The Challenge of Designing Carbon-Neutral: Finding The Balance With Embodied vs Operational Carbon

Creating a truly sustainable building design means managing both embodied and operational carbon.  

When we refer to ‘embodied carbon’, we’re talking about all the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that come from the manufacturing, transportation, and installation of building materials—essentially, the environmental cost of getting a building off the ground.  

Operational carbon, on the other hand, is all about the energy needed to keep that building running—think heating, cooling, lighting, and powering everyday appliances. While both have a huge impact on the planet, they occur at different stages and require different strategies to manage.

Renewable energy sources and smart technologies can help cut down energy consumption with relatively modest investment, and the benefits compound over time, therefore tackling operational carbon can be more straightforward and cost-effective.  

However, embodied carbon is not as simple.  

Sustainability has to be at the forefront of the design to make a real difference. Every choice—from the materials you use to the construction techniques and waste management strategies—affects the building's carbon footprint from day one.

It’s a big challenge to find the right balance in reducing operational carbon and keeping embodied carbon in check. But this balancing act is essential to meeting important goals, such as outlined in the Paris Agreement, for carbon neutrality.

For those working on retrofits, taking an end-to-end view of the project is key.

This means looking beyond immediate savings and considering the carbon impact over the building's entire lifecycle.  

Calculating the carbon payback period, which helps understand whether upfront investments in reducing operational emissions (like adding insulation or upgrading HVAC systems), is a helpful way to work out if the embodied carbon costs are worth it.

Unfortunately, making these decisions isn't always easy—there's still a lack of comprehensive data on materials, construction processes, and retrofitting options, which can mean it’s a bit of a guessing game.  

Then there's the design dilemma: how do you make smart, low-carbon decisions that strike the right balance?  

Take the building façade, for example. The materials you choose for the exterior can increase embodied carbon, but they also play a huge role in regulating energy use inside. Adding more insulation might increase the embodied carbon, but it can also drastically reduce the operational carbon by improving energy efficiency.  

So, while some decisions might come with a higher upfront price tag, they can deliver long-term savings—and a smaller carbon footprint—over the building’s life.

More and more real estate clients are demanding that both embodied and operational carbon be part of the initial calculations. They want sustainable solutions, but they also need them to fit within their budget. Thankfully, the guidance from the RICS’ updated Professional Standard have made it easier to calculate the carbon and cost trade-offs.  

Now, if a client wants to invest in energy-saving upgrades, like adding extra insulation, we can accurately assess whether that investment will pay off—not just in terms of cost, but in hitting those all-important sustainability goals.

In short, balancing embodied and operational carbon is not easy, but it’s also an opportunity to create a more innovative and sustainable design. With the right tools and strategies, you are able to reduce your environmental footprint and create buildings that will stand the test of time—both economically and ecologically.