Developing a Standardized Materials Passport Framework to Unlock the Full Circular Potential in the Construction Industry

Abstract

Addressing resource depletion and minimizing construction waste requires closing the material loop through circular economy practices. However, the lack of comprehensive material information remains a significant barrier. The materials passport (MP) has become an essential tool for documenting material properties and dynamically updating information throughout its lifecycle. Despite recent advancements, existing MP frameworks remain static and lack a holistic approach, limiting their effectiveness in assessing material quality and supporting high-value recovery and reuse. As a result, the industry remains reluctant to adopt secondary materials due to concerns about their performance and quality in structural applications where assurance of reliability is essential. Therefore, this study aims to address this gap by (1) defining the conceptual boundary of the MP framework by examining current MP practices, key functions, and existing limitations and (2) developing a standardized framework using concrete as demonstration material. An extensive literature review was conducted to define the conceptual boundary. Literature and relevant standards were reviewed to identify essential attributes. The study identified three core MP functions, including material tracking and management, circularity assessment, and sustainability assessment, while proposing an additional function of quality assessment. These four functions collectively informed the development of a unique standardized and holistic MP framework. Thus, this study contributes by enabling practitioners to make quality-based, data-driven decisions that support the effective secondary use of materials.

1. Introduction

While the construction industry contributes 13% to the global gross domestic product (GDP) [1], it is highly resource-intensive, consuming approximately 40% of global materials and generating nearly one-third of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions [2]. Annually, construction, renovation, and demolition activities account for 50% of all raw material consumption, 36% of global energy use, and 39% of energy-related emissions, contributing to environmental challenges such as acid rain [3]. These activities generate significant amounts of construction, renovation, and demolition waste annually, leading to environmental degradation, health risks, and landscape damage [4], which further highlights the urgent need for sustainable resource management [5]. In the absence of resource-efficient strategies, the environmental impacts of construction materials, including greenhouse gas emissions, are projected to rise significantly by 2060 [6]. Furthermore, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [7] predicts that by 2050, implementing a circular economy could lead to a 38% reduction in global CO₂ emissions from building materials.

Moving away from the traditional linear “take, make, dispose” model, the circular economy (CE) emphasizes strategies such as designing for disassembly and promoting material reuse, recycling, and recovery to minimize waste and extend the material lifespans [8,9]. At the core of this transition is material circularity, which ensures that materials remain in use for as long as possible, thereby reducing dependency on virgin resources and preventing unnecessary disposal [10]. Thus, this shift not only reduces environmental harm but also provides economic benefits, including cost savings from reduced material consumption and waste disposal [11]. Furthermore, with proper implementation, circular strategies can transform construction waste into valuable resources, enabling a more sustainable future for the industry [12,13].

Despite these potential benefits, achieving circularity in the construction industry remains challenging due to various barriers [14]. Realizing the full potential of the circular economy requires the effective implementation of multiple strategies, including reuse, recycling, and recovery of materials [9,12,15]. To implement these strategies, a key obstacle is the lack of sufficient information resulting from insufficient record-keeping practices [16,17]. Further, Marsh et al. [18] emphasize that comprehensive lifecycle information is crucial for overcoming this barrier and ensuring the successful application of CE principles. Similarly, Dalton et al. [19] state that accurate and well-structured data support informed decision-making and effective resource management, facilitating a smoother transition to circular practices.

As a result, the materials passport (MP) has emerged as a promising tool for advancing CE in construction by addressing this information gap [20,21,22]. Over the past decade, numerous studies in both academia and practice have explored the potential of MP [5,16,23,24], the conceptual MP frameworks [25,26], material documentation [27,28], and tracking of end-of-life (EoL) potential [14,29]. However, current implementations often focus on isolated outcomes that remain fragmented and fail to adopt a holistic approach to material circularity. For example, Honic et al. [30] developed an MP to analyze the recycling potential of timber and concrete in a residential building, relying on waste and environmental impact details. Similarly, the MP developed by Atta, Bakhoum and Marzouk [4] was designed to promote sustainability. However, it lacks a comprehensive framework for circularity across the lifecycle. As stated by Markou et al. [31], MP should be dynamic rather than static, continuously updating data at each lifecycle phase to ensure accurate and comprehensive material information. A dynamic approach is crucial for realizing the cradle-to-cradle concept, which ensures that materials circulate continuously within safe and sustainable cycles, maintaining their value and functionality across multiple life phases [32].

Furthermore, existing MP frameworks rely on attributes such as detachability, separability, and deconstructability to assess EoL potential. However, those studies consistently emphasize the critical role of material quality assurance in enabling the secondary use of materials. For example, the Building as Material Banks (BAMB) MP focuses on reversibility as a key criterion for assessing material circularity; however, it recognizes that the absence of quality data frequently leads to material downcycling, thereby compromising circular potential [33]. Similarly, the Madaster platform assesses circularity by evaluating the reuse, recyclability, and recovery potential of materials, considering attributes such as disassembly feasibility, toxicity, and material compatibility [34]. Moreover, Marsh, Velenturf and Bernal [18] argue that excluding material quality data from MP undermines their effectiveness. Honic, Kovacic, Aschenbrenner and Ragossnig [5] emphasized that without incorporating quality aspects into the assessment process, MP is unable to effectively support the reuse of reclaimed materials or achieve the goals of the cradle-to-cradle concept.

Few studies have addressed the quality aspect of MP, focusing primarily on contamination and toxicity [35,36], despite material quality being crucial for high-value recovery and subsequent applications, determined by factors such as mechanical integrity, chemical stability, and functional performance [37]. Thus, this often results in conservative assumptions, creating significant barriers when assessing the EoL potential of materials such as reuse, especially in structural applications [38]. While reusable and recycled materials often come at higher prices, stakeholders require guarantees of their structural and functional performance for further application [39]. It was particularly evident in the case of concrete, where quality assurance remains one of the primary concerns and a major barrier to further reuse [40]. As a result, the second life of materials is not widely embraced due to insufficient information across their lifecycle, particularly regarding the quality of materials intended for use in the next phase.

Therefore, this paper addresses this gap by developing a standardized MP framework along with a holistic and dynamic approach that enables comprehensive material tracking while ensuring sustainability and circularity. By prioritizing the integration of quality and performance attributes, the framework supports the adoption of a cradle-to-cradle approach. Consequently, it enables building practitioners to make informed decisions regarding the suitability of secondary materials.

This paper begins with Section 2, which outlines the systematic approach for data collection and analysis to achieve the research objectives. The first objective is addressed through a literature review, which examines current MP practices, their evolution, and their role in the circular economy, helping to establish the conceptual boundary by identifying key functions. The second objective focuses on identifying attributes from both literature and established standards, ensuring compliance with industry requirements. Ultimately, based on the review of the literature and the standards, a standardized MP framework for concrete material is developed as a demonstration.

2. Methodology

The research method adopted in this study followed a systematic approach for the development of a standardized MP framework. The methodology consists of two key phases as illustrated in Figure 1.

The initial phase involved an extensive literature search to gather relevant academic publications on MP. The search was conducted on 22 October 2024, using the Elsevier Scopus platform, applying well-defined criteria to retrieve relevant publications. Scopus was selected for its extensive peer-reviewed journal coverage and reliable access to recent scholarly research across various disciplines, ensuring the selection of high-quality sources [41]. The keywords used in the search primarily included multiple terms related to MP combined with construction-specific terminology. These keywords included “materials passport,” “product passport,” “resource passport,” “circular passport,” “building passport,” “recycle passport,” and “nutrient passport,” combined with construction-related terms such as “construction,” “civil engineering,” “infrastructure,” and “building” (Refer to Figure 1). Boolean operators (“AND” and “OR”) were applied to retrieve the most relevant publications. The search resulted in a total of 277 papers, which were subsequently filtered using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Filtering criteria were applied by limiting the search to English-language publications within the time range of 2014 to 2024, ensuring that only recent research findings were considered. The subject area was confined to the field of engineering, with a specific focus on the construction industry. Additionally, only articles and conference papers in their final publication stage were included for review. After applying these criteria, 123 papers were retained for abstract screening, while 154 publications were excluded. The next step involved screening the abstracts of the 123 filtered papers to evaluate their relevance based on content. As a result, 83 papers were selected for further analysis, while 40 papers were excluded due to factors such as limited relevance to the construction industry, restricted access, duplication of content, or literature reviews that have not contributed new insights beyond summarizing existing information. To ensure comprehensive coverage and identify overlooked studies related to material quality assessment, a snowballing technique was applied by performing forward and backward citation searches, resulting in the inclusion of 11 additional publications. Consequently, a total of 94 publications were selected for full content analysis. This phase facilitated the identification of MP evolution and current MP practices, along with the existing gaps. Furthermore, it provided insights into MP attributes and functions, which are crucial for developing a standardized MP framework.

Expanding upon the findings from the literature review, the second phase involved a manual targeted web-based search to further examine the current practices of MP, including commercial platforms and research-based initiatives. This search led to the identification of 6 commercial applications and 3 well-known research-based applications, contributing to a broader understanding of the practical implementation of MP. Additionally, a comprehensive analysis of relevant international and national standards was conducted to identify essential attributes of the MP framework. This analysis included a review of four positions of the Organization for International Standards (ISO) and one GS1 position under international standards, as well as seven Australian standards and one Australian standards handbook. The quality assessment attributes specific to concrete were sourced exclusively from Australian standards and handbooks, ensuring a material-specific focus. By integrating attributes identified from both the literature and standards, a standardized MP framework was developed, specifically tailored to concrete materials. This framework is designed from a material-centric perspective, rather than being constrained to a specific type of construction to ensure its applicability across a range of construction contexts. This framework enables comprehensive documentation of material properties throughout their lifecycle, facilitating improved circularity through enhanced quality assurance and performance evaluation.

3. Conceptual Boundary Definition of Materials Passport Framework

3.1. Evolution of Materials Passport

Initially introduced as “nutrient certificates” in 1997 to document material quality and cost [42], MPs have evolved to provide comprehensive information across lifecycles, supporting resource efficiency and circular practices [43]. Honic, Kovacic and Rechberger [30] define MP as a structured set of data that identifies the composition, quantity, and potential future use of materials within a product or building, aiming to support circular economy principles. Additionally, as defined by van Capelleveen et al. [44], MP serves as a digital interface that compiles lifecycle data to provide insight into the sustainability, circular value, and reuse potential of products and their materials. Thus, by providing transparency and traceability, material passports enhance decision-making throughout the building lifecycle and promote material circularity.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation further popularized MP by enhancing product traceability in circular supply chains, recording a product’s journey from raw material extraction to EoL [7]. MP is modeled after travel passports, compiling detailed data on materials within products or structures, enabling traceability, reuse, and recycling within a CE framework [25]. They document key aspects such as composition, origin, and location, providing stakeholders along the value chain with material information [31]. The growing academic interest is evident in Figure 2.

Figure 2 illustrates the increasing number of related publications from 2014 to 2024, peaking at nearly 40 publications in 2024. Several terms have been used in the literature to define MP, reflecting variations in scope and focus. Figure 3 highlights the diversity of terminology identified through the literature review. The data presented in these figures are based on the same search criteria and methodology outlined in Section 2, including database selection, keywords, date range, and inclusion filters.

A range of alternative terms has emerged depending on the application of MP. For entire building systems, terms such as “building passport” [45] and “building renovation passport” [46] are common, with the latter specifically addressing building condition assessments and renovation strategies [47]. In contrast, for individual products, the term “product passport” is frequently used [48], while digital applications emphasize the “digital product passport” [49], which enhances data accessibility and accuracy. Additional terms, such as “waste materials passport” [36], and niche concepts like “building heritage materials passport” [50], indicate tailored efforts for specific applications. Despite this diversity, the term “materials passport” remains the most widely accepted, supporting the CE by providing detailed material information across lifecycles [44]. Although different terms exist, they all contribute towards the ultimate goal of enhancing material circularity. Therefore, all these terms are considered in this study to ensure a comprehensive understanding of material documentation practices. However, to reduce confusion and maintain consistency, the term “materials passport” is used throughout the study as the consistent term.

3.2. Application of Materials Passport Across the Material Lifecycle

Building upon evolution, MP has become essential in the construction industry, where material efficiency and circular practices are increasingly prioritized [51]. Material circularity refers to maintaining the value of materials by enabling their continuous reuse, recycling, or repurposing rather than disposing of them after a single use [8,9]. Within the construction industry, this principle is central to reducing reliance on virgin materials and extending the service life of components.

MP facilitates the operationalization of material circularity by systematically documenting material data and managing material flows across lifecycle stages [52]. In this context, understanding the entire material lifecycle is crucial for identifying opportunities to extend the usability of materials [53].

Figure 4 highlights the circular material lifecycle developed for this study, representing a closed-loop cycle. The process begins with the supply of virgin materials and progresses through manufacturing, construction, and use. At the EoL, materials follow reuse, recycling, or disposal pathways as residual waste. These pathways aim to minimize environmental impact and maximize resource efficiency by reintegrating materials into the production cycle. As stated by Koppelaar et al. [54], MP is integrated into a raw material stage, which documents the source, composition, and sustainability credentials of raw materials, including both virgin and secondary materials, ensuring traceability and accountability from the initial stage. MP supports eco-friendly material selection by providing data on composition and properties. As a result, it reduces carbon emissions and promotes the use of recycled content in the production and construction stages. It also assists stakeholders in making informed decisions regarding environmental impact, compliance with standards, and material performance [55]. Moreover, Charef and Emmitt [51] stated that MPs enable stakeholders to identify which materials should be retained, reused, or replaced, optimizing resource utilization while minimizing waste.

Additionally, during the EoL stage, MP supports selective deconstruction by enabling the recovery of high-quality materials that can be tracked, reused, or recycled in future projects rather than disposed of as residual waste [55]. This capability ensures that materials remain within closed-loop systems, fostering CE principles of resource efficiency and sustainability. Furthermore, MP addresses significant challenges associated with the adoption of secondary materials, such as concerns about quality, durability, and compliance with building standards [55]. By facilitating better resource management and reducing environmental impact, MP is pivotal in advancing the cradle-to-cradle concept that promotes continuous material lifecycles, minimizes waste, and reduces reliance on virgin resources [8,58].

3.3. Current Practice of Materials Passport

The current state of MP reflects a combination of research-driven innovations and commercial applications that aim to enhance material traceability, reuse, and recycling. Research-based initiatives primarily focus on developing and validating knowledge, methods, and tools to advance circular economy practices, often relying on grants or sponsorships for funding. For instance, the UK NICER (National Interdisciplinary Circular Economy Research) program, backed by a GBP 30 million investment from UKRI (Research and Innovation), aims to create a national research and innovation community for advancing circular economy practices [59]. Additionally, several journal-developed MPs have been tested in real-world case studies, contributing to research-based initiatives by demonstrating practical applications of MP frameworks in various construction scenarios. In contrast, commercial initiatives operate as businesses offering paid services or tools. These tools enable companies to track materials and create MP for operational use. Commercial MPs are typically operated on an online platform where data from BIM (Building Information Modelling) or product data spreadsheets are fed into the system to create material-related circularity indices [60]. The study reviewed nine research-based and six commercial initiatives to assess the current practice of MP.

Research-based initiatives play a foundational role in exploring and developing MP frameworks. The EU-funded BAMB initiative demonstrated the potential of integrating MP with reversible building design. The project developed over 300 MPs to support material tracking for recovery and reuse [61]. The BAMB MPs emphasized disassembly and reversibility. However, they lack quality data, which leads to downcycling. Failing to assess material degradation and its effects on structural and functional performance can result in overlooking critical defects that compromise integrity. Thus, the framework fails to determine the true second-life potential of materials. However, this initiative set the stage for further advancements, such as the iBRoad project [62], which developed Building Renovation Passports for deep energy renovations, linking MP to the lifecycle data of residential buildings [63]. This project emphasizes the localized and scalable applications of MP by integrating them with energy efficiency and urban planning tools.

In addition to large-scale funded projects, several MPs introduced in scholarly studies have been applied in real-world case studies, contributing to research-based initiatives by demonstrating practical applications of MP frameworks in various construction scenarios.

Table 1. Summary of MP applications in scholarly studies.

Reference	Developed MP	Case Study Details
[4]	BIM-integrated MP for automated sustainability assessment	Traditional residential building to evaluate its sustainability performance
[64]	MP framework integrating disassembly planning with BIM standards	Disassembly planning and assessing the reusability of various building components
[65]	MP using BIM and material flow analysis to assess the recycling potential of construction materials	Tested on a LEED-certified commercial building (recycling and reuse potential of concrete and glass curtain walls)
[66]	BIM-supported MP using laser scanning and ground-penetrating radar to capture building geometry and material composition	Office and laboratory facility at Vienna University, integrating
[30]	BIM-based MP to analyze the recycling potential and environmental impact	Evaluated two variants (timber and concrete) of a residential building in Austria
[25]	Semi-automated BIM-supported MP framework to improve recycling potential assessment	Real-world construction project, addressing challenges related to data inconsistency and the importance of stakeholder collaboration

below provides a summary of the developed MPs and case study applications.

In parallel with research-based efforts, commercial platforms have translated these innovations into practical, scalable solutions. The Madaster platform [34] has been at the forefront of generating thousands of MPs and calculating circularity indicators. This platform has successfully integrated MPs into real-world projects, including over 1000 newly constructed homes, emphasizing their practical utility. Similarly, the EPEA circularity passport, derived from the BAMB project, has developed over 100 detailed resource passports focusing on material composition, recyclability, and CO₂ footprints [67]. Upcyclea in France and Concular in Germany have further contributed to the commercialization of MPs, with platforms that provide detailed environmental data and facilitate the reuse of construction materials through digital marketplaces. Concular has developed a digital marketplace for reclaimed construction materials, using MPs to document material attributes and facilitate circular construction practices [68]. Nearly 10,000 Circular Passports have been developed by Upcyclea to provide comprehensive environmental data on materials and products [69]. The Kennett Material Bank catalogues reusable materials for large-scale construction projects [70]. As an emerging platform, Cirdax in the Netherlands integrates advanced functionalities into MP. It enables detailed tracking of material composition, CO₂ impacts, and lifecycle performance [71]. Together, these research-based and commercial initiatives reflect the growing recognition of MPs as critical tools for achieving sustainability goals and supporting the circular economy in the construction industry.

Numerous MP studies focus on theory and methodology with limited real-world validation. By analyzing this diverse range of scholarly studies, research-based initiatives, and commercial applications, the key functions of MPs were identified and mentioned in

Table 2. Key functions and sub-functions of MP represent the core activities or capabilities. Each key function is further categorized into sub-functions, outlining the specific tasks that contribute to fulfilling the overarching purpose of the key function.

Key Function	Sub Functions	Reference
		[28]	[72]	[43]	[13]	[66]	[48]	[31]	[73]	[74]	[14]	[75]	[12]	[50]	[30]	[25]	[64]	[76]	[36]	[4]	[77]	[78]	[79]	[35]
Material tracking and management	Material tracing (tracking of material details from origin to EoL using unique identifiers)	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		x	x		x	x	x		x			x	x	x
	Inventory management (cataloguing material composition, location, and condition to support urban mining and material cadastre)	x				x					x		x	x
Circularity assessment	Reusability assessment (determining the potential of materials or components to reuse in their original form without extensive reprocessing)		x	x			x	x	x		x	x	x	x				x		x	x	x		x
	Recyclability assessment (evaluating the potential of materials to be processed into new products or components)			x	x	x	x	x					x		x	x		x		x	x	x		x
	Reversibility assessment (evaluating the ease with which construction materials or components can be disassembled, separated, and reclaimed from buildings)						x	x					x				x				x	x		x
	Resource optimization (evaluating the efficient use of materials throughout the material’s lifecycle to minimize the need for virgin resources)							x					x					x
	Waste optimization (determining the waste reduction options to avoid landfill disposal)		x		x	x		x	x				x		x			x	x	x	x			x
Sustainability assessment	Environmental performance assessment (evaluating environmental impacts associated with the whole lifecycle of the material)		x		x	x		x					x		x		x	x		x	x	x		x
	Economic/financial assessment (evaluating the total cost of a material over its entire lifecycle)											x					x	x	x				x
Quality assessment	Condition assessment (evaluating the performance and condition of materials to ensure EoL potential)
	Contamination and toxicity												x											x

Note: “x” indicates that the reference supports the corresponding sub-function.

. The MP functions identified from these papers were determined through a structured review of their objectives, methodologies, and key findings. Clearly defined and substantiated functions are summarized in Table 2.

As mentioned in Table 2, MP has a multifaceted role, addressing key functions such as material tracking and management, circularity assessment, sustainability assessment, and quality assessment. Material tracking and management are the most commonly addressed functions, as they are critical for ensuring transparency. They enable the traceability of materials from origin to EoL and support resource recovery [28,66,72]. In comparison, circularity assessment focuses on evaluating the reusability and recyclability of materials, which helps minimize waste and enhance resource efficiency by identifying materials suitable for multiple lifecycles [31,43,73]. While both functions contribute to resource optimization, material tracking primarily ensures accountability [43], whereas circularity assessment drives material recovery and reuse strategies [30].

Sustainability assessment complements these functions by using lifecycle analysis to address environmental and economic impacts [4], promoting holistic resource management. The interplay between these functions reflects a comprehensive approach where material tracking provides data, circularity assessment applies these data to optimize reuse, and sustainability assessment ensures these practices align with environmental goals. Collectively, these functions support the transition towards a more sustainable and circular construction industry.

However, the analysis of Table 2 reveals that quality assessment has been largely overlooked. While Heisel and Rau-Oberhuber [12] and Heinrich and Lang [35] addressed this aspect, their focus was limited to contamination and toxicity rather than a comprehensive evaluation of condition and performance. Bellini et al. [80] emphasized that a comprehensive quality assessment is crucial for assessing the secondary life of materials through reuse, recycling, and repurposing. Moreover, one of the primary barriers to achieving the full potential of MPs is the lack of information on material quality at the end of their service life [5,15,81,82]. Without such data, materials with high reuse potential are often subjected to downcycling or low-value applications, perpetuating linear economic practices instead of fostering circularity [83]. For example, Zhang et al. [84] reported that only 5% of recovered concrete waste is repurposed as a replacement for gravel during the production of high-quality concrete. The remaining 95% is relegated to lower-grade applications, such as road construction. Similarly, Hobbs and Adams [38] argued that the lack of performance certification and provenance information often leads to conservative assumptions, posing a significant barrier to the reuse of materials, especially in structural applications. While reusable and recycled materials come at higher prices, stakeholders require a guarantee of their structural and functional quality for further application [39]. Kim and Kim [85] further argued that the lack of comprehensive documentation on material quality at the end of its life significantly undermines confidence in using reclaimed materials. It was particularly evident in the case of concrete, where quality issues remain one of the primary concerns and the major barrier to further reuse [40]. As highlighted by Wibranek and Tessmann [14], this oversight is attributed to the absence of standardized inspection protocols. They emphasized that the lack of universally accepted methods for assessing the quality of reclaimed building materials results in inconsistencies in evaluating components for reuse [86]. Additionally, none of the studies address all MP functions within a single framework. This current fragmented approach highlights the need for a multi-functional and standardized system that fully incorporates quality assessment.

3.4. Conceptual Boundary of the Materials Passport Framework

The conceptual boundary for the MP framework (Figure 5) was developed through an extensive literature review, incorporating insights from the current practice of MP.

The integration of research and commercial insights provides a well-founded framework, combining validated methodologies with practical applications to enhance the effectiveness and real-world applicability of MP. As stated by Sainsbury [87], establishing clear conceptual boundaries is essential for providing clarity and consistency in translating abstract ideas into practical applications, such as the development of frameworks, laws, or models. Further, it supports precise decision-making and structured implementation, minimizing overlaps and enhancing accountability. The boundary of this study is designed to align with the circular flow of materials (refer to Figure 5), encompassing key functions such as material tracking and management, circularity assessment, sustainability assessment, and quality assessment. It enables the documentation and tracking of materials across various lifecycle stages, ensuring their optimal use at the EoL.

In the MP framework, a unique Material ID (ID) assigned at the raw material supply stage enables seamless tracking of materials throughout their lifecycle. As materials move through manufacturing, construction, and use, key attributes such as composition, location, and condition are continuously updated. These attributes support core MP functions: material tracking and management for real-time monitoring, circularity assessment for evaluating reusability and recyclability, sustainability assessment for environmental and economic impacts, and quality assessment to ensure materials meet performance standards for future applications. At the EoL stage, MP assists in assessing the potential for reuse or recycling. When materials are reused or repurposed, a new Material ID (e.g., ID 02) is created and linked to the original (ID 01), maintaining traceability and providing a comprehensive material history. This process supports continuous material loops, maximizing resource efficiency, and minimising waste. The subsequent section examines attributes and performance indices for key MP functions, contributing to a structured approach for effective implementation.

4. Attributes and Performance Indicators for MP Functions

4.1. Material Tracking and Management

MP significantly enhances traceability by documenting materials from their origin to EoL [88]. They act as dynamic inventories, providing essential data on material composition and location, supporting urban mining, secondary resource recovery, and efficient renovation planning [45]. Talla and McIlwaine [73] also highlighted their function in monitoring materials throughout the building lifecycle, ensuring their reintegration into the material loop and reducing waste. Existing literature highlights data accuracy and transparency as critical aspects [19,89]. Wilson, Adu-Duodu, Li, Sham, Wang, Solaiman, Perera, Ranjan and Rana [43] emphasize the importance of tracking system reliability for effective material tracking and management. It ensures enhancing data integrity and minimizes manipulation risks. As stated by Byers, Hunhevicz, Honic and De Wolf [48], accessibility to data and transparency are essential for the effective implementation of MPs. They emphasize the importance of secure data sharing to support decision-making and regulatory compliance. Accordingly, tracking system reliability, data accessibility, and transparency level can be derived as performance indicators to effectively measure the efficiency and comprehensiveness of MP in facilitating material traceability and management.

Material tracking and management within MP require a set of attributes to ensure accurate traceability and effective lifecycle management. Material ID, material name, material type, batch number, brand name, geographic origin, global trade item number (GTIN), manufacturer details, manufacturing date, QR code or digital tag, quantity, storage location, and handling requirements, which collectively facilitate precise tracking and documentation of materials from origin to EoL [4,14,31,35,66,90]. Moreover, compliance with international standards (ISO 10303-1:2024 [91] for product data representation and the GS1 Global traceability standard [92]) ensures interoperability and enhances data traceability by providing a structured approach to product identification and tracking across various systems. These attributes not only enable efficient material tracking and inventory management but also support decision-making related to material flow, ensuring transparency and accountability throughout the lifecycle.

4.2. Circularity Assessment

Circularity assessment is essential for evaluating the potential of materials to remain in circular systems [30]. For example, Honic, Kovacic and Rechberger [30] assessed the recycling potential of timber and concrete, concluding that while concrete has a higher recycling potential, timber generates less waste and has a lower environmental impact. Similarly, Bernardo and Guida [50] explored the use of MP in recovering materials from historical structures, incorporating traditional techniques and local knowledge to enhance material flow analysis and sustainability. MP also contributes to resource and waste optimization by providing essential data that support reuse and recycling strategies throughout a material’s lifecycle [93]. Furthermore, MP facilitates disassembly planning, enabling efficient material recovery through systematic planning and sequencing [64]. Thus, stakeholders can make informed decisions that enhance material recovery, reduce waste generation, and promote sustainable construction practices.

To effectively evaluate circularity, MP relies on a range of performance indicators that assess the ability of materials to be retained in the value chain. To measure the feasibility of reusing components in their original form, the reuse potential (RP) indicator was developed by Park and Chertow [94]. Furthermore, recyclability indices such as the market value recyclability index (RMV) and the resource depletion index (RDI) assess the economic and environmental feasibility of recycling efforts. These indices highlight the resource efficiency of a material [95]. Among these, the material circularity index (MCI) introduced by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [96] is widely recognized for providing a holistic assessment of circular performance by combining various factors, such as virgin material input, waste output, and utility values. The equations formulated are presented below to further support their application in MP frameworks. Source: [96].

$$Material Circularity Index \left(MCI\right) =1-LFI\times F\left(X\right)$$

(1)

$$Linear Flow Index \left(LFI\right) =(V+W)/[2M+(W_F-W_C/2\left)\right]$$

(2)

$$Utility \left(X\right) =(L/L_{av})\times (U/U_{av})$$

(3)

$$Mass of virgin material\left(V\right)=M{(1-F}_R-F_U-F_S)$$

(4)

$$Total unrecoverable waste \left(W\right) =W_0+{\left[\right(W}_F+W_C)/2]$$

(5)

$$Mass of unrecoverable waste \left(W_0\right) =M(1-C_R-C_U-C_C-C_E)$$

(6)

$$Waste from producing recycled feedstock\left(W_F\right)=M\times \left[\right(1-E_F)F_R/E_F]$$

(7)

$$Waste from recycling\left(W_C\right)=M(1-E_C)\times C_R$$

(8)

$$\left(C_E\right)=E_E\times B_C$$

(9)

$$Efficiency of the energy recovery process \left(E_E\right) =E_R/(HHV\times M_B)$$

(10)

M—Mass of the product, F_R—Fraction of the product made from recycled materials, F_U—Fraction of the product made from reused materials, F_S—Fraction of biological materials that are sustainably sourced, C_R—Fraction of mass of a product collected for recycling, C_U—Fraction of mass of a product going into component reuse, C_C—Fraction of mass of a product being collected to go into a composting process, C_E—Fraction of mass of a product used for energy recovery from sustainably sourced biological materials, E_R—Energy recovered from a material, E_F—Efficiency of the feedstock recycling process, E_E—Efficiency of the energy recovery process, E_C—Efficiency of recycling process, HHV—Higher heating value, B_C—Carbon content of a biological material, M_B—Mass of eligible biological material, L—Actual lifespan of a product, L_av—Average lifespan of similar products, U—Actual utility, U_av—Average utility of similar products

Additionally, the 3DR index, proposed by O’Grady et al. [97], serves as a valuable metric for assessing the circularity potential of materials by considering key factors such as disassemblability, deconstructability, and reusability. While MCI and 3DR indices offer useful circularity metrics, they overlook material quality and degradation. The proposed framework addresses these gaps by incorporating quality assessment, performance indicators, and lifecycle data, enabling more precise and practical circularity evaluations.

Key attributes for assessing circularity include physical properties such as density, thickness, geometry, and chemical composition, including mineral content and contamination levels, emissions, and waste [35,66]. These attributes provide essential data for assessing the potential of reuse and recycling. Additionally, attributes such as predicted remaining life, historical usage, and disassembly feasibility are critical considerations for evaluating the circular potential of materials [36,85,98]. Moreover, AS ISO 59020:2024 [99] emphasizes attributes related to resource input and output tracking, including the proportion of secondary materials, hazardous waste, and recycled content. The standard advocates for comprehensive documentation of material flow, focusing on materials available for reuse, substances designated for energy recovery, and overall resource productivity. These guidelines support circular economy goals by providing a structured approach to evaluating material circularity performance within the construction industry.

4.3. Sustainability Assessment

Beyond circularity assessment, MP also plays a key role in evaluating sustainability by incorporating environmental and economic considerations across the material lifecycle. It enables stakeholders to make more sustainable choices through lifecycle assessment (LCA) and lifecycle costing (LCC) in raw material extraction to EoL disposal [100]. For example, Maraqa and Spatari [65] utilized MP in a LEED-certified building. They evaluated key environmental indicators, including global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), and primary energy intensity (PEI). Moreover, Atta, Bakhoum and Marzouk [4] developed a practical framework using MP to calculate deconstructability, recovery, and environmental scores of building elements, enabling stakeholders to prioritize sustainability considerations from the early stages of project development.

To evaluate sustainability, MP uses a range of performance indicators that quantify both environmental and economic impacts across the material lifecycle. LCA is a critical tool for evaluating environmental performance. It applies metrics such as GWP, ozone depletion potential (ODP), energy demand to measure emissions, resource consumption, and energy efficiency [16]. To calculate the environmental impact of materials, Honic, Kovacic and Rechberger [16] proposed the following equation. Source: [16].

$$Environmental impact=Mass\times Impact factor$$

(11)

This approach was further refined by incorporating specific parameters based on material lifecycle stages. For example, Morganti, Esnarrizaga, Pracucci, Zaffagnini, Cortes, Rudenå, Brunklaus and Larraz [78] integrated LCA indicators to assess the GWP of materials in different lifecycle stages, including manufacturing, transportation, and construction, providing valuable insights into their environmental performance. From an economic perspective, LCC serves as a key performance indicator in sustainability assessment, helping to evaluate long-term financial viability. Mollaei, Bachmann and Haas [79] used the following equation to calculate the cost of reusing or recycling materials within the LCC framework of MP. Source: [79].

$$Net cost of reusing oR recycling materials=M_{recoverable}\times (E_{cost}+{EI}_{cost}-T-V_{recovered})$$

(12)

M_recoverable—Total recoverable material mass, E_cost—Unit extraction cost, EI_cost—Unit environmental impact cost, T—Tax reductions or government incentives, V_recovered—Market value of recovered materials.

This equation can be used to estimate the net cost of reusing or recycling materials by accounting for recoverable mass, associated environmental costs, and potential financial incentives. This is supported by case study data showing that the environmental impact of steel reuse was USD 5.53 per kilogram compared to USD 5.75 for recycling. However, due to higher deconstruction and labor costs, recycling was found to be more economically viable [79]. It serves as a conceptual reference to illustrate the economic dimension of sustainability within MP applications.

By integrating these performance indicators, MP enables stakeholders to make data-driven decisions that balance environmental stewardship with economic efficiency.

Attributes required for sustainability assessment have been identified through literature and standards such as AS ISO 14044:2019 [101], ISO 14067:2018 [102], and ISO 15686-5:2017 [103]. Key attributes derived from the literature include GWP, energy consumption, water usage, emission levels, waste generation, and resource efficiency [4,35,77,78]. These attributes enable the assessment of the environmental performance of materials across various lifecycle stages. Standards such as AS ISO 14044:2019 emphasize attributes related to environmental management, outlining criteria for conducting LCA with a focus on transparency, consistency, and accuracy in assessing material impacts [101]. Similarly, ISO 14067:2018 provides guidelines for quantifying the carbon footprint of products, ensuring consistency in measuring greenhouse gas emissions and removals throughout a product’s lifecycle [102]. Additionally, ISO 15686-5:2017 provides a structured framework for LCC, covering cost elements such as maintenance, deconstruction, and disposal to ensure comprehensive economic assessments [103].

4.4. Quality Assessment

As discussed in Section 3.3, while MP provides a comprehensive framework for material tracking, circularity, and sustainability assessment, incorporating quality assessment remains limited. As stated by Di Maria, Eyckmans and Van Acker [83], lack of sufficient data on critical quality parameters often leads to downcycling, where materials with high reuse potential are diverted to lower-value applications. This study builds on that insight by introducing a quality assessment function that extends beyond basic contamination and toxicity, focusing on performance-based criteria.

Given the material-specific nature of quality assessment, this study focuses exclusively on concrete-related standards to ensure the development of an MP framework tailored to its unique characteristics and performance requirements.

Assessing concrete quality relies on key performance indicators that reflect its structural integrity and longevity. Verma et al. [104] stated that defect rate, which quantifies the frequency and severity of flaws such as voids and cracks, directly influences durability and maintenance requirements. Furthermore, residual strength, which reflects the remaining load-bearing capacity after environmental exposure, is a key factor in assessing the potential for reuse. Moreover, Wei et al. [105] emphasized that the crack propagation rate, which measures the rate at which cracks develop under stress, is crucial for predicting structural lifespan and identifying potential failure points. The same authors described the serviceability index as a measure of continued functionality, considering factors such as deflection and crack width to ensure compliance with performance standards. These indicators are particularly relevant to concrete due to their material-specific performance attributes, ensuring a targeted approach within the MP framework in this study.

The current practice of MP primarily emphasizes contamination [66] and toxicity levels [35] under quality assessment of materials, often neglecting key performance attributes such as mechanical integrity, chemical stability, and functional performance [37]. To address that, Australian standards were reviewed to identify the key attributes for evaluating concrete quality. AS 3972:2010 specifies the physical and chemical properties of cement, ensuring compliance with strength and composition requirements [106], while AS 1141.1:2015 provides guidelines for aggregate grading and density [107]. Similarly, AS 1379:2007 outlines performance criteria for fresh concrete, such as workability and air content [108], while AS 3600:2018 defines structural integrity benchmarks, including compressive strength and permeability [109]. Furthermore, SA HB 84:2018 addresses durability aspects, including crack width limitations and resistance to penetrating chloride ions to meet long-term resilience under varying environmental conditions [110]. In addition, ISO 20887:2020 provides criteria for assessing the disassemblability of components. Those criteria support the ease of future dismantling [111].

Table 3. Attributes identified from the literature and standards.

Lifecycle Stage	MP Function	Attributes
Raw material extraction and manufacturing	Material tracking and management	Material ID Material name/Type Batch number Brand name GTIN number Geographic origin	Manufacturer article number Manufacturer details Supplier details Weights/Quantity/Shape/Area/Length/Thickness/Volume	Manufacturing date Handling requirements Recommended usage Guidelines for storage Storage location
	Circularity assessment	Physical properties Chemical Properties Mineral composition Reused/recycled/Renewable content of an inflow Renewable/non-renewable energy consumption Energy efficiency	GWP/ODP/AP/Eutrophication Potential (EP)/Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)/Abiotic Depletion Potential (Elements) (ADPE)/Abiotic Depletion Potential (Fossil fuels) (ADPF)/Carbon footprint Health and safety	Energy/Water/Emissions Transport distances and modes Resource inflow/outflow Material productivity Transportation/handling cost Pathogens/Toxicity Unit price/Decommissioning/
	Sustainability assessment	Manufacturing cost Transport distances	Renewable/Non-renewable energy consumption
	Quality assessment	Content and quality (cement, aggregate, admixtures, SCMs, and fiber) Water quality/pH Total dissolved solids	Workability (Slump) Air Content Density Bleeding Cohesion Temperature	Segregation resistance Setting time Ionic content/Solid content/Organic/Biological impurities
Construction/Installation	Material tracking and management	Material ID Date of installation	Location Service life
	Circularity assessment	Applied coatings Joining technique
	Sustainability assessment	Water/Land use Emission Levels Other environmental impact details	Renewable/Non-renewable energy consumption Designed Lifespan and durability	Warranties/Payment terms
	Quality assessment	Compressive/Flexural/Tensile strength Elastic Modulus	Drying Shrinkage/Creep Deflection Freeze-thaw resistance	Permeability Abrasion resistance Load-bearing capacity
Use/maintenance	Material tracking and management	Material ID	Maintenance date Repairs done	Image/QR code/digital tag
	Circularity assessment	Usage history	Replaced or repaired parts
	Sustainability assessment	Maintenance/operation cost
	Quality assessment	Repaired or replaced sections	Inspection frequency Condition survey data
End of life	Material tracking and management	Material ID
	Circularity assessment	Substances for recycling/energy recovery Disposed waste Disassembly process	Contamination level Replaceability/Removability/Weldability/	Components for reuse Actual recirculation of outflow in the biological cycle
	Sustainability assessment	Deconstruction/Demolition cost/Reuse/Recycling/Recovery cost/ landfill Regulatory costs/Tax benefits	Emission levels Transport distances Potential income from reuse scenarios/	Waste Generation (hazardous, non-hazardous, and radioactive waste)
	Quality assessment	Void percentage Thickness of the delaminated layer Carbonation depth	Thickness of efflorescence deposits Crack width and depth	Depth of scaling Spalled depth Corrosion Chloride ion penetration
Sources	[4]; [12]; [28]; [31]; [35]; [36]; [43]; [48]; [64]; [66]; [77]; [78]; AS 3972:2010 [106]; AS 1141: 2015 [107]; AS 2758.1: 2014 [112]; AS 1379: 2007 [108]; AS 3600: 2018 [109]; SA HB 84:2018 [110]; ISO 10303:2024 [91]; GS1 Global Traceability Standard [92]; AS ISO 59020:2024 [99]; ISO 14067:2018 [102]; AS ISO 14044:2019 [101]; ISO 15686-5:2017 [103]; ISO 14008:2019 [113]; ISO 20887:2020 [111]

presents a summary of the attributes identified through the review of relevant literature and industry standards.

The analysis reveals that both the literature and standards emphasize the importance of unique identifiers and material tracking in MP. The literature offers a broader range of practical attributes, including handling requirements and storage conditions, whereas standards primarily emphasize traceability by prescribing unique product codes and specifications. The literature also highlights material-specific properties and design features critical for reuse, while standards, such as AS ISO 59020:2024 [99], offer a structured, metric-based approach emphasizing resource flow and environmental metrics to evaluate circularity performance to evaluate circularity. Regarding sustainability, both sources emphasize environmental and economic impact. However, standards ensure consistency by formalizing assessment methods. Notably, the literature inadequately addresses quality-specific attributes better defined by standards.

5. Discussion

5.1. Output

This study delivers a standardized MP framework comprising four core functions, including material tracking and management, circularity assessment, sustainability assessment, and quality assessment. Current MPs are unable to address their full functional potential, as they often consider functions in a fragmented manner and primarily focus on traceability [28,31,43]. However, traceability alone is insufficient to achieve material circularity, which requires enabling the reintegration of materials into the loop or extending their service life. The proposed framework enables this reintegration of material by providing a data-rich foundation.

The outputs of this framework are designed to enable specific, data-driven decisions throughout the material lifecycle. The tracking function supports traceability and inventory control by providing key identifiers such as material ID, batch number, and QR code. This allows accurate monitoring and handling from origin to end of life. Circularity assessment facilitates decisions related to disassembly planning, reuse potential, and recyclability, using indicators such as contamination level, joining technique, and remaining service life. Sustainability assessment informs environmental and economic decisions by quantifying lifecycle impacts, including carbon emissions, energy use, and cost of reuse or recycling. The quality assessment function enables evaluation of material integrity, addressing physical defects, contamination, and performance loss. In this study, the framework is applied specifically to concrete, with material-specific attributes and performance indicators derived from standards such as AS 3600:2018 [109] and AS 1379:2007 [108]. Through this integrated framework, any decision at any stage of the material lifecycle can be made using the comprehensive data provided by the material passport.

5.2. Dynamic Approach

This study identified significant gaps and inconsistencies that hinder the effective implementation of MP. One of the primary limitations of existing MPs is their static nature, as they cannot dynamically update and adapt throughout the material’s lifecycle. As a result, it limits their effectiveness in long-term material traceability and decision-making [20,31]. Since some material properties, such as condition assessment, need to be updated over time, continuously changing, Hossain et al. [114] highlighted the importance of evaluating the dynamic behavior of materials.

The developed framework spans multiple phases from raw material extraction to EoL processing. These distinct lifecycle stages ensure that the appropriate attributes are documented and assessed at each phase. As illustrated in Figure 6, a unique ID is assigned at the initial raw material supply stage, ensuring seamless tracking throughout the entire lifecycle. As the material progresses through key stages, including manufacturing, construction, use, and EoL, this ID remains consistent, with attributes including composition, location, and condition being continuously updated within the MP. It enables real-time monitoring. At the EoL stage, it facilitates informed decision-making for deconstruction or demolition by assessing the potential for material reuse or recycling. If materials are reused directly in their current form without any reprocessing, the same ID (ID 01) is retained and linked to new lifecycle data. This ensures full traceability as discussed under the conceptual boundary (refer to Figure 5). This continuous tracking mechanism enables the reintegration of materials into the construction cycle with complete transparency, promoting resource efficiency and minimizing waste.

5.3. Holistic Approach

Another significant limitation of existing MPs is their fragmented and non-holistic nature. Most studies focused on selective functions, rather than holistically addressing MP. For example, Honic, Kovacic and Rechberger [30] specifically focused on assessing the recycling potential of timber and concrete by incorporating environmental impact considerations, overlooking other functions. To address this gap, the proposed MP framework establishes a comprehensive structure that systematically incorporates material tracking and management, circularity assessment, sustainability assessment, and quality assessment. Thus, it enables a standardized methodology for enhancing material traceability, lifecycle assessment, and circularity-driven decision-making, thereby addressing the deficiencies of existing MP approaches (refer to Figure 6).

Furthermore, existing MPs lack a comprehensive quality assessment, which is essential for ensuring the recovery and reuse of high-value materials. The literature review reveals that most studies have not incorporated quality-specific attributes, with only Heisel and Rau-Oberhuber [12] addressing material contamination and toxicity, yet failing to provide a broader evaluation of material integrity, degradation, and structural performance over time. This limits the potential of MP to guide stakeholders on whether materials can be reused in high-value applications or require downcycling, thereby limiting their effectiveness in circular material flow [39]. To overcome this gap, the proposed MP framework integrates quality assessment as a core function, enabling the evaluation of structural performance and durability. Widmer et al. [115] demonstrated that reusing concrete elements in structural applications resulted in a 71% reduction in CO₂ emissions compared to conventional cast-in-place construction, highlighting the significant environmental benefits achievable through quality-informed reuse strategies. This framework incorporates key quality indicators, such as void percentage, crack width and depth, spalling, corrosion levels, and material deterioration, enabling a systematic and data-driven approach for assessing the EoL potential of materials. By establishing clear links between quality parameters, functions, and assessment indices, the proposed MP framework ensures more informed decision-making, enhanced material traceability, and higher-value retention in circular construction practices.

5.4. Stakeholders and Data Sources

Moreover, the successful implementation of the standardized MP framework depends on the involvement of multiple stakeholders and the availability of accurate and reliable data [25]. In the context of concrete, key stakeholders include manufacturers, construction contractors, quality control teams, project managers, environmental consultants, deconstruction teams, waste management facilities, and regulatory authorities. These stakeholders contribute by adding specific data to the MP. Additionally, key data sources include production records, environmental product declarations (EPDs), BIM models, and test reports, which ensure accuracy and reliable data collection. However, as noted by Byers et al. (2024) [48], challenges such as data ownership, access rights, and system interoperability may hinder stakeholder engagement and must be carefully addressed to facilitate effective MP adoption and implementation.

5.5. Integration of Digital Technologies

Digital technologies are vital for supporting stakeholder engagement and ensuring accurate, timely data integration within the MP. Current methodologies use technologies such as BIM, blockchain, QR code, and radio frequency identification (RFID). Atta, Bakhoum and Marzouk [4] proposed a framework incorporating MPs into BIM workflows, enabling automated sustainability assessments and facilitating data exchange. Wu, Lu, Peng and Webster [36] developed a blockchain non-fungible token (NFT)-enabled waste MP system to prevent duplicate issuance, ensure unique digital identities, and enable cross-jurisdictional material trading. Additionally, Vahidi, Gebremariam, Di Maio, Meister, Koulaeian and Rem [55] demonstrated the feasibility of using RFID to implement MPs in a recycled concrete circular chain, allowing real-time tracking and improved lifecycle management of reused concrete components. However, the current integration of these digital technologies has yet to fully realize the potential of material passports. While existing MPs integrate digital technologies, they remain limited by focusing on isolated lifecycle stages. BIM workflows still require updates to industry foundation classes (IFC) to include second-life assessment properties, indicating a need for further enhancement and standardization. The proposed framework can be used alongside digital technologies to overcome this challenge and technical barrier by enabling the integration of second-life assessment data.

5.6. Policies

Realizing the full benefits of MP requires supportive regulations and policy incentives [31]. The European Union is set to implement a regulation under the eco design for sustainable products framework. This rule will require most products to include a DPP to enhance transparency across the value chain. Furthermore, the United Kingdom is progressively promoting the adoption of material passports in the construction sector as a key component of its circular economy agenda. For example, the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC) has played a key role in this effort by publishing practical guides and reference materials to help industry stakeholders understand and adopt MP. Moreover, the Australian Government is in discussions to implement DPP nationally by 2028. These ongoing efforts highlight the increasing adoption of the MP as an essential tool for advancing circularity.

5.7. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

Although this study offers valuable contributions, several limitations remain that require further exploration. A key limitation of this study is that the proposed MP framework remains at a conceptual stage. It has not yet been validated in an industry setting to assess its practical applicability. Although the proposed attributes and assessment criteria are grounded in the literature, standards, and best practices, real-world validation is essential to determine its feasibility, industry acceptance, and integration within existing construction workflows. Future research should focus on collaborating with industry stakeholders to test and refine the framework, ensuring its practical implementation aligns with industry needs and regulatory requirements.

Furthermore, since the scope of this study is limited to a demonstration version of a concrete material passport, the framework has been developed and applied specifically to concrete. This focus was chosen due to concrete’s widespread use, significant environmental impact, and the critical need for structural performance-based quality assessment. Standards such as AS 3600:2018 [109] and AS 1379:2007 [108] were used to identify attributes related to strength, durability, and defect evaluation. However, the framework is adaptable and can be extended to other materials such as steel, timber, and composites by modifying the attribute sets and performance indicators following additional international and national standards.

In addition, future research should explore enhancing BIM interoperability, developing IFC extensions tailored to circularity, and integrating blockchain for secure material traceability. Digital twins could also be leveraged to support real-time monitoring of material condition and location across lifecycle stages.

Moreover, addressing interoperability challenges across file formats, software platforms, and data systems is essential to ensure seamless adoption in digital construction environments. These future directions will contribute to the practical advancement of material passports and reinforce their role in achieving digital sustainability and circularity in the built environment.

6. Conclusions

This study addressed critical gaps in existing MPs by developing a standardized MP framework tailored specifically for concrete materials. Existing MP frameworks exhibit significant limitations, particularly their static nature, which restricts their ability to update dynamically across lifecycle stages. Additionally, current MPs are fragmented, often focusing on selective functions while neglecting a holistic approach. Furthermore, the quality assessment remains underdeveloped, with most studies failing to incorporate structural performance indicators, limiting the ability of MP to support high-value material recovery. To address these gaps, this research employed a two-phase research approach. A total of 95 literature publications and 14 international and national standards were reviewed. Four primary MP functions were identified, including material tracking and management, circularity assessment, sustainability assessment, and quality assessment. These functions were supported by over 200 attributes.

A notable feature of this framework is the integration of advanced quality-specific attributes derived from key standards, including AS 3600 and AS 1379. It distinguishes the proposed framework by enabling secondary concrete materials to be evaluated not only for material safety but also for structural integrity and durability, promoting high-value reuse in construction applications. This research makes a significant contribution by explicitly linking MP attributes with established ISO and Australian standards, ensuring consistency and reliability. The framework enhances transparency, traceability, and stakeholder collaboration by incorporating diverse data sources, facilitating informed decision-making in areas such as design, deconstruction, material selection, and EoL strategies. Additionally, it provides a foundational resource for academia and industry, supporting the development of MP for other construction materials. However, the framework has not yet been validated in real-world settings, and its current scope is limited to concrete materials. Future studies should focus on industry-based validation, expansion of other materials, and integration with digital technologies to enhance practical implementation and interoperability.