A New Construction team runs a whole-building life-cycle assessment and lands right at its project baseline. That is 2 points. They also run the EPD project-average path, the weighted average meets the industry averages, and they pencil in 1 more. The scorecard says 3. Read the note printed under the point table and it says 2: meeting the baseline or industry average can achieve no more than 2 points.

MRc2 is built from three options joined by "and/or", and that phrase adds up less than it looks. This is a reference for how Reduce Embodied Carbon is actually scored in LEED v5 BD+C, starting with the prerequisite it builds on.

What the credit is worth

  • New Construction: 1 to 6 points.
  • Core and Shell: 1 to 8 points.

For both adaptations, the credit page states that a 20% reduction in embodied carbon is required for LEED Platinum projects, and Appendix I (LEED Platinum Requirements) repeats it. Below Platinum the credit is optional. At Platinum it is a requirement with a number attached.

The scope is major structure, enclosure, and hardscape materials. All ancillary structures within the LEED project boundary, such as parking structures or outbuildings, must be included in the calculations.

That scope is the clean line between MRc2 and its sibling MRc4. MRc4 rewards nonstructural products in nine categories. MRc2 is where the structure lives, together with the enclosure and the hardscape. Insulation shows up on both sides: it is an MRc4 product category and it is on the MRp2 minimum material list.

Start with MRp2

MRp2 Quantify and Assess Embodied Carbon is required for both New Construction and Core and Shell. It does not ask for a reduction. It asks for two things.

  • Quantify. Report the global warming potential (GWP) of the structure, enclosure, and hardscape materials. At a minimum, include asphalt, concrete, masonry, structural steel, insulation, aluminum extrusions, structural wood and composites, cladding, and glass. The boundary is cradle-to-gate, per material: A1-A3 emissions = GWP per unit x quantity of material used. Teams using LCA or embodied carbon software may report the tool's A1-A3 results instead.
  • Assess. Identify the top three sources of embodied carbon on the project and describe how project-specific strategies were considered to reduce those hot spots.

Core and Shell projects also communicate the embodied carbon measurements and material suppliers in the tenant guidelines.

Keep the A1-A3 boundary in mind. MRc2 Option 1 uses a different one.

Three options, joined by and/or

  • Option 1. Whole-Building Life-Cycle Assessment: 1 to 6 points New Construction, 1 to 7 points Core and Shell.
  • Option 2. Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) Analysis: 1 to 3 points New Construction, 1 to 4 points Core and Shell. Two paths with an OR between them: Path 1 Project-Average Approach (1 to 3 NC, 1 to 4 CS) or Path 2 Materials-Type Approach (1 to 2 NC, 1 to 3 CS).
  • Option 3. Track Carbon Emissions from Construction Activities: 1 to 2 points. Path 1 tracks all fuel and utility usage for contractor jobsite operations (module A5) for 1 point. Path 2 tracks contractor and subcontractor jobsite operations (A5) for 2 points.

The options combine. The paths inside Option 2 and inside Option 3 do not. For New Construction the credit says projects may earn up to 6 points total, so a stack of options never goes past 6 there.

How Option 1 scores

Option 1 is a cradle-to-grave WBLCA, modules A to C, excluding operating energy and operating water-related energy, of the structure, enclosure, and hardscape. The result is compared to a baseline developed for the project. The point rows are expressed as a percentage reduction in GWP, which is the plain comparison:

GWP reduction (%) = (baseline GWP - proposed GWP) / baseline GWP x 100

New Construction (Table 1):

  • Meet baseline: 2
  • 10% reduction: 3
  • 20% reduction: 4
  • 30% reduction: 5
  • 40%+ reduction: 6

Core and Shell (Table 2) uses the same rows through 40%+ at 6, then adds a 50%+ row worth 7.

These are thresholds, not a sliding scale. An 18% reduction sits in the 10% row.

The WBLCA report must also include results for six impact categories: GWP, stratospheric ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication, tropospheric ozone formation, and depletion of nonrenewable energy resources. The point rows are written in GWP. The other five are reporting requirements, but a WBLCA that only produces GWP is not a complete Option 1 submission.

How Option 2 scores

Path 1, Project-Average Approach. Points come from the whole-project weighted average of applicable material categories, compared to industry average values. New Construction: meet industry average 1, 20% reduction 2, 40%+ reduction 3. There is no 10% row and no 30% row in this column. Core and Shell follows the same pattern and adds 50%+ for 4.

Path 1 requires project-specific material quantities and product-specific or facility-specific Type III EPDs for covered materials. Biogenic carbon may only be included for calculations that include C-stage emissions.

Path 2, Materials-Type Approach. This path counts material categories, not percentages. Show with product-specific Type III EPDs that structural, enclosure, and hardscape materials beat industry benchmarks for their material type. New Construction: three material categories for 1 point, five or more for 2. Core and Shell: two categories for 1, four for 2, six or more for 3. A weighted average can be used within a product category.

For both paths, industry averages are defined by the U.S. EPA, the most recent Carbon Leadership Forum (CLF) Material Baselines report, or similarly robust and widely recognized publications, and industry-wide EPDs applicable to the project region. Both paths track GWP per unit of the materials installed and reconcile the design-phase intensities if materials or GWP values changed. Quantities only need reconciling if they changed more than 10% from design through construction.

The 2-point note

Under both point tables the rating system adds a note: meeting the baseline or industry average in the table can achieve no more than 2 points. It appears under Table 1 for New Construction and under Table 2 for Core and Shell.

