The Nordic building sector has the tools to cut emissions today - but industry hesitation, fragmented value chains, and unclear procurement rules are slowing progress. This was the clear consensus from a high-level panel of industry leaders at the Carbon Expert Summit Stockholm.
Panelists included:
As regulatory deadlines draw nearer, and as cost and compliance pressures converge, low-carbon construction can no longer be a niche ambition. It must become the default practice. So why isn’t it?
“One large barrier, in my view, is lack of courage. We already have the materials and solutions to drastically lower the carbon emissions. We need companies with the courage to lead, to try new solutions, and to put in the extra effort" says Panu Pasanen, One Click LCA CEO and founder”
The solutions are here — but the courage is not
Panu Pasanen opened the panel with a pointed observation: “We already have many materials and methods available to build with significantly reduced climate impact. But we lack the courage to use them at scale.”
This sentiment was echoed across the panel. The industry is not lacking technology - it’s lacking alignment and harmonization. Early movers are advancing, but followers remain slow to adopt, often citing economic uncertainty or compliance complexity as reasons to wait.
“It’s not that we don’t know what to do,” said Caroline Jacobsson, Director Cirkular Business at Swegon. “We need more maturity, more demand signals, and more support across the value chain.”
One of the most discussed topics was reuse, both of structural elements and of high-value building components. While reuse offers significant carbon savings, it remains marginal in most commercial projects. The reasons, according to panelists, are clear:
Yet perhaps the most critical enabler is financial. “The reuse economy doesn’t scale without clear incentives,” said Caroline Jacobsson. “It’s labor-intensive, and right now, producing something new is simply too cheap. That has to shift.”
Multiple panelists emphasized the importance of robust environmental data, especially environmental product declarations (EPDs), early in the design phase. Without this data, emissions reduction is speculative. With it, teams can quantify impact, compare alternatives, and make informed trade-offs.
“An EPD database is the best tool a sustainability specialist can have,” said Love Berger-Vieweg. “You need accurate, third-party verified data to create a clear strategy at the beginning of a project. Otherwise, you lose control.”
This is especially critical as carbon-related procurement criteria become more common, and digital Life-Cycle Carbon Reports (LCRs) are expected during design, not after construction.
“It is always more cost effective to make the right decisions early on.”
One of the most pressing challenges raised by the panel was the loss of low-carbon intent during procurement. “You see strong sustainability ambitions in early planning, and then it all disappears when cost is evaluated during procurement,” Caroline Jacobsson observed.
The issue often comes down to vague requirements or poor enforcement. “We must get better at setting specific, measurable thresholds, and following up,” Caroline Jacobsson argued. For example, instead of general requirements, some clients now state: “This building must achieve 40% less than the Boverket reference value, or it’s disqualified,” Panu Pasanen added.
This evolution is beginning to show up in certification and public sector practices. Evelina Enoksson noted: “We see that climate calculations and carbon threshold requirements in public procurement will become more common in the future, and tools like One Click LCA play an important role in helping suppliers demonstrate their climate performance.”
One proposed solution was clearer links between design-phase product selections and actual purchases. This could include tracking EPD-linked products throughout the project lifecycle to avoid last-minute substitutions that undercut carbon goals.
While much of the conversation focused on emissions and materials, Maria Perzon reminded the audience of the financial case for low-carbon design: “Green buildings unlock better financing. If you qualify for green bonds or favorable interest rates, the total cost of ownership goes down, even if the upfront investment is higher.”
This argument is becoming more critical as investors and banks evaluate sustainability performance as a proxy for long-term value.
Reuse, leasing, and shared ownership: The next frontier
Panelists also explored new models such as component leasing, where ventilation or lighting systems are leased and maintained by suppliers. “This aligns incentives for durability and reuse,” Caroline Jacobsson explained. “But current laws often block these models, they treat fixed installations as inseparable from the building.”
The consensus? Laws need to evolve. “Just as we tax diesel more than electric, we need to disincentivize virgin materials and reward reuse,” an audience member added and the panel agreed.
The final takeaway from the panel was clear; the earlier actors collaborate, the greater the opportunity for carbon reduction. From reuse mapping to contractor input on design drawings, early coordination can reveal efficiency gains that benefit both climate and cost.
“In Finland, we involve contractors from day one,” said Panu Pasanen. “They review drawings and say, ‘Don’t design it like that, you’ll add €100,000 in complexity.’ Often, what saves cost also reduces carbon.”
To deliver on low-carbon construction, project teams need three things: accurate data, integrated tools, and courageous leadership.
“I would focus on reuse. If we at Castellum put all our efforts into reuse in our new developments, refurbishments and tenant adaptations for a whole year we would really accelerate the reuse market in those three cities.” - Maria Perzon.
As the panelists reminded the audience: “We’re not short on solutions. We’re short on momentum. It’s time to act.”