Measuring Circular Buildings - Key Considerations

Measuring circular
buildings – key
considerations
Table of contents
Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3
2. Circular principles ................................................................................................................................ 5
3. Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 8
4. Measuring circular buildings: critical aspects ...................................................................................... 12
4.1 Building-related aspects ...................................................................................................................... 13
4.2 What to measure ................................................................................................................................ 14
4.3 How to measure .................................................................................................................................. 17
4.4 Result interpretation ........................................................................................................................... 19
5. Recommendation & next steps .......................................................................................................... 20
Annex I: Measuring circularity of buildings using CTI................................................................................... 22
Annex II: Data collection tools and strategies in the built environment ....................................................... 28
References ................................................................................................................................................. 33
Disclaimer ......................................................................................................................................................... 36
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................ 36
About WBCSD ................................................................................................................................................... 36
Summary
The circular economy is a key enabler for sustainability, resource efficiency and mitigating climate
change.1 Transparency and alignment on circular metrics are critical to establishing a common
language across industries and governments aspiring to develop strategies and measure progress on
circularity. Particularly for the built environment, implementing and adopting circular economy
principles of designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use and
regenerating natural systems can support the decarbonization of the entire system and improve
collaboration within the value chain.2 The circular economy can therefore be considered a means to
support the built environment in shifting toward one that is more sustainable.
Consistent circularity measurement and the adoption of a standardized approach are important, as
they can allow stakeholders to understand the level of circularity of their buildings and determine
actions toward improving their performance, accelerating the shift toward a sustainable built
environment.3 While considerable efforts are being made to improve the circularity of buildings, a
full set of indicators that can comprehensively measure the circularity of buildings is still under
development.
This paper summarizes key considerations for measuring the circularity of buildings. Developed
through a six-month study in collaboration with WBCSD member companies, the paper aims to align
the built environment value chain on what makes a building circular, how to most effectively apply
circular principles and how to measure progress toward circularity.
To reduce the complexity of measuring circularity in buildings, one should start by analyzing
different building layers, such as stuff, space plan, service, structure, skin, site and social, given the
different lifetimes of these layers. Furthermore, it is important to use a consistent terminology, such
as ELPMs (Element, Layers, Products, Materials). This allows us to identify a building as an Element,
then recognize that buildings are composed of Layers made of Products (doors, windows, walls, etc.)
and are built using Materials (wood, cement, steel, etc.).
Circular principles like lifetime extension, detachability, adaptability and flexibility should be
considered throughout the building design phase. Key considerations in measuring circularity include
measuring circular inflow and outflow, which consists of monitoring the type of material, the
percentage of reused and recycled materials and end-of-life recovery. For this matter, benchmarks,
standards and key performance indicators should be set and improved where existing.
Besides closing the loop on material flows, water and energy inflows and outflows need to be
measured, together with closely monitoring the carbon life cycle, to ensure circular evaluations are
complementary and not substitutive to the environment. Qualitative and quantitative data is equally
important when measuring the circularity of buildings.
The results presented in this paper set out the basis for further work toward developing and
adopting a common approach to measuring the circularity of buildings.
Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 2

1. Introduction
The need for circular buildings
The built environment is the physical part of where we live, work and spend our free time. It is a
primary employer representing a significant share of national wealth4 and is responsible for almost
half of all global resource consumption.2 By 2060, the global area of buildings is expected to double
to more than 415 billion m2, increasing their resource consumption significantly.5 The sector is
responsible for 12% of all freshwater consumption and produces up to 40% of global energy-related
carbon emissions and solid waste.2 With urbanization rapidly increasing, building sustainably is
essential to achieving sustainable development. A circular economy addresses these challenges and
has the potential to significantly reduce carbon emissions from materials and reduce impacts on
nature.2
The circular economy is an economic model that is regenerative by design. Its goal is to retain the
value of circulating resources, products, parts and materials by creating a system with innovative
business models that allow for long life, optimal (re)use, refurbishment, remanufacturing and
recycling. By applying these principles, organizations can collaborate to design out waste, increase
resource productivity, maintain resource use within planetary boundaries and increase economic
benefits.2
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) believes that the circular
economy principles are a means to achieving a sustainable built environment system. The study of
the use of circular principles within the built environment started in 2018 with the publishing of the
report Scaling the circular built environment: pathways for business and government to highlight
how the entire value chain can move toward being more circular,6 and was followed by The business
case for circular buildings: Exploring the economic, environmental and social value2 to showcase
how circularity principles can positively impact the three critical dimensions of sustainability and
identify possible Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for each of them.
The definition of what makes a building circular is still evolving based on market research,
experiences and needs. This paper adopts the definition provided in The business case for circular
buildings: Exploring the economic, environmental and social value,2 as this represents the most
recent and comprehensive definition of a circular building generated though a collaboration
between WBCSD, its members and other partners, including the World Green Building Council
(WGBC),8 the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)9 and others.
A circular building optimizes the use of resources while minimizing waste throughout its whole
life cycle. The building's design, operation and deconstruction maximize value over time using:
• Durable products and services made of secondary, non-toxic, sustainably sourced, or

renewable, reusable or recyclable material;
• Space efficiency over time through shared occupancy, flexibility and adaptability;
• Disassembly, reuse or recycling of embedded material, components and systems;
• Life-cycle assessment (LCA), life-cycle costing (LCC) and readily available digital
information (such as building material passports).

This definition constitutes the foundation of the work outlined in this paper. Alignment on
definitions establishes a common language across the industry that supports the development of
circular strategies and measurement of circularity. The built environment value chain should adopt a
unified definition of what makes a building circular and accept the use of the above while
recognizing that there is still room for improvement.
The need for a system-level approach

The built environment represents a complex system made of many products that different actors
develop, and each of them has the power to influence the overall circularity of buildings, from their
design, making better use of space, current and future use of material, type of energy and more. For
this reason, we believe that we ought to give the reader an explanation of the built environment
value chain to develop a better understanding of the difficulties faced when measuring the
circularity of buildings.
Figure 1: The value chains of the building and construction system7
Figure 1 represents our view of the structure and connections between the system's different
private sector actors. In this model, stakeholders are part of two connected and converging flows:
the building value chain and the influencer value chain.
For more information, you can refer to WBCSD's The Building System Carbon Framework 7 report.

2. Circular principles
The previous chapter of the paper explained the process of the study and why it was important to
conduct such a study. The chapter provided a general understanding of what a circular building is
and defined the built environment system and its complexity. This chapter will go into more detail
about understanding how to apply the circular principles to buildings and illustrate the criteria to
follow to classify the circularity of buildings.
Currently, there is no clear understanding of how to measure the implementation of circular

principles in buildings. Consistent circularity measurement and the adoption of a standardized
approach are important, as they can allow stakeholders to understand the level of circularity of their
buildings and determine actions toward improving their performance, accelerating the shift toward
a sustainable built environment.3 The circular principles formulated by the Ellen MacArthur
Foundation10 help clarify which actions need to be taken to improve circularity. There are three
principles connected to the design, the retainment of value and the regeneration of nature, and Box
1 applies these circular principles to a building, describing what intervention points need to be
measured to align to these circular principles.
BOX 1: Circular principles applied to buildings
1) Design out waste and pollution: What if waste and pollution were never created in the first
place?
This requires measuring emissions, and air, land and water pollution, as well as structural sources
of pollution, such as traffic. It applies to a building while it is in use, but also to different life cycle
stages, such as construction, maintenance and demolition. The objective is to enable and
measure reuse, refurbishment, remanufacturing (and recycling as a last resort) and the
identification of end-of-use options for new assets, materials and products installed. This
requires collaboration across the supply chain and defined end-of-life options or closed loop
supply chains within contracts.
2) Keep products and materials in use: what if we can build an economy centered around reusing
existing products and materials rather than creating new ones?
The measurement and reduction of energy, labor and material use across a building’s life is
needed. This requires a consideration of how the building is being used and how this use could
be extended and dematerialized. It also includes the measurement and reduction of products
and material altogether, such as inherent finishings avoiding the need for paint, or exposed
ceilings. Understanding and measuring longevity will determine the durability or adaptability and
ease of reconfiguration of elements within a building. Design for disassembly should also be
considered to enable the repair and reuse of building products and material that can be easily
separated, swapped out and recycled.
3) Regenerate natural systems: What if we could not only protect, but actively improve the
environment?
Measuring the use of renewable materials and energy, particularly those that are regenerative in
nature is needed. For example, have renewable building materials such as wood being specified,
and do they offer certification that demonstrates the regeneration of natural systems such as
FSC?

