CIBSE has taken a step towards embedding circular principles into building services by forming a dedicated Circular Economy working group under its Sustainability Special Interest Group. The chair is Philip Griffiths, professor of building physics at Ulster University.
The initiative aims to support growing momentum within the industry to move beyond carbon and address broader resource challenges in the built environment, as Griffiths explains.
Why has CIBSE established a circular economy group?
To complement the CIBSE Sustainability Special Interest Group, it was decided to establish a specific working group on the circular economy to work alongside the Embodied Carbon working group.
A recent article in the CIBSE Journal on circular economy was timely (‘Why mainstream MEP can and should be circular’, CIBSE Journal, March 2025). While carbon has been a major focus for the industry over the past 20 years, going forwards, resource availability will become a stressor.
We already see the geopolitical actions of countries as they seek access to critical minerals, yet the resources we have in our buildings are ignored. CIBSE has noted the issue with recycling of materials in the lighting industry through the release of TM66 and the associated tools. However, we need to go further.
What are the circularity priorities for MEP?
Across the construction sector, efforts to advance circularity often prioritise structural and façade components, overlooking building services. Given their rapid obsolescence, complexity and substantial costs, these components represent a golden spot for optimising resource usage. Research is showing that MEP systems in buildings are the most accessible for reuse.
One approach for us to consider immediately is the lexicon we use when talking about resource use. Often, materials are disposed of in a building retrofit before they have reached their ‘end of life’. The most obvious route has then been recycling, and while that is preferable to landfill, that route loses a lot of retained value.
In fact, the 3R hierarchy – reduce, reuse, recycle – is now considered to be constraining thought and action. Instead, the 9R Circularity Strategies hierarchy proposed by Potting1 is preferred. The rule of thumb for this strategy is that a higher level of circularity = fewer natural resources and less environmental pressure.
The strategy is to encourage smarter product use and manufacture, to extend lifespan of a product and its parts, and to identify the useful application of materials.
It seeks to maintain the highest value of materials by returning items to use at the highest point possible, with downgrading only chosen out of necessity. Recycling sits at the bottom of the 9R hierarchy, with
repair, refurbish, remanufacture or repurpose encouraged as steps to avoid recycling.
What are the working group’s plans?
The working group has had an initial meeting and we will be setting up a series of meetings throughout the rest of the year. We will be considering the best approaches to informing the profession about how circular thinking can be embedded in design and operation of MEP systems.
We envisage proposing technical manuals, gathering and disseminating best practice, and hosting workshops.
Can digitisation enable the circular economy for MEP?
While digital technologies are considered an enabler of the circular economy, the investigation of the use of digital construction to advance the circularity of building services is lacking.
Ongoing research is evaluating the potential of digital construction to advance circular building services. The study requires your opinions and knowledge as part of a two-stage, mixed-method approach. The first stage involves a survey that will take a few minutes to complete. To take part, visit bit.ly/circularbuildingservices
If you are interested in getting involved with the group, please get in touch via p.griffiths@ulster.ac.uk or visit bit.ly/CJCIBCirc
Reference:
1 Potting, J, Hekkert, M, Worrell, E, Hanemaaijer, A (2017), Circular economy: measuring innovation in the product chain
