On April 14th, I attended a breakfast reception in the Palace of Westminster on behalf of the Circular Do Tank. The occasion was the launch of The Reuse Dividend, a major international study that looks at a problem many have been shouting about for years - why is Britain so bad at unlocking the potential of its empty buildings?

Proven Ideas, Not Just Good Intentions

What I really liked about this report is that it moves us past the vague “we should do something” stage. It provides a practical shopping list of proven financial incentives from eight other developed economies.

Instead of starting from scratch, we can now point to specific examples - from tax credits in the US to VAT reforms in Europe - that have already successfully fuelled urban revitalisation. It’s a menu of “what works” and I believe it is a great starting point to take the UK from ambition to implementation.

Speculate to Accumulate: The State’s Business Case

To me, the largest hurdle we face is the way the Treasury views incentives. If you look at a tax break or a grant purely as an isolated cost, it looks like a cost or a loss. That is understandable, but narrow and short-term thinking.

We need there to be a better understanding and acknowledgment of our argument that there are far greater savings for the state here if they are willing to speculate to accumulate. When we reuse a building, we aren’t just saving carbon… we are avoiding the massive, long-term costs of social decline, “broken window” policing and the eventual public bailouts for derelict sites.

If the government sees the wider benefits (job creation, local economic growth and the avoided cost of doing nothing) then incentivising reuse becomes a net benefit and a total no-brainer. It’s an investment in our own resilience.

The Ask: Beyond the 5-Minute Meeting

There was a bit of irony at the event. Rachel Blake MP gave a supportive speech about the importance of the work but, in typical parliamentary fashion, had to dash off before the actual presentation of the report’s findings. It really highlighted the biggest challenge the movement faces - sustained attention.

The clear ask from the founders and presenters (Will Hurst, Leanne Tritton, Richard Nelson and Matt Bullivant) was that for this to work, we need more than just a supportive nod or a five-minute briefing. To get the momentum required to fix a tax framework that currently penalises building reuse over new build, we need real, sit-down time with the Treasury and the Department for Levelling Up.

Read the Report

I recently joined a breakfast roundtable hosted by alpha-ww (thanks to Seb Wood and Kelly Harrison for the invite). The topic was one that usually stays in the “back office” until something goes wrong: Insurance Innovation for Transition Resilience.

We were joined by two experts - Amar Rahman from Zurich Resilience and James Bosely from Gallagher. What followed was a refreshingly blunt conversation about how the insurance world is quietly considering the value of our assets.

Here are the four key takeaways that every property professional should have on their radar right now.

1. Short-Term Policy vs. Long-Term Risk

Amar made a point that stuck with me: while we often talk about hazard and risk, we should be looking at the exposure of the entire value chain, not just the physical asset where an initial loss might occur.

Interestingly, while insurers are doing immense research into climate change and long-term adaptation, the actual products they sell are short-term (usually a maximum of 3 years). They have their eyes on the next 30 years of climate shifts, but they only ever “bet” on your building for the next couple. And then Amar said “Adaptation is hard, but mitigation is easy” as he explained he is seeing the rise of the “Chief Adaptation Officer” because simply tick-boxing with mitigation might not be enough to guarantee future value.

2. Parametric Insurance: The “Alternative Risk Transfer”

James Bosely introduced a concept that I think we’ll be hearing a lot more of: Parametric Insurance.

Technically, it’s an “alternative risk transfer” rather than traditional insurance. Instead of the long, painful process of validating a loss and being “made whole” again, a parametric product pays out instantly when a specific trigger (or parameter) is met - think wildfire, flood level or a cyber-attack.

It’s not about the actual loss, it’s about the event. The payout is simpler, quicker and provides liquidity exactly when you need it. So as traditional insurance becomes harder to get for climate-related risks, these parametric models will likely step in to fill the gap.

3. A Soft Market is a Window for Innovation

If you’ve been sitting on a new material, a new system, or a PropTech innovation but were worried about the insurance hurdle, now is the time to move.

James explained that the market is currently “soft,” meaning there is a better appetite for deals. And another tailwind is that Lloyd’s has introduced new underwriting codes (ICX/TCX) specifically for innovative products, alongside a principles-based oversight approach. what does this mean?… they are becoming more sensible about looking at startups and new materials that don’t have 50 years of testing data but do have a solid logic behind them.

4. Is it Time for a Real Estate Captive?

We briefly touched on a big question: should the industry form a “Captive”?

In simple terms, a captive is an insurance company that is wholly owned and controlled by its insureds - in this case a group of real estate players. Its primary purpose is to insure the risks of its owners. Could this be the way to unlock innovation? If the traditional market is too slow to understand a new low-carbon material, could a Real Estate Captive provide the cover needed to gain traction? I don’t have the answer yet, but it’s a space I’ll be watching very closely and perhaps this will be an idea to pursue coming out of the breakfast event.

The Bottom Line

Insurance is often seen as a grudge purchase, a necessary evil at the end of a spreadsheet. But as James pointed out, insurability equals value. If your building isn’t insurable in ten years’ time, its value drops today. Interestingly, your premium for next year’s policy won’t tell you how rosy that outlook is, but the team at the insurance company may have a pretty good idea of the trajectory your asset is on.

It’s a good time to be talking to your insurers. Don’t wait for the renewal - start the conversation now about adaptation and innovation while the market is in your favour.

Read the Strategy

To get there, the government is introducing some of the most protective trade measures we’ve seen in decades - including slashing import quotas by 60% and doubling tariffs to 50% for anything over that limit.

But beyond the high-level politics of “national security” and “trade shields,” what does this actually mean for those of us in the world of Circular Steel and scrap/recycling?

Keep the Scrap

The strategy explicitly confirms that Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF) are the future of British steelmaking. With Tata’s transition at Port Talbot well underway, our domestic demand for scrap is about to skyrocket. Remember the only EAF in the country right now is in cardiff, at the 7 Steel UK facility.

Currently, the UK is a massive exporter of scrap. The strategy announces a cross-government working group (launching in May) specifically tasked with securing a “resilient and high-quality supply” of scrap for domestic furnaces.

We’ve known for a long time that scrap is a finite and well-used resource (remember this paper from last year?). If we are to hit that 50% domestic production target via EAFs, we simply cannot keep shipping our best “raw material” overseas. So expect to see some serious movement on export regulations or incentives to keep that high-grade scrap at home.

What about Reuse?

While the strategy is heavy on EAF and Recycling, it is still relatively quiet on steel reuse.

As I advocate through Circular Steel, the most carbon-efficient way to handle steel isn’t to melt it down, it’s to use it again in its current form.

While the strategy focuses on “green steel” production, the real “low-hanging fruit” for the construction industry is maintaining the value of existing structural sections. We need to ensure that the push for EAF capacity doesn’t cannibalise the stock that should be destined for direct reuse. Recycling is great, but efficient reuse of the best bits is even better.

Transition of Blast Furnaces

Importantly, and aligned to continually increasing steel demand, the strategy acknowledges that Blast Furnace (BF) production will continue for the immediate future. The government has stepped in at Scunthorpe (British Steel) to ensure these stay running while the industry transitions.

The Challenge: BFs are the source of “virgin” steel, which is often still required for specific high-grade applications that scrap-based EAFs can’t always hit (yet). The strategy mentions “practical research and innovation” to boost productivity (think carbon capture or hydrogen injection) and to try and stay within Net Zero limits.

Procurement and Supply Chains

With import quotas being slashed by 60% this summer, we are about to see a shift in procurement. By making imports more expensive and difficult, the government is forcing the hand of designers and contractors to look for UK-made steel. This push to home grown steel is slightly at odds with how some projects may have been hoping to deal with looming NZCBS limits, by purchasing low carbon EAF steel from the continent.

Given the UK EAFs aren’t online yet (Tata’s EAF isn’t expected until 2027/28), we could face a “supply gap.” Perhaps this will make Circular Steel look even more commercially attractive. If you can’t get new, low carbon EAF UK steel and you can’t afford imported steel, then do those refurbished sections in the yard start looking like a very sensible option?

The Steel Strategy attempts to reverse “decades of de-industrialisation.” For the circular economy, the focus on scrap is welcome, but we must remember to be a reuse nation as well as a recycling nation.

No doubt this will be a topic of discussion at the Circular Steel UK 2026 event on Wednesday 24th June. Grab a ticked now…

Circular Steel UK 2026

Last week, the Circular Do Tank (where I’m proud to be a director) submitted our formal representations to the government’s draft NPPF consultation. The deadline has now passed, but the points we’ve raised are vital for anyone who actually wants to see a circular economy move from “nice idea” to “standard practice.”

A Ceiling on Ambition?

The draft NPPF proposes several changes that sound great on paper. However, there is a catch - PM13. This specific proposal threatens to restrict Local Planning Authorities from setting their own, higher standards for energy efficiency and circular economy targets. Effectively, it risks creating a “ceiling” on ambition. We believe local authorities should have the power to pull the supply chain forward by setting clear, quantitative standards for material reuse and carbon reduction.

Our Key Asks

In our submission, we focused on three main areas:

• Protecting Local Powers: We are calling for the removal of restrictions that stop councils from being more ambitious than the national baseline. If a borough wants to lead the way on circularity, the NPPF should be their tailwind, not a roadblock.

• Redefining “Reuse”: The current draft sets the bar incredibly low (suggesting that reusing soil and hardcore is enough). We’ve proposed much stronger language that prioritises the retention of existing structures and the reuse of materials in their highest value form.

• Defining the Circular Economy: We’ve pushed for a formal definition within the NPPF. You can’t manage what you don’t define, and the planning system needs a clear understanding of what a “circular system” actually looks like.

Final Thought

We hope we’ve captured the views of the many forward-thinking construction innovators we talk to every day. The goal is simple: to ensure the planning system facilitates economic growth and resource efficiency, rather than stifling it with “lowest common denominator” rules.

You can read our full representation below to see the specific policy tweaks we’re pushing for.

Read the Reps

A big thanks to everyone in the industry who contributed their thoughts to this. Now, we wait to see if the government is truly ready to “do” circularity, or just talk about it.

Officially launched on 10th March, this is the UK’s first unified, cross-industry rulebook designed to prove that a building is truly “Net Zero.” And in a world of ever increasing numbers of guidance documents, this It isn’t something to just sit on a shelf - it’s a fundamental shift in how to define success in the built environment.

Download Version 1

Explainer

Unlike previous guidelines that focused mostly on design-stage promises, the Standard is focused on actual performance. To claim alignment, a project must stay within strict “carbon and energy budgets”:

• Operational Energy: specific Energy Use Intensity (EUI) targets based on building type. This includes everything, even “unregulated” energy like plug-in appliances, not just heating and lighting.

• Embodied Carbon: “upfront” carbon limits on materials and construction. You have a fixed carbon budget to spend on your structure and fit-out.

• Fossil Fuel Free: no gas boilers allowed.

• Renewables: specific targets for on-site energy generation, like solar PV.

• The 12-Month Test: you cannot get final “Net Zero” status at the design stage or even at PC. Verification is based on one year of actual in-use data, so you have to prove it works after the ribbon is cut.

Does your project have to follow and report against this? No, not yet. It’s currently voluntary, but don’t let that fool you. It’s becoming a “de facto” mandate - investors and lenders are already using it and local councils are starting to reflect the limits into planning requirements. It is widely expected to inform future versions of Building Regulations and the Future Homes Standard.

Incentives

When you set hard targets, you inevitably trigger a bit of game theory. People will always find the most efficient path to hit the number, even if it leads to unintended consequences.

Given my involvement in the steel industry, let’s use this as an example. The Standard’s carbon limits are rightfully ambitious and structure (often involving steel) makes up a large part of the embodied carbon figure. So someone designing, specifying or purchasing steel on a project may find the “easiest” way to lower the steel related carbon figure is to specify Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) steel. However, since the UK is still transitioning its domestic production from BF-BOF to EAF, this incentivises specifiers to look abroad for imported low-carbon steel…

• that might “clean” a London building project’s balance sheet, but if we do it by undermining our own domestic industrial transition, are we actually helping the planet or just moving the emissions elsewhere?

• and if we kill off the UK’s primary steel production in the race to hit a target, will we lose the long-term sovereign ability to control our own circular economy.

We must ensure that in our rush to be “Net Zero,” we aren’t inadvertently de-industrialising the UK and forgetting some important social and economic considerations. This steel example makes me think of two things:

1. you should come to the Circular Steel event in London on 24th June and speak to the industry about the reuse and recycling of steel and how these different parts of the industry all have a place

2. there is a 2025 piece called The role of scrap in steel decarbonisation which highlighted the finite and limited resource which is scrap (which feeds EAF) and pushed for decarbonisation of BF-BOF blast furnace facilities (most of UK steel making) rather than the industry specifying lower carbon steel from the continent

Version 1, but still evolving…

The Standard is a “Version 1” for a reason. It is meant to evolve and we should all try and be part of that ongoing conversation. If you are looking at these new requirements and wondering how they apply to your specific project - or how to balance these carbon targets with commercial and logistical reality - don’t feel you have to figure it out in a vacuum.

Myself (at Propetual) and colleagues across the industry, including those at Kees and Net Positive Solutions, are already under the bonnet of this document. We are able to help you navigate the data and strategic choices, ensuring project decisions happen in an informed way and at the right time. And aligned with the Standard, this can cover ⁠upfront carbon (design, materials), ⁠⁠operational carbon (systems, energy, waste) and crucially the post completion assessments (shining a light on any performance gaps).

Let’s get to work

Despite the challenges, this is a moment to be positive. For the first time, we have a clear, evidence-based benchmark. It’s an invitation to innovate and to design better.

I encourage everyone to get to know the document. Don’t be intimidated by the technicality, but instead see it as the toolkit for the next decade of construction. Let’s get to work on using it.

The energy at the launch was very clear and everyone had a spring in their step (and no it wasn’t just down to the beautiful sunshine!). After a formal morning session opened by Deputy Mayor Mete Coban, I joined the afternoon walkthrough hosted by pioneer of TPE, Talia Berriman (Newham Council), to see how the theory of “circular construction” is being put into practice.

The tour was split into three distinct chapters that define the TPE ecosystem:

1. The Material Warehouse: Akil Scafe-Smith from RESOLVE Collective walked us through the intake and inventory, telling us some stories of specific materials that have come from cultural uses.

2. The Yard and Factory: Joel De Mowbray from Yes Make showed off the Yard Space and explained that coming soon would be the engine room where the “doing” happens, a second warehouse space that is going to be the Factory.

3. The Office Space: Summer Islam from Material Cultures explained the design and creative thinking behind TPE’s use of available materials (think reused CLT, pressed hemp boards and Elton John’s old kitchen) to create the much needed admin backbone of the operation, comprising office space and a meeting room.

What TPE has achieved here is immense. It isn’t just a warehouse; it’s a co-developed hub that creates practical, everyday entry points into climate action. By housing these three practices under one roof, they’ve built a system that stops high-quality materials from hitting the skip and immediately redirects them into projects that serve local needs. And with it being a 5-year meanwhile play on a site which ultimately is going to be developed out into Silverworks as part of the wider Silvertown masterplan, there is enough time to establish TPE and hopefully it will leave some sort of legacy within the permanent re-development.

It is brilliant to see a space that doesn’t just hoard “waste” but actively adds value to it. The imagination on display from the designers and craftspeople involved means that almost anything salvaged can be reimagined. And on top of that, they are building some of the systems needed to enable this kind of movement to grow and for that, the whole team deserves a massive well done.

However, as we move from the excitement of the launch into the reality of the long-term, there are some interesting questions that I hope TPE will help us answer.

Firstly, there is the scale. While TPE is a triumph for community-led projects, I’m keen to see how this model translates to the heavy-duty requirements of larger-scale developments. Can we take these lessons and this site and scale them to a level that moves the needle for the designers, contractors and clients that are involved in medium to large commercial projects?

Then there’s the value proposition. Currently, materials are taken for free, with only collection costs covered. While this is an attractive “avoided cost” for those looking to dodge disposal fees, I do wonder if we are still inadvertently downplaying the inherent value of the material itself. To reach true commercial viability, surely we eventually need the market to price these assets properly.

Finally, there’s the “inventory” challenge. When asked what they say no to, the answer was “very little.” That’s a noble starting point, but for a hub to remain efficient, you need a high churn rate. I’ll be watching closely to see how they draw the line between a vibrant resource centre and a stagnating storage zone.

I want to be clear, these aren’t criticisms, they are just a couple of considerations in the next set of hurdles for the entire circular economy. TPE is a bold, energetic step in the right direction and I’m very excited to see how they refine the model. If you’re in the industry and want to see what the future of urban resource management looks like, get yourself down to the docks.

Sign me up for the Demo

As a CN Awards Judge, I’ve had the privilege of reviewing many products and innovations across the construction sector. Very few truly shift the needle. But every so often, something comes along that forces you to ask: “Why hasn’t the industry been doing this all along?”

Imperial Thermal Engineering is one of those rare cases.

Over the past few years, their team has picked up two CN Product Innovation Awards. The first was for the Etorch in 2023 and then again in 2025 for the Epot. That is impressive, but the real story is why they’ve won.

This is all-electric, flame-free, gas-free equipment designed specifically for hot-works roofing.

• No LPG bottles

• No traditional torches

• No flame risk

Instead you get safer, cleaner, more controlled heat with a fraction of the hassle. And the icing on the cake is that it’s more efficient to run!

Why this matters for the industry

For anyone involved in roofing, property or construction risk management, the implications are big:

• Safety: Eliminating open flame removes one of the sector’s highest-risk activities

• Sustainability: Electrifying hot works removes fossil fuels from the process entirely

• Efficiency: Faster warm-up, better control, lower energy consumption and simpler logistics

• Insurance & Compliance: A flame-free process reduces hot-works exposure

The Eseries equipment solves long-standing, widely-felt challenges.

See it for yourself

Curious about how these systems work in practice? Well there’s an opportunity to see a live demonstration this Thursday morning in Farringdon, London. The team will be showcasing their E-Series line-up, including the Etorch and the Epot.

If you’re involved in roofing, procurement, sustainability or construction risk, it’s well worth seeing.

Sign me up for the Demo

And finally, here’s a write up from 2023 on the back of their first CN Award win…

This year’s event lands at a critical moment for the industry. With steel reuse gaining serious traction (and a few shake-ups challenging assumptions) there’s never been a more important time to come together and ask: where are we now, and what’s next?

Buy a Ticket

What to expect:

The event is built around real stories, real challenges, and real progress.

I’m bringing together everyone working to push steel reuse forward — from demolition to design, procurement to policy — for an afternoon of shared insight, practical takeaways and bold thinking. Across four powerful sessions we’ll explore reuse systems, costs, policy, and on-the-ground delivery, as well as some fast-paced burst presentations from people doing the work.

Sessions & Speakers:

• Steel without End

  Ella Warren - HTS | Will Arnold - IStructE | Bill Firth - EMR | Eoin Bailey - 7 Steel UK | Dave Chapman - ArcelorMittal | Ben Cunliffe - British Steel

• Field Notes on Reuse

  Project burst presentations from a range of contractors, engineers, fabricators and more

• Making Reuse Happen

  Tom Howarth - Circular Steel | Gemima Walker - Elliott Wood | Harry Price - Severfield | Konstantinos Tsavdaridis | City, University of London

• Steel Reuse 2.0

  Steve Gilchrist - Circular Steel | Charlotte O'Farrell - City of London Corporation | Rob Palmer - Maconda | Roy Fishwick - Cleveland Steel & Tubes | Martin Quinn - GPE

Format & Flow:

Main event starts at 13:00 (arrive from 12:30) – Panels, case studies, keynotes

Networking drinks from 18:00 – Stick around, grab a drink, and connect

📍 Venue: Storey Club, Paddington

🎟️ Tickets: £150+VAT

Who’s it for?

Whether you’re in construction, engineering, design, manufacturing, development or policy — if you care about circularity, carbon, and the future of steel, this event is for you.

Grab your ticket today and be part of the next chapter for circular steel.

Buy a Ticket

What is EME?

EME is like a matchmaking service for materials - finding new for excess resources that would otherwise go to waste or low value recycling. Whether it’s structural steel, timber, glass, carpet tiles, furniture or even high-value industrial components, EME finds and connects those who have surplus with those who need it.

And the really cool thing is that this isn’t just about waste reduction, it’s about unlocking real financial and environmental value. These materials already exist, and reusing them cuts costs (from disposal/recycling), reduces emissions and supports the circular economy.

Zooming Out

Right now, the construction and property industries face a big challenge: how to reduce embodied carbon while keeping projects financially viable. One of the fastest, most impactful ways to do this is material reuse - and EME is leading the way in making this process seamless.

By leveraging data and matchmaking, EME is making sure materials don’t get scrapped or down-cycled (or even worse, landfilled) but instead stay in circulation where they belong.

Your Materials Need YOU 🫵🏻

If you’re looking for high-quality reclaimed materials, you don’t have to wait. There are materials on EME’s platform today, ready to be snapped up by you. One recent addition is over fifteen doors which are available right now.

Timber Doors

Want to see what else is available, browse and then sign up. And if you have have surplus materials or need help sourcing please reach out to the team.

The shift toward circularity is happening, and platforms like EME are making it easier than ever to take part. Whether you’re looking to cut costs, lower your project’s carbon footprint, or tap into a smarter way of sourcing materials, now’s the time to get involved!

It is worth noting that it aligns well with the previous Orms/Lancaster Uni and Waterman reports on the subject and is more of a hands-on “how-to” document aimed at both new builds and retrofits. Orms’ guidance focused on integrating passports into pre-demolition audits and encouraging a shift from demolition to deconstruction, and Waterman’s framework established a hierarchical passport system (Material, Component, System, Building) tied into BIM and regulatory compliance.

More than Just a Digital Tag

At its core, a material passport is more than a digital asset register. It provides:

• Product sustainability data, including Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) and embodied carbon metrics.

• Material health and safety data, like VOC emissions for WELL and BREEAM.

• Circularity insights, detailing disassembly methods, repair strategies, and end-of-life reuse pathways.

The guide emphasises that material passports aren’t just about current projects - they are an investment in a future where reclaimed materials become the norm. It promotes reuse hubs and platforms, such as Excess Materials Exchange, to track material flows across portfolios, an area previously advocated by Orms in its open-source database approach.

For me though, a key point is that we need greater standardisation of this. If different platforms, companies, or projects use inconsistent data structures, we risk fragmentation and inefficiency. Alignment on key fields, interoperability across digital systems, and secure, accessible storage will be critical to scaling adoption.

Time will tell if the EU’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) and the Digital Product Passport (DPP) initiative will drive us towards this kind of standardisation, but our industry also has a role in ensuring practical, universal standards are developed and adopted.

Who Owns the Passport?

The guide recognises that materials passports evolve over time, meaning responsibility for updating and maintaining them must be shared across multiple stakeholders. I think this is so important and really reinforces why we need to get these right - it must be easy to access, have relevant information (not necessarily everything which could be overwhelming and a burden) that is able to be maintained. For me the key is making material passports about the entire life of buildings or projects, not just something that is completed at project completion and forgotten.

• Developers & asset owners should set the passport strategy

• Design teams initiate and embed data collection at the design stage

• Contractors ensure materials are logged and documented during construction

• Manufacturers provide technical product details for passports

• Facilities Managers keep records up to date during a building’s lifecycle

Why This Matters

The guide builds on the groundwork laid by Orms and Waterman by bringing short and simple clarity to the “how” of material passport adoption. It makes a strong case for digital passports as a due diligence tool, supporting both sustainability certifications and insurance for reused materials - two key challenges that have slowed adoption in the past.

For anyone in property and construction, embedding materials passports into projects now is not just about compliance, it’s about staying ahead of the inevitable regulatory and market shifts. Whether you’re a developer, consultant, or contractor, you have an opportunity to lock in material value and contribute to an industry-wide shift towards circularity.

Here’s a couple of things to expect in 2025 for UK construction.

Offices

The office sector is poised for a resurgence with 18% growth in project starts forecast for 2025. Hybrid working trends continue driving demand for high-quality refurbishments and environmentally efficient spaces, as companies adapt to new ways of working. Plus government announcements of billions of investment in digital infrastructure will likely stimulate further demand for data centres and tech-enabled office spaces. This aligns closely with last year’s prediction that refurbishments would offset declines in new office developments, although it appears stronger than predicted.

Infrastructure

Public investment is leading the charge in 2025, driven by commitments to long-term infrastructure funding. The Spending Review in Spring 2025 is expected to clarify significant allocations to utilities and transport, whilst the water industry’s AMP8 programme will double investment. And then there’s Net Zero ambitions which are generating more funding for renewable energy and grid expansion. As a result, civil engineering starts (which saw a slight decline in 2023) are expected to grow by 5% in 2025, reinforcing predictions made last year.

Private Housing

Private housing, which has faced significant challenges in recent years, is finally showing signs of sustained recovery. Starts are forecast to grow by 13% in 2025 due to improved affordability and high demand, and buyer confidence seems renewed as shown by a jump in mortgage approvals at the end of 2024. This recovery was predicted last year, but the growth seems stronger than expected.

Summary

Reflecting on a year ago, many of the anticipated trends for 2025 have materialised:

• Stability: Election done, inflation is cooling, interest rates are dropping, and GDP growth is upward.

• Construction Starts: Following a 7% decline in 2023, project starts have stabilised and are forecast to grow by 8% in 2025.

• Challenges Persist: Labour challenges remain a significant constraint, while material costs are still high and pressure margins.

