EPDs for safety barrier manufacturers: a complete guide

Summary (TL;DR) of what this guide is about

• You can create third-party verified EPDs for your road restraint portfolio without deep LCA expertise or hiring consultants for every barrier variant.
• High‑quality EPDs show the life‑cycle footprint of complete, EN 1317‑tested barrier systems instead of just tonnes of steel or concrete. They let buyers compare safety performance and environmental impact side by side for clearly defined configurations and declared units.
• Green public procurement in countries like the Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium is pushing road and infrastructure buyers to include environmental criteria alongside CE marking. Verified, EN 15804+A2‑based EPDs give safety barrier manufacturers the data they need to score points on climate and resource indicators instead of treating carbon as a black box.
• This guide walks safety barrier manufacturers through core concepts (EN 15804+A2, EN 1317, declared units), typical A1–A3 hotspots, a six‑step workflow for creating verified EPDs, and best practices for managing variants and sites at scale. It also shows how LCA automation software like Ecochain can help you operationalise these steps, reduce consultant dependency, and get your portfolio ready for CPR‑aligned environmental disclosure and tender requirements.

What EPDs mean for safety barrier manufacturers

For safety barrier manufacturers, Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) are becoming the standard way to communicate the carbon and environmental footprint of tested, CE‑marked systems. 

An EPD for road restraint systems or Vehicle Restraint Systems (VRS) is a standardized, verified summary of life‑cycle environmental impacts. It is an ISO 14025 Type III declaration built on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods from ISO 14040/14044.

For European construction products, EPDs are generally based on EN 15804+A2, the core standard that defines how environmental data is structured and reported, supplemented by product‑specific PCRs and EPD programme rules.

EN 15804+A2 organizes results into life cycle modules. A1 covers raw material supply. A2 covers transport to the manufacturing site. A3 covers manufacturing itself. Together, A1–A3 form the ‘cradle‑to‑gate’ core, and under EN 15804+A2 most construction product EPDs also have to declare end‑of‑life modules C1–C4 and Module D, with A1–A3‑only declarations limited to specific cases. 

Additional modules – A4–A5 (transport to site and installation), B modules (use phase), C modules (end‑of‑life), and Module D (potential benefits and loads beyond the product system from reuse, recycling and energy recovery) – provide a more complete picture when included.

For safety barriers, the declared unit – the reference quantity against which all results are expressed – commonly uses “per running metre including post,” “per barrier segment,” or “per complete system” for a defined EN 1317 configuration. EN 1317 is the European standard series that classifies Vehicle Restraint Systems (VRS) – including safety barriers and parapets – by containment level, working width, and impact severity.

Procurement teams then compare both safety performance and environmental impact for a clearly defined system, not an abstract mass of steel or concrete.

5 benefits of high-quality EPDs for vehicle restraint system (VRS) manufacturers

High‑quality, verified EPDs do more than tick a box for sustainability reports – they change how your barriers show up in tenders and design decisions.

• Win public infrastructure tenders – Win public infrastructure tenders – Public infrastructure tenders for example in the Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium often include environmental criteria in their scoring, and their use has been growing in recent years. Verified EPDs give your products a credible, comparable data set that meets these requirements and shortens back‑and‑forth on carbon questions during bids.
• Differentiate on environmental performance – When competing barriers meet the same EN 1317 containment class, the EPD becomes a differentiator. Lower GWP results backed by verified data give your sales team a clear story when buyers are looking for “like‑for‑like, but lower carbon” options.
• Protect against scrutiny – Third‑party verified data means your environmental claims hold up. When competitors or public bodies question carbon figures, you have an independent audit trail and a published document you can point to instead of re‑explaining calculations in every tender.
• Prepare for CPR environmental disclosure – The revised Construction Products Regulation (EU 2024/3110) entered into force on 7 January 2025. It makes disclosure of climate‑ and environment‑related sustainability indicators mandatory from 8 January 2026 for construction products covered by updated harmonized specifications, requires all core environmental indicators to be declared by around 2030, and phases in more comprehensive life‑cycle reporting requirements by 2032. Safety barriers are not in the initial priority list – enforcement depends on when harmonized standards for road restraint systems are revised – but building EPD capability now means you are ready when your product category is activated.
• Build repeatable internal capability – Instead of commissioning one‑off consultant studies for each barrier variant, a structured EPD workflow lets sustainability and product teams manage declarations across your full range. Over time, this reduces marginal cost per EPD and makes it easier to respond quickly when a customer or regulator asks for new variants or updated data.

