Decarbonizing cement and steel production — which together are responsible for nearly 14% of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions — will be critical to achieving national and global climate goals. But progress has been slower than in other sectors, like transportation and power, for several reasons.One prominent reason is the role of CO2-emitting chemical processes in steel and cement production. On top of that are entrenched manufacturing practices, slow turnover of equipment in plants, and the relatively high cost of low-carbon technologies — all of which make it difficult to introduce changes that would decrease emissions.This is where “green procurement” comes in. Green purchasing, or procurement, is emerging as one of the most effective policy measures to drive early demand for low-emissions cement, concrete and steel. Within the public sector, green procurement means prioritizing the purchase of low-carbon products in government-funded construction projects. In the private sector, it means leveraging companies’ purchasing power to decarbonize their supply chains and investments.The past few years have seen several green procurement initiatives and policies for cement and steel introduced around the world. However, they often differ in key areas — including reporting requirements, definitions of what qualifies as “green” or low-emissions, and the ambition of their emissions-intensity benchmarks. These differences can limit comparability and create challenges for suppliers and buyers operating across multiple jurisdictions.To drive meaningful global progress, these initiatives need to work together. Harmonizing green procurement measures through aligned definitions, data frameworks and methodological approaches is essential to ensure they are interoperable and mutually reinforcing. Importantly, harmonization does not require uniformity. Rather, it means that different systems should be able to interact and align in meaningful and consistent ways.Measuring Product-Level EmissionsInitiatives and policies around green procurement are increasingly based on “emissions-intensity” benchmarks; for example, how much CO2 is released per ton of cement or steel produced. Such benchmarks help determine if a product meets certain standards or qualifies for a certification.[Read more]To set these benchmarks, programs usually require manufacturers to report standardized emissions data for each product. This is done through Type III Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), which are like nutrition labels for environmental impacts. EPDs are based on Product Category Rules (PCRs), which explain how environmental impacts, including but not limited to GHG emissions, are measured and reported for specific product types. At the foundation of this system is lifecycle assessment (LCA) data with emissions and resource-use information that suppliers use to develop their EPDs.While EPDs and PCRs provide standardized rules for measuring and reporting product-level emissions, the way green procurement initiatives and policies apply these tools can vary significantly.Key Green Procurement Initiatives and PoliciesThe following are examples of green procurement initiatives and government policies currently being implemented for cement, concrete and steel:Initiatives (benchmarks listed in Table 1):The Industrial Deep Decarbonization Initiative (IDDI) was started under the UN Industrial Development Organization. IDDI launched the Green Public Procurement Pledge in September 2022 to encourage governments to report environmental data and use low- and near-zero-emissions cement/concrete and steel in their construction projects. IDDI has nine current member countries, including Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.World Economic Forum’s First Movers’ Coalition (FMC), is a public-private partnership that was launched in 2021 targeting companies’ procurement of near-zero-emissions goods across seven emissions-intensive sectors. FMC includes 102 global companies, each of which has committed to using its purchasing power to create markets in at least one of these sectors. So far, 27 companies have committed to the steel sector target and seven companies have committed to the cement/concrete sector target.The Climate Group’s SteelZero and ConcreteZero initiatives are corporate partnerships committed to using net-zero steel and low- and net-zero-emissions concrete (and effectively cement, as its key ingredient). SteelZero, launched in 2020, is a partnership with ResponsibleSteel and currently includes 42 companies. ConcreteZero, launched in 2022, is a partnership with WBCSD and WorldGBC and currently includes 36 companies.Government policies (benchmarks listed in Table 2):In the United States, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act allocated $4.5 billion to the General Services Administration (GSA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to purchase construction materials with “substantially lower embodied carbon” under the Federal Buy Clean Initiative. Between 2023 and 2024, GSA and FHWA published low-emissions benchmarks (see Table 2) based on EPA interim guidance. In late 2024, EPA announced a draft approach under its Carbon Labeling Program. While these steps laid the groundwork for Buy Clean implementation, the Trump administration has since directed agencies to disregard these priorities at the federal level. The future of U.S. involvement in international efforts like IDDI and FMC is uncertain, though states like California, Colorado and New York continue advancing their own Buy Clean policies.The European Union’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) allows it to establish “ecodesign requirements” for iron, steel and other products beginning in 2025 based on sustainability characteristics, including product carbon footprints. Cement ecodesign requirements will be established through the EU Construction Products Regulation (CPR) and will guide the bloc’s development of mandatory green public procurement rules and incentives through the ESPR. However, it remains unclear how the ESPR will align or interact with international initiatives, such as the IDDI, or national efforts.Ireland enacted a policy in 2024 mandating green public procurement of cement and concrete. It requires the purchase of blended cements with at least a 30% of the clinker (the most emissions-intensive ingredient in cement and concrete) replaced with supplementary cementitious materials for all public construction. The mandate also requires cement and concrete EPDs to be submitted when bidding for public contracts. This is the first stage of a decades-long strategy to decarbonize the Irish cement and concrete sector.Türkiye started implementing a green public procurement program for cement in early 2025. The government has placed a limit on the amount of clinker allowed in cement used for public construction projects, requiring public contracts to use cement with 20% clinker replacement through 2029 and 25% clinker replacement from 2030.These green procurement initiatives focus on product-level accounting. Green procurement policies that require project-level emissions accounting (which considers the whole construction project, and not just individual materials used) have been enacted in countries such as Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the U.K. and Sweden. As part of the SteelZero initiative, member organizations must make a public commitment to buying and using 100% net-zero steel by 2050 and an interim commitment to buy and use low-emission steel for 50% of their steel requirement by 2030. Photo by Anthony Fomin/Unsplash Comparing Benchmarks and Decarbonization Ambition of Product-Level ProgramsThe main product-level green procurement initiatives and policies for cement and steel come with varying definitions of the regulated material. They set different benchmarks for what is defined as “low-emissions” or “near-zero emissions.” They also differ in their emissions-intensity benchmarks; the technological readiness of decarbonization options that can meet these benchmarks; and their targeted share of total purchases (for example, how much of their total purchases need to be “green”).Understanding these differences will help guide conversations about harmonizing standards as low-carbon products become more available.Among the above initiatives, the FMC is most focused on spurring the adoption of cutting-edge decarbonization technologies in the industrial sector. FMC recruits cement- and steel-consuming companies with high climate ambition. All signatories commit to making sure that at least 10% of their cement, concrete and/or steel bought by 2030 qualifies as “near-zero” (benchmarks given in Table 1). The FMC’s high decarbonization benchmarks target a small portion of the market, requiring technologies and approaches that have significant decarbonization potential but are less developed and not yet ready for large scale deployment. The aim of such a program is to spur investment and help create early demand for near-zero emissions products, even if they currently come with a “green premium” due to higher production costs. Scaling these solutions will require strong policy support and investment to drive down costs over time.IDDI aims to encourage widespread uptake of green public procurement policies in member countries by offering different levels of commitment with decreasing carbon-intensity benchmarks. It allows member countries four commitment levels: The first only requires data reporting, while subsequent levels require increasing use of low- and near-zero products. IDDI allows multiple options for target setting, including methodologies and benchmarks from IEA, Responsible Steel, FMC, SteelZero, ConcreteZero and national green labels. This enables countries to set targets based on nationally determined circumstances. As with FMC, products meeting higher levels of commitments will likely have a