Paint EPDs in the United States: the data-based guide
What does the US paint and architectural coatings EPD landscape look like in 2026? We analyzed every current declaration from the past five years in the public registry most specifiers consult. The result is a clear picture of who is publishing, which program operators they choose, and when renewals will land.
The 5‑year snapshot manufacturers ask for
Paint and architectural coatings in the United States saw 124 current EPDs across the last five years, authored by 8 manufacturers and published through 9 program operators, using 7 different PCRs. That is a concentrated market with just enough variety to matter strategically.
Two names carry most of the weight. Behr accounts for 73 EPDs, roughly 59 percent of the set. Carboline adds 34 EPDs, near 27 percent. Everyone else shares the remaining slice.
Who is publishing, and at what scale
Behr and Carboline set the pace. Benjamin Moore and HBF each contribute 6 EPDs, while Crown Paints, Armstrong World Industries, Formica, and Kelly‑Moore appear with one or two each. The top two together represent about 86 percent of all current paint EPDs, which means most spec comparisons will reference their formats and assumptions.
This concentration is a signal for your roadmap. If your product competes in the same subcategory, mirroring the dominant rulebook and modules improves comparability and reduces friction with specifiers.
Program operators manufacturers actually choose
Manufacturers did not spread their bets evenly. UL hosts 72 paint EPDs and Smart EPD hosts 26, together covering about 79 percent. Sustainable Minds shows 8 and SCS Global Services 6. INIES carries 7, and single EPDs appear under ASTM International, BRE Global, and MARK Product. One record lists no program operator.
Diversity by client is low for the leaders. UL’s paint volume in this period largely reflects a single manufacturer, and Smart EPD’s block is also concentrated in one. Translation for buyers and sales teams, the operator logo you pick sends a signal, but the underlying PCR match and transparency in the study plan matter more for day‑to‑day spec scoring.
The rulebook behind most paint EPDs
One PCR dominates. The Product Category Rule for Environmental Product Declarations – Architectural Coatings underpins 110 of 124 current EPDs, with latest observed expiries landing on Nov 11 2029. Smaller counts use EN 15804 frameworks and national additions, and 4 records were filed against an unknown PCR.
PCR choice is not academic. It governs declared unit, system boundaries, data quality, and comparability. When in doubt, follow the competitive norm unless a newer PCR gives you a clear advantage on timing or scope. If you want a second opinion from an EPD service provider, teams frequently lean on an external consultant like Parq to test-fit the best PCR for a product portfolio and sales calendar.
Win A $50 Amazon Gift Card in One Click!
Enter weekly raffle in one click • Help us get to know our readers and improve!
Release tempo, at a glance
Publish activity arrived in a wave. Here is the count of current EPDs by issue year.
| Year | EPDs issued |
|---|---|
| 2021 | 0 |
| 2022 | 11 |
| 2023 | 11 |
| 2024 | 102 |
| 2025 | 0 |
The latest EPD on record in this set is BEHR 876, issued Nov 11 2024 under UL with an expiry of Nov 11 2029 and based on the Architectural Coatings PCR. That aligns with the 2024 surge and the 2029 renewal cliff we outline below.
Your renewal runway through 2030
The next five years will be quiet, then busy. There are 11 expiries in 2027 and 11 in 2028. The big year is 2029 with 102 expiries. For the Architectural Coatings PCR specifically, 98 EPDs will lapse between Mar 28 2029 and Nov 11 2029. That is a classic capacity crunch for verifiers and LCA teams.
Practical plan, start data refresh 9 to 12 months before expiry in high‑volume months. That timeline keeps you ahead of lab testing lead times and factory data pulls, and it helps marketing avoid a go‑dark moment on spec sheets.
How often teams use EPD consultants
This category is not DIY heavy. 104 of 124 current paint EPDs list a third‑party developer organization, about 84 percent. The takeaway is simple. Most manufacturers prefer an EPD consultant or service provider to assemble data, run the LCA, and manage program‑operator publication.
If you are choosing a partner, look for three things. Efficient data capture that does not hijack your plant managers’ week. Operator‑agnostic publishing so you do not get boxed into a logo. A plan to align your PCR and modules to your competitive set. If you want a quick gut‑check, we can share what we see across operators and PCRs and point you to the shortest path.
Notably absent in this dataset, yet active elsewhere
A few large North American paint brands do not appear in the United States paint dataset above, yet they are active with EPDs in other registries or adjacent PCRs. Sherwin‑Williams shows current declarations including items valid to 2030 under NSF International. PPG lists product‑specific EPDs such as Speedhide Max with validity into late 2029 under EPD International AB. If you compete with them, it is wise to benchmark against those EPD structures even if they were not part of the five‑year US paint tally here.
What specifiers will look for in 2026
Expect more owners and design teams to ask for product‑specific, third‑party verified EPDs for interior and exterior paints, plus clarity on VOC content and emissions from separate certifications. The spec penalty for lacking an EPD remains real, since teams must default to conservative estimates that make non‑declared products hard to justify.
Treat your EPD like a sales asset. Publish where your competitors publish, summarize the declared unit and modules clearly on cut sheets, and make the PDF effortless to find from every product page. It sounds basic, but it is definately the difference between being considered or skipped in a fast bid.
Want the full dataset or PCR fit check
This article is based on the global public registry of EPDs most architects and specifiers use. Due to upload lags, some late 2025 paint EPDs may not have been reflected yet. If you want the full, up‑to‑date background data or a second opinion on the best PCR and operator for an upcoming paint EPD, connect with me on LinkedIn and send a note. Happy to share the spreadsheet and hop on a short call at no cost.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which program operators are most common for paint EPDs in the United States over the last five years?
UL hosts 72 current paint EPDs and Smart EPD hosts 26, together around 79% of the total. Sustainable Minds, SCS Global Services, INIES, ASTM International, BRE Global, and MARK Product account for the remainder.
What is the dominant PCR used for US paint EPDs and why does it matter?
The Architectural Coatings PCR underpins 110 of 124 current EPDs. Aligning with this PCR improves comparability against competitors and meets typical expectations from specifiers and reviewers.
When should manufacturers plan paint EPD renewals to avoid downtime in specs?
Begin data refresh 9–12 months ahead of expiry. A large renewal wave hits in 2029, so starting early helps avoid bottlenecks with verifiers and internal data collection.
How common is it to hire an EPD consultant or service provider for paint EPDs?
Very common. About 84% of current paint EPDs list a third‑party developer organization, which reflects the workload and the value of specialized LCA expertise.
Are major brands like Sherwin‑Williams and PPG missing from US paint EPDs?
They are not in this US paint five‑year dataset, yet both publish EPDs in other registries or under adjacent PCRs, with current declarations valid into 2029–2030.
About the Author
With a passion for sustainability and a love for complex data, Toby helps manufacturers efficiently collect data from across their organization and get their EPDs done right. He’s especially interested in how AI can support human expertise, helping R&D and factory teams work faster, smarter, and with less friction.
