Jim Matthews, managing director of HG Matthews – the environmentally-focused brickmaker and sponsor of the RAI’s Active Discussions hub – talks to AT about the challenges and opportunities facing the construction industry as it shifts towards more sustainable and regenerative practices, and the role of leadership, innovation and collaboration in driving meaningful change.
Jim Matthews with son Tim and dog Holly (photo: HG Matthews).
Based in Bellingdon, Buckinghamshire, HG Matthews is a family-run brickworks with a strong environmental ethos. The company fires bricks using locally-sourced biomass instead of fossil fuels, harvests rainwater for reuse, and restores former clay pits as woodland or ponds to boost biodiversity. It also produces STROCKS, low-carbon, earth and chopped-straw blocks that repurpose excavated subsoil from building sites to reduce waste. Among the company’s latest initiatives is trialling fast-growing trees as a renewable fuel source.
Given HG Matthews’ long-standing and heartfelt commitment to sustainability, it is perhaps unsurprising that it has chosen to sponsor the ‘Active Discussions’ room on the Regenerative Architecture Index (RAI) website. This enables comments and questions to be shared amongst RAI members – a central tenet of the organisation’s approach, which is to help bring about a paradigm shift to regenerative design across the construction sector by providing an interdisciplinary platform for dialogue and debate.
In wide ranging interview with Architecture Today, Jim Matthews, managing director of HG Matthews, explores the structural and cultural barriers to regenerative design in the construction sector, the need for regulatory reform, the importance of skills and local materials, and the role of collaboration and leadership in creating a more sustainable built environment.
A dome constructed from Strocks – unfired earth and chopped straw blocks – forms the centrepiece of the Village Nursery in Bellingdon, Buckinghamshire, designed by Gernot Minke in collaboration with Jim Matthews (photo: HG Matthews).
What do you see as the main stumbling blocks preventing the construction industry from adopting more sustainable and regenerative practices?
There are several, but perhaps the biggest is inertia – the resistance to change within an industry that’s used to doing things a certain way. Whenever you propose something new or different, even if it seems obvious to you, it takes much longer to convince others. There’s this entrenched way of thinking and working that resists change, no matter how beneficial it might be. Some changes do catch on overnight, but most require years to filter through the system.
In regenerative architecture, that inertia is compounded by the highly regulated nature of construction. Buildings are expensive, complex, and designed to last decades or even longer. This means nobody wants to take risks, and the entire system is geared towards minimising liability. When you introduce new approaches or materials, people immediately worry about potential risks and liabilities, even if those fears are unfounded.
What’s more, existing testing regimes, standards, and compliance systems have co-evolved with the materials we’ve relied on for the last century – namely cement, steel and concrete. So when you come along with a different material or method, it’s like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The system isn’t designed to accommodate it. It’s a hangover from a time when we didn’t factor in the environmental consequences of these materials. When the use of Portland cement became widespread in the 1920s, no one was thinking about global warming, they just wanted stronger, faster, cheaper construction.
For real change to happen, we need the regulatory system to evolve as well. If we created a level playing field for regenerative materials and methods, I believe they’d quickly outperform the old standards. They’re not just more sustainable, they’re often cheaper, more attractive, and deliver better performance.
You mentioned that the existing system favours ‘traditional’ materials. Does that make it prohibitively expensive for smaller or more innovative manufacturers to compete?
Absolutely. It’s not just expensive, it’s a huge barrier to entry. Large established companies, can more easily afford the time and cost of compliance, but they may also have a vested interest in maintaining the current system. For a small company or someone trying to introduce a new product, the hurdles are enormous.
We experienced this ourselves, a couple of years ago, when we were trying to get our Strocks tested for compressive strength. The only recognised test was for concrete blocks,  and even though our product performed perfectly well, the test result had to be described as ‘deviant’ because it didn’t fit the existing framework. This language triggers alarm bells for engineers and regulators, despite the fact that the product was perfectly sound. A simple change in terminology – something like ‘tested to the nearest applicable standard’ instead of ‘deviant’ – would calm those fears. It wouldn’t change the actual testing, just the perception. And perception, as we know, can make or break innovation in this industry.
High-performance earth blocks manufactured by HG Matthews were specified by Bennetts Associates for the perimeter basement walls of The Apex, an environmentally-led mixed-use building in London’s King’s Cross. Each block contains only ten per cent of the embodied carbon of a traditional concrete block (photo: Bennetts Associates).
Where does leadership and change need to come from?
It needs to come from the top; from government and regulatory bodies. Change will happen naturally over time as regenerative materials and methods prove their worth, but if we want to accelerate that from 30 years to five, we need decisive action. That means introducing sensible, safe regulatory changes that reflect the new reality of sustainable construction.
The industry isn’t short of willingness. Architects are hugely enthusiastic. Clients are increasingly aware and interested. And academia is focused on researching and promoting sustainable practices. The problem lies in the system itself: the slow, bureaucratic machinery that makes change difficult. There’s plenty of talk about sustainability, but if you look at actual projects, many are still built using mass concrete foundations and conventional methods. The industry is stuck in a loop where risk aversion and regulatory inertia prevent meaningful change. If government could step in – perhaps by underwriting some of the perceived risks of using new materials or methods – it would help break the stalemate. They could help prove that these approaches work in practice, clearing the way for wider adoption.
How important is academia and popular opinion in this process?
It’s absolutely vital. The universities and research institutions are doing fantastic work in sustainable construction. They’re pushing boundaries, exploring new materials, and developing innovative methods. This academic focus is essential because it lays the groundwork for change.
The media and the general public are also increasingly aware and supportive. Many people understand the environmental challenges we face and want to see better practices in place. The issue is that the construction industry itself often lags behind. It’s not for lack of awareness or desire, it’s because the system is so resistant to change. When you combine the enthusiasm of architects, the research power of academia, and the support of the public, you have a potent force for change. What’s missing is the regulatory shift to unlock that potential.
So what are the practical steps needed to move things forward?
We need to refocus on skills, vernacular building traditions, and local materials. Standards have fallen dramatically over the past century. If you want a well-built home, you typically look to a Victorian property – not something built 30 years ago. Poor practices have become entrenched, and new generations simply replicate them. This is exacerbated by government policies, which frequently focus on hitting housing targets rather than ensuring quality. The emphasis is on quantity, not craftsmanship or sustainability. But the two don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Sustainable materials and high-quality construction methods often deliver both environmental performance and beauty. If the industry needed to produce them was allowed to flourish then volume wouldnt be a problem either.
Cement is perhaps the biggest factor, often enabling of high-carbon, low-quality construction. Steel, too, frequently facilitates modular, characterless buildings. Compare a bland steel bridge with a beautifully-crafted stone one, and the difference is clear. Clearly, we should be using materials that can be reused, such as bricks laid with lime mortar, or clay blocks. By contrast, concrete is essentially a single-use product that can usually only be crushed to make hardcore at the end of its useful life. Reusable materials aren’t just better for the environment, they also contribute to buildings that people are proud to use and live in. The public already embraces sustainable habits like reusable shopping bags and refillable bottles. The same mindset could apply to construction, but it needs to be scaled up.
Made from unfired clay-rich earth and chopped straw, HG Matthews’ Strocks are suitable for the inner skins of external walls and internal loadbearing walls up to three storeys high (photo: HG Matthews).
How do you view net zero: sacrifice or opportunity?
It’s both a challenge and an opportunity. We need to be smart about it. Asking people to make huge sacrifices might be counterproductive, especially since the UK contributes just one per cent of global emissions. What we need are elegant solutions that deliver emissions reductions, while also improving quality of life and keeping costs reasonable. Regenerative architecture is a prime example. It reduces emissions, creates beautiful and healthy buildings, and supports local economies. That’s the kind of win-win approach we need. If you pick battles that are visible, practical, and embraced by the public, it creates a virtuous circle. People see the benefits and become more willing to support further change.
Does the future lie with smaller, more agile practices and manufacturers who can change perceived wisdom and the market by creating new demands?
Absolutely. Historically, local builders took pride in their work because they lived in the communities they served. That sense of civic pride drove up standards. Now, with large corporations often detached from their sites, there’s less incentive to build well. Smaller, local manufacturers have a vested interest in the quality of their products because they see the impact first-hand. But they need support through training, regulatory reform, and a shift in priorities towards quality and sustainability.
Who else has the agency to bring about change?
Everyone has a role to play, but the key lies in breaking the inertia. There’s a huge reservoir of goodwill and intent to do better, but it’s dammed up by bureaucracy and vested interests. Small companies struggle to engage with government, while large companies are better positioned to maintain the status quo. A few well-placed regulatory adjustments could break the stalemate and unleash a wave of innovation. The government needs to make a conscious effort to engage with innovative thinkers and overcome the deadlock. Even big businesses would ultimately benefit from a shift towards sustainable practices. It’s not about shutting anyone out – everyone wins, from healthier, happier communities to stronger economies.
What’s next for HG Matthews?
We’re expanding our range of sustainable products, including clay plasters and site-sourced materials. We’re also applying regenerative techniques to our own developments. Ultimately, though, real change needs to come from the top. Regulatory support is crucial to unlocking the potential of regenerative architecture and delivering a more robust and beautiful built environment.
