When a brand-new excavator or high-reach demolition rig rolls off the assembly line, gleaming in its factory-fresh paint, it represents far more than just another piece of kit. It represents thousands of hours of intense human effort.

Think back to the very beginning of that machine’s story, to the miners working in tough, unforgiving conditions to extract the iron ore and raw minerals from the earth. Think of the design engineers, and the skilled assembly technicians who spent their days ensuring every weld was flawless and every hydraulic tolerance was exact. Tremendous care, pride, and genuine human skill are poured into creating these engineering marvels that are built to withstand the harshest environments on earth.

Yet, a mere handful of years later, the industry often looks at that same piece of equipment and decides it is past its sell-by date, viewing it as ready for the scrap heap. It is an incredibly wasteful mindset. A machine engineered with such dedication is discarded simply because the hour meter has reached a certain digit or the lease period has expired. This is where the power of remanufacturing enters the frame, offering a way to honour that original craftsmanship while delivering massive economic and ecological advantages.

From an environmental standpoint, the benefits of remanufacturing are undeniable. When an original equipment manufacturer takes a core machine and rebuilds it to original factory specifications, it sidesteps the entire energy-intensive process of raw material extraction and basic fabrication. Up to eighty-five per cent of the energy required to build a brand-new machine is saved by remanufacturing the existing one. The carbon footprint drops dramatically, and thousands of tonnes of high-grade steel are kept out of the smelting furnaces.

Financially, it is equally compelling for plant owners. A properly remanufactured machine typically costs around forty per cent less than a new model, yet it comes with the latest specification and the same factory warranty and performance guarantees. It keeps capital in the business while keeping carbon out of the atmosphere.

Beyond the hard numbers of spreadsheets and carbon accounting, there is a deeper, more profound element to this process that the modern industry frequently overlooks. There is a unique, unspoken bond between an operator and their machine. Anyone who has spent decades on a site knows that a plant item is a living history rather than an inanimate collection of steel and hoses. Over thousands of hours in the cab, an operator learns every quirk, every tremor, and the exact rhythm of that specific hydraulic system. The machine becomes an extension of the person operating it.

When a machine is granted a second or a third life through remanufacturing, that vital human connection is preserved rather than severed. An operator who has spent years tracking a machine through deep mud and concrete rubble gets to see that companion restored to its prime, rather than sent off to auction. There is a deep psychological value in operating a piece of equipment that carries a history, a lineage, and a shared story of hard work. To give a machine a second or third life is to validate the years of care the operator invested in maintaining it. It fosters a culture of stewardship rather than one of thoughtless disposal, reinforcing the pride of craftsmanship that should define our industry.

We regularly celebrate the veteran operator on site, the individual who has seen it all, done it all, and possesses an irreplaceable wealth of practical knowledge gained over decades in the cab. We place an immense value on that human experience, recognising that their skill can mean the difference between a project being profitable or disastrous. Yet, there is a strange hypocrisy in how we treat the equipment. We rightly revere the wisdom of the individual, but we simultaneously undervalue the very tool that helped them acquire that expertise. The machine that stood by them through every challenging project, adapting to every command and absorbing the punishment of the job, is treated as entirely disposable. It seems contradictory to honour the mileage of the person while treating the mileage of the machine as a reason for its destruction.

However, despite these clear emotional, environmental, and financial advantages, two major roadblocks continue to stand in the way of widespread adoption.

The first obstacle is a deeply ingrained cultural bias held by clients, developers, and Tier 1 contractors. There is a persistent demand on modern sites for nothing but brand-new plant. The argument usually put forward is that new machines are inherently more reliable and cleaner for the environment. It is a flawed argument. A remanufactured machine is stripped down to the bare frame, thoroughly tested, and rebuilt with the latest upgrades. Furthermore, older machines can easily be retrofitted with modern, emissions-compliant engines and exhaust after-treatment systems during the rebuild process. A remanufactured unit can meet the exact same ultra-low emission zone standards as a machine that rolled off the production line last week. But convincing a risk-averse client of that reality remains an uphill struggle.

The second obstacle rests squarely with the manufacturers themselves. Almost every major global brand now offers an excellent remanufacturing service. They have the technology, the facilities, and the expertise to do it brilliantly. But at their core, these multinational corporations have spent the last century building their reputations, their dealer networks, and their ultimate profitability on a single business model: selling a new machine, supporting it for a few years, and then replacing it with another new machine. Shifting the corporate paradigm from high-volume manufacturing to a circular, closed-loop system requires a complete rewrite of their financial DNA. It is difficult to promote a rebuilt machine with full enthusiasm when your entire corporate structure is geared toward hitting new unit sales targets.

Overcoming these hurdles will require a fundamental shift in how the construction and demolition sectors define progress. True sustainability is not about constantly buying new technology. It is about respecting the incredible amount of human effort and natural resources that went into our machinery in the first place, and having the wisdom to make it last.

Subscribe now

Visit our Sponsor

For over half a century, the Ardmore Group was a fixture of the London skyline, a home-grown success story that rose from a 1974 startup in Catford to become one of the capital’s most prolific builders. Founded by Irish brothers Cormac and Patrick Byrne, the firm built an “unrivalled reputation” through its hands-on delivery of landmark projects like The Ned and Raffles Hotel. But on June 11, 2026, that 52-year legacy came to a crashing halt as the group’s core construction businesses collapsed into administration, leaving a billion-pound portfolio of major projects in limbo and hundreds of workers out of a job.

Far from a standard insolvency triggered by thin margins or a single bad contract, Ardmore’s collapse represents the first high-profile casualty of a legal earthquake triggered by the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA). A landmark High Court ruling has effectively dismantled the traditional corporate firewalls that contractors once used to shield themselves from historic liabilities. In the post-Grenfell era, the message from the courts is loud and clear: corporate structures and insolvency will no longer protect those responsible for building defects.

Read more

There was a time when to be a trade journalist was to be the memory of an industry. You were the bloke who knew where the bodies were buried, which firms had a reputation for “dodgy deals”, and exactly which director had stitched up his subcontractors a decade prior. You provided the single most vital element in any piece of reporting: context.

But we are now living in the age of snapshot journalism, a shallow, high-speed wilderness where the collective memory of the trade press spans roughly forty-eight hours, and anything that happened before last Tuesday might as well belong to the Bronze Age. We have entered an era where reporters have stopped being journalists and have transitioned into transcribers, operating with all the critical thinking and historical depth of a goldfish.

The primary catalyst for this collective amnesia is the absolute tyranny of real-time publishing. The modern trade press lives in a state of perpetual panic, desperate to satisfy the appetite of the Google search algorithm. News desks are starved of resources, heavily automated, and staffed by harried junior reporters who are expected to pump out half a dozen stories a day. There is no time to think, no time to look back, and certainly no time to dig.

The result is a stream of isolated headlines floating in a vacuum. Every corporate announcement is treated as an entirely separate event, completely untethered from the past, allowing companies to rewrite their own histories with absolute impunity.

Think about the silence that followed the Competition and Markets Authority investigation into the UK demolition sector. The facts were staggering: ten prominent contractors – each of them a member of the National Federation of Demolition Contractors - fined a collective sixty million pounds for bid-rigging and illegal collusion. It was a scandal that struck at the absolute core of the industry’s integrity. Yet, within months of those penalties being handed down, the trade press simply forgot. They happily reported on those very same companies winning massive new contracts, fluffing their corporate profiles, and quoting their executives on industry trends, without making a single, solitary reference to the cartel fines. The sixty million pound penalty ceased to be a badge of public shame; it was treated like a minor glitch, entirely erased from the narrative because the reporter on duty couldn’t be bothered to type the company’s name into the search bar.

This failure to connect the dots does more than just let colluders off the hook; it actively distorts the economic reality of the sector.

Take the recent coverage of the house-builder Vistry. The trade press has been full of solemn, real-time reporting on the company seeking voluntary redundancies and slashing the prices of their homes, framing the narrative as a tragic, unavoidable consequence of shifting market forces. Not a single publication saw fit to look back three short years, to the moment Vistry marched out to its supply chain and aggressively demanded retroactive ten per cent discounts on contracts that had already been signed and agreed. By failing to link the past with the present, the press transforms a ruthless, long-term corporate strategy into a series of unfortunate, disconnected snapshots. It is a complete abdication of basic journalistic duty.

It gets worse, of course, particularly when the press decides to hand out shiny trinkets. We have regular, laughable occasions where demolition and civil engineering firms are nominated for — and win — prestigious health and safety awards, despite the fact that workers have been seriously injured or even killed on their watch in recent memory. The corporate PR team puts together a glossy, beautifully formatted PDF submission, and both the judging panels and the trade reporters swallow it whole. No one cross-checks the public safety registers. No one looks at the enforcement notices. The real-time snapshot is shiny, so the horrific backstory is ignored, turning the trade press into a convenient laundry service for corporate reputations.

When they aren’t whitewashing corporate history, they are displaying an almost proud ignorance of industry heritage. Recently, a flurry of trade publications heralded the arrival of the new JCB 715 articulated hauler, breathlessly announcing it as the manufacturer’s grand and long-awaited entry into the dump truck market. Anyone with a shred of industry memory, or the basic wit to do five minutes of homework, knows that JCB was heavily involved in the articulated truck business back in the late eighties and early nineties. This was a return, rather than a historic entrance into a new sector. By failing to report that basic historical truth, journalists missed the only questions that actually mattered: why did they leave the market back then, and what has changed in the earthmoving landscape that makes them want to risk a return to the hauling sector today?

Instead of asking those probing questions, modern reporters are easily hypnotised by the simple illusion of proximity. Just this week, a prominent UK trade publication announced that Komatsu had launched its new PC220LCi-12 excavator. Technically, the words were accurate; Komatsu had indeed launched a machine. The slight hitch in the narrative is that the global launch took place at the Bauma exhibition over a year ago. A journalist had been invited along to an event, sat through a presentation, and because it was happening right in front of his face in real time, he simply presumed it was brand new breaking news. He was so busy rushing to hit the upload button that he forgot to ask the most fundamental, obvious question in the textbook: have we seen this before?

This is what happens when journalism trades depth for velocity. When you eliminate context, you eliminate the power to hold the powerful to account and to report the truth. A regulatory fine is no longer a deterrent if it is buried under a mountain of positive press release rewrites three months later. An award is meaningless if it can be bought with a clever submission form that hides a history of site accidents.

When journalism loses its memory, it loses its power. Until journalists remember how to look to the past, their reports of the present will remain entirely worthless, and it will put their future at risk.

Subscribe now

Visit our Sponsor

Yesterday, the BBC published an “investigative report” by political journalist Dan Martin, focusing on a Freedom of Information (FOI) request regarding Leicestershire County Council’s trial of the JCB Pothole Pro. The article revealed that the council deemed the machine uneconomical. However, looking beneath the surface of this report reveals that it lacks basic technical understanding, ignores standard industry practices, and appears to be motivated by something other than local road maintenance.

Here is a paragraph-by-paragraph tear-down of an article that tells us nothing about machinery, but everything about modern media agendas.

The BBC Claims: Leicestershire County Council has publicly declared that the JCB Pothole Pro “does not stack up as an economical piece of kit” following an FOI request regarding a trial of the machine.

• The Reality: Machine demonstrations happen every single day across the construction and highways sectors. Some units fit a specific fleet profile; others do not. This is standard commercial procurement, not national news. What makes a completely routine, non-transaction from nearly 18 months ago (January 2025) worthy of a dedicated BBC FOI investigation? If the council had blown hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer money on a fleet that sat rotting in a yard, that would be a public interest story. Reporting on a council not buying a machine after a free or low-cost trial is a non-story looking for an excuse to exist.

The BBC Claims: The report emphasises the large size of the Pothole Pro, stating it is “bigger than a normal excavator” and proved unsuited to the specific nature of Leicestershire’s road network.

• The Reality: To claim that an 11-tonne machine is “bigger than a normal excavator” is patently absurd and factually illiterate. In the plant world, excavators stretch from sub-one-tonne micro-diggers to 800-tonne mining giants. JCB’s own conventional excavator line tops out around 50 tonnes. An 11-tonne wheeled machine sits squarely in the compact-to-mid-range bracket. Furthermore, the claim that it is unsuitable for Leicestershire’s roads implies that the county possesses a unique, mystical topography quite distinct from its neighbours. The Pothole Pro operates with documented success next door in Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, and Staffordshire. If the machine works seamlessly across the border but struggles in Leicestershire, that indicates a localised operational or management issue, not a design flaw by the manufacturer.

The BBC Claims: The article asserts that the Pothole Pro “struggles to compete with an external machine patching gang using a traditional planer” and criticises the machine because it “leaves material on the floor, which required a new attachment to be fitted to sweep up”.

• The Reality: This is the technical equivalent of complaining that a plate of food is defective because it requires a knife and fork to eat. No single machine performs an entire road-building, maintenance or repair operation in isolation. A traditional machine-mounted or tracked cold planer always requires a secondary sweeping mechanism, a separate backhoe loader or skid steer to clear debris, and a tipping lorry to haul it away. Road repair is, by definition, a multi-vehicle system. Criticising a mechanised system for requiring a sweeping attachment to clean its own workspace completely misunderstands (or misrepresents) the process of road repair.

The BBC Claims: The council based its sweeping economic and mechanical judgment on a trial that took place over a very limited period - specifically, a single day in January 2025.

• The Reality: Evaluating any major capital asset or disruptive technology based on a one-day window in the dead of winter is highly irregular. In the plant industry, meaningful fleet evaluations take weeks or months to account for operator learning curves, varied site conditions, logistical setups, and statistical averages. To publish a definitive, high-profile condemnation of a piece of British engineering based on a single shift reveals either a profound lack of technical oversight by the council or a willing suspension of journalistic skepticism by the BBC.

The most glaring flaw in the article is not its technical ignorance, but its authorship. This report was not written by a transport correspondent, a business editor, or a local government mechanics specialist. It was written by a political journalist.

The article drops heavy clues as to why a political reporter was assigned to a story about a digger. The article repeatedly mentions Reform UK and its leadership of several councils, quietly linking the machinery trial to the fact that JCB Chairman Anthony Bamford is a prominent donor to both Reform and the Conservative Party.

This piece represents a disappointing departure from objective journalism. Car buyers test-drive vehicles every day and choose a competitor; the BBC does not launch FOI investigations into why a local council chose a Vauxhall over a Ford.

By weaponising a routine, inconclusive machine demonstration from 18 months ago, the broadcaster has seemingly prioritised political point-scoring over genuine public interest. It is a disservice to the taxpayer, an unfair reflection on a successful piece of British engineering, and a textbook example of an agenda looking for a headline.

Share

The recent history of FTSE 250 house-builder Vistry Group has been littered with financial red flags. Whilst the firm continues to point towards a substantial forward order book, a look at its operational decisions over the last few years reveals an unsettling pattern.

Read more

On Tuesday this week, I am travelling to Rutland, quite possibly to witness a piece of history in the making.

I am going to attend the testing of the JCB Hydromax: an astonishing piece of automotive engineering that has its sights set on a world speed record for a hydrogen vehicle.

I am going partly out of fascination and partly out of admiration for JCB. But I am also going because, when future historians tell the story of hydrogen’s adoption as a clean fuel alternative to diesel, this moment will mark a turning point. And should the Hydromax set a new world record at the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah, I will have a small but undeniable connection to a piece of history.

My place in history is inconsequential, of course, unlike those who toil in the demolition and construction industry. For those brave and noble men and women, history is all around; it is either being dismantled meticulously, or it is being forged in real time.

To those working in demolition, history is a constant companion. The yellowing newspapers long discarded bearing yesterday’s headlines; the artefacts left behind as families and businesses move on; the architectural marvels that will be carefully removed and set aside for reuse in some future new construction; the unexploded ordnance from a conflict decades ago.

But if demolition brushes with history, construction creates it. Every new road, bridge, home, school, hospital, factory, or office block will take its place in the pantheon of history. And while very few of them will last forever, their contribution to the nation’s history is undeniable.

That new school might teach a future prime minister or a future inventor. That new hospital might be the place where a cure for cancer is discovered. That factory might be the birthplace of a company that will go on to provide gainful employment for thousands of people around the world. Those roads and those bridges will take people home to their loved ones, connect towns, and provide a vital link between disparate communities.

Outside of museums and libraries, construction is our most visceral and visual link with our past. When we think of history, we often do out so through the lens of buildings: the Pyramids of Giza, the Parthenon in Athens, the Colosseum in Rome, the Empire State Building in New York, St Paul’s Cathedral here in London. Each of them provides an insight into the lives of our forebears. And while a two-up, two-down house in a rural English town might not have the same global resonance as the Parthenon, it will become an integral part of the history of multiple families. It will be where relationships are forged, where children are born and raised, and where memories are created.

Each brick laid on a housing site today will provide protection and warmth for a multitude of future generations. Each new road will carry millions of footsteps. Each new school will safeguard children on that tricky path towards adulthood. Each new hospital will bear witness to those arriving into the world and those leaving it.

