I’m having trouble aligning the One Click LCA output (with RICS PS V2 settings) with RICS V2 reporting requirements, specifically regarding how sequestered carbon is handled in the C1-C4 modules.
Issue:
When using ‘Results with top-up factor’ in One Click LCA, sequestered carbon is omitted from both Upfront (A0-A5) and End of Life (C1-C4) modules. However, the RICS V2 output declares C1-C4 emissions which include sequestered carbon. As a result, the figures from One Click don’t match those required by RICS V2 or industry benchmarks, which also include C1-C4 sequestration.
GLA and RIBA 2030 benchmarks both include sequestration in C1-C4.
One Click outputs can’t be directly compared with these benchmarks, making compliance and benchmarking difficult.
One Click doesn’t allow you to export results with or without C1-C4 sequestration – it’s automated and cannot be adjusted.
Workaround:
The only way I can currently see to meet RICS V2 reporting is to:
Download the RICS V2 output from One Click.
Manually adjust/add benchmark data in Excel (benchmark data cannot be added in One Click).
Manually apply the top-up factor.
Report based on the RICS V2 output, ignoring the standard One Click output for C1-C4 (which omits sequestration).
Main Question: Is there any way to export results from One Click that include C1-C4 sequestered carbon and a top up factor for RICS V2 reporting, or has anyone found a better workflow to ensure compliance?
I’ve seen reports that take values directly from One Click, meaning C1-C4 emissions are not reported per the required standard and there is limited consistency in reporting.
Any advice or clarification from those with experience on this issue would be greatly appreciated!
The RICS V2 tool is not aligned to the GLA guidance, and only to the RICS 2nd edition guidance.
It will not be able to produce two sets of results that will address both the requirements of RICS 2nd edition and GLA.
In essence, the RICS 2nd edition treats biogenic carbon as a “loan” from the atmosphere. It is a credit at the beginning of the building’s life (Module A) that must be paid back at the end (Module C). This ensures the assessment is comprehensive and doesn’t overstate the environmental benefits of using biogenic materials without accounting for their eventual fate.
There is a workaround.
You can create a separate project with the tool - Carbon assessment, GLA / RICS / Green Mark (+A2). Copy the data that is in the project with the RICS V2 tool, using the Copy Data From Another Design.
Ensure that the LCA parameters are set as per our guidance - UK: Whole Life Carbon Assessment (RICS & GLA)
Save the design and then use the results from this tool for GLA benchmarking.
The top up factors can be derived from the results page, the latter section under “Most contributing materials”.
The first option gives you some insight to the C balancing.
The other two options do not.
We will give this feedback to the product team if the biogenic carbon balancing results can be shown clearly in the results page, so this becomes clearer.
Many thanks for your response. The above makes sense with respect to GLA benchmarking.
I have just has a call with James and provided a bit more context into the specifics of the issue. In summary, the uncertainty is coming from the RICS v2 tool aligning with the One Click results.
Based on your above description, where biogenic carbon is a credit at the beginning of the project (subtracted from the total A1-A3 figures), at the end of the project, when biogenic is paid back, my understanding would be that per RICS PS v2, this ‘paying back’ means that the biogenic carbon should be added as an emission and accounted for in the total C1-C4 figures? This is what I am interpreting from the RICS PS v2 on the following:
I’m just a bit confused as to why the RICS output and One Click results on the RICS tool do not appear to align in their reporting standards. Sorry if it’s an easy answer and I’m missing something obvious!
My thinking is that when reporting figures in a report in compliance with RICS PS v2, that the ‘headline figures’ should follow the RICS reporting and therefore the RICS output, so just as a quick example, a table could say the following:
Where C1-C4 would include for sequestration, rather than exclude as One Click presents the results. If the WLC per RICS v2 is to include sequestration, then I see no reason to give the C1-C4 without biogenic, as it could be misleading and the ‘headline’ figure taken from One Click would not align with the results in the RICS Reporting Summary Table, which are to be reported with a WLCA.
