Cement is the third-largest industrial energy consumer and the second-largest industrial CO2 emitter in the world, responsible for roughly 7% of global CO2 emissions on its own, and demand for it is projected to climb as much as 20% higher by 2050 than it stands today. That combination — a heavy emitter with rising demand — is exactly why the Science Based Targets initiative built a dedicated cement sector framework rather than leaving cement companies to use generic corporate guidance built around industries where emissions scale more predictably with energy use. See how iFactory helps cement producers track the plant-level data an SBTi commitment depends on through a Book a Demo.
A Net Zero Commitment Only Means Something If The Reduction Math Behind It Holds Up
iFactory connects kiln, cooler, and energy data from your plants into the emissions baseline and tracking infrastructure an SBTi-validated cement target requires, so your near-term and net-zero commitments are backed by real production data, not estimates.
Generic Corporate Targets Don't Fit A Sector Built Around Chemical, Not Just Combustion, Emissions
Most corporate decarbonization frameworks assume emissions scale fairly predictably with energy use, which breaks down for cement because a large share of kiln emissions come from the calcination reaction itself — limestone converting to lime releases CO2 as a matter of chemistry, independent of the fuel burned to supply the heat. The Cement Science Based Target Setting Guidance, developed with an Expert Advisory Group of corporate and non-profit technical specialists and released after a public consultation period, gives clinker, cement, and concrete manufacturers, as well as novel binder producers, a way to set near- and long-term targets that account for this structural reality rather than penalizing the sector for a chemistry it can't fully engineer around. The framework also extends to companies that purchase cement as an input, letting them set compatible scope 3 targets on the buying side of the same value chain, which matters because the sector's largest emissions reductions ultimately depend on coordination between producers and the customers specifying what they build with.
Sectoral Decarbonization Approach Vs Absolute Contraction Approach
SBTi offers cement companies two distinct methodologies for calculating a near-term target, and the choice between them shapes how the reduction pathway is expressed and tracked over time. Neither method is universally "easier" — the right fit depends on how a company's production volume is expected to move over the target period, and picking the wrong one can mean re-modeling the entire pathway partway through implementation.
Sectoral Decarbonization Approach (SDA)
Available specifically for sectors with defined pathways, including cement. Companies converge toward a sector-average emissions intensity benchmark by 2050, with near- and mid-term intensity targets set along the way rather than a flat annual percentage.
Absolute Contraction Approach (ACA)
A simpler, sector-agnostic method requiring at least 4.2% annual absolute emissions reduction for scope 1 and 2, and at least 2.5% annual reduction for scope 3, applied as a straight-line trajectory from the base year.
Near-Term Targets Set The Pace, Net-Zero Targets Set The Destination
Scope 3 Is Usually The Largest Line Item, And The Hardest To Control Directly
For most cement companies, scope 3 emissions — those occurring in the value chain outside the company's direct operations, such as purchased raw materials, transport, and downstream concrete production — typically represent more than 70% of total company emissions. SBTi requires scope 3 targets to cover at least 67% of total scope 3 emissions, which makes supplier engagement and value-chain data collection a core part of the target-setting exercise rather than an afterthought layered on top of the kiln-level reduction plan. Getting scope 1 and 2 data right first still matters, because a company that can't produce a defensible number for its own plant emissions has little credibility asking suppliers and customers to share theirs.
Get Scope 1 And 2 Data Audit-Ready Before Scope 3 Engagement Begins.
iFactory gives you the direct-operations emissions data foundation an SBTi submission is built on, updated continuously rather than reconstructed once a year.
Five Steps From Baseline To A Validated Target
We had a corporate sustainability target on paper for two years before we could actually defend the baseline number behind it. Once we pulled kiln fuel consumption, cooler air data, and energy use directly from plant instrumentation instead of estimating from purchase records, our scope 1 baseline shifted enough that the reduction percentage we'd been reporting externally needed to be restated. It was an uncomfortable conversation internally, but it meant the SBTi submission that followed was built on numbers that could actually be verified.
What Doesn't Count As A Substitute For Real Reduction
A validated target is only as credible as what's excluded from it, and SBTi draws a firm line between genuine emissions reduction and the mechanisms companies sometimes reach for to close a remaining gap.
Carbon Offsets
Only recognized as a way to fund additional mitigation beyond a science-based target, never as a substitute for the reductions the target itself requires — "carbon neutral" claims built primarily on offsets are not validated by SBTi.
Residual Emissions At Net-Zero
Once a company has cut at least 90% of emissions to reach its long-term target, the small remaining residual must be neutralized specifically through permanent carbon removal and storage, not conventional offset credits.
Carbon Capture And Use (CCU)
Dedicated SBTi guidance on how CCU counts toward cement targets is still being developed under the initiative's broader Beyond Value Chain Mitigation work, so companies piloting capture technology should track it separately for now.
