Net Zero is rapidly becoming a contractual requirement and building owners increasingly expect their design teams to show how both operational and embodied carbon will be minimized.
For a fire protection engineer acting as the owner’s representative, this means understanding not only how fire strategies affect safety and cost, but also how they influence the project’s net‑zero carbon strategy.
A Fire Protection Engineer must understand how net zero is calculated for construction materials, where fire protection systems fit into that picture and how you can advocate for choices that maintain life safety while supporting the owner’s carbon commitments.
Most building‑level net‑zero commitments distinguish between operational carbon (energy use in operation) and embodied carbon (emissions from materials and construction).
Mark Fessenden
For new projects and major refurbishments, embodied carbon is often a substantial share of total life‑cycle emissions, particularly in the structure’s frame and foundations and large material-intensive service systems like mechanical, electrical, plumbing and life-safety systems.
For your role, the key idea is that every major specification decision—fireproofing, compartmentation, sprinklers, detection, suppression agents—has both carbon and life‑safety consequences.
Some strategies may enable lighter structures or reduced use of other materials, while others add significant material without a carbon benefit.
Most design professionals now use life‑cycle assessment (LCA) frameworks aligned with ISO 14040/14044, ISO 21930, and ISO 21931.
EN 15978 is a regional (CEN) implementation that applies similar LCA principles to buildings.
At the product level, ISO 21930 and EN 15804 define environmental product declarations (EPDs) for construction products, which are then used in building-level assessments.
For construction materials, emissions are grouped into standardized stages:
At a practical level, embodied carbon is often calculated with a simple relationship:
Embodied carbon = quantity of material × carbon intensity factor (kg CO₂e/unit)
Quantities come from the BIM model or bills of quantities; factors come from EPDs published by program operators such as UL, as well as from BRE-verified LCA datasets and other recognized EPD/LCA databases.
For a fire protection engineer, this means the carbon implications of a 500,000 sq ft (46,450 sq m) warehouse with standard coverage sprinklers, steel sprinkler main and branch lines, plus supports and hangers, might be compared with alternative fire‑protection strategies.
Such as one using extended coverage storage sprinklers with a reduction in the amount of required piping.
So, what does “Net Zero” mean at the material and project level?
Mark Fessenden
For individual materials or systems, “net zero embodied carbon” usually means that all life‑cycle greenhouse gas emissions (within an agreed boundary such as A1–A5 and C1–C4) are:
At the whole‑building level, owners and financiers increasingly expect operational energy to be minimized and balanced with renewable generation.
This includes reducing upfront embodied carbon (A1–A5) to published targets and eventually, driving toward net zero across the life cycle.
As the owner’s representative, you will often be asked whether a given fire strategy supports, contradicts or is neutral to these targets.
Fire safety and carbon are tightly linked in two ways: direct material emissions and avoided emissions from fire damage.
Direct material emissions are the embodied‑carbon emissions from producing, transporting, installing, maintaining and disposing of the physical materials used in a building, like passive systems (such as fire-rated walls, doors, and structural fireproofing) and active systems (such as sprinklers, tanks, pumps, and fire alarm equipment).
Choices such as system piping material (steel vs. CPVC), sprinkler layouts (standard coverage vs. extended coverage or residential), and the ease of fabrication and installation can dramatically change total material use.
Robust active protection can significantly reduce expected future emissions by limiting fire damage and the need to demolish and replace large quantities of high-carbon materials after a fire.
Mark Fessenden
Fires cause significant indirect emissions through material destruction and reconstruction, in addition to combustion emissions.
Studies from organizations such as FM Global show that automatic sprinkler protection can dramatically reduce CO₂ emissions associated with fires and subsequent rebuilding, often cutting these emissions by an order of magnitude compared with non‑sprinklered scenarios.
In “whole‑life” carbon terms, an apparently higher‑carbon fire protection system can still produce net savings if it substantially reduces expected damage, reconstruction and end‑of‑life impacts over the building’s life.
When your design team or LCA consultant runs the numbers, they will typically follow a series of steps to define the scope, extract quantities, apply emission factors and compare options, so you can understand how different fire strategies and material choices affect the project’s embodied carbon profile.
These steps will typically include:
1. Define the scope and baseline: Agree on the functional unit (e.g., kg CO₂e per m² over 60 years) and which modules (A1–A5, B, C, D) are in scope. Set a baseline fire strategy (often code‑minimum prescriptive) for comparison
2. Quantify materials for each fire strategy option: For each option—e.g., heavy passive protection, sprinklers with reduced structural fire rating, hybrid approaches—the team extracts material quantities from the BIM model. This includes structural changes permitted by the fire risk mitigation strategy (thicker concrete, additional steel, more gypsum, or the use of sustainable construction such as heavy timber or lightweight wood-frame construction)
3. Apply emission factors and sum embodied carbon: Multiply each quantity by its embodied carbon factor and sum by building element and by fire strategy scenario. Some analyses also include estimates of biogenic carbon storage for timber systems and timber‑concrete composites
4. Model fire events and reconstruction where relevant: Advanced studies add expected carbon from possible fire events and associated rebuilding, with and without automatic suppression. For an owner concerned about resilience and insurance, this can be persuasive: sprinklers can reduce both life‑safety risk and long‑term carbon risk
5. Compare options and identify a preferred Net‑Zero‑aligned strategy: The team selects the fire risk mitigation strategy that meets regulatory requirements, maintains acceptable risk, and minimizes whole‑life carbon, often using optioneering at the concept stage
As the owner’s fire protection representative, your value lies in steering this comparison so that life safety constraints are fully understood while still enabling ambitious carbon reductions.
There are several practical actions you can take on a project pursuing net zero to advocate for your client or the building owner.
Mark Fessenden
Ensure the LCA and carbon budget are not completed before fire protection decisions are made or your options will be constrained.
Request that at least two or three compliant fire strategy variants be compared on whole‑life carbon as well as cost and performance.
Challenge models that ignore the carbon benefits of reduced fire damage and reconstruction when sprinklers or other active measures are provided.
Encourage inclusion of realistic fire scenarios in the carbon analysis, particularly for high‑risk occupancies or large single‑story buildings.
Where code or performance‑based design allows relaxation of structural fire resistance when sprinklers are installed, ask the structural engineer to quantify the material savings and their carbon impact.
Similarly, explore opportunities to simplify compartmentation or reduce secondary protection layers where robust suppression and detection are provided, always within acceptable risk tolerances.
Within the constraints of listings and performance standards, consider:
By combining your fire engineering expertise with a working grasp of embodied carbon calculations, you can help owners choose fire protection strategies that are safer, more resilient, and aligned with their net‑zero ambitions.
As building owners commit to net zero targets, fire protection engineers have a unique opportunity to demonstrate how thoughtful fire strategy selection supports both life safety and carbon reduction.
Mark Fessenden
Understanding how embodied carbon is calculated—from material quantities and emission factors through whole‑life considerations, including fire damage prevention – equips you to advocate effectively for solutions that meet all project objectives.
The conversation around net zero is not about compromising safety; it’s about optimizing the entire building system to achieve multiple goals simultaneously.
Fire protection systems, particularly automatic sprinklers, offer a compelling example of how proactive safety measures can reduce both human risk and environmental impact over a building’s lifetime.
Find the full Suppression Point series here. Keep an eye out for the next installment- coming soon!
