Deep dive: Low-carbon materials (cement, steel, timber) — the hidden trade-offs and how to manage them
What's working, what isn't, and what's next — with the trade-offs made explicit. Focus on KPIs that matter, benchmark ranges, and what 'good' looks like in practice.
The European Union's cement and steel industries collectively emit approximately 346 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually—representing 11% of total EU emissions—yet the transition to low-carbon alternatives involves trade-offs that procurement teams, investors, and policymakers routinely underestimate. According to the 2024 World Economic Forum Net-Zero Industry Tracker, cement production alone accounts for 125 Mt CO2e per year in Europe, while steel adds another 221 Mt CO2e. The promise of "green" materials often obscures critical questions: at what cost premium, with what reliability of supply, and under which conditions do low-carbon alternatives actually deliver claimed emissions reductions? This analysis unpacks the KPIs that matter, establishes benchmark ranges from 2024-2025 deployments, and clarifies what "good" looks like across cement, steel, and timber in the EU context.
Why It Matters
The construction sector consumes roughly 50% of all extracted materials globally, making material choice the single largest lever for embodied carbon reduction. In the EU, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)—entering its definitive phase in 2026 and phasing out free allowances by 2032—fundamentally reshapes procurement economics. With EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) carbon prices exceeding €100 per tonne in 2025 and projected to reach €150 by 2035, the cost differential between conventional and low-carbon materials is narrowing rapidly.
For investors, material decarbonization represents a €14 billion committed public funding pipeline in steel alone through 2024, with cement CCUS projects attracting over €1 billion in EU Innovation Fund support. The European Commission's 2025 Steel and Metals Action Plan explicitly prioritizes hydrogen-based direct reduced iron (H2-DRI) as the primary pathway, creating clear technology winners. Understanding the trade-offs between competing approaches—carbon capture versus process substitution, virgin versus recycled feedstocks, domestic versus imported supply—determines which investments deliver returns and which become stranded assets.
The stakes extend beyond financial performance. The EU's legally binding commitment to 55% emissions reduction by 2030 requires construction materials to decarbonize faster than economy-wide averages. Yet capacity utilization in EU steel has dropped to 65%—an unsustainable level—while 50% of primary aluminum capacity has idled since 2021. The transition must occur against a backdrop of industrial decline, making trade-off management existential rather than optional.
Key Concepts
Carbon Intensity Benchmarks by Material
Understanding "good" performance requires establishing baseline carbon intensities against which improvements are measured:
Cement and Clinker
| Metric | Conventional | Low-Carbon Target | Best-in-Class 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinker factor | 0.73-0.78 | <0.65 | 0.60 (Holcim ECOPlanet) |
| kg CO2e/t clinker | 832-1,075 | <600 | 400 (with CCUS) |
| kg CO2e/t cement | 600-700 | <400 | 50-100 (near-zero) |
Steel Production Routes
| Route | Carbon Intensity (t CO2/t steel) | EU Share 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| BF-BOF (blast furnace) | 2.0-2.2 | 55% |
| EAF (scrap-based) | 0.66 | 45% |
| Natural gas DRI-EAF | 1.37 | <2% |
| H2-DRI-EAF | <0.60 | Pilot scale |
| Green steel threshold | ≤0.50 | Emerging definition |
Timber (CLT/Mass Timber)
| Scope | Embodied Carbon | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| A1-A3 (production) | 50-85 kg CO2e/m³ | European EPD averages, fossil only |
| A1-A4 (with transport) | 80-120 kg CO2e/m³ | Varies significantly with distance |
| Biogenic carbon stored | -785 kg CO2e/m³ | Tracked separately per EN 15804 |
The Green Premium Reality
Low-carbon materials command price premiums that vary dramatically by material and geography. Current EU market conditions show:
- Green steel: €15-30/tonne premium (April 2025), representing 3-5% cost increase
- Near-zero cement: 20-40% premium over conventional, narrowing as carbon prices rise
- Certified sustainable CLT: 5-15% premium over conventional timber
These premiums must be evaluated against avoided carbon costs. At €100/tonne CO2, a 1.5 t CO2/tonne steel reduction generates €150 in avoided carbon cost—exceeding typical green premiums.