Applying circular principles to a building shows that measuring circularity requires the consideration
of many factors along its life cycle, like understanding the distance and timing factors of building
materials, a building's design, materials and end of life. This requires value-chain wide data
collection and collaboration to make necessary calculations. A standardized approach to measuring
buildings is necessary to facilitate industry-wide adoption and allow for this collaboration. In a
broader context, a standardized approach can also support the recovery of different materials and
products and the infrastructure necessary to facilitate circular buildings.
The circular principles work directly with reducing the use of natural resources and reducing the
production of waste through the extension of the value of the product analyzed.
In this sense, when looking at material outflow, this paper will refer to the waste hierarchy, which is
used as a fundamental approach to guide stakeholders toward evaluating which solutions are more
environmentally sustainable than others. The waste hierarchy is established in the Waste
Framework Directive,11 which lays down some basic waste management principles and follows the
principle of keeping products and materials in use for as long as possible while conserving their
original value. It looks at products and materials as resources and aims to design waste out of the
system by influencing consumption habits and rethinking business models.12
Figure 2 European Commission's waste hierarchy12

Figure 2 is a representation of the waste hierarchy provided by the European Commission: 10
• Prevention: Measures taken before a substance, material or product becomes waste, that
reduce:
o the quantity of waste, including through the reuse of products or the extension of
their lifespan;
o the adverse impacts of generated waste on the environment and human health;
o the content of hazardous substances in materials and products.
• Reuse: Operation by which a product, or a part thereof, having reached the end of one use
stage, is used again for the same purpose for which it was conceived.
• Recycling: Any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products,
materials or substances, whether for their original or other purposes.
• Recovery: Any operation by which waste serves a useful purpose by replacing other
materials that would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function, or waste being
prepared to fulfil that function in a plant or the wider economy.
• Disposal: Any operation which is not recovery, even where the operation has as a secondary
consequence the reclamation of substances or energy.
Following the waste hierarchy, it is clear that the best approach is to prevent the production of
waste, and this must be considered from the design phase. Therefore, it is important to rethink
products to make them as sustainable as possible.
BOX 2: Sika's Roof Recycling Program:
Waste reduction starts with durable products that stand the test of time. Sika Sarnafil
membranes continue to perform after decades of use in a wide range of climates. Our post-
consumer recycling program recycles millions of square feet of used membranes from replaced
roofs yearly, reducing the burden on landfills. Post-consumer recycling of roof membranes at the
end of their useful life represents an opportunity to divert construction debris from the waste
stream.
Sika roofing has invested in state-of-the-art processing equipment that enables large-scale
recycling of post-consumer vinyl roofs back into roofing products. These products include
walkway pads, protection membranes, and roofing and waterproofing membranes. We also
reduce waste at every step of the product life cycle, converting more than 98% of vinyl raw
materials from manufacturing and installation into new roofing and waterproofing membranes.
More information can be found on the Sika website by clicking on the following links: Roof
Recycling (sika.com)13 and PVC Roof Recycling (sika.com).14

3. Approach
In the previous chapters, we defined what a circular building is and discussed circular principles and
important frameworks such as the European Commission's waste hierarchy, which help to shape our
understanding of what circular strategies should include. These definitions and frameworks guided
our study with our members and the development of this paper. In this chapter, we will outline the
approach we followed in our work.
The study began by understanding the needs and challenges faced by the built environment value
chain when implementing circular principles and measuring the circularity of buildings. We explored
existing frameworks and tapped into members' knowledge to understand the key considerations for
circular buildings. These are the initial steps toward enabling the consistent measurement of the
circularity of buildings, no matter the location or type of building.
To develop this whitepaper, WBCSD members of the Built Environment pathway, together with
companies representing different segments of the built environment value chain, consulted the
Circular Transition Indicators (CTI).15 CTI is a quantitative framework measuring circularity that can
be applied to a variety of scopes, including buildings (Box 3). We used an online tool16 developed for
CTI assessments to apply each step of the framework. CTI requires specific knowledge and datasets
that highlight what type of information is essential to measure in each phase of the study of a
building. The participating companies chose the building they wanted to assess along with its
typology, location and layer.
The suitability and value of applying CTI to measure the circularity of a building is discussed in Annex
I. The Annex shows the strengths and weaknesses of CTI in measuring the circularity of a building
and can be used as a baseline for developing an approach to measuring the circularity of buildings
going forward.
The CTI framework approach dealt with the complexity of buildings and structured the different
aspects to consider when measuring the circularity of buildings. The results and information
gathered during this study are presented in the following four main categories:
- Building-related aspects: any type of information related to a building, from location and
type of material used to construct buildings.
- What to measure: main indicators to include to measure the circularity of a building.
- How to measure: which data to collect.
- Result interpretation: how to interpret the results of the assessment.

BOX 3: Circular Transition Indicator (CTI)15
The Circular Transition Indicators (CTI) represents a simple, unbiased and quantitative framework to
measure the circularity of products and business processes. It helps companies evaluate risks,
identify the most impactful actions to become more circular and understand the effects of their
circularity strategies on climate, nature and people.
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) developed the framework in
2020 in collaboration with over 30 companies. It is updated annually to ensure alignment with
emerging policies and developments in reporting standards. The newest version, Circular Transition
indicators v3.0,17 was released in May 2022 and is freely available. CTI is currently being integrated
into reporting frameworks such as ISO and ISSB. To guide companies through the CTI process and
circularity assessments, WBCSD developed an online tool16 together with Circular IQ Circular IQ18
that structures data and calculates outcomes.
Analysis of a building
For a better understanding of circularity within the building, it's important to use consistent
terminology. Therefore, this chapter aims to explain the terminology used in this study. We suggest
using the Element, Layers, Products & Materials (ELPM) terminology, which identifies a building as
an Element, then recognizes that buildings are composed of Layers, made of Products (doors,
windows, walls, etc.) and are built using Materials (wood, cement, steel, etc.) (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Analysis of a building
This terminology is a readaptation of the Building Value: A pathway to circular construction finance19
study of EPM (Element, Product and Material), led by Circular Economy, Sustainable Finance Lab and
Nederland Circular. The referred paper identifies the analyzed system as an element composed of
products and built with materials. Hence, we refer to buildings as an element, as it is the final
subject that we aim to analyze. To this terminology, we have added Layers as, to simplify the study
of such a complex system, there is a need to create more sub-categories to gather as much data as
possible as easily as possible.
The concept of Layers, based on the 6S model by Steward Brand (1994) and David Bergman (2011),
is explained and clarified in the next chapter.

