Robert Nussey, Grace English and Brogan MacDonald
February 17, 2026
Beyond net zero: practical ways to measure nature impact
Net-zero buildings can still drive biodiversity loss through construction supply chains. Our study explores whether Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) can quantify embodied ecological impacts for nature impacts reporting and long-term asset value.
The real estate sector knows its carbon numbers well. Buildings are responsible for around 40% of global energy-related CO₂ emissions, making net-zero performance a central goal for new developments and refurbishments. But there is a growing blind spot in this transition.
Behind many net-zero buildings lies a hidden footprint: the loss of species and habitats embedded in construction supply chains. From quarrying that displaces wetlands, to plantations replacing natural forests, to mineral extraction fragmenting ecosystems, these impacts often occur far from the project site – and therefore outside traditional project assessments.
Why measuring biodiversity impacts is vital for business and nature
These impacts are known as Embodied Ecological Impacts (EEI). And under the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), they can no longer be ignored. Under the revised CSRD timeline and scope following the EU’s Omnibus simplification package, in‑scope companies will still be required to disclose impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems where these impacts are assessed as material, drawing on information from their value chains.
CSRD is not emerging in isolation. It sits alongside a rapidly tightening regulatory landscape that is pushing biodiversity from a voluntary ESG topic to a matter of compliance and risk management. The forthcoming Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) will require companies not just to report impacts, but to identify, prevent and mitigate environmental harm across their supply chains. The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) introduces mandatory traceability and proof of deforestation-free sourcing for key construction-related commodities. In parallel, global frameworks such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) are reshaping investor expectations around how nature-related risks and impacts are measured and managed.
Together, these developments signal a clear shift: understanding biodiversity loss within supply chains is becoming a board-level issue, with implications for market access, financing, and long-term asset resilience.
How to measure the impacts today
The challenge is that while the industry has robust tools for measuring embodied carbon, there is still no widely accepted method for quantifying biodiversity loss in construction supply chains.
A major new report from IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services) highlights that less than 1% of the world’s biggest companies mention nature impacts in their annual reporting – which could leave them exposed to sizeable financial risks.
“Too often, businesses spend more time trying to decipher complex, competing frameworks for compliance and reporting than taking meaningful action”, said Prof. Stephen Polasky (USA), Co-chair of the Assessment.
To address this complexity for Ramboll’s clients and partners, our study Measuring biodiversity impacts in construction supply chains examines whether life cycle assessments (LCAs) - the backbone of embodied-carbon analysis – can deliver on quantifying biodiversity impacts in construction supply chains, and what that means for you as you prepare for the next phase of ESG reporting.
The results of our Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) reviews
We benchmarked six LCA methods (ReCiPe 2016, LC-IMPACT, IMPACT World+, Product Biodiversity Footprint, Biodiversity Impact Assessment+ and Environmental Profit & Loss) alongside two practitioner tools (OneClick LCA and the open-source Doughnut Biotool) against five critical gaps in biodiversity footprinting.
The findings underline both the value of LCA and its current limitations when applied to biodiversity impacts in construction supply chains.
Key limitations of current biodiversity life cycle assessment
- Location specificity. Most LCAs rely on global or continental averages. Yet the same tonne of cement can have radically different ecological consequences when sourced from a biodiversity hotspot versus a degraded landscape – creating a real risk of materially understating impacts.
- Levels of biodiversity. UN goals require protection of genes, species and ecosystems diversity. Most current methods, however, focus narrowly on species richness, overlooking ecosystem function and resilience.
- Drivers of loss. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) identifies five key drivers of biodiversity loss: land and sea use change, climate change, pollution, over-exploitation and invasive species. Only the first three are routinely covered by most LCA approaches, leaving significant pressures unaccounted for.
- Land-use detail. Land-use changes with very different management intensities – such as clear-cut versus selective logging – are frequently aggregated into single categories. In some tools, including OneClick LCA, land-use change is omitted altogether, causing biodiversity scores to closely mirror global-warming potential rather than ecological reality.
- Diversity metrics. Metrics and underlying data inputs vary widely across methods, making results difficult to compare between projects or aggregate at portfolio level – limiting their usefulness for decision-making and disclosure.
So, is LCA still the right technique for the job?
Yes, provided its constraints are clearly understood and transparently disclosed.
LCA remains the only scalable technique for comparing material options across complex global supply chains. It can identify relative hotspots and inform early-stage design choices. However, its outputs should be treated as directional guidance rather than absolute measure of biodiversity performance, and complemented with site-level ecological surveys, deeper supplier engagement, and qualitative ecological expertise - particularly where biodiversity risks are likely to be material.
Case study: One North Quay – mapping our 'second site'
One North Quay is a commercial life science development currently under construction on the north side of the Canary Wharf estate in London, delivered as a joint venture between Canary Wharf Group and Kadans Science Partners. At over 130 metres tall and comprising more than 76,500 m² of gross internal area, it is set to become Europe's largest life science development.
The biodiversity impacts of construction often occur far from the project site, at the locations where materials are extracted - referred to as a 'second site'. For this project, we have been working to map the scope of our 'second site' associated with structural materials. This was achieved through live tracking of all structural construction materials entering the site boundary, combined with close collaboration with suppliers to identify downstream sources of raw materials.
Case study
Steel is produced via the Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) route, with approximately 5% of the metallic input comprising imported ferroalloys and alloying additions and ~95% sourced from UK-origin steel feedstock.
@Ramboll
One North Quay - "Second Site" Mapping (Concrete mapping)
@Ramboll
By extending impact assessment beyond the project boundary, we take a critical first step toward understanding the real ecological impacts embedded in construction materials. More importantly, this approach is replicable. Wider adoption across the industry would help build the data foundations needed for credible biodiversity reporting - and send a clear demand signal for greater transparency in construction supply chains.
From net-zero to nature-positive real estate
Net-zero buildings are a necessary milestone - but they are not the end of the sustainability journey for real estate. As biodiversity shifts from a voluntary ambition to a regulated reporting requirement, developers and investors will need to look beyond operational performance and confront the ecological impacts embedded in their value chains.
Life cycle assessment can play an important role in this transition, but only if its limitations are recognised and its results used appropriately. The next phase will demand better data on sourcing locations, closer collaboration with suppliers, and a willingness to combine quantitative assessment with ecological expertise.
Those who start building visibility of their 'second site' today will be better positioned to manage risk, meet regulatory expectations, and demonstrate credible leadership in a nature-positive built environment.
Want to know more?
Robert Nussey
Nature Positive Manager
+44 7974 404579
Grace English
Graduate Consultant
Brogan MacDonald
Head of Sustainability–Structures
+44 7814 760380