Why material circularity in infrastructure has stalled at the concept stage

Material circularity has quickly become part of the language of infrastructure. It appears in strategies, funding announcements and project ambitions, often framed as a critical pathway to reducing waste and improving long-term resource efficiency. 

At a policy level, the direction is clear. Australia’s national push toward a circular economy, alongside state-led initiatives like Victoria’s ecologiQ program and “Recycled First” approach, are shifting expectations for how materials are sourced, used and recovered across major projects. In Western Australia, circular economy principles are being embedded through waste and infrastructure strategies that aim to build markets for recycled materials and reduce reliance on virgin inputs. 

Taken together, these signals point to a future where circularity is not optional; it is expected. And yet, within projects themselves, circularity often remains just that: an expectation. 

A concept that hasn’t translated into practice 

Despite the growing emphasis, material circularity is still rarely measured in a consistent or defensible way at project level. 

Instead, it tends to be expressed through intent. Teams commit to using recycled materials, designing for reuse, or reducing waste. These are important steps, but they don’t necessarily answer a more fundamental question: how circular is this project, really? 

Even where the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) is referenced, its application is often uneven. Originally developed with products in mind, it is frequently adapted or simplified to fit the realities of infrastructure projects. In some cases, it is estimated using partial data. In others, it becomes a proxy, standing in for circularity rather than calculating it.

The result is a disconnect. Circularity is discussed with confidence but measured with uncertainty. 

Why shortcuts are becoming the norm 

This is not due to a lack of intent or capability. It reflects the inherent complexity of infrastructure itself. Projects bring together multiple materials, evolving designs and layered supply chains, all under pressure to meet cost, time and performance constraints. Within that context, circularity can be difficult to operationalise, particularly when it sits alongside other priorities like embodied carbon. 

So, simplifications begin to emerge. Circularity is inferred from recycled content. Benchmarks are applied without full context. Assumptions are made to keep pace with design timelines. 

These approaches are understandable and, in many cases, necessary to keep projects moving. But they also introduce a level of ambiguity that becomes harder to justify as expectations increase. 

The risk of decisions without evidence 

That ambiguity matters more now than it did even a few years ago. Procurement frameworks are evolving to require clearer sustainability outcomes. Policies are moving beyond high-level commitments toward demonstrable performance. Clients are asking more detailed questions, not just about what was done, but how it was assessed. 

In this environment, circularity can no longer sit comfortably as a qualitative narrative. Without a transparent and repeatable way to measure it, projects risk making claims that are difficult to substantiate. More critically, they risk making design decisions without fully understanding their implications. 

This becomes particularly evident when circularity intersects with carbon. A material choice that improves circularity, for example, by increasing recycled content or enabling reuse, may also carry higher embodied emissions. Conversely, a lower-carbon option may rely more heavily on virgin materials. These are not theoretical tensions; they are practical decisions being made during design and procurement. 

Without a way to quantify both sides of the equation, teams are often left to rely on judgement, precedent or what is easiest to defend. In some cases, circularity becomes a secondary consideration. In others, it is prioritised without full visibility of the trade-offs. 

Neither approach is ideal, particularly on major infrastructure projects where decisions have long-term consequences. 

From ambition to application 

What this points to is not a failure of circular economy thinking, but a gap between ambition and application. 

The industry has moved quickly to embrace circularity as a principle. The next step is to make it usable in a way that reflects the scale and complexity of infrastructure, and that supports real-world decision-making. 

That means moving beyond proxies and assumptions, and toward approaches that can: 

• quantify circularity at project scale  

• align with other critical metrics, particularly carbon  

• be applied early enough to influence design, not just report on it  

Encouragingly, this shift is already underway. More teams are asking not just whether a project is circular, but how that has been determined and what it means in the context of broader project outcomes. 

Making material circularity in infrastructure tangible 

One of the challenges has been accessibility. Even when robust methodologies exist, they are not always easy to apply in the early stages of a project, when decisions are still being shaped. 

To bridge that gap, we’ve been exploring ways to make circularity more tangible, not just as a concept, but as something that can be tested, understood and iterated on. 

As part of this, we’ve developed a simplified, interactive way to begin exploring material circularity in infrastructure projects. It’s not a replacement for detailed analysis, but it does provide a starting point: a way to see how different inputs influence circularity outcomes, and how those outcomes might sit alongside other considerations. 

It’s a small step, but an important one. Because until circularity can be explored in practical terms, it will remain difficult to embed in everyday project decisions. 

What comes next 

The conversation around circularity is not going away. If anything, it is becoming more specific, more data-driven and more closely tied to how infrastructure is funded, designed and delivered. 

The opportunity now is to move from broad alignment to practical application to ensure that when circularity is referenced, it is grounded in something measurable, transparent and useful. 

In our next piece, we’ll explore what it actually takes to calculate material circularity for infrastructure, and why doing it properly requires more than simply applying an existing model at a larger scale.