Decarbonizing the Construction Industry: A Critical Review of Sustainable Materials and Circular Economy Approaches

References

[1] Andersen, C. E., Stupak, I., Hoxha, E., Raulund-Rasmussen, K., & Birgisdóttir, H. (2024). Forest dynamics in LCA: Integrating carbon fluxes from forest management systems into the life cycle assessment of a building. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 209, 107805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107805

[2] Anderson, J., Rønning, A., & Moncaster, A. (2019). The Reporting of End of Life and Module D Data and Scenarios in EPD for Building level Life Cycle Assessment. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 323(1), 012051. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012051

[3] Antwi-Afari, P., Ng, S. T., & Hossain, Md. U. (2021). A review of the circularity gap in the construction industry through scientometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 298, 126870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126870

[4] Arora, M., Raspall, F., Cheah, L., & Silva, A. (2020). Buildings and the circular economy: Estimating urban mining, recovery and reuse potential of building components. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 154, 104581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104581

[5] Arora, M., Raspall, F., Fearnley, L., & Silva, A. (2021). Urban mining in buildings for a circular economy: Planning, process and feasibility prospects. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 174, 105754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105754

[6] AzariJafari, H., Guest, G., Kirchain, R., Gregory, J., & Amor, B. (2021). Towards comparable environmental product declarations of construction materials: Insights from a probabilistic comparative LCA approach. Building and Environment, 190, 107542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107542

[7] Bartsch, H. (2025). Reuse of reclaimed steel components in construction: A systematic review of potential, challenges and future directions. Structures, 80, 110057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2025.110057

[8] Benachio, G. L. F., Freitas, M. D. C. D., & Tavares, S. F. (2020). Circular economy in the construction industry: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, 121046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121046

[9] Birgisdottir, H., Moncaster, A., Wiberg, A. H., Chae, C., Yokoyama, K., Balouktsi, M., Seo, S., Oka, T., Lützkendorf, T., & Malmqvist, T. (2017). IEA EBC annex 57 ‘evaluation of embodied energy and CO 2eq for building construction.’ Energy and Buildings, 154, 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.08.030

[10] Broadbent, C. (2016). Steel’s recyclability: Demonstrating the benefits of recycling steel to achieve a circular economy. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(11), 1658–1665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1081-1

[11] Cetin, C., & Jaeger, N. (2026). Design for Disassembly in Residential Buildings: A Systematic Review of Current Practices and Emerging Digital Technologies. Research and Reviews in Sustainability, 2(1), 173–197. https://doi.org/10.65582/rrs.2026.012

[12] Corsini, L. (2025). A systems approach the Circular Economy: Policy recommendations to increase building components reuse. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 57, 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2025.05.019

[13] Di Maria, A., Eyckmans, J., & Van Acker, K. (2018). Downcycling versus recycling of construction and demolition waste: Combining LCA and LCC to support sustainable policy making. Waste Management, 75, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.01.028

[14] Dunant, C. F., Drewniok, M. P., Orr, J. J., & Allwood, J. M. (2021). Good early stage design decisions can halve embodied CO2 and lower structural frames’ cost. Structures, 33, 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.04.033

[15] European Committee for Standardization. (2011). Sustainability of construction works – Assessment of environmental performance of buildings – Calculation method (European Standard EN 15978:2011).

[16] Fan, C., Pan, F., Ma, S., Ge, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2025). Hydrogen Direct Reduction: History and Pathways for Cost Reduction. cScience, 1(1), e70003. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc3.70003

[17] Feng, H., Zhao, J., Zhang, H., Zhu, S., Li, D., & Thurairajah, N. (2022). Uncertainties in whole-building life cycle assessment: A systematic review. Journal of Building Engineering, 50, 104191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104191

[18] Gelowitz, M. D. C., & McArthur, J. J. (2017). Comparison of type III environmental product declarations for construction products: Material sourcing and harmonization evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 157, 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.133

[19] Grant, A., Ries, R., & Kibert, C. (2014). Life Cycle Assessment and Service Life Prediction: A Case Study of Building Envelope Materials. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 18(2), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12089

[20] Guignot, S., Touzé, S., Von Der Weid, F., Ménard, Y., & Villeneuve, J. (2015). Recycling Construction and Demolition Wastes as Building Materials: A Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(6), 1030–1043. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12262

[21] International Code Council. (2024). International Building Code (2024 ed.). International Code Council.

