2025 CLF North American

Material Baselines Report

June 2025
About the Carbon Leadership Forum
The Carbon Leadership Forum is a nonprofit dedicated to accelerating the transformation of the building
sector to radically reduce the greenhouse gas emissions attributed to materials (also known as embodied
carbon) used in buildings and infrastructure. We research, educate, and foster cross-collaboration to
bring the embodied carbon of buildings and infrastructure down to zero.
Authors
The following individuals from the Carbon Leadership Forum (CLF) authored this report.
● Brook Waldman, Low-Carbon Products Lead, CLF
● Rachelle Habchi, Low-Carbon Products Lead, CLF
● Jordan Palmeri, Low-Carbon Products Senior Manager, CLF

CRediT authorship contribution: Writing — original draft: B.W. and R.H.; Formal analysis: R.H. and B.W.;
Writing — review and editing: J.P., B.W. and R.H.; Methodology: B.W., R.H., and J.P.; Visualization: B.W.;
Conceptualization: B.W. and J.P.; Project Administration: B.W.

Competing interests statement: The Carbon Leadership Forum receives gifts from sponsors, including
manufacturers and trade associations, which are listed here: https://carbonleadershipforum.org/our-
sponsors/.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank several individuals for their contributions.

University of Washington Life Cycle Lab (UW-LCL) data advisors. Milad Ashtiani, UW-LCL Research
Engineer, led our data extraction process and supported our data cleaning by developing an initial
framework and reviewing later iterations. Monica Huang, UW-LCL Research Engineer, supported data
curation, document layout, and data visualization.

CLF staff. Meghan Lewis, CLF Program Director, supported the project through funding acquisition,
review, and editing. Sindhu Raju, CLF Program Assistant, provided data visualization and publication
production support.

Independent methods reviewers. The following individuals reviewed a draft of the methodology:
Brandie Sebastian, Hailey Goodale, Mark Chen, Mikaela DeRousseau, and Anthony Pak.
Building Transparency team. This project depends on EC3’s database of digitized EPDs, operated by
Building Transparency. Vaclav Hasik supported our use of EC3’s API to collect the data. Vaclav, Katie Poss,
and Mikaela DeRousseau provided feedback on methods related to baseline values implementation.
Past authors. Kate Simonen, Allison Hyatt, and Steph Carlisle were authors of past CLF Material Baselines
reports that heavily informed this version’s conceptualization, methodology, workflow, and content.
Industry input. Several industry associations, manufacturers, and their consultants provided expert
input that informed our approaches and results, including the following individuals and organizations:
Matthew Lemay (National Ready Mixed Concrete Association); Nicholas Lang, Heidi Jandris, and Craig
Walloch (Concrete Masonry and Hardscapes Association); Thomas Ketron and Emily Lorenz
(Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute); Max Puchtel and John Cross (American Institute of Steel
Construction); Don Allen (Steel Framing Industry Association); Adam Shoemaker (ClarkDietrich); Jinlong
Marshall Wang (The Aluminum Association); Todd Beyreuther (Mass Timber Systems); Marcin Pazera
(Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association); Cheryl Smith (Owens Corning); Gene

1 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Zimmerman (EPS Industry Alliance); Rick Duncan (Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance); Rachel Stern
(Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association); John Dalton (GCP); Robert Zabcik (Metal Construction
Association); Rachel Berkin (Rockfon); Jane Rohde (JSR Associates); Amlan Mukherjee (National Asphalt
Pavement Association); Benjamin Ciavola and Lianna Miller (WAP Sustainability); Jonathan Broyles
(University of Colorado, Boulder); Luke Lombardi (Buro Happold).
Citation
Waldman, B., Habchi, R., and Palmeri, J. (2025). 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines Report.
Carbon Leadership Forum.

Copyright

Published under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Cover image by Tom Fisk: https://www.pexels.com/photo/birds-eye-photography-of-mine-2101135/

2 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................4
Summary of Baseline Values ...........................................................................................................................7
1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................18
1.1 Definitions ................................................................................................................................................19
2. Methods...............................................................................................................................22
2.1 Category Inclusion Principles..................................................................................................................22
2.2 Comparability and Categorization..........................................................................................................23
2.3 EPD Dataset Preparation .........................................................................................................................26
2.4 Data Assessment and Setting CLF Baseline Values ................................................................................27
3. Results by Category ..............................................................................................................31
3.1 Cement and Concrete ..............................................................................................................................32
3.2 Masonry ....................................................................................................................................................62
3.3 Steel ..........................................................................................................................................................70
3.4 Aluminum .................................................................................................................................................88
3.5 Wood.........................................................................................................................................................93
3.6 Insulation................................................................................................................................................111
3.7 Fire and Smoke Protection....................................................................................................................127
3.8 Cladding and Roofing ............................................................................................................................130
3.9 Openings ................................................................................................................................................144
3.10 Finishes.................................................................................................................................................152
3.11 Asphalt..................................................................................................................................................172
4. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Work ...........................................................................181
References.............................................................................................................................184
Appendix A. Significant Changes from 2023 Material Baselines...................................................197
Appendix B. EPD Data Workflow ..............................................................................................200
Appendix C. Changes in CLF Baseline Values Over Time .............................................................203

3 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Executive Summary
The building industry has an essential role to play in tackling the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
associated with materials manufacturing, transport, use, and disposal — also known as embodied
carbon. Our present understanding of the importance of embodied carbon has been enabled by rigorous
quantitative modeling that tracks carbon emissions across the full life cycle of materials and products,
using life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA calculates and reports embodied carbon impacts using a metric
called global warming potential (GWP). GWP is quantified in kilograms of CO2 equivalent (kg CO2e) and is
used in this report to communicate the embodied carbon of materials and products.

Environmental product declarations (EPDs) can be used as a tool to inform product-level decision-
making. EPDs are independently verified documents based on LCA models, developed in conformance
with international standards, that report the embodied carbon and other environmental impacts of a
product. EPDs can be used to estimate a product’s impacts and to compare products if (i) the products
are functionally equivalent and (ii) the EPDs have aligned LCA scopes, methods, and data.

This report analyzes available EPDs to establish baseline GWP values and to describe the available EPD
data in North America for use by a wide range of stakeholders in understanding and reducing the
embodied carbon from construction products.

The need for product-level embodied carbon data

North American policies and programs increasingly use product-level GWP values as thresholds, limits, or
targets to encourage reductions in embodied carbon. This includes Buy Clean and similar government
procurement policies, green building certification programs like LEED, and independent voluntary
programs by owners and project teams. Policymakers, agency staff working on implementing policies,
owners, designers, specifiers, contractors, and procurement officers need resources to help answer the
following questions:

● How do we categorize products for appropriate embodied carbon comparisons?

● What is the industry-average GWP for these product types?
● What is the current state of environmental product declarations (EPDs) for these product types?
How many EPDs are there? Where are the facilities? What is the range of embodied carbon?
● What are the nuances for each category that could affect comparability?

Tool developers and teams working on whole-project and assembly-scale carbon assessments also need
product-type embodied carbon data. Industry-average GWP intensity values are appropriate data sources
in models during early planning (when the specific product is unknown) or when there is no product-
specific GWP data available for the selected product. Further, when published at regular intervals,
industry-average embodied carbon data supports the measurement and tracking of industry progress
over time to reduce emissions.

4 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Project goals
The 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines project continues the work of and builds upon previous
CLF Material Baselines reports. This report aims to support decision-makers by providing:

● Category results, including:

○ a “state of EPDs” snapshot of North American construction products; and
○ a set of CLF baseline GWP values or “CLF baselines” that represent an estimate of
industry-average GHG emissions for construction materials manufactured in North
America. Their primary uses are:
 a basis of comparison; a reference point against which individual products can
be evaluated; and
 default GWP intensity values for project- or assembly-scale modeling.

● A supporting methodology for categorizing products, collecting and analyzing data, and
estimating industry-average embodied carbon values (i.e., “baselines”) per product type.

A methodology to support product embodied carbon comparisons

The Methods section describes the principles, methods, and workflows used to create the “state of EPDs”
snapshot and baseline GWP values analysis. CLF developed the following four key steps that are broadly
applicable to other programs aimed at product embodied carbon comparison.

Developed categorization principles to support product embodied carbon comparisons. Product

categorization is a key component of any program aimed at facilitating appropriate product-to-product
or product-to-baseline embodied carbon comparisons. CLF’s categorization scheme classified products
based on functional equivalence (i.e., the products could reasonably fulfill the same function for a given
typical construction application). This meant accounting for performance-based attributes (e.g.,
compressive strength or fire resistance) and geography-based attributes (for products with a limited
range of distribution) if the functional attribute is significant to the product’s GWP per declared unit.

Built a reliable dataset to support the analysis. CLF performed the following steps to establish a
reliable dataset for the purpose of assessing the state of EPD data and developing baseline GWP values.

● Collected EPDs as digitized EPD data.

● Filtered to only the EPDs applicable to this project’s scope in terms of validity date, referenced
product category rules (PCR), geography, and relevant product types.
● Performed quality assurance: Checked digitized EPD data for accuracy and to fill relevant data
gaps, using a combination of automated and manual processes.
● Sorted EPDs into functionally equivalent product types according to the relevant attributes
defined in the categorization process.
Assessed data source representativeness of the industry. Before setting a baseline value, it is
important to determine if the available data source is sufficiently representative of the overall. CLF used
ISO’s (2006) definition of representativeness as a qualitative assessment of how well a data source reflects
the population of interest (the overall industry for the given product type, in this context) in terms of
geography, time, and technology.

5 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

CLF prioritized the use of industry-average EPDs as data sources for setting baseline values. Industry-
average EPDs typically cover a large portion of the industry, are production-weighted, and are verified to
conform to international standards, including ISO representativeness criteria for average EPDs. Where no
applicable published industry-wide data sources were available, CLF assessed if the available collection
of EPDs was sufficiently representative of the industry. If the collection covered a very large portion of the
industry (80% in this report) as measured by production volume, number of facilities, or market share,
then CLF assumed the collection of EPDs was sufficiently representative. Otherwise, CLF assessed each
factor of geography, time, and technology, and determined if the sample of product EPDs sufficiently
reflected the overall industry for all three factors.

Established industry-average baseline GWP values. CLF set baseline industry-average GWP values if
there was a sufficiently representative data source, using the following methods.

● If using a single data point (e.g., the GWP result from one industry-average EPD), CLF set the
baseline value equal to the single data point value.
● If using a collection of EPD datapoints when relative production volume data were available (very
rare), then CLF set the baseline value as the production-weighted average of the EPDs in the
collection.
● If using a collection of EPD datapoints when production volume data were unavailable (most of
the cases), then CLF set the baseline value as the straight (unweighted) average of the EPDs in
the collection.
● If there was no sufficiently representative data source, CLF did not set a baseline value for the
product type.

Tables ES.1, ES.2, and ES.3 provide a summary of all 2025 CLF baseline GWP values and related
documentation of methods and data sources.

Key updates from 2023 CLF Material Baselines

CLF used similar methods and documentation for this report compared to the previous 2023 version of
the CLF North American Material Baselines report. Significant updates include:

● New EPD data and baseline values that reflect the state of EPDs in 2025.
● New categories, such as asphalt mixtures, applied fireproofing, slag cement, aluminum sheet,
asphalt shingles, clay brick, ceramic tile, and more.
● More stakeholder engagement with industry associations and manufacturers, the baselines
report audience, independent methods reviewers, and Building Transparency. This engagement
informed the report and enabled us to add baseline values for certain product types.
● More use of product EPDs to set baseline values. CLF still prioritized the use of industry-
average EPDs for setting baseline values, but used the “product” method using a collection of
available EPDs for more categories that previously had no baseline.
● Parent and child category baselines. CLF created baseline values for some “parent categories”
for cases where multiple “child” product types are functionally equivalent.

See Appendix A to learn more.

6 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Summary of Baseline Values
Tables ES.1 (all categories besides ready-mixed concrete), ES.2 (USA ready-mixed concrete), and ES.3
(Canada ready-mixed concrete) summarize this report’s baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources.
The following notes apply to all three summary tables.

● Life cycle scope: Baseline GWP values represent the product stage (life cycle modules A1–A3)
unless otherwise stated. For categories where the EPDs report information on additional life
cycle stages, this report includes that information in the category results.
● Geography: Baseline GWP values aim to represent North American manufacturing (unless a
more granular region is noted).
● Baseline methods: The summary tables provide the general method related to the type of data
source used to set the baseline value.
○ “Industry” means the CLF baseline value is based on one or more industry-wide data
points, typically an industry-average EPD.
○ “Product” means the CLF baseline value is based on a collection of product EPD (i.e.,
manufacturer-specific EPD) data points.
○ “—” means no baseline value provided due to no sufficiently representative data source.
○ Additional notes on data sources and calculations are provided under “Data source and
notes.”
● Parent category baselines refer to those that cover multiple “child” product types. See “Similar
product types and parent vs. child baselines” in Section 2.2 for guidance.

● Precision: The baseline GWP values generally use three significant digits. Where CLF performed a
calculation to establish a baseline GWP value, these values use two or three significant digits.

See the Category results for more details, including product type descriptions, PCR information, and
calculation details.

Table ES.1. CLF baseline values, data sources, and methods. For ready-mixed concrete, see Table ES.2 (USA) and Table ES.3 (Canada.)
Baseline GWP
(kg CO2e / Declared
Product Type declared unit) unit Method Data source and note
Cement and concrete
Portland cement, USA 919 1 metric ton Industry Portland cement industry-average EPD (PCA, 2023c)

Blended hydraulic cement, USA 739 1 metric ton Industry Blended hydraulic cement industry-average EPD (PCA,
2023a)
Portland-limestone cement, 844 1 metric ton Industry Portland-limestone cement industry-average EPD (PCA,
USA 2023d)
Hydraulic cement, USA 873 1 metric ton Industry Cement industry-average EPDs (PCA, 2023a; PCA, 2023c;
(portland, portland-limestone, PCA, 2023d). Production-weighted average of cement type
and blended hydraulic values. Weighting based on USGS production volume data
cements) (National Minerals Information Center, 2024). Parent
category baseline.

7 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 Baseline GWP
(kg CO2e / Declared
Product Type declared unit) unit Method Data source and note
GU cement, Western Canada 796 1 metric ton Industry Canadian cement industry-average EPD (CAC, 2023)

GU cement, Central Canada 854 1 metric ton Industry Canadian cement industry-average EPD (CAC, 2023)

GU cement, Eastern Canada 898 1 metric ton Industry Canadian cement industry-average EPD (CAC, 2023)

GUL cement, Western Canada 732 1 metric ton Industry Canadian cement industry-average EPD (CAC, 2023)

GUL cement, Central Canada 798 1 metric ton Industry Canadian cement industry-average EPD (CAC, 2023)

GUL cement, Eastern Canada 864 1 metric ton Industry Canadian cement industry-average EPD (CAC, 2023)

Masonry cement 587 1 metric ton Industry Masonry cement industry-average EPD (PCA, 2023b)

Slag cement 147 1 metric ton Industry Slag cement industry-average EPD (Slag Cement
Association, 2021)
Ready-mixed concrete See
Table ES.2 (USA) and Table ES.3 (Canada) for ready-mixed concrete baselines.
Shotcrete, U.S. Pacific 375 1 m3 Product Collection of shotcrete product EPDs — unweighted average.
Southwest, 4000 psi
Shotcrete, U.S. Pacific 439 1 m3 Product Collection of shotcrete product EPDs — unweighted average.
Southwest, 5000 psi
Shotcrete, U.S. Pacific 442 1 m3 Product Collection of shotcrete product EPDs — unweighted average.
Southwest, 6000 psi
Shotcrete, U.S. Pacific 362 1 m3 Product Collection of shotcrete product EPDs — unweighted average.
Northwest, 4000 psi
Shotcrete, U.S. Pacific 411 1 m3 Product Collection of shotcrete product EPDs — unweighted average.
Northwest, 5000 psi
Shotcrete, U.S. Pacific 402 1 m3 Product Collection of shotcrete product EPDs — unweighted average.
Northwest, 6000 psi
Shotcrete, British Columbia, 35 300 1 m3 Product Collection of shotcrete product EPDs — unweighted average.
MPa
Shotcrete, British Columbia, 40 313 1 m3 Product Collection of shotcrete product EPDs — unweighted average.
MPa
Shotcrete, British Columbia, 45 337 1 m3 Product Collection of shotcrete product EPDs — unweighted average.
MPa
Flowable fill -- 1 m3 -- No sufficiently representative data source of North American
production
Cement grout -- 1 m3 -- No sufficiently representative data source of North American
production
Masonry
CMU, USA, normal weight, 208 1 m3 Industry USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024)
f'm=2000psi
CMU, USA, normal weight, 232 1 m3 Industry USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024)
f'm=2500psi
CMU, USA, normal weight, 241 1 m3 Industry USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024)
f'm=3000psi

8 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 Baseline GWP
(kg CO2e / Declared
Product Type declared unit) unit Method Data source and note
CMU, USA, medium weight, 360 1 m3 Industry USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024)
manufactured aggregate
CMU, USA, medium weight, 244 1 m3 Industry USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024)
natural aggregate and
industrial byproducts
CMU, USA, medium weight 300 1 m3 Industry USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024). Unweighted
average of medium-weight subtype values. Parent category
baseline.
CMU, USA, lightweight, 395 1 m3 Industry USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024)
manufactured aggregate
CMU, USA, lightweight, natural 286 1 m3 Industry USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024)
aggregate and industrial
byproducts
CMU, USA, lightweight 340 1 m3 Industry USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024). Unweighted
average of lightweight subtype values. Parent category
baseline.
CMU, Eastern Canada, normal 200 1 m3 Industry Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022).
weight (all cement types) Unweighted average of "GU SCM" and "GUL SCM" subtypes.
Parent category baseline.
CMU, Eastern Canada, normal 205 1 m3 Industry Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022)
weight, GU SCM
CMU, Eastern Canada, normal 191 1 m3 Industry Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022)
weight, GUL SCM
CMU, Eastern Canada, 170 1 m3 Industry Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022).
lightweight (all cement types) Unweighted average of "GU SCM" and "GUL SCM" subtypes.
Parent category baseline.
CMU, Eastern Canada, 177 1 m3 Industry Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022)
lightweight, GU SCM
CMU, Eastern Canada, 164 1 m3 Industry Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022)
lightweight, GUL SCM
CMU, Western Canada, normal 240 1 m3 Industry Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022).
weight (all cement types) Unweighted average of "GU SCM" and "GUL SCM" subtypes.
Parent category baseline.
CMU, Western Canada, normal 252 1 m3 Industry Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022)
weight, GU SCM
CMU, Western Canada, normal 232 1 m3 Industry Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022)
weight, GUL SCM
CMU, Western Canada, 210 1 m3 Industry Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022).
lightweight (all cement types) Unweighted average of "GU SCM" and "GUL SCM" subtypes.
Parent category baseline.
CMU, Western Canada, 214 1 m3 Industry Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022)
lightweight, GU SCM
CMU, Western Canada, 198 1 m3 Industry Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022)
lightweight, GUL SCM
Clay brick 503 1 m3 Industry Clay brick industry-average EPD (Brick Industry Association,
2020)

9 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 Baseline GWP
(kg CO2e / Declared
Product Type declared unit) unit Method Data source and note
Steel
Rebar, unfabricated 753 1 metric ton Industry Rebar industry-average EPD (CRSI, 2022). CLF converted
from the industry EPD's fabricated result to unfabricated
GWP.
Rebar, fabricated 854 1 metric ton Industry Rebar industry-average EPD (CRSI, 2022)

Hot-rolled sections, 901 1 metric ton Industry Hot-rolled structural steel sections industry-average LCA
unfabricated report (JBE, 2025)
Hot-rolled sections, fabricated 1,080 1 metric ton Industry Hot-rolled structural steel sections industry-average LCA
report (JBE, 2025)
Steel plate, unfabricated 1,480 1 metric ton Industry Steel plate industry-average EPD (AISC, 2021b). CLF
converted from the industry EPD's fabricated result to
unfabricated GWP.
Steel plate, fabricated 1,730 1 metric ton Industry Steel plate industry-average EPD (STI, 2021)

HSS, unfabricated 1,710 1 metric ton Industry HSS industry-average EPD (STI, 2021)

HSS, fabricated 1,990 1 metric ton Industry Fabricated HSS industry-average EPD (AISC, 2021a)

Cold-formed steel framing 2,440 1 metric ton Industry Cold-formed steel framing industry-average EPD (SFIA, 2021)

Steel deck 2,330 1 metric ton Industry Steel deck industry-average EPD (SDI, 2022)

Open-web steel joist 1,430 1 metric ton Industry OWSJ industry-average EPD (SJI, 2022)

Aluminum
Aluminum extrusions, mill 10,300 1 metric ton Industry Aluminum extrusions industry-average EPD (AEC, 2022a)
finish
Aluminum extrusions, 10,800 1 metric ton Industry Aluminum extrusions industry-average EPD (AEC, 2022a)
anodized
Aluminum extrusions, painted 11,700 1 metric ton Industry Aluminum extrusions industry-average EPD (AEC, 2022a)

Aluminum extrusions, 11,800 1 metric ton Industry Thermally improved aluminum extrusions industry-average
thermally improved, anodized EPD (AEC, 2022b)
Aluminum extrusions, 12,700 1 metric ton Industry Thermally improved aluminum extrusions industry-average
thermally improved, painted EPD (AEC, 2022b)
Aluminum sheet 3,820 1 metric ton Industry Aluminum sheet industry-average EPD (AA, 2022)

Wood
Softwood Lumber 63.1 1 m3 Industry North American softwood lumber industry-average EPD
(AWC & CWC, 2020e)
Softwood lumber, U.S. Inland 71.4 1 m3 Industry U.S. Inland Northwest softwood lumber industry-average
Northwest EPD (AWC 2024a)
Softwood lumber, U.S. 90.4 1 m3 Industry U.S. Southern softwood lumber industry-average EPD (AWC
Southern 2024c)
Softwood lumber, U.S. Pacific 73.8 1 m3 Industry U.S. Pacific Coast softwood lumber industry-average EPD
Coast (AWC 2024b)

10 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 Baseline GWP
(kg CO2e / Declared
Product Type declared unit) unit Method Data source and note
Softwood lumber, British 45.9 1 m3 Industry British Columbia softwood lumber industry-average EPD
Columbia (Forestry Innovation Investment, 2023b)
Redwood Lumber 38.0 1 m3 Industry Redwood lumber industry-average EPD (AWC, 2020)

Laminated strand lumber (LSL) 275 1 m3 Industry LSL industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, 2021)

Laminated veneer lumber (LVL) 361 1 m3 Industry LVL industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, 2020c)

Oriented strand lumber (OSL) -- 1 m3 -- No sufficiently representative data source of North American
production
Parallel strand lumber (PSL) -- 1 m3 -- No sufficiently representative data source of North American
production
Cross laminated timber (CLT) 134 1 m3 Product Collection of North America CLT product EPDs, unweighted
average.
CLT, British Columbia 101 1 m3 Industry BC CLT industry-average EPD (Forestry Innovation
Investment, 2023c)
CLT, Eastern Canada 96 1 m3 Product Collection of regional CLT product EPDs (Nordic Structures;
2023; Element5 LP - Modern Timber Buildings, 2022),
unweighted average.
CLT, Southern US 147 1 m3 Product Collection of regional CLT product EPDs (Mercer Mass
Timber, 2025a; SmartLam North America, 2021a),
unweighted average.
CLT, Western US 156 1 m3 Product Collection of regional CLT product EPDs (Mercer Mass
Timber, 2025b; SmartLam North America, 2021b; Vaagen
Timbers, 2021), unweighted average.
Mass ply panel (MPP) 259 1 m3 Product MPP product EPD (Freres Lumber Company, 2020)

Dowel Laminated Timber (DLT) 121 1 m3 Product DLT product EPD (StructureCraft, 2020)

Glue laminated timber (GLT) 137 1 m3 Industry North America GLT industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC,
2020b)
GLT, British Columbia 103 1 m3 Industry BC GLT industry-average EPD (Forestry Innovation
Investment, 2023d)
Nail Laminated Timber (NLT) -- 1 m3 -- No sufficiently representative data source of North American
production
Softwood plywood 219 1 m3 Industry Softwood plywood industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC,
2020a)
Softwood plywood, British 132 1 m3 Industry BC softwood plywood industry-average EPD (Forestry
Columbia Innovation Investment, 2023a)
Oriented strandboard (OSB) 243 1 m3 Industry OSB industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, 2020d)

Wood sheathing (includes 231 1 m3 Industry Softwood plywood and OSB industry-average EPDs (AWC &
plywood and OSB) CWC, 2020a; 2020d). Baseline = unweighted average of
industry EPD values for OSB and plywood. Parent category
baseline.
Wood I-joist, 300mm (≅11- 1.97 1m Industry Wood I-joist industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, 2020f). See
7/8") Category Results for option to scale GWP for other joist sizes.

11 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 Baseline GWP
(kg CO2e / Declared
Product Type declared unit) unit Method Data source and note
Insulation
Expanded polystyrene (EPS) 2.53 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry EPS industry-average EPD (EPS-IA, 2023). See EPD to scale
Type I results for other EPS types.
Fiberglass board 5.02 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Fiberglass board industry-average EPD (NAIMA, 2023c)
Heavy density mineral wool 6.82 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Heavy density mineral wool board industry-average EPD
board (NAIMA, 2023e)
Polyiso, aluminum foil facer 4.10 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Polyiso wall insulation boards industry-average EPD (PIMA,
2020b)
Polyiso, GRF facer 2.11 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Polyiso roof insulation boards industry-average EPD (PIMA,
2020a)
Polyiso, CGF facer 2.95 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Polyiso roof insulation boards industry-average EPD (PIMA,
2020a)
Polyiso, wall 3.5 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Polyiso wall and roof insulation boards industry-average
EPDs (PIMA, 2020a; 2020b). Baseline = unweighted average
of industry EPD values for aluminum-foil-faced and CGF
polyiso boards. Parent category baseline.
Polyiso, roof 2.5 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Polyiso roof insulation boards industry-average EPD (PIMA,
2020a). Baseline = unweighted average of industry EPD
values for GRF and CGF polyiso boards. Parent category
baseline.
Extruded polystyrene (XPS) 8.9 1 m2@RSI-1 Product XPS product EPD (Owens Corning, 2024). Includes modules
board, ≤25 psi A1–A3, B1, and C4 to account for blowing agent emissions.
Extruded polystyrene (XPS) 10.9 1 m2@RSI-1 Product XPS product EPD (Owens Corning, 2024). Includes modules
board, 40 psi A1–A3, B1, and C4 to account for blowing agent emissions.
Extruded polystyrene (XPS) 14.1 1 m2@RSI-1 Product XPS product EPD (Owens Corning, 2024). Includes modules
board, 60 psi A1–A3, B1, and C4 to account for blowing agent emissions.
Extruded polystyrene (XPS) 20.1 1 m2@RSI-1 Product XPS product EPD (Owens Corning, 2024). Includes modules
board, 100 psi A1–A3, B1, and C4 to account for blowing agent emissions.
Graphite polystyrene -- 1 m2@RSI-1 -- No sufficiently representative data source of North American
production
Fiberglass blanket 1.06 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Fiberglass batt (faced) industry-average EPD (NAIMA, 2023a)

Mineral wool blanket 2.68 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Mineral wool light-density board industry-average EPD
(NAIMA, 2023f)
Blanket insulation (general) 1.9 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Fiberglass batt (faced) and mineral wool light-density board
industry-average EPDs (NAIMA, 2023a; NAIMA, 2023f).
Unweighted average. Parent category baseline.
Closed-cell spray polyurethane 2.63 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Medium density SPF, HFO industry-average EPD (SPFA,
foam, medium density 2024a). Includes modules A1–A3 and A5 to account for
blowing agent emissions during installation.
Closed-cell spray polyurethane 3.87 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Roofing SPF, HFO industry-average EPD (SPFA, 2024c).
foam, roofing Includes modules A1–A3 and A5 to account for blowing
agent emissions during installation.
Open-cell spray polyurethane 1.17 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Open-cell SPF industry-average EPD (SPFA, 2024b)
foam
Mineral wool loose fill 1.89 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Loose-fill mineral wool industry-average EPD (NAIMA, 2023g)

12 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 Baseline GWP
(kg CO2e / Declared
Product Type declared unit) unit Method Data source and note
Fiberglass loose fill 0.988 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Loose-fill fiberglass industry-average EPD (NAIMA, 2023d)
Cellulose loose fill 0.487 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Loose-fill cellulose industry-average EPD (CIMA, 2019)
Loose-fill insulation (all types) 1.1 1 m2@RSI-1 Industry Loose-fill mineral wool, fiberglass, and cellulose industry-
average EPDs (NAIMA, 2023g; NAIMA, 2023d; CIMA, 2019).
Unweighted average. Parent category baseline.
Fire and smoke protection
Spray-applied fireproofing, 388 1 metric ton Product Collection of applied fireproofing product EPDs, unweighted
standard density average.
Spray-applied fireproofing, 749 1 metric ton Product Collection of applied fireproofing product EPDs, unweighted
medium density average.
Spray-applied fireproofing, 902 1 metric ton Product Collection of applied fireproofing product EPDs, unweighted
high density average.
Cladding and roofing
Roll-formed metal panel - steel 1,530 100 m2 Industry Roll-formed metal panel industry-average EPD (MCA, 2020c)

Roll-formed metal panel - 1,860 100 m2 Industry Roll-formed metal panel industry-average EPD (MCA, 2020c)
aluminum
Roll-formed metal panel (all) 1,700 100 m2 Industry Roll-formed metal panel industry-average EPD (MCA, 2020c),
unweighted average of metal types. Parent category
baseline.
MCM panel, aluminum 2,800 100 m2 Industry MCM panel industry-average EPD (MCA, 2020b)

Insulated metal panel (IMP), 10,700 100 m2 Industry IMP industry-average EPD (MCA, 2020a)
2" thick
Insulated metal panel (IMP), 19,100 100 m2 Industry IMP industry-average EPD (MCA, 2020a) and personal
4" thick communication with MCA.
Insulated metal panel (IMP), 27,400 100 m2 Industry IMP industry-average EPD (MCA, 2020a) and personal
6" thick communication with MCA.
Insulated metal panel (IMP), [user- 100 m2 Industry IMP industry-average EPD (MCA, 2020a) and personal
user-defined thickness calculated] communication with MCA. Calculate baseline (b) for any
thickness in inches (t) as: b = 4184 + 2332(t), rounded to
three significant digits.
Built-up asphalt roofing (BUR), 2.57 1 m2 Industry Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023d)
Hot Asphalt
BUR, Fastened Base, 2 Ply Felts 3.06 1 m2 Industry Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023e)
and Cap in Hot Asphalt
SBS-modified bitumen roofing 5.81 1 m2 Industry Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023g)
membrane, installation: cold
adhesive
SBS-modified bitumen roofing 5.81 1 m2 Industry Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023h)
membrane, installation: hot
asphalt
SBS-modified bitumen roofing 5.54 1 m2 Industry Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023i)
membrane, installation: hybrid
self-adhered SBS base sheet
and torch-applied SBS cap

13 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 Baseline GWP
(kg CO2e / Declared
Product Type declared unit) unit Method Data source and note
SBS-modified bitumen roofing 5.20 1 m2 Industry Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023j)
membrane, installation: self-
adhered
SBS-modified bitumen roofing 5.85 1 m2 Industry Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023k)
membrane, installation: torch
applied
SBS-modified bitumen roofing 5.64 1 m2 Industry Collection of SBS-modified bitumen industry-average EPDs
membrane (ARMA, 2023g; 2023h; 2023i; 2023j; 2023k), unweighted
average. Parent category baseline.
APP-modified bitumen roofing 9.22 1 m2 Industry Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023b)
membrane, installation: cold
adhesive
APP-modified bitumen roofing 9.01 1 m2 Industry Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023c)
membrane, installation: torch
applied:
APP-modified bitumen roofing 9.12 1 m2 Industry Collection of APP-modified bitumen roof membrane
membrane industry-average EPDs (ARMA, 2023b; 2023c), unweighted
average. Parent category baseline.
SBS/APP-modified bitumen 5.13 1 m2 Industry Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023f)
roofing membrane, hybrid self-
adhered SBS base sheet and
torch-applied APP
Single ply PVC membrane 4.2 1 m2 Industry PVC single-ply roofing industry-average EPD (CFFA, 2020)
roofing, 40 mils
Single ply PVC membrane 5.2 1 m2 Industry PVC single-ply roofing industry-average EPD (CFFA, 2020)
roofing, 48 mils
Single ply PVC membrane 6.3 1 m2 Industry PVC single-ply roofing industry-average EPD (CFFA, 2020)
roofing, 60 mils
Single ply PVC membrane 8.3 1 m2 Industry PVC single-ply roofing industry-average EPD (CFFA, 2020)
roofing, 80 mils
TPO membrane roofing, 45 mil 3.32 1 m2 Industry TPO single-ply roofing industry-average EPD (SPRI, 2023)

TPO membrane roofing, 60 mil 4.29 1 m2 Industry TPO single-ply roofing industry-average EPD (SPRI, 2023)

TPO membrane roofing, 80 mil 6.05 1 m2 Industry TPO single-ply roofing industry-average EPD (SPRI, 2023)

EPDM membrane roofing, 5.42 1 m2 Industry Reinforced EPDM membrane industry-average EPD (SPRI,
reinforced, 45 mil 2022b)
EPDM membrane roofing, 7.10 1 m2 Industry Reinforced EPDM membrane industry-average EPD (SPRI,
reinforced, 60 mil 2022b)
EPDM membrane roofing, 8.86 1 m2 Industry Reinforced EPDM membrane industry-average EPD (SPRI,
reinforced, 75 mil 2022b)
EPDM membrane roofing, non- 4.73 1 m2 Industry Non-reinforced EPDM membrane industry average EPD
reinforced, 45 mil (SPRI, 2022a)
EPDM membrane roofing, non- 6.14 1 m2 Industry Non-reinforced EPDM membrane industry average EPD
reinforced, 60 mil (SPRI, 2022a)
EPDM membrane roofing, non- 9.56 1 m2 Industry Non-reinforced EPDM membrane industry average EPD
reinforced, 90 mil (SPRI, 2022a)

14 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 Baseline GWP
(kg CO2e / Declared
Product Type declared unit) unit Method Data source and note
Asphalt shingles 3.61 1 m2 Industry Asphalt shingle industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023a)
Openings
Flat glass 1,430 1 metric ton Industry Flat glass industry-average EPD (NGA, 2019)

Processed glass panes -- 1 m2 -- No sufficiently representative data source of North American

production
IGU -- 1 m2 -- No sufficiently representative data source of North American
production
Curtain wall -- 1 m2 -- No sufficiently representative data source of North American
production
Finishes
Gypsum board, 1/2 in 207 1000 ft2 Industry Gypsum board industry-average LCA report (ASMI, 2020)

Gypsum board, 5/8 in 277 1000 ft2 Industry Gypsum board industry-average EPD (GA, 2020)

Glass-mat gypsum board, 437 1000 ft2 Industry Glass-mat gypsum board industry-average EPD (GA, 2021)
1/2 in
Glass-mat gypsum board, 504 1000 ft2 Industry Glass-mat gypsum board industry-average EPD (GA, 2021)
5/8 in
Acoustic ceiling tile, NRC < 0.75 0.45 1 ft2 Product Collection of ACT product EPDs — unweighted average.
Acoustic ceiling tile, 0.75 ≤ NRC 2.1 1 ft2 Product Collection of ACT product EPDs — unweighted average.
≤ 0.90
Acoustic ceiling tile, NRC > 0.90 2.8 1 ft2 Product Collection of ACT product EPDs — unweighted average.
Ceramic tile 14.1 1 m2 Industry Ceramic tile industry-average EPD (TNCA, 2020)
Homogeneous vinyl flooring 7.48 1 m2 Industry Homogeneous vinyl flooring industry-average EPD (RFCI,
2024a)
Heterogeneous vinyl flooring 5.87 1 m2 Industry Heterogeneous vinyl flooring industry-average EPD (RFCI,
2024b)
Rubber flooring, ≅3.2 mm 10.8 1 m2 Industry Rubber Flooring industry-average EPD (RFCI, 2024e)

Luxury vinyl tile (LVT), glue 9.78 1 m2 Industry Glue-down luxury vinyl tile (LVT) industry-average EPD
down (RFCI, 2024c)
Luxury vinyl tile (LVT), loose lay 11.6 1 m2 Industry Loose-lay luxury vinyl tile (LVT) industry-average EPD (RFCI,
2024d)
Rigid core flooring, SPC 8.24 1 m2 Industry SPC rigid core flooring industry-average EPD (RFCI, 2024f)
Rigid core flooring, WPC -- 1 m2 -- No sufficiently representative data source for North
American production
Solid vinyl tile (SVT) -- 1 m2 -- No sufficiently representative data source for North
American production
Vinyl composition tile (VCT) 4.63 1 m2 Industry VCT industry-average EPD (RFCI, 2024i)
Carpet -- 1 m2 -- No sufficiently representative data source for North
American production
Asphalt
Asphalt mixtures See Asphalt Mixtures category results.

15 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Table ES.2. CLF baseline values for USA ready-mixed concrete. All values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e / m3. Aligning with the
industry benchmark report, product types are organized by region, compressive strength (in psi), and weight classification. (“LW” refers
to lightweight mixes. All others are normal-weight mixes.)
2500 3000 4000 5000 6000 8000 9000 10000 12000 3000 4000 5000
psi psi psi psi psi psi psi psi psi psi LW psi LW psi LW

Pacific Southwest 257 279 323 378 401 456 437 471 -- 500 546 594

Pacific Northwest 235 261 316 386 408 487 378 470 -- 518 575 632

Rocky Mountains 232 255 301 358 379 440 -- 387 -- 484 532 580

South Central 226 245 286 336 356 409 -- -- -- 468 510 555

North Central 241 264 312 372 394 460 -- -- -- 487 537 591

Southeastern 247 268 309 360 382 435 534 609 593 478 521 562

Great Lakes 232 255 303 363 383 452 -- -- -- 499 551 603

Eastern 240 264 314 378 399 472 410 429 353 517 573 628

National 240 262 308 365 385 446 -- -- -- 492 540 588
Methods, data sources, and notes:
2500–8000 psi mixes
 Baseline method: industry
 Data source: Ready-mix concrete industry benchmark report (ASMI, 2022)
9000–12,000 psi mixes
 Baseline method: product
 Data source and note: Baseline values are the unweighted average of the collection of applicable product EPDs, by strength
and region.
All values rounded to three significant digits (nearest whole number).

16 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Table ES.3. CLF baseline values for Canadian ready-mixed concrete. All values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e / m3. Aligning with the
industry-average EPDs, product types are organized by region, compressive strength (in MPa), and those with and without air-entraining
admixtures (AEAs).

15 20 25 30 32 35 40 45 50 55 60 70 80
MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa

British Columbia with AEAs -- 194 231 270 285 311 344 356 345 402 422 -- --
without AEAs 179 195 220 259 272 294 329 335 359 377 400 -- --
Alberta with AEAs -- 273 318 369 397 410 427 465 488 466 -- -- --
without AEAs -- 261 306 334 314 328 418 -- 447 -- -- -- --
Saskatchewan with AEAs -- -- 313 346 380 417 442 474 -- -- -- -- --
without AEAs -- -- 296 317 338 358 414 458 -- -- -- -- --
Manitoba with AEAs -- 204 230 253 277 298 309 362 396 -- -- -- --
without AEAs -- 202 223 246 -- 268 290 333 367 -- -- -- --
Ontario with AEAs -- 227 261 293 326 334 362 379 457 -- -- -- --
without AEAs -- 220 254 264 264 295 326 350 336 355 361 354 --
Quebec with AEAs -- 278 299 343 363 393 397 414 411 -- 445 -- --
without AEAs -- 264 287 307 -- 345 364 381 404 -- 425 -- 486
Atlantic with AEAs -- 344 361 394 439 447 474 529 551 -- -- -- --
without AEAs -- 337 354 379 -- 422 449 502 536 -- 580 -- --
Baseline method: industry
Data sources and notes: Canadian industry-average ready-mixed concrete EPDs (Concrete BC, 2022; Concrete Alberta, 2022; Concrete
Saskatchewan, 2022; Concrete Manitoba, 2022; Concrete Ontario, 2022; Association Béton Québec, 2022; Atlantic Concrete Association;
2022). All values rounded to three significant digits (nearest whole number).

17 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

1. Introduction
The Carbon Leadership Forum (CLF) is part of a broad movement to encourage the disclosure of high-
quality embodied carbon data by manufacturers as part of work to drive down the embodied carbon of
building materials and products. LCA data and results are essential for guiding science-based efforts to
decarbonize buildings and infrastructure. Policymakers, owners, contractors, and designers need access
to verified, published data on building materials and products to facilitate procurement decisions, set
decarbonization targets, and inform design.

CLF published the first Material Baselines report in 2019 to support the Embodied Carbon in Construction
Calculator (EC3) tool. CLF published subsequent versions in 2021 and 2023. The scope and format of these
different versions have evolved. Still, all have provided a snapshot of the North American construction
materials industry through a set of baseline GWP values and a depiction of the range of embodied carbon
values per product type.

This 2025 report follows most of the general methods and structure of the 2023 version, with some
expansion and refinement of scope, methods, and documentation. See Appendix A for a description of
significant changes in this report compared to the 2023 version.

The state of EPDs

Dynamic tools like EC3 allow users to generate customized results that reflect their specific search criteria
and the most recent data. To complement such dynamic tools, this report provides a snapshot of the
current “state of EPDs” — a static reference, applicable across projects and time.

For each category, this report provides:

● A description of the category, how the products are used, and their production processes.
● How CLF classifies them into functionally equivalent groups, referred to here as “product types.”
● A snapshot of EPD data availability and distribution, including the number of EPDs per product
type, the geographical spread of manufacturing facilities with EPDs, and the range of GWP data.
● CLF Baseline GWP values and supporting documentation.

What is a baseline?
Generally, a “baseline” refers to a basis for comparison, a reference point against which other things can
be evaluated. It often describes current typical, average, or business-as-usual performance.

CLF acknowledges that different people and publications use terms differently. (Sometimes a “baseline”
refers to something different from what we present here; sometimes people use a different term to mean
what we mean by “baseline” here.) For this report, a baseline GWP value (or simply “baseline”) is an
industry-average GWP value of a construction product type, intended to be used as a basis for
comparison or as a generic embodied carbon intensity for project models.

18 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

1.1 Definitions
LCA
A systematic set of procedures for compiling and evaluating the inputs and outputs of materials and
energy, and the associated environmental impacts directly attributable to a product or process
throughout its lifecycle.

Environmental product declaration (EPD)

An independently verified document based on an LCA model, developed in conformance with
international standards, that reports the environmental impacts of a product.

Baseline
General definition: A basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated.
It often describes current typical, average, or business-as-usual performance.

As used in this report: industry-average GWP value of a product type, intended to be used as a basis for
comparison and/or as a default embodied carbon intensity.

Life-cycle stage/module
Discrete portions of a product or project’s life cycle, separately accounted for in an LCA. The “product,”
“construction,” “use,” and “end-of-life” stages are subdivided into more specific modules such as A1, A2,
etc. (though these are also sometimes referred to as “stages”). See Figure 1.1.1.

Figure 1.1.1. Life cycle stages and modules for construction products, based on ISO 21930 (ISO, 2017) and EN
15804 (CEN, 2019).

19 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Embodied carbon
The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions arising from the manufacturing, transportation, installation,
maintenance, and disposal of construction materials.1

PCR
A set of specific rules, requirements, and guidelines for conducting an LCA and developing EPDs for one or
more product categories. PCRs are reviewed and revised periodically over time. Each category’s PCR
dictates methodological decisions that are relevant to the material supply chain of that product category
(concrete, floor coverings, etc.). A PCR dictates which life-cycle stages and scopes must be included in the
LCA, which background data sources are acceptable or mandatory, and other modeling choices such as
allocation method and impact assessment method.

Global Warming Potential (GWP)

The potential climate change impact of a product or process as measured by an LCA, reported in units
(typically kilograms) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). (In climate science, “global warming potential”
also refers to a measure of a greenhouse gas’s potency for trapping heat in the atmosphere.)

Declared unit
The quantity of product used as a reference unit in an EPD. EPDs report GWP (and other impacts) per
declared unit. The PCR determines the declared unit. (EPDs for some categories use a “functional unit,” a
related term which aims to account for a product’s performance over time in addition to simple quantity.)

Comparability [of EPDs]

the extent to which EPD results can be appropriately compared — a function of (i) the extent to which the
objects of assessment are functionally equivalent, and (ii) the extent to which the LCAs use equivalent
scopes, modeling methods, assumptions, and data sources (so that differences in results are due to
differences in actual emissions rather than artifacts of the modeling process).

