REVIEWS

Environmental impacts and

decarbonization strategies in the
cement and concrete industries
G. Habert   1 ✉, S. A. Miller   2, V. M. John   3, J. L. Provis   4, A. Favier1,5, A. Horvath6
and K. L. Scrivener5
Abstract | The use of cement and concrete, among the most widely used man-made materials,
is under scrutiny. Owing to their large-scale use, production of cement and concrete results in
substantial emission of greenhouse gases and places strain on the availability of natural resources,
such as water. Projected urbanization over the next 50–100 years therefore indicates that the
demand for cement and concrete will continue to increase, necessitating strategies to limit
their environmental impact. In this Review, we shed light on the available solutions that can
be implemented within the next decade and beyond to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
cement and concrete production. As the construction sector has proven to be very slow-moving
and risk-averse, we focus on minor improvements that can be achieved across the value chain,
such as the use of supplementary cementitious materials and optimizing the clinker content of
cement. Critically, the combined effect of these marginal gains can have an important impact on
reducing greenhouse gas emissions by up to 50% if all stakeholders are engaged. In doing so, we
reveal credible pathways for sustainable concrete use that balance societal needs, environmental
requirements and technical feasibility.

1
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering,
Chair of Sustainable
Construction, ETH Zürich,
Zürich, Switzerland.
2
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering,
University of California,
Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
3
Department of Construction
Engineering, Escola
Politécnica, University of São
Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
4
Department of Materials
Science and Engineering,
The University of Sheffield,
Sheffield, UK.
5
Laboratory of Construction
Materials, EPFL, Lausanne,
Switzerland.
6
Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering,
University of California,
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
✉e-mail:
habert@ibi.baug.ethz.ch
https://doi.org/10.1038/
s43017-020-0093-3
Concrete, a synthetic rock composed of cement, sand,
gravel and water, is the fundamental building block
of the urbanizing world, and by far the most widely
used man-made material in the construction industry.
Concrete is a critical component in the construction of
our modern, industrialized society1. For example, energy
systems, water and wastewater systems, buildings —
from single-floor houses to high-rise buildings — and
transportation networks all rely on concrete.
Cement, the mineral glue that binds sand and gravel
together in concrete, represents around 10% of con-
crete mass and is currently produced at a rate of around
4 gigatonnes (Gt) per year, a rate comparable to global
food production2. Over the last 65 years, cement con-
sumption has increased tenfold3, a huge change consid-
ering steel production has only increased by a factor of
three and timber construction has stayed nearly constant
in the same time frame3. Indeed, cement accounted for
36% of the 7.7 Gt of CO2 released globally by construc-
tion activities in 2010 (ref.4), while steel accounted for
25% (ref.5), plastics 8% (ref.4), aluminium <4% (ref.6) and
brick <1% (refs7,8). It is important to note that only half
of cement is used for concrete9, with the rest being used
for blocks, mortar and plaster. Nevertheless, owing to
the large-scale use of concrete in our modern society,
concrete production represents a substantial proportion
of global CO2 emissions associated with construction.
Concrete accumulates in the Earth’s crust and is now
considered to be one of the markers of the Anthropocene10,
with an estimated 900 Gt added since the beginning of the
industrial revolution10,11. The rate of concrete accumulation
is due to the rapid urbanization of the global population.
The global urban population is forecasted to increase by
2.5 billion by 2050, with the majority of this increase
occurring in Asia and Africa12. Together with the pres-
sure to fill the already sizeable housing deficit and the lack
of reliably functioning infrastructure, it is anticipated that
this population growth will cause a surge in demand for
building materials, including concrete. After 2050, the
demand for construction materials is expected to reduce
in most regions of the world13, owing to the achievement of
urban transition and the stabilization of the population13.
It is crucial to act now to reduce the environmen-
tal impact of construction within the next few decades.
New buildings are designed with better energy perfor-
mance than existing buildings, which reduces the energy
need during operation to around 50% of emissions
over the full life cycle (Fig. 1) and increases the focus on
emissions related to concrete production14. For a typ-
ical multifamily residential building, steel-reinforced

Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment

Reviews
Key points
• Large-scale replacement of cement by other materials is not possible within the next
decade.
• The environmental impact of cement and concrete production is low per unit volume
of material, but the amounts used make the impact of the concrete sector highly
important.
• Reductions in CO2 emissions are possible through the introduction of improvements
across the cement and concrete value chain.
• By engaging all stakeholders in the construction sector, immediate greenhouse gas
savings on the order of 50% could be reached without heavy investment in new
industrial infrastructure or modification of existing standards.
• Research and development are urgently needed to allow post-2050 construction to
meet future emissions-reduction targets.
concrete represents 50% of the CO2 emissions attri­
buted to the building construction, with additional con-
tributions from windows, insulation, ceramic tiles and
paint15 (Fig. 1). In addition to CO2 and other greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions16, dust, particulate matter17 and
mercury18 are also associated with cement and concrete
production. Other known issues include the local scar-
city of non-renewable resources19, energy consumption9
and water use20. However, no material has been found
to be capable of replacing reinforced concrete at a low
economic cost9. Considering the tremendous volume of
cement and concrete used, as well as their unique prop-
erties and simplicity of use, replacement does not seem
to be feasible within the next decade21. As a result, it is
vital to develop solutions to mitigate the environmental
impacts of concrete production in the face of increasing
Plaster global demand.
A mixture of hydraulic cement,
fine aggregate and water that
In this Review, we first examine the environmental
hardens; used for coating impacts of cement and concrete production, use and dis-
surfaces, such as ceilings, posal. We then look at potential areas for improvement,
walls and partitions. investigating what can be implemented in the medium
term (that is, the next decade) and what needs to be pro-
Portland cement
A cement constituted by moted in the long term beyond 2050. Throughout the
90–95% clinker, 2–3% Review, we discuss the policy and stakeholder actions
gypsum and minor additives. that could pave the way to a decarbonized concrete sector.
It is the most common cement
type.
Impact on health and the environment
Clinker Considering the vast amounts of cement and concrete
The active part of Portland that are produced, environmental impacts are inevitable.
cement. It is a dark-grey, Issues related to resource depletion and global change
nodular material made by
associated with concrete have therefore attracted con-
heating ground limestone and
clay at a temperature of about siderable press attention. However, other issues related
1,400–1,500 °C. to the local health aspects of concrete production have
recently been observed22. In this section, we describe the
Ready-mix concrete pro­cesses of cement and concrete production, discuss
Concrete manufactured
and delivered to a purchaser
the associated health and environmental issues, and show
in a fresh state. that implementation of stringent and effective regulations
can address many of the challenges presented.
Cement kiln dust
Collected during the firing of
Cement and concrete production
raw materials during the clinker
manufacturing process. Portland cement is composed of four major oxides: CaO,
Consists of four major SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3, which are sourced from raw
components: unreacted raw materials such as limestone, clay and small amounts of
feed, partially calcined feed ‘corrective’ materials such as iron ore, bauxite and sand.
and clinker dust, free lime and
enriched salts of alkali sulfates,
Raw materials are crushed, mixed and milled into a raw
halides and other volatile meal before being calcined in a rotary kiln at temperatures
compounds. up to 1,500 °C, where reactions between CaO and other
elements produce calcium silicates and aluminates23–25.
The raw materials are preheated to ~850 °C using the
exhaust heat of the kiln, which dissociates the calcium
carbonate into CaO and CO2 (Fig. 2). After heating in
the kiln, the melted material is cooled rapidly to form an
assemblage of the silicates alite (also known by the cement
chemistry notation C3S) and belite (C2S), tricalcium alu-
minate (C3A) and tetracalcium aluminoferrite (C4AF),
known as clinker. The clinker is then ground with gyp-
sum to produce Portland cement. Concrete is produced
by mixing cement with sand, gravel (or crushed stone),
water and chemical admixtures. The mixture is usually
produced at a concrete plant and then transported as
ready-mix concrete by concrete trucks to the construction
site. The components can also be mixed at the construc-
tion site itself, in which case, cement is usually trans-
ported in bags and mixed with sand, gravel and water
directly on-site. Concrete is also used to produce precast
elements. Finally, in addition to concrete, cement can be
used in plaster and mortar when mixed with water, sand,
lime and chemical admixtures, both on-site and in premix
mortar factories.
Local health issues
Recent studies have indicated that the economic impact
associated with the release of air pollutants during
cement manufacture, and the resulting health conse-
quences, could rival those caused by GHG emissions and
subsequent climate damage from cement production22.
The inhalation of particulate matter (PM) — particularly
particles smaller than 2.5 μm in diameter (PM2.5) and
10 μm in diameter (PM10) — have substantial conse-
quences for human health and are linked to respiratory
infections, pulmonary disease, lung cancer and heart
attacks26. In the production of cement and cement-based
materials, PM emissions are primarily due to handling
of raw materials (such as crushing and transport)22.
Additionally, secondary PM formed by nitrogen oxides
and sulfur oxides emitted from fuels used in cement
kilns can further contribute to health burdens22.
Modern filtration systems, such as electrostatic pre-
cipitators and baghouses, can capture PM and, thus,
reduce PM emissions27. For example, cement kiln dust can
be captured and reused in the production of clinker if it
has appropriate alkali content28. The use of scrubbers or
alterations in energy mixes can further drive down PM
emissions and the emission of other air pollutants, such
as chlorinated products (Box 1). Nevertheless, despite the
effectiveness of capture and filtration systems, regulation
of their use varies by region.
The importance of regulating PM emission from
cement production is highlighted by measured PM
concentrations around a cement plant in Zambia; here,
PM2.5 concentrations were fivefold to tenfold higher, and
respiratory symptoms (such as cough, phlegm, acute
and chronic bronchitis, and nasal irritation) three times
more common in the community located within the
vicinity of the cement plant (1 km) compared with a
community with a similar socio-economic profile located
18 km away29. Emissions of PM from cement and concrete
production are clearly areas in which appropriate policy,
and implementation of existing technologies, can drive
www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron
 Reviews

a The building stock b One building c One cubic metre concrete d One cement bag
2,000 100 100 100
GHG emissions (kg CO2 per m2)

Relative contribution to CO2

Relative contribution to CO2

Relative contribution to CO2

80 80 80

emissions (%)
emissions (%)

emissions (%)
60 60 60
100
40 40 40
50
20 20 20

0 0 0 0
Existing New
buildings construction
Other Concrete placement Cement final production
Heating over lifetime Sanitary equipment On-site placement Cement grinding
Construction and Electrical equipment Transport to construction site SCM production
maintenance Finishing Concrete production Direct kiln emissions
Insulation Concrete mixing Limestone decarbonation
Windows Transport raw material Fuel burnt
Bricks Material production Material production
Steel reinforcement SCM processing Fuel production and transport
Concrete Cement production Raw material transport
Gravel production and preparation
Sand production
Admixture production

