The Material Passport for a Circular Construction Industry: A PRISMA Based Systematic Review

Abstract

Circular economy (CE) adoption in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry is hampered by data scarcity. Material Passports (MPs) are crucial for bridging this gap. Despite recent momentum, remaining uncertainties and the lack of industry-wide consensus on MPs risk fragmented adoption. This article presents a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) following the PRISMA methodology. A total of 54 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters were screened from the Scopus database, of which 46 were included for in-depth analysis in April 2025. Among the included studies, 65% focused primarily on MPs, while 35% addressed MPs within the broader context of a CE. The analysis underscores the role of MPs in advancing a CE, although definitions and scopes vary among authors. Findings show a recent, heterogeneous, and rapidly growing research landscape, with limited synergies with existing construction datasets; significant implementation challenges, particularly for existing buildings; and potential for digital tools to address these challenges by improving cohesion, enabling dynamic updates, and enhancing interoperability. Theoretically, this article clarifies the relationships and gaps between MPs, Digital Product Passports, and Digital Building Logbooks. Practically, it highlights the need for cohesive adoption strategies, unified standards, stakeholder collaboration, clear responsibilities, and regulatory support to enable the large-scale adoption of MPs.

1. Introduction

The construction sector is the largest consumer of raw materials globally [1] and is responsible for 38% of the waste generated in the EU [2]. Buildings account for approximately 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions, making this sector one of the most polluting on the planet [1,3]. As the climate crisis escalates, various climate policies are being introduced to encourage sustainable and resource-efficient practices. The European Green Deal established an ambitious target of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 [4]. To meet these goals, a fundamental shift in resource usage is essential. The concept of circular economy (CE), introduced by Walter Stahel in the 1970s, has gained significant attention in recent years as a key driver of this transition. While definitions of the circular economy vary across the literature and depend on the author’s perspective [5,6], it can be broadly defined as an economy that is restorative and regenerative by design and aims to keep products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all times [7]. The EU positions the circular economy at the heart of its green transition through the Circular Economy Action Plan [8]. This plan outlines specific actions aimed at shifting from a linear model of resource consumption, characterized by a take–make–dispose approach, to a circular model. In this new economic model, resources are used efficiently at their highest value for as long as possible, which minimizes waste. This aligns with CE strategies that focus on narrowing, slowing, and closing resource loops. This approach has the potential to add value to the economy while respecting planetary boundaries [9]. More recently, the Circular Economy Act, which is planned to be adopted in 2026, underscores Europe’s continuous commitment to transitioning towards a more resource-efficient economy [10].

Since then, the concept of the CE has gained increasing popularity among all industry actors. Various frameworks, strategies, and indicators have been proposed to support the transition towards a CE (e.g., the waste hierarchy [11], R-strategies [5,12], the ReSOLVE Framework [13], and the Material Circularity Indicator (MCI)) [14]. However, implementing CE in the Built Environment (BE) faces several challenges [15]. One significant obstacle is the lack of information on building materials [16]. While it has been demonstrated that reusing materials at the end of their life can greatly reduce environmental impacts [17], obtaining information about these materials at that stage is often difficult. To address this gap and enhance the circular rate of building components, Material Passports (MPs) were proposed as a CE enabler in the BE [17]. The Buildings as Material Banks (BAMB) project, an EU-funded research initiative [18], sparked both scientific and practical interest in the concept of an MP. This digital dataset documents the materials contained in a building, along with their characteristics and supports the adoption of CE strategies [17]. Other initiatives aimed at organizing and centralizing information on materials, products, and buildings are emerging, such as Digital Product Passports (DPPs) [19] and Digital Building Logbooks (DBLs) [20]. Several developments in the European regulatory framework for DPPs [21,22] and DBLs [23,24] have provided increasing clarity regarding their definitions, objectives, and content. Potential implementation pathways have recently been explored through two feasibility studies mandated by the European Commission on the deployment of DPPs for construction products [25] and on the economic potential for DBL adoption [26]. Both studies underscore the importance of standards, Building Information Modeling (BIM) integration, and interoperability. In 2026, the European Commission initiated a draft standardization request regarding DBLs [27] notifying the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) of a request to develop two standards by 2028. These standards are expected to define the structure and content of DBLs, as well as data collection methods and interoperability between systems through a common data format, a data dictionary, and machine-readability specifications.

Previous literature reviews have been published regarding the challenges and opportunities of MPs [28], the availability of content and relevant actors [29], the specific challenges and opportunities associated with creating an MP for steel reuse [30], and the multiple methodologies based on digital tools (DTs) for developing MPs [31].

While these reviews provide very valuable insights into MPs, several gaps remain. Although the concept of a Material Passport predates these initiatives, there is still limited agreement regarding its definition, scope, and methodological approaches. Variations in content, the involvement of multiple stakeholders across the value chain, the rapidly evolving European regulatory landscape supporting the CE, and the emergence of new digital technologies have made research on MPs increasingly dynamic. In parallel, diverse practice-oriented initiatives and industrial applications continue to develop, further contributing to a fragmented landscape and expanding the interpretation of MPs. This conceptual ambiguity, combined with the proliferation of independent initiatives, risks generating diverging approaches that may hinder interoperability and large-scale adoption. Despite the shared objective of supporting CE practices, the relationships and distinctions between MPs, DPPs, and DBLs remain insufficiently investigated in the literature. Therefore, this SLR aims to reposition MPs within this broader ecosystem of tools to improve understanding of their specificities. This requires examining their specific objectives; their definitions along with DPPs and DBLs; as well as key implementation aspects, such as data collection methods, data sources, stakeholder involvement across the value chain, and the digital tools that support their widespread adoption.

This paper aims to provide a systematic literature review of the existing body of knowledge on Material Passports as enablers of the CE in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry. This literature review focuses on these three research questions (RQ):

RQ1. How is the notion of MPs defined in the literature, and how does it differ from other passport initiatives?

RQ2. What are the challenges hindering MP implementation in the AEC sector?

RQ3. How is MP information structured, and what are the existing technologies supporting the generation of MPs?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

This systematic literature review (SLR) was performed based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) [32]. This method was initially designed for systematic reviews of studies in the health domain, but the checklist items are applicable to reports of systematic reviews in other research domains, including research in construction. The aim of the method is to ensure that a review paper is sufficiently detailed and to contribute to the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings [33]. This paper studies the notion of Material Passports within the literature dedicated to the CE in the construction industry and seeks to answer RQ1–3. With this aim in mind, the following search request was executed:

Title, abstract, keywords (“circular economy” OR “circularity”) AND (“material passport” OR “digital building logbook” OR “product passport” OR “building passport”) AND (“building” OR “construction” OR “built environment”).

This search request was conducted in the Scopus database. The scope was reduced to limit the corpus of research to review papers and book chapters. The last search request was conducted on 9 April 2025.

2.2. Screening Process

A total of 54 publications were initially obtained. After removing duplicates and excluding irrelevant papers, 48 references were sought for retrieval. A total of 47 papers were retrieved for an in-depth analysis. During the screening process, one paper was not retrieved because only the long abstract was available, and two publications were removed: the first due to a lack of alignment with the topic, and the second because it did not investigate the passport topic in the construction sector. The full process for selecting the studies included in the review is described in Figure 1 with the PRISMA flow diagram.

2.3. Process of Reviewing

Following the screening process, data collection was conducted by the authors on two levels: first, the extraction of bibliometric data as a CSV file from the Scopus database; second, an in-depth full-text analysis of the publication, in which textual data was extracted, organized by themes, and categorized according to the research questions.

