As the need to move towards more sustainable practices becomes more acute in built environment thinking research examining the structural, procedural and practical becomes increasingly critical. This may reflect on how the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are embedded within strategic corporate thinking, how we use virgin and recycled materials with construction, or the use of process-driven evaluations, that is, life cycle assessment (LCA), to better understand the impacts of development from design and procurement through to implementation and demolition. Within this issue of ICE Engineering Sustainability, the authors explore each of these issues to offer novel solutions about construction to think more innovatively about how it works towards net-zero targets in many cases. The seven papers within this issue focus on two main areas of research, first, the use of materials and their composition to examine how new combinations of virgin and recycled aggregates can be used to decrease the carbon budgets associated with construction. The second looks at the structural processes that can be used to support more sustainable transition in terms of conceptualising, and then applying, new evaluative frameworks to model carbon use. Taken collectively these the seven papers provide new evidence of the opportunities open to stakeholders within the construction industry to think and act differently.
The paper by Xing et al. (2026) starts this discussion noting that in 2022 building/construction accounted for 27% of global carbon dioxide thus exceeding the emission of industry and transport. They also noted that construction uses 50% of global raw materials, 71% of global electricity and generates 30%–50% of the total solid waste (of which demolition is a key part). Their paper argues that the production of cement is central to this position, and that exploring whether recycled coarse aggregate (RCA) can be as, or more, effective in terms of their strength and durability than natural coarse aggregate would offer new pathways towards more sustainable pathways for construction. Xing et al. (2026) find that by integrating stochastic LCA with mechanical testing that a procedure for the integration of eco-mechanical mix design can be developed that ensures the long-term performance of concrete mixes incorporating RCA, freeze-thaw cycling, sulfate resistance, rapid chloride permeability and carbonation depth to guide future work and practical adoption.
Purohit et al. (2026) discuss comparable work in their examination of recycled aggregates in concrete production and use a novel three-stage technique to test their mixes. The three stages used were: (i) pre-soaking in mild acetic acid for 24 h, (ii) mechanical grinding using a Los Angeles abrasion machine, and (iii) surface coating with a cement–silica fume slurry to fill micro-pores. The results of their experiments suggest that their process produces extremely strong, long-lasting, and resilient concrete. They note that each of the three stages leads to better outcomes had better bonding, less water absorption, more surface area, and better protection that combine to create a superior material. This they note is extremely critical in areas with more diverse climates, that is, saltwater conditions or chloride-induced corrosion. Moreover, they note that in locations where concrete is subject to heave traffic, freezing and thawing that their three-stage process potentially creates a more durable product.
The third paper looking at materials is that of Ullas and Bindu (2026) who examine alternatives to conventional open-graded cement-stabilised macadam (OGCSM) suing recycled materials. These use the pavement/paving sector as a case and note that this sector is responsible for 24% of global greenhouse emissions, and that in India if the nation is to meet its net-zero ambition by 2070 that the production of paving will need to evolve. Using LCA and life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) processes they discuss how recycled aggregates may provide a more sustainable route for construction compared to using virgin materials. They note that if businesses are reflecting on their procurement and production practices that assessing the costs of material use is one area where savings can be made. As with Purohit et al. (2026) and Ullas and Bindu (2026), Xing et al. (2026) argue that if sustainability targets are to be met, then the assessment of alternative approaches using LCA and LCCA (and other forms of evaluative) is critical in establishing the economic costs and benefits of change.
The remaining four papers in this issue focus more directly on innovations in technology and evaluative processes to promote more sustainable practices. The paper by Augustine (2026) directly challenges the construction industry to directly address the wicked problem of unsustainable building practices in the construction industry. Augustine (2026) calls for a systematic shift in perspective built on three principles: generating value, continuously assessing collective progress, and engaging reflectively in the aggregation of sustainability efforts. Through this he argues that we can shift away from a business-as-usual approach reliant on existing key performance indicators, management practices, and capacity/process discussions, and alternatively calls for the construction industry to reform its structural, procedural, and delivery mechanisms to consider whether a shift away from production orientated models to a more holistic and sustainable framing is possible. Augustine’s (2026) argument would support a systematic evolution of how materials, procurement, process, and action/evaluation are viewed from a worldview, institutions, and technology perspective.
Zhan et al. (2026) extend this discussion by examining the potential for change in the construction in China, using carbon productivity as a core evaluative framing their look at the mismatch between narratives supporting environmental protection and those proposing continued economic growth. Through the use of a PESTEL (Political, Environmental, Social, Technical, Environmental, and Legal) frameworkm they work with local experts to barriers and opportunities to more sustainable forms of development. From a multi-stage evaluation, they note that they identify eight core characteristics that could support a sustainable transition to net zero: more focused government environmental policy, increased government regulations on carbon and environmental assessments, additional government supports for low-carbon construction materials, equipment and methods, further government regulations on carbon taxes, support for the initial investment cost on low-carbon construction materials, equipment and method, capability building for adopting advanced low-carbon construction methods, the promotion of low-carbon design and planning, and greater policy and support for adaptive actions to climate change. However, to achieve such a change will require collaboration between centralised and bottom-up actors in China to address the praxis dislocation that currently exists.
The paper of Ball et al. (2026) takes the strategic discussions presented by Augustine (2026) and Zhan et al. (2026) and looks at a more specific action that can be used to support sustainable actions, namely, the use of the BES60001 certification for responsibly sourced materials. Note that the Architecture, Engineering and Construction industry is not known for its radical changes in processes as it ‘… can be a high-pressure, challenging, and siloed industry, which is governed by client and public spending, and thus, there are also noted barriers to sustainable behaviours’. The use of BES60001 is therefore proposed as a way to assess organisational structures, supply chain, and sustainable actions. The benefit of which Ball et al. (2026) argue is that potentially linked to gaining a competitive advantage and improved transparency with clients, as well as the development of better supply chains processes, buy-in from senior management, and greater confidence in the company’s sustainability credentials. However, where a lack of expertise, awareness, and training exists within a company these benefits can be compromised. Moreover, without senior managerial support for change, the adaption of BES60001, and the support of other certifications, that is, BREEAM, home quality mark (BRE), LEED, Rating, and Cradle to Cradle certified, could be compromised.
The final paper by Kalyviotis (2026) looks to integrate novel technologies with changes in practice by examining the role of information modelling in linear infrastructure (earthworks) construction. The paper explores the options available to earthwork specialist to work with Civil 3D to enhance their existing use of GIS, VR, and drones to integrate more reliable real-time data in their practices. Kalyviotis (2026) notes that such data can lower the costs of delays, as changes in earthworks can be managed more effectively in real time. They go to note that the ‘construction industry often faces delays and cost overruns, partly due to reliance on tacit knowledge that is not effectively shared’ and thus be applying the techniques discussed that uncertainty rates (related to changes in earthworks) dropped from 10.28% to 6.08%, potentially enhancing the speed at which development can occur and lowering the cost of delays.
Each of the seven papers in this issue of ICE Engineering Sustainability offers novel insights into how materials and processes can be reconsidered to promote more sustainable forms of construction. They link with international conversations about the drivers of sustainability via the UN SDGs but also look to local-level actions in the use of BES60001 and Civil 3D to examine how innovation can be applied in practice. This links directly to the three papers that examine alternative materials and propose that alternative or recycled aggregates can be as, if not more, effective construction materials. By looking at these two areas of sustainability concurrently we can illustrate the need to think strategically about how we frame the idea of ‘sustainability’ within the construction industry and how we apply novel approaches to help move towards net-zero and more sustainable practices. This combination is critical if we are to better understand the how’s and why’s of engineering sustainability in theory and practice.
