Having been part of the Green Building Council Finland working group for creating the framework for interior LCA, we were excited to put the knowdledge into practice. The task was to calculate the carbon footprint resulting from the interior renovation during the life cycle of the office space. To maximize the intake and learning opportunities, we assessed two different scenarios: a lighter alteration (Version A) and a more extensive one (Version B).

The study aimed to identify the materials and stages in the life cycle with the greatest environmental impacts, providing valuable data to support decision-making for the upcoming spatial renovations. The study was conducted in accordance with the Finnish Green Building Council (FiGBC) framework, which is built upon the Ministry of the Environment 2021 method.

As anticipated, the calculations for the lighter renovation scenario resulted in a smaller carbon footprint compared to the heavier version. The greenhouse gas emissions difference between the two versions was 31 % (Figure 1). The primary contributing factors were, firstly, the renewal of the negotiation room glass partitioners; secondly, the construction of a new call room with a glass wall and door; and thirdly, the renewal of the ceramic tiles in the bathroom, all of which were specific to version B.

The pre-demolition phase is reported separately according to the FiGBC guideline. The first challenge was determining how to assess it, as there is no standard value for interior demolition in the national Finnish database, co2data.fi. We landed on estimating the dismantled building part masses and used the C3 value of the materials defined in co2data.fi. This part of the assessment requires further clarification by the FiGBC or another operator to improve the comparability of interior LCA reports in the future. In the Bensow study, however, the pre-demolition score and the difference between the two alternative designs were found to be insignificant in the entity.

In both plans, the renewal of the light fixtures was identified as a significant emission source. However, replacing the light sources with energy-efficient alternatives can lead to substantial reductions in carbon emissions during the operational phase, making this a widely recommended practice. Additionally, the renewal of the vast surface materials, such as floors and ceilings, contributed significantly to the increased carbon footprint CO2e in the study.

Figure 2: Building part carbon footprint division chart of the version A and B.

Based on the study, a general but not surprising conclusion is that the smaller the structural changes, the smaller the environmental impacts. Thus, interior alterations and changes must be based on need and significantly improving the user experience. This is in line with the R0-R2 of circularity: refuse, rethink, reduce. Choosing low-carbon products for floor, wall, and ceiling structures and surfaces is crucial when aiming for low-carbon interiors. Prioritizing materials and products with long service lives and high recyclability rates is essential to achieve a smaller environmental impact and longer intervals between renovations.

The cumulative effect of interior renovations increases consequently when the swaps are done more frequently. For example, if version A renovations were carried out every three years over the next 60 years, totaling 20 replacements, the carbon footprint would be 60 tonnes CO2e. In comparison, if the renovations were done every ten years, the carbon footprint would be less than 20 tonnes CO2e (Figure 3). For version B, the figures would be 30.8 tonnes CO2e for renovations every ten years and 103 tonnes CO2e for renovations every three years.

As the Bensow case study was conducted for the real estate owner, there were no loose furniture to include in the study. However, the FiGBC guideline recommend that loose furniture should be assessed and reported separately. To increase the availability of verified data on loose furniture, we argue that it is necessary to start including them in LCAs. Determining how to do this, given the current scarcity of available furniture Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) and the lack of valid generic values, remains a challenge. Nevertheless, we aim to continue the dialogue within the FiGBC-led working group to promote this matter.

Other aspects that, in our experience, require further development and definition include HVAC alterations in relation to interior changes and the concept of carbon handprint in relation to biogenic carbon. We hope that LCA tools will improve in identifying the specific needs of renovation projects and interior alterations. We are committed to contributing to these advancements wherever possible.

We are excited to finally have done our first LCA report after several years of grappling with the challenges of assessing and verifying the environmental impacts of our designs. We understand that both our methods for conducting LCAs and the guidelines will continue to evolve, but the wheels are in motion, and we are thrilled to be part of the process.

We cherish the lessons learned from the pilot project and are committed to continously develop our interior design tools and methodologies to create more sustainable solutions, both internally and externally. As for the Bensow project, the life cycle assessment resulted in choosing most of the alteration actions from the version A list, with some additional modifications. The construction phase is ongoing, and we aim to conduct a validation assessment once the final material and renovation palette is settled.

The LCA journey has only just begun.

We actively engaged in various training programs and teaching opportunities. Circular Design – a path towards circular economy, training programme by Ministry of the Environment of Finland and facilitated by Design Forum Finland and Ethica Finland was the first and only national programme deep-diving into circular design principles.

As a part of JATKO project by LAB University of Applied Sciences, we were involved with an advanced training program for interior designers, delving into circular design.
Facilitated by Martela Group, Circular Design Tour took us on online tour across Finland to share our ways of utilising the on 9 R:s principle of circular economy in interior design, while participating Reimagining Spaces workshop with Green Building Council Finland, The Finnish Association of Interior Architects SIO, Senaatti-kiinteistöt, Muotoilutoimisto 2Loops and Creative Souls Studio provided us with another opportunity to disseminate the insights from the 9Rs of principle through one-day of workshops.

In addition to various other activities, we engaged in the Helsinki Kiertotalousklusteri, participated in a panel discussion on The Product Sustainability Framework hosted by Finnish Design Shop, attended the Business Finland Networking Event focused on Business and Cooperation in the Field of Low Carbon Built Environment at the Embassy of Finland in Stockholm, and became part of the 100 Gruppen Sweden for Nordic collaboration.

Our ongoing development efforts involve collaborations with Materialisting, contributing to a low-carbon spatial design framework with the Green Building Council Finland, and participating in the Green Deal Development initiative led by the Ministry of the Environment of Finland.

The journey continues – in 2024, our goal is to accomplish our first life cycle assessment in accordance with the forthcoming national framework for interior LCA. We aspire to explore profoundly, grasp insights, and implement the gained knowledge in our ongoing initiatives, placing a strong emphasis on collaboration. Given the magnitude of the challenges tied to climate change, working together stands as the sole path toward realizing a more circular future. Eager to continue learning and contributing!

Materialisting utilizes product-specific environmental profiles, drawing on comprehensive lifecycle data to reveal a material’s carbon emissions, ecological impacts, and suitability for a circular economy in an easily understandable way. This pioneering service integrates environmental data and technology to support responsible construction practices and contributes to the green transition. 

Beyond construction materials, Materialisting also addresses interior surfaces and furnishings, a crucial but often underestimated aspect of the (sustainable) built environment. As a forward-thinking pilot phase participant and currently also an investor, Fyra emphasizes the importance of considering interior spaces’ environmental impact. Becoming part of Materialisting does not only align with Fyra’s strategic objectives but also actively contributes to the industry’s advancement. 

“Emissions and environmental impacts linked to the interiors form a pivotal component of a building’s overall environmental impact over its lifecycle. Notably, as interior alterations occur approx. every 5 to 10 years, the environmental impact of these changes effectively multiplies. Designers have a crucial role in bringing these perspectives to the forefront of client awareness, ensuring that they are factored into decision-making processes.” Hanna Neuvo, CEO of Fyra, underscores the significance of meticulous planning and conscious choices. 

“Materialisting empowers designers by providing easy access to essential environmental data about products and enables them to make informed decisions. This helps to dispel the misconception that eco-friendly choices are consistently costly or aesthetically unappealing.” Neuvo emphasizes. “As an addition to the ability to reduce carbon footprint, sustainable choices can also lead to innovative and beautiful design solutions.“

For more information please contact Hanna Neuvo, CEO, hanna.neuvo@fyra.fi, +358 (0)40 582 8961

While the common indicators for sustainability are being developed, offers circular economy the best models for doing the daily work of an interior designer more sustainably. The R-rule, named after the re-prefixes, is a clear framework for circular economy and is based on the idea of roughly ranking the variety of circularity actions. The primary rule is to refuse of anything unnecessary. In ideal situation, projects with low ambition on carbon reduction and circular economy targets should be refused. Accustomed patterns of thought and action should also be questioned. For example, different models of the sharing economy can be utilized in space planning, and the leasing model is taking the field by storm.

Artificial intelligence will also provide thrilling possibilities for the rethink-strategy. The depletion of natural resources can be reduced through resource efficiency. As interior architects, we can approach this rule by asking if the wanted result can be achieved by doing less in terms of weight, quality, and quantity. The digitalization, accelerated by the covid pandemic, also opens opportunities for resource efficiency from multiple points of views, although it must be remembered that the digital technologies are not matter- nor energy-free solutions.

The final R strategies related to the utilization of the material often require industrial processes. From an interior architect’s perspective, these strategies are strongly emphasized in common discussion and when choosing materials. Repurposed and recycled materials are, for example, self-evident options for textiles. What is concerning, is that the emphasis lies  heavily on these last in order strategies, which flips the order of the R-rule around. This must quickly be switched to match the ideal order of the model. The value of many commonly used interior materials decrease during the recycling processes, and in the absence of practical models and processes, the “100% recyclable”-labelled materials are often actually being recovered into energy through burning. How the EU directive on Green Claims takes the recyclability claims into account remains to be seen.

Interior architects and designers play a key role in the circular economy transition. The most influential change starts between the ears and is transformed into smarter ways of production and use of materials through the designers’ work. The circular economy of the built environment can be further improved by enhancing the flow of information between the different stakeholders and within the field by the practitioners. Circular economy requires services, training, innovations, change of attitude and seamless co-operation across industry boundaries.

For sustainability issues, please contact our sustainability coordinator Sisko Anttalainen: sisko.anttalainen@fyra.fi, tel. +358 40 7482554.