16
INSIGHTS
DOES SEPARATING EPDS CREATE CHALLENGES FOR SPECIFIERS – OR ARE THEY EASILY MANAGED?
Separating EPDs does add an extra step, but it’s not a major hurdle. Architects already combine information from multiple materials when assessing a building’s carbon impact, so adding glazing as a separate data point is simply part of that process. The benefi t is that the fi nal picture is far more accurate. Instead of relying on blended fi gures, specifi ers can see exactly where carbon is coming from and make more informed choices. With consistent formats and clear documentation, the extra effort is small compared to the value of having reliable, transparent data.
WHY MUST MANUFACTURERS PROVIDE TRANSPARENT DATA ON ALUMINIUM EXTRUSION PROCESSES?
The environmental impact of aluminium is shaped long before it becomes a fi nished profi le. The source of the metal, the energy used in extrusion, and the recycled content all infl uence the fi nal carbon fi gure. If manufacturers only share the number attached to the fi nished product, architects miss the context that explains how that number was reached. Transparent data on extrusion helps specifi ers understand the real footprint of the material and compare systems fairly. It’s about showing the full journey of the aluminium rather than just the end result.
ARE SPECIFIERS AWARE OF THESE ISSUES – AND DO SMES HAVE TIME TO INTERROGATE CLAIMS? Awareness is improving, but many specifi ers, especially smaller practices, are stretched for time. They want to make responsible choices, but they can’t always dig into every technical detail. That’s why clear, accessible environmental data is so important. If manufacturers present information in a straightforward, consistent way, architects don’t need to become carbon experts to make good decisions. The responsibility shouldn’t sit entirely with SMEs as the industry needs to make transparency the norm so that specifi ers can trust the information without having to unpick it line by line.
ARE ANY BODIES LOOKING AT MANDATING GREATER TRANSPARENCY? Across the construction sector, there is a clear shift toward more rigorous
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
environmental reporting. Frameworks such as the UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard, the growing use of whole life carbon assessments, and increasing scrutiny from green fi nance, planning and public sector procurement are all driving demand for more transparent data. Green fi nance requirements are also beginning to place greater emphasis on evidencing what has actually been installed on site, with auditors increasingly being used to verify environmental claims against completed works. While not all requirements are formally mandated, EPDs must already follow the EN 15804 framework, and the direction of travel is clear: environmental information is expected to be transparent, consistent and independently verifi ed. Ultimately, sustainability claims will need to be backed by robust evidence rather than broad statements.
HOW HAS SENIOR APPROACHED ITS EPDS, AND HAVE THEY BEEN EXTERNALLY VETTED? We have deliberately taken a different route with our EPDs. Instead of relying on generic industry datasets, we’ve focused on publishing documents that refl ect how our systems are actually made. The process itself isn’t complicated as it’s simply about being open with the data and showing the full picture.
All of our EPDs are independently
verifi ed and that is really important as third-party assessments give architects and specifi ers confi dence that the information has been reviewed by competent people and have not simply been produced behind closed doors.
Our priority has been to make the information clear and easy to use so we have prioritised straightforward data, consistent presentation, and no unnecessary complexity. By pairing real manufacturing inputs with independent verifi cation, we’re aiming to set a higher bar for aluminium systems and encourage a more open approach to sustainability reporting.
WHAT IS THE FUTURE RISK IF SPECIFIERS DON’T OBTAIN TRUE CARBON DATA? If architects don’t have access to accurate carbon data, there’s a real risk that buildings will be designed on assumptions that don’t hold up to scrutiny or real- life applications. That can lead to higher embodied carbon than expected, missed sustainability targets and potential compliance issues as regulations continue to evolve and tighten. It also undermines trust in the fenestration and wider building products sector as, when environmental claims aren’t backed by solid data, it becomes harder for specifi ers to make responsible choices. Reliable carbon information is essential for delivering buildings that genuinely meet environmental ambitions rather than just appearing to on paper. Not making sure EPDs provide accurate, transparent and easy to access environmental data also reduces them to a marketing tool that misses the point completely and has the potential to do real harm.
Luke Osborne is UK sustainability lead at Senior Architectural Systems
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
