Roundtable: “Tick-box” carbon assessments holding back real progress
Whole-Life Carbon Assessments are gaining traction but are still failing to drive consistent change across the industry.
The Centre for Construction Best Practice (CCBP) hosted a roundtable discussion featuring contractors, consultants and designers to explore awider research programme on whether Whole-Life Carbon Assessment should be mandated through the UK planning system for public sector construction projects.
The roundtable’s purpose was to help gather insight from across the sector on the effectiveness of current approaches, the practicalities of implementation, and the risks and opportunities of a more standardised policy approach. These perspectives will feed directly into the evidence base for the research, helping shape credible and workable recommendations for the industry and policymakers.
The roundtable discussion was attended by:
- Sven Till, CEO at A E Yates
- Louise Grace, Projects Director at Gleeds
- Leanne Fletcher, Principal Sustainability Manager at Willmott Dixon
- Joseph Smith, Architect at AHR
- Niamh McCloskey, Technical Associate for Sustainability at Curtins
- Neil Armstrong, Low Carbon Lead at Kier
- Jennie Pollard, Sustainability Manager at Stepnell
- Iain Madden, Sustainability Manager at Wates
Chair: Conor Neil Crabb, Head of the Centre for Construction Best Practice
Adoption is rising, but still patchy
Whole Life Carbon Assessments are gaining traction across the sector, though adoption remains inconsistent and is rarely driven by regulation. “I’ve yet to experience a job where it’s a planning requirement” says Wates Sustainability Manager Iain Madden. Technical Associate at Curtins, Niamh McCloskey added how limited current adoption is across the country, “only about 20% of the UK local authorities have whole life cycle carbon in their planning process. Within that, only 7% have mandatory reporting requirements”. This is supported by recent research from the University of Strathclyde, which highlights just how uneven adoption remains.
The Greater London Authority (GLA) is a prominent, early adopter that mandates WLCAs for all major referable developments through the London Plan, other local authorities in the UK, such as Manchester, Bristol, and Dundee, are now also implementing similar requirements.
Participants agreed that where WLCA is happening, it is often because clients, end users or specific public sector frameworks are asking for it. “All the projects we’ve had with Whole Life Carbon Assessments have been driven by clients.” Says Kier Low Carbon Lead, Neil Armstrong.
Niamh McCloskey added that “it mainly comes from clients or public sector projects that have their own framework for carbon.” In practice, this means progress is often concentrated in certain sectors and locations rather than embedded nationally.
London leads adoption of WLCA
London was repeatedly highlighted as being ahead of other parts of the UK, with McCloskey noting she had “yet to see many projects outside London where WLCAs are required through planning.” The roundtable heard how this is being shaped by stronger commercial demand in the capital.
Iain Madden, highlighted that demand is similarly being driven by end users, “universities, where students are demanding low-carbon buildings, are having to react to that to produce them, so that’s a theme we’re seeing become particularly prominent.”
Moreover, Kier’s Low Carbon Lead, Neil Armstrong added “we’re seeing commercial clients, particularly in London where they’ve got blue chip tenants are also demanding low-carbon buildings.” While this demonstrates encouraging momentum, it also underlines the unevenness of progress across the wider built environment.
‘Tick-box’ assessments failing to drive change
The discussion then moved to a more fundamental challenge: even when assessments are being carried out, they do not always lead to action. Several attendees pointed out that Whole Life Carbon Assessments on their own do not necessarily drive better outcomes. Leanne Fletcher warned that without targets or consequences, assessments risk becoming little more than a “tick-box exercise,” with Stepnell’s Sustainability Manager Jennie Pollard adding, “we have targets for carbon on some projects, but only have to report once the project is completed. There’s no teeth in it”.
This was seen as one of the biggest barriers to progress. Carbon reporting without a benchmark, an accountability mechanism or a defined route into design and procurement decisions, essentially becomes an administrative exercise rather than outcome driven. “They’re not setting a target… they just want to know what’s been done,” said Pollard.
