From Fossil to Function: Designing Next Generation Materials for a Low Carbon Economy

Abstract

The shift to a low carbon economy demands materials that minimize environmental impact while maintaining performance and scalability. This review examines sustainable alternatives across five key sectors; construction, polymers, functional materials, textiles, and electronics, and highlighting recent advances in low carbon cement, recyclable polymers, and bio based coatings. We assess trade offs such as cost, durability, supply chain risk, and lifecycle emissions. Instead of listing emerging solutions, the paper emphasizes a unified design framework focused on performance alignment, green chemistry, criticality avoidance, and end-of-life planning. Enabling tools including machine learning, autonomous labs, lifecycle informed screening, and multiscale modeling, are also reviewed for their role in accelerating sustainable materials discovery. We highlight research gaps, methodological challenges in lifecycle data, and barriers to large scale deployment, aiming to guide more integrated and transparent material innovation.

1. Introduction

The worsening climate crisis demands a transformation not only in how we generate and use energy, but also in the materials that underpin modern life. From the concrete and steel that shape our built environment to the polymers in packaging and the metals in electronics, materials are embedded in every sector of the global economy. Yet, the environmental footprint of material production remains staggering, contributing a significant share of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and has long been overshadowed by energy centric climate strategies [1,2].

This imbalance is no longer tenable. As the world approaches critical climate thresholds, the sustainability of materials must become a central focus of mitigation efforts. The decisions that guide material development, once driven predominantly by cost, performance, and availability, must now integrate environmental and social impacts from the outset. Material systems need to be reimagined holistically, taking into account not only production emissions but the entire lifecycle: from extraction and processing to use, reuse, and end-of-life management [3]. Throughout, decoupling performance from carbon intensity refers to delivering an equivalent or specified functional service (e.g., MPa·year, R-value·m², S·m⁻¹·year) at a lower lifecycle carbon cost not to any assumed intrinsic physical coupling [4].

Currently, global material flows remain heavily dependent on linear, fossil intensive supply chains. Steel, cement, aluminum, and plastics dominate both volume and emissions. Cement alone is responsible for 7–8% of global CO₂ emissions due to limestone calcination and fossil fuel combustion [5]. Steel production contributes an additional 7–9%, driven largely by coal based blast furnaces [6]. Plastics, nearly all derived from petrochemicals, account for 3–4% of emissions and are projected to triple in demand by 2060 [7]. If these trajectories continue, materials alone could consume over two thirds of the world’s remaining carbon budget by mid century [8,9]. At the same time, sectors like buildings and transport are successfully reducing operational emissions through electrification and energy efficiency. As a result, the proportion of emissions embodied in materials (those arising from mining, refining, manufacturing, and assembly) is becoming more prominent. In some advanced construction projects, embodied carbon now represents more than half of total lifecycle emissions [10,11]. This shift elevates material decarbonization from a long term aspiration to a near term imperative. We emphasize that materials are one part of a broader mitigation portfolio; the value of this review is to clarify where materials focused action is most cost effective and time critical as operational emissions decline [3,12].

Despite growing interest, research in sustainable materials remains fragmented. Prior reviews have typically concentrated either on specific material classes (e.g., green concrete or bioplastics) or on overarching circular economy concepts, but few have offered a cross sectoral synthesis that critically evaluates both the potential and limitations of emerging solutions. Furthermore, many claims of low carbon or biodegradable performance lack consistent lifecycle data, complicating efforts to benchmark across regions or technologies. Variability in data quality, system boundaries, and allocation methods within lifecycle assessment (LCA) databases adds additional uncertainty [13]. Supply chain dependence and regional grid intensity further constrain large scale adoption. We therefore foreground system boundaries, allocation choices, and grid mix dependence as first order determinants of reported results.

The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive and integrative synthesis of sustainable materials strategies across multiple industrial sectors. We aim to bridge the gap between scientific innovation, lifecycle accountability, and enabling policy mechanisms by offering a structured framework that supports more transparent, reproducible, and scalable material solutions. This article focuses on three overarching aims:

• Quantification: We evaluate the lifecycle carbon burdens of conventional material systems and introduce metrics such as functional carbon intensity (kg CO₂ per unit service delivered) to enable performance adjusted comparisons.
• Design Principles: We present four foundational principles for sustainable material design performance alignment, green chemistry and circularity, criticality and responsible sourcing, and end-of-life recovery, as a cohesive evaluation rubric.
• Implementation Levers: We assess tools and institutional levers that facilitate discovery and deployment, including AI/ML models, autonomous labs, lifecycle modeling, digital product passports, green procurement programs, and circular economy policies.

The structure of this review is as follows:

• Section 2 contextualizes the material sector within the global carbon budget and reviews lifecycle data for major material classes.
• Section 3 introduces our four principle framework and associated evaluation metrics.
• Section 4 details computational and experimental tools accelerating sustainable materials discovery.
• Section 5 presents case studies across five key domains: construction, polymers, functional materials, textiles, and electronics.
• Section 6 explores enabling infrastructure, policy, and procurement mechanisms.
• Section 7 offers a forward looking roadmap and actionable recommendations for aligning material innovation with climate and sustainability goals.

This review recognizes several inherent limitations. Where relevant, we connect material choices to distributional outcomes (e.g., worker health, supply chain exposure, access/cost) to clarify pathways by which material policy can support social equity. Data availability and quality remain uneven across material classes, and many emerging systems lack long term durability and recyclability validation. Sustainability metrics particularly those involving social and circularity dimensions are still evolving. Nevertheless, by consolidating multidisciplinary evidence and adopting a transparent, function centric evaluation approach, this work aims to strengthen the foundation for more reproducible, data driven, and accountable material innovation. Because this is a review article, our design framework is analytical rather than experimentally validated; its role is to synthesize evidence and provide decision criteria that can be tested in future empirical work. By bridging molecular scale design principles with system level deployment strategies, the manuscript establishes a cross disciplinary framework that can inform both research agendas and policy implementation.

2. The Role of Materials in the Global Carbon Budget

As noted in the introduction, materials underpin every sector of the global economy; however, their environmental footprint remains underrepresented in many climate policy and mitigation frameworks [14]. This underrepresentation partly stems from accounting conventions that assign indirect emissions (e.g., electricity or feedstock use in industry) to other sectors. In reality, the production of materials contributes to climate change not only through direct on site fuel combustion but also via process related emissions (e.g., CO₂ from limestone calcination in cement, iron ore reduction in steelmaking, or hydrocarbon cracking in petrochemicals) and through upstream energy use and feedstocks. For example, in cement manufacturing more than half of CO₂ emissions come from the calcination process itself rather than fuel use [15], a fraction that cannot be mitigated by simply switching energy sources. Accurately quantifying material related emissions therefore requires transparent system boundaries and harmonized data that capture both direct emissions and indirect lifecycle stages. According to the IEA Global Energy Review 2025 [16], global energy related CO₂ emissions reached a record 37.8 Gt in 2024, of which industrial activities (primarily cement, metals, chemicals, and refining) accounted for about 9.3 Gt. This is roughly one quarter of total CO₂ from fuel combustion and industrial processes. When upstream electricity use and fossil feedstock transformation (for plastics, fertilizers, etc.) are allocated to the materials sector, the associated emissions increase to an estimated 10.5–11.2 Gt CO₂ eq per year, or approximately 24–26% of total anthropogenic CO₂ emissions [17,18,19]. Thus, while material production is not (yet) the dominant source of global emissions, its mitigation potential is indispensable, materials embody long lived carbon flows across nearly every industry, and as other sectors decarbonize, the relative share from materials will only grow.

2.1. Embodied vs. Operational Carbon: A Shifting Balance

Historically, climate strategies have focused on operational emissions from building use, transportation, and power generation. As these sectors gradually decarbonize via efficiency, electrification, and cleaner energy, embodied emissions, i.e., the CO₂ released during material extraction, processing, and product manufacturing, are becoming an increasingly significant fraction of lifecycle impacts [20]. Recent meta analyses of net zero and high efficiency buildings show that embodied carbon already accounts for 20–50% of total lifecycle emissions in new construction, even when operational energy is minimal [21,22,23,24]. In fact, for many energy efficient buildings, embodied emissions can approach parity with operating emissions [25]. This trend underscores the necessity of integrating both operational and embodied considerations into building codes, retrofit decisions, and carbon budget models. It also highlights potential trade offs: for instance, adding thick insulation or new high performance materials can reduce a building’s heating/cooling needs but will incur upfront carbon emissions to produce those materials. Optimal design therefore requires balancing these factors so that net emissions are minimized over the full lifecycle. To enable such analysis, harmonized life cycle assessment (LCA) data have been developed in recent years. Modern LCA databases (e.g., ecoinvent v3.11 [26], GREET [27], GaBi [28]) and industry reports yield cradle-to-gate carbon intensities for most bulk materials. Table 1 lists representative values within the following verified ranges: approximately 0.5–0.6 kg CO₂e per kg for ordinary Portland cement [29,30]; 2.1–2.4 kg CO₂e per kg for primary steel via blast furnace/basic oxygen furnace (BF–BOF) route and 0.6–0.8 for recycled scrap based steel via electric arc furnace (EAF) [31]; around 14.5–15.0 kg CO₂e per kg for primary aluminum but only 0.5–0.6 for recycled aluminum (thanks to much lower energy use) [32]; 2.2–2.7 kg CO₂e per kg for PET (petroleum based plastic) [33]; and 1.3–2.0 kg CO₂e per kg for PLA (bio based polymer) [34,35]. These ranges have been derived from numerous sources and represent industry average technologies circa 2022–2024. Regional variability (electric grid mix, fuel sources, raw material grades) and methodological choices (allocation by mass vs. economic value, system boundary cutoff, etc.) can shift results by ±30–50%. This highlights the substantial uncertainty bands around any single point estimates and the care needed when comparing materials across different studies.

2.2. Sectoral Contributions of Materials

Figure 1, adapted from IEA and Global Carbon Budget data [17,18,29,36], summarizes the relative contributions of key material classes to global CO₂ emissions in 2023–2024. Cement production contributed on the order of 3.1–3.2 Gt CO₂ per year (roughly 8% of the global total), coming from both calcination process emissions and kiln fuel combustion [37]. Iron and steel manufacturing was of comparable magnitude at ≈3.0–3.1 Gt CO₂ (7%), depending on the production route mix (carbon intensive BF–BOF vs. lower carbon scrap EAF) [6,31]. The chemicals and plastics sector added about 2.5 Gt CO₂ (6%), dominated by high volume products like ammonia, methanol, and ethylene which have energy and carbon intensive synthesis pathways [38,39,40]. Primary aluminum (along with other non ferrous metals such as copper and nickel) contributed roughly 2.0 Gt CO₂ (5%) [32]. Collectively, these four material categories account for on the order of one quarter of total anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, which is consistent with the above top down inventories. Upstream resource extraction and mineral processing add another 4–6% (mostly from mining equipment diesel use and fugitive emissions) [41]. Notably, these material sectors are among the hardest to abate in terms of emissions, due to fundamental chemistry and process constraints. Many high temperature industrial processes cannot be easily electrified or otherwise decarbonized with today’s technologies. For instance, the carbon in metallurgical coke and in limestone is a reactant that produces CO₂ as an unavoidable byproduct in conventional iron and cement production; nearly 60% of cement’s CO₂ releases are from the calcination chemistry itself [42]. Mitigating such process emissions will require either entirely novel chemistries, alternative materials, or carbon capture and storage, measures that are technically complex and often costly compared to decarbonizing the power or transport sectors. Indeed, industry emissions (largely driven by materials production) have grown faster than many other sectors in recent decades, reflecting both increasing materials demand and the difficulty of reducing their carbon intensity [43]. The data confirm that while material industries are not the majority source of emissions, they are strategically important for climate mitigation: without significant advances in these sectors, it will be impossible to reach global net zero targets despite deep cuts in electricity, transportation, and land use emissions.

2.3. Lifecycle Metrics, Data Transparency, and Limitations

Table 1 presents representative embodied carbon intensities and circularity metrics for common materials, updated with the latest data (circa 2022–2024) [44,45]. All values correspond to cradle-to-gate system boundaries, including direct process emissions and upstream energy inputs [46]. Recyclability in the table refers to the practical recovery potential today (accounting for economic and technical factors) rather than the theoretical recyclability. The table illustrates both encouraging progress and significant uncertainty. For example, bio based or CO₂ sequestering composites can yield very low or even negative cradle-to-gate footprints under certain conditions, hempcrete (hemp lime composite) is reported at roughly –0.04 to 0.0 kg CO₂e/kg, essentially carbon neutral or better [47]. Such outcomes rely on biogenic CO₂ uptake during plant growth offsetting production emissions. In practice, achieving net negative material production is challenging: recent analyses indicate that hempcrete mixtures require at least 20% hemp fiber by weight to attain net negative GWP, and even then the carbonation of the lime binder and long term carbon storage must be ensured to retain the benefit [48]. Moreover, any biogenic carbon stored in materials could be released at end-of-life if the material decomposes or is combusted, so cradle-to-grave emissions may be higher than cradle-to-gate estimates suggest [49]. On the other hand, recycled metals (steel, aluminum) consistently offer large emissions reductions (50–95% lower than primary production) when powered by low carbon electricity, which is already reflected in their much smaller footprints [32]. The magnitude of these benefits does depend on regional energy mix and scrap availability, but metal recycling is a well established practice with clear climate advantages.

Table 1. Representative cradle-to-gate embodied carbon intensities and circularity metrics (2022–2024).

Material	Embodied Carbon (kg CO2e/kg)	Recyclability (%)	Source
Portland cement	0.5–0.6	Low	IEA Cement KPI (2024) [29]
Steel (BF–BOF)	2.1–2.4	High	JRC (2025) [31]
Steel (EAF)	0.6–0.8	High	JRC (2025) [31]
Primary aluminium	14.5–15.0	Very High	IAI (2024) [32]
Recycled aluminium	0.5–0.6	Very High	IAI (2024) [32]
PET (plastic)	2.2–2.7	High	Kim et al. (2023) [33]
PLA (biopolymer)	1.3–2.0	Moderate	CE Delft (2023) [34]
Hempcrete	−0.04–0.0	Moderate	Muhit et al. (2024) [47]

Table 1. Representative cradle-to-gate embodied carbon intensities and circularity metrics (2022–2024).

Material	Embodied Carbon (kg CO2e/kg)	Recyclability (%)	Source
Portland cement	0.5–0.6	Low	IEA Cement KPI (2024) [29]
Steel (BF–BOF)	2.1–2.4	High	JRC (2025) [31]
Steel (EAF)	0.6–0.8	High	JRC (2025) [31]
Primary aluminium	14.5–15.0	Very High	IAI (2024) [32]
Recycled aluminium	0.5–0.6	Very High	IAI (2024) [32]
PET (plastic)	2.2–2.7	High	Kim et al. (2023) [33]
PLA (biopolymer)	1.3–2.0	Moderate	CE Delft (2023) [34]
Hempcrete	−0.04–0.0	Moderate	Muhit et al. (2024) [47]

Overall, the numerical values in different data sources can vary widely, regional grid carbon intensities, feedstock origins, and LCA allocation rules are major sources of divergence [50]. For instance, one dataset might assume renewable electricity for aluminum smelting in Europe, while another assumes coal heavy power in China, leading to a >50% difference in reported CO₂ per kg Al. Therefore, a cautious ±30–50% band should be assumed when comparing carbon intensities across databases or studies, especially for emerging materials with less standardized data. Another limitation is the lack of consistent functional units aligned with material performance: most LCAs report emissions per unit mass of material, which does not capture the fact that different materials may provide very different functionality per kilogram (strength, durability, etc.). This can mislead comparative assessments if not normalized properly.

While the absolute share of material production (25%) is smaller than that of energy or agriculture [51], the long service life of material intensive products and the slow turnover of capital stock (e.g., steel plants, cement kilns often operate for 30–50 years) make early action in this domain essential. Decarbonizing materials is a protracted effort; any delay means carbon intensive infrastructure will remain in place for decades. A key challenge moving forward is the inconsistency and opacity in current data. Different studies use different allocation rules (mass based vs. economic value), system boundaries (cradle-to-gate vs. full cradle-to-grave), and often data that are a few years out of date by the time of publication. Improving data transparency and standardization is critical. Future progress will depend on: (i) standardizing functional units and LCA methodologies so that results are comparable and linked to performance (not just mass); (ii) expanding open LCA datasets with region and process specific detail (e.g., differentiating coal based vs. gas based vs. electric steel, various cement chemistries, etc.), and ensuring periodic updates as technology evolves; and (iii) coupling inventory data with dynamic stock flow models to project how material demand and recycling trends will influence emissions over time. Furthermore, proposed low carbon materials and processes must be validated experimentally at scale. It is not enough to show a low footprint in theory, real world trials and demonstrations are needed to prove durability, safety, and economic viability. For instance, new clinker free cements, carbon cured concrete, or vitrimer plastics should undergo pilot projects to confirm that their lab scale emissions benefits hold true in practice [52,53]. By combining more transparent data with empirical benchmarks, the field can move beyond descriptive accounting of the status quo towards predictive, validated pathways for material sector decarbonization. In summary, transforming the materials industry will require both technical innovation (to decouple material performance from carbon intensity) and coordinated policies, but it is a necessary endeavor to achieve global climate goals given the central role materials play in all facets of the economy [54].

3. Principles for Designing Sustainable Materials

Sustainable materials are not defined only by low embodied carbon. They must also deliver functional performance, avoid supply and toxicity risks, and remain recoverable at end of life [55]. This section summarizes four practical design principles that can guide development and evaluation across sectors: (1) performance alignment, (2) cleaner process and circular design, (3) criticality and responsible sourcing, and (4) end-of-life planning; see Figure 2. These principles are intended to be operational rather than aspirational. Each is associated with measurable indicators so that candidate materials can be compared transparently.

3.1. Performance Alignment

The first principle is to deliver the required function with the lowest feasible environmental burden. Materials are often compared per unit mass, but a kilogram of two different materials can deliver very different structural, thermal, or electrical service. A more meaningful basis of comparison is the carbon intensity of delivered function: strength per unit of embodied CO₂e, insulation value per unit of embodied CO₂e, conductivity per unit of embodied CO₂e, and so on [56,57]. Under this framing, a material is preferred if it meets the same performance requirement (e.g., MPa of compressive strength over a specified service life, R-value·m² of thermal resistance, S·m⁻¹ of electrical conductivity in use) at lower cradle-to gate global warming potential. This favors solutions that either (i) use less material for the same function (lightweighting, multifunctional design), (ii) last longer in service (higher durability, corrosion/UV/fire resistance), or (iii) combine roles that would otherwise require multiple components (for example, structural–insulating panels, or conductive–recyclable substrates). In practice, decoupling performance from carbon intensity does not imply a physical law linking performance and emissions. It simply means that material choices are evaluated on functional carbon intensity (kg CO₂e per delivered service), rather than on mass alone [58,59,60]. This makes high performing, lower carbon binders (e.g., SCM blends, geopolymers), advanced insulators, recyclable conductors, and bio based composites directly comparable to incumbents.

3.2. Cleaner Process and Circular Design

The second principle concerns how the material is made and how it circulates. At production scale, green chemistry aims to minimize hazard, waste, and energy demand through catalytic pathways, solvent substitution or elimination, process intensification, and electrification of heat [61,62,63,64]. Established metrics such as Process Mass Intensity (PMI), E-factor, solvent intensity, solvent recovery rate, and cradle-to-gate global warming potential (GWP, kg CO₂e/kg) quantify these burdens and make them auditable across suppliers [65,66,67,68,69,70,71]. At the product level, circular design seeks to keep materials at high value for as long as possible. This includes modular construction, ease of disassembly, reversible joining, mono material design where feasible, and compatibility with known recovery routes such as mechanical recycling, chemical depolymerization, remanufacturing, or safe biodegradation [72,73]. In construction and manufacturing, these strategies are now reinforced by disclosure frameworks such as EN 15804 and ISO 21930, which specify how embodied impacts are reported for procurement [74,75]. In consumer and industrial products, the emerging Digital Product Passport (DPP) architecture under the EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation formalizes documentation of material content, repairability, and recovery pathways throughout the supply chain [72,73,76]. The core idea is straightforward: the synthesis route should be as low impact, low toxicity, and energy efficient as possible, and the product should be intentionally designed for reuse, refurbishment, or high yield recycling instead of one way disposal.

3.3. Criticality and Responsible Sourcing

The third principle addresses material security, toxicity, and geopolitical exposure. Many high performance systems rely on scarce or high risk inputs such as cobalt, rare earth elements, antimony, PFAS class surfactants, or halogenated flame retardants. These inputs carry supply constraints, ethical and social risks, and end-of-life liabilities [77,78,79]. Responsible design therefore favors earth abundant, lowertoxicity alternatives where technically viable. Examples include iron–nitrogen–carbon (Fe–N–C) catalysts that reduce dependence on platinum group metals in electrochemical systems [80,81,82], phosphorus and nitrogen based flame retardants that displace brominated systems in textiles and electronics [83,84], and bio based or mineral fibers that substitute for petrochemical or high footprint reinforcement [85,86]. Criticality is not purely a chemistry problem. It is also an extraction, labor, and governance problem. Current criticality lists from the European Union and the U.S. Department of Energy, along with producer responsibility regulations and extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, increasingly treat secure and ethical sourcing as a design constraint rather than a downstream compliance issue [87,88]. This reframes can it be made? as can it be made reliably and ethically at scale for decades?

3.4. End-of-Life Planning and Recovery

The fourth principle assumes that every material reaches end of life and requires a defined recovery pathway. Designing for recovery is different from simply calling a product “recyclable”. It requires specifying how, and under what infrastructure, high value fractions will actually be recovered [89]. In practice, this includes (i) selecting chemistries that enable depolymerization or reprocessing (e.g., vitrimers and dynamic covalent networks for repairable thermosets), (ii) using separable or water-soluble substrates that allow component reclamation, and (iii) avoiding permanent fusion of dissimilar layers u nless a demonstrated separation method already exists [90,91,92,93,94]. In textiles, for example, fiber to fiber recycling systems now recover cellulose or monomer streams from blended fabrics with minimal loss in quality [95]; in electronics, solvent swelling or dissolution based printed circuit boards allow near complete recovery of fibers and conductive elements [96]; in construction, reversible binders and mechanically separable assemblies enable reuse of structural components rather than downcycling to fill [97]. End-of-life planning links directly to procurement. Public buyers in infrastructure, apparel, and electronics are beginning to require Environmental Product Declarations and digital product passports. This means that recovery yield, recycled content, repairability, and traceability are becoming explicit purchasing criteria, not voluntary marketing claims [72,74,76,98].

These four principles are intended to function as a design checklist. First, does the material deliver the required function efficiently (functional carbon intensity)? Second, is it produced and assembled using low hazard, low waste, energy efficient processes, and is that performance documented with standard metrics (PMI, E-factor, solvent recovery, kg CO₂e/kg)? Third, does it depend on scarce, toxic, or geopolitically fragile inputs, or can those be substituted and recovered? Fourth, is there a clear, realistic, technically validated end-of-life pathway that preserves value instead of generating unmanaged waste?

Table 2. Summary of actionable design principles for sustainable materials. Each principle is paired with guiding questions and indicative metrics that enable comparison across candidate solutions.

Principle	Design Question	Representative Metrics/Evidence
Performance alignment	Does the material deliver the required function with lower impact per unit service?	Functional carbon intensity (kg CO2e per MPa·year, R-value·m2, S·m−1 ); demonstrated service life and durability
Cleaner process and circular design	Is the material produced with minimal hazard, waste, and energy, and designed for reuse/repair/separation?	PMI, E-factor, solvent intensity and recovery rate; cradle-to-gate GWP (kg CO2e/kg); documented disassembly and reuse strategy; EN 15804/ISO 21930 disclosures
Criticality and responsible sourcing	Does performance depend on scarce, high risk, or toxic inputs, or can abundant, lower toxicity alternatives be used and recovered?	Criticality/supply risk score; toxicological classification; % of high risk element recoverable at end of life; compliance with critical raw material guidance
End-of-life planning	Is there a technically validated recovery pathway that preserves value instead of creating unmanaged waste?	Actual recovery yield (%); recycled or bio based content (%); number of realistic reuse/repair cycles; presence of a Digital Product Passport or EPD documenting composition and handling

summarizes these principles, associated screening questions, and representative quantitative indicators. The table is intended to support early stage down selection of candidate materials in research, procurement, and policy.

Taken together, these principles provide a practical screening framework that links lab scale innovation to industrial adoption. They also align with emerging regulatory expectations: disclosure of embodied impacts and hazards (EN 15804, ISO 14025), responsible sourcing under critical raw materials policies, and end-of-life accountability under extended producer responsibility and digital product passport regimes [76,87,88].

4. Enabling Tools: Accelerating Discovery and Deployment

Developing sustainable materials at the pace required for decarbonization demands not only conceptual frameworks and prototypes but also computational and experimental infrastructures capable of exploring vast chemical and structural spaces efficiently. Traditional trial and error workflows are too slow and resource intensive to meet 2030–2050 sustainability targets [99]. Fortunately, advances in artificial intelligence (AI), high throughput (HT) experimentation, autonomous laboratories, and lifecycle informed screening are transforming the landscape of materials discovery and deployment [100,101,102,103].

4.1. Machine Learning and Data Driven Screening

Machine learning (ML) has become a cornerstone of modern materials science, transforming how researchers explore, predict, and optimize composition-structure-property relationships. In sustainability focused materials design, ML serves not merely as a predictive accelerator but as an ethical and environmental filter, embedding circularity, criticality, and embodied carbon constraints at the earliest design stages [104,105,106,107]. By integrating these dimensions into data workflows, ML helps identify low impact alternatives before costly synthesis or scale up. The field has evolved from single property predictors to comprehensive frameworks capable of optimizing across thermodynamic, mechanical, and environmental objectives simultaneously. Recent developments extend ML driven screening along four complementary and interlinked axes, outlined below.

• Multi objective property prediction: Modern ML models including graph neural networks, attention based transformers, and message passing architectures simultaneously predict properties such as global warming potential, toxicity, mechanical strength, electrochemical stability, and synthetic complexity [108,109]. These models enable efficient navigation of sustainability performance trade offs.
• Inverse design and generative modeling: Generative techniques like diffusion models, VAEs, and language based design tools (e.g., MatGPT, ChemCrow) now propose novel molecules, polymers, or crystals optimized for degradability, abundance, or low embodied carbon [110,111]. These methods unlock vast chemical spaces with sustainability constraints pre imposed in the latent space.
• Active learning and uncertainty quantification: ML pipelines increasingly use Bayesian optimization, active learning, and ensemble modeling to maximize knowledge gain while minimizing resource use. These tools help prioritize data acquisition (via simulation or experiment) where uncertainty is high or sustainability impact is uncertain [112,113].
• Green optimization and sustainability aware ranking: Recent platforms integrate environmental and supply chain metrics directly into the screening process. For instance, GreenGNN and modified ALIGNN architectures have been extended to score candidates based on criticality indices, recyclability, and lifecycle carbon emissions [109,114].

As ML tools mature, the fidelity of their outputs increasingly depends on transparent, curated, and FAIR compliant (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data [115]. Recent works highlight reproducibility gaps caused by inconsistent units, missing metadata, or unverified synthesis records. Initiatives such as the Materials Data Integrity Consortium now define standardized validation benchmarks for AI ready datasets linking digital object identifiers (DOIs) directly to experimental provenance [116]. This ensures that sustainability claims generated by ML are traceable and verifiable across research groups and industrial applications.

