ANNEX 1 – STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS

An inclusive stakeholder engagement process was initiated before the implementation strategy was developed. This was to ensure that barriers and enablers were addressed and to adapt the monitoring program most effectively to the construction sector’s reality. Over 70 sector experts actively participated in several digital voting, word cloud exercises, and discussion sessions during an online workshop.

Participants were among several questions asked an open-ended question about the overall objective of a new Nordic voluntary monitoring framework. The participants could upvote other participants’ responses, as they were visualised in a word cloud. The responses have been grouped and counted, illustrated in the graph below.

Figure 5. STAKEHOLDER RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: WHAT SHOULD A NEW VOLUNTARY NORDIC FRAMEWORK PROVIDE BEYOND WHAT EXISTING SCHEMES, POLICIES AND FRAMEWORKS ALREADY PROVIDE? WHAT IS THE ADDED VALUE?

A variety of aspects were highlighted. However, one point was the most mentioned: the added value of Nordic harmonisation of methods and definitions, supporting a common Nordic understanding. It was echoed several times during the breakout discussions that there is a lack of knowledge, shared understanding and methods to measure the circular economy in the Nordics.

The participants were also asked to choose which of the fifteen identified Nordic circularity goals/targets they considered the most important in implementing a new monitoring framework.

Figure 6. EXISTING POLICY TARGETS AND STAKEHOLDER PRIORITIES COMPARED

An interesting finding was how the exercise demonstrated a notable discrepancy between the priorities of the stakeholders and existing policy targets. The lack of voting towards some objectives does not mean that these were not considered necessary, given that each participant had only one vote, but that these were not considered the main objective. Most participants (37.5%) voted that they found resource efficiency as the most critical policy objective to monitor progress towards in a new Voluntary Monitoring Framework. Other popular objectives were 1) the increased use of existing building mass, 2) improved knowledge and knowledge sharing, and 3) increased reuse of CDW.

The workshop also allowed the participants to provide feedback on scoping the new voluntary framework conceptualised through the project taxonomy.

Figure 7.  FEEDBACK TO THE SCOPING OF A NEW VOLUNTARY MONITORING FRAMEWORK: STAKEHOLDER RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: “WHICH ASPECTS OF THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY STRATEGIES ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE IN A NEW NORDIC MONITORING FRAMEWORK?”

The workshop participants indicated that circular strategies relating to the function of buildings (refuse, rethink and reduce) are the most essential strategies to monitor in a new Nordic Voluntary Framework. However, strategies related to building products/buildings (reuse, repair, refurbish, remanufacture), building components (reuse, repurpose), and materials (recycle) were also considered of high importance. These results can be explained by the fact that the less upvoted options are already well established in both current monitoring systems and policy goals, while the upvoted options are only emerging in very recent policies.

Figure 8. FEEDBACK TO THE SCOPING OF A NEW VOLUNTARY MONITORING FRAMEWORK: STAKEHOLDER RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: WHICH LEVELS OF IMPLEMENTATION ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE IN A NEW NORDIC MONITORING FRAMEWORK?

When asked about which levels of implementation that are most important to monitor, the micro and macro levels were considered equally important, whereas the meso (regional) level was considered less important.

Figure 9. FEEDBACK TO THE SCOPING OF A NEW VOLUNTARY MONITORING FRAMEWORK: STAKEHOLDER RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: WHICH LIFE CYCLE PHASES ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE IN A NEW NORDIC MONITORING FRAMEWORK?

Finally, when asked to prioritise the construction phases, phase D (beyond the system) was considered the most important, followed by phases C1-C4 (the end-of-life phase) and A1-A3 (the product phase). Surprisingly, phases A4-A5 (the construction phase) and B1-B5 (the use phase) were considered relatively low importance. The discussions added that the design phase is an important lifecycle aspect missing from the LCA approach.

The following summary of identified implementation barriers is based on Nordic country profile reports produced within WP3 and notes from stakeholder workshops, interviews, and questionnaires.

If the indicators are mainly reported as macro indicators at the country or county level, companies may not see the relevance, hindering implementation at a micro level. 

Competitive interests within the sector might hinder knowledge sharing across the sector. This, again, creates a barrier to collaboration and learning. Many companies also lack knowledge about the circular economy to incorporate the indicators into their business model. 

The absence of standardised terminology and translations might make aligning stakeholders’ understanding of the metrics and data across countries and companies challenging. It also represents a barrier to efficient and correct reporting of the indicators.  

There is a lack of regulatory incentives in current and future planned legislation, which can hinder the effective implementation of new indicators. Current policies and regulations are insufficient in monitoring CE indicators. In addition, current legislation does not require companies to achieve clear minimum targets on the indicators, which can also be a barrier to implementing the indicators.  

This adds complexity to reporting processes and introduces a challenge to operationalising the indicators' implementation.   

A strong tradition for linear practices and thinking presents a challenge as many stakeholders may resist adapting new practices without the right incentives.

Small- and medium-sized businesses may lack guidance on implementing the indicators due to a shortcoming of forerunners who are quick to implement the indicators.  

There is a scarcity of available statistics necessary to report on the indicators. This means that companies are not reporting the necessary data for the indicators today, requiring the establishment of new routines for identifying, collecting, and reporting the data.