[22] Joensuu, T., Leino, R., Heinonen, J., & Saari, A. (2022). Developing Buildings’ Life Cycle Assessment in Circular Economy-Comparing methods for assessing carbon footprint of reusable components. Sustainable Cities and Society, 77, 103499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103499

[23] Johansson, N. C., Rootzén, J., & Escudero Carmona, S. (2026). Concrete change: Exploring future scenarios for the supply of supplementary cementitious materials in the EU. Developments in the Built Environment, 25, 100831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2025.100831

[24] Levasseur, A., Lesage, P., Margni, M., & Samson, R. (2013). Biogenic Carbon and Temporary Storage Addressed with Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(1), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00503.x

[25] Li, J., Lützkendorf, T., Balouktsi, M., Bi, X., Alaux, N., Potrč Obrecht, T., Passer, A., Han, C., & Yang, W. (2023). Identifying uncertainties in the whole life carbon assessment of buildings: Sources, types, and potential actions. Building and Environment, 244, 110779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110779

[26] Marinković, S., Radonjanin, V., Malešev, M., & Ignjatović, I. (2010). Comparative environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete. Waste Management, 30(11), 2255–2264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.012

[27] Markou, I., Sinnott, D., & Thomas, K. (2025). Current methodologies of creating material passports: A systematic literature review. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 22, e04267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2025.e04267

[28] Martirena, F. (2023). Practical experiences in the use of a combination of calcined clay and limestone as clinker substitute in cement. Ce/Papers, 6(6), 382–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/cepa.2777

[29] Minunno, R., O’Grady, T., Morrison, G. M., & Gruner, R. L. (2020). Exploring environmental benefits of reuse and recycle practices: A circular economy case study of a modular building. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 160, 104855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104855

[30] Morgan, R. L., Thayer, K. A., Bero, L., Bruce, N., Falck-Ytter, Y., Ghersi, D., Guyatt, G., Hooijmans, C., Langendam, M., Mandrioli, D., Mustafa, R. A., Rehfuess, E. A., Rooney, A. A., Shea, B., Silbergeld, E. K., Sutton, P., Wolfe, M. S., Woodruff, T. J., Verbeek, J. H., … Schünemann, H. J. (2016). GRADE: Assessing the quality of evidence in environmental and occupational health. Environment International, 92–93, 611–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.01.004

[31] Mouton, L., Allacker, K., & Röck, M. (2023). Bio-based building material solutions for environmental benefits over conventional construction products – Life cycle assessment of regenerative design strategies (1/2). Energy and Buildings, 282, 112767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112767

[32] Orozco, C., Babel, S., Tangtermsirikul, S., & Sugiyama, T. (2024). Comparison of environmental impacts of fly ash and slag as cement replacement materials for mass concrete and the impact of transportation. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 39, e00796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2023.e00796

[33] Ossio, F., Salinas, C., & Hernández, H. (2023). Circular economy in the built environment: A systematic literature review and definition of the circular construction concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 414, 137738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137738

[34] Peng, T., Ou, X., Yan, X., & Wang, G. (2019). Life-cycle analysis of energy consumption and GHG emissions of aluminium production in China. Energy Procedia, 158, 3937–3943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.849

[35] Pomponi, F., & Moncaster, A. (2017). Circular economy for the built environment: A research framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 710–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.055

[36] Qin Li & Chunhong Zhang. (2017). A statistical study on the compressive strength of recycled aggregate concrete. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 59, 421–426. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1759071

[37] Rakhshan, K., Morel, J.-C., Alaka, H., & Charef, R. (2020). Components reuse in the building sector – A systematic review. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, 38(4), 347–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X20910463

[38] Röck, M., Saade, M. R. M., Balouktsi, M., Rasmussen, F. N., Birgisdottir, H., Frischknecht, R., Habert, G., Lützkendorf, T., & Passer, A. (2020). Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Applied Energy, 258, 114107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107

[39] Rosner, F., Papadias, D., Brooks, K., Yoro, K., Ahluwalia, R., Autrey, T., & Breunig, H. (2023). Green steel: Design and cost analysis of hydrogen-based direct iron reduction. Energy & Environmental Science, 16(10), 4121–4134. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3EE01077E