To give a bit of context and clarification, a material is a homogenous substance like cement,
concrete, steel, glass or aluminum, while a product is a complete object that can fulfill a function,
which can consist of multiple parts, components, compounds, and/or materials. Practical examples
are introduced in the next chapter.
This terminology allows us to best dissect and analyze the complexity of buildings based on existing
approaches.
The findings and suggestions presented in this paper can be applied to any building level (Element,
Layers, Products and Materials).
Simplifying a building
After understanding the terminology, it is important to understand how a building works and its
composition, to better identify the best approach to measuring its circularity.
In fact, buildings are complex systems that are challenging to capture in a single circularity
assessment. To increase the granularity of data used in assessments, we recommend adopting the
6S model. The 6S model divides and simplifies buildings into six fundamental materials layers: stuff,
space plan, services, structure, skin and site. Besides physical layers consisting of products and
materials, the circularity of a building is also influenced by how the building is used. The function of a
building goes beyond simply offering shelter to human beings; it extends to activities that are
embedded in a social and cultural context.20 The way buildings are used reflects this social context,
resulting in behavior impacting the circularity of a building. A seventh layer was added to the 6S
model covering this social aspect (Figure 4).6 This approach was also used for consistency and better
integration with WBCSD's work on the decarbonization of buildings, which is summarized in the
Buildings System Carbon Framework.7
Increasing the lifetime of each Element, Layer, Product and Material (ELPM) allows for the
reduction of resource usage per unit of delivered service.
Figure 4 Building model consisting of six material layers (after Steward Brand [1994] and David Bergman [2011]) and a
seventh social layer3

Below is a non-exhaustive list of products that can be found in each layer, because a building is
composed of layers built by products:
• Structure: in the superstructure we have the frame, upper floors, roof, stairs and ramps,
while in the substructure we can find the foundation, retaining walls, and more.
• Skin: external walls, windows and external doors.
• Space plan: internal walls and doors, floor and ceiling finishes.
• Service: building services and mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems.
• Stuff: Fittings, furnishings and equipment.
BOX 3: Stora Enso - The Green House
Wooden construction elements are key enablers in refurbishment, as they can extend the lifespan of
existing buildings. Stora Enso offers a variety of wood product solutions to renovate and extend the
lifespan of existing buildings. For example, prefabricated wooden elements made from Cross
Laminated Timber (CLT) or Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) improve the quality of the existing
building stock while promoting energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As
lightweight materials, they can be used to build additional storeys on top of existing buildings to
address space shortages in cities. A great example of this is the Green House refurbishment and
extension in London. More information can be found at Expanding an existing building with mass
timber – The Green House, London - YouTube21
More information can be found at the following link: Building Solution Stora Enso22

4. Measuring circular buildings: critical aspects
This chapter outlines key insights from our research on critical aspects to consider when measuring
the circularity of buildings. The chapter is structured according to four main aspects for
consideration:
a) Building-related aspects: this section outlines suggestions about the information that is
related to the administrative and physical aspects of buildings, such as who owns a building,
who collaborated on its construction, its location and the materials used in its construction.
b) What to measure: this section discusses the main aspects of a building that need to be
measured to capture the circularity of a building.
c) How to measure: this section provides information about the data essential to measuring
the circularity of buildings, which can be both qualitative and quantitative.
d) Result interpretation: this section includes suggestions about how stakeholders should
interpret results to steer decision-making.
This chapter also provides various suggestions and feedback gathered from member companies on
all relevant aspects that need to be considered when determining the methodology for circular
building assessments, which are listed in Figure 5.
Figure 5 Building-related aspects: key considerations

4.1 Building-related aspects
During our study, we found that the first step of information gathering required to analyze a building
is its geographic location, typology and year of construction. This information will influence the
overall approach to the analysis, as legislation will change based on those characteristics and
building requirements, which might make gathering information easier or harder.
Besides administrative information, a unit of analysis for the assessment needs to be determined.
The exercise undertaken with WBCSD members showed that looking at a building through the lens
of the readapted S6 model shown in Figure 4 is a useful approach to measuring circularity, as it
offers the possibility to consider specific parts of a building. Dividing buildings into seven different
layers and analyzing them through this subdivision can help stakeholders of the built environment
value chain avoid missing essential information and develop more detailed data granularity.
To understand the lifetime of ELPM, it is important to take the life cycle stages of the building into
consideration. This section focuses on the life cycle stages of construction, occupation and use
(including refurbishment and alterations) and demolition and next life stages, but we also recognize
the importance of the planning and procurement stage for the measurement of circularity. However,
including those stages can eventually further complicate the analysis of the building as it will require
the engagement of more stakeholders and the collection of more data. The life cycle stage of a
building influences the approach to measuring circularity by determining the balance of focus
needed across its design and purpose, its operation and utilization or its disassembly and recovery
and recirculation of materials. The ELPM circularity degree might change based on the life stage: for
each fundamental life stage of each of them, circular principles can be adopted. If a building is in the
phase of design or in construction, considerations can be made to follow and circular principles,
making its design and space flexible and adaptable. This makes it easier to reuse or recycle products
and materials used in the building when its life ends. For already existing buildings, circularity can be
improved through retrofitting and choosing products and materials that are either used or recycled.
If a building is at its end of life, products and materials can be reused or recycled. Therefore, even if
a building was not circular during its lifetime, it can still influence and provide opportunities for other
buildings to improve their circularity.
The same concept can be applied to the products and materials used in buildings. They will have a
different impact on the overall circularity depending on their life stage and content. If they are new
and built with virgin material, they will negatively influence the degree of the circularity of buildings,
while if they are used and have found a new purpose, the impact will be more positive. The
possibility of reusing or recycling them will also positively impact overall circularity. It may be useful
to create and refer to a model that identifies critical moments of each building's life cycle stage
when measuring the circularity of buildings. In this paper, we define a critical moment as a point in
time that can destabilize or change the balance of a building. Examples include the moment when
stakeholders discuss the principles to follow during the design phase, retrofitting needs during the
operational phase or when to replace furniture.

4.2 What to measure
This study identifies what should be measured to fully capture the circularity of a building. This
section introduces the aspects found to be relevant in measuring the circularity of buildings, which
can be split into four categories with different goals:
• Closing material loops aims to close material loops by designing buildings for longer use
with secondary materials and recovery of materials at the end-of-life.
• Extending product lifetimes aims to retain product quality and extend material lifetimes.
• Measuring impact aims to provide insights on the impact of circular strategies on achieving
environmental and social objectives.
• Design for circularity aims to explain how the design phase has an impact on the overall
circularity of buildings.
Closing material loops

It is essential to assess and shortlist the products and materials present in buildings, and what is
added and removed during their lifetime. Circularity should be measured using the materials
entering and exiting the building system. Considering material inflow, ELPM built with material
content that is reused or recycled and not virgin improves the circularity of buildings – this is valid
for both retrofitted and new buildings.6 Therefore, we suggest making use of a metric that will allow
the measurement of the the circularity of material inflow that can capture this, such as percentage
of circular material inflow in the CTI methodology.
To recover materials at their end of life, a key consideration is the detachability factor,28 which
indicates "the degree to which objects are demountable at all scales without compromising the
function of the object or surrounding objects. With the aim of protecting the existing value." 23
A high level of detachability will support the retention of the value of ELPMs and increase the
possibility for them to be reused, refurbished, remanufactured, repurposed and recycled, as well as
help avoid incineration and landfill as much as possible.23 When looking at the detachability factor, it
is also essential to take into consideration the energy and water usage to detach. This will influence
the overall circularity of the building. We recommend using the detachability factor when measuring
the circularity of buildings to understand what can be reused and recycled at different life-cycle
stages.
Besides potential recovery, it is crucial to track what is actually recovered at the end of life.
Unfortunately, the industry is not yet ready for this, as knowledge, technology and collaboration
must be improved.
Mass or volume of materials used in a building is an important consideration in measuring

circularity, but not the only one. Additional variables must be taken into consideration, such as how
materials were transported and how the final product was produced.
Extending product lifetime