Functional equivalence
Products (or processes, buildings, etc.) are considered functionally equivalent if they provide similar
performance in their end-use application — i.e., they can equivalently fulfill the application’s functional
requirements.

(Note that functional equivalence is not a quality that is inherent to an object. It is a determination based
on human judgment and depends on the application. Thus, Product A and Product B may be considered
functionally equivalent in some circumstances and not in other circumstances.)

Definitions of terms as used in this report

These are not universally applied definitions, but rather are ones CLF uses in this report to maintain
internal consistency.

1One could consider the embodied carbon of any object or process — a sandwich, a coffee cup, an airplane trip, etc.
This report’s focus is construction materials.

20 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Industry EPD
Industry-average EPD, also known as industry-wide EPD. (Shortened name used in this report.)

Product EPD
An EPD representing one manufacturer’s product(s). Also known as a manufacturer-specific EPD. (This
includes both of what recent ACLCA guidance (ACLCA, 2025) refers to as facility-specific and
manufacturer-average EPDs, and can be further classified as product-average or product-specific, though
this report does not address those distinctions.)

Product type
A collection of comparable products for which we provide aggregated EPD data, statistics, and/or
baseline GWP values (given sufficiently representative data). Examples: “hot-rolled structural steel
sections, unfabricated” or “acoustical ceiling tile, NRC<0.75”

Category
A loose/flexible term to describe some collection of products, typically at a broader scale than “product
type.” Examples: “steel”; “structural steel”; “finishes”; "acoustical ceiling tile.”

Parent category
A collection of two or more (“child”) product types that are sometimes functionally equivalent, depending
on the application. This report provides parent category baselines in some cases.

Attribute
Property (or “feature” or “field”) used to describe products. Any given product has some value for that
attribute. In a typical attribute-value table in this context, each row would be a distinct EPD, and the
column headers are attributes.

Example attributes: “compressive strength”; “facer type;” “state or province”

Value
A given product’s particular characteristic or state for a given attribute.

In a typical attribute-value table in this context, each cell contains a value corresponding to the given row
(i.e., EPD) and column (i.e., attribute).

Examples: For attribute = “compressive strength,” example values include “3000 psi” or “4000 psi.” For
attribute = “state or province,” example values include “Ontario” or “Kentucky.”

21 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

2. Methods
2.1 Category Inclusion Principles
CLF uses the following principles as internal guidance to determine which categories and product types
are included in the CLF North American Material Baselines project. Generally, a category or product type
should meet the following three major criteria:
● Appropriate function: It is a construction product category or type that is typically used in one
of the following applications:
○ In a building’s structure, enclosure, and/or finishes;2
○ Major elements in roadways or other transportation infrastructure.
● Appropriate PCR: There is a valid North American PCR that covers the category or product type.
● EPD data availability: Given the project’s main purpose of providing the current state of EPD
data for construction product types, there should be at least one of the following:
○ an applicable industry-average EPD (valid, North American, follows current PCR);
OR
● a collection of applicable product EPDs (valid, North American, follow current PCR). Preference is
for EPDs from multiple manufacturers.
Within product categories that meet the main criteria, CLF prioritizes categories that meet these
additional criteria:
● GWP significance and/or stakeholder demand
● relatively free of comparability issues, such as substantively different system boundaries or LCA
accounting methods across different EPDs in the category
● is (or falls within) a public EC3 category.
CLF uses judgment in applying these guidelines. Other factors not listed above include staff time
availability and knowledge. Therefore, there may be cases where a product type meets the above criteria
but is excluded from this report.

2This corresponds to MasterFormat divisions 03-09 (CSI, 2025). Currently, the Material Baselines do not include
mechanical, plumbing, electrical, or communications systems product types. This may change in the future based on
PCR advancements, data availability, and/or perceived demand.

22 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

2.2 Comparability and Categorization
EPD comparability
The project’s primary categorization goal is to classify products and associated EPDs to facilitate
appropriate product-to-product comparisons — including comparing EPD-reported GWP values between
one EPD and another, and between an EPD and a baseline.3
ISO 21930:2017 section 5.5 (ISO, 2017) outlines the conditions for construction product EPD
comparability. The first key condition is functional equivalence (i.e., the set of compared products can
equivalently fulfill a given project application), which forms the basis for CLF Baselines categorization
principles and methods described below.
The other conditions relate to equivalent LCA methods — same functional unit, equivalent accounting of
use stage influence; same excluded materials, processes, life cycle stages; equivalent scenarios; and
consistent treatment of biogenic carbon and carbonation. To help ensure equivalent methods, this report
generally limits a given set of EPDs being compared to those that follow the same Product Category Rules
(PCR).4

Categorization principles
In this report, a “product type” describes a collection of comparable products for which we provide
aggregated EPD data, statistics, and/or baseline GWP values (given sufficiently representative data). We
use the term “category” loosely to describe some collection of products, typically at a broader scale than
“product type.” For example, within the broader category of “masonry” are the narrower categories of
“concrete masonry unit (CMU)” and “brick.” Within the CMU category are multiple specific product types,
where each constitutes a set of functionally equivalent products.
CLF defines product types based on relevant attributes. (That is, CLF uses the relevant attributes as
classifiers for sorting products and differentiating between product types.) For a given attribute (e.g.,
“compressive strength” or “facer type”), all products within the product type have the same “value” for
that attribute (e.g., “2500 psi” or “aluminum foil facer”).

Defining product types

CLF starts with product type classifications outlined by PCRs and used by industry-average EPDs and
industry benchmark reports. In most cases, CLF uses these same product types for this report.
In some cases (particularly when there is not a published industry-wide data source, or the industry-wide
data source(s) have scopes that don’t align with this project’s goal of defining sets of functionally

3 While outside the scope of this report (which is focused on EPD-level comparison), it is important to also compare
across product types – e.g., comparing a steel structure to a concrete structure, or a tile floor to a carpeted floor. But
this should be done at the assembly or whole-project LCA level — and NOT at the EPD level — to account for
differences in quantities, additional materials required, replacement rates, end-of-life treatment, etc.
4 While PCRs vary in the degree that they ensure EPD comparability (Bhat et al., 2022), they do provide some

guardrails in terms of data and methods. And these guardrails increase confidence in the comparability of EPDs
produced under a given PCR. An extensive investigation of EPD comparability within and across PCRs is outside the
scope of this project.

23 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

equivalent products), CLF considers other potential attributes for defining CLF Baseline product types.
These are based on CLF domain knowledge, research, and/or industry input.

Figure 2.2.1. Framework to determine relevant attributes for defining CLF Baseline product types.

The relevant attributes for defining CLF baseline product types are those that are significant to both:
● comparability — i.e., what collection products can be reasonably used for a given project
application (including both functional performance and geographic availability);
and
● GWP — because that is what's being measured in the context of CLF baseline GWP values.
There are two parallel types of attributes: (i) function-related attributes related to a product’s
physical/technical characteristics, and (ii) geography-related attributes related (directly or indirectly) to
manufacturing location. Figure 2.2.1 illustrates the basic framework for assessing these attributes for
relevance when defining CLF Baseline product types, and the framework is described in more detail
below.

Categorization by function-related attributes

A product technical/functional attribute (e.g., thickness, compressive strength, R-value, fire rating) is
relevant for defining CLF baseline product types if:
● The attribute significantly affects functional performance — i.e., if the product could reasonably
be used in a given project application.
and
● The attribute significantly affects GWP per declared unit.
Examples:
● Ready-mixed concrete compressive strength significantly affects functional performance and
GWP per declared unit. Therefore, CLF uses compressive strength as a relevant attribute to
classify concrete product types.

24 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 ● Rebar diameter affects functional performance but does not significantly affect GWP per
declared unit (1 metric ton). Therefore, CLF does not use diameter to define rebar product types.
(The rebar product types included cover all diameters.)
● A rebar mill’s electricity source does affect GWP, but it does not affect functional performance.
Therefore, CLF does not differentiate rebar product types by electricity source.
Categorization by geography-related attributes
A geographic region (e.g., state, sub-national region) or geography-dependent attribute (e.g., geography-
dependent ingredient type) is relevant for defining CLF baseline product types if:
● The products are regionally (rather than nationally or internationally) distributed. (Geography
constrains procurement of the product type to within a maximum reasonable transport distance
from the manufacturer to the project site);
and
● The attribute significantly affects GWP per declared unit.
Examples:
● Geography constrains ready-mixed concrete procurement – it is typically transported within 90
minutes from the plant to the project site (American Concrete Pumping Association, 2022); and
regional differences in aggregate availability affect ready-mixed concrete GWP. Therefore, CLF
(following the lead of the National Ready Mix Concrete Association) differentiates ready-mixed
concrete baselines by geographic region where data allows.
● Aluminum extrusions are nationally or internationally distributed. Therefore, even though
aluminum extrusion GWP may be indirectly affected by geography due to differing location-
dependent electrical grids, CLF does not differentiate aluminum extrusion baselines by
geographic region.

Similar product types and parent vs. child baselines

There are many cases of similar product types that are sometimes functionally equivalent and sometimes
not, depending on the application. In such cases, CLF may provide separate baseline values for both
"child"- and "parent"-level product types, depending on data availability. For example, within the parent
category “wood sheathing” are the child product types “oriented strand board (OSB)” and “plywood.”
OSB and plywood are sometimes functionally equivalent and sometimes not, depending on the
application.
For a parent category (e.g., wood sheathing) where it is common that products of multiple child types
(e.g., OSB and plywood) could be used for a given application, CLF provides both child- and parent-
category baseline values, where data availability allows. In cases where CLF provides baseline values at
both the child and parent scopes, CLF recommends the guidance illustrated in Figure 2.2.2 to determine
which baseline value (parent vs. child) is appropriate for a given use case.

25 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 2.2.2. Guidance for when to use parent- vs. child-category baseline values.

2.3 EPD Dataset Preparation

CLF included applicable EPDs that:
● were valid (unexpired) as of January 1, 2025
● covered products manufactured in North America
● followed an appropriate North American PCR
● had a product type scope aligning with CLF’s scope for the category
To improve dataset reliability, CLF performed a range of quality assurance (QA) functions, including
manually checking original EPDs to address digitization gaps and errors. CLF’s data QA intensity varied by
category depending on (i) the significance of the category’s product EPD data in terms of setting baselines
and/or in Buy Clean policies; and (ii) the size of the dataset. Each category results section notes CLF’s data
QA intensity for the category, allowing readers to better gauge the reliability of the presented EPD data.
See Appendix B for a more detailed description of CLF’s data workflow.

26 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

2.4 Data Assessment and Setting CLF Baseline
Values
CLF followed the processes below for setting a baseline GWP value for a given product type. Figure 2.4.1
illustrates the process as a decision tree.

Figure 2.4.1. Data source assessment and baseline method decision tree.

27 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Step 1. Identify the available data sources
CLF identifies one of the following data sources, in order of preference, to use for setting CLF baseline
values:
1. A single industry-wide data point (industry-average EPD, LCA, or benchmark report) that covers
the given product type.
2. A collection of multiple industry-wide data points, each covering a separate subtype of the
given product type.
3. A collection of product EPDs that cover the given product type.
Where possible, CLF prefers to use a published industry-average EPD (and/or its accompanying LCA
report) or industry-wide benchmark report as the primary data source to inform a CLF baseline value.
These published industry-wide data points typically cover a large share of the industry, are weighted by
production volume where feasible, and (in the case of industry-average EPDs) are independently
reviewed for conformance to ISO standards for average EPDs.

Step 2. Assess if the data source is sufficiently representative

A CLF baseline value aims to approximate that product type’s average GWP for the overall industry (i.e.,
the “population” in statistics terms). CLF develops the baseline value based on available EPD data (i.e.,
the “sample” in statistics terms). To draw inferences about the overall industry (i.e., population) based on
our available EPD data (i.e., sample), we should be reasonably confident that the sample is sufficiently
representative of the population.
ISO 14044 (ISO, 2006) provides the following definition: “Representativeness: qualitative assessment of
the degree to which the dataset reflects the true population of interest (i.e., geographical coverage, time
period, and technology coverage).”
In alignment with this ISO definition, CLF sets a baseline GWP value only if there is a sufficiently
representative data source, meaning the data source reasonably represents or reflects overall North
American (or other designated region) manufacturing for that product type in terms of:
● Geographic coverage: The geographic distribution of facilities in the sample/data source
adequately reflects that of the overall industry.
● Time period: The data represent current practice and use time-relevant background data. (By
filtering to only currently valid EPDs, we can generally consider the dataset as sufficiently
representative for this characteristic.5)
● Technology coverage: The types of facility technologies (e.g., furnace type), supply chain
processes and ingredients (e.g., natural stone vs. slag as ingredients to mineral wool insulation),
and range of products in the sample/data source adequately reflect that of the overall industry.

5However, we acknowledge that much can change in the typical five-year lifetime of an EPD. And while ISO standards
require updating to “reflect changes in technology or other circumstances that could alter the content and accuracy
of the declaration” (ISO, 2006), we assume this does not always happen.

28 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Assess the representativeness of industry-wide data point(s)
Industry-average EPDs must demonstrate they meet representativeness criteria for average EPDs per ISO
21930:2017, Section 5.3 (quoted below) to be verified and published. (While the data used to develop an
industry-average EPD may not have covered every North American manufacturer or product, they
typically cover a large proportion of the market.) Therefore, for this project, CLF generally assumed —
barring evidence to the contrary — that an industry-average EPD was adequately representative of its
declared scope.
Representativeness assessment: industry data approach. If the industry-average EPD’s declared scope
sufficiently aligned with CLF’s scope for the given product type (in terms of, for example, the range of
products covered), then CLF determined that the industry-average EPD was sufficiently representative of
the industry to set baseline values.
For an industry-wide benchmark report (which is not required to follow the same ISO requirements as
industry-average EPDs), CLF assessed if the report provided adequate documentation of its industry
representativeness.
ISO 21930:2017 Section 5.3 representativeness criteria for average EPDs:
“To ensure an average EPD is representative, the information provided in the average EPD and
the LCA report shall include, but not be limited to:
● a technical description of the average product group…;
● the number of manufacturing plants included in the EPD;
● the names of manufacturing companies or brands or associations;
● a description of the relative production representativeness covered by the EPD;
● the geographical coverage;
● the range of products for which the EPD is relevant.
In addition, the following information shall be provided in the project report to be transparent:
● description of how the selection of the sites/products was done and how the average
was determined;
● information on parameters in the LCA having the most influence” (ISO, 2017).

Assess the representativeness of a collection of product EPDs

CLF used two approaches for assessing whether a collection of product EPDs was sufficiently
representative of the industry.
● Representativeness assessment: sampling fraction approach. If the collection of product EPDs
covers at least 80% of the overall industry (as measured in production volume, market share, or
facilities), then CLF assumed because of the large sampling fraction (i.e., the size of the sample
compared to the size of the population), that the data source was sufficiently representative in
terms of the criteria above (geography, time, technology).6

6Asthe sample size approaches the population size (i.e., as the sampling fraction increases), their distributions
become more and more similar (Morris, n.d.). CLF assumes without further assessment that the sample meets the
above qualitative representativeness criteria (geography, time, technology) in cases where the sampling fraction is
very high. CLF chose this 80% value by plugging into a sample size calculator (Qualtrics, 2023) an extreme case of a

29 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 ● Representativeness assessment: qualitative approach. If the collection of product EPDs covers
less than 80% of the overall industry, then CLF qualitatively assessed the data source (the sample
of product EPDs) for whether it sufficiently reflects the overall industry in terms of each
representativeness factor — geography, time, and technology.
If CLF could not use either approach to determine that the collection of product EPDs was sufficiently
representative of the industry, then there was no appropriate data source to use for setting baselines and
CLF therefore did not provide a baseline value for the product type.

Step 3. Determine if production weighting data are available

For any case where CLF aggregates multiple data points to set a baseline value, CLF first determines if
production data are available to support a weighted average calculation.
For a given product type, different facilities, companies, and/or product sub-types constitute different
proportions of the overall industry. Thus, a production-weighted aggregation of GWP data that accounts
for the differing production volumes better reflects the overall industry than a straight (unweighted)
aggregation (ScienceDirect, 2025). If production volume data were available, CLF used that data to
calculate a production-weighted average. If no production data were available, then CLF generally used a
straight (unweighted) average and documented this as a shortcoming.

Step 4. Determine the CLF baseline GWP value

CLF uses a representative data source and production data (where applicable) to determine the baseline
GWP value using the relevant baseline method:
● Industry (single): baseline value = single industry-wide datapoint (or direct conversion)
● Industry (multi-weighted): baseline value = weighted average of multiple industry-wide
datapoints
● Industry (multi-unweighted): baseline value = straight (unweighted) average of multiple
industry-wide datapoints
● Product (weighted): baseline value = weighted average of product EPD datapoints
● Product (unweighted): baseline value = straight (unweighted) average of product EPD
datapoints
● None: no CLF baseline value due to no sufficiently representative data source
For each baseline value in this report, CLF provides documentation of the baseline method, data source,
representativeness assessment (including any assumptions or calculations regarding
representativeness), any calculations used to derive the baseline value, and additional notes where
relevant.
In this report, CLF generally provides baseline values using three significant digits, as this is typical in
EPDs. In some cases, where CLF calculated the baseline value by aggregating data from multiple sources,
CLF rounded the value to two significant digits to acknowledge the lack of precision in the method.

small population size (N=20), a desired 90% confidence level and 10% margin of error, and the calculator outputted
an ideal sample size of n=16. This is a sampling fraction n/N of 80%. CLF welcomes feedback on this approach.

30 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

3. Results by Category
Each category results section includes a description of the category and product type classifications, a
snapshot of the available data, and, where relevant, the CLF baseline values and accompanying
documentation of data sources and methods. The following figures and tables depict the data.

“GWP contribution by life cycle stage” chart

● These are typically based on industry EPD results. CLF sometimes used product EPD results to
provide illustrative examples when no industry EPD was available.
● Different charts show different scopes of which life cycle modules are included, and whether
modules A1, A2, and A3 are shown separately or combined. The life cycle modules included and
treatment of A1, A2, and A3 in each chart reflect what was reported in the source EPD(s). Figure
1.1.1 summarizes the life cycle stages and modules used in EPDs and whole-building LCA.
● Module D results are not included in the chart, even if included in the source EPD.
Scatterplot showing GWP values from the applicable datapoints.
● The scope of these charts is A1–A3 unless otherwise noted.
Summary statistics table: EPD counts and aggregated GWP values (minimum, maximum, mean, median,
and a series of percentiles) for the applicable EPDs by product type.
● The scope of these tables is A1–A3 unless otherwise noted.
● The table includes the full set of GWP statistics where the product EPD data scopes aligned with
CLF’s product type categorization, and the count was greater than five product EPDs. The table
includes a reduced set of statistics where the EPD data did not align with CLF’s categorization or
if there were five or fewer product EPDs.
● CLF used Tableau to calculate percentiles using its default inclusive, interpolated approach.7
● All mean GWP values are unweighted.
Map: approximate count of facilities with EPDs per state or province
● For an EPD that reports a single GWP value representing an average of one manufacturer’s
multiple facilities, CLF treats this as a single GWP data point in the scatterplot and summary
statistics. But the map’s counts are based on the facilities represented. (For example, if an EPD
represents an average across three facilities in three different U.S. states, this EPD counts as one
datapoint in the scatterplot and summary statistics, but three datapoints in the map.) Therefore,
a given category’s map count (number of facilities) might be greater than that category’s
scatterplot or summary statistics count (number of unique GWP results).
Other charts, statistics, or guidance as relevant.

7There are multiple methods to calculate percentiles, which can yield different results. The differences are more
significant for smaller datasets (most of the categories in this report) and further from the median (so more
significant different results between methods for the 20th and 80th than for the 40th and 60th percentiles). The
following webpage provides a brief description of percentile calculation methods, including the meanings of
“inclusive” (as opposed to “exclusive”) and “interpolated” (as opposed to “nearest-rank”):
https://interworks.com/blog/2021/03/04/using-excel-percentile-functions-in-tableau/ (Interworks, 2021).

31 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

3.1 Cement and Concrete
This section includes cement, ready-mixed concrete, shotcrete, flowable fill, and cement grout.

Cement
Category description
Cement is a binder that adheres to and binds sand and aggregates to form concrete and mortar. Most
cements used in construction are hydraulic cements, ones that become adhesive through a chemical
reaction between water and the dry ingredients in the cement.

Portland cement can be combined with limestone and/or supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs)
such as fly ash or slag to influence the cost, carbon footprint, and performance of the concrete or mortar.
These ingredients (portland cement, fly ash, etc.) can be combined by the concrete producer when
making concrete or by cement manufacturers to produce blended cements. The 2025 CLF Material
Baselines include the following cement product types, in alignment with the available cement industry-
average EPDs:

● Portland cement: a hydraulic cement produced by pulverizing clinker (see clinker description in
the following section) and typically mixed with small amounts of water, gypsum, and limestone
(up to 5% of the total mass) (ASTM, 2025). Portland cement includes multiple subtypes with
some variation in performance and conforms to ASTM C150 in the US (ASTM, 2021a) and CSA-
A3001 in Canada (CSA Group, 2018a). Outside of North America, where blended cements are
more common, (unblended) portland cement is often referred to as ordinary portland cement.
Following the available industry EPDs, this report further distinguishes portland cement by
geography, including USA and Eastern, Central, and Western Canada.
● Blended hydraulic cement: a hydraulic cement that typically includes both portland cement (or
portland cement clinker) and one or more additional constituents that contribute to the
cement’s strength-gaining properties (ASTM, 2025). Includes sub-types per ASTM C595 (ASTM,
2021b): Type IP, Portland-pozzolan cement; Type IS, Portland-slag cement; Type IL, Portland-
limestone cement; Type IT, Ternary blended cement. See CSA-A3001 for Canada designations
(CSA Group, 2018a).
● Portland-limestone cement (PLC): a particular type of blended hydraulic cement where the
limestone content is greater than 5% and up to 15% by mass (ASTM, 2021b). PLC is designated in
ASTM C 595 as Type IL. See CSA-A3001 for Canada designations. The PCA developed an industry
EPD specifically for PLC (one subtype of blended hydraulic cement) in addition to an EPD for the
broader category of blended hydraulic cement. Of the blended cement types, PLC is most similar
in performance to ordinary portland cement, with the benefit of a reduced carbon footprint.
Following the available industry EPDs, this report further distinguishes portland-limestone
cement by geography, including USA and Eastern, Central, and Western Canada.
● Masonry cement: a hydraulic cement for use in mortars or plasters that contains a plasticizing
material (ASTM, 2025). This includes masonry cement Types N, S, and M, which have different
applications (e.g., exterior vs. interior, above vs. below grade, and load bearing vs. non-load
bearing) (ASTM, 2023). See CSA-A3002 for Canada designations (CSA Group, 2018b).

32 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 ● Slag cement: defined in ASTM C125 as a “granulated blast-furnace slag that has been ground to
cement fineness, with or without additions, and that is a hydraulic cement” (ASTM, 2024).

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Cement is typically the dominant contributor to concrete and mortar GWP.

Clinker is the primary intermediate manufactured product that goes into cement and is the largest
contributor to cement’s GWP. Clinker is produced by heating ground limestone and other ingredients in a
kiln. The carbon emissions from clinker production are due to both: (i) the energy (electricity and thermal
fuels) used to heat the raw ingredients and (ii) process emissions from calcination. Calcination is a
thermochemical process where the heated limestone’s primary compound, calcium carbonate (CaCO3), is
converted into lime (CaO) and carbon dioxide (CO2). The Portland Cement Association’s (PCA’s) industry
EPD reports that over half of portland cement’s A1–A3 GWP is due to calcination.

The PCA found in the study underlying their industry-wide EPDs that the US industry-average portland
cement is 91.4% clinker by weight. Their reference industry-average portland-limestone cement and
blended hydraulic cement products were 82.7% and 70.7% clinker by weight, respectively. Other
standard ingredients to cement include gypsum and uncalcined limestone. Cement products of a given
product type vary in their constituent ingredients. For example, a cement product can be classified as
portland-limestone cement with anywhere from 5 to 15% uncalcined limestone content. This variation in
ingredients corresponds to variation in product performance and GWP.

Blended cements may contain clinker, limestone, fly ash, slag, and other SCMs. SCM content of a blended
cement or concrete mix affects functional performance and embodied carbon of the mix (where,
generally, the more that SCMs allow for reduction of portland cement content, the lower the GWP of the
mix).

Slag cement is a supplementary cementitious material (SCM) used to replace a portion of the portland
cement in concrete and mortar. It is created from iron blast furnace slag (BFS), an output of pig iron
production. At a granulating facility, the slag is quenched with water to form granules called granulated
blast furnace slag (GBFS). GBFS is then dewatered, crushed (where there is oversized material), and
stored. It is shipped to a grinding facility where it may be dried, stripped of iron, and/or crushed, and then
ground to a powder.

Figure 3.1.1. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. Of the included cement product types, only the slag cement industry EPD includes
separate A1, A2, and A3 GWP values. Though not visible at this scale, there is a small slag cement A1 value covering the processing of slag to prepare
it for use as an ingredient. The EPD treats slag production as burden-free (i.e., no environmental impact), as this EPD considers slag a waste of the
steelmaking industry.

33 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

PCRs
The current PCR for portland cement, blended hydraulic cement, PLC, and masonry cement is:

NSF International. (2020). Product category rule for preparing an environmental product declaration for
portland, blended hydraulic, masonry, mortar, and plastic (stucco) cements. V3.1. ASTM International.

As of May 2025, Smart EPD is developing a new PCR for construction cement (Smart EPD, 2025).

The PCR for slag cement is:

NSF International. (2020). PCR for Slag Cement v2.0 (UN CPC 3744 – Slag Cement). NSF International.

Cement EPDs use a declared unit of one metric ton.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.1.2. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.1.1. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per metric ton.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mea
n
Portland cement 4 868 72 746 819 861 878 897 1,036 1,335 925
Portland-limestone cement 4 810 43 632 715 768 788 808 889 1,190 816
Blended hydraulic cement 1 739 16 616 687 756 759 771 846 942 770
Masonry cement 1 587 26 414 516 548 586 595 675 804 590
Slag cement 1 147 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

34 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.1.3. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

In alignment with the PCA industry EPD categorization, the blended hydraulic cement product EPD data
displayed here include the set of PLC EPDs.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was medium. See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.1.2. Cement baselines per metric ton.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Portland cement 919 Portland cement industry-average EPD (PCA, 2023c) Industry (single)

Blended hydraulic cement 739 Blended hydraulic cement industry-average EPD (PCA, 2023a) Industry (single)

Portland-limestone cement 844 Portland-limestone cement industry-average EPD (PCA, 2023d) Industry (single)

Hydraulic cement (portland, 873 Cement industry-average EPDs (PCA, 2023a; PCA, 2023c; PCA, Industry (multi-
portland-limestone, and 2023d). Baseline = production-weighted average of the weighted)
blended hydraulic cements) industry-average GWP values for portland cement (41% of
total production volume), portland-limestone cement (57%),
and blended hydraulic cement (2%). Production volume data
from National Minerals Information Center (2024). Parent
category baseline.

GU cement, Western Canada 796 Canadian cement industry-average EPD (CAC, 2023) Industry (single)

GU cement, Central Canada 854 Canadian cement industry-average EPD (CAC, 2023) Industry (single)

GU cement, Eastern Canada 898 Canadian cement industry-average EPD (CAC, 2023) Industry (single)

GUL cement, Western 732 Canadian cement industry-average EPD (CAC, 2023) Industry (single)
Canada

35 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 GUL cement, Central Canada 798 Canadian cement industry-average EPD (CAC, 2023) Industry (single)

GUL cement, Eastern Canada 864 Canadian cement industry-average EPD (CAC, 2023) Industry (single)

Masonry cement 587 Masonry cement industry-average EPD (PCA, 2023b) Industry (single)

Slag cement 147 Slag cement industry-average EPD (Slag Cement Association, Industry (single)
2021)
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
**See “Similar product types and parent vs. child baselines” in Section 2.2.
Industry EPD representativeness information

Portland cement industry-average EPD (PCA, 2023c). About 64% of the total U.S. portland cement industry production in 2019 (by mass)
is included in the dataset, based on data from 56 plants. (This is 55,685,182 metric tons in the dataset out of a total of 86,000,000 metric
tons.) Clinker, the main ingredient in cement, can be produced by one or a combination of multiple technologies. The industry-average
clinker assumed in the EPD is based on the spread of production in the dataset, which constitutes about 68% of total USA clinker
production.
Blended hydraulic cement industry-average EPD (PCA, 2023a). About 80% of the total U.S. blended cement industry production in 2019
(by mass) is included in the dataset, based on data from 22 plants. (This is 1,637,140 metric tons in the dataset out of 2,000,000 metric
tons total.) Clinker, the main ingredient in cement, can be produced by one or a combination of multiple technologies. The industry-
average clinker assumed in the EPD is based on the spread of production in the dataset, which constitutes about 68% of total USA
clinker production.
PLC industry-average EPD (PCA, 2023d). The percentage of total portland-limestone cement production represented in the dataset is
not disclosed, as there are no national or North American statistics on total PLC production. The dataset captures 820,551 metric tons
of production, reported by 15 plants, which is roughly half of all blended cement reported by PCA member study participants. Clinker,
the main ingredient in cement, can be produced by one or a combination of multiple technologies. The industry-average clinker
assumed in the EPD is based on the spread of production in the dataset, which constitutes about 68% of total USA clinker production.
Canadian cement industry-average EPD (Cement Association of Canada (CAC), 2023). The EPD covers general use (GU) and portland-
limestone (GUL) cements. All CAC member facilities producing these types of grey cements contributed data to the study, including four
facilities from the Eastern region (QC and NS), five facilities from the Central region (ON), and four facilities from the Western region (AB
and BC).
Masonry cement industry-average EPD (PCA, 2023b). About 46% of the total U.S. blended cement industry production in 2019 (by mass)
is included in the dataset, based on data from 32 plants. (This is 1,109,471 metric tons in the dataset out of 2,400,000 metric tons total.)
Clinker, the main ingredient in cement, can be produced by one or a combination of multiple technologies. The industry-average
clinker assumed in the EPD is based on the spread of production in the dataset, which constitutes about 68% of total USA clinker
production.
Slag cement industry-average EPD (Slag Cement Association (SCA), 2021). “These data were collected from 21 SCA member facilities
from three discrete regions (East, Midwest, and West NA), to represent the US and Canadian industry average geographic mix. These 21
facilities (3 granulating, 12 grinding and 7 off-site distribution terminals) were deemed representative of the specific processes and the
SCA’s membership. In total, these 21 facilities operated by the 9 SCA company members…completed LCI questionnaires representing
100% of member operated granulating facilities, 75% of their grinding facilities and 86% of all shipments via off-site terminal
operations. In addition, around 33% of the total North American slag cement was shipped through off-site terminals. All LCI data were
averaged on the annual production basis across facilities.”

36 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Additional notes and guidance
Portland cement types. There are different types of portland cement as categorized under ASTM C150.
Figure 3.1.4 shows the distribution of portland cement GWP in the available EPD data.

Figure 3.1.4. Portland cement EPD GWP distribution by ASTM C150 type, A1–A3.

LCA approaches to accounting for slag. Slag cement is made from iron blast furnace slag, an output of
the iron production process. There are various approaches to allocating the environmental burdens of the
ironmaking process between the iron (the primary product of the process) and the slag. The North
American steel PCR (Smart EPD, 2025) and conforming EPDs treat slag as a byproduct, meaning it has
value and is allocated a portion of the environmental burden of iron production. (And thus, steel products
are correspondingly allocated less than the total impacts from ironmaking.)

On the other hand, the slag cement and concrete PCRs treat slag as a waste, meaning it does not have
value (before it is transformed into GBFS) and is allocated no environmental burden. A concrete or slag
cement EPD accounts for the processing steps to turn slag into slag cement (quenching, grinding,
transporting, etc.), but it does not account for any burden from the production of the slag.

This non-harmonization — the difference in allocation methods between steel and slag cement and
concrete EPDs — results in a “zero-counting” situation, where neither the steel products nor the slag
cement or concrete products account for the environmental impacts of the slag production.

Concrete Overview
This section includes four concrete categories — ready-mixed concrete, shotcrete, flowable fill, and
cement grout — and cement.

Applicable PCR
NSF International. (2021). Product category rule for environmental product declarations: PCR for concrete.

CLF expects a newly published PCR and corresponding EPDs for concrete by the end of 2025.

Regions
Concrete is a regional material typically sourced from local batch plants. This report provides concrete
data and baseline values using the eight U.S. National Ready Mix Concrete Association (NRMCA) regions
and seven Canadian concrete association regions, as shown in Figure 3.1.5.

37 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.1.5. North American regions for ready-mix concrete. The designated regions are based on USA regions in
NRMCA’s LCA Benchmark (Industry Average) Report and the corresponding industry-average EPDs for Canadian regions.

Concrete carbonation
Within LCA modeling practice, the treatment of carbon dioxide utilization through active or passive
carbonation has received increased attention due to its potential to offset some of the emissions
associated with cement manufacturing. Carbonation is a mineralization pathway in which atmospheric
CO2 reacts with hydrated cement, permanently storing CO2 within cementitious materials (IVL Swedish
Environmental Research Institute, 2021). The ready-mix data sources used in the creation of the 2025 CLF
Baselines do not account for concrete carbonation. Concrete manufacturers may choose to report the
carbonation of concrete voluntarily in the “Additional Information” section of EPDs. Carbonation in
concrete is highly dependent on exposed surface area and climate conditions. This is an active area of
research.

Ready-Mixed Concrete
Category description
Ready-mixed concrete (also called ready-mix concrete or RMC) refers to concrete that is ready to pour at
job sites. The primary mixing of ingredients may happen at a central batching plant, in a transit truck, or
at the site from a volumetric mixer truck. Ready-mix concrete is poured wet into formwork to harden and
cure. Concrete producers develop each batch to meet a specified compressive strength and other
performance criteria.

Concrete mixes typically contain natural and crushed aggregates, portland or blended cement,
supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), batch water, and admixtures. There are thousands of
different concrete mixes designed to balance the cost and performance of concrete for a wide variety of

38 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

applications, including, but not limited to, building foundations, floor slabs, columns, and walls (Athena
Sustainable Materials Institute, 2021).

CLF used the following attributes to define ready-mix concrete product types for this report.

● Geography, since (a) ready-mix products are typically distributed locally or regionally (not across
the country) and (b) geographic location can be significant to A1–A3 GWP due to the variation of
ingredient availability by location.
○ United States: USA national and eight regions corresponding to the National Ready Mix
Concrete Association’s (NRMCA’s) benchmark regions (ASMI, 2022), as shown in Figure
3.1.5.
○ Canada: seven regions corresponding to the Canadian ready-mixed concrete regional
industry associations, as shown in Figure 3.1.5.
● Weight classification by product density in pounds per cubic foot (pcf): all mixes are considered
either normal weight (≈150 pcf) or lightweight (≈110 pcf).
○ Concrete mixes that are not labeled as lightweight are assumed to be normal weight,
which is consistent with the nomenclature assumed in both the NRMCA industry-
average EPD and the benchmark report.
● Compressive strength: Product types are provided in discrete concrete strengths ranging from
2500–12,000 pounds per square inch (psi) for U.S. mixes and 15–80 megapascals (MPa) for
Canada mixes. This aligns with the industry-average benchmark report and industry EPDs.
○ Unless otherwise noted, the compressive strength refers to 28-day strength.
● With or without Air Entraining Admixtures (AEAs) (Canada only)

Each product type in this report corresponds to a unique combination of values for the above attributes.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

A1 processes include the extraction, handling, and processing of the raw materials and fuels. The
production of portland cement, a key ingredient in concrete, is typically the dominant contributor to
concrete emissions. Overall, the upstream supply chain emissions of cement manufacturing can
contribute up to 95% of the carbon impacts of a typical concrete mix. (See the Cement section production
process description for more information.) A2 covers the transport of the raw materials from the supplier
to the concrete plant.

A3 covers manufacturing plant operations, where raw materials are further processed into concrete. At
the concrete plant, energy is used to power equipment used to store, move, batch, and mix the raw
materials. These processes and others that go into operating the concrete plant contribute to a relatively
low proportion of the concrete’s overall emissions. When the primary mixing of concrete happens in the
mixer truck, a portion of the fuel used during transport is attributed to A3.

39 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.1.6. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. Total GWP values are based on the NRMCA USA national benchmark GWP values per 28-day
strength class. CLF calculated the approximate industry-average percent contribution by life cycle stage per strength class by averaging the minimum
and maximum percent contributions by strength class provided in Table 15 of the NRMCA industry EPD background LCA report.

EPD data availability and distribution

Ready-mix concrete EPDs use a declared unit of 1 m3.
For U.S. regions, CLF summarized EPD data and baseline values for normal-weight mixes with a set of
discrete compressive strengths: 2500, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 8000, 9000, 10,000, and 12,000 psi; and
lightweight mixes with a set of discrete compressive strengths: 3000, 4000, and 5000 psi. The dataset
included all relevant EPDs at these designated compressive strengths.

For Canadian regions, CLF summarized EPD data and baseline values for normal-weight mixes with a set
of discrete compressive strengths: 15, 20, 25, 30, 32, 35, 40, 50, 55, 60, 70, and 80 MPa. In line with the
Canadian industry EPDs, Canadian ready mix baseline values are also differentiated by whether the mixes
contain air-entraining admixtures (AEAs).

Guidelines for interpolating GWP based on compressive strengths not identified in this report can be
found in “Additional notes and guidance.”

40 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

U.S. ready-mixed concrete EPD data

Figure 3.1.7. GWP distribution by USA region and compressive strength, A1–A3: Eastern, Great Lakes Midwest, North
Central, and Pacific Northwest regions. The X-axis is cropped, removing some high outliers from the field of view.

41 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.1.8. GWP distribution by USA region and compressive strength product type, A1–A3: Pacific Southwest, Rocky
Mountains, South Central, and Southeastern regions. The X-axis is cropped, removing some high outliers from the field of view.

42 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Table 3.1.3. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics: USA regions of Eastern, Great Lakes Midwest, North Central, and Pacific
Northwest. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per cubic meter.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
Compressive EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
Region strength count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Eastern 2500 psi 1 240 273 143 224 286 300 308 346 447 291
3000 psi 1 264 2,324 69 271 313 328 342 389 597 329
4000 psi 1 314 5,371 95 308 357 376 395 442 827 374
5000 psi 1 378 3,424 106 337 392 416 440 502 704 414
6000 psi 1 399 1,498 96 359 427 454 487 553 641 449
8000 psi 1 472 481 178 332 397 430 465 541 658 430
9000 psi 0 -- 120 273 354 416 429 434 454 498 410
10000 psi 0 -- 221 227 331 385 398 417 522 926 429
12000 psi 0 -- 135 227 309 335 341 350 403 553 353
3000 psi LW 1 517 119 331 373 406 418 433 463 592 420
4000 psi LW 1 573 431 294 396 421 447 467 492 640 444
5000 psi LW 1 628 240 296 426 493 515 523 557 625 494
Great Lakes 2500 psi 1 232 6 178 186 219 219 219 247 330 230
Midwest 3000 psi 1 255 79 152 196 236 263 284 329 630 268
4000 psi 1 303 305 160 243 279 300 320 376 727 314
5000 psi 1 363 120 202 282 329 348 361 413 554 352
6000 psi 1 383 56 232 280 309 326 343 423 527 345
8000 psi 1 452 20 227 291 313 327 331 336 491 329
10000 psi 0 -- 14 367 372 387 404 420 526 593 441
12000 psi 0 -- 7 354 361 392 430 434 516 542 432
3000 psi LW 1 499 5 457 -- -- 461 -- -- 477 465
4000 psi LW 1 551 2 405 -- -- 444 -- -- 483 444
5000 psi LW 1 603 1 505 -- -- 505 -- -- 505 505
North Central 2500 psi 1 241 16 205 206 242 258 260 267 309 246
3000 psi 1 264 263 80 205 232 250 259 283 1,007 269
4000 psi 1 312 1,073 130 242 262 273 281 320 1,100 287
5000 psi 1 372 295 211 255 289 307 316 352 748 314
6000 psi 1 394 131 218 255 273 280 299 371 506 308
8000 psi 1 460 18 297 303 310 312 319 347 385 325
10000 psi 0 -- 4 300 -- -- 394 -- -- 423 378
12000 psi 0 -- 1 492 -- -- 492 -- -- 492 492
3000 psi LW 1 487 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
4000 psi LW 1 537 5 293 -- -- 297 -- -- 576 402
5000 psi LW 1 591 1 540 -- -- 540 -- -- 540 540
Pacific 2500 psi 1 235 106 98 208 244 262 279 317 487 273
Northwest 3000 psi 1 261 1,505 99 223 266 284 302 349 540 287
4000 psi 1 316 2,656 102 253 297 317 338 383 899 322
5000 psi 1 386 1,159 169 264 303 333 362 414 733 344
6000 psi 1 408 497 155 283 311 320 337 429 1,127 348
8000 psi 1 487 155 156 309 343 372 424 515 732 408
9000 psi 0 -- 14 338 369 377 377 380 393 413 378
10000 psi 0 -- 35 228 358 413 451 481 628 672 470
12000 psi 0 -- 2 382 -- -- 399 -- -- 416 399
3000 psi LW 1 518 8 323 502 545 563 585 657 696 557
4000 psi LW 1 575 17 291 479 568 584 615 697 1,605 634
5000 psi LW 1 632 5 527 -- -- 556 -- -- 718 614

43 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Table 3.1.4. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics: USA regions of Pacific Southwest, Rocky Mountains, South Central,
Southeastern. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per cubic meter.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
Compressive EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
Region strength count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Pacific 2500 psi 1 257 699 142 242 267 282 299 321 432 283
Southwest 3000 psi 1 279 2,819 137 250 277 293 310 354 1,128 306
4000 psi 1 323 5,285 149 279 315 331 352 398 718 339
5000 psi 1 378 3,739 151 293 337 360 384 435 668 362
6000 psi 1 401 1,491 100 313 355 378 406 458 1,156 384
8000 psi 1 456 316 218 333 392 419 447 500 754 425
9000 psi 0 -- 28 248 286 361 503 519 550 738 437
10000 psi 0 -- 87 268 396 431 448 455 568 743 471
12000 psi 0 -- 1 709 -- -- 709 -- -- 709 709
3000 psi LW 1 500 53 255 297 415 486 513 534 617 437
4000 psi LW 1 546 93 252 374 468 513 531 569 662 479
5000 psi LW 1 594 19 287 447 480 501 514 543 706 488
Rocky 2500 psi 1 232 4 206 -- -- 223 -- -- 242 224
Mountains 3000 psi 1 255 103 195 248 265 275 289 310 437 285
4000 psi 1 301 458 203 279 309 321 336 361 670 325
5000 psi 1 358 303 252 322 347 367 382 403 555 364
6000 psi 1 379 49 231 339 358 370 408 437 592 386
8000 psi 1 440 14 315 360 392 398 400 422 441 391
9000 psi 0 -- 1 446 -- -- 446 -- -- 446 446
10000 psi 0 -- 5 379 -- -- 390 -- -- 437 405
3000 psi LW 1 484 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
4000 psi LW 1 532 13 297 321 376 386 393 410 415 369
5000 psi LW 1 580 1 435 -- -- 435 -- -- 435 435
South Central 2500 psi 1 226 15 195 220 250 263 269 280 305 254
3000 psi 1 245 253 189 239 265 279 293 318 620 287
4000 psi 1 286 481 185 272 303 316 337 375 632 324
5000 psi 1 336 237 216 316 338 355 375 416 690 367
6000 psi 1 356 82 212 241 275 302 315 375 696 315
8000 psi 1 409 29 270 324 343 354 362 424 531 370
9000 psi 0 -- 3 304 -- -- 542 -- -- 547 464
10000 psi 0 -- 25 289 362 375 392 402 417 459 387
12000 psi 0 -- 2 433 -- -- 451 -- -- 468 451
3000 psi LW 1 468 3 225 -- -- 520 -- -- 576 440
4000 psi LW 1 510 6 255 267 467 470 472 571 584 436
5000 psi LW 1 555 3 314 -- -- 532 -- -- 571 472
Southeastern 2500 psi 1 247 375 160 222 243 253 267 295 467 258
3000 psi 1 268 2,145 162 260 289 301 315 356 723 314
4000 psi 1 309 1,757 64 284 315 330 343 383 843 338
5000 psi 1 360 1,067 159 323 364 385 399 440 720 382
6000 psi 1 382 411 38 347 385 417 444 495 750 416
8000 psi 1 435 353 182 449 534 564 584 635 941 553
9000 psi 0 -- 14 343 470 532 539 542 605 683 534
10000 psi 0 -- 137 349 539 607 633 649 709 771 609
12000 psi 0 -- 34 347 422 587 623 665 710 767 593
3000 psi LW 1 478 40 412 439 463 469 473 487 557 468
4000 psi LW 1 521 39 250 451 482 504 508 533 610 477
5000 psi LW 1 562 4 337 -- -- 447 -- -- 612 461

44 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Canada ready-mixed concrete EPD data

Figure 3.1.9. GWP distribution by Canada regions and compressive strength, A1–A3: Alberta, Atlantic, British Columbia,
Manitoba, Ontario.

