Construction Circularity KPIs by Sector
Essential KPIs for measuring construction circularity, with 2024-2025 benchmark ranges across building types and guidance on reducing embodied carbon while maximizing material recovery.
Construction accounts for 38% of global CO2 emissions when including both operational and embodied carbon. As buildings become more energy-efficient in operation, embodied carbon in materials becomes proportionally more important—often 50%+ of lifecycle emissions for high-performance buildings. Construction circularity addresses this through material reuse, recycled content, and design for deconstruction. This benchmark deck provides the KPIs that matter, with ranges drawn from 2024-2025 projects across building types.
Why Construction Circularity Matters Now
The built environment consumes 40% of raw materials globally and generates 35% of waste. In the UK, construction and demolition waste accounts for 62% of all waste by mass. Most demolition material goes to downcycling (aggregates) or landfill rather than high-value reuse.
Regulatory pressure is intensifying. The Netherlands mandates 50% recycled content in government construction projects. France requires embodied carbon disclosure for new buildings. The UK's proposed Part Z building regulations would set embodied carbon limits. The EU's Construction Products Regulation revision includes lifecycle carbon requirements.
Financial incentives are aligning. Green building certifications (BREEAM, LEED) increasingly weight circularity metrics. Investors are incorporating embodied carbon into building valuations. Insurance companies are beginning to assess deconstruction risks.
The 8 KPIs That Matter
1. Embodied Carbon Intensity
Definition: Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from materials (production, transport, installation, end-of-life), measured in kgCO2e per square meter.
| Building Type | Typical Range | Best Practice (2024) | 2030 Target |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residential (Low-Rise) | 350-550 kgCO2e/m² | 250-350 | <200 |
| Residential (High-Rise) | 500-850 | 400-550 | <350 |
| Office (Standard) | 450-750 | 350-500 | <300 |
| Office (Premium) | 600-950 | 450-650 | <400 |
| Retail | 400-650 | 300-450 | <250 |
| Industrial/Warehouse | 200-400 | 150-280 | <150 |
| Healthcare | 700-1,200 | 550-800 | <500 |
System boundaries matter: Ensure comparisons use consistent boundaries (stages A1-A5, or full lifecycle A-C). Most published benchmarks cover A1-A5 (cradle to practical completion).
2. Recycled Content Rate
Definition: Percentage of construction materials by mass derived from recycled sources.
| Material Category | Current Median | Leading Projects | 2030 Trajectory |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structural Steel | 85-95% | >97% | 95%+ (already high) |
| Reinforcing Steel | 75-90% | >95% | 90%+ |
| Aluminum (Facades) | 30-50% | 60-80% | 80%+ |
| Concrete (Aggregates) | 15-30% | 40-60% | 50%+ |
| Concrete (Cement) | 25-40% SCM | 50-70% SCM | 70%+ SCM/alternative |
| Timber | 0-5% reclaimed | 15-30% | Varies by market |
| Glass | 15-35% | 45-65% | 60%+ |
| Insulation | 10-25% | 35-55% | 50%+ |
| Drywall/Plasterboard | 15-30% | 40-60% | 60%+ |
Steel is already circular: Structural steel achieves high recycled content through electric arc furnace production. Other materials have more improvement potential.
3. Construction Waste Diversion Rate
Definition: Percentage of construction site waste diverted from landfill through recycling, reuse, or recovery.
| Performance Level | Diversion Rate | Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| Best Practice | >95% | Source separation, reuse prioritization |
| Good | 85-95% | Mixed waste recycling, some reuse |
| Average | 70-85% | Basic recycling, limited separation |
| Below Average | 50-70% | Minimal sorting |
| Poor | <50% | Mixed skip to landfill |
| Project Type | Current Median | Leading Practice |
|---|---|---|
| New Construction | 82-88% | >94% |
| Fit-Out/Refurbishment | 75-85% | >92% |
| Demolition | 85-92% | >97% |
Diversion ≠ high-value recycling: Most "diverted" waste becomes road base or aggregate—better than landfill but far from circular. Track high-value diversion (back to equivalent material quality) separately.
4. Pre-Demolition Audit Score
Definition: Comprehensiveness of material inventory before demolition or refurbishment.
| Audit Level | Score | Requirements | Material Recovery Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive | 90-100 | Full building survey, material testing, reuse marketplace listing, deconstruction sequence plan | 35-60% reuse potential |
| Detailed | 70-89 | Structural/envelope survey, major systems inventory | 20-35% reuse potential |
| Standard | 50-69 | Regulatory minimum inventory | 10-20% reuse potential |
| Minimal | <50 | Hazmat only | <10% reuse potential |
UK regulatory context: Pre-demolition audits will become mandatory under revised regulations. Current best practice exceeds likely requirements.
