Inequalities in the production and use of cement and concrete, and their consequences for decarbonisation and sustainable development

Concrete is vital for constructing infrastructure and housing, and cement is the key binding material within concrete. Concrete is an enabler of development, as concrete structures are key to delivering societal services in many sectors. Much recent research on cement and concrete has focussed on technical solutions to decarbonisation; however, there is a knowledge gap around how cement and concrete intersect with other facets of sustainable development. This study explores the intersection of cement and concrete with inequalities, both through their production as commodities and through their use in built assets. An exploratory analysis of this issue was carried out, comprising an evaluation of industry associations’ conceptions of sustainable development and inequalities, an analysis of underlying power dynamics for several inequality issues using Lukes’ three dimensional framework of power, and a reflection on how certain inequalities may pose risks to achieving decarbonisation and sustainable development aims. Our study shows that industry associations’ narratives around sustainable development generally lack a detailed vision for addressing inequalities, in comparison to their focus on decarbonisation. We find that inequalities are a systemic issue for cement and concrete, spanning intra- and inter-national scales, and all three dimensions of power. These findings highlight that several inequalities are consequential from structural, underlying inequalities, whilst other inequalities are specific to the sectors themselves. The cement and concrete sectors are recommended to develop their conception of inequalities in relation to sustainable development: this can help reduce inequalities within their own workforces more effectively, and also reduce the risks of missing their decarbonisation targets. For large, complex socio-technical systems, such as cement and concrete, it is vital for consideration of inequalities to inform strategic planning with regards to decarbonisation and sustainable development.


Introduction
The production of cement and concrete, and their use in construction, is globally important.Their significance arises from the vast quantities of materials consumed, the environmental impacts of their production and extraction of raw materials, the number of people employed along their value chain, and their influence on the built environment in buildings and infrastructure.The cement and concrete sector aspires to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and environmental impacts as part of a broad commitment to sustainable development, as expressed in numerous position papers and roadmaps produced by industry associations (e.g.(GCCA 2021)), individual company strategies (e.g.(Cemex 2020)) and academic analyses (e.g.(Scrivener et al 2018)).How cement and concrete intersect with the concepts and practices of sustainable development is therefore a significant global issue, but which has received limited attention in global development debates.
A multi-dimensional conception of sustainable development is well-established, and there is a degree of consensus around this multi-dimensionality within the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations 2015b).Nonetheless, sustainable development remains a contested concept, with a spectrum of views around what sustainable development means in practice and the value of the SDGs (Liverman 2018, Hickel 2019, Butcher 2022).With regards to cement and concrete, whilst we see a broad commitment to a supply chain cognisant of sustainable development, there has been little analysis of the relationship of this with broader dynamics of inequality in human populations and infrastructure.Reduced intra-national and inter-national inequalities are recognised as a desirable end in itself, shown by the aspiration of SDG Goal 10 to 'Reduce inequality within and among countries' , and are also linked to desirable outcomes in various other dimensions of development (United Nations 2013), but there is debate around how existing inequalities have shaped narratives around sustainable development (Hickel 2017) and the particular content of the SDGs (Cummings et al 2018).
Whilst the cement and concrete sectors aspire to sustainable development, their current focus is primarily on decarbonisation (GCCA 2021).The overall approach to decarbonisation is mainly technical, based on supply-side measures enacted by the cement producers themselves (Schneider 2019, Habert et al 2020).In contrast, explicit references to inequalities have so far been largely absent from discussion around decarbonisation, and wider sustainability aspirations, within the cement and concrete sectors.The intersection of inequalities with cement and concrete is so far a knowledge gap in the academic literature.Understanding this intersection is important in order to critically analyse how cement and concrete intersects with inequalities, and constructively assess how the cement and concrete sectors can respond to this.In this article, we undertake an exploratory analysis around the relationship between inequalities and cement and concrete, relating both to their production and their use in buildings and infrastructural assets.In doing so this article is intentionally interdisciplinary in bringing together an industry-based lens on cement and concrete with a critical social science perspective on power and inequality.We do so as a starting point to a conversation that seeks to increase mutual understanding and elucidate practical industrial dilemmas around decarbonisation and sustainable development.