45 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.1.10. GWP distribution by Canada region and compressive strength, A1–A3: Quebec and Saskatchewan.

Table 3.1.5. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics: Canada. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per cubic meter.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
Compressive EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
Region strength count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Alberta 15 MPa 0 -- 1 176 -- -- 176 -- -- 176 176
20 MPa 2 267 24 190 212 234 257 265 274 301 246
25 MPa 2 312 60 214 242 261 265 275 296 330 267
30 MPa 2 352 47 225 257 280 287 307 337 377 294
32 MPa 2 355 70 230 269 309 321 336 368 452 322
35 MPa 2 369 48 155 284 318 328 338 367 417 323
40 MPa 2 423 14 287 312 335 342 361 373 410 343
45 MPa 1 465 4 417 -- -- 447 -- -- 453 441
50 MPa 2 468 4 426 -- -- 457 -- -- 465 451
55 MPa 1 466 3 376 -- -- 393 -- -- 421 397
Atlantic 15 MPa 0 -- 1 273 -- -- 273 -- -- 273 273
20 MPa 2 340 2 300 -- -- 302 -- -- 303 302
25 MPa 2 358 10 240 281 293 295 301 324 338 297
30 MPa 2 387 7 315 327 363 365 369 381 384 357
32 MPa 1 439 3 364 -- -- 393 -- -- 397 385
35 MPa 2 435 4 386 -- -- 431 -- -- 440 422
40 MPa 2 462 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
45 MPa 2 515 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
50 MPa 2 544 2 347 -- -- 419 -- -- 490 419
60 MPa 1 580 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
British 15 MPa 1 179 20 98 115 129 132 133 140 179 130
Columbia 17 MPa 0 -- 1 211 -- -- 211 -- -- 211 211
20 MPa 2 194 94 97 125 142 149 160 172 231 150
21 MPa 0 -- 1 351 -- -- 351 -- -- 351 351
24 MPa 0 -- 2 357 -- -- 371 -- -- 384 371
25 MPa 2 225 393 109 138 156 162 169 190 259 163
28 MPa 0 -- 18 120 181 256 267 270 328 410 257

46 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 Industry EPDs Product EPDs
Compressive EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
Region strength count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
30 MPa 2 264 340 123 166 184 192 202 229 342 196
32 MPa 2 279 325 137 185 207 216 227 246 318 218
35 MPa 2 302 553 132 177 208 218 230 256 345 220
40 MPa 2 337 195 157 220 248 258 278 301 352 265
45 MPa 2 345 190 181 227 260 265 278 311 466 272
50 MPa 2 352 139 165 258 295 302 309 354 424 304
55 MPa 2 389 70 255 299 309 314 326 372 434 325
60 MPa 2 411 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Manitoba 20 MPa 2 203 15 198 209 216 224 226 231 235 219
24 MPa 0 -- 5 241 -- -- 257 -- -- 265 254
25 MPa 2 227 27 148 218 242 244 251 271 288 243
30 MPa 2 249 11 247 255 276 277 280 296 305 277
32 MPa 1 277 42 158 294 336 346 355 371 429 338
35 MPa 2 283 15 321 343 401 402 408 423 425 387
40 MPa 2 299 10 323 337 347 366 383 400 407 366
45 MPa 2 348 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
50 MPa 2 381 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Ontario 15 MPa 0 -- 30 125 151 163 170 174 213 266 181
20 MPa 2 224 35 133 163 170 182 188 245 328 202
25 MPa 2 257 67 155 191 199 209 222 229 321 216
30 MPa 2 279 33 194 209 226 233 245 271 341 240
32 MPa 2 295 24 212 240 251 256 260 282 348 261
35 MPa 2 315 97 156 238 259 267 281 293 355 267
37 MPa 0 -- 4 268 -- -- 287 -- -- 305 287
40 MPa 2 344 8 255 258 268 278 287 300 309 279
45 MPa 2 365 13 255 284 293 294 312 314 344 300
50 MPa 2 396 9 262 282 288 300 328 336 366 309
55 MPa 1 355 1 290 -- -- 290 -- -- 290 290
60 MPa 1 361 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
70 MPa 1 354 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Quebec 15 MPa 0 -- 21 159 203 214 218 243 261 308 231
20 MPa 2 271 89 224 252 266 269 274 309 358 277
25 MPa 2 293 234 173 263 279 283 290 312 409 286
27 MPa 0 -- 3 283 -- -- 287 -- -- 288 286
28 MPa 0 -- 2 294 -- -- 294 -- -- 294 294
30 MPa 2 325 199 202 288 308 317 327 346 456 318
32 MPa 1 363 114 270 316 333 337 339 378 476 344
35 MPa 2 369 258 225 314 340 353 364 383 513 354
40 MPa 2 380 60 253 295 314 333 345 378 460 338
45 MPa 2 397 41 298 342 369 374 376 399 444 371
48 MPa 0 -- 1 296 -- -- 296 -- -- 296 296
50 MPa 2 408 33 267 323 351 376 389 429 452 373
55 MPa 0 -- 16 329 335 358 415 427 446 506 397
60 MPa 2 435 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
80 MPa 1 486 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Saskatchewa 15 MPa 0 -- 1 210 -- -- 210 -- -- 210 210
n 20 MPa 0 -- 7 213 223 238 239 243 265 484 273
25 MPa 1 313 12 227 237 238 239 240 265 276 247
30 MPa 2 332 7 288 290 296 301 312 324 327 306
32 MPa 2 359 10 289 299 307 316 324 334 369 320
35 MPa 3 357 7 291 307 313 318 358 386 477 353
40 MPa 2 428 3 365 -- -- 393 -- -- 411 390
45 MPa 2 466 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
50 MPa 0 -- 1 269 -- -- 269 -- -- 269 269

47 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.1.11. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.8

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was medium. See Appendix B for more information.

8On this map, the darkest shade represents 1,000 EPDs or greater. For all other categories in this report, the darkest
shade on the corresponding maps represents 100 EPDs or greater.

48 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.1.6. USA ready-mixed concrete baseline values in kg CO2e/m3, A1–A3.

2500 3000 4000 5000 6000 8000 9000 10000 12000 3000 4000 5000
psi psi psi psi psi psi psi psi psi psi LW psi LW psi LW

Pacific Southwest 257 279 323 378 401 456 437 471 -- 500 546 594

Pacific Northwest 235 261 316 386 408 487 378 470 -- 518 575 632

Rocky Mountains 232 255 301 358 379 440 -- 387 -- 484 532 580

South Central 226 245 286 336 356 409 -- -- -- 468 510 555

North Central 241 264 312 372 394 460 -- -- -- 487 537 591

Southeastern 247 268 309 360 382 435 534 609 593 478 521 562

Great Lakes 232 255 303 363 383 452 -- -- -- 499 551 603

Eastern 240 264 314 378 399 472 410 429 353 517 573 628

National 240 262 308 365 385 446 -- -- -- 492 540 588

U.S. ready-mixed concrete 2500–8000 psi, including lightweight mixes

● Data source: Ready mix industry-average benchmark report, an appendix to the industry-wide LCA report (Athena
Sustainable Materials Institute, 2022). The benchmark report provides U.S. national and regional benchmarks for discrete
compressive strengths of ready-mixed concrete.9 It is based on benchmark mix designs informed by primary data from
manufacturers. (Table 3.1.7 provides the number of plants in CLF’s and NRMCA’s datasets per region.)
● Method: Industry (single). See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches.
● Representativeness assessment approach: Industry data. This industry-wide benchmark report based on production-
weighted data and reflects the weighted average mix of plant types and sizes developed via the NRMCA plant survey. CLF used
the NRMCA benchmark report, rather than the industry-average EPD (NRMCA, 2022), as a data source for setting baseline
values due to the following reasons.
○ The benchmark report uses discrete strengths, while the EPD uses strength ranges. Linking environmental impacts
to discrete compressive strengths (rather than ranges) allows users to estimate and compare the impacts of ready-
mixed concrete more accurately.
○ The benchmark report provides both national and regional results, while the EPD is national only. Because ready-
mixed concrete is sourced from local batch plants and the variation in local ingredient availability affects GWP, data
that reflects regional differences in mix designs is important.
○ The benchmark report uses one average mix (and provides one corresponding set of LCA results) per strength-region
combination, while the EPD has eight different mixes based on different SCM content (and eight corresponding sets

9 A statistical addendum to the ready-mix industry-wide LCA report includes regionalized benchmarking separated by
life cycle stage and accounts for regional cement data (Salazar et al., 2024).

49 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 of LCA results) for a given strength range. A single average result is the most appropriate for use in this context of
setting baseline values per group of functionally equivalent products.
U.S. high-strength ready-mixed concrete (9000–12,000 psi)
● Data source: Set of applicable product EPDs for high-strength ready-mix concrete.
● Baseline method: product (unweighted). Each provided baseline value is the unweighted average (mean) of the product EPD
dataset for the designated compressive strength and region.
● Representativeness assessment approach: Qualitative. CLF considers the available set of EPDs sufficiently representative
of the industry based on a qualitative assessment of each factor below. Table 3.1.7 shows the number of plants in CLF’s
dataset for high-strength concrete compared to the number of plants sampled for NRMCA’s industry-wide LCA report, by
region.
○ Geography: The regional demand for high-strength concrete is usually consolidated to larger metropolitan areas.
Therefore, CLF’s geographic representativeness assessment focused on the inclusion of such metropolitan areas.
 Pacific Southwest: The dataset includes plants from California and Arizona, two of the three states in this
NRMCA region. The 34 concrete plants in the sample, including those from the metro areas of Phoenix, Los
Angeles, San Francisco, East Bay, San Jose, Sacramento, San Diego, and Orange County, were deemed
sufficiently representative of the region’s high-strength concrete.
 Pacific Northwest: The dataset includes plants from Oregon and Washington, which are two out of the
four states in this NRMCA region. The 15 concrete plants, from metro areas including Seattle, Bellevue,
Redmond, and Portland, were deemed sufficiently representative of the region’s high-strength concrete.
 South Central: The dataset includes plants from Texas, the largest state in this NRMCA region. The 17
concrete plants, from metro areas including Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio, were deemed
sufficiently representative of the region’s high-strength concrete.
 Southeastern: The dataset includes plants from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
Tennessee, five out of the seven states in this NRMCA region. The 73 concrete plants, from metro areas
including Miami, Fort Myers, Tampa, Melbourne, Orlando, Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, and Nashville, were
deemed sufficiently representative of the region’s high-strength concrete.
 Eastern: The dataset includes plants from Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia, seven out of the fourteen states in this NRMCA region. The 52 concrete plants,
from metro areas including Stamford, Bridgeport, Boston, Washington D.C., Baltimore, Newark, New York
City, Long Island, Philadelphia, Richmond, were deemed sufficiently representative of the region’s high-
strength concrete.
 National: The dataset does not include representation from all NRMCA regions. Therefore, CLF did not
provide national high-strength concrete mix baselines.
○ Time: All EPDs in the dataset were published in the last five years.
○ Technology: The dataset includes all the available, applicable EPDs in EC3 for 9000, 10,000, and 12,000 psi normal-
weight concrete mixes. This includes:
 mixes using either ordinary portland cement (OPC) or portland limestone cement (PLC)
 mixes with and without SCM content, including mixes with slag, fly ash, and silica fume
 28- and 56-day compressive strength mixes10

10CLF’s high-strength concrete dataset includes concrete mixes for both 28-day and 56-day compressive strengths
due to the variability of compressive day strengths specifications for high-strength concrete mixes. Once cured, these
mixes are functionally equivalent, and it is common to specify a 56-day compressive strength for high-strength
concrete mixes. Therefore, CLF considers them within the same product type in this report.

50 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 ● Note on industry-wide data: CLF prefers to use published industry-wide data sources for setting baseline values and
acknowledges the limitations of using a collection of product EPDs. However, given the current lack of published industry-
wide data for high-strength concrete mixes, product EPD data was the best available source. If NRMCA or another organization
publishes production-weighted industry-average embodied carbon impacts for high-strength concrete mixes in the future, it
may be appropriate to use those values rather than these CLF baseline values.

Table 3.1.7. Number of plants in CLF’s high-strength ready mix dataset and NRMCA’s dataset (ASMI, 2022).

Pacific Pacific Rocky South North Great

Southwest Northwest Mountains Central Central Southeast Lakes Eastern

Number of manufacturers
7 6 2 7 2 5 3 16
in CLF dataset

Number of plants in CLF

33 15 5 19 2 72 4 52
dataset

Number of plants in
51 32 22 91 28 131 69 65
NRMCA dataset

% of plants in CLF dataset

65% 47% 23% 21% 7% 55% 6% 80%
vs. NRMCA dataset

Table 3.1.8. Canada ready-mixed concrete baseline values in kg CO2e/m3, A1–A3.

15 20 25 30 32 35 40 45 50 55 60 70 80
MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa
British Columbia with AEAs -- 194 231 270 285 311 344 356 345 402 422 -- --
without AEAs 179 195 220 259 272 294 329 335 359 377 400 -- --
Alberta with AEAs -- 273 318 369 397 410 427 465 488 466 -- -- --
without AEAs -- 261 306 334 314 328 418 -- 447 -- -- -- --
Saskatchewan with AEAs -- -- 313 346 380 417 442 474 -- -- -- -- --
without AEAs -- -- 296 317 338 358 414 458 -- -- -- -- --
Manitoba with AEAs -- 204 230 253 277 298 309 362 396 -- -- -- --
without AEAs -- 202 223 246 -- 268 290 333 367 -- -- -- --
Ontario with AEAs -- 227 261 293 326 334 362 379 457 -- -- -- --
without AEAs -- 220 254 264 264 295 326 350 336 355 361 354 --
Quebec with AEAs -- 278 299 343 363 393 397 414 411 -- 445 -- --
without AEAs -- 264 287 307 -- 345 364 381 404 -- 425 -- 486
Atlantic with AEAs -- 344 361 394 439 447 474 529 551 -- -- -- --
without AEAs -- 337 354 379 -- 422 449 502 536 -- 580 -- --
Canada ready-mixed concrete
● Data sources: Canadian industry-average ready-mixed concrete EPDs (Concrete BC, 2022; Concrete Alberta, 2022; Concrete
Saskatchewan, 2022; Concrete Manitoba, 2022; Concrete Ontario, 2022; Association Béton Québec, 2022; Atlantic Concrete
Association; 2022).
The EPDs cover 28-day compressive strength mixes ranging from 15 MPa - 80 MPa, with and without AEAs. The samples

51 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 account for ranges in technical attributes, production scale, and geographic location. Table 3.1.9 shows the number of plants
sampled for each
● Method: Industry (single). Representativeness assessment approach: Industry data. See Section 2.4 for baseline methods
and data source representativeness approaches.

Table 3.1.9. Number of plants and proportion of total member plants used in Canadian industry EPDs.

British
Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba Ontario Quebec Atlantic

Number of plants 24 25 15 13 80 27 22

% of total member plants 21% 20% 28% 21% 30% 21% 21%

Additional notes and guidance

Discrete strengths and interpolation. Based on stakeholder recommendations and to align with the
NRMCA’s National and Regional LCA Benchmark (Industry Average) Report, the 2025 CLF baseline values
for concrete correspond to discrete compressive strength values.11

For concrete strengths between the discrete strengths provided, use linear interpolation to determine the
appropriate baseline GWP value. Use the following equation to interpolate between any two adjacent
compressive strengths. (Interpolation between 8000 psi and 9000 psi is not recommended due to the
different methods employed for the high-strength concrete baseline values compared to the lower-
strength concrete baseline values.)

𝑓’c,𝑥 = compressive strength “x” between two baseline strengths from this report
𝑓’c,1 = the next lower baseline compressive strength when compared to 𝑓’c,𝑥
𝑓’c,2 = the next higher baseline compressive strength when compared to 𝑓’c,𝑥
GWP𝑓’c,𝑥 = Baseline GWP for concrete mixes at “𝑥” compressive strength
GWP𝑓’c,1 = Baseline GWP for the next lower compressive strength when compared to 𝑓’c,𝑥
GWP𝑓’c,2 = Baseline GWP for the next higher compressive strength when compared to 𝑓’c,𝑥

Ready mix applications. Concrete application type (such as wall, slab, column, etc.) can significantly
affect mix design. The most recent NRMCA benchmark report and ready-mix industry-average EPDs do
not explicitly distinguish between different concrete application types. Future research may validate
whether application should be used as an additional attribute when establishing concrete baselines (J.
Broyles, personal communication, 2025).

11 This is different from some resources that provide GWP values for ranges of compressive strengths.

52 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Shotcrete
Category description
Shotcrete is concrete that is applied through a pressure hose, producing a dense layer of concrete.
Because it requires less formwork, shotcrete can be faster and more economical than conventional cast-
in-place concrete. It is commonly used in new construction and repairs and is suitable for curved and thin
elements. Common scenarios where shotcrete is used rather than cast-in-place concrete include where
formwork is impractical or unnecessary, where it is difficult to access the work area, and where thin or
variable-thickness layers are needed (ACI, 2016).

CLF identifies shotcrete product types for this report using the following attributes.

● Geography, since (a) shotcrete products are typically distributed locally or regionally (not across
the country) and (b) geographic location can be significant to A1–A3 GWP due to the variation of
ingredient availability by location.
● Compressive strength in psi for U.S. mixes and MPa for Canada mixes.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Shotcrete can be applied using a wet- or dry-mix process. The wet-mix shotcrete process mixes cement,
sand, and water before introduction into the delivery hose. The dry-mix shotcrete process adds water to
the mix at the nozzle.

Like general ready-mixed concrete, shotcrete’s main manufacturing steps include A1 — raw materials
acquisition: cement, supplementary cementitious materials, admixtures, and water; A2 — transport of
raw materials; and A3 — shotcrete manufacture: the energy used to store, move, batch, and mix the
concrete and operate the concrete plant as well as the transportation and processing of wastes from
these core processes. The pressure hose application process is considered A5 — installation, and not
typically included in shotcrete EPDs.

Like other concretes, portland cement production is the main driver of shotcrete’s carbon emissions.

53 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.1.12. GWP distribution by USA region and compressive strength, A1–A3.

Figure 3.1.13. GWP distribution by Canada region and compressive strength, A1–A3.

Table 3.1.10. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per cubic meter.

Industry EPDs Product EPDs

Compressive EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
Region strength count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Eastern 3000 psi 0 -- 4 488 -- -- 501 -- -- 514 501
4000 psi 0 -- 5 370 -- -- 403 -- -- 487 424
5000 psi 0 -- 4 348 -- -- 375 -- -- 468 392
6000 psi 0 -- 2 381 -- -- 421 -- -- 460 421
Great Lakes 4000 psi 0 -- 5 323 -- -- 330 -- -- 352 334
North Central 4000 psi 0 -- 1 300 -- -- 300 -- -- 300 300
Pacific 3000 psi 0 -- 2 360 -- -- 382 -- -- 404 382

54 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Northwest 4000 psi 0 -- 77 286 299 332 336 370 417 557 362
5000 psi 0 -- 110 286 334 369 379 421 501 551 411
6000 psi 0 -- 46 263 350 363 368 375 490 547 402
8000 psi 0 -- 20 310 437 443 450 451 645 663 495
Pacific 2500 psi 0 -- 1 316 -- -- 316 -- -- 316 316
Southwest 3000 psi 0 -- 56 229 283 301 315 338 394 497 335
4000 psi 0 -- 312 232 336 363 373 386 424 547 375
5000 psi 0 -- 243 260 372 419 433 450 495 672 439
6000 psi 0 -- 118 317 385 415 435 454 487 617 442
8000 psi 0 -- 13 354 455 462 468 479 482 727 476
Rocky 3000 psi 0 -- 1 364 -- -- 364 -- -- 364 364
Mountains 4000 psi 0 -- 20 339 355 368 394 405 427 453 390
5000 psi 0 -- 10 320 358 383 407 419 428 496 400
6000 psi 0 -- 2 381 -- -- 387 -- -- 392 387
Southeastern 2500 psi 0 -- 1 245 -- -- 245 -- -- 245 245
3000 psi 0 -- 13 251 335 358 372 384 418 450 367
4000 psi 0 -- 33 370 401 415 422 423 438 1,075 443
5000 psi 0 -- 1 456 -- -- 456 -- -- 456 456

Industry EPDs Product EPDs

Comp. EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
Region strength count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
British Columbia 25 MPa 0 -- 1 207 -- -- 207 -- -- 207 207
35 MPa 0 -- 40 234 271 289 290 300 315 415 300
40 MPa 0 -- 25 255 287 311 314 315 332 384 313
45 MPa 0 -- 30 271 294 343 352 359 360 421 337
50 MPa 0 -- 2 305 -- -- 306 -- -- 306 306
55 MPa 0 -- 1 430 -- -- 430 -- -- 430 430
60 MPa 0 -- 1 374 -- -- 374 -- -- 374 374
65 MPa 0 -- 1 466 -- -- 466 -- -- 466 466
Saskatchewan 30 MPa 0 -- 1 340 -- -- 340 -- -- 340 340

Figure 3.1.14. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was medium. See Appendix B for more information.

55 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.1.11. Shotcrete baselines per 1 m3.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Shotcrete, U.S. Pacific Southwest, 375 Collection of shotcrete product EPDs Product (unweighted);
4000 psi qualitative

Shotcrete, U.S. Pacific Southwest, 439 Collection of shotcrete product EPDs Product (unweighted);
5000 psi qualitative

Shotcrete, U.S. Pacific Southwest, 442 Collection of shotcrete product EPDs Product (unweighted);
6000 psi qualitative

Shotcrete, U.S. Pacific Northwest, 362 Collection of shotcrete product EPDs Product (unweighted);
4000 psi qualitative

Shotcrete, U.S. Pacific Northwest, 411 Collection of shotcrete product EPDs Product (unweighted);
5000 psi qualitative

Shotcrete, U.S. Pacific Northwest, 402 Collection of shotcrete product EPDs Product (unweighted);
6000 psi qualitative

Shotcrete, British Columbia, 35 MPa 300 Collection of shotcrete product EPDs Product (unweighted);
qualitative

Shotcrete, British Columbia, 40 MPa 313 Collection of shotcrete product EPDs Product (unweighted);
qualitative

Shotcrete, British Columbia, 45 MPa 337 Collection of shotcrete product EPDs Product (unweighted);
qualitative
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches.
Representativeness assessment: For each baseline included, CLF considers the available set of EPDs sufficiently representative of the
industry based on a qualitative assessment of each factor below.
● Geography: The EPD dataset was heavily weighted towards the three west coast regions, with relatively few EPDs for the
other U.S. or Canadian regions. Shotcrete is often used in basement construction on large urban projects that require below-
grade parking (ACI, 2016; King, 2017). Therefore, CLF’s geographical representativeness assessment focused on larger
metropolitan areas.
○ U.S. Pacific Southwest: The dataset includes 74 plants and 7 manufacturers from California, Nevada, and Arizona,
which are the three states in this NRMCA region. The plants are primarily located in the metropolitan areas of Los
Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Monterey, East Bay, Orange County, Sacramento, San Diego, and Santa Cruz.
Therefore, the dataset was deemed representative and appropriate for use to establish a shotcrete baseline for this
region.
○ U.S. Pacific Northwest: The dataset includes 27 plants and 10 manufacturers from Oregon, Washington, and Idaho,
which are three out of the four states in this NRMCA region. The plants are primarily located in the metropolitan
areas of Portland, Vancouver (Washington), Seattle, Redmond, and Bellevue. Therefore, the dataset was deemed
representative and appropriate for use to establish a shotcrete baseline for this region.
○ British Columbia, Canada: The dataset includes 9 plants and 5 manufacturers from the major metropolitan areas of
British Columbia. The plants are primarily located in the metropolitan areas of Victoria, Vancouver, and Richmond.

56 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 Therefore, the dataset was deemed representative and appropriate for use to establish a shotcrete baseline for this
region.
○ Other regions: There was not a sufficient dataset of shotcrete EPDs for other regions.
● Time: All EPDs in the dataset were published in the last five years.
● Technology: The dataset includes all the available, applicable shotcrete mix EPDs from EC3, covering the following range of
technology and mix types.
○ EC3 data includes U.S. shotcrete mixes from 2500–8000 psi and Canada shotcrete mixes from 25–70 MPa. Due to
limited data availability at the low and high ends of those strength ranges, and shotcrete’s limited applicability
outside of mid-range strengths, this report includes shotcrete baselines for 4000–6000 psi in the US, and 35–45 MPa
in Canada.
○ All mixes in the dataset are normal-weight concrete.
○ The shotcrete mixes tended to have lower water-to-cement ratios than ready-mix concrete mixes and included
water-reducing admixtures (plasticizers). This allows for easier pumping of the product through the hose/pipe.
○ SCMs are not as common in shotcrete mixes; however, some of the included EPDs are for mixes with SCMs.
Calculation note: Each provided baseline value is the unweighted average (mean) of the dataset for the designated compressive
strength and region.

Flowable Fill
Category description
Flowable fill, also known as controlled density fill (CDF) or controlled low-strength materials (CLSMs), is a
flowable, low-strength cementitious mixture that sets with no compaction. These non-structural concrete
mixes typically have low compressive strengths (under 1200 psi) and are used in tight spaces where
compacting fill is difficult. Applications include filling large voids such as abandoned underground
storage tanks, basements, or tunnels. It may also be used as a paving subbase, bridge abutment, and
retaining wall backfill. Flowable fill mixtures are usually made of combinations of cement, water, fine
aggregate, and fly ash or slag (NRMCA, 2011).

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Similar to ready-mix concrete, flowable fill’s main manufacturing steps include A1 — production of
cement, supplementary cementitious materials, aggregates, and admixtures; A2 — transport of raw
materials; and A3 — flowable fill manufacture: the energy used to store, move, batch, and mix the
concrete and operate the concrete plant as well as the transportation and processing of wastes from
these core processes. Portland cement production is the main driver of flowable fill’s carbon emissions.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.1.15 includes all EPDs in CLF’s dataset. Figure 3.1.8 includes any compressive strength with at
least 20 EPDs in the dataset.

57 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.1.15. GWP distribution by compressive strength, A1–A3.

Table 3.1.12. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per cubic meter.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mea
Flowable fill n
100 psi 0 75 43 74 84 91 100 137 355 107
150 psi 0 260 21 59 81 97 107 155 291 107
200 psi 0 146 32 86 104 119 135 189 1,312 156
250 psi 0 23 35 59 82 90 95 162 199 104
300 psi 0 105 59 88 99 104 116 174 1,066 167
400 psi 0 28 77 88 93 97 133 409 743 221
500 psi 0 145 47 100 126 137 145 189 422 146
570 psi 0 34 242 294 304 309 312 337 371 313
650 psi 0 28 251 320 345 353 365 429 522 368
1000 psi 0 133 71 165 208 236 259 304 1,165 256

58 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.1.16. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

There are currently no flowable fill industry-average EPDs, and CLF was not confident that the collection
of product EPDs was sufficiently representative of the industry. Therefore, CLF did not set 2025 baseline
values for flowable fill.

Cement Grout
Category description
Cement grout, also known as structural grout, is a flowable, high-strength cementitious mixture used to reinforce
existing structures, fill voids, stabilize soil, and facilitate load transfers among structural elements. While commonly
used for structural purposes, grout can also be used to improve fire ratings, security, acoustical performance,
termite resistance, thermal storage, and anchorage capabilities. Grout is made up of cement, aggregate, and
sufficient water to ensure the complete filling of the grout space.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Like general ready-mix concrete, cement grout’s main manufacturing steps include A1 — production of
cement, supplementary cementitious materials, aggregates, and admixtures; A2 – transport of raw
materials; and A3 – cement grout manufacture: the energy used to store, move, batch, and mix the
concrete and operate the concrete plant as well as the transportation and processing of wastes from
these core processes. Portland cement production is the main driver of cement grout’s carbon emissions.

59 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.1.17. GWP distribution by compressive strength, A1–A3.

Table 3.1.13. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per cubic meter. The table includes
any compressive strength with at least 20 EPDs in the dataset.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mea
Cement grout n
2000 psi 0 -- 136 179 277 317 342 351 364 790 327
2500 psi 0 -- 88 154 226 274 294 317 355 548 300
3000 psi 0 -- 654 150 228 257 274 287 357 993 300
3300 psi 0 -- 71 191 211 263 266 270 292 427 273
3500 psi 0 -- 357 187 244 270 284 295 365 651 303
4000 psi 0 -- 872 153 253 292 305 322 400 1,157 331
4500 psi 0 -- 134 180 274 299 319 344 405 522 336
5000 psi 0 -- 504 159 269 320 342 366 437 1,285 366
5500 psi 0 -- 44 181 308 336 346 385 472 737 390
6000 psi 0 -- 332 152 309 364 399 428 502 1,274 421
7000 psi 0 -- 74 170 279 365 411 458 592 788 435
8000 psi 0 -- 102 182 351 413 463 505 637 936 496

60 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.1.18. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

There are currently no cement grout industry-average EPDs, and CLF was not confident that the collection
of product EPDs was sufficiently representative of the industry. Therefore, CLF did not set 2025 baseline
values for cement grout.

Excluded product type: Precast

The CLF did not perform significant analysis or research on precast concrete.

There is a wide range of performance, quantities of input ingredients (of which, portland cement and steel
reinforcement are most relevant), and associated GWP impacts among precast products.
There are recently expired North American industry-average EPDs for structural precast, architectural
precast, insulated wall panel, and glass-fiber-reinforced precast concrete. And there are regionalized
Canadian industry EPDs for structural, architectural, below-grade, and insulated panel precast products.

The available industry-average EPDs each report average impacts across a range of products with varying
strengths, steel quantities, etc. These results provide useful rough estimates of precast concrete
environmental impacts but are too broad in scope to use for establishing baseline GWP values.

CLF anticipates that the future industry-average data for precast will be more specific in scope, and CLF
hopes to add precast concrete to a future Material Baselines report.

61 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

3.2 Masonry
This report includes the masonry categories of concrete masonry units (CMU) and brick.

Concrete Masonry Units

Category description
This category covers manufactured concrete masonry units (CMU) suitable for load-bearing and non-
load-bearing purposes, generally adhering to ASTM C90 for load-bearing CMU. CMU is sometimes called
“concrete block” or “concrete block masonry units.” CLF classifies CMU product types based on the
following attributes:

● Geography, because (a) CMU products are typically distributed locally or regionally (not across
the country)12 and (b) geographic location can be significant to A1–A3 GWP due to the variation of
ingredient availability by location.
● Weight classification by product density in pounds per cubic foot (pcf): normal weight (≥125 pcf
for USA; >2,000 kg/m3 for Canada), medium weight (105–124.9 pcf), and lightweight (< 105 pcf for
USA; 1,700–1,800 kg/m3 for Canada). CMU weight affects installation ease, speed, and safety; the
gravity dead loads on the supporting structural system; and trucking loads (Expanded Shale, Clay
& Slate Institute, 2007).
● Compressive strength in pounds per square inch (PSI). CMU strength is specified at either the
scale of the individual unit (“unit compressive strength”) or at the scale of the masonry assembly
(expressed as “f’m”), which accounts for the combined strength of the unit, mortar, and grout.
(This report differentiates only the USA normal-weight CMU product types by compressive
strength.)
● Aggregate type. Geographic location and market availability constrain a CMU manufacturer’s
options for aggregate type (which influences CMU GWP significantly), where availability can vary
across and even within U.S. states. Aligning with CMHA (2024), this report distinguishes between
aggregate types for USA medium-weight and lightweight CMU: (i) manufactured lightweight
aggregate (expanded shale, clay, slate, etc.); and (ii) natural lightweight aggregate (pumice,
scoria, limestone, etc.) and/or industrial byproducts (expanded slag, bottom ash, etc.). Note that
CMU aggregate type is not currently searchable in EC3.
● Cement type, because cement type availability can vary by location and affects GWP. Aligning
with the available industry-average EPDs, this report differentiates only Canada CMU product
types by cement type. Covered cement types include general use (GU) cement and portland-
limestone (GUL) cement. Note that CMU cement type is not currently searchable in EC3.
● Block type: All CMU product types in this report aim to represent standard “grey block” and
additionally any “architectural block” (such as colored or split face) that does not undergo

12A U.S. Department of Commerce report states: “The nature of the industry and cost of transportation of the
products is such that the customer base for concrete masonry products is very localized” (Under-Secretary for
Economic Affairs, 2021).

62 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 secondary processing (such as grinding or burnishing). Note that secondary processing steps are
not currently searchable in EC3.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

A1 includes the production of raw materials: cement, aggregate, supplementary cementitious materials,
admixtures, and water. A1, dominated by cement production, is the largest contributor to CMU’s total
cradle-to-gate GWP. CMU block produced with ordinary portland cement tends to have higher GWP than
CMU block produced with portland-limestone cement (PLC) and/or supplementary cementitious
materials (SCMs) such as fly ash or slag. Aggregate type can also significantly affect GWP. Natural
lightweight aggregates (e.g., pumice) and industrial process byproducts (e.g., expanded slag) have a
much lower GWP than manufactured lightweight aggregates.

Geographic location and market availability often dictate a CMU manufacturer’s options for ingredients —
cement type, SCMs, and aggregate type. Shipping heavy ingredients such as stone or slag from far away is
generally not financially feasible (or necessarily environmentally preferable, given the larger A2 impacts).

A2 includes the transport of raw materials to the CMU manufacturing facility. Manufacturers in some
locations that lack suitable local aggregates may need to purchase aggregates shipped from far away,
driving up A2 values.

A3 includes CMU manufacture: batching, mixing, forming, curing, and packaging. Kilns speed up the
curing process for faster turnaround times. Alternative kiln fuels can reduce emissions. Some
architectural blocks require additional finishing (such as grinding or burnishing) that can add to cradle-to-
gate GWP.13 2025 CLF Baseline product types exclude such additional finishing processes. Some CMU
EPDs, including the US industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024), account for the carbonation that occurs
within the first 28 days of manufacture in A3, effectively reducing the A1–A3 GWP. See “Additional notes
and guidance” for further discussion.

13CMHA staff provided substantial input to the CMU category description and product type definition (N. Lang, H.
Jandris, & C. Walloch, personal communication, 2025).

63 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.2.1. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. A1 includes the production of cement, aggregates, and other ingredients. A2
includes transportation of those ingredients to the CMU manufacturing plant. A3 includes the manufacturing of the CMU block.

CMU EPDs use a declared unit of one cubic meter (m3) of concrete formed into manufactured concrete
products. This includes the block only and excludes additional materials in a CMU wall assembly,
including grout, mortar, and rebar.

Applicable PCR
UL Environment. (2020). Product category rule (PCR) guidance for building-related products and services
Part B: Concrete masonry and segmental concrete paving product EPD requirements. This PCR expires in
2025.

Smart EPD (2025) is currently developing a new Part B PCR for Concrete Masonry and Segmental Concrete
Paving Products v2.0.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.2.2. GWP distribution by CMU weight class, A1–A3. The chart includes grey block product EPDs (applicable to this report’s
scope) and architectural or unknown block types (unclear if applicable to this report’s scope without further information).

64 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Table 3.2.1. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per m3. Product EPD statistics include
only those EPDs CLF believed to be grey block. Architectural block and unknown block types are excluded.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mea
n
CMU, grey block, lightweight 6 239 32 169 240 254 262 279 414 524 307
CMU, grey block, medium
weight 2 302 37 200 203 234 239 242 253 335 237
CMU, grey block, normal
weight 7 223 53 12 188 214 224 233 297 381 240

Figure 3.2.3. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

As of January 2025, the available EC3 data for CMU (i) did not consistently distinguish by block type (grey
block vs. architectural) or compressive strength; (ii) did not distinguish architectural block secondary
processing steps; and (iii) did not distinguish between aggregate types. Thus, the product EPD data
presented here does not align with the provided baseline product types.14

14CLF reviewed a handful of CMU EPDs (in their original PDF format) and found that the sampled EPDs include
aggregate type information where they declare LCI data sources. Future efforts will hopefully allow digitized CMU
EPDs to include this information to make the process more straightforward for sorting and comparing CMU EPDs
based on aggregate type.

65 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources
Table 3.2.2. USA CMU baselines per 1 m3.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

CMU, USA, normal weight, 208 USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024) Industry (single)
f'm=2000psi a

CMU, USA, normal weight, 232 USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024) Industry (single)
f'm=2500psi b

CMU, USA, normal weight, 241 USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024) Industry (single)
f'm=3000psi c

CMU, USA, medium weight, 360 USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024) Industry (single)
manufactured aggregate d

CMU, USA, medium weight, natural 244 USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024) Industry (single)
aggregate and industrial byproducts e

CMU, USA, medium weight 300 USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024). Industry (multi-
Unweighted average of medium-weight subtype unweighted)
values. Parent category baseline.** h

CMU, USA, lightweight, manufactured 395 USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024) Industry (single)
aggregate f

CMU, USA, lightweight, natural 286 USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024) Industry (single)
aggregate and industrial byproducts g

CMU, USA, lightweight 340 USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024). Industry (multi-
Unweighted average of lightweight subtype values. unweighted)
Parent category baseline.** h
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
a Corresponds to CMHA industry-average EPD product type “NW1” (CMHA, 2024)
b Corresponds to CMHA industry-average EPD product type “NW2” (CMHA, 2024)
c Corresponds to CMHA industry-average EPD product type “NW3” (CMHA, 2024)
d Corresponds to CMHA industry-average EPD product type “MW-M” (CMHA, 2024)
e Corresponds to CMHA industry-average EPD product type “MW-N” (CMHA, 2024)
f Corresponds to CMHA industry-average EPD product type “LW-M” (CMHA, 2024)
g Corresponds to CMHA industry-average EPD product type “LW-N” (CMHA, 2024)
h Toappropriately apply baselines for medium- and lightweight CMU in a particular U.S. location, CLF recommends that users
determine the locally available aggregate type(s). Where only one aggregate type is available (lightweight manufactured aggregates or
natural and/or industrial byproduct aggregates), CLF recommends using the corresponding aggregate-type-specific CMU baseline.
Where both aggregate types are available (lightweight manufactured aggregates and natural and/or industrial byproduct aggregates),
recommends using the (aggregate-agnostic) parent category baseline. See “Similar product types and parent vs. child baselines” in
Section 2.2 for additional guidance.

66 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Industry EPD representativeness information. USA CMU industry-average EPD (CMHA, 2024). The EPD uses data from 35
manufacturing plants located in the USA. CLF does not know the total number of U.S. plants, but it is likely several hundred. A 2021 U.S.
Department of Commerce publication reported 690 block and brick manufacturing locations (Under-Secretary for Economic Affairs,
2021).

Table 3.2.3. Canada CMU baselines per 1 m3.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

CMU, Eastern Canada, normal weight 200 Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022). Industry (multi-
(all cement types) Unweighted average of "GU SCM" and "GUL SCM" unweighted)
subtypes. Parent category baseline.

CMU, Eastern Canada, normal weight, 205 Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022) Industry (single)
GU SCM

CMU, Eastern Canada, normal weight, 191 Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022) Industry (single)
GUL SCM

CMU, Eastern Canada, lightweight (all 170 Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022). Industry (multi-
cement types) Unweighted average of "GU SCM" and "GUL SCM" unweighted)
subtypes. Parent category baseline.a

CMU, Eastern Canada, lightweight, GU 177 Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022) Industry (single)
SCM

CMU, Eastern Canada, lightweight, 164 Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022) Industry (single)
GUL SCM

CMU, Western Canada, normal 240 Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, Industry (multi-
weight (all cement types) 2022). Unweighted average of "GU SCM" and unweighted)
"GUL SCM" subtypes. Parent category baseline.

CMU, Western Canada, normal 252 Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022) Industry (single)
weight, GU SCM

CMU, Western Canada, normal 232 Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022) Industry (single)
weight, GUL SCM

CMU, Western Canada, lightweight 210 Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, Industry (multi-
(all cement types) 2022). Unweighted average of "GU SCM" and unweighted)
"GUL SCM" subtypes. Parent category baseline.

CMU, Western Canada, 214 Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022) Industry (single)
lightweight, GU SCM

CMU, Western Canada, 198 Canada CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022) Industry (single)
lightweight, GUL SCM
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted), CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
a To
appropriately apply baselines for CMU in a particular location in Canada, CLF recommends that users determine the available
cement type(s) in that location. Where CMU with only one cement type (GU or GUL) is available, CLF recommends using the cement-

67 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

specific CMU baseline. Where both GU and GUL are available, CLF recommends using the combined parent category baseline. See
“Similar product types and parent vs. child baselines” in Section 2.2 for additional guidance.
Industry EPD representativeness information. Canadian CMU industry-average EPD (CCMPA, 2022). This document contains eight
EPD results for each combination related to three factors: geography (eastern vs. western Canada), weight (normal weight vs.
lightweight), and cement type (GU vs. GUL). The EPD does not disclose the proportion of total industry-wide CMU production used as
primary data. However, it does state that 100% of the cement data used in the study is manufacturer-specific based on EPD data for
specific suppliers.

Additional notes and guidance

Current research suggests that CMU products may undergo natural carbonation faster than other cement-
based product types due to CMU’s porous structure (a function of its dry-cast production method) and
high surface-area-to-volume ratio. More carbon (relative to wet-cast concrete) may be sequestered in the
first 28 days, before the CMU leaves the manufacturer gate (CMHA, 2024; Walloch et al., 2022).

Per the CMU PCR (UL, 2020), CMU EPDs may include the effects of carbonation in their GWP calculation if
they provide justification and follow the relevant requirements in ISO 21930:2017. CMHA’s (2024)
industry-average EPD accounts for carbonation within the first 28 days of manufacture as part of A3,
effectively reducing the A1–A3 impacts by 18–22 kg CO2e, depending on the product type.15

Brick
Category description
Clay brick products are made from clays, shales, and small amounts of additives and are made in a variety
of strengths, shapes, and colors, and used in a variety of applications. Common brick specifications
include facing brick, hollow brick, thin veneer brick, building brick, sewer brick, pedestrian and light
traffic paving brick, and others.

CLF defines the single brick product type for this report:

● Brick: fired brick made from clay or shale

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

A1 includes mining operations and stockpiling of clay and shale, and the production of other ingredients,
including additives, lubricants, and colorants. A2 includes the transport of those ingredients to the brick
manufacturer. A3 includes crushing and other processing of the ingredients; forming the brick shapes;
drying, firing, and cooling the bricks; and finally packaging and storage before distribution.

The industry EPD provides a single aggregated A1–A3 result. Thus, the GWP contribution chart in most
sections of this report is not included here.

15See the industry EPD (CMHA, 2024) section: “Supplemental Information Natural Carbon Sequestration” for further
documentation. This CMHA webpage also provides more discussion on this topic:
https://www.masonryandhardscapes.org/resource/cmu-faq-022-24/ .

68 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Applicable PCR
ASTM International. (2016). Product Category Rules for Preparing an Environmental Declaration for Clay
Brick, Clay Brick Pavers, and Structural Clay Tile. NSF International.

ASTM/NSF extended this PCR’s validity to June 2025.

EPD data availability and distribution

CLF’s EPD dataset includes one industry-average EPD and several product EPD data points. All of the
product EPD data points are from one EPD document (i.e., PDF) covering multiple different products from
one manufacturer’s facility in Utah, USA. The available digitized EPD data were reported in a different
declared unit compared to that of the original EPD and PCR, and did not appear to be converted in a clear
or consistent manner. Therefore, CLF did not have reliable product EPD data for brick and does not
include here the charts and data for brick that appear for other categories in this report.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.2.4. Brick baselines per 1 m3.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Clay brick 503 Clay brick industry-average EPD (Brick Industry Industry (single);
Association, 2020) industry data
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches.
Industry EPD representativeness information. Clay brick industry-average EPD (Brick Industry Association, 2020). “The LCI is
assembled with data shared by 13 brick producers through a survey of 2018 operations. The study represents 31% of 2018 U.S. brick
production and 48% of 2018 Canadian brick production. Overall, the study captures 32% of 2018 brick production across the U.S. and
Canada.” The EPD is based on data from three different clay brick production technologies: stiff mud (83% of production used in the
EPD), soft mud (5%), and stiff and soft mud (13%). “About 90% of brick in the U.S. and 100% in Canada are produced by the stiff-mud
process…making this EPD representative of the technologies used in these countries” (BIA, 2020).