Fig. 1 | the contribution of cement and concrete production to global
warming. a | The relative contribution of building materials to CO 2
emissions is lower for existing buildings compared with new buildings.
The low energy performance of existing buildings means that heating
contributes the majority of the CO2 emissions over the lifetime of the
building. New buildings have lower emissions than existing buildings
during their operation; however, emissions from construction and
maintenance are greater (average values from 230 buildings in Europe
(75%) and Asia (25%))14. b | At the building level, construction-related
emissions from a typical multifamily masonry building come mainly from
reinforced concrete, followed by the contribution of windows (data show
the average of 35 buildings from France and Switzerland built between
2010 and 2015 (refs15,158)). c | For the production of one cubic metre of
concrete, the majority of CO2 emissions come from cement production,
followed by transport of raw materials. Values represent the average of
the main concrete type made with 25% supplementary cementitious
materials (SCMs) in Australia159 and Switzerland160. d | Finally, considering
current clinker production efficiency and the replacement of 30% SCM in
cement, the majority of cement emissions are due to decarbonation of
limestone and burning fuels, both of which are processes involved in
clinker production (values are averages of French values)56,69. GHG,
greenhouse gas.

down undesired environmental burdens16. However, environmental regulations, usually pushes such indus-
PM emissions from aggregate production, ready-mix trial activities further away. For example, aggregates for
operations, construction and demolition might be more construction in the San Francisco Bay Area, California,
difficult to mitigate, as they are more decentralized and come from British Columbia, Canada.
occur on-site, with less technical ability to control them. In countries with fewer environmental regulations,
uncontrolled aggregate extraction can damage ecosys-
Regional resource scarcity tems and biodiversity, with cascading effects that impact
Approximately 10 billion cubic metres of concrete human well-being36–38. Damage to ecosystems is primar-
are produced each year. Such large-scale use of con- ily due to poor resource management39, as natural sand
crete requires 5.4 Gt of limestone, for clinker and filler extraction does not require complex operations and can
production, and 17.5 Gt of aggregate, such as sand or be carried out as an informal activity near large cities40.
gravel30. The demand for raw materials has led to con- Thus, identification and quantification of sustainable
cerns regarding regional scarcity of materials required resource-extraction possibilities around cities should
for concrete production31 (including water20, see Box 2). focus on factors other than local availability of resources,
Between 1900 and 2000, the demand for crushed stone, such as land-use changes41, resource accessibility42 and
sand and gravel in the USA grew from ~40% of raw consideration of political and economic actions43.
materials consumed by weight to ~75%, three times the Although sand and gravel can be considered locally
sum on a per-weight basis of all other raw materials used as critical resources43, it is possible to reduce the impact
Aggregate by human activities32. of concrete production on ecosystems by using second-
A granular material, such as
Although sand and gravel are abundant on Earth33, ary or non-depleted bulk local resources44. For exam-
sand, gravel or crushed stone,
used with a cementing medium transportation over long distances is typically avoided, ple, an untapped resource is excavation material45.
to form hydraulic-cement owing to the associated economic cost34,35. Therefore, Each new construction generates excavation materials
concrete or mortar. a construction boom will increase the local pressure that are usually transported to landfills outside the city.
for natural sand and coarse aggregates close to urban Instead, excavation materials can be washed to extract
Filler
A finely divided mineral
areas19. However, the resistance from urban residents, as sand and gravel for concrete production46 and mineral
product, at least 65 % of which well as the high costs associated with expanding quar- soils in excavation materials can be used in clay-based
passes the 75-μm sieve. ries and sand mines near urban areas with stringent concrete47. As such, excavation material could supply

Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment

Reviews

Petroleum coke
Foundry Soil-remediation
sand residues
Raw material Alternative raw materials
extraction
Coal Gas

Fuels
Raw material Paint residue,
preparation Cement heat
solvent, used Biomass
recovery
tyres
Preheating
Municipal solid waste
Alternative fuels
Rotary kiln

Recycled Cement kiln Cooling

concrete fines dust • Fly ash
SCM • Blast-furnace slag
addition • Limestone filler
• Natural pozzolans
• Calcined clays
Cement grinder Supplementary cementitious
materials

Water Additives

Sand Gravel Ready-mix concrete Prefabricated elements On-site concrete

and mortars

Construction

Waste gypsum board, Recycled Building use

recycled concrete fines aggregates Reuse concrete elements

Demolition

Landfill

www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron

◀ Fig. 2 | the cement value chain. From raw material extraction to building demolition,
numerous stakeholders are involved but very seldom integrated. Alternative solutions
for the choice of fuel and raw materials can reduce the environmental impact of clinker
production. The use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) reduces the
environmental impact of cement. Recycling of construction and demolition waste
can be incorporated at different stages along the value chain from clinker, cement,
concrete or building.
half of the national construction material requirement
in China, substantially reducing the strain on local
resource availability 48,49. Finally, sustainable resource
management can be achieved through promotion of
strong policy and regulatory frameworks to secure good
practice along the supply chain; for example, through
certification systems such as the Concrete Sustainability
Council (CSC) label50.
Global environmental issues
Although resource scarcity and pollutant emissions are
recognized as important environmental issues facing
the cement and concrete industry, the most commonly
discussed environmental impact is the high level of
GHG emissions. Cement accounts for 36% of all emis-
sions related to construction activities4 and 8% of total
anthropogenic CO2 emissions51, amounting to ~300 kg
of CO2 produced per capita. At least 70% of GHG emis-
sions associated with concrete production are related to
the production of cement30 (Fig. 1).
The predominant source of GHG emissions in cement
production is the production of clinker at the kilning
stage, although grinding, sorting of raw materials and
packaging of cement bags also have a minor contribu-
tion to emissions16,52. Emissions from kilning are due to
the combustion of fuel and the decomposition of lime-
stone to CaO and CO2 during the calcination process53.
Emissions caused by energy-resource combustion dur-
ing cement production amount to approximately 0.31 kg
of CO2 per kg of cement produced54, but can be notably
reduced through increasing kiln efficiency and choosing
lower-carbon fuels55. As a result, when cement is pro-
duced using a state-of-the-art dry-process rotary kiln
equipped with a precalciner, decomposition of limestone
during calcination represents around two-thirds of the
total GHG emissions56. Consequently, cement production
is considered difficult to decarbonize21, as decarboniza-
tion of the energy supply does not eliminate the inherent
material-related CO2 emissions caused by calcination21.
Several mitigation strategies have been developed to
reduce calcination-related emissions, some of which
are discussed below. However, unlike regional resource
scarcity and local health consequences, the global envi-
ronmental impact of GHG emissions associated with the
concrete industry cannot be fully addressed by mitiga-
tion strategies alone and technological breakthroughs are
needed to meet global GHG-mitigation goals.
Medium-term solutions
The peak in new construction will occur in the next few
decades12,57 and it is, thus, critical to focus on reducing
the environmental impact of concrete production in
this time period (referred to here as ‘medium term’).
To do so, it is necessary to consider efficiency at all stages
Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment
Reviews
of the value chain: clinker production, cement produc-
tion, cement use in concrete or mortar, concrete use in
construction, design of structures and use of structures.
It is essential that all parts of this chain are considered,
as emissions savings in cement production, for exam-
ple, could be lost if the cement content of concrete were
to increase. In this section, we explore the potential for
medium-term reductions in the GHG emission and
environmental impacts along the value chain of concrete
production (Table 1). The solutions presented are of par-
ticular importance, as they can often be implemented
without new production technologies or infrastructure.
The efficiency of clinker production
Owing to the large increase in energy costs associ-
ated with the oil crisis of the 1970s, more than 85% of
cement kilns now use energy-efficient dry methods,
which do not require additional energy to evaporate
water58,59. In addition, recent progress in heat recovery
and recycling allows state-of-the-art kilns to achieve 63%
efficiency, which could reach 80% through integrated
approaches60 (such as an increase in the oxygen content
of the combustion air; Fig. 2). As a result, modern kilns
are among today’s most efficient thermal machines in
wide-scale industrial use, with limited scope for further
improvement55.
Modern cement kilns are also extremely flexible in
terms of fuel source and many plants in Europe use var-
ious waste streams for more than 80% of their energy
demand. For example, in 2013, around 1.3 million tyres —
50% of all recycled tyres — were used as fuels for clinker
production across Europe and, as early as the 1990s,
about 70% of all hazardous wastes in the USA were burnt
in cement kilns. Waste materials derived from fossil fuels
such as solvents, plastics and tyres are not regarded as
carbon neutral; however, it is important to note that
transferring waste fuels from incineration plants to
cement kilns results in a substantial net CO2 reduction61.
Another advantage of using waste as fuel in cement kilns
is that toxic residues such as dioxins, which are usually
generated and released when waste materials are inciner-
ated, are completely incorporated into clinker and, thus,
not released into the atmosphere62. The International
Energy Agency roadmap expects the worldwide use of
‘alternative fuels’ to grow from 3% in 2006 to about 37%
in 2050 and deliver around 15% of the targeted overall
reduction in CO2 emissions55,63.
The increase in kiln and fuel efficiency means that
fuel consumption now accounts for only one-third of
the CO2 emissions from clinker production. However,
it is much more difficult to reduce the other two-thirds
of CO2 emissions, which are derived from the decom-
position of limestone and related directly to the CaO
composition of clinker. Reduction of CO2 emissions
could be achieved if a source of CaO other than lime-
stone (CaCO3) is used. Unfortunately, practical sources
of non-carbonate calcium are limited. One potential
source of CaO is the fine-grained material generated by
crushing concrete for recycling aggregate64; however, as
the volume of new construction is greater than the vol-
ume of demolition, recycled, crushed concrete will not
be a viable replacement for limestone on a global scale.
Reviews
Box 1 | heavy metals contamination from industrial waste
Emissions during cement production
The fuels and raw materials used in cement kilns can be the source of hazardous air
pollutants other than particulate matter, such as polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
and polychlorinated dibenzofurans18. Emission of these hazardous air pollutants are
a matter of concern in several countries, such as China, which accounts for nearly 50%
of global cement production161. However, effectively implemented controls can reduce
the level of hazardous pollutants, in some cases to undetectable levels, in the vicinity in the future, similarly large reductions to GHG emis-
of the cement plant162–164. Toxic heavy metals165 can also be released into the atmosphere
during kilning60,166, but appropriate control devices and exhaust filters can mitigate
heavy-metal and hazardous air emissions60,166. Furthermore, the high temperatures and
alkaline conditions in cement plants allow for the full decomposition of the fuel’s organic
component163,167,168, contrary to plants with lower kiln temperatures, where the risk of
organic residues, such as dioxin, in exhaust gas is a concern.
Emissions at the end of use
Industrial waste leaches heavy metals if improperly stored; however, their use as a
partial cement replacement could provide a potential solution. The high pH of the
interstitial pore solution in cement precipitates heavy-metals complexes, stabilizing
them and preventing leaching169, although stabilization is compromised in poorly cured
concrete170. Similarly, while there do not appear to be any leaching issues associated
with the use of industrial waste as a partial replacement of cement in appropriately
cured concrete, alternatives such as municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash and
non-ferrous slags are anticipated to have some chloride-leaching and metal-leaching
issues171. However, in such cases, leaching of undesirable compounds might be
mitigated through the use of pretreatments to remove or convert potentially harmful
compounds68; for example, prehydration or carbonation can reduce metal leaching
from municipal solid waste incineration bottom ashes172,173.
The efficiency of cement production
The most promising route to a large-scale reduction
in GHG emissions comes from substituting compo-
nents of cement with alternative materials, for exam-
ple, replacing a substantial proportion of clinker with
supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). The
most widely used SCM is fine limestone, represent-
ing one-third of SCM used65. Instead of heating at
high temperature to produce clinker, fine limestone is
directly used as SCM without heating and, thus, does
not undergo decarbonization, resulting in lower GHG
emissions66. However, owing to its limited reactivity, at
substitution levels above around 10–15%, it is simply
acting as a filler and not a cementitious material67.
Other SCMs currently used include fly ash and
blast-furnace slag, which are by-products of coal power
plants and the iron industry, respectively 68. Using
such by-products or waste from other industries as
Supplementary
cementitious materials SCMs decreases the environmental impact of cement
An inorganic material that production69. At present, fly ash and blast-furnace slag
contributes to the properties of contribute to only 15% of cement production, which
a cementitious mixture through could technically be increased up to 30–50%. However,
hydraulic or pozzolanic activity.
almost all sources of fly ash or blast-furnace slag are
Fly ash already being used, either in cement production or later
Mineral residue of coal added to concrete. Further, the availability of fly ash and
combustion composed of blast-furnace slag is likely to decrease as we move away
the fine particles driven out
from the use of coal and increase recycling of steel.
of coal-fired boilers, together
with the fuel gases. There is great potential for large-scale reduction of
CO2 emissions through extensive use of clays, which are
Blast-furnace slag widely available worldwide. When calcined at around
By-product of iron-making 600 °C, clays are a highly reactive SCM70,71. Substitution
and steel-making, obtained
by quenching molten iron slag
of clinker with a combination of calcined clay and fine
from a blast furnace in water limestone produces a cement known as limestone cal-
or steam. cined clay cement or ‘LC3’, which performs well even at
high substitution levels of clinker (up to 50%)66,72,73. It is
estimated that CO2 savings of 15–30% could be achieved
if the use of LC3 is adopted worldwide66,72.
Optimizing the efficiency of concrete
Although the use of SCMs will be important for reduc-
ing CO2 emissions associated with concrete production
sions can be achieved through more efficient use of
cement in concrete. Studies have shown that the cement
content of concrete can vary by a factor of three with-
out affecting concrete performance74,75. As a result, it is
possible to carefully select and control mixture propor-
tions to achieve the necessary concrete properties and
simultaneously reduce GHG emissions76. In addition,
the cement content of concrete is often dictated by the
mixing method such that, in general, manual mixing
on site from cement in bags is highly inefficient com-
pared with mixing in a ready-mix plant and, thus, leads
to higher cement contents and GHG emissions77. As a
result, application of proper mixture designs in a con-
crete plant, which calculate the appropriate proportions
of sand and gravel that are required, can lead to further
reductions in GHG emissions — up to 50% — without
compromising the strength or fluidity of the concrete78.
Promoting industrialized concrete production as a
replacement for on-site mixing, especially in develop-
ing nations where cement is regularly sold in bags and
used without proper technical control79, could substan-
tially reduce cement consumption and, therefore, CO2
emissions, in both concrete and mortar applications80.
For instance, examples from Brazil reveal that, among
the concrete-block producers in the São Paulo region,
CO2 emissions range from 0.6 kg CO2 per block to
1.34 kg CO2, with no reasons for such variation other
than the quality of the process and attention to proper
mix design81.
Emissions associated with concrete production can
also be reduced by replacing up to 60% of cement with
fillers — simple ground material — in combination with a
dispersant admixture. The use of fillers has been shown
to be feasible in precast concrete and ready-mix concrete
in Germany82 and Brazil83. Application of fillers to the
production of concrete or cement requires an adequate
supply chain of fillers and efficient dispersants, and
advanced knowledge and technical capability. However,
the use of fillers can be limited by the cost of the disper-
sant admixture and the possibility that existing concrete
standards, which require a minimum cement content,
might not be met84.
Improving construction efficiency
A national study in Brazil showed that the waste material
produced by concrete construction activities can be as
high 50–100% of the mass of concrete used in the build-
ing, and highlighted that waste rates are much higher
when cement is sold in bags rather than in ready-mix
concrete85. The issue of waste is especially relevant in
developing countries, where the largest growth in con-
crete demand is expected9 and where quality control on
construction sites is generally lower than in developed
countries86. Better design and site-management practices
www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron

Dead load
have been shown to be important in reducing waste
Loads that are relatively and should be relatively straightforward to implement,
constant over time, including as there is motivation for builders to reduce waste, as
the weight of the structure waste increases building costs. Indeed, education pro-
itself and immovable fixtures.
grammes aimed at practitioners, such as Colombia Mas
Post-tensioning Competitiva carried by the Swiss Development Agency,
Action of tensioning tendons which focused on construction and demolition waste,
of reinforced structure after are a potential strategy to raise awareness and improve
the surrounding concrete has
building waste management.
been cast. It is applied for
prestressed concrete and
Decisions taken during the construction phase, such
reduces tensile forces in the as those regarding the length of the curing period before
structure. demoulding concrete, can also impact efficiency and
cause notable changes in the quantity of cement needed
for concrete production30. Additionally, better controls
on the volume of water used during construction and
the curing period can have a critical influence on the
strength and durability, and, therefore, safety, of the final
structure87.
Design efficiency
Research has shown that structural materials are often
used inefficiently in buildings85. Reducing GHG emis-
sions through careful design is complicated by the
interplay between concrete performance — which is
dictated by mixture proportions — and the quantity
of steel needed for reinforcement — which is often
highly constrained by building codes. For reinforced-
concrete columns, an increase in concrete compressive
strength typically leads to a reduction in GHG emis-
sions (as it is possible to reduce column volume), while
for reinforced-concrete beams, the main challenge for
reducing emissions is lowering the clinker content with-
out compromising the strength88. Combining optimiza-
tion strategies — modulating concrete strength, rebar
content and clinker content — has been shown to reduce
GHG emissions by 20% (ref.88) for buildings, consider-
ing conventional design constraints. Higher savings can
be expected for structures such as bridges, where the
Box 2 | Water consumption
Water is one of the main constituents in concrete and the mass of water used in
cement production can equal that of the final cement product30. The direct water
consumption used in cement products is equivalent to 400 l per capita each year.
However, water used as a constituent in concrete represents only about 20% of the
total water consumed in its production20,174. The remaining water use is energy related
or process related20. Much of the process-related water is consumed during the
quarrying, crushing and washing of raw materials used in the production of cement
and concrete; for example, water is used for dust suppression20,174. Energy-related
water consumption depends on cement kiln type166 and the energy mixes used, which
can vary significantly depending on location175. On average, less than 50% of water
consumption associated with concrete production is linked to the cement20, and
water-management strategies should, thus, be implemented all along the supply chain.
Overall, the cement and concrete sector plays a minor role in water-scarcity
discussions, contributing to less than 5% of total water withdrawal176, and, in most
countries, less than 1% of total renewable water resources20. However, water use limitations of some alternative technologies, might make
is a complex, interwoven environmental issue. For example, a transition from river
aggregate to crushed aggregate in a move towards the sustainable management of
mineral resources will increase water consumption owing to the need to wash crushed
aggregates. Conversely, in emerging countries, crushed stone is rarely washed — an
approach associated with dust problems, related health issues and a lower-strength
concrete. There is, therefore, a water–mineral nexus, and development of crushed
gravel has to be combined with closed-loop water treatment.
Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment
Reviews
dead load is the predominant design parameter89, with
the potential of 30–40% GHG savings through a com-
bined effect of concrete strength increase and volume
decrease90,91.
Further savings can be achieved by increasing the
lifespan of new structures, which could avoid the need
for a structure to be demolished and rebuilt 92. For
example, innovations in ultra-high-performance con-
crete have allowed the service life of infrastructure to be
extended, cutting the GHG emissions associated with
conventional rehabilitation by 50% (ref.93).
Reduction of GHG emissions
It is clear that achieving marginal gains throughout the
value chain could lead to substantial savings in GHG
emissions (Table 2). Although savings are not necessar-
ily additive and might not be appropriate in all applica-
tions, clinker production in the UK could be reduced
by around 50% through combined application of such
existing technologies94.
The substitution of cement with calcined clay and
limestone has the greatest potential to reduce GHG
emissions, followed by reducing the amount of cement
in concrete and floor-slab optimization through pre-
fabrication and post-tensioning (Table  2). Uniformly
implementing these savings may be difficult, as the con-
struction sector is a fragmented industry with multiple
stakeholders95. Outside of the cement industry — which
concentrates on investment and production capacity —
stakeholders from waste-management companies to
concrete producers or engineering offices are often
decentralized entities, relying on multiple, independent
actors96 (Table 2). As a result, strong enforcement policies
implemented through a top-down approach and efforts
to integrate the value chain are needed97,98.
Long-term solutions
Society will continue to require infrastructure elements
after 2050 that can only realistically be constructed from
concrete. Moving the construction sector to carbon neu-
trality will, therefore, require substantial investment in
innovative ways of producing and using concrete, mak-
ing use of the longer research and development time
available. In this section, we explore the most promis-
ing long-term solutions for reducing the environmental
impact of concrete.
Use of alternative cements
Many studies have described disruptive technologies that
could act as alternatives to cement production99,100 by
replacing cement, either in part or in full101. Alternative
cements can have a reduced environmental impact rela­
tive to conventional cements102,103; however, issues with
the availability and cost of materials, and the technical
them unrealistic from a technical or resource standpoint,
and they are, thus, unlikely to reach large-scale technical
maturity by 2050. Indeed, it will be difficult for alter-
native cements to meet more than 5% of the projected
future demand for cementitious materials104,105. For
example, calcium sulfoaluminate cements, which are
largely used in China, reduce GHG emissions associated
Reviews