Table 3. Key open datasets enabling AI-driven sustainable materials discovery and evaluation.

Dataset	Domain	Description	Use Case
Materials Project [117]	Inorganic Crystals	DFT calculated properties for over 150,000 crystalline inorganic materials, including formation energies, bandgaps, and elastic tensors.	Solid state materials design, phase stability, battery and thermoelectric material screening
Open Catalyst [118]	Catalysis	Over 20 million DFT and ML simulated adsorption trajectories across catalyst surfaces relevant to energy and decarbonization.	Catalyst discovery for CO2 reduction, ammonia synthesis, and hydrogen production
Polymer Genome [119]	Polymers	Structure–property relationships for thousands of polymers, including mechanical, thermal, and electronic properties, with support for bio based and degradable polymers.	High throughput screening of sustainable and biodegradable polymer candidates
QMOF [120] & OMDB [121,122]	MOFs & Organic Crystals	Quantum properties and electronic structure data for metal–organic frameworks (QMOF) and over 26,000 organic crystals (OMDB).	Gas separation, storage, optoelectronic applications, quantum materials
SustainBench [123]	Sustainability Benchmarks	A diverse benchmark suite for machine learning tasks in sustainability, including emissions prediction, infrastructure quality, and satellite image classification.	Socio-environmental forecasting, sustainability analytics, global development monitoring

summarizes representative datasets driving sustainable AI development (verified for 2023–2025 releases). These span inorganic crystals, catalysts, polymers, and socio environmental indicators, collectively supporting holistic materials process policy modeling.

These ML systems increasingly form the cognitive layer of autonomous laboratories and digital twins of materials ecosystems. When coupled with high throughput robotics and real time analytics, they enable closed loop optimization of both performance and sustainability metrics. Such “self driving” infrastructures have already reduced experimental iteration times by an order of magnitude and it’s expected to lower the carbon footprint of exploratory synthesis [124,125]. In this emerging paradigm, data driven sustainability becomes not an afterthought but a dynamic design constraint, bridging computational discovery, ethical sourcing, and lifecycle resilience.

4.2. High Throughput Experimentation and Autonomous Laboratories

High throughput experimentation has become one of the most transformative approaches in modern materials science, enabling researchers to explore vast compositional and processing spaces in parallel. Where traditional workflows required months of manual synthesis and testing, HT methods, built on automation, robotics, and microanalytical precision, can now complete equivalent work in a matter of days [124,125]. This acceleration is critical for sustainability research, where the design space spans millions of potential formulations and process variables for green polymers, catalysts, electrolytes, and cementitious materials. Modern HT platforms integrate modular robotic synthesis arms, liquid and powder handling stations, automated deposition systems (inkjet, spray, or microdroplet), and in-situ analytics including X-ray diffraction (XRD), Raman and IR spectroscopy, optical microscopy, electrochemical impedance, and mass spectrometry [101,126,127]. These setups can evaluate 1000–10,000 unique compositions per week, collecting multi modal data on ionic conductivity, catalytic turnover frequency, mechanical stability, and degradation kinetics. Machine vision systems and sensor fusion techniques are increasingly used to assess sample morphology and reaction state in real time, feeding structured data directly into ML pipelines [128]. Recent breakthroughs have shifted HT experimentation toward truly autonomous laboratories, self driving ecosystems that combine AI based hypothesis generation, robotic execution, and closed loop optimization [129]. These systems operate as feedback controlled experimental engines that continuously refine their search strategy via Bayesian optimization, reinforcement learning, or active uncertainty reduction [102,130,131]. Prominent initiatives like Berkeley’s A-Lab, the Materials Acceleration Platform (MAP) at the University of Toronto, and Meta’s Open Catalyst platform have demonstrated closed loop optimization in domains such as carbon capture, electrochemical catalysts, green polymers, and battery electrolytes [118,132]. These efforts underscore the shift from static screening to dynamic, ML guided discovery workflows. As also illustrated in Figure 3, autonomous discovery pipelines typically operate via four iterative modules: (1) Hypothesis generation via ML, literature mining, or generative models, (2) robotic synthesis and formulation of candidate materials, (3) automated or in-situ characterization and data ingestion, and (4) feedback driven model refinement and experimental redirection. This paradigm has demonstrated success in identifying none toxic corrosion inhibitors [102], optimizing photoredox catalysts [133], and uncovering low carbon cement substitutes [129], among others.

These autonomous systems not only validate ML predictions but also generate high quality datasets for continual model improvement. Autonomous discovery has been demonstrated in diverse sustainable materials domains: photoredox catalyst optimization using Bayesian decision loops [134]; identification of low toxicity corrosion inhibitors via graph based molecular generators [135]; and real time formulation of SCM based cement binders achieving >70% clinker substitution with consistent mechanical performance [136,137]. Together, these examples show how automation, machine intelligence, and sustainability metrics can converge to create adaptive, data rich experimental ecosystems that bridge computation, synthesis, and validation. As the field progresses, integrating autonomous laboratories with cloud native data infrastructures and lifecycle modeling will be critical for scaling impact. Emerging autonomous discovery networks are beginning to link distributed labs via shared ontologies and digital twins, enabling global collaboration on sustainable materials discovery. Such systems represent not only an efficiency leap but a qualitative shift embedding reproducibility, safety, and environmental stewardship as intrinsic parameters of the experimental process itself [138].

4.3. Lifecycle Informed Materials Design (LIMD)

Embedding sustainability at the point of design requires linking physical models and ML predictions with quantitative lifecycle metrics. Lifecycle Informed Materials Design (LIMD) achieves this by coupling lifecycle assessment (LCA), circularity modeling, and criticality evaluation into early stage discovery [139,140,141]. Modern LIMD pipelines employ multi objective screening to optimize:

• Embodied carbon and cumulative energy demand,
• Water and land use intensity,
• Recyclability and biodegradability,
• Supply chain risk and ethical sourcing, and
• Human health and social equity indicators.

Open source LCA tools such as Brightway [142], openLCA [143], and GREET [144] now interface with region specific datasets (ecoinvent v3.11 [145], USLCI [146], EXIOBASE [147]), supporting cradle-to-cradle modeling with improved data transparency [148]. Integration with ML allows environmental indicators to be predicted before synthesis, guiding experimental prioritization. Beyond environmental metrics, recent studies incorporate Social LCA (S-LCA) dimensions, labor equity, occupational health, and community well being, linking material innovation to just transition principles [149,150]. Embedding these criteria early ensures that new materials reduce ecological impact while promoting social responsibility. Figure 4 illustrates the conceptual framework of lifecycle informed materials design. The diagram emphasizes how sustainability oriented tools interact with optimization strategies to ensure that materials are evaluated not only for technical performance but also for long term environmental and social viability.

LIMD methods increasingly employ Pareto front analyses to balance performance against sustainability indicators such as cost or toxicity [141,151]. Generative models trained on thousands of LCA annotated materials (ionic liquids, catalysts, thermoplastics) are emerging as predictive surrogates for early sustainability screening [152,153]. National initiatives such as the EU Materials 2030 Roadmap [154] and the U.S. DOE Critical Materials Assessment [155] now explicitly mandate lifecycle and ESG integration within R&D pipelines signaling a structural shift toward validated, data driven sustainable materials discovery [156].

5. Examples of Next Generation Material Platforms

While the preceding section established four guiding principles for sustainable materials design, their real world translation depends on the distinct constraints, performance targets, and policy environments of each industrial sector. Here five representative material platforms that demonstrate how those principles, performance alignment, green chemistry, criticality avoidance, and end-of-life planning, are applied in practice. The examples span low carbon construction materials, bio derived and recyclable polymers, functional materials for industrial processes, sustainable textiles and fibers, and environmentally conscious electronic and semiconductor components. Each case emphasizes both material level innovation and system level shifts in production, recovery, and circularity. An overview is provided in

Table 4. Representative material classes and their reported lifecycle advantages. Values correspond to cradle-to-gate or cradle-to-grave boundaries as specified in cited sources.

Material	Embodied Carbon (kg CO2e kg−1 )	Lifecycle Sustainability Advantage
Fly ash/GGBFS blended cement	30-50% lower vs. OPC [158]	Utilizes industrial by products; readily scalable
Geopolymer concrete	Up to 80–90% lower [159,160]	Eliminates clinker; high durability; alkali activation
PLA (bioplastic)	20–70% lower [162,163]	Renewable feedstock; industrially compostable
Vitrimers/DCNs	Closed loop reuse enabled [164,165]	Reprocessable thermosets; high mechanical stability
Fe–N–C catalysts	≈90% cost/emission savings [81]	Replaces scarce PGMs in fuel cells and electrolysers
Hemp fiber textiles	60–80% lower vs. cotton [166]	Low water use; carbon sequestering crop
Bio nylon (e.g., nylon-11)	≈50% lower vs. nylon-6,6 [173]	Fossil free feedstock; comparable durability
Recycled cellulose (fiber-to-fiber)	60–90% lower vs. virgin cotton [95]	Fiber recovery without downcycling
Vitrimer PCBs (vPCBs)	95% polymer and fiber recovery [174]	Dynamic covalent recycling; low energy depolymerization
LMV conductive composites	Moderate high [175]	Recyclable, self healing circuits; printed electronics
Dissolvable circuit substrates	100% material reclaim via aqueous recovery [176]	Eliminates incineration; facilitates e-waste disassembly

, highlighting emission reduction potential, scalability, and key sustainability attributes [81,95,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172].

