Interview: practitioners on construction circularity

The construction industry generates approximately 37% of global carbon emissions and produces over 35% of all waste sent to landfills worldwide—yet only 9% of construction materials are currently cycled back into new projects. These stark figures, confirmed by the 2024 Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction report, underscore why leading practitioners are now treating circularity metrics as mission-critical KPIs rather than aspirational targets. In conversations with sustainability directors, materials engineers, and policy architects across four continents, a consensus emerges: the sector that built modern civilization must now rebuild its own operating model.

Why It Matters

Construction circularity represents one of the largest decarbonization levers available to the global economy. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation's 2025 Built Environment Update, transitioning to circular construction practices could reduce sector emissions by 38% by 2050 while creating $4.5 trillion in economic value. The urgency has intensified as regulatory frameworks tighten: the European Union's revised Construction Products Regulation (CPR) now mandates circularity declarations for all products entering EU markets starting July 2025, while China's 14th Five-Year Plan includes binding targets for construction waste recycling rates of 60% in major cities by 2026.

"We've moved past the era of voluntary commitments," explains Dr. Maria Santos, Director of Sustainable Construction at Arup. "When I started in this field fifteen years ago, circularity was a passion project. Today, it's a fiduciary duty. Our clients face real financial exposure from stranded assets and materials that can't be recovered or reprocessed."

The 2024-2025 period has seen unprecedented acceleration in circular construction adoption. The World Green Building Council's annual survey found that 67% of major contractors now track at least three circularity metrics, up from 34% in 2022. Material passports—digital records documenting building components for future recovery—have been implemented in over 140,000 commercial buildings globally, representing a 280% increase since 2023. Meanwhile, the secondary construction materials market reached $182 billion in 2024, projected to exceed $290 billion by 2028.

Regional dynamics reveal varied maturity levels. The Netherlands leads globally with a 85% construction waste diversion rate and mandatory circularity assessments for all government-funded projects. Singapore's Building and Construction Authority requires material recovery plans for demolitions exceeding 5,000 square meters. In contrast, North American markets lag with average diversion rates of 45-55%, though California's CALGreen Code 2025 updates introduce significant new requirements.

Key Concepts

Circularity Rate (CR): The percentage of materials in a construction project derived from recycled, reused, or renewable sources, combined with the percentage designed for future recovery. Industry benchmarks consider CR >40% as emerging practice, >60% as advanced, and >80% as leading-edge. Practitioners note that measuring CR requires lifecycle boundary definitions—whether to include site preparation, temporary works, and fit-out materials significantly affects reported figures.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): A policy framework holding manufacturers accountable for end-of-life management of construction products. France's PMCB (Produits et Matériaux de Construction du Bâtiment) scheme, launched in 2023, now covers 95% of construction products and has funded 847 collection points nationwide. EPR fees typically range from 1-5% of product value, creating direct financial incentives for design-for-disassembly.

Material Passports and Digital Product Passports (DPP): Standardized documentation systems tracking material composition, origin, maintenance history, and recovery instructions throughout a building's lifecycle. The EU's Digital Product Passport requirements under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) will mandate DPPs for construction products by 2027. Practitioners report that comprehensive material passports can increase end-of-life recovery rates by 35-50%.

Permitting for Deconstruction: Regulatory frameworks requiring deconstruction plans rather than demolition permits for buildings meeting size or age thresholds. Portland, Oregon pioneered this approach in 2019; by 2025, over 40 cities globally have adopted similar frameworks. Practitioners emphasize that deconstruction permitting increases project timelines by 15-30% but typically recovers 70-90% of materials versus 20-30% for conventional demolition.

Grid Carbon Intensity and Embodied Carbon: The relationship between when and where materials are manufactured and their carbon footprint. As electrical grids decarbonize unevenly, circular strategies that prioritize local material reuse can significantly reduce embodied carbon compared to virgin materials manufactured in carbon-intensive regions. Leading practitioners now require suppliers to report manufacturing grid carbon intensity alongside traditional embodied carbon figures.

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

Pre-Demolition Audits with AI-Powered Material Recognition: Automated scanning technologies have transformed the economics of material recovery. "Three years ago, a comprehensive pre-demolition audit for a mid-rise commercial building took our team 80-100 hours," notes James Chen, Operations Director at Rotor DC in Belgium. "Today, using LiDAR scanning combined with machine learning classification, we complete the same assessment in 12 hours with 94% accuracy in material identification." Companies like BAMB (Buildings as Material Banks) and Madaster have developed platforms that automatically generate recovery value estimates, enabling contractors to incorporate salvage revenues into tender calculations. In 2024, AI-assisted audits identified recoverable materials worth €2.3 billion across European demolition projects.

Urban Mining Hubs and Regional Material Exchanges: Concentrated processing facilities that aggregate, quality-test, and redistribute recovered construction materials have proven economically viable at scale. Rotterdam's Material Exchange, launched in 2021, now processes 340,000 tonnes of construction materials annually and has reduced average transport distances for recycled aggregates by 62%. Similar models in Tokyo (Metropolitan Construction Material Recycling Center) and Melbourne (ASPIRE Material Exchange) report material recovery rates exceeding 85% for participating projects. "The hub model solves the fundamental matching problem," explains Dr. Hiroshi Tanaka, who led Tokyo's implementation. "Individual projects don't have sufficient material diversity to create efficient markets. Aggregation creates the scale necessary for specialized reprocessing."

Design-for-Disassembly Certification Standards: The emergence of third-party verified DfD standards has accelerated adoption by providing clear specifications for architects and engineers. DGNB's Circular Building Assessment, launched in 2023, has certified over 2,100 buildings globally. The Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute's Building Material Health Certification now covers 4,800 construction products. Practitioners report that certified projects achieve 40-60% higher material recovery rates compared to conventional buildings of similar age and type. "Certification creates accountability," states Anna Björklund, Sustainability Director at White Arkitekter. "When recovery performance is independently verified, it becomes a competitive differentiator rather than marketing language."

What Isn't Working

Fragmented Data Standards and Interoperability Failures: Despite significant investment in material passport platforms, practitioners consistently cite data interoperability as the primary implementation barrier. "We have buildings with material data in six different proprietary formats," reports Michael Torres, Head of Asset Data at British Land. "When it comes time for renovation or deconstruction, reconciling these datasets costs nearly as much as conducting new surveys." The absence of universally adopted standards means that material passports created in one system frequently cannot be read by another, undermining the long-term value proposition. Industry bodies estimate that data fragmentation adds 8-12% to circular transition costs.

Insurance and Liability Uncertainty for Reused Structural Elements: While non-structural material reuse has scaled effectively, structural element reuse remains constrained by unresolved liability questions. "I can source reclaimed steel beams that exceed the specifications of new production," explains structural engineer Dr. Patricia Vega. "But our insurers require additional testing protocols that add 15-20% to project costs, eliminating the financial advantage." Regulatory frameworks in most jurisdictions lack clear certification pathways for reused structural components, forcing case-by-case negotiations that increase project risk and timeline. The 2024 Reused Structural Steel Consortium report found that only 3% of structural steel recovered from demolitions is reused structurally; the remainder is melted down—a significant energy penalty.

EPR Implementation Gaps and Enforcement Inconsistency: While EPR frameworks are expanding, enforcement capacity has not kept pace with regulatory ambition. France's PMCB scheme has faced criticism for collection point accessibility—rural areas average 45-minute travel times to deposit sites versus the 15-minute target. In jurisdictions with voluntary EPR participation, free-rider problems persist: responsible producers subsidize the end-of-life costs of competitors who avoid scheme membership. "The policy architecture is sound," acknowledges Claire Dupont, Policy Director at the European Demolition Association. "But without meaningful penalties for non-compliance and adequate funding for enforcement, we're creating uneven playing fields that disadvantage responsible actors."

Key Players

Established Leaders

Skanska AB: The Swedish multinational has committed to 100% climate-neutral operations by 2045 and leads industry practice in material passports, with over 15,000 buildings documented in their proprietary system. Their 2024 Circular Construction Report demonstrated a 52% circularity rate across Nordic projects.

VINCI Construction: Europe's largest construction company operates dedicated circular economy subsidiaries including Recydem (demolition recycling) and Revacal (slag-based products). VINCI's 2025 targets include 70% waste recovery across all European operations.