green premium.SteelZero and ConcreteZero have less stringent benchmarks but aim for wider market penetration compared to FMC. They set interim targets to purchase 50% low-emissions steel and concrete by 2030, increasing to 100% net-zero products by 2050. These two initiatives offer companies more flexibility by allowing multiple pathways for certification, such as through ResponsibleSteel, SBTi or other related standards. Products meeting these benchmarks could have a green premium.Table 1. Benchmarks and standards adopted by public and private procurement initiativesInitiative/ PolicyType  Definitions & BenchmarksTargeted Share of Purchases FMCPublic/privateNear zero emissions steel: 50-400 kg CO2e/t.Near zero emissions cement: 184 kg CO2/t.Near zero emissions concrete: 70-144 kg CO2/m3.10% by 2030IDDIPublicMultiple options including using IEA, Responsible Steel, FMC, SteelZero, ConcreteZero standards and national labels.IEA:- Low Emission Steel: 400 - 2400 kgCO2e/t crude steelLow Emission Cement: 240 - 750 kgCO2e/t cement Near Zero Steel: 50 - 400 kgCO2e/t crude steel Near Zero Cement: 40 - 125 kgCO2e/t cementSignatories to decideSteelZeroPrivateLow emission steel: 350-2000 kg CO2e/t.Net zero steel: As close to zero as possible.50% low emission by 2030100% net zero by 2050ConcreteZeroPrivateLow embodied carbon concrete: 150-382 kg CO2/m3.Net zero concrete: As close to zero as possible with at least 90% mitigation.30% low carbon by 202550% low carbon by 2030100% net zero by 2050Notes: Range for steel, cement and concrete depends on scrap share, clinker ratio and concrete compressive strength respectively. Source: Authors’ analysisTable 2. Benchmarks and standards adopted by public procurement policies in various countriesGovernment or AgencyType of PolicyMaterialDefinitions & BenchmarksU.S. GSARecommendation/prioritySteel20th Percentile: 611-2,228 kgCO2e/t40th Percentile: 713-2,324 kgCO2e/tBetter than Average: 760-2,408 kgCO2e/tCement20th Percentile: 0.751 kgCO2e/kg40th Percentile: 0.819 kgCO2e/kgBetter Than Average: 0.858 kgCO2e/kgConcrete20th Percentile: 228-321 kgCO2/m340th Percentile: 261-362 kgCO2/m3Better Than Average: 277-402kgCO2/m3U.S. FHWARecommendation/priority Steel20th Percentile Unfabricated Reinforcing Bar: 0.614 kgCO2e/kg40th Percentile Unfabricated Reinforcing Bar: 0.678 kgCO2e/kgBetter Than Average: 0.755 kgCO2e/kg 20th Percentile Unfabricated Hot-rolled Structural Sections: 0.713 kgCO2e/kg40th Percentile Unfabricated Hot-rolled Structural Sections: 0.816 kgCO2e/kgBetter Than Average: 1 kgCO2e/kg 20th Percentile Steel Deck: 1.63 kgCO2e/kg40th Percentile Steel Deck: 1.85 kgCO2e/kgBetter than Average Steel Deck: 2.32 kgCO2e/kgConcrete20th Percentile: 146-406 kgCO2e/yd340th Percentile: 168-448 kgCO2e/yd3Better than Average: 177-478 kgCO2e/yd3CaliforniaRecommendation/priority SteelHot Rolled Structural Steel: 1.01 tCO2e/tHollow Structural Sections: 1.71 tCO2e/tSteel Plate: 1.49 tCO2e/tConcrete Reinforcing Steel: 0.755 tCO2e/tColoradoRecommendation/priority SteelFabricated Steel Reinforcing Bar \“Rebar\”: 1030 kgCO2e/tFabricated Hot-rolled Steel: 1,220 kgCO2e/tFabricated Plate Steel: 1,730 kgCO2e/tFabricated Hollow Structural Sections: 1,990 kgCO2e/tCementCement: 1,112 kgCO2e/tConcreteConcrete: 232-580 kgCO2e/m3New YorkRecommendation/priorityConcreteConcrete: 275-541 kgCO2e/y3European UnionRecommendation/priority;Green taxonomy/ labelsSteel, Cement/ConcreteTo be determined starting 2025 through ESPR and Industrial Decarbonization Accelerator ActIrelandMandateCementMaximum Clinker Content of Cement: 70%TürkiyeMandateCementMaximum Clinker Content of Cement: 80%Note: While standards created by the U.S. GSA and the FHWA were planned to be replaced by those adopted by the EPA, implementation of the Federal Buy Clean Initiative has been halted. *Depending on compressive strengthDepending on compressive strength and region**Depending on share of scrap inputsComparing low-emissions benchmarks across public procurement policies is challenging due to differences in the types of goods covered, regional variation in raw material availability, and a lack of harmonized definitions and interoperability. Much of this stems from differences among product sub-types and categories, each with distinct characteristics, production processes and emissions profiles. The figure above uses U.S. federal and California Buy Clean policies as examples to illustrate how they compare with key green procurement initiatives.Because these initiatives and policies target various levels of decarbonization and would require technologies at different stages of development, they can complement one another. For example, less stringent emissions-intensity benchmarks with a higher bar on market penetration can incentivize the adoption of technologies and approaches that are widely available today. Meanwhile, more stringent benchmarks can send signals that there is interest in deep decarbonization technologies in the industrial sector and help increase