DEGREE PROJECT REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT REAL ESTATE ECONOMICS AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGEMENT MASTER OF SCIENCE, 30 CREDITS, SECOND LEVEL

STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2020

Reuse of Construction Materials A study on how a strategic collaboration can facilitate the reuse

of construction materials

Dana Trabulsi & Milan Sofipour

TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRACTION MANAGEMENT

ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

Master of Science thesis

Title: Reuse of construction materials. A study on how a strategic collaboration can facilitate the reuse of construction materials. Author(s): Milan Sofipour & Dana Trabulsi Department: Real Estate and Construction Management Master Thesis number: TRITA-ABE-MBT-20403 Supervisor: Agnieszka Zalejska Jonsson Keywords: Circular Economy, Construction Material Reuse, Strategic Collaboration, Reverse Logistics

Abstract The world’s population alongside the general consumption and use of natural resources has

grown immensely during the past decade. The construction sector is today one of the industries

that has the highest impact on the environment. Therefore, the current linear economy has to be

moved towards a circular economy which aims for material- and resource efficiency. The

concept of reverse logistics for reuse of construction material and the need for collaboration has

been identified as key areas for transitioning to a circular economy and thus has a decisive role

in reducing the construction waste. However, due to the construction industry being

fragmented, a lack of collaboration amongst real estate developers and other market actors has

been identified as a barrier for successfully implementing the reuse of construction materials.

Furthermore, the real estate developer is seen as a key actor to utilise the potential of the reuse

of construction materials by creating incentives and collaborations with other actors involved.

The aim of this paper was therefore to investigate different actor’s perspectives in the real

estate- and construction sector regarding reuse of construction materials and what the key

barriers and incentives are for them to implement it. Furthermore, by gaining an understanding

of each actor's perspective the aim was to create a framework model for how a real estate

developer can achieve a strategic collaboration with different actors to make the process of

reusing construction materials in tenant adaptation projects more efficient. This was achieved

by interviewing key actors within the real estate- and construction industry in order to get an

overall perspective on their views. Furthermore, a survey was conducted to obtain an

understanding of the tenants view on having reused construction materials in their facilities.

The results indicated that the main barriers were; a lack of incentives, lack of logistics &

recovery facilities, an established procedure for quality assuring the material & warranty issues

as well as the tenants’ perception of it. Furthermore, the results show that the real estate

developer can create different types of incentives for the tenants and involved actors in order to

facilitate the implementation of material reuse and an established collaboration. Lastly, a

framework model was presented to demonstrate how a real estate developer can collaborate

with different actors in order to get a deeper understanding of the dynamics of a potential

collaboration.

Acknowledgement

This master thesis marks the final moment for the five-year Degree Programme in Civil

Engineering and Urban Management at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm,

Sweden. The degree project has been written within the Master’s Programme Real Estate and

Construction Management, at the School of Architecture and Built Environment and has been

conducted in the spring of 2020 in collaboration with Vasakronan AB.

First and foremost, we would like to sincerely thank our supervisors, Agnieszka Zalejska

Jonsson at KTH Royal Institute of Technology and Kubra Ayata at Vasakronan AB, whose

important input, guidance, support and commitment made this study possible.

We would also like to thank Vasakronan AB for giving us the opportunity of conducting this

study. Furthermore, we would like to thank all the participants in the interview for taking the

time to provide us with valuable inputs, reflection and thoughts in this study, despite the

ongoing pandemic. Without you, this study would not be possible.

Last, but certainly not least, we would like to sincerely thank all our loved ones for the constant

support you have given us during all these years at KTH Royal Institute of Technology.

Milan Sofipour & Dana Trabulsi

May 20th, 2020 Stockholm, Sweden

Examensarbete

Titel: Återbruk av byggmaterial. En studie på hur ett strategiskt samarbete kan främja å terbruk av byggmaterial Författare: Milan Sofipour & Dana Trabulsi Institution: Fastigheter och Byggande Master Thesis number: TRITA-ABE-MBT-20403 Handledare: Agnieszka Zalejska Jonsson Nyckelord: Cirkulär Ekonomi, Återbruk av Byggmaterial, Strategiskt Samarbete, Omvänd Logistik

Sammanfattning Världens befolkning har i samband med den generella konsumtionen samt vår användning av

naturresurserna ökat avsevärt det senaste decenniet. Bygg- och fastighetssektorn är idag en av

de industrier som har störst påverkan på vår miljö. Därav behövs en skiftning från den linjära

ekonomin till en cirkulär ekonomi som grundar sig i material- och resurseffektivisering.

Konceptet omvänd logistik för ett ökat återbruk av byggmaterial och behovet av samarbete har

identifierats som viktiga verktyg för skiftet mot en cirkulär ekonomi och därmed en minimering

av byggavfall. Då byggbranschen idag är fragmenterad har bristen på samarbete mellan

fastighetsägare och andra aktörer identifierats som en utmaning för att implementera återbruk

av byggmaterial med framgång. Vidare ses fastighetsägare som en huvudaktör som kan utnyttja

potentialen som finns kring återbruk av byggmaterial genom att skapa incitament och

samarbeten med andra involverade aktörer.

Därför var syftet med denna rapport att utreda olika aktörers perspektiv på återbruk av

byggmaterial inom bygg- och fastighetssektorn samt vad de främsta barriärer och incitament är

för att de ska implementera det. Vidare, genom att få en förståelse för samtliga aktörers

perspektiv var målet att skapa en modell för hur fastighetsägarna kan uppnå ett strategiskt

samarbete med olika aktörer för att effektivisera processen av återbruk av byggmaterial vid en

hyresgästsanpassning.

Detta uppnåddes genom att intervjua huvudaktörer inom bygg- och fastighetssektorn. Vidare

gjordes en enkät för att erhålla en förståelse för hyresgästerna syn på att ha återbrukat

byggmaterial i deras lokaler.

Resultatet indikerar på att de främsta barriärerna var; brist på incitament, logistik &

lagerhållning, en etablerad process för kvalitetssäkring & garantier på materialen samt

hyresgästernas uppfattning av det. Vidare visar resultatet att fastighetsägarna kan skapa olika

incitament till inblandade aktörer för att främja implementering av materialåterbruk samt ett

etablerat samarbete. Slutligen presenterades en modell för att åskådliggöra hur en

fastighetsägare kan samarbeta med andra aktörer för att erhålla en djupare förståelse för

dynamiken av ett potentiellt samarbete.

Förord

Detta examensarbete markerar det slutliga momentet av det femåriga civilingenjörsprogrammet

Samhällsbyggnad vid Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan. Examensarbetet har skrivits inom

mastersprogrammet Fastigheter och Byggande på skolan för Arkitektur och Samhällsbyggnad

våren 2020 i samarbete med Vasakronan AB.

Först och främst vill vi tacka våra handledare, Agnieszka Zalejska Jonsson på Kungliga

Tekniska Högskolan och Kubra Ayata på Vasakronan AB, vars viktiga åsikter, vägledning, stöd

och engagemang möjliggjorde denna studie.

Vi vill dessutom tacka Vasakronan AB för att ha gett oss möjligheten att få genomföra denna

studie. Vidare vill vi tacka samtliga som deltagit i intervjuerna samt tagit sig tiden att förse oss

med viktiga åsikter, reflektioner och tankar i denna studie, trots den rådande pandemin. Utan er

skulle denna studie inte vara möjlig.

Sist men absolut inte minst skulle vi vilja tacka våra nära och kära för det konstanta stöd ni har

gett oss under alla dessa år på KTH.

Milan Sofipour & Dana Trabulsi

20de maj 2020 Stockholm, Sverige

Table of contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problem Formulation .................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Research Questions ...................................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 5

1.6 Disposition .................................................................................................................................... 5

2. Literature review ................................................................................................................................ 7

2.1 Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1.1 Circular Economy ................................................................................................................... 7

2.1.2 Reuse of Materials ................................................................................................................. 8

2.2 Circular Economy and Material Reuse in the Construction Industry ............................................ 8

2.2.1 Identified Barriers for Implementing Material Reuse ............................................................ 8

2.3 Sustainability Effects of Material Reuse ..................................................................................... 10

2.3.1 Economic Sustainability ....................................................................................................... 11

2.3.2 Environmental Sustainability ............................................................................................... 11

2.3.3 Equitable Sustainability ....................................................................................................... 12

2.4 Reverse Supply Chain .................................................................................................................. 13

2.4.1 The Process of the Reverse Supply Chain ............................................................................ 13

2.5 Reverse Logistics ......................................................................................................................... 15

2.5.1 Barriers for Implementing Reverse Logistics in the Construction Industry ......................... 16

2.6 Identified Models in Reuse Management ................................................................................... 17

2.7.1 Summary of the Models ...................................................................................................... 21

2.7 Inter-Organisational Collaboration ............................................................................................. 21

3. Method ............................................................................................................................................. 24

3.1 Methodological Approach .......................................................................................................... 24

3.2 Choice of Respondents ............................................................................................................... 26

3.3 Reliability and Validity ................................................................................................................ 27

3.4 Ethics ........................................................................................................................................... 28

4. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 29

4.1 Current Business Models Within Reuse of Construction Materials ............................................ 29

4.1.1 Real Estate Developers ........................................................................................................ 29

4.1.2 Contractors .......................................................................................................................... 30

4.1.3 Demolition and Logistics Companies ................................................................................... 30

4.1.4 Suppliers .............................................................................................................................. 30

4.2 Construction Materials with the Highest Potential to Be Reused .............................................. 31

4.3 Barriers for Implementing Reuse of Construction Materials ...................................................... 32

4.3.1 Incentives ............................................................................................................................. 32

4.3.2 Logistics and Recovery facility ............................................................................................. 34

4.3.3 Quality Assurance and Warranties ...................................................................................... 35

4.3.4 Tenants Involvement in the Reuse Process ......................................................................... 36

4.5 Tenants View on Having Reused Construction Materials ........................................................... 37

4.6 Real Estate Developer’s Role in Encouraging Reuse of Construction Material .......................... 38

4.7 Key Factors for Initiating a Strategic Collaboration Between Different Actors .......................... 41

5. Analysis/Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 43

5.1 Influential Factors in the Reuse Process ..................................................................................... 43

5.1.1 Degree of Collaboration ....................................................................................................... 43

5.1.2 Tenant’s Perspective on Reused Materials .......................................................................... 44

5.1.3 Finding Added Value in the Existing Property ...................................................................... 46

5.1.4 Conditions to Finding and Using Suitable Reused Materials ............................................... 47

5.1.5 Logistics and Recovery facility ............................................................................................. 49

5.1.6 Real Estate Developer’s Ability to Facilitate Future Reuse .................................................. 51

5.2 Model Proposition ...................................................................................................................... 52

6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 57

6.1 Reliability and Validity ................................................................................................................ 58

6.2 Suggestions on Further Studies .................................................................................................. 59

References ............................................................................................................................................ 61

Appendix I – Disclosure of Survey ......................................................................................................... 69

Appendix II – Interview Questions for Real Estate Developers ............................................................ 73

Appendix III – Interview Questions for the Contractors ....................................................................... 74

Appendix IV – Interview Questions for the Suppliers ........................................................................... 75

Appendix V – Interview Questions for the Architect ............................................................................ 76

Appendix VI – Interview Questions for the Demolition and Logistics Contractors ............................... 77

Appendix VII – Interview Questions for the Waste Contractor ............................................................ 78

Appendix VIII – Interview Questions for the Reuse Consultants .......................................................... 79

Appendix IX – Interview Questions for the Research Institute ............................................................. 80

1

1. Introduction

This chapter aims to present the background to the study, the purpose of the study as well as the research questions this study intends to answer. Furthermore, the limitations of the study are presented in this chapter.

1.1 Background The world’s population is rapidly growing. In less than a century, the world’s population has

grown by over a threefold, to a total of 7,7 billion in 2019 (Roser et al., 2020). Alongside our

increase in population, digitalisation and mass production, the general consumption in the world

has risen (Dobers & Strannegård, 2005). As the earth’s resources are limited, it is of great

importance that the resources are preserved and managed sustainably. Resource efficiency is

essential to achieve, as extraction and the production of material has an immense effect on the

environment (European Environment Agency, 2016).

There is a general consensus among researchers that the “buy, use and throw away” mentality

that we as consumers have is not sustainable (Schrader & Thøgersen, 2011). The real estate-

and construction sector is today one of the industries that has the highest impact on the

environment due to the enormous quantities of greenhouse emissions being liberated when

producing construction materials and the high amounts of waste it generates (Boverket, 2019).

During the years of 2008-2017, the real estate- and construction sector stood for 19% of all

green emission gas released in Sweden (Boverket, 2019). Furthermore, nine million tonnes of

non-hazardous waste are generated annually from the construction and demolition sector which

comprises 31% of all waste, excluding mining waste (Boverket, 2019). Material reuse is a

sustainable way to make use of construction waste destined for landfills. However, only a small

amount of construction material is currently reused, which indicates that there is plenty of room

for resource- and material efficiency in the construction industry (Miliute-Plepiene et al., 2020).

In the European Union, construction and demolition waste stands for 25-30% of all generated

waste in 2018 (European Commission, 2019). In 2008, the European Union issued a new

directive framework which aims to have 70% of all construction and demolition waste recycled

and reused by 2020. However, with the exception of a few EU countries, only about 50% of all

construction and demolition waste is currently being recycled or reused (European

2

Commission, 2018). However, the percentage rate mainly accounts recycled materials, which

distinguishes from reused materials. Recycled materials are existing materials that are turned

into raw or processed material which can be used again, normally for another function. While

reuse refers to a material product that is used again to fulfil the same function as it was intended

for before (European Commission, 2018). In order to achieve the directive framework

objective, the European Union issued a waste hierarchy which prioritises the waste management

principles in order to prevent harm against humans, environment and wildlife. see figure 1.1.

The hierarchy consists of five different management steps; prevention, preparation for reuse,

recycling, recovery and disposal.

Fig. 1.1. EU’s waste hierarchy. Figure inspired by The European Commission's waste hierarchy (2008)

Circular economy is a term well investigated by researchers’ and academics. It is designed to

benefit businesses, society and the environment. In contrast to the ‘take-make-waste’ linear

economy, a circular economy is regenerative by design and aims to gradually decouple growth

from the consumption of finite resources (MacArthur, 2013). The concept of circular economy

differs from a linear economy in the sense of replacing the “end of life” for a material as it

remains in productive use to create additional value (MacArthur, 2013). A circular economy

favours activities that preserve value in the form of energy, labour, and materials (Ellen

Macarthur Foundation, 2017). The built environment has been identified as a key target in The

European Commission policy (2018) to achieve circular economy. Furthermore, the European

Environment Agency (2016a) argues that construction and demolition is one of the five priority

areas for transitioning to a circular economy (Jones, 2018).

3

Fig. 1.2. Illustrations of the material process of linear and circular economy. Source: van der Heijden et al., 2017

There are several research papers investigating the potentials of reuse of construction materials

and how to improve the management of construction waste. However, little progress has been

made in practice to address the implementation of construction material reuse. There is a

consensus among researchers that reuse of building materials in the real estate- and construction

sector has a decisive role to play in reducing waste. Previous research has identified the concept

of reverse logistics which is a process within reverse supply chain, as an important tool in terms

of alleviating environmental issues such as material reuse in the manufacturing and construction

industry (Hosseini et al., 2014). However, some of the biggest obstacles in implementing

material reuse that need to be addressed are; limited access of secondary materials with

sufficient quality, lack of infrastructure necessary and few market actors with low incentives

for cooperation (Nußholz et al., 2019). Furthermore, the real estate- and construction sector is

fragmented and hierarchical, causing a lack of dialogue between real estate developers,

architects, designers, contractors and demolition contractors. Therefore, increasing

collaboration and networking may facilitate and expand the knowledge and understanding of

life cycle concerns in design and construction. A lack of cooperation of all parties such as real

estate developers, contractors, subcontractors, waste contractors, architects and designers are

identified amongst others, as a barrier for successfully implementing reuse of construction

materials (Nakajima & Russell, 2014).

Raw Materials

Production

Use

Waste

Raw Material

Production

Use

Reuse and Recycle

Circular Economy Linear Economy

4

Previous research in the area of material reuse have mostly been focused on the barriers and the

opportunities that arise from implementing it. However, there has been a lack of research on

how collaboration amongst different actors can facilitate reuse of construction materials and

how such a collaboration can be manifested.

1.2 Problem Formulation The real estate- and construction sector stands for a high amount of the waste produced in

Sweden. Although the European Union has established a waste hierarchy with the goal of

having 70% of all construction waste reused or recycled by 2020, only a small amount of all

construction waste is currently being reused in Sweden (European Commission, 2018). This

indicates an unutilised potential in reusing construction materials and the real estate developer

is seen as a key actor to utilise the potential of it by using its influence to create incentives for

other actors involved (Miliute-Plepiene et al., 2020; Andersson et al., 2018). The need for a

collaboration between different actors in the real estate- and construction sector has been

identified as a key driver to further facilitate the material reuse process. However, currently

there is a lack of established models which emphasises on the collaboration between a real

estate developer and different actors in the material reuse process, which is what this paper aims

to provide.

1.3 Purpose The purpose of this study is to develop an understanding of different actor’s perspectives in the

real estate- and construction sector regarding reuse of construction materials and identifying

what the key barriers and incentives are for them to implement it. Furthermore, by gaining an

understanding of each actor's perspective the aim is to create a framework model for how a real

estate developer can achieve a strategic collaboration with different actors to make the process

of reusing construction materials in tenant adaptation projects more efficient.

1.4 Research Questions The research question can be divided into three different questions;

• Which barriers exist with implementing the reuse of construction materials according

to different actors within the real estate- and construction sector?

5

• How can a real estate developer create incentives for other actors to engage in a

collaboration to facilitate the reuse of construction materials?

• How can a strategic collaboration between a real estate developer and other actors be

actualised in order to streamline the process of using reused construction materials?

1.5 Limitations To be able to conduct the study, some limitations have been made. First and foremost, this study

is centred around the real estate developer and how such an actor can collaborate with other

actors to facilitate the reuse of construction materials. Also, this study and its conclusions is

only based on reuse of construction materials for tenant adaptation projects. Secondly, this

study is limited to a certain number of actors. Some actors, such as governmental entities, legal

representatives and subcontractors have not been taken into account. Furthermore, the survey

conducted was only answered by tenants of the real estate company, Vasakronan, who were

located in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Uppsala. Lastly, this study examines a collaboration

between actors with regards to a general concept of reused material, i.e. this study does not

differentiate on whether the collaboration should be approached differently depending on the

materials reused.

1.6 Disposition This report is divided into six different chapters as seen in figure 1.6.

Fig. 1.6. Visualisation of the disposition of this report

The first chapter is the introduction which aims to give the reader a comprehensive

understanding of the problem and why material reuse is important, followed by the purpose of

this report and the research questions it is intended to answer. The literature review chapter

aims to give the reader an understanding of previous research regarding circular economy, reuse

of construction materials, reverse logistics, reverse supply chain and inter-organisational

collaboration. Thereafter the method chapter is presented, which shows the reader which

approaches the authors have taken in order to obtain the results needed. Furthermore, it aims to

clarify the chosen method and how it contributes to increased validity and reliability. This is

Introduction LiteratureReview Method Results Analysis Conclusion

6

followed by the results chapter which presents the reader with the empirical data that has been

collected from the interviews and survey. In the analysis chapter the authors discuss the results

obtained with the help of the theoretical framework, the literature review and the empirical data

collected. The concluding chapter presents the final conclusions drawn from the authors based

on the previous chapters as well as a review of the reliability and validity of the empirical data

collected and is then finalised with the authors suggestion for further studies.

7

2. Literature review

This chapter will provide the reader with previous research conducted in the field of circular economy, reuse of construction materials and inter-organisational collaboration. Furthermore, this chapter presents previous research on models of reverse logistics and reverse supply chain in the construction industry.

2.1 Definitions

2.1.1 Circular Economy Circular economy is a concept which has gained immense importance to policymakers and

industries in addressing sustainability issues during recent years. Therefore, it is out of

importance to define the concept of circular economy. However, the concept is rather broad and

is based on a fragmented collection of ideas from different scientific fields that all share the

idea of closed loops (Korhonen, 2018). Circular economy is seen as a business model which

contributes to sustainable development (Zhijun & Nailing, 2007). MacArthur (2013) explains

the term circular economy as “an industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by

intention and design” and thereby replaces the concept of “end of life” as the material remains

in productive use to create additional value and thus minimise waste. Similarly, Geng &

Doberstein (2008) provides an explanation of the concept that is derived from research in China

and concludes that circular economy is the “realisation of a closed loop material flow in the

whole economic system”. Circular economy emphasises on product, material and component

reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishment and the potential of sustainable energy sources through

the product value chain by a cradle-to-cradle life cycle approach (Rashid et al., 2013).

At first sight, the potential outcomes of circular economy seem solely positive, however it is

out of importance to consider that the positive externalities prevailing within a circular economy

are mostly based on environmental observations, rather than economical (Andersen, 2007).

According to Andersen (2007) the benefits with reuse and recycling materials will gradually

decline whereas there will be a stage where a cut-off will be reached. This is further

strengthened by Daly (2007) who believes that it is impossible for an economic system to be

fully circular due to the entropy law. Furthermore, according to Korhonen et al (2018) there are

several limitations and challenges when trying to implement the concept of Circular Economy

in practice, whereas the limitations are mostly centred around system boundaries as well as

governance and management. Therefore, a new definition of circular economy is developed by

8

Korhonen et al (2018) which besides production and consumption system also focuses on the

holistic contribution it has on sustainable societal development. The definition that Korhonen

has established takes into account the importance of inter-sectoral, inter-organisational

management and governance models (Korhonen et al., 2018).

2.1.2 Reuse of Materials

The general conception about reuse is using the same material in construction more than once

and for the same function as it previously had (Yuan & Shen, 2011). Furthermore, reuse of

materials can also be defined as “new-life” reuse, where materials does not necessarily need to

have the same function as it previously had, but is used as raw material for a new function

(Duran et al., 2006). In this report, reuse will be defined in accordance to the European

Commission Waste Framework Directive (European Commission, 2010);

“Reuse involves the repeated use of products and components for the same purpose for which

they were conceived” – European Commission 2010

2.2 Circular Economy and Material Reuse in the Construction Industry The concept of circular economy has gained recognition among policymakers in the

construction industry. However, research indicates that the building sector is still mostly

discouraging the implementation of it because of certain barriers (Nußholz et al., 2019). Limited

research on how circular economy and circular business models can enable the reuse of

construction materials has been undertaken, therefore there is a need for expanding the research.

2.2.1 Identified Barriers for Implementing Material Reuse

Nußholz et al (2019) examines the potential barriers and potentials for implementing the use of

secondary materials in the building sector and how a transition into a circular business model

can be of importance to increase the decarbonization of the sector. The most common barriers

according to Nußholz et al (2019) is identified to be the limited access of secondary materials

with sufficient quality, the lack of infrastructure necessary and few market actors with low

incentives for cooperation. Similarly, Adams et al (2017) conducted a research by analysing the

largest challenges and enablers that exist when recovering and using secondary materials in the

construction sector. Correspondingly to the study conducted by Nußholz et al. (2019) the most

common barriers for implementing the reuse of secondary materials were mainly centred

9

around the lack of incentives for designing end-of-life issues for construction materials, a lack

of market incentives to aid recovery, the low value of products at end of life, warranty issues

of using reused materials and a general lack of knowledge (Adams et al., 2017). Furthermore,

besides the general lack of knowledge, a major barrier according to Kartam et al. (2004) is the

negative perception the final users have on reused materials, which makes a shift in the end-

user’s mentality essential.

Enablers to successfully implement circular economy through the reuse of materials includes

feasible logistics, the development of higher value markets and clear business models (Adams

et al., 2017). While business models for the reuse of materials in the construction industry has

been developed, the implementation of such circular business models has been rather slow

(Nubholz, 2019). An issue that has been highlighted in previous research is the absence of

market incentives and the lack of incentives for cooperation between different actors, which

can be illustrated in the current lack of circular business models. In order to promote closed and

circular cycles, it is of great importance to include the entire supply chain and involve all parties

from the design stage to the material suppliers and the actors operating in the final stage (Leising

et al., 2018).

Reusing materials are often associated with financial value due to the reduction in costs from

using secondary materials (Verian et al., 2013). However, a limited amount of studies on the

financial aspects of material reuse within the building and construction sector have been made

(Hart et al., 2019). Studies made on circular business models in general often highlight the risks

associated with the uncertainty of the prices of secondary materials, the high costs associated

with labour and reverse logistics (Nubholz, 2019). In the field of recycled materials, whereas a

higher amount of studies has been conducted, Kartam et al. (2004) found that the cost of

recycled materials in comparison to raw material is an important factor in the decision factor of

using recycled materials. Furthermore, Lauritzen (1998) states that recycled materials are only

attractive to use when they are competitive with raw materials, both in terms of cost and quality.

In the context of material reuse, new material is likely to be more preferable due to the necessity

to meet regulatory requirements that secondary materials may struggle to attain (Ferreira et al.,

2015). Similarly, Vares et al. (2019), claims that the main obstacles for reusing construction

materials are the economic aspects listed below:

10

• The overall cost of reused materials may exceed the cost of building with new or

recycled materials, due to the fact that when reused materials come to the market they

may require sampling, testing and certification.

• The second-hand market for construction materials is small. This results in preventing

reused materials to be applied on a large scale, due to a lack of recovery facilities and

information about reused elements from planned and on-going demolitions.

• There is a scarce amount of companies in the market today that are specialised in

deconstruction; designers willing to design buildings using reused materials and

contractors willing to construct buildings with reused materials.

Economic challenges such as financial metrics and a return on the investment is therefore

believed to be one of the biggest challenges with implementing material reuse in the

construction industry (Hart et al., 2019; Adams et al., 2017). Despite the economic challenges

arising, several studies show that a circular economy implementation has the potential to reduce

the total life cycle costs. (Ellen Macarthur, 2017). Mokhlesian and Holmen (2012) show that

the implementation of circular economy in the building sector has the ability to decrease the

total life-cycle cost. This is further strengthened by Jung et al (2015) who states that the total

costs of the entire value chain structure should be considered in the decision-making process of

recovering and reusing secondary materials.

Furthermore, it is important to recognise that in order to achieve economic viability, material

reuse must be accompanied with appropriate business models capable of commercialising price

competitive products that both meet regulatory standards in terms of quality and safety, but also

deliver strong sustainability benefits (Nußholz et al., 2020). The economic viability

accompanied with the business model also need to sort out other issues of interest in what value

the business model creates for the firm and its customers (Wirtz et al., 2016), and for other

stakeholders, in terms of environment and society (Massa & Tucci, 2014).

2.3 Sustainability Effects of Material Reuse There have been several research papers written regarding the reuse of materials in the real

estate and construction sector and its impact on sustainability. Previous research and literature

regarding reuse in the real estate- and construction sector claims to have been motivated by the

three E’s of sustainability; economic, environmental and equity (aka social) (Tobias &

Vavaroutsos, 2012; Wilkinson et al., 2009). However, most of the research that has been made

11

has mostly focused on the environmental and economic impact of reuse in the real estate and

construction sector and has thus mostly focused on two of the three E’s of sustainability

(Mohamed et al., 2017).

2.3.1 Economic Sustainability

A study regarding the effects of reusing materials in refurbishment projects, more specific,

commercial real estates was conducted in 2018 by Lindholm et al. for IVL (Swedish

Environmental Research Institute). The study was a case study based on two of IVL’s own

offices in Stockholm and Gothenburg and was focused on what the effects of the renovations

of the two offices would be from an economic and environmental aspect and was focused on

furniture’s and fixed interior building products, compared to what the effects of the renovation

would be with new materials. The study found that the office renovations with reused materials

ended up with reduced project costs of 1,4 million SEK for the office in Gothenburg and 1,9

million SEK for the office in Stockholm. The biggest reduction in costs came from reduced

purchasing of materials, followed by revenues from sales of used products and then reduced

costs for waste management. However, the study also concluded that reusing materials in the

two offices resulted in an increase of labour cost by 320 000 SEK for the office in Gothenburg

and 350 000 SEK for the office in Stockholm. The reason for the increased labour costs was

according to Lindholm et al. (2018) the fact that by using reused materials in a renovation

project, the overall wage costs increase due to increased planning work from architects and

contractors (Lindholm et al., 2018). Furthermore, since there are many actors participating in

an office refurbishment project, Lindholm et al. (2018) believes it is of importance to agree on

how the new costs and savings for applying reused materials should be divided amongst the

different actors.

2.3.2 Environmental Sustainability

The potential that material reuse has on the environment in terms of reducing embedded

emission has gained increased recognition amongst policy makers, companies and academic

scholars (Merrild, 2016; Moncaster et al., 2019). Several studies show that the reuse of materials

has a significant effect on reducing the negative environmental impact (Cabeza et al. 2014;

Nußholz et al. 2019). The extent of the positive impact varies and is dependent on the type of

material being reused and the processes affiliated with being able to reuse the material, such as

the process of making the secondary material fulfil certain requirements (Nubholz, 2019,

Vadenbo et al., 2017). A case study conducted in Sweden by Thormark (2000) investigated the

12

environmental effects on a building with a large proportion of reused materials compared to

newly produced materials. The study showed that the environmental impacts were about 55 %

lower with reused materials compared to if the materials were new. Of the materials

investigated, the study found that the reuse of clay bricks of roofing clay tiles accounted for the

main decrease in environmental impact and that these materials could be transported over a

long distance and still be environmentally beneficial (Thormark, 2000). Furthermore, a study

made by Nußholz et al. (2020) investigated what the environmental impacts of reusing two

different products, namely concrete and glass would be, compared to using newly produced

materials. The results suggested a carbon saving potential of 56 tons CO2-eq for glass and 11

tons CO2-eq for concrete.

Besides the potential economic benefits from renovating IVL’s two offices in Stockholm and

Gothenburg with reused materials, Lindholm et al. (2018) also came to the conclusion that in

the events of renovating the two offices with reused materials compared to new, the decrease

in waste would be 18 tons for the office in Gothenburg and 12 tons for the office in Stockholm.

Furthermore, the decrease in greenhouse gas emission would be 52 tons CO2-eq for the office

in Gothenburg and 41 tons CO2-eq for Stockholm. This corresponds to a gas emission decrease

of around 60 % per office, compared to new purchased materials (Lindholm et al., 2018).

2.3.3 Equitable Sustainability

As previously mentioned, out of the three E’s of sustainability, equity is the one that has been

focused least on with regards to reuse in the real estate and construction sector. However,

Mohamed et al. (2017) list four potential impacts on social sustainability due to material reuse:

• Creates distinctive communities: Constructing or renovating a building with a primary

focus on creating distinctive communities could have the potential to be more successful

and have a more lasting impact with using reused materials.

• Acknowledges underserved and vulnerable populations: Reuse that specifically focuses

on the needs of underserved and vulnerable communities can help counter the effects of

gentrification.

• Workforce development: Constructing with reused materials could be a key factor in

workforce development to train workers either in deconstruction and preservation

techniques and thus creating more jobs.

13

2.4 Reverse Supply Chain According to Guide & van Wassenhove (2002) the definition of reverse supply chain is:

“The series of activities required to retrieve a used product from a customer and either

dispose it or reuse it.” - Guide & van Wassenhove, 2002

The definition is further strengthened by Prahinski & Kocabasoglu (2006) who states that the

scope of Reverse supply chain also involves the collaboration with other parties and actors

(Prahinski & Kocabasoglu, 2006). The concept of a reverse supply chain implies that the life

cycle of products and materials do not end when being delivered to the end customer, rather,

the end-of-used products can be brought back from the end customers to the suppliers in order

for it to be reused, recycled or disposed (Álvarez-Gil et al., 2007).

The implementation of a reverse supply chain requires a large initial investment; however, it

also causes strategic importance to companies as well as economic benefits (Álvarez-Gil et al.,

2007). The strategic importance can be manifested by the “green image” it offers to the

company which may increase the company’s competitiveness in the market and with its

customers (Álvarez-Gil et al., 2007).

2.4.1 The Process of the Reverse Supply Chain

Important aspects to consider when establishing a reverse supply chain is which activities that

needs to be outsourced versus insourced and how to minimise the costs while maximising the

recovering value. When implementing a reverse supply chain, it also is of great importance to

make rational decisions about the structure of such a chain. Not all reverse supply chains are

identical, however Guide & van Wassenhove (2002) identified that the chain could be divided

into five key processes.

Fig. 2.4.1. Illustration of the Reverse Supply Chain. Source: Guide & van Wassenhove, 2002

Product acquisition

Reverse Logistics

Inspection and Disposition Reconditioning

Re-distribution and Sales

14

Product acquisition The term product acquisition refers to the process of obtaining used products, components or

materials from the user (Guide & van Wassenhove, 2002). According to Prahinski &

Kocabasoglu (2006), there exists three sources of products: those from the forward supply chain

which contains returns of defective or damaged products, those from an already established

reverse supply chain, also called market-driven systems; or those from the waste stream.

Products that enter the reverse supply chain through the waste stream can either be landfilled

or reused due to their recoverable value (Prahinski & Kocabasoglu, 2006). Guide & van

Wassenhove (2002) believe that the quality, quantity and the timing of the product return needs

to be carefully coped with in order to prevent receiving a huge number of returned products

with different levels of quality which further decreases the effectiveness of the process.

Retrieving the product efficiently is key to creating a profitable chain while coordinating the

collection of the used product through collaboration with distributors (Guide & van

Wassenhove, 2002).

Reverse Logistics Reverse logistics refers to the process of retrieving the product from the end consumer by

transporting the products to a facility for inspecting, sorting and disposition (Prahinski &

Kocabasoglu, 2006). Reverse logistics contain activities such as; transportation, recovery

facility, distribution and inventory management. During this process, the key objective is to

assess the condition of the return product and determine the level of quality and use a returned

product has (Prahinski & Kocabasoglu, 2006). Prahinski & Kocabasoglu (2006) suggested four

pre-dominant groups of product recovery strategies, namely, direct reuse, product upgrade,

materials recovery and waste management.

A business should aim to make decisions on the alternatives based on the quality of the product,

configuration of the product and other necessary variables as early as possible in the returns

process to achieve profitability and decrease logistic costs (Guide & van Wassenhove, 2002).

Products that are identified to be in a good condition can be reused by being returned to the

supply chain for distribution or to the secondary market for resale. Products which are

inadequate, and which does not meet the conditions for being reused, upgraded or recovered

should be incinerated or land filled (Prahinski & Kocabasoglu, 2006)

15

Reconditioning If product upgrade or material recovery is decided to be the most appropriate and profitable

product recovery strategy in the disposition process, then, the product is transferred to the

reconditioning process. During this process the product can be repaired, refurbished or

remanufactured. Repair refers to the return of used products to its normal order and refurbishing

refers to achieving a product specified quality standard, while remanufacturing aims at

reconfiguring a product to reach the same quality standard as a new product. (Gobbi, 2011).

However, reconditioning and remanufacturing processes are unpredictable as there exists a

large degree of uncertainty in the timing and quality of returned products (Guide & van

Wassenhove, 2002).

Re-distribution and Sales

If recovered products are to be re-entered into an external market, reconditioned products and

products that are usable can be re-sold to the market (Nuss, 2015). Guide & van Wassenhove

(2002) proposes that companies that are considering to re-sell products firstly need to determine

whether there exists a demand for it or if such a market has to be created (Guide & van

Wassenhove, 2002). If a market has to be created, large investments are required to target

potential customers. Potential customers for the products can consist of both purchasers within

the existing markets such as original purchasers as well as new customers from different

markets for instance such customers who cannot afford new products (Guide & van

Wassenhove, 2002).

2.5 Reverse Logistics

In the context of supply chain management, the management of reusing products and materials

in industrial production processes, also named reverse logistics, was developed to add value to

the current manufacturing processes. (Pacheco et al., 2018). Currently there exists no consensus

regarding the concept of reverse logistics (Nikolaou, 2013). Several authors and researchers

have defined reverse logistics somewhat broadly as the definition of reverse logistics is

sometimes referred to as reverse supply chain. However, according to Guide & van

Wassenhove (2002) the terms should be distinguished as reverse logistics is the process of

retrieving the product from the end consumer for the purposes of capturing value or proper

disposal (Prahinski & Kocabasoglu, 2006). According to Nikolaidis (2012), reverse logistics

can be defined as:

16

“the process of logistics management involved in planning, managing, and controlling the

flow of wastes for either reuse or final disposal of wastes” – Nikolaidis, 2012

The most recognised definition is however proposed by the European Working Group on

reverse logistics who defines it as “the process of planning, implementing and controlling flows

of raw materials, in process inventory, and finished goods, from a manufacturing, distribution

or use point, to a point of recovery or point of proper disposal” (Nikolau, 2013). There exist

two different areas where reverse logistics is applicable; after-sales and after-consumption.

Reverse logistics in after-consumption which is the area of most importance in this study

considers products at the end of their lifecycle, products that can be reused and industrial waste

from production processes. A reverse logistics approach should be adapted when products and

materials can be reused and whereas materials will only be disposed of when the total reuse is

unfeasible (Pacheco et al. 2018).

An effective management of the activities included in reverse logistics as well as financial

incentives is essential for companies to adopt a reverse supply chain system. If the total costs

related with the retrieval process exceeds the total cost of new materials or products, firms

would have smaller financial incentives to invest in such a system (Prahinski & Kocabasoglu,

2006). The design for a reverse logistics network has to be tailored according to the size and

frailness of the products and materials involved as well as the economics of their reuse (Guide

& van Wassenhove, 2002). Besides transportation and storage costs, companies should also

consider how rapidly the value of the returned products will decline as well as if logistics should

be outsourced (Guide & van Wassenhove, 2002).

2.5.1 Barriers for Implementing Reverse Logistics in the Construction Industry

The literature on the main barriers regarding reverse logistics has been made across different

industries, such as services, manufacturing and construction (Chileshe et al., 2015). Drawing

upon previous research, the barriers that exists in the construction industry can be categorised

into intra-organisational (internal) and inter-organisational (external). According to Chileshe et

al. (2015), the previous construction-specific literature consists of the following identified

barriers in relation to the two mentioned categories and are illustrated in the table below.

17

Table 2.5.1. Identified barriers within reverse logistics literature in the construction industry

Intra-Organisational Barriers Inter-Organisational Barriers • Higher initial costs of adopting Reverse

Logistics • Risks and uncertainties with using reused

materials • Operational difficulties with providing on-

site space for materials • Lack of awareness amongst organisations

regarding the potential benefits of reverse logistics

• Lack of recovery facilities, infrastructure and an established market for reused materials

• Lack of technical support such as building standards and guidelines for reused materials

• Lack of financial and regulatory incentives • End-users mindset about the lower quality of

reused materials • Low costs of newly produced materials • Lack of awareness of reverse logistics in the

construction industry • Lack of competence and experience in the

workforce

2.6 Identified Models in Reuse Management Previous research made in the field of reuse shows that different management models has been

created. In the aspect of reverse logistics and how it can be applied to the construction sector, a

study was made by Hosseini et al (2014) investigating the appliance of reverse logistics onto

the construction industry with lessons taken from the manufacturing industry. By investigating

previous research literature, Hosseini et al (2014) created one model on how to apply reverse

logistics in the manufacturing industry and another model for applying reverse logistics in the

construction industry. Fig. 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 shows the adaptations of the models created by the

authors (Hosseini et al., 2014).

Fig 2.6.1. Illustration of Hosseini et al’s model of reverse logistics in the manufacturing industry. Source:

Hosseini et al., 2014

18

Fig 2.6.2. Illustration of Hosseini et al’s model of reverse logistics in the construction industry. Source: Hosseini

et al., 2014

Similarly, as Hosseini et al (2014), another research was carried out by Pushpamali et al (2019)

investigating how the decision making of applying reversed logistics in the construction sector

could be streamlined. Hosseini et al (2014) argues that the primary reasons for reverse logistics

are economic factors and the desire for economic gains. However, Pushpamali et al (2019)

argues that the construction sector consumes more substantial quantities of scarce and finite

natural resources compared to other industries. Therefore, reversed logistics must be adopted

in the construction sector, primarily to reduce the negative environmental and social effects

caused by upstream construction activities (Hosseini et al., 2014; Pushpamali et al., 2019).

Thus, Pushpamali et al (2019) suggests a model (Fig. 2.6.3) for the decision on reversed

logistics which emphasises on both forward and reverse flow in order to maximise its

environmental, economic and social benefits. This model also emphasises on the fact that

reverse logistics decisions must be made during the pre-construction phase where planning and

designing takes place (Pushpamali et al., 2019).

Fig. 2.6.3. Illustration of Pushpamali et al’s reversed logistics decision making model. Source: (Pushpamali et

al., 2019).

19

A study by Da Rocha & Sattler (2009) investigated how the collaboration between different

actors in the construction sector could streamline the process of reusing materials from an old

building to a new one. Using a theoretical framework of supply chain management and by

conducting semi-structured interviews with different actors in the construction and demolition

industry, they opted for a model (fig. 2.6.4) for how the process should be (Da Rocha & Settler,

2009).

Fig. 2.6.4. Illustration of Da Rocha & Settler’s supply chain management of reused building materials. Source:

Da Rocha & Settler, 2009

Although the model shows the different ways and actors that can benefit from reused materials,

it is mostly focused on the demolition firm’s perspective and not on all the stakeholders. The

study by Da Rocha & Settler (2009) further showed that the reuse of building components is

primarily supported by economic and social aspects, such as labour costs of deconstruction and

demand for reused materials.

A study by Iacovidou et al (2018) examined how RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) could

ease the flow of information between stakeholders in regard to reusing construction

components. By using a common platform such as RFID, it would be possible for all the

stakeholders to retain the functionality of a construction component through a flow of

information related to its treatment, use and maintenance that requires updates throughout its

entire lifecycle (Iacovidou et al., 2018). The idea of sharing information on a components

lifecycle throughout different stages is further described in a study by Motamedi et al (2011),

who explains that information regarding a construction component should be stored at a suitable

20

location that enables all stakeholders to efficiently access, read and update it accordingly

(Motamedi et al., 2011). Fig. 2.6.5 shows the model for the levels of information flow required

for managing reused construction components between the stakeholders (Iacovidou et al., 2018)

Fig. 2.6.5. Illustration of Iacovidou et al’s, information flow model. Source: Iacovidou et al., 2018.

The model by Iacovidou et al. (2018) shows what type of information that needs to be reported

and also when it needs to be reported. Therefore, it could prove to be a valuable tool for

managing reused construction components between different stakeholders. By providing all the

stakeholders with access to view and update the information, the product data can be followed

up in real time throughout the entire product lifecycle (Iacovidou et al., 2018). However, the

model demands that all the stakeholders have access to RFID, which may not be the case in

practice. Also, it would require unified standards and best of practice guidance (Iacovidou et

al., 2018).

Despite the models presented, few models in reuse management which emphasises on the

collaboration between different actors has been produced. There exists a lack of extensive

research and a big research gap on how such a collaboration can facilitate the implementation

of the reuse of construction materials.

21

2.7.1 Summary of the Models Table 2.7.1. Summary of the models presented in previous chapter

Models Reference Positives Negatives Theoretical Framework

Reverse Logistics in the manufacturing

industry model

Hosseini et al., 2014

Takes into account different ways that materials can be

circular

Mostly adapted to the manufacturing

industry and may not be as

appropriate in other industries

Reverse Logistics

Reverse Logistics in the construction industry model

Hosseini et al., 2014

Takes into account different ways that materials can be

circular

Mostly adapted to the construction

industry and may not be as

appropriate in other industries

Reverse Logistics

Reverse Logistics decision

making model

Pushpamali et al., 2019

Emphasises that decisions

regarding reuse must be taken in the early stages of designing

and planning

Requires an early initiative from the

client to use reused materials, which may not always be of

interest for the client

Reverse Logistics

Supply chain management for

reused construction

components model

Da Rocha & Settler, 2009

Gives a comprehensive view

on the different ways and actors that reused materials can

go

Solely focuses on the aspects of the demolition firms

Supply chain management

Level of information flow for

managing reused construction

components model

Iacovidou et al., 2018

Shows in a thorough way when the

information needs to be transferred and

what it should contain

Requires that all the stakeholders implement RFID into their daily

routines

Not given in the report

22

2.7 Inter-Organisational Collaboration Inter-organisational collaboration refers to the process of collaboration between different

organisations with a wide variety of stakeholders facing complex issues they cannot solve

separately (Franco, 2008). A theoretical perspective to conceptualise inter-organisational

collaboration is inter-organisational domain theory, which emphasises on how collaboration

can be a response to inter-organisational problem domains. A problem domain is an entity that

is socially constructed, arising when a set of actors becomes dependent on each other as the

actions that the actors take in response to a problem occurring can generate potential and

unpredictable consequences for the others (Franco, 2008). An inter-organisational collaboration

between different actors from different organisations can lead to failure, primarily due to

asymmetry of interests and goals (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002), diverse routines, practices and

values (Levina, 2005). However, Gray (1989) argues that the differences in actor’s views,

interests and knowledge when facing a problem becomes a valuable asset, which enables the

actors to develop a shared understanding of the problem. Furthermore, Gray (1985) believes

that the perception of the positive outcome of an inter-organisational collaboration can be

increased for certain actors when incentives are provided.

Decision-making problems in a construction project is often caused by the complexity and the

high number of involved actors which characterises the construction industry (Yamazaki,

2004). Inter-organisational collaboration in the construction industry refers to relationships

between and amongst organisations, such as suppliers, customers, contractors and competitors

that are pursuing mutual interest, whilst still remaining independent and autonomous and thus

maintaining separate interests (Ebers, 2015). Actors in the real estate- and construction sector

can actively reach out and collaborate between organisations, projects and resources and

activities that are engaged over time (Havenvid et al., 2019). For instance, in terms of the

materials and technologies they use within and across projects, the lessons obtained from within

and across projects as well as how they develop new solutions within and across projects

(Havenvid et al., 2019). However, these gains can only be actualised when collaborative

partners trust each other and create business decisions and plans that are mutually beneficial

(Daugherty et al., 2006).

Transitioning to a circular economy in the construction and waste industry goes beyond the

borders of a single actor and stimulates the need for a collaboration among different actors. The

concept of circular economy can therefore be enabled through an inter-organisational

23

cooperation among different actors (Ruggieri et al., 2016). By investigating how opportunities

of cooperation through inter-organisational symbiosis can enable the development of circular

approaches to reuse waste, the authors found that inter-organisational cooperation can in fact

facilitate the potential reuse of waste (Ruggieri et al., 2016).

Despite the potential benefits of inter-organisational collaboration there exists several barriers

to achieving efficient inter-organisational resource management. Nilsson & Baumgarten (2014)

has identified barriers structured into five categories;

o The economic factor includes barriers such as high investment costs, low results due

to limited access to material and an unstable market.

o The social factor includes barriers such as a social isolation between organisations, lack

of time and resources as well as resistance from external factors such as public entities.

o The technological factor includes barriers related to materials such as being unsuitable

for reuse and having quality assurance demands on materials.

o The information related factor contains barriers such as limited knowledge about the

market, limited information on potential benefits and a lacking communication between

companies.

o Policy related factor barriers such as demanding logistic requirements and a lack of

supporting legislations and policies.

24

3. Method

This chapter presents the reader the methodological approaches the authors have chosen in order to conduct this study. Furthermore, this chapter presents the reader with information regarding the respondents interviewed as well as the actions taken to withhold a high reliability and validity.

3.1 Methodological Approach When discussing methodological approach, there are two general categories of methodologies;

quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative methods are more preferable in research questions

such as “how much” and “how many in general to a greater amount”. The aim with such a

method is to apply a relationship between parameters and variables to a general population

(Brannen, 2005). Qualitative methodologies emerged as a criticism towards quantitative

methods (Flick, 2014). Flick (2014) argues that qualitative methodologies are more relevant

today because people live a more individualised life than before and society today is more

diverse for sub-cultures and lifestyles than before. Therefore, according to Flick (2014), a

qualitative research strategy is better adapted to subjective research questions.

In order to fully investigate the research question, this study has used a triangulation of methods.

According to Gardner (1990), a triangulation can be described as “a combination of

methodologies in the study of the same phenomena”. There are different ways to design a

triangulation of methodologies. However, what they all have in common is the assumption that

the effectiveness of a triangulation rests on the premises that the weakness in each single

method will be compensated by the counter-balancing strength of another (Jick, 1979).

Bouchard (1976) argues that by using more than one method in the validation process, you

ensure that the variance is reflecting that of the trait and not on the method. Thus, the merging

of methods can enhance our belief that the results are valid and not a methodological artefact.

This report used an abductive research strategy, which is a combination of an inductive and a

deductive strategy. An inductive strategy means that the theoretical frameworks are based on

the empirical data collected, while a deductive strategy means that the researcher has a

perception on what the results will be based on the theoretical framework and then compare it

to the empirical data collected. By applying an abductive research strategy, it is possible to

25

change the strategy of the research depending on the questions that might arise during the

research (Saunders et al., 2015).

The primary data was obtained by semi-structured interviews with relevant people in the

industry as well as a survey to the tenants. The semi-structured interviews were conducted with

determined main questions, with the possibility to free follow up questions based on the answers

from the respondents. Semi-structured interviews are best suited for subjective questions where

the answers from the respondents are based on their own experience and perception. The choice

of semi-structured interviews is done based on the premise that the respondents might have

different opinions regarding reuse of materials and a semi-structured approach with free follow

up questions thus allows for a deeper understanding of the questions and answers between the

interviewer and the interviewees.

To get an understanding of the tenants view on reuse, the most ideal approach in this study was

to conduct a survey. There is always a risk for bias and error with a survey, but the procedure

used has a major effect on the likelihood that the results will be accurate and in terms with

reality (Fowler, 2009). In order to minimise the risk of potentially receiving answers that do not

correspond with reality, a survey should have standardised questions (Fowler, 2009). To collect

enough participants, the survey was internet-based and sent to a total of 400 companies who

are tenants to Vasakronan which resulted in a total of 40 responses. To decrease the risk of bias,

the survey was anonymous and the only information the tenants had to disclose was which

sector their company operates in.

