4. Discussion and recommendations

This research was built on previous work on circular construction but was characterized by a different approach. Many actions provided to participants for discussion were based on the opportunities listed in the WP2 analysis of barriers and possibilities

Nordic Networks for Circular Construction WP2 analysis of barriers and possibilities – Report, 2023.

and the Policies Enabling the Reuse of Construction Products

Policies Enabling the Reuse of Construction Products in the Nordics – Report, 2023.

reports and the aim was to narrow these down to a list of actions seen as most impactful (at the moment) by Nordic stakeholders. This is how this research added another layer of understanding to the identified barriers and possible solutions and, as a result, formulated three lists of recommended actions to implement. The first list addressed the solutions local/national public authorities could focus on to facilitate circularity in construction, whereas the latter focused on solutions at a Nordic level and Nordic advocacy in the EU. The lists can be seen in Tables 33–35.

In the first part of the research, which focused on actions at the local/national level, several feasible actions in all Nordic countries were identified. During the discussions, it could also be seen that participants from different Nordic countries discussed the same obstacles to circular construction but proposed different approaches to solve them. For example, the need to regulate methods of assessing the quality of secondary materials was mentioned at all workshops. In Finland, a standardized re-certification methodology was proposed as the answer. In Denmark, participants focused on regulating EPD preparation for reused materials. In Norway, the need for requirements on instructions for assembly and disassembly for each product was mentioned, and in Iceland, adding a reuse guide to product documentation was mentioned.

Nevertheless, several discrepancies in the participant’s answers were identified as well. These have their source in, among others, differences in market maturity regarding circular construction among Nordic countries, which caused the participants to focus on different aspects during discussions. The first main difference concerns increased waste management fees, which were seen as ineffective in Finland, contrary to Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Also, fast-track building permit assessment for circular projects, seen as effective in Norway, did not receive a good reception in Finland and Iceland. Lastly, the compensation fund covering risks related to reuse and other circular practices was seen as relevant by Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish stakeholders to encourage stakeholders. In Denmark and Sweden, such a fund was seen as a support for experimenting with circular solutions. In Norway, such a fund was seen mainly as a “safety net” against the risks of company bankruptcy due to inconsistent procedures related to materials reuse. In contrast, Icelandic stakeholders found such a fund unfeasible.

In the second part of the workshop, Nordic participants agreed more than in the first part. Also, the results of the synthesis workshop aligned with the prioritization at Nordic workshops. Several comments on the lobby against reuse and reuse on-site were made at Nordic workshops and discussed at the synthesis workshop. In general, participants somewhat agree that there is skepticism among some stakeholders towards reuse; however, opinions on calling it lobbying are divided. Similarly, opinions vary regarding reuse on-site as the main priority when it comes to reuse in general, as many stakeholders highlighted the importance of good logistics, which results in ordering less material.

To address the differences and similarities between Nordic countries, this report provides individual perspectives from each Nordic country and, eventually, synthesizes findings from all Nordic countries in the form of recommendations presented in the following section.

4.1 Recommendations

Based on the summary of prioritized actions from Nordic workshops and their verification at the synthesis workshop, three sets of recommendations for public authorities at national and local levels, Nordic cooperation, and EU policy work are proposed below in alphabetical order.

Table 33 Recommendations for public officials at local and national levels

Role: Regulator
1.	Introduce a resource tax on raw materials to include their environmental price.
2.	Introduce CO₂ emissions limits for new construction and harmonize the method of calculating emissions among Nordics. Such harmonization will allow designers and construction companies to extend their market to all Nordic countries.
3.	Implement requirements on circular design to the building code and ensure that they are being followed.
Role: Innovation enabler
4.	Facilitate the creation and management of a database with data from material passports and pre-demolition audits to improve the flow of information on available materials among stakeholders.
5.	Facilitate the preparation of guidelines on improving building design and navigating existing building codes when implementing circular practices.
Role: Building owner and tenant
6.	Introduce obligatory criteria on circularity in the procurement processes to lead and drive the transition to circular construction.
7.	Public authorities own and manage a considerable share of existing building stock. Therefore, focus on proper maintenance, efficient use, and adaptation to new needs of the existing building assets.
Role: Decision-maker
8.	Introduce circular construction elements, emphasizing practical aspects, into national curricula at different levels (e.g., vocational schools, universities).
9.	Introduce requirements on pre-demolition audits and material passports for all demolition projects and new buildings, respectively.
10.	Positive incentives are needed to enhance the expansion of circular practices. Lower VAT on reuse and recycling. Lower operational costs of circular buildings by lowering property and utility taxes.

Table 34 Recommendations for Nordic cooperation

1.	Facilitate the creation of a joint Nordic method for assessing secondary materials’ quality, ensuring their healthiness and safety in future projects. As part of that, harmonize definitions for circular building practices to facilitate common understanding.
2.	Provide financial support for the pilot projects with distinguished circularity features in exchange for publicly available practical guidelines on circular construction.
3.	Advocate for stronger emission limits for new construction and refurbishment projects. Ensure that in the methods used for calculating emissions, the use of secondary materials is awarded.

Table 35 Recommendations for EU policy work

1.	Without data on available materials, planning for reuse is impossible. Support digitalization efforts by mandating material passports in all construction projects. Material passports should be produced uniformly and in set data formats.
2.	Without standardized processes, recertifying products for use is impossible. Create a standardized re-certiﬁcation process for reused construction products to enable products to be recirculated into the marketplace.
3.	Without information on available materials, planning for reuse is impossible. Make pre-demolition audits mandatory in all member states.

4.2 Recommendations for future research

Circular construction is still evolving in the Nordic construction sector and, like many emerging concepts, requires further investigation and development. Therefore, there are numerous possible directions for future work. However, two main directions could be listed to be considered for further investigations:

Deeper analysis of impact and effort, combined with economic analysis, of proposed recommendations;
Impact analysis of implemented solutions after a few years and another round of prioritization to adjust the recommendations to the current market state.