.jpg)
Spend-based carbon accounting—where emissions are estimated from financial cost data—was originally built for corporate reporting, not building design. It assumes that “how much you spend” reflects “how much carbon you emit.” In the Nordic construction sector, this shortcut creates major errors and misleading conclusions.
The Five Core Problems
1. Low precision
Price ≠ quantity. Material cost variations reflect labor, transport, and market demand—not actual emissions.
2. Hidden variability
Inflation, exchange rates, and project cost structures distort the carbon picture over time.
3. Poor comparability
Two buildings with identical budgets can have completely different material compositions and embodied impacts.
4. No design feedback
Spend-based results arrive after procurement, offering zero guidance during early design when carbon savings are cheapest.
5. Regulatory misalignment
EU CSRD, Level(s), and Nordic building regulations now demand activity-based or hybrid LCAs with verified EPD data—not estimates based on money spent.
Activity-Based Calculations: The Reliable Alternative
Activity-based or hybrid life-cycle calculations use real project data: volumes, product types, transport, and verified emission factors. They enable accurate, early, and comparable results—and they support design decisions before costs are locked in. This method connects design and sustainability teams directly to structured product libraries and verified EPD databases, allowing iterative modeling throughout the project lifecycle.
Conclusion
Spend-based carbon estimates were never meant for design or procurement decisions. Modern construction now requires traceable, activity-based carbon calculations that integrate with live project data and verified EPD libraries. That’s the only path to confident climate documentation, real design optimization, and alignment with coming Nordic and EU climate-reporting rules.
.jpg)