69 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

3.3 Steel
Steel categories included in this report are rebar, structural steel (including hot-rolled sections, steel
plate, and hollow structural sections), cold-formed steel framing, steel deck, and open-web steel joists.

Applicable PCR
In 2025, Smart EPD published a new version of the steel PCR:

EPD, S. (2025). Smart EPD Part B PCR for Designated Steel Construction Products (1000-008) v3.
https://smartepd.com/pcr-library

All of the EPD data presented in this report are from EPDs based on the previous steel PCR version:

UL Environment. (2020). Product Category Rule (PCR) Guidance for Building-Related Products and Services
Part B: Designated Steel Construction Product EPD Requirements v2.

Steel production routes

Steel mills produce steel via two major production routes.
● The blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) route starts with iron ore and produces steel.
The blast furnace (BF) heats iron ore and limestone using coke (derived from coal) to produce pig
iron. The basic oxygen furnace (BOF) transforms pig iron, steel scrap, and alloy materials into
steel. Coke combustion is the main driver of BF-BOF emissions.
● The electric arc furnace (EAF) route uses electricity to melt steel scrap, pig iron, direct reduced
iron (DRI), and alloy materials to produce steel. Electricity use is the main driver of EAF emissions.
Both steelmaking production routes produce cast semi-finished products: slabs, blooms, and billets. A
reheat furnace and further shaping operations produce mill products: sections, plates, coils, bars, rods,
etc. Some of these mill products serve as inputs to manufactured steel products, such as hollow
structural sections (HSS), metal deck, and open-web joists.
Of total US steel production, EAF mills account for approximately 70% and BF-BOF mills for
approximately 30% (AISI, 2025). EAFs produce virtually all long products in the US (e.g., hot-rolled
sections, bars, wires). Both EAF and BF-BOF mills produce flat products (coil and plate). EAF-produced
steel has a substantially lower carbon footprint than BF-BOF-produced steel.
Whether EAF-produced steel can eventually satisfy the overall steel demand is a function of the
availability of ferrous scrap. A recent study by a French consulting firm concluded that “the United States
produces enough scrap to supply a transition towards EAF steelmaking” (Laplace Conseil, 2025). By
contrast, some entities advocate for steel GWP thresholds differentiated by production route (GSA, 2023)
or scrap content (Responsible Steel, 2022), to incentivize emissions reductions for all types of mills. Given
the lack of data and acknowledging that this is a contentious topic, CLF does not currently distinguish
between production routes or scrap content when setting baseline GWP values.

70 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Steel product EPD system boundaries
Steel products may undergo a range of production processes before installation in a project, with
different steps relevant for different steel product types. A steel product EPD’s system boundary reflects
the processes and steps relevant to the product type and EPD scope. The new steel PCR defines the
following three steel EPD system boundary options, each with different corresponding scopes of the A1,
A2, and A3 life cycle modules (Smart EPD, 2025).

● A mill product is produced at a steel mill using iron ore and/or steel scrap or semi-finished steel.
○ Common examples include unfabricated rebar, unfabricated hot-rolled sections,
unfabricated plate, coil, rods, wire, light-sections, and merchant bar.
○ For a mill product EPD, A1 covers the required feedstock going into the mill (e.g., iron
ore and scrap). A2 covers the transport of feedstock to the mill. A3 covers the mill
operations that transform feedstocks into steel mill products.

● A manufactured product is made when a manufacturer (separate from the mill) transforms mill
product(s) into a new product.
○ Common examples include hollow structural sections (HSS), open-web joists, steel
deck, and PC strand.
○ For a manufactured product EPD, A1 covers the production of the mill product that
serves as feedstock for the manufactured product. A2 covers the transport of feedstock
to the manufacturer. A3 covers the manufacturer operations: transforming the steel mill
product (e.g., coil) into a new manufactured product (e.g., steel deck).

● Fabrication Process, which covers when a fabricator (separate from the mill or manufacturer)
prepares a mill or manufactured (“unfabricated”) product for installation according to project-
specific design documents. Common fabrication processes include cutting, drilling, bending, and
welding.
○ Common examples include fabricated rebar, fabricated hot-rolled sections, fabricated
HSS, and fabricated plate.
○ For a product that has been fabricated, the EPD reports the unfabricated impacts in the
primary results table and the results including fabrication in the Additional
Environmental Information section. When the fabrication impacts are included, A1
covers all steps through the production of the unfabricated (mill or manufactured)
product. This A1 value accounts for yield losses — i.e., the production of the additional
unfabricated material beyond 1 metric ton that ultimately becomes fabrication-
generated waste. A3 covers the fabricator operations that serve to prepare the product
for installation. Note: This delineation of unfabricated and fabricated results is a new
requirement in version 3 of the PCR. Current EPDs published under version 2 of the PCR
may report either unfabricated or fabricated impacts in the primary results table. Care
must be taken to determine which scenario is being reported.

Additional notes and conversions related to steel fabrication

● Actual fabrication impacts vary depending on a given project’s design and specifications (as that
determines how much cutting, bending, welding, etc., is required, and how much waste is
generated from cutoffs).

71 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 ● Additional operations performed on the fabricated product after fabrication but prior to its
arrival on the job site (such as painting and galvanizing) are not included in steel EPD fabrication
impacts.
● The methods that steel product EPDs use to account for fabrication have evolved and will likely
continue to evolve. For now (given that there are EPDs for both unfabricated and fabricated
products), CLF provides separate baseline values for these where relevant. CLF also provides the
following guidance on converting GWP impacts between unfabricated and fabricated products.16

Equation 1. Conversion from an unfabricated product GWP result to a fabricated product GWP result.

GWPFab = GWPUnFab ⨉ (1 + W ) + GWPt + GWP𝑓

where:
GWPFab = GWP of fabricated product (kg CO2e / metric ton)
GWPUnFab = GWP of unfabricated product (kg CO2e / metric ton)
W = Waste rate = rate of waste material generated during fabrication; also referred to as the
“overage rate” in version 3 of the PCR.
(1 + W ) = quantity of unfabricated material required to be procured by the fabricator to yield 1
unit of fabricated material (metric tons).17 Use the following industry-average values:
● rebar = 1.03318
● structural steel = 1.0771 (AISC et al., 2024)
GWPt = industry-average A2 impacts for a fabricated product — i.e., transport from mill or
manufacturer to fabricator) (kg CO2e / metric ton). Use the following industry-average values:
● rebar = 49.0 (CRSI, 2022)
● structural steel = 28.7 (JBE, 2025)
○ EPDs published before 2025 generally relied on the previous industry-average
value of 44.6 (AISC et al., 2024)
GWP𝑓 = industry-average A3 impacts for a fabricated product — i.e., fabricator impacts (kg CO2e /
metric ton). Use the following industry-average values:
● rebar = 27.0 (CRSI, 2022)
● structural steel = 82.5 (JBE, 2025)
○ Structural steel EPDs published before 2025 generally relied on the previous
industry-average value of 96.7 (AISC et al., 2024)
Equation 2. Conversion from a fabricated product GWP result to an unfabricated GWP result.

GWPUnFab = GWPFabA1 /(1 + W ), where

GWPFabA1 = the fabricated product EPD’s A1 GWP value = the impacts from the production of
1 + W metric tons of unfabricated material = GWPFab – (GWPt + GWP𝑓)

Figure 3.3.1 illustrates the relationships between the variables identified in Equations 1 and 2.

16 Some of the terminology in this section has changed compared to the 2023 CLF Baselines, to align better with other
industry publications, but the concepts and math remain the same.
17 The 2023 Material Baselines Appendices referred to this value as the “fabrication scrap rate.”
18 CRSI provided this value for rebar (A. Trygestad, personal communication, 2022).

72 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.3.1. Relationship between unfabricated and fabricated steel product GWP values by life cycle module.
Relative GWP is shown for example only and does not reflect actual values.

Rebar
Category description
Steel reinforcement bar (“rebar”) is used in buildings and infrastructure to resist tension forces in
reinforced concrete and reinforced masonry structures. The rebar surface is often deformed with ribs or
indentations to promote a better bond with concrete and reduce the risk of slippage.

CLF identifies the following product types for this report.

● Rebar, unfabricated: carbon/alloy steel; bars of all dimensions; no coatings (e.g., epoxy, zinc);
mill product (i.e., has not undergone fabrication processes to prepare the product for installation
to a project). Unfabricated rebar is a mill product per the PCR system boundary designations.
● Rebar, fabricated: carbon/alloy steel; bars of all dimensions; no coatings (e.g., epoxy, zinc);
fabricated product (i.e., has undergone fabrication processes to prepare the product for
installation to a project)

The CLF Baseline GWP values apply to bars of varying sizes and grades.19 Zinc-coated, stainless steel,
epoxy-coated, and corrosion-resistant bars for specialty applications are not included in the scope.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

The steel mill casts molten steel into billet shapes, which go to the rolling mill. At the rolling mill, these
shapes are typically reheated and passed through rollers to reduce the shape to the appropriate size and
add ribs. Coatings are added if applicable. The unfabricated rebar generally goes to a fabricator for final
fabrication based on the needs of the project.

In North America, rebar is produced primarily in EAFs with a very high proportion of recycled steel —
approximately 98% in the USA, according to CRSI (2022). The main driver of emissions is the intensity of
the mill’s electricity source.

19Different rebar grades have different strengths, which affects functional performance. As CLF has not seen research
or data showing that rebar grade affects GWP, all grades are considered together here.

73 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.3.2. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. For unfabricated rebar, A1–A3 = steelmaking and hot rolling. For fabricated
rebar, A1 = steelmaking and hot rolling to produce unfabricated rebar (including enough to account for fabrication waste); A2 =
transport mill to fabricator; and A3 = fabrication.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.3.3. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.3.1. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per metric ton.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Rebar, unfabricated 1 753 22 413 616 684 702 730 788 1,760 735
Rebar, fabricated 1 854 22 532 718 775 788 814 857 1,100 795

Figure 3.3.4. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was medium. See Appendix B for more information.

74 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources
Table 3.3.2. Rebar baselines per 1 metric ton.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Rebar, unfabricated 753 Rebar industry-average EPD (CRSI, 2022). CLF Industry (single);
converted from the industry EPD's fabricated result to industry data
unfabricated GWP.a

Rebar, fabricated 854 Rebar industry-average EPD (CRSI, 2022) Industry (single);
industry data
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches.
a Calculation note: unfabricated baseline value converted from fabricated industry EPD result using Equation 2 and the following values:
 GWPFabA1 = 778 kg CO2e (CRSI, 2022)
 1 + W = 1.033 metric tons20
Industry EPD representativeness information. Rebar industry-average EPD (CRSI, 2022). This industry EPD is based on data from 19
steel mills (five companies) and 17 fabrication facilities (10 companies) in the US, including a mix of geographic locations in all four
continental US time zones. The proportion of total North American production is not disclosed. The EPD provides the range of
fabrication facility GWP results, including the minimum, maximum, mean, and median facility GWP across all facilities in their study.

Structural Steel
Category description
Structural steel is a broad family of carbon steel product types for structural uses, specified by ASTM
standards for building construction. CLF includes the following product types of structural steel in this
report, with differentiation between unfabricated and fabricated versions for each:

● Hot-rolled structural sections: a family of W-, S-, C-, and MC- shapes and angles, “produced at a
mill whose primary output is heavy structural sections intended for subsequent fabrication and
installation in buildings, bridges, and other structural applications” (John Beath Environmental,
2025).
○ Separate baselines for unfabricated and fabricated. Unfabricated hot-rolled sections are
mill products per the PCR system boundary designations.
○ Per AISC’s definition (JBE, 2025), this product type excludes the following hot-rolled
shapes: H-piles, sheet pile, railroad rail, crane rail, products originating from a “bar mill,”
such as rebar, MBQ, rod, and wire; “junior” sections, such as those under 8 inches in
depth; and miscellaneous M-shapes.
● Steel plate: a family of flat steel products commonly produced through hot rolling and with
multiple layers compressed together, generally thicker than 6 mm or ¼”.
○ Separate baselines for unfabricated and fabricated. Unfabricated steel plate is a mill
product.

20 CRSI provided this industry-average value for rebar (A. Trygestad, personal communication, 2022).

75 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 ● Hollow structural sections (HSS): a family of hollow structural shapes of varying cross-section
shapes – typically circular, square, or rectangular – used in various structural applications.
○ Separate baselines for unfabricated and fabricated. Unfabricated HSS is a manufactured
product.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

The steel mill casts molten steel into semi-finished products such as billets and slabs. The rolling mill
reheats and rolls the semi-finished products into (unfabricated) hot-rolled sections and plates, sheets (as
some plate products are made by compressing multiple hot-rolled sheets together), or steel coil. In the
case of HSS, a manufacturer (at a separate facility from the mill) flattens and roll-forms the coil into the
appropriate shape and then welds the edges along a seam to produce the unfabricated HSS.

The unfabricated product commonly goes to a fabricator who transforms (e.g., cuts, bends, welds, etc.)
the standard shape to produce the fabricated product that meets the specification requirements of a
particular construction project.

In all cases, the vast majority of impacts are due to the steelmaking process, where inputs of scrap and
ore are heated in a furnace. All North American hot-rolled sections are EAF-produced steel. North
American plate and HSS are produced from either EAF or BF-BOF steelmaking. HSS manufacturers often
have multiple upstream suppliers of coil, meaning a given manufacturer may use a mix of BOF- and EAF-
produced steel as feedstock.

Fabrication-related impacts can vary significantly depending on the particular needs of the project. On
average, fabrication makes up a relatively small contribution to overall impacts. For further discussion
around the treatment of fabrication impacts, see the steel industry’s report to FHWA (AISC et al., 2024),
Section 5.

Figure 3.3.5. GWP contribution by life cycle stage — hot-rolled sections. For unfabricated hot-rolled sections, A1 = production
of iron and steel inputs and alloy materials; A2 = transport of inputs to steel mill; A3 = EAF steelmaking. For fabricated hot-rolled
sections, A1 = production of the unfabricated product (including additional material beyond 1 metric ton to account for yield
losses during fabrication); A2 = transport from mill to fabricator; A3 = fabrication processes.

Figure 3.3.6. GWP contribution by life cycle stage — steel plate. For unfabricated plate, A1–A3 = production of 1 metric ton of
unfabricated plate, including the production and transport of feedstocks to the mill. For fabricated plate, A1 = production of the
unfabricated product (including additional material beyond 1 metric ton to account for yield losses during fabrication); A2 =
transport from mill to fabricator; A3 = fabrication processes.

76 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.3.7. GWP contribution by life cycle stage — HSS. For unfabricated HSS, A1 = production of steel coil, including the
production and transport of feedstocks to the mill; A2 = transport from mill to HSS manufacturer; A3 = HSS manufacture. For
fabricated HSS, A1 = production of the unfabricated product (including additional material beyond 1 metric ton to account for
yield losses during fabrication); A2 = transport to fabricator; A3 = fabrication processes.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.3.8. GWP distribution by product type — hot-rolled structural sections, A1–A3.

Figure 3.3.9. GWP distribution by product type — steel plate, A1–A3.

Figure 3.3.10. GWP distribution by product type — HSS, A1–A3.

Table 3.3.3. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per metric ton.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Hot-rolled sections,
1 901 6 526 686 713 765 816 930 1,150 804
unfabricated
Hot-rolled sections, fabricated 2 1,125 8 677 830 884 942 1,025 1,188 1,380 997
Steel plate, unfabricated 1 1,480 12 849 961 1,189 1,460 1,852 2,352 3,494 1,774
Steel plate, fabricated 2 1,720 6 1,209 1,210 1,640 1,695 1,750 1,830 2,400 1,673
HSS, unfabricated 1 1,717 26 1,060 1,280 1,390 1,550 1,640 1,720 2,120 1,522

77 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 HSS, fabricated 2 1,920 22 1,400 1,751 1,884 1,921 1,953 2,024 2,150 1,869

Figure 3.3.11. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province: hot-rolled sections.

Figure 3.3.12. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province: steel plate.

78 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.3.13. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province: HSS.

In addition to EC3, CLF also collected EPD data from AISC, which maintains a list of current structural steel
EPDs.21
There are two industry-average EPDs for each fabricated structural steel product type — one for the US
and one for Canada.
The dataset includes a combination of unfabricated and fabricated product EPDs. Not every steel mill or
manufacturer provides both unfabricated and fabricated results for their products. Therefore, there is not
a one-to-one correspondence between the unfabricated and fabricated versions of the facilities and
products represented.22
CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was high. See Appendix B for more information.

21 AISC’s EPD list: aisc.org/epds. CLF used the provided conversion equations and professional judgment to convert
some fabricated product EPD values to unfabricated results.
22 This explains why there are different counts between the unfabricated and fabricated versions of each product

type. It also helps explain why many of the unfabricated plate statistics show higher GWP than the fabricated plate
statistics: there are unfabricated product EPDs and no corresponding fabricated product EPDs for some plate
products with relatively high GWP.

79 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

CLF baseline values, methods, and data sources
Table 3.3.4. Structural steel baselines per 1 metric ton.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Hot-rolled sections, unfabricated 901 Hot-rolled structural steel sections industry-average Industry (single)
LCA report (JBE, 2025)

Hot-rolled sections, fabricated 1,080 Hot-rolled structural steel sections industry-average Industry (single)
LCA report (JBE, 2025)

Steel plate, unfabricated 1,480 Steel plate industry-average EPD (AISC, 2021b). CLF Industry (single)
converted from the industry EPD's fabricated result to
unfabricated GWP. a

Steel plate, fabricated 1,730 Steel plate industry-average EPD (STI, 2021) Industry (single)

HSS, unfabricated 1,710 HSS industry-average EPD (STI, 2021) Industry (single)

HSS, fabricated 1,990 Fabricated HSS industry-average EPD (AISC, 2021a) Industry (single)
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
a Calculation note: unfabricated baseline value converted from fabricated industry EPD result using Equation 2 and the following values:
 GWPFabA1 = 1,590 kg CO2e (AISC, 2021c)
 1 + W = 1.077 metric tons (AISC et al., 2024)
Industry EPD representativeness information
 Hot-rolled structural steel sections industry-average LCA report (JBE, 2025). AISC commissioned this industry-average
background LCA report for the purpose of supporting an updated industry-average EPD for hot-rolled structural steel
sections. The study is based on data from “100% of hot-rolled structural steel sections production in the US, as well as 80
fabricator facilities dispersed throughout the US.” It provides summary statistics regarding the range of impacts by facility.
Although the report has not yet undergone external review at the time of this writing, it provides information related to all of
ISO 21930’s criteria for average EPDs. It is US-focused, but CLF deems this as sufficiently representative given that the US is
the dominant producer of North American steel (Statista, 2025).
 Steel plate industry-average EPD (AISC, 2021b). This industry-average EPD is based on three (out of four total) major US
producers, which constitute approximately 70-80% of North American steel plate production (including for construction and
non-construction uses).23
 HSS industry-average EPD (STI, 2021) and Fabricated HSS industry-average EPD (AISC, 2021a). The two industry-average EPDs
for HSS (unfabricated and fabricated) are based on eight (out of approximately 10-12 total) North American manufacturers,
which together constitute approximately 60-65% of North American production.24

Additional notes and guidance

Canada structural steel manufacturing. The cited industry-average EPDs aim to represent North
American steel. The Canadian Institute of Steel Construction published Canada-specific industry-average

23 AISC provided the estimate of industry representation (J. Cross & M. Puchtel, personal communication, 2022).
24 AISC provided the estimate of industry representation (J. Cross & M. Puchtel, personal communication, 2021).

80 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

EPDs for fabricated hot-rolled sections, fabricated plate, and fabricated HSS (CISC, 2025). Such data
sources may be appropriate for developing structural steel baseline values specific to Canadian
production.

Cold-Formed Steel Framing

Category description
This category includes one product type:

● Cold-formed steel framing: hot-dipped galvanized cold-formed steel framing members for
walls, floors, ceilings, and roofs. This includes C-shape studs and track, joists, rafters, channels,
angles, flat straps, and other shapes (SFIA, 2021).
Cold-formed framing is a manufactured product per the PCR system boundary designations.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Hot-dipped galvanized steel coil is transported from the mill to the framing manufacturing facility, where
the coil is slit and fed into a roll former which forms the studs, track, and other framing product shapes
(SFIA, 2021). Steelmaking is the dominant contributor to cold-formed framing GWP. Framing
manufacturers source coil from both EAF and BF-BOF steel mills.

Figure 3.3.14. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. A1 = steel making, rolling into coil, hot-dip galvanization; A2 = transport of hot-
dipped galvanized coil to manufacturing facility; A3 = manufacture of steel framing members via roll forming.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.3.15. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.3.5. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per metric ton.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Cold-formed steel framing 1 2,440 20 1,336 1,550 2,358 2,380 2,518 2,674 3,396 2,293

81 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.3.16. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was high. See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.3.6. Cold-formed framing baseline per 1 metric ton.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Cold-formed steel framing 2,440 Cold-formed steel framing industry-average EPD (SFIA, Industry (single)
2021)
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches.
Industry EPD representativeness information. Steel framing industry-average EPD (SFIA, 2021). This industry EPD is based on a
production-weighted average of data from ten North American cold-formed steel framing manufacturing companies, with one
manufacturing facility for each company. The proportion of total North American production used as primary data in the EPD is not
disclosed. The EPD provides a range of facility GWP results in their dataset, including the minimum, maximum, mean, and median
facility GWP across all facilities in their study.

Steel Deck
Category description
Steel deck products are panels with a repeating pattern of parallel ribs that serve as the form and/or
positive reinforcement for concrete floor and roof slabs, or as the primary supporting surface for roofing
materials (SDI, 2022).

● Steel deck: ribbed panels — galvanized or uncoated (to which paint can be later applied).
Typical steel decking panels are 38 - 76 mm (1-½” - 3”) in depth and manufactured from 22 - 16

82 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 gage material.
Steel deck is a manufactured product per the PCR system boundary designations.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

The primary contributor to steel decking GWP is the steelmaking process. The steel is rolled into coil and,
in some cases, undergoes hot-dip galvanization. (In cases where the decking is manufactured from
uncoated steel coil, the decking is eventually painted.) The steel coil is transported to the decking
manufacturing facility, where the coil is rolled (or otherwise formed) into specific deck profiles (SDI, 2022).

Figure 3.3.17. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. A1 = steel making, rolling into coil, hot-dip galvanization; A2 = transport of steel
coil to manufacturing facility; A3 = manufacture of steel decking.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.3.18. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.3.7. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per metric ton.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Steel deck 2 2,380 42 1,540 1,793 1,968 2,105 2,230 2,298 3,590 2,177

83 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.3.19. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

In addition to EC3, CLF also collected EPD data from AISC, which maintains a list of current steel deck
EPDs.25
CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was medium. See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.3.8. Steel deck baseline per 1 metric ton.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Steel deck 2,330 Steel deck industry-average EPD (SDI, 2022) Industry (single);
industry data
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches.
Industry EPD representativeness information. This industry EPD is based on a production-weighted average of data from 18 North
American steel deck manufacturing companies in the United States and based on steel produced in North America. The proportion of
total North American production is not disclosed. The EPD provides a range of facility GWP results in their dataset, including the
minimum, maximum, mean, and median facility GWP across all facilities in their study.

Additional notes and guidance

Canada manufacturing data. The cited industry-average EPD aims to represent North American steel.
The Canadian Institute of Steel Construction published a Canada-specific industry-average EPD for cold-
formed steel panels (CISC, 2025). Such a data source may be appropriate for developing a steel deck
baseline value specific to Canadian production.

25AISC’s EPD list: aisc.org/epds. CLF’s dataset excludes three Canadian steel deck EPDs listed on AISC’s website that
use an atypical PCR.

84 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Comparability. The declared unit for this category is 1 metric ton, as steel production impacts generally
scale with mass. However, this category includes galvanized products, and galvanization impacts scale
with surface area rather than mass. (Therefore, a relatively thicker decking product will have relatively
less galvanization impact per unit mass.) So total impact is a function of both mass and surface area. In
the future, depending on data availability, the CLF may establish Baselines for this category that account
for both mass and surface area. In the meantime, users should be aware of this issue as it relates to the
appropriate (or inappropriate) comparability of products based on GWP.

Open-Web Steel Joists

Category description
This category includes open-web steel joists (OWSJ) and joist girders that are prefabricated, welded
products used to support roof and floor decks in the framing of buildings. They are custom engineered to
meet the specific needs of a building application. Open-web steel joints are secondary framing members
and range between 254–3048 mm (10–120”) deep. Joist girders are primary framing members and range
between 508–3048 mm (20–120”) deep. This report considers these subtypes as one product type in
alignment with the industry EPD (SJI, 2022).

● Open-web steel joists (OWSJ): Prefabricated steel joists and girders with open middle web and
top and bottom chords
OWSJ is a manufactured product per the PCR system boundary designations.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

OWSJ consists of five main components: top and bottom chords, end web and interior web members, and
bearing seats. This report, in alignment with the industry-average EPD, focuses on steel joists
manufactured from welded structural steel (bars, angles, channels, and/or plates), with a small amount of
paint. (Some manufacturers make OWSJ from cold-formed steel, using coil as the major input rather than
hot-rolled components.) The manufacturer cuts, bends, and assembles the components to form the
joists. The major contributor to OWSJ cradle-to-gate GWP is the production of the rolled steel shapes that
form the OWSJ components, corresponding with A1 impacts. OWSJ assembly (A3) – primarily the welding
– also contributes to the overall GWP. The A3 GWP impact for this category is relatively large compared to
other steel product types in this report. But like other steel products, the steelmaking process (to produce
the component parts) is the dominant contributor to total GWP.

Figure 3.3.20. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. A1 = steel making and hot rolling to produce structural steel shapes; A2 =
transport to OWSJ manufacturing facility; A3 = fabrication of OWSJ.

85 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.3.21. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.3.9. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per metric ton.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Open-web steel joist 1 1,437 26 615 760 946 975 1,060 1,190 1,710 1,037

Figure 3.3.22. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

In addition to EC3, CLF also collected EPD data from AISC, which maintains a list of current OWSJ EPDs.26
CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was high. See Appendix B for more information.

26AISC’s EPD list: aisc.org/epds. CLF’s dataset excludes three Canadian OWSJ EPDs listed on AISC’s website that use
an atypical PCR.

86 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources
Table 3.3.10. OWSJ baseline per 1 metric ton.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Open-web steel joist 1,430 OWSJ industry-average EPD (SJI, 2022) Industry (single)
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches.
Industry EPD representativeness information. OWSJ industry-average EPD (SJI, 2022). This industry EPD is based on data from three
North American OWSJ manufacturing companies and North American-manufactured steel. The proportion of total North American
production used as primary data in the EPD is not disclosed. The EPD provides a range of facility GWP results in their dataset, including
the minimum, maximum, mean, and median facility GWP across all facilities in their study.

Additional notes and guidance

There are OWSJ products made from hot-rolled components (the focus of the SJI industry-average EPD)
and those made from cold-formed steel, using coil as the major input. There are potential differences
between products made from these two component types related to both functional performance (as
joists made from different components can provide different functional performance per unit mass) and
GWP (as coil and hot-rolled components have different impacts per unit mass). Therefore, pending more
data availability, CLF may provide further differentiation to this category in the future.

Excluded product types

The CLF did not perform significant analysis or research on the following steel construction product types
due to limitations in available data and/or staff availability. A brief description, EC3 status, and EPD data
availability are provided below.

Steel wire mesh is also called “welded reinforcement concrete mesh” and “welded construction mesh.”
It is typically used for concrete reinforcement to provide tensile strength, similar to rebar. It is made from
the semi-finished product hot-rolled steel wire (also called wire rod), which is generally produced in coils.
It is currently a public EC3 category, with no applicable industry EPDs and one applicable product EPD.

Post-tensioning/prestressing steel cable, also called "PC strand" (prestressed concrete strand), is a
high-strength steel cable made up of multiple individual high-carbon steel wires twisted together in a
helical pattern, designed to withstand significant tensile forces and used to pre-stress concrete
structures, significantly increasing their load-bearing capacity. It is currently a pilot EC3 category, with no
applicable industry or product EPDs.

87 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

3.4 Aluminum
This section includes aluminum extrusions and aluminum sheet.

Applicable PCR
UL Environment. (2022). Part B: Aluminum construction product EPD requirements.

Aluminum Extrusions
Category description
This category includes aluminum extrusion products of various types and surface treatments. In
alignment with the industry EPDs, this report includes the following aluminum extrusion product types,
differentiated by thermal improvement (standard vs. thermally improved) and surface finish:

● Aluminum extrusions (standard, not thermally improved)

○ Mill finish
○ Anodized
○ Painted (liquid and powder paint)
● Thermally improved aluminum extrusions
○ Anodized
○ Painted (liquid and powder paint)

Standard (not thermally improved) extrusion products are used for a variety of applications that do not
require thermal insulating qualities, such as in canopies, louvers, and interior partitions. Thermally
improved extrusion products are used in window, door, curtainwall, and other building envelope
applications. These products have a non-metal (polyurethane or polyamide) thermal break that limits
heat transfer across the assembly (AEC, 2022b).

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Most of the total GWP impact is from the electricity-intensive primary aluminum production process that
yields semi-finished products such as billets (A1). The amount of virgin vs. recycled aluminum and the
source of the electricity for aluminum production are the largest contributing factors to the variation of
GWP between different products. A3 includes the extrusion process (reheating the billet in a furnace,
extrusion, cooling, and cutting), surface treatment application (painting or anodizing), and thermal
improvement where relevant.

Though excluded from Figure 3.4.1, the industry EPDs account for the benefits of recycling at the end of a
product’s useful life as a credit (negative GWP value) in Module D. The industry EPDs assume an end-of-
life recycling rate of 95% (AEC, 2022a; AEC, 2022b).

88 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.4.1. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. A1 = primary aluminum production and processing of recycled aluminum to
create semi-finished products; A2 = transport of semi-finished products to extrusion manufacturing facility; A3 = extrusion, thermal
improvement, surface treatment; C2 = end-of-life transport; C4 = disposal. A2, C2, and C4 are not visible or barely visible in this chart
due to their relatively small values. D-stage impacts are also included in the industry EPDs but are excluded here.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.4.2. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.4.1. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per metric ton.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Alum. extrusions, mill finish 1 10,253 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Alum. extrusions, anodized 1 10,763 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Alum. extrusions, painted 1 11,673 2 6,751 -- -- 8,967 -- -- 11,182 8,967
Alum. extrusions, thermally
1 11,797 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
improved, anodized
Alum. extrusions, thermally
1 12,700 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
improved, painted

89 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.4.3. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.4.2. Aluminum extrusion baselines per 1 metric ton.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Aluminum extrusions, mill finish 10,300 Aluminum extrusions industry-average EPD (AEC, Industry (single)
2022a)

Aluminum extrusions, anodized 10,800 Aluminum extrusions industry-average EPD (AEC, Industry (single)
2022a)

Aluminum extrusions, painted 11,700 Aluminum extrusions industry-average EPD (AEC, Industry (single)
2022a)

Aluminum extrusions, thermally 11,800 Thermally improved aluminum extrusions industry- Industry (single)
improved, anodized average EPD (AEC, 2022b)

Aluminum extrusions, thermally 12,700 Thermally improved aluminum extrusions industry- Industry (single)
improved, painted average EPD (AEC, 2022b)
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
Industry EPD representativeness information. Aluminum extrusions industry-average EPD (AEC, 2022b) and thermally improved
aluminum extrusions industry-average EPD (AEC, 2022b). “The information in this document is based on information supplied by 8 AEC
member companies in the U.S. and Canada. The data comes from 31 separate production facilities, with a total of nearly 100 extrusion
presses ranging in size from 6" to 18"circle size, 10 anodizing facilities, 10 paint facilities (liquid and powder), 6 thermal management

90 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

operations, and 13 cast houses that produce scrap-based extrusion billets. Total extrusion production by the AEC participants is 2.46
billion lbs. which is 38% of the total Aluminum extrusions in North America for the 2020 production year” (AEC, 2022a; AEC, 2022b).27

Aluminum Sheet
Category description
Aluminum sheet products are used as components in building roofs, siding, wall panels, and other
construction and non-construction applications. This report identifies the single product type of
aluminum sheet, including sheets and plates of various thicknesses.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Like for aluminum extrusions above, most of the total GWP impact is from the electricity-intensive
primary aluminum production process that yields semi-finished cast aluminum products such as ingots
(A1). The amount of virgin vs. recycled aluminum and the source of the electricity for aluminum
production are the largest contributing factors to the variation of GWP between different products.

Most North American aluminum sheet and plate products are produced by hot rolling ingots to form slabs
and then additional rolling to further reduce the thickness and finally rolling into a coil. Some sheet and
plate products are produced by continuous casting (i.e., casting hot metal to solidify into a continuous
strip) instead of or before hot rolling. After hot-rolling and/or continuous casting, the strip is cold-rolled to
attain the desired strength, temper, thickness, and/or surface finish (AA, 2022a).

Figure 3.4.4. GWP contribution by life cycle stage.

EPD data availability and distribution

There were zero applicable aluminum sheet products in CLF’s dataset. Therefore, this section does not
include the chart, table, and map that appear in most other sections of this report.

27 The Aluminum Association (AA, a separate industry association from the AEC) also published an industry EPD for
aluminum extrusions. The AA EPD (AA, 2022b) includes a single set of results that represents an average for extrusions
of all finish types (mill finish, anodized, and painted). The AA EPD’s GWP value (6,080) is substantially lower than AEC’s
values. One reason for this difference is that the AA EPD assumes a smaller share of primary vs. secondary (recycled)
aluminum inputs compared to the AEC EPD.
Other reasons may relate to the facilities surveyed. CLF chose to use the AEC EPD values for setting baselines because
(i) they are separated by finish type; (ii) it is the same organization that publishes the thermally improved aluminum
extrusion industry EPD, which is particularly relevant for the construction industry; and (iii) it maintains the status
quo as previous CLF baseline values for aluminum extrusions also aligned with the AEC EPD values.

91 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources
Table 3.4.3. Aluminum sheet baseline per 1 metric ton.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Aluminum sheet 3,820 Aluminum sheet industry-average EPD (AA, 2022) Industry (single)
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
Industry EPD representativeness information. Aluminum sheet industry-average EPD (AA, 2022a). “This EPD covers the production of
aluminum plates and sheets, excluding aluminum foil. The results represent an average across all aluminum sheets and plates
manufactured in North America (United States and Canada). Averages are obtained through aggregating production-weighted data
from the participating companies…Data were collected for sheet aluminum produced by various AA members throughout North
America.”

92 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

3.5 Wood
Wood Overview

Applicable PCR
PCR: UL Environment. (2019). Product category rule guidance for building-related products and services,
part B: structural and architectural wood products (version 1.1).

Originally due to expire in October of 2024, UL extended its validity to July 31st, 2025. As of May 2025, UL
lists the wood products PCR’s status as “public comment,” indicating that UL will review public
comments and determine the process for updating the PCR (UL Solutions, 2025).

Wood product EPDs under this PCR use a declared unit of one cubic meter (1 m3), except for I-joist EPDs,
which use a declared unit of one linear meter (1 m).

Biogenic carbon
Biogenic carbon is carbon that is absorbed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and stored in
plants, trees, and other living matter as part of the natural carbon cycle. ISO 21930:2017 (ISO, 2017) uses
the “-1/+1” approach to biogenic carbon accounting. Following this approach, EPDs account for biogenic
carbon entering the product system (e.g., in logs that are used as inputs to a wood product) as a removal
of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. (This is the “-1” in the “-1/+1” approach, referring to the LCA’s
accounting of the removal as a negative emission.) Biogenic carbon leaving the product system (e.g.,
during manufacturing due to the combustion of wood-based byproducts as an energy source, or at the
end of the product’s life due to incineration, decay, recycling, or reuse) is treated as an emission to the
atmosphere. (This is the “+1” emission in the LCA accounting.) Net biogenic carbon flows — and
associated GWP values — balance out to zero over the product’s life cycle, except for any biogenic carbon
that remains stored in a landfill beyond the product’s end of life.

The North American industry-average EPDs for wood products model biogenic carbon emissions across
the declared modules (A1–A3) as net-neutral (i.e., biogenic carbon removals = biogenic carbon emissions),
based on ISO 21930:2017 (Salazar, 2020). The EPDs report GWP in two separate ways: (i) including
biogenic carbon (GWPBIO) and (ii) excluding biogenic carbon (GWPTRACI). “Total GWPBIO includes biogenic
carbon emissions and removals from the [life cycle] modules A1–A3 and also reports values for modules
A5, C3, and C4 to account for the biogenic carbon that is not emitted in the declared modules to ensure a
net neutral biogenic carbon balance” over the lifetime of the product. Therefore, the EPDs’ results for
total GWPTRACI and total GWPBIO are equal. See “Life Cycle Inventory Results” in the industry-average EPD
for further information.

Generally, CLF baseline values are for A1–A3 and exclude biogenic carbon flows. (Otherwise, they could
count the biogenic carbon removals in the product stage without also accounting for the eventual
emissions at the end of life, inhibiting appropriate comparability.) Care should be taken that EPD results
compared against these baseline values should also exclude biogenic carbon flows. Care should also be
taken when comparing EPDs from different PCRs or international standards, as differences in biogenic
accounting methods can significantly affect GWP results.

93 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Forestry and roundwood production
All wood products’ life cycles involve forestry and roundwood production. This includes forestry practices
such as thinning, fertilization, logging, seedling growth, and replanting; additional processes may be
relevant for specific wood product types. Trees are typically harvested (by chainsaw, harvester, or feller
buncher), delimbed, and then bucked (i.e., cut to length) before they are moved to a landing site. The logs
are then transported to a mill by truck, ship, or rail, where they are further processed into lumber or
manufactured wood products.

Sawn Lumber
Category description
Wood products are used to frame walls, floors, and roofs in residential and commercial construction.
They are available in a range of widths, lengths, and thicknesses and are typically made from softwood
lumber. This material category covers a range of dimensional lumber sizes and is weighted towards 2x4s
and 2x6s, which comprise the bulk of production.

CLF identifies the following sawn lumber product types for this report.

● Softwood lumber: includes dimensional wood boards, beams, studs, and timbers typically used
to frame walls, floors, and roofs. This product type covers many dimensions and softwood
species.
● Redwood lumber: California redwood lumber is produced along California’s north coast and is
used for decking, fencing, pergolas, and other outdoor applications.
Among softwood lumber products, structural performance and GWP per declared unit can vary depending
on many factors, such as the wood species and wood grade.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

The primary scope of the North American industry-average EPDs for sawn lumber is the product stage
(A1–A3), with some additional life cycle stage information regarding biogenic carbon. Life cycle stage A1
includes forestry practices and roundwood production. The logs are then transported to the mill by truck,
ship, or rail (A2). Manufacturing at the mill (A3) consists of three main processes: sawing, kiln-drying, and
planing. The sawing process includes all debarking, sawing, chipping, and grinding necessary to convert
the logs (roundwood) into rough green lumber and co-products. Cut lumber is then kiln dried, planed,
stacked, graded, trimmed, sorted, and packaged (AWC & CWC, 2020e). The use of mill residuals (i.e.,
byproducts such as sawdust, shavings, bark, etc.) as fuel sources for mill processes can reduce a mill’s A3
GWP value as reported in an EPD.28

28 This is because ISO 21930 treats biogenic carbon emissions from sustainably sourced wood products as net
neutral. The LCA treats the biogenic carbon coming into the product system as a removal (negative flow of CO2) and
treats the biogenic carbon leaving the product system upon combustion as an equal and opposite CO2 emission.

94 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.5.1. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. A1 = forestry operations; A2 = transport roundwood to mill; A3 = lumber
production at mill.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.5.2. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.5.1. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per cubic meter.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Softwood Lumber 5 68.91 1 -- -- -- 33.82 -- -- -- 33.82
Redwood Lumber 1 37.97 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Figure 3.5.3. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

95 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.5.2. Sawn lumber baselines per 1 m3.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Softwood Lumbera 63.1 North American softwood lumber industry-average EPD Industry (single)
(AWC & CWC, 2020e)

Softwood lumber, U.S. Inland 71.4 U.S. Inland Northwest softwood lumber industry- Industry (single)
Northwest average EPD (AWC 2024a)

Softwood lumber, U.S. Southern 90.4 U.S. Southern softwood lumber industry-average EPD Industry (single)
(AWC 2024c)

Softwood lumber, U.S. Pacific Coast 73.8 U.S. Pacific Coast softwood lumber industry-average Industry (single)
EPD (AWC 2024b)

Softwood lumber, British Columbia 45.9 British Columbia softwood lumber industry-average Industry (single)
EPD (Forestry Innovation Investment, 2023b)

Redwood Lumber 38.0 Redwood lumber industry-average EPD (AWC, 2020) Industry (single)
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
a Usernote: The North American industry-average baseline is appropriate to use for comparisons when softwood lumber from all
regions is available to the project, and appropriate to use as a data source when more specific sourcing information is not available.
Industry EPD representativeness information.

 North American softwood lumber industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, 2020e). This EPD is based on softwood lumber
production in Canada and the four regions in the US. It is based on data from 51 mills, with 23 of them located in Canada and
28 located in the United States. These mills used for primary data from each region constitute 4–13% of the total regional
production volume, depending on the region.
 U.S. Inland Northwest softwood lumber industry-average EPD (AWC, 2024a). This industry-average EPD is based on softwood
lumber production in eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, Idaho, and Montana. The Inland Northwest region constitutes 9%
of total U.S. softwood lumber production capacity. The EPD’s participating facilities constitute over 44% of the regional
capacity.
 U.S. Southern softwood lumber industry-average EPD (AWC, 2024c). This industry-average EPD is based on softwood lumber
production in the 13 states of Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, Kentucky, Arkansas, Virginia, Oklahoma,
Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama. The Southern region constitutes 56% of total U.S. softwood lumber
production capacity. The EPD’s participating facilities constitute 53% of the regional capacity.
 U.S. Pacific Coast softwood lumber industry-average EPD (AWC, 2024b). This industry-average EPD is based on softwood
lumber production, primarily in western Oregon and eastern Washington, split along the Cascade Mountain crest, and
California. The Pacific Coast region constitutes 29% of total U.S. softwood lumber production capacity. The EPD’s
participating facilities constitute 54% of the regional capacity.
 British Columbia softwood lumber industry-average EPD (Forest Innovation Investment, 2023b). This industry-average EPD is
based on softwood lumber production primary data from 13 active mills in 2020. The facilities used constitute more than 50%
of the total lumber production in British Columbia.

96 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

  Redwood lumber industry-average EPD (AWC, 2020). This industry-average EPD is based on primary data from three California
mills of redwood lumber production. A horizontal averaging approach using average weighting factors was applied to the
primary data.

Structural Composite Lumber (SCL)

Category description
Structural composite lumber (SCL) is a group of engineered wood products made by combining wood
veneers, strands, or flakes with moisture-resistant adhesives to create composite materials of uniform
composition and high strength (APA - The Engineered Wood Association, 2023). CLF identifies the
following SCL product types for this report:
● Laminated strand lumber (LSL) is commonly used for headers, beams, wall studs, rafters, truss
chords, rim boards, and stair stringers. LSL products consist of wood strands with a length-to-
thickness ratio of approximately 150. The strands are bonded with resin and pressed to form
panels up to 3-½ inches thick (AWC & CWC, 2021).
● Laminated veneer lumber (LVL) is commonly used for headers, beams, rafters, and I-joist flange
material and is available in lengths far beyond standard lumber lengths. It consists of wood
veneer sheets, which are dried, bonded, and sawn to the desired dimensions (AWC & CWC,
2020c).
● Oriented strand lumber (OSL) products are like LSL products and are used in similar
applications. OSL products consist of wood strands with a length-to-thickness ratio of
approximately 75. The strands are bonded with resin and pressed to form panels.
● Parallel strand lumber (PSL) is commonly used for headers, beams, and columns. It is made
from wood strands with a length-to-thickness ratio of around 300. The strands are bonded with
resin and pressed to form panels.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

A1 includes cradle-to-gate production, including forestry practices and production of the raw materials —
veneers (for LVL), logs (for LSL, OSL, and PSL), and resins.

For LVL, the manufacturing process involves arranging the dried veneers for assembly, applying resin, and
hot-pressing the uncured LVL billet to bind the veneer layers together. Once pressed, the LVL billet is
sawn to the desired dimensions (AWC & CWC, 2020c).

For SCL products made up of wood strands, like LSL, OSL, and PSL, the manufacturing process includes
debarking the logs, cutting the wood into thin strands, drying the strands, and then blending them with
adhesive and wax. The blended wood strands are arranged so the wood grain follows the long direction
and are pressed under high pressure and high temperature to create billets, which are then cooled, cut to
the appropriate dimensions, sanded, and packaged for shipping (AWC & CWC, 2021).