2025 could be a turning point for UK construction. The industry is bolstered by public spending, renewed private sector confidence, and a clearer political landscape.

There’s no denying that the journey is complex, but as I’ve said before, those leading in London are much like Formula 1 teams who pioneer technology and set new benchmarks that others will strive to meet.

GPE: Scaling Circularity

GPE has launched its Circularity Score, a new metric that quantifies the percentage of reused and recycled materials incorporated into their developments. Their targets signal a clear commitment:

• 2025: All new schemes to achieve a minimum 40% Circularity Score.

• 2030: This target rises to 50%.

• 2040: Aiming for greater than 60% circularity across all projects.

Real-world examples of this approach are already catching the headlines. Close to my heart due to the steel reuse, is 2 Aldermanbury Square, where 1,700 tonnes of steel were salvaged and repurposed for use at another London project, a powerful demonstration of material reuse on a significant scale.

I appreciate GPE’s focus on transparency - they have plans to publicly disclose building scores and their methodology by mid-2025, which will be an interesting read. And I think their CEO, Toby Courtauld, has the right approach when he says “Our Circularity Score will challenge us to innovate faster and catalyse a deeper market for reused materials.”

Final note on the score itself… there is no industry agreed method of calculating ‘circularity’, so GPE has come up with their own. You may have your own view, but it’s a start. A couple of the fine-print point are worth noting:

• To measure circularity GPE are including quantity of materials that have been retained/reused (either from the existing site or wider market) and they will also include the proportion of a new material that is derived from recycled content.

• Also note if they deconstruct a building and donate/sell material, that will be recorded but not find it’s way into the score - I think this is a missed opportunity because it would incentivise material harvesting. It takes me back to my thought piece on whether deconstruction should be considered part of a current development project, or the end of the previous development, see link below.

British Land: Circularity in Practice

British Land’s Full Circle, Full Potential initiative is an all-encompassing framework embedding circular economy principles across their projects. It also includes a suite of tools ranging from materials trackers to employer requirements. Plus there is a strong focus on Material Passports, including a whole piece on what they are and how they should be used on projects. The project manager in me also appreciates the responsibilities matrix for who they think should be doing what through the phases of a project - I wonder if the industry agrees on these?

Whilst British Land have not defined any circularity targets, they have certainly gone into detail to show that they understand the topic, and they explain that this all fits into their wider drive of carbon reduction - their pathway aims for upfront embodied carbon to be below 500kgCO2e/m2 on all office developments by 2030.

And there are already some notable success stories, including projects like 1 Broadgate where, once again, reused steel saved significant embodied carbon. Similarly, the refurbishment of 1 Triton Square achieved a carbon reduction of 2,400tCO2 by reusing facade panels.

It’s good to see that British Land’s approach also emphasises tenant collaboration to reduce waste from fit-outs, recognising that the circular economy must extend beyond ‘base build’ construction. I have always said that materials like steel are high carbon but low frequency, and we should not forget the materials and activities that are lower carbon, but higher frequency (e.g. fit-out).

These initiatives by GPE and British Land are not just about hitting targets, they are helping to rewrite the rulebook for construction and property management. They are leading the way to a functioning circular economy by prioritising reuse, recycling, and transparency. Of course, there’s still a long way to go. I’m sure we can all think of many challenges and issues with reusing materials rather than buying new. But there is so much material stock out there and I think that this shift is inevitable, so why not get on board?

The Shift from Linear to Circular

Vince and Holly opened with compelling points about the state of our supply chain. Vince emphasised the need to break away from the hierarchical, linear model that currently dominates. He called for a more egalitarian approach, where all supply chain participants are viewed as equal contributors. A shift of this kind would allow companies like Keltbray to bring their expertise to the table earlier in a project’s lifecycle, potentially improving sustainability outcomes from the get-go.

Stuart followed up with case studies showcasing Keltbray’s ongoing efforts, while Aisling Reynolds (Group Environmental and Sustainability Manager) led the dynamic roundtable session that sparked some fantastic discussions. There were about eight or nine tables, each seating eight people, filled with what I called “the Formula One” of the industry - individuals whose actions could shape the direction of the wider construction sector.

Tackling Key Questions: Collaborative Thinking

We worked through three critical questions during the morning, with each table sharing their thoughts. Here’s a recap of the discussions and insights.

1. What are the opportunities for reuse and the circular economy?

A recurring theme at our table was risk-sharing. As it stands, risk is often pushed down the supply chain, which can stifle innovation and hinder the circular economy’s potential. The consensus was that we need to rethink how we distribute and manage risk to unlock new opportunities for reuse.

One suggestion I found particularly compelling was viewing pre-demolition audits as “design tools”. Rather than treating them as box-ticking exercises, why not integrate them into the earliest stages of a project? While the idea of conducting these audits at stage 0 is ambitious - considering most projects are barely even ‘projects’ at that point - it does challenge us to be more creative in our reuse strategies.

A great analogy came from Charlie Scott at Watermans, who likened current design practices to writing a recipe and then shopping for ingredients. In the future, we should reverse this: look at what’s already in the fridge (i.e., available materials) and design accordingly. This kind of creative thinking is exactly what’s needed to drive a more resource-efficient future.

We also agreed that creating a robust network for knowledge-sharing is essential to realising the circular economy’s potential. Collaboration is key, and without it, valuable insights remain siloed. Lastly, we touched on the need to redefine value - how we measure it, where it exists, and how it drives decision-making.

2. How can we measure the impact and value of circular economy activities?

This question revealed a significant gap in how we incentivise circular practices. Currently, our metrics don’t reward material recovery or deconstruction efforts, which makes adoption difficult. Without the right incentives, it’s hard to drive meaningful change.

A more detailed pre-demolition audit would help here, offering better visibility into the value of reused materials. We also floated the idea of designing buildings for disassembly - how about a rating or score for how ‘circular’ a project is? This could push designers and contractors to think more deeply about the lifecycle of their materials.

Vince shared a great model for thinking about these issues: the triangle of competing forces - effort, time and value. It’s a balancing act, but with the right metrics in place, we can move towards greater circularity.

3. What more can Keltbray do for the circular economy?

This discussion was about action. We all agreed that Keltbray has a unique opportunity to lead by example, sharing knowledge and successes with the wider industry. I couldn’t resist bringing up the Formula One analogy again, but then switched to Roger Bannister’s sub-4-minute mile. Once something is proven possible, it’s much easier for others to follow - and that’s exactly where we are with the circular economy.