The Numbers A Validated Cement Target Has To Clear
Pulling the key thresholds into one reference table makes it easier to check a draft target against the actual validation bar before submission, rather than discovering a shortfall during the review process itself.
| Requirement | Threshold |
|---|---|
| Near-term target timeline | 5-10 years, covering scopes 1, 2, and 3 |
| ACA annual reduction rate (scope 1 & 2) | At least 4.2% per year |
| ACA annual reduction rate (scope 3) | At least 2.5% per year |
| Scope 3 target coverage | At least 67% of total scope 3 emissions |
| Long-term / net-zero reduction floor | At least 90-95% of absolute emissions by 2050 |
| Residual emissions treatment | Neutralized only via permanent carbon removal, not conventional offsets |
Where Cement Companies Stumble On The Way To Validation
SBTi validation has a defined technical bar, and most rejected or delayed submissions trace back to a handful of recurring gaps rather than the underlying reduction ambition itself.
Setting The Target Before The Baseline Is Solid
Committing to a public reduction percentage against an estimated or purchase-record-based baseline creates a real risk of having to restate the figure once direct plant data replaces the estimate, undermining external credibility.
Treating Scope 3 As A Later Problem
Because scope 3 often exceeds 70% of total emissions for a cement company, deferring supplier engagement until after the near-term target is submitted leaves the hardest and largest data-collection task for last, when timelines are tightest.
Mixing Production Growth Into The Wrong Methodology
A company expecting significant capacity growth that defaults to the flat-percentage ACA method rather than modeling the SDA's intensity-convergence structure can end up with a target that's mathematically harder to hit than intended.
Leaning On Offsets To Close A Reduction Gap
SBTi does not validate targets that rely on offsets as a substitute for direct emissions reduction, so a decarbonization plan built with an offset-dependent gap-closing strategy will not pass validation as submitted.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Does a cement company have to use the Sectoral Decarbonization Approach?
No. The SDA is available to cement companies because cement is one of the sectors with a defined SBTi pathway, but the Absolute Contraction Approach remains a valid alternative for near-term target setting. The right choice usually comes down to growth expectations: a company expecting production growth above the sector average may find the SDA's intensity-convergence structure more workable than a flat ACA percentage applied to absolute emissions. Reach out through Support Contact to discuss which methodology fits your production growth profile.
Q: What's the actual difference between a near-term and a net-zero target?
A near-term target covers a 5-10 year horizon and sets the pace of reduction across all three emissions scopes on a 1.5°C-aligned pathway. A net-zero target extends that pathway out to 2050 or earlier and requires a much deeper cut, at least 90-95% of absolute emissions against the base year, with only a small residual eligible for neutralization through permanent carbon removal. Companies can technically submit a near-term target on its own, but net-zero commitments are increasingly expected alongside it by investors and regulators, which is why most implementation roadmaps build both together. A Book a Demo session can walk through how a phased near-term and net-zero submission typically fits together. The two targets are also tracked differently once submitted: near-term progress is usually reported annually against a straightforward percentage, while net-zero progress is judged against the full trajectory toward that 90-95% reduction floor, which means early years matter less for net-zero than staying credibly on pace does over the full multi-decade horizon.
Q: Why does scope 3 matter so much for a cement company specifically?
Scope 3 emissions typically make up more than 70% of a cement company's total footprint once purchased raw materials, transport, and downstream concrete use are included, which is a larger share than most other heavy industries. SBTi requires scope 3 targets to cover at least 67% of total scope 3 emissions, meaning a credible target can't stop at the kiln gate. This is why the framework also supports cement purchasers in setting their own scope 3 targets — the two ends of the value chain end up needing compatible data and reduction commitments.
Q: How fast does the cement sector need to be cutting emissions to stay aligned with 1.5°C?
SBTi's cement sector guidance points to roughly 4% annual emissions reduction between 2020 and 2030 to stay on track with the IEA's Net Zero by 2050 scenario, a pace that reflects both the scale of the sector's current emissions and the fact that global cement demand is still projected to rise by up to 20% by 2050. That combination — rising demand alongside required emissions cuts — is precisely why the sector's decarbonization pathway leans so heavily on efficiency, alternative fuels, and material substitution rather than production reduction alone. Meeting that pace consistently, rather than in occasional strong years offset by weaker ones, is what separates a target that stays on track from one that requires a steep and disruptive catch-up closer to the deadline.
Q: What data does a plant need to have in order before starting an SBTi submission?
At minimum, a defensible baseline needs plant-level fuel consumption by type, purchased electricity volume, clinker production tonnage, and enough process detail to separate combustion emissions from calcination emissions. Companies that rely on estimated or purchase-record-based figures for this baseline frequently find the numbers shift once they switch to direct plant instrumentation data, which can force an uncomfortable but necessary restatement before external submission. Building the data pipeline before committing to a target date, rather than during the submission process itself, avoids that scramble.
Build The Emissions Data Foundation Your Net-Zero Commitment Needs.
iFactory connects kiln, fuel, and energy data across every plant so your SBTi baseline and progress tracking hold up to scrutiny.
