# Life Cycle Analysis Challenges through Building Rating Schemes within the European Framework
## 4 Discussion and Future Steps  
For wider LCA market penetration, the insufficient consistency of data software and availability of skilled LCA professionals are weak points. Harmonised data availability and transparency in the processing of data within the calculation tool (not necessarily a complex software but simple spreadsheets might be enough) are urgent needs. There are open source and free solutions, but their databases are not that easy to obtain or they are not tailored for buildings [81]. Proprietary tools are well adapted but are not free. Some countries (Netherlands, Germany, France) have national databases, and there is an ongoing discussion regarding whether, for a building sector to provide reliable figures, a national database is necessary. Were this to be the case, it must not hinder aggregation. However, Level(s) does not come with a Europe-wide database. Although for LCA stages A and B this could easily be adjusted with national energy and transport impacts, for stages C and D, national policies vary enormously. The taxonomy establishes \"Do No Significant Harm\" waste benchmarks, which are impossible to accomplish quickly in some countries. Findings from the MLP teach us to recommend that all these artifacts need to evolve in parallel so that the regime changes.  
More concretely, some key manufacturers, namely steel and cement producers, play a crucial role: they are at the same time the heaviest polluters and energy demanders, and the biggest investors in sustainable innovations. If they do not diminish their impact, they might fall outside of the regulations, but they are also prone to greenwashing, to swallowing huge public funds, and they are, inevitably, resource predators. A change in the regime inevitably means a change in their role. However, no more than 75 years ago, reinforced concrete was not a relevant building material. Can it lose relevance again? Are low-carbon materials such as timber and mud a real alternative? Market and scientific studies answering this [82] are, however, outside the scope of this paper. Nonetheless, it can be stated that, as mentioned in the introduction's brief historical review, vernacular architecture was and may once again be the solution. On the other hand, if in the present regime architecture falls in the realm of RE, a deep regime shift must happen for up-to-date vernacular architecture to be understood as an alternative.  
Recently, the regulatory framework has been pushed by the EC through the JRC. The result has been a profound methodological transformation at the product level, from EN 15,804 + A1 to EN 15,804 + A2, and at the building level, with the revision of EN15978 and of Level(s). Will the regulations be effective to deal with the challenges it poses, mainly for the construction industry, but also for the professionals in the sector? Are the standards and tools mature enough to face these challenges? Evidence found in this paper suggests hard work will be required to meet expectations.  
While in Europe only 2.5% of the total built area [68] is certified, highly developed and densely built countries, such as Singapore, have 1/3 of their building stock certified (mainly with the BCA Green Mark). However, Europe is leading the way to integrated policies, voluntary schemes, and market value in favour of sustainable buildings and LCA. The success of EPBD policies and Level(s) by introducing LCT in its objectives and indicators paves the way to decarbonising new European buildings [83]. If the path dependencies described in the MLP results are further unlocked, the European building sector might find itself already in a deep transition.  
Three other issues deserve a specific discussion: