Public Visibility of the EPD Credit in LEED v4 in Türkiye: an Analysis Using the MR ‘Environmental Product Declarations’ Requirements
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29227/IM-2026-01-01-034Keywords:
environmental product declarations, LEED v4, materials and resources, public disclosure, green building certificationAbstract
Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) are increasingly used to support material-related decision making by providing standardized, product-level environmental information. In LEED v4, the Materials and Resources credit “Environmental Product Declarations” includes Option 1, which is commonly operationalized through a product and manufacturer counting logic. However, the supporting product schedules and EPD files are typically stored in nonpublic submittals, limiting what external stakeholders can verify from public sources. This study applies a document-based research design to examine how EPDs are communicated in publicly accessible information about LEED-related projects in Türkiye. Two source streams were analyzed: owner and corporate documents screened for explicit EPD terminology, and sustainability consultancy project pages that report certification information and include MR breakdowns referencing the EPD credit. Using a conservative evidence rule based on direct textual mentions only, a high-evidence case set was compiled (n = 7). Each case was coded by evidence source type and EPD specificity level (claim-level versus credit-level). Results show that public EPD communication is visible but rarely auditable. Five cases report EPD at a credit-label level through an MR line item such as “Environmental Product Declaration (1/2),” while two cases provide only claim-level statements (for example, preferring EPD-certified products). None of the public sources disclose product and manufacturer counts or traceable product-level documentation that would enable independent reconstruction of Option 1 alignment. The study highlights a transparency gap between credit requirements and public reporting and proposes minimal disclosure elements to improve external verifiability in practice. By clarifying what can and cannot be verified from public records, the study supports more evidence-based communication on material sustainability across stakeholders.
References
Akşit, Ş. F., & Baştanoğlu, E. (2021). A review of LEED green building certification systems in Europe and Turkey. A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 18(1), 115 - 126. https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2021.72473
Aktas, B., & Ozorhon, B. (2015). Green building certification process of existing buildings in developing countries: Cases from Turkey. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(6), 05015002. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943 - 5479.0000358
Barbhuiya, S., & Das, B. B. (2023). Life Cycle Assessment of construction materials: Methodologies, applications and future directions for sustainable decision - making. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 19, e02326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02326
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27 - 40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Cabeza, L. F., Rincón, L., Vilariño , V., Pérez, G., & Castell, A. (2014). Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 394 - 416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.037
Chastas, P., Theodosiou, T., & Bikas, D. (2016). Embodied energy in residential buildings - towards the nearly zero energy building: A literature review. Building and Environment, 105, 267 - 282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.040
Construction Products Association. (2024). Environmental Product Declarations (EPD): Comparability and a technical review. https://www.constructionproducts.org.uk/media/xqnn3jfl/cpa - bp - epd - comparability - a - technical - review - v1 - august - 2024 - final.pdf
Construction Products Association. (2024, August). Environmental Product Declarations (EPD): Comparability - A technical review (Version 1). Construction Products Association.
De Wolf, C., Pomponi, F., & Moncaster , A. (2017). Measuring embodied carbon dioxide equivalent of buildings: A review and critique of current industry practice. Energy and Buildings, 140, 68 - 80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.01.075
Delmas, M. A., & Burbano, V. C. (2011). The drivers of greenwashing. California Management Review, 54(1), 64 – 87. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64
European Commission Joint Research Centre. (n.d.). EN 15804 standard. European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment.
Gelowitz , M. D. C., & McArthur, J. J. (2017). Comparison of type III environmental product declarations for construction products: Material sourcing and harmonization evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 157, 125 - 133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.133
Gelowitz , M. D. C., & McArthur, J. J. (2018). Insights on environmental product declaration use from Canada’s first LEED® v4 platinum commercial project. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 136, 436 - 444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.05.008
Green Building Information Gateway. (n.d.). Turkey (Place profile). https://www.gbig.org/places/899
Green Business Certification Inc. (2025, February 5). Italy and Turkey represent Europe in the Top 10 countries and regions for LEED in 2024. https://www.gbci.org/italy - and - turkey - represent - europe - top - 10 - countries - leed
International Energy Agency. (2024). Buildings (Energy system overview). https://www.iea.org/energy - system/buildings
International Organization for Standardization. (2006). ISO 14025: Environmental labels and declarations, Type III environmental declarations: Principles and procedures. https://www.iso.org/standard/38131.html
Konradsen, F., Hansen, K. S. H., Ghose, A., & Pizzol, M. (2024). Same product, different score: how methodological differences affect EPD results. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 29, 291 - 307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367 - 023 - 02246 - x
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Lützkendorf, T., & Balouktsi, M. (2022). Embodied carbon emissions in buildings: Explanations, interpretations, recommendations. Buildings and Cities, 3(1), 964 - 973. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.257
Lyon, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2015). The means and end of greenwash. Organization & Environment, 28(2), 223 – 249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575332
Minkov, N., Schneider, L., Lehmann, A., & Finkbeiner, M. (2015). Type III Environmental Declaration Programmes and harmonization of product category rules: status quo and practical challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 94, 235 – 246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.012
Moré, F. B., Galindro, B. M., & Soares, S. R. (2022). Assessing the completeness and comparability of environmental product declarations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 375, 133999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133999
Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2016). Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built environment - What does the evidence say? Journal of Environmental Management, 181, 687 - 700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.036
Prior, L. (2003). Using documents in social research. SAGE Publications.
Ramesh, T., Prakash, R., & Shukla, K. K. (2010). Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. Energy and Buildings, 42(10), 1592 - 1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.007
Röck, M., Saade, M. R. M., Balouktsi, M., Rasmussen, F. N., Birgisdottir, H., Frischknecht, R., Habert, G., Lützkendorf, T., & Passer, A. (2020). Embodied GHG emissions of buildings - The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Applied Energy, 258, 114107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107
Sartori, I., & Hestnes, A. G. (2007). Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low - energy buildings: A review article. Energy and Buildings, 39(3), 249 - 257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.07.001
Soust - Verdaguer, B., Palumbo, E., Llatas, C., Velasco Acevedo, Á., Fernández Galvéz, M. D., Hoxha, E., & Passer, A. (2023). The Use of Environmental Product Declarations of Construction Products as a Data Source to Conduct a Building Life - Cycle Assessment in Spain. Sustainability, 15(2), 1284. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021284
Süzer, Ö. (2021). LEED certified mixed - use residential buildings in Istanbul: A study on category - based performances. A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 18(1), 139 - 152. https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2020.35002
Toğan, V., & Thomolları, X. (2020). Credit success rates of certified green buildings in Turkey. Teknik Dergi, 31(4), 10063 - 10084. https://doi.org/10.18400/tekderg.449251
U.S. Green Building Council. (2019). LEED v4.1 BD+C Guide. USGBC.
U.S. Green Building Council. (2022). LEED v4.1 product compliance checklists and tips (PDF).
U.S. Green Building Council. (n.d.). LEED v4.1 credit library: MR - Environmental Product Declarations. USGBC.
United Nations Environment Programme, & Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction. (2024). Global status report for buildings and construction (Beyond foundations). https://globalabc.org/resources/publications/global - status - report - buildings - and - construction - beyond - foundations
United Nations Environment Programme, & Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction. (2024, March 7). Global status report for buildings and construction. UNEP.
Uşma, G. (2021). Enerji Etkin Konutlarda Kullanıcı Memnuniyetinin Değerlendirilmesine Yönelik Bir Model Geliştirilmesi (Doktora Tezi), Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Istanbul.
Uşma, G. (2023). Enerji Etkin Konutlar ve Kullanıcı Memnuniyeti, 1. Baskı. Nobel Yayınevi.
Uşma, G. ve Akıncı, NF (2022). Developing a Model for User Satisfaction Assessment in Energy Efficient Dwellings, ACE: Architecture, City and Environment,17(49), 10515.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5821/ace.17.49.10515
Waldman, B., Huang, M., & Simonen, K. (2020). Embodied carbon in construction materials: a framework for quantifying data quality in EPDs. Buildings & Cities, 1(1), 625 - 636. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.31
