Moghayedi, A. and Awuzie, B. (2026) Unlocking sustainability futures: A framework for digital product passports and material banks in a circular built environment. Construction Innovation, 26(9), pp. 135-166. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to develop and analytically test an integrated implementation framework linking digital product passports (DPPs), digital materials banks (DMBs) and circular economy (CE) principles to address structural barriers to material reuse, carbon reduction and intelligent waste management in the built environment. It examines how digitally enabled lifecycle data flows can shift construction from linear to regenerative systems. Design/methodology/approach – The framework was derived and validated through a three-stage research design: a systematic synthesis of over 30 peer-reviewed studies; three co-design workshops with 14 international experts from academia, industry and policy; and cross-sector validation by an eight-member panel. The resulting DPP–DMB implementation framework (DDIF) comprises eight lifecycle-aligned stages mapped to EN 15978 and embeds BIM, IoT, blockchain, AI and digital twins as enabling technologies. Findings – The analysis demonstrates that the DDIF enhances material traceability, lifecycle transparency and stakeholder coordination while enabling real-time monitoring and ESG-aligned compliance. It operationalises circular construction through market-based reuse mechanisms, predictive decision-making and interoperability with international standards and policy instruments, including the EU Green Deal, ISO 23387 and associated EU Level(s). Its modular architecture indicates scalability across regulatory contexts and asset types. Originality/value – Whereas prior studies typically examine DPPs, material databases or CE strategies in isolation, this paper integrates them into a single, lifecycle-structured framework validated through practitioner engagement. Unlike largely conceptual models or technology-focused roadmaps, the DDIF links digital infrastructures to concrete decision points, reuse markets and regulatory processes across asset stages, advancing the field from fragmented approaches towards deployable system-level implementation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | carbon neutrality; circular built environment; digital material banks; digital product passports; life cycle data integration |
| Index terms: | practitioner, coordination, built environment, blockchain, implementation, neutrality, green deal, carbon reduction, policy instrument, compliance, database, interoperability, circular economy, traceability, integration, academia, transparency, monitoring, decision-making, life cycle, validation, strategy, design workshop, digital twin, research design, waste management, methodology, markets, ISO, lifecycle |
| Subjects: | organizational analysis, contractual arrangements, management, systems and processes, supplier oversight, research methods, sustainable design, control systems, research design and methodology, ethical practice, sustainability assessment, decision analysis, project delivery, data management, value management, waste management, standards development, design process, economic analysis, policy studies, practitioner, digital engineering, professional development, health safety and environment, infrastructure and transport systems, educational institutions, computing systems, climate science |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Organizational Design, Health and Safety, Design Practice, Procurement, Business Strategy, Education, Supply Chain Management, Sustainability, Urban Studies, Project Management, Governance, Research Practice, Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Site Management, Information Management, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here