From Strategy to Practice

Katia Lucuy for Market Share Blog | March 30, 2026

A Matter of Perspective

Did you know that perspective was once “discovered”? It always existed, but for centuries, we didn’t know how to represent it. It wasn’t until the early Renaissance that artists like Filippo Brunelleschi unlocked the mathematical principles of perspective to accurately translate three-dimensional reality onto a flat surface.

In many ways, measuring embodied carbon mirrors that same journey. Translating the real-world complexity of buildings, their materials, sourcing, manufacturing, transportation, installation, use and eventual replacement into a model we can measure and analyze is one of the most complex challenges we face today. We rely on layers of abstraction: mathematics, coding, algorithms and databases to simulate multiple iterations and scenarios. And just like perspective, this modeling process is still evolving.

Means and Methods

When my interest in embodied carbon first started to grow, I noticed that most reports emphasized reductions, much like energy savings in energy models. That approach resonated with clients and the commercial real estate industry. But the question quickly became: reductions compared to what?

What is the universal benchmark? Is there an average per square foot? Should it vary by building type? And where were interior finishes in these studies? The truth was: there was no consensus. Defining system boundaries, scopes and baselines was messy and inconsistent. Believe me, we’ve lived through that confusion.

LEED v4 offered a starting point by requiring comparisons to a functionally equivalent baseline of the same size and scope. The Carbon Leadership Forum’s 2019 baseline guidance reinforced this need, while also spotlighting the overlooked impact of interiors. Though structural materials dominate new construction, tenant improvement projects, because of frequent renovations, can rival that impact over time, yet remain largely unsupported by standardized modeling practices.

Faced with these gaps, our team at BEYOND developed a methodology specifically designed for interiors. Like most things that involve calculations, it started with spreadsheets –  massive ones. We manually collected data from Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), material take-offs and product specifications to piece together a working model.

At its core, our method revolves around these key principles:

• Real project quantities. Using early design drawings to establish quantities ensures our baseline reflects actual project conditions.
• Transparent baselines. We model the baseline to match the same size and scope as the proposed project.
• Reliable carbon factors. We pull embodied carbon values from sources like industry-wide Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), Carbon Leadership Forum baselines, One Click LCA databases and verified third-party studies.
• Dynamic updates. As the design evolves, we continually refine the model from early design through bid documentation and all the way through post-value engineering reviews and construction.

This process helps us identify early opportunities where the biggest reductions can be made. For example, during one project, we discovered that 60% of the project’s embodied carbon stemmed from the carpet selection alone, driving us to prioritize low-carbon carpet options.