Debbie Ward, Director of Circular Economy and Reuse at the Alliance for Sustainable Building Products (ASBP), spoke with Dave Webb from Optima about the company’s circular economy journey, the importance of designing products for long life and reuse, and the practical changes needed to make circularity easier across the fit-out sector.
The conversation explored how standardisation, careful material selection, dry-jointed systems, take-back routes and early collaboration can all help support greater reuse, as well as the barriers that still need to be overcome, particularly around full-height glass partitioning and plastic gaskets.
Designing products for circularity
Debbie: Dave, could you start by telling us a little about your role at Optima?
Dave: I have been working with Optima for a long time, around 37 years. I originally started at the factory as a draughtsman in the 1980s, when the business was much more engineering focused. We were working on large petrochemical-type projects, gearbox casings for frigates and big ducting systems.
When Optima bought the factory, I was a mechanical design engineer and moved gradually into the architectural side of the business. My role developed into design management, looking after product design rather than contracting: new products, door builds, door frames and the development of our partitioning systems. Over that time, we have developed our single and double-glazed systems and the factory has changed enormously, particularly over the last five to ten years.
Today, Optima’s facility near Bath receives visitors including architects and main contractors who want to understand how we manufacture, how we approach sustainability and carbon, and what we are doing to improve performance.
Debbie: Why is Optima interested in the circular economy?
Dave: Circular economy supports an alternative to the traditional “take, make and dispose” model. By designing products for extended use and reuse, Optima can reduce waste, conserve resources and energy, and lower environmental impact while still delivering quality and value to clients.
It also creates opportunities for innovation, long-term resilience and competitive advantage. It demonstrates that profitability and sustainability can work together.
I would say Optima began making more deliberate circular improvements around seven years ago, particularly from a design perspective. We started looking at how to produce products that could be more readily reused. For example, we standardised key aspects of our door systems, including door widths and the footprint for pivots, so that products can be moved and reused within a building more easily.
Reducing waste and designing for reuse
Debbie: What does that mean in practice for the products and processes you are involved with?
Dave: One of the biggest areas has been reducing the amount of plastic used in our partitioning systems, particularly in gaskets. We have reduced the number of gasket types we produce and use, so there are now predominantly three gasket types for partition systems and two for doors, with some interchangeable across both. That simplifies manufacture, reduces material complexity and helps cut waste.
However, the challenge is that these small components have to perform. Some of our gaskets are co-extrusions, with a rigid part and a flexible PVC element that helps create the seal between metal and glass. That seal is important for acoustic performance, so any alternative has to meet the same technical requirements and be available at the scale we need.
Marking Plastic Free July
Debbie: As we are sharing this interview around Plastic Free July, and ASBP’s Reducing Plastics in Construction group is looking closely at how the sector can cut unnecessary plastic use, what has Optima learnt from trying to reduce plastics while still meeting the performance demands of its systems?
Dave: We have learnt that reducing plastics is possible, but it has to be done carefully. We have looked at recycled-content and plant-based alternatives, and we continue to explore materials that could reduce reliance on PVC. The difficulty is finding options that can provide the right flexibility, durability and acoustic performance, while also being reliably available for manufacture.
Alongside that, we have moved away from wet silicone jointing and reduced plastic packaging where possible, using more cardboard and paper-based packaging. Gaskets remain one of the more difficult areas, but the direction is clear: reduce unnecessary plastic, simplify components and keep looking for alternatives that support both circularity and performance.
Debbie: Beyond plastics, were there other material choices or process changes that have helped Optima reduce waste and design more effectively for reuse?
Dave: Moving away from wet silicone jointing had a big impact. Silicone can be labour-intensive to remove when products are being reused, and it can create issues in the production environment, particularly around the paint process. Our systems are now dry-jointed, which supports ease of assembly, disassembly and ongoing maintenance.
Aluminium is another important area. We use low embodied carbon aluminium with a minimum of 75% post-consumer recycled content, helping to reduce embodied carbon as much as possible. Increasing recycled content has been a key focus for us in recent years. We also minimise waste by ordering aluminium cut to length where possible and designing door widths and configurations to maximise material yield. Our powder coating process has also improved. The line is highly developed, and we have recently updated the plant so we can change colours more quickly. This not only saves time, it consumes less energy and reduces waste, which in turn lowers our carbon footprint overall. Across the business, the aim is to align design and manufacturing with reuse and waste reduction wherever possible.
Debbie: How does design for disassembly fit into that?
Dave: We continue to refine that. A lot of the focus is on the components that experience wear over time, such as pivots, hinges and ironmongery. The door itself can last a very long time but moving parts need looking after. Some of our doors have been tested to more than one million cycles, so we are confident in the longevity of the door construction.
Maintenance is so important for maximising the life of a product that we offer our own maintenance service. Handles can loosen or fail over time, so maintenance schedules need to make clear what should be checked and tightened. That supports longer product life and makes reuse more practical.
We also do a lot of “churn” work — going back into buildings and modifying systems we have already installed. In those cases, reuse can become part of the contract, particularly through the specialist works side of the business.
The challenge of full-height glass
Debbie: What are the biggest barriers to greater reuse of glass partitioning systems?
Dave: From my point of view, one of the biggest issues is variation in ceiling heights. In modern commercial interiors, partitions often run full height from floor to ceiling. Aesthetically this can look great, but it creates a major challenge for reuse because the glass is usually made to the specific height of that building. When it is removed, it is often the wrong height for the next project.
When I started in the industry, partitions were often built to a standard height, with a transom or make-up panel above. Doors were typically standard heights, such as 2.1 metres, and the upper section adjusted to suit the ceiling. That meant much more of the system below that level could be reused consistently. Today, the desire for full-height glazing makes that much harder – I know that this came up as a key challenge in the ASBP’s Reuse of Glass Partitioning Systems report that Optima were involved with.
We can reuse or recycle aluminium, and in some cases, we can recut aluminium and use it elsewhere. But glass is more difficult. If floor-to-ceiling heights were more standardised, or aesthetic preferences change to accept transoms again, there would be a much greater opportunity to reuse glass partitioning systems across projects.
Another challenge is bespoke design. Architects and clients sometimes want something very special, and those bespoke systems can be tied closely to a particular building or client. They may be recyclable, but they are much harder to reuse directly. The colour of powder-coated aluminium can also be a constraint unless the material is repainted.
Take-back, recycling and material challenges
Debbie: What happens when products cannot be reused?
Dave: We offer a take-back service, and sometimes it gets reused, but the height and specification of products often dictate whether they can go into another project. Where reuse is not possible, we look at recycling routes.
For glass, we bring material back to Radstock and work with a partner who crushes and recycles it. For aluminium, our supplier can take material back, re-smelt it and bring it back into the loop.
Plastics remain more difficult, particularly gaskets. We use relatively small sections, but we buy very large quantities. Sometimes plastic remains the best option in terms of material properties to meet performance needs, satisfy regulations and manage costs. We continue to look for viable alternatives to plastics wherever possible.
Making circularity easier to adopt
Debbie: How can the construction industry encourage more people in the sector to embrace the circular economy?
Dave: Greater collaboration, education and transparency. We need to talk to each other. Designers, manufacturers, architects, consultants, contractors and clients all have a role to play, but meaningful change requires collective action rather than individual effort.
Initiatives such as embodied carbon seminars, robust data analysis and open discussions around responsible material selection can help challenge misconceptions, build confidence and make circular practices easier to adopt across the sector.
Early collaboration is essential. If architects, main contractors and manufacturers are involved together at the start, there is a much better opportunity to design in reuse. Architects are thinking about these issues, but there is still often a desire for something unique or bespoke. We need to balance design ambition with the practical realities of reuse.
For glass partitioning in particular, standardisation of ceiling heights or system heights could make a major difference. It may sound simple, but if we could regulate or standardise some floor-to-ceiling heights, or design more consistently around standard door and partition heights, reuse rates could be much higher. From a design point of view, that single change could unlock a lot of opportunity.
Thank you to the reuse now campaign sponsors – Cleveland Steel & Tubes, Optima, the Concrete Centre, and Reusefully
