Concrete, a building material consisting of cement paste and aggregates, is one of the most widely used substances on the planet. More than 70% of the global population lives in structures that depend on it. Yet concrete, and in particular its primary component cement, carries a significant environmental cost. It generates between 4% and 8% of total CO2 emissions globally, absorbs considerable amounts of industrial water, contributes to urban heat retention, and concrete dust is a recognised factor in respiratory disease.
For property insurers, this is not only an environmental consideration. The materials used in reinstatement claims directly affect the carbon footprint of a claims operation, and as ESG reporting expectations tighten, the specification choices made by contractors and suppliers are increasingly visible to underwriters, investors, and regulators.
A number of lower-carbon alternatives to conventional concrete are already in use. Ashcrete replaces around 20 to 40% of cement with flyash, a by-product of coal-burning power plants, combined with lime and water. It is stronger than traditional concrete and produces less bleeding and shrinkage. Timbercrete is made primarily from timber waste such as sawdust and wood chips, combined with cement, sand, and binders. It acts as a carbon trap, has lower embodied energy through its use of natural drying, and is approximately 2.5 times lighter than conventional concrete, which reduces transportation emissions. It can also be nailed and screwed, which simplifies installation and repair.
These alternatives represent a meaningful opportunity for property insurers to reduce the embodied carbon of their repair supply chains. However, the final paragraph of any honest assessment of green building materials must address longevity and risk. A sustainable material that requires rebuilding after twenty years may carry a higher whole-life environmental cost than a conventional material with a longer service life. Timber-based materials, for instance, introduce fire and moisture risks that need to be understood before they are specified for reinstatement work. The most credible approach to sustainable material sourcing is one that accounts for performance, durability, and insurability alongside environmental credentials, rather than treating sustainability as a standalone criterion.
Related reading
The materials question sits within a broader set of sustainability decisions that property insurers face across their repair supply chains, from drying methods and travel footprint through to the repair-over-replace decision at claim level. Our article on sustainability in property insurance repair sets out how insurers can approach these decisions in a way that is commercially viable under current cost pressures, covering the practical steps available to reduce the carbon footprint of property claims without simply passing requirements down to suppliers in expectation of delivery at no cost.
How Procurato can help
Translating a preference for lower-carbon materials into a consistent supply chain outcome requires those preferences to be built into the contracts, tender criteria, and performance frameworks that govern your repair and reinstatement suppliers. Our Sustainable Procurement across the Supply Chain service helps property insurers do exactly that: reviewing current supplier arrangements for sustainability credentials, identifying where greener alternatives are commercially and operationally viable, and embedding the measurement frameworks that make environmental objectives demonstrable rather than aspirational. If you want to understand where your supply chain currently stands, we are happy to start with that conversation.
Stay Ahead in Insurance
Join our newsletter for insights on claims innovation, operational efficiency and market trends for insurance leaders.