And none of this would be possible without the men and women of construction.

Whatever happens in Rutland on Tuesday, it will be fleeting. All things being equal, the JCB Hydromax will travel to Utah and set a new speed record for a hydrogen-fuelled vehicle. If and when it does so, its record-breaking run will be over in the blink of an eye. There is then every possibility that the record will be broken by someone else. Its place in the history books will be secure, if impermanent. Regardless, the name of JCB and of the driver/pilot Wing Commander Andy Green OBE will live on. The names of the technicians and engineers that made it all possible will probably be forgotten.

Similarly, those houses, hospitals, schools, roads, and bridges will live on for decades, possibly centuries. Future generations might recall the name of the architect that designed them or the company that built them. The names of the men and women that cleared the way, that dug the foundations, that laid the bricks, erected the roof, and laid the tarmac will be lost in the mists of time.

But together, they will have created a little piece of history all their own.

Subscribe now

Visit our Sponsor

The collapse of Ardmore Construction Group has taken place in slow motion. And it all stems back to the post-Grenfell regulatory shake-up.

When the Building Safety Act 2022 extended retrospective liability for structural and cladding defects to thirty years, legacy contractors found themselves facing ancient risks.

For Ardmore, the primary trigger was its…

Read more

Back in 1982, when I was still at college, I bought an album called Lexicon of Love by the band ABC. I bought it on vinyl, and I played it so much that I wore it out. I have subsequently owned that same record on cassette, CD and in MP3 format. According to Apple Music, it is the album I played most in 2025. 44 years on, it remains my favourite album of all time. Just over four decades, and I still have my vinyl copy, though I will grudgingly admit that the sound from Apple Music is at least comparable. 44 years. Same product, and roughly the same outcome.

When I attended my first ConExpo exhibition in the late 1980s, I had with me a black and white film camera, a reporter’s notebook, and a biro. To file my copy, I had to send a roll of film via courier back to the UK. I then sat at a manual typewriter in the press office, wrote my review of the show, and faxed it back to the UK. A day later, I called the office to help them match the photos with the article which had since been re-typed. At the last ConExpo, I aimed my phone at the machines and broadcast the entire thing live.

In both that ABC album and in my day-to-day job, I have witnessed a revolution taking place over the span of 40-odd years.

But the pace of progress is increasing.

It’s about 12 years since I first reported on Komatsu’s Intelligent Machine Control system. I remember it well, though for all the wrong reasons.

The system was such a step-change from the heavy iron I usually reported on that I had to sit down with a Komatsu representative for a one-to-one, just so I could grasp what this new-fangled technology was supposed to do. My subsequent report on the system has, sadly, been lost in the mists of time. But while I wasn’t dismissive, I do recall thinking that Intelligent Machine Control was, at best, a niche product for a very select customer or application, or at worst, a novelty. Technology for the sake of technology.

Which proves two things: Firstly, it proves that I lack foresight. And secondly, when the world’s second biggest maker of construction equipment sets its sights on the future, you should probably trust their judgement.

Because here we are, just over a decade later, and the tide has turned, leaving me looking like King Canute. We have crossed the technology Rubicon. Sales of Intelligent Machine Control Komatsu excavators now outstrip sales of regular machines.

Despite protestations from some operators about how driver aids and controls undermine their skills, Komatsu’s iMC revolution has already been a success. And yet, rather than resting on its laurels, Komatsu has pushed the envelope even further with the iMC 3.0 system baked into its first Dash-12 machine and that marks the PC220LCi-12 machine as one of the most advanced machines the construction equipment world has ever seen. And this - categorically - is not technology for the sake of technology. In fact, this is the application of technology to truly make an operator’s life easier.

Take these two examples. iMC 3.0 comes with features that are specially designed to simplify trenching. The Swing-to-line function swings the upper structure and aligns the bucket centre with the centre of the trench automatically with the press of a button, leaving the operator to concentrate on more pressing matters.

Trenching not your thing? Then how about this. The machine also features semi-automatic loading with auto swing control. This allows the operator to set a digging point and an interference avoidance point like the skip of a dump truck or a crusher hopper. The system will then automatically swing the machine and lift the bucket to the truck body or crusher hopper and then back again to the digging point.

Even setting aside the potential productivity gains, imagine the reduction in fatigue if you can just relax while the machine precisely takes your bucketful of material to precisely and safely where it belongs.

And if you are entirely fixated on productivity above all, then Komatsu has got you covered there too. In addition to the usual Eco and Productivity modes, the PC220LCi-12 features a P+ mode, or - as it was described to me – “Diablo mode”. P+ mode increases production by up to 18% but that’s not even its best trick; it does so while drinking roughly the same amount of fuel as the previous PC210 mode in standard mode.

Komatsu claims that its latest excavator is the most technologically advanced machine in its class; and it’s hard to argue. But it’s more than that. It is not so much a game-changer as a turning point.

At a time when more than half of its customers are choosing the smart machine option, Komatsu has the smartest machine that money can buy.

The fact that Komatsu has arrived at this point just over a decade after it first mooted an intelligent machine future is testament to the foresight, ingenuity and innovation of the company. The fact that, over the same period, the smart machine has become the smart choice merely underlines the pace of progress. And there is no signs of it slowing any time soon.

Subscribe now

Visit our sponsor

During the recession of 2008-2009, it was the financial institutions: the banks, the bankers and the economists. A few years later, it was our European neighbours with all their pesky rules and regulations and their migrant workers. Then we voted for Brexit and it was the migrant workers that chose to return home. Not long after that, it was COVID-19, the Chinese that had apparently wrought it upon us, the social distancing and the lockdowns. And all the while, it was also the Government; whether it was Conservative or Labour.

Throughout the past 20 years, the UK demolition and construction industry has seemingly suffered far more lows than it has enjoyed highs. We have witnessed huge numbers of companies collapsing into liquidation. Workers have been injured, maimed and killed on our watch. An unstoppable exodus of talent has drained the sector. Yet, after every single setback, the industry has simply looked around to find someone or something else to blame.

Companies going out of business in 2008? Bankers. Annoying rules on the environment? Bloody EU. COVID? Sodding Chinese. Companies going out of business in 2026? The poxy Government. Project over-runs? The poxy weather.

We blame our inability to attract and retain young workers on the Construction Industry Training Board. We blame site accidents on foreign workers that don’t or can’t speak English. We blame Tier 1 companies when projects bust through previously agreed budgets; and we blame sub-contractors when projects bust through previously agreed deadlines.

We even bend reality to accommodate this blame game. Being part of the EU was costing too much money and it forced us to abide by laws passed in Brussels. We’re no longer part of the EU, we’re worse off financially, and I have seen no sign of rules being loosened.

Kier Starmer and Rachel Reeves are the root of all evil; the spawn of Satan. Were we better off under Boris Johnson, Theresa May, Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak?

COVID-19 undoubtedly caused the demolition and construction industry enormous harm, even though it was one of the few sectors granted explicit permission to keep working right through the pandemic. Yet that pandemic was, perhaps, the greatest indicator that the industry’s fundamental problems lie much closer to home.

As the lockdowns took hold, companies up and down the country clamoured to get access to Government loans just to keep their heads above water. More than a quarter of a million UK construction firms drew down Bounce Back Loans, costing the taxpayer around £7.7 billion. Recent analysis of British Business Bank records indicates a damning truth: only around 11% of the Bounce Back Loans issued to construction firms have been paid back in full.

That is not a refusal to pay back the loan. It is an inability. And it is that inability that tells the true story of the demolition and construction industry.

Tens of thousands of companies are living hand to mouth. They are permanently on the brink. They are just one delayed project, one non-payment, or one single period of inclement weather away from total disaster. We operate on margins so razor-thin that there is zero room for error, yet we act as though macro-economics are the only thing that can capsize us.

When times are good—and while it is hard to picture that right now, times are good occasionally—we refuse to fix the roof while the sun is shining. We fail to set aside a reserve for a rainy day. We fail to invest in sustainable training or modern machinery. Instead, we buy fancy cars and even fancier watches. We take expensive holidays in exclusive destinations. We live the lifestyle of footballers and movie stars, completely ignoring the storm clouds gathering on the horizon until the downpour hits us.

We have officially run out of excuses. Oh, I am certain someone will find a way to blame artificial intelligence for the industry’s future ills. There will always be those who insist that everything wrong with British construction is down to Johnny Foreigner. And yes, the lazy will still blame the Chancellor or the rain when things go further awry.