An adequate approach to complete the primary data is to complement it together with secondary

data and then compare the results from the two. Saunders et al. (2015) argues that by

complement the primary data with secondary data, it is possible to further argue for the data

obtained by the primary data, or even discover new results by triangulation (Saunders et al.,

2015). Therefore, secondary data has been obtained by an extensive literature review regarding

previous research and literature in this topic. The literature review mostly consisted of peer-

reviewed scientific journals and governmental reports.

By gathering the primary data from the interviews and survey as well as secondary data from

investigating previous models made in the field of reuse management, the aim is to develop a

26

new framework model for optimising the management of reused materials and how a strategic

collaboration between actors can be incorporated in such a model.

3.2 Choice of Respondents When choosing respondents to interview, a lot of emphasis was put to conduct interviews with

relevant actors active in a tenant adaptation project from different fields within the real estate-

and construction industry. This was done due to the fact that by interviewing actors from

different fields, it would then be possible to locate common challenges these actors face and

how each of these actors can collaborate with each other. Therefore, interviews have been

conducted with representatives from real estate companies, architectural firms, demolition

firms, waste firms, contractors, material suppliers, logistics companies and consultants

specialised in reuse of construction materials. The respondents interviewed represents the

following companies; AMF Fastigheter, Castellum, Hufvudstaden, Skanska, NCC, Skanska

Hus, Ragnsells, Lotus Maskin och Transport, CS Riv och Håltagning, Byggpall, Interface,

Nordström Trä, Moelven, Omreda, Kompanjonen, White Arkitekter and IVL Svenska

Miljöinstitutet. Table 3.2.1 shows each representative, their role in the company and how the

interview was conducted. The questions asked in the interviews will be presented in the

appendix at the end of this report.

Table 3.2.1. List of the respondents and their role in the company

Respondent

Type of company

Role in the company

How the interview

was conducted

Real Estate Developer 1

Real estate company Head of Sustainability Telephone

Real Estate Developer 2

Real estate company Head of Sustainability Microsoft Teams

Real Estate Developer 3

Real estate company Head of Sustainability Microsoft Teams

Contractor 1 Construction company Sustainable Business Developer

Telephone

Contractor 2 Construction company Research and Innovation Coordinator

Telephone

Contractor 3 Construction company Project Manager Telephone

Waste Contractor 1 Waste contractor Contract Manager Telephone

27

Demolition and Logistics Contractor 1

Demolition and logistic company

Project Manager Telephone

Demolition and Logistics Contractor 2

Demolition and logistic company

Head of Quality and Environment

Telephone

Supplier 1 Supplier of construction pallets with

specialisation on reused pallets

Project Manager

Skype

Supplier 2 Supplier of textile and floors

Sustainability Ambassador

Telephone

Supplier 3 Wholesaler of wood Sales Manager Telephone

Supplier 4

Supplier of prefabricated construction modules

Marketing Director Skype

Consultant 1 Independent consultant in reuse and renovations

Consultant in reuse and renovations

Telephone

Consultant 2

Independent consultants in reuse of construction

materials

Consultant in reuse

Telephone

Architect 1 Architectural Firm Architect Skype

Researcher 1 Research institute funded by the Swedish

government

Project Manager Mail

3.3 Reliability and Validity Reliability and validity in research studies are of utmost importance. There is a general

consensus amongst researchers that all research must be open for criticism and evaluation. To

not be able to assess the importance of a study, the soundness of its methods, the accuracy of

its findings, the integrity of the assumptions made, or conclusions reached, could have

devastating consequences. Empirical findings that prove to be ambiguous or incomprehensible

may result in a waste of time and effort, while empirical findings which are quite frankly wrong

may result in the implementation of dangerous or harmful practices (Long & Johnson, 2000).

According to Polit et al (2001), validity can be defined as “the degree of consistency or

dependability with which an instrument measures the attribute it is designed to measure”, while

reliability is defined as “the degree to which an instrument measures what it is intended to

measure”. In order to minimise the risk of low reliability and validity, some actions have been

taken in this research:

28

• The respondents were chosen based on their expertise and experience within the real

estate and construction sector and also within reuse of materials.

• The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured way in order to have a freer

interview with relevant follow up questions that adds to a deeper understanding of the

questions and answers.

• The interviews were recorded to ensure the minimisation of loss of information from

the time of the interviews to when it is analysed and written down.

• The questions were formulated so that the risk of misinterpretation is minimised.

• The secondary data from the literature review was obtained from peer-reviewed journals

and governmental reports.

• The survey conducted was anonymous. This will ensure that the respondents will

express their opinion more freely, without feeling that they are going against company

policies or jeopardising their own interests.

3.4 Ethics Every researcher has an obligation to conduct research within the frames and aspects of the

ethical standards. Therefore, this research was conducted according to Bryman & Nilsson’s

(2011) four principles of research ethics:

• Information. The people participating in a research project shall be informed of the

purpose of the research. This includes that the participants shall know that their

participation is voluntary and not forced upon. They shall also be informed that they

have the right to drop out of the research if they want to.

• Consent. The people participating in a research have the right to decide for themselves

the level of participation they wish to have. They can themselves choose not to answer

a question if they do not wish to.

• Confidentiality. The personal data from the participant will be treated with the utmost

confidentiality. This is to prevent unauthorised people from getting access to their

personal data.

• Use. The empirical data obtained from the participants will only be used for the purpose

of this research.

Another key aspect in ethics is diversification amongst the participants. The goal of this

research is to obtain data from people with different ethnicity, gender, professional and

background.

29

4. Results

This chapter presents the reader with the empirical findings obtained from the interviews and the survey conducted. The empirical findings in this chapter is focused on the barriers as well as the incentives required to implement material reuse and participate in a strategic collaboration for material reuse.

4.1 Current Business Models Within Reuse of Construction Materials To obtain an overview of the present approach of how companies within the real estate- and

construction sector works with material reuse and identify potential difficulties with fully

implementing a circular approach to reuse, the respondents were asked about their company’s

current business model related to material reuse.

4.1.1 Real Estate Developers

According to the respondents within the real estate sector there exists no clear and common

framework for working with reuse of construction materials. Each real estate developer’s

business model differs depending on the company’s environmental awareness and established

goals within the firm. However, the company’s business models are similar in several aspects,

for instance, a majority of the real estate developers mainly work with transferring materials

that can be reused within their own construction projects. When working with reconstructing a

property, Real Estate Developer 1 mentions that they use a third-party consulting company that

specialises in reuse to make an inventory and quality assurance of the existing materials within

the premises to determine what can be reused. Real Estate Developer 2 mentions in the

interview that their existing strategy to minimise waste and to encourage the implementation of

reusing materials is mainly through putting demands on the contractors that only a certain

amount of waste can go to the landfill, which indirectly forces the contractors to reuse

construction materials. Real Estate Developer 3 emphasises that their business model focuses

on planning buildings that do not require demolition when a new tenant is moving in. Therefore,

constructing flexible buildings with materials that are more expensive and are meant to last

longer than other materials is more preferable. Thus, planning for buildings to last longer and

preserving their current property stock in order to prevent the need for reusing is their main

business strategy rather than constructing with the intent of reusing. The real estate developer

uses standardised materials which are seen as exclusive, has high-quality and has a long

lifespan, materials used are for instance marble tiles in the restrooms.

30

“Focus should be emphasised on constructing and designing to avoid the need to reuse

materials, rather than focusing on how to reuse materials. Constructing buildings with a

long-term perspective will diminish the need for demolition and reuse of materials.” - Real

Estate Developer 3

4.1.2 Contractors

Out of the three contractors interviewed, two of them are currently developing their business

models to implement reuse of construction materials on a larger scale. Contractor 1 mentions

that two business models are in progress, however the respondent could not disclose

information on the content due to them being in an early testing-stage, only that they differ in

two important aspects: purchasing strategy and quality assurance. Unlike previous

respondents, Contractor 2 reveals in the interview that the company has an internal digital

platform where they can share leftover materials from their own construction sites which can

further be reused in other of their construction projects. In terms of quality assurance, the

company is currently developing methods to assure the quality of the reused materials,

according to the respondent samples of materials are sent to RISE (Research Institutes of

Sweden) for quality assurance.

4.1.3 Demolition and Logistics Companies

Demolition and Logistic Contractor 2 that was interviewed has a fully established circular

business model for reusing construction materials. The company has a subsidiary which sells

reused construction materials to third party customers. Demolition and Logistics Contractor 2

mentions in the interview that the company and its subsidiary is responsible for dismantling,

making quality assurance of the materials and then transporting it to their recovery facility. The

company usually plans ahead to match a certain demolition process of a building with a

construction process that is going on at the same time, to be able to reuse the materials from the

demolition. The company has also applied an own climate calculator to determine and present

how much CO2 emissions can be saved by reusing certain construction materials to the client.

Furthermore, the subsidiary company is not only bound to the parent company itself, but also

receives materials from external companies and actors.

4.1.4 Suppliers

Similar to Demolition and Logistics Contractor 2, Supplier 1 has a fully established business

model that specialises in reusing construction pallets. The circular model is based upon the

31

contractors making a request to the suppliers that they want their supplies delivered through the

company. The supplier then purchases pallets from the company and delivers their goods on

these pallets to the construction site. Once the pallets have been used, they are collected on the

construction site and purchased as well as brought back by the company for quality assurance

and are further restored if required. The model is based on being non-profitable to encourage a

circular implementation of reuse, thereby the supplier gets full coverage for the pallet

independent of its condition when being purchased back.

Supplier 2 has an established circular business model in their branches in the United Kingdom

and in the Netherlands. In the interview, Supplier 2 mentions that they are currently

investigating different circular business models in Sweden. However, there is currently no

established model for the Swedish market. As of today, the business models that the company

uses for the Swedish market consists of partnering with a third-party company in the

Netherlands, the same third-party company that the Dutch branch partners with. The floor

contractors dismantle the textile rugs which are then transported to the third-party company in

the Netherlands which is further responsible for restoring, stocking and then selling the material

to a new customer, which in some cases is the original customer. The third-party company also

rates the condition of the textile floor which enables the end-customer to choose which quality

they prefer. Similarly, Supplier 4 mentions in the interview that they first and foremost work

with reuse internally within the facility. Supplier 4 mentions that there is usually a contractor

between them and the real estate developer whom the supplier works together with.

Additionally, Supplier 4 mentions that they are developing a strategy to bring back the materials

for reconditioning more effectively. However, this alternative is considered as the last

prioritised option, since reusing internally within the facility decreases logistical demands.

4.2 Construction Materials with the Highest Potential to Be Reused In order to examine which materials, have the highest potential to be reused for a tenant facility

adaption, we asked all the respondents which materials they considered had the highest potential

to be reused. Figure 4.2.1 shows their response. The figure below shows that the majority of

the respondents believe that windows and doors have the highest potential to be reused, mostly

because of the simplicity of dismantling and mantling them back on. Furthermore, some of the

respondents also believe that textile floors and ventilation also have a high potential to be

reused. Textile floors mostly because of the simplicity to dismantle and restore it and then

32

mantle it back on, ventilations channels because, according to Contractor 1, they have been

standardised since the 1960’s and do not need to be modified substantially. Other materials

such as steel and concrete are mostly mentioned because of their environmental impact upon

production and would thus be the best material to reuse from an environmental standpoint.

Figure 4.2.1. Materials with the highest potential to be reused according to the respondents.

4.3 Barriers for Implementing Reuse of Construction Materials

4.3.1 Incentives According to the respondents, different types of incentives have to be developed for facilitating

the reuse of construction materials. Most of the respondents interviewed agree that in order to

fully implement reuse of construction materials at a higher rate than today it needs to be

economically feasible and therefore economic incentives are required. A reason for

implementing economic incentives according to the interviews is that using secondary materials

often becomes more expensive than buying new materials which makes it non-profitable. Real

Estate Developer 2 also mentions that in certain projects the costs for the reuse consultant who

carry out the inventory and the costs for reconditioning the materials exceed the costs for

purchasing new construction materials. Real Estate Developer 1 believes that economic

incentives from the government are necessary for those parties involved that do not have the

climate issue as a priority. However, according to Supplier 1 reusing construction materials can

be cheaper if solutions for creating economic incentives within the building sector can be made

without the involvement of authorities.

33

Some respondents claim that the environmental benefits that arise with reusing construction

materials are crucial and should act as the most important incentives. Therefore, respondents

have emphasised that it would be beneficial to create further incentives by demonstrating a CO2

emission consumption for each material which can be reused, contrary to the CO2 emission

consumption of buying newly produced materials of the same kind. During the interview with

Supplier 2, the respondent mentions that the company has goals to be climate neutral by the

year 2040. Because of the company goals, they are inclined to continue with the present

business model for reusing textile floors despite it not being economically feasible today.

“It is acceptable that it costs the same or more right now until the process for reuse has been

refined” - Supplier 2

However, many agree that despite the environmental benefits, material reuse cannot be

implemented if there is no economic feasibility with it. Both of the reuse consultants

interviewed mention that one way to tackle the economic concerns is by adding value to

properties that have reused construction materials. However, they suggest two different means

to add value to the property. Consultant 1 and Architect 1 suggests that that an office space that

has been built of reused construction materials should lead to a higher real estate value and a

higher willingness to pay for tenants, while Consultant 2 suggests that real estates with reused

construction materials should receive environmental certifications which thus adds value to the

real estate and creates incentives for the tenants.

Another way to solve the issue of lacking incentives amongst actors in the industry is by

governmental involvement. A real estate developer mentions in the interview that one way to

increase the incentives could be by demands put by politicians and lobbyists for implementing

a circular economy. Another way for the government to involve and increase the incentives is

by affecting the property tax. One of the reuse consultants mentions in the interview that a

decreased property tax on real estates with reused materials would raise the real estate value

and thus serve as an incentive to the real estate owner. According to Supplier 2, another

approach could be by further taxing newly produced construction materials, this would result

in increased incentives amongst actors to further implement reused construction materials as it

will be more economically beneficial. However, Supplier 1 believes that the government should

set up goals for the building sector to achieve rather than introducing demands as the

34

involvement of authorities may lead to bureaucracy. However, other respondents believe that a

combination of legal requirements and incentives can promote a circular economy and

encourage the use of secondary construction materials.

4.3.2 Logistics and Recovery facility A big challenge that was highlighted during the interviews was the issue of logistics and storage.

The process for intermediate storage of materials that is indented to be reused by real estate

developers is similar to each other. First and foremost, all respondents within the real estate

developing companies mention that materials which will be reused are normally stored in the

existing facility that is being rebuilt. If no such storage exists, the materials are stored in their

own facilities nearby. However, a challenge with this according to the respondents is that it is

difficult to find such intermediate storage, especially in central areas. According to Real Estate

Developer 3 there exists no free storage in their facilities in central areas due to them having a

higher market demand and is therefore fully leased by the real estate owner with no available

space. A challenge arising concerning the logistics according to Real Estate Developer 2 is that

there should exist large volumes of reused materials for it to be financially profitable. This is

further strengthened by Supplier 1 who believes that logistics within a circular economy may

enable a negative environmental impact due to the material having to be transported an

additional time and whereas a low volume of material will enable a larger amount of transports

which would not be cost-efficient. As contractors primarily work with construction materials

on construction sites Contractor 1 mentions that questions arise concerning how leftover

materials can be transported from one construction site to another and also emphasises on the

importance of the quantity of material.

The real estate developers interviewed in this study has most of their commercial buildings

located in the central parts of Stockholm, where as much space as possible should go to tenant

leasing. Therefore, according to the respondents, stocking on construction materials in their

own premises is not the best solution. One solution to this problem is according to respondent

1 to have a common recovery facility between the real estate developer in an area outside of the

city-centre where rents are lower. Furthermore, the respondents believe that the transportation

and recovery facility should be managed by a third party. This is also suggested by Consultant

2, who claims that logistics and recovery facility should be provided by a third-party company

that can manage this type of businesses at large quantities.

35

Consultant 2 mentions in the interview that one possible way to solve the issues of logistics and

recovery facility could be by demolition or waste companies expanding their services to also

include transport and recovery facility. However, according to Demolition and Logistics

Contractor 2, the logistics of material reuse which includes dismantling the materials, requires

competence and experience for it to be handled efficiently. Waste Contractor 1 mentions in the

interview that despite the fact that they today do not actively work with reused construction

material, they do have the capacity to in theory be able to place containers on the construction

site where the demolition firms place all the materials which are then transported and possibly

also stocked by the waste contractor. However, according to Waste Contractor 1, there has to

exists a sufficient market and economic feasibility for them to engage in such a collaboration.

“It could be as standardised as the process with construction waste is today, as long as there

is an economic feasibility” – Waste Contractor 1

Demolition and Logistics Contractor 1 states that if they should expand their services to also

dismantle, transport and store products, it requires for them to have a recovery facility to hold.

Furthermore, a new customer for the dismantled products has to be ensured before the

dismantling process begins. According to the respondent this is vital to ensure that both

economic and time feasibility is maintained within the project.

A way to tackle the concerns regarding quantities and the low market for reused materials is to

increase the incentives amongst actors by increasing their knowledge regarding the economic

effects of reused construction materials, according to Researcher 1. Furthermore, Consultant 2

suggests that by planning to reuse at an early stage of the planning process and making an

inventory of the real estate owners internal existing stocks could increase the quantities and

raise the market for reused materials. Implementing an electronic register of the properties and

their inventory, similar to what they have in the Netherlands, that contains information such as

age, characteristics and quality could improve the inventory and demolition process, according

to Waste Contractor 1.

4.3.3 Quality Assurance and Warranties One challenge that was brought up amongst all the interviews is the challenge concerning

quality assurance and warranties on reused construction materials. Demolition and Logistics

Contractor 2 mentions that there exists a common expectation that the warranty for newly

36

produced materials should be the same for reused materials. The respondent believes that it is

of great importance that quality assurances which are relevant to reuse construction materials

are created, to ensure a form of safety for the customer. A challenge with this according to the

respondent is that a guarantee for newly produced material is associated with it being expected

to last for a number of years, while this might be more difficult to do for reused materials. The

respondent means that a guarantee for reuse should focus on the characteristics of the material

and on guaranteeing a certain level of quality, rather than guaranteeing that it will last for a

certain number of years. According to the contractors, challenges also occur for materials that

have to be CE marked, which can be difficult to find amongst former components, which

complicates the purchasing process of materials.

When managing reused construction materials, making sure the withhold the quality standards

issued by regulations is essential. In the interview with Consultant 2, the respondent mentions

that eight parameters can be used in determining whether the material is suited for to be reused

or not, they are; demand, ability to dismantle, quantity, age, condition, form, foresight and

function. When interviewing the real estate companies, Real Estate Developer 1 and 2

mentioned that their quality assurance on materials is made by hiring a third-party consulting

company that performs the quality assurance. The same issues with warranties are mentioned

by Contractor 3, where in the interview, the respondent mentions that in order to set a warranty

time from contractor to developer, the same warranty time must be set from supplier to

contractor.

When being asked about solutions for streamlining the process of quality assurance concerning

reused construction material, Real Estate Developer 2 mentions that there exists no building

product requirements and standards for circular material today as there exist for newly produced

materials. The lack of standards and product requirements puts a restraint on the real estate

developer to follow up and measure the requirements that have been set on the contractors. The

respondent therefore believes that product declarations and standards for circular materials must

be established in order to more easily ensure quality of the reused materials.

4.3.4 General Perceptions of the Tenants’ View on Material Reuse A key factor in the possibility to implement reused materials in a tenant reconstruction is by

coming to an agreement with the tenant. However, according to the real estate developers,

tenants’ general view on reused materials is that the materials are old and do not have the same

37

quality and appearance as newly produced materials and thereby it is not a suitable and

attractive choice for them.

Another aspect is, according to Supplier 2, that most tenants’ main priority is to reconstruct the

facility with regards to financial aspects and are therefore more likely of choosing newly

produced materials as they tend to be cheaper. According to Supplier 1, it is also important to

differentiate between tenants when selling the concept of reused materials. While some may be

open to it when presented with the concept of reusing and avoiding waste, others may not see

it beneficial for their businesses.

4.5 Tenants View on Having Reused Construction Materials Out of the 40 responses obtained from the survey, 85% of the respondents answered that they

have knowledge on what the term reuse of construction materials in a tenant adaptation means.

Also, when asked what the tenants associate the term reused construction materials with, 92,5

% associated it with “Reusage of a functional and adequate material” rather than an “Old and

worn out material”. Furthermore, when asked to rank their view on having reused construction

materials in their premises, on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is least positive, and 5 is most

positive. A total of 57,5% ranked their view at a scale of 5, implying that they have an

overwhelmingly positive view on using it. This is further strengthened in the answers when

being asked on whether the tenants would prefer a facility with partly reused materials over a

facility with only newly produced materials. Out of the respondents, 90% would prefer a facility

with partly reused materials over a facility with only newly produced materials, when being

presented with information on how much CO2 emissions can be saved per square meter office

space.

When tenants have determined to have reused materials in their facility, 62,5% rank

functionality of the materials as their highest priority, over the materials aesthetic appearance

and it being financially favourable. This could be the reason why the respondents ranked steel

girders and windows as the two materials tenants would most likely prefer to have as reused

materials in their facility. However, for the tenants to determine to have reused materials in

their offices, several other factors other than it being environmentally beneficial and

strengthening the company’s environmentally friendly image is decisive. For instance, some

respondents emphasise on that size, location, rent level and that the facility accommodates to

38

the needs of the business as important factors before considering implementing the reuse of

construction materials.

Although the tenants' views on reused construction materials in their facilities is

overwhelmingly positive, 61% of the tenants answered that they would expect a decrease in

rent if they would have reused materials in their facility. Furthermore, 65% answered that they

would not embrace reused materials in their facility if it would result in an increase of the rent.

For full disclosure of the survey, please see appendix at the end of the report.

4.6 Real Estate Developer’s Role in Encouraging Reuse of Construction

Material During the interviews conducted, there is a general consensus amongst the respondents that the

real estate developers have a significant part in the process of further implementing the reuse

of construction materials. The respondents provided different answers based on their

relationship with the real estate developers. Many of the respondents interviewed mentioned

the role of the tenants and how important it is from the real estate developer and architect to

sell the concept of reused materials to the tenants. An approach that the real estate developers

and architects can take to sell the concept according to Consultant 1 is for them to change the

mentality and the general view tenants have on reused construction materials.

Additionally, some emphasise on the importance of actually determining reusing at an early

stage of the planning process. Contractor 3 mentions in the interview that the developers should

at an early stage in the planning process determine which materials can be reused and at what

quantities and thereby make an inventory of the existing materials. However, the architect as

well as the reuse consultants believes that the real estate developers must start a step earlier by

identifying the values that exist in the facility, building or neighbourhood. The architect

emphasises that the architects and designers should be involved early in the process by helping

the real estate developers in identifying values, both in the building as a whole, but also in the

existing materials before the design of the new facility begins. Today, most of the architect’s

work is usually completed when the drawings are completed and has gone to procurement,

however the respondent thinks that it is out of importance that the architect is involved in the

whole building process, from designing, to follow-up, to dismantling and to the management

of the building to utilise the process of reusing construction materials. The respondent believes

39

that the real estate owners have to think of buildings as material banks and as a storage space

for future assets and therefore structure their buildings to benefit and suit material reuse.

Therefore, the respondent believes that the real estate developers should have a long-term

perspective which can be achieved by having a long-term collaboration with the designers and

architects of the buildings. By including the same architects and designers in the management

phase, it would result in the designers having more knowledge in the previous materials used

and the overall design of the building which would simplify the process of reusing those

materials in a future tenant facility adaption, and would thus, save time and money for the real

estate developer.

“The more knowledge we have of the buildings, the better we can refine its resources and

identify its potential values” - Architect 1

The respondent also mentions the importance of the demolition process and that it should be

integrated in the building process, rather than being performed separately. This is further

strengthened by the demolition contractor who believes that in order for them to expand their

usual business model to also include dismantling products, the real estate developer has to

assign more time for the dismantling process in the demolition phase.

“The real estate developers have to plan and make time for the inventory and dismantling

process in the time plan, otherwise the schedule will be pressured which will result in

demolition of materials that could have been reused. However, with thorough planning the

process can be streamlined” - Demolition and Logistics Contractor 1

Demolition and Logistics Contractor 2 further mentions in the interview that the time for test

projects are over and that real estate developers must integrate reused materials as a standard in

their business models. Furthermore, Demolition and Logistics Contractor 2 mentions that it is

not necessary to construct an entire building with reused materials, but that it can be minimised

to one floor or one premise, as long as it is done. Another aspect that is emphasised in the

interviews is that there needs to be a market for reuse construction materials pushed by the

developers. If there is not a market with a substantial volume of reused materials, then it would

be difficult to compete against newly produced materials from factories which has streamlined

their production.

40

The importance of the cooperation between developers and contractors is mentioned in the

interviews. While some respondents, such as Supplier 1 and Consultant 2, want to see the

developers put higher demands toward the contractors, Contractor 1 would rather see that the

developers are less specific in their description in the procurement phase in order to give more

flexibility and room for creativity for the contractors to scan the market for reuse construction

materials. A way for the real estate developer to create conditions for reuse is by having

requirements associated with “design to reuse” which for instance can be that the materials they

construct the building with should be constructed in such a way that it is possible to dismantle

them in the future. The respondent also highlights how the requirement “zero waste to landfill”

can in cooperation with the real estate developer lead to incentives for using a higher amount

of reused materials. According to the Demolition and Logistics Contractor 2, many real estate

developers have procurement requirements that specify the waste going to a certain waste

manager which the respondent means creates obstacles for reusing construction materials.

For contractors, working with reused construction materials often leads to a risk concerning the

guarantee that they are not willing to take. Contractor 1 mentions that the developers should be

open to having a lower warranty time, as this creates opportunities for the contractor to increase

material reuse when having the option to use materials that has a lower lifespan. The respondent

further mentions that the warranty time should depend on the tenant’s length of contract and

the time span until the next tenant moves in and therefore the materials do not always have to

have a high warranty time as the material may be replaced when a new tenant moves in. The

respondent highlights that the body and the roof of the building are the parts that should have a

high warranty time. However according to the architect interviewed, the warranty time for

material should be longer as it should be considered as a long-term investment that can be

distributed to the next tenant as well, providing that the material remains its functionality and

quality. Another way of managing the risk of warranties from developer to contractor is

according to Contractor 2, by having a risk premium towards the real estate developer.

“The developer must take a greater part of the risk that usually is put on the contractor,

because the contractor cannot guarantee the quality on all material” - Contractor 2

41

4.7 Key Factors for Initiating a Strategic Collaboration Between Different

Actors When asking the respondents how they think a strategic collaboration might be structured, the

answers were different depending on their company's perspective. However, one aspect that a

majority of the respondents had in common was that in order for a strategic collaboration to be

successful, it has to be non-competitive. Furthermore, it is of importance that each actor sets

common goals which all parties can benefit from and that each actor takes responsibility in

achieving these goals. This is also mentioned in the interview with the architect that emphasises

on the fact that a single actor cannot do this by themselves and needs support and collaboration

with other actors. Furthermore, the architect mentions that those who do the transition from a

linear economy to a circular economy today and by themselves often sees themselves being

outcompeted by their competitors whose business plan is still linear.

“A fundamental pillar within circular economy is about turning competitive relationships into

collaborative relationships” - Architect 1

Furthermore, Architect 1 also mentions that companies that transition to a circular economy

today want their circular loop to be as small as possible. The smaller the circular loop, the more

profitable it is. This leads to the fact that developers tend to keep their materials internally and

within the company stock. Thus, sharing common goals and finding a common network

between the actors is crucial to enlarge the circular loop and still be profitable.

Two of the three real estate developers interviewed mentioned the importance of a collaboration

between the developers, where a continuous exchange of materials is made between them. This

would thus require a common platform between the developers where they exchange or

purchase materials between them. Real Estate Developer 1 goes further into this and says that

the common platform can either be run entirely by a third party or by the real estate developers

through the usage of a common recovery facility. However, this would require a substantial

amount of volume in order for it to be profitable and thus economically feasible. This model

will, according to Supplier 2, mean that the real estate companies will have the entire ownership

of the materials and the responsibility for the process of reconditioning and mantling the

products, which would thus exclude the supplier’s potential role. According to Supplier 3, the

supplier should have the ownership of the materials, and instead of selling the material, the

42

material should be leased to the real estate developers during a certain amount of time and with

a certain level of quality. This type of ownership is a way of avoiding the problems arising with

product warranties.

Although the real estate developers emphasise on a potential cooperation between them, they

do also mention the potential role the demolition contractors and suppliers can have in the

dismantling, transporting and recovery facility process. However, according to the Demolition

Contractor 1, for them to handle the dismantling, logistics and selling process, a recovery

facility is required for storing. As previously mentioned, another requirement for them to be

involved in such a collaboration is that a new customer has to be secured for the materials before

the dismantling process has begun to ensure time and financial profitability.

The contractors, however, mention that the waste companies should be involved in the

collaboration in terms of gathering the materials and then transporting it. The contractors’ part

in this would be to provide the materials, monitor the procedure and guaranteeing that the

materials end up where they should and to the right end user. This type of arrangement goes in

line to what the waste contractor said in the interview. According to them, their role in this

collaboration would be as a collecting part. Waste Contractor 1 mentions that they could place

containers with fractions on demolition sites where the dismantled materials would be collected

and then transported to a producer or supplier where it can be reconditioned and later resold.

However, the respondent is sceptical on whether there exists a demand and a substantial market

for reused materials. Thus, it would not be in their interest to participate in such a collaboration

if there is no financial benefit.

43

5. Analysis/Discussion

This chapter presents the reader with the analysis and discussion of the results in relation to the literature review.

5.1 Influential Factors in the Reuse Process

5.1.1 Degree of Collaboration In order to obtain a general overview on how some of the companies work with material reuse

today, the respondents were asked about their company’s business model and current strategy

for implementing the reuse of construction materials. The results show that some companies

are at an early stage in the implementation of material reuse, whilst others have an established

and more circular business model. The results further show that the companies that are still

establishing their business models, mostly work with reuse of materials internally in their own

facilities or projects, which corresponds to the barriers within the social-and information factor

identified by Nilsson & Baumgarten (2014) which highlights the social isolation and lack of

communication between organisations. The share of materials on a wider market can facilitate

the reuse of construction materials and transition companies from working internally and

maintaining a small circular loop for material reuse to also working externally and thereby

enlarging their circular loop. This aligns with Havenvid et al. (2019) who states that actors can

collaborate and share materials and resources within and across projects. The use of a common

digital platform between actors can enhance a wider distribution of material reuse by increasing

the availability of materials that can be reused and thereby increasing the materials life cycle

elsewhere.

The companies that have a more circular and established business model show that their models

are centred around collaboration and the involvement of other actors. This indicates that an

inter-organisational collaboration amongst different actors is essential for implementing

material reuse at a wider scale in the real estate- and construction sector. However, as the actors

between different organisations have different interests and goals, the collaboration has to be

efficient to produce positive outcomes. The results show that the perception of the positive

outcome of an inter-organisational collaboration can be increased for certain actors when

incentives are provided, most primarily economic incentives which aligns with the statement

by Gray (1985) and the barrier centred around the economic factor by Nilsson & Baumgarten

(2014).

44

5.1.2 Tenant’s View on Reused Materials The results obtained highlights that there exists a general perception amongst the interviewees

that tenants may have a negative view towards having reused construction materials in their

facilities. This belief aligns with Kartam et al. (2004) as well as the identified barrier according

to the reverse logistics literature which states that a difficulty for implementing the reuse of

construction materials is the negative perception that the final end-users may have of it.

However, the results of the survey do not align with neither Kartam et al. (2004) nor the

literature review. According to the survey conducted tenants have a positive attitude towards

using reused construction materials. The survey showed that tenants value functionality and

aesthetic appearance as the most depending factors influencing their willingness to adapt reused

materials. Therefore, the real estate developers should convey to the final clients that the reused

construction materials can maintain the same functionality and quality as new products. As

some tenants state that it is of importance that the facility is also designed in such a way that

accommodates the need for their businesses, the architects should aim to design the facility and

its aesthetic appearance in such a way that is requested and attractive, to further make it

appealing to the tenant. The results obtained from the interviews also states that it is important

to sell the concept of reused materials to the tenants and thus increase their knowledge about it.

By increasing tenants' knowledge about it and the potential benefits, reused construction

materials could be further promoted to the tenants. These concerns are further stated by Adams

et al. (2017), who stated that a general lack of knowledge was conceived as a major barrier for

implementing reused construction materials on a wider scale.

However, the answers of the survey reveal that the vast majority of the tenants have knowledge

of what the term reused construction materials means. Nevertheless, the knowledge concerning

the term does not necessarily imply that tenants are also aware of the potential benefits arising

from it. Therefore, it is essential that real estate developers showcase the benefits of reusing

construction materials for their tenants to encourage them to request such materials in their

facilities. One approach that can be adapted is to demonstrate for the tenants how much

greenhouse gas emissions that can be saved by reusing certain construction materials compared

to newly produced materials in the specific facility. Illustrating the potential environmental

consequences for the tenants might positively strengthen their opinion of it and serve as a

further incentive for them to choose reused construction materials. The role of the

environmental benefits could have a positive influence for the tenants decision making which

was shown in the survey as a majority of the tenants would prefer a facility with reused

45

construction materials over a facility with all newly produced materials when given information

about how much CO2 emissions could be saved by reusing construction materials.

