The construction industry is clamouring for predictable rules on climate requirements for new buildings. To this end, in May 2023, Boverket published a report containing proposals on how to accelerate the introduction of limit values for climate impact. At the time, many stakeholders were far from convinced by proposals they considered inadequate.
If the industry is happy to take the bull by the horns to reduce the climate impact of buildings without further delay, why not make greater demands?
“It’s easy to say, but you have to remember that, while some companies have begun the transition, many small and medium-sized businesses have yet to begin their journey. We must consider the likely consequences for the entire construction industry. One cost-effective solution is to introduce low emission requirements to start with, as emission costs rise when stricter requirements are imposed.”
So says Kristina Einarsson, environment and climate expert at Boverket and project manager for the agency’s government assignment to prepare the sought-after limit values.
New government assignment
Boverket has now been given a new government assignment to prepare proposals for legislation on an expanded climate declaration for new buildings, including declaring Global Warming Potential (GWP) by 2028 at the latest, as well as limit values for climate impact to enter into effect no later than January 2030. The new legislation is to be based on the EU’s Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD).
This work is complicated by the fact that the EU’s climate goals leave some room for interpretation. While the goal of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, is clear enough, the goal of reducing the EU’s net greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 relative to 1990 remains a recommendation. Meanwhile, the goal of climate neutrality by 2050 has yet to be defined with any precision. In addition, in December 2025, the European Commission is expected to present clarification of how lifecycle global warming potential is to be calculated – something that Boverket is already working on.
“So, in part at least, we are aiming at a moving target,” notes Einarsson.
Each Member State is required to prepare national limit values to contribute to the EU’s goal of climate neutrality by 2050. How these are designed is a matter for each Member State.
“This flexibility is a necessity given the enormous disparities within the EU. Some Member States still have relatively high greenhouse gas emissions in the operational phase whereas, here in Sweden, we have already reduced our emissions,” says Einarsson.
In this case, analysing a building’s life-cycle GWP does not involve speculating on how long it is likely to stand before being demolished.
Instead, a reference study period is used. Boverket has discussed what a reasonable reference study period might be in two different reports. The longer it is, the greater the uncertainty will be.
There is no possibility of a discussion on what constitutes a reasonable length of time. According to EPBD, life-cycle GWP should be calculated over a reference study period of 50 years.
“So, there is no scope for Sweden to choose some other calculation period. This does not imply that we think that the building will only stand for 50 years. But it is often necessary to implement significant measures in the building after 50 years, so it is therefore reasonable to perform a new lifecycle analysis for the measures one intends to take,” says Einarsson.
This implies that there will be many bones of contention in Sweden before the details are finalised. One such is whether limit values should be based on the building’s lifecycle or solely the construction phase.
“Our investigation confirmed that, in Sweden, the materials used in constructing a building are responsible for a large part of climate impact from a lifecycle perspective, In our assessment, it is therefore reasonable to at least introduce limit values focused on the construction phase,” says Einarsson.
Regardless of the formulation, won’t it mean advantages for certain building materials?
“While the intention is not to link limit values to which materials one uses, material manufacturers will face various challenges related to reducing their climate impact,” says Einarsson.
What requirements will this place on the construction industry?
“It will involve collecting and processing large amounts of data, so one prerequisite will be greater digitalisation in the construction sector.”
Can the industry cope with this?
“When we presented our initial proposal on limit values to the government, there were many people who felt that the state should provide a freely available calculation tool. However, this isn’t how things work in other sectors and it would probably be best for the industry to lead this development itself. And it seems to me that knowledge is increasing.”
At the same time, there is concern that progress will be erratic – and farsighted stakeholders want to know what rules will apply in the long term.
“But, once again, it’s a matter of finding the right level for the entire industry. One must understand that it involve a significant administrative burden to perform calculations based on actual data for all components of the building and the entire lifecycle. It is far from certain that this would be the most cost-effective solution, or the one of most benefit to the climate,” says Einarsson.
Still, conditions may change. Should the construction industry succeed in reducing material-related emissions, then in future the focus can shift to the operational phase.
“Later, there may be reason to adjust the limits of the system to include the entire lifecycle in limit values.”