A consortium of 7 organisations
a consortium of 7 organisations
2023
The Circular Economy Taxonomy Study, published in February 2023, was conducted by a consortium of seven organizations, comprising various European green building councils, and involved 29 market participants from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Turkey. The study aimed to assess the market-readiness of the proposed Circular Economy EU Taxonomy criteria for building activities by applying them to 38 real building case studies, which included 35 new construction projects and 3 renovation projects. 🔍 Study Findings The findings revealed that none of the 38 assessed buildings could be classified as aligned with the proposed taxonomy criteria. The primary reasons for this lack of alignment include insufficient circular economy-focused data, significant internal knowledge gaps, and the absence of clear implementation action plans and performance indicators. Structural barriers such as a lack of appropriately aligned frameworks, definitions, digital tools, and clear documentation guidance further hindered the active engagement with and implementation of circular economy principles in the construction and real estate sectors. ♻️ Project Compliance Interestingly, 90% of the projects adhered to the EU Construction & Demolition Waste Protocol, yet only 40% prepared 90% of waste for reuse or recycling, which is a Taxonomy requirement. Furthermore, while 90% of projects conducted a life cycle assessment, 80% were unable to publish their results publicly due to a lack of member state registers. A significant 70% of projects supported circularity in design, focusing on resource efficiency, adaptability, and dismantlability, with 80% meeting related Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) requirements. 📊 Material Quotas and Challenges None of the projects met the material quotas, which require a minimum of 50% reused, recycled, or renewable materials, with only one-third meeting the renewable materials quota. Key challenges identified included data shortages, high benchmarks, and ambiguity in methods. However, 90% of the projects successfully avoided the use of asbestos and hazardous substances. 📈 Recommendations The study concluded by providing recommendations to the EU Commission and the Platform on Sustainable Finance regarding the ambiguities in scope, definitions, and documentation needs. It emphasized the necessity for improved frameworks, tools, infrastructure, and ecosystems to enable circularity in the built environment, acknowledging that while the proposed taxonomy criteria are ambitious, testing studies like this one are essential for building organizational capacities and identifying areas for improvement towards achieving a circular economy.
A consortium of 7 organisations
The Circular Economy Taxonomy Study, published in February 2023, was conducted by a consortium of seven organizations and involved 29 market participants from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Turkey. The study aimed to assess the market-readiness of the proposed Circular Economy EU Taxonomy criteria for building activities by applying them to 38 real building case studies
The results showed that none of the 35 new construction projects nor the 3 renovation projects could be classified as aligned with the EU Taxonomy criteria for circular economy. The reasons for this include a lack of relevant circular economy-focused data, internal knowledge gaps, and the absence of clear implementation action plans and performance indicators. Additionally, structural reasons such as a lack of appropriately aligned frameworks, definitions, digital tools, and clear references for documenting alignment hinder the active engagement with and implementation of circular economy principles in construction and real estate. The study provided valuable insights into the challenges faced by financial and real estate organizations and offered recommendations and practical solutions for applying the criteria. Some key recommendations for the Taxonomy include adjusting the methodology to market reality, providing clear definitions and methodologies, and ensuring the necessary circumstances for implementing circular economy practices are available. For application, the study suggested the use of Building Material Passports as a crucial method of documentation for implementing more circularity and consequently for the circular economy Taxonomy.
The study was conducted by a consortium of 7 European green building councils, joined by 29 market participants from 10 European countries. It assessed the market-readiness of the proposed EU Taxonomy circular economy criteria for buildings, by applying them to 38 real building case studies (35 new construction, 3 renovation).
- The overall finding is that none of the 38 buildings could be classified as aligned with the proposed taxonomy criteria. This is mainly due to lack of relevant circular economy data, knowledge gaps, and lack of implementation plans among organizations. There are also structural barriers like lack of frameworks, definitions, tools and documentation guidance.
- 90% of projects adhered to the EU Construction & Demolition Waste Protocol, but only 40% prepared 90% of waste for reuse/recycling (Taxonomy requirement). 70% met the lower DNSH requirement of 70% waste reuse/recycling.
- 90% of projects conducted a life cycle assessment, but 80% could not publish results publicly due to lack of member state registers.
- 70% of projects supported circularity in design (resource efficiency, adaptability, dismantlability). 80% met the related DNSH requirement.
- None met the material quotas (minimum 50% reused/recycled/renewable). Only 1/3 met the renewable materials quota. Lack of data, high benchmarks and ambiguity in methods were key challenges.
- 90% avoided asbestos and hazardous substances (SVHCs).
- 70% used electronic tools to document materials/components and provide end-of-life guidance, but 60% lacked full information on maintenance and reuse pathways.
The study provides recommendations to the EU Commission and Platform on Sustainable Finance regarding ambiguities in scope, definitions, documentation needs etc. It also highlights the need for better frameworks, tools, infrastructure and ecosystems to enable circularity in the built environment.In summary, the proposed taxonomy criteria are very ambitious and pose implementation challenges currently. But such testing studies help build organizational capacities and identify areas for improvement towards a circular economy.