February 5, 2026 Circular construction requires clarity. And too often, that’s still missing. By 2050, the Netherlands must have a fully circular construction sector. This is national policy, laid down in the National Programme for a Circular Economy 2023–2030 [source], building on earlier transition agendas from both government and industry. The objective is clear: 100% circular by 2050, with interim targets such as approximately 50% circularity by 2030. But a goal is not yet a roadmap. At FRONT, we see every day that the reality is more complex. The sector operates in a field of tension between new technologies, lagging regulation, differing interpretations, and widely varying levels of practical experience. The supply of recycled materials is growing, but at the same time projects are stalling due to unclear claims, fragmented regulations, and uncertainty among clients and executing parties. As a result, ‘circularity’ becomes an abstract concept in many projects, while decisions need to be concrete and verifiable. The question, therefore, is not whether we should aim for circular construction, but how we can do so today in a responsible and feasible manner. Challenge 1: material claims require transparency When we talk about ‘recycled’ material, what does that actually mean? Which waste streams are involved? Are we talking about post-consumer or post-industrial waste? And what percentage of recycled material has actually been utilised? In practice, we see that many products mention this, but do not always substantiate it with independent certification or clear definitions. This makes it difficult to properly compare materials and to justify choices towards clients, regulators, or contractors. In FRONT projects, we work, among other materials, with WasteBasedBricks. These bricks are certified with a minimum of 60% post-consumer waste in accordance with BRL 7010 [more info] and have a KOMO-attest certification [more info]. The result is a brick that performs like any other brick, but where circularity is a demonstrable and verifiable part of the product. This is what makes the difference between a sustainability story and a material that can genuinely be justified in specifications, permits, and execution. Challenge 2: brick remains. The question is how? Brick is not a niche material. Brick masonry is one of the most commonly used facade finishes in the Netherlands and is structurally dominant in the built environment. This makes it a crucial component of any circular facade strategy. Brick also has a long lifespan and, if applied correctly, can be reused or recycled at a high level. But this does require conscious material choices at the very start of the design process. At the same time, we see a significant tension: although millions of tonnes of construction and demolition waste are separated and recycled annually in the Netherlands (approximately 88%, source), the majority ends up outside the construction sector, for example, as foundation material. Only a small proportion returns to high-quality construction applications. This matters because the building and construction sector is one of the most material-intensive sectors in the world, accounting for approximately 40 to 50% of global extraction of raw materials for materials, source). The Dutch economy is measured as approximately 24.5% circular (source), a score well above the global average, but still far below the interim target of 50% around 2030 and the 100% target around 2050 that the Netherlands itself has set in national policy. Challenge 3: regulation and uncertainty Another bottleneck is that regulation is lagging behind practice. Innovation moves faster than standardisation. A clear example is the long-awaited BRL 1330 (more info), the Dutch assessment guideline for high-quality bonded brick slips on facades. At the time of writing, this guideline is still not active. As a result, brick slips are treated differently from one municipality to another, leading to uncertainty in specifications, quotations, permit processes, and execution. For many parties, this results in risk-averse behaviour. Not because the solutions are technically unfeasible, but because the framework is unclear. This slows down innovation and hampers the wider application of circular facade details. Challenge 4: flexibility required, guarantees expected In addition, we see a clear shift in construction practice. Contractors are increasingly looking at prefabrication, scaffold-free construction, material reduction, and demountable facades with a view to future reuse. At the same time, clients are asking for guarantees, proven performance, and references. This combination creates tension. Innovative systems require flexibility, while the market demands certainty. This tension is present in almost every circular facade project. Especially here, experience makes all the difference: knowing which systems have already proven themselves and where the limits lie. FRONT aims to be a true partner in this. What does this mean for practice? Our experience from dozens of realised facade projects shows that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Every facade, project context, and client requires its own balance between aesthetics, circularity, regulation, and feasibility. What does help are certified products with traceable recycled content, combined with parties who know how to apply them responsibly. These remove discussion on site and increase confidence among all stakeholders. But guidance is at least as important. Knowledge of systems, experience with regulations, insight into guarantees, and a realistic understanding of what works and what does not. That practical knowledge is invaluable. Those who have gone through multiple projects know where the real risks lie and where ambitions are achievable without compromising on quality or safety. Conclusion Circular construction is far more than an ambition in a policy document. It is a practical, technical, and sometimes political challenge. A lot is happening, and that is positive. But as long as clear benchmarks, harmonised rules, and shared practical experience are lacking, the transition will remain slow. Brick, and specifically circular variants such as WasteBasedBrick and WasteBasedSlips, can play a serious role in this. Not only because of certification and material choices, but precisely in combination with knowledge, experience, and guidance within the project. Circular construction does not only require better materials, but partners who help to apply them properly. Curious to see how circular brick can work in practice in your facade project? The FRONT team is happy to share our best practices from real projects.