5.1. Low Carbon Construction Materials

As mentioned earlier, cement production alone contributes nearly 8% of global CO₂ emissions, largely due to the calcination of limestone and fossil fuel combustion required in clinker formation [5,37]. Steel, the second major construction material, adds further emissions through energy intensive blast furnace operations. Reducing the environmental burden of buildings and infrastructure thus begins with material substitution and design reformulation at the level of the binder itself. One widely implemented mitigation strategy is the use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). These include fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS), and calcined clays, which are byproducts of other industrial processes that partially replace traditional clinker in cement blends [58,177,178,179]. When used correctly, SCMs can reduce embodied carbon by 30–50% while preserving, or even improving, key performance metrics such as compressive strength, sulfate resistance, and long term durability [60,180]. Ternary blends combining multiple SCMs offer synergistic benefits and are increasingly supported by regulatory frameworks. A more transformative innovation is found in geopolymer cements. These are synthesized by activating aluminosilicate rich precursors such as fly ash, slag, or metakaolin with alkaline solutions, thus eliminating the need for conventional clinker [158,159,160]. Studies report that geopolymer concrete can achieve up to 80–90% lower CO₂ emissions per unit mass relative to ordinary Portland cement [59]. Beyond carbon reduction, geopolymers also exhibit excellent mechanical strength, fire resistance, and chemical durability. However, commercial deployment remains limited due to variability in feedstock quality, challenges in large scale production, and the lack of standardized performance codes [181]. Bio based alternatives represent a complementary approach to lowering emissions in construction. One notable example is hempcrete, a composite of hemp shiv and a lime based binder which offers thermal insulation, vapor regulation, and negative embodied carbon due to CO₂ uptake during hemp cultivation [166,182]. Other innovative systems include mycelium based bricks and concrete modified with biochar, which provide thermal mass and carbon sequestration benefits while leveraging renewable inputs.

These materials, among others, are compared in Figure 5, which visualizes the multi dimensional tradeoffs between performance, environmental impact, and scalability. Geopolymer concrete, for instance, ranks highly in terms of embodied carbon reduction and durability but scores moderately on scalability due to supply chain constraints and current lack of standardization. Hempcrete shows excellent circularity and a low carbon footprint, though it is less competitive in structural strength and scale of deployment.

5.2. Bio Derived and Circular Polymers

Fossil derived polymers are responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions, contribute to global microplastic contamination, and are difficult to recycle due to multi material packaging, thermoset chemistries, and product fragmentation [183]. To move toward a circular and climate aligned plastics economy, research and development efforts have focused on two complementary strategies: the development of bio based alternatives [184] and the redesign of polymers for recyclability and closed loop reuse [185,186]. Bio based polymers are produced from renewable feedstocks such as corn, sugarcane, cellulose, or microbial fermentation processes. Among the most commercially mature examples is polylactic acid (PLA), a biodegradable polyester with mechanical properties similar to polyethylene terephthalate (PET) [187]. PLA has demonstrated cradle to gate emission reductions of 20–70% compared to conventional petrochemical plastics, depending on the production route and energy mix [188]. Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) and polyethylene furanoate (PEF) offer additional advantages such as compostability and superior gas barrier performance, respectively. However, limitations remain in thermal resistance, processability, and end of life treatment infrastructure particularly for biodegradation under real world conditions [189,190]. Parallel to bio based development is the emergence of recyclable thermosets, which aim to overcome the inherent limitations of conventional crosslinked polymers. Thermosets are typically unrecyclable due to their permanent covalent network [191]. However, dynamic covalent networks (DCNs), including vitrimers, introduce bond exchange mechanisms that allow reshaping, repair, and even chemical depolymerization at elevated temperatures [164,192]. These polymers maintain the thermal and chemical resistance of traditional thermosets while enabling circularity through reversible bond chemistry [193,194]. Several vitrimer systems have been demonstrated using common monomers and scalable curing protocols, positioning them as attractive candidates for sectors such as aerospace, automotive, and electronics where durability and reparability are essential [195]. Packaging design innovations further support a circular polymer economy. The move from multi layer composite films to recyclable monomaterial formats improves mechanical recyclability and reduces contamination during post consumer processing [196,197]. Modular packaging systems, where discrete functional layers are separable or disassembled, also enhance the recoverability of high value polymers. These system level changes, when coupled with new polymer chemistries, have the potential to significantly increase recycling rates and reduce lifecycle emissions [198].

5.3. Functional Materials for Industrial Applications

Beyond structural and packaging roles, materials play critical functional roles across industries as catalysts, coatings, flame retardants, and additives [199]. These materials are typically used in smaller volumes but often have high environmental and health footprints due to their reliance on toxic, scarce, or nonrecyclable components. A sustainable transition in this domain requires substituting critical raw materials, improving chemical safety, and enhancing the longevity and reparability of high performance systems [200,201].

Catalysts are foundational to chemical manufacturing, energy conversion, and environmental remediation. Traditionally, platinum group metals (PGMs) such as platinum, palladium, and rhodium have been the preferred choice due to their excellent catalytic activity and stability [202]. However, they are expensive, scarce, and highly energy intensive to extract. Recent breakthroughs in non precious metal catalysts, particularly iron nitrogen carbon (Fe–N–C) systems, have shown promising results in applications like oxygen reduction reactions (ORR) in fuel cells [203,204]. Fe–N–C catalysts can reduce emissions and cost by up to 90% compared to PGM based catalysts, while being derived from earth abundant materials and scalable synthesis methods [82]. Although further work is needed to improve durability and consistency, these systems represent a major step toward democratizing catalytic technologies [80]. Flame retardants present another opportunity for sustainable innovation [79]. Conventional halogenated compounds, particularly those based on bromine, have been widely used in textiles, electronics, and building insulation but are persistent in the environment and associated with adverse health effects. In response, phosphorus and nitrogen based flame retardants have been developed that offer comparable fire performance with significantly reduced toxicity and better end-of-life safety profiles [205]. Many of these new formulations are designed to be non leaching, compatible with recycling streams, and compliant with global regulatory standards [206,207]. Coatings and surface treatments serve as protective barriers against corrosion, abrasion, UV degradation, and microbial attack. Traditional coatings often contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs), heavy metals, or petroleum based binders [208]. In contrast, next generation coatings leverage sol gel chemistries, bio based polyphenols (such as tannins), and microencapsulated self healing agents to provide extended durability while minimizing environmental impact [168,209]. These coatings can reduce maintenance cycles, lower material consumption, and enhance the service life of underlying substrates, thus supporting long term resource efficiency.

5.4. Sustainable Textiles and Fibers

The global textile industry is one of the largest industrial sectors by employment and volume, yet it is also among the most environmentally damaging [210]. It accounts for an estimated 4–8% of global greenhouse gas emissions and contributes significantly to freshwater use, microplastic pollution, and chemical waste. Much of this impact is driven by fossil derived synthetic fibers such as polyester and nylon, as well as intensive cotton cultivation practices. As global demand for textiles continues to rise, driven by fast fashion and population growth, sustainable alternatives across fiber production, material chemistry, and circular system design are urgently needed [211,212]. Natural fibers like organic cotton, hemp, flax (linen), jute, and wool represent traditional alternatives to synthetic polymers. Among these, hemp and flax are especially promising due to their low input requirements (e.g., water and pesticides), carbon sequestration potential during growth, and rapid biomass accumulation. Compared to conventional cotton, which requires 7000–20,000 L of water per kilogram, hemp can be cultivated with a fraction of the water footprint and provides comparable tensile properties [213]. However, challenges remain in scaling regenerative agriculture practices and improving processing technologies for fiber refinement. Bio based synthetics such as polylactic acid and bio nylon (e.g., nylon-11 from castor oil) are gaining traction as drop in substitutes for petroleum derived fibers [86]. PLA fibers offer moisture wicking and breathability characteristics suitable for sportswear, with the added benefits of industrial compostability and reduced embodied emissions [214]. Nylon-11, produced from renewable feedstocks, offers comparable durability and elasticity to nylon-6,6 while eliminating fossil carbon content [215]. Life cycle assessments indicate that bio based synthetics can reduce emissions by 30–60% depending on energy sourcing and recycling integration [216]. However, infrastructure for composting or chemical recycling remains underdeveloped in most textile producing regions. An important innovation frontier in textile sustainability is fiber to fiber recycling. Mechanical recycling of cotton polyester blends typically results in downgraded fiber quality, while chemical recycling technologies including glycolysis, enzymatic depolymerization, and ionic solvent systems, are being developed to recover virgin equivalent monomers [217]. Companies such as Infinited Fiber, Renewcell, and Worn Again are commercializing closed loop textile regeneration platforms, offering pathways toward circular fashion systems. These technologies allow the recovery of cellulose from cotton waste or the selective separation of polyester from complex blends, enabling repeated use without downcycling.

