A System of Systems
As speakers emphasised, DBLs are a means to an end, not a goal in themselves. The vision presented was one of breaking down silos between product-level and building-level data: creating a system of systems that enables better renovation, smarter resource use, and more circular construction practices.
With 50% of all extracted materials going into construction and circularity rates remaining low, the need for better information is acute. But as panellists noted, the innovation required isn’t just technical, it’s also about “the innovation of remembering” the value of what already exists.
Three Critical Challenges
Circularity: Beyond technical feasibility
Reuse of construction materials is technically feasible—pilot projects across Europe have proven this. Yet scaling remains elusive. Social housing providers struggle to find reclaimed materials for large-scale renovations. Architects and consumers remain hesitant about older materials. The perceived risk of using circular materials outweighs the economic reward.
As speakers stressed, data alone won’t solve this. Product design matters enormously: when everything is glued, hammered, or screwed together permanently, even perfect data won’t enable reuse. The challenge is delivering today’s performance requirements while ensuring tomorrow’s recyclability.
Renovation: The data gap
Cities like Cologne—among Germany’s most ambitious on climate—are struggling with basic building data. Energy bills can’t be reliably linked to specific buildings. Decades of building modifications have gone undocumented. Without accurate data, renovation strategies remain guesswork.
Germany’s renovation passport scheme shows promise, and the European Commission’s work on EPBD implementation envisions Member States establishing interoperable databases. As DG ENER representatives noted, digitizing the process will reveal data conflicts over time—an opportunity to improve, not a reason to delay.
Governance: Who owns the data?
A fundamental question emerged repeatedly: who should own building data? Speakers advocated that data should belong to the building owner and travel with the building when sold. But creating a trust-based, open data environment requires clear frameworks—potentially through property data trust mechanisms that ensure authorized parties can access information appropriately.
Making It Happen
The path forward requires confronting an uncomfortable reality: building owners rarely pay for data collection voluntarily, even when subsidised. The value only becomes obvious later.
As panellists observed, uptake accelerates when financial institutions require reliable building information. Banks, insurers, and public authorities can drive adoption in ways that subsidies alone cannot. Finland’s digital permit process (which is based on open BIM models) was highlighted as a best practice showing what’s possible.
The challenge for policymakers is acute. As Henk Visscher concluded, the advantages of DBLs accrue over the long term, but government lifespans are short. Market initiatives that deliver near-term value will be essential to maintain political momentum, even as mandatory measures face growing reluctance.
The Tipping Point
With the recast EPBD providing momentum and Member States beginning implementation, Europe has a window of opportunity. DBLs won’t solve every problem in construction, but they are a cornerstone for the affordable housing, circularity, and renovation that Europe needs.
The question is no longer whether DBLs will happen, but how quickly and how well stakeholders can align to make them work.
