Demonstrates how recycled plastics can reduce pollution in concrete production, suggesting sustainable alternatives for the construction sector.
• Explores benefits of adding treated plastics in concrete by life cycle assessment. • Proposes a framework to optimize location and capacity of waste treatment centres. • Develops a game model for optimal pricing and adoption strategy of green concrete. • The advocated strategy enables 63% of concrete producers to adopt treated plastics. • Taking environment, social, and governance reduces 15% of concrete pollutions. The construction sector, a long-standing contributor to global pollution, is increasingly adopting sustainable alternatives to traditional building materials. This study evaluates the use of chemically treated post-consumer plactic packaging waste as a partial cement replacement in concrete production through an environmental, social, and governance oriented analytical framework. We combine life cycle assessment, a bi-objective location-allocation model, and evolutionary game theory to examine the environmental, economic, and governance-related implications of large-scale adoption. The life cycle assessment shows that substituting 3% of cement with treated plastic reduces global warming potential by 15% compared with conventional concrete. The location-allocation model identifies supply chain configurations that balance cost and emissions, while the game-theoretic analysis captures how producers adjust pricing and adoption in response to different governance mechanisms, including subsidies, taxes, and awareness policies. A Canadian case study indicates that, under supportive governance conditions, the share of green producers can increase by up to 63%, demonstrating how coordinated policy interventions can accelerate sustainable transitions. Overall, the results show how integrating environmental assessment, supply chain design, and governance-driven behavioral responses can support the development of more sustainable concrete technologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mahmoudi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: