My reflections on the ESBEM workshop at the Building Design Centre, Islington
By Justin Murray, Co-Founder and inventor of Bio-SIP™
What does it take to bring an innovative, low-carbon construction material into the homes we build?
You might assume that if a product performs well, has been independently tested, offers environmental benefits and has the potential to reduce construction costs, the industry would be keen to adopt it.
Unfortunately, the reality is considerably more complicated.
I recently attended an ESBEM (Emergent Sustainable Built Environment Materials Innovation Network) workshop at the Building Design Centre in Islington. The purpose was to tackle one of the most persistent barriers facing innovators in construction: how do we get novel, sustainable materials accepted by an industry that depends on established standards, certification processes and risk-management systems?
For me, this was more than an interesting industry discussion. As the inventor of Bio-SIP™, a structural insulated panel developed using recycled plastic and natural-fibre skins, it is a challenge I know first-hand.
The workshop brought together expertise to examine a proposed, streamlined process for achieving product acceptance. The ambition is to reduce unnecessary iterations, improve visibility of costs and timescales, and, crucially, find ways to separate the investment needed to scale manufacturing from the requirement to obtain third-party certification.
It is a practical problem that deserves serious attention. I would particularly like to congratulate Neil Appleton at Innovate UK for bringing this initiative together and creating an opportunity for SMEs, innovators and other industry stakeholders to work towards a solution.
The problem isn’t a lack of Innovation in construction
Across the UK, businesses and research teams are developing materials that could help transform the built environment.
These include products made from recycled waste, renewable biological resources, reclaimed materials and innovative composites. They have the potential to reduce embodied carbon, improve resource efficiency, support circular manufacturing and create new UK supply chains.
Yet moving from a promising prototype to a product routinely specified in a building project remains exceptionally difficult.
Why?
Because construction is an interconnected system of decision-makers, each with their own requirements, responsibilities and perceptions of risk.
A new product may need to satisfy building regulations, demonstrate performance against recognised testing standards, secure acceptance from insurers and warranty providers, and gain the confidence of architects, engineers, developers, contractors and building owners. Mortgage lenders and banks can also influence which construction methods are commercially viable, particularly in residential housing.
These stakeholders do not necessarily share the same criteria for acceptance. A product that satisfies one party may not provide the evidence another requires.
And that is where innovators can find themselves trapped.
The certification and investment Catch-22
One of the most important issues discussed through the ESBEM initiative is the relationship between product certification and manufacturing scale-up.
To obtain meaningful third-party certification, an innovator may need a mature product, a clearly defined manufacturing process and evidence of consistent production quality. Depending on the certification route, an auditable production line and formal factory production controls may also be required.
But establishing that manufacturing capability takes money.
Investors and commercial partners, meanwhile, want evidence that the product can be adopted by the market before committing significant capital. Customers may be reluctant to specify the product without recognised certification.
So the innovator faces a difficult question.
How do you invest in manufacturing at scale when the market wants certification first, but certification may depend on having the manufacturing capability that investment would create?
It is a classic Catch-22.
For a large, established manufacturer, the cost of additional testing, certification and production development may be manageable. For a small or medium-sized enterprise, these costs can represent a substantial proportion of available capital.
Every additional test, redesign or certification requirement consumes resources that could otherwise be invested in product development, manufacturing capability, employment and market development.
The consequences extend beyond individual businesses. Potentially valuable innovations can remain stuck at the prototype stage, while the construction industry continues to rely on familiar materials and established systems.
We should be asking whether the process is helping good innovations reach the market safely and efficiently, or whether it is inadvertently preventing them from doing so.
There is no single villain with Innovation in Construction
I particularly like the idea that there is no single villain in this story.
It would be easy to blame regulators, certification bodies, insurers, lenders or the construction industry for being resistant to change. But that would miss the point.
Each has legitimate responsibilities.
Regulators must protect public safety. Standards organisations provide common technical benchmarks. Certification bodies need reliable evidence. Insurers must understand and price risk. Banks and mortgage lenders need confidence in the properties against which they lend. Developers need to know that products will perform, remain available and be accepted throughout the building’s life.
These systems have evolved for good reasons, and the protections they provide are essential.
The difficulty arises when a system designed around established products and conventional construction methods struggles to accommodate something genuinely new.
An innovative material may not fit neatly into an existing standard. Its performance may be demonstrated through a combination of tests rather than one familiar route. Its environmental benefits may be compelling, but those benefits do not automatically establish structural performance, fire safety, durability or suitability for a particular application.
In such circumstances, the route to acceptance can become unclear, expensive and unpredictable.
The familiar response is often: “This is how we have always done it.”
But that approach is no longer working for everyone — including, potentially, the institutions and consumers the system was designed to protect.
If it prevents safe, well-evidenced innovations from reaching the market, it risks slowing improvements in affordability, productivity, resource efficiency and environmental performance.
The answer is not to weaken safety requirements or bypass appropriate regulation. It is to create clearer, more proportionate and more predictable ways of demonstrating that a novel product is fit for its intended purpose.
My experience developing Bio-SIP™ and Innovation in construction
At Qube Buildings, we are developing Bio-SIP™, a structural insulated panel that combines a recycled PET core with natural-fibre skins.
The concept is straightforward: take waste resources and turn them into a high-performance building component that can contribute to more sustainable construction.
But developing the material is only one part of the challenge.
We must also establish the evidence needed to demonstrate its performance, understand the relevant testing and compliance requirements, identify appropriate applications and build confidence among the organisations that ultimately determine whether it can be used.