Bouygues Construction: The French contractor's "Cycle Up" platform matches recovered materials with new project demands across their €35 billion annual project portfolio. Since launch in 2020, Cycle Up has diverted 890,000 tonnes from landfill.

Lendlease: The Australian developer requires all projects to achieve a minimum 20% recycled content and has pioneered embodied carbon reduction strategies, achieving certified carbon-neutral developments in Sydney and London.

Shimizu Corporation: Japan's second-largest contractor operates the industry's most advanced concrete recycling technology, producing structural-grade recycled aggregate at 99% purity. Their closed-loop concrete system has recycled 2.4 million tonnes since 2019.

Emerging Startups

Concular (Germany): Digital marketplace connecting demolition sites with construction projects requiring specific materials. Raised €5 million Series A in 2024; platform processes €40 million in material transactions annually.

Circular Building Industries (Netherlands): Develops modular, fully demountable building systems using only certified circular materials. Major projects include the Triodos Bank headquarters and ABN AMRO Pavilion.

Reseat (USA): AI-powered platform for commercial furniture and fit-out material recovery. Diverted 12,000 tonnes from landfill in 2024; raised $8 million Series A led by Fifth Wall Ventures.

Encore Sustainable Builders (UK): Specializes in deep retrofit and material recovery for heritage buildings. Developed proprietary techniques for historic brick and timber recovery with 92% yield rates.

Material Mapper (Australia): Drone-based material scanning and valuation platform. Completes site assessments in under two hours; used on 340 Australian demolition projects in 2024.

Key Investors & Funders

Breakthrough Energy Ventures: Bill Gates-backed fund has invested over $120 million in construction circularity ventures including CarbonCure, Biomason, and Modern Hydrogen applications for steel decarbonization.

Fifth Wall Ventures: Real estate technology investor with dedicated circular economy thesis. Portfolio includes construction robotics, material passports, and building-as-a-service platforms totaling $85 million deployed.

European Investment Bank (EIB): Provided €2.3 billion in circular construction financing through 2024 via the Circular Economy Initiative, including dedicated credit lines for material recovery infrastructure.

SYSTEMIQ: Blended finance vehicle combining philanthropic and commercial capital for systems-change investments. Circular construction portfolio includes policy advocacy, market development, and technology scaling.

Singapore Green Building Council: Administers $100 million SGD fund for circular construction innovation in Southeast Asia, supporting 45 pilot projects since 2022.

Benchmark KPI Table: Construction Circularity Metrics by Sector

Metric	Residential	Commercial	Infrastructure	Industrial	Leading Practice
Circularity Rate (%)	25-35	35-50	20-30	40-55	>70
Construction Waste Diversion (%)	55-65	65-80	50-60	70-85	>90
Recycled Content (% by mass)	15-25	25-40	30-45	35-50	>60
Material Passport Coverage (%)	5-15	20-35	10-20	25-40	>80
DfD-Compliant Elements (%)	10-20	25-40	15-25	30-45	>65
Structural Reuse Rate (%)	1-3	3-8	2-5	5-12	>25
Embodied Carbon Reduction (% vs baseline)	15-25	25-40	20-35	30-45	>50

Examples

1. The Edge, Amsterdam (Netherlands): Widely regarded as the world's most sustainable office building, The Edge achieved a BREEAM Outstanding score of 98.4% and demonstrates circular principles at scale. The project incorporated 85% recycled steel, 100% FSC-certified timber, and full material passport documentation for all 26,000 building components. The modular raised floor system, designed for complete disassembly, enables full office reconfiguration without material waste. Post-occupancy measurements confirm 70% lower embodied carbon than comparable buildings. Material recovery value at end-of-life is estimated at €12 million.

2. Tokyo Olympic Village Conversion (Japan): The Athletes' Village transformation into permanent housing represents the largest demonstration of adaptable building design. Original structures were designed with standardized connection details enabling residential conversion with 82% material retention. The project recovered and repurposed 45,000 tonnes of timber, steel, and concrete components. Japan's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism used the project to validate updated building codes for demountable construction, influencing standards adopted across 23 Asian nations.

