The carbon footprint of a construction site’s support facilities – does hiring skips reduce emissions, and how can this be calculated?

Under the GHG Protocol methodology, emissions are divided into three scopes: direct (Scope 1), from purchased energy (Scope 2) and other emissions in the value chain (Scope 3). The hire of facilities itself is usually classified under Scope 3 as a service and goods acquired for the purposes of the project, although the exact category should be determined in consultation with an ESG consultant.

In the EN 15978 standard, which describes the life-cycle environmental assessment of a building, site facilities and the construction process correspond to stage A5 (construction and assembly on site). Both approaches lead to the same conclusion: site facilities are a legitimate item in the contractor’s emissions calculation, rather than an element that can be omitted.

To calculate the support services’ contribution to the carbon footprint, the contractor should collect a specific set of data from the supplier:

1. The weight and main materials of the module (steel, panels, insulation).
2. The distance and method of transport to the construction site.
3. The module’s energy consumption during its operational life.
4. The number of rental cycles of the module over its life cycle.
5. How the module will be managed at the end of its life (reuse, material recovery).
6. Any available EPD data or the module’s carbon footprint, if the supplier has this information.

Some of this data is provided directly by the supplier, whilst other details require a specific enquiry. As a company that rents out modules on a regular basis and supports construction sites from its nearest branch, Algeco can provide data on the rental cycle and logistics; it is advisable to confirm the scope of the EPD data directly.

Usually, yes, although this depends on several factors. The advantages of modules include reusability, less waste and prefabrication under controlled conditions. However, the overall balance is negatively affected by long transport distances and high energy consumption during use, particularly where insulation is poor.

Therefore, the actual environmental footprint is determined not by the technology itself, but by how it is used: repeated rental rather than purchase for a single project, good insulation and energy-efficient fittings. We describe the impact of energy consumption on the environmental footprint in an article on electricity in a container, and the principles of reuse in the post on the environmental benefits of modular technology.

Myths about the environmental impact of containers

Myths have arisen around modular construction which raise doubts about its environmental impact. The first is that a module is a single-use structure; however, in the rental model, it serves many construction sites and is therefore reusable. The second is that a container is always energy-intensive. In reality, energy consumption depends on insulation and fittings, not on the structure itself. Other myths, including those unrelated to environmental issues, have been compiled in the post 7 myths about modular construction.