Content uploaded by Camille Vandervaeren
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Camille Vandervaeren on Nov 07, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
3rd Green Design Conference
Flanders’ and Brussels’ emerging businesses and products
for a circular construction economy
Galle W., Vandervaeren C., Denis F., Paduart A., Cambier C., De Temmerman N.
Department or Architectural Engineering, TRANSFORM Research Team
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
E-mail : waldo.galle@vub.be
Abstract
Today, in Flanders and Brussels, a transition towards a circular construction economy seems to unfold. After
the development of research projects and policy frameworks, various frontrunners demonstrate how that
transition could take shape. Larger manufacturers increasingly emphasize the circular nature of their recycled
products and contractors implement long-term maintenance and management agreements. They do so in
demonstration projects and in collaboration with their most ambitious clients. They are not the only ones
however; small businesses too seem to align their activities and products with this circular transition.
In the present paper, we discuss several smaller initiatives, including demountable brick systems, reversibly
connected wood structures, greenhouses made of recuperated materials and disassembly and resell
activities. Because these developments are made within practice, we expect they have the best chance to
grow further and inspire others. Therefore, on the one hand, we have questioned the role of the circular
economy in the development of those activities as well as in their current implementation. On the other hand,
we have made a preliminary review of their “potential” impact on the environment and economy.
Without the ambition of giving a complete overview of initiatives within this dynamic transition, we have
collected a series of emerging activities and products and identified some of their key characteristics. In most
cases, establishing a circular business is not their sole or most important motivation. Mostly, it is an attempt
to make construction practice more efficient that lays at their origin. Nevertheless, the growing attention to the
circular economy and the rising awareness of the environmental impact of constructions are identified as an
important leverage for almost all cases’ implementation. This might clarify to other entrepreneurs that the
circular economy is never the goal itself, but a responsible business approach.
Theme
Green Materials and Technologies
Keywords
innovative businesses, circular economy, life cycle design, reuse
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Observation
Informed about the environmental impact of buildings by
certification programs such as BREEAM and LEED,
environmental product decelerations (ISO 14025) and
hand-on tools such as the OVAM Ecolizer 2.0. and MMG
design tools (OVAM 2013a, 2013b), Belgian contractors,
manufacturers, architects and clients are increasingly
aware of the impact of their choices and the difference they
could make. Encouraged by policy initiatives such as
Flanders’ Green Deal on Circular Purchase, the Circular
Economy Package and Action Plan of the European
Commission, and the climate agreement of Paris, some
local governments (e.g. Anderlecht, Genk and Tervuren)
and administrations (e.g. POM Oost-Vlaanderen) are
taking the lead and ask explicitly for circular design and
construction proposals during procurement.
Simultaneously, through the different research projects our
TRANSFORM Research Team is involved in, we were able
to identify a series of manufacturers and contractors that
propose alternative materials, construction techniques,
building systems and collaboration methods. For the
identification of this focus group the Circular Retrofit Lab,
one of the Belgian Buildings As Material Banks pilot
projects, has played an important role (VUB 2016).
Nevertheless, the fact that innovation in construction was
identified in the context of a circularity oriented research
project does not guarantee the suitability of those initiatives
for closing material loops and reducing the sector’s
environmental impact. Therefore, a critical look remains
necessary to verify if material consumption and waste
production are reduced effectively - a task for which
independent researchers are well placed.
1.2 Objective
To be able to follow those emerging innovation initiatives
and conduct more research on them, it was first necessary
to identify such initiatives in a systemized yet explorative
manner. The market exploration presented in this paper
allows getting a preliminary understanding on the
motivations of contractors and manufacturers when
addressing the increasing attention to the circular
economy, and to identify the support they still need from
researchers and policy makers.
Furthermore, sharing information about these initiatives
through publications like this paper can inspire other
entrepreneurs and could inform existing alternatives to
clients. After all, the transition towards a circular built
environment not only requires innovative ways to design,
build and operate buildings, but also towards better-
informed clients.
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 The survey
To find out how the identified innovation initiatives and
other emerging practices relate to the growing attention for
the circular economy, we invited the selected companies to
fill out a 5-question survey. The first question to this survey
procured the initiative’s and organization’s names. This
brief survey allowed us to reach a high participation rate
while collecting required information.
With the objective to identify the innovators’ motivation to
reach a circular construction practice, the current state of
their development and their further needs, we asked four
more questions - the complete survey can be consulted in
Annex 1. Varying per purpose, the questions were based
on multiple-choice suggestions, on a multiple-choice grid
or a short answer.
For practicality, we used an online Google-form survey
written out in three languages: Dutch, French and English.
The questions were translated as consistently as possible,
considering the nature of each language, to avoid
misunderstanding or any an undesirable interpretation.
None of the answers were compulsory and respondents
could go back and forth to change given answers as all
questions were prompted on the same page.
In return for their answers, we offered respondents the
opportunity to share their projects as examples in this
international publication and potentially other future
publications. At the end of the survey, they had the option
to indicate whether they want to be cited, mentioned or stay
anonymous.
Organizations were proposed, during the survey, to fill out
a second form for other initiatives they might have. None of
the respondents however did so.
2.2 Collection of respondents
Proceeding from the background knowledge and network
of our TRANSFORM Research Team, built during earlier
collaborations in context research and consultancy
projects, we were able to invite about 30 innovation
initiatives. This list of initiatives was subsequently
completed after suggestions by research partners such as
Circular Flanders, the Belgian Building Research Institute
BBRI, Flanders’ Public Waste Agency OVAM and the
Flemish Institute for Bio-Ecological Construction VIBE.
Furthermore, the list was extended after a call for initiatives
on social media including LinkedIn (1.832 views) and
Twitter (384 impressions). In each case, we personally
invited one or more contacts per organization by mail, and
sent one reminder when there was no response after 5
days.
This personal approach allowed us to keep track of who
participated and verify if they belong to our focus group and
innovate with circular ambitions. Nevertheless, this
approach does not guarantee that all organizations that
filled out the orm are closing material loops in the most
effective way.
2.3 Collection of results
The invitations and subsequent reminders were send
between September 15th and 26th of 2017. By September
26th, 49 initiatives of 45 organizations were invited, which
resulted in 34 responses related to 31 initiatives. A rate of
participation of 63 percent was thus reached. After this
day, the survey was kept open, and an update of the
results can be presented if new responses are collected.
For 3 initiatives, two responses were collected, which were
submitted by different persons. For some questions, their
answers were quite different and could not simply be
merged into a single answer. Although this outcome
triggers reflection and discussion, it was necessary to take
a pragmatic approach here and integrate only the answers
that were submitted first in the results below. One company
replied by e-mail that their product was not related at all to
circular economy. Another company replied by e-mail that
they believe their product is not a good example of a
circular practice yet. We nevertheless asked these
companies to fill out the survey.
3 RESULTS
3.1 Categorization of respondents
Amongst the collected responses two groups of initiatives
relating to the circular economy could be identified. On the
one hand, concrete innovation in construction products
and building systems takes place - these technical
innovations include 24 out of 31 initiatives. On the other
hand, new collaboration methods and processes are being
proposed. Procedural innovations are reflected by 7 out of
31 initiatives. Although this separation allows structuring
the findings for the rest of this paper, it should be noted
that this separation is not indisputable. After all, several
technological innovations trigger or even require
procedural changes and vice versa.
Most construction product and system innovations, for
which responses were collected, are proposed by building
contractors (14) and product manufactures (6). Only a few
non-profit organizations (2) and architects (2) seem to take
the lead in this category. This seems to align with current
construction practices in Flanders and Brussels in which
the voices of contractors are often decisive in the selection
of construction techniques and materials. Innovation in
collaboration and construction processes is in turn tackled
by non-profit organizations (3), building contractors (2),
product manufacturers (1) and consulting firms (1) (Figure
1). The small number of respondents for this category does
not allow us to draw any general conclusion, though it
could suggest that innovation in the architectural design
process might be lacking or they might not be interpreted
and marketed as innovation yet.
Figure 1 : number of respondents per type.
14
6
2 22 1
3
1
Contractor Manufacturer Non-profit Architect Consultant
Construction product or system Collaboration and process innovation
Several initiatives are illustrative for each category. They
are selected and presented here for that purpose. Like the
survey itself, this paper has not the intention to give a
complete overview. All respondents, sorted per category
and type, can however be reviewed in Annex 2.
First, in the category of construction product and system
innovation, 14 responses were given by contractors. In
addition to other construction techniques they offer, each
of them develops or resells an innovative one. These
innovations are related to the circular economy in diverse
ways: because of the adaptability or reversibility they
introduce and the reuse or recycling they facilitate.
Skilpod, for example, develops a series of 3D modules that
can serve as a temporary pavilion or extension of an
existing house (Debacker et al., 2015). The generality and
mobility of each of these module allows its relocation and
thus the optimization of the utility of the invested materials
(Galle et al., 2016). After serval prototypes, Skilpod is
currently engaged in the realization of large scale
construction developments in Belgium and abroad,
growing an urban mine of reusable modules.
In parallel, companies such as CLT-s, Hahbo - Llexx,
Newcraft, Rose's Natural Homes, WOODinc, Skellet and
Jonckheere are developing and marketing 2D building
elements. Being part of wooden or metal kit-of-part
systems, these elements can be assembled to complete
buildings, with Junovation and Wall-linQ proposing
likeminded interior solutions, Speed Building System
Belgium offering the demountable masonry Façade Click
system, while Zehnder and Bao are exploring the idea of
circular building appliances. A distinct innovation track is
followed by Rotor DC. As a spin-off of the architectural
research office Rotor DB, they are engaged in the
inventory, disassembly and resell of second hand
construction elements, mainly interior finishing materials
from post-war buildings.
Also 6 product manufacturers responded to the survey with
their innovative construction materials and systems in
mind. For example, Le Relais, a company for socially
responsible and inclusive employment, is the producer of
Métisse, an insulation material made from non-reusable
cotton textiles collected by their network in France and
Belgium. They offer a 100% recycled product, allowing
them to valorize 90% of collected goods.
Other recycling activities are explored by Chap-yt (aerated
concrete), Reynaers aluminium (window profiles), and
Orbix curbstone (iron slag and CO2). Further, focusing on
reuse, Plaka Belgium developed the PlakaClamp, a
modular system for edge and beam formwork.
Within the same group of technical innovations
Dzerostudio Architectes, a Brussels based architectural
office, gathers expertise in the reuse of construction
materials through their Tomato Chili project. Taking
greenhouses as the scope of their project, they explore the
practical and financial feasibility of reusing locally
recuperated wood element and window panes. After a brief
introduction phase, they currently notice a rapidly growing
interest in their greenhouses. A similar product-oriented
innovation by architects is the renewable, rammed earth
and lime construction technique explored by BC architects
& studies.
Furthermore, two non-profit organizations take the initiative
to develop new construction techniques. On of both is
Samenlevingsopbouw Brussel, an association without
lucrative purpose conceptualizing Woonbox, a fit-out
system that, based on a box-in-box principle, allows
organizing residential functions in vacant Brussels’
buildings. The second non-profit organizations in this field
of development wanted to stay anonymous.
Second, in the category of collaboration and process
innovation, 3 non-profit organizations have initiated or are
introducing innovative ideas. Labland for example, creates
a network of architects, contractors and manufacturers to
share and demonstrate futureproofed and adaptable
housing solution. Supported by financial means of the
provincial administration, they do so in the context of their
goal to enable the realization of 4 zero-impact housing
projects. On its turn, Cooperative Wooncoop builds
expertise on collective housing property, while Rotor DB
developed the online Opalis platform, where contractors
can find resellers of second hand construction materials.
Simultaneously, new business models are being
conceptualized and implemented. This is done for example
by consulting firm Factor4 (energy performance contracts),
manufacturer Desso (leasing C2C carpet flooring) and
contractors like Nearly New Office Facilities. Nearly New
Office Facilities or NNOF, has the ambition to transform
conventional office environments by supporting, advising
and managing them in all their aspects: including
workplace design, organization and operation, while
closing material loop by remanufacturing.
3.2 Development
The respondents were asked at which stage of
development they would situate the project they represent.
Based on their responses most innovation in construction
products and systems seems to be situated in the
introduction and growth phases, few are situated in
conception and prototyping, while only one is related to the
stabilizing phase (Figure 2). This trend seems to align with
the idea that for circular construction and building
innovation, high-tech developments are not necessarily
required (Vandenbroucke, 2016). Simply smart material
applications might find a market as soon as they are
economically compatible with conventional construction
practice (Galle et al., 2015). Nevertheless, it should be
noted that not all studied products are, as of today, part of
a circular material loop, and that upcoming innovations
might not be detected by this survey.
Most collaboration and process innovations are on the
other hand situated in the early phase (such as
WoonCoop) or in the growth and stabilization phases (such
as NNOF and Desso).
Figure 2 : number of respondents
per development phase.
1
3
10
9
1
2
4
1
Conception Prototyping Introduction Growth Stabilisation
Construction product or system Collaboration and process innovation
3.3 Motivations
To find out what the circular economy means to the
respondents, they were asked to indicate in a multiple-
choice grid to what extent a series of given needs have
been a motivation for them and their organization to
develop the product or service at the table. In an additional
question they could also list their other motivations.
For both technical and procedural innovations, a client's
specific question has been a motivation for most initiatives
(Figure 3), amongst them are Hahbo – Llexx (absolutely)
and Junovation (quite a lot). For some that was however
not the case, as for example for WoodInc or Carbstone who
indicated ‘not at all’.
Figure 3 : number of respondents indicating
a client’s specific question as a motivation.
For most technical innovations, production cost reduction
has been a motivation (Figure 4). Nine amongst them,
including Skilpod, Newcraft and Wall-linQ even indicated
‘absolutely’. For Chap-yt and Rotor DB – Opalis, production
costs where however ‘not at all’ a motivation during their
development process. The complementary answers that
were given, indicate further that this production cost
reduction is often seen as a leverage to make more
environmental friendly construction techniques financially
competitive with conventional practice, and should not only
include initial costs, but should be seen from a life cycle
cost perspective.
Figure 4 : number of respondents indicating
production cost reduction as a motivation.
Almost all respondents indicated that improving the
efficiency of construction was ‘quite a lot’ or ‘absolutely’ a
motivation for the development of their product, system or
service (Figure 5). Although efficiency is a broad term, the
complementary answers indicate that the challenges that
are tackled in this respect related to time efficiency,
materiel efficient and quality and comfort assurance.
Figure 5 : number of respondents indicating
construction efficiency improvement as a motivation.
Furthermore, most initiatives indicated that opening their
business to new markets was a minor to important
motivation. In a complementary answer, one respondent
relates to this when observing “an increased demand for
circularity within the business world”. Except one, all
process innovators indicated even ‘absolutely’ on this
internal rather than external trigger (Figure 6). This finding
could be related to the financial pressure and saturated
market the sector faces at this moment (Galle et al., 2015).
Figure 6 : number of respondents indicating
opening up to new markets as a motivation.
Even more convincing is the outcome of the question to
what extend reducing environmental impacts has been a
motivation for the discussed initiatives (Figure 7). Except
three respondents, all state that this aspect was
‘absolutely’ a motivation. Although it is impossible to know
if this was actually the case from the initial stages of
development, this result indicates the awareness about the
importance of the environmental impact of construction or
about the increasing attention that is given to it.
Figure 7 : number of respondents indicating
environmental impact reduction as a motivation.
5
4
10
5
2
4
1
Not at all Rather no Quite a lot Absolutely
Construction product or system Collaboration and process innovation
1
7 7
9
1
222
Not at all Rather no Quite a lot Absolutely
Construction product or system Collaboration and process innovation
2
7
15
12
4
Not at all Rather no Quite a lot Absolutely
Construction product or system Collaboration and process innovation
5
7
12
1
6
Not at all Rather no Quite a lot Absolutely
Construction product or system Collaboration and process innovation
12
21
7
Not at all Rather no Quite a lot Absolutely
Construction product or system Collaboration and process innovation
In line with the impact of policy initiatives we researchers
identify increasingly often in practice, new policy
opportunities are indicated frequently as a significant but
not the most important motivation for the studied initiatives
(Figure 8). For some organizations such as Desso and
Labland, it absolutely was. For others, such as Skellet and
NNOF it was not at all a motivation.
Figure 8 : number of respondents indicating
aligning with policy opportunities as a motivation.
Actual legislation is in contrast indicated less frequently as
a significant motivation for innovation that relates to the
circular economy (Figure 9). Except for the increasingly
stringent requirements on energy performance and interior
comfort for schools that triggers Hahbo to develop their kit-
of-parts construction system Llexx, as indicated by the
complementary answer they gave, few other legal
requirements are known to us. What could be a motivation
however is the demolition inventory that is required in
Flanders for non-residential constructions larger than
1000m³ since 2009.
Figure 9 : number of respondents indicating
adapting to new legislation as a motivation.
Finally, for both technical and procedural innovations,
improving the affordability of construction was indicated as
a motivation ‘quite a lot’ or ‘absolutely’ (Figure 10). Taking
the perspective of the client here, this motivation applies to
Factor4 who indicated ‘absolutely’, and to Cabstone and
CLT-s who indicated ‘quite a lot’. It does however not apply
at all to for example Métisse that has to operate in a very
cost-competitive market.
In the open field were respondents could give other
motivations, several motivations that relate to the user
perspective where nevertheless given. They include the
ability of adaptable building systems to follow dynamic user
demands, the issue of rapid urbanization that calls for
smart living spaces and an accessible housing market and
the need for healthy buildings to live in.
Figure 10 : number of respondents indicating better
affordability of construction as a motivation.
Additional motivations that were entered in the open field
included the willingness to accelerate the debate, be a
frontrunner and change construction practice, the
valorization of research and design insights by means of
another kind of economic activity, and the opportunity to
establish personal development.
3.4 The circular economy discussion
Furthermore, we asked the respondents how they judge
the growing attention for the circular economy in relation to
the marketing of their product, system or service (Figure
11). They could select one of the suggested statements or
could enter another one.
Although recycling is often cited as an impediment for the
marketing of sustainable products, because of an
assumed quality reduction for example, none of the
respondents indicated that relating their initiative to
circularity could frighten potential clients.
Only one respondent (CLT-s) picked the option that stated
that the circularity has no effect on the marketing of his
initiative; their product would sell as good without that
attention.
The majority indicated however that their product does
relate to the circular economy, but that this characteristic
is only one of its many strengths. The variability of
motivations cited above is consistent with this finding.
Finally, 11 out of 31 responses was that the circular
economy is one of the main selling points for the product
at the table. This is the case for process innovators like
NNOF, Desso and Rotor DB and product innovators
including Junovation, Plaka, Orbix, Rose’s natural homes,
Wall-Linq, Tomato Chili and two anonymous respondents.
Figure 11 : number of respondents per role of the
growing attention for the circular economy.
2
7
12
3
12 2 2
Not at all Rather no Quite a lot Absolutely
Construction product or system Collaboration and process innovation
1
11
7
5
2
3
2
Not at all Rather no Quite a lot Absolutely
Construction product or system Collaboration and process innovation
2
5
8
9
1
2
4
Not at all Rather no Quite a lot Absolutely
Construction product or system Collaboration and process innovation
1
12
8
3 3
Frighting As good as One of many The selling point
Construction product or system Collaboration and process innovation
3.5 Needs
With the aim to assist in the transition towards a circular
economy, the last question of the survey invited the
respondents to indicate what could help the marketing of
their product as a circular one (Figure 12). One or more of
the following options could be selected.
Once was selected a) “Nothing, I don’t want to market my
innovation as a circular one”, while eight time was indicated
b) “Nothing, I can already argument, prove or demonstrate
my initiative’s circularity”. Nevertheless, challenges for
researchers and advisor remain d) “New business models
to market my product in a circular way” and e) “An objective
evaluation of the (environmental) benefits related to my
project”, that were selected 16 and 14 times respectively.
Furthermore, several innovators knowledge the need for
c) “Further selling points that relate my product's properties
with the circular economy” and f) “General support in the
development of my circular product or service”.
Figure 12 : number of respondents indicating
one of the suggested needs.
In the entry field for open answers, respondents could
share the complementary needs they have. Internal and
innovation specific needs that were suggested and could
indicate a current weakness of the initiatives include:
• The need for co-creation and collaboration amongst
architects and contractors.
• The need for contracts and licenses to entrust
commercial partnerships.
Moreover, external and market specific needs that were
suggested and might be a potential threat for initiatives
relating to circular economy include:
• The need for a larger public awareness about the
impact of construction.
• The consequent market demand that is necessary to
establish viable businesses.
• The related need for policy changes, concerning for
example mandatory certification.
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 Potential impact of the initiatives
The diversity in motivations and attitudes towards the
circular economy identified with the conducted survey,
illustrates the complexity of understanding and fostering
the transition towards a circular built environment. In
addition to the research challenges that consequently
remain, it is necessary to verify what the intended potential
of all initiatives could be. As a quantitative evaluation of this
potential would require knowledge on the market share of
each initiative, this evaluation is limited to a qualitative
evaluation in this explorative study. To conduct that
evaluation Lansink's ladder is used as a first framework,
taking a material-environmental approach. The second
framework that is used to extend that approach is the triple-
p paradigm of sustainability, balancing people, planet and
profit. Both are suitable in the definition of the circular
economy as a new operational approach for sustainable
development, based on closing material loops effectively,
as explained in the beginning of this paper.
Taking into account current energy recovery and recycling
practices in Flanders and Brussels (BIM, 2009; OVAM,
2009, 2010; Dubois & Christis, 2014), the initiatives
included in the present survey foster recycling in 20 cases
and reuse in 7 cases (Figure 13, grey colour). That direct
reuse was noted for the products and system of
Dzerostudio Architectes, Rotor DC and Plaka Belgium, and
are inherent to the approaches of NNOF, Labland,
Wooncoop and Rotor DB. In a fully circular economy
(Figure 13, black colour), the reversibility, modularity and
durability would allow to extend this list of reuse initiatives
with Skilpod, Speed building system Belgium, WOODinc,
Hahbo, Newcraft, Skellet Benelux, Woonbox and Desso.
Moreover, NNOF, Labland and Wooncoop have the
potential to develop their approach further. Doing so, the
resulting smart building stock management could reduce
the need for more resources to fulfill their customers’
requirements. In other words, both today and in the future,
the majority of initiatives has the potential to close material
loops in and effective way. The ambitions in relation to the
circular economy of Zehnder and Bao, manufacturing
technical appliances, is less apparent in their public
communication. Nevertheless, taking into account the
Flemish criteria on Design for Change (Debacker et al.,
2015) their preassembly could be an incentive for more
effective take-back actions, off-site remanufacturing and
reuse in another building.
Figure 13 : number of initiatives
sorted per level of Lansink's ladder.
The reduced resource consumption and waste production
when climbing Lansink's Ladder could result an important
reduction of the construction sector’s environmental
impact. The feasibility and appropriateness of such
changes should nevertheless be verified by evaluating
their impact on people and profit. That social and economic
impact is difficult to generalize. Nevertheless, the following
initiatives clearly foster social and economic development
(Van Dyck et al., 2016).
First, the deconstruction activities of Rotor DC, and the
collection and sorting activities of Le Relais require and
aim for generating employment opportunities for non-
specialized persons which are increasingly often excluded
1
8
6
16
14
7
a b c d e f
All respondents
2
7
20
2
5
14
12
ReduceReuseRecycleRecoverDispose
Current practice Circular economy
from the conventional labor market. Second, Woonbox by
Samenlevensopbouw Brussel seems to identify in the
dynamism of circular buildings solutions the opportunity to
transform temporarily vacant Brussels building into
residences for families that are increasingly often excluded
from the conventional real estate market. And third,
Labland and Wooncoop take up innovative property
models, based on performance rather than ownership and
collaboration rather than individualism to increase the
social return on invested money and materials.
4.2 Representativeness of the survey
Because the conducted survey was based on the selection
of a focus group based on the experience or our research
team, it might not be representative for all emerging
activities within the construction sector. To improve the
representativeness, a larger and broader recruiting of
initiatives would be needed, requiring at the same time an
extensive verification of the innovative nature of all
activities and of their level of circularity. Such a research
was not possible within the scope of current research
projects but could be aimed for soon.
At the same time, a more profound survey would be useful
to identify the actual rationales behind the respondents’
answers, to understand on which knowledge or gut feel
their opinion is based, and to be able to better value the
relevance and reliability of their responses. A semi-
structured interview would probably be more suited for that
purpose than the semi-open survey that was conducted.
Altogether, the present survey revealed that, in addition to
the indicated trends, motivations and positions with respect
to the circular economy, diverse actors in the construction
sector, large- and small-scale companies, with a different
expertise and situated in various development phases, are
aware of the discussion on the circular economy and
already identified its possibly positive impact on their
business. Most innovators stated that this debate offers
and addition selling point for their activity, but is certainly
not the only one. Their motivation is very diverse but almost
always includes environmental impact reduction. What
they indicated as further needs include objective
evaluations and appropriate business models. Providing
these is a challenge researchers and governments should
take up. Align their priorities with the needs of frontrunners
will support their initiatives in developing further towards
closed material loops.
5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We extend our sincere thanks to all respondents and
research partners including Circular Flanders, the Belgian
Building Research Institute BBRI, Flanders’ Public Waste
Agency OVAM and the Flemish Institute for Bio-ecological
Construction VIBE.
Camille Vandervaeren’s research is funded by an SB
Fellowship of the Research Foundation - Flanders.
6 REFERENCES
BIM. (2009). Gids voor het beheer van bouw- en
sloopafval. Brussels: Brussels Environment.
Debacker W., Galle W., Vandenbroucke M., … De Weerdt
Y. (2015). Veranderingsgericht bouwen:
ontwikkeling van een beleids-en transitiekader.
Mechelen: Openbare Vlaamse Afvalstoffen
Maatschappij.
Dubois M. and Christis M. (2014). Verkennende analyse
van het economisch belang van afvalbeheer,
recyclage en de circulaire economie voor
Vlaanderen. Leuven: Steunpunt Duurzaam
Materialenbeheer.
Galle W., De Troyer F. and De Temmerman N. (2015). The
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
of open and transformable building related to its
financial feasibility. In Proc. of the Int. conf. the
Future of Open Building. Zürich: ETH-Zürich.
Galle W., Paduart A. and De Temmerman N. (2016).
Evaluation of temporary pavilions: LLEXX and
Skilpod, a qualitative assessment of adaptability
and generality related to a circular economy.
Mechelen: Openbare Vlaamse Afvalstoffen
Maatschappij.
OVAM. (2009). Recyclage van specifieke
bouwafvalstromen. Mechelen: Openbare
Vlaamse Afvalstoffen Maatschappij.
OVAM. (2010). Bedrijfsafvalstoffen productiejaar 2008.
Mechelen: Openbare Vlaamse Afvalstoffen
Maatschappij.
OVAM. (2013a). Environmental profile of buildig elements.
Mechelen: Openbare Vlaamse Afvalstoffen
Maatschappij.
OVAM. (2013b). OVAM Ecolizer. Retrieved September
2017, from http://www.ecolizer.be/.
Van Dyck L., Van Eynde S. and Bachus K. (2016).
Quickscan van jobpotentieel van een circulaire
economie in Vlaanderen. Mechelen: Openbare
Vlaamse Afvalstoffen Maatschappij.
Vandenbroucke M. (2016). Design, dimensioning and
evaluation of demountable building elements
(doctoral thesis). Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussels.
VUB. (n.d.). Buildings as Material Banks (BAMB).
Retrieved October 2016, from
www.vub.ac.be/ARCH/ae-lab/projects/bamb.
7 ANNEX 1
English version translated from Dutch and French
7.1 Invitation mail
Circular innovation in construction,
international publication
Dear [name]
Because the [innovation] you deliver, we believe you might
be interested in the circular economy, like increasingly
more colleagues. To find out how your and other
innovations are related to the circular economy, we invite
you to fill out our 5 question-survey. The good news: the
answer to the first question is just your product’s and
company’s name.
Filling out the survey will take only 3 to 5 minutes. If you
could do this one of the next days, we could share your
innovation as a Belgian best practice in our next
international publication and at the Green Building
Conference in Mostar.
Take me to the English form:
https://goo.gl/forms/
Thank you in advance.
On behalf of the TRANSFORM Research team
7.2 Survey
With this short survey, we want to collect information about
how your innovation project relates to the circular economy.
It will take no more than 5 minutes. In return, we offer the
opportunity to share your project as an example in our
(international) publications. At the end, you can decide if
you want to be mentioned as a best practice or stay
anonymous.
Question 1. Your project
Which innovative project, product or service do you offer?
In our email, we already mentioned the project because of
which we contacted you. You can enter that project here.
For another project, you can fill out the form a second time.
[short answer]
Through which organisation do you do so?
[short answer]
On which website can we find most information about it?
[short answer]
Question 2. Your development process
At which stage of development would you situate your
innovation project?
[multiple-choice: Conception, Prototyping, Introduction,
Growth, Maturity] [or other: short answer]
Question 3. Your motivation
Which needs have been a motivation to develop your
product or service?
Indicate to what extent the following needs have been a
motivation in your case.
[multipl-choice grid]
[options: A client's specific question, Production cost
reduction, Construction efficiency improvement, Opening
up to new markets, Environmental impact reduction,
Adapting to new legislation, Aligning with new policy
opportunities, Improving the affordability of construction]
[values: Not at all, Rather no, Quite a lot, Absolutely]
To which other needs is your project a response?
[short answer]
Question 4. You and the circular economy
How do you judge the growing attention to the circular
economy for the marketing of your product?
Indicate, to your opinion, which statements are true.
[multiple-choice: Relating my product or service to
circularity could frighten potential clients, Circularity has no
effect on the marketing; my product would sell as good
without that attention, My product relates to the circular
economy, but that is only one of its many strengths, The
circular economy is one of the main selling points for my
product today] [or other: short answer]
Question 5. Your needs
What could help you marketing your product as a circular
one?
[multiple-choice: Nothing, I don’t want to market it as a
circuar one, Nothing, I can already argument, prove or
demonstrate its circularity, Clear selling points that relate
my product's properties with the circular economy, New
business models to market my circular product in a circular
way, An objective evaluation of the (environmental)
benefits related to my project, Support in the development
of my circular product or service] [or other: short answer]
Confidentiality (next section)
Thank you for your answers, they will be sent to us when
you will click 'submit'. We will treat them confidentially, but
what want to give you the opportunity to appear as a best
practice in our publications and through our partners such
as Circular Flanders and Brussels Environment. We will
keep you informed if we mention you in any case.
Do you allow us to...
[multiple-choice: ... use your project as a best practice with
citation of your answers, ... use your project as an example
without any relation to your answers, ... not mention you or
your project in our papers and blog posts]
Other innovation
Other innovators I know, that could be contacted for this
survey are:
[short answer]
Thank you, you can now submit your answers.
8 ANNEX 2
List of responding companies per group.
8.1 Construction product and system innovation (24)
Architects (2)
BC architects & studies www.bc-as.org
Dzerostudio Architectes www.tomatochili.com
Contractors (14)
Bao www.baoliving.com
CLT-s www.clt-s.be
Hahbo – Llexx www.hahbo.be
Jonckheere Projects www.jonckheereprojects.be
Junovation www.JuuNoo.com
Newcraft www.newcraft.be
Rose's Natural Homes www.rosesnaturalhomes.be
Rotor DC https://rotordc.com
Skellet Benelux www.skellet.com
Skilpod www.skilpod.com
Speed building system Belgium www.facadeclick.be
Wall-linQ www.Wall-linQ.com
WOODinc www.woodinc.be
Zehnder group www.zehnder.be
Manufacturers (6)
Chap-yt www.chap-yt.be
Le Relais – Métisse www.lerelais.org
Orbix – Carbstone www.orbix.be
Plaka Belgium www.plakagroup.com
Reynaers aluminium www.reynaers.be
Anonymous respondent -
Non-profit organisations (2)
Woonbox www.samenlevingsopbouwbrussel.be/Woonbox
Anonymous respondent -
8.2 Collaboration and process innovation (7)
Consultant (1)
Factor4 www.factor4.eu
Contractors (2)
Nearly New Office Facilities www.nnof.be
Anonymous respondent -
Manufacturer (1)
Desso www.desso.com
Non-profit organisations (3)
Labland www.newcraft.be
Wooncoop www.newcraft.be
Rotor DB – Opalis www.opalis.be
