by Rabhya Sharma
Sustainability has moved to a core requirement in the specification of commercial office buildings. Architects, consultants, and facilities teams need to demonstrate the environmental credentials of every product that goes into a building and entrance control solutions are no exception.
Turnstiles, security gates, and revolving doors may seem like a small part of the overall building envelope, but they are high-traffic, long-life products manufactured from steel, glass, electronics, and other resource-intensive materials. For specifiers trying to build a genuinely sustainable building, understanding the environmental impact of these products is essential.
An EPD gives the hard data to make an educated decision on which entrance control is right for the project. Carbon footprint, resource use, water consumption, waste generation, and more, all presented in a consistent format based on internationally recognised standards. They deliver the measurable and comparable data needed to make an informed decision.
One of the most valuable aspects of an EPD is the ability to compare products on a like-for-like basis across their entire lifecycle, not just at the point of purchase. An entrance gate with a lower upfront cost or lighter initial footprint might have a higher overall environmental impact once factors such as durability, maintenance requirements, energy consumption in use, and end-of-life recyclability are all accounted for. Conversely, a product built for longevity and ease of refurbishment may carry a higher manufacturing footprint but deliver significantly better whole-life performance.
When comparing EPDs between different entrance control products, it’s not enough to look at just the headline figures, you also need to understand exactly what stages of the product lifecycle those figures cover. This is where the distinction between cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave assessments becomes important.
A cradle-to-gate EPD covers the environmental impact from raw material extraction through to manufacturing, up until the product leaves the factory gate. It does not account for transport to site, installation, the energy and maintenance during years of operational use, or what happens to the product at the end of its life.
A cradle-to-grave EPD looks at the full lifecycle: raw materials, manufacturing, transport, installation, the in-use phase (including energy consumption and maintenance over the product’s operational lifetime), and end-of-life processes such as disassembly, recycling, or disposal.
This difference is far more than technical detail. Two products could report similar cradle-to-gate figures yet have very different impacts once their full lifecycle is considered. A turnstile that consumes more energy in daily operation, requires frequent part replacement, or is difficult to recycle at end-of-life could carry a significantly higher overall footprint than its cradle-to-gate figures suggest.
For entrance controls that remain in continuous, high-frequency use for many years, cradle-to-grave is the better basis for a true assessment of environmental performance. When reviewing EPDs, check which boundary has been used, and where possible, prioritise products with cradle-to-grave data. This ensures that comparisons being made are genuinely like-for-like, and that decisions are based on the full environmental story of a product rather than just its starting point.
It’s also important to recognise that not all environmental claims are created equal, and this is where third-party verification becomes critical. A self-declared EPD, produced by a manufacturer without independent scrutiny, carries far less weight than one verified by an accredited third-party body. Verification ensures that the data behind the declaration has been checked for accuracy, that the methodology aligns with recognised international standards, and that the figures can be trusted.
Specifying a product based on unverified environmental data could undermine a building’s sustainability credentials further down the line, or worse, expose a project to accusations of greenwashing. Third-party verified EPDs provide the assurance and credibility needed to confidently include a product within a sustainable specification.
For commercial office developments pursuing certifications such as BREEAM or LEED, third-party verified EPDs are increasingly central to the assessment process. Both frameworks reward the use of products with verified environmental data, and in many cases, EPDs directly contribute to credits within categories covering materials, resource efficiency, and life-cycle impact. Specifying entrance controls backed by robust EPDs can therefore have a tangible effect on a building’s overall certification score, helping projects move closer to ratings such as BREEAM Excellent or LEED Gold and Platinum.
Beyond the points-based benefits, EPDs also support the broader narrative that developers and building owners increasingly need to tell — to investors, tenants, and regulators — about the genuine environmental performance of their assets, not just at handover, but over the building’s operational life.
Recognising the growing importance of this data for specifiers, we’re currently in an intensive programme of third-party verified, cradle-to-grave declarations across our entrance control solutions. These EPDs give architects, consultants, and facilities managers verified, transparent lifecycle data for the Gunnebo Entrance Control solutions they’re considering and support informed decision-making, as well as contribute toward BREEAM and LEED.
