Interview: practitioners on Construction circularity — what they wish they knew earlier

Asia-Pacific's construction sector generates approximately 2.3 billion tonnes of construction and demolition waste annually, representing nearly 40% of the global total—yet current recovery rates across the region hover between just 15-30%, compared to 70-90% in leading European markets. When we interviewed practitioners working at the frontlines of construction circularity across Singapore, Japan, Australia, and South Korea, one theme emerged consistently: the gap between ambitious circular economy commitments and actual implementation often comes down to data quality, standards alignment, and what several interviewees candidly described as "measurement theater."

Why It Matters

The built environment accounts for approximately 37% of global carbon emissions and consumes roughly 50% of all extracted materials worldwide. In the Asia-Pacific region, where urbanization continues at an unprecedented pace—with projections indicating that 1.2 billion additional people will move to cities by 2050—the stakes for construction circularity have never been higher. According to the International Energy Agency's 2024 report, buildings and construction activities in Asia-Pacific consumed 36% of global final energy and produced 39% of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions.

The economic imperative is equally compelling. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation estimates that circular economy practices in the built environment could generate USD 4.5 trillion in economic benefits globally by 2030, with Asia-Pacific positioned to capture the largest share due to its construction volume. In 2024, China alone invested over USD 1.8 trillion in construction activities, while India's construction sector grew by 8.7% year-over-year. Japan's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism reported that the nation's construction waste recycling rate reached 97.2% in 2024, setting a benchmark that practitioners across the region are studying intensely.

Yet practitioners we interviewed expressed frustration at the disconnect between policy ambition and operational reality. "Governments announce 50% circularity targets by 2030, but when you ask about baseline measurements or verification protocols, the room goes quiet," observed a sustainability director at a major Australian construction firm. This tension between aspirational goals and measurable outcomes forms the central challenge that construction circularity practitioners must navigate.

Key Concepts

Traceability refers to the ability to track materials throughout their lifecycle—from extraction through manufacturing, construction, use, and eventual recovery or disposal. In construction circularity, traceability systems enable stakeholders to verify the origin, composition, and recyclability of building materials. Advanced traceability now incorporates blockchain-based material passports and IoT-enabled tracking, though practitioners note that interoperability between systems remains a significant barrier across Asia-Pacific supply chains.

Retrofits encompass the modification and upgrading of existing buildings to improve performance, extend lifespan, and facilitate future material recovery. Deep energy retrofits can reduce building energy consumption by 50-70%, while circular retrofits additionally prioritize material efficiency, design for disassembly, and the integration of recovered materials. In Asia-Pacific's aging building stock—where Japan alone has over 8.5 million buildings constructed before 1981—retrofits represent a critical pathway to circularity.

Compliance in construction circularity spans multiple regulatory frameworks, from environmental impact assessments and waste management regulations to emerging extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes and carbon reporting requirements. Singapore's Building and Construction Authority (BCA) Green Mark certification and Australia's Green Building Council ratings exemplify compliance frameworks that increasingly incorporate circular economy criteria.

E-fuels (electrofuels or synthetic fuels) represent an emerging consideration for construction equipment decarbonization. Produced using renewable electricity to synthesize hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide, e-fuels offer a potential pathway for hard-to-electrify construction machinery. While not directly a circularity measure, practitioners noted that lifecycle assessments increasingly must account for the carbon intensity of construction operations alongside material flows.

Micromobility intersects with construction circularity primarily through urban planning and infrastructure design. Practitioners emphasized that circular construction must anticipate evolving mobility patterns, designing buildings with adaptable ground-floor spaces, integrated charging infrastructure, and materials that can be reconfigured as transportation needs shift.

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

Digital material passports are gaining traction. Singapore's Building and Construction Authority launched its Materials Passport pilot in 2024, enabling real-time tracking of over 2.8 million tonnes of construction materials across 47 major projects. Practitioners reported that digital twins integrated with material passports reduced material waste by 12-18% in pilot projects by optimizing cut patterns and identifying reuse opportunities before demolition. Japan's MLIT has announced plans to mandate material passports for all public projects exceeding JPY 1 billion by 2027.

Pre-demolition audits are becoming standard practice. Australia's Green Building Council reported that pre-demolition audits increased material recovery rates from 45% to 78% in certified projects during 2024. Practitioners credited detailed auditing with uncovering valuable materials—including reusable structural steel, facade systems, and high-grade aggregates—that would otherwise enter mixed waste streams. South Korea's Ministry of Environment now requires pre-demolition audits for all buildings exceeding 1,000 square meters.

Regional material exchanges are scaling. Japan's Construction Material Recycling Association facilitated the exchange of 4.2 million tonnes of recovered materials in 2024, up 34% from 2022. Australia's Revolve platform connected over 800 construction sites, enabling peer-to-peer material trading that diverted an estimated 180,000 tonnes from landfill. These exchanges demonstrate that when transaction costs are reduced and material quality is verified, demand for secondary materials exists.

