The buildings and construction industry is a significant contributor to global CO2 emissions. Accurate environmental impact data is required to enable decision-makers to implement measures to reduce these emissions. For this reason, the demand for product environmental information that allows for comparisons between products is increasing. By providing public access to aggregated product environmental impact data, Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) are a step in the right direction. EPDs communicate the results of third-party verified product Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies for multiple environmental impact categories, including climate change, and are commonly used within building rating systems, such as LEED and Mostadam. However, there is still work to be done in terms of harmonization of the methods used in the underlying LCA studies of EPDs. While EPDs of the same product that have applied different methods are often incomparable, the data presented in EPDs enables decision-makers to make better-informed decisions that can contribute positively to broader sustainability goals. This work focuses on assessing the comparability of EPDs for steel and concrete products manufactured in the GCC region. Results suggest that for steel, the EPDs are mainly from the same Programme Operator (PO) and are comparable. Whereas for concrete, EPDs are from multiple POs and differ in key methodological choices. These EPDs should therefore be examined thoroughly before their application in LCAs for building rating systems to avoid ineffective decisions from being implemented. The harmonization of methods behind LCA studies is an ongoing challenge that spans beyond the buildings and construction industry. Until harmonization and consensus are achieved, transparent reporting on the appropriate application of EPDs can help ensure decisions lead to reduced potential environmental impacts.