Rubber Flooring vs LVT: Comparing A1–A3 Carbon Figures at 2mm. Part 1 Product Stage GWP

Traditionally if architects, interior designers and estates teams compared rubber flooring with luxury vinyl tile the conversation often began with cost, appearance and technical suitability. But in 2026 this is changing.

For projects subject to embodied carbon targets, another question is being asked:

What Global Warming Potential is declared per square metre at the product stage?

This article compares published A1–A3 Global Warming Potential figures for Artigo UNI 2mm rubber flooring and two 2mm gluedown LVT products identified in the supplied Karndean Design flooring Environmental Product Declaration: Knight Tile and K-Trade.

The comparison is deliberately narrow. It considers the declared product-stage carbon data available for products at the same stated thickness. It does not claim that every rubber floor will outperform every LVT product, and it does not replace a full project-specific life-cycle assessment but it is an interesting item to bring into conversation.

This is Part 1 of our flooring product comparison series: an early-stage EPD review for specifiers deciding which flooring type should be taken forward on a commercial interior project.

The Headline Comparison: A1–A3 GWP per m²

The current Artigo EPD covering UNI reports 4.64 kg CO₂e/m² at A1–A3 for the 2mm standard product family.

In the supplied Karndean gluedown LVT EPD, the published A1, A2 and A3 values calculate to 8.91 kg CO₂e/m² for Knight Tile and 9.04 kg CO₂e/m² for K-Trade, both at 2mm thickness.

On the declarations examined, Artigo UNI records the lowest product-stage GWP figure per square metre. Against the two 2mm LVT products considered, the stated difference is approximately 4.27 to 4.40 kg CO₂e/m² at A1–A3 stage.

That difference needs to be read correctly. It is not a universal statement about all rubber flooring and all LVT. It is a direct comparison of the published product-stage figures available for the named products examined.

What Does A1–A3 Mean?

A1–A3 is the product manufacturing stage of an Environmental Product Declaration.

For a design team making an early material choice, A1–A3 provides a clear measure of the product-stage GWP associated with each square metre of flooring.

It does not include transport to the project site, installation, maintenance, cleaning, replacement or end-of-life treatment. Those factors matter. They should be considered at the next stage of assessment, using equivalent assumptions and current product information.

Why Compare 2mm Rubber Flooring with 2mm LVT?

Flooring comparisons often become unreliable when products with materially different thicknesses or constructions are placed side by side without explanation.

Artigo UNI is assessed here as part of Artigo’s 2.0mm standard rubber flooring EPD.

The two gluedown LVT references selected from the supplied Karndean EPD — Knight Tile and K-Trade — are also stated at 2.0mm thickness.

This does not make the products identical. Rubber flooring and LVT remain different material systems, with different constructions, aesthetic intentions and operational characteristics. It does however create a clearer first-stage carbon comparison than setting a 2mm rubber product against a materially thicker LVT product.

What Does the Carbon Difference Look Like on a Commercial Project?

A per-square-metre figure can appear modest until it is repeated across a full floor.

Using the published values examined, a 200m² Artigo UNI flooring area carries an A1–A3 total of 928 kg CO₂e. At the same floor area, the two 2mm LVT products examined calculate to approximately 1,783 kg CO₂e and 1,809 kg CO₂e.

At 500m², the product-stage difference rises to approximately 2.14 to 2.20 tonnes CO₂e.

At 1,000m², Artigo UNI calculates to 4.64 tonnes CO₂e at A1–A3, while the two LVT products examined calculate to approximately 8.91 and 9.04 tonnes CO₂e.

For a project team assessing flooring at early design stage, a difference of more than four tonnes CO₂e across 1,000m² is not incidental. It is large enough to justify asking for EPD evidence before a flooring category is selected by cost, habit, visual preference or legacy specification.

Artigo UNI: Product-Stage Carbon Data Alongside Technical Performance

A flooring product cannot be specified through carbon data alone.

Commercial flooring must still respond to the real conditions of a building: use, traffic, cleaning and maintenance, slip risk, fire performance, subfloor requirements, acoustic considerations and the operational demands of the space.

Artigo UNI is a smooth, solid-colour rubber flooring product intended for commercial interior settings. The published information examined for this article identifies a 2mm standard rubber floor with A1–A3 GWP-total of 4.64 kg CO₂e/m², alongside stated performance characteristics including R10 slip resistance and Bfl-s1 fire classification.

