Quantifying biodiversity in construction with LCA: insights from G-ON & One Click LCA

As the financial impact of biodiversity and nature-related risks becomes clearer, new frameworks such as the EU Taxonomy, Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) are accelerating demand for integrated environmental reporting. While carbon footprinting is established, biodiversity assessment remains a developing area. Yet, physical, regulatory, financial, and reputational risks are already real:

• Flooding at mineral extraction sites halts operations.
• Consumer rejection of unsustainable supply chains.
• Increasing scrutiny from regulators and investors.

In construction projects, direct biodiversity impacts include habitat loss, fragmentation, and soil and water degradation. Indirect impacts stem from pollution, emissions, and resource extraction associated with energy use, material production, and water consumption across the value chain. Construction firms rely heavily on natural ecosystems — from sustainably sourced timber to services like flood regulation and air purification — yet these dependencies are rarely measured or managed.

 

 

With growing pressure to address biodiversity in construction, One Click LCA has developed a Biodiversity Supply Chain Stress Tool to quantify biodiversity stress using LCA methods — first applied in practice by engineering firm G-ON on a recent building project. The tool extends standard LCA workflows and calculates impact using the “Potentially Disappeared Fraction (PDF) of species” per square meter per year — a unit that reflects spatial and temporal impact from pollutants, emissions, and resource use.

Key indicators modeled:

• Climate change
• Pollution (terrestrial and aquatic)
• Resource extraction

Indicators like land use change and invasive species were excluded due to current methodological limitations in LCA frameworks.

G-ON analyzed a new-build warehouse development in France, subject to RE2020 regulations. They used One Click LCA to conduct both a traditional LCA and a biodiversity stress assessment. The scope covered only material-related emissions (A1–A3), excluding construction site impacts or operational phases.

Two buildings assessed:

• Warehouse (larger volume, simpler construction)
• Office (smaller, higher material complexity)

Findings:

• The warehouse had higher total biodiversity impact (79,000 PDF·m²·yr), due to its larger volume.
• When normalized by floor area, the smaller office had greater relative biodiversity impact per m² — driven by its more complex material mix.
• Key biodiversity stressors varied: e.g., concrete pipes and roofing materials contributed more to biodiversity loss than they did to carbon emissions — showing the value of multi-impact analysis.

By disaggregating impacts by material and LCA phase, the study revealed how typical “low-carbon” decisions might not align with low-biodiversity-impact outcomes. For instance:

• Timber and steel may have lower climate impacts, but they have different effects on biodiversity due to sourcing practices and pollutants.
• Materials used for finishes or piping — often overlooked in carbon-focused analysis — can be biodiversity hotspots.
• Construction sourcing practices directly affect land biodiversity. Common impacts include:
  • Habitat loss and species decline from deforestation and raw material extraction.
  • Soil degradation and altered hydrology due to mining and quarrying.
  • Introduction of invasive species through material transport and site activity.
  • Runoff pollution contaminates surrounding ecosystems with oils, heavy metals, and sediment.
  • Disruption of critical ecosystem services such as pollination, carbon sequestration, and water purification.

To mitigate these impacts, best practices include sourcing from certified sustainable suppliers, prioritizing reuse and recycling, conducting impact assessments early, avoiding ecologically sensitive areas, and offsetting or restoring damaged habitats.

This insight supports more holistic early-stage design decisions and pushes the industry beyond carbon-only compliance.

The study aligns with emerging regulations that explicitly reference biodiversity:

• CSRD (EU, in force since 2023) requires environmental disclosures beyond GHGs, including impacts and dependencies on ecosystems.
• EU Taxonomy mandates that activities “do no significant harm” to biodiversity across the full life cycle.
• UK BNG (Biodiversity Net Gain) and DGNB certification address on-site ecological quality — but ignore supply chain impacts, where LCA tools can add value.
• Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), while voluntary, is gaining traction among real estate and infrastructure investors for comprehensive risk mapping and disclosure.

G-ON reports that French developers increasingly ask for biodiversity strategies that go beyond compliance — especially in the face of inconsistent or delayed enforcement of rules like Zero Net Artificialisation.

"Our clients are increasingly asking for biodiversity strategies that go beyond what the regulations require. This tool helps us address both on-site and supply chain impacts, which are often ignored by current certifications."

— Clément Bégat, Associate Director, G-ON

 

• Start with the supply chain data you already have. If you’re doing LCAs for compliance (e.g., RE2020, BREEAM, LEED), biodiversity impact data can be extracted from the same bill of materials (BoM).
• Normalize biodiversity data by functional unit. Compare impacts per m², per € of revenue, or per use case to identify hotspots.
• Understand material trade-offs. Biodiversity loss is not proportional to carbon emissions. Every product impacts multiple dimensions differently — requiring multi-criteria design logic.
• Use voluntary disclosure frameworks to stay ahead. TNFD-aligned disclosures, integrated into CSRD or ESG reporting, provide differentiation and risk mitigation.

 

• Multi-impact clarity: The tool provided a breakdown of biodiversity pressures from climate change, pollution, and resource use. G-ON confirmed that standard LCA metrics miss key biodiversity drivers. For example, piping materials and roof elements contributed more to biodiversity stress than their relative carbon footprint would suggest.
• Normalized comparisons revealed unexpected hotspots: Although smaller in total volume, the office building had a higher biodiversity impact per square meter due to material complexity. This underscored the need to evaluate relative, not just absolute, impacts.
• Seamless workflow integration: The RE2020 LCA already included a detailed material inventory, so the biodiversity analysis required no new data collection. The transition from traditional carbon-focused LCA to biodiversity footprinting took just one click.

The One Click LCA Biodiversity Supply Chain Stress tool is available as an extension to standard building or product LCA workflows. It helps identify biodiversity hotspots across 10 impact indicators and is aligned with current academic best practices. Learn more: https://www.oneclicklca.com

Using One Click LCA, G-ON demonstrated how LCA methods can be extended to model biodiversity pressures in a format compatible with standard project workflows. The case study illustrates how architects, engineers, and sustainability teams can unlock actionable insights using data they already collect — helping them align with evolving regulations, reduce ecological impacts, and make better material decisions.