[40] Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. (2023). Whole Life Carbon Assessment for the Built Environment [Professional Standard]. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. RICS Whole Life Carbon Assessment

[41] Sabău, M., Bompa, D. V., & Silva, L. F. O. (2021). Comparative carbon emission assessments of recycled and natural aggregate concrete: Environmental influence of cement content. Geoscience Frontiers, 12(6), 101235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2021.101235

[42] Sandin, G., Peters, G. M., & Svanström, M. (2014). Life cycle assessment of construction materials: The influence of assumptions in end-of-life modelling. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(4), 723–731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0686-x

[43] Snellings, R., Suraneni, P., & Skibsted, J. (2023). Future and emerging supplementary cementitious materials. Cement and Concrete Research, 171, 107199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2023.107199

[44] United Nations Environment Programme. (2026). Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction 2025–2026 [Global Status Report]. United Nations Environment Programme.

[45] Van Deventer, J. S. J., Brice, D. G., Bernal, S. A., & Provis, J. L. (2013). Development, Standardization, and Applications of Alkali-activated Concretes. In L. Struble & J. K. Hicks, Geopolymer Binder Systems (pp. 196–212). ASTM International100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. https://doi.org/10.1520/STP156620120083

[46] Yang, L., Hu, H., Wang, M., Chen, F., Wang, S., Guo, Y., Yang, S., & Jiang, T. (2023). Comparative life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis of electric arc furnace steelmaking processes integrated with solar energy system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 425, 138868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138868

[47] Zhang, C., Hu, M., Yang, X., Miranda-Xicotencatl, B., Sprecher, B., Di Maio, F., Zhong, X., & Tukker, A. (2020). Upgrading construction and demolition waste management from downcycling to recycling in the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 266, 121718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121718

@article{1722363,
      author = {Samuel Ayeni, Abubakar Halidu, Chichebe Victoria Maurice Uwanaka, Elijah Kordieh Mensah; Abdultawab Ademola Aderibigbe, Yusuf Ayobami Mustapha; Stephen Boako Boateng},
      title = {Decarbonizing the Construction Industry: A Critical Review of Sustainable Materials and Circular Economy Approaches},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {10},
      number = {2},
      pages = {1548-1562},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1722363.pdf},
      abstract = {The decarbonization of the construction sector requires accounting for emissions throughout the entire life cycle of a building's materials, including extraction, manufacturing, construction, maintenance, replacement, and end-of-life, rather than operational energy alone. This paper offers a critical, rather than descriptive, narrative review of the evidence for sustainable construction materials and circular economy strategies as levers for whole-life carbon reduction. Rather than treating reported decarbonization potentials as settled findings, the review interrogates the assumptions, system boundaries, and evidentiary basis underlying claims made for low-clinker cement, alternative binders, recycled and low-carbon steel, bio-based materials, and secondary resources. A recurring pattern emerges: reported benefits are frequently derived from laboratory-scale, pilot, or early-commercial data, extrapolated using inconsistent life-cycle assessment (LCA) boundaries, and rarely validated against long-term, in-service performance. Circular strategies, including material demand reduction, adaptive reuse, component reuse, high-value recycling, design for adaptability and disassembly, urban mining, and digital traceability, exhibit a similar pattern: plausible mechanisms supported by a thin, methodologically heterogeneous, and geographically skewed empirical base. Wood products warrant particular consideration because sustainably sourced wood can store carbon and may reduce fossil-intensive material demand through substitution, although the magnitude and durability of these benefits depend strongly on accounting assumptions not yet harmonized across the field. The review argues that the field's persistent framing of sustainable materials and circularity as self-evidently complementary and beneficial obscures unresolved trade-offs, weak causal evidence for claimed emissions reductions, inconsistent counterfactual assumptions, and a systematic evidence gap outside high-income economies. It concludes that progress is currently constrained less by a shortage of candidate technologies than by the absence of harmonized carbon accounting, longitudinal performance evidence, and critically appraised, rather than simply aggregated, evidence capable of supporting high-confidence investment and policy decisions.},
      keywords = {construction decarbonization, embodied carbon, sustainable construction materials, circular economy, whole-life carbon, material reuse, life-cycle assessment, evidence quality},
      month = {August},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV10I2-1722363}
  }