board boekje web pages

67
The Concrete Agreement was signed on 10 July 2018. This was a
second attempt to join forces at a national level to counter society’s
criticism of the sector’s high environmental impact. An effort by
the concrete sector to draft a sustainability roadmap had failed in
2015. Although it had increased the sector’s awareness to improve
sustainability performance, targets and timelines were lacking and
actions were too noncommittal. Building on the lessons learned,
a second effort started in June 2016. To reach an agreement,
representatives from the concrete chain and the government
negotiated for one year. After that, another year was needed to
convince parties to formally sign the agreement. Negotiations
concerning the text of the Concrete Agreement focused on a time
horizon lasting until 2030 and four main themes: CO 2
reduction;
the circular economy; natural capital; and social capital. For each
theme, specific actions and clear intermediate and final targets
were formulated. About 60 representatives from all segments
of the concrete chain (e.g. sand and gravel extraction, concrete
mortar, prefab, concrete goods, binders, demolition, recycling,
contractors of the building sector, builders and architects), the
government (also in their role as a public commissioning party)
and research institutes were actively involved in drafting the
agreement. For each theme, a working group chaired by an independent
intermediary was instated.
I chaired the working group on the circular economy, which was
composed of about 20 representatives. Right from the beginning,
I proposed using the circularity ladder of 10 R’s as our guideline.
Because the stakeholders had divergent interests, it was not easy
to formulate a text everyone could agree on. However, the urgency
to improve the concrete sector’s environmental performance and
competitiveness was my guiding light. I continuously underscored
how the Concrete Agreement was part of an impactful transition
process, meaning that the stakeholders had to show vigour by
balancing the pros and cons of the arguments and always keeping
our main goals in mind. I was able to draft a text on which all
working group members could agree. The two main priority points