Data gaps undermine confidence
Data quality and timing emerged as major barriers. Participants agreed that carbon needs to be considered as early as possible in the design process but poor data quality and inconsistent information from the supply chain were outlined as barriers.
Participants spoke candidly about the difficulty of producing robust assessments when environmental product data is unavailable or inconsistent. As Niamh McCloskey said, “we’re often not given environmental data or even supply chain data of products.”
Jennie Pollard noted that upskilling needs to be a priority where WLCAs are mandated, adding, “ a big part of not receiving that data would be resolved by actually helping to upskill our supply chain and support them through that process, because we know we need the data, and a lot of them just aren’t actually able to provide it.”
Lack of standardisation is holding the industry back
If there was one area of strongest agreement across the roundtable, it was the importance of clear policy, measurable targets, and long-term accountability Sven Till, CEO of A E Yates, highlighted the lack of standardisation, stating “if we had one common standard, it would be a lot easier.”
The group then went on to point to examples where carbon targets are linked to funding or tracked over time, showing that meaningful change is possible when expectations are clear. Neil Armstrong referenced Scotland’s Learning Estate Investment Programme, explaining: “the LEIP funding model in ties targets to funding and if you’re not achieving targets, your funding stops”. In policy terms, the programme links funding to measurable outcomes over 25 years, with funding adjusted according to performance, and was quoted as “transformational” by Armstrong.
Cost pressures threaten progress
Commercial pressure, however, remains a major obstacle. Sustainability ambitions are often vulnerable when costs rise, particularly on smaller projects. As Wates’ Iain Madden noted, “sustainability and carbon are probably one of the first things to get dropped.” Willmott Dixon’s Sustainability Manager, Leanne Fletcher added, “as soon as the cost starts to shoot up, clients will lower their expectations.”
At the same time, the group acknowledged that market demand still has an important role to play. If clients, occupiers, and end users continue to push for low-carbon buildings, that can create the confidence needed for manufacturers and suppliers to invest in innovation. As Sven Till, CEO at A E Yates explained: “Once the suppliers of materials see that demand, and know there’s a market for their products, that will stimulate investment.”
What needs to change
The discussion set out a number of priorities.
Push for greater standardisation across the sector.
A common approach to measurement and reporting would reduce inconsistency and improve comparability across projects. At present, differing expectations, tools and data sources makes it tricky for project teams, clients and supply chains to work in alignment or compare outcomes with confidence. Greater standardisation would not only improve credibility, but also make carbon reporting more practical, transparent and easier to embed across the wider industry. With Sven Till claiming it would be a lot easier if the industry had one set standard. AHR Architect Joseph Smith points out that standardisation and clear targets go hand in hand, stating “having a clear target incentivises standardisation.”
Highlight policy models that are already working.
Examples such as the Greater London Authority’s and Scotland’s Learning Estate Investment Programme show that stronger frameworks can play a valuable role in driving change. These examples demonstrate that when carbon expectations are clearly defined and supported by accountability, the industry is both incentivised to and capable of responding. Showcasing and learning from these “transformative” models could help inform a more joined-up national approach and give other regions greater confidence in adopting similar mechanisms.
Set clearer carbon targets, not just reporting requirements.
The discussion made clear that requiring a whole life carbon assessment on its own is not enough to drive better outcomes. To make WLCA more meaningful, assessments should be linked to clear targets, benchmarks and decision points that influence design, procurement and delivery. Moving from simple reporting to outcome-focused carbon requirements would help ensure the process supports real change, rather than becoming a tick-box exercise.
Several attendees said there is a clear appetite from industry and consumers to push sustainability outcomes forward. “We’re totally ready… but we’re not seeing it from all of our customers” says Leanne Fletcher, Principal Sustainability Manager at Wilmott Dixon.
Contribute to the Research
If you are interested in contributing to this ongoing research, would like to be involved in future discussions, or would like to learn more about the Centre for Construction Best Practice’s work in this area, please contact Conor Neil Crabb, Head of the Centre for Construction Best Practice on conor.neild-crabb@ccbp.org.uk