The supply chain and key actors in the cement, concrete and construction sectors
Concrete is defined here as a ceramic composite made of a cementitious binder and aggregates (typically crushed rocks and sand); reinforced concrete also typically contains steel reinforcement.Cement is the mineral-based powder which, once mixed with water, can set to produce the hardened, cementitious binder in concrete.Cement typically makes up a minor proportion of concrete (<15 wt.%), but because it is more energy-intensive and expensive to produce than aggregate, cement dominates the cost and embodied carbon of concrete (Scrivener et al 2018).There is evidence of cementitious materials being used since 10 000 BCE, but industrially-produced cement as we understand it now has only been used from the early 19th century onwards (Trout 2019).In the context of human history, concrete is a modern material.
Cement and concrete can be classified as commodities and/or products-they are materials that are manufactured, sold and used.Their end use is in buildings and structures, which can be classified as assets, which are commissioned, designed, used, managed and owned by a variety of actors (figure 1).There is some degree of vertical integration between cement and concrete production (e.g. in the ready-mix concrete sector), but their subsequent use in construction is largely separate from the cement and concrete producers themselves, along with the subsequent use and management of those assets.This distinction between commodities and assets is important for analysing inequalities, as different sets of actors are involved with these different steps in the value chain (figure 1).
Cement and concrete are socio-technical systems.A socio-technical system 'encompass[es] production, diffusion and use of technology' and '…the linkages between elements necessary to fulfil societal functions' (Geels 2004).Cement and concrete fulfil this definition, as a variety of actors across the production and use stages work together in order to deliver buildings and infrastructure which facilitate vital functions for society (figure 1).Decisions around the production and use of cement and concrete are shaped by more than just technical drivers-there are also social and political drivers of a wide range of actors along the supply chain (Choplin 2019, Marsh et al 2022).For example, the sale of cement and the design of concrete for construction are subject to a range of standards and codes: these are regulated by governments, written by standards bodies, and influenced by companies and academic experts in the field.In order to analyse inequalities in   (Lukes 2005); whilst the first dimension is most easily observed, the third dimension underpins the first and second dimensions and is ultimately judged to be the most powerful.relation to cement and concrete, and the underlying power relations which shape those inequalities, it is necessary to consider the full range of actors who affect, and are affected by, its production and use.

Understanding inequalities in relation to cement and concrete
Inequalities in human societies are underpinned by relations of power (Phillips 2017), the dynamics of which are contested and debated (Clegg and Berti 2021).In this article, we draw upon the widely-used Lukes' three-dimensional framework of power (Lukes 2005) as a way to explore the power dynamics at play across the cement and concrete life cycle, which produce inequalities through commodities and assets.Lukes' framework consists of: one-dimensional power i.e. overt displays of power in which an actor clearly exercises power over other actor(s) through succeeding within power struggles; two-dimensional power i.e. the ability of powerful actors to influence which issues are debated within the public domain; and, three-dimensional power i.e. the ability of powerful actors to covertly align the interests of wider society to their own (Lukes 2005) (figure 2).The third dimension of power is often not exercised through formal institutions or processes, but instead through informal practices, such as through social networks, flows of capital or 'favours' , and the promotion of ideologies (Armytage 2020, Goodfellow 2020).These one, two and three-dimensional views of power give insight into how inequalities are constructed and maintained within socio-technical systems and in wider society.This approach can hence give insight into whether a given inequality could potentially be resolved through addressing a specific, discrete set of power dynamics; or whether an inequality is bound up within structural, complex power dynamics that are less straightforward to untangle.
Lukes' framework has previously been applied to analyse how the exercise of power can underpin inequalities in other industrial sectors and in housing.Brisbois and de Loe (2016) examined water governance in Canada, exploring how power dynamics influenced collaborative agreements between government, companies, NGOs and citizens at different stages of policy development.Caine and Krogman (2010) evaluated impact and benefit agreements between natural resource developers and Aboriginal communities in Canada, arguing that the lack of meaningful enforcement, timing of negotiations and selection of indicators demonstrated an exercise of power in all three dimensions by the extractive sector.Mupambwa and Zaaiman (2020) investigated power dynamics between local council officials, politicians and leaders, housing contractors and community members in the development of a public housing project in South Africa; different actors were found to have shaped the development in various ways across all three dimensions of power.These studies demonstrate how Lukes' framework can be applied both to specific case studies (e.g. the Khutsong housing project (Mupambwa and Zaaiman 2020)), and also to broad trends across an industrial sector (e.g.extractive industries and Aboriginal peoples (Caine and Krogman 2010)).
Cement and concrete are produced and used globally, and so it is necessary to explore both inter-national inequalities as well as intra-national inequalities.The terms Global South and Global North, whilst contested, will be used in this study to acknowledge shared structural differences between these regions (Garrido et al 2021), and align with literature describing current and historical inter-national inequalities (United Nations 2013, Hickel 2017).Powerful actors, often referred to as the elite, are commonly understood as having the ability to exercise power over wider society (Harvey 2006); this concept has been used in studies within the Global South (Armytage 2020) and Global North (Whyte 2015), and are important for understanding intra-national inequalities and their underlying power dynamics (Scott 2008, Savage 2015).
This section has introduced the practical and theoretical foundations that underpin this study; within section 4, a thorough investigation of relevant literature takes place regarding inequalities and power dynamics surrounding the use of cement and concrete as commodities and assets.Regarding the interaction between inequalities and commodities, the following areas of research are investigated: impacts of unregulated or illegal extraction of sand on livelihoods (Masalu 2002, Lamb et al 2019); health impacts from air pollution (Brinkman and Miller 2021, Noah et al 2021, Greer et al 2022); dynamics surrounding national and international purchasing power (Okpala 1992, Yeboah 2005, Mwiti Marangu et al 2023); market accessibility (Huschelrath et al 2013, Mbongwe et al 2014); inequalities in production practices (Rwelamila and Ogunlana 2015, Schmidt et al 2018, Frimpong et al 2022), and in relation to the sectors' workforce (Andrews 2018, Sasikala andSankaranarayanan 2022).Literature is then drawn on regarding the relationship between inequalities and concrete in built assets (Cao et al 2017, Marinova et al 2019), including: considerations surrounding historical consumption (Steinberger et al 2010, Miatto et al 2017); practices of design and investment in infrastructure (Lewis 2011, Rodgers & O'Neill;2012, Wilson 2015)), and the sustainability and availability of housing (Lees 2014, Ofori 2019, Behr et al 2021, Watt 2022).

Methods
Exploratory research was used as the overall approach to analyse inequalities relevant to cement and concrete.Exploratory research is well-suited to 'illuminate how a phenomenon is manifested and is especially useful in uncovering the full nature of a little-understood phenomenon' (Hunter et al 2018), and is appropriate given that there is little literature which analyses inequalities relevant to cement and concrete.This study applied the five step exploratory approach of Carter et al (2023): a first step to collect information for 'obtaining an overall sense of all the data'; iterative second and third steps to analyse, organise and aggregate the data; a fourth step of 'story framing' to critically examine and explain the observed trends, and finally, 'testifying' the findings to enable others to further examine the issues explored.
Publicly available online material (including websites, reports, policies and statements) from cement and/or concrete industry associations was analysed to assess how the cement and concrete sectors construct narratives around sustainable development, and how they conceptualise inequalities (section 4.1).Industry associations were chosen because of their role in developing promotional materials for the sector, and their role as political actors in the socio-technical systems of cement and concrete (Wesseling and Van der Vooren 2017).29 industry associations were included, which were all affiliates of the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA), as well as the GCCA itself (GCCA 2023a).Keyword analysis was undertaken to identify how widespread 'sustainability' and 'sustainable development' were in the industry associations' publicly available online material, as well as how widely and deeply inequalities were considered.Whenever English language websites were available, these were used; if no English language website was available, web browser translation was used for the website in its native language.To supplement this part of the analysis, literature was identified which describes known examples of inequalities relevant to the different stages of the cement and concrete supply chain, from the authors' own awareness.This flexible approach aligns with the fundamental principles of exploratory research (Stebbins 2001).
The identified inequalities were then grouped into those principally relevant to cement and concrete as commodities (section 4.2), or to the use of cement and concrete in built assets (section 4.3).This distinction is necessary to analyse the roles of actors who exercise power in these two main stages in the supply chain (figure 1, section 2).Lukes' three dimensional framework of power (2005) was applied to each inequality issue, in order to illustrate the underlying power dynamics within one or more of the three dimensions.The primary purpose of applying Lukes' framework was to demonstrate whether a clear link existed between the phenomena observed within each issue and the concept of inequality, which is intrinsically linked with power dynamics (Phillips 2017).Thus, Lukes' framework highlights the diffuse and sometimes hidden nature of power dynamics, which then offers insight into how inequalities emerge both within direct relationships, but also indirectly, as a result of prominent public narratives and ideologies.Each inequality was also classified as being primarily intra-national and/or inter-national.Relevant case studies were then sought from the literature to make the evidence base for each inequality issue more robust through triangulation of different sources; and, to increase confidence in the classification of the underlying power dynamics within Lukes' three dimensions.The inequality issues were then aggregated into those specifically relevant to the cement and concrete sector, and issues more dependent on broader, societal factors.