Taken together, these benefits turn EPDs from a compliance headache into a lever for winning work, de-risking claims, and scaling your barrier portfolio across markets.

Continue reading: Construction Products Regulation (CPR) 2024–2032 guide: What manufacturers need to know

Top 4 challenges of creating EPDs for safety barrier manufacturers

Safety barriers are multi-component systems, not single parts. Rails, posts, terminals, anchors, fasteners, reflectors, and coatings all need quantified, linked data. Small omissions can undermine a “per metre” result.

Supplier data gaps – Steel coil specifications, zinc or metallic coating data, and concrete constituents often sit behind confidentiality walls. This forces conservative generic datasets and weakens product differentiation. Getting a steel supplier’s EPD or specific mill data can take weeks of follow-up.

Transport data quality – Routes, truck types, load factors, and site locations vary for every project. You need pragmatic default rules – such as standard distances, vehicle types, and typical load factors – that still hold up during verification.

Variant management – EN 1317 performance classes, thickness changes, alternative coatings, and multi-plant production quickly multiply configurations. A single product line can generate dozens of EPD-relevant variants.

Keeping models current – As electricity mixes, steel production routes, or coating specifications change, your LCA datasets must follow. Without version control and audit trails, verification becomes a scramble.

A1–A3 hotspots in barrier EPDs by material route

The cradle‑to‑gate stages (A1–A3) typically account for the largest share of environmental impact in barrier EPDs, especially for indicators like GWP. Where that impact concentrates depends on what your barrier is made of.

Steel guardrails – The dominant driver is the steel production route. Blast furnace (BF‑BOF) steel carries a significantly higher carbon footprint than electric arc furnace (EAF) steel using scrap, across almost all impact categories. Metallic coatings – hot‑dip galvanizing or zinc‑aluminium‑magnesium alloys – add measurable impact on top of the steel itself, and roll forming, punching and drilling at the plant round out A3 energy use.

Concrete barriers – Cement content drives the footprint. The clinker factor – how much Portland cement clinker is in the binder – and any Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs) like fly ash or slag largely determine A1 results, while aggregates typically contribute much less per kilogram. Precast curing energy and any steam or heat used at the plant contribute significantly to A3.

Composite barriers – Resin chemistry and fibre production (glass or carbon) concentrate most of the impact in A1; carbon fibres in particular are highly energy‑intensive to produce. Manufacturing energy in A3 (e.g. pultrusion, curing) is typically secondary but still worth capturing accurately.

Table: A1–A3 data priorities for safety barriers

Where supplier‑specific data is unavailable, use recognized LCA databases with conservative assumptions and document every substitution and generic dataset so verifiers can trace your choices and assess data quality.

Step-by-step workflow to deliver EPDs for roadside protection system manufacturers

Translating EN 15804+A2 and EN 1317 into a concrete project plan is often where barrier manufacturers get stuck. This workflow shows how to move from a first scope discussion to a verified EPD that you can reuse in tenders.

Step 1: Choose the right LCA automation solution

Before collecting data, evaluate what tools and support you need. Check whether the software supports multi‑component product modelling (rails, posts, terminals, anchors, coatings), includes EN 15804+A2 module logic, and offers robust version control across plants and years. 

Make sure the provider’s team has experience with construction products and EPD verification and can support you during onboarding and programme operator reviews.

LCA automation software solutions like Ecochain can be a good fit for manufacturers who need to manage multiple barrier variants and sites without building deep in‑house LCA expertise.

Continue reading: Choosing the right EPD software for construction manufacturers: 7 key factors to consider

Step 2: Define scope and modules

Set A1–A3 as a minimum. Then decide on A4, A5, C1–C4, and Module D based on Product Category Rules (PCR) requirements and tender expectations. For steel‑intensive barriers, Module D – which reports potential benefits and loads from recycling and recovery beyond the product system – can significantly affect results. Fix system boundaries before starting data work.