I suggested Keltbray could offer alternative tenders for deconstruction on every project. Not only would this provide clients with real data on the costs and benefits of deconstruction, but it would also allow Keltbray to refine its expertise in this area.

Another idea I walked away with was the concept of a circular economy hackathon. Imagine bringing together design teams from projects with similar timelines to collaborate on circular solutions. These kinds of initiatives could push the boundaries of what’s possible and accelerate the industry’s progress.

In conclusion, the Keltbray event was a refreshing reminder of the power of collaboration and innovation. As industry leaders, we have a responsibility to drive the circular economy forward, and it starts with conversations like the ones we had that morning.

Let’s keep the momentum going. I’ll leave you with this thought - what will be our industry’s “4-minute mile” moment, and how can we push each other to get there?

A week ago, on Monday 30 September 2024 - day one of Circular Economy Week - the Circular Do Tank launched!

I’m a founding member of this new forum, which aims to raise awareness and drive adoption of circular practices within the built environment. So I thought I’d tell you a little bit about it.

🚨 But before I go further, there is a CALL TO ACTION! 🚨

🏢 if you represent an organisation, consider signing our Pledge. For now, just register interest by clicking here.

🙋 if you are an individual and wish to be on our mailing list and/or contribute to the Workstreams, register by clicking here.

What is the CDT?

The Circular Do Tank is a dynamic team of multidisciplinary experts dedicated to
tackling challenges relating to the circular economy through pragmatic experimentation – by enlisting property investors and developers to undertake material reuse in their projects and to support them with our expertise, comprising a wealth of experience in legal, insurance, finance, and more.

With the backing of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, we drive
the adoption of re-use practices in construction, renovation, and demolition projects.

Our mission is to facilitate the adoption of circular practices by collaborating with organisations, sharing knowledge, and driving innovations that enable material reuse and carbon reduction. We have a vision of a future where every sector operates within a thriving circular economy, significantly diminishing environmental impact and fostering a regenerative global ecosystem.

So it’s our purpose to lead the transformation towards a circular economy by championing circular practices across industries, reducing waste, and promoting resource efficiency. We are aiming to drive forward five key pillars.

The Committee

Sixteen committee members founded the Circular Do Tank and got it this far. We meet monthly to discuss progress, manage the forum and shape the direction of travel going forwards. It’s a really fantastic group of people from right across the industry with such a wealth of experience.

Workstreams

The scope of the Circular Economy is vast, so we have narrowed down our focus to six workstreams - these may, and probably will, evolve over time. Workstreams are led by various CDT Committee Members, but we actively encourage individuals to join these workstreams - the key words here are knowledge sharing and collaboration! You may spot that I am leading the Logistics and Storage Workstream, so reach out if you can help on this.

The Pledge

We have written a Circular Pledge which we believe all types of organisations can commit to. Whilst we acknowledge we need the “decision makers” to be bought into this, we also seek commitment across the entire spectrum of participants in the built environment, from designers through to manufacturers. Our three point Pledge is:

• Prioritise the highest form of retention and reuse within the built environment.

• Participate in the reuse and exchange of construction materials and products.

• Foster a collaborative approach through sharing of successes, challenges, and data.

Pledging organisations will be listed on the Circular Do Tank website, will receive regular communications from the CDT and are encouraged to share their affiliation publicly.

What Next?

Keen to be involved? Check on the call to action above - we hope you can join us by pledging as a business or assisting as an individual member.

If you want to know more, please reach out at hello@circulardotank.co.uk. We’re happy to answer any questions.

And don’t forget to follow us on LinkedIn.

This is a significant step forward for the UK’s built environment, providing a clear, consistent, and science-led framework for achieving net zero carbon buildings.

Note: this is a pure focus on carbon and energy. It doesn’t get confused, distracted or diluted with other sustainability areas of focus such as biodiversity… maybe that' will be next?

Download the Pilot

So, here’s a summary of what it’s all about…

The UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard (NZCBS) is the first of its kind, designed to unify the approach towards decarbonising buildings with a consistent methodology for measuring, proving, and reporting carbon reduction in the built environment.

Developed through collaboration of many stakeholders it provides a clear, science-based framework for creating and assessing buildings that are net zero carbon-aligned.

“net zero carbon-aligned” means that if you expend carbon on a project within these limits, you project will legitimately be Net Zero Carbon. I’m sure many readers of this are aware that until now, spurious claims of ‘net zero carbon’ credentials were common, leading to confusion and mistrust. The NZCBS aims to set a clear benchmark for assessing carbon performance, creating a level playing field that supports credible, measurable claims. And if you’re wondering where offsets fit into this, they’re optional once you’ve reduced within the limits - for more on this, take a look at pages 16 & 17 of the June 2023 Technical Update (found in the archive).

What’s the scope?

The NZCBS is designed to cover the entire lifecycle of a building (modules A-D), from the embodied carbon of materials and construction processes (“upfront carbon”) to the operational energy use and carbon emissions of buildings (“in use”).

It applies to both new buildings and existing buildings across a wide range of 13 sectors, including residential, commercial, educational, healthcare, and industrial buildings, and it recognises the retrofit agenda, extending to cover retrofit projects. It doesn’t currently cover infrastructure projects.

Who’s behind this?

The standard is the result of a highly collaborative effort involving some of the UK’s leading institutions in the built environment. Key contributors are shown below:

The Technical Steering Group, chaired by Katie Clemence-Jackson, played a central role in developing the technical aspects. This group included industry experts like Jane Anderson, Will Arnold, Clara Bagenal George, and Christine Pout, who contributed their expertise on whole-life carbon, structural engineering, and energy efficiency.

Guiding the governance and strategy of the NZCBS is the Governance Board, led by David Partridge, alongside senior representatives from institutions such as BBP, CIBSE, LETI and UKGBC. This body ensures the Standard remains in line with the industry’s needs while balancing environmental imperatives with practical considerations for developers and designers.

Volunteers from across the built environment industry, including architects, engineers, contractors, and developers, have also contributed through Task Groups and Sector Groups. Their input, combined with data from more than 700 individuals during public consultations, has shaped the Standard into a robust framework for assessing carbon performance in buildings.

Pilot →Version 1

The launch of the pilot is the culmination of over two years of technical work. And while the pilot version contains the technical specifications required for buildings to claim net zero carbon alignment, certain elements, such as the verification process, are still in development. The verification methodology is expected to be released in Version 1, following the pilot testing program which will gather feedback from a range of projects across various sectors and building types, helping to refine the Standard before the official release of Version 1 in late 2025.

