Material passports for the built environment: DPP in construction

Material Passports: Digitally Enabling Circularity in the Built Environment

The construction and real estate sectors account for approximately 40% of global material consumption and generate substantial waste streams at end-of-life. Yet unlike manufactured products with established supply chains, buildings present a unique challenge: their material composition, embedded energy, and recovery potential remain largely opaque. A Digital Product Passport for buildings—commonly termed a material passport—promises to transform this landscape by creating a structured, machine-readable record of what a building contains, where it came from, and what it can become. This infrastructure-level shift from analog documentation to standardized digital data is reshaping how the construction industry approaches circular economy objectives, though significant barriers in data availability and integration remain.

Defining Material Passports in the Built Environment Context

Material passports are comprehensive digital records documenting the composition, properties, and lifecycle information of materials and components within a building. Unlike traditional building information models (BIMs), which focus on architectural and structural data, material passports emphasize circular economy dimensions: sourcing transparency, material hazards, disassembly potential, and secondary market value. Kebede et al. (2023) framed the challenge as one of information architecture, noting that digital product passports in the built environment must handle complex lifecycle data spanning decades or centuries—from initial material extraction through potential reuse, remanufacturing, or recycling at end-of-life. This temporal and technical complexity distinguishes building-scale passports from those for discrete manufactured products.

The scope of a material passport typically extends across three phases: operational (maintenance and retrofit), end-of-life (deconstruction and separation), and recovery (secondary use or recycling). Çetin et al. (2023) identified that existing buildings present acute data availability gaps, particularly regarding historical material composition, original specifications for older structures, and the presence of hazardous substances. These gaps are not merely informational inconveniences; they directly constrain circular economy assessment and planning. A building without detailed knowledge of its material stocks cannot be effectively deconstructed for reuse or assessed for embodied energy recovery.

Data Architecture: Bridging Availability and Circular Objectives

Creating material passports requires overcoming a fundamental tension: circular economy principles demand granular, standardized data, yet real-world building stock often lacks such documentation. Çetin et al. (2023) proposed a digitally-enabled framework that combines three complementary approaches: automated data extraction (through building scanning, material analysis, and archival research), human expert assessment (for interpretation and gap-filling), and structured templates that enforce consistency across projects. The framework recognizes that perfect data is neither achievable nor necessary; instead, confidence levels and data provenance tags enable downstream users to make informed decisions based on information quality.

The ontological structure of this data is equally critical. Kebede et al. (2024) developed a modular ontology framework that organizes material and product information according to ISO standards, creating interconnected data modules that can be assembled, reused, and maintained independently. This modularity is essential for the built environment, where different stakeholders—architects, contractors, facility managers, demolition specialists—each require distinct subsets of passport information. A facility manager needs maintenance schedules and supplier contacts; a demolition contractor needs disassembly sequences and material recovery pathways. A modular ontology ensures both views are supported within a unified data structure rather than through fragmented, incompatible systems.

Morganti et al. (2024) demonstrated this principle in practice, integrating Life Cycle Assessment methodologies with Digital Product Passport frameworks for modular curtain wall systems. Their semantic data-driven approach automated the collection of environmental data by linking passport records directly to LCA calculation engines, enabling real-time assessment of design alternatives. The implication is significant: when material passports are structured according to standards like ISO and aligned with GS1 EPCIS 2.0 event data structures, they become computation-ready, capable of supporting automated sustainability workflows rather than serving as static reference documents.

Implementation Frameworks: From Theory to Platform Infrastructure

Kebede et al. (2023) presented a structured framework for implementing Digital Product Passports in the built environment using Knowledge Graphs as the foundational technology. Knowledge Graphs provide a graph-based data model in which materials, components, buildings, and their relationships are explicitly represented as interconnected nodes and edges. This approach offers advantages over traditional relational databases for construction contexts: it natively supports heterogeneous data types (specifications, images, certifications, disassembly instructions), handles incomplete information gracefully, and enables sophisticated queries across material supply chains and circular pathways.

The framework identifies several necessary components. First is a unified data model that represents product information, lifecycle phases, and circularity attributes. Second is a mapping layer that translates existing building documentation (as-built drawings, material schedules, maintenance records) into structured ontology terms. Third is an integration layer connecting external data sources—supplier databases, material registries, environmental product declarations, regulatory compliance records. Fourth is a query and reasoning layer that enables users to ask complex questions: “Which materials in this building are biobased and can be returned to the supplier at end-of-life?” or “What is the total embodied carbon footprint, and which components represent the highest reduction opportunity?”

Çetin et al. (2023) emphasized that this infrastructure must be accessible to practitioners without specialized data science expertise. Their proposed templates and guided workflows deliberately abstract away ontological complexity, presenting users with familiar interfaces—component checklists, photo documentation, condition ratings—while those inputs feed standardized data structures. This democratization of data entry is crucial; material passports will only achieve scale if adoption does not require retraining entire construction workforces.

Hazardous Materials and Regulatory Integration

One critical application of material passports emerges from hazardous substance documentation. European regulations such as the Ecopolicy (EU) 2023/2341 and the Building Products Regulation increasingly require transparency regarding restricted substances in building products. Çetin et al. (2023) identified that hazardous content information is among the most difficult data to recover in existing building audits, yet it is essential for safe deconstruction and worker protection. Digital passports create a mechanism to embed this information at the point of material specification and installation, reducing the costly forensic analysis required decades later when a building reaches end-of-life.

Structured data around hazardous substances also supports regulatory compliance automation. When material passports are linked to substance declaration databases and updated as regulations change, building owners and facility managers can automatically identify compliance risks without manual document reviews. This is particularly valuable as regulations tighten; the EU’s emerging Data Act and related frameworks increasingly demand real-time visibility into material supply chains and environmental attributes.

Circular Design and Disassembly Planning

Beyond documentation, material passports enable circular design processes. Morganti et al. (2024) demonstrated that when environmental data is linked to design tools through Digital Product Passport interfaces, designers can immediately assess the circular implications of material choices. Choosing a spray-applied polyurethane insulation versus a discrete fibrous batt, for instance, has profound implications for end-of-life recovery; the passport framework makes those trade-offs visible at design time rather than as an unpleasant surprise at demolition.

Kebede et al. (2024) highlighted that modular ontologies also support disassembly planning. By encoding the spatial relationships between materials and components within the ontology—which layers can be separated, what tools are required, what order minimizes damage—passports become operational guides for deconstruction crews. A modular curtain wall, for example, can include detailed separation sequences that preserve frame materials for reuse while sorting insulation and gaskets into appropriate recovery streams. This information, captured in structured form during design, directly reduces waste and enables value recovery.

Supply Chain Transparency and Secondary Markets

Material passports create infrastructure for secondary material markets by establishing trusted, standardized information about recovered materials. Kebede et al. (2023) noted that circular economy success depends not only on technical recyclability but on the economic viability of recovery. A recovered steel beam has value only if potential buyers can verify its specification, strength grade, and dimensional accuracy without expensive re-testing. Material passports, linked through Digital Product Passport systems to traceability networks, enable rapid authentication of secondary materials, reducing transaction costs and risk premiums that currently make virgin materials economically competitive.

This supply chain transparency dimension increasingly aligns with regulatory frameworks. Emerging traceability requirements in European construction regulations reward projects that can document material origins and recovery pathways. Material passports, structured according to GS1 and ISO standards, provide the data infrastructure to meet these requirements cost-effectively.

Current Limitations and Emerging Solutions

Despite the promise, material passports for buildings face real implementation barriers. Çetin et al. (2023) documented that data availability gaps are particularly acute in the existing building stock, where original specifications may be lost and materials themselves require destructive or time-consuming analysis to characterize. The proposed solution—combining automated scanning, expert assessment, and crowdsourced condition reporting—remains labor-intensive and requires new professional competencies in data interpretation.

Standardization gaps also persist. While Kebede et al. (2024) demonstrated that modular ontologies can bridge different data schemas, the construction industry has not yet converged on unified standards comparable to GS1 systems in consumer products. Multiple competing frameworks exist; true interoperability requires continued work on standard mapping and mutual recognition agreements between systems.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does a material passport differ from a Building Information Model (BIM)?

A BIM is primarily an architectural and engineering tool, capturing geometric, structural, and mechanical data for design and construction management. Material passports extend this focus to include circular economy attributes: material composition, disassembly instructions, end-of-life recovery pathways, and environmental impact data. While BIMs can feed data into material passports, passports are specifically designed to support lifecycle decisions and regulatory compliance across decades, whereas BIMs typically focus on the design and construction phases.

Can material passports be applied to existing buildings, or only new construction?

Çetin et al. (2023) demonstrated that material passports are applicable to existing buildings, though with significant caveats. Existing buildings present greater data collection challenges—original specifications may be lost, materials require analysis, and hazardous substances must be forensically identified. However, a phased approach is viable: high-value components and known hazard zones are prioritized for detailed passport creation, while lower-risk materials may be documented with lower confidence levels. Retrofit and renovation projects present natural opportunities to develop and refine existing building passports incrementally.

Who is responsible for creating and maintaining a building’s material passport?

Responsibility typically spans multiple parties across the building lifecycle. Designers and architects create initial passport templates during design; contractors populate material specifications during procurement and installation; facility managers update condition and maintenance data; and demolition specialists complete end-of-life information. Digital platform infrastructure, as Kebede et al. (2023) outlined, must support role-based access and workflow management to coordinate these contributions without creating bottlenecks or liability ambiguities. Ownership and update responsibility should be contractually defined at project outset.

References

• Çetin S.; Raghu D.; Honic M.; Straub A.; Gruis V. (2023). Data requirements and availabilities for material passports: A digitally enabled framework for improving the circularity of existing buildings. Sustainable Production and Consumption. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.07.011
• Kebede R.; Moscati A.; Tan H.; Johansson P. (2024). A modular ontology modeling approach to developing digital product passports to promote circular economy in the built environment. Sustainable Production and Consumption. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.05.007
• Kebede R.; Moscati A.; Tan H.; Johansson P. (2023). CIRCULAR ECONOMY IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT: A FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTING DIGITAL PRODUCT PASSPORTS WITH KNOWLEDGE GRAPHS. Proceedings of the European Conference on Computing in Construction. https://doi.org/10.35490/EC3.2023.245
• Morganti L.; Esnarrizaga P.E.; Pracucci A.; Zaffagnini T.; Cortes V.G.; Rudenå A.; Brunklaus B.; Larraz J.A. (2024). Data-driven and LCA-based Framework for environmental and circular assessment of Modular Curtain Walls. Journal of Facade Design and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.47982/jfde.2024.305