Supplier 4 believes that the location is the tenants’ highest priority in choosing a facility, which

is further strengthened by some of the tenants in the survey results. The tenants state that their

decision making when choosing a facility is primarily based on the location of it, rather than

the sole alternative of it being constructed with reused building materials. Therefore, if real

estate developers own facilities in attractive locations, it may enable them to have more

influence in promoting reuse of materials towards the tenants as the location will be the main

decisive factor for the tenant in choosing the specific facility. However, difficulties concerning

logistics and recovery facility in attractive and central locations may erupt due to the lack of

available space. However, when factors such as rent levels play a more decisive role in choosing

a facility, the real estate developer may have to create other incentives to encourage tenants in

choosing reused construction material.

The real estate developers can further create a favourable context for reuse for the tenants by

offering economic incentives. Such an economic incentive can be to offer the tenants a lower

rent or a temporary decrease in rent which is what a majority of the respondents according to

the survey expects. However, according to the interviews, it is of importance that the

implementation of material reuse is economically feasible for the real estate developers, which

corresponds to the findings of Hart et al (2019) who states that a return on the investment is one

of the biggest challenges with the implementation. Therefore, a lower rent combined with the

increased costs associated with reused materials may be seen as problematic for some real estate

developers as it will not be financially beneficial. However, it is of importance for the real estate

developers to consider that the cost savings due to material reuse in a long-term perspective can

outweigh the initial investment costs and reduction in rental income. The real estate developer

should therefore account for savings that can be made and include them in the feasibility

assessments. The cost of reused materials should not be the only factor considered as cost

savings derived from, for instance, landfill costs are eliminated in material reuse and may in

combination with other cost-savings outweigh or reduce the initial investment. This aligns with

Jung et al (2015) who states that the total costs of the entire value chain structure should be

considered in the decision-making process of recovering and reusing materials. Some

respondents believe that the real estate developer should rather view the reuse of materials as a

long-term investment for the facility in the future and to not only associate it with the initial

46

tenant. Rather, the initial investment for reuse will be financed by the following tenant as well,

provided that the materials remain in the facility for the following tenant.

Depending on each tenant’s desire and commercial model, it is of great importance that the real

estate developer creates incentives and a collaboration with the tenant to convey the

opportunities that exist within the existing facility to encourage them in adapting reused

construction materials.

5.1.3 Finding Added Value in the Existing Property

Pushpamali et al. (2019) Reverse Supply decision making model, in section 2.6 emphasises that

material reuse decisions have to be taken as early in the planning stage as possible. This was

further stated by the majority of the conducted interviews which highlighted the importance of

determining to adapt material reuse at an early stage. Therefore, planning for a reuse strategy

has to be initiated and created before conducting an inventory of the existing materials in the

facility. The real estate developer should in the pre-inventory identify potential values within

the existing facility, in close collaboration with the tenant, designers and architects to create a

vision that is based on the characteristics of the facility. This preparatory work simplifies the

inventory process which should focus on identifying and quantifying existing materials that can

be reused. The inventory could according to the interviewees be conducted in collaboration

with reuse consultants for their expertise on the quality of the products. It would hence be wise

to consult with the reuse consultants which aligns with the framework for reverse logistics

created by Guide & van Wassenhove (2002) who emphasises that a company should aim to

make decisions on reuse based on the quality of the product and other necessary variables as

early as possible in the process to achieve profitability and decrease logistic costs.

It is crucial for the architects and designers to be a part of the planning of the choice of materials

at an early stage. The architects need to not only be included in the process of deciding which

materials can be reused at the present moment, but also to be included in deciding which

materials should be purchased for future reuse. In order to enable a sufficient deconstruction,

the architects should for instance not use such materials that are required to be adhesive, and

thus irreversibly attached, something that is further strengthened by Consultant 2. The architects

can assist in making a selection of materials from the reuse market to ensure that building

components meet the intended design and quality. Furthermore, it is of importance that the

architect and real estate developer has a continuous collaboration throughout the planning

47

phase. The architect and designer can further assist the developer in preparing flexible tender

documents for the contractor, by deciding that materials that will be purchased are not locked

to a certain requirement that will hinder the purchasing process. Therefore, a close collaboration

will enable the design team to further develop the project vision by basing the decision of

material on what is available on the reuse market or on how the available materials within the

existing facility can be refined to be compatible with the project vision.

The demolition contractor’s role in finding added value in the existing property also plays a

significant role in the reuse process, and therefore a collaboration between them and the real

estate developer is of great importance. To best facilitate salvage from buildings, it is crucial

for the real estate developer to choose and procure a demolition contractor with experience and

competence within deconstruction for reuse, which is essential to overcome the barrier

regarding the lack of competence and experience identified in the literature review and results.

The real estate developer can therefore in the bidding process assess the experience and

knowledge demolition contractors have, as this can translate into larger savings for the real

estate developer due to a higher amount of materials being resolved and thereby reused.

Demolition contractors with less experience might demand a higher bid in the bidding process

due to the uncertainties and increased risk they are exposed to when working with reuse. The

higher bid may be used to compensate for their lack of experience and competence of handling

such deconstruction works.

An issue in today’s building process is that it is very common that the demolition process is

initiated before or during the design phase to save time. The results of this is that the designers

are not given enough time and preconditions to be involved in the inventory and dismantling

process and thereby design for reuse. As Demolition Contractor 1 mentioned, a key requirement

for them to be able to participate in the reuse process is that they are given enough time for

dismantling. A solution for this is that the real estate developer should assign more time for the

demolition and dismantle process in the time plan which can be accomplished by scheduling

the demolition to be performed after the design phase. Although this may benefit the reuse

process, it can be more time consuming which can put a restraint on the project’s budget.

5.1.4 Conditions to Finding and Using Suitable Reused Materials The contractors in the interviews emphasised on the importance of flexible demands to facilitate

the purchasing process. However, several of the other actors interviewed believe that the real

48

estate developers should have stricter demands with specific requirements. Putting specific

requirements such as a reuse percentage target can indirectly force the contractor to work with

reused materials and thus achieve the stated requirements. However, too specific requirements

can, on the other hand, hinder the contractors from effectively fulfilling the requirements due

to difficulties arising in finding and purchasing suitable materials. The contractors interviewed

believe that the real estate developer and architect should put flexible demands on materials in

the procurement documents as well as account to which materials have been salvaged and are

intended to be reused to simplify the purchasing process for the contractors. For instance, the

real estate developer and designers should not specify which material that should be used, such

as tiled façade material. Instead, the real estate developer and designers should for instance state

that a red façade material should be used, which will create flexibility for the contractor as they

will have a wider span to search for different reused materials on the market. This procurement

approach can simplify the process of finding materials from a reuse market or purchasing newly

produced materials with the intention of future reuse for the contractor. Another benefit arising

from formulating the design documents and procurement requirements in a flexible way

towards the contractor is that time could be regained and compensated for delaying the

demolition process. Furthermore, the real estate developer should coordinate with the contractor

in the construction phase to assure that leftover materials are not sent to waste, but rather being

used in another construction project.

Another difficulty according to the respondents with finding appropriate reused materials is

making sure they have an appropriate quality assurance and warranty. There are disagreements

amongst the respondents regarding who should take the responsibility of the warranties of the

materials. As it is important for all the actors to be confident that the materials are of adequate

quality, the suppliers could be involved in the reconditioning and quality assurance of salvaged

materials and thereby in assuring a new warranty time for the material. However, it is important

to find economic incentives for the suppliers as this proposal would not be beneficial in terms

of their own sales as a higher amount of reused materials will result in a decrease in their own

sales.

Digitalisation can be a helpful tool for real estate developers and other involved actors to

simplify the process of material reuse. Buildings should be viewed as material banks, similar to

the electronic property register in the Netherlands. Such a digitised register can withhold

information regarding defined characteristics of materials and components in products and

49

systems and their historical information that will give value for present use, recovery and reuse

included in a specific property. The digital information can ease the process for the demolition

contractors in identifying which materials that can be salvaged and reused which can thereby

enable the process of material reuse. Such material banks containing essential information and

traceability can in conjunction with information sharing within internal parties and external

parties in the inter-organisational collaboration play a key role in facilitating the transition to a

circular business model for real estate developers. The RFID-model by Iacovidou et al. (2018),

in section 2.6, shows how digital tools, especially Radio Frequency Identification can facilitate

the flow of information between different actors in reuse management.

5.1.5 Logistics and Recovery Facility

Table 2.5.1 in section 2.5 depicts logistics and recovery facility as two main inter-organisational

barriers. The view on recovery facility is also considered to be one of the barriers for

successfully and efficiently implementing the reuse of construction materials according to the

respondent interviewed, which furthermore aligns with Nußholz et al (2019). The subject of

logistics and recovery facility was the area of which the respondents had the least concrete

suggestions for addressing the issues surrounding it. There were split opinions in the allocation

of responsibilities and costs concerning the transport and recovery facility of reused materials

depending on each actor's own interest. In a situation where the materials have the intention to

be reused in the same facility or another facility of the same developer, the real estate developer

has to seek out available space for storage of the materials. The real estate developer should

carefully plan before the dismantling process has been initiated, for how areas for storing the

materials in the workplace will be solved, this can for instance be entered into the APD-plan.

The real estate developer could also make a thorough inventory of their current spaces and

storage rooms to determine which storage rooms can be freed in order to benefit from more

space which can be used for storing materials that can be reused. The real estate developers

interviewed mention that if no such available space exists within the same property, they often

seek out space in their other properties, most primarily properties located close by in an attempt

to minimise transportation and environmental emissions. If space close by cannot be found, the

real estate developer should seek for properties within their own property stock that are located

further away, in order to find available space that can be used to store the materials.

A solution to the lack of storage space brought up in the interviews was the need for a common

recovery facility between real estate developers. A common recovery facility could increase the

50

market between the real estate developers and enable a larger circular distribution of materials.

However, this solution may not be beneficial due to the fact that it would require the real estate

developers to be solely responsible for ensuring that the material is quality assured and

reinstalled. Furthermore, the costs of a recovery facility and process of salvaging materials may

outweigh the potential cost-savings from reusing materials. If such a common recovery facility

were to be implemented, allocations concerning transportation and quality assurance has to be

developed strategically.

Logistics, and most importantly transportation, has also shown to be a very sensitive parameter

and an important barrier to overcome to make the reverse supply chain economically viable.

The process concerning logistics and recovery facility may differ depending on different

scenarios which includes different actors to be involved in the supply chain process. Different

scenarios can be dependent on the materials quality, need for reconditioning and whether the

material will be used internally or externally in another facility. The real estate developer should

have a close collaboration with the material suppliers and demolition contractors depending on

each scenario's characteristics. Furthermore, another alternative could be to include the waste

contractor on a wider scale. The waste contractor’s role would thus be to sort reused materials

in fractions containers, gather it and thereafter transport it from the demolition site to a recovery

facility or to a supplier for potential reconditioning. An advantage with including the waste

contractor is that they already have a standardised process and experience in handling and

transporting recycled materials, therefore they possess a logistical advantage. However,

according to the interviews such a collaboration can only be manifested if economical gain

which is derived from a high market demand is achieved.

If the real estate developers are not able to find an opportunity to reuse the materials, the

materials can be dismantled and obtained by the demolition contractor. This enables the

contractors on the site to work more efficiently as the materials will not obstruct the rebuilding

process. Demolition Contractor 1 mentions that expanding their services for recovery facility

and selling materials that have been dismantled can only be feasible if a new customer for the

materials has already been found before the dismantling process. Ensuring a new customer and

ensuring that the shipping to the buyer can be arranged directly from the demolition site would

significantly limit costs associated with storage and transport costs for the demolition

contractor, which aligns with the current business model of demolition contractor 2 and the

51

theoretical reverse supply chain management model proposed by Da Rocha & Settler (2009) in

section 2.6.

The concept of reverse supply chain followed by the model of reverse logistics in the

construction industry by Hosseini et al. (2014), in section 2.6, demonstrates the importance of

materials being brought back to the material supplier for reconditioning at an off-site location.

In a situation where the materials have potential to be reused and need reconditioning, it is

crucial to include the material suppliers in a collaboration network. The material suppliers

interviewed had a positive attitude towards delivering materials to real estate developers,

retrieving the same materials for reconditioning and thereafter delivering the reused material to

the same facility or selling it to another actor.

The most effective alternative for all involved actors would hence be that the transportation and

recovery facility of reused materials would be provided by the material suppliers or by a third-

party who operates in collaboration with the suppliers. However, it is of importance to have an

off-site location and recovery facility in close proximity and that there exist large volumes of

materials, to limit the transportation costs and thereby the greenhouse gas emissions related to

such transportations. Otherwise the purpose of reuse and reducing the negative environmental

effect becomes counter-effective and contradicted. Therefore, the need for economic feasibility

and a high enough demand for such services would have to be provided for the material

suppliers to participate in such a collaboration with the real estate developer. However, the

opportunity for the material suppliers to purchase back their materials, recondition them and

then sell them back to the real estate developers should increase the incentives for reuse for the

suppliers. As stated in the concept of reverse logistics, in order for the supplier to adopt a reverse

supply chain, it requires an effective management of transportation, recovery facility and

reconditioning to achieve financial incentives.

5.1.6 Real Estate Developer’s Ability to Facilitate Future Reuse

A prerequisite for circular economy in construction is to have the tools required to facilitate for

future reuse. The proposition proposed by the architect interviewed emphasised on the need for

the real estate developer to maintain a long-term collaboration with the architect in the

management phase as well could contribute to simplify the process of future reuse in a new

tenant adaption. This could be beneficial as it could result in time savings as the same architects

are involved and thus, they will have more knowledge in the previous materials used and the

52

overall design of the building which can facilitate for future reuse. However, this could result

in increased architect costs for the real estate developer, which makes the option of using

digitalisation instead, as a more cost-effective option. Digital tools such as a register for the

facility with information on each material's characteristics could further simplify the future

reuse process for the facility manager. The facility manager can at that stage update the register

with the condition of each material which in a stage of a new tenant adaption, will simplify the

process of determining which materials are suitable to be reused. Availability of the materials

characteristics and properties in a digital tool also opens up opportunities for the suppliers at a

later stage to determine if they wish to purchase back their materials for reconditioning. If the

real estate developer has a desire to purchase back the materials which already existed in the

facility, the use of a digital storing information register enables the facility manager to ensure

new tenants the origin and suitability for the materials to be reused, based on its already

documented characteristics and properties.

5.2 Model Proposition Based on the results and discussions, a framework for how a real estate developer can

collaborate with different actors to facilitate the reuse of construction materials has been

created. The proposed model aims to demonstrate which actors the real estate developer could

collaborate with at a given phase and the expectations and responsibilities of each actor. Figure

5.2.1 shows a visualisation of the model with suggestions on what actors the real estate

developer should collaborate with at a given phase, followed by table 5.2.2 which shows the

responsibilities and information flow required between the suggested actors in each phase.

53

Planning

Design

Demolition

Procurement

Construction

Facility Management

Fig. 5.2.1. Visualisation of the collaboration model

Identify potential values Create reuse concept

Inventory Prepare a time plan

accounting for the design and deconstruction

Design and choose material suitable

for reuseCreate flexible

building documents to ease

the purchasing process

Dismantle for internal reuseTransport to supplier for

reconditioningTransport and

sell materials to new a facility

Negotiate warranty issues

Find suitable reuse materials on the reuse

market

Coordinate with the

Contractor to find suitable

use for leftover material

Digitise information about the materials

in the facility

RED = Real Estate Developer T = Tenant A = Architect D = Designer RC = Reuse Consultant DC = Demolition Contractor MS = Material Supplier C = Contractor WC = Waste Contractor

RED; T; A; RC

RED; T; A; C; DC

RED;MS; DC;

WC

RED; A; C

RED; MS; C

RED; T; S

54

Table 5.2.2. Table of the responsibilities and information flow between different actors in each phase.

Phase

Actor

Responsibilities and information flow needed to be conveyed

Recipients

Planning Real Estate Developer Real Estate Developer Architect Architect Reuse Consultant Reuse Consultant Architect Designer Real Estate Developer

Change the tenants view on reused materials by creating incentives, increasing their knowledge and highlighting its potential benefits Develop a reuse concept depending on the tenants needs and in such a way that accommodates the need for their business Assist the real estate developer in a brief pre-inventory to identify potential values within the existing facility to create a vision that is based on the characteristics of the facility Conducting a thorough inventory of the materials that can be reused in the existing facility Create a time plan where all the activities are included and where enough time is given to the demolition contractor for dismantling materials. Furthermore, it is of importance that the time plan accounts for the designer having enough time to design efficiently and create building documents before the dismantling process has begun

Tenant Tenant Real Estate Developer Tenant Real Estate Developer Tenant Architect Reuse Consultant Demolition Contractor Contractor

55

Design Architect Designer Architect Designer Architect Designer

Create a timeless yet contemporary reuse design based on the inventory Assist in deciding which materials that should be purchased for future reuse, for instance materials that can be dismantled easily in the future Prepare flexible tender documents where materials are not tied to a specific requirement that may create difficulties for the contractor in the purchasing process

Real Estate Developer Tenant Contractor Real Estate Developer

Contractor

Demolition Real Estate Developer Demolition Contractor Real Estate Developer Real Estate Developer

Provide digital information about the materials to ease the process for the demolition contractor in identifying which materials can be salvaged and reused Provide information about the materials that were dismantled and salvaged Inform the material supplier through the use of digital information about the products properties and status Inform about the opportunity for suppliers to purchase back the materials, recondition them and sell them back to the real estate developer or another actor

Demolition contractor Real Estate Developer Material Supplier

Material Supplier

56

Procurement Real Estate Developer Real Estate Developer Designer

Make requirements in the procurement as open and flexible as possible to simplify the purchasing process and provide space for creativity and flexibility to the contractor Negotiate warranties for the reused materials and allocate the responsibility of the materials Assist the contractor in finding suitable materials on the reuse market

Contractor

Contractor Material supplier Contractor Real Estate Developer

Construction Material Supplier Contractor Contractor

Transport the reconditioned materials to the construction site Construct according to the construction documents and give regular updates to the real estate developer Coordinate with the real estate developer to find other construction projects where leftover materials could be used

Contractor Real Estate Developer Real Estate Developer

Facility Management

Real Estate Developer Digitise the facility with information regarding the materials properties and condition in a digital platform

Tenant Supplier

57

6. Conclusion

This chapter presents the reader with the conclusions drawn by the authors based on the analysis and discussion in the previous chapter.