In the context of the broader comparison in Figure 5, sustainable textiles would occupy a unique region with high scalability and circularity potential, but variable scores on toxicity (e.g., dye use), recyclability (especially for blends), and embodied carbon depending on fiber type and processing method. Although not explicitly plotted in the current radar chart, sustainable textile platforms share characteristics with PLA and bio based composites in Table 4, such as renewable feedstocks, moderate to high emission reduction potential, and compatibility with composting or closed loop recycling when infrastructure allows.

5.5. Electronics and Semiconductor Materials

The electronics and semiconductor sectors are among the most resource and energy intensive industries, contributing an estimated 4–6% of global greenhouse gas emissions and generating complex waste streams containing heavy metals, halogenated polymers, and high global warming potential process gases [218,219]. Addressing their sustainability challenges requires both materials innovation and systemic redesign of manufacturing and recovery pathways [220]. Emerging research in circular electronics focuses on three complementary strategies: (1) reversible substrates and resins, (2) dynamic conductors, and (3) dissolvable or disassemblable prototyping platforms [221,222,223]. Together, these innovations enable recovery, repair, and remanufacturing of devices that were previously single use and landfill bound.

Traditional printed circuit boards (PCBs) rely on thermoset epoxies that are mechanically and chemically irreversible, making fiber and component recovery nearly impossible [224,225]. Vitrimer based printed circuit boards (vPCBs) replace permanent crosslinks with dynamic covalent bonds that can be reprocessed under mild conditions. It has been demonstrated that epoxy free vPCBs with 95% polymer and 100% glass fiber recovery after three recycling cycles, achieving equivalent mechanical strength and signal integrity [174]. These systems exemplify the integration of recyclability at the material device interface, supporting both end-of-life separation and thermal repairability. Liquid metal based composites and conductive vitrimers are revolutionizing the design of flexible and reconfigurable circuits [93,175]. Ho et al. developed gallium based liquid metal microdroplets embedded in vitrimer matrices that maintain conductivity after 1000 deformation cycles and can self heal at room temperature [175]. Such systems avoid high temperature soldering and hazardous fluxes, thereby reducing both embodied energy and chemical waste. They also align with circular design principles by enabling circuit level repair instead of full replacement, a major step toward extending device lifetimes and minimizing electronic waste. Water soluble and depolymerizable circuit substrates, such as the DissolvPCB platform introduced by Yan et al., provide a new route for component recovery [176]. These substrates dissolve in controlled aqueous conditions, allowing selective reclamation of chips, connectors, and precious metals with minimal mechanical or chemical processing. The recovered components retain over 98% functionality, demonstrating potential for remanufacturing and closed loop prototyping of low power devices and IoT sensors [226,227]. As illustrated in Figure 6, these concepts represent three synergistic pathways toward sustainable electronics: (1) reversible substrate chemistries through vPCBs that enable durable and recoverable device architectures, (2) dynamic composite conductors capable of self healing and material recyclability, and (3) dissolvable circuit platforms designed for reusable prototyping and rapid design iteration. Realizing these advances at scale will require close integration with high throughput design frameworks, robust e-waste recovery infrastructure, and supportive regulatory incentives, collectively paving the way toward a practical and circular electronics ecosystem.

Across these sectors, achievable emission reductions (≈20–90%) suggest that materials substitution and circular design could collectively offset 4–6 Gt CO₂ yr⁻¹ by mid century, comparable to the mitigation potential of global renewable deployment. Construction materials deliver the largest absolute benefit due to scale, while polymers and textiles offer near term circularity leverage. Functional and electronic materials, though smaller in mass share, pioneer new frontiers in reversible bonding, self healing, and digital traceability. Scaling these solutions requires coordinated digital infrastructure (e.g., product passports), harmonized embodied carbon standards, and sustained investment in recycling, feedstock diversification, and data driven LCA integration. Together, they exemplify how performance aligned, data informed design can translate sustainability principles into actionable industrial transformation.

6. Infrastructure, Policy, and Industry Catalysts

Scientific advances in low carbon and circular materials establish what is technically possible, but wide scale climate impact depends on whether those materials are actually specified, purchased, financed, certified, and recovered in real markets. In practice, this depends on a coordinated ecosystem of regulation, procurement standards, data infrastructure, finance mechanisms, and industry coalitions. Without these socio technical enablers, even high performance sustainable materials tend to remain confined to pilot demonstrations [228,229,230]. This section examines how current policy tools and industrial initiatives enable (or limit) deployment and scaling.

As illustrated schematically in Figure 7, deployment relies on four interacting layers: (i) research and testing infrastructure (e.g., shared pilot lines and Materials Acceleration Platforms), (ii) data and disclosure standards that make environmental claims comparable and auditable, (iii) financial instruments that derisk first of a kind production, and (iv) public and private demand signals that create predictable early markets for low emission materials. Strong institutions and transparent data exchange are repeatedly identified as necessary conditions for credibility, investor confidence, and regulatory enforcement [231,232].

Table 5. Selected policy tools and market programs that influence material decarbonization and circularity.

Program or Policy	Region	Key Mechanism
Buy Clean (e.g., California; U.S. federal low embodied carbon initiatives)	USA	Sets global warming potential (GWP) limits for cement, concrete, steel, and asphalt in public projects; requires Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs)
EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR)	EU	Creates legally binding design for circularity requirements and mandates Digital Product Passports with product level data on composition, durability, reparability, recycled content, and carbon footprint [233].
Horizon Europe (Cluster 4: Digital, Industry and Space)	EU	Funds low carbon industrial processes, materials circularity, and resource security to support EU industrial resilience and climate targets [234].
LEED v4.1/comparable building rating schemes	Global	Awards credits for product transparency, recycled content, low carbon concrete, and material reuse; channels private sector demand toward verified low impact materials [235].
ISO 14040/44; ISO 21930; EN 15804; EN ISO 22057	Global/EU	Define harmonized rules for lifecycle assessment (LCA), building product category rules, embodied carbon reporting, and machine readable digital EPD data structures [236].
Mission Innovation, First Movers Coalition, ConcreteZero/SteelZero	Global	Align public R&D funding with corporate offtake commitments for near zero steel, cement/concrete, shipping fuels, and other hard to abate sectors [237,238].

summarizes representative policy instruments and coalitions that are shaping procurement, disclosure, and investment. These mechanisms illustrate a broader shift: sustainability is no longer treated as a voluntary attribute of products, but as a regulated performance criterion and, increasingly, a condition for access to procurement, finance, and export markets [233].

6.1. Regulatory Trends and Extended Producer Responsibility

Modern regulation is moving away from an end of pipe view of waste and toward shared accountability across the full product life cycle. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies require producers to finance and organize collection, recycling, or safe disposal of products such as packaging, electronics, batteries, and textiles, effectively internalizing part of the end-of-life cost [239]. The European Union increasingly frames EPR not only as a waste management tool, but as an interface policy that links product design rules, chemicals regulation, and circularity targets under the Green Deal; EPR is expected to steer upstream design choices (material selection, modularity, reparability) rather than act only at disposal [87]. However, implementation remains uneven. A recent assessment of packaging EPR rollout in Vietnam found persistent gaps in producer awareness, weak monitoring capacity, and heavy reliance on informal recyclers, all of which limit traceability and recovery quality [88]. Similar evaluations across emerging economies show that, without reliable governance, verified data reporting, and investment in formal recycling infrastructure, EPR can underperform or shift burdens to informal workers rather than delivering high quality circularity outcomes [239]. EPR is not a turnkey solution; it functions only when supported by enforcement capacity, data transparency, and safe recovery infrastructure [240].

6.2. Green Public Procurement and Carbon Accounting Standards

Public procurement is one of the fastest moving levers for deployment because governments are among the largest buyers of construction materials, vehicles, infrastructure components, and building systems [241,242,243]. Under Buy Clean policies in U.S. states such as California, and in emerging U.S. federal guidance, bidders on public projects must submit product specific, third party verified EPDs and meet maximum embodied carbon thresholds for materials such as cement, concrete, steel, and asphalt [241,244]. Similar requirements are being embedded into European procurement guidance for public works, which increasingly ranks bids not just on cost but also on whole life carbon performance and recycled content [245]. Empirical studies indicate that such green public procurement (GPP) policies are associated with statistically significant reductions in city level or regional carbon intensity, and in some cases exhibit spatial spillover effects, where stricter procurement standards in one jurisdiction influence suppliers in neighboring jurisdictions [246]. Procurement officers in ministries of transport, housing, defense, or public works are already exerting downward pressure on embodied carbon by conditioning eligibility for public contracts. Critically, harmonized carbon accounting rules make this scalable. Standards such as ISO 14040/44 (general LCA), ISO 21930 and EN 15804 (construction product category rules), and EN ISO 22057 (machine readable EPD data structures) are now being linked to building information modeling (BIM) workflows and tender portals [75,236,247,248]. The result is that embodied carbon performance is moving from marketing language to a quantifiable bid variable. Still, two structural challenges limit impact. First, procurement levers are strongest in construction, cement, and steel, but far less mature in textiles, consumer electronics, and specialty polymers. Second, procurement rules tend to emerge in high income regions first, raising questions of fairness and access to markets for producers in the Global South. Current policy discussions in the EU and OECD explicitly acknowledge this equity dimension and call for technical assistance and financing mechanisms to avoid creating green trade barriers that effectively exclude lower income producers [249,250].