Another aspect that we suggest considering when measuring the circularity of buildings is the
lifetime of products and materials in the measurement of building circularity. The degree of
circularity of ELPMs should be measured and represent a specific value based on their lifetime. The
usage of ELPMs will change the circularity of a building and have environmental, economic and social
impacts. The lifetime of ELPMs is gauged by measuring durability, but the flexibility and adaptability

of spaces in buildings can also ensure longer lifetimes. Within a lifetime, it is important to consider
the discount factor, which is based on the estimated lifetime of each ELPM in relation to a building's
life period.
The discount factor is a commonly used concept in financial cash flows. It is a ratio that represents
the change in the value of money in the future. It is used to translate future financial cash flows into
a 'net present value' and this rate differs between investors depending on their structure, risk profile
and preferences. This has the advantage of enabling a direct comparison of financial performance
between investments incorporating time weighted analysis rather than static financial
performance.24
In the built environment, when it comes to measuring the circularity of buildings, accounting for a
lifetime discount factor means that the lifetime of products and materials that are expected to have
a shorter life, have less of an impact on the overall circularity of a building than the lifetime of
products and materials that have a longer expected lifetime. This is because something built to last
longer will prevent the creation of something new and will therefore reduce the need for more
natural resources and create less waste over the years. This determination remains controversial, as
some believe that a shorter lifetime – when recovery is sustainably and efficiently managed – may
contribute positively to the circularity of buildings. This is based on the assumption that products
and materials can be reused and recovered more often. The circularity of the building does not
depend on the lifetime of ELPMs, but it will be influenced by it.
Measuring impact
Upon analyzing the result of the CTI assessment, members remarked how important it is to use
energy indicators more consistently and transparently to ensure more comparable results in terms
of the circularity of buildings. Defining any synergies with existing green building standards and
certifications as well as relevant building codes will help align and accelerate the understanding and
adoption of circular construction principles.
To achieve a sustainable built environment system, whole life carbon considerations should be
linked to circular principles. This can help establish a broader overview of how buildings function
and an understanding of what to change to make them more sustainable. Therefore, the
measurement of circularity should not replace whole life carbon analysis, instead they should
complement each other.
Design for circularity

Closing material loops, extending product lifetimes and reducing impact start with a building's design
phase. All circularity principles must be taken into consideration from the very beginning, since
making the right decisions during the design phase enables and empowers the circular model.2
ARUP and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation worked together to develop a Circular Building Design
Toolkit25 that aims to help stakeholders understand how circular their buildings are from the design
phase and help them improve their buildings in terms of sustainability. Qualitative and quantitative
aspects are of equal importance, which makes the adaptability, disassembly and flexibility of a
building key considerations when conducting a study to measure its impact.
The local availability, durability, performance, circularity and carbon life cycle of products and
materials are fundamental comparison criteria when evaluating options for a given design. Price
should also be considered, but only in the context of life cycle costs over the expected lifetime that
has been designed for. Reviewing upfront and total costs of ownership (taking into consideration
energy savings or reduced maintenance over expected design life) can highlight more sustainable
material options and value-added benefits.
The study group has highlighted that it might not be possible to assess all the topics mentioned
throughout the chapter, as it would include too much information to deal with at the same time.
A materiality approach should be developed for buildings that prioritizes the most important
elements of measuring circularity. This prioritization could start with data about the material with
the highest impact, steering companies to where it is best to focus their efforts.
To improve and simplify the measurement of the above-mentioned topics, it is important to create
benchmarks and define standards to give stakeholders a method for comparison. For this matter,
the European Taxonomy, a classification system that helps standardize and define key sustainability
terms, could be of help. The EU is currently drafting the Substantial Contribution to Circular
Economy criteria26 and they include indications for buildings regarding content material that ELPMs
should contain to be considered circular. More information can be found in Annex II.
BOX 4: Holcim, Susteno – resource-saving cement

Susteno is a solution Holcim uses to embrace the urban mining concept through upcycling
Construction & Demolition Waste (CDW) to build new from old and reduce consumption of virgin
resources. Susteno is the first and only resource-saving cement in Europe that uses up to 20% high-
quality processed mixed granulate demolition waste in the manufacture process, providing a
cement that doesn’t compromise on performance while closing the loop for construction materials.
Susteno cement is used in Holcim’s low carbon ECOPact+ concrete, which combines >20% recycled
material – including aggregates sourced from CDW – diverting waste from landfills and reducing the
consumption of virgin natural resources. More information can be found at Resource-Saving
Cement | Susteno | Holcim27 and Green Low Carbon Concrete | ECOPact | Holcim28

4.3 How to measure
This section provides explanations about which data is essential to measuring the circularity of
buildings. It is divided into more sub-sections that will provide an explanation of the importance of
qualitative and quantitative data, the need for completeness and the complementarity of data and
its transparency.
Quantitative and qualitative data

The members participating in the study recognize that qualitative information is equally important
as quantitative information. Both aspects provide critical insights into a building; however, many
challenges arise when it comes to data collection in both cases. Qualitative information refers to the
type of materials used to obtain the final product: how use intensity and time may impact quality
and performance, and how design may impact circularity. This type of information is difficult to
provide, as guidelines are not yet in place.
Quantitative information refers to the measurement of ELPMs: from measuring the amount of
material used to their source type (all virgin, partly recycled or reused can be considered circular).
Data demand can foster collaboration across the value chain. It is especially important to involve
manufacturers, as they are the stakeholders with the most detailed information when it comes to
granular data about products and materials.
One tool that can be of support when it comes to collaboration and data collection, both qualitative
and quantitative, is the Digital Building Logbook, which is a common repository for all relevant
building data. It facilitates transparency, trust, informed decision-making and information sharing
among building owners and occupants, financial institutions and public authorities within the
construction sector.29 More information can be found in Annex II.
Completeness and complementarity

When measuring circularity, data must be reflected through relevant units of measurement based
on stakeholder needs, and the measurement of a building's circularity should be evaluated in light of
its impact on other environmental and social indicators. A circularity evaluation should
complement and not substitute existing and commonly used sustainability frameworks. A circular
building is powered by renewable energy and makes efficient use of water within its local context.
While energy and circular water use are not the focus of this paper, these should always be included
in an evaluation of a building's circularity. Considerations on how energy use contributes or hinders
a building's circularity would benefit from alignment with existing green building standards and
certifications.
Needs for transparency and data collection

When a building already exists, accessing the required information may be challenging, as often this
data has not been collected. For new buildings, a challenge may consist of accessing all the relevant
information from each stakeholder involved in the construction of a building. Stakeholders in the
built environment value chain may be reluctant to share specific data about their products because
of competitive aspects. Open and transparent data is needed, and stakeholders should be able to
consult it. According to the experience of some WBCSD members, this solution is still not viable, as
stakeholders in the built environment value chain – mainly manufactures and suppliers – are not
willing to share data for privacy matters, and market incentives are not yet in place to ensure that
materials are indeed used to their maximum value. Data transparency may be fostered by the wider
adoption of circular principles across the built environment value chain.
Making data available and transparent is supported by the European Union which, in March 2022
announced the introduction and further use of the Digital Product Passport (DPP), which aims "to
provide information on the origin, composition, and repair and disassembly possibilities of a
product, including how the various components can be recycled or disposed of at end of life. This
information enables the upscaling of circular economy strategies such as predictive maintenance,
repair, remanufacturing and recycling. It also informs consumers and other stakeholders of the
sustainability characteristics of products and materials to promote better informed purchase
decisions." 30 More information about the DPP can be found in Annex II.
Beyond individual buildings, a sustainable built environment will only be achieved if circular building
principles are applied at city or regional levels. In fact, a broader context could support a better
reuse of different materials and products in different contexts. For those that wish to apply such
principles on a large scale, it is necessary to know the key considerations in measuring the circularity
of buildings.

4.4 Result interpretation
The phase of understanding what data is essential and how to measure the circularity of buildings is
followed by understanding what to do with this data. Therefore, a tool that can collect and store
data is essential.
A measurement tool should support the measurement and tracking of the circular principles within
buildings. Moreover, a tool needs to be automated and efficient, as buildings manage a significant
quantity of data. Current tools on the market to track the circularity of buildings require users to
input data manually, which is time consuming and might make built environment stakeholders
reluctant to engage in this activity.
WBCSD could play a leading role by creating and adopting guidelines that make the task of
measuring the circularity of buildings easier. Principles and information about circularity could be
connected to digital products and tools – such as Building Information Modeling (BIM) software –
and digital inventories could be connected to supply chains and their product models. These tools
could facilitate the following processes:
• Converging on a sequence and process to measure the circularity of buildings will be crucial
to facilitate the implementation of circular principles and harmonize data collection and
analysis.
• It would be optimal to analyze the value chain and understand at what stage of the building
life each stakeholder is engaged in and what their role is in terms of improving the adoption
of the circular principles, and for each stage KPIs should be identified.
• The tool could measure progress according to a set benchmark for circular principles. This
would help steer the direction of improving circularity.
• Finally, it is important to define a communication strategy on how to disclose the results of
circularity assessments.