97 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

Figure 3.5.4. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. A1 = production of roundwood (including forestry operations), resin, and veneer
(where applicable); A2 = transport to mill; A3 = SCL manufacturing.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.5.5. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.5.3. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per cubic meter.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
LSL 1 274.9 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
LVL 1 361.4 5 -- -- -- 249.0 -- -- -- 266.2

Figure 3.5.6. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

98 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.5.4. Structural composite lumber baselines per 1 m3.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Laminated strand lumber (LSL) 275 LSL industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, 2021) Industry (single)

Laminated veneer lumber (LVL) 361 LVL industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, 2020c) Industry (single)

Oriented strand lumber (OSL) -- No sufficiently representative data source of North None
American productiona

Parallel strand lumber (PSL) -- No sufficiently representative data source of North None
American productiona
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
a At the time of publication, there were no North American industry-average or product EPDs for OSL or PSL.
Industry EPD representativeness information
 North American LSL industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, 2021). This industry-average EPD for North American LSL production
is based on primary production data from the two LSL manufacturers operating in North America, which represented 100% of
the current North American production for LSL at the time of the EPD’s publication.
 North American LVL industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, 2020c). This industry-average EPD for North American LVL production
aggregates the results from three separate regional LCA studies in the US Pacific Northwest, US Southeast, and Canada. A
total of eight mills were sampled, constituting a range of 17–53% of the total regional production for each area. Regional data
were weighted by relative production volume.

Additional notes and guidance

The SCL material category includes several distinct product types: LVL, LSL, OSL, and PSL. These product
types have different performance characteristics and building construction applications. Therefore, their
GWP values should not be compared on a per-cubic-meter basis (AWC, 2021).

Similarly, when comparing environmental impacts within a given product type, it is important to keep in
mind that SCL products are proprietary products, and as a result, the specific structural properties and
sizes are unique to each manufacturer. Many SCL products do not have a common standard of production
or common design values (CWC, 2024).

Mass Timber
Category description
This category includes engineered heavy timber products used for a variety of structural purposes. CLF
identifies the following mass timber product types for this report.

● Cross-laminated timber (CLT): a prefabricated, engineered wood panel used for floors, walls,
and roofs. A CLT panel consists of several layers of kiln-dried lumber boards stacked in

99 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum

 alternating directions, bonded with structural adhesives, and pressed to form a solid rectangular
panel. Baselines for CLT product types are further classified by region (APA – The Engineered
Wood Association, 2018).
● Nail-laminated timber (NLT): a prefabricated, engineered wood panel used for floors, walls,
and roofs made of dimension lumber joined together with nails (Natural Resources Canada,
2022b).
● Dowel-laminated timber (DLT): a prefabricated, engineered wood panel used for floors, walls,
and roofs made of dimension lumber joined together with hardwood dowels (StructureCraft,
2020).
● Mass ply panel (MPP): a prefabricated, engineered wood panel used for floors, walls, and roofs.
Also called “mass plywood,” MPPs are composed of multiple thin wood veneers bonded with
resin adhesives (Freres Lumber Co., 2020).
● Glue-laminated timber (GLT): Also known as “glulam,” an engineered wood product commonly
used as columns, posts, and beams in heavy timber and mass timber structures. Glulam is made
up of two or more layers of dimensional lumber, also referred to as laminating stock or
“lamstock.” The lamstock is bonded with durable, moisture-resistant adhesives, and all wood
grain runs parallel to the length of the beam or column. GLT can be manufactured in a wide
range of shapes and sizes and can be used for both interior and exterior applications (AWC &
CWC, 2020b; Forestry Innovation Investment, 2023d).

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

In a typical mass timber EPD, life cycle stage A1 includes cradle-to-gate production of the input materials,
including forestry practices and roundwood production — dimensional lumber (for CLT, NLT, DLT, and
GLT) or veneers (for MPP) and resins/nails/dowels. The lumber or veneer is transported to the mass
timber manufacturing facility (A2). A3 manufacturing processes depend on the product type. Where
manufacturers source their dimensional lumber or veneers can substantially affect A1 and A2 impacts.

A CLT panel is an engineered wood product created by layering alternate layers of dimensional lumber
that is then glued together. CLT panels are typically created out of three, five, seven, or nine layers, with
three layers being common for roof applications and five layers being common for floor applications. The
dimensional lumber is kiln-dried and then glued together.

An NLT panel is manufactured from dimension (typically 2x, 3x, or 4x) lumber placed on edge and nailed
together. Though it can be used in similar applications as CLT, NLT does not provide the same
dimensional stability or shear resistance as CLT (Natural Resources Canada, 2022b).

DLT manufacturing is similar to NLT, but instead of using nails to join the lumber boards, the boards are
friction-fit together with hardwood dowels (Natural Resources Canada, 2022a).

For MPP (at least in the case of the single MPP EPD), A1 also includes the bonding of veneers into 1” thick
plywood panels that are themselves later bonded together to form MPP panels in A3 (Freres Lumber Co.,
2020).

For GLT, lamstock is finger-jointed using resin, pressure, and heat to create relatively homogenous
lengths with stable bonds. Then, multiple pieces of finger-jointed lamstock are planed and bonded
together by applying resin directly to the faces of the lamstock. While pressure is being applied, the

100 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
assembly cures via cold cure or radio frequency. The GLT faces may be cut, planed, sanded, or further
finished as necessary to remove any excess adhesives and achieve final product specifications (AWC &
CWC, 2020b; Forestry Innovation Investment, 2023).

Figure 3.5.7. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. A1 = forestry operations and the production of lumber and resins; A2 = transport
of roundwood and resin to mill; A3 = mass timber manufacturing. Data sources: GLT industry EPD (AWC et. al., 2020). Product EPDs for
CLT (ASTM, 2021), DLT (StructureCraft 2020), and MPP (Freres Lumber Co., 2020). CLT EPD is shown as an example and does not mean
to represent all CLT production.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.5.8. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.5.5. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per cubic meter.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
CLT 1 101 9 70 123 125 126 134 160 178 134
MPP 0 -- 1 259 -- -- 259 -- -- 259 259
DLT 0 -- 1 121 -- -- 121 -- -- 121 121
GLT 2 120 7 115 129 151 155 178 252 397 200

101 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.5.9. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province. There is an additional CLT EPD (excluded
from the final dataset due to its use of a different PCR) for a facility in Illinois.

CLF’s data QA intensity for CLT was high. CLF reviewed each current CLT product EPD and engaged with
industry experts for input. CLF’s data QA intensity in this category for product types other than CLT was
low. See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.5.6. Mass timber baselines per 1 m3.

Baseline Baseline method;

GWP Representativeness
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes assessment approach*

Cross laminated timber 134 Collection of North America CLT product EPDs, Product (unweighted);
(CLT) unweighted average. sampling fractiona

CLT, British Columbia 101 BC CLT industry-average EPD (Forestry Innovation Industry (single)
Investment, 2023c)

CLT, Eastern Canada 96 Collection of regional CLT product EPDs (Nordic Product (unweighted);
Structures; 2023; Element5 LP - Modern Timber sampling fractionb
Buildings, 2022), unweighted average.

CLT, Southern US 147 Collection of regional CLT product EPDs (Mercer Mass Product (unweighted);
Timber, 2025a; SmartLam North America, 2021a), sampling fractionc
unweighted average.

CLT, Western US 156 Collection of regional CLT product EPDs (Mercer Mass Product (unweighted);
Timber, 2025b; SmartLam North America, 2021b; sampling fractiond
Vaagen Timbers, 2021), unweighted average.

Mass ply panel (MPP) 259 MPP product EPD (Freres Lumber Company, 2020) Product (weighted);
sampling fractione

102 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
 Dowel Laminated Timber 121 DLT product EPD (StructureCraft, 2020) Product (weighted);
(DLT) sampling fractionf

Glue laminated timber (GLT) 137 North America GLT industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, Industry (single)
2020b)

GLT, British Columbia 103 BC GLT industry-average EPD (Forestry Innovation Industry (single)
Investment, 2023d)

Nail Laminated Timber (NLT) -- No sufficiently representative data source of North None
American production
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
a Samplingfraction for North American CLT = 90%. Of the ten total North American structural CLT plants that CLF is aware of, 29 nine
have EPDs used in CLF’s dataset. (One additional plant has EPD, excluded from CLF’s dataset due to using a different PCR).
b Sampling fraction for CLT — Eastern Canada = 100%. The two referenced EPDs (Nordic Structures, 2023; Element5 LP - Modern Timber
Buildings, 2022) represent virtually all known CLT production in Eastern Canada (including Quebec and Ontario).
c Sampling fraction forCLT — Southern U.S. = 100%. The two referenced EPDs (Mercer Mass Timber, 2025a; SmartLam North America,
2021a) represent all known CLT production in the Southern US (corresponding with the Southern U.S. region designated by the AWC
regional EPD for softwood lumber).
d Samplingfraction for CLT - U.S. Western = 100%. The three referenced EPDs (Mercer Mass Timber, 2025b; SmartLam North America,
2021b; Vaagen Timbers, 2021) represent all known CLT production in the Western US, including the Pacific coast and the Inland
Northwest (including Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and California).
e Accordingto the 2024 International Mass Timber Report (Trifecta Collective LLC, 2024), the one EPD available for MPP represents the
only MPP production plant in North America.
f According to
the 2024 International Mass Timber Report (Trifecta Collective LLC, 2024), the one EPD available for DLT represents the
lone DLT producer in North America.
For all baselines using the “product (unweighted)” method, no production volume data were available. Manufacturers publish
maximum production capacity data, but these values do not necessarily reflect actual volumes and in some cases cover multiple
product types produced in the same facility.
Industry EPD representativeness information
 British Columbia CLT industry-average EPD (Forestry Innovation Investment, 2023c). This EPD represents CLT production in
British Columbia, Canada, and is based on primary data from the two operating CLT production facilities.
 North American glue laminated timber industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, 2020b). This EPD represents North American GLT
production using the results from three regional LCA studies that assess GLT production from five mills in Canada, four mills in
the U.S. Pacific Northwest, and another four mills in the U.S. Southeast. The EPD accounts for 32.8% of the combined
production volume from those three regions.
 British Columbia glulam industry-average EPD (Forestry Innovation Investment, 2023d). This EPD represents GLT production
in British Columbia, Canada, and is based on primary data from the two operating glulam production facilities.

29WoodWorks (2025) lists all CLT manufacturers in North America on its website as Mercer Mass Timber, SmartLam,
Element5 | Hasslacher Group, Kalesnikoff, Sterling Structural, and Vaagen Timbers. The 2024 International Mass
Timber Report’s Figure 4.1 (Trifecta Collective LLC, 2024) additionally includes Nordic Structures (in Chibougamau,
Quebec). All of the major manufacturers and facilities have EPDs.

103 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Additional notes and guidance
Because of the variation in background lumber data used by mass timber EPDs, the EPDs show very
different results that may reflect differences in data sources more than actual differences in production or
supply chain. Although this limits comparability, the CLT baselines were included as a measurable first
step based on the best data currently available, with the expectation that the EPD data will improve over
time as CLT EPDs use more accurate and harmonized softwood lumber data.

Among mass timber products within a given product type, structural performance and GWP per declared
unit can vary depending on many factors such as the wood species and wood grade (AWC, 2021). When
considering substitutions within this material category, it is important to consider which products are
appropriate for use in the project based on the project’s location and the intended application.

Wood Sheathing
Category description
Wood sheathing products are wood-based panels used for structural sheathing in floor, wall, or roof
assemblies. CLF identifies the following wood sheathing product types for this report.

● Softwood plywood: Softwood plywood panels are made of cross-laminated layers of softwood
veneers, bonded together with thermoset resins (AWC & CWC, 2020a).
● Oriented strand board (OSB): OSB panels are made of layers of wood strands. The strands run
parallel to the length of the panel on the outer layers and perpendicular to the length of the
panel on the middle layers. Wood strands are bonded with resins, and wax is commonly added to
the panel to increase water resistance (AWC & CWC, 2020d).

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

A1 for both wood sheathing product types includes forestry practices, roundwood production, and resin
production.

For plywood products, the logs are conditioned with hot water and then sent to the lathe where the logs
are peeled to make veneer. The wood veneer is then trimmed, sorted, and dried. Once dry, the veneers
are bonded with resin, cross-laminated, pressed, and cut down to the desired panel dimensions (AWC &
CWC, 2020a).

For OSB products, the logs are first cut into thin strands, dried, and sorted. The wood strands are then
coated with resin and wax and arranged to create a three-layer mat of cross-directional wood strands.
The mat is then pressed under high temperatures to produce the OSB board. Once cooled, sawn, and
grade stamped, the OSB boards are ready to be packaged (AWC & CWC, 2020d).

104 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.5.10. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. A1 = forestry operations and the production of resins; A2 = transport
roundwood and resin to mill; A3 = wood sheathing production.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.5.11. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table Y. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per cubic meter.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
OSB 1 243 3 380 -- -- 380 -- -- 470 410
Plywood 2 176 1 120 -- -- 120 -- -- 120 120

Figure 3.5.12. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

105 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
106 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.5.7. Wood sheathing baselines per 1 m3.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Softwood plywood 219 Softwood plywood industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, Industry (single)
2020a)

Softwood plywood, British Columbia 132 BC softwood plywood industry-average EPD (Forestry Industry (single)
Innovation Investment, 2023a)

Oriented strandboard (OSB) 243 OSB industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, 2020d) Industry (single)

Wood sheathing (includes 231 Softwood plywood and OSB industry-average EPDs Industry (multi-
plywood and OSB) (AWC & CWC, 2020a; 2020d). Baseline = unweighted unweighted)
average of industry EPD values for OSB and plywood.
Parent category baseline.**
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
**See “Similar product types and parent vs. child baselines” in Section 2.2.
Industry EPD representativeness information
● North American softwood plywood industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, 2020a). This industry-average EPD is
based on softwood plywood production in Canada, the Pacific Northwest (US), and the Southeast (US). It
includes 53.7% of the combined production volume from those three regions.

● British Columbia softwood plywood industry-average EPD (Forest Innovation Investment, 2023a). This
industry-average EPD is based on primary data from two production facilities in British Columbia and
represents 36% of the total production in the province.
● North American oriented strand board industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, 2020d). This industry-average
EPD is based on OSB production in Canada and the Southeastern United States. It includes 34.1% of the
combined North American production covered within those regions.

Additional notes and guidance

The wood sheathing material category is broken into two product types: softwood plywood and OSB. In many
building applications, these two product types can be functionally equivalent. However, the different product types
have different performance characteristics (i.e., structural performance, durability, and response to moisture), and it
is not always appropriate to directly substitute one wood sheathing product for a different wood sheathing product
of the same dimension. For example, in highly seismic areas, designers may require the use of OSB in wood-framed
shear wall applications to control horizontal deflection limits imposed by the code.

107 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Wood I-Joists
Category description
Wood I-joists (sometimes called “composite I-joists”) are structural members composed of top and bottom chords
(softwood lumber or LVL) and a web in the middle (OSB or plywood). The size of the chords varies by material, and
the web can be a range of sizes. Common dimensions include I-joists that directly replace 2x10 and 2x12 structural
lumber (AWC & CWC, 2020f).

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

A1 includes the production of the upstream ingredients – lumber or LVL for the chords and OSB or
plywood for the web. At the I-joist manufacturing facility (A3), these input ingredients are processed and
then assembled, where resins are applied and the web and chords are pressed together. The materials
and cross-sectional dimensions significantly affect product GWP, and these factors are not accounted for
in the category’s declared unit of one linear meter (AWC & CWC, 2020f).

Figure 3.5.13. GWP contribution by life cycle stage.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.5.14. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3. Three of the product EPD data points represent one manufacturer’s EPD
results for each of three different dimension I-joists as manufactured and sold. The other product EPD datapoint aims to represent an
average across many depths and is based on a 12.5” deep reference product.

Table 3.5.8. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per linear meter. Product EPD GWP
statistics are excluded due to different dimensions represented.

Industry EPDs Product EPDs

EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Wood I-joist 1 1.97 4 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

108 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.5.15. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.5.9. Wood I-joist baselines per 1 linear meter.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Wood I-joist, 300mm (≅11-7/8") 1.97 Wood I-joist industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, 2020f). Industry (single)
See Additional notes and guidance for approach to
develop baseline values for joists of other depths.
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
Industry EPD representativeness information. North American wood I-joist industry-average EPD (AWC & CWC, 2020f). This industry-
average EPD is based on I-wood joists production from three regions — Canada, the U.S. Pacific Northwest, and the U.S. Southeast. The
data constitutes approximately 60% of the total production volume for the regions under study.

109 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Additional notes and guidance
The industry-average EPD represents a 300mm deep I-joist reference product (as noted in Table 5 of the
EPD), a commonly specified I-joist depth. For I-joists of different depths or cross-sections, one can
approximately scale the industry-average value based on the ratio of the given product’s linear mass
density (kg per linear meter) to the reference product's linear mass density, using the following equation.

Where:
● b = approximate industry-average baseline GWP value (kg CO2e/m) for a given I-joist cross
section; user-calculated.
● λ = linear mass density (kg/m) of the given product; user-provided, referenced from
manufacturer’s catalogue or manufacturer-specific EPD.
The constants in the equation are from the industry EPD. The baseline GWP value is 1.97 kg CO2e/m. 4.34
The reference product’s linear mass density is 4.34 kg/m.

110 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
3.6 Insulation
This section includes board, blanket, foamed-in-place, and loose-fill insulations.

Applicable PCR
UL Environment. (2018). PCR Part B: Building Envelope Thermal Insulation EPD Requirements.

As of spring 2025, UL is developing a new version of the Part B PCR for building envelope thermal
insulation.

This PCR covers insulation products typically used for thermal insulation in the building envelope,
including roofs, walls, and floors/foundations. A separate PCR covers insulation products typically used in
mechanical, plumbing, and other specialty applications.

Unit of measurement
EPDs following the UL Part B PCR for building envelope thermal insulation use a functional unit of one
square meter at the thickness required to achieve an average RSI value of 1 m2K/W. (CLF uses the
shorthand notation “1 m2 @ RSI-1.”) RSI, also commonly written as Rsi or RSI, is the metric unit of R-value,
which measures a material’s thermal resistance. An RSI value of 1 is equivalent to approximately R-5.68 in
I-P units (conventionally used in North America). By normalizing for thermal resistance (insulation’s
primary function), this unit helps to facilitate the comparison of functionally equivalent products that
may have different densities, thicknesses, volumes, etc.

Board Insulation
Category description
Board insulations are rigid or semi-rigid products that can be applied to many parts of the building
envelope. They are commonly applied as continuous insulation (sometimes called “insulation
sheathing”) across the framing, sheathing, structural concrete, masonry, or other surfaces in wall, roof,
and floor assemblies. CLF identifies the following board insulation product types for this report.

● Expanded polystyrene (EPS): including multiple types that differ by density

● Graphite polystyrene (GPS): rigid board of EPS with graphite particles
● Fiberglass board: rigid fiberglass boards (sometimes used in the building envelope, though
more commonly used for mechanical insulation)
● Mineral wool heavy-density board corresponds with what the North American Insulation
Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) considers “heavy-density mineral wool board” — i.e., mineral
wool boards with density greater than or equal to 4.4 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) (16 kg/m3)
(NAIMA, 2018). Mineral wool is also called “stone wool” or “rock wool.”
● Polyisocyanurate (Polyiso or ISO): differentiated by application (wall vs. roof) and associated
facer type
● Extruded polystyrene (XPS): differentiated by compressive strength: ≤25, 40, 60, and 100
pounds per square inch (psi)

111 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Less common types include wood fiberboard and hemp board insulations.

These products all serve the primary function of insulating a building envelope, often as continuous
exterior insulation. Other performance attributes, such as air permeability, vapor permeability, fire
resistance, acoustic performance, moisture resistance, and compressive strength, vary depending on the
product.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Expanded polystyrene (EPS) is a closed-cell rigid foam board insulation. This report covers ASTM Type I
EPS, commonly used for building envelope thermal insulation. Other EPS types are typically used for
other applications, such as packaging.

The production of EPS resin (upstream of the EPS insulation manufacturing plant, typically accounted for
in A1) is the most GWP-intensive part of EPS production, accounting for roughly 75% of the overall A1–A3
impact. Recycled content EPS resins are beginning to enter the construction foam market, though there is
not yet known LCA data for these products (G. Zimmerman, personal communication, 2024).

At the EPS manufacturing facility, the resin is expanded when exposed to steam and molded into a solid,
homogenous block, which is cut into boards and typically left unfaced. Scrap is reground and converted
for re-use. Some plants combust captured blowing agents that escape the manufacturing process.
Pentane, a chemical with low global warming potential, is a common EPS blowing agent (EPS Industry
Association (EPS-IA), 2023).

Graphite polystyrene is an EPS-based board insulation that incorporates graphite particles infused into
the polystyrene beads. The graphite helps it to reflect and absorb radiant energy, providing GPS with a
higher R-value per unit thickness than EPS. GPS is used in walls, roofs, and below grade.

Fiberglass board is made from glass cullet, sand, binder, and other additive ingredients such as borates
and resins. The fiberglass manufacturing facility melts the glass components — primarily the cullet and
sand — and spins the glass into fibers, injects the binder and other ingredients, and allows the product to
cure (NAIMA, 2023a). Like mineral wool, the energy used to melt the raw ingredients to a hot enough
temperature where they can be spun into fibers is the main contributor to fiberglass board’s GWP.

Mineral wool heavy-density board is a rigid or semi-rigid fibrous board insulation made from slag and
natural rock, such as basalt or feldspar. At the manufacturing facility, a furnace melts these raw
ingredients, and the molten mixture is spun to create fine fibers. The fibers are coated with a binder, and
then the fiber-binder composite is formed into boards or blankets. Facings such as kraft paper may be
added to some products. The boards are then cooled, trimmed, and packaged.

The primary contributor to overall GWP is the energy consumption to melt the feedstock materials (stone
and/or slag) in the furnace. This includes direct fossil fuel combustion (typically natural gas) and grid
electricity. The two primary mineral wool feedstock materials have different origins and LCA
considerations. Stone is produced through hard-rock quarrying, which involves digging, blasting, and
crushing bedrock. Slag is produced as a waste product from iron and steel smelting and is treated in
insulation (and most other) EPDs as “burden-free” (i.e., without environmental impact) when entering the
mineral wool production process (NAIMA, 2023b; Carlisle et al., 2022).

112 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Extruded polystyrene (XPS) is a closed-cell rigid foam board insulation consisting primarily of
polystyrene (PS) resin and a blend of blowing agents. During manufacturing, PS resin, additives, and
blowing agents are blended and melted into a liquid. The liquid is sent through a die and then expanded
into foam, which is shaped, cooled, trimmed, printed, and packaged. XPS is often unfaced, though some
XPS products have facers.

Until very recently, XPS produced in North America has been extremely emissions-intensive compared to
other insulation products due to the use of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) blowing agents that leak into the
atmosphere over the course of an insulation product’s life cycle. For the last decade, most North
American manufacturers have conventionally produced XPS with blowing agent blends of HFC-134a
(GWP100 = 1,300) and HFC-245fa (GWP100 = 858). Globally, the Kigali Amendment of the Montreal Protocol
calls for a total phase-out of HFCs, which have been banned from use in Europe since 2020. In the last five
years, Canada and a handful of states banned or significantly limited the use of HFC foam blowing agents.
As of January 1, 2025, the U.S. EPA banned certain HFC blowing agents for all U.S. manufacturers (U.S.
EPA, 2024), prompting a shift toward blowing agent blends with hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) that have
significantly lower GWP compared to HFCs. GHG emissions from foam blowing agent leakage occur during
initial manufacturing (A3), gradually over a product’s useful lifetime (B1), and at disposal when further
emission occurs while the product sits in a landfill (C4). The conservative approach in EPDs is to assume
that 100% of the original blowing agent ultimately emits into the atmosphere.

To address a range of different functional applications, XPS is produced in various compressive strength
values. Common strengths include 15, 40, 60, and 100 psi. In general, the mass and associated GWP for a
given R-value increase as compressive strength increases. (This is not always true for thin boards that
need additional density to maintain rigidity.)

Polyiso is a closed-cell rigid foam board insulation that consists of a foam core sandwiched between two
facers. The rigid foam is produced through the reaction of methylene diphenylene diisocyanate (MDI) with
polyester polyol, along with other ingredients such as a catalyst, flame retardant, and blowing agent
(pentane or pentane blends).

Polyiso boards have facers on both sides that allow for a continuous manufacturing process
(Polyisocyanurate Manufacturers Industry Association (PIMA), 2020a, 2020b)). Boards with an aluminum
foil facer (AFF or sometimes called “glass reinforced aluminum foil facer” or “GRFF”) are used for wall
applications. Boards with a glass-fiber-reinforced cellulosic facer (GRF) are used for roof applications.
Boards with a polymer-bonded coated glass facer (CGF) are used in either wall or roof applications.30 The
facer can have a significant impact on the product’s overall GWP. In aluminum-faced polyiso boards, the
facer is often the major contributor to that product’s total GWP (PIMA, personal communication, 2022).

Polyiso used in roofing applications is assumed to be replaced during the building’s life when the
building's roof is replaced. Therefore, Figure 3.6.1 shows the impacts of replacements for two polyiso
board types in Module B4.

30PIMA staff provided information on which polyiso products are suitable for which applications (M. Pazera, personal
communication, 2025).

113 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.6.1. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. Above: including conventional XPS; below: excluding conventional XPS. The data
sources for EPS, fiberglass board, polyiso, and heavy-density mineral wool boards are the industry EPDs. The data source for “XPS,
reduced GWP” is from one representative product EPD (Owens Corning, 2024). The data source for “XPS, conventional” is the average
of two representative product EPDs (Owens Corning, 2024; DuPont, 2021). The data source for GPS is one product EPD (BASF, 2020).
Comparability note: The two polyiso roof industry EPDs include B4 replacement, since the whole roofing assembly, including
insulation, is replaced in a typical commercial roof replacement. Any other insulation product used in a membrane roof assembly
would similarly need to be replaced, but the EPDs for other board insulation types do not include that data.

114 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.6.2. GWP distribution by product type. Above: all included board types; below: XPS only. (Note the
different scales.) Scope is A1–A3, except for XPS, whose scope is A1–A3, B1, and C4 to account for blowing agent
emissions.

Table 3.6.1. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are in units of kg CO2e per m2 @ RSI-1. Scope
is A1–A3, except for XPS, whose scope is A1–A3, B1, and C4.

Industry EPDs Product EPDs

EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
EPS 1 2.53 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Fiberglass board 1 5.02 9 3.21 3.33 3.65 4.60 4.60 5.08 6.08 4.30
GPS 0 -- 5 1.74 -- -- 2.23 -- -- 3.58 2.42
Mineral wool board 1 6.82 39 1.03 2.48 3.08 3.53 4.01 5.02 8.40 3.98
Polyiso 3 3.05 5 2.18 -- -- 2.39 -- -- 11.0 4.39
XPS 0 -- 20 1.95 5.89 12.8 34.3 53.1 70.4 110.6 40.7

115 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.6.3. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low, except for XPS, which was medium. See Appendix B for
more information.

116 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources
Table 3.6.2. Board insulation baselines per 1 m2 @ RSI-1.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Expanded polystyrene (EPS) Type I 2.53 EPS industry-average EPD (EPS-IA, 2023). See EPD to scale Industry (single)
results for other EPS types.

Fiberglass board 5.02 Fiberglass board industry-average EPD (NAIMA, 2023c) Industry (single)

Heavy density mineral wool boarda 6.82 Heavy density mineral wool board industry-average EPD Industry (single)
(NAIMA, 2023e)

Polyiso, aluminum foil facer 4.10 Polyiso wall insulation boards industry-average EPD (PIMA, Industry (single)
2020b)

Polyiso, GRF facer 2.11 Polyiso roof insulation boards industry-average EPD (PIMA, Industry (single)
2020a)

Polyiso, CGF facer 2.95 Polyiso roof insulation boards industry-average EPD (PIMA, Industry (single)
2020a)

Polyiso, wall 3.5 Polyiso wall and roof insulation boards industry-average Industry (multi-
EPDs (PIMA, 2020a; 2020b). Baseline = unweighted average unweighted)
of industry EPD values for aluminum-foil-faced and CGF
polyiso boards. Parent category baseline.**

Polyiso, roof 2.5 Polyiso roof insulation boards industry-average EPD (PIMA, Industry (multi-
2020a). Baseline = unweighted average of industry EPD unweighted)
values for GRF and CGF polyiso boards. Parent category
baseline.**

Extruded polystyrene (XPS) board, 8.9 XPS product EPD (Owens Corning, 2024). Includes modules Product (unweighted);
≤25 psi A1–A3, B1, and C4 to account for blowing agent emissions. sampling fractionb

Extruded polystyrene (XPS) board, 10.9 XPS product EPD (Owens Corning, 2024). Includes modules Product (unweighted);
40 psi A1–A3, B1, and C4 to account for blowing agent emissions. sampling fractionb

Extruded polystyrene (XPS) board, 14.1 XPS product EPD (Owens Corning, 2024). Includes modules Product (unweighted);
60 psi A1–A3, B1, and C4 to account for blowing agent emissions. sampling fractionb

Extruded polystyrene (XPS) board, 20.1 XPS product EPD (Owens Corning, 2024). Includes modules Product (unweighted);
100 psi A1–A3, B1, and C4 to account for blowing agent emissions. sampling fractionb

Graphite polystyrene (GPS) -- No sufficiently representative data source of North None

American production
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
**See “Similar product types and parent vs. child baselines” in Section 2.2.
a Usernote: Mineral wool board and blanket insulation GWP varies considerably with product density. For applications requiring a high-
density product, it may be appropriate to adjust the baseline value. Future baselines may account for that variation more accurately
than the current approach, which follows the NAIMA EPDs and simply separates all mineral wool board and blanket products into two
“buckets” — those with a density less than 4.4 pcf and those with a density greater than 4.4 pcf.

117 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
b Calculation note: The four manufacturers with XPS EPDs produce over 95% of XPS used in North America (XPSA, 2022). However, of
those four, only one was deemed sufficiently representative in terms of the provided results specific to compressive strength values.
CLF started with the available set of XPS EPDs from all four North American manufacturers, including EPDs for both conventional and
reduced-GWP XPS based on different blowing agent types. Because the US and Canada now ban XPS made with conventional HFC-
based blowing agents (US EPA, 2024), CLF filtered the dataset to only the compliant reduced-GWP products. This is a significant change
from the 2023 CLF Material Baselines, which included data from conventional XPS, resulting in substantially lower baseline values in
this 2025 version.
Next, because GWP varies significantly with XPS compressive strength, CLF sorted the products by strength. Only one manufacturer
(Owens Corning, 2024) provided GWP data for all of the strengths identified in this report. Therefore, while not ideal, CLF set XPS
baseline values based on data from the single manufacturer that reports impacts for all strengths. (This manufacturer’s impacts were at
the high end of the range for the set of reduced-GWP data points.)
Industry EPD representativeness information.
 EPS industry-average EPD (EPS-IA, 2023). The EPD is based on primary data from 26 EPS insulation manufacturing plants of
ten companies, covering roughly 46% of the EPS insulation produced in the US and Canada. Three of the included companies
(comprising 18 plants) are among the top five EPS molders in the U.S. and Canada (G. Zimmerman, personal communication,
2024). Note: This baseline value covers ASTM Type I EPS. The industry EPD provides scaling factors to calculate results for
other EPS types.
 Fiberglass board industry-average EPD (NAIMA, 2023c). The EPD is based on primary data from four participating
manufacturers who constitute most of the North American fiberglass industry.
 Heavy density mineral wool board industry-average EPD (NAIMA, 2023e). The EPD is based on primary data from three
participating manufacturers and from key suppliers of upstream ingredients. NAIMA covers all North American mineral wool
insulation manufacturers.
 Polyiso wall insulation boards industry-average EPD (PIMA, 2020b); Polyiso roof insulation boards industry-average EPD
(PIMA, 2020a). The two polyiso industry EPDs are based on primary data from 36 polyiso manufacturing facilities in the US and
Canada. “Primary data was collected for production of polyester polyols [one of polyiso’s two major chemical ingredients],
GRF and CGF facers, and manufacturing of polyiso roof insulation boards (including energy, water and raw material inputs,
transportation distances and modes for raw materials, direct emissions, wastewater and manufacturing waste).”

Additional notes and guidance

Changes in thermal properties over time: XPS and polyiso foam boards use chemical blowing agents —
trapped gases in the foam cells that provide high initial thermal resistance. As the blowing agent diffuses
to the atmosphere and air diffuses into the insulation, the boards lose some thermal insulating
performance over time. This results in a long-term thermal resistance (LTTR) that is less than the
insulating value at the time of manufacture. EPS and GPS have trapped air in their cells, so there is no
diffusion or decrease in long-term thermal resistance. The functional unit for insulation (per the PCR)
accounts for initial thermal resistance only and does not account for any changes over time.

User note: The CLF baselines for XPS include B1 and C4 to account for blowing agent emissions. The 2023
CLF baselines included B1 and C4 for all board insulation products, to maintain equivalent treatment
across the category. (B1 was zero and C4 was very small for all board insulations besides XPS.) In this 2025
version, the baselines for board insulation types besides XPS cover only A1–A3, making them simpler to
use and more consistent with other categories. Any comparisons across product types (in this category or
any other) should consider the complete life cycle and any effects on other materials in the assembly.

118 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Blanket Insulation

Category description
Blanket insulation products are flexible, semi-rigid insulating batts or rolls that generally fit in framing
cavities of a building envelope — i.e., between wall studs, floor joists, or ceiling rafters. This category
includes multiple product types distinguished by insulating material, each with similar (but not identical)
form and function.

CLF identifies the following two most common blanket insulation product types for this report:

● Mineral wool blanket: semi-rigid products corresponding with what the North American
Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) considers “light-density mineral wool board” with
a density of less than 4.4 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) (16 kg/m3) (NAIMA, 2018). Mineral wool is
also called “stone wool” or “rock wool.”

● Fiberglass blanket: fiberglass (also called “glass wool”) batts and rolls

Blanket insulation products may have a facer, such as kraft paper or foil, on one side or be unfaced. Other
less common insulating materials, including sheep wool and cotton, may also be produced as blankets.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Mineral wool blanket is a flexible, semi-rigid fibrous blanket insulation made from slag and natural rock,
such as basalt or feldspar. See the “Mineral wool heavy-density board” production process description, as
mineral wool blanket from mineral wool board differs only in density and shares the same production
processes and carbon emissions.

Fiberglass blanket: Like the process for mineral wool above, fiberglass insulation is produced by melting
feedstock at high temperatures. The molten glass is then spun or drawn through very small holes to
create fibers. Binder coatings are added, and the mixture is cured to the proper shape on a conveyor.
Facings such as kraft paper are added to one face of some products. The cured product is cut to size and
packaged. Off-cuts and scraps are recycled on-site by re-entering the production process (NIST, 2011).

Fiberglass insulation feedstock includes a blend of recycled glass (“cullet”) and raw ingredients: sand,
borax, soda ash, and limestone. The largest contributor to overall GWP is the energy consumption –
onsite natural gas or grid electricity – to power the furnace during manufacturing (A3) (CertainTeed Saint-
Gobain, 2019).

Figure 3.6.4. GWP contribution by life cycle stage.31

31CLF guesses that the very large mineral wool blanket industry EPD A4 value could be a mistake, as it more than 100
times the A4 value from the fiberglass blanket (a similar product type) industry EPD. CLF reached out to the EPD
owner about this but did not yet receive a response.

119 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.6.5. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3. There is one industry EPD for faced fiberglass blanket and one for unfaced
fiberglass blanket, with very similar results.

Table 3.6.3. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per m2 @ RSI-1.

Industry EPDs Product EPDs

EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Fiberglass blanket 2 1.04 26 0.82 1.01 1.17 1.23 1.31 1.60 2.80 1.33
Mineral wool blanket 1 2.68 30 0.88 1.15 1.37 1.54 1.67 2.01 2.68 1.61

Figure 3.6.6. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

120 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources
Table 3.6.4. Blanket insulation baselines per 1 m2 @ RSI-1.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Fiberglass blanketa 1.06 Fiberglass batt (faced) industry-average EPD (NAIMA, Industry (single)
2023a)

Mineral wool blanketb 2.68 Mineral wool light-density board industry-average EPD Industry (single)
(NAIMA, 2023f)

Blanket insulation (general) 1.9 Fiberglass batt (faced) and mineral wool light-density Industry (multi-
board industry-average EPDs (NAIMA, 2023a; NAIMA, unweighted)
2023f). Unweighted average. Parent category baseline.**
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
**See “Similar product types and parent vs. child baselines” in Section 2.2.
a In
the future, CLF may provide separate baseline values for faced vs. unfaced fiberglass blankets. The provided value is based on the
industry-average EPD for faced fiberglass batts; the industry-average EPD’s reported GWP for unfaced fiberglass (NAIMA, 2023b) is less
than 5% different from that of the faced version.
bMineral wool blanket insulation GWP varies considerably with product density. Future baselines may account for that variation more
accurately. The current approach, following the NAIMA EPDs, simply separates all mineral wool board and blanket products into two
“buckets” — those with a density less than 4.4 pcf and those with a density greater than 4.4 pcf.
Industry EPD representativeness information.
 Fiberglass batt (faced) industry-average EPD (NAIMA, 2023a). The EPD lists four participating manufacturers. NAIMA covers all
North American fiberglass insulation manufacturers.
 Mineral wool light density board industry-average EPD (NAIMA, 2023f). NAIMA covers all North American mineral wool
insulation manufacturers. The EPD lists three participating manufacturers.

Foamed-in-Place Insulation
Category description
Foamed-in-place insulations are spray polyurethane foam (SPF) products that are made at the time of
installation by combining two chemical components. When combined, these components react and
expand quickly into foam at the point of application. They provide thermal insulation and air sealing to
the building envelope — in framing cavities (such as between studs or rafters), continuously (such as over
roof decks), or to fill specific gaps between elements (such as between window frames and wall framing).

Primary types of foamed-in-place insulation, based on functional performance and as differentiated in

the industry EPDs (SPFA, 2024a; SPFA, 2024b; SPFA, 2024c), include the following:

● Medium density closed-cell SPF (ccSPF) (referred to simply as “closed-cell SPF” in the industry
EPDs). This closed-cell foam is typically used in stud cavities or for air-sealing and can provide
continuous insulation.

121 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
 ● Roofing closed-cell SPF is a high-density closed-cell foam typically used for low-slope roofs and
can provide continuous insulation.
● Open-cell SPF (ocSPF) is a low-density foam that provides insulation and air sealing. Unlike
closed-cell foams, which cure to a hard texture, open-cell foams tend to stay “spongy.”

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Spray polyurethane foam is made from two chemical components (referred to as A-side and B-side), which
are themselves made from multiple chemical inputs. The manufacturer produces these components
(accounted for in A3), which are delivered to the job site in separate tanks. During installation (A5), the
installer mixes and simultaneously sprays the A-side and B-side components onto the application surface,
where the mixture expands to create foam. Spray foam insulation is unique compared to the rest of the
materials in this report in that the cradle-to-gate (A1–A3) product (comprising two tanks of chemical
mixtures) bears no physical resemblance to the installed product (foam insulation).

Closed-cell spray foams (including roofing foams) use a chemical blowing agent to expand the foam.
North American manufacturers have conventionally used hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) as the chemical
blowing agent, which have a very high global warming potential (GWP). Canada and the US (as of 2025) do
not allow certain HFC blowing agents in foam insulations. New closed-cell foam formulations typically
use HFO blowing agents as a lower-GWP replacement for HFCs. This replacement significantly reduces the
GWP of closed-cell spray foams.32 (See the board insulation section of this report for further discussion of
blowing agents.)

Chemical blowing agents are emitted to the atmosphere and contribute to climate change during
installation (A5, including direct emissions to the atmosphere during installation and indirect emissions
from installation waste that is disposed of and gradually emits blowing agent to the atmosphere),
gradually during use (B1), and disposal (C4).

Open-cell spray foams generally do not use a chemical blowing agent but rather use water as a reactive
non-chemical blowing agent.

Figure 3.6.7. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. Results by product type (ccSPF, medium density; ccSPF, roofing; ocSPF) and
blowing agent (HFC, HFO, and water (H2O). A1= production of chemical inputs; A3 = mixing/production of the two spray foam chemical
components; A5 = production of the foam when chemical components are mixed during installation—includes energy to operate instal

32 SPFA provided spray foam blowing agent information (R. Duncan, personal communication, 2025).

122 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
lation equipment, release of blowing agent to atmosphere, and management of installation waste; B1 = blowing agent release to
atmosphere during building life; C4 = blowing agent release to atmosphere at disposal.

EPD data availability and distribution

There were no applicable product EPDs in CLF’s dataset for foamed-in-place insulation. Therefore, this
section does not include the charts and data for foamed-in-place insulation that appear for other
categories in this report.
CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was medium.33

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.6.5. Foamed-in-place insulation baselines per 1 m2 @ RSI-1.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Closed-cell spray polyurethane foam, 2.63 Medium density SPF, HFO industry-average EPD (SPFA, Industry (single)
medium density 2024a). Includes modules A1–A3 and A5 to account for
blowing agent emissions during installation.

Closed-cell spray polyurethane foam, 3.87 Roofing SPF, HFO industry-average EPD (SPFA, 2024c). Industry (single)
roofing Includes modules A1–A3 and A5 to account for blowing
agent emissions during installation.

Open-cell spray polyurethane foam 1.17 Open-cell SPF industry-average EPD (SPFA, 2024b) Industry (single)
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
Industry EPD representativeness information. Medium density ccSPF, HFO industry-average EPDs (SPFA, 2024a); roofing SPF, HFO
industry-average EPD (SPFA, 2024c); open-cell SPF industry-average EPD (SPFA, 2024b). All three SPF industry EPDs state: “This EPD is
intended to represent an industry average for ccSPF. The average is calculated based on a weighted-average formulation for side-B,
combined with production data collected from each member’s facility. The data were weighted according to the mass produced by
each member (i.e., vertical averaging). The formulators participating in this study represent a significant majority of the U.S. SPF
production.”

Additional notes and guidance

The closed-cell and roofing SPF baselines are based on data for HFO-blown SPF products and apply to the
US and Canada. In locations where HFC-based spray foam products are the predominant type available, it
may be appropriate to develop a different baseline. See the latest SPFA industry-average EPDs for HFC-
based products for data (SPFA, 2025).

33It would otherwise have been low, but because EC3 did not have the latest spray foam industry EPDs in its database
at the time of CLF’s data extraction, CLF manually inputted the relevant industry EPD data into our dataset.

123 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Loose-Fill Insulation
Category description
The category includes unbonded loose-fill insulations that are typically installed in attics or wall cavities
via a blowing machine. Some resources refer to this category of products as “blown insulation” or
“blowing wool.” This report includes the following common loose-fill insulation product types:
● loose-fill mineral wool
● loose-fill fiberglass
● loose-fill cellulose
Less common material types are also available, such as cotton and sheep wool.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Mineral wool loose fill: See the “Mineral wool heavy-density board” description, as mineral wool loose
fill shares similar production processes (besides the addition of binders and the forming into boards) and
associated carbon emissions as mineral wool board and blanket.

Fiberglass loose fill: See the “Fiberglass blanket” description, as fiberglass loose fill mostly shares the
same production processes (besides the addition of binders and the forming into blankets) and
associated carbon emissions as fiberglass blanket.

Cellulose loose fill is produced from a blend of post-consumer recycled paper and cardboard fibers
(approximately 85% of the material) and fire retardants such as boric acid and magnesium sulfate. The
fibers are shredded into small fragments and mixed in a fiberizer where fire retardants are added. In most
cases, nothing is melted or dried during the process. The combined material is baled and packaged into
25-lb bags. At the project site, the material is loaded into a blowing machine hopper where the product is
installed in walls, attics, and between floors (CIMA, 2019; R. Stern, personal communication, 2024).

Figure 3.6.8. GWP contribution by life cycle stage.