Although still in pilot phase, there is plenty that stakeholders can do now. For those involved in designing, developing, or managing buildings, the pilot version can already be adopted into project briefs - get ahead of the curve and be ready for verification once it becomes available. Buildings and projects also can start working towards the Submission Proforma, a spreadsheet included in the pilot version, which allows users to submit evidence demonstrating compliance with the limits and targets. But perhaps most important and a key ask from David was for stakeholders to register interest in participating in the Pilot Testing Programme - this is a unique opportunity to shape the future of the Standard by providing valuable feedback on its application.

Register for Pilot Testing

How does it fit in with other Schemes?

The NZCBS sets itself apart from other sustainability frameworks by being science-led and in-use, meaning that buildings can only claim net zero carbon alignment after they have been occupied for at least one year, with real, measured data to back up their performance claims. This focus on operational performance ensures that the Standard goes beyond theoretical calculations, addressing the critical “performance gap” between design expectations and actual energy use in buildings.

The Standard draws on both a top-down approach (balancing national carbon budgets with the built environment’s share of emissions), and a bottom-up approach (using real data from thousands of UK buildings to inform its limits and targets). This dual methodology should ensure it is both ambitious and achievable.

While other schemes, such as BREEAM or LEED, provide general frameworks for sustainability, the NZCBS is focused specifically on achieving net zero carbon, with stricter limits for both embodied carbon and operational carbon. This makes it a highly targeted tool and David described it as a ‘rule book’ (more like a British Standard) rather than a ‘scheme’ (BREEAM or LEED). He also acknowledged that the industry is somewhat fatigued and confused by many schemes and initiatives, but stressed that the NZCBS is fundamental and will (hopefully in the near future) feature “equivalence criteria” for schemes such as BREEAM or LEED, thus facilitating easy comparison and avoiding duplicate work to do multiple assessments.

What does the future hold?

The NZCBS is voluntary and not legally mandated. However, it is expected to serve as a powerful tool for the industry, helping to shape best practices and inform future policies. Given its alignment with the UK’s national carbon budgets, it is likely to become an influential benchmark in both public and private sector projects, particularly as the pressure to meet climate targets increases.

There’s also a fair likelihood that policymakers will reference the NZCBS as they develop future building regulations - it could even become the foundation for mandatory requirements in the future.

The agenda for the day was structured around five panel discussions, each addressing critical aspects of steel reuse. The first session, Meeting the Demand, chaired by Holly Price of Keltbray, explored fundamental questions such as how and when to deconstruct buildings for optimal steel recovery, whether there is a real demand for reused steel, and whether incorporating reuse into demolition tenders increases costs. These discussions shed light on the strategic considerations that developers and contractors must weigh when planning for steel reuse.

The second session, Writing the Brief, led by Will Arnold of IStructE, tackled some of the common pitfalls that can lead to missed opportunities for steel reuse. Panellists discussed how clients and developers should better frame their project briefs to encourage reuse, asking the right questions early on and aligning the project team’s approach to ensure that reuse opportunities are maximised.

In Buying the Stock, chaired by Rob Mumford of Gardiner & Theobald, the conversation turned to the practicalities of sourcing reusable steel. Key topics included potential contractual and insurance considerations, the importance of designing with reuse in mind, and whether these factors might affect project timelines. This session also delved into the logistical realities of incorporating reused materials into project planning.

The technical challenges of steel reuse were addressed in Testing & Fabrication, led by Jonathan Davis. Panellists discussed how reclaimed steel is re-fabricated, noting the differences between this and systems optimised for new steel stock. Special measures and fabrication times were highlighted as important considerations when working with reused materials, giving the audience a practical understanding of how these factors impact the construction process.

Finally, Lessons Learned, chaired by Brogan MacDonald, wrapped up the day’s discussions by sharing real-world examples of successful steel reuse projects. This session allowed for a broader reflection on the insights gained from the day and highlighted the tangible benefits of incorporating steel reuse into future projects.

Throughout the day, attendees also had the chance to explore case study boards displayed around the venue, which showcased innovative steel reuse examples. These case studies are already available on the Circular Steel website, and recordings of all the panel sessions will soon be made available online for those who were unable to attend.

The event’s success was made possible by the support of its sponsors, with special thanks to the platinum sponsors, Keltbray and Excess Materials Exchange.

It doesn’t matter if you’re a Client, Manufacturer, Fabricator, Designer or QS… there’s always something to learn and so much opportunity to network between the sessions. Steel is leading the way when it comes to material reuse and the circular economy, so join a room of experts and hear about the progress that is being made. It’s also a perfect opportunity to collaborate between projects and maybe even find someone with the steel you need, or who is looking for the steel you have.

FOR THE FIRST 10 PEOPLE WHO CLICK, YOU GET A DISCOUNT ON THE TICKET PRICE. CLICK HERE!!

Why you should attend on 10th September?

💥 Learn how steel can, and is, being reused
💥 Make new connections across the industry (e.g. contracting, consulting, clients, fabrication, manufacturing...)
💥 Spot potential market opportunities and meet collaborators
💥 Hear lessons learned and case studies from others
💥 Gain insights and context - reused steel might not always be the right answer
💥 Improve awareness of steel extraction and deconstruction

Big thanks to the 2024 sponsors:

Key Details

This is an in-person event, however it will be filmed 🎥.

🗓️ When: Tuesday 10th September 2024

🎟️ Tickets: click here for standard ticket

📍 Location: Events @ No6. Stations close-by are Aldgate East, Aldgate, Fenchurch Street, Tower Hill, Tower Gateway, Whitechapel and Liverpool Street.

🕗 Start: arrive from 08:30 to meet the sponsors and grab a bite of breakfast. The first panel will kick-off at 09:15.

🕓 End: official finish is 16:00, but you are welcome to stick around for a drink on the fantastic sixth floor terrace within the venue

♿️ Accessibility: The venue is accessible, but please contact hello@circularsteel.co.uk and more info can be provided.

These Earth Blocks, produced by HG Matthews, are used to line the basement perimeter walls, in place of commonly used concrete blockwork. This sustainable alternative used at scale (14,000 blocks) significantly reduced carbon emissions and waste. For anyone wondering, the concrete wall forming the basement (behind the liner) was waterproof concrete.