5. Recommendation & next steps
Efforts are being made to improve the circularity of buildings, though there is a need for the built
environment to evolve to finalize the development of a full set of indicators and accompanying
metrics that can comprehensively measure the circularity of buildings. Further studies into the
circular principles and how to measure them are required.
Measuring the circularity of buildings requires collaboration across the value chain, knowledge of
geographic areas, typology and the year of construction buildings and greater transparency when it
comes to data collection and accessibility. Measuring circularity with consistency and adopting a
standardized approach can allow stakeholders to better understand their building's level of
circularity and subsequently identify actions to improve their performance while accelerating the
shift toward a sustainable built environment.3 Further, the built environment requires a tool that
allows for automated tracking of materials and their properties, which is connected to technologies
such as BIM and the Digital Building Logbook.
This study identified more key considerations when it comes to measuring circularity:
• Analyze the building by dividing it into layers, thus simplifying the task of collecting as much
granular data as possible.
• Use consistent terminology to make analyses understandable for everyone. We advise using
the ELPMs (Element, Layer, Product, Materials) terminology, as it was the language that best
fit the knowledge and experience of participants in this study and was easily understood by
everyone.
• Design for circularity across a building's different life phases. This means including aspects
such as:
o Closing material loops
o Designing for lifetime extension
o Detachability
o Adaptability
o Flexibility
• The lifetime of ELPMs should be considered along with measuring the circularity of inflows
and outflows. This could be included as a discount factor on the overall circularity of the
layers.
• Measuring circular inflows and outflows while monitoring the type of material (percentage
of reused and recycled material, along with end-of-life recovery). For this to happen, it is
important to set benchmarks, standards and KPIs.
• Water and energy inflows and outflows should be included in the circular assessment along
with a carbon life-cycle analysis.
• Circular evaluations should be complementary and not a substitute for environmental
assessments.
• Qualitative and quantitative data are equally important in circular evaluations.
• Organizations like WBCSD can contribute and take the lead around setting the right path to
prioritization guidelines when measuring the circularity of a building.
• Focus efforts on areas of greatest impact and stimulate greater openness and transparency
when it comes to data, and influence and stimulate the market to develop an automated
tool that can collect and store data.

This paper is the first step in a broader effort that aims to develop and facilitate the adoption of a
standardized approach to measuring the circularity of buildings. The objective of this work will be to
set the baseline to understand the level of circularity of a building and enable stakeholders to take
responsibility and develop awareness of their choices and actions at each stage of a budling's life
cycle. WBCSD's Built Environment pathway will continue developing this white paper and work with
companies and organizations interested in understanding what current solutions and approaches
stakeholders use to measure the circularity of buildings, reduce fragmentation and create a
standardized approach that will build on the recommendations highlighted throughout this paper.

Annex I: Measuring circularity of buildings using CTI
Why apply CTI to a building

Transparency and alignment on circular metrics are critical to establishing a common language
across industries and governments aimed at developing strategies and measuring progress on
circularity. To facilitate value chain collaboration in the circular economy, WBCSD has developed the
Circular Transition Indicators (CTI).15 What makes this framework unique is its ability to
quantitatively measure circularity in a simple, comprehensive yet flexible manner, regardless of
material, sector or technology. The framework focuses on circular and linear mass flows that enter
and leave the company boundaries, in which design, procurement and recovery models are crucial
levers to determine how well it performs. More information on CTI is available in the Circular
Transition Indicators v3.0.17
Initially published in 2020, CTI has already been applied across many different industries to measure
the circularity of materials, products, production facilities and entire companies. In the built
environment, it was used to measure the circularity of cement production,31 chemical products
integrated in a building,32 and entire municipalities. CTI has not yet been applied to buildings.
Following the publication of CTI, circularity assessments of buildings were conducted to show the
value and suitability of adopting this framework to measure their circularity. This Annex shows the
strengths and weaknesses of CTI in measuring the circularity of a building and identifies
opportunities for improvement.
How is material circularity measured in CTI?

CTI's main indicator – percentage of material circularity – was selected to measure the circularity
of buildings. The percentage of material circularity focuses on the materials flowing through the
system and provides insights into its ability to minimize resource extraction and waste material.
CTI includes additional indicators to measure progress, efficiency and the impact of circularity.
These additional indicators were excluded from the assessment.
The percentage of material circularity is formed by three indicators that measure circularity at the
following key intervention points:
• Inflow: Measures how materials are sourced. Inflow can either be considered 1) virgin
(materials not used before), 2) non-virgin (materials used in a previous cycle) or 3)
renewable (bio-based resources that are sustainably grown and managed). Non-virgin and
sustainably sourced renewable materials are considered circular inflow.
• Outflow recovery potential: Measures how a company designs its products to enable the
technical and biological recovery of materials (e.g., by designing for disassembly,
repairability, recyclability, biodegradability, etc.).
• Outflow actual recovery: Measures how much a company's outflow is actually recovered
and reintroduced into the economy. This can occur through direct recovery strategies, such
as buy-back schemes, or indirect recovery, such as second-hand markets or recycling.

The percentage of material circularity is calculated by taking the weighted average of circular inflow
and circular outflow (Figure 6). Circular inflow is the mass of all non-virgin or sustainably sourced
renewable materials used in a given building. Circular outflow is calculated by multiplying the
recovery potential factor by the actual recovery percentage of materials.
Figure 6: Illustration of material flows17

How do the key considerations fit with CTI?
This report identified several key considerations around 1) building-related aspects 2) what to
measure 3) how to measure and 4) results interpretation. Table 1 provides an overview of the key
considerations and assesses the suitability of the CTIs to cover key elements.
Table 1: Suitability of CTI to address key considerations of measuring the circularity of a building
Step Key considerations for CTI Suitability?

buildings
Making a CTI
assessment
1. Setting the • Unit of analysis: buildings are CTI enables the full analysis of a
scope of the made of elements (consisting company, production facility,
assessment of products and materials) product, material or layer. CTI is
composed of layers, as flexible in adopting boundaries
described in the 6S model.3 and determining a timeframe.
• Specify: type of building,
geography, legislation, life
cycle stage of a building and
the age of ELPMs.
• Timeframe: make the
assessment based on the
lifetime and life stage of the
ELPMs.
2. Selection of • Circular metrics need to CTI includes ten different
indicators measure circularity as it indicators measuring the
relates to the definition of a effectiveness in closing material
circular building.2 loops, assessing resource-
efficiency, lifetime, value of
A circular building optimizes the circularity and impact on
sustainability.
use of resources while
minimizing waste throughout
CTI can measure the majority of
its entire life cycle. The elements that constitute a
building's design, operation circular building but does not
and deconstruction maximize yet include metrics specific to
value over time using: buildings.
o Durable products and
services made of secondary,
non-toxic, sustainably
sourced or renewable,
reusable or recyclable
material;
o Space efficiency over time
through shared occupancy,
flexibility and adaptability;
o Disassembly, reuse or
recycling of embedded
products, materials, and
systems.
• Key indicators must be CTI recognizes its framework
complemented with carbon needs to be complemented by
and environmental other methodologies to
indicators. establish a full picture of the
environmental impacts
associated with a building.