124 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.6.9. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.6.6. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3, in units of kg CO2e per m2 @ RSI-1.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Cellulose loose fill 1 0.49 7 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.39 0.26
Fiberglass loose fill 1 0.99 6 0.33 0.36 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.87 0.87 0.54
Mineral Wool loose fill 1 1.89 1 1.76 -- -- 1.76 -- -- 1.76 1.76
Sheep wool loose fill 0 -- 1 1.76 -- -- 1.76 -- -- 1.76 1.76

Figure 3.6.10. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

125 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources
Table 3.6.7. Loose-fill insulation baselines per 1 m2 @ RSI-1.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Mineral wool loose fill 1.89 Loose-fill mineral wool industry-average EPD (NAIMA, Industry (single)
2023g)

Fiberglass loose fill 0.988 Loose-fill fiberglass industry-average EPD (NAIMA, Industry (single)
2023d)

Cellulose loose fill 0.487 Loose-fill cellulose industry-average EPD (CIMA, 2019) Industry (single)

Loose-fill insulation (all types) 1.1 Loose-fill mineral wool, fiberglass, and cellulose Industry (multi-
industry-average EPDs (NAIMA, 2023g; NAIMA, 2023d; unweighted)
CIMA, 2019). Unweighted average. Parent category
baseline.**
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
**See “Similar product types and parent vs. child baselines” in Section 2.2.
Industry EPD representativeness information.
 Loose-fill mineral wool industry-average EPD (NAIMA, 2023g). NAIMA covers all North American mineral wool insulation
manufacturers. The EPD lists two participating manufacturers.
 Loose-fill fiberglass industry-average EPD (NAIMA, 2023d). NAIMA covers all North American fiberglass insulation
manufacturers. The EPD lists four participating manufacturers.
 Loose-fill cellulose industry-average EPD (CIMA, 2019). The EPD states that it represents manufacturing data from “13
locations across the United States and Canada (Ohio, Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, Wisconsin,
Pennsylvania, Alabama, New York, Alaska, Missouri, Texas, Iowa, Michigan, Alberta, Quebec, Ontario).”34

34The originally published EPD shows a 2024 expiration date, but Sustainable Minds (2020) shows a 2025 expiration
date, so it is included here as applicable.

126 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
3.7 Fire and Smoke Protection
Spray-Applied Fire-Resistive Materials
Category description
Spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM), also known as “spray-applied fireproofing” or “applied
fireproofing,” refers to a family of gypsum- or cement-based products that are sprayed or trowelled onto
steel, concrete, and foamed plastic substrates to provide a fire resistance rating. SFRM’s main use is
protecting structural steel, metal decking, and other assemblies from high temperatures during a fire by
thermally insulating the structural members to keep them below the temperatures that cause failure.
Secondarily, SFRM can provide thermal and acoustical treatment. They may be used in interior or exterior
conditions.35

This report includes the following three most common types of SFRM in North America:

● Standard-density SFRM with a density of 15 pounds per cubic foot (PCF)

● Medium-density SFRM with a density of 22 PCF
● High-density SFRM with a density of 40 PCF or greater

The industry is dominated by three manufacturers — GCP, Isolatek, and Carboline — that together
account for more than 99% of the SFRM materials supplied in North America. SFRM is among the most
widely used materials to provide a fire-resistance rating. A large project can use up to several million
pounds of material.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

The product group includes inorganic cementitious SFRMs composed primarily of binding agents such as
cement or gypsum and other materials such as mineral wool, quartz, perlite, expanded polystyrene, or
vermiculite.

A1 extraction and upstream production processes include gypsum and vermiculite mining to procure ore,
cement production, and paper and polystyrene recycling. One manufacturer’s EPD reports that A1 is the
largest contributor to A1–A3 GWP, contributing up to 82% depending on the product density (GCP, 2022).

A3 manufacturing includes some combination (depending on the input materials) of grinding, crushing,
heating, mixing, and blending the ingredients. The resulting powder is packaged and stored. Other facility
operations include lighting, heating, on-site loading and transportation, and storage.

At the project site, the powder is mixed with water to form a slurry that is applied onto the substrate.

Applicable PCRs
Smart EPD published a new version of the PCR for spray-applied fire-resistive materials (SFRM) in 2025:
Smart EPD. (2025). Part B PCR for Spray-Applied Fire-Resistive Materials (SFRM).

35J. Dalton of GCP (personal communication, 2025) provided much of the content for the applied fireproofing
category and production process descriptions.

127 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
All SFRM EPDs used in this report’s analysis use the previous PCR version:

ASTM International. (2017). Product Category Rules for Preparing an Environmental Declaration for Spray-
Applied Fire-Resistive Materials (SFRM).

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.7.1. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.7.1. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3, in units of kg CO2e per metric ton.

Industry EPDs Product EPDs

EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
SFRM, standard density 0 -- 4 210 -- -- 386 -- -- 567 388
SFRM, medium density 0 -- 7 384 558 816 816 833 867 1,020 749
SFRM, high density 0 -- 6 621 851 854 863 871 947 1,270 902

Figure 3.7.2. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was high. See Appendix B for more information.

128 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources
Table 3.7.2. Applied fireproofing baselines per 1 metric ton.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Spray-applied fireproofing, standard 388 Collection of applied fireproofing product EPDs, Product (unweighted);
density unweighted average.a sampling fractionb

Spray-applied fireproofing, medium 749 Collection of applied fireproofing product EPDs, Product (unweighted);
density unweighted average.a sampling fractionb

Spray-applied fireproofing, high 902 Collection of applied fireproofing product EPDs, Product (unweighted);
density unweighted average.a sampling fractionb
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches.
a Setof applicable product EPDs for SFRM (Carboline, 2023a; Carboline, 2023b; GCP, 2022; Isolatek International, 2024a; Isolatek
International, 2024b)
b Representativeness assessment and calculation note: CLF considers the available set of EPDs sufficiently representative of the
industry because the sampling fraction (the sample size compared to the total North American industry) is greater than 80%. All three
major manufacturers that, combined, produce over 99% of North American applied fireproofing products have EPDs for each product
type by density. The provided baseline values are the unweighted average (mean) of the set of applicable EPDs per density type.

129 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
3.8 Cladding and Roofing
This category includes non-insulated and insulated metal wall and roof cladding panels, single-ply
roofing membranes, and asphalt shingles.

Metal Panel Cladding (non-insulated)

Category description
This category includes non-insulated metal panels for roof and wall cladding. In alignment with the
industry-wide EPDs, this report includes the following categories:

● Roll-formed metal cladding panels

○ Roll-formed steel cladding
○ Roll-formed aluminum cladding
● Metal composite material (MCM) cladding panels

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Roll-formed metal panels are coated metal profiles, such as box rib or standing seam. They are made by
feeding coiled steel or aluminum through a roll former. The upstream production of steel or aluminum
contributes the overwhelming majority of emissions to the total cradle-to-gate GWP for roll-formed
panels. In the industry EPDs, A1 — accounting for the steel or aluminum coil production — is over 98% of
the total A1–A3 GWP impact (MCA, 2020c).

Metal composite material (MCM) panels are made of two sheets (sometimes called “skins”) of coated
metal that sandwich a thin plastic core. Products vary in terms of the metal type (aluminum, steel, etc.),
metal thickness, core type, and core thickness (typically 3,4, or 6 mm). The industry EPD is based on a
reference product with 0.02-inch (0.508 mm) thick aluminum skins and 4 mm thick polyethylene (PE) and
fire-resistant (FR) core. The metal and core each constitute 50% of the total product by mass. The
upstream production of the input materials, particularly the metal coil, is the largest contributor (over
90% in the industry EPD) to the cradle-to-gate GWP (MCA, 2020b).

Figure 3.8.1. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. A1 = steel and aluminum making, rolling into coil, plastics production (MCM
only); A2 = transport of coil and plastic to roll forming or MCM facility; A3 = manufacture of panels via roll forming or laminating.

130 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
PCR
Roll-formed metal cladding, MCM panels, and insulated metal panels (the next section) use a declared
unit of 100 m2 and follow the North American PCR, whose validity has been extended to 2025:

UL Environment. (2018). PCR Part B: Insulated Metal Panels, Metal Composite Panels, and Metal Cladding:
Roof and Wall Panels.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.8.2. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.8.1. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per 100 m2.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Roll-formed metal cladding 2 1,694 8 994 1,484 1,868 1,940 1,984 3,612 5,650 2,533
MCM panel 1 2,800 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Figure 3.8.3. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low.36 See Appendix B for more information.

Because CLF’s categorization for cladding panels differs somewhat from that of EC3 (e.g., CLF considers roof and
36

wall panels together while EC3 has separate categories for roof panels and wall panels), and because CLF’s EC3 data

131 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources
Table 3.8.2. Metal panel cladding baselines per 100 m2.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Roll-formed metal panel - steel 1,530 Roll-formed metal panel industry-average EPD (MCA, Industry (single)
2020c)

Roll-formed metal panel - aluminum 1,860 Roll-formed metal panel industry-average EPD (MCA, Industry (single)
2020c)

Roll-formed metal panel (all) 1,700 Roll-formed metal panel industry-average EPD (MCA, Industry (multi-
2020c), unweighted average of metal types. Parent unweighted)
category baseline.**

MCM panel, aluminum 2,800 MCM panel industry-average EPD (MCA, 2020b) Industry (single)
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
**See “Similar product types and parent vs. child baselines” in Section 2.2.
Industry EPD representativeness information.
 Roll-formed metal wall and roof cladding industry-average EPD (MCA, 2020c). This industry EPD is based on a sample of
primary data from six participating companies, “representing a significant majority of annual production in the US and
Canada.” The sample size in proportion to total North American production is not disclosed.

 MCM industry-average EPD (MCA, 2020b). This industry EPD is based on a sample of primary data from three participating
companies, “representing a significant majority of annual production in the US and Canada.” The sample size in proportion to
total North American production is not disclosed.

Insulated Metal Panels

Category description
Insulated metal panels (IMPs) consist of two sheets of coated metal that sandwich an insulating core.
They serve as wall and roof cladding, providing a vapor, air, and moisture barrier, as well as thermal
performance for the building envelope (MCA, 2020a). A panel’s thickness and associated R-value
significantly affect both functional performance and its GWP per declared unit (100 m2). Therefore, IMPs
should be compared based on thickness or R-value. CLF identifies IMP product types for this report by
thickness, including three common panel thicknesses and the option for user-defined product types:

● IMP, 2” thick
● IMP, 4” thick
● IMP, 6” thick
● IMP, user-defined thickness

export did not include metal type (steel vs. aluminum), CLF performed more manual QA than in most other cases with
low data QA intensity.

132 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions
IMP metal skins are made from galvanized steel (or similar metal) coil. The upstream steel production and
galvanization processes are major contributors to the panel’s cradle-to-gate GWP.

There are different types of insulating materials used for IMPs’ insulating cores. Mineral wool is
sometimes used as an IMP insulating material. In this case, the insulation is produced upstream of the IMP
facility and would be accounted for in A1. In other cases, IMPs use rigid foam insulation, which is
produced via foam injection during the panel manufacturing process and is accounted for in A3. The
industry-wide EPD represents IMPs with a polyurethane foam insulation core, where the emission of HFC
blowing agents during the foam production process contributes to the cradle-to-gate GWP of the panels
(MCA, 2020a). Other (non-polyurethane) foam insulations used for IMPs are HFC-free, resulting in
relatively lower GWP. (See Figure 3.8.5.)

Figure 3.8.4. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. A1 = galvanized steel coil production, production of chemical ingredients to
polyurethane; A2 = transport of input materials to IMP manufacturing facility; A3 = manufacture of panels, including production of
polyurethane foam.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.8.5. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3. The product EPD data includes IMPs at various thicknesses, limiting
comparability. CLF provides three discrete IMP baseline values and an equation to generate additional values. This chart includes only
the value that is based on the published industry-average EPD value.
Table 3.8.3. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per 100 m2. The product EPD data
includes IMPs at various thicknesses, limiting comparability.

Industry EPDs Product EPDs

EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
IMP (all thicknesses) 1 10,712 26 2,650 -- -- -- -- -- 7,190 4,437

133 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.8.6. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low.37 See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.8.4. Insulated metal panel baselines per 100 m2.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Insulated metal panel (IMP), 2" thick 10,700 IMP industry-average EPD (MCA, 2020a) Industry (single)

Insulated metal panel (IMP), 4" thick 19,100 IMP industry-average EPD (MCA, 2020a) and personal Industry (single)
communication with MCA.a

Insulated metal panel (IMP), 6" thick 27,400 IMP industry-average EPD (MCA, 2020a) and personal Industry (single)
communication with MCA.a

Insulated metal panel (IMP), user- [user- IMP industry-average EPD (MCA, 2020a) and personal Industry (single)
defined thickness calculated] communication with MCA.a Calculate baseline (b) for
any thickness in inches (t) as: b = 4184 + 2332(t),
rounded to three significant digits.b
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
a Theindustry EPD describes a range of product types under study, with varying foam thickness (2–6”), metal thickness (22–26 gauge),
and types of foam. The reference product used to generate the results is a 2” product. The Metal Construction Association (MCA)
provided CLF with the industry-average GWP values for other thicknesses (R. Zabcik, personal communication, 2025).

37Because CLF’s categorization differs somewhat from that of EC3 for this category (e.g., EC3 has separate categories
for insulated roof panels and insulated wall panels), CLF performed more manual QA than in most other cases with
low data QA intensity.

134 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
b Baseline value for user-defined thickness: IMP is essentially a two-component product — metal skins and insulation. Across
different panel thicknesses, the metal skin quantity and associated impact are constant, while the insulation quantity and associated
impact scale with thickness. The following linear equation allows one to calculate a baseline GWP (b) for any given panel thickness in
inches (t):
b = 4184 + 2332 × t [rounded to three significant digits, i.e., the nearest 100],
where:
b = baseline GWP (kg CO2e/100 m2) for IMP at a given panel thickness t
t = panel thickness (inches)
The constants are: 4,814 = the industry-average impact of the metal skins (kg CO2e/100 m2), and 2,332 = the industry-average impact of
the insulation (kg CO2e/100 m2) per inch thickness (R. Zabcik, personal communication, 2025).

Additional notes and guidance

Upcoming industry EPD: MCA is updating its insulated metal panel industry EPD, and expects
significantly lower impacts in the new version, reflecting the IMP industry’s shift towards foams with
lower-GWP blowing agents.

Membrane Roofing
Category description
Membrane roofing products serve as the watertight seal on low-slope roofs. They can generally be divided
into three groups: asphalt built-up roofing, modified bitumen layer systems, and single-ply synthetic
membranes. CLF identifies the following membrane roofing product types for this report, in alignment
with the available industry-average EPDs.

● Asphalt built-up roofing (BUR), differentiated by installation method

● Modified bitumen layer systems
○ SBS-modified bitumen, differentiated by installation method
○ APP-modified bitumen, differentiated by installation method
○ SBS/APP-modified bitumen
● Single-ply synthetic membranes
○ PVC, differentiated by thickness
○ TPO, differentiated by thickness
○ EPDM, differentiated by reinforcement and thickness

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Asphalt BUR includes multiple alternating layers of asphalt bitumen and bitumen-saturated ply sheets
called “felts.” The top of the roof is typically covered with a protective layer of gravel to UV damage to the
asphalt (ICC, 2013). According to the BUR industry EPDs, production of the asphalt inputs contributes over
80% of A1–A3 GWP. BUR’s installation (A5) impact can be larger than that of A1–A3, making it unique
among all product types in this report (Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA), 2023d; ARMA,
2023e). See Figure 3.8.7.

135 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Modified bitumen roof coverings are one or more layers of asphalt sheets that have been modified with a
rubber (SBS) or plastic (APP) polymer, or a combination of the two, to provide flexibility. These may be
fully adhered or mechanically fastened. The production of the inputs accounts for approximately 80% of
A1–A3 GWP. Though not as drastic as for BUR systems, installation (A5) is a substantial contributor to total
A1–A5 emissions (ARMA, 2023b; 2023c; 2023f; 2023g; 2023h; 2023i; 2023j; 2023k). See Figure 3.8.7.

Singly-ply roofing membranes are either thermoplastic (which have a lower melting point and can be
heated and melted again) or thermoset (which can withstand higher temperatures and remain in a
permanently solid state) membranes of compounded synthetic materials manufactured in a factory. They
are commonly attached to the building by one of two methods: fully adhered or mechanically fastened.
The typical life expectancy of a single-ply roof membrane is 25-40 years (IKO, 2023).

Single-ply polyester reinforced (SPPR) polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is a thermoplastic membrane made
from PVC resin (≈45% of product composition by mass; derived from fossil fuel and salt), plasticizer
(≈26%; contributes to membrane flexibility), and polyester fiber (PET) scrim reinforcement (≈13%;). Other
ingredients include pigment (titanium dioxide), fire retardant, stabilizers, and fillers. The manufacturing
process combines these ingredients in the factory to form a membrane (A3), which is eventually
transported to the construction site (A4) and fastened along with other roof build-up components (e.g.,
thermal insulation) onto the underlying structure (A5) (CFFA, 2020). At the product’s end of life, the
industry EPD assumes 70% landfill disposal and 30% diverted as secondary material to be recycled back
to the PVC roofing system or to other PVC products such as commercial PVC flooring.

Ketone ethylene ester (KEE) is a plasticizer that can be combined with PVC in various ratios. At relatively
low KEE quantities in the mix, the roof is still considered a PVC membrane. At relatively high KEE
quantities in the mix, the roof is considered a KEE membrane. This report includes product EPD data for
KEE membranes but does not include KEE membrane baseline values.

TPO (Thermoplastic polyolefin) single-ply roofing is made primarily of a base resin (≈57% of product
composition by mass), fire retardant (≈22%), and PET scrim reinforcement (≈6%), along with a range of
other ingredients that enhance the membrane’s performance. At the factory, the mix is heated and
extruded onto the scrim, then cooled and run through rollers to form a solid membrane at the desired
thickness.

EPDM (ethylene propylene diene terpolymer) is a thermoset membrane made primarily of base EPDM
resin (≈26% of product composition by mass), pigment (≈23%), paraffinic oil (≈19%), and filler (≈16%),
along with a range of other ingredients that aid in the manufacturing process or membrane performance.
At the factory, the mix is heated and extruded into a sheet and pressed to the desired thickness. The
membrane can optionally include a reinforcing polyester scrim, applied before curing. (There are
separate EPDM industry EPDs and CLF baseline values for reinforced and non-reinforced EPDM
membranes.)

The industry EPDs for these products have different scopes: those for BUR, modified bitumen, and PVC
include A1–A3, A4, A5, and C-stages. Those for EPDM and TPO include A1, A2, and A3 only.

136 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.8.7. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. Relevant processes depend on the product type. Note that different product
types in the chart include different life cycle stage data, reflecting what is included in the industry EPDs.

Applicable PCRs
The PCR for built-up asphalt and modified bitumen EPDs is:

UL. (2021). Product Category Rules (PCR) Guidance for Building Related Products and Services Part B:
Asphalt Shingles, Built-up Asphalt Membrane Roofing and Modified Bituminous Membrane Roofing EPD
Requirements. (UL, 2021)

The PCR for single-ply roofing membrane EPDs is:

ASTM International. (2019). PCR for Single Ply Roofing Membranes. NSF International. (ASTM International,
2019)

137 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.8.8. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.8.5. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per 1 m2.

Industry EPDs Product EPDs

EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
BUR 2 2.82 1 -- -- -- 0.90 -- -- -- 0.90
Modified bitumen 8 6.45 9 1.26 1.77 2.26 2.53 2.86 3.54 4.29 2.67
PVC 4 6.00 25 3.52 3.97 4.50 4.90 5.10 5.98 8.10 5.10
KEE 0 -- 7 4.30 5.34 5.90 6.50 6.62 7.42 8.70 6.37
TPO 3 4.55 4 -- -- -- 3.53 -- -- -- 3.81
EPDM 6 6.97 1 -- -- -- 4.28 -- -- -- 4.28

CLF’s membrane roof dataset lacked state or province information for all but one EPD (Arkansas), so no
map is shown here.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.8.6. Membrane roofing baselines per 1 m2.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Built-up asphalt roofing (BUR), Hot 2.57 Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023d) Industry (single)
Asphalt

BUR, Fastened Base, 2 Ply Felts and 3.06 Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023e) Industry (single)
Cap in Hot Asphalt

SBS-modified bitumen roofing 5.81 Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023g) Industry (single)
membrane, installation: cold adhesive

138 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
 Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

SBS-modified bitumen roofing 5.81 Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023h) Industry (single)
membrane, installation: hot asphalt

SBS-modified bitumen roofing 5.54 Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023i) Industry (single)
membrane, installation: hybrid self-
adhered SBS base sheet and torch-
applied SBS cap

SBS-modified bitumen roofing 5.20 Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023j) Industry (single)
membrane, installation: self-adhered

SBS-modified bitumen roofing 5.85 Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023k) Industry (single)
membrane, installation: torch applied

SBS-modified bitumen roofing 5.64 Collection of SBS-modified bitumen industry-average Industry (multi-
membrane EPDs (ARMA, 2023g; 2023h; 2023i; 2023j; 2023k), weighted)
unweighted average. Parent category baseline.**

APP-modified bitumen roofing 9.22 Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023b) Industry (single)
membrane, installation: cold adhesive

APP-modified bitumen roofing 9.01 Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023c) Industry (single)
membrane, installation: torch applied:

APP-modified bitumen roofing 9.12 Collection of APP-modified bitumen roof membrane Industry (multi-
membrane industry-average EPDs (ARMA, 2023b; 2023c), weighted)
unweighted average. Parent category baseline.**

SBS/APP-modified bitumen roofing 5.13 Industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023f) Industry (single)
membrane, hybrid self-adhered SBS
base sheet and torch-applied APP

Single ply PVC membrane roofing, 40 4.2 PVC single-ply roofing industry-average EPD (CFFA, 2020) Industry (single)
mils

Single ply PVC membrane roofing, 48 5.2 PVC single-ply roofing industry-average EPD (CFFA, 2020) Industry (single)
mils

Single ply PVC membrane roofing, 60 6.3 PVC single-ply roofing industry-average EPD (CFFA, 2020) Industry (single)
mils

Single ply PVC membrane roofing, 80 8.3 PVC single-ply roofing industry-average EPD (CFFA, 2020) Industry (single)
mils

TPO membrane roofing, 45 mil 3.32 TPO single-ply roofing industry-average EPD (SPRI, 2023) Industry (single)

TPO membrane roofing, 60 mil 4.29 TPO single-ply roofing industry-average EPD (SPRI, 2023) Industry (single)

TPO membrane roofing, 80 mil 6.05 TPO single-ply roofing industry-average EPD (SPRI, 2023) Industry (single)

EPDM membrane roofing, reinforced, 5.42 Reinforced EPDM membrane industry-average EPD Industry (single)
45 mil (SPRI, 2022b)

EPDM membrane roofing, reinforced, 7.100 Reinforced EPDM membrane industry-average EPD Industry (single)
60 mil (SPRI, 2022b)

139 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
 Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

EPDM membrane roofing, reinforced, 8.86 Reinforced EPDM membrane industry-average EPD Industry (single)
75 mil (SPRI, 2022b)

EPDM membrane roofing, non- 4.73 Non-reinforced EPDM membrane industry average EPD Industry (single)
reinforced, 45 mil (SPRI, 2022a)

EPDM membrane roofing, non- 6.14 Non-reinforced EPDM membrane industry average EPD Industry (single)
reinforced, 60 mil (SPRI, 2022a)

EPDM membrane roofing, non- 9.56 Non-reinforced EPDM membrane industry average EPD Industry (single)
reinforced, 90 mil (SPRI, 2022a)
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
**See “Similar product types and parent vs. child baselines” in Section 2.2.
Industry EPD representativeness information.
 All of the ARMA industry EPDs for BUR and modified bitumen roofing state: “At least 75% of the production market is
estimated to be represented within this study. The geographic coverage represented by this study is the United States and
Canada, though some manufacturers source their raw materials from outside this region…Results are presented as
production weighted averages for the U.S. and Canada.”
 PVC single-ply roofing industry-average EPD (CFFA, 2020). “In total 6 facilities operated by the 6 CFFA company members…
completed LCI data collection questionnaires to support the development of this LCA Project Report. Combined their annual
production represents over 85% of North American production of single-ply polyester reinforced PVC roofing membranes.”
Unlike most EPDs that report GWP results to at least three significant figures, the CFFA EPD reports GWP results to two
significant figures. CLF’s PVC roofing baseline values match what is in the EPD.
 TPO single-ply roofing industry-average EPD (Single Ply Roofing Industry (SPRI), 2023). “This study represents seven SPRI
member companies with facilities across the United States,” including plants in Utah, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Alabama (two
plants), South Carolina, and Maryland.
 Reinforced EPDM membrane industry-average EPD (SPRI, 2022b). The EPD is based on data from three manufacturing
locations in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Arizona.
 Non-reinforced EPDM membrane industry average EPD (SPRI, 2022a). The EPD is based on data from four manufacturing
locations in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, and Arizona.

140 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Additional notes and guidance
User notes: User calculation for PVC single-ply roofing of other thicknesses. The PVC membrane
roofing GWP values scale nearly linearly with thickness (mm or mils). For developing an approximate
industry-average baseline GWP value (b) for a PVC membrane roof of a different thickness than the four
thicknesses provided, consider using the equation:

𝑏 = 0.1053 × 𝑡 rounded to three significant digits,

Where:

𝑏 = approximate industry-average GWP for PVC single-ply roofing (kg CO2e/m2)

𝑡 = membrane thickness in mils.

CLF calculated the average b/mil = 0.1053 by dividing the total GWP results by the total thickness for the
four thicknesses of product provided in the industry EPD.

Asphalt Shingles
Category description
Asphalt shingles are a common steep-slope roofing product that serves as the primary weather barrier in
a roofing system that also includes underlayment, leak barrier, starter strip, and hip and ridge
components (Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA), 2023a). The same product is also called
“asphalt composition shingles” or “composition shingles.”

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Asphalt shingles are composed of a base fiberglass mat, coated with a filled asphalt coating, and topped
with colored mineral granules. An asphalt-based adhesive is then applied to the shingles to allow for easy
adhesion between shingles during the installation process (ARMA, 2023a).

EPDs may cover the asphalt shingles only or the overall system, including the shingles, hip and ridge, leak
barrier, starter strip, and underlayment. The shingles constitute almost 90% of the steep-slope roofing
system’s mass (ARMA, 2023a).

The industry-average EPD provides a main set of results for the “asphalt shingle roofing system.” The
scope includes the product stage (A1–A3), construction stage (A4 and A5), and end of life (C modules). The
industry-average EPD also provides separate A1–A3 results for the shingles. For the roofing system, about
80% of the product stage emissions are due to raw material extraction (A1), about 3% to transport (A2),
and 17% to manufacturing (A3) (ARMA, 2023a).

At the end of life, asphalt shingles can be recycled, most commonly into pavement, thus displacing some
virgin asphalt binder and aggregate used in pavements.

141 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.8.9. GWP contribution by life cycle stage.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.8.10. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.8.7. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per square
meter.

Industry EPDs Product EPDs

EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Asphalt shingles 1 3.61 2 3.43 -- -- 3.52 -- -- 3.60 3.52

Figure 3.8.11. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was medium. See Appendix B for more information.

142 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources
Table 3.8.8. Asphalt shingles baseline per 1 m2.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Asphalt shingles 3.61 Asphalt shingle industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023a) Industry (single)
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
Industry EPD representativeness information. Asphalt shingle industry-average EPD (ARMA, 2023a). This industry-average EPD is
based on primary manufacturing data covering at least 75% of the U.S. and Canada production market.

Additional notes and guidance

The industry EPD provides results for the roofing system assembly, including shingles and several other
components. Because the roofing system is a collection of products, no baseline is provided. Because it
may be useful as a data source for whole-building modeling, CLF includes the A1–A3 value here:
 Asphalt shingles — Steep-slope roofing system: 4.38 kg CO2e / m2

143 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
3.9 Openings
This section includes categories of flat glass, processed glass panes, insulated glazing units (IGUs), and
curtain walls.

The production process of a typical window or other glazing assembly (e.g., curtain wall or storefront),
starts with flat glass; then the flat glass panes are processed with coatings and/or other treatments to
produce processed glass panes; two or more glass panes (flat or processed) are combined to produce
insulated glass units (IGUs); and finally IGUs are assembled in a frame (typically made of thermally-
improved aluminum extrusions in the case of commercial applications) to produce the final curtain wall,
storefront, window, etc.

Flat Glass
Category description
Flat glass describes all glass produced in a flat form, such as float glass, sheet glass, plate glass, and rolled
glass. This material category focuses on clear, low-iron, and tinted glass products manufactured in an
unprocessed annealed state. Although flat glass may be installed directly in windows, doors, or glass
walls, most glass products used in construction applications have undergone secondary processing (e.g.,
tempered, coated, heat-treated, and/or laminated products). These additionally processed products are
covered by the processed glass category and are not within the scope of flat glass (NGA, 2019).

CLF identifies the following single product type of flat glass for this category.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Most flat glass used in buildings today is made from float glass. To make float glass, silica sand, soda ash,
limestone, dolomite, and reused scrap glass are mixed at extremely high temperatures to create molten
glass. The molten glass is then poured from the furnace onto the surface of a molten tin bath, where the
glass spreads to form a level surface. The thickness of the glass can be controlled by adjusting the speed
at which the solidifying glass is drawn off the bath. As the glass ribbon moves along the annealing lehr,
the glass is cooled to room temperature and can be cut to the desired dimensions. The finished flat glass
products are stored for additional processing (e.g., heat-treating or coating) or directly packaged and
shipped to customers (NGA, 2019).

The bulk (about 40%) of the carbon emissions associated with the cradle-to-gate glass production
processes can be attributed to the production and combustion of natural gas. Natural gas is used to
maintain extremely high temperatures inside the furnaces that melt raw materials that form glass. The
furnaces are predominantly natural gas-fired, but there are a small number of electrically powered
furnaces, and many gas furnaces use supplementary electric heating systems (Glass for Europe, 2022).
Process emissions resulting from chemical reactions in the glass manufacturing process contribute to
over 20% of cradle-to-gate emissions for flat glass. Another large proportion of emissions (over 20%) can
be traced to upstream impacts associated with the extraction and pre-processing of materials used in
glass manufacturing. Together, impacts from electricity, transport, process materials, waste materials,
and packaging make up the remaining emissions from flat glass production (NGA, 2019).

144 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.9.1. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. The EPD reports results for “Raw materials” (corresponding to what is typically
included in A1 and A2) and “Production” (corresponding to A3).

Applicable PCR
National Glass Association (NGA). (2020). NGA PCR for Flat Glass: UN CPC 3711. NSF International.

Flat glass EPDs use a declared unit of 1 metric ton (which is different from the other glazing products
included in this report).

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.9.2. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.9.1. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per metric ton.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Flat glass 1 1,430 12 1,100 1,250 1,264 1,280 1,320 1,368 1,470 1,303

Figure 3.9.3. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was high. See Appendix B for more information.

145 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources
Table 3.9.2. Flat glass baseline per metric ton.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Flat glass 1,430 Flat glass industry-average EPD (NGA, 2019) Industry (single)
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
Industry EPD representativeness information. Flat glass industry-average EPD (NGA, 2019). This industry EPD is based on flat glass
produced by four NGA member companies, out of six total companies manufacturing flat glass in North America (NGA, 2025). The EPD
expired at the end of 2024 and is based on the previous PCR for flat glass. Therefore, CLF has diminished confidence in its
representativeness of the present-day industry. If NGA publishes a new industry-average EPD for flat glass, CLF recommends using the
new industry EPD’s result in place of this baseline value.

Additional notes and guidance

Most flat glass EPDs do not report results by glass pane thickness. One manufacturer has separate EPDs
for 3mm, 4mm, 6mm, and 12 mm-thick flat glass panes. The difference between the smallest GWP value
(the 12mm product) and the largest GWP value (the 3mm product) is approximately 3%. Given this
relatively small range, CLF deems it appropriate not to differentiate flat glass products by thickness when
setting baseline values.

Processed Glass
Category description
Processed glass describes flat glass that has undergone one or more of the following processing steps:
coating, laminating, heat treatment, mechanical or chemical processing, or assembling multiple panes to
form an insulated glazing unit (UL Environment, 2016). These treatments perform a wide range of
functions and may be specified to improve the safety, fire rating, energy performance, aesthetics, or other
features of the glass product. Some common examples of processed glass used in building applications
include low-e glazing, tempered glass, and laminated glass, used in windows, doors, curtain walls,
storefronts, and guardrails.

CLF identifies two categories within the broader category of processed glass:

● Processed glass panes: single panes that have undergone any of the processing steps listed
above

● Insulated glazing unit (IGU): factory-assembled units of two or more glass panes

Insulated glass units (also called insulating glass units or IGUs) are typically used in a building’s exterior
envelope. IGUs may be used in windows, doors, and glass walls. The IGU’s glass panes are separated by
spacers and sealed to trap a layer of inert gas between the panes. This airspace slows heat transfer across
the unit, making the assembly more energy efficient. The IGU includes the glass panes, spacer(s),

146 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
desiccant, sealants, and interlayer materials, but the window (or door, curtainwall, etc.) frame is not
included. The glass panes may be flat glass, processed glass, or a combination of the two (UL
Environment, 2016).

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Flat glass is the major input for processed glass products, and its production is accounted for in module
A1 in processed glass EPDs. A1 also includes the extraction and processing of plastics, frit materials,
metallic compounds, recycled materials, polymers, and/or gases (in the case of IGUs). The processed
glass manufacturer applies one or more of the treatments listed above to the flat glass to create the final
processed glass product (module A3), whether single panes or IGUs.

Product performance and carbon emissions can vary substantially depending on the types and number of
treatments applied, and the number of panes in the case of IGUs.

Figure 3.9.4. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. Data sources: CLF selected one product EPD for each category listed. Results are
meant to be illustrative examples and not representative of the industry. Processed glass panes: Vitro Architectural Glass (2023); IGU:
Viracon (2023); curtain wall: EFCO (2023).

Applicable PCR
The PCR for processed glass (including processed glass panes and IGU) expired in 2021 (UL Environment,
2016).

Processed glass and IGU EPDs use a declared unit of 1 m2. (Flat glass EPDs use a declared unit of 1 metric
ton.)

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.9.5. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

147 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Table 3.9.3. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per 1 m2.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Processed glass panes 0 -- 12 7.4 14.8 23.5 25.8 39.9 78.0 99.9 42.1
IGU 0 -- 19 39.6 65.4 70.3 70.4 70.7 87.0 246.0 83.6

Figure 3.9.6. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province. CLF’s dataset was missing location
information for multiple EPDs.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Due to the lack of a currently valid PCR and the wide range in performance characteristics and associated
GWP values among processed glass panes and IGU products, there are no 2025 CLF baseline GWP values
for processed glass panes or IGUs.

Curtain Wall
Category description
Curtain walls are non-structural exterior walls that consist of framing (typically made of thermally
improved aluminum extrusions) and infill of glazing panels (typically IGUs) and, in some cases, other
types of infill panels such as louvers or metal panels. Curtain walls are often installed outboard of a
building’s structural floor plate and can span multiple stories. The location and process for curtain wall
final assembly vary by system: they may be “stick-built” (or simply “stick”) systems, where installers build
the assembly onsite, installing framing members and glass panels separately. Or they may be “unitized”
systems, where the fabricators build the entire assembly off-site, and install the assembly as full units
onto the building.

148 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Storefront systems — similar assemblies that are typically used at a building’s ground floor only and span
between floor plates — can also be considered part of this category.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

A1 includes the production of the major inputs to curtain walls — aluminum framing, IGUs, and other infill
panels. One sampled EPD reports that approximately 40% of the curtain wall product’s mass is aluminum
used in the framing, and approximately 52% is glass. A3 includes the cutting and preparation of
components for assembly. Installation (though outside the A1–A3 scope) often includes the use of cranes
and/or lifts to position the components (for stick systems) or assembled units (for a unitized system) onto
the building.

See the GWP contribution by life cycle stage for curtain walls in Figure 3.9.4 in the processed glass section.

Applicable PCR
There is a relatively new PCR for fenestration (including curtain walls): NSF. (2024). NSF 1102-23 Product
Category Rule for Environmental Product Declarations: PCR for Fenestration Assemblies.

The curtain wall EPDs in CLF’s dataset use three different PCRs, none of which is the current North
American PCR listed above, inhibiting comparability in this category.38

Curtain walls EPDs, like processed glass panes and IGUs, use a declared unit of 1 m2. (Flat glass EPDs use a
declared unit of 1 metric ton.)

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.9.7. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.39

Table 3.9.4. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per 1 m2.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Curtain wall 0 -- 12 107 144 170 181 228 303 740 270

38 One is an IBU (German program operator) PCR; one is a now-expired North American PCR for windows, originally
published in 2015, and extended to 2023; and one is a general construction product (not glazing-focused) PCR with a
predominantly European focus.
39 There is an industry-average EPD for curtainwall produced in Quebec, (AluQuébec, 2024) excluded here since it

follows a different PCR from the one listed above.

149 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.9.8. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province. CLF’s dataset was missing location information for
multiple EPDs.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Due to the compatibility limitations related to multiple different PCRs used for curtain wall EPDs and the
wide range in performance characteristics and associated GWP values among curtain walls, there are no
2025 CLF baseline GWP values for curtain walls.

Additional notes and guidance

Agencies, owners, and project teams may consider the appropriate glazing product type(s) to focus on for
product-to-product comparisons or for implementing product-level thresholds/limits/targets, etc.

State of comparability: The following two factors significantly affect the potential for appropriate
product-level comparability.

● PCR: whether there is a valid PCR that supports the development of comparable EPDs.
○ Flat glass: There is a valid, consistently used PCR for flat glass.
○ Processed glass, including IGU: The North American PCR for processed glass expired in
2021.
○ Curtain wall: There is a valid PCR for fenestration assemblies. But the current valid North
American curtain wall EPDs use three different PCRs, none of which is the valid North
American PCR.
● Product variation: Products are more easily comparable when there are relatively few variations
between specific products within the product type.40

40Another way to put this is that a product type is more easily comparable to the extent that it is (or approaches
being) a commodity — i.e., a good that “has full or substantial fungibility: that is, the market treats instances of the
good as equivalent or nearly so with no regard to who produced them” (Wikipedia, 2025).

150 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
 ○ Flat glass: Flat glass is a product type with relatively few variations from one company or
product to another. Thus, it is relatively easy to make appropriate comparisons of
functionally equivalent flat glass products.
○ Processed glass and curtain wall: There are countless potential variations between
processed glass products and curtain wall assemblies — often driven by project-specific
design requirements — that affect performance and GWP. This makes it relatively
difficult to compare functionally equivalent products based on EPDs.
Short-term guidance: Because of both comparability issues above, CLF recommends that near-term
product-level comparisons for glazing products be focused on the two predominant components that
lend themselves relatively well to product-level comparisons: flat glass and aluminum extrusions.
Comparisons of downstream products and assemblies, such as IGU or curtain wall, would be more
appropriately performed in a WBLCA tool or a similar assembly-level LCA tool.

Long-term guidance: CLF hopes that there are advances in processed glass and fenestration PCRs and
EPDs. One potential pathway to glazing assembly baselines is a component-based project-specific
calculation approach like the approach developed in the NAPA Asphalt EPD benchmark report. In such an
approach, a project team or agency could define the parameters (coating types, other glass processing
steps, pane thickness, number of panes, framing depth, glass-to-framing ratio, etc.). This could generate a
bill of materials (i.e., list of input quantities) and which could be multiplied by pre-determined industry-
average GWP intensity values for each input. The sum would be an industry-average baseline value
specific to the project requirements.

151 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
3.10 Finishes
The broad category of finishes here includes gypsum board, glass-mat gypsum board (although not
generally considered a finish product, included here for its similarity to gypsum board), acoustical ceiling
tile, resilient flooring, carpet, and ceramic tile.

Gypsum Board
Category description
Gypsum board refers to the family of sheet products with a non-combustible gypsum-based core and a
facing. It functions as an interior surface for walls and ceilings, can support other finishes such as paint or
tile, and provides additional performance characteristics such as mold and fire resistance. The boards are
typically 4’ x 8’ panels and are produced in a range of thicknesses. Gypsum board is also referred to as
“gypsum panel,” “wallboard,” “drywall,” “plaster board,” and “sheetrock” (GA, 2020).

CLF identifies the following two common paper-faced gypsum board product types for this report.

● ½” (12.7mm) gypsum board, paper-faced

● ⅝” (15.9 mm) gypsum board, paper-faced, including Type X and Type C products

½” gypsum board is typically used in residential applications, while ⅝” gypsum board is typically used in
commercial applications. In alignment with the industry EPD and industry LCA study, this report excludes
from its scope: mold and moisture-resistant (MMR), paper-faced abuse-resistant, paper-faced impact-
resistant (fiberglass mesh reinforcement embedded in the core), and paper-faced plaster-base gypsum
board products (GA, 2020; ASMI, 2020).

The next section of this report covers glass-mat gypsum board, typically used as exterior sheathing.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Extraction and upstream production processes include gypsum mining to procure gypsum ore and paper
production for gypsum facing and backing. At the gypsum board manufacturing facility, crushed natural
gypsum is heated and dehydrated, then milled into gypsum powder. The powder is mixed with water and
additives to form a slurry that is fed between paper layers on a board machine. Figures 3, 4, and 5 of the
industry EPD background LCA report provide more detailed information on these processes (ASMI, 2020).

On-site natural gas consumption (primarily for heating the gypsum) and electricity consumption in A3 are
the primary contributors to total A1–A3 GWP. See the industry-wide LCA report for further information on
the breakdown of GWP impacts by production stage (ASMI, 2020).

Gypsum board EPDs use a declared unit of 1000 ft2 (92.9 m2).

152 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.10.1. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. A1: extraction and upstream production, including gypsum mining to
procure gypsum ore and gypsum facing and backing paper production. A2: transport of gypsum ore and gypsum paper to the
gypsum board product manufacturing facility. A3: gypsum board product manufacture: heating and dehydrating gypsum, mixing,
forming into boards, drying.

Applicable PCRs
The current North American PCR for gypsum board is: Smart EPD. (2025). Smart EPD Part B Product
Category Rules for Gypsum Panels: Standard 1000-004, version 2.

At the time of this writing in 2025, the currently valid EPDs were produced under the previous version of
the PCR: NSF. (2020). PCR for Gypsum Panel Products v1.1.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.10.2. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.10.1.. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per 1000 ft2.
Due to the inconsistent accounting of biogenic carbon among the product EPDs, the chart excludes calculated GWP
statistics for product EPDs. See “Additional notes and guidance” for further discussion.

Industry EPDs Product EPDs

EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Gypsum board, 1/2 in 1 207 15 130 -- -- -- -- -- 289 --
Gypsum board, 5/8 in 1 277 53 148 -- -- -- -- -- 426 --

153 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.10.3. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information. CLF did not
confirm which EPDs for ½” gypsum board covered lightweight vs. normal-weight panels.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.10.2. Gypsum board baselines per 1000 ft2 (92.9 m2).

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Gypsum board, 1/2 in 207 Gypsum board industry-average LCA report (ASMI, 2020) Industry (single)

Gypsum board, 5/8 in 277 Gypsum board industry-average EPD (GA, 2020) Industry (single)
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
Industry EPD representativeness information. Gypsum board industry-average LCA report (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute,
2020) and industry-average EPD (Gypsum Association (GA), 2020). In developing their industry EPD, the Gypsum Association (GA)
commissioned this background LCA report that provides additional information on the study’s methods. The LCA report includes an
assessment of ½” lightweight gypsum board that is not included in the industry EPD.
GA member companies and their affiliates produce over 90% of the gypsum board consumed in the USA and Canada. Each member
company participated in the study by providing data for at least one of their plants. 17 of 51 total gypsum board manufacturing plants
were selected to represent the industry, based on representation by company, plant size, and geography. The study aims to represent
USA manufacturing only. The EPD and LCA report do not disclose the percentage of North American production covered in the dataset.

Additional notes and guidance

Biogenic carbon: Some gypsum board product EPDs account for biogenic carbon uptake and emissions
in their GWP results. In such cases, the A1–A3 GWP result includes a “credit” (i.e., net negative GWP
emission) for the uptake of biogenic carbon from the atmosphere by bio-based ingredients. Because this

154 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
report focuses on A1–A3 GWP only (and thus does not consider biogenic carbon emissions at the end of
the product’s life), it is appropriate to present data that excludes biogenic carbon. However, because
some gypsum board EPDs report only a single set of GWP results including biogenic carbon41, this is not
always feasible. (Some gypsum board EPDs report separate results, with and without biogenic carbon.)
When making comparisons based only on A1–A3 values, it is appropriate to use results that exclude
biogenic carbon. If viewing results through a digitized EPD database such as EC3, users should confirm
that the presented value matches the desired value from the original EPD (i.e., the value for “GWP,
excluding biogenic” or similar, if available).

Subtypes included in ½” gypsum board: Further analysis would help determine whether a single
baseline value could appropriately cover both lightweight and standard ½” gypsum board.

Subtypes included in ⅝” gypsum board: The industry EPD for ⅝” gypsum board is for Type X products.
CLF’s analysis of the existing product EPD data (which included a mix of Type X and Type C products)
showed that the fire rating (Type X vs. Type C) is not statistically significant to GWP, as depicted in Figure
3.10.4. Therefore, this CLF baseline product type’s scope includes products of multiple fire ratings. CLF
recognizes that individual products with different fire ratings have different performance characteristics,
and there may be other environmental trade-offs between products besides GWP.