The Earth Blocks are a mix of clay, sand, and straw, offering a low-carbon solution - they aren’t fired, but rather dried and compressed. And the mortar they are laid with is essentially the same material. The blocks are laid flat (so yes a thicker wall than traditional 140mm blockwork) allowing a greater surface to interface with the mortar and resulting in the block and mortar sort of merging and ‘becoming one’ after the initial laying. I also noted that the first two courses were laid with concrete blocks - Gavin told me this was precautionary because if there were a flood in a plant room any standing water would not affect the Earth Blocks.

HG Matthews is a traditional brick maker with limited mold sizes, so on this project they used a 430x100x160mm format, but Gavin explained regular bricks or other special sizes could be made using the same technique. In the detail below you can see how the two standard concrete blocks are used and then the earth blocks sit on top.

As with all innovations, small steps are required initially. The fact the Earth Blocks are laid flat (160mm) clearly adds to the wall thickness, which is further impacted by the two courses of 225mm concrete blocks, but overall this was considered not to be a significant internal area loss. My guess is that was a reason why concrete blocks were selected in the rest of the basement for internal divisions.

I suppose this just needs to be understood early in a project so the design allows for the wall thickness from the outset. And environmental conditions are obviously key, because these must be laid in a dry environment otherwise they will absorb water.

The Apex building has been recognised for its environmental contributions, receiving the Considerate Construction Scheme’s Leading Lights award for Natural Environment Enhancement, and the technique of using unfired earth blocks was also showcased at a Royal Academy of Arts’ Summer Exhibition, further solidifying its importance in contemporary architecture.

Although I’ve focused on the Earth Blocks during this piece, there are other things to celebrate at the Apex building such as the first letting of lower floors to LBIC (London BioScience Innovation Centre) and the planning pivot (s73) from office to lab which unlocked the scheme viability in a period of uncertainty during the pandemic. It’s been no mean feat to re-work the inners of the building for the change of use whilst keeping the externals and overall building dimensions fixed per the original planning permission!

Circular Steel 2024 will bring together all parts of the steel industry, plus the people and companies that use and touch the products from clients to contractors to insurers.

It’s an all day event where you’ll get a chance to network, learn about recent case studies and listen to key voices discuss hot topics on panel sessions.

🎟️ Tickets are £175 (inc fees). You’ll be fed and watered all day, with the opportunity for a further drink and more informal discussion on the roof terrace after the event finishes at 4pm.

If you are a Client/Developer, reach out at hello@circularsteel.co.uk as we also have a free steel reuse workshop within AJ Retrofit Live the following day!

Buy Now

Agenda

• Breakfast Networking

• Panel - meeting the demand

• Research findings - global steel

• Panel - design & procurement

• Selection of industry Case Studies over lunch

• Panel - testing & fabrications

• Panel - lessons learned

• Networking Drinks

Sponsors

I’m very grateful to have the support of these amazing Sponsors.

Key Details

This is an in-person event, however it will be filmed 🎥.

🗓️ When: Tuesday 10th September 2024

📍 Location: Events @ No6. Stations close-by are Aldgate East, Aldgate, Fenchurch Street, Tower Hill, Tower Gateway, Whitechapel and Liverpool Street.

🕗 Start: arrive from 08:30 to meet the sponsors and grab a bite of breakfast. The first panel will kick-off at 09:15.

🕓 End: official finish is 16:00, but you are welcome to stick around for a drink on the fantastic sixth floor terrace within the venue

♿️ Accessibility: The venue is accessible, but please contact hello@circularsteel.co.uk and more info can be provided.

Buy Now

The Venue (Events @ No6)

This year the venue is bigger and better!

• It’s a beautiful and large space, with natural light

• Catering is in-house

• Networking drinks are upstairs - we have the entire sixth floor including two roof terraces

See you there! 🚀

Buy Now

Clare Goggin chaired the insightful session where we heard from Will Arnold, Kai Liebetanz, Eva MacNamara and Michael Burgass. This is a pretty new topic and so it really was just a primer.

My key takeaway was that this will grow in importance but we are some way off having metrics and targets, instead the focus today should be on data gathering. If you are thinking of digging into this on a project, perhaps walk before you run, and just pick a couple of materials to focus on.

Above all though, you should still adopt the general philosophy (and mantra of Propetual) to “use less stuff and be more efficient”.

What is EEI?

Embodied Ecological Impacts (EEI) refer to the effects on biodiversity and ecosystems from all processes involved in the lifecycle of construction materials, from extraction to disposal. But unlike embodied carbon (which has a uniform impact on global warming) EEI varies locally depending on the specific environmental context.

The construction industry significantly impacts global biodiversity through resource extraction, habitat destruction, pollution, and introduction of invasive species. This is all essential stuff for ecosystem resilience, human health, and climate regulation.

Why should we address EEI?

The construction industry is a significant contributor to biodiversity loss, with activities impacting species and habitats across the globe. The UK Green Building Council (UKGBC) and Expedition Engineering reports highlight that the construction sector is responsible for 50% of material extraction and 62% of waste generation in the UK. So understanding and mitigating EEI is needed to prevent further ecological degradation and to align with global biodiversity goals, such as those outlined in the Kunming-Montreal Agreement.

Have a look at the Materials Map to see where some of our key materials really come from.

What Now?

You are most likely already thinking about and making decisions with a sort of hierarchy in mind. This approach also works here, for example prioritising reuse at the top, using recycled or regenerative/bio-based materials somewhere in the middle, and then optimising designs, low-impact extraction and new materials being at the bottom.

Within the above are some circular economy principles, however don’t forget to design for disassembly to ensure anything you use today can be easily reused in the future.

Key to moving EEI forward is the gathering of data on ecological impacts throughout the supply chain and advocating for transparent and sustainable practices among suppliers.

You should also be on the lookout for responsible sourcing and certification schemes like FSC and PEFC to ensure materials are sourced sustainably.

The Future?

EEI considerations will likely become integral to established environmental assessment frameworks such as BREEAM, although to some extent it kind of fits in already when doing a materiality assessment. Specific targets and metrics may still be a way off.

There is a lot of work to do to create methodologies for assessing EEI, but as they become more sophisticated the industry will develop tools for quantifying and comparing the biodiversity impacts of different materials - remember the impact is location specific, unlike carbon.

Just as with carbon, it’s hard to see how regulations will not eventually mandate some reporting and reduction of EEI, ensuring compliance and alignment with national and international biodiversity targets.

There’s still a lot to research and learn on this topic, so cross-sector collaboration will be crucial for taking it forward. Sharing knowledge, case studies, and best practices will enable the industry to collectively understand and address the challenges and opportunities of EEI.

If you want to know more, contibute to the learning or share data/research on this, reach out to Kai at nature@ukgbc.org.