• The design phase is essential The percentage of material
to understanding the circularity indicator measures
circularity of a building. recovery potential, which is the
• The detachability factor23 is a same as the detachability
key consideration in factor.
determining circularity.
• A discount factor should be CTI currently does not measure

included to account for the material lifetime within the
lifetime of the ELPMs. percentage of the material
circularity calculation.
3. Data • Data needs to be as granular Companies can determine the
collection as possible, but given the level of data granularity that fits
complexity of building the purpose of an assessment.
systems, granularity can be The collection of company-
adapted to the scope and specific data is preferred over
needs of a study. A proper the use of databases, especially
for waste handling.
balance is needed between
data accuracy and effort.
• This granularity could differ
per ELPMs.
4. Results • Collecting and storing The CTI tool developed by

interpretatio information for monitoring is Circular IQ has a functionality
n essential, especially to track that allows for the tracking of
what is going in and out of a progress across assessments.18
building when looking at
ELPMs.
• To optimize and make best CTI aims to facilitate a common

use of ELPMs, data should be approach along the value chain.
open and transparent. It encourages the sharing of
data to pursue shared
circularity goals.
Tool specifics • The tool needs to be CTI is exploring options to
automated and time automatically upload the
efficient. Opportunity to material inventory from digital
connect to a digital product product passports.
passport, BIM and other
digital tools.

What are the opportunities and challenges of using CTI?
Flexibility in application
Using CTI to measure circularity has the significant advantage of its flexible nature: the scope and
unit of analysis allow for the assessment of an entire company, production facilities, products and
materials within any timeframe. CTI allows users to analyze the layers of a building separately,
adopting different lifespans. It requires a clear formulation of the unit under assessment, in which
the type of building and geography must be disclosed.
CTI as the foundation for building metrics
There are several circular principles that make up the definition of a circular building as formulated
by WBCSD (2021)2. This definition defines a circular building as one that minimizes waste and uses
products made of secondary, non-toxic, sustainably sourced, renewable, reusable or recyclable
materials. CTI measures the circularity of material flows on two levels: 1) circular inflow (non-virgin
or sustainably sourced renewable materials) and 2) circular outflow (design for reuse, recycling,
repair and actual collected, recovered materials). An average is calculated between the two that
determines total circularity. CTI has well-established definitions aligned with developing
international standards of what can be considered circular inflow or outflow. This approach can
significantly support this definition of circular buildings and enable easy target setting across
industries.
This study identified the detachability index as a key consideration to take onboard. The
detachability factor is the degree to which objects are demountable at all scales without comprising
other objects.23 This relates directly to CTI's concept of Recovery Potential, which measures the
effectiveness of designing products that can be recovered. The main opportunity to improve
recovery potential is through increasing modularity. Recovery potential is a key element of CTI's
percentage of material circularity indicator.
Evolving CTI metrics
The definition of circular buildings also constitutes out of space efficiency over time through shared
occupancy, flexibility and the adaptability of buildings. CTI does not have an indicator to measure
these optimizations, which can often be qualitative indicators at best. These extra indicators can be
developed when creating a sector-specific version of CTI. Another element that CTI does not directly
measure in the percentage of material circularity equation is lifetime. While CTI includes two
separate indicators on lifetime, incorporating a lifetime discounting factor in the calculation of the
percentage of material circularity is regarded as a useful development in CTI for the built
environment.

Measuring environmental impact
Throughout this paper, the need for an approach that – besides circularity – measures
environmental and social impacts have been expressed extensively. CTI is developing indicators that
express the impact of circular strategies on all these aspects but does not constitute a full
environmental assessment. CTI offers insights into the circularity of the mass flows of a building,
which is already a major step in mitigating impacts. However, light materials can have a considerable
impact on the environment, making the weight of materials used only one of the key considerations
to realizing circular buildings. CTI stresses that circularity should never be assessed in isolation and
should be complemented by other existing sustainability assessments – such as LCA – that are able
to capture environmental impacts with the appropriate granularity.
Next steps
These results show that CTI can serve as a baseline for developing and adopting an approach to
measuring the circularity of buildings. The percentage of material circularity in CTI is a good starting
point for the methodology, but industry-specific guidance and additional indicators (including
qualitative indicators) need to be developed to accurately measure the circularity of a building.

Annex II: Data collection tools and strategies in the
built environment
The built environment recognizes that the implementation and adoption of the key circular economy
principles of designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use and
regenerating natural systems can support the decarbonization of the system, improve collaboration
across the value chain and support the shift toward a more sustainable system.2
"The availability of consistent and reliable data can contribute to better design, construction and
management of buildings, improved market information and transparency, the creation of
innovative services and business models, as well as more effective policymaking." 29
For these same reasons, different approaches and tools have been developed and adopted by public
and private parties around the world to support the use of circular principles.
The Digital Building Logbook

The first tool that comes to mind when talking about collection and data accessibility is the "Digital
building logbook". We must specify that the Digital Building Logbook name is used only in Europe, as
it has been developed by the European Union but in the different global geographic areas (but also
in Europe), it goes by different names based on the scope of the analysis of the building. Some of the
known names are Material Passport, Building Passport, Energy Passport and Renovation Passport.
In general, what can be identified as the Digital Building Logbook is a common repository for all
relevant building data; it facilitates transparency, trust, informed decision-making and information
sharing among building owners and occupants, financial institutions and public authorities within the
construction sector.29
The above mentioned tools have the same scope, but they focus on a specific topic.
Data in the built environment is still scarce compared to other industrial sectors and is often
unreliable and limited in terms of accessibility. This can be connected to the fact that the value chain
is generally fragmented and lacks collaboration and communication. This type of tool encourages
the collection of data and its transparency and aims to make specific data available to a wider range
of market players and set a standardized approach to collect data, depending on the scope of the
analysis of a building.29
The above-mentioned goals are shared by WBCSD and are therefore referenced in this paper, which
is why it is important to mention this tool, as it indirectly supports the measurement of circularity.
The current market offers different possibilities for the Digital Building Logbook which, as
mentioned, change name based on the purpose of the study. WBCSD in March 2022 has conducted
a study to understand what tools are available worldwide and gathered a few of them in the
following table, gathering them by purpose:

Figure 7 Legend colors for Table 2
Table 1 Data collection tools
Name Where does Private/public fun What does it Objective Link

it work ding cover
Platform CB'23 NT Funded by the Material Standardization of Link
Netherlands gover passport framework and guideline for
nment the use of material passport
PCSD LU Funded by the Material Improve the circularity of the Link
Luxemburg govern material in the BE
ment
Madaster NT, DE, CH, LU, Private company Material Documenting, registering Link
NW, Be and archiving of the
materials applied in
buildings and construction
objects
CAPSA & Global ABC EU + outside EU Global ABC Material, Managing a building stock Link
and governments emission, energy and planning refurbishment
+ private work.
ORMS UK +IE Private company Material Create a database of Link

materials
Building Circularity Pass DE Private Material, Enabling the recyclability of Link
port emission, a building in collaboration
with architects, all planning
disciplines as well as the
construction firms
Multiple tools (ETHZ) CH University Material Extend Buildings and Link
material value and life
Building Material Scout DE Private Material The Building Material Scout Link
helps all stakeholders
involved in to gain easy
access to healthy, intelligent
and sustainable materials
and building products.
Construcia ES, PR Private company Material, identify, quantify and situate Link
Emissions materials and products in
the construction space for
their correct recovery at the
end of the cycle of use
BAMB EU Funded by EU Material Collecting data about Link
materials used in the
buildings
PAS-E ES Private Material, Energy Follows the Link
recommendations of the
latest European Building
Energy Directive in order

to achieve the best possible
result in step-by-
step renovation.
BIM4EEB EU Funded by EU Material Facilitate the process of Link
residential buildings
renovation
Concular DE Private company Material, Digitalization as material Link
emissions passports, cost-effective
procurement
until deconstruction starts
and
measurable savings of costs,

waste and GHG emissions
Aldren EU Funded by EU Material and Dynamic instrument to be Link
Energy used and updated over time
along the renovation path to
deep renovation
X-Tendo UK, IE Funded by EU Energy and It will develop a toolbox to Link
emissions assist the implementation of
the features into existing
EPC schemes, to provide
public authorities
with improved compliance,
reliability, usability and
convergence of the next
generation of energy
performance assessments
and certification.
IBroad Tested Funded by EU Energy and iBRoad focuses on individual Link
in Bulgaria, Pola emissions building renovation
nd, Portugal roadmaps and building
and Germany logbooks, in support of deep
renovations in the
residential sector.
The Digital Product Passport (DPP)