2.4. Bibliometric Analysis and Qualitative Content Analysis

After the data extraction and structuring of the included publications, the analysis was carried out in three steps. First, a bibliometric analysis was conducted to gain insights into the scientific context of research on MPs. This analysis focused on establishing a timeline and identifying and examining the main topics based on publication keywords. In the second step, topic evolution mapping was performed to analyze the themes discussed in the papers over the years. This helped identify sub-topics that are gaining momentum. The third step involved a detailed content analysis of the papers, guided by the research questions.

The analysis of the selected papers was supported by two applications:

Biblioshiny was used to conduct this bibliometric analysis. Biblioshiny is the app interface of Bibliometrix (Version 5.0), an R-based package that includes the main bibliometric analysis methods [34]. This tool enables us to conduct science mapping by analyzing conceptual, intellectual, and social structures of knowledge through various features (e.g., keywords, co-authorship, and co-citation). Initial text editing was conducted before loading the bibliometric data to standardize the spelling of keywords (e.g., blockchain and block-chain). Due to the relatively emerging concept and the limited literature, a thematic evolution of the field was not conducted, as the results would not be relevant.

NVivo (R1) is dedicated to qualitative analyses and was used in this study for content analysis. Initially, it assisted with automatic queries on the text of the publications for a first exploration and screening of the publications. Later it was used to manually structure the content of the papers based on specific codes which were determined according to the themes of the corpus and the research questions.

3. Results

3.1. Bibliometric Analysis

This analysis seeks to gain insights into the context of the emergence and development of research interest in MPs. The graph in Figure 2 presents an overview of the number of publications over the years of this corpus. It also showcases regulatory measures, studies released by the European Commission (shown on the Y-axis), and projects funded by the European Commission and other funding bodies that contributed to these publications (see Appendix A, which presents a table of funding projects of assessed publications). The graph displays the first publication from 2016, which occurred one year after the first Circular Economy Action Plan (2015, ref. [8]) and the beginning of the H2020 BAMB project [18]. From 2017 to 2021, there was a gradual increase in the number of published works, likely linked to various regulatory measures and research projects focused on this topic during that period. However, in 2022 and 2023, the number of publications decreased before experiencing a sharp rise in 2024. This decline in publications may be related to a delayed impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research projects on this topic in the EU. The data highlights the critical role of the European Commission in promoting research in this area, with scientific publications primarily taking place within European institutions. Additionally, the average citation count per document (30.83) and the annual growth rate (16.65%) further support this analysis. Overall, this analysis shows the European Commission’s increasing commitment to the CE, both from a regulatory and research perspective, which indicates that interest in this field will likely continue to expand in the coming years.

A following analysis of keyword co-occurrence was conducted to provide an initial overview of the topics discussed within the publications and their relationships. Figure 3 illustrates the co-occurrence network of the authors’ keywords analyzed using the Walktrap algorithm. Out of a total of 160 keywords, the 48 most frequently used were selected for this analysis. Each circle represents a keyword. The size of each circle reflects its frequency in the corpus. Lines connecting the circles indicate the co-occurrence of the linked keywords. The thickness of these lines corresponds to the strength of the connection. Different colors represent the distinct clusters identified by the clustering algorithm. Three clusters have been identified in this corpus. The dominant cluster (17 terms), colored red, is centered around the term “circular economy” (CE). This cluster captures the broader concept of circularity in the AEC industry, linking the network and, by extension, the publications of this corpus. Notably, the red cluster also includes four related keywords beginning with “digital”: digitalization, digitization, digital products, and digital technologies. Other terms in the same theme, like “Industry 4.0” and “artificial intelligence” (AI), are also present. This indicates the prevalence of this theme in the literature pool, aligning with the initiatives for a dual digital and circular transition for a safer and more sustainable BE. In the second cluster (23 terms), colored green, “Material Passport” is central and is closely connected with “recycling” and “Building Information Modeling.” Notably, “Building Information Modeling” was not part of the initial query, yet it appears in 11 articles and overall is the third most frequent term. Its position highlights its omnipresence within the corpus, connecting peripheral terms of the cluster to key sustainability-related notions. The term “Material Passport” exhibits relatively high centrality and exerts greater influence over the network, positioning itself at the interface between the green and red clusters, acting as a bridge between the two, with MPs considered to be a sub-topic of a CE. The remaining cluster (8 terms), colored blue, is located at the periphery of the network and exhibits low betweenness and centrality, indicating niche and emerging research trends. It revolves around “waste management” and “commerce,” along with a node for “blockchain.” It suggests an exploration of this technology in material management, as emphasized in [35]. Overall, the co-occurrence analysis shows that although this research area is emerging, it is thematically diverse, reflecting multidisciplinary engagement.

Furthermore, the analysis of author activity and influence within this corpus (see

Table 1. Most active and influential authors within the corpus.

Author	Affiliation	Country	Publications	Internal h_index	Total Citation Count	Publication Start Year
HONIC M	Vienna University of Technology Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich (ETH Zurich)	Austria Switzerland	7	6	456	2019
KOVACIC I	Vienna University of Technology	Austria	6	6	413	2019
RECHBERGER H	Vienna University of Technology	Austria	3	3	233	2019
DE WOLF	Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich	Switzerland	3	1	200	2021
ÇETIN S	Delft University of Technology	The Netherlands	3	2	249	2021
GRUIS V	Delft University of Technology	The Netherlands	2	1	49	2023
GOMEZ-GIL M	University of Zaragoza	Spain	2	1	21	2022
HOOSAIN MS	University of Johannesburg	South Africa	2	2	144	2020
LU W	University of Hong Kong	Hong Kong	2	2	54	2023
LUSCUERE LM	EPEA Nederland B.V.	The Netherlands	2	2	85	2016
PAUL BS	University of Johannesburg	South Africa	2	2	144	2020
PENG Z	University of Hong Kong	Hong Kong	2	2	54	2023
RAMAKRISHNA S	National University of Singapore	Singapore	2	2	144	2020
STRAUB A	Delft University of Technology	The Netherlands	2	1	49	2023
WEBSTER C	University of Hong Kong	Hong Kong	2	2	54	2023
WU L	University of Hong Kong	Hong Kong	2	2	54	2023
ADU-DUODU K	Newcastle University	UK	2	1	2	2024
BOCKEN N	Maastricht University	The Netherlands	1	1	200	2021
HEISEL F	Karlsruhe Institute of Technology	Germany	1	1	116	2020
RAU-OBERHUBER S	Turntoo	The Netherlands	1	1	116	2020

) indicated that Honic M and Kovacic I have produced foundational and influential work, as they have the highest internal h-index value of 6. Within this pool of 46 papers, they contributed a total of 7 publications, each cited at least 6 times by other papers in the dataset. The analysis also reveals that, over a few years, research activity initially concentrated in European countries (Austria, Switzerland, and the Netherlands) has gradually spread to institutions in Singapore, South Africa, and Hong Kong, reflecting a growing and geographically expanding interest in the field.

A subsequent analysis presented the sub-topics covered within the publications in more detail (see Appendix B, which provides a detailed table of most frequently covered topics) and mapped them across the years to better understand the evolution of specific research interests. This corpus comprises diverse publications, as the topic overlaps CE, MPs and construction. Thirty-five percent of the papers in this corpus focus on CE, including definitions, frameworks, challenges, and enablers in the construction industry (see

Table 2. Themes of passport-focused publications.

		Themes	Refs
	56%	Concept	[30]
	37%	MPs	[28,29,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]
	13.3%	DPPs/Product Passports	[44,45,46,47]
	3.3%	DBLs	[48]
	36.7%	Passport actors	[29,37,39,49,50]
	36.7%	Passport content, data requirements and data availability	[28,29,30,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,47,50,51,52,53]
	23.3%	Challenges and enablers	[28,30,39,43,52,53,54]
	63%	DT-supported passports	[31]
	33%	○ BIM	[38,39,41,42,43,49,52,53,55,56]
	6.6%	○ IoT	[46,57]
	10%	○ Platform	[37,51,58]
	10%	○ BCT	[35,59,60]
	6.6%	Passport ontology	[44,47]
	13.3%	DTs for data collection	[28,29,48,56]

). A noticeable focus of these papers is on Industry 4.0 technologies in enabling a circular economy in the construction industry. Among the tools enabling a CE in the AEC, MPs are mentioned in these papers as one of the instruments supporting a circular transition of the construction sector. In this part of the literature, MPs are a sub-topic in the broader CE concept. On the other hand, a larger set of publications (65%) focuses on MPs. The table below presents the most recurrent themes within the content of the publications. Figure 4 shows the distribution of these themes over time. We can observe a clear evolution of the field, particularly in consolidating the theoretical foundations of these concepts over the years. This includes the content of passports, data provenance and availability, key actors intervening in the development of passports, and the challenges and enablers of passports. Here, too, it can be observed that digital tools are an omnipresent theme that has continuously evolved as the field expanded with the presence of BIM throughout the time span. Other technologies, such as the Internet of Things (IoT) and Blockchain Technology (BCT), were also explored later. Initially, the emphasis was on the theoretical basis of the concept; however, practical applications through case studies gradually emerged, along with the development of passport ontologies. The findings of this analysis support the insights from the keyword co-occurrence network, highlighting an increasing focus on digital solutions and technical applications. This shows a trend in research that will gradually shift from solidifying the conceptual foundation to focusing on practical, real-world applications.

3.2. Material Passports: A Tool Supporting a Circular Economy in the Construction Industry

The concept of MPs dates to the 80s [30], but research on the topic truly took off in the context of the EU Horizon 2020 Buildings as Material Banks project (BAMB) [61]. As data scarcity proved to be a major hurdle for material reuse [42,50,51], MPs were proposed as a CE instrument aimed at bridging the information gap and accelerating the implementation of a CE by facilitating the reintroduction of materials into circular loops [62]. Various definitions of MPs gradually developed, but a consensus has yet to be reached [53]. The terminology—Material Passports, Building Material Passports, Building Passports, Product Passports, Waste Material Passports, Building Circularity Material Passports—varies depending on the author’s perspective, intended application, and level of detail [29]. In [37,53], a breakdown of key definitions and the historical evolution of the passport initiatives are proposed. Moreover, as the field of research expanded, EU initiatives promoting a sustainable and circular BE have encouraged the development of DPPs and DBLs. Therefore, the following section takes a deeper look to answer RQ1 on the definitions of the notion of MPs in the literature and in relation to other passport initiatives.

3.2.1. Material Passports at the Material Scale

The term “Material Passport” is the most commonly used in this pool of literature. Its definition is closely tied to the scale of development, as MPs can vary greatly in scope [63]. They can range from the level of individual materials to the scale of an entire district or area, resulting in differences in benefits and the type of information they contain [64]. Several authors consider MPs as a digital repository of life-cycle information on materials, components, and systems embedded within a building [28,36,37,40]. This includes details about their dimensions, characteristics, and properties and all CE-relevant data that facilitates dismantlement, reuse, repair, remanufacturing, or recycling at the end of their use [43,63]. In this sense, MPs provide materials with an identity, helping to overcome CE barriers related to a lack of data for material reuse [43,65]. They can also be described as a technology for tracking materials, products, and systems across the supply chain and throughout their lifespan [41,60,66], particularly in a globalized market [35]. Lu et al. [35] address this aspect of MPs by drawing a parallel between identification passports and MPs and proposing a Waste Material Passport focused on the trading of construction and deconstruction waste. Zhang et al. [40] highlight a crucial distinction between MPs and material databases: MPs not only record material and circularity information at the production stage but also continuously document information throughout the entire life cycle of a building. In the same spirit, reclaimed material banks can also store salvaged material information and condition resource-informed designs [65]. Material databanks, on the other hand, can be seen as an alternative to MPs [30,63,64]. They are centralized external databases where material data is stored, shared, and maintained throughout a life cycle [63,64].

The primary, generally agreed-upon objective of MPs is to encourage the adoption of CE strategies [28,49,65,67]. In other words, their purpose is to maximize the efficiency of material use, reinforce trust in quality, augment value through traceability, and encourage circular innovations [28,36,39,60,66]. Thus, MPs must be able to effectively track and manage information in a structured, standardized, and uninterrupted manner throughout a material’s lifespan, from its extraction as a raw material to its multiple use cycles [35,39,60]. This allows decision-makers at the end of a building’s use phase, equipped with transparent and trustworthy material data, to opt for circular end of life scenarios instead of traditional linear pathways [40,65,66,68]. MPs can achieve this by providing a common language to all construction stakeholders [53], thereby mitigating the fragmented nature of the AEC industry.

3.2.2. Material Passports at the Building Scale

Another aspect of MPs encompasses information that spans from the building level to the material level [29,38,51,64]. Thus, MPs are considered to be digital documents that contain both qualitative and quantitative material data on building materials across scales, from the material level to the building level [38]. In this context, MPs serve, on the one hand, as a repository for materials embedded in a building and, on the other hand, as a decision-making tool during the design phase, displaying key aggregated data on various design variants [38]. Consequently, they are powerful tools that assist in design optimization [53] and making informed decisions regarding product selection throughout the project’s design [65,67,69] and across the entire lifespan of a building, including operation, renovation construction [53,70], and demolition phases [65]. This aspect can also be leveraged for existing buildings, where MPs can be created to provide insights into renovation scenarios [53]. Concurrently, aggregated material and product information at the building level allows for the automated calculation and display of circularity and sustainability performance using different methods [31,38,49,51,70]. This set of information makes MPs a valuable technology for promoting design principles focused on deconstruction and reversibility [28,42,61,66,71,72] as well as adaptability in the BE [61,67]. This aggregation at a building level can also clarify the economic aspects related to a building’s lifespan [70], simplifying sustainability communication with clients [73]. As noted by Cetin et al. [74], MPs can be effectively used by stakeholders as tools for decision-making if, along with the circularity data, they display cost-related data. The building scale does not exclude monitoring changes at the product and material levels that occur throughout a building’s life [29,36]. This MP data is intended to be updated and made available to relevant stakeholders and end-users throughout its lifespan to maximize material use cycles [40,59,66,68]. Additionally, by inventorying the as-built information of buildings at a macro scale, MPs can contribute to the creation of an urban material cadaster, thereby catalyzing urban mining approaches [28,49,74]. Hence, MPs are valuable tools for achieving circular material flows [50], estimating material stocks, turning cities into urban mines, and promoting circularity in the AEC industry [53].

3.2.3. Material Passports Throughout a Building Life Cycle

MPs enable the integration of components and materials into continuous circular loops, allowing them to be used beyond a building’s lifespan [28,61] and raising awareness around CE practices among stakeholders [53]. In essence, MPs fulfil several purposes throughout a material’s life cycle.

During manufacturing, MPs incentivize manufacturers to adopt circular practices [36,39,72] and promote business models that encourage reverse logistics and take-back schemes [28,39]. Their transparent sharing of information supports better sourcing strategies. By providing quantitative data on circularity [51] and recycling percentages [38], MPs drive a more circular industry, reducing virgin material extraction and overall waste generation [36].

In the design phase, to achieve a waste-free BE [67], MPs can help stakeholders make informed and optimized decisions early in the design process by comparing the environmental impact of multiple design options [38] and help select materials with lower environmental impacts [67,69]. With dynamic feedback during this stage, MPs promote reversible design strategies and encourage the adoption of a design-for-disassembly approach, which further supports more circular decisions [28,53,67].

During a building’s useful life, MPs assist with predictive maintenance, managing maintenance schedules, facilitating facility management [29,43,49,54,71] and energy management [30], and keeping track of the condition of embedded products [53], which helps to extend their useful life [43,53,67]. They shed light on the circular potential of building materials at the endof life prior to deconstruction [41]. They also have the potential to support the development of new circular business models and reverse logistics [28,67].

This improves the assessment and recovery of used materials [53,65], ultimately increasing the value of salvaged materials at the end of the building’s life cycle [28,57]. As a result, they mitigate resource depletion [28,35,67]. MPs are therefore a valuable tool for driving the CE transition in the construction sector.

In addition to reducing waste through better waste management, promoting circular approaches [35,43,49,57,67,71], and enabling improved resource management, MPs facilitate urban mining and improve large-scale material flow predictions by evaluating potential end of life scenarios for building components [53,56,61], thereby contributing to a more sustainable BE [28,49].

3.2.4. Material Passports Versus Digital Product Passports and Digital Building Logbooks

Digital Product Passports

Only a few papers in this literature review specifically discuss Product Passports [46] and DPPs [44,45]. A Digital Product Passport, introduced as a part of the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) [21], is a cross-sectoral concept that encompasses, but is not limited to, construction products [29]. DPPs can be seen as an alternative to MPs as they are backed by a regulatory framework under development [30]; however, due to their broad scope they would need further tuning to encompass specificities inherent to construction products [53]. DPPs are digital documents designed to provide essential information about products, including their origin, maintenance instructions, and end of life scenarios for all stakeholders [48]. Similar to MPs, DPPs supply consumers with sustainability information, enabling informed decision-making [29,53]. However, the scope of DPPs is interpreted differently within this body of literature. On the one hand, some suggest that DPPs include information recorded throughout a product’s life cycle, including its use history [44], while, on the other hand, some authors restrict DPPs’ scope to the phases from material extraction to construction [30], thereby distinguishing between DPPs and MPs. Another key difference is the scale of implementation. DPP implementation is limited to the product’s scale [29,44,48], whereas the scope of MPs can extend to buildings, complexes, and areas.

Digital Building Logbooks

The literature on Digital Building Logbooks (DBLs) is also quite limited [48]. Among the publications of this SLR, only one article specifically focuses on DBLs, while a few others mention them [29,30,31,65]. DBLs compile a wider range of information related to buildings, making them broader in scope compared to MPs and DPPs [30,48,53]. DBLs encompass not only circularity aspects, construction, and material information but also administrative details, financial data, energy efficiency data, as well as operational and usage information [48]. By contrast, MPs and DPPs have a more defined focus, mostly revolving around material composition and life-cycle data. In a proposed mapping of DPPs and DBLs across life-cycle stages as alternatives to MPs, Adisheh [30] demonstrates that DBLs cover all modules of a building’s life cycle, from construction and installation to disposal, and include operational information on energy and water, unlike MPs. This mapping highlights a distinction: DBLs provide comprehensive building information throughout the life cycle, while MPs extend beyond the building’s use phase by including reuse, recovery, and recycling potential, thus emphasizing their specific role in closing resource loops in the construction industry.

In a study by Gómez et al. [48], the data sources for DBLs were analyzed to identify their ability to supplement information in DBL data fields. This research found that new digital technologies, such as digital twins, smart monitoring, and 3D scanning, are more efficient data sources for DBLs. However, using these technologies in DBLs still faces challenges, such as data interoperability. It is proposed that this information shall be stored in public repositories during the application process for building permits [48].

Overall, DBLs aim to gather information related to all aspects of a building’s life, including material data and operational details. MPs, on the other hand, are CE instruments that follow materials from extraction to end-of-life, including their phase within a building. While DBLs help bridge information gaps for buildings, MPs specifically target the reincorporation of materials into circular loops. Notably, there are ongoing initiatives for a unified approach to DBLs [29] and efforts to develop an EU-wide framework for DBLs, whereas MPs’ regulatory framework remains unclear [20].

3.3. Challenges Hindering Material Passport Implementation in the AEC

MPs create trust between buyers and sellers of salvaged materials through authentic information sharing as they act as a reliable data source, creating a more transparent market [35]. This helps to recover the residual value of used materials [39]. However, their implementation faces several challenges. The following section addresses RQ2 by outlining the most common challenges to MP implementation found in the literature.

3.3.1. Lack of Regulations

A ubiquitous challenge in the AEC industry is the absence of a common, unified approach to generating MPs [49,50] and the lack of standardization [44,49,50,53,54,60,74]. Furthermore, MPs are complex in their composition and scope, making practical implementation difficult [54]. Although multiple MP schemes have been proposed in the literature, they remain unharmonized, and no unified approach has yet emerged [29,49]. MPs currently lack official regulations, and government incentives for their adoption are scarce [67]; these are necessary to incentivize MP adoption [49]. Adopting industry-wide approaches to create MPs and establishing unified standards [53] and regulations are essential for the future widespread adoption of MPs [49].

3.3.2. Data Availability and Consistency

A major obstacle is the lack of available and reliable information on materials [28,43,48,52], particularly end of life data [28]. This is especially true for existing buildings, which constitute most of the current building stock [52,64]. Collecting data is challenging [48], as it is a time- and resource-intensive process [56], which further discourages stakeholders from adopting MPs. This is partly due to the lack of reversibility information [42], making material extraction at the end-of-life particularly challenging and with no clarity on the benefits of recovery. Even when information is available, it is not centralized and requires consulting multiple platforms and data sources, making the process tedious and labor-intensive [44,50].

Furthermore, the AEC industry is known for its fragmented supply chain and project-based approach [50]; teams are assembled for specific projects and then disbanded [53]. This results in a reluctance to share relevant data transparently across life-cycle phases [28].

Another challenge is the lack of clearly defined responsibility for generating and maintaining MPs [50], as well as a lack of collaboration between stakeholders [28,53], as multiple stakeholders are involved in a project, making it difficult to establish accountability [53]. For this reason, maintaining MPs is particularly challenging during the use phase of a building [29,50,60]. Additionally, transparency can be a double-edged sword. MPs would allow for more transparent information sharing and traceability along the value chain; this threatens stakeholders with confidentiality, privacy, and competitiveness concerns [28,53]. This further complicates the effective implementation of MPs in the industry [35]. Building long-term relationships between stakeholders across the industry is seen as a key strategy to reduce fragmentation in the information chain and establish a seamless and fully circular information flow; one approach to achieving this is to implement Design–Build–Operate (DBO) schemes [50]. By having the same team responsible for generating and maintaining MPs, data exchange and interoperability issues can be significantly reduced. Raising awareness among stakeholders and promoting training and education on MPs are also strongly recommended strategies [43,49,54].

3.3.3. Social Resistance

There is social resistance to adopting new processes [65,74], including MPs [54], as many stakeholders prefer to stick to traditional practices [74]. This lack of adherence may stem from a lack of awareness of MP and CE benefits [49,50,54] or from the fact that the long lifespan of buildings makes benefits too long-term for stakeholders to consider them economically viable [49,74]. Ensuring that future industry actors are well-informed about MPs will help to accelerate their integration into standard practices [54].