But we are kidding ourselves. WE are the ones who have failed to attract and retain the skills and talent we desperately need. WE are the ones who have failed to eliminate the scourge of site accidents and fatalities. WE are the ones who have failed to stop the abuse of drugs and alcohol on our sites. WE are the ones who have failed to root out corruption. WE are the ones who have perpetuated a toxic race to the bottom, driven by suicidal project pricing and desperate bid undercutting. WE are the ones who have stood idly by as more than 4,000 of our fellow demolition and construction companies have gone to the wall each year for the past two years.

The industry needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror. It will not like what it sees. Because staring right back will be the absolute, undeniable reason that the industry finds itself in the doldrums today.

Subscribe now

Visit our Sponsor

Walk into any major international construction equipment exhibition and you are instantly greeted by a sprawling sea of yellow, orange, red, and blue iron. The message from the marketing departments is clear, uniform, and loud: “We are your total solution provider. One stop, one manufacturer, every job and every application covered.”

Yet, if you step away from the glossy brochures and take a cold, analytical look at the actual product lines, a very different picture emerges. There are glaring, and presumably deliberate, gaps in the product ranges of some of the world’s most respected machinery manufacturers.

Why do these empty spaces exist? Are they strategic blind spots, or are they the result of a calculated, disciplined refusal to join every single race?

Consider Kobelco. The Japanese powerhouse has built a formidable reputation on the back of its hydraulic excavators and crawler cranes. Operators rave about their speed, efficiency, and refined hydraulics. Yet, if a loyal Kobelco fleet owner requires a wheel loader to feed a crushing plant or clear a job site, they have to look elsewhere. Kobelco has chosen to stand entirely clear of the wheel loader market. Is this a case of a manufacturer knowing its exact engineering strengths and refusing to dilute them, or is it a missed revenue stream in a major global sector?

Then we have Liebherr. The family-owned technology group is synonymous with high-quality, high-capacity earthmoving and mining kit. However, if you require a mini excavator for a confined urban site or utility work, Liebherr can’t help you. The smallest tracked model in their line-up is the 14-tonne class R 914 Compact. Liebherr has completely swerved the high-volume tracked mini excavator sector. What drives a manufacturer to ignore the massive volume of the sub-10-tonne market? Is the fiercely contested mini-digger market simply seen as an unprofitable race to the bottom for such a premium brand?

Perhaps the most historical anomaly lies closer to home. Across its celebrated 80-year history, JCB has conquered everything from the backhoe loader and telescopic handler to tracked excavators and wheel loaders. Most recently, the company re-entered the compact ADT market too. They have engineered machines for almost every niche of construction work, but they have never built a dozer. Why has this sector been completely ignored by the Staffordshire giant? Does the dozer market lack the necessary global volume to justify the immense cost of ground-up engineering, or did JCB simply calculate that competing directly with established track-type tractor brands was a war not worth fighting?

You see the same selective philosophy working in reverse when you examine the leading compact machinery specialists. For decades, brands like Takeuchi and Kubota have dominated the global mini excavator market, building fierce brand loyalty among plant hire firms and groundworks contractors. For a long time, these brands drew a firm line at the 8-tonne mark.

Lately, we have seen some tentative steps across that boundary. Takeuchi now offers the 15-tonne TB2150, expanding into the midi and large excavator market. Kubota has taken a different route to fill its own gaps. Through a strategic OEM badging agreement with Liebherr, Kubota now offers 9-tonne and 11-tonne wheeled excavator models powered by their own engines.

But these moves only highlight the deeper question. Why did it take so long? Why do these compact specialists still stop well short of the heavy crawler excavator market? Is there a cultural barrier within these companies that prevents them from transitioning from compact specialists to full-line heavy equipment players?

To understand the strangeness of these missing links, you only have to look at the market leaders. Caterpillar and Komatsu, the two undisputed heavyweights of the global construction equipment sector, have long operated on a philosophy of total market saturation. They offer a full line-up. From a 1-tonne micro digger to an 800-tonne mining shovel, along with the loaders, dozers, scrapers, and graders to match. They believe that a global dealer network is most effective when it can satisfy every single requirement of a multi-national contractor.

Furthermore, the new breed of ambitious Chinese manufacturers, such as Sany, XCMG, and Zoomlion, are rapidly adopting this exact full-line blueprint. They are entering every conceivable equipment sector simultaneously, backing their play with massive manufacturing capacity and competitive pricing.

Against this backdrop of aggressive expansion, the restraint shown by Kobelco, Liebherr, and JCB is striking. It leads us to a fundamental question regarding corporate philosophy in the modern era: Is the full-line strategy actually a relic of the past?

When you look deeply into these product gaps, several distinct theories emerge to explain why a multi-billion-pound manufacturer would leave a glaring hole in its line-up, starting with the compelling argument for pure engineering focus. Is it truly better to be a master of one specific craft rather than a jack of all trades? Kobelco’s total devotion to the excavator allows them to pour their research and development budget into hydraulic efficiency and structural durability, rather than dividing their engineering talent across heavy axles, transmissions, and complex loader geometry.

Beyond engineering focus, you also have to question how these missing products align with a manufacturer’s broader global strategy. Demand for specific machinery classes varies wildly across regional lines. Wheeled excavators, for instance, are highly popular in urban Europe but remain a niche product in North America, while tracked mini excavators sell by the tens of thousands in the UK and France but find a very different market dynamic in developing economies raised on backhoe loaders. If a manufacturer’s primary dealer network and core profitability are rooted in regions where a certain product class is unpopular, it makes little sense to waste capital to build it.

Finally, there is the undeniable element of market saturation and the myth of volume. A widespread perception exists within the industry that certain sectors are already so oversaturated that entering them is financial suicide. The dozer market is tightly defended by long-established players with massive brand loyalty, and the compact excavator sector is crowded with dozens of brands slashing margins to win fleet deals. A specialist manufacturer must naturally ask why they should spend hundreds of millions developing a competitive machine, only to enter an overcrowded room and fight over crumbs.

Ultimately, these missing links may not be failures of ambition at all. They may well be the ultimate expression of corporate discipline.

By deliberately leaving these gaps unfilled, these manufacturers are making a quiet but profound statement: We do not need to be everything to everyone to win.

But as the market consolidates and the full-line Chinese giants continue to gain ground, you have to wonder how long this discipline can last. Will the specialists be forced to eventually plug the holes in their ranges via badging agreements and joint ventures, or will the missing links remain a permanent testament to the power of saying “no”?

Subscribe now

Visit our Sponsor

I will grudgingly admit that I occasionally succumb to the allure of the Golden Arches and the primal appeal of a McDonald’s meal. I have been known to enjoy the simple pleasure of a McNugget or nine, dipped into a pot of sweet barbecue sauce in a service station car park. I am sure I am not alone.

But very few people with functioning taste buds would argue that McDonald’s make the best burger on the planet, or that their fries represent the pinnacle of culinary achievement. Yet, they are absolutely everywhere. They are the global go-to for super-fast sustenance.

Which got me thinking: who is the McDonald’s of the digger world?

In our game, we love to talk about the elite, high-end kit, just as food critics love to fawn over Michelin stars. But the construction world doesn’t run exclusively on steak and lobster. It runs on volume, availability, and predictability. So, if we look at the global machinery landscape through the grease-stained lens of the fast-food industry, where do the major players actually sit?

Your immediate instinct might be to point a finger across the Atlantic and shout, “Caterpillar!” It makes sense on paper. They are big, they are American, they are wrapped in a corporate yellow that is not too far removed from McDonald’s mustard, and they are utterly ubiquitous. If you ask a child to draw a tractor or a digger, they will paint it Cat yellow, just as a child asked to draw a burger will subconsciously sketch a Big Mac.

But the Caterpillar-as-McDonald’s theory falls apart the moment you actually look at the iron. Some of their products, notably the Cat 352 excavator, and virtually all of their heavy dozers and large wheel loaders, are elite-level machines. They are engineered to operate in the brutal, unforgiving environments of deep quarries and massive infrastructure projects for tens of thousands of hours. That is not digger fast food; that is digger fine dining. You don’t buy a D11 dozer because you need a quick, cheap fix to get you through the afternoon. You buy it as a long-term, high-yield capital investment. Cat has too much premium steak on the menu to wear the paper crown.

On the other end of the spectrum, it is tempting to point to the Chinese brands that have flooded the market over the last decade: the likes of LiuGong, Sany, Sunward, and XCMG. Not so long ago, this would have been the perfect, undeniable answer. Like a late-night McDonald’s run after a few pints, they were cheap, cheerful, and highly satisfying at the exact moment of purchase. However, once the machine arrived on site and the initial financial euphoria wore off, consumers were often left with distinct pangs of regret as they hunted for non-existent spare parts or watched the resale value fall off a cliff.

That is no longer the case. For one thing, the recent imposition of anti-dumping tariffs has at least partly levelled the playing field on price, meaning they are no longer the bargain-basement option they once were. Moreover, the machines themselves have evolved rapidly. Some Chinese excavators have proved themselves to be way more than a “make-do” snack until the real main course comes along. They are serious contenders, meaning they have outgrown the cheap-and-cheerful fast-food bracket.

We can completely rule out Liebherr and Volvo. They operate in an entirely different sphere of existence. If you are buying a 100-tonne Liebherr mining excavator or a Volvo articulated hauler, you are purchasing the digger equivalent of prime wagyu beef and truffle fries. The engineering is precise, the cabs are comfortable than most homes, and that is reflected in the price tag. They are simply too posh for the drive-thru.

Then there is JCB. Some might argue the Rocester giant fits the bill because they dominate the backhoe market so completely that their name became a generic trademark for every digger on earth. But JCB isn’t McDonald’s. JCB is more of a Full English breakfast or a proper fish and chips traditionalist. It is comfort food for those who know what they like and like what they know. It is British, it is robust, it relies on a loyal customer base that values familiarity, and it doesn’t care about mimicking American corporate uniformity.

So, who is left standing when the fryer grease clears?

After looking closely at the global market, the answer becomes obvious, at least to me. Three brands perfectly encapsulate the McDonald’s ethos in the modern plant world: Develon, Hitachi and Hyundai.

These three manufacturers have mastered a specific, highly lucrative art form. They do not build questionable food truck burgers that are likely to give you a dodgy stomach. Equally, they are not Gordon Ramsay’s take on a digger, adorned with gold leaf and an invoice to match.

They are straight, no-nonsense, honest machines that are widely available and wildly popular. You know exactly what you are going to get, no matter where in the country or the world you encounter them. If you climb into the cab of a 13-tonne Hyundai or Develon excavator in a muddy field in Yorkshire, it will feel, operate, and perform exactly the same as one working on a utility project in the suburbs of Chicago. It is the triumph of predictable quality.

I want to reiterate with absolute clarity that this comparison is not intended as an insult. Quite the opposite, in fact. Building a machine that can compete at the highest level of performance while remaining accessible, reliable, and affordable to the mass market is arguably a greater engineering feat than building a low-volume luxury product.

I like fine dining and Michelin-starred restaurants as much as the next guy. There are days when the occasion demands a five-course tasting menu of high-end German or Swedish engineering. But there are times when a Big Mac and large fries is precisely what you need.

Subscribe now

Visit our Sponsor

In the annals of British industrial history, few figures loom as large as Joseph Cyril Bamford. When he founded JCB in a small lock-up garage in Uttoxeter back in 1945, he brought more than just a welding torch and a collection of war-surplus axles to the table. He brought a philosophy. He encapsulated this relentless ethos in a favourite French phrase that became the official corporate guiding light: Jamais Content. Never content. Never satisfied.

For a manufacturer, this mindset is the ultimate driver of progress. It is an acknowledgement that complacency is the first step toward obsolescence. In the engineering office, being permanently unsatisfied is a noble virtue. It means that the moment a machine rolls off the production line, the team is already questioning how to make the next one lighter, faster, stronger, and more efficient. It is the reason a company can grow from modifying agricultural trailers into a global powerhouse whose name is literally enshrined in the Oxford English Dictionary. Continuous improvement requires a healthy dose of professional dissatisfaction.

When applied to research and development, Jamais Content is an engine of innovation. It forces designers to obsess over hydraulic pressure, structural integrity, and ergonomic perfection. It means striving to reduce emissions, lower fuel consumption, and push the boundaries of what a piece of yellow iron can achieve on a modern job site. In an ideal world, this unrelenting pursuit of perfection would be met with universal acclaim from the people who actually buy and operate the machinery. But the construction industry is far from an ideal world.

The great irony of modern equipment manufacture is that Jamais Content has morphed and mutated. It has escaped the shiny research laboratories of Staffordshire and infected the hearts and minds of equipment owners, site managers, and operators across the land. However, where the manufacturer uses dissatisfaction as a catalyst for brilliance, the end-user uses it as a default setting for relentless, unyielding whinging.

A manufacturer spends millions of pounds and countless hours developing a brand-new excavator or backhoe loader. The engineering team unveils a marvel of modern technology. The engine meets the most stringent environmental standards on earth whilst delivering more torque than its predecessor. The cab is a masterpiece of ergonomics, boasting an air-conditioned environment quieter than a monastic library, a seat that adjusts to the operator’s precise lumbar requirements, and full Bluetooth connectivity. It is, by any objective metric, the finest mobile office in all of Christendom.

Yet, the moment the machine arrives on site, the grand corporate philosophy of Jamais Content is mirrored perfectly by the man in the high-visibility jacket. The operator climbs into this high-tech sanctuary, looks around, and immediately lets out a heavy, world-weary sigh. The engine is a triumph of clean-air technology? Brilliant, but someone will immediately moan that the AdBlue tank filler neck is positioned at a slightly awkward angle. The cabin is blissfully quiet? Terrible news, because now they can hear every rattle of the loose change in their pocket, and besides, the new digital touchscreen is bound to get smudged by greasy fingers within ten minutes.

The obsession with minutiae on the modern site is truly a sight to behold. You can deliver a machine that represents a quantum leap forward in operator safety, featuring all-round camera systems that offer a bird’s-eye view of the working area, radar detection for pedestrians, and automatic braking functions. It is a vehicle designed to ensure every single person on site goes home safely at the end of the shift.

What is the feedback from the ground? “I don’t like the seatbelt.”

It matters not that the seatbelt is part of a sophisticated, interlocking safety system designed to save their life in a rollover. To the seasoned critic, the webbing feels a fraction too stiff, or it is not quite the same as the one on their previous machine. The fact that the machine can practically dig a trench by itself is completely overshadowed by a deeply held, personal grievance against a piece of nylon strap.

The same tragicomedy plays out with cabin storage. Designers spend months packaging complex electrical architectures and climate control systems into the tight confines of the upper structure, managing to preserve a panoramic view of the bucket. They proudly announce a 20% increase in glass area for unparalleled visibility. The operator, however, climbs inside and discovers that while they have a flawless view of the deep trench they are digging, there is insufficient room behind the seat to store a massive, mud-encrusted duffel bag containing three spare coats, a four-litre bottle of squash, and a lunchbox big enough to feed a family of four. The verdict is swift and brutal: the machine is completely unworkable.

This culture of permanent dissatisfaction becomes particularly scathing when manufacturers attempt to tackle the genuine, real-world issues of health, safety, and accessibility. Take the recent trend towards advanced access systems. Recognising that slips, trips, and falls during ingress and egress remain one of the leading causes of site injuries, manufacturers have begun designing beautifully engineered, retractable, low-level steps. These systems allow operators to step onto the machine safely, reducing the strain on knees and ankles, and ensuring that those who might be less able-bodied can still operate safely and comfortably.

To any rational observer, this is a magnificent advancement. To the hardened site traditionalist, it is an open invitation for ridicule.

The criticism splits into two equally pessimistic camps. The pragmatists will immediately declare that the retractable steps are “just something else to smash off on a concrete stump on day two.” They will argue that the entire mechanism is far too clever for its own good and will inevitably fail the moment it encounters three inches of thick British clay.

Meanwhile, the old-school philosophers will dismiss the steps as a definitive sign that the entire industry is “going soft.” They will look back wistfully to the days when climbing into a cab involved scaling a vertical wall of greasy steel lattice while holding a cigarette in one hand and a grease gun in the other. To them, ergonomics is a dirty word, and comfort is a betrayal of the true, gritty nature of muck-shifting.

Perhaps the most contentious battleground in this war of perpetual dissatisfaction is the introduction of advanced driver aids and automation. Today’s machines are packed with grade control systems, automated bucket-levelling functions, and payload monitoring systems that calculate the exact weight of every load to prevent overloading a dump truck. These tools are designed to maximise productivity, reduce wear and tear on the machine, and turn a decent operator into a highly efficient asset.

While some forward-thinking fleet owners welcome these advancements with open arms, a vocal and deeply defensive contingent of operators views them with absolute disdain. To these individuals, a digital assistant is not a tool; it is a direct insult to their personal craftsmanship.

They look at a grade control screen and see a machine trying to tell them how to do a job they have been doing by eye since the late 1980s. They will deliberately turn the systems off, proudly proclaiming that they “don’t need a computer to tell them where level is.”

Ultimately, Joe Bamford was entirely correct. A manufacturer must never be satisfied. They must continue to innovate, to push the boundaries, and to install the quietest cabs, the most efficient engines, and the smartest safety systems that modern engineering can devise.