Set A1–A3 as a minimum and then decide on A4, A5, C1–C4, and Module D based on the applicable Product Category Rules (PCR), EPD programme rules, and key tender requirements. 

For steel‑intensive barriers, Module D – which reports potential benefits and loads from recycling and recovery beyond the product system – can significantly affect results and procurement comparisons. 

Fix system boundaries (which plants, which variants, which markets, which scenarios) before starting data work and document them in the project plan and technical report.

Step 3: Build the bill of materials and map suppliers

Create per‑metre or per‑system BOMs (Bills of Materials) for each EN 1317 configuration and link every line item to steel, coating, concrete, fastener, and packaging suppliers. 

Tag which inputs require product‑specific EPDs or mill data and where high‑quality generic LCA database data is acceptable. Note which suppliers will need formal data requests so you can start that process early.

Step 4: Collect activity data and validate quality

Gather energy consumption, yields, scrap rates, coating loads, and transport distances for each relevant plant and line. 

Screen data for age (e.g. last 1–3 years), completeness (no missing major inputs), and consistency across production lines and sites, and resolve obvious outliers before modelling. Record data sources and assumptions so verifiers can follow the trail.

Step 5: Model, review, and run scenarios

Use your LCA software to model the defined product range using the agreed system boundaries, datasets, and allocation rules.

Test alternative materials, coatings, and process routes where this supports design decisions or tender positioning and check that family averages stay within allowed variance if you plan a multi‑variant EPD.

Review results with operations and R&D before freezing datasets so they confirm that the model reflects real‑world production.

Step 6: Document, verify, and publish

Compile the technical file, reference applicable PCRs, and submit to your chosen EPD program operator for third-party verification. After publication, track triggers for updates – typically a 10% change in key impact indicators or changes in production processes.

Compile the technical background report (goal and scope, data sources, modelling choices, sensitivity checks), reference applicable PCRs, and submit to your chosen EPD programme operator for third‑party verification. 

After publication, track triggers for updates – typically new plants, process or material changes, or a change larger than about 10% in key impact indicators – and set a reminder before the EPD’s maximum validity period ends.

Following these steps gives you a clear path from first scoping call to a verified, repeatable EPD setup, instead of treating every new barrier or plant as a standalone project.

Top 6 best practices for repeatable EPDs across barrier ranges

Once you have created the first EPDs for your barrier systems, the real challenge is keeping them consistent and scalable across variants, plants, and markets. These six practices help you turn one‑off EPD projects into a repeatable process.

• Fix declared unit conventions – Set per‑metre and per‑system rules across guardrails, parapets, and terminals so results aggregate cleanly and satisfy procurement comparability requirements. State the EN 1317 performance class and system setup (post spacing, height, working width class) next to the declared unit so buyers know exactly what configuration the numbers represent.
• Create a supplier data request template – Use one standard pack to request steel and coating EPDs, fastener specifications, and default transport setups. This lowers the barrier for repeated data collection, makes it easier for suppliers to respond, and keeps incoming datasets consistent.
• Set version control and QA protocols – Lock background datasets, log every edit, and record allocation rules so verification, future updates, and CPR outputs remain traceable. Define simple QA checks (e.g. unit checks, trend checks vs. previous years) so errors are caught before verification.
• Use product family logic – Group variants into families with defined variance thresholds for thickness, post spacing, coatings, and EN 1317 classes. This lets you cover multiple configurations under fewer EPDs – reducing verification costs while maintaining accuracy and staying within programme rules on representativeness.
• Standardize end‑of‑life assumptions – Fix recycling, crushing, and landfill shares for Module C and the corresponding Module D reporting of potential benefits and loads. Reuse these assumptions across barrier types for consistency, and document when project‑specific deviations are allowed.
• Align outputs with tender formats – Pre‑format GWP total, primary energy, and water indicators to match Benelux and DACH procurement wording and digital submission formats. This makes it easier for sales teams to drop EPD results straight into tender portals and spreadsheets.

With these conventions in place, each new barrier variant becomes an incremental update to a stable EPD system rather than a fresh project from scratch.

How Ecochain’s LCA automation software helps deliver EPDs for safety barrier manufacturers

Before automation workflows, the spreadsheets, email chains, and external consultants can often create bottlenecks. Variant changes are slow. Documentation is fragmented across files and inboxes. Verification readiness depends on who remembers what.

