AvivGreen Consulting
▼

Choosing an LCA tool: a buyer’s guide for construction manufacturers

Which LCA tool should a construction product manufacturer use? There is no single best one. The right choice depends on your team’s LCA skills, the EPD programmes your markets ask for, and what the tool has to do over the next two to three years, including sending data to a Digital Product Passport.

For most European manufacturers building up an EPD programme, that means comparing One Click LCA (which now includes SimaPro), Sphera (formerly GaBi) and OpenLCA. EC3 is useful for design-stage comparisons in North America, but it isn’t built for producing verified EPDs.

This page summarises our free buyer’s guide. The full PDF is on the Resources page.

The main tools compared

One Click LCA, including SimaPro. The largest LCA and EPD platform, with hundreds of thousands of construction datasets across more than 150 countries. The 2025 merger brought together One Click LCA’s ready-made EPD workflows and SimaPro’s modelling depth. It supports EN 15804+A2, BIM integrations and a global verifier network. SimaPro is still sold separately for expert modelling and research. Best for: construction product manufacturers scaling an EPD programme, teams that need verified EPDs quickly, and companies that will need to export DPP data.

Sphera (GaBi). Built for large industrial companies in automotive, steel, chemicals and aerospace. It has a managed library of tens of thousands of process datasets, and its Automation module connects bills of materials from ERP or PLM systems to calculate product carbon footprints across thousands of products. It supports supplier data exchange through formats such as PACT. It needs specialist LCA knowledge and takes more effort to set up. Best for: large manufacturers that need portfolio-scale automation and corporate ESG reporting.

EC3 (Embodied Carbon in Construction Calculator). A free tool from Building Transparency for comparing structural and envelope materials at design stage, with Revit integration. Good for early material comparisons and embodied carbon benchmarks. Its data outside North America is limited and it doesn’t produce verified EPDs. Best for: architects and engineers on US and Canadian projects.

OpenLCA. Free and open source, widely used by researchers and LCA consultants. The method is fully transparent and customisable, and it works with commercial databases such as ecoinvent. EPD workflows are mostly manual, so verification timelines vary. Best for: consultants and research teams that need full methodological control. Less suited to manufacturers who want to scale EPD production.

Five things to compare

  1. EPD programme compatibility. EN 15804+A2 is mandatory for construction products in Europe. If you sell into several markets, check that the tool has verified workflows for the programmes you need, such as IBU, EPD International, BRE or INIES, not only general ISO 14040/14044 compliance. Programme templates and pre-verification checks cut the time to a published EPD.
  2. DPP data export. Ask vendors which standard formats they support (for example PACT v3), whether there is an API for automatic data exchange, and how their roadmap covers the ESPR data fields and the delegated acts for your products.
  3. Your team’s skills. SimaPro, Sphera and OpenLCA expect someone who can build models from scratch. One Click LCA uses ready-made emission factors and templates that a sustainability manager can work with without deep LCA training. Pick a tool your team can’t really use and you’ll end up depending on consultants or getting unreliable results.
  4. Total cost of ownership. The licence is the cost you see. Verification fees, database renewals, integration work and training are the ones you don’t. For a manufacturer producing 10 to 50 EPDs a year, the difference between platforms can be several times over once these are included. Build a three-year model that covers all of them, plus internal staff time and any DPP export tools.
  5. Verifier network and speed to EPD. How quickly can you get from model to verified, published EPD?

How to run the selection

Treat it as a scored RFI or RFP. Weights that work for a typical construction products manufacturer:

  • EPD programme compatibility: around 25%
  • DPP and API export: around 20%
  • Ease of use for your team: around 20%
  • Three-year total cost of ownership: around 20%
  • Verifier network and speed to EPD: around 15%

Run short pilots with your own product data before you decide, and bring your procurement or finance lead into the cost review so they can sign it off. The right tool is the one your team can use to produce credible, verified EPDs at the pace your product range needs, not the one with the longest feature list.

Download the full guide

The PDF has the full comparison and the selection framework in a format you can share with procurement. Download it from the Resources page; enter your email address and it opens right away.

We also help manufacturers choose a platform and run LCA and EPD programmes from start to finish, from methodology and tool choice to study oversight and EPD publication. Our advice is independent: we have no vendor affiliation. Book a scoping call.