Figure 3.10.4. ⅝” gypsum board GWP by fire rating.

Glass-Mat Gypsum Board

Category description
Glass-mat gypsum boards consist of a non-combustible, water-resistant gypsum core with a glass mat
surface on each side that is partially or completely embedded in the core. The panels are typically used as
exterior building envelope sheathing, providing a substrate for weather barriers and mold and fire
resistance.42 Panels are commonly 4’ wide by 8’ long and are available in multiple thicknesses depending
on the application.

41 In these cases, it is important for anyone making comparisons (especially based only on A1–A3 values), to look at
the “GWP, excluding biogenic” results. If viewing results through a digitized EPD database such as EC3, users should
confirm the presented value matches the desired value from the original EPD.
42 Glass-mat gypsum panels are included here in the “Finishes” category because they have some interior

applications, they share the same PCR as standard paper-faced gypsum panels, and to help avoid reader confusion by
placing the two gypsum panel categories adjacent to each other. CLF acknowledges that they do not fit perfectly in
the “Finishes” category here, as they are typically used for exterior sheathing. (The 2023 CLF Baselines report
included them in “Wood and Composites.”)

155 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
CLF product types for this category, in alignment with the industry EPD and the most used products in
North America, are:

● ½” regular glass-mat gypsum board panels

● ⅝” type X glass-mat gypsum board panels

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

The major processes in glass-mat gypsum board production include gypsum ore mining, glass matting
production, gypsum core production, and manufacture of the final panels, including core and matting.
The primary contributors to total A1–A3 GWP are the production of the glass matting (accounted for in A1,
41% of total GWP for the ½” product and 36% for the 5/8” product) and onsite natural gas consumption
for heating and drying the crushed natural gypsum (accounted for in A3, 37% of total GWP for the ½”
product and 39% for the ⅝” product) (ASMI, 2021).

Glass-mat gypsum boards use a declared unit of 1000 ft2 (92.9 m2).

Figure 3.10.5. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. A1: extraction and upstream production, including mining to procure gypsum
ore and cradle-to-gate glass matting production; A2: transport to factory; A3: glass-mat gypsum board product manufacture.

Applicable PCRs
The current North American PCR for gypsum board is: Smart EPD. (2025). Smart EPD Part B Product
Category Rules for Gypsum Panels: Standard 1000-004, version 2.

At the time of this writing in 2025, the currently valid EPDs were produced under the previous version of
the PCR: NSF. (2020). PCR for Gypsum Panel Products v1.1.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.10.6. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

156 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Table 3.10.3. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per 1000 ft2.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Glass-mat gypsum board, 1/2
in 1 437 5 282 -- -- 400 -- -- 437 366
Glass-mat gypsum board, 5/8
in 1 504 4 236 -- -- 318 -- -- 331 301

Figure 3.10.7. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.10.4. Glass-mat gypsum board baselines per 1000 ft2 (92.9 m2).

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Glass-mat gypsum board, 1/2 in 437 Glass-mat gypsum board industry-average EPD (GA, 2021) Industry (single)

Glass-mat gypsum board, 5/8 in 504 Glass-mat gypsum board industry-average EPD (GA, 2021) Industry (single)
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
Industry EPD representativeness information. Glass-mat gypsum board industry-average EPD (GA, 2021). The EPD’s background LCA
report (ASMI, 2021) describes the study’s approach to selecting a representative sample for each primary production process, including
representation of manufacturing companies, plant size, geography, and other significant factors. The EPD does not disclose the
percentage of North American production covered in the dataset. The study aims to represent U.S. manufacturing only.
Calculation note: CLF rounded the industry-average EPD results to three significant digits.

157 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Acoustic Ceiling Tile
Category description
Acoustic ceiling tiles (ACT) are modular panels used as a finish material for ceilings. They are typically
installed in commercial buildings to improve acoustic performance and may also serve to hide building
infrastructure. The panels consist of a core material (often mineral fiber or fiberglass) and a facing
material. Panels are typically set into a metal frame system and suspended from the structure above
(referred to as a “dropped ceiling”).

Noise reduction coefficient (NRC), a metric that describes a material’s sound absorption ability, is the
most common measure of ACT acoustic performance. A product’s NRC is a numerical value between 0
and 1.0, where a larger number means more sound absorption. CLF identifies the following ACT product
types for this report, differentiated by NRC value:

● ACT, NRC < 0.75

● ACT, 0.75 ≤ NRC ≤ 0.90
● ACT, NRC > 0.90

Other acoustical metrics used for ACT (though not addressed in this report’s analysis) include ceiling
attenuation class (CAC), which measures how much sound can travel through the material, and
articulation class (AC), which measures the amount a ceiling can attenuate a single reflection that
bounces off the ceiling and is highly correlated with NRC.

Other acoustical treatment products, such as acoustical wall panels and baffles, are excluded from this
analysis.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

The production processes depend on the panel material type. The three main types of panel core material
covered here include: fiberglass (composed of high-density fiberglass wool mixed with water, starch, and
clay), wet-felted mineral fiber (typically made by drying a slurry of slag or stone wool, perlite, starch,
paper, and a binder), and stone wool (also called “mineral wool,” composed primarily of basalt or similar
volcanic rock and a binder).43 For all three material types, natural gas used to produce fibers from glass,
stone, or slag is a major contributor to the product’s carbon emissions.

Other ACT material types (not included in CLF’s dataset) include wood fiber and PET polyester fiber felt.

Panels come in a range of thicknesses, and panel thickness can significantly affect both acoustical
performance and GWP. The metal suspension system is not included in the scope of the EPDs or baseline
GWP values for this category and may have notable impacts.

43Rockfon, an ACT manufacturer, provided information regarding ACT function, materials, and performance (R.
Berkin, personal communication, 2024).

158 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.10.8. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. Production processes depend on the ACT material type. Chart based on one
example EPD for wet-felted mineral fiber ACT product and should not be considered representative of the industry. Source: USG
(2023).

Applicable PCR
The current North American PCR for non-metal ceiling panels is:

UL Environment. (2021). PCR for Building-Related Products and Services, Part B: Non-Metal Ceiling and
Interior Wall Panel System EPD Requirements. UL Environment.

The system boundary for EPDs created using this PCR is cradle-to-grave (A–C).

The declared unit for this category is 0.093 m2 (1 ft2) of acoustic ceiling tile.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.10.9. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.10.5. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per square foot.

Industry EPDs Product EPDs

EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
ACT, NRC < 0.75 0 -- 25 0.22 0.28 0.39 0.42 0.45 0.55 0.81 0.45
ACT, 0.75 ≤ NRC ≤ 0.90 0 -- 22 0.33 0.40 0.46 0.49 0.60 5.36 6.10 2.11
ACT, NRC > 0.90 0 -- 9 0.36 0.68 1.19 3.05 3.82 4.32 7.31 2.84

159 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.10.10. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was medium. See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.10.6. Acoustic ceiling tile baselines per 1 ft2 (0.093 m2).

Baseline Baseline method;

GWP Representativeness
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes assessment approach*

ACT, NRC < 0.75 0.45 Collection of ACT product EPDs, unweighted average. Product (unweighted);
qualitativea

ACT, 0.75 ≤ NRC ≤ 0.90 2.1 Collection of ACT product EPDs, unweighted average. Product (unweighted);
qualitativea

ACT, NRC > 0.90 2.8 Collection of ACT product EPDs, unweighted average. Product (unweighted);
qualitativea
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches.
a Qualitative representativeness assessment: CLF considers the available set of EPDs sufficiently representative of the industry
based on a qualitative assessment of each factor below:
 Geography: The dataset reflects production in Eastern Canada and the U.S. Southeast, East, and Midwest regions. While the
data doesn't cover all major North American regions, a large portion of North American ACT manufacturing occurs in these
regions.44 Furthermore, natural gas (which has relatively low variation in emissions by geography) is the main energy source
used in ACT production. Therefore, CLF did not consider full geographical representation as critical for this category and
considered the data sufficiently representative.
 Time: All EPDs in the dataset were published in the last five years.

44 This assumption is based on a web search of major ACT manufacturing companies’ facility locations.

160 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
  Technology: The dataset includes the three major ACT subtypes of mineral wool, fiberglass, and wet-felted mineral fiber, with
a range of NRC and CAC values.

Additional notes and guidance

The declared unit for ACT (in area) and the product type classification used here, based on NRC, do not directly
account for panel thickness or material type (though both attributes have some correlation with NRC). Before
making any comparisons within this material category, users should verify that the products they are comparing are
functionally equivalent in terms of characteristics important to project performance, such as acoustic rating.

Ceramic Tile
Category description
Ceramic tiles are floor and wall finishes, used in commercial, institutional, and residential interior and
exterior applications. Most tiles manufactured in North America are composed of clay, sand, feldspar, and
other additives, including scrap, frit, and calcium carbonate. This report identifies the single tile product
type:

● Ceramic tiles: includes various tile types (glazed wall, mosaic, quarry, porcelain, pressed floor,
etc.) and common thicknesses (approximately 0.25 to 0.5 inches) (TNCA, 2020).

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Most of the ceramic tile manufacturing in North America is in the US and Mexico. Mining and production of
clay, granite, and mullite are the most significant contributors to A1 emissions. The industry-average EPD
assumes raw material acquisition from the United States, Mexico, Africa, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Portugal,
Canada, and China.

During the manufacturing stage (A3), a mixture of clay, feldspar, and minerals is combined with water,
forming a wet slurry known as slip. The slip is formed into a tile shape, glazing is applied if applicable, and
then the tile is fired in a kiln, inspected, and packaged for transport (TNCA, 2020). Excess or defective
materials are recycled back into the production cycle. The most significant A3 emissions are associated
with the electricity and thermal energy used to heat the kilns to very high temperatures (Fireclay Tile,
2020).

A4 transportation emissions can be significant, depending on the mode of transport. Tile installation
includes additional materials such as grout and mortar, which bind the tiles together and to the required
surface.

161 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.10.11. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. A1 = raw material supply of clay, sand, talc, feldspar, internal
scrap, frit, calcium carbonate, ash, additives, ink, and glaze; A2 = transport of raw materials to manufacturing facility;
A3 = manufacturing, shaping, drying of ceramic tiles.

Applicable PCR
The current North American PCR for ceramic tile is:

UL Environment. (2018). Product Category Rule (PCR) Guidance for Building-Related Products and Services
Part B: Flooring. UL Environment.

The system boundary for EPDs created using this PCR is cradle-to-grave (A–C). The declared unit for this
category is 1 m2 of ceramic tile.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.10.12. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.10.7. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per square meter.
Industry EPDs Product EPDs
EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Ceramic tiles 1 14.1 3 5.09 -- -- 14.8 -- -- 45.9 21.9

Figure 3.10.13. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

162 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.10.8. Ceramic tile baseline per 1 m2.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Ceramic tile 14.1 Ceramic tile industry-average EPD (TNCA, 2020) Industry (single)
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
Industry EPD representativeness information. Ceramic tile industry-average EPD (TNCA, 2020). This industry-average EPD is based on
a weighted average of facility-level production data collected from TCNA members. The data is estimated to represent at least 85% of
tile produced in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

Resilient Flooring
Category description
Resilient flooring is defined as a non-textile floor that characteristically bounces back from repeated
traffic or compression. These flooring types are commonly used in commercial buildings that require
durable floor finishes, such as education and healthcare buildings. Resilient flooring products are
available in both roll and tile form and come in a wide range of colors, shapes, and sizes.

CLF identifies the following resilient flooring product types for this report, aligning with the industry EPDs.

● Vinyl flooring: composed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), pigments, plasticizers, fillers, extenders, and
stabilizers with a vinyl or non-vinyl wear layer (RFCI, 2024a; RFCI, 2024b).
○ Homogeneous: cross-section has a uniform structure and composition
○ Heterogeneous: multi-layered, with a print layer, reinforcement layer, backing layer, and
a high-performance finish.
● Luxury vinyl tile (LVT): a multi-layer flooring product with a high-performance finish, print layer
(with digitized images of wood or stone, for example), backing layer, and other layers that vary by
product (RFCI, 2024c; RFCI, 2024d).
○ Glue down: also referred to as LVT “dryback” flooring; materials include PVC, pigments,
plasticizers, fillers, extenders, and stabilizers
○ Loose lay: also referred to as luxury vinyl plank (LVP); materials include PVC, pigments,
plasticizers, fillers, extenders, and stabilizers
● Rubber sheet and tile: a vulcanized type of flooring that is composed of both synthetic and
natural rubber, additives, and colorants. Flooring may either be homogeneous or heterogeneous;
the industry EPD captures both types (RFCI, 2024e).
● Rigid core flooring:
○ Stone plastic/polymer composite (SPC): a type of LVT multi-layer flooring with a rigid
SPC core sandwiched between a vinyl wear layer, print layer, and an optional acoustical

163 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
 underlayment. The SPC core has a high limestone content, which contributes to its
durability (RFCI, 2024f).
○ Wood plastic/polymer composite (WPC): a type of LVT multi-layer flooring with a rigid
WPC core sandwiched between a vinyl wear layer, print layer, intermedia layer, and an
optional acoustical underlayment (RFCI, 2024g).
● Solid vinyl tile (SVT): a type of pattern tile whose cross-section has a uniform structure and
composition with no separate backing layer and is composed of PVC, pigments, plasticizers,
fillers, extenders, and stabilizers (RFCI, 2024h).
● Vinyl composition tile (VCT): a type of flooring composed of calcium carbonate (limestone) and
PVC, pigments, stabilizers, and other additives. VCT includes both through-pattern design and
solid color tiles and is primarily used in commercial buildings, often installed in healthcare and
education facilities (RFCI, 2024i).
Other common types of resilient flooring include linoleum, cork, and other types of bio-based and
synthetic flooring. These product types do not currently have industry-average EPDs and are outside of
the scope of this report.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

The industry-average EPDs include impacts for stages A1–A3, A4, A5, B2, B4, C2, C4, and Module D. As
shown in Figure 3.10.14, the use stage (including maintenance and replacement) is the largest contributor
to cradle-to-grave GWP. If one ranked the resilient flooring types based on GWP data from life cycle
modules A1–A3, the flooring ranks would be different than if they were ranked based on GWP from all
reported life cycle stages. Because the reference service life varies by product, it is important for users to
understand the attributes of the products they are comparing and whether the products are functionally
equivalent or suitable for comparison. See “Additional notes and guidance” for more information.

Figure 3.10.14. GWP contribution by life cycle stage.

Applicable PCR
The current North American PCR for resilient flooring is:

UL Environment. (2018). Product Category Rule (PCR) Guidance for Building-Related Products and Services
Part B: Flooring. UL Environment.

164 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
The system boundary for EPDs created using this PCR is cradle-to-grave (A–C). The declared unit for this
category is 1 m2 of resilient flooring.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.10.15. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3. Above: excludes higher-GWP rubber flooring EPDs to allow a clearer view.
Below: the set of all rubber flooring EPDs (which includes a wide range of thicknesses and associated GWP impacts).

Table 3.10.9. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per square meter. The table
excludes rubber flooring mean and percentile GWP values due to the wide range in thickness and associated performance in the dataset.

Industry EPDs Product EPDs

EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
LVT 2 10.7 51 4.7 6.9 9.6 10.0 10.7 12.2 20.4 10.2
Rigid core 2 9.7 8 11.5 11.6 11.8 12.0 12.1 12.1 12.1 11.9
Rubber 1 10.8 43 4.9 -- -- -- -- -- 119.9 --
SVT 1 16.2 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
VCT 1 4.6 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Vinyl 2 6.7 19 5.8 6.5 6.7 6.8 7.7 11.4 71.6 12.0

165 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.10.16. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Table 3.10.10. Resilient flooring baselines per 1 m2.

Baseline method;
Baseline Representativeness
GWP assessment
Product type (kg CO2e) Data source and notes approach*

Homogeneous vinyl flooring 7.48 Homogeneous vinyl flooring industry-average EPD Industry (single)
(RFCI, 2024a)

Heterogeneous vinyl flooring 5.87 Heterogeneous vinyl flooring industry-average EPD Industry (single)
(RFCI, 2024b)

Rubber flooring, ≅3.2 mm 10.8 Rubber Flooring industry-average EPD (RFCI, 2024e) Industry (single)

Luxury vinyl tile (LVT), glue down 9.78 Glue-down luxury vinyl tile (LVT) industry-average EPD Industry (single)
(RFCI, 2024c)

Luxury vinyl tile (LVT), loose lay 11.6 Loose-lay luxury vinyl tile (LVT) industry-average EPD Industry (single)
(RFCI, 2024d)

Rigid core flooring, SPC 8.24 SPC rigid core flooring industry-average EPD (RFCI, Industry (single)
2024f)

Rigid core flooring, WPC -- No sufficiently representative data source for North None
American production a

Solid vinyl tile (SVT) -- No sufficiently representative data source for North None
American production a

Vinyl composition tile (VCT) 4.63 VCT industry-average EPD (RFCI, 2024i) Industry (single)

166 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
*See Section 2.4 for baseline methods and data source representativeness approaches. Where the baseline method = “industry
(single),” “industry (multi-weighted),” or “industry (multi-unweighted),” CLF used the “industry data” representativeness assessment
approach (not listed here in the table).
a ForWPC rigid core and SVT, due to the especially small amount of primary manufacturing data used in the EPDs relative to the total
market (see descriptions below), CLF determined that the industry EPDs were not sufficiently representative of the industry to set a
baseline value.
Industry EPD representativeness information:
 Homogeneous sheet vinyl flooring industry-average EPD (RFCI, 2024a). The EPD used primary data from five manufacturers at
five facilities in Korea, Europe, and the United States, covering approximately 100% of sheet vinyl flooring sold in North
America.
 Heterogeneous sheet vinyl flooring industry-average EPD (RFCI, 2024b). The EPD used primary data from nine manufacturers
at eight facilities in Japan, Korea, Europe, and the United States, covering approximately 100% of sheet vinyl flooring sold in
North America.
 Glue-down LVT industry-average EPD (RFCI, 2024c). The EPD used primary data from 11 manufacturers at eight facilities in
China, Korea, Vietnam, and the United States, covering at least 29% of LVT flooring sold in North America.
 Loose-lay LVT industry-average EPD (RFCI, 2024d). The EPD used primary data from eight manufacturers at seven
manufacturing facilities in China, Korea, Europe, and the United States, covering at least 29% of LVT flooring sold in North
America.
 Rubber sheet and tile industry-average EPD (RFCI, 2024e). The EPD used primary data from two manufacturers produced at
two facilities in Canada and the United States, covering at least 17% of rubber flooring sold in North America.
 SPC rigid core flooring industry-average EPD (RFCI, 2024f). The EPD used primary data from six manufacturers at six facilities
in China, Vietnam, and the United States, covering at least 22% of SPC Rigid Core flooring sold in North America.
 WPC rigid core flooring industry-average EPD (RFCI, 2024g). The EPD used primary data from five manufacturers at four
facilities in China and Vietnam, covering at least 8% of WPC Rigid Core flooring sold in North America.
 SVT industry-average EPD (RFCI, 2024h). The EPD used primary data from three manufacturers at two facilities in the United
States and Canada, covering at least 1% of solid vinyl flooring sold in North America.
 VCT industry-average EPD (RFCI, 2024i). The EPD used primary data from two manufacturers at three manufacturing facilities
in Mexico and the United States and is estimated to represent at least 18% of solid vinyl flooring sold in North America.
Data source geography: Most of the listed resilient flooring industry EPDs include manufacturing plants from outside of North America.
CLF acknowledges that this deviates from our general methodology and determined that the deviation was reasonable because (i) a
substantial portion of the resilient flooring used in North America is manufactured elsewhere,45 (ii) the EPDs’ stated sole market of
applicability is North America, and (iii) the EPDs use the standard North American flooring PCR.

Additional notes and guidance

Reference service life and product replacement. In this category, the reference service life (RSL) varies
from product to product. When a product’s RSL is shorter than the estimated service life of a building, the
product’s RSL determines how many times a product needs to be replaced throughout the building’s
lifespan. EPDs in this category disclose environmental impacts from the construction, use, and end-of-life
stages, all of which should be included when making comparisons among products with different RSLs or
across different product types. For users interested in product-level comparisons, environmental impacts
related to additional life cycle stages are disclosed in the category’s product and industry-average EPDs.

45As example, Floor Covering Weekly (2021) states that nearly 85–90% of LVT in the North American market comes
from Asia.

167 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Other product types and EPDs from outside of North America. This report does not include EPD data
for some resilient flooring types such as linoleum and cork, which are more commonly manufactured
outside of North America. There are many more product EPDs available for all types of resilient flooring
products manufactured outside of North America, most of which reference a different PCR than the North
American sub-category PCR listed here. Different PCRs may specify different methods or data sources for
calculating and reporting environmental impacts. Therefore, when comparing EPDs that reference
different PCRs, users should understand the differences between the PCRs before drawing any
conclusions.

Carpet
Category description
Carpet is a textile floor covering that can be further categorized as either broadloom carpet or carpet tile.
The reported environmental impacts for both carpet subtypes include the yarn material, tufting, precoat,
and carpet backing. The declared unit for this category is 1 m2 of floor covering.

CLF identifies the following carpet product types for this report.

● Carpet tile is commonly used in commercial applications where heavier traffic is expected.
● Broadloom carpet comes in large rolls and is commonly used in residential applications.

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

Carpet tiles are produced by weaving yarn through a prepared latex compound and secondary backing,
which produces greige; the carpet layers, greige latex compound, secondary backing, and fiberglass
layers are combined. Broadloom carpet is created with tufted nylon fiber, coated with latex, and then
rolled and packaged.

The current North American flooring PCR requires a cradle-to-grave scope. The following life cycle stages
are included as non-zero values in a sample of EPDs the CLF reviewed: A1–A3 raw material extraction
through manufacture; A4 transport to installation site; A5 installation (including ancillary materials
required for installation and trim-waste disposal); B2 maintenance (including energy for vacuuming,
extraction cleaning, production and transport of cleaning agents, and wastewater treatment from
extraction cleaning); B4 replacement (including the production of the replacement material; though some
sampled EPDs did not include B4 impacts); C2 transport of waste; and C4 disposal. Maintenance and
replacement dominate carpet products’ cradle-to-grave impacts.

168 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.10.17. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. The presented data is based on two product EPDs chosen from roughly the
middle of the dataset’s A1–A3 GWP range. The EPDs assume a 15-year product service life, resulting in four replacements over the
estimated 75-year life of a building.

Applicable PCR
The current North American PCR for carpet is:

UL Environment. (2018). Product Category Rule (PCR) Guidance for Building-Related Products and Services
Part B: Flooring. UL Environment.

The system boundary for EPDs created using this PCR is cradle-to-grave (A–C). The declared unit for this
category is 1 m2 of carpet.

EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.10.18. GWP distribution by product type, A1–A3.

Table 3.10.11. EPD counts and GWP summary statistics. All GWP values are A1–A3 in units of kg CO2e per square meter.

Industry EPDs Product EPDs

EPD GWP EPD GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP GWP
count mean count min 20th 40th median 60th 80th max mean
Broadloom carpet 0 -- 597 3.13 6.58 8.77 9.66 10.7 13.0 50.0 10.1
Carpet tile 0 -- 704 -0.72 4.57 5.86 6.89 9.14 15.5 26.4 9.37

169 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.10.19. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province.

The dataset includes EPDs whose accounting includes a GWP “credit” in A1–A3 related to the biogenic
carbon content in the product. Hence, some EPDs show a net negative A1–A3 GWP value (and others have
a lower A1–A3 GWP than they would without this credit). Negative or reduced A1–A3 GWP can be
problematic when other life cycle stages are excluded (as this A1–A3 “credit” is generally balanced out
with an equivalent emission in C-stage accounting when the biogenic carbon leaves the product system).
Proper comparisons between carpet EPDs should include cradle-to-grave accounting based on the same
building service life.

Carpet EPDs include cradle-to-grave impacts, but (i) they do not all use equivalent approaches to
accounting for maintenance and replacement (limiting EPD comparability), and (ii) CLF’s dataset did not
include GWP impacts for stages beyond A3 (limiting the scope of CLF’s analysis).

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Due to the comparability limitations in this category related to biogenic carbon accounting (and the wide
range in associated GWP values among carpet EPDs), varying approaches to accounting for maintenance
and replacement, and the lack of available digitized EPD data for cradle-to grave impacts, CLF was unable
to identify a sufficiently representative data source to represent industry-average impacts for functionally
equivalent carpet product types. Therefore, there are no 2025 CLF baseline GWP values for carpet.

Additional notes and guidance

Reference service life and product replacement. In this category, the reference service life (RSL) varies
from product to product. When a product’s RSL is shorter than the estimated service life of a building, the
product’s RSL is used to estimate how many times a product needs to be replaced throughout the
building’s lifespan. EPDs in this category disclose environmental impacts from the construction, use, and
end-of-life stages, all of which should be included when making comparisons among products with

170 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
different RSLs. For users interested in product-level comparisons, environmental impacts related to
additional life cycle stages are disclosed in the category’s product EPDs.

171 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
3.11 Asphalt
Asphalt Mixtures
Applicable PCR
National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA). (2022). Product Category Rules (PCR) for Asphalt Mixtures
Version 2.0.

Category description
Asphalt mixtures are placed on roadbeds and compacted to form surface and sub-surface layers on roads
and parking lots. Asphalt mixtures vary in composition and production processes depending on the
application, location, and other factors determined by the project specification.

This report, in alignment with industry experts, defines asphalt mixture product types by (i) mix design
and (ii) geographic location. Following guidance from the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA),
CLF recommends that agencies and other entities use a specific mix design to set an asphalt mixture
baseline GWP value. This is the preferred approach as it isolates variables that asphalt producers have
control over when creating a mix to meet a given specification.46 When the mix design is unavailable, one
can use a generic asphalt mixture type from NAPA’s Asphalt EPD Benchmark report by Miller et al. (2024).

● Mixture as defined by:

○ Specific mixture design (preferred, user-defined), or
○ Generic mixture types based on typical application (surface vs. subsurface), binder
type (modified vs. unmodified), and nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS):
 Typical sub-surface mix, unmodified binder, NMAS > 12.5 mm
 Typical surface mix, unmodified binder, NMAS ≤ 12.5 mm
 Typical sub-surface mix, modified binder, NMAS > 12.5 mm
 Typical surface mix, modified binder, NMAS ≤ 12.5 mm
● Geographic location: by U.S. state and/or LTPP/AASHTO climate region (“dry freeze,” “dry no
freeze,” “wet freeze,” and “wet no freeze,” seen in Figure 3.11.1).

46 A. Mukherjee, personal communication, 2025.

172 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure 3.11.1. LTPP/AASHTO Climate Regions. Source: Miller et al. (2025).

Production processes and key drivers of carbon emissions

In asphalt mixture EPDs, A1 covers the production of asphalt mixture primary ingredients, including
asphalt binder (a petroleum product and the major contributor to asphalt mixture A1–A3 GWP),
aggregates (sand, gravel, crushed stone), modifiers, lime, and reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) that,
once crushed and screened, includes aggregates coated by asphalt cement.

A2 covers the transport of the ingredients to the asphalt plant. Aggregates are typically sourced locally, as
they are heavy and generally uneconomical to ship long distances. In locations where quality aggregates
are not locally available and must be transported over long distances from the supplier to the asphalt
plant, this drives up the A2 values of most mixtures in a given location.

A3 covers the heating and mixing of the ingredients to make the asphalt mixture. The combustion of
natural gas dominates A3 GWP.

Figure 3.11.2. GWP contribution by life cycle stage. A1 is dominated by asphalt binder production; A2 is dominated by transport of
aggregate and RAP; A3 is dominated by natural gas use. Data source: Asphalt industry LCA report “baseline mix” results (Mukherjee,
2021).

173 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
EPD data availability and distribution

Figure 3.11.3. Asphalt mixture EPD GWP distribution by state and province, A1–A3. (Counts do not align exactly with Table
3.11.1 due to different sources and extraction dates.)

174 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Table 3.11.1. Count of organizations (companies), plants, and mixtures with asphalt mixture EPDs by state and
province. Source: asphaltepd.com, a publicly available site showing up-to-date counts. The data here was extracted
on May 1, 2025.

State/ State/
Country Prov Orgs Plants Mixtures Country Prov Orgs Plants Mixtures
Canada AB 1 1 18 USA MS 1 3 5
BC 2 4 21 MT 1 1 2
ON 1 4 146 NC 3 4 26
USA AL 3 7 29 ND 1 2 10
AR 4 8 48 NE 1 2 15
AZ 3 4 45 NH 2 3 27
CA 7 36 244 NJ 5 7 63
CO 13 40 165 NM 2 2 3
CT 1 4 46 NV 2 2 44
DC 2 2 66 NY 24 50 575
DE 2 4 49 OH 7 10 98
FL 6 25 451 OK 2 10 49
GA 3 3 5 OR 6 11 59
IA 2 2 7 PA 33 130 2789
ID 5 6 23 RI 1 1 3
IL 2 4 19 SC 2 6 6
IN 3 4 11 TN 1 1 30
KS 2 8 9 TX 7 22 111
KY 3 3 15 UT 5 8 47
LA 2 5 21 VA 10 25 217
MA 9 17 180 VT 3 4 18
MD 9 13 170 WA 8 12 52
ME 2 2 35 WI 1 2 6
MI 2 2 9 WV 1 1 8
MN 1 1 21 WY 1 1 4
MO 5 7 86

Figure 3.11.4. Count of product EPD plant locations by state/province. Data source: EC3, extracted January 22,
2025. (Counts do not align exactly with Table 3.11.1 due to different sources and extraction dates.)

175 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
For additional asphalt mixture analysis results and data visualizations, CLF recommends NAPA’s Asphalt
EPD benchmark report (Miller et al., 2024, or most recent version).

CLF’s data QA intensity for this category was low. See Appendix B for more information.

CLF Baseline GWP values, methods, and data sources

Following NAPA’s recommendations, CLF provides two routes for agencies and other organizations to
determine appropriate baseline values for asphalt mixtures: (a) the mix-specific route and (b) the generic
mix route.

Mix-specific route for defining an asphalt mixture baseline

NAPA recommends that an agency generate a mix-specific baseline value when it knows the mix design.
(A. Mukherjee, personal communication, 2025). The most recent version of NAPA’s Asphalt EPD
benchmark report (Miller et al., 2024 at the time of this writing) includes the latest and most robust
methods and data for developing location- and function-specific asphalt mixture baselines or
benchmarks.

To develop a baseline value appropriate for a given location and functional criteria, an agency should use
the NAPA EPD benchmark report47 to perform the following steps:48

1. Estimate industry-average A1 GWP: For each ingredient in the mix, multiply the quantity by the
corresponding GWP factor (GWP per unit quantity) from the Asphalt EPD Benchmark report
Appendix 2, Table 7:” GWP Intensity Factors for Upstream Materials used to Calculate A1 GWP,”
also provided in Table 3.11.3 of this report. This results in a list of GWP contributions per
ingredient for the mix. Add these ingredient GWP values together to determine the total baseline
A1 GWP value for the mix.
2. Estimate industry-average (baseline) A2 and A3 GWP using the average values corresponding to
the appropriate state or region from Appendix 5: Table 21 (A2 reference values by state), Table 22
(A3 reference values by state), and Table 23 (A2 and A3 reference values by climate region). This
data is also provided in Table 3.11.5 of this report.
3. Add the A1, A2, and A3 baseline values together to arrive at an A1–A3 baseline GWP value.

Generic mix route for defining an asphalt mixture baseline

If the mix design is unknown, one can select the value from Table 3.11.2 corresponding to the appropriate
generic mix type and location. CLF calculated these values following the Benchmark report’s
methodology, using the following steps:

1. CLF collected A1 average GWP values per generic mix type from the Asphalt EPD Benchmark
report Table 4: “Calculated GWP from BM Mixes versus EPD A1 GWP – all GWP in kg of CO2 e. per
tonne.” This data is also provided in Table 3.11.4 of this report.
2. CLF used the A2 and A3 GWP values described above from the benchmark report’s Appendix 5.

47 Note that the NAPA EPD Benchmark report includes benchmarks at the 20th percentile, 40th percentile, median,
and average of GWP. For this CLF Baselines report, one can consider the “average” benchmark from the NAPA report
as the appropriate baseline.
48 NAPA provided the recommended approach (A. Mukherjee, personal communication, 2025).

176 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
 3. CLF added the A1, A2, and A3 GWP values to arrive at total A1–A3 baseline values, provided in
Table 3.11.2.49
Table 3.11.2. CLF baseline values for asphalt mixtures by functional category and location using the generic
mix route. All values are A1–A3 GWP in kg CO2e / metric ton. Source: Miller et al. (2025).

Typical sub-surface mix, Typical surface mix, Typical sub-surface mix, Typical surface mix,
State or
unmodified binder, unmodified binder, modified binder, modified binder,
climate region
NMAS > 12.5 mm NMAS ≤ 12.5 mm NMAS > 12.5 mm NMAS ≤ 12.5 mm

AL 60.8 65.96 69.8 74.72

AR 59.23 64.39 68.23 73.15
CA 51.38 56.54 60.38 65.3
CO 55.55 60.71 64.55 69.47
CT 50.14 55.3 59.14 64.06
FL 107.13 112.29 116.13 121.05
HI 138.91 144.07 147.91 152.83
IL 49.7 54.86 58.7 63.62
IN 55.63 60.79 64.63 69.55
KY 54.48 59.64 63.48 68.4
LA 92.22 97.38 101.22 106.14
MA 53.93 59.09 62.93 67.85
MD 53.62 58.78 62.62 67.54
MI 55.93 61.09 64.93 69.85
MN 53.43 58.59 62.43 67.35
NC 53.99 59.15 62.99 67.91
ND 61.82 66.98 70.82 75.74
NY 54.16 59.32 63.16 68.08
OH 55.29 60.45 64.29 69.21
OR 50.97 56.13 59.97 64.89
PA 57.7 62.86 66.7 71.62
SC 54.52 59.68 63.52 68.44
TN 56.91 62.07 65.91 70.83
TX 60.19 65.35 69.19 74.11
UT 54.67 59.83 63.67 68.59
WA 48.72 53.88 57.72 62.64
WI 49.99 55.15 58.99 63.91
Dry Freeze 55.03 60.19 64.03 68.95
Dry No Freeze 53.59 58.75 62.59 67.51
Wet Freeze 54.63 59.79 63.63 68.55
Wet No Freeze 69.85 75.01 78.85 83.77

49These values align with the Federal Highway Administration’s Low-Carbon Transportation Materials Grants
program thresholds for asphalt (FHWA, 2025) (As of this writing, this FHWA publication from January 2025 is no longer
available online.)

177 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Baseline values: [user-generated based on specific mix design or selected from Table 3.11.2]
Baseline method: Industry (single).
Data source: NAPA EPD Benchmark report 2.0 (Miller et al, 2024)
This industry-wide benchmark report drew upon (i) primary data from producers on plant operations and material transport distances,
and (ii) all of the asphalt mixture EPDs in the USA. The report provides the following representativeness assessment:
● “Time period: good. All data were from a 12-month period within the past 5 years.
● Climate region: good. The number of participants in a climate region varied from 68 to 201.
● State/market coverage: adequate. 47 states and the District of Columbia were present in the benchmarking dataset. Since
asphalt plants operate within a limited geographic region, state participation was used as a proxy for market coverage… The
total production of the participating locations is estimated to be about 25% of the national production. 27 states had a
sufficient degree of company participation (N>=3) to report state-level numbers. A total of 161 organizations participated.
● Technology: good. Batch plants (81), parallel flow plants (70), and counter flow plants (375) participated.”

Additional notes and guidance

CLF recognizes that the structure and documentation for asphalt mixtures here are different from the
other categories in this report. CLF aimed to reference the very robust and recent work of the NAPA
benchmark report, rather than try to duplicate efforts, while also providing readers with basic category
information, an overview of the recommended approach for setting asphalt baselines, and a set of
baseline values for generic product types where the recommended approach is not feasible.

178 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Key data from NAPA benchmark report v2.0
Table 3.11.3. Material input GWP intensity for mix-specific route to calculating baseline A1 GWP, from the NAPA
Benchmark report v2.0 (Miller et al., 2024) Table 7.

kg CO2e / kg CO2e /
A1 Material metric ton short ton
Neat Binder 631.51 573.06
3.5% SBS Modified Binder 758.71 688.49

0.5% PPA Modified Binder 649.24 588.98

8% GTR Modified Binder 616.17 558.98

SBS Modifier Forthcoming –

Lime 1388.4 1259.9

RAP 0.781 0.71

Aggregate (USLCI, prescribed) 1.94 1.761

Aggregate (forthcoming, explosive mining) 5.32 4.83
Aggregate (forthcoming, non-explosive
3.76 3.42
mining)

Cargill Anova 1501 WMA 1594 1446

Cargill Anova 1815 Rejuv. 1288 1168

Ingevity Evotherm M1 2650 2404

Surface Tech AceXP 6134 5563

Surface Tech AQU 7820 7094

Table 3.11.4. Average A1 GWP values per generic mix type from the NAPA Benchmark report v2.0 (Miller et al.,
2024) Table 4.

Generic mix type Average A1 GWP

(kg CO2e /
metric ton)
Typical sub-surface mix, unmodified binder, NMAS > 24.25
12.5 mm
Typical surface mix, unmodified binder, 29.41
NMAS ≤ 12.5 mm
Typical sub-surface mix, modified binder, 33.25
NMAS > 12.5 mm
Typical surface mix, modified binder, 38.17
NMAS ≤ 12.5 mm

179 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Table 3.11.5. Average A2 and A3 GWP by state and climate region from the NAPA Benchmark report v2.0 (Miller
et al., 2024) Tables 21, 22, and 23. All GWP values are in kg CO2e / metric ton.

Location Avg A2 GWP Avg A3 GWP

State AL 6.54 30.01
AR 10.24 24.74
CA 3.80 23.33
CO 5.71 25.59
CT 2.94 22.95
FL 54.56 28.32
HI 37.04 77.62
IL 2.50 22.95
IN 7.33 24.05
KY 4.85 25.38
LA 40.05 27.92
MA 5.07 24.61
MD 5.92 23.45
MI 5.57 26.11
MN 4.76 24.42
NC 4.78 24.96
ND 12.48 25.09
NY 4.95 24.96
OH 6.19 24.85
OR 2.01 24.71
PA 8.52 24.93
SC 5.12 25.15
TN 5.17 27.49
TX 10.22 25.72
UT 3.85 26.57
WA 2.67 21.8
WI 3.45 22.29
Climate Dry Freeze (DF) 5.63 25.15
region Dry No Freeze (DN) 5.29 24.05
Wet Freeze (WF) 5.37 25.01
Wet No Freeze (WN) 18.16 27.44

180 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
4. Conclusions, Limitations, and
Future Work
This section includes conclusions, limitations, and future work and/or recommendations related to key
themes of the Material Baselines project.

Industry-average EPDs
Industry-average EPDs continue to be the most reliable data sources for establishing CLF baselines and
provide important data for tracking the embodied carbon reductions of an industry over time. They
typically draw primary data from a representative sample of the overall industry and are production
weighted.

Many industry associations updated their industry-average EPDs since the previous CLF Material
Baselines report from 2023, and some industries developed industry-average EPDs for product types for
which there was no valid industry-average EPD during CLF’s 2023 Material Baselines data collection
period. For example, new industry-average EPDs for CMU, softwood lumber, fiberglass insulation, roofing,
and asphalt were published since our 2023 report.

CLF hopes to continue to see improvements to the quality of industry-average EPDs, such as reporting of
variability of LCA results across facilities; and reporting of the total production volume used in the sample
as a fraction of the total industry production volume, and/or robust qualitative descriptions of industry
representativeness. (Some industry-average EPDs already include these components.)

Use of product EPDs to set baselines

CLF has repeatedly received feedback to develop baseline values for more product types. However, there
is tension between the benefit of more baseline values and the importance of being confident that the
data behind those values is representative of North American manufacturing. This relates to the question:
What counts as “sufficiently representative” when we assess data sources? (See Section 2.4 Data
Assessment and Setting CLF Baseline Values.)

Where there is no applicable industry-average EPD, CLF considers the use of product EPD data to set
baselines. However, the lack of production volume data inhibits confidence in developing representative
baselines. This relates to both: how much of total industry production is captured in the available EPD
dataset, and the relative production volume of the various plants with EPDs, which would allow for the
calculation of a production-weighted average.

Continued engagement with industry may allow CLF to address the limitations above related to
production volume. For example, industry associations could provide estimates of total production
volume accounted for in available product EPDs. (Some associations have already provided this
information in the past.) To support production-weighted average calculations, it may be possible to
develop a privacy-preserving process for manufacturers to submit confidential production volume data to
a platform that aggregates the data in a way that CLF could not know or share any confidential

181 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
information but could still use the results. (Industry associations already often collect production volume
data as part of the industry-average EPD development process.)

In the 2023 Baselines report, CLF published only one baseline value using product EPDs as a data source
(i.e., the “product” method). For this 2025 version, CLF published several baselines using the product
method, acknowledging the tradeoffs between (i) more baseline values for agencies and project teams to
use and (ii) confidence in data source representativeness.

Data QA and differences in EPD content and organization

For most product categories, most EPDs are published as PDFs with varying organization, terminology,
format, etc. This leads to a set of digitized EPDs with many gaps, inconsistencies, and errors. CLF tried to
address many of these shortcomings through manual QA, but we couldn’t possibly address all or even
most of them in this way. CLF hopes that program operators and other entities will continue to move
toward more standardized reporting, including the adoption of standard digital EPD formats that allow
for both machine- and human-readable interfaces.

We reached out to industry associations and some manufacturers to provide feedback based on our 2023
report. For those that responded, we were able to confirm our counts with those associations in this
version.

Static values in a dynamic world

CLF intentionally publishes static baseline values as a complement to dynamic tools like EC3. A dynamic
tool can allow a user to generate results based on a particular project location and application or
specification. For static values, we use typical (not project-specific) scenarios for functional equivalence.
And the data is, for better and worse, a snapshot in time. Therefore, the aim is to provide baselines
appropriate for typical use cases most of the time, allowing for consistency across projects and time. But
a tradeoff is that such a report cannot address the nuances of specific locations or applications.

Another limitation to a static report is that new industry-average EPDs published soon after this report’s
publication do not get included. In cases where a baseline GWP value is needed for a major policy or
project decision, CLF recommends checking to see if any industry-average EPDs have been updated since
this report's publication.

EPD comparability requires sufficient consistency of LCA methods and data sources. PCRs support
comparability by specifying, for example, allocation methods, background datasets, and approaches to
accounting for renewable energy certificates (RECs). For this reason, it is important to only compare EPDs
from the same PCR. PCRs and data quality continue to generally improve, which is good for the overall
EPD ecosystem. But these changes can also limit comparability between newer and older (but still valid)
EPDs. The LCA/EPD community will benefit from approaches to addressing EPD comparability over time.

Future Considerations
Potential future work that builds on this project could include:

● Analysis of CLF baseline values compared to the spread of product EPD data. (For example, one
could calculate per product type how many EPDs have a GWP value less than the baseline value;

182 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
 or less than 75%, 125%, etc. of the baseline value.) This could help agencies, owners, and project
teams determine where to set reasonable targets, limits, or other threshold values.
● Incorporating A4 into low-carbon procurement programs. Researchers, contractors, and/or
WBLCA tool developers could develop resources to better allow projects to compare total A1–A4
values for a given product and facility against other products and facilities, and/or against a
baseline value.
● Project-specific baselines via equations. This report includes a handful of equations where users
can plug in values for the relevant attributes (compressive strength for concrete, mixture
ingredient quantities for asphalt, panel thickness for insulated metal panel) and generate a
project-specific baseline value for their product. CLF anticipates an ecosystem with more of
these “parameterized” baselines equations in the future, especially for those product types
whose composition is often custom determined for a particular project, such as glazing
assemblies or structural precast concrete elements.

Engaging with this work

CLF has published four major versions of the Material Baselines report. During the development of this
2025 version, we solicited feedback from government agencies, industry associations, manufacturers,
and LCA practitioners on how to refine our methods and improve our content. Many people responded
and provided substantial feedback that we incorporated into this report. If you have suggestions on how
to improve this work for future versions, please email Info@carbonleadershipforum.org.