Additionality and Measurement Challenges
The transition introduces measurement complexity that practitioners consistently underestimate. Key concepts include:
Scope 3 Attribution: For steel buyers, 80-95% of product carbon footprint sits in upstream Scope 3 emissions. Accurate measurement requires supplier-specific data rather than industry averages—yet fewer than 15% of EU steel suppliers provide primary data.
Temporal Boundaries: Timber's carbon accounting depends critically on assumed end-of-life scenarios. A CLT panel landfilled releases stored carbon over decades; one recovered for reuse maintains sequestration. LCA methodology choices can swing results by 500+ kg CO2e/m³.
CCUS Permanence: Carbon captured and stored must remain sequestered for centuries to deliver climate benefit. Monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) requirements add €5-15/tonne CO2 to operational costs—rarely included in headline project economics.
What's Working and What Isn't
What's Working
Scrap-Based Electric Arc Furnace Steel Expansion
EAF steel using recycled scrap achieves 58% CO2 reduction versus virgin ore processing with proven, commercial technology. The EU's EAF share is projected to reach 57% by 2050 (up from 45% today), driven by scrap availability and electricity decarbonization. Unlike hydrogen-based routes requiring massive infrastructure investment, EAF expansion can proceed incrementally using existing industrial ecosystems.
The economics are compelling: EAF mills operate profitably at current carbon prices without subsidies, while BF-BOF conversions require €3-5 billion per integrated facility. ArcelorMittal's Hamburg facility and Thyssenkrupp's Duisburg conversion demonstrate the transition pathway, though both face financing challenges.
Cement Clinker Substitution
Reducing the clinker-to-cement ratio delivers immediate emissions reductions without CCUS infrastructure. Supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs)—including fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, and calcined clays—can reduce cement carbon intensity by 30% using existing technology. Holcim's ECOPlanet range and Heidelberg Materials' EcoCem products demonstrate commercial viability at scale.
The LC3 (limestone calcined clay cement) approach, requiring only 50% clinker content versus 95% for ordinary Portland cement, has achieved commercial deployment in India and is expanding to EU markets. Material availability remains the binding constraint: EU fly ash supply is declining as coal plants close.
Mass Timber in Mid-Rise Construction
CLT and glulam structures achieve 50-80% embodied carbon reductions versus concrete and steel equivalents for buildings up to 8-12 storeys. Nordic countries lead deployment, with Sweden and Austria achieving 15-20% market share in new multi-family residential construction.
The technology is mature: fire engineering solutions, connection systems, and hybrid designs (timber with concrete cores) are codified in Eurocode updates. Insurance and building code barriers that historically limited adoption have largely been resolved in Northern European markets.
CCUS First Movers
Heidelberg Materials' Brevik facility in Norway reached mechanical completion in December 2024—the world's first industrial-scale carbon capture at a cement plant. Capturing 400,000 tonnes CO2 annually (50% of plant emissions), Brevik demonstrates technical feasibility while providing operational learning for the 11 cement CCUS projects receiving EU Innovation Fund support.
Holcim's parallel €2 billion CCUS investment across 17 flagship projects diversifies technology risk, deploying oxyfuel, amine scrubbing, and Capsol's HPC technology across different operating contexts.
What Isn't Working
Hydrogen Cost Trajectories
Green hydrogen-based steelmaking requires hydrogen at approximately €2/kg for cost competitiveness—yet current EU prices remain at €4.5-6.5/kg with limited near-term decline visibility. H2 Green Steel's (now Stegra) Boden-Luleå facility, the most advanced H2-DRI project globally, benefits from exceptional Nordic conditions: abundant hydropower, baseload nuclear, and €6.5 billion in secured financing. These conditions cannot be replicated in Germany, Poland, or Southern Europe where most EU steel production sits.
