What if, before deciding to construct a new building, expand an industrial site, or purchase new materials, we had a comprehensive overview of the resources already at our disposal, how well they are being used, and the natural assets we risk losing? We have made considerable progress in measuring greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, waste, and material use. At the same time, information about products, material flows, buildings, land, and nature is often spread across different systems and disciplines.
We may know how many tonnes of waste a business generates without having a complete overview of which materials could have been reused. We may know how many square meters of property we have at our disposal without knowing how much is actually used, how long spaces remain empty, or what alternative purposes they could serve. We may also know how much land a construction project occupies without having sufficient information to assess the natural assets that will be lost.
This does not necessarily mean that all the data is missing. The challenge is that the data is not always connected, measures different things, or is not used in the same decision-making processes. Meanwhile, understanding the relationship between resource use, nature, and economic value creation is becoming increasingly important.
In its Global Resources Outlook 2024, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) reports that global extraction of natural resources has tripled over the past five decades. If current trends continue without significant changes, resource extraction could increase by 60 percent between 2020 and 2060. The report also highlights how the extraction and processing of materials contribute to climate change, nature loss, and pollution. This sends a clear message: We must not only improve how we produce and consume. We must also become better at using, preserving, and building on the resources we already have.
The question, then, is not simply how efficiently we can create new value, but how we can create the greatest possible value while consuming as few new resources as possible and minimizing nature loss.
Source: UNEP, International Resource Panel, Global Resources Outlook 2024.
From waste accounting to meaningful circularity accounting
The circular economy is about more than waste sorting and material recycling. It is also about reducing the need for new resources, extending product lifespans, repairing and reusing products, and ensuring that materials can be used across multiple use cycles. Yet circularity is often measured using indicators that do not necessarily reveal how well resources are actually being used.
A business may, for example, have a high waste-sorting rate while still purchasing large quantities of new materials. A construction project may document that materials have been made available for reuse without knowing how much is actually used in a new project. To understand actual progress, we therefore need a more comprehensive approach to circularity accounting.
It should show what we buy, which resources products are made from, how long they are used, what happens when they are taken out of use, and whether they actually replace the need for new materials.
Relevant indicators may include:
- The share of purchases consisting of reused products.
- The share of secondary materials, broken down into reuse and material recycling.
- The quantity of surplus materials that actually find a new use.
- The share of materials made available for reuse that are documented as being put to use.
- The share of products repaired rather than replaced.
- Material intensity per unit produced or function delivered.
- The share of products with documented material composition and traceability.
- The share of materials lost because they lack documentation or an identified use.
It is important for these indicators to distinguish between different material flows. Reusing a product, recycling a component, and recovering energy from waste represent different forms of resource utilization. They should therefore not automatically be combined into a single circularity indicator.
The same applies to units of measurement. A high share of reused products measured by number is not necessarily the same as a high share measured by weight, purchase value, or functional performance. Businesses should choose units of measurement based on what they actually want to assess and clearly show the differences.
Surplus materials from manufacturing, construction, refurbishment, and operations represent resources that are not always used to their full potential. Surplus material accounting can show what these materials consist of, how much is generated, what new uses are available, and what share is actually put to use. This makes it easier to identify untapped value, reduce waste, and find new opportunities across projects and businesses.
Digital product passports (DPPs) can support this work by making information about material composition, origin, properties, and opportunities for repair and reuse more accessible. The EU is establishing a framework for digital product passports through the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, with requirements being introduced gradually for different product groups. European Commission – Digital Product Passport.
But what happens when we look beyond an individual product or material to the site where it is located?
Land-use accounting can give businesses an overview of how their land and spaces are used, what value they create, and whether they could be used differently. Which areas are used for production, storage, parking, or logistics—and which remain empty for much of the day or year? Are there buildings, outdoor spaces, or sites that could serve new purposes? Could spare capacity be used by others, or could the site meet local community needs, for example through public services, meeting places, or shared facilities?
This is not just about using space efficiently, but about understanding multiple dimensions of value:
By considering materials, buildings, and land together, businesses can make better-informed assessments of what they actually need, what can be reused, and how existing resources can create greater value. The aim is not to maximize the use of every space, but to find the best solution based on the business’s needs, society’s interests, and the natural assets present at the site.
Source: European Commission, Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and Digital Product Passport.
Before we build something new, we should know what we already have
The relationship between circularity, buildings, and land use becomes particularly clear when we consider the existing building stock. A new building requires materials, capital, energy, and land. At the same time, there may be existing buildings with spare capacity, underused spaces, or opportunities for refurbishment and adaptive reuse.
Yet new construction, refurbishment, reuse, and land development are often assessed through different processes and datasets. A more holistic approach should examine whether needs can be met using what the business already has at its disposal before committing new resources.
This does not mean that new construction should always be avoided. New buildings may be necessary to meet societal needs, improve functionality, or replace buildings that are no longer fit for purpose. The point is that the decision should be based on a meaningful comparison of the alternatives.
Building accounting can, among other things, show:
- Share of reused construction products and secondary materials.
- Material use per square metre, considered in relation to the building’s function.
- Expected service life and potential for adaptation.
- Potential for refurbishment rather than demolition.
- Potential for disassembly and future reuse.
- Outcomes of selective demolition, including the quantity of materials recovered for reuse.
- Whole-life carbon emissions and other relevant environmental impacts.
- Direct land use and impacts on nature.
Selective demolition can provide particularly valuable information. By mapping materials and components before a building is taken out of use, we can identify resources that might otherwise be lost. After disassembly, we should compare expected and actual results: How much was identified? How much was dismantled? How much was reused? How much was recycled? And how much ended up as waste?
This allows us to move from measuring waste quantities to measuring how well we preserve the value already present in our building stock.
When we assess a site, we tend to look at its size, property value, and development potential. But the land also has ecological functions: It may provide habitat for species, store carbon, regulate water, and help reduce flooding. Two sites of the same size can therefore have very different ecological value. Land-use accounting shows how much land a business has at its disposal and how it is used. Natural capital accounting goes a step further, examining which ecosystem types are present, their condition, and how the business’s activities affect them.
This provides a better basis for assessing where land can be developed, conserved, or restored—and the consequences of different choices. It is also important to understand that natural assets cannot simply be replaced: A newly planted green space is not necessarily ecologically equivalent to an ecosystem that has developed over a long period.
Natural capital accounting is therefore not just about recording nature loss, but about understanding a business’s dependence on nature, its impacts, and the risks and opportunities these create. This perspective is also reflected in the recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), which connect nature with corporate strategy, risk management, and decision-making..
Businesses may hold assets whose full value they have not yet recognized, from materials and buildings that could be used more effectively to land with natural assets that have not been mapped. At the same time, gaps in knowledge can make it harder to prioritize investments, assess risks, and identify new opportunities.
What could your business discover with a clearer overview of the resources, land, and natural assets you already manage? The first step does not have to involve a comprehensive accounting exercise. It could simply be to map what you know today, where the biggest knowledge gaps are, and which decisions would benefit most from a stronger evidence base.
We help businesses explore how resource and natural capital accounting can be tailored to their properties, activities, and ambitions. We show how these insights can be translated into concrete priorities and value creation. Contact us for a no-obligation conversation about where the greatest potential may lie for your business..