Challenge Sustainability looks at the - often uneven - progress that the global cement sector is making towards decarbonisation.
Decarbonisation has become a central strategic priority across the global cement sector. While most major producers have now established net-zero targets, the pathways to achieving them vary significantly and reflect material assumptions and dependencies that sit partly outside the direct control of individual companies.
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has developed sector-specific guidance, including 1.5°C-aligned emissions intensity pathways and target-setting criteria. While this provides a degree of alignment on ambition and trajectory, it does not prescribe how reductions are achieved, leaving companies to pursue different technologies and strategic approaches. Industry bodies like the Global Cement and Concrete Association have also contributed to a degree of alignment in long-term ambition.
A growing share of emissions reduction is back-loaded into post-2030 technologies, increasing reliance on the assumptions that are embedded in long-term transition plans and the development of systems that enable the transition to low-CO2 practices. While this is common across hard-to-abate sectors, it is particularly pronounced in cement due to the dominance of process emissions.
Materials, fuels and energy systems
While the overall set of decarbonisation levers is broadly consistent across the sector, companies differ in how they combine these measures and in the extent to which their pathways depend on external enabling systems.
Clinker substitution remains a central lever across all major producers, with clinker ratios typically at 70 – 75% for leading players. However, the long-term feasibility of low-clinker solutions relies on the availability of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), including fly ash and granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS). Several producers, including Holcim and Cemex, highlight the importance of these, which are industrial by-products of coal-fired energy and steel production. As these sectors decarbonise, supply is expected to become more constrained.
In response, companies are investing in alternative SCMs, including calcined clay-based cements like LC3, which enable significant clinker reduction without compromising strength.
Alternative fuels have delivered measurable reductions, with substitution rates reaching 38.5% at CRH, 34% at Heidelberg Materials, and 32% at Cemex.
However, progress is not uniform. Dangote Cement, for example, operates in markets where alternative fuel availability and regulatory frameworks are more limited, constraining substitution rates relative to European producers. The same is true for producers in large parts of Asia, including the huge Chinese and Indian cement markets. In more mature markets, substitution rates are approaching practical limits, suggesting that further gains are likely to be more incremental here. Conversely, there are huge gains to be made in developing markets.
Energy is an increasingly critical factor underpinning multiple decarbonisation levers. Electricity typically accounts for 10 - 15% of total energy demand in cement production, but this share is expected to increase with electrification and the deployment of CO2 capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) technology. Holcim reports 48% renewable electricity across its operations, while European producers benefit from relatively low grid CO2 intensity compared to regions such as India. UltraTech’s greater exposure to higher-carbon grids illustrates how geographic footprint can influence both current emissions intensity and the feasibility of future reductions.
The relative importance of these constraints varies across companies. Producers with greater exposure to Europe benefit from higher alternative fuel substitution rates and lower grid carbon intensity, while those operating in emerging markets face more structural limitations, particularly in relation to fuel availability and fossil-fuel dominated power systems.
CCUS deployment and system integration
CCUS is widely incorporated into long-term pathways and accounts for a substantial share of residual emissions abatement in net-zero scenarios. In some cases, it represents the majority of emissions reductions beyond 2030. However, its deployment introduces additional system-level requirements beyond capture at the plant level. Heidelberg Materials’ Brevik project and the Northern Lights transport and storage system represent one of the first integrated CCS value chains in the sector.
Holcim’s stated ambition, to capture ~5Mt/yr of CO₂ by 2030, implies a significant scaling of both capture capacity and supporting infrastructure.
Current global CO2 capture capacity remains in the order of 40-50Mt/yr across all sectors, compared to the gigatonne-scale deployment implied by net-zero scenarios. This illustrates the scale of infrastructure development required, including pipelines, shipping and storage networks. Such developments go far beyond the plant gate and must be supported by regional, national and international governments to be feasible.
There are also implications for overall system efficiency. The capture, compression and transport of CO₂ are energy-intensive processes. In some cases, the energy required to operate CCUS systems can approach that of the cement plant itself, highlighting the scale of the additional energy demand associated with these technologies. While projects such as that at Brevik incorporate heat recovery and optimisation measures, public disclosures vary in the level of detail provided on the total energy requirement and its impact on net emissions. As a result, the effectiveness of CCUS is closely linked to the availability of low-carbon energy and the integration of capture systems within broader energy and CO₂ transport and storage networks.
Alternative materials
Beyond production processes, some companies are exploring lower-CO2 binders, ‘circular’ materials and changes in construction practices. Holcim’s ECOPact range, for example, is positioned as a lower-carbon concrete offering, while many others are investing in product innovation and material efficiency. These approaches have the potential to reduce emissions intensity at the system-level, but their integration into transition strategies varies, and they remain complementary to core operational measures.
Capital, policy and delivery risk
The economic viability of many decarbonisation pathways is closely linked to policy frameworks. Carbon pricing mechanisms such as the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), along with targeted subsidies and incentives, play a critical role in bridging the cost gap between conventional production and low-carbon alternatives. The cost of CO₂ capture and storage, for example, can significantly exceed prevailing carbon prices in many regions, meaning that projects often rely on additional support mechanisms such as contracts for difference, tax credits (e.g. the US 45Q scheme), or direct public funding. As a result, the deployment of technologies such as CCUS is not solely a function of technical readiness, but of policy design and stability.
The stability and predictability of policy frameworks is critical. Decarbonisation investments are long-term and capital-intensive, requiring confidence that incentives and regulatory conditions will persist over decade-long timeframes. Shifts in policy direction or uncertainty around future support can therefore introduce additional risk, influencing both the timing and location of investment. In practice, this creates timing risks, where delays in policy or infrastructure development can shift emissions reductions further into the future.
Accounting frameworks and value chain allocation
The impact of CCUS depends not only on capture itself, but on how emissions reductions are allocated between different actors in the value chain. As accounting frameworks continue to evolve, this creates uncertainty around who is able to claim these reductions and how they are reflected in reported emissions. While emerging approaches aim to ensure that captured CO₂ is only counted once, the use of allocation mechanisms introduces a degree of separation between physical capture and product-level claims.
How these dependencies interact
The effectiveness of CCUS is directly linked to the availability of low-carbon energy, while its economic viability depends on policy support and carbon pricing. Similarly, the potential for clinker substitution is constrained by the availability of SCMs, while the feasibility of electrification depends on the decarbonisation of power grids. These are two examples of where progress in individual areas is contingent on developments elsewhere, highlighting the system-wide nature of cement decarbonisation pathways.
Implications for delivery
The cement sector has made substantial progress in defining its technical decarbonisation pathway, with increasing alignment around key levers and long-term ambition. However, delivery will depend on how consistently the enabling systems, from low-carbon energy and CO₂ infrastructure, to policy and accounting frameworks, develop alongside it.
Taken together, this creates a practical tension at the heart of current transition plans. Cement companies are increasingly being judged against targets that depend, in part, on factors beyond their direct control. While emissions reduction pathways are set at the company level, a significant proportion of the required reductions depends on factors that are in the hands of other players.
Any delays or inconsistencies in infrastructure development, policy support or accounting frameworks will influence delivery timelines, capital efficiency or the sequencing of investments. Decarbonisation is not solely a question of plant-level technology, but of system-wide coordination. As these conditions evolve, pathways that appear aligned in principle may diverge significantly in practice.