The aim of this study was to examine the main barriers for different actors to engage in a

strategic collaboration and how the real estate developer can create incentives in order to

facilitate the reuse of construction materials. Furthermore, based on the results obtained, a

framework model for how real estate developers can work with different actors at different

stages was developed. The overall results obtained corresponds with previous research in the

literature review. Furthermore, the research gap of how a real estate developer can collaborate

with other actors to facilitate material reuse on a wider scale is presented and addressed.

Currently, there exists few established frameworks and procedures for material reuse in the real

estate and construction sector, however, the results indicate a strong driving force amongst the

actors to fully commit to implementing material reuse. Furthermore, the study shows that there

is a common consensus that a collaboration between different actors is essential to transition

from a linear economy towards a circular economy and thus, increased sustainability effects.

The main barriers for implementing material reuse in the construction industry was identified

to be; tenants view on reused construction materials, lack of logistics & recovery facility and

the procedure of quality assurance & warranties. The results from the interviews show that there

is a general perception amongst actors that tenants have an unwillingness to adapt reused

materials due to their negative view on it. However, the survey conducted contradicts this

general perception and shows that a vast majority of the tenants had a positive view on reused

material which creates room for the real estate developer to create conditions for the tenant to

adapt such materials. In the aspects of logistics & recovery facility as well as quality assurance

& warranties, the results indicate that the actors have split opinions on how these matters can

be addressed. There are several possible approaches for how the responsibilities regarding

logistics and recovery facility can be distributed. However, it was identified that there has to

exist different incentives for actors as well as an established market demand for reused products

in order for actors to undertake such responsibilities and achieve economic gains in a reverse

supply chain. The study shows that there are no established procedures to quality assure reused

58

material and to allocate the responsibility of warranties today. However, it was found that

digitalisation and product data throughout the material’s life cycle could serve as an opportunity

to streamline the quality assurance process.

The results of the study further show that for fully realising the implementation of material

reuse and collaboration amongst actors, the real estate developers have a significant role in the

process. The real estate developer should aim to create a favourable context for material reuse

and create such incentives that favour a collaboration with different actors. This can for instance

be achieved by planning and designing for reuse at an early stage and to allocate enough time

for the demolition contractor to properly dismantle materials. The real estate developer can

further create conditions for reuse and encourage actors to engage in a strategic collaboration

by formulating their demands and requirements in a certain way. For instance, the developers

could be less specific in their description in the procurement phase in order to give more

flexibility for the contractors to find suitable materials. Thus, the solutions identified, and

framework model created can provide a range of practical solutions to address the challenges

with material reuse. The framework model breaks down the complex issues concerning material

reuse into a set of more manageable processes, where responsibilities can be assigned to

different actors to further facilitate the implementation of material reuse. However, each project

needs to consider the solutions individually to achieve an efficient management practice for

material reuse.

Although the real estate developers have a major role in the process of material reuse, the study

has shown that a clear allocation of responsibility between the involved actors has to be made

for successfully implementing the reuse of construction materials. Therefore, to achieve a

higher efficiency of reused materials in the construction industry, objectives between actors has

to be accomplished through collaboration, rather than competition.

6.1 Reliability and Validity Due to the fact that the results obtained from the interviews correspond with previous research

in the literature review, high validity of the study can be ensured. Although the intention in the

interview was to have as objective answers as possible, the risk of bias could be present.

Respondents may answer questions based on their own interests, which could have an impact

on the outcome of the presented model and thereby its validity. Furthermore, a higher

59

generalisability in the study could be achieved if further interviews with actors within the same

field were conducted. Tenants views on reused materials was based on 40 responses. A higher

and more accurate generalisability could be made with more responses and with tenants from

different real estate companies. It is also of importance to acknowledge that a simplification of

reality has been done when creating the model. The model could be further in depth by engaging

and interviewing other actors, such as sub-contractors, governmental entities, insurance

companies and legal representatives.

COVID-19 limited the information obtained due to the fact that many of the planned interviews

could not be conducted by the respondents. If those interviews would have been conducted, a

more substantial amount of information could have been collected to further develop the

framework model. Furthermore, COVID-19 eliminated the planned possibility for the authors

to perform case studies of actual construction projects where reused materials have been used.

Performed case studies could have given the authors an in-depth understanding of how the

implementation of material reuse works in practice and would thus make it easier to measure

success factors.

The framework model could serve as an important tool and guidance for how real estate

developers can collaborate with other actors when implementing reuse construction materials

in a tenant adaptation. Furthermore, the framework model could assist real estate developers in

their decision-making at different stages and also be adjusted depending on the company’s

ambitions and project characteristics. However, when taking the limitation factors mentioned

above into consideration, the framework model should be acknowledged as a model that can be

further developed.

6.2 Suggestions on Further Studies Numerous studies can be made to increase the knowledge within reuse management and of how

a strategic collaboration between different actors can be achieved. As many of the interviewees

emphasised on the governmental role to create incentives for material reuse, the model can be

developed to include such actors and also examine their view on expanding the services of

municipal recycling centres to also include reused construction materials. This study was

limited to tenant adaptations as well as a selection of different actors. A suggestion to further

examine the topic of reused construction materials could be to create a collaboration model for

60

the construction of new facilities. Furthermore, it can be of interest to expand this study to

housing residents to see whether a collaboration model would appear differently.

61

References Literature Adams, T.K., Osmani,M., Thorpe,T., Thornback, J. (2017). Circular economy in construction:

current awareness, challenges and enablers. Waste and Resource Management, Volym 170, Nummer WR1.

Álvarez-Gil, M. J., Berrone, P., Husillos, J., & Lado, N. (2007). Reverse logistics, stakeholders'

influence, organizational slack,and manager's posture. Journal of Business Research, 60, pp. 463-473.

Andersen, M. S. (2007). An introductory note on the environmental economics of the circular

economy. Sustainability science, 2(1),133-140 Anderson, T.R., Hawkins, E. & Jones, P. D. (2016). CO2, the greenhouse effect and global

warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Calendar to today's Earth System Models. Endeavour, 40(3), pp.178–187.

Baumgarten, S., & Nilsson, M. (2014). Industriell symbios som affär. Hur kan ett

återvinningsföretag facilitera utvecklingen av regionala industriella ekosystem. Blackburn, J. D., Guide Jr, V. D. R., Souza, G. C., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2004). Reverse

supply chains for commercial returns. California management review, 46(2), 6-22.

Bouchard, T. (1976). Unobtrusive Measures: An Inventory of Uses. Sociological Methods and Research, 4(3), pp.267–300.

Boverket (2020). Miljöindikatorer 2019 Brannen, J. (2005). Mixing Methods: The Entry of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches

into the Research Process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3), pp.173–184.

Cabeza, L. F., Rincón, L., Vilariño, V., Pérez, G., & Castell, A. (2014). Life cycle assessment

(LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 29, 394-416.

Cabrera, Á., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing Dilemmas Organization Studies, 23. Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R., Hosseini, M. R., & Lehmann, S. (2015). Barriers to

implementing reverse logistics in South Australian construction organisations. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.

Da Rocha, C.G. & Sattler, M.A. (2009). A discussion on the reuse of building components in

Brazil: An analysis of major social, economical and legal factors. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 54(2), pp.104–112.

Daly, H.E. (2007). Ecological economics and sustainable development. Edward Elgar

Publishing.

62

Daugherty, P., Richey, R., Roath, A., Min, S., Chen, H., Arndt, A., & Genchev, S. (2006). Is

collaboration paying off for firms? Business Horizons, 49(1), 61-70. Dobers, P. & Strannegård, L. (2005). Design, lifestyles and sustainability. Aesthetic

consumption in a world of abundance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(5), pp.324–336.

Dowlatshahi, S.H.A.D. (2010). A cost-benefit analysis for the design and implementation of

reverse logistics systems: case studies approach. International Journal of Production Research, 48(5), 1361-1380.

Duran, X., Lenihan, H. & O’regan, B. (2006). A model for assessing the economic viability of

construction and demolition waste recycling—the case of Ireland. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 46(3), pp.302–320.

Dyckhoff, H., Lackes, R., & Reese, J. (2004). Supply Chain Management and Reverse

Logistics. Springer. [DT1] Ebers, M. (2015). Interorganizational Relationships and Networks. In International

Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second ed., pp. 621-625). Elsevier European Commission (2010). Being wise with waste; the EU’s approach to waste

management. European Union. ISBN: 978-92-79-14297-0 Ferreira, J., Duarte Pinheiro, M., & de Brito, J. (2015). Economic and environmental savings

of structural buildings refurbishment with demolition and reconstruction - A Portuguese benchmarking. Journal of Building Engineering 3: 114-126.

Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research 5. Ed., London: SAGE. Fowler, F. (2009). Survey research methods (4.th ed., Applied social research methods series;

1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Franco, L. A. (2008). Facilitating collaboration with problem structuring methods: a case study

of an inter-organisational construction partnership. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(4), 267-286.

Gardner, G., Assadourian E. & Sarin R. (2004). The state of consumption today. In State of the

World 2004. Special Focus: The Consumer Society, Worldwatch Institute (ed.). Norton: New York;3–21.

Gardner, D.M. (1990). The Research Act (Book Review). Journal of Marketing Research,

27(2), pp.240–241. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M. P., Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy

– A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143(C), pp.757–768. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy–

A new sustainability paradigm?. Journal of cleaner production, 143, 757-768.

63

Geng, Y., & Doberstein, B. (2008). Developing the circular economy in China: Challenges and opportunities for achieving ‘leapfrog development'. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 15(3), 231-239.

Gerhardsson, H., Lindholm, L. C. & Ahlm, M. (2019). Arbetssätt för ökat återbruk i

lokalanpassningar. IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet. Gobbi, C. (2011). Designing the reverse supply chain: the impact of the product residual value.

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. Gray, B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human relations,

38(10), 911-936. Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. Habib, M. (2011). Supply Chain Management (SCM): Theory and Evolution. Supply chain

management-applications and simulations, 1-14. Hansen, E.G., Grosse-Dunker, F. & Reichwald, R. (2009). Sustainability innovation cube—a

framework to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations. International Journal of Innovation Management 13(04): 683-713.

Harris, D. (2011). Monitoring Global Warming. Energy & Environment, 22(7), pp.929–937. Havenvid, M. I., Bygballe, L. E., & Håkansson, H. (2019). Innovation among project islands:

A question of handling interdependencies through bridging. In The Connectivity of Innovation in the Construction Industry (pp. 126-142). Routledge.

Hosseini, M., Chileshe, N., Rameezdeen, R., & Lehmann, S. (2014). Reverse logistics for the

construction industry: Lessons from the manufacturing context (Doctoral dissertation, Scientific and Academic Publishing).

Hu, T. L., Sheu, J. B., & Huang, K. H. (2002). A reverse logistics cost minimization model for

the treatment of hazardous wastes. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 38(6),457-473.

Iacovidou, E., Purnell, P. & Lim, M.K. (2018). The use of smart technologies in enabling

construction components reuse: A viable method or a problem creating solution? Journal of Environmental Management, 216, pp.214–223.

Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), pp.602–11. Jones, P., Comfort, D. (2018). The construction industry and the circular economy.

International Journal of Management cases, 20(1) pp. 4-15 Kartam, N., Al-Mutairi, N., Al-Ghusain, I., & Al-Humoud, J. (2004). Environmental

management of construction and demolition waste in Kuwait. Waste management, 24(10), 1049-1059.

64

Jung, J.S., Song, S.H., Jun, M.H. & Park, S.S. (2015). A comparison of economic feasibility and emission of carbon dioxide for two recycling processes. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 19(5): 1248-1255.

Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular economy: the concept and its

limitations. Ecological economics, 143, 37-46. Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., & Birkie, S. E. (2018). Circular economy as an

essentially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 544-552. Lauritzen, E. K. (1998). The global challenge of recycled concrete. In Sustainable

Construction: Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate: Proceedings of the International Symposium organised by the Concrete Technology Unit, University of Dundee and held at the Department of Trade and Industry Conference Centre, London, UK on 11–12 November 1998 (pp. 505-519). Thomas Telford Publishing

Leising, E., Quist, J. & Bocken, N. (2018). Circular Economy in the building sector: Three

cases and a collaboration tool. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, pp.976-989. Levina, N. (2005). Collaborating on multiparty information systems development projects: A

collective reflection-in-action view. Information Systems Research, 16(2), 109-130. Lindholm, C. L., Gerhardsson, H., Youhanan, L. & Stenmarck, Å. (2018). Återbruk av möbler

och interiöra byggprodukter. Utvärdering och arbetsguide baserat på erfarenheter från IVL:s lokalanpassningar. IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet.

Long, T. & Johnson, M. (2000). Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Clinical

Effectiveness in Nursing, 4(1), pp.30–37. MacArthur, E. (2013). Towards the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2, 23-44. Massa, L. & Tucci, C.L. (2014). Business Model Innovation. In the Oxford Handbook of

Innovation Management. Oxford University Press, pp. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management, Chapter 002.

Merrild, H, Guldager Jensen, K & Sommer, J. (2016). Building a Circular Future. vol. 248, 1

edn, GXN, Denmark. Miliute-Plepiene, J., Almasi, A., Hwargård, L. & IVL Svenska Miljöinstitutet. (2020).

Återanvändning av bygg- och rivningsmaterial och produkter i kommuner. Mohamed, R., Boyle, R., Yilun Yang, A., & Tangari, J. (2017). Adaptive reuse: a review and

analysis of its relationship to the 3 Es of sustainability. Facilities, 35(3/4), pp.138–154 Mokhlesian, S. & Holmén, M. (2012). Business model changes and green construction

processes. Construction Management and Economics, 30(9), pp.761–775.

65

Moncaster, A.M., Nygaard Rasmussen, F., Malmqvist, T., Houlihan Wiberg, A. & Birgisdottir, H. (2019). Widening understanding of low embodied impact buildings: Results and recommendations from 80 multinational quantitative and qualitative case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, pp.378–393.

Motamedi, A., Saini, R., Hammad, A. & Zhu, B. (2011). Role-based access to facilities lifecycle

information on RFID tags. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 25(3), pp.559–568. Nakajima, S., & Russell, M. (2014). Barriers for deconstruction and reuse/recycling of

construction materials. International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB).

Nikolaou, I. E., Evangelinos, K. I., & Allan, S. (2013). A reverse logistics social responsibility

evaluation framework based on the triple bottom line approach. Journal of cleaner production, 56, 173-184.

Nuss, C., Sahamie, R., & Stindt, D. (2015). The reverse supply chain planning matrix: A

classification scheme for planning problems in reverse logistics. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(4), 413-436.

Nußholz, J.L.K., Rasmussen, F. N. & Milios, L. (2019). Circular building materials: Carbon

saving potential and the role of business model innovation and public policy. Journal for Resource Conservation and Recycling 141: 308-316.

Nußholz, J.L.K & Milios, L. (2017). Applying circular economy principles to building materials

Front-running companies’ business model innovation in the value chain for buildings Applying circular economy principles to building materials: Front-running companies’ business model innovation. Paper presented, 2017, Berlin.

Nußholz, J.L.K., Nygaard Rasmussen, F., Whalen, K. & Plepys, A. (2020). Material reuse in

buildings: Implications of a circular business model for sustainable value creation. Journal Of Cleaner Production, 245, pp.Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, Vol.245.

Pacheco, E., Kubota, F., Yamakawa, E., Paladini, E., Campos, L., & Cauchick-Miguel, P.

