Construction is big business in Australia.

Worth almost $300 billion per year, the sector employs around 1.35 million Australians. The Australian construction sector produces 29 million tonnes of waste annually, and boasts a high resource recovery rate of 80%. But, reading between the lines, you’ll see that the recovery rate is based on weight, rather than volume, and so can be attributed to the fact that the bulk of recovered materials are heavy: concrete, bricks and asphalt. Lighter fractions like plastics and timber generally fly under the ‘resource recovery radar’ for the built environment.

The Australian Council of Recycling (ACOR) is Australia’s industry forum for resource recovery, recycling and remanufacturing. Our membership is represented across the recycling value chain, and includes leading organisations in advanced chemical recycling processes, container deposit scheme operations, kerbside recycling, recovered metal, glass, plastic, paper, organic, tyre, textile, oil and e-product reprocessing and remanufacturing, and construction and demolition recovery. We work closely with industry, in supporting a transition to a circular economy, and the jobs and environmental benefits it provides.

If we’re serious about reducing waste and achieving real recycling goals, we need to make sure that the measures we’re taking are achieving genuine outcomes. One crucial way of supporting better recycling rates is via product stewardship schemes. However, as outlined in ACOR’s report ‘Recyclers in Product Stewardship’, there are many ways that product stewardship can miss the mark in terms of recycling. Working directly with recyclers is essential to getting it right.

We usually think of product stewardship schemes, in which manufacturers take responsibility for what happens to their products or packaging after use, in terms of the well-known container deposit schemes for the drinks industry. But there are a plethora of schemes operating around the world for all kinds of products—and that includes in the construction sector.

While product stewardship can be important, it’s only effective if it is delivered properly. In Australia’s construction sector the outcomes vary. The voluntary Paintback scheme, where consumers drop off excess paint at collection points instead of dumping it into the bin, is a curious example. The scheme levies a ‘paint tax’ of 15c per litre on paint. However, the outcomes are not clear, leading to negative press and a lack of public confidence.

There are alternatives. Dulux’s Project Earth, for example, has adopted a more bespoke approach to the paint waste issue, working directly with construction projects, recyclers and manufacturers to achieve material outcomes from construction site paint waste.

Similarly Fairview’s Ecoloop process diverts non-compliant cladding from landfill, giving new life to the resources recovered from rectification projects, including aluminium, ferrous metals and polyethylene. The program has been verified to comply with the GBCA’s Construction and Demolition Waste Reporting Criteria, ensuring transparency and consumer confidence.

The Plastics Industry Pipe Association of Australia (PIPA) is also working on circular solutions for PVC pipes through the Construction Plastics Recycling Scheme. This pilot initiative recovers pipe offcuts at construction sites, in order to remake them back into new plastic pipes. It is a positive step to support behaviour change in new construction projects: setting up collection bins for PVC offcuts, and working with tradies to ensure this material is recovered and recycled. Recovering used PVC pipes from demolition sites presents a much bigger challenge, but PIPA’s initiative paves the way for future solutions.

High-quality product stewardship efforts can create new opportunities for Australia’s construction sector if we can get the basics in place for our recycling industry. Firstly, it’s essential that we design for recycling and reuse. Construction material that is designed to be recycled will be simpler to recycle and retain value at end of use.

Next, we must create robust market demand for recycled materials and the products made from them. It’s no use collecting items to recycle if there’s no proven technology to do the recycling and no market for the recycled product. On the other hand, robust markets will lead to greater demand for the work recyclers do, allowing them to scale in a way that lets recycled products compete on price against brand new, non-recycled products.

Another priority is to ensure good sorting and collection measures. Recovered aggregates and road base are low-hanging fruit in the construction sector. The hard bit is supporting the recovery of timber, plastics and glass, and ensuring strong markets for products derived from these sources. At the same time, it is vital to ensure that recyclable materials are free from contaminants and hazardous materials such as asbestos. Even a small fragment of asbestos can render several tonnes of recoverable material as contaminated waste. Not only is it illegal to improperly dispose of asbestos, it’s also disastrously wasteful.

Accountability is crucial. Secrecy and fuzzy outcomes destroy public confidence—and recyclers bear the brunt of this when product stewardship schemes perform poorly or fail. When people can clearly see that their end-of-use product is genuinely recycled into something useful, the goodwill is strong, but that can’t happen without good governance and transparency.

Another part of the mix is enforcing compliance and consequences. The last thing we need is cowboy operators doing things on the cheap, or schemes heavy on the marketing but light on genuine recycling. Strong rules create certainty for the industry.

If we are serious about tackling the tricker aspects of construction waste, product stewardship programmes that genuinely work with recyclers are a good way forward. If we can get the building blocks in place, we can knock down waste levels and build a more circular and sustainable construction sector.