Low-carbon concrete technologies can perform well in laboratory tests and pilot projects, but routine commercial adoption depends on a different set of questions: whether the economics work, whether a ready-mix producer can integrate the technology without disrupting operations, and whether the material can satisfy local standards and verification requirements.
TNGlobal previously reported that New Zealand-based Neocrete raised $3.5 million to expand its low-carbon concrete technology, with commercial deployment already underway in Brunei.
In this TNGlobal Q&A, Matt Kennedy-Good, co-founder of Neocrete, discusses what determines whether a promising construction technology becomes part of everyday ready-mix production, how standards and local material conditions affect expansion across markets, and why cost can matter as much as carbon reduction.
What determines whether a ready-mix producer adopts a low-carbon technology after a successful pilot?
Once a new technology is proven in the lab and in multiple pilots, cost matters most. It must save the producer money and/or increase margins. This is the first thing we check with prospective customers. If we cannot save them money, the conversation stops.
We are increasing ReadyMix Brunei’s margins by 50 percent. A new product must also fit with the producer’s operations and supply chain without disrupting processes or requiring significant new capital expenditure.
What operational changes are required at a batching plant?
Ready-mix plants usually have limited space and are reluctant to change processes. We have worked to minimize disruption. Neocrete can be dosed at the plant using a container-sized dosing and storage facility, or it can be pre-blended with the material it boosts and then stored in the producer’s existing silos.
How much does local material quality affect whether a formulation can be replicated across markets?
Neocrete boosts different types of supplementary cementitious materials, or SCMs, regardless of their reactivity out of the box, and it can manage a degree of heterogeneity within a feedstock.
That said, with our first customers we optimize the additive slightly to get the most out of local SCMs and to suit market conditions, including weather extremes. This requires some work at our lab.
What does independent verification involve, and how much do standards differ across APAC?
The first question is whether the product is allowed under the relevant standards. Neocrete will be classified as an admixture under European EN standards, with work under way for US ASTM standards. Many national codes across Asia Pacific conform to one of these systems.
The next question is whether performance is proven. This involves testing at customer and independent laboratories to meet applicable standards. In Brunei, ABCi, the Building and Construction Industry Control Authority, verified performance across concrete grades G25 to G50.
Across APAC, test methods can travel because many national codes derive from EN or ASTM. Acceptance thresholds and approving bodies can still vary, so each market requires local work.
How should producers and project owners assess sustainability beyond embodied carbon?
Cement, concrete’s binder, is responsible for a significant share of global carbon emissions, so minimizing embodied carbon is a priority. But not all concrete should be treated equally because the carbon in concrete increases with strength. Carbon per megapascal of strength delivered can be a useful measure, both at the time of construction and across the intended service life.
Four practical considerations matter. Require an environmental product declaration rather than relying on a claim. Set durability acceptance criteria such as chloride migration, water penetration and permeable voids, not compressive strength alone. Declare an intended service life and run life-cycle assessment at structure level rather than only product level. Finally, count waste utilization and local sourcing, both of which can have material sustainability benefits.
In Brunei, for example, we are diverting thousands of tonnes of waste material that had previously been sent to landfill.
Where do the economics of low-carbon concrete come from?
Cement is the expensive part of concrete. Every percentage point displaced by a lower-cost local material can increase margin, and the saving is recurring on every cubic meter produced.
In Brunei, the figures are about 10 percent lower cost, or roughly $6 per cubic meter, alongside 25 percent lower embodied carbon. More than 3,700 cubic meters have been poured to date, with close to $20,000 saved and around 215 tonnes of carbon dioxide avoided.
For the Muara Port project, around 65,000 cubic meters are forecast to be poured, with projected savings of about $300,000 and around 5,200 tonnes of carbon dioxide avoided.
Local material can also improve supply-chain resilience. High-quality slag and fly ash are internationally traded and may become scarcer as coal-fired power generation declines and steelmaking decarbonizes. Substituting a local waste stream can turn an imported and price-volatile input into a local one.
What procurement changes would help lower-carbon concrete compete without a green premium?
First, specify performance rather than composition. A specification can set strength class, durability class and a carbon ceiling, while prescriptive caps on supplementary materials can block innovation.
Second, allow 56- or 90-day strength acceptance where structurally appropriate. Requiring all acceptance at 28 days can lead producers to add more cement than is necessary.
Third, require an environmental product declaration at tender and score embodied carbon rather than treating it as a simple pass-or-fail condition.
Finally, engage the concrete supplier before the specification is frozen. Mix approval can take months. If that process starts only at contract award, adoption becomes much harder.
What can be repeated across markets, and what has to be solved locally?
The technical method, the operating model of minimizing changes at the plant, the commercial argument around cost per unit of strength, and accumulated data on characterized materials are broadly repeatable.
What remains local includes the material itself, the approving authority, the accredited laboratory, relationships with specifiers, the SCM supply chain, and the local price structure for cement, landfill and transport.
There are also several practical lessons for climate-tech companies entering construction. The cost and perceived risk of adopting a new technology can be high for technical decision-makers, so it has to be easy to use, consistent and economically attractive. Concrete customers are also exposed to a great deal of new-technology hype, which makes evidence important.
It is also a mistake to lead with carbon in markets where customers are not buying carbon reduction as a product attribute. One reference customer using a technology every day is more valuable than many pilots because pilots are comparatively easy for a customer to approve and prove little about routine scale. Finally, local presence can matter culturally as well as commercially. A foreign supplier of a critical input may itself be perceived as a risk.
Editor’s note: This Q&A has been lightly edited for clarity and style. The responses remain those of the interviewee.
Share your perspective: TNGlobal welcomes contributed insights and expert commentary from across Asia’s technology and innovation ecosystem. Submit a contribution for editorial consideration, or explore more conversations in our TNGlobal Q&A and Interviews archive.
New Zealand’s Neocrete raises $3.5M to expand low-carbon concrete technology