One Click LCA recently hosted a panel discussion in London to discuss how the UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard Version 1 is being applied on real projects – not as a future aspiration, but as a live requirement already shaping procurement decisions today
Construction professionals face a familiar challenge. Most support the objectives on embodied carbon and operational performance but many still struggle with overlapping frameworks, certifications, client requirements and procurement realities.
The UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard (UKNZCBS), launched in Version 1 earlier this year, aims to provide a common definition of what constitutes a net zero carbon-aligned building. The question now is whether the industry will adopt it before regulation mandates it.
That debate formed the basis of a panel discussion at the One Click LCA Carbon Experts Summit in London on 3 June, bringing together Orlando Gibbons from Arup and representing the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC) and UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard, Kallum Desai of AECOM and Cailum Cherry of Stantec.
A common framework in a conflicting market
Throughout the conversation, a recurring subject was the critical need for the industry to achieve better alignment to accelerate progress to net zero targets. For years, project teams have navigated a mix of planning requirements, voluntary certifications, corporate net zero commitments, client-specific targets and industry guidance. The UKNZCBS attempts to consolidate expectations into a single framework with defined limits, reporting requirements and verification pathways.
Orlando Gibbons described the standard as “a rule book” that defines what constitutes a net zero carbon-aligned building. Unlike broader sustainability certifications, its focus is deliberately narrow.
“It focuses on carbon and energy. It does not have a wider sustainability scope. It is very net zero focused,” he said.
The standard emerged from collaboration between nine founding organisations and hundreds of contributors across the built environment. Its requirements apply to multiple sectors, including offices, homes, retrofit projects, mixed-use developments and industrial buildings.
For project teams already struggling with competing requirements, that consistency may prove valuable even before formal certification becomes commonplace.
Procurement is not waiting for full regulation clarity
While certification remains voluntary, speakers argued that market behaviour is already changing. Kallum Desai noted that public and private sector clients are increasingly referencing elements of the standard within project briefs and specifications.
“The Department for Education has a specification referencing Net Zero Carbon Building Standard limits. It does not say ‘align to the whole standard’ but it includes reference to the limits to recognise its importance,” he said.
That observation reflects a wider trend across procurement. Clients may not require full certification today but many are beginning to adopt the underlying metrics. For design teams, that means familiarity with UKNZCBS requirements may become a practical necessity regardless of whether a project formally seeks certification.
Start before the standard feels comfortable
The panel repeatedly returned to a challenge many organisations face: waiting for the standard to mature before engaging with it. Gibbons argued that approach risks slowing wider market progress.
“Talk about the metrics with your clients, even if you think that you might not be able to meet the limits,” he commented.
The standard’s creators have already responded to industry feedback. Version 1 introduced an optional “on-track” assessment before full verification, addressing the concerns of projects only receiving confirmation after completion and operational performance data become available. A performance evaluation route is also being introduced for projects that miss certain requirements but still demonstrate substantial progress.
Those changes address the need to provide a pathway for projects that are improving performance, even if they do not immediately satisfy every threshold.
Where the industry stands today: Not every project will pass
The panel also discussed the standard’s limitations. The UKNZCBS remains a pass-fail framework: a project must satisfy every mandatory requirement to claim alignment. The speakers acknowledged that this creates practical challenges. Desai’s logistics project, developed before the standard was formally launched, currently meets four of six core limits.
“The two that we are not achieving are the energy use intensity and the onsite renewable energy,” Desai affirmed.
He also highlighted concerns around flexibility: “Not all buildings are standard. It is very difficult to fit them into one box.”
That tension is likely to remain as adoption grows. A single framework creates consistency, but it also inevitably raises questions about how unique project circumstances should be treated.
The panellists’ views differed on this point. While speakers broadly supported rigorous thresholds, there was recognition that the market will continue debating how much flexibility is appropriate to ensure the correct level of comparability.
Success depends on collaboration beyond design teams
Another consistent theme was the need to move beyond traditional design-stage carbon assessments. Desai described how AECOM’s project incorporated contractor questionnaires, sustainability workshops, procurement requirements, carbon change management processes and supplier engagement.
“Collaboration is needed across the value chain, upstream and downstream,” he said.
Cherry’s experience at Stantec pointed to similar lessons. His team found that success depended not only on design decisions but also on procurement readiness, contractor
engagement, and data collection processes.
“Everyone’s in alignment about what’s being done,” he said when describing what is required for first-time adopters.
Practical cases show that meeting future UKNZCBS requirements will not only depend on better modelling. Procurement teams, contractors, manufacturers, and asset owners all influence outcomes.
Cost remains a complex topic
The discussion avoided simplistic claims that lower carbon always costs less. Gibbons argued that material efficiency often reduces both embodied carbon and project costs.
“Generally, if you are reducing those material quantities, you are also reducing costs,” he said.
However, both Gibbons and Desai acknowledged that emerging technologies and pilot materials can carry premiums. Desai described trials involving new low-carbon concrete technologies and carbon-storing supplementary cementitious materials.
“That is a hard sell,” he said. “You need to engage clients and have active pilots.”
Yet the panel agreed that pilots remain necessary if innovative materials are to become commercially viable at scale.
The road ahead for UK construction leaders
The UKNZCBS is still in its early stages. Verification procedures are being finalised, additional sectors are being considered through Pathfinder workstreams and market adoption is still uneven.
Yet the discussion suggested the industry is already moving toward a common framework. The strongest message from the panel was not that every project should immediately pursue certification, but that every project should begin using the metrics.
As procurement requirements, planning policies and client expectations evolve, familiarity with UKNZCBS may become less a matter of certification checkbox and more a matter of standard practice.
The post The UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard meets reality on live projects appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
