Regulation - Recreate

May 27, 2025

Introduction to the report: Legal and technical requirements in reusing precast concrete of the ReCreate project. The full report is available here.

Paul Jonker-Hoffrén, Tampere University

The ReCreate report, Legal and technical requirements in reusing precast concrete, provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal and technical requirements for reusing precast concrete elements in four European countries: Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany. It examines regulations at the EU, national, and local levels, focusing on deconstruction and reuse processes, and identifies common challenges and country-specific issues. It represents the understanding of the state of the art until the beginning of 2023. This report is based on general knowledge rather than the experiences of the industrial partners, which will be reported in a forthcoming report. Therefore, some aspects discussed in the current report will be out of date already due to developments in policy.

Deconstruction Norms

Deconstruction and demolition permits are nationally regulated. In Finland and Sweden, the legislation acknowledges reuse and requires demolition permits to consider reusable components. In the Netherlands, a demolition notification is generally sufficient unless environmental laws apply, which can require more comprehensive permits. Germany follows federal and state building codes with more structured requirements. Waste management is governed by the EU Waste Framework Directive, which sets recycling targets but lacks explicit reuse goals, resulting in ambiguity. Finland and Sweden faced uncertainties about whether deconstructed components are classified as waste (until recently), complicating reuse due to administrative burdens. The Netherlands does not consider deconstructed concrete elements as waste if free from hazardous substances, facilitating reuse. This will be tested in the real-life pilot project in the Netherlands, nonetheless. Germany has legal provisions to avoid waste status, but debates continue on their efficacy. Local environmental protection laws generally do not impose special restrictions on deconstruction for reuse in Finland and the Netherlands. Sweden and Germany have raised concerns regarding specific hazardous substances and water protection laws, with Germany expecting clarification through upcoming ordinances. Occupational safety regulations in all countries align with EU directives, ensuring minimum safety standards. Finland and Sweden emphasize public sector and social partner involvement in occupational safety regulations and workplace rules; Germany relies on sector-based organization; the Netherlands supplements national laws with private certification schemes. Detailed work safety plans and checklists guide safe deconstruction practices in all countries at the project level, which are based on national law or decrees.

Norms on Reuse

Technical requirements for reused concrete elements follow the same standards as new materials, primarily based on Eurocodes and national annexes. However, challenges arise in assessing the material properties of reused components due to lack of original documentation and potential degradation, necessitating improved testing standards. Finland and Sweden apply existing standards designed for new products, which may not adequately address reuse-specific concerns. The Netherlands and Germany have developed additional guidelines and standards to better assess existing structures for reuse.

Product approval is nationally controlled, as the EU Construction Products Regulation currently exempts existing products like reused elements. Finland and Sweden lack clear, consensus-based approval processes, leading to ad hoc practices and uncertainty. Germany and the Netherlands have more institutionalized procedures, including certifications and assessment guidelines, though complexities remain. Designer qualifications for reuse projects are regulated nationally; Finland has specific legal requirements and guidelines, while Sweden and the Netherlands have no special legislation, and Germany regulates via state building codes. Building permits for reuse projects generally require case-by-case collaboration with authorities in all countries, reflecting the novelty and evolving nature of reuse practices. Sustainability policies at international, EU, and national levels provide overarching goals supporting reuse but often lack direct enforceability. Recent initiatives in Finland (e.g., circular construction competitions) and municipal programmes in Sweden demonstrate emerging practical incentives for reuse. The Netherlands and Germany integrate sustainability into building codes and climate laws but tend to focus more on operational energy than embodied emissions, indicating room for policy development.

Discussion

Four key cross-cutting barriers hinder large-scale deployment of reuse: (1) ambiguity in waste status and end-of-waste criteria complicates administrative processes; (2) lack of tailored technical requirements for reused materials leads to conservative and cumbersome testing; (3) product approval pathways are unclear or inconsistent, especially in Nordic countries; and (4) sustainability policies are often too general to drive immediate change. The Netherlands stands out positively in waste classification and product approval, while Finland and Sweden are in earlier stages of regulatory adaptation. Germany offers legal options for reuse but faces challenges in standardizing practices. The report emphasizes the need for clearer interpretations, harmonized technical guidelines, streamlined approval processes, and concrete sustainability incentives to accelerate the adoption of reuse.

Conclusion

While the normative frameworks across the four countries share common elements derived from EU directives, their maturity and practical implementation regarding reuse vary significantly. The primary challenge lies not in creating new regulations but in adapting existing ones to explicitly support reuse of building components. Finland and Sweden are developing foundational practices, particularly in product approval, whereas the Netherlands and Germany have more progressive, institutionalized systems. Cross-country knowledge exchange and stakeholder collaboration are vital for overcoming barriers. The report lays the groundwork for further empirical research and policy development to foster circular economy transitions in construction.