183 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
References
Executive Summary, Introduction, and Methods
ACLCA. (2025). Guidance for Determining EPD Types and Calculating and Communicating Data Specificity
Through the Supply Chain. https://www.aclca.org/initiatives#PCR-Open-Standard
American Concrete Pumping Association (ACPA). (2022). Change to ASTM C94-21 Time Limit.
https://www.concretepumpers.com/acpa-news/2022/06/21/change-astm-c94-21-time-limit
Bhat, C. G., Adhikari, T., Mellentine, J., Feraldi, R., Lasso, A., Swack, T., Mukherjee, A., Dylla, H., & Rangelov,
M. (2022). 2022 ACLCA PCR Guidance – Process and Methods Toolkit. American Center for Life Cycle
Assessment (ACLCA). https://aclca.org/pcr/
Building Transparency. (2025). Building Transparency API. https://buildingtransparency.org/ec3/manage-
apps/api-doc/api#/
Construction Specifications Institute (CSI). (2025). MasterFormat.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2019). EN 15804:2012+A2:2019: Sustainability of
construction works - Environmental product declarations - Core rules for the product category of
construction products.
Interworks. (2021). Some basics of percentile calculations. https://interworks.com/blog/2021/03/04/using-
excel-percentile-functions-in-tableau/
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2006). ISO 14025:2006 Environmental labels and
declarations - Type III environmental declarations - Principles and procedures.
https://www.iso.org/standard/38131.html
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2017). ISO 21930:2017 Sustainability in buildings and
civil engineering works — Core rules for environmental product declarations of construction products and
services. ISO.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2020). ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management
— Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines.
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:21930:ed-2:v1:en
Morris, Evan. (n.d.). Sampling from Small Populations.
https://uregina.ca/~morrisev/Sociology/Sampling%20from%20small%20populations.htm
ScienceDirect. (2025). Weighted Average. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/weighted-
average
Qualtrics. (2023). Sample size calculator. https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/calculating-sample-size/
U.S. EPA. (2025). C-MORE: Construction Material Opportunities to Reduce Emissions.
https://www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/cmore

Cement and concrete

American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2016). ACI 506-16: Guide to Shotcrete.

Association Béton Québec. (2022). Association Béton Quebec (ABQ) Member industry-wide EPD for ready-mixed
concrete. ASTM International.

184 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
ASTM. (2021a). ASTM C150 / C150M – 20 Standard Specification for Portland Cement.

ASTM. (2021b). ASTM C595 / C595M – 20 Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cements.

ASTM. (2023). ASTM C91 / C91M – 18 Standard Specification for Masonry Cement.

ASTM. (2024). ASTM C125 Standard Terminology Relating to Concrete and Concrete Aggregates.

ASTM. (2025). ASTM C219 - Standard Terminology Relating to Hydraulic Cement.

Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. (2021). A Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment of Ready-Mixed
Concrete Manufactured by NRMCA Members - Version 3.2, Appendix C: NRMCA Member National and
Regional LCA Benchmark (Industry Average) Report - V3.2 (pp. 51–101). National Ready Mixed Concrete
Association (NRMCA).

Atlantic Concrete Association. (2022). Atlantic Concrete Member industry-wide EPD for ready-mixed
concrete. ASTM International.

Cement Association of Canada. (2023). An Environmental Product Declaration for General Use (GU) and
Portland-limestone (GUL) Cements. ASTM.

Concrete Alberta. (2022). Concrete Alberta member industry-wide EPD for ready-mixed concrete. ASTM International.

Concrete BC. (2022). Concrete BC member industry-wide EPD for ready-mixed concrete. ASTM International.

Concrete Manitoba. (2022). Concrete Manitoba Member industry-wide EPD for ready-mixed concrete. ASTM
International.

Concrete Ontario. (2022). Concrete Ontario Member industry-wide EPD for ready-mixed concrete. ASTM International.

Concrete Saskatchewan. (2022). Member industry-wide EPD for ready-mixed concrete. ASTM International.

CSA Group. (2018a). CSA-A3001-18 - Cementitious materials for use in concrete.

CSA Group. (2018b). CSA-A3002-18 - Masonry and mortar cement.

IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute. (2021, June 29). Carbonation of Concrete.
https://www.ivl.se/projektwebbar/co2-concrete-uptake/carbonation-of-concrete.html

King, R. (2017). Shotcrete—The Blindside Waterproofing Solution. Shotcrete. https://shotcrete.org/wp-

content/uploads/2020/01/2017Sum_ShotcreteCorner.pdf

National Minerals Information Center. (2024). Cement Statistics and Information.

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-center/cement-statistics-and-information

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. (2011). “Flowable Fill”.

https://www.flowablefill.org/index.html.

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA). (2022). Environmental Product Declaration: NRMCA
Member Industry-Average EPD for Ready Mixed Concrete.

185 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Portland Cement Association (PCA). (2023a). Environmental Product Declaration: Blended Hydraulic
Cement (Rev. ed). ASTM International.

Portland Cement Association (PCA). (2023b). Environmental Product Declaration: Masonry Cement (Rev.
ed). ASTM International.

Portland Cement Association (PCA). (2023c). Environmental Product Declaration: Portland Cement (Rev.
ed). ASTM International.

Portland Cement Association (PCA). (2023d). Environmental Product Declaration: Portland-Limestone

Cement (Rev. ed). ASTM International.

Salazar, J., Miller, L., Ciavola, B., and Mukherjee, A. (2024). Statistical Addendum for A Cradle-to-Gate Life
Cycle Assessment of Ready-Mixed Concrete Manufactured by NRMCA Members – Version 3.2.

Slag Cement Association (SCA). (2021). An Industry Average Environmental Product Declaration for Slag
Cement. ASTM International.

Smart EPD. (2025). Smart EPD PCR Library. https://smartepd.com/pcr-library

Masonry
ASTM International. (2016). Product Category Rules for Preparing an Environmental Declaration for Clay
Brick, Clay Brick Pavers, and Structural Clay Tile. NSF International.
https://d2evkimvhatqav.cloudfront.net/documents/PCR-Product-Category-Rules/NSF-1105-2024ext-
PCR-Clay-Brick.pdf?v=1733152726

Brick Industry Association (BIA). (2020). Environmental Product Declaration: U.S.–Canada Industrywide
Clay Brick. NSF.

Canadian Concrete Masonry Producers Association (CCMPA). (2022). Environmental product declaration:
Normal weight and lightweight concrete block masonry units as manufactured by members of the Canadian
Concrete Masonry Association (CCMPA). ASTM International. https://ccmpa.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2022/09/CCMPA-EPD-20220913.pdf

Concrete Masonry and Hardscapes Association (CMHA). (2024). Environmental Product Declaration for
Concrete Masonry Units as Manufactured by Members of Concrete Masonry & Hardscapes Association
(CMHA). ASTM.

Expanded Shale, Clay & Slate Institute. (2007). Chapter 12 Concrete Masonry: Economics, Ergonomics and
Efficiency of Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units. https://www.escsi.org/wp-
content/themes/escsi/assets/images/12%20Chapter%2012%20Economics,%20Ergonomics%20and%20E
fficiency%20of%20LWCMU.pdf

Smart EPD. (2025). Smart EPD PCR Library. https://smartepd.com/pcr-library

UL Environment. (2020). Product category rule (PCR) guidance for building-related products and services
part B: Concrete masonry and segmental concrete paving product EPD requirements.
https://www.ul.com/services/product-category-rules-pcrs

186 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Under-Secretary for Economic Affairs, United States Department of Commerce. (2021). Concrete Masonry
Products Research, Education, and Promotion Order. Federal Register.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/15/2021-18352/concrete-masonry-products-
research-education-and-promotion-order

Walloch, C., Powers, L., Broton, D., & Thompson, J. (2022). Masonry 2022: Advancing Masonry Technology.
59–86. https://doi.org/10.1520/stp164020210112

Steel
American Institute of Steel Construction. (2021a). Environmental product declaration - Fabricated hollow
structural sections. UL Environment. Retrieved from https://www.aisc.org/globalassets/why-
steel/aisc_epd_fab-hss.pdf

American Institute of Steel Construction. (2021b). Environmental product declaration - Fabricated steel
plate. UL Environment. Retrieved from https://www.aisc.org/globalassets/why-steel/epd-aisc-plate-
2021.pdf

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI), Steel Deck
Institute (SDI), Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA), & Steel Tube Institute (STI). (2024). Global Warming
Potential Impacts of Domestic Steel Construction Products: Methodologies, Assumptions, and Results, for
Use by and in Support of the Federal Highway Administration’s Low Carbon Transportation Materials
Program. https://www.aisc.org/globalassets/aisc/sustainability/steel-industry-report-for-fhwa-lctm-
program-dec-2024.pdf

American Iron and Steel Institute. (2025). Steel Production. https://www.steel.org/steel-technology/steel-

production/

Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC). (2025). CISC Steel EPDs. https://www.cisc-icca.ca/epds/

California Department of General Services. (2022). Buy Clean California Act legislative report.
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/Resources/Legislative-Reports

Carbon Leadership Forum. (2022). Buy Clean California Limits. https://carbonleadershipforum.org/buy-

clean-california-limits/

Cascade Steel Rolling Mills. (2022). Environmental Product Declaration: Reinforcing Bar. UL Environment.
https://www.cascadesteel.com/documents/mill/scs-epd-2022-2-reinforcing-bar-cascade-steel.pdf

Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI). (2022). Environmental product declaration - Steel
reinforcement bar. ASTM International. https://www.crsi.org/wp-content/uploads/CRSI_Industry-
Wide_EPD_Sep2022.pdf

John Beath Environmental (JBE). (2025). Life Cycle Assessment of Hot-Rolled Structural Steel Sections.
AISC.
https://www.aisc.org/globalassets/aisc/sustainability/aisc_industryavghotrolledstructuralsteelsections_l
careport_finalv2_03-27-2025.pdf

187 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Laplace Conseil. (2025). A Transition Towards Scrap-Based EAFs Continues to Accelerate the
Decarbonization of the American Steel Industry.

Responsible Steel. (2022). The ‘Sliding Scale’: Setting Equitable Thresholds to Drive Global Steel
Decarbonisation. https://www.responsiblesteel.org/news/the-sliding-scale-setting-equitable-thresholds-
to-drive-global-steel-decarbonisation

Sphera. (2021). EPD Background Report: Fabricated hot-rolled sections, plates, and hollow structural
sections. AISC.

Smart EPD. (2025). Smart EPD Part B PCR for Designated Steel Construction Products (1000-008) v3.
https://smartepd.com/pcr-library

Statista. (2025). Production of crude steel in Canada, Mexico, and the United States in 2023.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184531/crude-steel-production-in-canada-mexico-and-the-us/

Steel Deck Institute (SDI). (2022). Environmental product declaration - Steel roof and floor deck. UL
Environment. https://www.sdi.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/101.1_SDI_EPD_2022-Steel-Deck.pdf

Steel Framing Industry Association (SFIA). (2021). Environmental product declaration: Cold-formed steel
framing. UL Environment. https://www.cfsteel.org/assets/TechFiles/SCS-EPD-07103_SFIA_012522.pdf
Steel Joist Institute (SJI). (2022). Environmental Product Declaration: Open Web Steel Joists and Joist
Girders. UL Environment. https://steeljoist.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/101.1_SJI_EPD_2022-Steel-
Joist_022122.pd
Steel Tube Institute. (2021). Environmental product declaration - Hollow structural sections. UL
Environment. Retrieved from https://steeltubeinstitute.org/sti-hss-epd-26jul2021/
UL Environment. (2020). Product Category Rule (PCR) Guidance for Building-Related Products and Services
Part B: Designated Steel Construction Product EPD Requirements v2.

U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). (2023). U.S. General Services Administration Inflation Reduction
Act Low Embodied Carbon Steel Requirements. https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/Steel%20-
%20GSA%20IRA%20Low%20Embodied%20Carbon%20Requirements%20%28Dec.%202023%29_508.pdf

Aluminum
Aluminum Association (AA). (2022a). Environmental Product Declaration: Aluminum Sheet.
https://www.aluminum.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/103.1_EPD_AA_Sheet.pdf

Aluminum Association (AA). (2022b). Environmental Product Declaration: Extruded Aluminum.

https://www.aluminum.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/104.1_EPD_AA_Extrusion.pdf

Aluminum Extruders Council (AEC). (2022a). Environmental product declaration: Aluminum extrusions - mill
finished, painted, and anodized. UL Environment. https://aec.org/sites/default/files/2022-
11/102.1_EPD_AEC_2022_Al_Ext_Mill_Paint_Anod.pdf

Aluminum Extruders Council (AEC). (2022b). Environmental product declaration: Thermally improved
aluminum extrusions - painted and anodized. UL Environment. https://aec.org/sites/default/files/2022-
11/101.1_EPD_AEC_2022%20Thermally%20Treated.pdf

188 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
UL Environment. (2022). Part B: Aluminum construction product EPD requirements.

Wood
American Wood Council (AWC). (2020). Environmental Product Declaration: Redwood Lumber.

American Wood Council (AWC)l. (2021). 2021 National Design Specification (NDS) for Wood Construction (American
Wood Council, Ed.).

American Wood Council (AWC). (2024a). Environmental Product Declaration: U.S. Inland Northwest Softwood Lumber.

American Wood Council (AWC). (2024b). Environmental Product Declaration: U.S. Pacific Coast Softwood Lumber.

American Wood Council (AWC). (2024c). Environmental Product Declaration: U.S. Southern Softwood Lumber.

American Wood Council (AWC) & Canadian Wood Council (CWC). (2020a). Environmental Product Declaration: North
American Softwood Plywood. UL Environment.

American Wood Council (AWC) & Canadian Wood Council (CWC). (2020b). Environmental Product Declaration: North
American Glued Laminated Timber. UL Environment. https://awc.org/sustainability/epd-tb/

American Wood Council (AWC) & Canadian Wood Council (CWC). (2020c). Environmental Product Declaration: North
American Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL). UL Environment.

American Wood Council (AWC) & Canadian Wood Council (CWC). (2020d). Environmental Product Declaration: North
American Oriented Strand Board. UL Environment.

American Wood Council (AWC) & Canadian Wood Council (CWC). (2020e). Environmental Product Declaration: North
American Softwood Lumber (Environmental Product Declaration 4788424634.102.1). UL Environment.
https://www.awc.org/pdf/greenbuilding/epd/AWC_EPD_NorthAmericanSoftwoodLumber_20200605.pdf

American Wood Council (AWC) & Canadian Wood Council (CWC). (2020f). Environmental Product Declaration: North
American Wood I-Joists. UL Environment. https://awc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/11/AWC_EPD_NorthAmericanWoodIJoists_20200605.pdf

American Wood Council (AWC) & Canadian Wood Council (CWC). (2021). Environmental Product Declaration: North
American Laminated Strand Lumber (LSL). UL Environment.

APA – The Engineered Wood Association. (2018). Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT): Innovative solid wood panels offer
new large-scale design options. https://www.apawood.org/cross-laminated-timber

APA - The Engineered Wood Association. (2023, January 19). Structural Composite Lumber (SCL).
https://www.apawood.org/structural-composite-lumber

Canadian Wood Council (CWC). (2024). Structural Composite Lumber (SCL). https://cwc.ca/articles/structural-
composite/

Element5 LP - Modern Timber Buildings. (2022). Environmental Product Declaration: A company-specific cradle-to-
gate EPD for Element5 Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT). ASTM International.

189 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Forest Innovation Investment. (2023a). Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for Softwood Plywood Produced in
British Columbia. https://www.athenasmi.org/news-item/new-bc-specific-wood-epds/

Forest Innovation Investment. (2023b). Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for Surfaced Dry Softwood Lumber
Produced in British Columbia.

Forestry Innovation Investment. (2023c). Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for Cross-Laminated Timber
Produced in British Columbia. https://pcr-epd.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/901.CLT_BC_Average_Product_EPD.pdf

Forestry Innovation Investment. (2023d). Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for Glulam Produced in British
Columbia. https://www.athenasmi.org/news-item/new-bc-specific-wood-epds/

Freres Lumber Co. (2020). Environmental Product Declaration - Mass Plywood Panel (MPP).

ISO. (2017). ISO 21930:2017 Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works — Core rules for environmental
product declarations of construction products and services. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:21930:ed-2:v1:en

James Salazar. (2020, May 14). Wood Carbon Seminars - Discussion Session 2 (LCA and Wood) [Video recording]. Carbon
Leadership Forum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hZBGFTB4Rc

Mercer Mass Timber. (2025a). Environmental Product Declaration: Cross-laminated Timber (Mercer
Conway).

Mercer Mass Timber. (2025b). Environmental Product Declaration: Cross-laminated Timber and Glue-
laminated Timber (Mercer Spokane).

Natural Resources Canada. (2022a). Dowel-laminated timber. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-

resources/forests/industry-and-trade/forest-products-applications/taxonomy-wood-products/dowel-laminated-
timber/23706

Natural Resources Canada. (2022b). Nail-laminated timber. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-

resources/forests/industry-and-trade/forest-products-applications/taxonomy-wood-products/nail-laminated-
timber/23708

Nordic Structures. (2023). Environmental Product Declaration: NORDIC X-LAMTM.

SmartLam North America. (2021a). Environmental Product Declaration: Cross Laminated Timber Smartlam NA Dothan,
Alabama. https://buildingtransparency.org/ec3/epds/ec3hrx1j

SmartLam North America. (2021b). Environmental Product Declaration: Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) in Columbia
Falls, Montana. https://smartlam.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/SCS-EPD-06681_SmartLam_C-Falls_012221.pdf

StructureCraft. (2020). Environmental Product Declaration - Dowel Laminated Timber produced by StructureCraft.
https://buildingtransparency.org/ec3/epds/ec34qzwq

Trifecta Collective LLC. (2024). 2024 International Mass Timber Report. Trifecta Collective LLC.

UL Environment. (2019). Product category rule guidance for building-related products and services part B: structural
and architectural wood products (version 1.1).

190 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
UL Solutions. (2025). Fact sheet: Product Category Rules (PCRs). https://www.ul.com/resources/product-category-
rules-pcrs

Vaagen Timbers. (2021). Environmental Product Declaration: Cross Laminated Timber produced by Vaagen Timbers in
Colville, WA. ASTM International.

WoodWorks. (2025). WoodWorks - Manufacturers & Suppliers. https://www.woodworks.org/about/partners/

Insulation
BASF. (2020). Environmental Product Declaration: Neopor® Plus Graphite Polystyrene Insulation. NSF.

Carlisle, S., Waldman, B., DeRousseau, M., Miller, L., Ciavola, B., Lewis, M., & Simonen, K. (2022). Buy Clean
California Limits: A Proposed Methodology for Assigning Industry-Average GWP Values for Steel, Mineral
Wool, and Flat Glass in California. Carbon Leadership Forum, University of Washington.

CertainTeed Saint-Gobain. (2019). Environmental product declaration: Sustainable insulation unfaced and
kraft faced batts. UL Environment.
https://www.certainteed.com/resources/CertainTeed_Sustainable_Insulation_EPD.pdf

Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association (CIMA). (2019). Industry-wide Type III EPD: Conventional
Loose-Fill Cellulose Insulation. Sustainable Minds.

DuPont. (2021). Environmental Product Declaration: Styrofoam Brand XPS Products. UL Environment.

EPS Industry Association (EPS-IA). (2023). Environmental Product Declaration: Expanded Polystyrene
Insulation.

Greenhouse Gas Protocol. (2018). Global warming potential values.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/Global-Warming-Potential-
Values%20%28Feb%2016%202016%29_1.pdf

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2011). Generic fiberglass.

https://ws680.nist.gov/bees/ProductListFiles/Generic%20Fiberglass.pdf

North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA). (2018). Environmental Product Declaration:
Mineral Wool Board. UL Environment.

NAIMA. (2023a). Environmental Product Declaration: Fiberglass Batts (Faced). Smart EPD.

NAIMA. (2023b). Environmental Product Declaration: Fiberglass Batts (Unfaced). Smart EPD.

NAIMA. (2023c). Environmental Product Declaration: Fiberglass Board. Smart EPD.

NAIMA. (2023d). Environmental Product Declaration: Fiberglass Loose Fill Insulation. Smart EPD.

NAIMA. (2023e). NAIMA Mineral Wool Insulation Industry Average EPD: Heavy Density Board Product. Smart
EPD.

191 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
NAIMA. (2023f). NAIMA Mineral Wool Insulation Industry Average EPD: Light Density Board Product. Smart
EPD.

NAIMA. (2023g). NAIMA Mineral Wool Insulation Industry Average EPD: Loose-Fill. Smart EPD. Smart EPD.

Owens Corning. (2024). Environmental Product Declaration: FOAMULAR NGX XPS Insulation. SCS Global
Services.

Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association (PIMA). (2020a). Environmental product

declaration: Polyiso roof insulation boards. NSF. https://www.polyiso.org/page/EPDs

Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association (PIMA). (2020b). Environmental product

declaration: Polyiso wall insulation boards. NSF. https://www.polyiso.org/page/EPDs

Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance (SPFA). (2024a). Environmental Product Declaration: Spray
Polyurethane Foam Insulation Closed Cell Using Hydrofluoroolefins (ccSPF, HFO). ASTM.

Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance (SPFA). (2024b). Environmental Product Declaration: Spray
Polyurethane Foam Insulation Open Cell (OCSPF). ASTM.

Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance (SPFA). (2024c). Environmental Product Declaration: Spray
Polyurethane Foam Insulation Roofing Cell Using Hydrofluoroolefins (Roofing SPF, HFO). ASTM.

Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance (SPFA). (2025). Benefits of SPF.

https://www.sprayfoam.org/spf_benefits/

Sustainable Minds. (2020). LCA results & interpretation: CIMA Conventional Loose-Fill Cellulose Insulation.
https://transparencycatalog.com/company/cima-cimac/showroom/conventional-loose-fill-cellulose-
insulation/lca-results

UL Environment. (2018). PCR Part B: Building Envelope Thermal Insulation EPD Requirements.

U.S. EPA. (2024). Technology Transitions HFC Restrictions by Sector. https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-

reduction/technology-transitions-hfc-restrictions-sector

Extruded Polystyrene Foam Association (XPSA). (2022). [website]. www.xpsa.com

Fire and Smoke Protection

ASTM International. (2017). Product Category Rules for Preparing an Environmental Declaration for Spray-
Applied Fire-Resistive Materials (SFRM). https://pcr-epd.s3.us-east-
2.amazonaws.com/345.PCR_for_SFRM-PCR-v2.pdf

Carboline. (2023a). SM Transparency Report (EPD): Pyrocrete Series Pyrocrete 239, 241, 341 & 40.
Sustainable Minds.

Carboline. (2023b). SM Transparency Report (EPD): Southwest Type 5 Series Southwest Type 5GP & 5MD.
Sustainable Minds.

GCP. (2022). A Corporate Average Cradle-to-gate EPD for Standard, Medium and High & Ultra High-Density
Spray-applied Fire-Resistive Materials (SFRMs). ASTM.

192 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Isolatek International. (2024a). SM Transparency Report (EPD): CAFCO® BLAZE-SHIELD® II CAFCO BLAZE-
SHIELD II HS CAFCO BLAZE-SHIELD HP. Sustainable Minds.

Isolatek International. (2024b). SM Transparency Report (EPD): CAFCO® FENDOLITE® M-II FENDOLITE M-II/P.
Sustainable Minds.

Smart EPD. (2025). Part B PCR for Spray-Applied Fire-Resistive Materials (SFRM). https://smartepd.com/pcr-
library

Cladding and Roofing

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA). (2023a). Environmental Product Declaration - Asphalt
Shingle Roofing System (Installation: Fastened). UL Environment.

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA). (2023b). Environmental Product Declaration: APP-
Modified Bitumen Roofing Membrane (Installation: Cold Adhesive). UL Environment.

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA). (2023c). Environmental Product Declaration: APP-
Modified Bitumen Roofing Membrane (Installation: Torch Applied). UL Environment.

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA). (2023d). Environmental Product Declaration: Built-Up
Asphalt Roofing Membrane Installation: Hot Asphalt (3 Ply Felts and Cap). UL Environment.

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA). (2023e). Environmental Product Declaration: Built-Up
Asphalt Roofing Membrane Installation: Hybrid (Fastened Base, 2 Ply Felts and Cap in Hot Asphalt). UL
Environment.

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA). (2023f). Environmental Product Declaration: SBS/APP-
Modified Bitumen Roofing Membrane (Installation: Hybrid Self-Adhered SBS Base Sheet and Torch APP Cap
Sheet). UL Environment.

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA). (2023g). Environmental Product Declaration: SBS-
Modified Bitumen Roofing Membrane (Installation: Cold Adhesive). UL Environment.

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA). (2023h). Environmental Product Declaration: SBS-
Modified Bitumen Roofing Membrane (Installation: Hot Asphalt). UL Environment.

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA). (2023i). Environmental Product Declaration: SBS-
Modified Bitumen Roofing Membrane (Installation: Hybrid Self-Adhered SBS Base Sheet and SBS Torch Cap
Sheet). UL Environment.

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA). (2023j). Environmental Product Declaration: SBS-
Modified Bitumen Roofing Membrane (Installation: Self Adhered). UL Environment.

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA). (2023k). Environmental Product Declaration: SBS-
Modified Bitumen Roofing Membrane (Installation: Torch Applied). UL Environment.

ASTM International. (2019). PCR for Single Ply Roofing Membranes. NSF International.

193 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Chemical Fabrics & Film Association (CFFA). (2020). Industry Average EPD of CFFA SPPR PVC Roofing
Membranes. ASTM International.

ICC. (2013). Low-slope roofs.

https://media.iccsafe.org/news/eNews/2013v10n1/2009_ibc_bcbseries_pages130-132.pdf

IKO. (2023). Life expectancy of single ply membranes. IKO. https://ikogroup.co.uk/news-advice/life-

expectancy-of-single-ply-membranes/

Metal Construction Association (MCA). (2020a). Environmental Product Declaration: Insulated Metal Panels.
UL Environment. https://www.metalconstruction.org/view/download.php/online-education/education-
materials/imp-educational-materials/environmental-product-declaration-for-insulated-metal-panels

Metal Construction Association (MCA). (2020b). Environmental Product Declaration: Metal Composite
Material Wall and Roof Panel Systems.

Metal Construction Association (MCA). (2020c). Environmental Product Declaration: Roll Formed Cladding
Wall and Roof Cladding Systems. https://metalconstruction.org/index.php/online-education/epd---roll-
formed-aluminum-and-steel-cladding-for-roofs-and-walls

Single Ply Roofing Industry (SPRI). (2022a). Environmental Product Declaration: Non-Reinforced EPDM
Single Ply Roofing Membrane. ASTM International.

Single Ply Roofing Industry (SPRI). (2022b). Environmental Product Declaration: Reinforced EPDM Single Ply
Roofing Membrane. ASTM International.

Single Ply Roofing Industry (SPRI). (2023). Environmental Product Declaration: TPO Single Ply Roofing
Membrane. ASTM International.

UL Environment. (2018). PCR Part B: Insulated Metal Panels, Metal Composite Panels, and Metal Cladding:
Roof and Wall Panels.

UL Environment. (2021). Product Category Rules (PCR) Guidance for Building Related Products and Services
Part B: Asphalt Shingles, Built-up Asphalt Membrane Roofing and Modified Bituminous Membrane Roofing
EPD Requirements. UL Environment.

Openings
AluQuébec. (2024). Environmental Product Declaration: Aluminium curtain walls. CSA Group.

EFCO. (2023). EFCO Traditional Curtain Wall System Environmental Product Declaration. ASTM
International.

Glass for Europe. (2022). Continuous energy supply is essential for the flat glass industry. Retrieved January
31, 2023, from https://glassforeurope.com/continuous-energy-supply-is-essential-for-the-flat-glass-
industry/

National Glass Association (NGA). (2019). Environmental Product Declaration: Flat Glass. ASTM
International.

194 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
National Glass Association (NGA). (2020). NGA PCR for Flat Glass: UN CPC 3711. NSF International.

National Glass Association. (2025). World of Glass Map. https://www.glass.org/world-glass-map

NSF. (2024). NSF 1102-23 Product Category Rule for Environmental Product Declarations: PCR for
Fenestration Assemblies. https://d2evkimvhatqav.cloudfront.net/documents/PCR-Product-Category-
Rules/fenestration-assemblies-nsf-1102-23.pdf?v=1707165191

UL Environment. (2016). Product Category Rules for Part B: Processed Glass EPD Requirements. UL
Environment.

Viracon. (2023). Viracon High Performance Insulating Glass Unit Environmental Product Declaration. ASTM
International.

Vitro Architectural Glass. (2023). Environmental Product Declaration: Vitro Processed Glass. SCS Global
Services.

Finishes
Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (ASMI). (2020). An Industry Average Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle
Assessment of 1/2” Lightweight and 5/8” Type X Conventional Gypsum Board for the USA and Canadian
Markets: EPD Project Report.

Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (ASMI). (2021). An Industry Average Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle
Assessment of 1/2” Regular and 5/8” Type X Glass-mat Gypsum Board for the USA and Canadian Markets:
EPD Project Report.

Fireclay Tile. (2020). Environmental Product Declaration: Ceramic Tile - Floor and Wall.
(2020). https://buildingtransparency.org/ec3/industry-epds/ec3ww187

Floor Covering Weekly. (2021). Overseas production LVT offers pros & cons.
https://www.floorcoveringweekly.com/main/features/overseas-production-lvt-offers-pros-cons-
35636#:~:text=%E2%80%9CFor%20the%20North%20American%20market,%2C%20Vietnam%2C%20Turkey
%20and%20India.

Gypsum Association (GA). (2020). Industry Average EPD for 5/8” Type X Conventional Gypsum Board. NSF.

Gypsum Association (GA). (2021). An Industry-Wide “Cradle-to-Gate” EPD for Glass-Mat Gypsum Boards.

Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI). (2024a). Industry-Average EPD: Homogeneous Sheet Vinyl Flooring.
https://rfci.com/environmental-product-declaration/

Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI). (2024b). Industry-Average EPD: Heterogeneous Sheet Vinyl
Flooring. https://rfci.com/environmental-product-declaration/

Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI). (2024c). Industry-Average EPD: Luxury Vinyl Tile (LVT) – Gluedown
Flooring. https://rfci.com/environmental-product-declaration/

Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI). (2024d). Industry-Average EPD: Luxury Vinyl Tile (LVT) – Looselay
Flooring. https://rfci.com/environmental-product-declaration/

Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI). (2024e). Industry-Average EPD: Rubber Sheet and Tile Flooring.

195 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
https://rfci.com/environmental-product-declaration/

Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI). (2024f). Industry-Average EPD: SPC Rigid Core Flooring.
https://rfci.com/environmental-product-declaration/

Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI). (2024g). Industry-Average EPD: WPC Rigid Core Flooring.
https://rfci.com/environmental-product-declaration/

Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI). (2024h). Industry-Average EPD: Solid Vinyl Tile (SVT) Flooring.
https://rfci.com/environmental-product-declaration/

Resilient Floor Covering Institute (RFCI). (2024i). Industry-Average EPD: Vinyl Composition Tile (VCT)
Flooring. https://rfci.com/environmental-product-declaration/

Smart EPD. (2025). Smart EPD Part B Product Category Rules for Gypsum Panels: Standard 1000-004, version
2.

Tile Council of North America (TNCA). (2020). Environmental Product Declaration: Ceramic Tile Industry-
Wide EPD.

UL Environment. (2021). PCR for Building-Related Products and Services, Part B: Non-Metal Ceiling and
Interior Wall Panel System EPD Requirements. UL Environment.

USG. (2023). Environmental Product Declaration: Radar High-NRC High CAC Acoustical Panels. ASTM
International.

Asphalt
Federal Highway Administration. (2025). Low Carbon Transportation Materials Grants Program Thresholds:
Asphalt Mix.

Miller, L., Ciavola, B., & Mukherjee, A. (2024). EPD Benchmark for National Asphalt Pavement Association
Version 2.0. National Asphalt Pavement Association.
https://www.asphaltpavement.org/uploads/documents/EPD_Program/NAPA-SIP108-
EPDBenchmarkForAsphaltMixtures-Aug2024.pdf

Mukherjee, A. (2021). Update to the Life Cycle Assessment for Asphalt Mixtures in Support of the Emerald Eco
Label Environmental Product Declaration Program (NAPA). National Asphalt Pavement Association.
https://www.asphaltpavement.org/uploads/documents/Programs/Emerald_Eco-
Label_EPD_Program/PCR_Public_Comment_Period/LCA_Asphalt_Mixtures_07_29_2021.pdf

National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA). (2022). Product Category Rules (PCR) for Asphalt Mixtures
Version 2.0.
https://www.asphaltpavement.org/uploads/documents/EPD_Program/NAPA_PCR_AsphaltMixtures_v2.p
df

National Asphalt Pavement Association. (2025). Emerald Eco-Label. https://asphaltepd.org/

196 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Appendix A.
Significant Changes from 2023 Material Baselines
Process
During the development of this report, CLF reached out more to stakeholders compared to previous
Material Baselines reports, including:

● Industry associations and manufacturers: In 2024, CLF emailed relevant industry associations
manufacturers, soliciting feedback on the 2023 Material Baselines Appendices’ category
descriptions, PCR documentation, and EPD data. CLF also made directed inquiries for categories
where we sought more substantial support. Several people from associations and manufacturing
companies provided very helpful feedback that CLF was able to incorporate.
● User feedback survey: In 2024, CLF issued a publicly available survey, for people to provide
input on the structure and content of the 2023 report and appendices, informed by their personal
use. Relatively few people completed the survey, but those that did provided valuable feedback
that CLF incorporated where feasible.
● Independent methods review: CLF reached out to a small group of individuals with a range of
areas of expertise (policy, life cycle assessment, architecture and engineering, construction and
procurement, digitized EPDs, software tools, and whole-building LCA). Several of these
individuals reviewed and provided feedback on CLF’s draft methods documentation.
● Building Transparency: CLF relies heavily on Building Transparency (BT, the organization that
operates the EC3 tool) for this project, as nearly all of the EPD data we collected was from EC3.
EC3 has historically incorporated CLF baseline values into the tool to allow users to compare
specific products to the static baseline values, and to perform analysis and documentation for
LEED low-carbon procurement credits. CLF actively engaged with BT to coordinate on several
topics related to EPD data extraction, product type categorization (though we acknowledge
there are areas where EC3’s and CLF’s categorization schemes are not fully aligned),
implementation of baseline values into the EC3 tool, and opportunities for BT to use the results
of CLF’s manual review process to update their database.

Methods
● More use of the product method: In the 2023 version, only the XPS insulation baseline was
based on a collection of product EPDs, and all the rest of the baseline values were based on
published industry-wide data. In this 2025 version, there are several product types with baseline
values based on product EPDs.
● Child and parent category baselines: CLF was previously more resistant to including baselines
for overlapping categories/product types (i.e., where a given product could map to more than
one baseline value). In the 2023 report, there no examples of overlapping categories related to
performance. Ready-mixed concrete was the only example related to geography, where any
given mix in the continental US could feasibly map to more than one baseline value — either the
regional or the U.S. national baseline value.
In this 2025 report, CLF formally introduced the topic of parent and child category baselines,
acknowledging that there can be common scenarios where two product types are functionally

197 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
 equivalent, and other common scenarios where those same two product types are not
functionally equivalent, depending on the application. This report includes several cases of
parent and child category baseline values, where a given product (e.g., a plywood product) could
feasibly map to more than one baseline value (e.g., baseline for plywood or baseline for wood
sheathing), depending on the context.
● Refined the approach to categorizing product types: For all Material Baselines versions, CLF
has aimed to categorize product types based on functional equivalence. In this version, we
developed more definition for how to do that, including a decision tree to use as internal
guidance for selecting relevant attributes when defining product types.
● Refined the approach to assessing a data source’s industry representativeness: In the 2023
Baselines report, CLF acknowledged the need to refine the approach to assessing a data source’s
representativeness of the industry. In this 2025 version, CLF developed more definition to this
process, tying it conceptually to the ISO definition of representativeness and differentiating
assessment approaches depending on the characteristics of the particular data source.

Structure and documentation

The 2023 Material Baselines publications included two separate PDF files: (i) a report with background,
methods, and table of baseline values; and (ii) the (much longer) category appendices with the state-of-
EPD-data snapshots by category. This 2025 report includes similar content, but is structured in one PDF
file, based on user feedback. The “Results by Category” section in this report is similar to the 2023
category appendices.

This report provides more detailed and explicit documentation of CLF’s methods and process, including:

● category inclusion principles

● product type classification approach
● data workflow
● representativeness assessment
● CLF’s data QA intensity by category

198 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Category results
CLF included several new categories in this report compared to the 2023 report and appendices and set
baseline values for several product types for which there were no baseline values in the 2023 report. The
list below documents newly included categories (marked with “C”) and categories with baseline values
added (marked with “BL”).

● High-strength ready-mix concrete: C BL

● Shotcrete: BL
● Regional cement: BL
● Slag cement: C BL
● CMU in the US: BL
● Brick: C BL
● Aluminum sheet: C BL
● Regional softwood lumber: BL
● Redwood lumber: C BL
● Cross laminated timber: BL
● Dowel laminated timber: BL
● Mass plywood panels: BL
● Wood I-joist: BL
● Fiberglass board insulation BL
● Fiberglass blanket insulation: BL
● Fiberglass loose-fill insulation: BL
● Applied fireproofing: C BL
● Insulated metal panel: BL
● TPO membrane roofing: C BL
● EPDM membrane roofing: C BL
● Modified bitumen roofing: C BL
● Built-up asphalt roofing: C BL
● Asphalt shingles: C BL
● Curtain wall: C
● Acoustical ceiling tile: BL
● Ceramic tile: C BL
● Asphalt mixtures: C BL
● New parent category baselines throughout.

CLF excluded from this report two categories that were in the 2023 report due to not meeting category
inclusion principles:

● Data cable
● Steel wire and mesh

199 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Appendix B. EPD Data Workflow
CLF undertook the following steps related to EPD data collection, and data cleaning and pre-processing
to prepare for analysis, summary, and visualizations included in the results.

Data collection
CLF extracted digitized EPD data from the EC3 database via EC3’s API (Building Transparency, 2025),
defining which EC3 categories and relevant EC3 attributes (i.e., data fields) to query. For each category
selected, CLF excluded from its query any EPDs marked in EC3 with a status of “F” (i.e., digitized EPD
failure) or “E” (i.e., digitized EPD error).
CLF’s final data extraction from EC3 for this project was January 23, 2025. EPDs incorporated into EC3
after that date (or EPDs with errors fixed after that date) were not included in CLF’s dataset.
In some rare cases, when CLF did not find an expected EPD in the data extracted from EC3, CLF used the
original EPD (typically a PDF) and manually entered the relevant EPD data into the CLF dataset.
In addition to EPD data collection, CLF gathered information from PCRs, LCA reports, benchmark reports,
manufacturer websites, and industry experts.

Data cleaning and preparation for analysis

After collecting the digitized EPD data, CLF prepared it for analysis using the following steps.
● Cleanup:
○ Ensured GWP values used consistent declared units.; converted (e.g., from GWP/kg to
GWP/metric ton) as needed.
○ Converted data types. (Example: converted EPD and PCR publication and expiry dates
from string format to date-time format.)
○ Converted or calculated numeric fields as needed. (Example: converted gypsum board
thickness from metric units to consistent USA-standard units and values.)
● Excluded likely duplicates: Sometimes there are duplicate digitized EPDs in EC3 that refer to the
same original EPD. For any set of digitized EPDs with the same (i) program operator document ID
number (the unique number that a program operator applies to a published EPD document), (ii)
plant location, and (iii) GWP value, CLF assumed these were likely duplicates and excluded all but
one from the dataset.50
● Filtered to applicable EPDs based on the following criteria:
○ Valid (unexpired) as of January 1, 2025
○ Geography: manufactured in North America
○ Appropriate PCR51

50The reason that the program operator document ID is insufficient on its own is because one EPD
document (with on program operator document ID) may report different results for several facilities
and/or products.
51CLF generally excluded from the dataset EPDs that did not reference the major North American PCR referenced in
this report per category. For future versions of this report, CLF may develop methods for determining whether EPDs

200 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
 ○ EPD’s scope aligned with CLF’s product type scope
● Sorted by product EPD vs. industry EPD. (These are separated in the scatter plot and summary
statistics table. CLF typically used industry EPDs for the GWP contribution chart.)
● Sorted into product types to prepare for generating summary statistics and setting baseline
values.
● Extracted disaggregated GWP values by life cycle stage (for the GWP contribution chart).
● Distinguished data points just for the map vs. those that get used for GWP analysis. (For GWP
analysis — scatter plots, summary statistics, calculating baseline values in some cases — each
data point corresponded to a unique EPD result, even if the result covers multiple facilities. For
an EPD that provides a single aggregated result for multiple facilities across more than one state
or province, CLF created a “for-map-only” data point for each facility location. This allowed the
map to show where facilities are represented by EPDs, without affecting the GWP analysis and
charts.)
● Identified digitized EPDs with relevant data gaps, EPDs where the digitized data showed low or
high GWP values (relative to the rest of the EPDs of that product type), and EPDs where the
digitized data showed an atypical PCR.
● Basic QA: manually spot checked EPDs as feasible, starting with those where the digitized data
showed low or high GWP values or an atypical PCR.
CLF performed these processes using a combination of scripted and manual approaches. Generally, CLF
used a scripted approach when the necessary information to perform the function existed already within
the EC3 data export, and there were multiple cases requiring intervention. And CLF generally used a
manual approach when the necessary information was not already within the EC3 data export (and thus
CLF needed to review the original EPD to gather the information) and/or if there was only one or a few
cases requiring intervention.

Determining QA intensity and additional QA steps

Beyond these basic steps, CLF performed a range of QA functions that varied by category. Most of these
functions involved manual QA, where CLF reviewed the original EPD to confirm or revise information.
CLF’s data QA intensity varied by category depending on (i) the significance of the category’s product EPD
data; and (ii) the size of the dataset (i.e., the number of EPDs). CLF used the following criteria to determine
data QA intensity per category.
CLF determined that a category’s product EPD data was significant (and thus warranted extra focus for
data QA to ensure a more reliably accurate dataset) if it met either of the following criteria:
● The category is a major focus in Buy Clean policies (focusing on EPA’s four key materials of
concrete, steel, glass, and asphalt (U.S. EPA, 2025), and therefore, agencies are more likely to
compare product EPDs to a policy’s GWP threshold or limit value for compliance.
● CLF anticipated using the collection of product EPDs for calculating a baseline GWP value
(typically because there was no existing industry-average EPD or other published industry-wide
data source).

from different PCRs are appropriately comparable using the comparability criteria described here related to
equivalent LCA methods and data.

201 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
If the category met at least one of these criteria, the size of the dataset further distinguished CLF’s data
QA intensity.
● QA intensity = high. If a category met at least one of the above criteria for product EPD data
significance and there was a relatively small dataset (<20 EPDs), CLF’s data QA intensity for the
category was high. CLF staff performed the following additional QA steps beyond the basic
cleaning and QA steps:
○ Manually checked most or all EPDs.
○ Filled all relevant data gaps to the extent feasible.
○ Searched elsewhere (besides EC3) for relevant EPDs and manually added them to the
dataset that were not in our EC3 export.

● QA intensity = medium. If a category met at least one of the above criteria for product EPD

data significance and there was a relatively large dataset (≥20 EPDs), CLF’s data QA

intensity for the category was medium. CLF staff performed the following additional QA steps
beyond the basic cleaning and QA steps:
○ Manually checked some EPDs, starting with low or high GWP values relative to the rest of
the dataset and EPDs where EC3 listed an atypical PCR.
○ Spot-checked other EPDs and filled relevant data gaps as feasible.
● QA intensity = low. If the category did not meet either of the above criteria for product EPD data
significance, CLF’s data QA intensity for the category was low. CLF staff performed the basic
cleaning and QA steps.
CLF used the above framework to identify a starting point for category QA intensity, which CLF sometimes
adjusted based on the state of the data. For example, where CLF’s product type categorization did not
align well with EC3’s categorization, CLF often ended up performing additional manual QA steps beyond
the identified starting point for the category.

202 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Appendix C.
Changes in CLF Baseline Values Over Time
The following charts show the relationship between the 2023 and 2025 CLF baseline values. Generally,
product types where there was a baseline value in both versions are included. There is an exception for
ready-mixed concrete, which is not included here, since there are hundreds of ready-mixed concrete
baseline values, and the 2023 values did not change in 2025. In cases where a 2023 product type was split
to separate 2025 product types (e.g., luxury vinyl tile (LVT) by installation type, XPS insulation by
compressive strength), the 2025 separated values are shown relative to the 2023 single value. Product
types where there was a baseline in 2023 but not in 2025, or vice-versa, are not included here.

In most cases, the changes are due to the changes in the EPD data (e.g., new versions of industry-average
EPDs), which reflect changes in real world emissions and may in some cases reflect changes in
background data or modeling practices. In a few cases, there are minor changes in baseline values that
reflect CLF’s changes in baseline-setting methods — changes in rounding and changes in life cycle stage
scope for some insulation types.

203 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure A.1.1 2025 CLF baseline values relative to 2023 values: cement, masonry, steel, aluminum, wood.

204 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum
Figure A.1.2 2025 CLF baseline values relative to 2023 values: insulation, cladding and roofing, openings, finishes.

205 2025 CLF North American Material Baselines | Carbon Leadership Forum