What Isn't Working

Inconsistent measurement methodologies undermine credibility. Practitioners repeatedly cited the lack of standardized circularity metrics as their primary frustration. "We have three different clients using three different calculation methods for the same recycled content claim," reported a materials consultant in Hong Kong. The absence of harmonized standards across Asia-Pacific jurisdictions means that circularity achievements in one market may not be recognized in another, creating barriers to cross-border material flows and investment.

"Measurement theater" wastes resources. Several interviewees used this term to describe reporting exercises that satisfy compliance requirements without driving meaningful change. One Singapore-based contractor described spending over 400 staff-hours annually on circularity documentation that "nobody reads and doesn't connect to any operational decisions." The proliferation of competing rating systems and disclosure frameworks has created administrative burden without proportionate environmental benefit.

Quality assurance for secondary materials remains inadequate. Despite advances in material tracking, practitioners reported persistent concerns about the structural integrity and chemical composition of recovered materials. Insurance and liability frameworks have not evolved to address risks associated with reused materials, creating reluctance among specifiers and engineers. "We can trace where the steel came from, but we can't get insurance coverage equivalent to virgin material," noted a structural engineer in Melbourne.

Key Players

Established Leaders

Kajima Corporation (Japan) has pioneered closed-loop concrete systems, operating dedicated recycling facilities that processed over 890,000 tonnes of demolished concrete in 2024 while achieving 99.3% recycling rates for construction byproducts across its projects.

Lendlease (Australia) committed to net-zero carbon and absolute zero waste by 2040, with its Barangaroo precinct in Sydney demonstrating 97% construction waste diversion and extensive use of recycled and reclaimed materials in its commercial towers.

CapitaLand (Singapore) integrated circular design principles across its USD 132 billion portfolio, implementing design-for-disassembly protocols and material passports in all new developments since 2023.

Samsung C&T (South Korea) launched its "Resource Circulation 2030" initiative, targeting 95% construction waste recycling and establishing partnerships with material recovery facilities across Southeast Asia.

Sekisui House (Japan) achieved an industry-leading 99.7% zero-emission factory rate and implemented a comprehensive take-back program for end-of-life housing components, recovering over 40,000 tonnes of materials annually for remanufacturing.

Emerging Startups

GALY (Singapore) developed AI-powered material optimization software that reduced material waste by 23% in pilot construction projects by analyzing BIM models and predicting optimal material ordering and cut patterns.

Sircular (Australia) operates a construction material marketplace connecting demolition contractors with builders, facilitating over AUD 45 million in secondary material transactions since its 2023 launch.

MaterialLoop (Japan) created blockchain-verified material passports specifically designed for Asia-Pacific regulatory frameworks, onboarding over 200 construction companies within its first 18 months of operation.

GreenJoist (South Korea) manufactures structural components from recycled steel and reclaimed timber, achieving 40% lower embodied carbon compared to conventional alternatives while meeting all Korean building code requirements.

ReGen Materials (India) processes construction and demolition waste into certified recycled aggregates and manufactured sand, operating three facilities with combined annual capacity exceeding 500,000 tonnes.

Key Investors & Funders

Temasek (Singapore) allocated SGD 5 billion to its sustainability-focused investment portfolio, with circular construction technologies identified as a priority sector for 2024-2027 investments.

Asian Development Bank launched its USD 500 million Circular Economy Facility, providing concessional financing for construction waste infrastructure across developing Asian markets.

SPARX Group (Japan) manages the Mirai Creation Fund III with JPY 200 billion in assets, actively investing in construction technology and circular economy startups.

Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Australia) committed AUD 1 billion to low-carbon buildings and construction innovation, including circular design and material recovery technologies.

Green Climate Fund approved USD 276 million for Asia-Pacific sustainable buildings projects in 2024, with circular construction criteria embedded in funding eligibility requirements.

Examples

Singapore's Tengah Eco-Town represents Asia-Pacific's most ambitious circular construction project, with its first phase completing in 2024. The development achieved 78% recycled content in infrastructure materials, diverted 92% of construction waste from landfill, and implemented full material passports for all 42,000 housing units. Pre-fabricated prefinished volumetric construction (PPVC) reduced on-site waste by 65% compared to conventional methods. The project's digital twin platform enables real-time tracking of 1.2 million individual building components.

Japan's Nihonbashi 1-Chome Redevelopment in central Tokyo demonstrated circular retrofit principles at scale. The 2024 project preserved 67% of the existing structure's embedded carbon while achieving a 52% reduction in operational energy consumption. Material audits identified 8,400 tonnes of reusable steel and 12,000 square meters of facade glazing suitable for secondary applications. The project received Japan's first "S-rank" rating under the new CASBEE-RC circular building assessment system.