A reflective analysis was carried out around how the identified inequalities may pose an ongoing risk to the cement and concrete sector achieving its decarbonisation targets and wider sustainability aspirations (section 4.5).This narrative was chosen as it corresponds to the current priorities in the sector, as shown through the exploratory analysis of the publicly available online material (section 4.1).Finally, recommendations were made around how to address inequalities which may offer a clear mechanism for solving, and where future research is needed to better understand inequalities that are more structurally embedded.

Untangling narratives within the cement and concrete sectors: sustainability, sustainable development and inequalities
Influencing narratives and perceptions of cement and concrete is one of the main functions of industry associations.The intention to influence narratives can be in a very general sense, for example 'To secure a supportive and favorable attitude towards the cement industry and its products among policy-makers, government officials and other opinion leaders' (KCA 2023).The intention to influence narratives can also be in specific relation to sustainability and societal impact, for example '…to ensure reputation of the sector is protected and improved in home and abroad while generalizing use of cement in the country, we would like to emphasize our position in the sustainable growth in the eye of the public by considering the benefits of society together with our members.' (Türk Çimento 2023).This context makes industry associations' public facing material a useful starting point for exploratory analysis.
28 of the 29 industry associations referred to 'sustainable' or 'sustainability' in their publicly available online material (figure 3).The concept of sustainable development was also present, but to a lesser degree-just over half of the organisations included an explicit reference to 'sustainable development' in their publicly available online material (figure 3).Sustainable development is a well-known concept, albeit a pluralistic one that is contested in both the academic literature and in civil society (Hickel 2017).In quotes taken from these publicly available materials (see table S1 in supplementary information for full quotes), the narrative broadly promoted by the industry associations (in differing amounts of detail) is that cement/concrete is already an indispensable part of our societies, and is equally indispensable for achieving sustainable development in the future.For example: 'Cement is a basic material in sustainable development… contributing to improve the standard of living of the population' from Peru's association (ASOCEM 2015), and 'Our cement has been the essential foundation of Ireland's current building stock and will continue to be a critical element as Ireland transitions to a more sustainable built environment' from Ireland's association (Ibec 2023).Frequent references were made to the direct contributions to society from the sector itself (principally in terms of employment), and the indirect benefits to society from use of assets made from cement/concrete (i.e.housing, buildings that provide other key services, and infrastructure).For example, 'As the most widely used construction material, concrete… provides a major contribution to Australia's economic and social well-being through employment, taxation and investment activities as well as providing the roads, bridges, schools, hospitals and our homes' from Australia's association (CCAA 2023).
Growth is a concept that appeared frequently, but not universally.On the one hand, there is the desire to fulfil the basic needs arising from population growth-for example, 'Growth in societal need for concrete is expected due to megatrends of population growth and urbanisation' from GCCA (2021).On the other hand, Figure 3. Chart showing the number of cement/concrete industry associations who refer to sustainability, sustainable development, the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and inequalities in their publicly available online material.The geographical distribution of industry associations (by continent) was: Europe (9), Asia (5), South America (5), North America (5), Oceania (3), Africa (1), Worldwide (1), The categorisation of individual associations is provided in Supplementary Information table S3.
there is economic growth-for example, 'PCA supports sustainability, innovation, and safety while fostering continuous improvement in cement manufacturing, distribution, infrastructure, and economic growth' from USA's association (PCA 2023).Yet the role of economic growth is a contested area within sustainable development (Hickel 2019)-the role of cement and concrete in this issue will be explored in section 4.5.
The SDGs are a widely-recognised manifestation of the concept of sustainable development, albeit subject to numerous critiques (Liverman 2018, Hickel 2019).Five out of the 29 organisations analysed made specific reference to the SDGs (figure 3); of those five, four associations made specific reference to which SDGs were deemed relevant to cement and concrete.FICEM (The Interamerican Federation of Cement) (2023) and GCCA (2021) stated that the cement/concrete sector contributed to achieving all 17 SDGs; in contrast, Oficemen (The Association of Spanish Cement Producers) (2017) and TCMA (Thai Cement Manufacturers' Association) (2023) were more selective (figure 4).The five SDGs referenced by all four organisations were #8 (Decent work and economic growth), #9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure), #11 (Sustainable cities and communities), #12 (Responsible consumption and production, and #13 (Climate action).This reflects the broad narrative around sustainable development and growth described above, and also aligns with the sector's current primary focus on decarbonisation.In contrast, SDG #10 (Reduced inequalities) was only cited by two of those four organisations, and was only cited when all 17 SDGs were cited (by GCCA and FICEM).SDG #10 (Reduced inequalities) was not cited selectively, as several other SDGs were by Oficemen and/or TCMA (i.e.SDGs # 6,7,8,9,11,12,13,14,15,17).This indicates that the 'Reduced inequalities' SDG (#10) does not receive as much attention as some other SDGs by the cement and concrete sectors.
Aside from the SDGs, 8 out of the 29 associations referred to inequalities (figure 3).This reveals that inequalities are on the agenda of some industry associations within the cement and concrete sectors, but other dimensions of sustainable development are perceived as being more directly relevant.
For the eight associations whose publicly available online material referred to equality-relevant topics, the majority of attention was on equality within the workforce, with a primary focus on gender equality (this is explored in more detail in section 4.2.6, full quotes in Supplementary Information table S2).The broadest approaches to inequalities were those from FICEM and the Association of German Cement Manufacturers (VDZ).FICEM targeted 'the reduction of inequality in all its dimensions' , with reference to how 'the equitable provision of infrastructure and basic services is an important element in reducing inequality' and a specific focus on benefits among 'the most vulnerable groups' (FICEM 2023).VDZ was the only organisation which makes an implicit reference to inter-generational inequalities, referring to the UN's Agenda 21 about the need to find 'a balance between the ecological, social and economic requirements of different generations' (VDZ 2023b).
This analysis shows that inequalities are on the agenda of some, but not all, of the cement and concrete sector industry associations.The direction of attention within inequalities is relatively narrow, mainly on equality in the workforce and with a primary focus on gender equality.In contrast, more holistic conceptions of inequality have been expressed by FICEM and VDZ, incorporating inequalities in society and inter-generational inequalities.The cement and concrete sectors have shown ambition to embrace sustainable development concepts; however, reducing inequalities is an area in which thinking and detail is much less developed in comparison to climate change and environmental impacts.

Inequalities intersecting with cement and concrete as commodities
The next two sections will describe individual examples of current and historical inequalities relevant to cement and concrete; firstly as commodities, and secondly as built assets.The format of each paragraph is to state the nature of each inequality, describe how that inequality has come about, and use Lukes' framework of power to more fully understand the underlying exercise of power.A summary table is provided in table 1, in Section 4.4.The list of inequalities explored forms the basis of an exploratory analysis, and is not intended to be exhaustive, as described in the Methodology.
The commodity stage of the supply chain covers the key activities of extraction, production, sale and construction (figure 1).

Inequality in impacts on livelihoods from unregulated or illegal extraction
Concrete is a major driver of demand for sand, with virgin aggregate for concrete production estimated to make up approximately half of all demand for aggregate (Watari et al 2023).The various impacts of sand extraction have attracted increasing attention in recent years, particularly around river and coastal extraction (Torres et al 2017, UNEP 2019).Over-extraction of sand can have numerous negative impacts on environments and eco-systems (Rentier and Cammeraat 2022), the livelihoods of people who depend on the ecosystems of affected watercourses (e.g.fishing, farming) (Lamb et al 2019, UNEP 2019), and the geo-technical stability of nearby housing and transport infrastructure (Masalu 2002).Unregulated or illegal over-extraction of sand is widespread in many regions (Da and Le Billon 2022), with illicit supply networks operating and profiting from illegal extraction activities (Magliocca et al 2021).Reliable data is scarce, but there is a general estimation that unregulated or illegal sand extraction is concentrated in Global South countries (UNEP 2019).Whilst growth in sand extraction in the Global South is partly attributed to growing domestic demand, it also helps supply the Global North.For example, millions of tonnes of sand per year have been exported from Cambodia and Myanmar (which both experience over-extraction issues) to Singapore (which is world's largest per capita consumer of sand) (Lamb et al 2019).An inter-national inequality is therefore the prevalence of unregulated or illegal sand extraction, and its impacts on local communities' livelihoods-underlying causes can be partially attributed to lower affluence among wider society as a whole in the Global South, as well as a (typically) lower capacity of government institutions in the Global South to effectively apply or enforce regulation.This broader inequality of resources and governance can subsequently be traced back to the historical and current power dynamics that affect the Global South (Hickel 2017).These dynamics are a consequence of global structures and economic practices, and are often viewed as unavoidable within current neoliberal systems, which promote deregulation (Harvey 2006).Thus, these inequalities can be understood in relation to Lukes' third dimension of power.
