Passport to circularity

As our industry transitions to confront the challenges of climate change, it is increasingly clear that a low-carbon future and the circular economy are inextricably linked. Indeed, one of the surest ways of reducing carbon emissions is to prolong the life of materials by reusing them for as long as possible. But doing so at speed and at scale is a challenge, and with the myriad considerations that come with multimillion-pound developments, uncertainty remains the foremost obstacle to wider takeup of reuse.

Implementing material passports is one way of mitigating some of this risk. By codifying and validating the information associated with key products and materials, we can reduce future uncertainty. We call them passports because, in the same way that a human passport identifies key information about a person as they travel, a material passport identifies the product or material as it moves through the supply chain.

We are witnessing greater interest and willingness across the industry to deliver material passports. In Europe, the protocols for Digital Product Passports (DPPs) are being worked through. These aim to develop a digital identity card for materials that stores key information to support circularity and transparency. Closer to home, Orms and Lancaster University have led the multi-year development of a UK framework that aims to promote material passport delivery in policy. However, we continue to grapple with the definitions, theory, use cases and tools – often at the expense of action. We need to help the industry demystify and standardise the process, so that we can accelerate that action.

For more than a decade, 3XN’s consultancy arm GXN has been acutely aware of the importance of material provenance in facilitating reuse – even if we don’t always refer to passports. We know a significant amount of information gets lost in how we design, procure and construct buildings, resulting in multiple challenges when we try to bring it all together.

One challenge is that the information sources for individual elements are not interoperable. Some information exists in digital models; some exists in specifications, purchase orders or delivery notes – and these don’t talk to each other. This fragmentation is a function of a supply chain that is not integrated end-to-end in a way that upholds data integrity and transfer.

Another challenge is scalability. You can imagine the information described above, while fractured, is relatively straightforward to gather and manage for a small house extension. But when scaled up to a 50,000m2 commercial tower or a portfolio, the sheer amount of data to collect and structure becomes unmanageable. 

This is exacerbated by the increasing disconnect between the design process and the procurement and (more so) manufacturing processes. Complicated supply chains mean the information chain of custody is more difficult to ensure across a network of designers, contractors and manufacturers.

In our practice, we have seen how much we can learn from doing. So we have developed and trialled some practical first steps in addressing these challenges and accelerating the effective implementation of material passports at scale.

Break it down

The first step for us is to define what the material passport should do, which may vary for different organisations or different projects. Our recent work has focused on generating passports that expressly facilitate better reuse, recovery or recycling. 

Having this purpose as a lens is important as it allows us to filter the materials we are interested in. It also simplifies the data collection requirements by focusing only on those that assist in delivering our aim. 

Be specific

Having established a lens, next is being clear on what information we want to collect, when and from whom. In our research, almost all contractors asked for clarity on what was expected of them when delivering material passports. It is up to us to develop tailored information protocols for specific materials, as well as the tools that allow for this information to be collated, recorded and stored in a structured manner. Rather than aiming to collect an all-encompassing set of data for all materials, we have been specific about what information we require from the supply chain – at both a material and parameter level – while, in this case, focusing on improving the chances of better reuse, recovery or recycling.

As an example, for structural steel, you only need knowledge of basic geometry, manufacturing date, strength, certification and coatings since it will likely be tested before reuse. Carbon and circularity data may be useful for reporting but do not directly facilitate reuse. But having the protocols and tools is no guarantee of success. They must be backed up by clear specifications and reporting requirements, collaboratively developed, and secured in contract.

Start now

It is likely that the nebulousness of the term material passport has stymied action. In our work, which certainly builds on that of others, we’ve tried to take an alternative approach: let’s try something now with real projects, real procurement teams, real information. And even if we get it slightly wrong, we’ll learn something in the process of actioning it and we’ll use that feedback to course correct. 

What we’ve found with steel, as one of our trial cases, is that the specific information we’re asking for already exists in the supply chain – it’s just coming from disparate sources so reconstituting it isn’t always practical. It is our intention that by starting to ask for this information now, we can work with the supply chains to improve this data exchange such that it is practical in the near future.

Every building we deliver today without a passport is an opportunity lost. They may not rule out any of the checks required to reuse materials but, at the very least, they will save valuable time at the front end of redevelopment projects, and increase the chances of successful reuse in future.

The dream might be a set of standardised definitions and requirements, feeding into a common environment that enables the interoperability we all desire. To get there, we need the taxonomies, the schema, the policies around which there is already excellent work and cross-industry collaboration. 

But to accelerate action, and to do so at speed and at scale, we need to start testing ideas, engaging with supply chains, and creating collaborative workflows to better share information. Only then will we understand some of the real-world barriers and what we can do to work through them. 

Adam Ozinsky is senior associate at GXN, a strategic consultancy for the built environment founded by 3XN

How British land is using material passports

Material passports are one of the ways we can prepare our buildings for the circular economy of the future. In 2021, British Land trialled them using the Madaster system on 1 Broadgate. Working with 3XN, we put the design information into the platform. We extracted information from the BIM models and are now at the exciting stage of uploading actual as-built information from the project into the platform.

At the Dock Shed, which is part our Canada Water development, we are working slightly differently: with our own protocols and way of capturing data, with 3XN supporting. We had to look at what data we needed with the aim of facilitating reuse or recycling. That includes the location of items, their geometry, and some basic sustainability/circularity information. We focused on some of the biggest carbon offenders: steel, aluminium, facade glass and raised access floors. Now we understand how to ask for this information from contractors and subcontractors, what is readily available and what is not, and how to do quality assurance. As we learn, we are planning to roll it out across the Canada Water masterplan and the rest of the development portfolio.

We need to keep it simple – in three decades when we access the data, there will be a different design team and it will be hard to sift through all the possible material. To capture absolutely everything that goes into a building is resource heavy so we are simplifying what we ask for and storing the data centrally at British Land. On this test project it has been easy to get certain data for the steel frame via the steel contractor’s model, but sustainability information that is disconnected from the model has been more difficult to acquire. The opposite is the case for products like raised access floors, where we have captured EPDs and warranties in a straightforward way. 

In 2020, British Land launched a new sustainability brief with a requirement to look at material passports. By the time we had our own protocol in place, Mace was contracted on the Dock Shed and the whole team was willing to give it a go, dealing with different parts of the supply chain. We can already see that we need to better implement the requirement through the tender and the contract so contractors can prepare their subcontractors. 

We will continue to trial platforms but also want to store data in house as there is a risk we’d need to be  searching around for who has the password in decades to come. At 1 Triton Square, we were lucky enough to be able to retain and refurbish the whole facade 30 years on because we still had access to key information from the original construction. So it is possible.

Sandra Sezgin is senior sustainability manager at British Land