Reveals a conceptual framework for tracking embodied carbon in construction supply chains, suggesting improved data integration and environmental compliance.
Purpose Amidst growing international focus on carbon reduction, embodied carbon (EC) emissions remain inadequately addressed due to fragmented supply chains and data management challenges. This study develops a novel conceptual framework integrating building information modelling (BIM), Internet of things (IoT) and blockchain technology (BT) for comprehensive EC tracking across construction supply chains (CSCs). Design/methodology/approach Adopting a conceptual framework analysis approach, the study synthesises insights from literature on BIM, IoT, BT, EC management and construction supply chain. A novel BIM-IoT-enabled blockchain-based EC tracking (BIBECT) framework is developed and refined through expert feasibility assessment. Findings Leveraging BIM for centralised data visualisation, IoT for real-time data acquisition and BT for secure, immutable record-keeping, the proposed BIBECT framework demonstrates how the synergistic integration of complementary technologies overcomes the limitations of standalone systems. It facilitates dynamic EC monitoring, improves logistics optimisation, enables low-carbon procurement and provides a verifiable “single source of truth” across stakeholders. Beyond technical contributions, the framework offers a structured roadmap for automating carbon reporting and aligning project delivery with ESG benchmarks and regulatory compliance requirements. Originality/value Unlike prior integrations that focused on BIM-IoT, IoT-BT or BIM-BT pairings, the BIBECT framework synergistically integrates all three technologies to create a holistic, transparent, tamper-proof and real-time EC tracking system across CSCs. The framework sets the foundation for future prototype development. It also aligns with the “Cup-of-Water” theory, highlighting the interdependence of digital technologies in creating resilient and intelligent construction systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pittri et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: