Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Demand-side innovation is the priority for decarbonizing materials

Nature Reviews Materials (2026) Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Global industrial emissions from bulk material production continue to rise despite decades of climate policy. At present, mitigation strategies for materials have focused on supply-side technological substitution, including carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and new production processes. However, these approaches are constrained by structural limits to deployment rates and depend on scarce physical and socioeconomic resources. Here, we argue that bulk material production cannot be decarbonized rapidly enough through supply-side innovation alone and that disguising this reality delays the implementation of other approaches. Instead, demand-side innovation — changes in how materials are designed, used, valued and governed — must be prioritized. Using an illustrative resource-constrained model of a national transition to net zero, we show that pathways based primarily on hidden technological substitution require implausible growth in public finance, emissions-free electricity and carbon storage. By contrast, pathways centred on material efficiency, sufficiency and societal participation can deliver substantial mitigation within more realistic resource limits. These findings imply that credible material decarbonization depends on a clear policy direction that accelerates participatory change and reduces demand for primary material production. Demand-side innovation should therefore be treated not as an optional complement but as the central pillar of effective material climate policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Illustrative model of UK decarbonization.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 2: History and forecast of demand, emissions and resource availability in the UK for use in the roadmap.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Fig. 3: A credible roadmap for net zero in the UK and its demand for materials.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

References

  1. Crippa, M. et al. GHG Emissions of All World Countries – JRC/IEA Report. https://doi.org/10.2760/4002897 (2024).

  2. Climate Action Tracker. Warming Projections Global Update. CAT https://climateactiontracker.org/documents/1277/CAT_2024-11-14_GlobalUpdate_COP29.pdf (2025).

  3. United Nations Environment Programme. Emissions gap report 2024: no more hot air please: with a massive gap between rhetoric and reality, countries draft new climate commitments. UNEP https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/46404 (2024).

  4. Forster, P. et al. Progress in Reducing Emissions: 2025 Report to Parliament (Climate Change Committee, 2025).

  5. Romanello, M. et al. The 2025 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: climate change action offers a lifeline. Lancet 406, 2804–2857 (2025).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Allwood, J. M., Ashby, M. F., Gutowski, T. G. & Worrell, E. Material efficiency: a white paper. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 362–381 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nilsson, L. J. et al. An industrial policy framework for transforming energy and emissions intensive industries towards zero emissions. Clim. Policy 21, 1053–1065 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kazemifar, F. A review of technologies for carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization: cost, capacity, and technology readiness. Greenhouse Gases Sci. Technol. 12, 200–230 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Raabe, D. The materials science behind sustainable metals and alloys. Chem. Rev. 123, 2436–2608 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Allanore, A., Lavelaine, H., Valentin, G., Birat, J. P. & Lapicque, F. Iron metal production by bulk electrolysis of iron ore particles in aqueous media. J. Electrochem. Soc. 155, E125 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gartner, E. & Sui, T. Alternative cement clinkers. Cem. Concr. Res. 114, 27–39 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Singh, D. et al. A review on feedstocks, production processes, and yield for different generations of biodiesel. Fuel 262, 116553 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Morris, F., Allen, S. & Hawkins, W. On the embodied carbon of structural timber versus steel, and the influence of LCA methodology. Build. Environ. 206, 108285 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kermeli, K., ter Weer, P. H., Crijns-Graus, W. & Worrell, E. Energy efficiency improvement and GHG abatement in the global production of primary aluminium. Energy Efficiency 8, 629–666 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  16. Peters, G. P., Minx, J. C., Weber, C. L. & Edenhofer, O. Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 8903–8908 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. International Energy Agency. Global Hydrogen Review 2023. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2023 (2023).

  18. Hawkins, W., Cooper, S., Allen, S., Roynon, J., & Ibell, T. Embodied carbon assessment using a dynamic climate model: case-study comparison of a concrete, steel and timber building structure. Structures 33, 90–98 (2021).

  19. International Energy Agency. CCUS Projects Database (IEA, accessed March 2026); https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/ccus-projects-database.

  20. Hawkin, J. L. Do Net-Zero Plans Add Up? A Framework and Model to Quantify Risks of Resource Supply Shortages in Climate Mitigation Strategies. PhD thesis, Cambridge Univ. (2025).

  21. Kramer, G. J. & Haigh, M. No quick switch to low-carbon energy. Nature 462, 568–569 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Smil, V. The long slow rise of solar and wind. Sci. Am. 310, 52–57 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Garrick, A. J. H., Stephenson, S. & Allwood, J. M. Why aren’t we going faster? A flow-shop model of national infrastructure deployment dynamics applied to UK 2050 zero emissions targets. Preprint at SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6113919 (2025).

  24. Flyvbjerg, B. What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Proj. Manag. J. 45, 6–19 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Infrastructure and Projects Authority. Improving Infrastructure Delivery: Project Initiation Routemap Handbook (IPA, 2016).

  26. Gross, R., Hanna, R., Gambhir, A., Heptonstall, P. & Speirs, J. How long does innovation and commercialisation in the energy sectors take? Historical case studies of the timescale from invention to widespread commercialisation in energy supply and end use technology. Energy Policy 123, 682–699 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shackman, L., & Climie, D. Planning and procurement of the Queensferry Crossing in Scotland. Proc. Institution Civil Engineers—Civil Engineering 169, 161–168 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rissman, J. et al. Technologies and policies to decarbonize global industry: review and assessment of mitigation drivers through 2070. Appl. Energy 266, 114848 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hezardastan, B. & Shmelev, S. E. Policy instruments for circular economy: evidence-based assessment of sustainable waste management in the UK and Finland. J. Clean. Prod. 533, 146914 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Graedel, T. E. et al. What do we know about metal recycling rates? J. Ind. Ecol. 15, 355–366 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. & Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221–232 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Allwood, J. M. in Handbook of Recycling Ch. 30 (Elsevier, 2014)

  33. Cooper, D. R., Skelton, A. C., Moynihan, M. C. & Allwood, J. M. Component level strategies for exploiting the lifespan of steel in products. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 84, 24–34 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tukker, A. Eight types of product–service system: eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet. Bus. Strategy Environ. 13, 246–260 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gauch, H. L., Dunant, C. F., Hawkins, W. & Serrenho, A. C. What really matters in multi-storey building design? A simultaneous sensitivity study of embodied carbon, construction cost, and operational energy. Appl. Energy 333, 120585 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Dunant, C. F., Drewniok, M. P., Orr, J. J., & Allwood, J. M. Good early stage design decisions can halve embodied CO2 and lower structural frames’ cost. Structures 33, 343–354 (2021).

  37. Cleaver, C. J., Arora, R., Loukaides, E. G. & Allwood, J. M. Producing isolated shrink corners by folding-shearing. CIRP Ann. 71, 217–220 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Dunant, C. F. et al. Options to make steel reuse profitable: an analysis of cost and risk distribution across the UK construction value chain. J. Clean. Prod. 183, 102–111 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Dunant, C. F. et al. Real and perceived barriers to steel reuse across the UK construction value chain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 126, 118–131 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Thomas, H. & Serrenho, A. C. Using different transport modes: an opportunity to reduce UK passenger transport emissions? Transp. Res. D 126, 103989 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Grimbert, S. F. & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. Closing the loop without reinventing the wheel: public procurement for innovation promoting a circular economy. Sci. Public Policy 51, 491–508 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ullern, E. F., de Boer, L., Schmitt, J. C. & Vildåsen, S. S. Perceptions matter: exploring dynamics of circular economy innovation processes. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 224, 124465 (2026).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Chen, P., Sauerwein, M. & Steuer, B. Exploring greenhouse gas emissions pathways and stakeholder perspectives: in search of circular economy policy innovation for waste paper management and carbon neutrality in Hong Kong. J. Environ. Manag. 341, 118072 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hartley, K., van Santen, R. & Kirchherr, J. Policies for transitioning towards a circular economy: expectations from the European Union (EU). Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 155, 104634 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Milios, L. Advancing to a circular economy: three essential ingredients for a comprehensive policy mix. Sustain. Sci. 13, 861–878 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Vogl, V., Åhman, M. & Nilsson, L. J. The making of green steel in the EU: a policy evaluation for early commercialisation. Clim. Policy 21, 78–92 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Richstein, J. C. et al. Catalyzing the transition to a climate-neutral industry with carbon contracts for difference. Joule 8, 3233–3238 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. International Energy Agency. Energy Technology Perspectives 2017 (IEA, 2017).

  49. Royal Dutch Shell. Sky Scenarios https://www.shell.com/ (2026).

  50. Energy Transitions Commission. Mission possible: reaching net-zero carbon emissions from harder-to-abate sectors by mid-century (ETC, 2018).

  51. Allwood, J. M. Too late for CCS and hydrogen. Nat. Chem. Eng. 3, 26–33 (2026).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Dubash, N. K. Revisiting climate ambition: the case for prioritizing current action over future intent. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 11, e622 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lamb, W. F. et al. Discourses of climate delay. Glob. Sustain. 3, e17 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Peeters, P., Higham, J., Kutzner, D., Cohen, S. & Gössling, S. Are technology myths stalling aviation climate policy? Transp. Res. D 44, 30–42 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Allwood, J. M. Unrealistic techno-optimism is holding back progress on resource efficiency. Nat. Mater. 17, 1050–1051 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Hawkin, J. L. and Allwood, J. M. Aggregating demand for three fundamental resources to avoid burden-shifting in climate policy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 60, 9958–9972 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Barbhuiya, S., Kanavaris, F., Das, B. B. & Idrees, M. Decarbonising cement and concrete production: strategies, challenges and pathways for sustainable development. J. Build. Eng. 86, 108861 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Nelson, S. K. & Allwood, J. M. The technological and social timelines of climate mitigation: lessons from 12 past transitions. Energy Policy 152, 112155 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Pinchbeck, E. et al. The Seventh Carbon Budget: The UK’s Path to Net Zero. https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-seventh-carbon-budget/ (Climate Change Committee, 2025).

  60. Shukla, P. R. et al. (eds) Climate Change and Land: Technical Summary. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157988.002 (2019).

  61. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Final UK territorial greenhouse gas emissions statistics 1990-2023. DESNZ https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-territorial-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistics (2025).

  62. Lee, D. S. et al. The contribution of global aviation to anthropogenic climate forcing for 2000 to 2018. Atmos. Environ. 244, 117834 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Office for National Statistics. Atmospheric emissions: greenhouse gases by industry and gas. ONS https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/datasets/ukenvironmentalaccountsatmosphericemissionsgreenhousegasemissionsbyeconomicsectorandgasunitedkingdom (2025).

  64. His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs. Get trade data. HMRC https://www.uktradeinfo.com/trade-data (2025).

  65. Music, O. & Allwood, J. M. Connecting environmental systems analysis to manufacturing technology: a catalogue of the world’s steel and aluminium components. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 212, 107949 (2025).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. UK and England’s carbon footprint to 2022. DEFRA https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uks-carbon-footprint (2025).

  67. Bashmakov, I. A. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) Ch 11 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2023).

  68. Keys, A., van Hout, M., & Daniëls, B. Decarbonisation options for the Dutch steel industry. PBL https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/decarbonisation-options-for-the-dutch-steel-industry (2019).

  69. Pei, M., Petäjäniemi, M., Regnell, A. & Wijk, O. Toward a fossil free future with HYBRIT: development of iron and steelmaking technology in Sweden and Finland. Metals 10, 972 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Worrell, E., Price, L., Neelis, M., Galitsky, C., & Nan, Z. World Best Practice Energy Intensity Values for Selected Industrial Sectors. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/77n9d4sp (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2007).

  71. Aker Solutions. Aker Solutions Awarded Contract for the Brevik Carbon Capture Project. https://www.akersolutions.com/news/news-archive/2020/aker-solutions-awarded-contract-for-the-brevik-carbon-capture-project/ (2025).

  72. Barker, D. J., Turner, S. A., Napier-Moore, P. A., Clark, M. & Davison, J. E. CO2 capture in the cement industry. Energy Procedia 1, 87–94 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Scrivener, K., Martirena, F., Bishnoi, S. & Maity, S. Calcined clay limestone cements (LC3). Cem. Concr. Res. 114, 49–56 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Zunino, F. et al. Hydration and mixture design of calcined clay blended cements: review by the RILEM TC 282-CCL. Mater. Struct. 55, 234 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Dunant, C. F., Joseph, S., Prajapati, R. & Allwood, J. M. Electric recycling of Portland cement at scale. Nature 629, 1055–1061 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Cullen, J., Drewniok, M. P., & Serrenho, A. C. The “P” Word; Plastics in the UK: Practical and Pervasive…but Problematic. https://www.refficiency.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ThePWord.pdf (2020).

  77. Tan, R. B. H. & Khoo, H. H. An LCA study of a primary aluminum supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 607–618 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. International Aluminium Institute. 2019 Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data and environmental metrics. IAI https://international-aluminium.org/resource/2019-life-cycle-inventory-lci-data-and-environmental-metrics/ (2022).

  79. Griffin, P. W., Hammond, G. P. & McKenna, R. C. Industrial energy use and decarbonisation in the glass sector: a UK perspective. Adv. Appl. Energy 3, 100037 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Zier, M., Stenzel, P., Kotzur, L. & Stolten, D. A review of decarbonization options for the glass industry. Energy Convers. Manag. 10, 100083 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Kalt, G., Thunshirn, P., Krausmann, F. & Haberl, H. Material requirements of global electricity sector pathways to 2050 and associated greenhouse gas emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 358, 132014 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. International Energy Agency. Global Hydrogen Review 2024. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2024 (2024).

  83. Huss, A. et al. JEC Tank-to-Wheels Report V5: Passenger Cars. https://doi.org/10.2760/557004 (2020).

  84. Siegemund, S., Schmidt, P., Trommler, M., & Weindorf, W. The Potential of Electricity-Based Fuels for Low-Emission Transport in the EU (Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH & Deutsche Energie-Agentur GmbH, 2017).

  85. Röck, M. et al. JEC Tank-to-Wheels Report V5: Heavy Duty Vehicles. https://doi.org/10.2760/541016 (2020).

  86. Correa, G., Muñoz, P. M. & Rodriguez, C. R. A comparative energy and environmental analysis of a diesel, hybrid, hydrogen and electric urban bus. Energy 187, 115906 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Dray, L. et al. Cost and emissions pathways towards net-zero climate impacts in aviation. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 956–962 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Shanks, W. et al. How much cement can we do without? Lessons from cement material flows in the UK. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141, 441–454 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Drewniok, M. P. et al. Mapping material use and embodied carbon in UK construction. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 197, 107056 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Hawkins, W., Cooper, S., Allen, S., Roynon, J., & Ibell, T. Embodied carbon assessment using a dynamic climate model: case-study comparison of a concrete, steel and timber building structure. Structures 33, 90–98 (Elsevier, 2021).

  91. Fennell, P., Driver, J., Bataille, C. & Davis, S. J. Cement and steel—nine steps to net zero. Nature 603, 574–577 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. International Energy Agency. Material Efficiency in Clean Energy Transitions. https://www.iea.org/reports/material-efficiency-in-clean-energy-transitions (2019).

  93. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Energy consumption in the UK (ECUK): electrical products data tables. DESNZ https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-consumption-in-the-uk-2024 (2024) .

  94. Department of Energy Security and Net Zero. Clean power 2030 action plan: a new era of clean electricity. DESNZ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clean-power-2030-action-plan (2024).

  95. UK Government. Government reignites industrial heartlands 10 days out from the International Investment Summit. UKG https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-reignites-industrial-heartlands-10-days-out-from-the-international-investment-summit (2024).

  96. UK Government. Public spending statistics release: July 2025. UKG https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-july-2025 (2025).

  97. UK Government. National travel survey table NTS0316: number of flights abroad in the last 12 months: England, 2006 onwards. UKG https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/nts03-modal-comparisons (2025).

  98. UK Government. Vehicle licensing statistics, United Kingdom: 2024. UKG https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-licensing-statistics-2024/vehicle-licensing-statistics-united-kingdom-2024 (2025).

  99. Leal-Ayala, D. R., Allwood, J. M., Shmidt, M. & Alexeev, I. Toner-print removal from paper by long and ultrashort pulsed lasers. Proc. R. Soc. A 468, 2272–2293 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Gauch, H. L., Hawkins, W., Ibell, T., Allwood, J. M. & Dunant, C. F. Carbon vs. cost option mapping: a tool for improving early-stage design decisions. Autom. Constr. 136, 104178 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Horton, P. M. & Allwood, J. M. Yield improvement opportunities for manufacturing automotive sheet metal components. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 249, 78–88 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Allwood, J. M., Cleaver, C. J., Loukaides, E. G., Music, O. & Nagy-Sochacki, A. Folding-shearing: shrinking and stretching sheet metal with no thickness change. CIRP Ann. 68, 285–288 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Allwood, J. M., Music, O., Loukaides, E. G. & Bambach, M. Cut the scrap: making more use of less metal. CIRP Ann. 74, 895–919 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work of all authors except J.L.H. was supported by Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) grant EP/Y034643/1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Julian M. Allwood, Felix F. Baker, Shichen Han, Emilie Herpain, Abdullah Mahmoud, Luke Morris, Isabella Nesti, Swasti Surendran, Cameron A. Watson, Zhijian Zhang, Zihan Zhou & Jennifer L. Hawkin

Authors
  1. Julian M. Allwood
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felix F. Baker
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shichen Han
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emilie Herpain
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Abdullah Mahmoud
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Luke Morris
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Isabella Nesti
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Swasti Surendran
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Cameron A. Watson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Zhijian Zhang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Zihan Zhou
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Jennifer L. Hawkin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors researched data for the article. F.F.B., J.L.H. and J.M.A. contributed substantially to discussion of the content. J.M.A. wrote the article. F.F.B., J.L.H. and J.M.A. reviewed and/or edited the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian M. Allwood.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

J.M.A. is inventor on patent number EP4370717A1. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Materials thanks Edgar Hertwich and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Allwood, J.M., Baker, F.F., Han, S. et al. Demand-side innovation is the priority for decarbonizing materials. Nat Rev Mater (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-026-00934-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-026-00934-2

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing