Where do the materials we use come from? How much harm do we cause?
We can't change the way we design without first answering these simple questions.
Our Material Impact Report is the start of that journey, setting out what we already know and what we need to understand. It discusses how we can transition from degenerative to regenerative. And it's a commitment to people and planet - to learn, listen, and act.
The global built environment is responsible for:
Material Stewardship
As an industry, we remain fixated on the idea of "new" — but at what cost?
For every square metre demolished, around one tonne of waste is generated. Rebuilding that same area demolished then demands a similar volume of new materials.
To reduce our material footprint, we must shift our mindset: demolish less, retain more.
This isn’t just about taking on projects already defined as refurbishments, but actively seeking opportunities to preserve more floor area that might otherwise be lost and in doing so, making reuse the default, not the exception.
Material Use
Concrete continues to dominate our material use. It's the go-to material for substructures and slabs, where the majority of our impact lies.
We need a lot of it, often out of convenience rather than necessity. But it doesn't have to be this way. Unsurprisingly, projects which use the least concrete have the lowest carbon emissions.
While tracking how much material we specify is relatively simple, understanding their sources — who made them and where they came from — is far more complex.
To explore this, we mapped the material sources of a small sculpture, revealing the complexity of supply chains. It offered a small window into the complexity of construction supply chains and the importance of building stronger relationships between the materials we specify and the places they come from.
Climate Impact
Last year, structural works were completed on 14 projects with a construction value over £5 million. These represent just a portion of our overall work, but offer insight into the impact of larger schemes.
Together, these projects accounted for approximately 23,000 tonnes of upfront carbon, around 290 tonnes per full-time equivalent engineer. That’s more than an individual is likely to emit over the rest of their personal life (Carbon Independent).
All schemes achieving less than 200 kgCO2e/m2 were either retrofits or used predominantly timber systems.
Across this sample, the average structural carbon intensity was approximately 260 kgCO2e/m2 based on total developed area, rising to 475 kgCO2e/m2 when measured against only new area added.
Quote
"The beaver told the rabbit as they stared at the Hoover Dam: No, I didn't build it myself, but it's based on an idea of mine."
Looking Ahead
There’s still much we don’t fully understand — including the true impact of material extraction — but we’re committed to finding out. This report is our first step in defining out direction of travel.
Our engineers assessed their projects on a spectrum from degenerative to regenerative. Their self-assessment showed that 75% of our work currently sits on the degenerative end — though we suspect the real figure may be even higher.
Yet, there are clear signs of moving the dial. We're reclaiming steel, jacking floors, donating carbon tools to industry and building archives of structural drawings.
Looking ahead, we're asking bigger questions: is it enough to decarbonise existing supply chains? Or do we need to radically rethink our material choices? Circular and bio-based materials are part of the future, but how do we accelerate their adoption? What novel materials should we be exploring?
And how do we simply use less of everything? Greater retention will help, but structural forms matter too. Domes, vaults, and funicular shapes must replace ‘lazy’ engineering.
We’re energised by these challenges and welcome collaborations with others who are rethinking material use and its wider impact.
