Aida Mollaei has spent the past years working at the intersection of building-level sustainability and product data. With a background in sustainable construction and life cycle assessments, she is now part of the EandoX team, working closely with manufacturers in the North American market. Here, she brings a perspective shaped by both building- and product-level analysis.
We sat down with Aida to talk about how sustainability data is evolving, what’s driving the change in the US, and why product data is becoming increasingly critical.
From building differently to thinking differently
What first drew you into the field of sustainability in the construction industry?
I was always drawn to engineering in a really tangible, real-world way, and buildings felt like the most natural path. As I went through my education, I started noticing how inefficient a lot of our construction practices are, especially from an environmental standpoint. What really pulled me into sustainability was realizing that some relatively straightforward changes can significantly reduce that impact. It didn’t feel like we needed to reinvent everything but just be more intentional about how we build. That curiosity is what pushed me to go deeper, both in grad school and in my career.
Over time, my focus shifted a bit from just building things to thinking more about how we can build more responsibly.
From early estimates to real impact
From Aida’s perspective, building-level LCAs are often where sustainability work begins. But their accuracy and usefulness depend on the quality of the underlying data. At the same time, access to detailed product-level data can be limited, making it difficult for designers and resulting in final LCAs that are not always fully reliable.
When working with building-level LCAs, how critical is product-level data?
Building-level LCA really evolves with the project. Early on, when very little is defined, you’re typically working with generic data to get a rough estimate of embodied carbon. That’s actually really useful at that stage. It helps compare different design options, like form, structural systems or layouts, and guides early decisions.
But as the project progresses and those decisions get locked in, it becomes much more important to move toward real product-level data. That’s what reflects the actual materials being used, and ultimately the true environmental impact of the building. If you keep relying on generic data too late into the process, the results can be pretty misleading.
The challenge is that, because of data gaps and limited access to product-specific information, many teams continue relying on generic data even in later stages. So while it definitely has its place early on, product-level data is critical if you want your final LCA to actually represent what gets built, which is what should be reported in the end.
A market moving on its own terms
Momentum around LCA and EPDs is increasing globally, but as Aida points out, each market is shaped by its own drivers, structures, and level of maturity.
How would you describe the current momentum around LCA and EPDs in the US?
In the US, the momentum around LCA and EPDs is definitely growing, but it’s driven more by market demand than regulation. Unlike Europe, we don’t have strict, widespread policies, and most requirements are limited to certain states or project types. Instead, voluntary programs like LEED, along with internal sustainability goals, have been the main drivers so far.
At the same time, the industry focus is shifting. As we’ve made progress on reducing operational carbon, embodied carbon is becoming a much larger share of a building’s total impact. That’s naturally increasing the need for LCAs and better product-level data through EPDs. So even without strong regulation, more AEC professionals are actively seeking this data, which shows real momentum in the market.
Same direction, different drivers
The underlying demand for LCA and EPDs is growing across markets, but where that demand comes from differs. Regardless of its origin, the effect is similar: a growing need for better data to support decisions in design, procurement, and product development. As that demand increases, the focus shifts from whether sustainability data is needed to how it is used.
Looking beyond the policy and market drivers, how would you describe how the US approaches sustainability data compared to Europe?
The biggest difference is that Europe is largely regulation-driven, while the US is much more market-driven. In many European countries, LCA and EPDs are required as part of the process, whereas in the US they’re still mostly driven by client demand, voluntary programs, and internal sustainability goals.
That also shows up in the data itself. Europe generally has more standardized and widely available product-level data, while in the US there are still gaps, and teams often rely on generic datasets longer than they should. The other big difference is consistency. Europe tends to be more aligned in how sustainability data is used, while in the US it can vary a lot depending on the state, the project, or even the firm.
Overall, the US is moving in the same direction, but it’s less uniform and not as tightly driven by policy.
A shift across the ecosystem
As Aida describes it, increasing sustainability expectations are starting to influence how decisions are made across the entire construction value chain. A key driver behind this shift is the growing demand from owners and developers, who are increasingly prioritizing the carbon impact of their projects. This demand is what sets the direction for the rest of the ecosystem.