6.3. Subsidies, Carbon Pricing, and Market Incentives

Price signals and financial tools work alongside procurement to push capital toward low carbon material supply chains. Carbon pricing is one such mechanism. Modeling studies in energy intensive sectors (steel, cement, chemicals) suggest that when carbon prices cross specific thresholds, cleaner technologies can outcompete incumbent fossil intensive routes, especially if part of the carbon revenue is recycled to offset regressive impacts on households or to subsidize industrial retrofits [251,252]. Decarbonizing basic materials is unlikely to occur through voluntary action alone, but carbon pricing that is paired with equitable recycling of revenues can induce rapid switching [253]. Green finance is another mechanism. The volume of labeled sustainable debt (green, social, sustainability, and sustainability linked bonds) has expanded rapidly; cumulative issuance surpassed multiple trillions of U.S. dollars globally, with industrial decarbonization (including low carbon cement, steel, and recycling infrastructure) emerging as a growing use of proceeds category. Meta analyses of greenium effects find that, while the yield advantage of green bonds over conventional bonds is modest and varies by jurisdiction, clear disclosure rules and stable policy frameworks correlate with deeper markets and lower cost of capital for low carbon projects [254]. In practice, procurement, carbon standards, and green finance often work together. For example, first of a kind direct reduced iron + electric arc furnace steel plants or low clinker cement kilns are more financeable if (i) there is an offtake guarantee from buyers (e.g., via Buy Clean or corporate purchase commitments), (ii) embodied carbon performance is certifiable via recognized standards, and (iii) concessional or low interest finance is available for the initial build out [255,256]. This three part structure demand signal, verifiable disclosure, and concessional finance, is repeatedly cited as a precondition for decarbonizing heavy industry at meaningful scale [254].

6.4. Standards, Certification, and Digital Transparency Tools

Standards and transparency mechanisms translate environmental performance into something that engineers, architects, investors, and regulators can reliably compare [257,258]. Environmental Product Declarations are now widely used Type III disclosures (ISO 14025) built on LCA rules such as EN 15804 and ISO 21930, especially in the building sector. Emerging machine readable formats embed standardized metadata into EPDs and allow direct ingestion into BIM, procurement portals, and compliance tools [236,259]. This reduces administrative friction and strengthens auditability. In parallel, the European Union’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation establishes a legal basis for Digital Product Passports across strategic value chains including batteries, electronics, textiles, and potentially construction products [250,260]. DPPs are intended to carry verified data on composition, recycled content, embodied carbon, durability/repairability, and end-of-life handling, effectively making material identity traceable across borders and over time [261,262]. Early technical work explores distributed ledgers and decentralized identifiers to improve trust, tamper resistance, and interoperability in these product passports, though challenges remain around data standardization, cost of compliance for small firms, and protection of commercially sensitive information [263,264,265,266,267,268]. DPPs and digital EPDs are being positioned as compliance infrastructure, not voluntary marketing claims. This shift matters because governments, multilateral lenders, and large private buyers can require these disclosures as conditions of purchase or finance [269].

6.5. Collaborative R&D and Industry Coalitions

Finally, deployment at scale depends on collective action. Mission oriented innovation programs (for example, Mission Innovation’s Materials for Energy mission) explicitly link publicly funded R&D to national climate goals, critical materials strategies, and private sector deployment milestones [270]. A unifying theme in these programs is the development of shared infrastructure robotic, AI enabled Materials Acceleration Platforms (MAPs) and pilot scale testbeds—that lower the cost of validating new chemistries and processes and generate FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) datasets across institutions [271]. MAPs, autonomous labs, and pilot plants provide the experimental validation and reproducibility layer between concept and market. On the demand side, coalitions of large buyers are beginning to create forward offtake commitments for low carbon materials. The First Movers Coalition, launched through the World Economic Forum and government partners, aggregates purchasing commitments for near zero steel, cement/concrete, aluminum, shipping fuels, and related heavy industry inputs in the 2030 timeframe, explicitly to guarantee early demand for suppliers willing to invest in cleaner production [272]. Sector specific alliances such as ConcreteZero and SteelZero set interim embodied carbon intensity targets (for example, defined shares of low emission concrete or steel by 2030) and push for harmonized definitions of near zero materials consistent with emerging International Energy Agency and Global Cement and Concrete Association guidance [273,274]. These alliances partially answer concerns about who, in practice, will implement a roadmap: such implementation is distributed across public procurement authorities, multinational buyers, standards bodies, and mission oriented coalitions. The outcome is still uncertain. Key risks include unequal access to finance in lower income regions, data fragmentation across supply chains, and the possibility that carbon based trade requirements evolve faster than support for producers in the Global South [76,275]. Nonetheless, the institutional architecture now emerging EPR regimes with upstream design obligations, embodied carbon procurement rules, carbon disclosure embedded into trade and finance, and buyer coalitions with credible demand signals, shows a path by which sustainable materials can move from demonstration to structural impact within this decade.

7. Roadmap and Outlook

Achieving a low carbon, resource efficient materials system is not only a scientific problem (can better materials be invented?) but an institutional and infrastructural problem (can those materials be deployed at scale, equitably, and verifiably?). The roadmap in Figure 8 is organized in three phases (2025–2030, 2030–2040, 2040–2050). It is not intended as a centralized global plan. Rather, it identifies concrete responsibilities for specific actors: research institutions, standards bodies, public procurement authorities, industry alliances, and multilateral finance and trade institutions.

7.1. Phase I (2025–2030): Foundations; Data, Verification, and Early Market Pull

The first phase focuses on credibility and comparability. By 2030, progress depends on four immediate enablers:

7.1.1. Trustworthy Data Infrastructure

Lifecycle assessment data for common materials (cement, steel, polymers, aluminum, textiles, electronics substrates) must be made transparent, machine readable, and auditable. This implies:

• shared databases with FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles
• explicit cradle-to-gate or cradle-to-grave boundaries
• declared electricity mix, allocation method, and recycled content
• versioned updates rather than static one number per material claims

Existing platforms such as ecoinvent, GREET, and EN 15804/ISO 21930 compliant EPDs are moving in this direction, including digital EPD formats (e.g., EN ISO 22057) that can be integrated into procurement workflows and building information modeling tools. Research institutions and national labs are the main actors in this step, because they already generate process level and plant level data. Journals and funders can accelerate adoption by requiring that newly reported low carbon materials include (i) a declared functional unit, (ii) an explicit system boundary, and (iii) enough process data to reproduce embodied carbon calculations.

7.1.2. Embedding LCA and Durability Screening into Early R&D

A practical near term step is to require that sustainability screening (embodied carbon, toxicity, recyclability, sourcing risk) occur in parallel with performance screening for new binders, polymers, coatings, fibers, and electronic substrates. This does not prove that a lab scale material is globally scalable, but it prevents advancing a candidate that is obviously non viable (e.g., dependent on banned solvents, unrecoverable rare metals, or landfill only disposal). Autonomous synthesis and testing platforms already combine high throughput experimentation with AI driven down selection and can incorporate environmental criteria into those decision loops. Universities, national labs, and corporate R&D groups are the relevant actors here.

7.1.3. Harmonized Disclosure and Procurement Standards

Public sector procurement is one of the few levers that can create immediate demand for lower carbon cement, concrete, steel, polymers, and composites. Buy Clean policies in several jurisdictions, and parallel efforts in the EU to require EPDs and set embodied carbon thresholds for public works, are examples of this approach. In practice, this means:

• requiring product level EPDs that follow ISO 14040/44, ISO 21930, and EN 15804
• setting maximum global warming potential per unit material (e.g., kg CO₂e per kg steel, per MPa·year concrete)
• awarding bids not only on cost but also on verified embodied carbon performance

Here, the main actors are infrastructure ministries, transportation authorities, and municipal building agencies, it is predominantly public procurers and standards bodies, not an unspecified global authority.

7.1.4. Independent Pilot and Demonstration Projects

Emerging materials such as geopolymer concretes, clinker reduced cements, vitrimer based recyclable thermosets, bio based textile fibers, solvent recoverable electronics substrates, and Fe–N–C catalysts require demonstration in conditions approaching commercial scale. Pilot deployment with third party verification (structural performance, durability, repairability, recyclability yield, workplace safety) is necessary before any policy instrument can mandate or preferentially purchase them [35,59]. Public private partnerships are well positioned to finance such demonstrations, but the verification must remain arm’s length.

Phase I is about measurement, comparability, and early demand signaling. By 2030, the expected outcome is not full decarbonization, but rather: (i) consistent disclosure rules, (ii) procurement mechanisms that reward low embodied carbon options, (iii) pilot scale validation data for promising classes of materials, and (iv) integration of LCA thinking into the discovery process.

7.2. Phase II (2030–2040): Scaling; Manufacturing, Finance, and Trade Alignment

The second phase assumes that credible data and procurement signals exist. The central question becomes: can production scale in a way that is both economically viable and materially recoverable?

7.2.1. Regional Materials Acceleration Platforms and Shared Pilot Infrastructure

By the 2030s, MAPs and autonomous labs are expected to mature from proof of concept research tools into shared regional infrastructure, analogous to national metrology institutes or semiconductor pilot fabs. Their role extends beyond discovery. They:

• derisk process intensification (e.g., electrified kilns, low clinker binders, solvent recovery loop chemistries);
• generate reproducible datasets for regulatory approval and procurement pre qualification;
• provide testing capacity for small and medium sized enterprises that cannot afford in house advanced analytics.