But they must also accept a harsh, unyielding truth. No matter how brilliant the machine, no matter how much thought has gone into the placement of every single switch and air vent, the industry will always be populated by people who view perfection as a personal challenge. The plant world has adopted Jamais Content as its official religion, but they have rewritten the gospel. For the manufacturer, it means the job is never done. For the operator, it means the moaning is never finished.

Subscribe now

Visit our Sponsor

This time next week, the 2026 World Cup will kick off as Mexico take on South Africa in Mexico City. Almost a week later, England will get their campaign underway when they play Croatia. And then, our newspapers and TV shows will follow an all too familiar pattern.

If we lose our opening game, there will be recriminations. There will be questions over the appointment of a German manager. There will be questions over the players who did not get picked, or who got picked and were then played in the wrong positions.

If anything, it will be worse if we win our opening game. There will be the usual calls of “it’s coming home” even though it – whatever that elusive “it” is – has only come home once, and that was 60 years ago. Six decades of constant and continual disappointment, and yet the nation still buys into the hype every few years.

In so many ways, the UK demolition and construction industry is like the England football team. It too has some great players who possess outstanding talent. But all too often, for one reason or another, the industry falls short. It has the requisite skills to go all the way, but it goes out in the quarter-finals.

Think about the Government’s plans to build 1.5 million new homes in five years. Our manager – Keir Starmer – assured us all that this was not some impossible dream but an achievable goal, even though it had never been done before.

Like countless England managers before him, his ambition and determination were infectious. Soon, even seasoned professionals started to believe. But then, reality bit. And it bit hard. It was clear to all that the goal was noble and worthy, but the system was all wrong and we had failed to attract the dynamic young talent required to bring the manager’s dream to fruition.

The mammoth HS2 project is an even greater representation of the similarities between the UK construction industry and the England football team. The goal was simple – beat planning and environmental regulations in the first round, take on Birmingham in the second round, beat Leeds, and then take on Manchester in the final. We never made it past Birmingham.

Then there was the tunnel that had been designed to run beneath Stonehenge to relieve that traffic bottleneck on the journey down to Devon and Cornwall. But like England in 1974, 1978, and 1994, the project failed to qualify. Those who should have been involved in this exciting and extremely necessary project were left sitting at home, watching the industry’s game from the sofa.

And now comes another lofty but insurmountable goal. Skills England has this week proclaimed that the UK construction industry will require an additional one million workers by 2035 if it is to achieve its ambitions and maintain its output. This is far from the first time the industry’s increasingly desperate need for workers has been highlighted, and it certainly will not be the last.

And yet, all the while, the industry-wide skills shortage has remained. We have continually failed to attract the new, young talent we need. We have continually failed to stem the flow of older and more experienced workers out of the industry. We have watched what football commentators call the “Golden Generation” age and retire with no real plan to replace them.

In football at club level, you can buy success to a degree. If your pockets are deep enough, you can buy talented players to take the team to the next level. At international level, and indeed within the construction sector, that route is closed to us. When buying success is off the table, you have to grow it. The industry desperately needs something akin to a youth academy to nurture the next golden generation, creating a squad that could genuinely compete on the global stage.

If you look at the English Premier League, it is easy to see that the recipe for success lies in longevity. Alex Ferguson at Manchester United, Arsène Wenger at Arsenal, and Pep Guardiola at Manchester City were managers of their respective clubs for a decade or more.

Compare that to the management of the UK construction industry. Every time the cabinet reshuffles or Downing Street changes hands, we get a new housing minister or a new transport secretary throwing out the previous playbook, rebranding the targets, and leaving the blokes on the ground completely confused about the strategy.

I refuse to buy into the hype any longer. I have been disappointed in the England football team and by the UK demolition and construction industry far too many times to fall for this hyperbole any longer. Attract one million new workers over the next nine years? There is more chance of aliens landing on the lawn of Buckingham Palace; more chance of England winning the World Cup; more chance of world peace; more chance of a white Christmas in Australia; more chance of Donald Trump telling the truth, of Elvis staging a comeback tour, of the Rolling Stones actually retiring, and of the Royal Family getting some real jobs.

As a football fan, I will be watching the World Cup. As an Englishman, I will be doing so without any expectations. As someone who has worked in and around the UK demolition and construction industry for nigh on 40 years, I will be watching the sector trying to attract new blood, and – likewise – I will do so without expectations.

Experience has taught me that the sooner you can divorce yourself from any hope, the more enjoyable the viewing becomes.

Subscribe now

Visit our Sponsor

Two coach loads of journalists and influencers filed into the outdoor grandstand at the Volvo Construction Equipment facility in Eskilstuna, Sweden yesterday morning. For the next 30 minutes, we sat, our eyes and our cameras transfixed as rigid and articulated haulers zoomed past at astonishing speed; loaders wheeled and whirled; and excavators performed a carefully choreographed ballet.

Amidst all this, a message was hiding in plain sight.

Stretched across the entire width of the grandstand, behind the top tier, was a banner that read: “Building Tomorrow”. My guess is that most of the assembled press did not even see it. Those that did probably dismissed it as a marketing slogan. But for me, it did not just register. It resonated. In fact, those three words have reframed how I look at construction equipment launches and introductions entirely.

We look back at TV shows from the 1970s and we shake our heads in disbelief at the casual racism of “Love Thy Neighbour” and the overt sexism of “The Benny Hill Show”. We unfairly judge those shows, and others just like them, by the standards of today. Weirdly, we do precisely the same with new and innovative construction equipment.

As an industry, we view Volvo’s pioneering work in the field of electrification and digitisation through the lens of today. We see them embracing new tools and a new fuel when most of us are quite content with the fuel we already have. But Volvo — like many of their peers — is building for tomorrow.

Here in the UK, we look at our plentiful supplies of diesel and question why anyone in their right mind might consider a move away from the familiar and into the unknown of an electric future. But while we are playing noughts and crosses in the present, Volvo is playing 3D chess. And their opponent is the future.

In truth, our numerous objections to electrification — concerns over running time, charging efficiency, battery lifetimes, and resale costs — are a defence mechanism designed to hold an unknown and uncertain future at bay.

But that future is coming. And it is coming fast.

Volvo reported that construction in Oslo City is now 98 per cent fossil fuel-free, and the Norwegian capital has the complete removal of diesel within its sights. Today, that marks Oslo as an outlier; an oddity. In the next few years, Oslo will be seen as the benchmark; and other cities, municipalities, and nations will follow. When that day arrives, Volvo’s decade of research and development into electric equipment and charging solutions will no longer be considered an obsession. It will be greeted as a bridge to a future few of us have even imagined.

In many ways, this work on machines not of the now but of the future is akin to a demolition or construction company taking on an apprentice. Today, that apprentice seemingly offers no real value and the learning curve seems too steep. But in the months and years ahead, that apprentice will develop and evolve to become an indispensable member of the team. Electric and even hydrogen machines will follow that same path.

It is easy to look at the plethora of electric machines on offer from Volvo and to ask why. Why should I give up a familiar fuel? Why should I subject myself to the learning curve that a fuel switch might entail? Why should I do my part for global sustainability and climate care when all my rivals continue to belch black smoke into the atmosphere? Those are all valid questions. But in the years and the decades ahead, each of those questions will cease to have meaning. When other cities follow Oslo’s lead, the only question remaining will be “why didn’t I make the switch sooner?”

The future, like death and taxes, is inevitable and unavoidable. Today, what that future holds is a cause for concern and even fear. But neither fear nor concern will hold the future at bay.

We look upon electrification today as a hurdle; an obstacle to be overcome. But when governments, local authorities and clients finally call time on diesel once and for all, electrification will transform from an obstacle to a bridge. In fact, that transition is happening already.

Speaking to one of the Volvo team, he recounted how a town in Germany saw the benefits of an electric demolition site and then insisted on electrification for the future. The operating cost differential between traditional diesel and electric was nominal. But when the local authority factored in both the environmental benefits of electric together with the positive PR with the local community, electric emerged as the clear winner. That outside-the-box thinking is perhaps the only obstacle standing in the way of electric equipment’s wider adoption.

Today, we might look at the Volvo A40 electric hauler as an unnecessary indulgence. We might dismiss their ever-expanding suite of digital tools as tech for the sake of tech. We might question the use case for the 23-tonne class EC230 electric excavator. We might even reject Volvo’s fossil-free steel truck as engineers being afforded a little bit too much creative freedom. But, Volvo has already built today. As the slogan says, it is now Building the Future.

I’ll leave you with this thought.

