That’s a very good point. A concern of mine is whether all these benchmark studies included consistent material categories as part of the scope. For instance, it could be the case that some of the projects included excluded certain categories, such as finishes or building systems. That adds a layer of complexity to the data which makes it hard to compare
Related topics
| Topic | Replies | Views | Activity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tracking Embodied Carbon data metrics | 6 | 717 | January 15, 2021 | |
|
Embodied Carbon Benchmarks Survey
|
4 | 471 | June 21, 2023 | |
| CLF Vancouver: Improving How We Baseline Embodied Carbon (May 20, 5-6pm PST) | 0 | 236 | May 14, 2021 | |
| Embodied Carbon: What is YOUR company doing? | 8 | 1097 | April 15, 2021 | |
| Is Embodied Carbon Scope 3 for design teams? | 8 | 1154 | May 11, 2022 |