A recently published report from the Embodied Carbon Summit has highlighted a significant gap in the built environment conversation: the limited involvement of facilities management (FM) in early building design. While the report draws on insights from across the construction and design sectors, experts say FM remains notably underrepresented — largely due to its limited role in the original design process.
The report, summarising discussions from the Embodied Carbon Summit held in November 2025, concludes that the UK construction industry has the tools and technical expertise to reduce embodied carbon. However, policy gaps, inconsistent standards, and misaligned economic incentives are slowing progress.
Embodied carbon refers to the emissions associated with materials and construction processes across the full lifecycle of a building or infrastructure asset. This includes not only initial construction, but also maintenance, repair, refurbishment, and eventual repurposing — all areas where long-term access and maintainability are critical considerations.
Lack of FM Representation
Although developers, engineers, architects, local authorities, insurers, and academics contributed to the report, facilities management professionals were less visible. Commentators suggest this reflects a wider structural issue within the sector.
Don Ward, Chief Executive of the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB), described FM as “seriously underrepresented,” noting that many challenges stem from the profession not having a consistent voice at the design stage. He highlighted that while some procurement models aim to consider whole-life performance, their mixed success has limited FM’s influence.
David Stevens, Vice-President of CIBSE and Chair of its FM Group, emphasised that FM’s limited presence in the report should not be interpreted as a lack of importance. Instead, he noted that the summit’s focus on policy, measurement, and early-stage decision-making naturally leaned towards design and construction stakeholders.
However, he added that many of the decisions that ultimately determine lifecycle carbon performance sit squarely within FM. Factors such as maintenance regimes, replacement cycles, adaptability, and refurbishment strategies all influence how often materials and components are replaced — and therefore the true carbon impact of a building over time.
The Whole-Life Perspective
The circular nature of a building’s lifecycle is reflected in the RIBA Plan of Work, which spans from early strategic definition through to long-term use. FM typically plays a greater role during handover and operational phases, and ideally feeds lessons back into future projects.
In reality, this feedback loop does not always function as intended. Industry voices highlight that even early operational issues — such as ineffective commissioning — can quickly undermine design intent. When buildings are not operated as designed, the gap between predicted and actual performance widens, with implications for both sustainability and long-term asset efficiency.
Relevance for the Work-at-Height and Access Sector
For SAEMA members and the wider specialist access and maintenance community, the findings reinforce the importance of considering whole-life performance at the earliest stages of a project. Safe and effective access for inspection, maintenance, and refurbishment plays a key role in extending asset life, reducing unnecessary material replacement, and supporting better lifecycle carbon outcomes.
As the industry continues to focus on decarbonisation, greater collaboration between designers, constructors, and those responsible for ongoing maintenance will be essential. Ensuring that maintainability and access are embedded into design from the outset will be a key factor in delivering more sustainable buildings and infrastructure in the years ahead.