Behind illegal extraction networks, there are underlying inequalities and power dynamics between powerful actors and wider society (John 2021).Illegal extraction activities tend to be more prevalent where inequalities have led to depravation, which in turn makes local populations vulnerable to exploitation by, or collusion, in illegal activities (Masalu 2002, Magliocca et al 2021).When unregulated or illegal extraction takes place, it is a variety of powerful actors (including military, commercial and criminal figures, from cases in Cambodia and Myanmar) who have profited most, whereas communities in the area of extraction have felt few benefits and suffered negative impacts to livelihoods which depend on coastal ecosystems (Lamb et al 2019).The intra-national inequality is the ability of local populations to manage their own sand resources against the interests of powerful actors, who frequently use force as direct power to maintain their activities (i.e.Lukes' first dimension).

Inequalities in health impacts from extraction and production
Airborne pollution is generated at numerous points in the concrete production process: aggregate extraction, cement production, and concrete batching (listed in order of descending magnitude of estimated net health impacts) (Miller and Moore 2020), as well as industrial activities that produce supplementary cementitious materials (Brinkman and Miller 2021).Airborne pollution across the concrete production process includes both molecular pollutants (inc.nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides), and fine (<10 µm) particulate pollutants (Miller and Moore 2020), and can have a range of negative health impacts (Sairanen et al 2018, Raffetti et al 2019).Since the effects of air pollution are largely limited to the local vicinity around the source, the spatial distribution of polluting sites can have greater impacts on certain demographic groups.Cement plants are often (but not exclusively) located near to large urban areas (Oberschelp et al 2023), which therefore affects a larger number of people compared to rural sites.There are few research studies so far on how health impacts of air pollution from the concrete production cycle might affect existing inequalities, based on spatial demographics.For the San Francisco Bay area (USA), aggregate production was estimated to have a disproportionate impact on the Black population, whereas cement production was estimated to have a disproportionate impact on the Asian population (Greer et al 2022).For the mainland USA, industrial sites whose by-products could be used for supplementary cementitious materials, as well as concrete batching sites, were estimated to have a disproportionate effect on air quality for lower income and ethnic minority populations (Brinkman and Miller 2021).The intra-national inequality is the disparity in air pollution health risks, in relation to income and racial demographics.Whilst a direct causal link is not clear, it is likely that the proximity of marginalized groups to sources of air pollution (to the extent suggested by the evidence so far available) is to some degree influenced by underlying societal power dynamics, which have partly determined the spatial development of industrialisation and housing (Grineski et al 2007, Kopas et al 2020) (i.e.Lukes' third dimension).
The levels of airborne pollution generated by a given cement factory is determined by numerous technical factors (Miller andMoore 2020, Oberschelp et al 2023); however, the application and enforcement of pollution control regulations also plays a role.For example, in Chinese provinces which have adopted province-level pollution regulations (which are usually stricter than the national minimum levels), cement factories tend towards lower pollutant emissions rates (Tang et al 2022).In Nigeria, despite the official existence of environmental regulations it is reported that pollution from cement factories beyond legal limits is widespread (Noah et al 2021).This study (Noah et al 2021) attributes the lack of compliance to a concerted effort by cement companies to avoid or weaken the enforcement of pollution controls, through: direct political influence of regulators by powerful commercial and political actors; choosing to pay fines rather than take meaningful action; influencing the public perceptions of the cement sector through the media, and bribery.Research on evasion of environmental regulations in the cement sector is scarce; however, the evidence presented by Noah et al (2021) indicates that such evasion has taken place on at least some occasions in Nigeria.This inequality primarily has an inter-national character-the weaker enforcement of pollution controls leads to higher pollution exposure for local populations, compared to countries with stronger enforcement.The underlying power dynamics have both intra-national and inter-national character-powerful commercial and political actors have exercised power over regulatory bodies through direct means such as bribery (i.e.Lukes' first dimension), as well as influencing public perceptions through the media (i.e.Lukes' second dimension).The limited capacity of regulatory institutions in some poorer countries can once again be partly attributed to deep-rooted power dynamics which have shaped the wealth of nations (i.e.Lukes' third dimension) (Harvey 2006, Hickel 2017).