(2018). Reverse logistics. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(5), 1447-1460. Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T. & Hungler, B.P. (2001). Essentials of nursing research: methods,

appraisal, and utilization. (5.ed.) Philadelphia: Lippincott. Prahinski, C. & Kocabasoglu, C. (2006). Empirical research opportunities in reverse supply

chains. Omega, 34(6), 519-532. Pushpamali, N., Agdas, D. & Rose, T.M. (2019). A Review of Reverse Logistics: An Upstream

Construction Supply Chain Perspective. Sustainability, 11(15), p.4143. Rashid, A., Asif, F.M., Krajnik, P., & Nicolescu, C.M. (2013). Resource Conservative

Manufacturing: an essential change in business and technology paradigm for sustainable manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner production, 57, 166-177.

66

Ruggieri, A., Braccini, A. M., Poponi, S., & Mosconi, E. M. (2016). A meta-model of inter-organisational cooperation for the transition to a circular economy. Sustainability, 8(11), 1153.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2015). Research Methods for Business Students,

Pearson Education M.U.A. Schrader, U. & Thøgersen, J. (2011). Putting Sustainable Consumption into Practice. Journal

of Consumer Policy, 34(1), pp.3–8. Schultmann, F., & Sunke, N. (2007). Organisation of reverse logistics tasks in the construction

industry. Portugal SB07: Sustainable Construction, Materials and Practices, 577-584. Schut, E., Crielaard, M., & Mesman, M. (2015). Circular economy in the Dutch construction

sector. Den Haag. Thormark, C. (2000). Environmental analysis of a building with reused building materials.

International Journal of Low Energy &Amp; Sustainable Building, 1, pp. International Journal of Low Energy & Sustainable Building, 2000, Vol.1.

Tobias, L., & Vavaroutsos, G. (2012). Retrofitting buildings to be green and energy-efficient:

optimizing building performance, tenant satisfaction, and financial return. Urban Land Institute.

van der Heijden, R. E. C. M., Coenen, J. W. E., & van Riel, A. C. R. (2017). Transitioning from

a linear economy towards a circular economy: The case of the apparel industry. Vares, S., Hradil, P., SansomM. & Ungureanu V. (2019). Economic potential and

environmental impacts of reused steel structures. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2019.1662064

Verian, K. P., Whiting, J. O. & Snyder, M. B. (2013). Using Recycled Concrete as Aggregate

in Concrete Pavements to Reduce Materials Cost. West Lafayette, Indiana, USA Virtanen, M., Manskinen, K., Uusitalo, V., Syvänne, J. & Cura, K. (2019). Regional material

flow tools to promote circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 1020-1025. Wilkinson, S., James, K. & Reed, R. (2009). Delivering sustainability through the adaptive

reuse of commercial buildings: the Melbourne CBD challenge. In PRRES 2008: Proceedings of the Pacific Rim Real Estate Society 15th Annual Conference (pp. 1-19). Pacific Rim Real Estate Society (PPRES).

Wirtz, B., Göttel, V. & Daiser, P. (2016). Business Model Innovation: Development, Concept

and Future Research Directions. Journal of Business Models, 4(1), pp.1–28. Yamazaki, Y. (2004). Future innovative construction technologies: Directions and strategies to

innovate construction industry. In Proc. 21st Int. Symp. on Automation and Robotics in Construction

67

Yuan, H. & Shen, L. (2011). Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste management. Waste Management, 31(4), pp.670–679.

Zhijun, F., & Nailing, Y. (2007). Putting a circular economy into practice in China.

Sustainability Science, 2(1), 95-101. Online resources Ellen Macarthur Foundation (2017). The Circular Economy in Detail. Retrieved from:

‘https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/explore/the-circular-economy-in-detail’ 2020-02-03 [Online Resource]

European Commission (2018). EU Construction and Demolition Waste Protocol and

Guidelines. Retrieved from: ‘https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/eu-construction-and-demolition-waste-protocol-0_en’ 2020-02-03 [Online Resource]

European Commission (2019). Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive).

Retrieved from: ‘https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/’ 2020-02-03 [Online Resource]

European Commission (2019). Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW). Retrieved from:

‘https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/construction_demolition.htm’ 2020-02-03 [Online Resource]

Roser, M., Ritchie, H., & Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2020). World Population Growth. Published online

at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth’ 2020-02-02 [Online Resource]

European Environment Agency (2016a) ‘More from less – material resource efficiency in

Europe’, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/more-from-less’ 2020-02-03 [Online Resource]

Interviews Interview with AMF Fastigheter - 2020-03-23 Interview with IVL – Svenska Miljöinstitutet - 2020-03-25 Interview with Kompanjonen - 2020-03-27 Interview with Castellum - 2020-03-31 Interview with Byggpall - 2020-03-31 Interview with Ragnsells - 2020-04-06 Interview with Skanska - 2020-04-07 Interview with CS Riv & Håltagning - 2020-04-08

68

Interview with Omreda - 2020-04-08

Interview with Hufvudstaden - 2020-04-08

Interview with NCC - 2020-04-14

Interview with Interface - 2020-04-15

Interview with Skanska Hus - 2020-04-20

Interview with Moelven - 2020-04-23

Interview with White Arkitekter - 2020-04-23

Interview with Lotus Maskin & Transport - 2020-04-24

Interview with Nordström Trä - 2020-04-30

s

69

Appendix I – Disclosure of Survey

70

71

72

73

Appendix II – Interview Questions for Real Estate Developers

o Vad är din roll och hur länge har du jobbat med detta?

o Hur ser er process och affärsmodell för återbruk av byggmaterial ut?

o Vilka byggmaterial brukar ni återbruka mest?

o Vilka byggmaterial tror du har störst potential att återbrukas för enlokalanpassning/ombyggnation?

o Kan du berätta om ett projekt ni använt er av återbrukat material? Skulle det kunnatillämpas i alla projekt? Eller hur ser förutsättningarna ut för olika projekt?

o Vilka tror du är de tre största utmaningarna med att implementera återbruk? Hur kanman lösa dessa utmaningar?

o Vad finns det, som du ser, för möjligheter med att öka återbruk av byggmaterial?

o Hur kvalitetssäkrar ni det material som ni återbrukar?

o Hur väljer ni er byggentreprenör? Hur ser ert samarbete ut medbyggentreprenören? Vad sätter ni för krav på entreprenören och hur skapar niincitament?

o Vad tycker du krävs från fastighetsägarna för att ett bra samarbete kring återbruk skakunna ske?

o Vad tycker du krävs från andra aktörer?

o Skulle du kunna tänka dig ett samverkansnätverk för återbruk tillsammans med andrafastighetsägare?

o Hur tror du att ett sådant samverkansnätverk skulle kunna vara uppbyggt?

o Vilka incitament ser du som viktigast för att det ska vara möjligt att genom samverkanåterbruka byggmaterial?

o Vad uppfattar du är hyresgästernas syn på återbrukat material?

o Är det någonting du anser att vi missat och som du vill tillägga som är viktigt?

74

Appendix III – Interview Questions for the Contractors

o Vad är din roll och hur länge har du jobbat med detta?

o Hur ser er process och affärsmodell för återbruk av byggmaterial ut?

o Har ni tidigare haft något samarbete med fastighetsägare där ni använt er av material som kan återbrukas?

o Vilka byggmaterial tror du har störst potential att återbrukas för en lokalanpassning/ombyggnation?

o Vilka tror du är de tre största fördelar med att implementera återbruk av byggmaterial?

o Vilka tror du är de tre största utmaningarna med att implementera återbruk av byggmaterial ur ert perspektiv och hur kan man lösa dessa utmaningar?

o Hur kvalitetssäkrar ni det material som ni återbrukar

o Vilka incitament ser du som viktigast för att det ska vara möjligt att genom samverkan återanvända byggmaterial?

o Vi har hört att demontering, logistik och lagerhållning utgör de största hindren idag. Hur jobbar ni med det och hur ser era lösningar på att effektivisera detta ut?

o Vad tycker du krävs från fastighetsägare för att ett bra samarbete kring återbruk ska kunna ske? Hur kan dom skapa ytterligare incitament för er?

o De fastighetsägare som vi har intervjuat säger att det är enkelt för de att ställa krav på entreprenörer men svårt att kunna följa upp och kunna mäta att kraven som ställts vidare från entreprenörernas sida. Hur kan man jobba med detta och hur kan man säkerställa att det verkligen följs i de nedre leden?

o Hur tror du att ett samverkansnätverk skulle kunna vara uppbyggt och hur skulle er roll i ett sådant samverkansnätverk se ut?

o Är det någonting du anser att vi missat och som du vill tillägga som är viktigt?

75

Appendix IV – Interview Questions for the Suppliers

o Vad är din roll och hur länge har du jobbat med detta?

o Hur jobbar ni med återbruk idag? Hur ser er process ut?

o Hur jobbar ni idag med att tillverka era produkter så att de i framtiden enklare ska kunna demonteras och återbrukas?

o Tar ni hand om förflyttningen av materialet eller använder ni er av en tredje part?

o Vilka tror du är de tre största utmaningarna med att implementera återbruk och hur

tror du att man kan lösa de?

o Vi har hört från tidigare respondenter att det är dyrare med återbrukat: Har kostnaderna för er blivit högre med återbrukat material?

o Hur kvalitetssäkrar ni det material som ni återbrukar?

o Vilka incitament krävs för att öka användandet av återbrukat material?

o Vi har hört att demontering, logistik och lagerhållning utgör de största hindren idag. Hur jobbar ni med det och hur ser era lösningar på att effektivisera detta ut?

o Vad krävs från fastighetsägarna för att ett bra samarbete med er kring återbruk ska kunna ske? Hur kan de skapa ytterligare incitament för er och vilka krav ställer ni på de

o Vad uppfattar du är hyresgästers syn på återbrukat material?

o Hur tror du man kan få hyresgästen att välja återbrukat material och ändra deras syn från något negativt till positivt?

o Hur tror du att ett samverkansnätverk mellan olika aktörer skulle kunna vara uppbyggt och hur skulle er roll i ett sådant samverkansnätverk se ut?

o Är det någonting du anser att vi missat och som du vill tillägga som är viktigt?

76

Appendix V – Interview Questions for the Architect

o Vad är din roll och hur länge har du jobbat med detta?

o Hur jobbar ni med återbruk idag? Hur ser er affärsmodell ut?

o Har ni tidigare haft något samarbete med fastighetsägare där ni använt er av materialsom kan återbrukas? Vad skulle ni kunna göra annorlunda?

o Vilka tror du är de tre största utmaningarna med att implementera återbruk avbyggmaterial ur ert perspektiv och hur tror du att man kan lösa de?

o Vad tycker du krävs från fastighetsägare för att ett bra samarbete med er kringåterbruk ska kunna ske? Hur kan dom skapa ytterligare incitament för er?

o Vilka incitament krävs för att öka användandet av återbrukat material?

o Vad uppfattar du är hyresgästernas syn på återbrukat material?

o Hur tror du att ett samverkansnätverk mellan olika aktörer skulle kunna vara uppbyggtoch hur skulle er roll i ett sådant samverkansnätverk se ut?

o Hur kan ni jobba för att främja återbruk vid lokalanpassning/ombyggnation samt atteffektivisera processen för fastighetsägarna?

o Är det någonting du anser att vi missat och som du vill tillägga som är viktigt?

77

Appendix VI – Interview Questions for the Demolition and Logistics Contractors

o Vad är din roll och hur länge har du jobbat med detta?

o Hur jobbar ni med återbruk idag? Hur ser er affärsmodell ut?

o Vilka material anser du har störst potential att återbrukas vid enlokalanpassning/ombyggnation?

o Vilka tror du är de tre största utmaningarna med att implementera återbruk avbyggmaterial ur ert perspektiv och hur kan man lösa dessa utmaningar?

o Har ni tidigare haft något samarbete med där ni hanterat brukbart avfall frånbyggmaterial och hur har det gått till?

o Tar ni hand om förflyttningen av materialet eller hur går det till?

o Hur går säljprocessen av återbrukat material till? Är det entreprenörer eller beställarenalt. fastighetsägaren som ni säljer till?

o Vi har hört att demontering och lagerhållning utgör de största hindren idag. Hur jobbarni med det och har du förslag på hur demontering respektive lagerhållningen kaneffektiviseras?

o Hur kvalitetssäkrar ni det material som ni återbrukar och gör ni någon inventering?

o Hur tror du att ett samverkansnätverk skulle kunna vara uppbyggt och hur skulle erroll i ett sådant samverkansnätverk se ut?

o Vad krävs från fastighetsägarna för att ett bra samarbete med er kring återbruk skakunna ske och vilka krav ställer ni på de?

o Vilka incitament ser du som viktigast för att det ska vara möjligt att genom samverkanåteranvända byggmaterial?

o Vilka material anser du kan vara bra för att få upp volymerna?

o Vad finns det, som du kan se med en sådan samverkan/samarbete, för möjligheter ochutmaningar?

o Är det någonting du anser att vi missat och som du vill tillägga som är viktigt?

78

Appendix VII – Interview Questions for the Waste Contractors

o Vad är din roll och hur länge har du jobbat med detta?

o Jobbar ni med återanvändning av byggmaterial eller har ni några såna mål?

o Har ni tidigare haft något samarbete med fastighetsägare där ni hanterat återbrukat material?

o Vilka byggmaterial tror du har mest potential att återbrukas?

o Vilka tror du är de tre största utmaningarna med att implementera återbruk av byggmaterial ur ert perspektiv och hur kan man lösa dessa utmaningar?

o Vi har hört att demontering och logistik utgör stora hinder idag. Har du förslag på hur demontering respektive logistik kan effektiviseras?

o Skulle det enligt dig vara möjligt att utöka er verksamhet så att ni agerar som mellanhand och hanterar byggmaterial som kan återbrukas från byggavfall?

o Hur ser ni på återbruksfraktioner, att ställa upp containrar för återbrukat material i fraktioner, t.ex. dörrar, glaspartier etc. Vad krävs för att ni ska göra det?

o Vilka incitament ser du som viktigast för att det ska vara möjligt att genom samverkan återanvända byggmaterial?

o Vad tycker du krävs från fastighetsägare för att ett bra samarbete kring återbruk ska kunna ske?

o Hur tror du att ett sådant samverkansnätverk skulle kunna vara uppbyggt och hur

skulle er roll i ett sådan samverkan se ut?

o Om flera entreprenörer och fastighetsägare går med i detta, hur kan man planera så att det sker som mest tidseffektivt? Kan flera projekt underlätta för er i form av transport och logistik?

o Vad finns det, som du kan se, för möjligheter och utmaningar med en sådan verksamhet?

o Är det någonting du anser att vi missat och som du vill tillägga som är viktigt?

79

Appendix VIII – Interview Questions for the Reuse Consultants

o Vad är din roll och hur länge har du jobbat med detta?

o Hur jobbar ni med återbruk idag? Hur ser er affärsmodell ut?

o Hur kommer det sig att ni inte lagrar materialen längre?

o Vilka material anser du har störst potential att återbrukas vid en lokalanpassning/ombyggnation?

o Vilka tror du är de tre största utmaningarna med att implementera återbruk och hur kan man lösa de?

o Hur kvalitetssäkrar ni det material som ni återbrukar och gör ni någon inventering?

o Hur går säljprocessen av återbrukat material till? Är det entreprenörer eller beställaren alt. fastighetsägaren som ni säljer till?

o Vi har hört att demontering och lagerhållning utgör de största hindren idag. Har du förslag på hur demontering respektive lagerhållningen kan effektiviseras?

o Vad tycker du krävs från fastighetsägarna för att ett bra samarbete kring återbruk ska

kunna ske?

o Vilka villkor har ni för att ingå i ett sådant potentiellt samarbete?

o Hur tror du ett strategiskt samarbete mellan aktörer kan uppnås för att främja en högre grad av återbruk vid en lokalanpassning/ombyggnation?

o Vilka incitament ser du som viktigast för att det ska vara möjligt att genom samverkan återanvända byggmaterial?

o Vad finns det, som du kan se med en sådan samverkan/samarbete, för möjligheter och

utmaningar?

o Är det någonting du anser att vi missat och som du vill tillägga som är viktigt?

80

Appendix IX – Interview Questions for the Research Institute

o Vilka tror du är de tre största utmaningarna med att implementera återbruk i en störreskala?

o Vad anser du behövs göras för att underlätta för dessa utmaningar?

o Vilka material anser du har störst potential att återbrukas vid enlokalanpassning/ombyggnation?

o Vilken/vilka aktörer anser du har mest möjlighet att påverka implementeringen avåterbruk vid lokalanpassningar?

o Vilka incitament krävs för att implementera återbruk i en större skala?

o Existerar det idag några nyckeltal (schablonvärden) för hur mycket CO2 man sparar inpå att återbruka olika material?

o Hur tror du att man genom data på respektive material kan få in återbruksperspektiveti ett tidigare skede

o Vad anser du är det kritiska stadiet i återbruk processen vid enlokalanpassning/ombyggnation?

o Hur tror du ett strategiskt samarbete mellan aktörer kan uppnås för att främja en högregrad av återbruk vid en lokalanpassning/ombyggnation?

81

TRITA-ABE-MBT-20403

www.kth.se