Challenge 1: material claims require transparency When we talk about ‘recycled’ material, what does that actually mean? Which waste streams are involved? Are we talking about post-consumer or post-industrial waste? And what percentage of recycled material has actually been utilised? In practice, we see that many products mention this, but do not always substantiate it with independent certification or clear definitions. This makes it difficult to properly compare materials and to justify choices towards clients, regulators, or contractors. In FRONT projects, we work, among other materials, with WasteBasedBricks. These bricks are certified with a minimum of 60% post-consumer waste in accordance with BRL 7010 [more info] and have a KOMO-attest certification [more info]. The result is a brick that performs like any other brick, but where circularity is a demonstrable and verifiable part of the product. This is what makes the difference between a sustainability story and a material that can genuinely be justified in specifications, permits, and execution. Challenge 2: brick remains. The question is how? Brick is not a niche material. Brick masonry is one of the most commonly used facade finishes in the Netherlands and is structurally dominant in the built environment. This makes it a crucial component of any circular facade strategy. Brick also has a long lifespan and, if applied correctly, can be reused or recycled at a high level. But this does require conscious material choices at the very start of the design process. At the same time, we see a significant tension: although millions of tonnes of construction and demolition waste are separated and recycled annually in the Netherlands (approximately 88%, source), the majority ends up outside the construction sector, for example, as foundation material. Only a small proportion returns to high-quality construction applications. This matters because the building and construction sector is one of the most material-intensive sectors in the world, accounting for approximately 40 to 50% of global extraction of raw materials for materials, source). The Dutch economy is measured as approximately 24.5% circular (source), a score well above the global average, but still far below the interim target of 50% around 2030 and the 100% target around 2050 that the Netherlands itself has set in national policy. Challenge 3: regulation and uncertainty Another bottleneck is that regulation is lagging behind practice. Innovation moves faster than standardisation. A clear example is the long-awaited BRL 1330 (more info), the Dutch assessment guideline for high-quality bonded brick slips on facades. At the time of writing, this guideline is still not active. As a result, brick slips are treated differently from one municipality to another, leading to uncertainty in specifications, quotations, permit processes, and execution. For many parties, this results in risk-averse behaviour. Not because the solutions are technically unfeasible, but because the framework is unclear. This slows down innovation and hampers the wider application of circular facade details. Challenge 4: flexibility required, guarantees expected In addition, we see a clear shift in construction practice. Contractors are increasingly looking at prefabrication, scaffold-free construction, material reduction, and demountable facades with a view to future reuse. At the same time, clients are asking for guarantees, proven performance, and references. This combination creates tension. Innovative systems require flexibility, while the market demands certainty. This tension is present in almost every circular facade project. Especially here, experience makes all the difference: knowing which systems have already proven themselves and where the limits lie. FRONT aims to be a true partner in this. What does this mean for practice? Our experience from dozens of realised facade projects shows that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Every facade, project context, and client requires its own balance between aesthetics, circularity, regulation, and feasibility. What does help are certified products with traceable recycled content, combined with parties who know how to apply them responsibly. These remove discussion on site and increase confidence among all stakeholders. But guidance is at least as important. Knowledge of systems, experience with regulations, insight into guarantees, and a realistic understanding of what works and what does not. That practical knowledge is invaluable. Those who have gone through multiple projects know where the real risks lie and where ambitions are achievable without compromising on quality or safety. Conclusion Circular construction is far more than an ambition in a policy document. It is a practical, technical, and sometimes political challenge. A lot is happening, and that is positive. But as long as clear benchmarks, harmonised rules, and shared practical experience are lacking, the transition will remain slow. Brick, and specifically circular variants such as WasteBasedBrick and WasteBasedSlips, can play a serious role in this. Not only because of certification and material choices, but precisely in combination with knowledge, experience, and guidance within the project. Circular construction does not only require better materials, but partners who help to apply them properly. Curious to see how circular brick can work in practice in your facade project? The FRONT team is happy to share our best practices from real projects.