5. Design for Disassembly (DfD) Score
Definition: Measure of how easily building components can be recovered for reuse at end of life.
| DfD Element | Weight | Assessment Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Connection Types | 25% | Mechanical > adhesive > composite; reversibility |
| Material Separation | 20% | Mono-material > mixed; layer independence |
| Access for Deconstruction | 15% | Clear pathways, lifting points, sequence feasibility |
| Component Standardization | 15% | Standard dimensions, modularity |
| Material Documentation | 15% | Material passports, BIM data, as-built records |
| Adaptability | 10% | Floor plate flexibility, services accessibility |
| Building Type | Current Median Score | Leading Projects |
|---|---|---|
| Modular Construction | 70-85 | 90+ |
| Standard New Build | 35-50 | 65-75 |
| Refurbishment | 25-40 | 55-65 |
| Heritage | 15-30 | 40-55 |
6. Material Passport Coverage
Definition: Percentage of building materials documented in machine-readable format for future recovery.
| Coverage Level | Description | Current Adoption |
|---|---|---|
| Full BIM Integration | All materials in digital twin with circularity data | 3-8% |
| Major Components | Structure, envelope, MEP documented | 12-20% |
| Structural Only | Load-bearing elements documented | 25-35% |
| Basic As-Built | Paper records, general specifications | 50-65% |
| Minimal/None | Standard construction records only | 20-35% |
Platform emergence: Madaster (Netherlands), Buildings as Material Banks, and similar platforms now enable standardized material passport creation. Integration with BIM workflows is improving.
7. Reuse and Reclamation Rate
Definition: Percentage of demolition materials by mass (excluding hazardous waste) reused directly or reclaimed for high-value applications.
| Material Category | Current Median | Leading Practice | Key Constraints |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structural Steel | 5-15% | 25-40% | Testing, certification |
| Bricks | 3-8% | 20-35% | Mortar type, condition |
| Stone/Masonry | 5-12% | 25-40% | Cutting, sizing |
| Timber | 2-8% | 15-30% | Treatment, grading |
| Raised Floors | 10-25% | 40-60% | System compatibility |
| Ceiling Tiles | 5-15% | 30-50% | Condition, standards |
| Doors/Hardware | 8-18% | 35-55% | Style, condition |
| MEP Equipment | 2-6% | 12-25% | Technology obsolescence |
Reclaimed vs. recycled: Reuse preserves embodied carbon; recycling recovers material but expends energy. A reclaimed steel beam avoids 95%+ of new beam emissions; recycled steel avoids 60-75%.
8. Whole Life Carbon Performance
Definition: Total lifecycle carbon including embodied, operational, and end-of-life stages, measured against benchmark.
| Performance Level | vs. Baseline | Typical Strategies |
|---|---|---|
| Net Zero Carbon | Zero or negative | Low embodied, zero operational, high circularity |
| RIBA 2030 Target | -75% | Very low embodied, high efficiency |
| LETI Target | -65% | Low embodied, efficient operation |
| Good Practice | -40% | Some low-carbon materials, efficient design |
| Business as Usual | Baseline | Conventional materials and design |
Baseline definition: RIBA Climate Challenge and LETI provide UK benchmarks. Regional equivalents include DGNB (Germany), BREEAM (various), and Architecture 2030 (US).
What's Working in 2024-2025
Urban Mining and Material Marketplaces
Digital platforms connecting demolition sites with construction projects are scaling. Platforms like Globechain, Enviromate, and Rotor DC enable speculative salvage, where materials are listed before demolition begins and buyers coordinate collection.
The UK's National Federation of Demolition Contractors reports 15% increase in material recovery through marketplace platforms since 2022. Success factors: early listing (before demolition starts), quality photography, clear specifications, and logistics support.
Structural Steel Reuse Certification
New certification schemes (BCSA, SCI guidance) now enable structural engineers to specify reclaimed steel with confidence. Testing protocols verify mechanical properties; database systems track provenance. Projects like ARUP's 8 Bishopsgate demonstrate 30%+ reclaimed steel in major structures.
The certification breakthrough addresses the primary barrier to steel reuse: liability concerns from specifying uncertified reclaimed material.
Modular and DfD-First Design
Prefabricated and modular construction inherently scores high on DfD metrics—components must be transportable and connectable without permanent bonds. Legal & General Modular Homes, Bryden Wood, and similar players are scaling modular approaches that enable future recovery.
Beyond modular, conventional projects increasingly adopt DfD principles for major components: bolted rather than welded steel connections, mechanical facade fixings, accessible MEP runs.
What Isn't Working
Downcycling as "Recycling"
Construction industry recycling rates look impressive (85%+) but most "recycling" is downcycling—concrete becomes aggregate, timber becomes mulch or biomass. These pathways capture material but not embodied carbon value. A crushed concrete aggregate replaces virgin gravel (low embodied carbon) not new concrete (high embodied carbon).
Meaningful circularity metrics should track high-value recycling separately from downcycling.
Demolition Speed Incentives
Tight project timelines incentivize fast demolition, which precludes careful deconstruction. Excavators can demolish in days what deconstruction takes weeks to recover. Unless contracts explicitly require deconstruction and price in the time cost, speed wins.
Changing this requires client requirements in contracts, potentially supported by demolition bonds or circularity incentives.