investment and development. By addressing different stages of decarbonization, this range of initiatives allows countries and companies to make commitments that best fit their circumstances.Harmonizing StandardsThere is a need for harmonization, or alignment, in standards across these green procurement initiatives and policies. But that doesn’t mean we need a one-size-fits-all solution. We will likely need multiple standards and protocols to cover the types of production and varied manufacturing practices across the world.What is important is that these standards are interoperable: Consistent methodologies for measurements and data reporting, as well as clear definitions for scopes and benchmarks, are needed to ensure standards speak a common language and help avoid an undue administrative burden on manufacturers. Lack of alignment could risk sending contradictory signals to the market, resulting in an uneven playing field and undercutting decarbonization efforts.Below are several important considerations for harmonizing green procurement standards:Level of accounting: Initiatives need to be mindful of how different entities (such as the private and public sectors) account for and set targets for cement, concrete and steel emissions. Approaches include product-level, project-level, facility-level or industry-level accounting (i.e., whether the emissions benchmark is specific to the product, such as concrete; specific to a project that can include many materials; specific to individual facilities; or an industry average for the material). Many green procurement initiatives and policies launched in the last few years have targeted product-level accounting. However, project-level accounting, such as whole building life cycle assessments, will also be needed to decarbonize the cement and steel sectors. This type of project-level accounting is required within IDDI’s Level 2 requirements.Scope of coverage: Coherence is needed in the scope (i.e., boundary of emissions accounting) and type of GHG emissions accounted for in each initiative (e.g., only CO2, or other GHGs as well). Manufacturers supplying low-emissions products to government contractors and private companies need to be able to use the same methodologies to account for and report their emissions intensities.Reporting mechanism: Initiatives and policies should seek alignment in their measurement methodologies, data collection and reporting mechanisms to allow an apples-to-apples comparison. This could include things like harmonized product category rules and a common methodology for environmental product declarations. The International Energy Agency published a report in April 2023 outlining the robust emissions measurement and data collection methodologies that are critical for achieving net-zero in the steel industry. Initiatives like IDDI have also published guidance for harmonizing data reporting standards. For data reliability and interoperability, initiatives will need to ensure the type of accounting used in data reporting is transparently declared in a standardized, digital format.Definitions: Definitions of terms like “low-emissions,” “near-zero emissions” and “net-zero emissions” need to be consistent across initiatives and policies to avoid confusion and misalignment in targets. However, consistent definitions don’t need to constrain flexibility. Standards can be made flexible by setting ranges and categories for emissions-intensity benchmarks, such as the Global Cement and Concrete Association’s (GCCA) Low Carbon Rating for Cement and Concrete.Other Factors to Account ForSo far, the standards implemented by international green procurement initiatives have focused on North American and European practices. However, most of the world’s cement and steel production and use currently takes place in Asia, and demand for these products is set to increase rapidly in Africa. Green procurement initiatives need to bring these regions and their standards into the mix for alignment to drive meaningful decarbonization across borders. The green taxonomies for industrial products being set by India and China can provide a foundation for green public procurement policies in these countries based on national circumstances.Green procurement initiatives should also align with the standards being set by climate-related trade policies, such as the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, and national green taxonomies to prevent duplicate efforts and the risk of contradictory signals.Green procurement is emerging as a powerful lever to accelerate decarbonization in cement and steel by creating early demand for low- and near-zero emissions products. However, the effectiveness of these initiatives depends on aligning definitions, data standards and methodologies across countries and sectors. With the right coordination and support, green procurement can play a central role in catalyzing a low-carbon industrial transition globally.

Read original article

Read original article