DELIVERING THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY A TOOLKIT FOR POLICYMAKERS

116 • DELIVERING THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY – A TOOLKIT FOR POLICYMAKERS
energy efficiency and carbon ratings. This could be deployed to
stimulate circularity, for example with energy standards that incorporate
carbon/kWh scores for both the energy embedded in the materials
and that used during operations—with recycled materials scoring
considerably better than virgin ones.
o
If targets are set, it is important that technology neutrality is maintained
and the government is not prescribing the technologies, materials, or
techniques to be used. In general, interventions along these lines would
be expected to be most effective if introduced gradually, for example
with gradually increasing standards as has been the case for energy
efficiency within the Danish building regulations. In addition, these
interventions would likely have impact across the three circular economy
opportunities in the sector.
• Supporting module production facilities. The government might choose to
play a role in motivating the financial industry to move into this area as such production
facilities can yield good returns. If this is not an option or does not yield
results at the desired scale or speed, low-cost government loans could also start
addressing the access to capital barrier. If concessionary financing is undesirable,
government agencies might provide loans at market rates that have been designed
to meet the complex financing needs of nascent industries. For example,
the UK Green Investment Bank has recently developed innovative loan products
that are tailored to the specific needs of companies and local authorities wishing
to make investment in energy efficiency improvements, which is a similarly immature
market.
• Creating legal framework for 3D printing materials. Regulating input materials
for 3D printing is necessary to realise the full potential of the technology. The
timing is right to work on this, as the 3D printing industry is still young and supply
chains are not yet mature and locked in. Given its complexity, developing this
internationally—at the EU level or beyond—would make most sense. Along with
material policies there is also a need for safety, quality, and environmental standards
for the processes and technologies themselves.
• Bringing together all stakeholders in the construction value chain to work on
systemic solutions to address the lack of skills and established norms that stand
in the way of industrialising production. This could take the form of an industry-wide
partnership focused on knowledge sharing and collaboration, a project
with specific short-term objectives, or a private public partnership.
• Supporting R&D. Funding programmes to develop and bring to commercial
scale new techniques in the 3D printing of building components and explore
technological synergies between component printing and the on-going digitisation
of construction. A technology challenge prize (as for example promoted by
Nesta in the UK 185 ) could also be considered.
• Launching public procurement pilots. Such pilots could serve a triple purpose:
demonstrate the viability and benefits of existing circular materials and construction
techniques, stimulate the development of new materials and techniques
(design competitions offer an alternative), and develop the necessary guidance
and procedures for procurement teams to be able to accommodate such new or
unfamiliar elements (e.g. adjustments to the typical pre-construction dialogues).
• Funding for industry training programmes tailored to the various actors along
the construction value chain (architects, engineers, entrepreneurs, construction
workers, etc.) covering off-site production and on-site assembly of components
as well as 3D printing techniques.
185 www.nesta.org.uk/project/big-green-challenge