In 2020, the European Commission (EC) adopted the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP),33 which
is part of the main building blocks of the European Green Deal,34 the new agenda for sustainable
growth in Europe. The aim of this action plan is to use circular principles to reduce the pressure put
on natural resources, create sustainable growth and jobs, achieve the EU's 2050 climate neutrality
target and halt biodiversity loss.
The new Ecodesign for Sustainable Products regulation is the basis of the EC's approach to circular
and environmentally sustainable products. The regulation, which builds on the CEAP's
existing Ecodesign Directive, establishes a framework that allows for the setting of
various requirements along the entire life cycle of products. This includes targets on how products
are designed, promoting circular economy processes, encouraging sustainable consumption and
ensuring that waste generation is prevented and that resources used are kept within the EU
economy at their highest value for as long as possible. It also introduces legislative and non-
legislative measures targeting areas where action at the EU level can bring about significant added
value.34
Under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products regulation, the EC is developing the Digital Product
Passport (DPP), which is defined as a product-specific data set that can be electronically accessed
through a data carrier to, "electronically register, process and share product-related information
amongst supply chain businesses, authorities and consumers." 30 "The DPP aims to provide
information on the origin, composition, and repair and disassembly possibilities of a product,
including how the various components can be recycled or disposed of at end of life. This information
enables the upscaling of circular economy strategies such as predictive maintenance, repair,
remanufacturing and recycling. It also informs consumers and other stakeholders of the
sustainability characteristics of products and materials to promote better informed purchase
decisions." 30
CEAP has selected seven categories to prioritize, including the built environment. The EC's objective
is to prepare for the implementation of at least three DPP industries, starting in 2023 with key
priority industries – batteries, electronics and a decision is still pending on the third priority.35
The DPP is in the scoping phase, and more details will be provided on data standardization and
specifications in the coming years.35
The DPP and its implementation show that policymakers understand that the application of circular
principles can support the establishment of more sustainable industries. The initiative supports the
focus on the retainment of the value of materials and products, connecting it directly to the
collection and sharing of data, which is essential to measuring the circularity of buildings. It also sets
the base for a standardized international approach to collecting and storing accessible data, which
will help reduce the fragmentation of the built environment value chain.
The European Taxonomy

A taxonomy is a classification system that helps standardize and define key sustainability terms.
This is particularly useful for multiple stakeholders – including policymakers, investors and
companies – as a common framework to assess if projects and activities are environmentally
sustainable, ensuring consistency and reliability, which stops increased fragmentation and inequality
in the industry. Moreover, this can be used as the basis for decision-making and helps avoid
greenwashing. The European Taxonomy was developed as part of the objectives of the above-
mentioned European Green Deal, which contributes to achieving EU climate and energy targets for
2030. These objectives focus on the importance of direct investment in sustainable projects and
activities.36
There are four overarching conditions for economic activity to qualify as environmentally sustainable
that form part of the Taxonomy Regulation,36 and six objectives for the different industry sectors.
Details for the built environment can be found in the following document: Annex to the platform on
Sustainable Finance's report with recommendations on technical screening criteria for the four
remaining environmental objectives of the EU taxonomy (europa.eu).37
As a general summary, the Substantial Contribution to Circular Economy criteria are:
• Construction and demolition waste treated according to the EU Waste Protocol and 90% (by
weight) prepared for reuse/recycling, according to the Level(s) indicator 2.2.
• LCA according to Level(s) is carried out and results are made publicly available.
• Resource efficient, adaptable, flexible and easy-to-dismantlable construction designs and
techniques supporting circularity (according to Level[s]) indicators 2.3 and 2.4.

• Assets comprised of at least 50% from a combination of reused components (min 15%),
recycled content (min 15%) or responsibly sourced renewable materials (max 20%).
• No asbestos or substances of high concern, according to REACH.
• Electronic tools for description of materials and components.
The "Do No Significant Harm"(DNSH)38 criteria set out in Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European
Parliament and EC serves to establish technical screening criteria for determining the conditions
under which an economic activity qualifies as contributing substantially to climate change mitigation
or climate change adaptation. Moreover, the criteria help determine whether the economic activity
in question causes no significant harm to any of the other environmental objectives. They are:
1. Climate change mitigation
2. Climate change adaptation
3. Sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources
4. Pollution prevention and control
5. Protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems
In addition to complying with the minimum requirements established by the European Taxonomy,
the regulation requires adherence to:
• OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

• UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
• ILO on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
• International Bill of Human Rights
This type of guideline can support the creation of a common language, standardization and
benchmarks essential to measuring circular principles.

References
1
World Business for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2022). "How to gain business and climate
benefits from going circular – Key takeaways from our Masterclass on the Fundamentals of
Decarbonization". Retrieved from: https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Climate-and-
Energy/Climate/SOS-1.5/News/Business-climate-benefits-from-going-circular
2
World Business for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2021). "The business case for circular
buildings: Exploring the economic, environmental and social value". Retrieved from:
https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Cities-and-Mobility/Sustainable-Cities/Transforming-the-Built-
Environment/Resources/The-business-case-for-circular-buildings-Exploring-the-economic-
environmental-and-social-value
3
World Business for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (n.d.). "Blueprint for a sustainable built
environment". Retrieved from: https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Cities-and-Mobility/Sustainable-
Cities/Blueprint-for-a-sustainable-built-environment
4
World Business for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (n.d.). "Built Environment". Retrieved from:
https://www.wbcsd.org/Pathways/Built-Environment
5
Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (Global ABC) (2021). "2021 Global Status Report for
Buildings and Construction" Retrieved from: https://globalabc.org/resources/publications/2021-
global-status-report-buildings-and-construction
6
World Business for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2018). "Scaling the Circular Built
Environment: pathways for business and government". Retrieved from:
https://www.wbcsd.org/eng/Archive/Factor-10/Resources/pathways-for-business-and-government
7
World Business for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2020). "The Building System Carbon
Framework". Retrieved from: https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Cities-and-Mobility/Sustainable-
Cities/Transforming-the-Built-Environment/Decarbonization/Resources/The-Building-System-
Carbon-Framework
8
World Green Building Council (WGBC) (n.d.). Retrieved from: Home - World Green Building Council
(worldgbc.org)
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) (n.d.). Retrieved from: https://www.rics.org/uk/

9
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) (n.d.). "What is a circular economy?". Retrieved from:
10
https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview
11
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on
waste and repealing certain Directives (2018). Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02008L0098-20180705
12
European Commission (n.d.). "Waste Framework Directive". Retrieved from:
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-framework-directive_en
13
Sika Group (n.d.). "Roof Recycling". Retrieved from: https://www.sika.com/en/about-
us/sustainability/sustainable-solutions/projects/roofing/roof-recycling.html
14
Sika Group (n.d.). "PVC Roof recycling". Retrieved from:
https://usa.sika.com/sarnafil/en/sustainability/pvc-roof-
recycling.html?_gl=1*1fgc6xu*_ga*MjA2ODMyNTE1Mi4xNjUxNDk0MDgy*_ga_K04G1QB2XC*MTY2
MjAzNDIzOS4zMzYuMS4xNjYyMDM0NTcxLjAuMC4w
World Business for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (n.d). "Circular Transition Indicators (CTI)".
15
Retrieved from: https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Circular-Economy/Metrics-Measurement

16
World Business for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (n.d.). "Take the driver's seat in your
company's circular transition". Retrieved from: https://ctitool.com/
17
World Business for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2022). "Circular Transition Indicators v3.0 –
Metrics for business, by business". Retrieved from: https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Circular-
Economy/Metrics-Measurement/Resources/Circular-Transition-Indicators-v3.0-Metrics-for-business-
by-business
Circular IQ. Website company: https://circular-iq.com/