Australia's Melbourne Quarter Precinct achieved the nation's highest construction circularity scores for a mixed-use development. Through detailed pre-construction material mapping and real-time waste tracking, the project diverted 96% of construction waste from landfill and incorporated 38% recycled content by mass. A dedicated materials exchange hub facilitated the redistribution of over 4,200 tonnes of surplus materials to other construction sites within metropolitan Melbourne.

Action Checklist

• Conduct baseline material flow analysis before setting circularity targets—practitioners universally emphasized that meaningful goals require accurate current-state measurement
• Implement digital material passports from project inception, not as retrofit documentation after construction completion
• Mandate pre-demolition audits for all renovation and demolition projects to identify recovery opportunities before materials enter waste streams
• Establish quality assurance protocols for secondary materials that satisfy structural engineers and insurance requirements
• Align internal metrics with emerging regional standards (ISO 20887 for design for disassembly, ISO 14040 for lifecycle assessment) to ensure future regulatory compliance
• Integrate circularity criteria into procurement specifications, requiring suppliers to provide verified material composition and recyclability data
• Invest in staff training to distinguish between genuine circularity improvements and "measurement theater" that consumes resources without impact
• Build relationships with regional material exchanges and recovery facilities before project commencement to secure outlets for surplus and recovered materials
• Engage with industry associations developing harmonized Asia-Pacific standards to shape frameworks that reflect operational realities
• Establish feedback loops connecting end-of-life material recovery data to design teams, enabling continuous improvement in design-for-circularity practices

FAQ

Q: What is the most common mistake organizations make when starting construction circularity initiatives? A: Practitioners consistently identified setting ambitious targets without establishing baseline measurements as the primary error. Organizations announce 50% recycled content or 80% waste diversion goals without first understanding their current material flows, waste composition, or recovery rates. This creates situations where progress cannot be meaningfully tracked and reported. Effective programs begin with detailed material flow analysis—even if the results are unflattering—before committing to public targets.

Q: How can organizations avoid "measurement theater" in circularity reporting? A: Practitioners recommended three principles: first, ensure that every metric reported connects to an operational decision that someone in the organization can actually make; second, limit reporting to metrics that can be independently verified rather than self-declared; and third, prioritize outcome metrics (tonnes diverted, actual recycled content verified) over activity metrics (number of circularity meetings held, policies adopted). Several interviewees suggested starting with fewer, more rigorous metrics rather than comprehensive but unverifiable reporting.

Q: Why do circularity rates vary so dramatically across Asia-Pacific markets? A: Regulatory frameworks, landfill costs, and existing waste management infrastructure create substantial variation. Japan's near-complete construction waste recycling reflects decades of landfill scarcity, stringent regulations, and mature recovery infrastructure. Markets with abundant landfill capacity and low disposal costs face weaker economic incentives for recovery. Additionally, varying definitions of "recycling" and "recovery" make cross-market comparisons challenging—some jurisdictions count downcycling to road base as recycling while others require material-to-material loops.

Q: What role should emerging technologies play in construction circularity strategies? A: Practitioners advocated for technology as an enabler rather than a solution. Digital material passports, AI-optimized material planning, and blockchain traceability can improve efficiency and verification—but only when underlying processes and incentives support circular outcomes. "We've seen projects with sophisticated digital twins that still send everything to landfill because the commercial model doesn't reward recovery," observed one consultant. Technology investments should follow, not precede, alignment of commercial incentives and operational processes.

Q: How are insurance and liability frameworks evolving to support circular construction? A: Progress remains slow but detectable. Singapore's BCA is piloting a certification scheme for recovered structural steel that would provide equivalent warranty coverage to virgin material. Australian insurers are developing products specifically for modular and prefabricated construction methods that facilitate future disassembly. However, practitioners noted that liability concerns continue to suppress demand for secondary materials in structural applications, with most reuse currently limited to non-structural components and finishing materials.

Sources

• International Energy Agency. (2024). 2024 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction. Paris: IEA.
• Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2024). Completing the Picture: How the Circular Economy Tackles Climate Change. Cowes: EMF.
• Building and Construction Authority Singapore. (2024). BCA Green Mark 2024: Circular Economy Criteria Technical Guide. Singapore: BCA.
• Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Japan. (2024). Construction By-Products Recycling Survey Results FY2024. Tokyo: MLIT.
• Green Building Council of Australia. (2024). Circular Economy in the Built Environment: 2024 Market Report. Sydney: GBCA.
• Asian Development Bank. (2024). Circular Economy Opportunities in Asia-Pacific Construction Sector. Manila: ADB.
• United Nations Environment Programme. (2024). 2024 Global Resources Outlook: Construction Materials. Nairobi: UNEP.