Look at what sits in that baseline row. Option 1 at baseline is 2. Option 2 Path 1 at industry average is 1. The options are joined by "and/or", so it is tempting to add them to 3. Read plainly, the note stops baseline-level results at 2 however they are combined. To get past 2 from those two columns, at least one result has to reach a reduction row.

Path 2 sits in that row too. Every Path 2 point is printed in the "Meet baseline or industry average" row, and its cells in the reduction rows are dashes. The path itself asks for materials that beat industry benchmarks, though, and the rating system does not say whether the note is meant to cover it. For New Construction this matters little on its own, since Path 2 tops out at 2 anyway.

Core and Shell is where the page argues with itself. Table 2 gives six or more material categories 3 points, the Path 2 heading says 1 to 3 points for Core and Shell, and the overview table says the same. The note printed right under Table 2 states a 2-point limit for meeting the baseline or industry average. The November 2025, February 2026 and July 2026 editions all print it this way, and the July 31 addenda leave it alone. The published text does not explain how these provisions interact. If your Core and Shell score depends on this combination, get clarification from GBCI before you rely on it.

Option 3 is scored from a separate table (Table 3), so the note does not touch it.

A worked example

New Construction. All inputs are assumptions for illustration, not data from a real project.

  • WBLCA result: 4% below the project baseline.
  • EPD Path 1 project-weighted average: 14% below industry averages.
  • The general contractor tracks its own jobsite fuel and utility usage. Subcontractor usage is not tracked.

Naive count: 4 points. Option 1 at baseline is 2. Path 1 has no 10% row, so 14% earns the industry-average point, 1. Option 3 Path 1 is 1. Add them: 2 + 1 + 1 = 4.

Count under the note: 3 points. The Option 1 and Path 1 points both come from the baseline-level row, so together they stop at 2. Option 3 Path 1 is scored from Table 3 and adds 1. Total: 2 + 1 = 3.

What moves Options 1 and 2 is reaching the next reduction threshold. Pushing the WBLCA from 4% to 10% below baseline moves Option 1 into the 3-point row. Pushing the EPD average from 14% to 20% moves Path 1 to 2 points. Separately, adding subcontractor tracking raises Option 3 from 1 point to 2; it does not change the baseline-level results under the other options.

Platinum is out of reach either way. Neither the 4% WBLCA result nor the 14% EPD result reaches the 20% reduction Platinum requires.

What trips people up

  • Treating MRp2 numbers as the Option 1 result. MRp2 is A1-A3. Option 1 is modules A to C, excluding operating energy and operating water-related energy, with six impact categories reported.
  • Reading "and/or" as plain addition. Under the note, baseline-level results stop at 2 points, and New Construction stops at 6 points total.
  • Interpolating between rows. 18% is the 10% row. Path 1 jumps from industry average straight to 20%.
  • Expecting Path 2 to show a percentage. Path 2 scores by category count and has no reduction rows. If the project is going for Platinum, settle early which result will demonstrate the 20% reduction.
  • Mixing EPD types. Path 1 accepts product-specific or facility-specific Type III EPDs. Path 2 is written for product-specific Type III EPDs.
  • Claiming biogenic carbon on a cradle-to-gate number. Under Path 1 it may only be included for calculations that include C-stage emissions.
  • Leaving out the parking structure. Ancillary structures within the LEED project boundary are in scope for both MRp2 and MRc2.
  • Freezing design-phase intensities. Track the GWP per unit of the materials installed, and reconcile the design-phase intensities if materials or GWP values changed, even if quantities stayed within 10%.
  • Assuming one benchmark edition. The rating system says "the most recent" CLF Material Baselines report without naming a year. As of October 2026, CLF lists a 2025 Material Baselines Report (latest revision December 19, 2025) and a 2026 Table of Values and Documentation Spreadsheet (latest revision July 20, 2026) that updates baseline values using the methods documented in the 2025 report. Confirm which one your reviewer expects before you lock comparisons.

Source: LEED v5 BD+C Rating System, July 2026 Edition: scorecard at page 2, MRp2 Quantify and Assess Embodied Carbon at pages 128 to 129, MRc2 Reduce Embodied Carbon at pages 133 to 137 (Tables 1, 2, and 3), and Appendix I LEED Platinum Requirements at page 174. The July 31, 2026 addenda drop the word "targeted" from the first sentence of the Option 2 Path 2 requirements and edit MRc2 Reference Guide content (pages 391 to 395): the documentation now accepts as-designed quantities when as-constructed quantities did not change more than 10%, and the Option 1 guidance now cites NRC Canada's National Whole-Building Life Cycle Assessment Practitioner's Guide (final version, October 2024) in place of the City of Vancouver guidelines. Both USGBC files were still the current downloads on usgbc.org as of October 28, 2026. Industry averages from CLF and other publishers are versioned separately from LEED, and the addenda process keeps moving, so confirm the current values before you submit anything on the strength of a blog post.

MRc2 pairs with MRc4 Building Product Selection, which covers the nonstructural side of the material budget. For other v5 credits where the score is not what the scorecard suggests, see EAc4 Renewable Energy and EAc1 Electrification. The free VERTIQ feasibility check gives an early benchmark estimate across supported BD+C v4, v4.1, and v5, ID+C v4, v4.1, and v5, and O+M v5 profiles; MRc2 submission scoring still depends on the option you pursue: a project baseline and WBLCA for Option 1, material quantities and Type III EPDs for Option 2, and jobsite tracking for Option 3: https://vertiq.net/feasibility