Building biodiversity in: Why construction must confront the hidden impacts in its supply chains

Construction is entering a decisive decade. Carbon has become a core design constraint, materials efficiency is now mainstream and biodiversity net gain (BNG) is reshaping development in England. Yet, while the industry increasingly understands ecological impacts within the red‑line boundary, it is still overlooking where most biodiversity damage actually occurs long before materials reach site.

Ramboll’s recent white paper, Measuring Biodiversity Impacts in Construction Supply Chains, shows that most nature‑related pressures tied to construction occur far upstream at quarries, mines, forests, processing facilities and along global transport routes. If the sector focuses only on onsite habitats while ignoring these hidden supply‑chain impacts, it cannot credibly claim progress toward a nature‑positive transition.

For contractors, clients and the wider supply chain, the message is clear: the industry needs a fuller picture of its biodiversity footprint, not just what happens on the project site.

The hidden impacts we are responsible for

Construction relies on resource‑intensive, globally traded materials. Quarrying, mining, forestry, processing and transport all exert pressures on ecosystems –from land and sea‑use change to pollution, water stress and disrupted ecological processes.

These upstream pressures are known as embodied ecological impacts (EEI), the biodiversity equivalent of embodied carbon: diffuse, often invisible and still poorly understood. In many cases, EEI exceed onsite ecological impacts. However, most project teams still use tools developed primarily for carbon, not biodiversity.

This results in several structural limitations, as these methods often do not account for land-use change – the principal driver of biodiversity loss – and rely on climate-based indicators such as global warming potential, where results can mirror carbon footprints. Global averages similarly obscure the ecological sensitivity of specific regions or habitats, and some LCA-based tools use narrow biodiversity indicators, failing to capture wider ecosystem effects. This can result in outputs that are often too coarse or uncertain to guide procurement or material choices with confidence, and can create a false sense of certainty.

If biodiversity insights are treated merely as an add‑on to carbon modelling, critical supply‑chain impacts may be overlooked.

Why this matters for contractors and clients

Expectations are rising. Regulators, investors and insurers increasingly require organisations to understand and manage nature‑related risks. The Global Biodiversity Framework commits the UK (as a signatory) to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. Meanwhile, the UKGBC Framework for a Nature‑Positive Built Environment makes clear that nature‑positive outcomes must address the whole value chain, not just onsite habitats.

For tier‑one contractors, developers and suppliers, this means clients will increasingly require whole‑value‑chain biodiversity data in tenders and reporting, and insurers and financiers will expect evidence of supply‑chain‑related risk management. Furthermore, BNG is only the starting point, with regulation likely tightening in the future.

Put simply, site-level improvements alone will not deliver a nature‑positive built environment.

A more practical approach to biodiversity measurement

Ramboll’s white paper does not argue for waiting for a “perfect” methodology. Instead, it offers a practical approach built on transparency, targeted data and better use of existing tools.

Use biodiversity LCA tools as indicators, not absolutes

Biodiversity life cycle assessments (LCA) can highlight hotspots, test options and shape procurement conversations. But limitations must be clearly communicated. Biodiversity LCA is still emerging and is rarely used in day‑to‑day project delivery; it is usually carried out by specialist consultants or research teams. As expectations grow, more organisations will encounter these tools, but they remain far from standard practice.

Pair quantitative data with ecological judgment

A single indicator cannot reveal whether a quarry sits within a threatened ecosystem or whether impacts are reversible. Ecological expertise is essential to interpret LCA results meaningfully. Speak to your ecologist when assessing risk.

Prioritise supply‑chain transparency

Suppliers who can provide traceability – where materials come from, how they were extracted and under what land‑use conditions – will become more competitive. Even basic location information can help to identify risks.

Collaborate, share data and push for consistency

Industry bodies including the UKGBC, the Construction Products Association and major contractors can accelerate progress by sharing anonymised data and aligning expectations around material‑level ecological information.

Biodiversity LCAs are able to screen and prioritise risk across global supply chains. When combined with a tool that assesses habitat value at project and portfolio level, contractors can develop a clearer, more actionable picture of biodiversity impacts across both the value chain and the project boundary.

Developing metrics

Our European biodiversity metric (EBM), launched in early 2026, is not a supply‑chain LCA tool, but it does provide a consistent, science‑aligned way of assessing habitat value at project and portfolio level.

In practice, the EBM works best when paired with biodiversity LCA. LCA can screen and prioritise risks across global supply chains, while the EBM provides the site‑level evidence needed to plan, design and manage habitats. Used together, they give a clearer, more actionable picture of biodiversity impacts across both the value chain and the project boundary.

For example, an LCA screen might flag timber or concrete as high‑risk materials, while using metrics can show construction professionals and project teams how to manage or enhance habitats affected by their use on the ground.

What the industry should do now

While biodiversity science evolves, practical steps are already within reach. Ensure you request sourcing data from suppliers, map where materials originate and integrate directional biodiversity indicators into early-stage design. Strengthening ecological expertise within project teams is also essential, and the UKGBC framework can be used to guide commitments, governance and reporting.

Sharing anonymised project data through industry bodies and piloting biodiversity-LCA tools to better understand their potential offers further opportunities to improve both internal and collective capability when it comes to measuring and mitigating biodiversity impact across the supply chain.

Nature positive starts in the supply chain

Construction’s biodiversity challenge is extensive, global and often hidden. But this also means the opportunity is larger than the project site alone. By taking supply‑chain biodiversity seriously and adopting robust tools and frameworks, the industry can shift from reactive compliance to proactive stewardship.

Biodiversity is not a “nice to have”; it is fundamental to resilience, resource security and long‑term value. The question is no longer whether the sector should act, but how quickly. The tools exist, the frameworks are emerging, and the industry has an opportunity to lead.

Brogan MacDonald is head of sustainability for building structures at Ramboll. Robert Nussey is the nature positive manager at Ramboll