Wayne Gretzky is probably the world’s most famous ice hockey player. In fact, the Canadian is so famous, even I have heard of him. Gretzky once said: “A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great player plays where the puck is going to be.”

Volvo Construction Equipment is a great player, and it knows precisely where that puck is headed.

Subscribe now

Visit our Sponsor

The phrase ‘single-minded’ speaks to a very specific kind of steely determination; something laser-focused to the exclusion of all else. Yet, it is a misnomer. As the old adage goes, “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”

A single-minded entrepreneur, for example, might have a fantastic idea and a singular vision, but in all likelihood, it will require the input of others to bring that dream to fruition. A single-minded athlete might possess all the requisite genetic gifts and talent, but they too rely upon the assistance of coaches, nutritionists, psychologists, physiologists, and managers to hone those God-given talents. A single-minded politician without the backing of his or her party or constituents is just another person shouting into the void.

I first heard the phrase “partnership is the new leadership” at Volvo, where they were using it to explain how they are collaborating with others to help forge the future of construction equipment. A good example of that collaborative approach is the world’s first fossil-free steel articulated hauler. Yes, the machine had the name Volvo emblazoned along its flank, but it was very much a partnership with the Swedish steel manufacturer, SSAB. Volvo may have had the single-minded vision to originate the idea, but they required a partnership with SSAB to turn that vision into reality.

And now it seems that the phrase “partnership is the new leadership” is somewhat belatedly seeping into the rest of the construction equipment industry. Since Volvo coined that phrase - at least to me - let’s start with them.

Volvo Construction Equipment and electrification specialist Hitachi Energy have just signed a Memorandum of Understanding to collaborate on developing end‑to‑end approaches that support the deployment of zero‑emission construction sites. The collaboration brings together electric construction equipment with clean power supply, energy management, and system integration capabilities to help address one of the construction industry’s most pressing challenges: decarbonisation.

“Strategic partnerships such as this with Hitachi Energy are key to accelerating the transition to zero-emission construction,” says Volvo Construction Equipment President, Melker Jernberg. “By combining complementary expertise and delivering a complete, integrated solution, we are giving customers the confidence, security, and peace of mind they need to adopt emission-free operations today.”

Volvo and Hitachi are not alone in forging this collaborative new future. Epiroc AB has entered into a strategic partnership with SANY Group to explore opportunities for broader collaboration across selected areas in the mining and infrastructure industries.

According to the official statement, “the parties aim to enhance the cross-brand product portfolio, including providing attractive combinations of Epiroc’s hydraulic breakers, other specialty attachments, as well as ground engaging tools with SANY’s excavator and loader portfolio. The enhanced product portfolios will bring customers higher productivity and more integrated solutions for infrastructure applications.”

“SANY’s innovations in electrification, equipment, and smart manufacturing are truly impressive,” says José Manuel Sánchez, President of Epiroc’s Tools & Attachments Business Area. “Epiroc leads mining and infrastructure applications in the fields of equipment automation, electrification, and digitalisation. We look forward to combining our respective technologies and resources to deliver more efficient and sustainable solutions for customers worldwide, creating new value and energy resilience for the industry.”

That makes three collaborative joint ventures in a relatively short space of time. And, in each instance, one of the partners hails from Sweden. But this is not a uniquely Swedish thing. In fact, the latest and perhaps most surprising collaboration is part French and part Italian.

French Caterpillar dealer Bergerat Monnoyeur has announced the signing of a strategic partnership with Faresin Industries, an Italian manufacturer renowned for its expertise in the design and production of telehandlers. Through this exclusive agreement, Bergerat Monnoyeur expands its offering with a complementary range of solutions for the construction, industrial, and agricultural sectors, while strengthening its ability to support further market developments.

Faresin Industries has established itself as a leading player thanks to its industrial know-how, innovation capacity, and commitment to low-impact environmental solutions. The manufacturer notably offers a wide range of telescopic handlers, including several all-electric models that address emerging challenges related to emissions and noise reduction.

For decades, the construction equipment sector was a notoriously dog-eat-dog world. It was a fiercely territorial arena where brands guarded their intellectual property like crown jewels and actively relished burying the competition. In that climate, this newfound collaborative spirit marks a highly welcome change.

The shift is being driven almost entirely by the relentless demands of technology and decarbonisation. For generations, the industry has been incredibly adept at ‘metal bashing’ - forging heavy, brutalist machines engineered to withstand the punishing environments of demolition and construction. But the rules of engagement have fundamentally changed. Heavy equipment manufacturers are no longer just building mechanical workhorses; they are being forced to develop complex digital ecosystems.

If these companies want to compete in tomorrow’s super-clean, high-tech world, the traditional lone-wolf approach is dead. The engineering hurdles of full electrification, software integration, and zero-emission infrastructure are simply too complex to solve in isolation. To survive, the traditional metal bashers must walk hand-in-hand with highly specialised technology partners.

It raises a fascinating question: are we genuinely entering a new era where cut-throat competition is permanently replaced by collaboration, or is this just a temporary marriage of convenience forced by the green transition?

Subscribe now

Visit our Sponsor

We like to believe in the enduring nature of things. In our line of work, we deal with concrete, steel, and stone, materials engineered to withstand the elements and survive the decades. Yet, over the course of a few short weeks, I have been handed three distinct reminders that nothing is built to last forever.

Just over a week ago, the last of my Boxer dogs passed away. For almost fourteen years, she was a constant companion, an ever-present and welcome shadow, and a fixture of my daily routine. Then, on Saturday, my wife’s mother passed away. While my wife is navigating her own profound grief, I am struck by my own quiet realisation: this woman had been a fixture of my life for more than forty years. And now she is gone.

To compound this run of loss, Sunday delivered a different kind of blow. While it belongs to a completely different category of grief, my beloved West Ham United were relegated from the Premiership to the Championship for the first time since 2012.

Taken individually, these events are personal heartbreaks and disappointments. Taken collectively, however, they serve as a stark, timely reminder of a fundamental truth we so often try to ignore: permanence is a myth.

It is a myth that we repeat, believe, and perpetuate every single day in the demolition and construction industry. We look at the businesses we trade with, the projects we deliver, and the people we work alongside, and we treat them as if they will always be there. But the reality is that the ground beneath our feet is shifting far faster than we care to admit.

If you look back over the past few years, our industry has quietly undergone a massive erosion. We have said a final farewell to more than 8,000 companies in the UK construction and demolition sectors. Think about that number for a moment. Eight thousand entities, brands, family businesses, and specialist contractors have simply vanished from the supply chain.

Some of these companies were giants; others were the hyper-local subcontractors who kept regional projects moving. Many of them were fixtures of our professional lives. They were the names you saw on site hoardings, the firms you knew you could rely on for a difficult facade retention, or the plant hire companies that always found you a machine at short notice. Now, they too are gone.

Behind every one of those 8,000 corporate failures or closures are the people. Lord alone knows how many professionals, tradespeople, and labourers we have lost over the same period. They haven’t just left the site; they have left the sector entirely. Some have walked away out of sheer disenchantment. Others have reached the natural end of their careers and taken a well-deserved retirement, taking decades of irreplaceable knowledge with them. Far too many have been forced out by life-altering injuries, and sadly, some have passed away.

When a fixture in your professional life disappears, it alters the dynamic of how you do business. We are left scrambling to replace the irreplaceable, realising too late that we took their presence for granted.

As demolition and construction professionals, we are uniquely complicit in maintaining this illusion of permanence. We greet new equipment as a valuable investment. In four or five years’ time, it will be moved on. When a new commercial tower rises or a major infrastructure project is completed, the media celebrates it as a permanent addition to the skyline.

But those of us in this sector know the truth. We know that every building carries an expiry date, whether that date is dictated by structural fatigue, economic obsolescence, or urban regeneration. The skyline is not an unyielding monument; it is just a temporary arrangement of materials waiting for the next economic cycle.

The same applies to our corporate partners and site teams. We look at a familiar subcontractor or a veteran site agent and assume they are permanent fixtures. In reality, the subcontractor is often managing fragile margins vulnerable to macroeconomic shocks, and the veteran site agent is a finite resource subject to age, health, burnout, and time.

Typically, our industry responds to this continuous loss by ignoring it until we are forced to confront it. We treat the collapse of a long-standing competitor or the retirement of a brilliant operator as isolated incidents rather than symptoms of a wider, unstoppable tide of change.

But acknowledging this lack of permanence isn’t about being pessimistic; it is about being realistic. When we accept that our companies, our colleagues, and our projects are temporary, it should change the way we manage them today. It should force us to look more seriously at succession planning, ensuring that decades of specialist knowledge don’t just walk out the door into retirement without being captured. It should remind us to protect our people from the kind of disenchantment and burnout that quietly drains talent from our sector. And it should highlight the need for genuine financial resilience, because operating on razor-thin margins leaves zero room for error when the unexpected happens.

The loss of a loyal companion, a matriarch, or even the top-flight status of a football club hits hard because it forces us to reset our expectations. It reminds us that the status quo is a fragile thing.

In the construction and demolition world, we live with this impermanence without losing our drive to build. The fact that a machine, a structure, a business, or a career will not last forever does not diminish its value.

The 8,000 companies we have lost should serve as a wake-up call. The colleagues who are no longer on-site alongside us should remind us to value the teams we currently have. Tomorrow will not look exactly like today.

Once we accept the myth of permanence for what it is, we can focus on building something more resilient and meaningful with the time we do have.

Because, ultimately, nothing lasts forever.

Subscribe now

Visit our Sponsor

Most industry updates are little more than a collection of recycled press releases. The Break Down is different. Every Monday, we cut through the chatter to deliver a raw, honest look at the state of the demolition nation.

We provide the context behind the headlines and the opinions others are too cowardly to print. It is the essential intelligence you need to stay sharp, stay informed, and stay ahead of the pack.

Now, here’s your news.

• The house that Joe built – Act III – The story of JCB is about to enter its third act. And it could be the most exciting chapter yet.

• Site noise is killing you – Site noise is a brutal, systemic toxin that penetrates your ears, spikes your stress hormones, fractures your concentration, and doubles your risk of dementia.

• Are machines getting worse? – Are emissions laws and corporate cost-cutting producing fragile, disposable machines under the guise of green technology?

• Where do we go from here? – Why the UK construction industry keeps tripping over its own dick.

• CMA uncovers £5 billion in infrastructure waste – A broken procurement system is wasting £5 billion annually on UK transport infrastructure.

• An industry living hand to mouth - LinkedIn has become a digital marketplace of sudden desperation for the UK construction sector. Frantic, last-minute appeals reveal a chaotic industry dangerously living hand to mouth.

Subscribe now

If you spend any time scrolling through LinkedIn, you will notice a curious, slightly unsettling trend quietly taking over the feed. It has become a digital marketplace of sudden desperation.

On any given afternoon, a demolition contractor will post that they have a 10-man soft strip crew available immediately. There will be a demolition company that has ended up with a wagonload of Type 1 they need to get rid of. Another post will plead for a sweeper company with airside clearance credentials for a job that seemingly starts tomorrow. Then come the logistics requests: someone with a heavy piece of plant or a mountain of materials in Scotland will post a hopeful plea, looking for an empty low loader that just happens to be driving from Glasgow to London by chance, wondering if they can hitch a ride en route.

These are not occasional anomalies. They have become a daily feature of modern procurement. They raise a rather fundamental question about the UK construction and demolition sector: is anyone actually planning ahead, or is the entire industry living entirely hand to mouth?

When a business leader proudly posts that their specialised site crew is available immediately, they are attempting to project agility. What they are actually revealing is a pipeline that appears to be about half an inch long.

A demolition company with a surplus of hardcore might be working away from their home area and away from their usual outlets. But 20 tonnes of aggregate doesn’t suddenly materialise. Surely it was obvious to everyone that material had to go somewhere before they started packing up?

In a well-organised sector, the end of a project should trigger a seamless transition to the next site. Mobilisation dates are agreed months in advance; risk assessments are signed off, and logistics are locked down. Yet, the current reality looks less like a pipeline and more like a game of musical chairs. The moment the music stops and a job finishes, companies scramble to find a place to put their people so they do not lose them to competitors or eat the cost of their inactivity.

This hand-to-mouth existence is hazardous. When teams are deployed on a whim via social media broadcasts, safety documentation is rushed, site inductions are squeezed, and the risk of mistakes escalates. It is a symptom of a deeper systemic failure where long-term commercial security has been traded for short-term survival. Keeping thirty labourers on the payroll with zero billing hours for even a single week can wipe out the profit margin of the previous three months. Therefore, desperation trumps strategy.

The logistical side of this trend is equally baffling. Transporting heavy plant or large volumes of materials across the country is an entirely predictable requirement. A project manager knows weeks, if not months, in advance when a machine or a load of components will finish its work in the North and be needed back down South.

Surely, the transport for that equipment should be booked, costed, and scheduled as part of the initial project budget. Instead, we see logistics treated like a casual carpooling arrangement. Relying on a chance encounter on LinkedIn to find a haulage company with an empty truck heading in your direction is a bizarre way to manage a multi-million-pound supply chain.

It is a terrible gamble. Instead of secure, professional scheduling, project managers are essentially standing by the side of the digital motorway with their thumbs out, hoping a low loader with spare capacity happens to pass by. It treats industrial freight with the same casual attitude as ordering a late-night takeaway. Furthermore, it introduces massive financial inefficiency. Sourcing haulage in a panic usually means paying a premium, or conversely, letting expensive plant sit idle on a finished site for days because the ‘cheap’ empty return truck never materialised.

There is also a profound naivety in trusting these last-minute operational emergencies to a corporate networking app. A project manager typing out a frantic, late-night appeal for a low loader assumes their request flashes instantly onto the screens of thousands of logistics providers. It does not.

The LinkedIn algorithm is simply not designed for real-time dispatch or critical supply chain coordination. It values engagement over immediacy. A post published at 8:00 PM might not gain any traction or appear in a relevant user’s feed until three days later, long after the deadline has passed and the equipment is already stranded.

Furthermore, this reliance on social media ignores the fundamental psychology of the platform. The vast majority of professionals log into LinkedIn to sell, not to buy. It is an arena of self-promotion, filled with people hunting for clients, broadcasting success stories, or pitching services. Sourcing specialised logistics in an environment where almost everyone is shouting for attention is, at best, a shot in the dark. It is like going to Wembley Stadium during an England football match, hoping to find customers for your brand of double glazing.

This lack of foresight does not just affect company balance sheets; it has a brutal impact on the workforce. The industry relies heavily on a transient workforce operating on fixed contracts; be it two weeks, six weeks, or four months. Everyone on that site knows exactly when the contract expires.

Logically, workers should be actively securing their next placement whilst winding down their duties on the current one. Instead, the culture of reactivity is so pervasive that many find themselves finishing a job on a Friday and sitting at home on Monday, staring at their phones, hoping and praying that they ring.

Even worse is the precarious nature of sudden layoffs, where site workers are let go with barely a day of notice due to sudden client delays or budget freezes. This creates a culture of perpetual anxiety. When individuals and subcontractors cannot predict their income beyond the current fortnight, they cannot invest in training, they cannot plan for growth, and they certainly cannot operate with peace of mind. The hand-to-mouth mentality trickles down from the boardroom right to the turnstiles of the site hut. Over time, this instability drives skilled talent out of the industry altogether, worsening the sector-wide skills shortage.

Construction projects are inherently complex, but they are not unpredictable. We know that working at airports requires airside passes. We know that passing security clearance takes time. We know that specialist equipment requires specific transport permits.

Why, then, is the industry constantly caught out by things that are entirely foreseeable?

Part of the issue stems from the brutal reality of current cash flow dynamics and razor-thin margins. Contractors are hesitant to commit funds or book resources until a contract is formally signed, which often happens at the absolute eleventh hour due to client-side delays or legal wrangling. By the time the green light finally flashes, the traditional planning window has closed, forcing managers to hunt for crews, transport, and equipment in a state of mild panic. The system rewards those who delay spending until the last possible second, but it penalises the operational teams who have to execute the actual work in a fraction of the time required.

The industry has developed a dangerous admiration for reactivity. We praise the manager who fixes a crisis in an afternoon, but we rarely question why the crisis happened in the first place. This cult of firefighting masks a structural weakness.

Relying on social media to source immediate labour, specialised security clearance, and heavy logistics is unsustainable. It indicates an industry operating without a safety net, running so close to the edge that a single delayed payment or a postponed start date threatens to destabilise the whole operation.

Agility is a virtue, but what we are seeing on our feeds is not agility. It is a symptom of a fragmented, hyper-reactive supply chain that is struggling to look beyond the end of the current week. And, while it is a cliché, it is also true: failing to plan is planning to fail.

Subscribe now

Visit our Sponsor

A fragmented procurement landscape and misaligned commercial incentives are wasting up to £5 billion a year in public transport infrastructure spending, according to a major report by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Following an 11-month market study, the regulator is demanding an immediate overhaul of how the UK and devolved governments procure roads and railways, warning that structural flaws are directly inflating costs, delaying projects, and stifling productivity.

Read more