Reuse is becoming the new standard in the construction industry.

Today, the market has changed in nature. More than half of the construction industry's activity now relies on renovation and major rehabilitation projects. These are longer, more complex projects, often carried out on occupied sites, with constant concurrent activities and significant access constraints. In other words: projects where the flow of materials is no longer homogeneous, but dynamic, identifiable, and readily usable.

This is precisely where reuse becomes central.

Extensive renovation yields what new construction does not: valuable resources, deposited materials that are still functional, removable, and reusable. Continuing to view them solely as waste to be disposed of is no longer a neutral reflex but an economic, environmental, and regulatory absurdity.

The paradox is well-known. The construction sector generates nearly 42 million tons of waste per year in France. The law sets clear objectives: reuse is at the top of the waste management hierarchy. Yet, in practice, less than 1% of materials are actually reused. The gap between the standard and reality is enormous.

Reuse only works if it's integrated early on, from the consultation stage, the design phase, and the procurement stage. As long as it remains an option added at the end of the process, it fails. Conversely, when it's considered as a fully integrated component, with structured stakeholders, proven processes, and direct coordination with construction companies, it becomes a driver of on-site performance.

Contrary to popular belief, reuse is not a risky undertaking; it is now part of an industrial strategy. Companies like Made in Past demonstrate that it is possible to operate nationwide, on complex projects, with dedicated teams, controlled deadlines, and clearly defined responsibilities. Reuse is becoming manageable.

When properly structured, reuse doesn't automatically increase construction costs. The removal process is handled by the reuse company. The labor involved is often equivalent to that of a traditional removal. And the company reduces both its removal costs and its waste disposal and processing costs. The benefit is twofold.

Reuse is no longer a costly environmental option but an overall economic optimization.

It's also a lever for CSR credibility. Not just declarative, but measurable. Less waste disposed of, less transport, less processing, an improved carbon footprint, traceable flows. Results that can be documented, audited, and communicated. In a context of increasingly stringent non-financial requirements, this evidence matters.

Finally, reuse is transforming the way bidders respond to calls for tenders. It is becoming a differentiating factor. Even when it is not ultimately selected, it lends credibility to a proposal, demonstrates an ability to anticipate, and sends a clear signal to the client: that of a player who understands that the performance of the project is no longer solely determined by price or deadlines.

Reuse is therefore neither a fad nor an additional regulatory constraint, but a sign of maturity, seriousness, and the ability to evolve a historically linear model towards a more intelligent, more sustainable, and more efficient approach.

The building industry should no longer recycle what it can avoid throwing away by opting for reuse.

Tribune by David Cararon, Director of the Ostreya BigBag Network (LinkedIn).