What would need to change in the way we understand construction for bio-based materials like hemp (currently accounting for only about 1% of insulation in Europe) to stop being viewed as an alternative and instead become part of the standard construction and insulation model?
Each building is a prototype. One of the very first lessons in civil engineering. Thus, the reliance on standards is so important. They are built on the best practice. This is what is needed in bio-based construction. A consensus around the best practice that represents the current state of the art. A common measure for the industry. Therefore, acknowledging what has already been achieved and the readiness of the early market players to work together on turning best practice into an industry standard are decisive for early adoption.
This would help lift the trust barrier that is still putting the application of bio-based materials into an experimental framework. Sure, on the one hand, the need to experiment is undeniable. Yet setting limits and boundaries to this framework, based on the existing knowledge and experimental base, would decrease the related risk.
Bio-based materials have been studied at a research level much deeper at the lower end of the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale than at the higher one, concerning the application and usage phase. These are the phases that define the building landscape as we see it. Mechanisms that incentivise industrial players to apply new materials and mitigate the related risks could provide fruitful ground for bio-based materials to find applications at scale.
Seeing plenty of promising new materials reach the prototype phase but never develop their market potential is a phenomenon resulting from the very same bottlenecks: lack of funds to keep building the knowledge foundation needed to win new customers, lack of an experimental field to showcase more than just a highlight project or two, and lack of supportive systems within the industry that use the existing infrastructural base to enable new products to enter the market.
The cost of the related research, testing and certification is often so high that it becomes hard to sustain the necessary investment until market readiness is coupled with volume. In a sector defined by price and volume, it is almost naive to expect new materials to compete while building from the ground up. Of course, the initial cost of the new materials will be higher than that of their established counterparts. The machines for production are either yet to be built or yet to be depreciated, which makes these materials less attractive from the start. Support for growth from within the sector can be a huge lever for cost reduction during this build-up phase.
Support for growth from within the sector can be a huge lever for cost reduction during this build-up phase.
I personally advocate for deeper hands-on industry engagement. This requires dedicated resources for resolving uncertainties, safe test beds and investment incentives to cover the related risks.
In an industry shaped by tradition and established credibility, bio-based materials need to get onto these same tracks. There is no detour. The accelerator lies in the ability to create trust and room for experimentation, establish mechanisms to mitigate risks, build implementation capacity and partner along the whole value chain.
The efforts of a single hero are not enough.