This matters in practical specification. The objective is not to find a carbon figure detached from building performance. It is to identify a flooring product that can evidence both its environmental data and its suitability for the intended use.

Where Then Might Artigo UNI Be Considered?

Artigo itself suggests its applications include schools, offices, hospitals, museums, indoor public spaces and other commercial environments.

This makes the product relevant for early consideration in projects such as:

• Education buildings.
• Healthcare interiors.
• Laboratories and research environments.
• Workplace and office interiors.
• Museums and cultural buildings.
• Public circulation areas requiring resilient flooring performance.

No published performance value removes the need for project judgement. Slip resistance must be checked against the actual risk environment. Fire performance must align with the project strategy. Cleaning, maintenance, installation and durability must be reviewed against the expected use of the building and this is what our technical team is here for.

Rubber Flooring vs LVT: A More Useful Specification Question

LVT is often selected because it can reproduce timber, stone or patterned finishes. Rubber flooring addresses a different design and operational brief: resilient performance for interiors where heavy use, maintenance, slip risk, acoustic comfort and material evidence matter.

The useful question is therefore not:

Is rubber always better than LVT?

It is:

For this particular project, which product can demonstrate the required technical performance with the clearest and most appropriate environmental evidence?

In the product-stage data examined here, Artigo UNI presents a markedly lower A1–A3 GWP figure than the two 2mm gluedown LVT products considered.

That is a legitimate early-stage specification consideration. It should be tested further through current documentation, samples, performance requirements and whole-life project assessment where required.

Before a final specification or formal carbon comparison is issued, design teams should also request a current, product-specific data.

What Should a Specifier Request Before Choosing Rubber Flooring or LVT?

A credible resilient flooring specification should not proceed on product category assumptions alone.

Before fixing a flooring choice, request clear evidence for the actual product proposed.

Where two products satisfy the technical brief, current EPD data allows the design team to make the carbon consequence of that decision visible rather than implicit.

‍

‍

Frequently Asked Questions

Is rubber flooring lower carbon than LVT?

That cannot be stated as a universal rule. Carbon performance must be established product by product using current and appropriately comparable EPD information.

In the declarations examined for this article, Artigo UNI 2mm rubber flooring reports 4.64 kg CO₂e/m² at A1–A3, while the two 2mm gluedown LVT products considered calculate to 8.91 kg CO₂e/m² and 9.04 kg CO₂e/m² at the same product stage.

What is the A1–A3 GWP figure for Artigo UNI 2mm rubber flooring?

The current Artigo 2mm standard EPD covering UNI reports 4.64 kg CO₂e/m² GWP-total for A1–A3.

Does Artigo UNI have stated slip resistance?

Yes. Published Artigo UNI technical information states R10 slip resistance according to EN 16165.

Suitability still needs to be assessed against the actual slip-risk conditions and cleaning regime of the individual project.

Can A1–A3 carbon data decide a flooring specification on its own?

No. A1–A3 is a useful early-stage product carbon measure, but a final specification also needs to consider, amongst other items: slip resistance, fire performance, use classification, installation, cleaning, maintenance, expected service conditions and any required whole-life carbon assessment.

Comparing Rubber Flooring with LVT on a Live Project?

For architects, interior designers, contractors and estates teams comparing rubber flooring with LVT, we can provide Artigo technical information, EPD documentation, product samples and early-stage specification support.

Provide the approximate flooring area, building type and required performance criteria, and we can help assess whether Artigo UNI is an appropriate resilient flooring option for the project.

‍

‍

Documents Used for This Comparison

Artigo Environmental Product Declaration: UNI — 2mm standard. UL Solutions. Product-specific Type III EPD. Issue date: 1 March 2024. Updated: March 2026.

Artigo UNI published technical information: technical characteristics include R10 slip resistance according to EN 16165 Method B and Bfl-s1 fire classification according to EN 13501-1.

Karndean Designflooring Environmental Product Declaration: Luxury Vinyl Flooring — gluedown products including Knight Tile and K-Trade. SCS-EPD-06707. Version: 19 March 2021.

Publication note: The Karndean data is included as the supplied documented LVT reference for this comparison article. A current product-specific LVT EPD should be requested before the data is relied upon for final procurement or formal project carbon assessment.

‍