Table 1 | available technologies along the cement and concrete value chain
General technology Current situation technically possible Level of Stakeholder(s)
strategy achievement action involved
Cement 3,700 MJ per tclinker 3,540 MJ per tclinker Clinker Cement industry
improvements (ref.65) (ref.55)

Dry technologies
8.4×10−5 tCO2 per MJ 3.5×10−5 tCO2 per MJ Clinker Waste-management
(ref.65) (ref.61) companies

Alternative fuels
770 kgclinker per tcement 150 kgclinker per tcement Cement Cement, steel and coal
(ref.65) (ref.84) industries

SCMs
Breakthrough 0 kgCO2 captured per 660 kgCO2 captured per tclinker Clinker Cement industry
strategies tclinker (ref.55)

CCS
NA 0 kgCO2 per talternative cement Cement Cement industry

Alternative cement
Integrated ~0.4 tCO2 per tclinker ~0.3 tCO2 per tclinker (limited Cement Demolition companies
value-chain by the composition of the
improvements raw mix)

Reuse of demolition fine as clinker raw

material
8 kgcement per m3 per 4 kgcement per m3 per MPa Concrete Concrete manufacturer
MPa (refs9,74) (refs9,74)

Granular packing
300 kgcement per m3 150 kgcement per m3 (ref.84) Concrete Concrete engineering
(refs156,157) office

Exposure class
NA 0.1 m3reused per m3total of concrete Structure Architects, demolition
companies

Reuse of elements

www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron

Table 1 (cont.) | available technologies along the cement and concrete value chain
General technology Current situation
strategy
Integrated 1,103 kgconcrete per
value-chain m2built
improvements
(cont.)
Optimization
CCS, carbon capture and storage; NA, not applicable; SCMs, supplementary cementitious materials.
with the decarbonation of limestone, owing to their alu-
minium chemistry106. However, the lack of high-alumina
raw materials such as bauxite limits its implementation.
Even if all current bauxite extraction were diverted from
the production of aluminium, it would not be sufficient
to provide more than 10–15% of the current demand
for cement107.
Other suggested cement alternatives could be scaled
up in the next 20 years. For example, alkali-activated
cements, where reaction between an aluminosilicate
precursor such as fly ash and an alkali activator such
as sodium silicate leads to the polymerization of sili-
cate and aluminate108, have been discussed as a poten-
tial alternative to Portland cement in many large-scale
applications105. Alkali-activated concretes, which contain
alkali-activated cement, have the capacity to integrate
high-alkali-content solid wastes in their manufacture,
which cannot be reused in concrete made with Portland
cement99,109. They have also been shown to be econom-
ically and technically viable in precast and ready-mixed
formats in regions where the supply of suitable activa-
tors and precursors is plentiful110. However, supply chain
challenges related to the availability of highly effective
alkaline activators such as sodium silicate could limit
the application of alkali-activated cements. Indeed, cur-
rent sodium silicate production is insufficient to allow
the replacement of even 0.1% of the global production
of Portland cement111. Alkali activation using more
widely available salts, such as sodium carbonate, shows
high potential for larger-scale production of alternative
cements112. However, competition remains for the sup-
ply of aluminosilicate precursors that are also used as
SCMs in Portland cement-based concretes and already
face limited availability.
One of the main challenges regarding the use of
alkali-activated concretes and other technologies based
on industrial waste is the scale on which waste mate-
rial is needed for a meaningful use in construction.
Waste generated at a rate of tens of tonnes per annum
may be a major disposal challenge for many industries,
but represents far less waste than that required for use
in commercial-scale construction — unless the mate-
rial has very specific technical characteristics that can
improve the performance of cementitious or concrete
materials. Wastes available at the scales needed for real-
istic use in concretes are found in widespread mining
operations, biomass combustion, metallurgical recy-
cling and/or modernized extractive metallurgy, and
construction and demolition113. Waste products from
Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment
Reviews
technically possible Level of Stakeholder(s)
achievement action involved
895 kgconcrete per m2built Structure Structural engineering
(refs94,151,152) office
such activities can all be quality-controlled to some
extent, a process that is essential to achieve the necessary
consistency of construction products.
Alternatively, magnesium-based cements, which are
based on the use of magnesium carbonates or oxides, do
not require the use of limestone and use various alter-
natives to the conventional clinkerization process114.
If magnesium carbonate is obtained through the car-
bonation of geologically sourced magnesium silicate,
using CO2 that would otherwise be emitted into the
atmosphere, then magnesium-based cements can have a
substantial sustainability advantage115. However, past
attempts to develop a scalable process for the carbon-
ation of magnesium silicate have been unsuccessful,
and it is likely that the very high capital expenditure
required makes implementation challenging116. Even
if low-energy, scalable processes become available for
exploiting magnesium silicates, the availability of raw
materials is more localized than the limestone used to
produce Portland cement117. Moreover, deep-mining
operations might be required to recover the volume
of magnesium silicate required to meet the demand
for construction. Magnesium recovery from brines for
use in cements has been proposed as an alternative
for use in magnesium-based cements118, but is likely
geographically limited to regions in which large-scale
seawater desalination is taking place or where salt lakes
are accessible.
Other alternative cement solutions are based on the
idea of cement setting and hardening through the car-
bonation of CaO, which allows the CO2 emitted during
cement production to be recaptured and could allow for
a move towards carbon-neutral cement. However, there
are issues related to the quantity of CaO sources available
that do not come from the decarbonation of limestone.
If CaO is derived from limestone, then there can be no
net reduction in the CO2 emission, as the CO2 that can
be reabsorbed by the cement can never be more than the
CO2 emitted in the decarbonation step and additional
emissions would be incurred in generating energy for
cement production. Nevertheless, carbonatable cal-
cium silicate cement (CCSC) technology has recently
been developed thanks to advances that allow acceler-
ation and control of carbonation industrially, without
excessive energy consumption119. Simple calcium silicate
minerals such as wollastonite can carbonate very rapidly
in relatively pure CO2 gas and have been used in Solidia
cement120 for thin, precast products. However, wollas-
tonite is not well distributed in the Earth’s crust and can,
Reviews

Table 2 | Stakeholder attributes

Stakeholder number of available action(s) market Benefits (% Co2 Potential
actors investment penetration and/or reduction for (benefit
applicability (%) the technology) × market)
Alternative-fuel XXX $$ Collecting and sorting of alternative 85 14 12
producer fuel for clinker kiln
Clinker producer X $$$$$ Kiln efficiency 15 1 0.15
Carbon capture and storage 15 100 15
Cement producer XX $$$$ Increased degree of substitution 17 45 8
Alternative cements 15 41 6
Concrete producer XXXXXX $$ Optimize concrete mix 25 17 4
Construction XXXXXXXXX $$ Waste control, low-carbon-concrete NA NA NA
company use
Engineering office XXXX $ Lower exposure class prescription, 25 25 6
structural optimization
Architect office XXXX $ Optimized design 70 13 9
Demolition XXXXXXX $ Fines and waste recycling 20 8 2
company
Client XXXXXXXXXXX $$ Integration of all actions 100 62 62
Summary of the actions that can be taken by stakeholders to reduce the CO2 budget of concrete production. The potential of each action from a particular stakeholder
is calculated as the product of the benefit of the technology (measured as the percent CO2 reduction) and its market penetration. ‘$’ symbols represent a qualitative
assessment of the economic benefits and investment possibilities for the different stakeholders. Cement and clinker producers are the most concentrated actors and
generate the largest benefit. Similarly, the number of actors involved in developing or implementing each technology is represented by ‘X’ symbols. The fastest and
easiest implementation possibilities happen when small numbers of actors with high investment capabilities can have large saving potentials at low costs (such as for
the increase of supplementary cementitious materials in cement). The other actions will require incentive and/or regulation constraints from national authorities to
motivate the actors to engage in the transition. NA, not applicable.

Carbonation depth
Depth within the structure at
which the pH is greater than 9.
thus, only act as a major component of CCSCs in specific
locations. As current global production of wollastonite
is only 500,000 tonnes per year — the bulk of this pro-
duction occurring in China121 — a transition towards
wollastonite-based CCSCs would require extraction to
increase 10,000-fold to match global cement output.
Although research has been carried out into the use
of alternative cements for over half a century, the avail-
ability of raw materials, the confidence in long-term
performance and the limitations of alternative cements
to specific applications in well-controlled environ-
ments indicate that they cannot be considered a direct
one-for-one replacement of conventional cementitious
materials within the next few decades. However, when
considering a more local context, there is a great deal
that can be achieved by the production of fit-for-purpose
local cement technologies and solutions specific to the
areas where the desired resources do exist. The most
critical issue is cost; alternative cements must be made
highly scalable and cost-competitive, even if only used
at a local level.
Carbonation of cement and concrete
Aside from the use of SCMs or alternative cements, CO2
savings in the production of Portland cement could be
achieved in its use phase and at the end of life. When
exposed to the atmosphere, cementitious materials can
capture CO2 through carbonation, although the amount
of CO2 that is taken up is only a fraction of that released
by limestone decomposition during cement production.
Carbonation involves the calcium-containing phases
of cement — such as calcium silicate hydrates, calcium
aluminate hydrates and portlandite (Ca(OH) 2) —
reacting with CO2 to produce calcium carbonate and
other, non-carbonated phases122. The reaction starts
on the exposed surface and proceeds by CO2 diffusing
slowly into the material. Carbonation has been exten-
sively studied by engineers, as a reduction in the pH of
concrete pore water below pH ~9.4, owing to the pres-
ence of additional CO2, can damage the electrochemical
protection of mild-steel reinforcement bars and, thus,
worsen corrosion123. As a result, carbonation is consid-
ered deleterious for the durability of concrete structures
exposed to high relative humidity or rain.
Carbonation is a diffusion-limited reaction and,
accordingly, the carbonation depth can be calculated by
k×t0.5, where t is time and k a constant. The value of
k for real concrete structures usually varies between 2 and
15 mm year−0.5 (ref.124), meaning that, depending on the
properties of the concrete, the centre of a 200-mm-thick
concrete column could take anywhere between 44 and
2,500 years to reach pH 9.4. Little systematic informa-
tion exists on the carbonation of other materials, such
as mortars and renders, except for a study suggesting
that the k value of mortars might range from 6.1 to
36.9 mm year−0.5, which indicates that a 30-mm layer of
mortar could carbonate in merely 8 months125.
Carbonation depth does not translate immediately
to carbon capture, as the combination of even a fraction
of the available CaO and MgO with CO2 can cause a
large enough reduction in the pH of concrete to compro-
mise steel reinforcements126. The degree of carbonation
is maximal at the surface of the concrete and decreases
inwards126 (Fig. 3). However, capture-focused studies have