It is also important to assign clearly defined responsibilities to stakeholders regarding MP generation and maintenance throughout a building’s life cycle [43,53]. Appointing an MP consultant, an expert in circularity and materials, who is responsible for gathering information and generating MPs could facilitate their implementation [49].

3.3.4. Need for Digital Tools

Furthermore, digitalization in the AEC industry is lagging [50,52], and some available data on the current building stock is not machine-readable [50]. While BIM-based approaches offer better data operability through Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) [48], IFC has been criticized for not including all AEC actors [62], and data exchange between different software still presents challenges [43]. Additionally, few digital tools are implemented to support MPs and many of the ones present in the literature remain theoretical rather than practical [29,54].

3.3.5. Economic Feasibility

Finally, obtaining second-hand materials in good condition is challenging [53] and often expensive [53,70] due to the time and resources it takes to retrieve them. Currently there is no established business model for MPs [60,74] which reduces incentives for stakeholders to adopt it.

3.4. Material Passports’ Data, Structure and Supporting Technologies

The information in an MP follows a pyramidal structure encompassing material, component, product, system, and building levels [39]. The structure of the data follows this hierarchy; thus, data is aggregated from lower to higher levels [37,39]. Maintaining this granularity within MP datasets is therefore crucial for data-backed circular decision-making [37]. Although there is currently no consensus over the content of MPs, there are significant advances being made in this area. The following section addresses RQ3 by presenting the information requirements, sources of data, and actors involved in MPs, as well as the role of digital technologies in gathering data and supporting MPs.

3.4.1. Material Passport Content

The content of MPs is closely linked to their level of implementation [29]. In the literature reviewed, many authors have discussed the information requirements for MPs from various perspectives [28,29,30,40,43,51,52,53,56,59,71] (see Appendix C, which provides a table on MP information requirements mapped across life-cycle stages). Munaro et al. [28] proposed a structure for MPs at the material, product, and system levels, which includes data inputs from both the initial design and manufacturing stages, as well as the subsequent use phase. Zhang et al. [40] also suggested an MP framework at the material and component levels, incorporating economic factors, circularity, and sustainability information alongside general data. Caroli T. [41] focused on capturing information from the product design phase within a BIM-supported MP at the product level. Cetin et al. [29] identified the content of an MP for existing buildings, highlighting information requirements at both the building and product levels. Sanchez et al. [42] unveiled data requirements for an MP that facilitates the disassembly planning of building components. Andisheh [30] explored the data requirements necessary for an MP to enable the reuse of structural steel. Lu et al. [35] identified data entries of MPs for the trading of construction materials at the end of their life cycle.

In addition to the general information on a building that an MP must contain, such as its year of construction, etc. [29], some authors who have considered building-level MPs as a tool for communicating a building’s circularity performance have included circularity assessment data. In Honic et al. [38], the recycling potential of two building variants was calculated to demonstrate the capacity of an MP at the building level to support designers early on during the design stage to choose the more circular options. Heisel et al. [51] used the Madaster Platform to create an MP and calculate the Madaster Circularity Indicator to demonstrate the circularity performance of a case study. Zhang et al. [40] proposed a circularity assessment method, broadening the scope of building circularity assessments by including more R-strategies and economic impacts through Life-Cycle Costing (LCC). Although the social cycle is seen as an integral part of building circularity, it could not be accounted for in this circularity calculation method due to the lack of quantifiable factors. Considering different building indicators in parallel (e.g., CO2 emissions and circular potential) in the future could provide a more complete picture of a building’s durability and thus encourage more informed decision-making [51].

As the project progresses, both the implementation level and the level of detail evolve [51]. The information contained in MPs becomes increasingly comprehensive throughout each stage of a product’s life cycle and beyond its initial use phase [28,37]. As buildings are dynamic structures subject to changes, the data must also be dynamically updated throughout the product’s lifespan [37]. This continuous updating provides a comprehensive understanding of materials, which helps address challenges that may hinder their reuse [51].

3.4.2. Actors Involved in Material Passports

Collaboration and exchange between different stakeholders are essential [39]. The type of data entered in an MP depends on the stakeholders involved and the life-cycle stage of the project [37]. Key actors in the creation of an MP include:

-

AEC Organization Actors [39,49]: These include BIM managers, architects, engineers, consultants, maintenance contractors, maintenance managers, project managers, and demolition contractors. These professionals play a significant role in entering data for MPs [29]. Additionally, Honic et al. [49] suggest including extra stakeholders who can assist with the consultation or management of the MP creation process.

-

Industry Actors: These include manufacturers and suppliers, who are also crucial in contributing to the MP [29,39,49,50].

-

Regulatory Bodies: Institutions involved in the CE and sustainability are vital for MP generation, as they establish regulations for construction materials and provide information regarding recycling potentials [49]. Public authorities [50], municipalities, and end-users are identified as having a smaller role in the MP process [29].

It is important to note that all these actors will need information from the MP throughout different life-cycle stages [29]. Thus, a centralized location for the MP is necessary, as it allows all stakeholders to share information over an extended period [39].

3.4.3. Data Sources for Material Passports and Information Availability

Currently, the potential sources of data for MPs are very diverse. For general building information, there are architectural drawings, construction documents [29], public records [53], third-party websites, national cadasters, land registries, and Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) registries [53]. Other EU tools, such as Levels [75], are also valuable information sources, as stated by [48,53]. MPs can also benefit from highly relevant information from various other sources, such as digital platforms; BIM models of a specific building inventorying all the materials and products, their composition, dimensions, location, weight, etc. [51]; or alternatively, a BOM (Bill of Materials) [39]. More specific information on materials and products can be retrieved from: product warranties, maintenance instructions [50], Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), Material Safety Datasheets (MSDS) [37,39], Technical Data Sheets (TDS) [39], Eco-inventories, Building Catalogues [49], and Material Databases [40] (e.g., NIBE, NMD [40], the IBO database [38,39], and OKUBAUDAT [58]). It is important to note that the information varies by database, leading to inconsistencies [49]. To overcome this challenge, a single information source could be selected; however, this restricts the assessment of the products available in the database, leading to result discrepancies [49]. Hazardous data can come from waste repositories [53]. European databases, however, should be enriched with material data to avoid region-specific fragmented initiatives [53]. EPDs can also be better structured to encompass CE-relevant information in a clear and standardized format.

While these data sources are beneficial for developing MPs for new constructions, data availability becomes problematic for existing buildings. A study conducted by Cetin et al. [29] analyzed the importance of various categories of information needed for an MP and assessed their availability in three case studies of existing buildings. Their findings revealed that the data deemed most important for a CE by professionals is often rarely available. Conversely, Kedir et al. [50] examined the availability of MP-relevant data in an Industrial Construction firm. The data is provided in varying formats, often in PDFs, and some crucial sustainability information—such as the percentages of reused and recycled components and the end of life pathways for products—is frequently missing. The company also internally generates and maintains several types of relevant MP information, but it remains unclear how these MPs will be maintained once the follow-up period ends [29,50]. Information management systems for MPs should be developed to support their adoption, as their current absence presents a significant hurdle [74].

3.4.4. Digital Tools’ Role in Overcoming Data Scarcity in the Built Environment

It is crucial to address data scarcity of the built stock to ensure the sustainable management of urban resources in the decades ahead [56]. Laser scanning is a valuable method for collecting data on existing buildings and offers significant potential when utilized within the MP data acquisition process [29,74]. Honic et al. [52] leveraged laser scanning technology to generate and process a point cloud that captured the geometry of an industrial building and served as a basis for the creation of a monolayer BIM model. Laser scanning can not only serve as a basis for building models but also allows experts to create a material inventory for existing buildings [74] and enriches MPs with product property data during the building’s lifespan, as well as at the end of its life [29]. Images taken by drones, street view images, and satellite views are also valuable sources for data acquisition on existing buildings [74]. However, image-based material recognition allows for only surface-level assessments, and the underlying material composition for existing buildings remains essentially unknown. Kovacic et al. [56] addressed this gap by developing a non-destructive workflow for data acquisition that combines both laser scanning and Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR). GPR allowed experts to gain insights into the composition of the different material layers of building elements based on their different physical properties.

AI is an emerging technology that enables the creation of MPs. Through image recognition, the digitization of building drawings can be automated [74]. Additionally, trained algorithms can recognize building elements, measure their dimensions, identify the presence of hazardous materials, and detect defects. This capability is essential for implementing CE strategies and can significantly facilitate the data collection process for MP generation during a building’s lifespan or at its end-of-life [74]. Moreover, AI capabilities can also enable the retrieval of MP-relevant information from websites or public repositories. This process can be accomplished using traditional web-scraping algorithms or, more recently, through machine-learning algorithms [29,39]. Markou et al. [31] proposed a framework for dynamic MPs where the power of AI and specifically Large Language Models (LLMs) can be leveraged from early design stages to supplement MPs with generic material data.

3.4.5. Digital Tools’ Growing Role in Supporting Material Passports

Building Information Modeling

Throughout the literature, BIM is recognized as a key technology that supports the implementation of CE strategies [42,61,63,66,72,76,77]. Meanwhile, MPs are considered essential tools for facilitating the integration of CE principles in the AEC. The synergy between these two technologies makes their combined use valuable, especially for promoting the broader adoption of MPs [41,61,67]. BIM is a widely used technology by architects and designers [74]. Thus, BIM models are a part of various workflows for generating MPs. Several authors explored BIM-based MPs [42,43,49,53,56].

Beyond BIM’s valuable support for the data gathering process for MPs, BIM can serve as a robust platform supporting MPs [43]. BIM offers several key features: it allows for multidisciplinary collaboration [53], extensive data storage [62], interoperability between different software and applications [38,42], data management, and updates throughout a building’s life cycle [72,74]. Additionally, the multidimensional nature of BIM accommodates a diverse range of data, including cost, scheduling, sustainability, and maintenance [53,76]. Toprakli et al. [43] highlight BIM’s abilities in facilitating proper material management and tracking through examples from a project case study and suggests pathways for MP and BIM integration. Honic et al. [38] provided a basis for generating BIM-based MPs by compiling data from building catalogs, eco-inventories, and BIM models. Building on this work, Honic et al. [49] compiled an MP in a building information system (i.e., BuildingOne [78]. This approach was implemented to address several BIM challenges related to data management, updates, and synchronization. Building on the existing knowledge of MPs, Caroli incorporated MPs within BIM, enhancing the reversibility of prefabricated building elements from the manufacturing stage. This work highlighted MPs’ central role in enabling reversibility and conceiving the next uses of construction systems from their design and manufacturing stages (17). Sanchez et al. [42] contributed to bridging this gap by leveraging BIM capacities in dealing with complex and large amounts of information by developing a BIM-based MP for disassembly planning based on an automated semantic enrichment engine of the BIM model for disassembly planning and a disassembly analytical model. This approach was tested on two case studies where digital MPs were automatically generated per component, along with disassembly sequences and extraction directions [42]. In a previous SLR [31], BIM, AI, QR codes and a Geographic Information System (GIS) were proposed as a part of a dynamic MP framework. The GIS was deemed useful for its geolocation data that enhances Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) calculations.

Digital platforms

Digital platforms have the potential to mitigate data interoperability issues that come with the integration of various technologies [54] and foster collaboration [58]. Since digital platforms make it possible to bring together multiple project stakeholders and facilitate communication, they are beneficial for supporting MPs [64]. In the BAMB project, an early MP platform prototype was developed. It allows for generating product-level MPs to digitally track construction products from their manufacturing to their end of life, bringing together multiple stakeholders across the value chain [37]. MADASTER [79], a commercial platform, is another example of tools that allow for the generation of MPs. It centralizes material information from external databases and quantities from the IFC model into one tool for generating MPs [51].

Internet of Things

Tracking technologies, like digital marking of construction materials and blockchain, have been explored by some authors [46,57,59,60]. Vahidi et al. [57] proposed a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)-supported MP for the supply chain management of recycled concrete. LIBS (Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy) was employed to evaluate the properties of the recycled materials. The collected data was processed and stored in the cloud, with each tag placed on the aggregates assigned a unique identifier linked to the management platform data. Byers et al. [46] compared three types of data carriers: QR codes, NFC (Near-Field Communication) chips, and Direct Product Marking (DPM) based on user-friendliness, reading time, and error rates; QR codes and NFC chips outperformed DPM in all assessed parameters [46]. QR codes and NFC chips are both cost-effective and user-friendly and are easily scanned with smartphones, which eliminates the need for specialized readers required for passive RFID tags [46].

Blockchain

A blockchain is another digital tool that has gained traction in recent years thanks to its potential in supporting MPs and CE. Lu et al. [35] highlighted the untapped potential of blockchain technology in facilitating the trading of construction waste materials. Building on this research, Wu et al. [59] developed a framework for an NFT-based waste MP, testing a prototype system. This blockchain-enabled passport offers several benefits: it is digitized through tokenization, ensures the uniqueness of the passport, and enhances efficiency and reliability. It achieves this by allowing for quick and authentic data sharing with lower costs, and secure transactions. Wilson et al. [60] tested a multi-layered blockchain system aimed at facilitating material reuse. This framework utilizes the InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) for data storage along with backend servers to achieve a balance between decentralization and private data handling. Control over participant types and their access rights is also implemented. Polkadot was chosen as the blockchain platform, serving as a relay chain that enhances interoperability and mitigates some limitations of traditional blockchains. MPs are stored on parachains, which enables secure and reliable tracking and retrieval of information throughout a product’s life cycle. Additionally, the architecture of this framework separates sensitive data, storing it off-chain to address privacy and security concerns.

4. Discussion

This SLR examined the evolving definitions of MPs, their data requirements and structures, the stakeholders involved, the challenges associated with their implementation, and the technologies that support them. The findings reveal a diverse and heterogeneous research landscape, characterized by varying terminologies, definitions, and technological approaches.

4.1. Towards a Definition of Material Passports

As outlined in the results of this analysis, MPs are designed to track detailed information about materials throughout all stages of a product’s life cycle. They support CE principles in various ways and are central to the transition from considering building components as single-use structures to viewing buildings as Material Banks. MPs have multiple definitions and vary in scope, encompassing information from the material level to the building level. They have been explored from different disciplinary and practical perspectives, which helps explain the lack of consensus surrounding their definition and the various terminologies used to describe them. MPs also evolve alongside and share overlaps with other CE-related tools for the BE, including DPPs and DBLs, and with wider sustainability tools, such as EPDs, Renovation Passports, EPCs, etc. Previous studies emphasized that a key barrier to implementing MPs is the lack of a standardized approach and the absence of a consensus over their definition. Recent developments, the EU’s agenda to reach carbon neutrality in 2050 and the expansion of EU-funded research, have paved the way for a potential regulatory framework and standardization of MPs.

A notable gap in the literature concerns the limited exploration of synergies between MPs, DPPs, and DBLs, despite their shared goals and overlapping data requirements. To effectively implement MPs, DPPs, and DBLs, it is essential to first define a clear and agreed-upon scope for each tool. This includes specifying their scale, life-cycle stages, areas of content overlap, involved stakeholders, and supporting technologies. Centralizing data storage and standardizing its format, as well as facilitating data exchange, is crucial to avoid duplication and to align stakeholder efforts. For instance, manufacturers could provide DPPs for construction products in BIM-compatible formats on their websites, following a standardized data template. Once these products are selected by the designers, MPs can be created by integrating DPP data and building-specific information. Throughout the life cycle of the building, MPs will be updated with dynamic life-cycle data. In this way, the DPP becomes the first building block of the MP. In cases where DPPs are not available for existing buildings (such as in renovation projects), MPs can still be created using the most accurate and relevant data available. The MP should be stored in a way that allows for seamless communication with the DBL throughout the building’s life cycle. In this context, the DBL would serve as a central reference point, enabling stakeholders to access all building-related data, including EPCs, MPs, and, by extension, DPPs. Consequently, updates made to shared content between DBLs and MPs (e.g., changes in ownership) could automatically be reflected in both. Establishing a common framework for stakeholder interventions and responsibilities across life-cycle stages would further facilitate the updating and maintenance of both MPs and DBLs. Moreover, automatic updates could be enabled by linking this data to a digital twin of the building, thereby reducing redundant efforts associated with managing multiple documents. At the end of a product’s life—whether during renovation or deconstruction—the key advantage of MPs becomes evident, as products will have a detailed record of their use. Products could then be sold together with the corresponding MP, maximizing the potential for circular end of life strategies by fostering trust in salvaged products.

This integration approach should also be investigated in relation to other existing tools, such as central facility repositories and common data environments. Overall, material data ought to be managed within a complementary ecosystem of interoperable construction tools, rather than as isolated solutions.

4.2. Material Passports for Decision-Making Throughout Life-Cycle Stages

The results of this SLR also highlight distinctions between MPs at the material and product levels, Building MPs at the building level, and MPs for existing buildings versus new buildings. Creating MPs at the lower levels of materials embedded in a building enables the aggregation of data into building-scale assessments of circularity, environmental impact and economic residual value [38,40,51,52,53]. This building-level performance reporting allows stakeholders to get feedback on CE strategies implemented in a building during design or renovation stages. Thus, it enables stakeholders to simulate design and renovation scenarios prior to construction, which encourages circular decision-making [38]. Certification schemes such as DGNB have created their Building MP tool based on an Excel template, as referenced in [53]. The circularity assessment in tools such as Madaster [79] is also a compelling example of the visualization of circular design assessment at the building level [51]. This evolution brings MPs closer to building certificates and contrasts with the earlier definition of MPs as records of detailed information that are valuable for a CE through the information they contain, not a certification in themselves of how circular a product or a building is [37]. The complexity of MPs through the information structure is paramount to correct and informed circular decision-making [37]. While Building MPs are valuable for high-level communication, this must not lead to oversimplifications. Preserving updated data at material and product levels is essential at the end of life. When a building is dismantled, and its components are prepared for reuse, repair, or remanufacturing, it is essential to separate the underlying data back into component-specific MPs. Each component entering a circular value chain must retain its own structured MP, contain all relevant information, and make it available to relevant stakeholders. This is crucial to fulfilling the original purpose of MPs which is to maintain building materials in use by implementing CE strategies. It requires more complex data management systems integrating data from all the different sources all along the building life cycle (see Figure 5), ensuring the availability of circularity data at the end of life of the building and supporting R-strategies.

This distinction between Building MPs and MPs and the multiplication of initiatives (DGNB’s Building Resource Passport [80], Madaster [79], CB’23 [81], Cirdax [82], etc.) emphasizes the need for established standards, structures, and unified methods for the storage, organization, and long-term maintenance of background material and product-level data to avoid a fragmented adoption by industry actors. Waterman Group published a framework for the implementation of an MP based on BIM through IFC and provided the first implementation process for the industry [83]. Without a robust unified standard, effective systems, and reliable data updates, MPs risk becoming static documents inadequate for facilitating circular end of life practices. If the only available information at the end of a building’s life is static information dating back decades or aggregated building-level information, stakeholders will lack the necessary data to reintroduce building materials into circular loops at the end-of-life and will revert to treating components as disposable. Therefore, Building MPs should be understood not as an end in themselves or as a standalone tool but as part of a multiscale system in need of constant updating throughout a building’s life.

Furthermore, developing and selecting agreed-upon and standardized circularity indicators that are automatically calculated when MPs are developed to attest to the circularity performance of products and buildings would allow for comparability of the variants/scenarios both for new buildings and for renovation cases. Current metrics stated in the literature, such as LCA [47,52,67], MCI [51], and recycling potential [38], do not account for part of the circular design decisions, such as adaptability of spaces and detachability of components, which also bring value to the CE. Exploring through case studies the most complete and appropriate circularity, sustainability, and cost metrics that can be displayed in MPs would enable comparability of scenarios and encourage stakeholders to make more informed decisions.

4.3. Addressing the Data Scarcity Challenge

As MPs move towards standardization, one persistent challenge to their implementation is data scarcity. Information sources such as material databases and eco-inventories are often used in MP workflows, but the data-gathering process is lengthy and resource-intensive, and the databases are diverse and present information in various formats [29,38,50,52,56]. Therefore, centralizing and enriching material data sources is essential for successful MP adoption across the industry.

Implementing MPs for the existing BE poses an even larger challenge, as these buildings represent most of the material flows in the coming decades. There are very few established methods for gathering data on existing buildings. Current methods for collecting data on existing buildings are limited, though some frameworks and methods for data-gathering that leverage digital tools [29,52,56], such as laser scanning and GPR, to aid in data collection were proposed. These methods still require considerable manual input, and further automation efforts are needed. AI is anticipated to significantly contribute to automating aspects of the data-gathering process [29,31,74], such as using LLMs to extract data from websites, databases or other construction documents and training image recognition models to identify construction products and provide more accurate material estimates. DT-based data-gathering methodologies need to be developed, and additional case studies must be conducted to evaluate data availability and test new techniques for the existing building stock.

Holding stakeholders responsible for sharing material information in a standardized and interoperable format throughout the life cycle will enable a more informed data-driven BE. To facilitate a wider implementation of MPs for the existing buildings, regulatory frameworks and government incentives will be crucial.

4.4. Synergies Between Digital Tools Supporting Material Passports

The results of this SLR revealed that the MP research is intertwined with digital technologies. In line with previous SLR findings [31], BIM plays a central role in current workflows for generating MPs. BIM models at the product level enriched with MP-relevant information can be imported directly into different BIM software by the designers, providing a necessary foundation for detailed MPs [41]. BIM-based MPs have also proven to be an effective tool for supporting circular design choices [38]. Additionally, BIM technology can facilitate automated disassembly planning and enrich MPs with disassembly information [42]. Through the IFC schema, BIM supports data interoperability between different software platforms [42]. Moreover, BIM assists with both LCA and LCC [70], and several sustainability plugins, such as BIM-LCA plugins, have been developed for BIM software [68]. If in future developments, BIM could be integrated with material databases and other extensive data sources for MPs, this will further automate the enrichment of MPs directly within a BIM environment and significantly promote the adoption of MPs among AEC professionals [38].

Several data carriers supporting MPs have also been explored in the literature, including RFID, QR codes, DPM, and NFC chips. DPPs, which will be implemented in the coming years for all products sold in the EU, including construction products, are going to be supported by these data carriers [21]. This type of IoT-based MP is advantageous for material tracking throughout the value chain. Once materials are integrated into a building, the limitations of the specific technology used can affect the longevity and accessibility of the MPs. QR codes require direct line of sight, and active IoT devices have a limited battery life [46]. Therefore, it is important to be able to systematically keep track of these products and extract, centralize, and update the information once they are implemented in a building, ensuring it remains up to date throughout the building’s long lifespan.

MPs supported by BCT have gained significant attention in recent years due to the advantages of blockchain, including transparent and secure information sharing, building trust, tracking throughout the circular supply chain, and enabling secure transactions in secondary material trading [35]. This is especially important during critical phases, such as when materials are acquired for construction and renovation projects, as well as when they are dismantled during renovations or at the end of their life. However, there are limitations associated with blockchains, such as blockchain interoperability between different platforms, maintaining confidentiality, complying with personal data information while keeping transparency, and ensuring scalability as systems expand with multiple stakeholders and growing data volumes [60]. Moreover, preventing deceptive behavior by ensuring the material being sold is in fact the material present in the passport is challenging and needs complementary measures [59]. While technical solutions for addressing the challenges of blockchains and supporting MPs can be proposed [60], it is important to view these supporting technologies for MPs as complementary and usable in tandem.

Additionally, scaling from micro-level MPs to a macro-level urban material cadaster is essential for improved circular resource management at the urban level [49]. An urban material cadaster would enhance urban mining strategies and enable predictions about materials sourced from urban mines, thus simplifying and forecasting supply and demand in a circular economy. Further investigation is required to determine which information should be shared from MPs to urban material cadasters and how this process could be automated. A GIS is one of the technologies that were mentioned in the literature to have great potential in advancing a CE and supporting MPs. However, research around their implementation is lacking. A GIS has the potential to support urban mining and resource management at a city scale [38,64]; thus it could support urban material cadasters and the implementation of secondary material Digital marketplaces (DigiM). The information at urban levels would help track the progression of the implementation of a CE against national or EU targets.

Beyond the technological limitations of the individual DTs, future research must focus on integrating them into a shared ecosystem. This ecosystem should facilitate the development of workflows, methods, and processes within a unified framework that aligns with the lifespan of buildings and construction specificities, with standards established by regulatory bodies, as well as facilitate collaboration among all stakeholders to generate, maintain, and validate these datasets (see Figure 5). Most importantly, clearly defined responsibilities, regulations, and incentives are the cornerstone for the success of industry-wide implementation of MPs and thus CE strategies. Regardless of the technology used to support the MP, it is essential to have interoperable digital tools that leverage the strengths of each technology.

4.5. IoT, Sensor Data and Dynamic Updates of Material Passports

To effectively implement CE strategies, it is essential to develop digital tools that support dynamic updates of MPs throughout their life cycle and track the flow of materials across various stages (see Figure 6). In the future, every construction product sold in the EU will have a DPP. However, construction products are installed in different buildings, each operating in distinct environments and serving different functions. These products may be placed in contaminated areas or near materials that emit harmful substances. Additionally, user interactions with the environment can also affect building materials. The maintenance and cleaning methods applied can also affect the lifespan of certain materials and products. Buildings are subject to potentially damaging events, such as earthquakes, and this information should be recorded in MPs. Consequently, identical products installed in different environments may exhibit different levels of salvageability.

MPs should function as tools that enhance the resilience of circular principles by facilitating the recovery of components at the end of their life cycle. They must provide the deconstruction team with a comprehensive understanding of the condition of the assessed building materials, enabling them to make informed decisions regarding appropriate end of life pathways for each component. Current MP frameworks fail to capture this extensive life-cycle data and rely on manual data entry with no clearly defined responsibility.

The ability of IoT to store and share information has been exploited for MPs. However, the use of IoT devices to gather and share information has not been explored yet. Sensor data could feed MPs with valuable information in an automated way throughout a building’s lifespan. In addition to DPPs, which will contain information about material substances at the manufacturing stage, MPs will have to include dynamic data from sensors that record changes in a material’s environment (e.g., humidity exposure) throughout its life cycle. With a continuous record of sensor data, materials can offer reassurance regarding their usability. These systems also have the potential to be integrated with digital twins for defect detection and preventive maintenance systems. Currently, deconstructed materials need to be recertified as free of non-toxic substances to be suitable for reuse [70], and as research advances regulations regarding harmful substances may become stricter over time [37]. It is important to anticipate these changes. The inclusion of dynamic data in MPs during the whole life cycle of buildings could enhance the resilience of circular end of life scenarios in the face of evolving regulations, strengthening the role of MPs as a key tool for enabling a CE. This aspect requires further exploration of supporting IoT technologies, and synergies need to be established with other technologies, such as digital twins and AI, to manage and interpret the large amount of life-cycle data.

5. Conclusions

This SLR consolidates the growing research on the concept of MPs and clarifies the strategic role of MPs as enablers of a CE in the AEC industry. The complexity of building components, along with their long lifespan, presents significant challenges for data availability and management. By synthesizing the fragmented and emerging research on MPs, this review contributes theoretically by emphasizing the need for a comprehensive implementation framework for MPs. This framework should integrate the various sources of construction data, clarify their synergies and potential for integration at multiple scales, and define the roles and interventions of stakeholders across life-cycle stages, while aligning with the digital technologies that support MP adoption. The overall purpose is to develop common methods for data collection, as well as standardized workflows and processes for generating MPs across the industry for both new and existing buildings. These should be grounded in a unified definition, standards, and regulations which constitute a cornerstone for an integrated industry-wide MP adoption in the AEC. The results also highlighted the significant potential of digitalization to facilitate a CE, which has led to increased interest in various digital tools. The complexity of data collection and sharing for MPs throughout a building’s life cycle and across scales implies that digital tools must be considered part of an integrated system. Therefore, in addition to exploring technical solutions that address the specific shortcomings and limitations of individual tools, it is crucial to consider interoperability between them so they can work together, as they are complementary to one another.

Practically, it implies that policymakers will play a crucial role in successful implementation of MPs. This includes establishing a clear standard and regulatory framework for structure and data governance, as well as defining a clear coordination framework for stakeholder involvement throughout the life cycle to ensure that MPs remain dynamic and up to date. For other industry stakeholders, the growing interest in MPs at the building level suggests that MPs are moving beyond being merely a digital repository of data to becoming valuable decision support and communication tools. As a result, and in practice, MPs could play a crucial role in assessing circular building performance. This development would facilitate the provision of incentives for adopting CE practices within the industry and provide a strong argument for the development of MPs. However, this change will require consensus on standardized CE indicators to ensure consistent comparisons across diverse cases.

Additionally, we have observed a growing use of AI, BCT, and IoT in supporting MPs and data collection on existing buildings. This trend is expected to extend to other technologies, such as digital twins and GIS. Moreover, the number of case studies focused on MPs and DPPs has been increasing as research advances. More case studies that examine the implementation of MPs across various life-cycle stages, materials, and geographical locations could enhance our understanding of the information requirements, the importance of the data, and information sources for these tools. In addition to regulations and incentives, investigating the economic benefits of implementing MPs is essential to encourage construction stakeholders to take initiative. This last aspect remains underexplored in the literature.

At this stage, our research has covered the notion of Material Passports and their relations with Digital Product Passports and Digital Building Logbooks. To address the methodological limitations of this SLR related to the research query and the selection of included publications and to further explore tools that can help mitigate data scarcity in the BE and help implement CE strategies, a new SLR could be done on the notions of material databanks, urban material cadasters, and central facility repositories. These sources contain valuable data related to materials and buildings that pertain to concepts such as MPs, DPPs, and DBLs for Buildings and Land. Furthermore, this study uses the Scopus database, which includes a substantial number of high-quality publications. Future SLRs could also incorporate grey literature and additional research databases to explore how industry actors are adopting these initiatives.