India is going though one of the fastest urban expansions in history, but with a massive carbon footprint. The technology for low-carbon materials exists, yet their adoption remains slow.
In February, we convened cement manufacturers, policy experts, and civil society leaders to understand what can increase the uptake of low-carbon materials in India’s construction sector. This roundtable aimed to move beyond ‘technical feasibility’ and focus on ground level barriers. These include market hesitation, policy gaps, and psychological barriers that prevent wider adoption. The big takeaways were:
Developers remain cautious on low-carbon materials. Their concerns focus on reliable and immediate supply, structural engineer approval, and lack of precedent. A major question is whether these materials can replace traditional ones without affecting project timelines. Another concern is that Bureau of Indian Standards codes for building material in India do not clearly cover the materials. This can make securing approvals difficult, slowing adoption. Limited case studies can also reduce confidence as delays or performance issues can impact margins and reputation.
Incentives, recognition frameworks, or risk-sharing instruments can support early adoption and help build strong examples in the market.
In India’s cement market, around 80% of cement is sold in bags. These are mainly used for small-scale or self-built housing. Buyers often purchase one or two bags at a time. They rely more on contractor advice than on formal performance data. Building demand for low-carbon materials requires going beyond institutional procurement or large infrastructure projects.
While ready-mix concrete (RMC) usage is growing, small buyers remain dominant. To reach them, there is a need for awareness campaigns, transparent performance data, and stronger presence in mainstream construction exhibitions.
On-site execution remains a challenge due to limited clarity on actual carbon savings from low-carbon materials. Pilot projects show that technical feasibility is not enough for contractor confidence. Contractors often prefer ordinary portland cement (OPC) as it gains strength faster in the early stages. This allows quicker removal of formwork and faster construction.
Blended cements offer long-term benefits like lower heat of hydration (energy released when cement reacts with water) and reduced cracking. However, they are sometimes seen as slower to set or riskier. This pushes conservative practices like overdesigning structures for safety. Structural engineers often add extra cement content to minimise liability, cancelling out carbon reduction gains.
Certain load and design codes lag benchmarks. Moving toward performance-based standards was widely seen as necessary for innovation and better use of materials. This shift could also allow slab thinning and other design improvements, without affecting structural safety.
Also, decision making flows through many layers. From ministry to consultant, to developer, to architect, to contractor, and finally to site teams. There is limited knowledge sharing across these stages. Smaller projects often lack environmental specialists. Architects and structural engineers are not always present during site execution. This often makes it difficult to consider embodied carbon for ground-level decisions.
Government projects and procurement bodies can play a key role. Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Central Public Works Department (CPWD), state Public Works Departments (PWDs), Indian Railways, metro projects and sector regulators can drive change through procurement mandates.
Green building rating systems like Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA), Indian Green Building Council (IGBC), and Excellence in Design for Greater Efficiencies (EDGE) shape material choices through specific criteria. GRIHA incentivises low-impact options:
IGBC supports alternative materials and resource optimisation. IGBC also set embodied carbon benchmarks like 700 kg CO2e per square meter or less in its Net Zero Carbon pilot. EDGE requires at least 20% reduction compared to baseline in energy, water, and embodied energy in materials.
However, the level of emphasis varies across these systems. This creates uneven incentives for low-carbon options. Aligning the emphasis of green building ratings on embodied carbon ecosystems could strengthen demand.
India’s cement market is about 73% blended cement. This mainly includes portland pozzolana cement (PPC) and portland slag cement (PSC). Large-scale transition is possible once confidence builds as earlier concerns around fly ash and slag cements have reduced. Their durability is now widely recognised. A similar shift could happen for limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) due to its emission reduction potential which saves 30-40% of CO2 compared to OPC and other calcined clay-based blends if standards, awareness, and procurement policies align.
NITI Aayog’s roadmap is to reduce clinker use and promote mechanised mixing systems to improve the use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). However, top cement producers have yet to uniformly signal commitment to scaling LC3 at commercial levels.
The cost difference between OPC and blended cements is small (around ₹2–3 per bag). Yet, buyers often see lower cost as a sign of inferior quality. In some cases, cost savings are not consistently passed on to end users, weakening market incentives.
There is a clear need for a strong, open-source database on embodied carbon, suited to the Indian context. National-level datasets and supporting cluster-based environmental declarations for small and medium manufacturers can play key roles. Cluster-level environmental product declarations (EPD) for small cement producers can reduce certification costs, while maintaining credibility.
Meanwhile, public awareness campaigns will help. Many homeowners are unaware that longer curing time improves durability. They may also not know that blended cements often perform better than OPC over the long-term. Bridging this gap will require coordination across contractors, architects, engineers, and educational institutions.
Industry representatives noted that there are no significant technical barriers to scaling low-carbon blended cement. Substituting even 10% of OPC volume with LC3 will be minimally disruptive production wise, in the current cement manufacturing system. At the same time, it could deliver meaningful carbon benefits.
Manufacturers stressed that uptake requires collective action by major producers, instead of isolated innovation by smaller players. Adoption is affected by certification processes, customer trust and inconsistent demand signals.
Civil society organisations highlighted the need to bring under-represented voices into national dialogues. This includes Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities and communities living near cement plants. Collaboration is needed to overcome fragmentation across civil society, industry and government, which limits progress and implementation.
Decarbonising India’s cement and construction ecosystem will require a systemic wide change. There’s also a need for regional discussions across different parts of the country to understand value chain dynamics. Priority actions include:
If you’d like to know more about the potential of low-carbon cement, join us at Climate Group Asia Action Summit in Singapore in May. We're holding a session that will dive into how South and Southeast Asian countries can move from isolated material innovations to coordinated regional leadership, with a focus on next-generation low-clinker SCMs such as calcined clay based LC3.
Register here