Due to the various environmental issues plaguing the world, different sectors are more conscious of how decisions impact the environment, and the construction industry is not left out. In order to reduce the environmental impact of the building sector, building materials manufacturers are required to follow strict standards. Reducing the environmental impact of the building sectors goes beyond building materials; it also includes manufacturing various building components like walls, floors and beams. It also involves reducing the environmental impact of the construction, use and decommissioning phase. Ulricehamn Betong Aktiebolag, a Swedish company in Ulricehamn that specializes in producing and installing precast concrete elements, set a goal to achieve carbon-neutral projects by 2030. One of their approaches to achieving this goal was the design of a sandwich building integrated photovoltaic concrete wall which replaced the exterior concrete layer of a conventional composite concrete wall with photovoltaic panels. This type of wall allows for lighter construction and energy generation; this research aimed to determine if this new wall type is more environmentally friendly and cost-effective than the existing composite concrete walls. Previous research on the environmental and economic benefits of building integrated photovoltaic panels is limited, with the existing research publications done a few years back. This research provides current information on the environmental impact and life cycle cost of BIPV investment in the Swedish context. The research method was divided into three sections; the first section involved carrying out a cradle-to-gate comparative life cycle assessment of the composite precast concrete wall and the BIPV precast sandwich concrete wall using One Click LCA software. A cradle-to-grave comparative life cycle assessment of the two wall types using a time horizon of 50 years was done using the One Click LCA software for a case study building. DesignBuilder software was used to simulate the annual energy consumption of the case study building. The last section involved carrying out a comparative life cycle cost analysis for the composite precast concrete wall and the BIPV precast sandwich concrete wall. The global warming potential, ozone depletion potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential and total use of primary energy were the environmental impact indicators examined. The results revealed that when only the cradle-to-gate stage was considered, the precast composite concrete wall had a lower environmental impact than the precast building integrated photovoltaic wall. For the cradle-to-grave case, the precast building integrated photovoltaic wall option had a lower global warming potential, acidification potential and total use of primary energy than the precast composite concrete wall in 50 years. The results show that the life cycle cost of the precast building integrated photovoltaic wall depends on the Swedish electricity spot price within the building life span.