3. Circle House, Copenhagen (Denmark): Developed by GXN and Lejerbo, Circle House comprises 60 affordable housing units built entirely from reusable and recyclable materials. Every component—from foundation to roof—can be separated and reused without quality degradation. Third-party analysis confirmed 90% of materials can be recovered at original quality grade. The project demonstrated a 35% cost premium for circular construction but projects full cost recovery through material value retention over the building's 60-year design life. Circle House protocols have been adopted by the Danish government as reference standards for public housing.

Action Checklist

FAQ

Q: What circularity metrics should organizations prioritize when resources are limited? A: Practitioners consistently recommend starting with construction waste diversion rate and recycled content percentage as foundational metrics. These measures are relatively straightforward to track, align with existing regulatory reporting requirements in most jurisdictions, and provide meaningful benchmarks for improvement. "You can measure waste diversion tomorrow with minimal investment," advises sustainability consultant Erik Johansson. "Once that discipline is established, more sophisticated metrics like circularity rate and material passport coverage become achievable." Organizations should also establish embodied carbon baselines early, as regulatory requirements are tightening rapidly.

Q: How do circular construction costs compare to conventional approaches? A: Cost differentials vary significantly by project type, location, and circular strategy employed. Material reuse typically reduces material costs by 15-40% but may increase labor costs by 20-50% due to additional handling, testing, and installation complexity. Design-for-Disassembly adds 5-15% to initial construction costs but can reduce end-of-life costs by 40-60%. Full lifecycle cost analyses generally favor circular approaches for buildings with 30+ year lifespans, particularly when carbon pricing is incorporated. Practitioners emphasize that cost comparisons must account for avoided disposal fees, increasingly stringent in most jurisdictions, and potential material recovery revenues.

Q: What role does digitalization play in scaling construction circularity? A: Digital technologies are essential enablers across the circularity lifecycle. Building Information Modeling (BIM) provides the foundation for material passports by documenting component specifications at design stage. AI-powered visual recognition systems have reduced material identification costs by 80% while improving accuracy. Blockchain-based material tracking ensures chain-of-custody verification for certified recycled content. However, practitioners caution against technology-first approaches: "Digital tools are only valuable when organizational processes are designed to use the data they generate," notes digital construction lead Sandra Mueller. The greatest barrier is typically data governance and interoperability rather than technology capability.

Q: How are regulatory frameworks evolving, and what should organizations anticipate? A: The 2024-2025 period marks a significant regulatory inflection point. The European Union's Construction Products Regulation revision introduces mandatory environmental declarations including circularity indicators from July 2025. China's updated Construction Waste Management Regulations require 60% recycling rates in major cities by 2026, with penalties for non-compliance. California's CALGreen 2025 updates mandate buy-clean policies for public construction. Practitioners advise organizations to: (1) map their exposure across all operating jurisdictions; (2) engage early with emerging Extended Producer Responsibility schemes; (3) develop internal carbon pricing that anticipates regulatory trajectories; and (4) participate in industry consultation processes to shape practical implementation approaches.

Q: What skills and capabilities are most needed to advance circular construction practices? A: Survey data from the World Green Building Council identifies five critical capability gaps: material science expertise for assessing reused component fitness-for-purpose; lifecycle assessment competency for comparing circular options; digital skills for material passport implementation; procurement expertise for circular specifications; and change management capabilities for organizational transformation. "Technical knowledge is necessary but insufficient," emphasizes organizational development specialist Dr. Kenji Watanabe. "The transition requires cultural shifts in how project teams conceptualize materials—from consumables to assets under temporary stewardship." Leading organizations are creating dedicated circular economy roles and integrating circularity performance into career development frameworks.

Sources

Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2025). Built Environment: Completing the Picture—2025 Update. Isle of Wight: Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction. (2024). 2024 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme.
World Green Building Council. (2024). Annual Survey of Sustainable Building Practices. London: WorldGBC.
European Commission. (2024). Revised Construction Products Regulation: Implementation Guidance. Brussels: DG GROW.
Circle Economy. (2025). The Circularity Gap Report: Built Environment Special Edition. Amsterdam: Circle Economy.
Buildings as Material Banks Consortium. (2024). Material Passport Implementation: Lessons from 140,000 Buildings. Brussels: BAMB Project Office.
McKinsey & Company. (2024). The Circular Construction Opportunity: Sizing the Prize. New York: McKinsey Global Institute.