Building towards functioning circular economy
Circular economy has been a hot topic for discussion in the construction industry for some years now, not least because construction and demolition waste comprises around 30% of all waste produced globally, and around one third of all C&D waste goes straight to landfill. End-of-pipe solutions such as landfill pricing have been the traditional blunt instrument in most Australian states to try and rein in the refuse and incentivise recycling, however, that doesn’t address the front-end issue of resource depletion from the inputs to construction materials including structures, fitouts and services infrastructure.
While the principle of ensuring resources and materials stay in the buildings and urban community value chain is well-established, the industry is still struggling to make this business as usual.
Part of the reason could be the traditional silos within the industry between developers, design and delivery, and product suppliers have made it difficult to get everyone on the same page about the challenges and the enabling ideas.
A recent roundtable discussion hosted by Cundall put this to the test, bringing together experts from across the value chain to share insight, experiences and potential solutions.
Hosted by Associate Director Hannah Morton, the attendees including Cundall Partner, Andy Parkin; Partner Julian Bott; Dr Matthias Irger, National Head of Sustainability, Cox Architecture; Crystal Anson, Sustainability Adviser, Mainbrace Constructions; Grace Ferguson, Winya Furniture, Executive Stakeholder, Corporate Social Responsibility & Marketing Manager; Nick Dillon, Principal, Tactical Group; and Louisa Moran, Woven Image, State Manager, NSW.
Who needs to make stewardship work?
One of the strong themes across the group was that while product stewardship schemes have been a positive development, they are not always working the way the developers of the schemes hoped they would.
There are a few factors behind this. A major issue is at the occupant or building manager end of the asset lifecycle, where those who are preparing to churn a fit out are not aware of the existence of a scheme, may not know who to contact if they are aware of the potential for take-back or, simply don’t pick up the phone and arrange for return of products or materials to occur.
Louisa Moran noted that while Woven Image has had takeback arrangements for its acoustic panelling in place for some years, the requests for it have been few and far between.
Documentation challenges
At the design and construct end, to ensure takeback is possible there may need to be changes to standard practices, such as designing for disassembly, using alternate fixing methods such as mechanical fastenings rather than adhesive, and accurate as-built documentation that can be handed over to the owner and eventual occupants.
Crystal Anson said that accurate drawings and accuracy in the BIM model is not always assured. While theoretically information about materials and products can be incorporated into a BIM model to create a digital twin, keeping a digital twin updated requires an investment of time and sometimes additional expenditure to retain access to the digital twin model over time.
Because the responsibility of the developer and delivery team often ends at final completion and sale of the asset, who exactly will commit to a digital twin and ensuring accuracy of information of materials and fixtures to the point of de-fit or demolition is not clear.
Dr Irger suggested that a ‘deconstructability plan’ should become part of the original design drawings, so that as part of handover documentation, the information required for safe, non-destructive disassembly of each element of the building and interior fitout is made available to occupants and building managers.
Barriers around product suitability
Issues around the provenance of materials and fittings also comes into play. Dr Irger said Cox has had occasions where the client has been willing to have redeployed/reused items in a project – however then procuring the items becomes problematic.
The Australian re-used materials market is currently fragmented, ad-hoc and difficult to navigate. Even Winya, which has been operating with reclaimed materials and a strong stewardship scheme for over a decade has faced some challenges, Ferguson told the group.
None of the standard eco-certification schemes have been able to provide credentials, for example, the origin of recycled timber may not be accompanied by Chain of Custody documentation that meets certification body requirements. Or absence of certification around zero formaldehyde in the constituent reclaimed elements becomes a barrier. The frustrating part of this for Winya is the Indigenous-owned company has always ensured zero formaldehyde in both its input products and materials, and the company’s furniture outputs.
One solution here is the introduction of materials passports as standard practice. These would include details of constituent materials, embodied carbon, any toxicity information, and be permanently assigned to a specific material or product. This could potentially also incorporate some of the detail around compliance and suitability matters, as suggested by the findings of the Royal Commission into Non-Conforming Products.
Ecosystem thinking
The fragmentation of the materials market is not a function of the actual functioning of the broader economy. As Andy Parkin pointed out, buildings and businesses both operate within an ‘ecology of things’, even if the management and allocation of those things occurs in disconnected silos.
So, change requires an ‘ecosystem’ thinking approach, which includes the entire value chain and connects materials, businesses, individuals and agencies in one integrated whole.
The group discussed the potential role of digital technology in bringing this about.
Currently, this occurs on a small scale. Ferguson shared some examples of social media marketplaces to share materials or procure them. Initiatives such as “Who’s got Bricks” and “Street Bounty” are emerging, however, they are small and highly localised.
“We need to change how people are thinking about waste,” Ferguson said.
Mainbrace has looked into direct sharing, and Anson there were frustrations experienced in trying to simply give materials away by placing them in an area adjacent to a job site that members of the public could access. Local councils are not supportive of this, Anson said, most likely due to public health and safety concerns.
It was agreed that some kind of national digital platform that allows those deconstructing a building or fit out to share the availability of materials and products with those who wish to procure them would be a major step forward.
Pricing signals are also required. As Julian Bott noted, “if it translates to dollars it wins.”
Landfill pricing is part of this equation, and potentially also new financial reporting requirements around cost of carbon metrics and the emerging area of social value accounting and measurement.
“From the client perspective, there is no incentive not to dispose of materials unless it costs too much,” Dr Irger said.
Change the language to shift the thinking
It is also made more difficult because it is rare for one individual organisation to own a building from inception through to end of life, which Dr Irger said Cox is now terming ‘second life’ as a way of reframing the thinking.
Nick Dillon said that the industry must make reuse and circular thinking ‘cool’.
“People have to answer to the market, for example leasing. We have got to change the language and change what’s cool,” he said.
“Success stories are needed… people will play to the arena and the competition. The ecosystem is so huge even the cleverest individual can’t solve it. So how can we use AI?
“There are so many interdependencies.”
New ISO Standard may help
One of the other issues the group aired was the lack of a common benchmarking and assessment framework for circularity.
“We need to reframe how people think about the valuation of where they spend their money, Ferguson said.
“Everyone wants a social impact statement now, so how do we evaluate circularity in Australia? We don’t have a benchmark.”
Anson also flagged a major question for the industry around how to get reporting on circularity to progress down the supply chain. It could be tender documents and RFPs must change as a key step.
One recent development that may help with benchmarking and common strategies is the new ISO 59004:2024 Circular Economy Standard, which provides a common vocabulary, principles and strategies for implementing. One of the advantages of an ISO standard is that it is credible and independent, with potential third-party auditing ensuring consistency. The Australian development and property industry already accepts ISO standards such as ISO 14001 Integrated Management Systems as a valid pre-qualification requirement for major public projects, for example.
That said, while having the standard is a plus, it is obvious we need to engage in a collective, cross-sectoral, cross-disciplinary effort across the real asset value chain to dissolve the barriers and seize the opportunities – financial, environmental and operational – of making the construction and property economy a circular one.
This article was originally published at Sourceable