18
19
Circle Economy, Sustainable Finance LAB, Nederland Circulair (2019). "Building Value: A pathway
to circular construction finance". Retrieved from: https://assets.website-
files.com/5d26d80e8836af2d12ed1269/5dea730af4e45c41063c7e21_CoP-construction-report-
20190116.pdf
20
Simon Unwin (27 January 2009). "Analyzing architecture". Retrieved from: Analysing Architecture |
Simon Unwin | Taylor & Francis eBooks, Refere (taylorfrancis.com)
Stora Enso (2019). "Expanding an existing building with mass timber – The Green House, London".
21
Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIM3Vq_oe74&ab_channel=StoraEnso

22
Stora Enso (2019). "The Green House". Retrieved from: The Green House (storaenso.com)
23
DGBC Circularity program (2021). "Framework for circular existing buildings: Circular indicators for
BREEAM (-NL) in-use". Retrieved from: https://www.bouwinvest.com/media/5424/framework-for-
circular-existing-buildings_en.pdf
S. Lueddeckens, P. Saling, E. Guenther (2021). "Discounting and life cycle assessment: a distorting
24
measure". Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13762-021-03426-8.pdf
ARUP & Ellen MacArthur foundation (2021). "The digital Building Design Toolkit". Retrieved from:
25
https://ce-toolkit.dhub.arup.com/
26
European Commission (EU) (2020). "Categorisation system for the circular economy". Retrieved
from: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/knowledge-publications-tools-and-
data/publications/all-publications/categorisation-system-circular-economy_en
Holcim (2020). "Susteno, Resource-Saving Cement". Retrieved from:

27
https://www.holcim.com/what-we-do/cement/susteno-cement
Holcim (2020). "Eco Pact – The Green Concrete". Retrieved from: https://www.holcim.com/what-
28
we-do/ready-mix-concrete/ecopact-green-concrete
29
European Union (EU) (2020). "Definition of the digital building logbook". Retrieved from:
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/cacf9ee6-06ba-11eb-a511-01aa75ed71a1
30
Wuppertal Institut & University of Cambridge (2022). "Digital Product Passport: The ticket to
achieving a climate neutral and circular European economy?". Retrieved from:
https://www.corporateleadersgroup.com/files/cisl_digital_products_passport_report_v6.pdf

31
World Business Council For Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (n.d.). "Circular Transition
Indicators: Case study Secil". Retrieved from: https://www.wbcsd.org/download/file/13746
32
World Business Council For Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (n.d.). "Circular Transition
Indicators: Case study Ska". Retrieved from:
https://docs.wbcsd.org/2021/01/Sika_CTI_Case_Study.pdf
33
European Union (EU) (2020). "Circular economy action plan". Retrieved from:
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en
34
European Union (EU) (n.d.). "A European Green Deal". Retrieved from:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
35
DigitalEurope (n.d.). "The Ecosystem Digital Product Passport (CIRPASS) prepares the ground for
gradual piloting and deployment of the Digital Product Passports (DPPs)". Retrieved from:
https://www.digitaleurope.org/digital-product-passport/
36
European Union (EU) (2020). "Renewed sustainable finance strategy and implementation of the
action plan on financing sustainable growth". Retrieved from:
https://finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/renewed-sustainable-finance-strategy-and-
implementation-action-plan-financing-sustainable-growth_en
37
European Commission (2022). "Platform on sustainable finance: Technical working group. PART B –
Annex: Technical Screening Criteria". Retrieved from:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/docum
ents/220330-sustainable-finance-platform-finance-report-remaining-environmental-objectives-
taxonomy-annex_en.pdf
38
European Commission (2021). "Do No Significant Harm". Retrieved from:
https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/glossary-item/do-no-significant-
harm_en#:~:text=%E2%80%98do%20no%20significant%20harm%E2%80%99%20means%20not%20s
upporting%20or,meaning%20of%20Article%2017%20of%20Regulation%20%28EU%29%202020%2F8
52.

Disclaimer
This white paper is released in the name of WBCSD. Like other papers, it is the result of collaborative
efforts by WBCSD staff and experts from member companies. Participants of the workstream
Circular Buildings were involved during the phase of study and drafting, ensuring that the document
broadly represents the majority of the Built Environment value chain project members. It does not
mean, however, that every member company of WBCSD agrees with every word.
Acknowledgments
Authors: Alessia Santoro, Associate, Built Environment and Larissa van der Feen, Associate, Circular
Economy
We thank the member companies participating in the study that led to the realization of this paper:
Arcadis, ARUP, Ashurst, Holcim, Johnson Controls, KPMG, Majid al Futtaim (MAF), Saint Gobain, Sika,
Stora Enso, Swire and SwissRe.
A special thanks to the following contributors: Luke Bywaters, Strategy Advisory Manager at KPMG,
Robert Ryan, Group Sustainability, Head of Sustainable Construction at Holcim and Jeremy Chilton,
Head of Global Project Support at Sika.
About WBCSD
WBCSD is the premier global, CEO-led community of over 200 of the world's leading sustainable
businesses working collectively to accelerate the system transformations needed for a net zero,
nature positive, and more equitable future.
We do this by engaging executives and sustainability leaders from business and elsewhere to share
practical insights on the obstacles and opportunities we currently face in tackling the integrated
climate, nature and inequality sustainability challenge; by co-developing "how-to" CEO-guides from
these insights; by providing science-based target guidance including standards and protocols; and by
developing tools and platforms to help leading businesses in sustainability drive integrated actions
to tackle climate, nature and inequality challenges across sectors and geographical regions.
Our member companies come from all business sectors and all major economies, representing a
combined revenue of more than USD $8.5 trillion and 19 million employees. Our global network of
almost 70 national business councils gives our members unparalleled reach across the globe. Since
1995, WBCSD has been uniquely positioned to work with member companies along and across value
chains to deliver impactful business solutions to the most challenging sustainability issues.
Together, we are the leading voice of business for sustainability, united by our vision of a world in
which 9+ billion people are living well, within planetary boundaries, by mid-century.
www.wbcsd.org
Follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn

World Business Council
for Sustainable Development
Geneva, Amsterdam, Beijing, New Delhi, London, New York CIty, Singapore
www.wbcsd.org

Measuring Circular Buildings - Key Considerations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Measuring Circular Buildings - Key Considerations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Measuring Circular Buildings - Key Considerations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Measuring circular

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 2

• Durable products and services made of secondary, non-toxic, sustainably sourced, or

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 3

The need for a system-level approach

Figure 1: The value chains of the building and construction system7

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 4

Currently, there is no clear understanding of how to measure the implementation of circular

BOX 1: Circular principles applied to buildings

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 5

Figure 2 European Commission's waste hierarchy12

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 6

BOX 2: Sika's Roof Recycling Program:

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 7

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 8

Figure 3: Analysis of a building

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 9

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 10

BOX 3: Stora Enso - The Green House

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 11

Figure 5 Building-related aspects: key considerations

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 12

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 13

Closing material loops

Mass or volume of materials used in a building is an important consideration in measuring

Extending product lifetime

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 14

Design for circularity

BOX 4: Holcim, Susteno – resource-saving cement

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 16

Quantitative and qualitative data

Completeness and complementarity

Needs for transparency and data collection

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 18

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 19

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 20

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 21

Why apply CTI to a building

How is material circularity measured in CTI?

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 22

Figure 6: Illustration of material flows17

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 23

Step Key considerations for CTI Suitability?

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 24

• A discount factor should be CTI currently does not measure

4. Results • Collecting and storing The CTI tool developed by

• To optimize and make best CTI aims to facilitate a common

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 25

CTI as the foundation for building metrics

Evolving CTI metrics

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 26

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 27

The Digital Building Logbook

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 28

Table 1 Data collection tools

Name Where does Private/public fun What does it Objective Link

ORMS UK +IE Private company Material Create a database of Link

Measuring circular buildings – key considerations 29