www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron

Subbase
often assumed a simplified profile of CO2 absorption
The subbase is the main (Fig. 3), where the maximum degree of carbonation —
load-bearing layer of the measured in terms of available CaO converted to
pavement, usually composed CaCO3 — can be as high as 100% (ref.125). Lower fig-
of unbound aggregates, while
ures appear more realistic; for example, crushed mate-
the base and the wearing
course are asphalt-bound rials may achieve approximately 50% carbonation127,128.
layers positioned above Factors such as the porosity and chemical composition
the subbase. of cement hydrates, presence of SCMs, cement-paste
volume and environmental conditions influence the
maximum carbonation degree achieved122.
These points highlight that there is large uncer-
tainty in any estimation of the amount of CO2 that can
be captured by a single structure127. Nevertheless, few
estimates of CO2 capture by in-use cementitious prod-
ucts and waste materials have been published125,129, with
global estimates varying between 0.9 Gt in 2013 (ref.125)
to 0.7 ± 0.12 Gt in 2015 (ref.130). As a result, capture is
believed to account for about 25% of the total annual
CO2 emissions from cement production, although lower
values of 14–19.6% have been published for Portugal131
and 17% for Sweden128. Further data are needed to assess
carbon capture by cementitious materials in current
structures, as systematic analyses are, so far, limited to a
single Swedish study128. Some initial international efforts
are described in a report from the European Committee
for Standardization132, but the methodology of that study
requires further extension and refinement to capture the
range of influential parameters described above.
It is important to understand that the carbon uptake
of cementitious materials cannot be used to reduce the
current environmental impact of concrete production,
as this capture mechanism is already happening and is,
Measured pH Emitted
(phenolphthalein) chemical CO2
100
90
80
70
Carbon uptake (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 conventional Portland cement122,137,138. For limestone
Concrete cross section (cm)
Range of Example of Simplified carbonation
carbonation carbonation profile model
Fig. 3 | Carbonation profile through concrete. Durability concerns for concrete usually
determine the carbonation depth with phenolphthalein, as its colour will change at pH 9.
However, for studies related to carbon storage in concrete, such a simple assessment
is not sufficient, as full carbonation of cementitious product is not achieved when
phenolphthalein changes colour and carbonated products are already present beyond
the carbonation depth. Data and carbonation ranges taken from refs125–127,139.
Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment
Reviews
therefore, factored into CO2-emission calculations.
To be able to count carbon uptake as a carbon sink,
with regards to the COP21 Paris Agreement targets,
one would need to intentionally increase and hasten the
carbonation process. Some companies, for example, Blue
Planet, have started to explore CO2 mineralization for
products used in concrete.
Increasing CO2 uptake at end of life. At the end of con-
crete’s lifetime, it may be crushed into smaller pieces
for reuse as aggregate in the production of new con-
crete. Carbonation can be increased at this stage, owing
to the increased surface area of the crushed concrete.
Carbonation of crushed concrete is, by far, the most dis-
cussed possibility for increasing the CO2 uptake of con-
crete as part of its normal life cycle. The total potential
uptake could be around 75% of the CO2 associated with
initial limestone decalcination127, which represents about
110 kg CO2 per cubic metre for standard concrete133.
Currently, crushed concrete is often either stockpiled in
construction and demolition heaps127 or reused as road
subbase or in new concrete, both of which reduce its
carbonation potential through limiting its exposure to
atmospheric CO2 (ref.134). Increased carbonation could
be achieved by allowing a longer period for exposure
of crushed aggregates to the air or through enhanced
processing, such as accelerated carbonation135. However,
the volume of materials to be handled, the need to bring
back crushed materials from demolition sites to concen-
trated industrial treatment facilities — which is associ-
ated with CO2, particulate matter and noise emissions
from both transport and crushing — and the very low
price of aggregates in many regions make full-scale
development and deployment of accelerated carbonation
challenging in a global context.
Increased CO2 uptake in the use stage. Carbonation
reduces the durability of steel-reinforced con-
crete exposed to outdoor wet and dry cycles or high
humidity123,136. However, only a fraction of cement
that is used for reinforced concrete is exposed to such
conditions9. For all other forms of concrete, carbonation
is beneficial and, in some cases, can lead to increased
strength and reduced porosity of a structure122. As a
result, more than 80% of cement is used in applications
where higher carbonation will not induce durability
concerns9. Thus, engineers could be educated to embrace
carbonation under such circumstances and actually allow
for carbonation by design.
In addition, cements with a high SCM fraction car-
bonate significantly faster and to a higher degree than
calcined clay cement with 50% SCMs, the carbonation
rate was increased by a factor of three and the maximum
carbon uptake was increased by a factor of two139. Design
changes, specifically, in the thickness of concrete and the
use of CO2-permeable surface coverings, could also reduce
the time for CO2 capture. 3D-printing technology could
allow new shapes to increase the surface area-to-volume
ratio of construction components140 and vary the compo-
sition of concrete inside a given component; however, this
technology is still in its infancy141.
Reviews
Oxyfuel
Combustion process, where
fuels are burnt in a nearly
pure oxygen environment,
as opposed to air, resulting
in a CO2-separation efficiency
theoretically close to 100%.
Exposure class
The exposure condition
of a concrete structure,
which defines the concrete
prescription required to assure
the durability of the concrete
structure over its life cycle.
Carbon capture and storage. Despite the new technol-
ogies and mitigation strategies previously discussed,
no cement can be CO2-neutral unless carbon capture
and storage is used. Different carbon capture and stor-
age technologies are available, including absorption,
membrane-based processes, mineral carbonation and the
use of oxyfuel, among others142. Investment costs range
from €200 to €300 million per kiln59 and can increase the
price of the final cement product by 50–100% (ref.143).
The price increase can exacerbate social inequalities
associated with construction; for example, the cost asso-
ciated with cement for a middle-class, multifamily resi-
dential building is limited to 1%, even when the cement
price is doubled144, whereas for low-cost housing, the cost
of cement can represent 5–10% of construction costs.
Carbon-capture methods are also associated with legal
issues related to determining which stakeholder will have
to carry the risk associated with CO2 storage. Such issues
have not yet been resolved145,146 and legal uncertainties are
delaying large-scale implementation147.
Summary and future perspectives
Concrete has a low environmental impact per product
delivered and, crucially, allows us to handle the ongoing
urbanization of the global population and the resulting
social challenges associated with providing sufficient
housing and infrastructure. However, the widespread use
of concrete and cement means that their production has a
substantial negative impact on the environment and health,
associated with material extraction, water consumption,
particulate matter and heavy metal emissions. In addition,
GHG emissions associated with concrete production are a
major contributor to climate change, and reducing emis-
sions, either through the use of new technologies or strin-
gent regulation and controls to push the widespread use
of existing practices, will be essential for meeting climate
targets. Minor improvements in the efficiency of concrete
production, such as optimizing the cement content of
concrete and the clinker content of cement, using SCMs
and improving construction and design efficiency, could
all have a substantial impact on reducing GHG emissions
if implemented on a large scale in the next few decades.
Furthermore, technological advances, such as alternative
cements and accelerating the carbon capture of concrete
products, will also be essential for ensuring the long-term
sustainability of cement structures and a move towards
zero-carbon concrete.
Efforts from all stakeholders, from policymakers to
clients, will be required to accumulate as many marginal
gains available as possible (Table 2). Currently, different
cement plants can have very different environmental
impacts, depending on their efficiency and the amount of
waste that is used as alternative fuels148. Similarly, although
concrete is typically seen as a single material, the diver-
sity of cement types and concrete mixes are such that the
carbon footprint of products with a similar strength and
durability can vary by a factor of three74,149. Policies that
require more transparency and better measurement of
environmental impacts could help stakeholders to make
more informed choices regarding sustainability. The CSC
is a recent initiative from the cement and concrete indus-
try that awards certification to a finished concrete product
that fulfils sustainability criteria, taking into account
the value chain from the cement plant to the product. The
CSC initiative includes environmental and social issues
such as land use, air quality, water, biodiversity, health and
safety, and labour practices50.
In addition, current standards are based on material
formulations or recipes, or on technical performance,
with little regard for environmental performance. As
a result, there is little to no incentive for the concrete
producer to propose an ‘environmentally friendly’ mix
design. Nevertheless, some concrete producers, such as
Cemex, have provided customer guarantees (Vertua) that
they will produce a given class of low-carbon concrete
(15%, 25% and 40% less CO2 than the average standard),
which represents a clear step forwards and shows a change
taking place in the profession150. Moving standards from
a prescriptive basis to a performance basis is essential,
but demands that performance is defined holistically and
includes environmental considerations if it is to have the
necessary effect on emissions across the sector.
Client demand for concrete with a lower environ-
mental impact must also drive a move towards sustain-
able concrete. It is possible to design materially efficient
structures, but they are rarely requested151. In regions
lacking policies on cement efficiency, the design team
has no incentive to optimize their structure without
a direct request from the client and will use standard
practices that might be inefficient.
Time constraints, fragmented supply chains and lack
of awareness are some of the many barriers standing in
the way of improving efficiency and reducing GHG
emissions across the concrete value chain. To motivate
all the actors involved in cement use, a set of bench-
marks tailored for each stakeholder can be proposed116.
In Europe, a tCO2 per tclinker metric, which should be lower
than 0.7, was proposed for cement producers55. Concrete
producers should achieve less than 3.5 kg clinker per
m3 per MPa for a standard concrete mix (30–50 MPa)74.
Engineering offices would be required to design concrete
structures that could achieve CO2 emissions of less than
250 kg per m2 floor area for the concrete allocated to
the structure152 and prescribe exposure class. Finally, for
construction companies, less than 500 kg CO2 per m2 of
floor area for a building, including concrete and all other
non-structural materials, is a good benchmark153. Such
benchmark propositions need to be tailored to the local
constructive practices and the allocated carbon budget
of the construction sector in the given countries154,155.
No single ‘silver-bullet’ innovation can achieve sus-
tainable concrete and cement use, and the industry will
not solve all the issues of sustainability by acting in iso-
lation. It is part of a loosely coupled and complex net-
work of actors that collaborate to produce buildings and
infrastructure95, which includes the material producer,
the engineering office, the architect, the construction
manager, the policymaker and the owner of the future
building. It is the collaboration between actors, and the
incremental improvements that can be implemented by
each one of them, that will produce a substantial move
towards sustainable concrete.
Published online xx xx xxxx
www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron

1. Slaton, A. E. Reinforced Concrete and the
Modernization of American Building, 1900–1930
(John Hopkins Univ. Press, 2001).
2. Krausmann, F., Lauk, C., Haas, W. & Wiedenhofer, D.
From resource extraction to outflows of wastes and
emissions: The socioeconomic metabolism of the
global economy, 1900–2015. Glob. Environ. Chang.
52, 131–140 (2018).
3. Monteiro, P. J. M., Miller, S. A. & Horvath, A. Towards
sustainable concrete. Nat. Mater. 16, 698–699 (2017).
4. Bajželj, B., Allwood, J. M. & Cullen, J. M. Designing
climate change mitigation plans that add up. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 47, 8062–8069 (2013).
5. Cullen, J. M., Allwood, J. M. & Bambach, M. D. Mapping
the global flow of steel: from steelmaking to end-use
goods. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 13048–13055 (2012).
6. Cullen, J. M. & Allwood, J. M. Mapping the global flow
of aluminum: from liquid aluminum to end-use goods.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 3057–3064 (2013).
7. Nath, A. J., Lal, R. & Das, A. K. Fired bricks: CO2
emission and food insecurity. Glob. Chall. 2, 1700115
(2018).
8. Barcelo, L., Kline, J., Walenta, G. & Gartner, E. Cement
and carbon emissions. Mater. Struct. 47, 1055–1065
(2014).
9. Scrivener, K. L., John, V. M. & Gartner, E. M.
Eco-efficient cements: potential economically viable
solutions for a low-CO2 cement-based materials
industry. Cem. Concr. Res. 114, 2–26 (2018).
10. Waters, C. N. et al. The Anthropocene is functionally
and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene.
Science 351, aad2622 (2016).
11. Francis, A. J. The Cement Industry 1796–1914:
a History (David and Charles, 1977).
12. Swilling, M. et al. The Weight of Cities: Resource
Requirements of Future Urbanization (UN Environment
— International Resource Panel, 2018).
13. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Population Division. World urbanization
prospects: 2018: Highlights. United Nations https://
population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-
Highlights.pdf (2019).
14. Röck, M. et al. Embodied GHG emissions of buildings –
the hidden challenge for effective climate change
mitigation. Appl. Energy 258, 114107 (2020).
15. Hoxha, E., Habert, G., Lasvaux, S., Chevalier, J. &
Le Roy, R. Influence of construction material
uncertainties on residential building LCA reliability.
J. Clean. Prod. 144, 33–47 (2017).
16. Huntzinger, D. N. & Eatmon, T. D. A life-cycle
assessment of Portland cement manufacturing:
comparing the traditional process with alternative
technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 668–675 (2009).
17. Penrose, B. Occupational exposure to cement dust:
changing opinions of a respiratory hazard. Health
History 16, 25–44 (2014).
18. Van den Heede, P. & De Belie, N. Environmental impact
and life cycle assessment (LCA) of traditional and ‘green’
concretes: literature review and theoretical calculations.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 34, 431–442 (2012).
19. Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., Chen, C. & Jullien, A.
Development of a depletion indicator for natural
resources used in concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
54, 364–376 (2010).
20. Miller, S. A., Horvath, A. & Monteiro, P. J. M. Impacts
of booming concrete production on water resources
worldwide. Nat. Sustain. 1, 69–76 (2018).
21. Davis, S. J. et al. Net-zero emissions energy systems.
Science 360, eaas9793 (2018).
22. Miller, S. A. & Moore, F. C. Climate and health
damages from global concrete production. Nat. Clim.
Chang. 10, 439–443 (2020).
23. Habert, G. in Eco-Efficient Concrete (eds.
Pacheco-Torgal, F., Jalali, S., Labrincha, J. &
John, V. M.) 3–25 (Woodhead Publishing, 2013).
24. Sogut, M. Z., Oktay, Z. & Hepbasli, A. Energetic
and exergetic assessment of a trass mill process
in a cement plant. Energy Convers. Manag. 50,
2316–2323 (2009).
25. Madlool, N. A., Saidur, R., Hossain, M. S. &
Rahim, N. A. A critical review on energy use and
savings in the cement industries. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 15, 2042–2060 (2011).
26. Shindell, D., Faluvegi, G., Seltzer, K. & Shindell, C.
Quantified, localized health benefits of accelerated
carbon dioxide emissions reductions. Nat. Clim.
Chang. 8, 291–295 (2018).
27. Regional Activity Centre for Cleaner Production (CP/
RAC) Manual of Pollution Prevention in the Cement
Industry (CP/RAC, 2008).
28. United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42,
Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment
Section 11.6: Portland Cement Manufacturing
(USEPA, 1994).
29. Nkhama, E. et al. Effects of airborne particulate
matter on respiratory health in a community near
a cement factory in Chilanga, Zambia: results from a
panel study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14,
1351 (2017).
30. Miller, S. A., Horvath, A. & Monteiro, P. J. M. Readily
implementable techniques can cut annual CO2
emissions from the production of concrete by over
20%. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 074029 (2016).
31. Chevallier, R. Illegal sand mining in South Africa. SAIIA
Policy Briefing No. 116 SAIIA https://saiia.org.za/
research/illegal-sand-mining-in-south-africa/ (2014).
32. Heard, R., Hendrickson, C. & McMichael, F. C.
Sustainable development and physical infrastructure
materials. MRS Bull. 37, 389–394 (2012).
33. Van Oers, L. & Guinée, J. The abiotic depletion
potential: background, updates, and future. Resources
5, 16 (2016).
34. Langer, W. H. Geologic and societal factors affecting
the international oceanic transport of aggregate.
Nonrenewable Resour. 4, 303–309 (1995).
35. Kecojevic, V., Nelson, T. & Schissler, A. An analysis of
aggregates production in the United States: historical
data and issues facing the industry. Miner. Energy -
Raw Mater. Rep. 19, 25–33 (2004).
36. Torres, A., Brandt, J., Lear, K. & Liu, J. A looming
tragedy of the sand commons. Science 357, 970–971
(2017).
37. Shaji, J. & Anilkuar, R. Socio-environmental impact
of river sand mining: an example from Neyyar
River, Thiruvananthapuram District of Kerala, India.
J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 19, 1–7 (2014).
38. Tejpal, M., Jaglan, M. S., Chaudhary, K. & Haryana, B. S.
Geo-enyironmental consequences of river sand and
stone mining: A case study of narnaul block. Trans. Inst.
Indian Geogr. 36, 217–234 (2014).
39. Macedo, A. B., de Almeida Mello Freire, D. J. &
Akimoto, H. Environmental management in the
Brazilian non-metallic small-scale mining sector.
J. Clean. Prod. 11, 197–206 (2003).
40. Bringezu, S. et al. Assessing Global Resource
Use: a Systems Approach to Resource Efficiency
and Pollution Reduction (UNESCO, 2017).
41. Schuurmans, A. et al. LCA of finer sand in concrete
(5 pp). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 10, 131–135 (2005).
42. Ioannidou, D., Nikias, V., Brière, R., Zerbi, S. &
Habert, G. Land-cover-based indicator to assess the
accessibility of resources used in the construction
sector. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 94, 80–91 (2015).
43. Ioannidou, D., Meylan, G., Sonnemann, G. & Habert, G.
Is gravel becoming scarce? Evaluating the local
criticality of construction aggregates. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 126, 25–33 (2017).
44. Knoeri, C., Binder, C. R. & Althaus, H.-J. Decisions
on recycling: construction stakeholders’ decisions
regarding recycled mineral construction materials.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 1039–1050 (2011).
45. Magnusson, S., Lundberg, K., Svedberg, B. &
Knutsson, S. Sustainable management of excavated
soil and rock in urban areas – A literature review.
J. Clean. Prod. 93, 18–25 (2015).
46. Kataguiri, K., Boscov, M. E. G., Teixeira, C. E. &
Angulo, S. C. Characterization flowchart for assessing
the potential reuse of excavation soils in Sao Paulo
city. J. Clean. Prod. 240, 118215 (2019).
47. Ouellet-Plamondon, C. M. & Habert, G.
Self-compacted clay based concrete (SCCC): proof-of-
concept. J. Clean. Prod. 117, 160–168 (2016).
48. Hu, M., Van Der Voet, E. & Huppes, G. Dynamic
material flow analysis for strategic construction and
demolition waste management in Beijing. J. Ind. Ecol.
14, 440–456 (2010).
49. Wang, H., Yue, Q., Lu, Z., Schuetz, H. & Bringezu, S.
Total material requirement of growing China:
1995–2008. Resources 2, 270–285 (2013).
50. Concrete Sustainability Council (CSC). CSC-certification
for concrete and its supply chain. Annual report 2017/
2018. CSC https://www.concretesustainabilitycouncil.
com/annual-report-40 (2019).
51. Miller, S. A., John, V. M., Pacca, S. A. & Horvath, A.
Carbon dioxide reduction potential in the global
cement industry by 2050. Cem. Concr. Res. 114,
115–124 (2018).
52. Josa, A., Aguado, A., Cardim, A. & Byars, E.
Comparative analysis of the life cycle impact
assessment of available cement inventories in the EU.
Cem. Concr. Res. 37, 781–788 (2007).
53. Gartner, E. Industrially interesting approaches to
“low-CO2” cements. Cem. Concr. Res. 34, 1489–1498
(2004).
Reviews
54. Damtoft, J. S., Lukasik, J., Herfort, D., Sorrentino, D.
& Gartner, E. M. Sustainable development and climate
change initiatives. Cem. Concr. Res. 38, 115–127
(2008).
55. International Energy Agency (IEA) Cement
Sustainability Initiative (CSI) Technology Roadmap -
Low-Carbon Transition in the Cement Industry (2018).
56. Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y. & Jullien, A.
Environmental impact of cement production: detail
of the different processes and cement plant variability
evaluation. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 478–485 (2010).
57. Vollset, S. E. et al. Fertility, mortality, migration, and
population scenarios for 195 countries and territories
from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the
Global Burden of disease study. Lancet https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2 (2020).
58. Szabó, L., Hidalgo, I., Císcar, J. C., Soria, A. & Russ, P.
Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions from the
World Cement Industry (European Commission,
2003).
59. Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI)/European
Cement Research Academy (ECRA) CSI/ECRA-
Technology Papers 2017 Development of State of the
Art Techniques in Cement Manufacturing: Trying to
Look Ahead (CSI/ECRA, 2017).
60. Schneider, M. Process technology for efficient and
sustainable cement production. Cem. Concr. Res. 78,
14–23 (2015).
61. Habert, G., Billard, C., Rossi, P., Chen, C. &
Roussel, N. Cement production technology
improvement compared to factor 4 objectives.
Cem. Concr. Res. 40, 820–826 (2010).
62. The European Cement Association (CEMBUREAU).
Cement Industry Contributes to Waste Management.
Key Facts (CEMBUREAU, 2005).
63. The European Cement Association (CEMBUREAU).
The Role of Cement in the 2050 Low Carbon Economy
1–64 (CEMBUREAU, 2013).
64. Shima, H., Tateyashiki, H., Matsuhashi, R. & Yoshida, Y.
An advanced concrete recycling technology and its
applicability assessment through input-output analysis.
J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 3, 53–67 (2005).
65. Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA)
Getting the numbers right. GCCA https://gccassociation.
org/sustainability-innovation/gnr-gcca-in-numbers/
(2018).
66. Cancio Díaz, Y. et al. Limestone calcined clay cement
as a low-carbon solution to meet expanding cement
demand in emerging economies. Dev. Eng. 2, 82–91
(2017).
67. Lothenbach, B., Le Saout, G., Gallucci, E. & Scrivener, K.
Influence of limestone on the hydration of Portland
cements. Cem. Concr. Res. 38, 848–860 (2008).
68. Snellings, R. Assessing, understanding and unlocking
supplementary cementitious materials. RILEM Tech.
Lett. 1, 50–55 (2016).
69. Chen, C., Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., Jullien, A. & Ventura, A.
LCA allocation procedure used as an incitative method
for waste recycling: an application to mineral additions
in concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 1231–1240
(2010).
70. Alujas, A., Fernández, R., Quintana, R., Scrivener, K. L.
& Martirena, F. Pozzolanic reactivity of low grade
kaolinitic clays: Influence of calcination temperature
and impact of calcination products on OPC hydration.
Appl. Clay Sci. 108, 94–101 (2015).
71. Habert, G., Choupay, N., Escadeillas, G., Guillaume, D.
& Montel, J. M. Clay content of argillites: Influence on
cement based mortars. Appl. Clay Sci. 43, 322–330
(2009).
72. Sánchez Berriel, S. et al. Assessing the environmental
and economic potential of limestone calcined clay
cement in Cuba. J. Clean. Prod. 124, 361–369 (2015).
73. Antoni, M., Rossen, J., Martirena, F. & Scrivener, K.
Cement substitution by a combination of metakaolin
and limestone. Cem. Concr. Res. 42, 1579–1589
(2012).
74. Damineli, B. L., Kemeid, F. M., Aguiar, P. S. & John, V. M.
Measuring the eco-efficiency of cement use. Cem. Concr.
Compos. 32, 555–562 (2010).
75. Shanks, W. et al. How much cement can we do
without? Lessons from cement material flows in the
UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141, 441–454 (2019).
76. Miller, S. A., Monteiro, P. J. M. M., Ostertag, C. P. &
Horvath, A. Comparison indices for design and
proportioning of concrete mixtures taking
environmental impacts into account. Cem. Concr.
Compos. 68, 131–143 (2016).
77. Cazacliu, B. & Ventura, A. Technical and environmental
effects of concrete production: dry batch versus
central mixed plant. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1320–1327
(2010).
Reviews
78. Wassermann, R., Katz, A. & Bentur, A. Minimum
cement content requirements: a must or a myth?
Mater. Struct. 42, 973–982 (2009).
79. Choplin, A. Cementing Africa: cement flows and
city-making along the West African corridor (Accra,
Lomé, Cotonou, Lagos). Urban Stud. 57, 1977–1993
(2020).
80. John, V. M., Quattrone, M., Abrão, P. C. R. A. &
Cardoso, F. A. Rethinking cement standards:
opportunities for a better future. Cem. Concr. Res.
124, 105832 (2019).
81. Oliveira, L. S., Pacca, S. A. & John, V. M. Variability
in the life cycle of concrete block CO2 emissions and
cumulative energy demand in the Brazilian Market.
Constr. Build. Mater. 114, 588–594 (2016).
82. Proske, T., Hainer, S., Rezvani, M. & Graubner, C.-A.
Eco-friendly concretes with reduced water and cement
contents — mix design principles and laboratory tests.
Cem. Concr. Res. 51, 38–46 (2013).
83. John, V. M., Damineli, B. L., Quattrone, M. &
Pileggi, R. G. Fillers in cementitious materials —
Experience, recent advances and future potential.
Cem. Concr. Res. 114, 65–78 (2018).
84. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) EN
197-1. Cement - Part 1: Composition, specifications
and conformity criteria for common cements
(CEN, 2018).
85. Formoso, C. T., Soibelman, L., De Cesare, C. &
Isatto, E. L. Material waste in building industry: main
causes and prevention. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 128,
316–325 (2002).
86. de Brito Prado Vieira, L., de Figueiredo, A. D.,
Moriggi, T. & John, V. M. Waste generation from the
production of ready-mixed concrete. Waste Manag.
94, 146–152 (2019).
87. Berodier, E., Aron, L., Princeton, J. & Bartolini, I.
in Proceedings of the International Conference of
Sustainable Production and Use of Cement and
Concrete (eds. Martirena-Hernandez, J., Alujas-Díaz, A.
& Amador-Hernandez, M.) (Springer, 2020).
88. Kourehpaz, P. & Miller, S. A. Eco-efficient design
indices for reinforced concrete members. Mater.
Struct. 52, 96 (2019).
89. Orr, J. J., Darby, A. P., Ibell, T. J., Evernden, M. C. &
Otlet, M. Concrete structures using fabric formwork.
Struct. Eng. 89, 20–26 (2011).
90. Guiraud, P., Habert, G. & Semat, A. in fib Symposium
2012: Concrete Structures for Sustainable Community -
Proceedings 337–340 (FIB International, 2012).
91. Habert, G. et al. Reducing environmental impact by
increasing the strength of concrete: quantification of
the improvement to concrete bridges. J. Clean. Prod.
35, 250–262 (2012).
92. Miller, S. A. The role of cement service-life on the
efficient use of resources. Environ. Res. Lett. 15,
024004 (2020).
93. Hajiesmaeili, A., Pittau, F., Denarié, E., Habert, G. Life
cycle analysis of strengthening existing RC structures
with R-PE-UHPFRC. Sustainability 11, 6923 (2019)
94. Shanks, W. et al. How much cement can we do
without? Lessons from cement material flows in the
UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141, 441–454 (2019).
95. Dubois, A. & Gadde, L. E. The construction industry as
a loosely coupled system: implications for productivity
and innovation. Constr. Manag. Econ. 20, 621–631
(2002).
96. Dainty, A. R. J. & Brooke, R. J. Towards improved
construction waste minimisation: a need for improved
supply chain integration? Struct. Surv. 22, 20–29
(2004).
97. Seaden, G. & Manseau, A. Public policy and
construction innovation. Build. Res. Inf. 29, 182–196
(2001).
98. Papadonikolaki, E. & Wamelink, H. Inter- and
intra-organizational conditions for supply chain
integration with BIM. Build. Res. Inf. 45, 649–664
(2017).
99. Shi, C., Qu, B. & Provis, J. L. Recent progress in
low-carbon binders. Cem. Concr. Res. 122, 227–250
(2019).
100. Juenger, M. C. G., Winnefeld, F., Provis, J. L. &
Ideker, J. H. Advances in alternative cementitious
binders. Cem. Concr. Res. 41, 1232–1243 (2011).
101. Lord, M. Zero carbon industry plan. Rethinking
cement. Beyond Zero Emissions http://media.bze.org.
au/ZCIndustry/bze-report-rethinking-cement-web.pdf
(2017).
102. Habert, G., d’Espinose de Lacaillerie, J. B. &
Roussel, N. An environmental evaluation of
geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing
current research trends. J. Clean. Prod. 19,
1229–1238 (2011).
103. Miller, S. A. & Myers, R. J. Environmental impacts of
alternative cement binders. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54,
677–686 (2019).
104. Gartner, E. & Sui, T. Alternative cement clinkers.
Cem. Concr. Res. 114, 27–39 (2018).
105. Provis, J. L. Alkali-activated materials. Cem. Concr.
Res. 114, 40–48 (2018).
106. Ben Haha, M., Winnefeld, F. & Pisch, A. Advances
in understanding ye’elimite-rich cements. Cem. Concr.
Res. 123, 105778 (2019).
107. Kelly, T. D. & Matos, G. R. Historical Statistics for
Mineral and Material Commodities in the United
States (United States Geological Survey, 2014).
108. Duxson, P. et al. Geopolymer technology: the current
state of the art. J. Mater. Sci. 42, 2917–2933
(2007).
109. Duxson, P., Provis, J., Lukey, G. & Vandeventer, J.
The role of inorganic polymer technology in the
development of ‘green concrete’. Cem. Concr. Res. 37,
1590–1597 (2007).
110. Gourley, J. T. Geopolymers in Australia. J. Aust. Ceram.
Soc. 50, 102–110 (2014).
111. United States Geological Survey. Mineral Commodity
Summaries 2019 (United States Geological Survey,
2019).
112. Bernal, S. A. Advances in near-neutral salts activation
of blast furnace slags. RILEM Tech. Lett. 1, 39–44
(2016).
113. Bernal, S. A., Rodríguez, E. D., Kirchheim, A. P. &
Provis, J. L. Management and valorisation of
wastes through use in producing alkali-activated
cement materials. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 91,
2365–2388 (2016).
114. Walling, S. A. & Provis, J. L. Magnesia-based cements:
a journey of 150 years, and cements for the future?
Chem. Rev. 116, 4170–4204 (2016).
115. Dewald, U. & Achternbosch, M. Why more sustainable
cements failed so far? Disruptive innovations and
their barriers in a basic industry. Environ. Innov. Soc.
Transit. 19, 15–30 (2016).
116. Favier, A., De Wolf, C., Scrivener, K. & Habert, G. A
sustainable future for the European Cement and
Concrete Industry: Technology assessment for full
decarbonisation of the industry by 2050. ETH Zürich
https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000301843 (2018).
117. Zevenhoven, R. & Kohlmann, J. in Proceedings of the
Second Nordic Minisymposium on Carbon Dioxide
Capture and Storage 13–18 (Center for Environment
and Sustainability, Chalmers, 2001).
118. Morrison, J., Jauffret, G., Galvez-Martos, J. L. &
Glasser, F. P. Magnesium-based cements for CO2
capture and utilisation. Cem. Concr. Res. 85,
183–191 (2016).
119. Atakan, V., Sahu, S., Quinn, S., Hu, X. & De Cristofaro, N.
Why CO2 matters - advances in a new class of cement.
ZKG Int. 67, 60–63 (2014).
120. Meyer, V., de Cristofaro, N., Bryant, J. & Sahu, S.
Solidia cement an example of carbon capture and
utilization. Key Eng. Mater. 761, 197–203 (2018).
121. Lehtinen, M. J. in Mineral Deposits of Finland (eds.
Maier, W. D., Lahtinen, R. & O’Brien, H.) 685–710
(Elsevier, 2015).
122. Morandeau, A., Thiéry, M. & Dangla, P. Investigation
of the carbonation mechanism of CH and C-S-H in
terms of kinetics, microstructure changes and
moisture properties. Cem. Concr. Res. 56, 153–170
(2014).
123. Stefanoni, M., Angst, U. & Elsener, B. Corrosion rate
of carbon steel in carbonated concrete – A critical
review. Cem. Concr. Res. 103, 35–48 (2018).
124. Bertolini, L., Elsener, B., Pedeferri, P., Redaelli, E. &
Polder, R. B. Corrosion of Steel in Concrete:
Prevention, Diagnosis, Repair 2nd edn (Wiley, 2014).
125. Xi, F. et al. Substantial global carbon uptake by cement
carbonation. Nat. Geosci. 9, 880–883 (2016).
126. Thiery, M., Villain, G., Dangla, P. & Platret, G.
Investigation of the carbonation front shape on
cementitious materials: effects of the chemical
kinetics. Cem. Concr. Res. 37, 1047–1058 (2007).
127. Thiery, M., Dangla, P., Belin, P., Habert, G. &
Roussel, N. Carbonation kinetics of a bed of recycled
concrete aggregates: a laboratory study on model
materials. Cem. Concr. Res. 46, 50–65 (2013).
128. Andersson, R., Fridh, K., Stripple, H. & Häglund, M.
Calculating CO2 uptake for existing concrete structures
during and after service life. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47,
11625–11633 (2013).
129. Cao, Z. et al. The sponge effect and carbon emission
mitigation potentials of the global cement cycle.
Nat. Commun. 11, 3777 (2020).
130. Renforth, P. The negative emission potential of
alkaline materials. Nat. Commun. 10, 1401 (2019).
131. Sanjuán, M. Á., Andrade, C., Mora, P. & Zaragoza, A.
Carbon dioxide uptake by mortars and concretes
made with Portuguese cements. Appl. Sci. 10, 646
(2020).
132. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) PD
CEN/TR 17310:2019. Carbonation and CO2 uptake
in concrete (CEN, 2019).
133. Engelsen, C., Mehus, J., Pade, C. & Sæther, D. Carbon
Dioxide Uptake in Demolished and Crushed Concrete
(Norwegian Building Research Institute, 2005).
134. Suer, P., Lindqvist, J.-E., Arm, M. & Frogner-Kockum, P.
Reproducing ten years of road ageing — accelerated
carbonation and leaching of EAF steel slag. Sci. Total.
Environ. 407, 5110–5118 (2009).
135. Zhan, B. J., Xuan, D. X. & Poon, C. S. Enhancement
of recycled aggregate properties by accelerated CO2
curing coupled with limewater soaking process.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 89, 230–237 (2018).
136. Stefanoni, M., Angst, U. M. & Elsener, B. Kinetics of
electrochemical dissolution of metals in porous media.
Nat. Mater. 18, 942–947 (2019).
137. Soja, W., Maraghechi, H., Georget, F. & Scrivener, K.
Changes of microstructure and diffusivity in blended
cement pastes exposed to natural carbonation.
MATEC Web Conf. 199, 02009 (2018).
138. Borges, P. H. R., Costa, J. O., Milestone, N. B.,
Lynsdale, C. J. & Streatfield, R. E. Carbonation of CH
and C–S–H in composite cement pastes containing
high amounts of BFS. Cem. Concr. Res. 40, 284–292
(2010).
139. Soja, W. Carbonation of Low Carbon Binders (EPFL,
2019).
140. Roussel, N. Rheological requirements for printable
concretes. Cem. Concr. Res. 112, 76–85 (2018).
141. Perrot, A. 3D Printing of Concrete (Wiley, 2019).
142. Voldsund, M. et al. Comparison of technologies for
CO2 capture from cement production — part 1:
technical evaluation. Energies 12, 559 (2019).
143. Sutter, D., Werner, M., Zappone, A. & Mazzotti, M.
Developing CCS into a realistic option in a country’s
energy strategy. Energy Procedia 37, 6562–6570
(2013).
144. Rootzén, J. & Johnsson, F. Managing the costs of CO2
abatement in the cement industry. Clim. Policy 17,
781–800 (2017).
145. Havercroft, I., Macrory, R. B. & Stewart, R. B. Carbon
Capture and Storage. Emerging Legal and Regulatory
Issues (Hart Publishing, 2011).
146. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report
on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above
pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse
gas emission pathways, in the context of
strengthening the global response to the threat of
climate change, sustainable development, and efforts
to eradicate poverty (IPCC, 2018).
147. Van Vuuren, D. P. et al. the need for negative emission
technologies. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 391–396 (2018).
148. von Bahr, B. et al. Experiences of environmental
performance evaluation in the cement industry.
Data quality of environmental performance indicators
as a limiting factor for benchmarking and rating.
J. Clean. Prod. 11, 713–725 (2003).
149. Purnell, P. Material nature versus structural nurture:
the embodied carbon of fundamental structural
elements. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 454–461 (2012).
150. Cemex. Low carbon concrete: if CO2 reduction started
from the initial planning phase [French]. https://www.
cemex.fr/les-betons-bas-carbone (2018).
151. Orr, J. et al. Minimising energy in construction:
practitioners’ views on material efficiency. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 140, 125–136 (2019).
152. De Wolf, C., Pomponi, F. & Moncaster, A. Measuring
embodied carbon dioxide equivalent of buildings:
a review and critique of current industry practice.
Energy Build. 140, 68–80 (2017).
153. Hollberg, A., Lützkendorf, T. & Habert, G. Top-down
or bottom-up? – How environmental benchmarks
can support the design process. Build. Environ. 153,
148–157 (2019).
154. Steininger, K. W., Meyer, L., Nabernegg, S. &
Kirchengast, G. Sectoral carbon budgets as an
evaluation framework for the built environment.
Build. Cities 1, 337–360 (2020).
155. Habert, G. et al. Carbon budgets for buildings:
harmonising temporal, spatial and sectoral
dimensions. Build. Cities 1, 429–452 (2020).
156. Müller, C. Use of cement in concrete according
to European standard EN 206-1. HBRC J. 8, 1–7
(2012).
157. Passer, A., Deutsch, R. & Scherz, M. in BAU Congress
2018 250–262 (Bautechnik, 2018).
www.nature.com/natrevearthenviron

158. Häfliger, I.-F. et al. Buildings environmental impacts’
sensitivity related to LCA modelling choices of
construction materials. J. Clean. Prod. 156, 805–816
(2017).
159. Flower, D. J. M. & Sanjayan, J. G. Green house gas
emissions due to concrete manufacture. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 12, 282–288 (2007).
160. Koordinationskonferenz der Bau- und
Liegenschaftsorgane der öffentlichen Bauherren
(KBOB). Ökobilanzdaten im Baubereich
2009/1:2016. KBOB https://www.kbob.admin.ch/
kbob/de/home/publikationen/nachhaltiges-bauen/
oekobilanzdaten_baubereich.html (2016).
161. Zou, L. et al. Spatial variation of PCDD/F and PCB
emissions and their composition profiles in stack flue
gas from the typical cement plants in China.
Chemosphere 195, 491–497 (2018).
162. Schuhmacher, M., Nadal, M. & Domingo, J. L.
Environmental monitoring of PCDD/Fs and metals
in the vicinity of a cement plant after using sewage
sludge as a secondary fuel. Chemosphere 74,
1502–1508 (2009).
163. Zemba, S. et al. Emissions of metals and
polychlorinated dibenzo(p)dioxins and furans (PCDD/
Fs) from Portland cement manufacturing plants:
Inter-kiln variability and dependence on fuel-types.
Sci. Total. Environ. 409, 4198–4205 (2011).
164. Gupta, R. K., Majumdar, D., Trivedi, J. V. &
Bhanarkar, A. D. Particulate matter and elemental
emissions from a cement kiln. Fuel Process. Technol.
104, 343–351 (2012).
165. Ogunbileje, J. O. et al. Lead, mercury, cadmium,
chromium, nickel, copper, zinc, calcium, iron,
manganese and chromium (VI) levels in Nigeria and
United States of America cement dust. Chemosphere
90, 2743–2749 (2013).
Nature Reviews | Earth & Environment
166. Marceau, M. L. L., Nisbet, M. A. A. & VanGeem, M. G. G.
Life Cycle Inventory of Portland Cement Manufacture
(Portland Cement Association, 2006).
167. Conesa, J. A., Gálvez, A., Mateos, F., Martín-Gullón, I.
& Font, R. Organic and inorganic pollutants from
cement kiln stack feeding alternative fuels. J. Hazard.
Mater. 158, 585–592 (2008).
168. Lv, D. et al. Effects of co-processing sewage sludge
in cement kiln on NOx, NH3 and PAHs emissions.
Chemosphere 159, 595–601 (2016).
169. Li, X., Poon, C., Sun, H., Lo, I. M. & Kirk, D. Heavy
metal speciation and leaching behaviors in cement
based solidified/stabilized waste materials. J. Hazard.
Mater. 82, 215–230 (2001).
170. Hillier, S. R., Sangha, C. M., Plunkett, B. A. &
Walden, P. J. Long-term leaching of toxic trace metals
from Portland cement concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 29,
515–521 (1999).
171. Joseph, A., Snellings, R., Van den Heede, P., Matthys, S.
& De Belie, N. The use of municipal solid waste
incineration ash in various building materials:
a Belgian point of view. Materials 11, 141 (2018).
172. Van Gerven, T. et al. Carbonation of MSWI-bottom ash
to decrease heavy metal leaching, in view of recycling.
Waste Manag. 25, 291–300 (2005).
173. Gartner, E. & Hirao, H. A review of alternative
approaches to the reduction of CO2 emissions
associated with the manufacture of the binder phase
in concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 78, 126–142 (2015).
174. Mack-Vergara, Y. L. & John, V. M. Life cycle water
inventory in concrete production — a review. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 122, 227–250 (2017).
175. Meldrum, J., Nettles-Anderson, S., Heath, G.
& Macknick, J. Life cycle water use for electricity
generation: a review and harmonization of literature
estimates. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 015031 (2013).
Reviews
176. Cabernard, L., Pfister, S. & Hellweg, S. A new
method for analyzing sustainability performance
of global supply chains and its application to
material resources. Sci. Total. Environ. 684, 164–177
(2019).
Acknowledgements
The work of A.F., G.H. and K.L.S. has been supported by the
European Climate Foundation for a project on “a sustainable
future for the European cement and concrete industry”. The
work of V.M.J. is supported by the National Institute on
Advanced Eco-Efficient Cement-Based Technologies - CEMtec
(FAPESP grant no 2014/50948-3 and CNPq grant no
465593/2014-3).
Author contributions
All authors contributed to the writing of the article. All
authors made a substantial contribution to the discussion of
content and reviewing the early version of the article. A.F.,
S.A.M. and G.H. researched data for the article. G.H., S.A.M.,
A.H. and J.L.P. reviewed and edited the last version of the
manuscript before submission.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information
Nature Reviews Earth & Environment thanks J. Gragory, M.
Geiker and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their
contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© Springer Nature Limited 2020