14
INSIGHTS
ASK THE EXPERT
Luke Osborne, Senior Architectural Systems
Everything to declare
James Parker speaks to Luke Osborne at Senior Architectural Systems, about why greater transparency in Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) is essential to help architects make informed specifi cation decisions.
WHY DOES THE FENESTRATION INDUSTRY NEED A MORE TRANSPARENT, EVIDENCE BASED APPROACH? From my perspective, architects are being asked to make increasingly complex sustainability decisions, and they can only do that well if the information they’re given is clear and grounded in real data. Too often, environmental information is presented in ways that make it hard to compare like for like and when fi gures aren’t explained properly, it becomes diffi cult for specifi ers to understand the true impact of a fenestration system. A more transparent, evidence based approach simply means giving people the full picture so they can make confi dent choices. It’s about removing ambiguity and making sure the environmental story behind a product is honest, consistent and easy to interpret.
WHY IS INTERROGATING EPDS IMPORTANT TO AVOID ARTIFICIALLY LOWERED FIGURES? EPDs are incredibly useful, but they only work if the boundaries and assumptions behind them are clear. If certain stages of the lifecycle are left out, or if data is averaged in a way that hides variation, the carbon fi gures can look lower than they really are. That’s why interrogating an EPD matters. It’s not about catching anyone out but raising awareness and standards and ensuring that the numbers refl ect the actual manufacturing processes. When architects dig into what’s included, they can spot where fi gures might be unintentionally optimistic or generalised, and make decisions based on the real environmental impact rather than a simplifi ed version of it.
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
We believe fenestration system EPDs should cover the full system – not just the raw aluminium billet. That means accounting for thermal breaks, gaskets, fi xings, fabrication and delivery to site, along with the energy-intensive extrusion process. This level of detail is often missing from standard EPDs, which typically report carbon fi gures for 1 kg of aluminium and exclude key stages of the product’s journey.
IS GLAZING BEING INCLUDED IN EPDS CREATING MISINFORMATION? It can, yes. Most aluminium system manufacturers don’t supply glazing, yet sometimes glass is included within a system’s environmental data. If glazing is included, it can skew results when converted into a carbon fi gure reported per
kilogram of material. The heavy weight of glass, combined with its relatively low carbon per kg fi gure, makes the overall fi gures for the aluminium system look lower than they really are.
Because glass has its own manufacturing processes and carbon profi le, combining it with the frame can distort the information and means architects might think they’re comparing two systems fairly when, in reality, one includes glazing and the other doesn’t. This becomes even more challenging when glazing specifi cations vary widely between projects, as different coatings, treatments or performance requirements can signifi cantly change the carbon impact. Keeping glazing separate avoids this confusion and supports more accurate, like-for-like comparisons.
WHY SHOULD GLAZING HAVE ITS OWN EPD, AND WHAT CHALLENGES EXIST FOR SUPPLIERS?
Glazing deserves its own EPD because it’s a completely different material with its own energy intensive processes, coatings and treatments. When it’s included in a system EPD, it blurs the true impact of the frame and makes it harder for architects to understand what they’re actually specifying. The challenge for suppliers is that producing an EPD requires detailed data from every stage of production, and not all glass suppliers have the resources or systems in place to gather that information. It’s a technical and administrative commitment, but it ultimately leads to clearer, more accurate environmental reporting for everyone.
ADF SEPTEMBER 2026
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78