ArcelorMittal delayed its final investment decision in November 2024, explicitly citing hydrogen cost uncertainty. Thyssenkrupp scaled back from four planned DRI plants to two. The 2030 timelines embedded in EU industrial policy appear increasingly unrealistic outside Scandinavia.
Premature Scaling of Unproven Technologies
Carbon capture retrofit costs for cement exceed initial estimates by 30-50% in early deployments. The technology works technically but integration with existing plant operations, CO2 transport infrastructure requirements, and permanent storage availability create bottlenecks that simple cost projections miss.
Similarly, the 40-100 Mt/year DRI capacity announced for 2030 faces a fundamental constraint: global electrolyzer capacity reached only 1.4 GW operational at end-2023—sufficient for approximately one 3 Mt/year steel mill. Announced pipeline capacity of 520 GW has only 4% at final investment decision.
Timber Supply Chain Limitations
CLT transport beyond 1,500 km erodes carbon benefits significantly. European production capacity concentrates in Austria, Germany, and Scandinavia, creating transport emissions of 40-83 kg CO2e/m³ for projects in Southern or Eastern Europe. At distances exceeding 6,000 km, CLT's embodied carbon approaches that of reinforced concrete, eliminating the sustainability rationale.
Furthermore, sustainable forestry certification coverage varies dramatically across EU member states. Timber from regions with weaker forest governance may carry deforestation risk that carbon accounting methodologies fail to capture.
Measurement Theater
Organizations report impressive carbon reduction targets while relying on industry-average emission factors rather than supplier-specific data. A 2024 analysis found that Scope 3 steel emissions reported by major buyers varied by up to 40% for identical products depending on methodology choices. Without standardized MRV—which CBAM reporting requirements are only beginning to mandate—"low-carbon" claims remain largely unverifiable.
Key Players
Established Leaders
Heidelberg Materials (Germany): Operating the world's first industrial cement CCUS facility at Brevik, with €1.5 billion committed to carbon capture through 2030 targeting 10 Mt CO2 reduction. Leading in near-zero cement product commercialization via evoZero brand.
Holcim (Switzerland): Largest cement CCUS project portfolio with 8 EU-funded projects and 17 flagship initiatives globally. CHF 2 billion gross CAPEX committed through 2030, targeting 5 Mt CO2/year capture and 8 Mt near-zero cement production.
SSAB (Sweden): Pioneer in fossil-free steel through the HYBRIT joint venture with LKAB and Vattenfall. Delivered world's first fossil-free steel to Volvo in 2021; commercial-scale production targeted for 2026.
ArcelorMittal (Luxembourg): Europe's largest steel producer with 60+ decarbonization projects targeting 81.5 Mt CO2/year reduction by 2030, though recent investment decision delays signal execution challenges.
Stora Enso (Finland): Leading integrated forest products company with significant CLT production capacity and forestry certification leadership across Nordic operations.
Emerging Startups
H2 Green Steel / Stegra (Sweden): Secured €6.5 billion for Europe's first large-scale green steel plant, bypassing natural gas transition to produce directly with green hydrogen. First commercial deliveries began 2024.
Ecocem (Ireland): Specializes in GGBS (ground granulated blast furnace slag) cement alternatives with up to 50% lower carbon intensity than Portland cement.
Capsol Technologies (Norway): Developing modular Hot Potassium Carbonate (HPC) carbon capture technology with Holcim investment; demonstration plant at Dotternhausen targeted 2025.
Sublime Systems (US, EU operations): Electrochemical cement production process eliminating combustion emissions entirely; raised $87 million in 2024 for EU pilot expansion.
Katerra successor entities: Following Katerra's 2021 collapse, multiple successor ventures continue mass timber manufacturing innovation in EU markets.
Key Investors & Funders
EU Innovation Fund: Over €1 billion deployed to cement CCUS projects; €1 billion pilot auction for industrial decarbonization in 2025.
European Investment Bank: Major financing for green steel transitions, including support for Thyssenkrupp and Liberty Steel projects.