Fire performance, structural integrity, thermal performance, manufacturing consistency and installation methods all matter. So does understanding which evidence is required for each intended application and who needs to accept it.
Testing is essential. Independent verification is essential. But the sequence in which these activities are undertaken can have a significant effect on cost, programme and commercial viability.
For an SME, discovering late in the process that additional tests, a different certification route or further manufacturing controls are required can be particularly damaging.
This is why early clarity matters so much.
Innovators need to understand what they must demonstrate, which standards or assessment methods apply, which organisations will evaluate the evidence and what level of confidence the intended adopters require.
They also need to understand where requirements differ between certification bodies, insurers, warranty providers and specific applications.
That knowledge should be available as early as possible, before businesses commit scarce resources to a development pathway that may not lead to market acceptance.
A more efficient route from innovation to adoption
This is where the ESBEM workshop’s proposed process map could make a meaningful difference.
The objective is to break the journey towards product acceptance into manageable stages and identify the guidance, reference materials and resources that would help innovators and specifiers navigate each one.
The central question is a simple but important one:
If we follow this process, will it significantly improve the efficiency of achieving product acceptance?
That means fewer unnecessary iterations, clearer identification of costs and timescales, better programme control and more manageable risks for everyone involved.
From an innovator’s perspective, a clearer process could help establish the intended application, relevant performance requirements, evidence gaps and likely certification pathway before substantial investment is committed.
From a specifier’s or adopter’s perspective, it could provide a more consistent way to assess a novel product, understand the available evidence and identify any remaining risks or conditions for use.
It could also encourage earlier conversations between innovators, test houses, certification bodies, designers, insurers and prospective customers.
That early engagement is important. It is far better to identify a potential obstacle at the beginning of a project than after months of development and significant expenditure.
Crucially, the process needs to recognise that different products and applications carry different risks. A material intended for a non-structural internal application will not necessarily require the same evidence as a structural component used in a residential building.
A proportionate approach should reflect the product, its intended use and the consequences of failure, while maintaining the appropriate safety standards.
The longer-term ambition to consider more fundamental changes to the process is equally important. Better guidance and clearer sequencing can improve today’s system, but some barriers may require broader collaboration between the organisations that shape standards, certification, insurance and market acceptance.
Decoupling scale-up from certification
For me, one of the most significant ambitions is to decouple scale-up investment from third-party certification as far as practicable.
This does not mean treating certification as unimportant or expecting organisations to accept products without sufficient evidence.
It means examining whether the journey can be structured differently so that innovators can develop manufacturing capability, demonstrate performance and secure credible early applications without being forced into an all-or-nothing investment decision.
Could there be clearer staged evidence requirements? Could appropriately controlled pilot projects help build confidence? Could independent test results, defined product specifications and transparent manufacturing controls support earlier engagement with potential adopters while the appropriate certification process continues?
These are the kinds of questions worth exploring.
Any alternative route must be credible to the organisations responsible for safety, liability and long-term performance. But if we can establish an agreed progression from initial evidence to pilot deployment and, ultimately, full market acceptance, we could make the process considerably more accessible to SMEs.
The objective is not to remove risk. It is to identify, evidence and manage risk earlier, more transparently and more efficiently.
Why this matters beyond individual businesses
The consequences of getting this right could be significant.
The UK needs to build more homes, improve the sustainability of its existing building stock and reduce the environmental impact of construction. We also need to improve productivity, make better use of resources and support innovative British businesses.
Novel materials alone will not solve the housing crisis or decarbonise the built environment. But they are an important part of the wider solution.
If businesses develop promising materials but cannot establish a viable route to market, the benefits remain theoretical.
The same applies to investors. Capital will be harder to attract when certification costs, timescales and market acceptance remain uncertain.
And for specifiers and developers, a clearer process could make it easier to identify suitable innovations and assess them with confidence, rather than relying almost exclusively on familiar products.
Ultimately, consumers need buildings that are safe, durable, affordable and fit for purpose. They should also be able to benefit from advances in materials and manufacturing.
A more efficient acceptance process could help align these interests rather than placing them in opposition.
Collaboration is the way forward
I came away from the ESBEM workshop encouraged that these issues are being addressed collaboratively.
Thank you to Neil Appleton and the Innovate UK team for bringing SMEs, innovators, specifiers and other stakeholders together to examine a problem that is often discussed individually but needs to be solved collectively.
The willingness to look critically at the existing process, identify practical improvements and consider more fundamental changes is welcome.
The next step is to turn those discussions into useful resources, a clear process map and guidance that businesses can apply in practice. The planned publication of the final process map and supporting materials later in 2026 will be an important opportunity to move this work forward.
For those of us developing novel construction materials, the value will be measured not simply by the quality of the guidance, but by whether it helps us make better decisions, reduce avoidable costs, plan with greater confidence and bring viable products to market sooner.
We do not need to choose between innovation and safety. We need a system that enables both.
“This is how we have always done it” cannot be the final answer to the challenges facing construction.
If we want a more sustainable built environment, we must make it possible for credible innovations to progress from development to real-world use.
That requires collaboration, transparency and a willingness to improve the system — not to find someone to blame, but to create a process that works better for everyone.
And that, for me, is why the ESBEM initiative matters.
Further reading: Acceptance of novel low environmental impact construction products — Innovate UK Business Connect
For more information on Innovation in construction, contact us of visit our latested news page.
#ESBEM #InnovateUK #SustainableConstruction #ConstructionInnovation #LowCarbonMaterials #BioBasedMaterials #CircularEconomy #ModernMethodsOfConstruction
