Environmental impact of building installations

Background

Building services engineering is more relevant than ever. Installation systems create a comfortable indoor climate, provide convenience, and enable energy‑efficient buildings. To meet the Paris Agreement targets, significant investments are being made in installation technology. As the share of installation systems in construction costs increases, we see the environmental impact growing proportionally. This increases the urgency to better measure the impact of installation technology.

Across the installation supply chain, we observe several recurring issues:

• Calculations are incomplete in scope;
• Calculations are based on averages per m² and rely on rough estimates;
• Circularity in installations does not pay off: disassembly potential or reuse of installations is not measurable, and low‑installation designs are not reflected in improved performance;
• The calculated impact of commonly used category‑3 data sheets is too low: category‑1 sheets for installations score worse than category‑3 sheets.

Despite stricter policies, a growing focus on the environmental impact of construction materials, and various initiatives aimed at circular installation technology, there is still no clear analysis of the gap between the calculated impact on paper and the actual impact in practice. With stricter Environmental Performance of Buildings (MPG) requirements on the horizon and the introduction of Whole Lifecycle Global Warming Potential (WLC‑GWP), critically evaluating the measurability of the environmental impact of installation systems is essential.

Research question

In this research, we aim to answer the following questions:

• What is the environmental impact of installation systems in practice?
• How does this environmental impact differ from the theoretical calculations submitted for, among other things, MPG assessments?
• What are the implications of these differences for manufacturers, policymakers, and calculation tools?
• Which solution pathways exist within the NMD framework to arrive at more accurate calculations?

Approach

To assess where the differences arise, we are conducting an analysis based on around ten building case studies. The steps we take are:

1. Collecting data from various types of non‑residential buildings;
2. Extracting a materials list from the 3D models and linking as many category 1 data sheets or EPDs of installation products to these materials as possible;
3. Analysing the differences between the standard MPG calculation and the MPG calculation based on the detailed materials list;
4. Diving deeper into specific environmental profiles and installation components where discrepancies may occur;
5. Validating the (preliminary) conclusions with the sector at the end of the research and jointly exploring possible solutions;
6. Elaborating the conclusions in a clear and accessible final report;
7. Organising a sector‑wide briefing and presenting a potential roadmap for improving the measurability of circularity in installation systems.

Status

Ongoing.

To ensure that the research truly lands within the sector and that stakeholders draw the right conclusions from it, we will work on:

• A stronger substantiation of the ‘real’ impact, through additional case studies or deeper analysis of environmental profiles;
• Engaging with the field and the broader stakeholder landscape to develop well‑supported solutions;
• A clear, consistent core message with actionable guidance for the various parties in the construction and installation sectors.

Results

We expect to publish the results in april/may 2026.