Capital goods - Buildings

Hi everyone,

Which approach do you prefer for accounting emissions of a purchased building:

  • Spend-based using EXIOBASE, or
  • Floor-area-based using ADEME (noting that ADEME is no longer preferred by CAD and may not be updated in the future)?

Kind regards,
Jelte Liekens

Both approaches have their merits, but I’d probably go with the spend-based method using EXIOBASE in this case. It offers a more detailed and comprehensive way of accounting for emissions by considering economic expenditure and supply chain data. While it’s a bit more complex to implement, it aligns better with modern practices and provides flexibility for future updates.

The floor-area-based method with ADEME is simpler to apply but may not capture the full picture of emissions, especially for more complex buildings. Since ADEME is no longer preferred by CAD and may not be updated in the future, its long-term reliability would (for me) be a concern.

If you’re looking for accuracy and scalability, EXIOBASE is the way to go. However, the best choice might depend on the specific details of your building and the resources available for data collection and analysis.

Just my opinion!

Thank you for sharing your opinion—it aligns closely with my own.

Both spend-based and floor-area data are available, but we’ll proceed with the spend-based approach using EXIOBASE.