By implementing Ecochain’s LCA automation software, you get a repeatable, reusable system. Structured templates, shared datasets, and controlled workflows cut iteration time and keep verification files synchronized.

For sustainability, R&D, product and regulatory managers, this shifts EPD work from one-off projects to a reusable internal capability that supports design decisions, compliance preparation, and tender responses. With Ecochain, you can:

• Model multiple barrier variants – guardrails, parapets, terminals – from one product data foundation
• Compare material and coating scenarios quickly and see the environmental impact before committing
• Use embedded expert support to keep models verification-ready and aligned with EN 15804+A2

Consultant fees for a single product EPD can often spread in the range of about €5,000–€15,000, sometimes even more depending on scope and provider. With a software plus expert service approach Ecochain offers, marginal costs per additional EPD decrease as your data foundation matures – making portfolio-scale coverage realistic rather than budget-prohibitive.

Talk to our team – we’ll show you how Ecochain’s LCA automation software works for safety barrier manufacturers.

FAQs about EPDs for safety barrier manufacturers

Do EPDs replace CE marking or EN 1317 compliance for barriers?

No. CE marking under the Construction Products Regulation and EN 1317 testing cover mechanical safety and conformity assessment of the barrier system. EPDs, by contrast, provide quantified life‑cycle environmental information and do not replace CE marking or EN 1317 compliance. In practice, many public and infrastructure tenders now look for both: CE‑marked, EN 1317‑compliant systems and third‑party verified EPD data, so safety and environmental performance are evaluated side by side.

Which life cycle modules should a safety barrier EPD include?

Under EN 15804+A2, the baseline for most construction product EPDs is to declare A1–A3 together with C1–C4 and Module D, with A1–A3‑only EPDs allowed only in specific, limited cases. Steel recycling assumptions and the way Module D reports potential benefits and loads from recycling can significantly affect results. Many program operators and clients also request A4–A5, especially for project-specific comparisons where transport and installation differ.

Can we publish one EPD for multiple barrier variants and plants?

Yes, you can publish one EPD for multiple barrier variants if you follow product family rules in the applicable PCR and EPD programme operator guidance. 

To get such a family EPD accepted, you normally have to:

• Define applicability limits – exactly which geometries, thickness ranges, EN 1317 classes, coatings, and plants are covered.
• Explain how you averaged or selected representative data (allocation, weighting by production volume, etc.).
• Show variance analysis – that all included variants lie within the allowed range vs. the declared results.
• Record this in the technical background report, so the verifier can check coverage and representativeness.

So, you can have one EPD per barrier family (e.g. a guardrail series with several heights and post spacings from two plants), as long as you follow the PCR and programme rules for families and can prove that the declared values reasonably represent every included variant.

Are EPDs for safety barriers mandatory under CPR?

EPDs themselves remain voluntary. However, the revised CPR (EU 2024/3110) makes environmental disclosure mandatory, based on EN 15804+A2-type indicators. The rollout happens in stages. From 8 January 2026, climate- and environment-related indicators – including GWP – apply to products covered by updated harmonized specifications. By around 2030, all core indicators must be declared. By 2032, full life-cycle reporting requirements kick in.

Safety barriers are expected to be covered once the harmonized standards for road restraint systems are revised to reflect the new CPR requirements. Meanwhile, many public procurement teams treat product‑specific EPDs as a strong expectation, and in some tenders they function as de facto requirements.

Keep reading: Construction Products Regulation (CPR) 2024–2032 guide: What manufacturers need to know

How does steel production route affect barrier EPD results?

Significantly. BF-BOF (blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace) steel typically carries higher embodied carbon than EAF (electric arc furnace) steel made primarily from scrap. Specifying the steel production route in your EPD – and using supplier‑specific data where available – is one of the most impactful choices for result accuracy and for differentiating your products in tenders.

Can we use EPD results to claim our barrier is “greener” than a competitor’s?

Use caution. EN 15804+A2 and ISO 14025 only allow product comparisons when the EPDs share the same product category, functional or declared unit, and equivalent system boundaries and calculation rules. Any ‘comparative assertions’ based on EPDs must follow ISO 14025 conditions – so when presenting your data, make sure your claims are grounded in what the numbers actually show.