The report, as a general overview of legal and technical requirements in the ReCreate project countries, highlights comparative insights across countries, facilitating understanding of shared challenges and unique national circumstances in promoting the reuse of precast concrete elements.

by ReCreate project

December 10, 2024

Leena-Aarikka-Stenroos-Mikko-Sairanen-Linnea-Harala-Lauri-Alkki_ReCreate-project_Horizon-2020-1280x670.png

As part of the ReCreate project, WP7 plays a pivotal role in developing circular business models for concrete reuse, contributing to the overall goal of establishing sustainable and economically viable practices in the construction industry. In this interview, key team members from Tampere University—Leena Aarikka-Stenroos, Mikko Sairanen, Linnea Harala, and Lauri Alkki—share updates on their progress, insights into co-creating business models, and the value propositions they’ve explored for expanding the reuse business across Europe.

Can you share some updates on what WP7 has achieved so far within the ReCreate project?

LEENA: Absolutely! We’ve hit two important milestones. First, we’ve mapped out how different countries approach the reuse of building materials, focusing on three specific cases. This has helped us understand how actors in the construction industry are involved in reusing concrete elements. Second, we’ve started developing business models that show how companies can profit from reusing concrete. Moving forward, we aim to keep refining our understanding of how these processes work across different countries to ensure the project’s success.

WP7 focuses on developing circular business models at both company and value chain levels. Can you explain how these business models are being co-created and how they contribute to the project’s goals?

MIKKO: We’ve created business model canvases to map out how companies can profitably reuse concrete. These canvases cover three levels: the overall system, individual company profiles, and specific process stages like quality control or storage. Different countries have slightly different setups. For instance, in Germany and the Netherlands, some companies manage most process stages from deconstruction to reconstruction, while in other countries, multiple companies handle different parts of the process. By analyzing and mapping these models, we help companies figure out how to make this approach profitable, both in the short and long term.

LEENA: I’d like to add that we’ve noticed a lot of variation in how these models work across different countries. Some companies only handle deconstruction, while others do both deconstruction and reconstruction, which affects their business approach. This diversity helps us understand how different roles and processes can be profitable.

Could you share some insights into the value propositions, value creation, and value capture strategies explored within WP7 for concrete reuse?

LINNEA: We found several ways that reusing building components can create value, either through cost savings or new revenue. Key factors include the design and condition of the donor building, location, logistics, and efficient project management. Regulations and industry acceptance of circular practices also play a big role in creating value.

LAURI: In the Netherlands, we saw that “one-on-one” reuse, where components are taken from one building and directly used in another, is the most profitable approach at the moment, but of course it requires a key actor who can take responsibility along the process from deconstruction to construction. Overall, in all pilot projects companies also gained new skills, especially in deconstruction and design, which are critical to enabling component reuse.

MIKKO: In Finland, making concrete reuse profitable is a challenge, especially due to high deconstruction labour costs. Success depends on strong regulations, efficient demand management, and clear strategies for reuse. The Netherlands and Germany are good examples of how to do this effectively.

LEENA: Learning is key. Companies may face higher costs at first, but as they gain experience in deconstruction and reuse, they become faster and more efficient, lowering costs in the long run.

One of WP7’s objectives is to identify strategies to expand the reuse business across Europe. Can you explain these strategies and how they deal with the local nature of the building industry?

LINNEA: We’ve considered the idea of creating a marketplace for concrete elements, which could help expand reuse. However, there are challenges in making this work locally and deciding who would manage and profit from it.

LEENA: Construction companies often work in different countries, and they can apply what they learn in one place to another. For example, a Finnish company in our project wants to use its new practices across all the countries they operate in. However, different countries interpret regulations differently, which can be a challenge.

LAURI: That’s a great point, especially since we have large companies like Skanska and Ramboll in the project. Sharing knowledge between countries is key, and some countries offer great examples for others to learn from.

How does the analysis of safety and health aspects translate into economic value within the concrete reuse ecosystem, and what measures are being considered to enhance safety and health in this context?

LEENA: Safety and health analysis is crucial but incurs costs, such as for quality checks and safe practices. We need efficient ways to integrate these assessments, potentially using digital technologies, to minimize expenses while ensuring safety, which is vital for economic value in concrete reuse.

LAURI: In our discussions with Skanska, safety concerns about reused concrete elements were prominent. It’s essential to communicate to customers that these elements are thoroughly tested and safe to build trust in the market.MIKKO: Brand reputation in construction hinges on safety and quality. Companies must meet these expectations to protect their image, making quality a critical aspect of our analysis.

LINNEA: Work safety regulations can vary, affecting project costs and feasibility. For instance, Germany has stricter safety standards compared to Finland, impacting deconstruction costs.

Can you elaborate on the connections between social and legal barriers and economic value within the concrete reuse business models?

MIKKO: Social challenges, like public trust in reused concrete, can influence demand and economic value. Legal barriers, such as product compliance and market access issues, also affect economic viability. Balancing these factors is essential for successful business models.

LEENA: The Finnish Ministry of Environment values expertise in creating supportive regulations for circular processes, aligning with our project’s goals to shape favourable EU and national legislation for component reuse.

LAURI: In Finland, there’s confusion over classifying deconstructed elements as waste or not, which complicates handling and permits. This uncertainty has caused delays in the pilot project.

LINNEA: Ownership of elements is vital; in Finland, construction companies retain ownership from harvesting to sale, simplifying the process.

How do you envision the role of technology, societal acceptance, and regulatory factors in shaping the economic aspects of concrete reuse, as discussed in Task 7.4?

LEENA: Technology, societal acceptance, and regulatory factors are interconnected in influencing concrete reuse economics. Advancements like automation and digital modelling enhance feasibility and efficiency. Societal trust in reused materials boosts demand, while balanced regulations are needed to support innovation without hindering business. Effective communication and marketing can foster societal acceptance, helping to increase demand for reused concrete elements.

WP7 focuses on identifying easily achievable improvements and economic benefits in concrete reuse. What are some of the “low-hanging fruits” that have been identified, and how can they accelerate the transition toward more sustainable building construction?

LEENA: We’re identifying simple improvements, or “low-hanging fruits”, that can promote concrete reuse. While still gathering data, we see that small changes can encourage companies to embrace reuse without a complete overhaul.

LAURI: A key improvement involves rethinking collaboration roles in construction. Embracing broader collaboration beyond traditional roles can significantly enhance concrete reuse efforts.

MIKKO: Effective data management and communication among all parties are crucial. Knowing where deconstructed elements will be reused and planning accordingly can optimize the entire process.

In your journey with the ReCreate project, could you share a memorable experience or moment that has had a significant impact on your perspective or approach to sustainable construction and circular economy initiatives?

LINNEA: As a doctoral researcher, my most impactful experience was visiting the German cluster, where I saw how cost-effective building component reuse transformed old elements into new spaces. It was enlightening.

LEENA: A key moment for me was realizing the potential of concrete reuse in reducing emissions and seeing the project’s problem-solving spirit that drives sustainable improvements.

MIKKO: Visiting Lagemaat in the Netherlands was eye-opening; seeing their profitable concrete reuse operations changed my perspective on feasibility in this area.

LAURI: My memorable moments include witnessing the Lagemaat operations and the progress of our Finnish pilot project, both highlighting the project’s impact.

In summary, WP7’s efforts within the ReCreate project are forging a path toward a more sustainable and economically viable construction industry through the development of circular business models for concrete reuse. The insights gained from diverse country analyses, coupled with innovative strategies for collaboration and technology integration, underscore the potential for significant advancements in this field. By addressing safety, social acceptance, and regulatory challenges, the team is not only enhancing the viability of reused concrete but also building a robust framework for future circular practices. As these initiatives continue to evolve, they hold the promise of transforming the construction landscape across Europe, making it more resilient and environmentally responsible.

by ReCreate project

August 9, 2024

Tommi Halonen, project manager, City of Tampere, Finland

Sometimes I get asked: ‘Why is the City of Tampere participating in ReCreate, and what is our role in the project?’ It might be much easier to see why a university or a construction company is taking a part in a project where the goal is to (de)construct buildings in a novel way. But what is the city doing in ReCreate, especially when the deconstruction pilot was not a public building? From my viewpoint, cities have in particular the following two roles to play in the circular transformation:

Role 1: developing public processes that enable the implementation of CE solutions.

First, cities have a significant role as regulators in the construction industry. If there are any issues related to public regulation that do not allow reuse or make it extremely bureaucratic, it is impossible or very difficult (or expensive) to create business out of ReCreate or any other circular solution. There are especially two matters that are regulated by the city authorities that are worth paying attention to: (1) implications of waste legislation and (2) product approval practices.

(1) During the ReCreate project, we’ve had multi-stakeholder discourse in Finland about whether reused building parts should be considered as waste or not – some stakeholders opposed, and some supported the waste status. However, at the end, it is the city officers that control the matter and they needed to decide how to proceed with it. I cannot go through all the matters the authorities needed to consider in order to clarify the issue but in brief, the hardest part was to find a balance between environmental protection and excessive (too heavy) bureaucracy. Eventually the authorities were able to clarify their policies so that, in Finland, reused components are not considered as waste when certain pre-requisites are fulfilled. At the time of writing this blog, we’ve also received an official decision that ReCreate elements are not considered as waste. This is a huge development step in the Finnish industry towards circularity.

(2) Another matter the cities regulate is the product approval of reused building components. Unlike new products, the CE (conformité européenne) mark does not apply to reused products. In Finland, the products are approved as part of a so called ‘building site approval process’ that is regulated by the municipal building supervisors. There is no prior experience of the approval process. Consequently, the situation is now very similar to the aforementioned case: city authorities must again develop practices and policies that ensure that essential technical requirements are met when reusing components but are not too burdensome for practitioners to comply with. As I write this blog, we are in the process of discussing these practices with the authorities.

Role 2: creating needed incentives for companies for CE development.

Cities are not only passively enabling the circular transformation, but they can – and they must – actively initiate the change, too. Indeed, me and my colleagues have received feedback from multiple companies stating that due to early stage of the circular development, the industry cannot move to circularity solely with the help of market drivers and market logic. The companies emphasized the need for public initiatives that create incentives for circular development. Cities have at their disposal policy instrument that can create this market push. The most notable instruments are (1) public procurements and (2) plot handovers.

(1) During the project, we have had multiple meetings and workshops with the leaders of the city so that Tampere could incorporate reuse to future procurements and building projects. Sooner or later, reuse of building components will break through to public procurements and when it does, it will have a significant impact on the market.

(2) Another policy instrument that can initiate change is the plot handover process. In Finland, municipalities are the biggest landowners in urban areas. Traditionally, sustainability or circularity goals have not been part of the handover processes. However, in 2022 the City of Tampere initiated an all-time first circular plot competition. It was a success with nearly 20 building proposals and applications and received a lot of positive attention in general as well as in professional media. Many cities got inspired and wanted to repeat the circular competition. What we decided to do with my colleagues was to launch a working group, the goal of which was to create upgraded and unified circular criteria for the municipalities. Around 30 experts worked on the criteria for a year, and after receiving feedback in different workshops and seminars, we were able publicize the criteria at the beginning of this year. Now, we are keen to see the impact that the criteria will create when the cities are starting to include them to their plot handovers and competitions.

All in all, while this blog is not an exhaustive list of all the role the cities have in the circular transformation, I do hope that I was able make the case that cities are one of the major players enabling the transition. Indeed, for me personally, it is very difficult to see how the industry could make the transition to the circular economy on a large scale if the cities are not developing public policies and processes to promote circularity.

by ReCreate project

January 31, 2024

Toni Tuomola, District Manager, Skanska (Finland)

Skanska’s role in ReCreate is strongly linked to its goal of building a better society. Being climate-smart – one of our sustainability themes – supports the achievement of this goal. Within the ReCreate project, we are studying how to produce low-carbon solutions through our business operations. ReCreate will provide us with information on how the circular economy of building elements could be promoted in the future – for example, in the planning phases of construction projects. We can have a major influence over the carbon footprint of a project’s outcome, especially in in-house development projects and, above all, in projects where we are responsible for the design.

ReCreate’s Finnish deconstruction pilot site is a 1980s office building in the city of Tampere. The precast concrete frame has been dismantled using a new technique developed and studied as part of the project. Construction projects are complex entities that demand close cooperation to meet targets. We have already worked with the ReCreate project partners for a couple of years on studies and advance preparations to facilitate the practical deconstruction work. Thanks to the studies, we were capable of dismantling the precast concrete elements intact for reuse. We also know how to verify the properties of reusable elements reliably and cost-effectively.

The possibility of technical implementation alone is not enough

Creating a business ecosystem for reusing building elements is an important part of the project. Reuse requires off-site production plants for factory refurbishment and the creation of an entire logistics chain and information management process to put the elements to use again. A marketplace is also needed to bring product providers and users together. Barriers must be lowered in building regulations and practices, and operating models must be harmonized.

What are the implications if reuse is successful? Firstly, the environmental benefits will be significant because the carbon footprint of reused concrete elements is about 95% smaller than that of corresponding new elements. Therefore, it will be possible to realize a substantial decrease in the carbon footprint of new buildings. Reused elements may not necessarily be used to construct entire buildings, but they would be utilized in the most suitable places. This would ensure that the dimensional and strength properties of reused elements can be used to the best effect.

The reduction in the carbon footprint helps us to meet the low-carbon requirements that will be introduced through regulation in the future. Environmental certification programs such as LEED and BREEAM also award extra points for reusing building materials.

Decommissioning a building by deconstructing elements is slower and more expensive than conventional destructive demolition. However, prior international research has found that a reused element can be as little as 30% of the price of a new element. This is an important perspective for projects researching business opportunities based on the circular economy.

A climate-neutral society is the sum of many parts, large and small. The circular economy of precast concrete elements is one factor among many. We need all the parts to work together to reach this goal.