Regional development agencies, national innovation ministries, and consortia of industrial firms are the primary actors here. It should be noted that scaling requires shared testbeds that can prove durability, safety, and manufacturability, not only environmental potential.

7.2.2. Circular Business Models and Reverse Logistics

Between 2030 and 2040, retaining material value becomes as important as lowering production emissions. Business models are expected to shift in specific sectors from sell a product to sell a service with take back, including models such as component leasing, remanufacturing contracts, refurbishment guarantees, and deposit return schemes for high value components (structural steel elements, batteries, textiles, electronics subassemblies). These approaches only work if reverse logistics and sorting infrastructure exist. This is where EPR and DPPs begin to overlap: producers are made financially and legally responsible for recovery, and traceability systems make it possible to identify composition, hazard class, and reuse potential at end-of-life. It should be noted that implementation is not assumed to be global and uniform. It is expected to proceed first in jurisdictions with strong regulatory capacity and established waste/recycling infrastructure (e.g., EU member states for electronics and textiles; certain U.S. states and Canadian provinces for building products).

7.2.3. Finance and Carbon Pricing

Scaling low clinker cement, direct reduced iron electric arc furnace steel, recycled polymer monomer loops, or solvent recoverable electronics substrates requires capital intensive retrofits or greenfield plants. Empirical and modeling work shows that carbon pricing, transition subsidies, and dedicated blended finance (e.g., green bonds, climate aligned loan guarantees) can push these technologies across cost parity tipping points, provided that revenues are recycled to avoid disproportionate cost burdens on lower income producers and regions. At this stage, multilateral development banks, export credit agencies, and climate finance facilities become central actors, especially for deployment in emerging and resource producing economies. It should be noted that Without concessional finance and risk guarantees, early commercial facilities will cluster only in high income regions, reinforcing global asymmetries.

7.2.4. Alignment of Trade and Standards

Phase II also requires that materials labeled near zero, low embodied carbon, or circular be defined consistently across borders. Mutual recognition agreements for embodied carbon reporting, recycled content claims, and DPP data formats reduce the risk that environmental requirements in one region function as de facto protectionist trade barriers in another, a concern explicitly noted in sustainability trade literature and in EU–WTO discussions around carbon border adjustment mechanisms [249,275]. Here, standards bodies (ISO, CEN), trade ministries, and customs authorities, rather than individual companies, are the key actors.

By 2040, the expected outcome is partial but material market penetration: a meaningful share of cement, steel, polymers, textiles, and electronics subcomponents in major markets sourced from verified lower carbon or higher recovery pathways, supported by interoperable standards and finance mechanisms. This is not assumed to be universal. It is path dependent and region specific.

7.3. Phase III (2040–2050): Integration; From Lower Impact Materials to Accountable Material Systems

The third phase addresses structural integration. By the 2040s, the question is no longer only whether a given binder, polymer, catalyst, fiber, or substrate has lower embodied carbon; instead, the question is whether entire sectors operate on traceable, repairable, and recoverable material flows. Several structural elements characterize this phase:

7.3.1. Universal Traceability for Priority Material Classes

Digital Product Passports are expected to become mandatory in certain value chains in the EU and, potentially, interoperable across other major economies. A mature DPP system links each significant component or material class to:

• composition (including hazardous substances and critical raw materials),
• recycled and biobased content,
• repairability and disassembly guidance,
• embodied carbon disclosure aligned to agreed system boundaries.

For bulk materials (cement, steel, polymers), such a system may operate at the batch or facility level. For complex systems (textiles, electronics), it may operate at the product or component level. This is not only a transparency mechanism; it is the data backbone for enforcement of EPR, preferential procurement, and carbon border measures.

7.3.2. Function Based Performance Metrics Embedded into Design Tools

By 2050, design environments (CAD/CAE, building information modeling, electronics layout, packaging development) are expected to include performance normalized environmental metrics by default, for example, compressive strength per unit embodied CO₂e over design life for structural elements; R-value·m² per unit embodied CO₂e for insulation; conductivity per unit embodied CO₂e for conductors and interconnects. These metrics become part of technical specification, rather than an afterthought. Standards bodies such as ISO, ASTM, CEN, and IEC, together with sectoral certification programs, are the primary actors in this step.

7.3.3. Retrofitting and Repurposing Legacy Assets

High emitting stock (cement kilns, blast furnaces, naphtha crackers, textile finishing lines, PCB laminate lines) cannot be abandoned wholesale. The pragmatic path involves retrofit and partial substitution: coprocessing with alternative binders, electrified or hydrogen based iron reduction, solvent recovery loops in polymer and textile finishing, reversible substrates in electronics, and modular construction methods that enable salvage and reuse of structural components. Industrial policy and climate finance are needed to extend these retrofits beyond the OECD, so that compliance expectations in trade and procurement do not outpace technical and financial capacity in the Global South.

7.3.4. Composite Impact Accounting

By mid century, evaluation of sustainable materials is expected to expand beyond climate metrics to include toxicity, land use, water stress, and labor/health impacts in supply chains. A proposed Global Materials Impact Index would integrate these dimensions into a harmonized disclosure framework for governments and for large buyers (including public procurers and multinational firms). Such an index would build on existing ISO/EN LCA structures, but explicitly include indicators of human health and social risk, which are increasingly central to responsible sourcing discussions for critical minerals and bio based feedstocks. UN agencies, OECD, and WTO aligned trade and reporting bodies are the likely conveners of such a framework.

By 2050, the intended outcome is not that materials alone solve climate change. Material production represents roughly one quarter of global CO₂ emissions, not the majority, and that energy systems, land use, and other sectors dominate the remaining share. The expectation instead is that materials systems (cement/concrete, metals, polymers, textiles, electronics) become measurably lower carbon, more recoverable, and more transparent in a way that is compatible with net zero pathways in energy and transport, and with just transition objectives in resource producing regions.

7.4. Path Forward

First, sustainable materials are necessary but not sufficient. They are part of the 25% of global emissions associated with industrial materials, not the 75% associated with the rest of the energy land mobility system. Their importance lies in the fact that the cement, steel, polymers, textiles, and electronics produced today lock in infrastructure, buildings, consumer products, and waste streams for decades. Without changes in how these materials are specified, sourced, manufactured, and recovered, long lived physical capital will continue to carry high embodied emissions even as operational emissions fall. In that sense, materials act as an amplifier or limiter of broader decarbonization.

Second, large scale transition depends on verifiability, not only invention. The roadmap therefore emphasizes three implementation levers: (1) standardized data and disclosure (EPDs, digital product passports, harmonized system boundaries); (2) procurement and finance mechanisms that create real demand and reduce capital risk for first of a kind production (Buy Clean programs, carbon aligned lending, green bond frameworks); and (3) collaborative infrastructures MAPs, pilot plants, shared verification centers that generate reproducible performance and durability data instead of single lab claims.

Open questions remain. The digital infrastructure for traceability (e.g., DPPs) raises data governance and privacy concerns. Carbon based trade rules risk excluding lower income producers if financial and technical support does not scale in parallel. Recovery logistics for textiles, electronics, and construction components depend on regional collection systems that are not yet mature. Many emerging materials (e.g., geopolymers, vitrimers, solvent recoverable circuit boards, bio based fibers) still face durability, safety, or supply constraints that must be proven in independent trials before widespread policy endorsement. Nevertheless, the institutional architecture now forming disclosure standards, extended producer responsibility, embodied carbon procurement, carbon aligned finance, and coordinated buyer coalitions provides a realistic pathway by which sustainable materials can move from experimental novelty to routine specification within this decade and beyond.

8. Conclusions

Materials represent a critical, yet often under addressed, contributor to global CO₂ emissions, driven by process related emissions, long asset lifetimes, and infrastructure lock in effects. Addressing this challenge requires moving beyond high level aspirations toward a focused, verifiable framework grounded in transparent metrics and actionable principles. At the core is the imperative to deliver functional performance with lower environmental impact. This demands a shift from mass based evaluation to functional carbon intensity, measured as kg CO₂e per unit of service over the product lifecycle. Material systems must also adhere to cleaner, auditable synthesis pathways characterized by established metrics such as process mass intensity, E-factor, solvent intensity and recovery rate, and cradle-to-gate carbon footprint (kg CO₂e/kg). Simultaneously, efforts should minimize criticality and toxicity risks through responsible sourcing and recovery strategies, and explicitly define realistic, high yield end-of-life pathways. Successful implementation requires coordinated roles across the innovation ecosystem. Standards bodies must harmonize units and disclosure practices; public procurement can catalyze demand by embedding embodied carbon and recovery criteria; finance mechanisms should derisk first-of-a-kind production; and research institutions and industry must deliver validated routes, durability data, and FAIR compliant datasets. Reported outcomes should transparently reflect uncertainties stemming from durability assumptions, electricity grid mix, allocation methods, and recovery rates, preferably using ranges with clearly stated boundaries. In summary, sustainable materials should be adopted when they (i) demonstrably fulfill required functionality at lower lifecycle impact, (ii) mitigate supply and toxicity risks, and (iii) provide validated, high recovery end-of-life solutions. These criteria bridge the gap between scientific potential and practical accountability, translating sustainability from promise to performance.