Information Loss at Handover
Even well-documented buildings lose material information over decades of operation. Ownership changes, renovation projects, and simple neglect erode documentation. When buildings reach end-of-life, material passports are often incomplete or unavailable.
Long-term solutions require standardized, persistent databases independent of building ownership—blockchain-based registries and national material databases are emerging responses.
Key Players
Established Leaders
- Skanska — Construction giant with circular economy pilots and material reuse programs.
- Lendlease — Committed to circular economy with Mission Zero carbon targets.
- AECOM — Engineering firm with sustainable building design and material optimization.
- WSP — Engineering consultancy with circular construction advisory services.
Emerging Startups
- Madaster — Materials passport platform tracking building component data.
- Rheaply — Asset exchange platform connecting companies with surplus building materials.
- Cambium Carbon — Reclaimed urban wood for construction.
- Concular — Digital building resource management for material reuse.
Key Investors & Funders
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation — Thought leader promoting construction circularity.
- EU Horizon Europe — Funding circular construction R&D.
- Circularity Capital — European PE fund focused on circular economy.
Examples
The Edge, Amsterdam: Often cited as world's most sustainable office building, The Edge achieved BREEAM Outstanding with 98.4% score. Circularity features: modular raised floors enabling future reconfiguration, concrete cores with recycled aggregate, steel frame designed for disassembly, comprehensive BIM material passport. Embodied carbon: approximately 450 kgCO2e/m² (below office average).
Triodos Bank HQ, Netherlands: Designed explicitly for deconstruction, with no glue or foam used in construction. 165,000 timber screws enable complete disassembly. All materials inventoried in Madaster material passport. End-of-life recovery target: 95%+ by mass. Demonstrates that radical DfD is commercially viable in standard office development.
Bloomberg HQ, London: BREEAM Outstanding with extensive reclaimed materials: 225 tonnes of reclaimed stone from demolished Dorchester Hotel, reclaimed timber in interiors, recycled bronze in facades. Pre-demolition material audit enabled targeted recovery. Demonstrates high-profile commercial viability of reclamation at scale.
Action Checklist
- Conduct embodied carbon assessment early in design (RIBA Stage 2) to inform material choices
- Set minimum recycled content targets by material category in specifications
- Require DfD assessment for major building components
- Implement material passport documentation using Madaster or equivalent platform
- Include pre-demolition audit requirements in contracts for demolition/refurbishment
- List recoverable materials on marketplace platforms before demolition begins
- Specify deconstruction rather than demolition where economically viable
- Track high-value reuse/recycling separately from downcycling in waste metrics
FAQ
Q: How do I specify recycled content when suppliers can't guarantee percentages? A: Use range specifications (minimum 25%, target 40%) rather than fixed percentages. Accept supplier-by-supplier variation but require documentation. For critical materials (steel, aluminum), recycled content is typically achievable; for others (plastics, specialized materials), maintain flexibility.
Q: What's the cost premium for circular construction? A: Highly variable. Reclaimed materials can be cheaper than new (bricks, timber) or more expensive (certified reclaimed steel). DfD design adds 0-5% to construction cost but reduces future deconstruction cost. Overall, 2-5% cost premium for comprehensive circular approach is typical, often offset by reduced waste disposal costs.
Q: How do I ensure material passports persist over building lifetime? A: Use platform-based systems (Madaster, BAMB) rather than project-specific databases. Include passport maintenance obligations in lease agreements. Consider national registries where available. Build passport updates into major renovation contracts.
Q: Is timber better than steel for circularity? A: Both can achieve high circularity with appropriate design. Steel has higher recycled content (90%+) and established recycling pathways. Timber has lower embodied carbon (often carbon negative) and potential for reuse if protected from damage. Best approach: select based on project specifics, design for material recovery regardless of choice.
Sources
- RICS, "Whole Life Carbon Assessment for the Built Environment," 2024 Update
- RIBA, "Climate Challenge 2030: Progress Report," November 2024
- LETI, "Climate Emergency Design Guide: Embodied Carbon Primer," 2024 Edition
- UK Green Building Council, "Net Zero Whole Life Carbon Roadmap," 2024
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation, "Completing the Picture: How the Circular Economy Tackles Climate Change," Built Environment Update, 2024
- Madaster, "Material Passport Implementation Guide and Benchmark Data," 2024
- WRAP, "Construction Waste Benchmark Report," 2024
Related Articles
Operational playbook: scaling Construction circularity from pilot to rollout
A step-by-step rollout plan with milestones, owners, and metrics. Focus on implementation trade-offs, stakeholder incentives, and the hidden bottlenecks.
Deep dive: Construction circularity — the hidden trade-offs and how to manage them
What's working, what isn't, and what's next — with the trade-offs made explicit. Focus on unit economics, adoption blockers, and what decision-makers should watch next.
Market map: Construction circularity — the categories that will matter next
Signals to watch, value pools, and how the landscape may shift over the next 12–24 months. Focus on implementation trade-offs, stakeholder incentives, and the hidden bottlenecks.