solutions shall be. This also includes a differentiation between prefabricated and in-situ deliveries such as timber elements, curtain-wall facades or space modules. Harmonisation can clarify these definitory questions.
Conservative generic values for construction products
  • Most Nordic countries have already developed a national database of generic emission factors. Generic data allow complete modelling independently of the availability of EPD. This is especially important in early design stages, but also in as-built declarations, where specific data lack for some products. Conservative levels of data encourage building product manufacturers to publish EPDs and assessors to use specific data rather than generic data.  This is important in the current regime, where the use of EPDs cannot be required by legislation due to EU marked rules. Potential areas for harmonisation include the structure and content of the national generic emission factors databases and the guidelines for EPD developers by the national programme operators. The selection and specification of building products in the generic database are obvious potentials for harmonisation. Today, some countries use regular and lower emission versions of selected products. Also, the level of detail in product variants is different, for example the number of concrete classes or the differentiation between in situ and prefab deliveries. Other products are presented in a version for indoor use and a version for outdoor use. Lastly, some products are classified in broad categories such as timber or in more detail such as pine, cedar, spruce.
Building model classification
  • There exist varying national ways of describing a building model and its components. Even though classification systems for building components are governed by the ISO 12006 standard "Building Construction - Organisation of Information about Construction Works", there are significant differences between the nomenclatures used in different countries, in terms of their level of detail and their decomposition of elements and systems. Even within some countries, varying systems are used.  At the EU scale, the Level(s) framework also includes a simple nomenclature of building elements, currently under revision, which is expected to facilitate the standardisation of building descriptions within the European Union. If the final EPBD text does not require a specific classification system, the recommendation for the Nordic countries is to develop a common platform with mapping tables in order to allow the translation of variation in design practices and national standards. More specific recommendations will be developed in Task 2 “Data for LCA” and Task 3 “BIM for LCA - calculating the climate impact of buildings through digitalisation” in the Nordic Sustainable Construction Programme.