Concrete magazine: The construction industry is asking the wrong questions

The following article was originally published in March 2026 edition of Concrete magazine, and is reprinted here.

The UK construction industry is grappling with the wrong dilemma when it comes to low-carbon building. Dr Liz Gilligan, CEO and co-founder of Material Evolution, asks whether we are focusing on the right questions at all.

Too often, low-carbon progress is still framed as a technology challenge. Innovation dominates the conversation and the headlines, from carbon capture to new binders and alternative fuels. Yet this focus misses the real issue.

What has held the UK concrete industry back is not technology, but alignment. Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, policy, procurement and delivery continue to operate in silos. Until those moving parts are brought into sync, the industry will continue to lose competitiveness on the global stage. And low-carbon construction will remain on the margins, regardless of how advanced the technology solutions become.

A warning sign in plain sight

The current state of the UK concrete market is a clear warning, and, arguably, a blessing in disguise. Demand has fallen to its lowest level in more than 60 years, exposing deep structural weaknesses in how materials are sourced, valued and specified.

This is not simply another cyclical downturn. Short-sighted or not, it reflects a system that prioritises short-term cost over long-term value, and imports over domestic resilience. UK cement production has halved since 1990, while imported material now accounts for almost a third of the market. At the same time, margins across construction have tightened to unprecedented levels.

Against this backdrop of crisis, it is unrealistic to expect low-carbon materials to scale in the UK without fundamental changes to how the industry “oils the wheels”, namely, how projects are procured.

Procurement: the missing conductor

Procurement is where the problem of alignment becomes most visible. Formal procurement frameworks commonly used across the UK construction sector tend to prioritise price certainty and risk avoidance, rewarding familiarity over outcomes. Contractors are understandably cautious, particularly in a market where margins are already under pressure.

Yet this approach inadvertently locks the system into the status quo. Without mechanisms that properly recognise embodied carbon, domestic value or long-term resilience, procurement frameworks struggle to support the transition the industry says it wants.

This is not about rewriting the rules overnight, but about updating them to reflect today’s priorities. This, in turn, will make the UK market more competitive. Other countries offer a useful example. Denmark has embedded embodied-carbon thresholds into regulation, which has already shifted its market towards lower-carbon cement as a mainstream choice.

France, through aligned industrial policy and regulation, has positioned itself as a leading producer and exporter of low-carbon cement. In the UK, sustainability has yet to graduate from aspiration to default and we’re seeing the results in the country’s falling competitiveness.

The result is a bottleneck, or a domino effect where government investment flows into technologies like carbon capture, but demand-side mechanisms fail to keep pace. Technology alone cannot deliver decarbonisation if procurement frameworks do not create a viable market for it.

Cost pressures and the scaling paradox

With UK concrete volumes at historic lows, cost has become the overriding priority more than ever. Innovation feels like a risk many simply can’t afford.

This creates a paradox. Innovation is expected to solve the industry’s carbon challenge, yet the conditions required for innovation to scale, such as demand commitments, supportive regulatory frameworks and engagement from insurers to manage risk, are often absent.

Without alignment, the very companies developing low-carbon solutions risk stalling in the gap between pilot success and commercial adoption.

From risk aversion to managed trial

Construction remains a conservative industry, understandably so. Failures are costly and reputationally damaging. But the current culture often conflates trial with risk, rather than seeing it as a pathway to confidence.

Low-risk demonstration projects, supported by public-sector procurement, can bridge this gap. Trialling materials on smaller or controlled sites generates performance data, builds trust and accelerates uptake across the supply chain – this can have immense, positive strides into the future for us all. Crucially, procurement frameworks must allow space for experimentation without penalty, and scoring systems should better recognise sustainability performance and the value of UK-sourced materials.

What alignment actually looks like

Alignment doesn’t require wholesale reform overnight. Practical steps can begin now:

• Specifying outcomes, such as embodied-carbon thresholds, rather than rigid material lists

• Engaging innovators early during design and specification phases

• Using public-sector projects as lead platforms and markets for new materials, backed by real purchasing volume

• Sharing performance data openly to accelerate confidence and replication

A practical test for the next phase

The next phase of low-carbon construction will not be defined by new technologies alone, but by whether the systems governing construction can keep pace with them.

Concrete has always been a material defined by fundamentals: strength, reliability and longevity. Applying those same principles to procurement and policy may be the most effective way to unlock the change we need.

See how Material Evolution is helping construction projects reduce embodied carbon. Visit our case studies page.