Breakthrough Energy Ventures: Backing multiple low-carbon materials startups including Boston Metal and cement alternatives.
Public funding commitments: €14 billion+ committed to steel decarbonization by end of 2024, primarily for BF-BOF conversions.
Examples
Heidelberg Materials Brevik CCS (Norway): The December 2024 mechanical completion of Brevik represents a watershed moment for cement decarbonization. Capturing 400,000 tonnes CO2 annually using amine scrubbing technology, the project required 1.2 million work hours and partnership with Northern Lights for offshore CO2 storage. Crucially, Brevik benefits from Norway's carbon tax (approximately €80/tonne) layered on EU ETS costs, creating economics that don't yet exist in most EU member states. The project demonstrates technical feasibility but also exposes the infrastructure requirements—dedicated CO2 transport ships, injection wells, monitoring systems—that inland cement plants cannot easily replicate.
Stegra (H2 Green Steel) Commercial Launch (Sweden): Stegra's Boden-Luleå facility delivered first commercial shipments in early 2026, producing steel with less than 0.5 tonnes CO2 per tonne—an 85% reduction versus conventional BF-BOF. The €6.5 billion investment includes 700+ MW electrolyzer capacity, integrated manufacturing, and long-term offtake agreements with Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and others. The project succeeds by co-locating with abundant zero-carbon electricity (Nordic hydro and nuclear) and avoiding natural gas transition—proceeding directly to hydrogen. However, the model's replicability remains constrained by geography: EU-average electricity costs would approximately double Stegra's production economics.
Mjøstårnet Tower (Norway): Completed in 2019 and remaining the world's tallest timber building at 85.4 meters, Mjøstårnet demonstrates mass timber's structural potential while illustrating trade-offs. The 2,500+ m³ of glulam and CLT stores approximately 1,900 tonnes of biogenic CO2, delivering an 80% embodied carbon reduction versus a concrete equivalent. Yet the project required specialized engineering, extended construction timelines, and timber sourced from certified Nordic forests—supply chain conditions unavailable for most EU construction. Insurance premiums exceeded conventional construction by 15-20%, and the building's iconic status attracted engineering investment that typical commercial projects cannot justify.
Action Checklist
- Establish material-specific carbon intensity baselines using supplier primary data rather than industry averages—target less than 500 kg CO2e/tonne for steel, less than 400 kg CO2e/tonne for cement
- Map supply chain geography for timber procurement, calculating transport emissions (A4) for actual delivery routes; disqualify suppliers exceeding 1,500 km distance
- Require Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) from suppliers conforming to EN 15804+A2, with third-party verification mandatory for claims exceeding 30% reduction
- Integrate carbon pricing into procurement decisions at minimum €100/tonne CO2, reflecting 2025 ETS costs and anticipated CBAM phase-in
- Conduct due diligence on green hydrogen supply chains for H2-DRI steel claims, verifying electrolyzer additionality and renewable electricity sourcing
- Evaluate CCUS-based cement against permanence criteria—require storage site certification and monitoring commitments exceeding 50-year horizons
- Stress-test low-carbon material availability against project timelines; near-zero cement and green steel supply remain constrained through 2027-2028
- Build optionality into specifications, allowing substitution between timber, low-carbon concrete, and recycled steel based on real-time carbon intensity data
- Engage with industry certification development (e.g., ResponsibleSteel, Concrete Sustainability Council) to influence standard-setting toward rigorous MRV requirements
FAQ
Q: How do I verify that "green steel" claims represent genuine emissions reductions rather than creative accounting? A: Demand supplier-specific Scope 1, 2, and upstream Scope 3 data with third-party verification. The ResponsibleSteel certification scheme provides the most rigorous current framework, requiring site-level verification against defined methodologies. Be skeptical of claims based solely on renewable energy certificates (RECs) or carbon offsets—these address Scope 2 but leave process emissions (typically 70-80% of total) unchanged. For H2-DRI steel, verify hydrogen sourcing: genuinely "green" hydrogen requires additional renewable electricity capacity, not grid procurement. Fastmarkets' emerging green steel threshold of ≤500 kg CO2e/tonne provides a reasonable benchmark.
Q: When does timber actually deliver lower carbon than concrete or steel alternatives? A: Timber's carbon advantage depends on three factors: transport distance, end-of-life treatment assumptions, and baseline comparator. For projects within 1,500 km of certified production facilities with realistic recovery/reuse scenarios, CLT delivers 50-80% reductions in embodied carbon versus reinforced concrete. Beyond 6,000 km transport or with landfill end-of-life assumptions, advantages largely disappear. Always use location-specific EPD data rather than generic factors, and ensure comparisons use equivalent structural performance—timber buildings often require larger cross-sections or hybrid systems to match concrete/steel spans.
Q: What's the realistic timeline for green steel and near-zero cement availability at scale in Europe? A: Commercial availability is arriving in waves. Low-carbon EAF steel (0.5-0.8 t CO2/t) using recycled scrap is available today at modest premiums. Near-zero green steel from H2-DRI (<0.5 t CO2/t) will reach approximately 5-10 Mt annual capacity by 2028-2030, concentrated in Nordic countries. Near-zero cement from CCUS-equipped facilities begins trickling into markets in 2025-2026 (Brevik, Lägerdorf) but remains supply-constrained until 2030+. For procurement commitments, assume 2027-2028 as the earliest reliable date for scaled near-zero materials; earlier timelines require pre-negotiated offtake agreements with specific facilities.
Q: How should carbon pricing be integrated into material procurement economics? A: Apply a shadow carbon price of at least €100/tonne (reflecting current ETS levels) to all material options, calculating total cost including embedded carbon liability. For CBAM-affected imports (steel, cement from non-EU sources), add the full CBAM adjustment beginning 2027 with phase-out of free allowances by 2032. Critically, model future carbon price trajectories—€150/tonne by 2035 is plausible—to assess which material choices create long-term cost exposure. Green premiums that appear uneconomic at current prices may deliver significant value under realistic carbon pricing scenarios.
Q: What role should offsets play in a low-carbon materials strategy? A: Minimal and declining. Offsets address unavoidable residual emissions after material substitution and efficiency measures are exhausted—not as a substitute for genuine decarbonization. The EU's regulatory trajectory explicitly disfavors offset reliance: CBAM applies to actual embedded emissions, and Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) standards limit offset use to 5-10% of reduction claims. For materials procurement, prioritize absolute emissions reduction through technology and specification choices; reserve offsets for genuinely intractable process emissions and require removals (not avoided emissions) with verified permanence.
Sources
- World Economic Forum, "Net-Zero Industry Tracker 2024: Cement and Steel Sectors," December 2024
- European Commission, "Steel and Metals Action Plan," COM(2025) 125 final, March 2025
- International Energy Agency, "Global Hydrogen Review 2024," October 2024
- Heidelberg Materials, "CCUS Factsheet and Brevik Project Update," December 2024
- Holcim, "Climate Report 2024," February 2025
- Timber Development UK, "2024 Embodied Carbon Data for Timber Products," June 2025
- Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, "Hydrogen Unleashed: H2-DRI-EAF Pathway Beyond 2024," November 2024
- Nature Sustainability, "Paving the way for sustainable decarbonization of the European cement industry," 2024
Related Articles
Case study: Low-carbon materials (cement, steel, timber) — a pilot that failed (and what it taught us)
A concrete implementation with numbers, lessons learned, and what to copy/avoid. Focus on data quality, standards alignment, and how to avoid measurement theater.
Interview: practitioners on Low-carbon materials (cement, steel, timber) — what they wish they knew earlier
A practitioner conversation: what surprised them, what failed, and what they'd do differently. Focus on unit economics, adoption blockers, and what decision-makers should watch next.
Data story: the metrics that actually predict success in Low-carbon materials (cement, steel, timber)
The 5–8 KPIs that matter, benchmark ranges, and what the data suggests next. Focus on data quality, standards alignment, and how to avoid measurement theater.