It quickly became clear that the challenge can be tackled at different levels. As one contributor noted the PAS 2080 standard creates a framework for decision making that begins with identifying if no or low build options are possible. It also allows options to be assessed for their impact across the whole lifecycle including, capital works, the operation of the assets, and the carbon generated by highways users. There will also be opportunities for incorporating carbon positive elements into schemes, for example enhanced capacity for active travel or carbon sequestration.

FM Conway is a Strategic Partner of CIHT's Partnerships Network. Please visit their website here. 

It would be helpful to work on Net Carbon Positive elements we can introduce into schemes. It is going to be very hard to eliminate the final 20% or so of embedded emissions, so having an agreed and certified way to balance off the final 20% of embedded emissions will help us enormously to close out this agenda.

Bill Hewlett, British Board of Agrement  

To reach Net Zero however, all schemes are going to have to make greater use of recycled or other innovative low carbon materials in highways projects.  To make progress on materials the supply chain needs to be able to give Local Authorities and other clients the confidence that these materials will give the level of performance they need. That means being willing to invest in creating a solid data rich evidence base grounded in credible research and trials.

I want to see the collaborative, sustainable use of recycled materials that meet all normal standards – and for that to be grounded in solid evidence.

Mark Flint, FM Conway

Clients meanwhile need to be proactive market-makers, giving the supply chain confidence that the demand for low carbon solutions exists and will extend into the future.  That could include more groups of Local Authorities banding together to create shared long term programmes. Clients can also encourage innovation in their supply chain by being alert to specifications that encourage over design. This is often the result of using old standards to which successive generations have then added further factors of safety.

This is an example of the group’s conclusion that collaboration and risk-sharing will be the great enabler of progress. The roundtable was clear that contracts are important if we want these more productive relationships. Contracts need to enable early and continued collaboration, recognise the intellectual property each party is bringing to the table and establish a fair sharing of risk and reward.

Contracts are never however a complete solution and need to be accompanied by the kind of open culture and mutual trust that can only be generated by working together over many years. Suppliers need to be able bring ideas to the table knowing they will be rewarded.  Clients need to avoid creating a servant-master relationship and bogging their partners down in reporting that doesn’t shift the dial on carbon. All parties must be willing to have an open dialogue on what is needed and how it can be achieved. Taking the conversation full circle, the roundtable agreed that a key part of that dialogue must include working together to challenge overly conservative standards or specifications.

The biggest challenge is comparing apples with apples, are products carbon footprints being measured cradle to grave, cradle to gate – or by some other measure?

James Gosden, Marshalls

A common frustration for participants was the confusion caused by the multiplicity of different methods being used by businesses to measure the carbon intensity of their products and processes. Clients can be time poor so it is unsurprising that they can default to using headline numbers to make decisions but if those numbers are not measuring the same thing this will not drive down emissions.

The roundtable explored different ways of tackling this challenge. Firstly, education clearly has a big role to play. People in key roles need support to improve their carbon literacy, including their understanding of basic concepts such as Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions and what that means for construction products.  

At the level of the organization, the process for establishing baselines and setting targets can be de-mystified. Fundamentally, organisations need to measure their carbon footprint down to Scope 3 (indirect emissions in a businesses’ value chain), set a science-based target, ideally shared across the whole value chain and work with their partners on the innovation needed to stay on this pathway. PAS 2060 and all of the other tool sets are really collections of best practices to support this goal.

At a sector or national level, the UK could usefully learn from international practice. In Norway and Denmark for example, the national road directorates have collaborated with the supply chain to create a common process for generating Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) for asphalt, backed by 3^rd party certification. The group also discussed ongoing efforts in the UK led by the Carbon Trust and multiple professional bodies to create a single database of emission factors for both products and entities.

Ultimately however, clients would ideally be in the same situation as a consumer looking at the energy efficiency performance of a washing machine. Products should have a simple marking, generated by a standard assessment methodology that acts as a level playing field on which the supply chain can compete.

To conclude, the group discussed the actions they would like to see taken to drive further progress.

Building on the discussion around a level playing field there was a general preference for interventions that would help make the market work more effectively. Cost is always an issue, but government and clients will need to take a stance that takes carbon performance seriously a determinant of choices on materials. That needs to be reflected in procurement processes and contracts, with the added challenge that many of the latter run for a decade or more.

Could we establish a price per tonne of carbon that works like a tipping point to say this carbon reduction option isn’t giving us enough bangs for our buck, and focusing minds on better solutions, for instance investing directly in capabilities of partners further down the supply chain?

Vanessa Hilton, FM Conway

There is also a need to think about communications to politicians and the public. Electric vehicles are often central to decision makers thinking on sustainable transport with embedded carbon in materials struggling to make it on to the agenda.  The transportation profession itself also needs to shift its discourse so that decarbonization becomes the ethically correct thing to do, with perhaps the attention now paid in procurement to modern slavery providing a useful analogy.

Finally, the group stressed the need for CIHT itself to step up and provide the information and guidance its members need to drive out carbon at all stages of the transportation lifecycle, working with other trade and professional bodies to give out a consistent message.

We need more groups like this! We have to collaborate to work out how we can align around carbon as a driver.

Janet Lynch, Arup

Partnership Opportunities

FM Conway is a Strategic Partner of CIHT's Partnerships Network. If you are interested in CIHT's partnership opportunities and the chance to put your brand at the heart of the key discussions, contact Sally Devine at sally.devine@ciht.org.uk or call 07963 934892.