It’s not just changing what data is needed, but also how different actors relate to each other. In the US market in particular, these dynamics are still evolving, shaped by a mix of client demand, project goals, and increasing access to data.
Who are the most consequential players in the US construction ecosystem, and how do you see the dynamics between them evolving when it comes to sustainability data?
The most consequential players are really the owners and developers, the AEC teams, and the manufacturers and the dynamic between them is becoming much more data-driven.
At the top, large owners and developers are starting to set the tone. They’re not just buying or building space anymore. They are increasingly thinking about the carbon impact of those assets. That shift is important because when owners prioritize sustainability, it creates real demand across the entire project.
That demand then flows to AEC teams, who are the ones actually making design and material decisions. They’re the ones asking for LCA results and product-level data to support those decisions. And that, in turn, puts pressure on manufacturers to provide better data through EPDs and also start optimizing their own processes to stay competitive.
I think what’s changing is that sustainability data is becoming less of a “nice to have” and more of a requirement that moves downstream from the owner all the way to the product level. As that expectation becomes more consistent, the whole ecosystem starts to align around better data and more transparency.
Where manufacturers get stuck
For manufacturers, the challenge is rarely about intent. From her experience, Aida often sees it's about understanding and managing the process.
What are the most common challenges manufacturers in the US face when they start working with LCA or EPDs?
For most manufacturers in the US, the biggest challenge is just how complex and overwhelming the whole process can feel at the start. There are technical requirements, compliance steps, and multiple parties involved, which makes it hard to navigate. Even when working with consultants, there are still a lot of inefficiencies. A huge portion of the effort goes into simply collecting and organizing the right data, which isn’t always readily available or structured in a useful way. Then, once the LCA is completed, the verification and publishing process can also take a significant amount of time. I’d say the biggest hurdle is just getting a handle on the process itself and then the data collection side. That’s usually where manufacturers struggle the most.
From reporting to competition
Looking ahead, Aida points to a shift that is already underway, where sustainability data moves beyond reporting and starts to influence real decisions in both design and product development. What has historically been treated as an output is increasingly becoming an input.
If you look five years ahead, how do you think sustainability data will change how buildings are designed and how products are developed?
I think over the next five years, sustainability data will become a much more weighted factor in decision-making both in building design and in product development.
If you look at the past five years, especially in the US, you can already see the growth in EPDs being published across different program operator databases. And this isn’t just for optics, because producing EPDs is still costly and time-consuming. That tells you there’s real demand behind it.
As that continues, I think we’ll move away from “do you have environmental data or not” toward “which option has lower impact.” That shift is important because it changes how decisions are actually made.
For manufacturers especially, that’s where things get interesting. It won’t just be about reporting impact anymore. It will start influencing how they improve their processes and compete with each other on lower embodied carbon, and that is where real change happens. Sustainability data is going to move from being a reporting layer to becoming a core design and product development input.
Making it scalable
The challenge now is not whether this work should be done, but how to do it at scale. Aida finishes by pointing to the role of technology in making that shift possible.
In your view, what role can software like EandoX play in helping manufacturers scale LCA and EPD work?
I see software like EandoX playing a big role in making LCA and EPD work more scalable and practical for manufacturers. At the end of the day, it’s not that these tools are doing something completely new; consultants have been doing this work for a long time, but they’re making the process much faster and more efficient.
This is really what the industry needs right now. The demand for this type of analysis is growing quickly, and we can’t keep relying on traditional, manual approaches if we want to keep up.
For example, let’s take the data collection and clean up examples. Tasks like collecting, cleaning, and structuring data have always been some of the most time-consuming pieces of the process. With newer tools, and especially with AI, a lot of that work can now be streamlined. For example, using AI to support data cleanup can significantly reduce the time and effort required. The tools are helping address an existing need in a way that’s faster, cheaper, and much easier to scale.
Closing perspective
Aida’s perspective reflects a broader change in the industry: sustainability data is becoming a core part of how decisions are made in construction. Not just something to document, but something to act on — informing design, influencing product development, and setting a new baseline for how the industry operates.