Inequalities in the purchasing power of end users to buy cement
The purchasing power of end users to buy cement is highly variable between different countries, despite the unit cost of cement being relatively similar across countries (Mwiti Marangu et al 2023).Figure 5 shows the disparity in the number of bags of cement that can be bought with an average daily wage in different countries.This represents an inter-national inequality between Global South and Global North, given well-established differences in average national incomes (United Nations 2013).Inequality in the purchasing power of end users to buy cement is also manifest at an intra-national level.Differences in income exist between elites and wider society in all countries (Piketty 2014), but this is most relevant to cement affordability in the Global South.The purchase of cement by individuals is a key enabling step for self-building informal housing in the Global South (Yeboah 2005), where construction materials have typically made up a larger overall proportion of housing costs compared to the Global North (Okpala 1992).Consequently, intra-national income inequality in the Global South results in inequality in cement affordability between elites and the poor, which then results in housing inequality.A case study highlighting this is Choplin's (2019) study on cement in the urban conurbation along the West African coastal corridor.Its conclusion states 'Cement highlights inequalities; it is a source of impoverishment for the poorest who put strenuous effort into trying to stack up cement blocks, and a source of immediate profit for the wealthiest who pour tonnes of cement into every available interstice' .The inequality in the purchasing power of end users to buy cement directly arises from underlying inequalities in income.Yet the mechanisms of power behind inter-national and intra-national inequalities in income are structural, wide-ranging and also context dependent (Phillips 2017).The ongoing maintenance of income inequalities at the inter-and intra-national levels can be attributed to the global prevalence of underlying neoliberal ideologies.In particular, an increased reliance on market forces to manage income distribution, alongside a reduction in state involvement, are widely promoted both within countries and on a global scale (Harvey 2006).Thus, the power dynamics that underpin these inequalities are classified within Lukes' third dimension of power.

Inequalites in competitiveness and market regulation
Inequalities regarding the competitiveness of some cement markets and their regulation have existed in some cases in recent decades.Cement producer cartels are known to have operated in individual countries, including Norway (Röller and Steen 2006) and Germany (Hüschelrath et al 2013); and across economic areas, including the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) (Mbongwe et al 2014).Cartels are defined as 'a group of independent companies which join together to fix prices, to limit production or to share markets or customers between them'3 .The effect of cartels on customers was to overcharge the price of cement-these overcharges were estimated to be 20.3%-26.5% in the German example (Hüschelrath et al 2013) and 15%-20% in the SACU countries' case (Mbongwe et al 2014).The examples above show that the phenomenon of overcharging has occurred in both Global North and Global South; yet cement overcharging has a disproportionate impact on the Global South, because in poorer countries, material prices typically make up a higher overall proportion of construction costs (Okpala 1992).In this way, inequalities between regions regarding fair competition in markets has had a knock-on effect of exacerbating inequalities around cement affordability between the Global South and Global North.The above examples of cartel operation were upheld in the law courts-this demonstrates that, in these cases, some companies had successfully avoided compliance with regulation for a period of time.The inequalities that emerge here can therefore be understood in relation to Lukes' first dimension of power, as it demonstrates an overt display of power in which one party exerts power over another.The cement sector is largely comprised of a relatively small number of large, multi-national companies.It is also characterised by high capital barriers to entry, high legislative difficulties to entry, inelastic demand, and a relatively homogenous product (Mbongwe et al 2014).This combination of characteristics gives more opportunity for the overt exercise of power, such as through the examples above, compared to other industrial sectors with different characteristics.Beyond examples of the overt exercise of power described above, there is also evidence that cement companies, in some instances, have commissioned research reports to use as lobbying tools (Mbongwe et al 2014), and exploited personal relationships with politicians to further their interests (Akinyoade andUche 2018, Choplin 2019).Such efforts to shape what issues are debated and how they are perceived, demonstrates how inequalities emerge in relation to whose interests are being represented; these types of power dynamics can be understood in relation to Lukes' second dimension of power.

Inequalities in concrete production practices
The precise practices of concrete production vary between regions.Some of these differences simply arise from historical conventions in production-for example, in the United Kingdom, additional constituents are blended with Portland cement at concrete batching plants, whereas in continental Europe, this process tends to be done at cement plants instead.These differences do not impact the quality or affordability of concrete in a clear and obvious way, so are simply differences, rather than inequalities.However, several other differences are more consequential, and disproportionately influence the Global South.Poorer countries typically use more bagged cement, whereas wealthier countries typically use more cement in bulk (UNEP 2016).Bagged cement is typically higher-strength than needed for its typical use, and has more issues with spoiling and quality control (UNEP 2016).Consequently, this typically makes the use of bagged cement less efficient.It is a common practice in the Global South to specify cement with higher strength than necessary, in order to account for poor cement batch quality and poor workmanship with concrete (Schmidt et al 2018).Health and safety practices in construction in the Global South are generally less rigorous than those in the Global North (Rwelamila and Ogunlana 2015).Cement powder is classified as an irritant to the skin, eyes and respiratory system.Construction workers in the Global South are more at risk from the health hazards that arise from handling cement and concrete, due to a combination of less rigorous safety protocols, and a greater direct exposure to cement powder arising from a greater reliance on bagged cement.For example, young construction workers in Ghana were found to have a high prevalence of skin conditions (Frimpong et al 2022); handing cement and fresh concrete without adequate control measures is a likely contributor to this finding.The overall effect of these various differences in concrete production practices is an inter-national inequality between the Global South and Global North, whereby concrete construction in the Global South is generally less efficient and less safe relative to the construction practices used in the Global North.
There is no single power dynamic that underlies this inequality-numerous underlying causes can be identified.One of the contributing factors to a reliance on bagged cement in many urban areas in the Global South is that gridlocked roads makes the timely transport of ready-mixed concrete in mixer trucks unfeasible (Schmidt et al 2020).The prevalence of poor workmanship and batch quality partly arises from a greater reliance on human inputs (c.f.automated processes), and deficits in educational and training systems (Schmidt et al 2018).The less rigorous health and safety controls often found in Global South countries' construction sectors have been partly attributed to weak enforcement of regulations, weak legal structures and low educational level of the construction workforce (Famakin et al 2023).Nonetheless, there is a common theme in all these underlying causes-Global South countries have fewer resources to apply towards a range of 'common goods' , such as transportation systems and urban planning, education and training provision, and implementation and enforcement of regulations.Again, these broader inequalities around resources and governance can be partly attributed to historical and current power dynamics that affect the Global South (Harvey 2006, Hickel 2017), and can hence be classified in relation to Lukes' third dimension of power.
Lastly, there is an intersection between concrete production practices and corruption.The production of concrete during the construction process is a route by which corrupt powerful actors can embezzle funds.
Steel reinforcement and cement are the most expensive constituents of reinforced concrete-reducing the proportions of cement and steel in a specified concrete mix offers a way to skimp on costs, and hence divert part of the budget into the pockets of corrupt actors in companies or in government (Lewis 2011).But in doing so, the quality of the concrete is reduced, making housing and infrastructure less resilient to natural disasters, particularly earthquakes (Ambraseys and Bilham 2011)-this practice of poor quality concrete construction as a way to facilitate embezzlement was attributed to a pattern of school buildings collapsing after the Sichuan earthquake (Lewis 2011).Current concrete production practices are open to abuse by corrupt practices that enrich corrupt elites and place wider society at greater risk from natural disasters.Thus, concrete production practices exacerbate intra-national inequalities around wealth and safety.These practices by corrupt powerful actors are an overt disobedience of regulations and contractual arrangements; thus, the inequalities that emerge as a result of these practices can be understood in relation to Lukes' first dimension of power.

Inequalities within the cement and concrete sectors' workforce
Gender equality and gender representation are respectively the subjects of SDG Target 5.5 'Ensure women's full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life' , and SDG Indicator 5.5.2 'Proportion of women in managerial positions' (United Nations 2015b).Gender inequality in the workforce is the inequality topic which industry associations' publicly available online material have tended to focus on (section 4.1).From the nine industry associations whose publicly available online material referred to inequalities, six of these stated gender representation in the workforce as a specific issue.These included some specific initiatives focussed on gender equality: the 'Women of Cement' initiative in India (CMA 2023); a 'Gender Equality Plan' in Germany (VDZ 2023a), and the 'Global Cement and Concrete Industry Women's Network' (GCCA 2023b).As well as the proportion of female workers in the overall workforce, the proportion of female workers at executive level is recognised as an important issue.GCCA recommends that 'To experience a significant jump in innovation revenue, leadership teams need to be at least 20% female' (GCCA 2023b).
Very limited data was provided by industry associations within their publicly available online materials around the current status of gender representation and equality.The general picture is of low female workforce representation across the sector.Amongst cement producers in Spain in 2016, 13% of employees were female (CEMA 2017); amongst cement producers in Argentina in 2021, only 6% of employees were female (AFCP 2022).Given the industry associations' lack of publicly available data on gender representation, additional data was sourced from individual multi-national cement companies which suggest a similar range: in 2023, 16% of current employees were female in Cemex (2024), and18% in Holcim (2024).
The gender pay gap is an average measure that describes the difference in pay between men and women within an organisation, that is affected by differences in gender representation across pay quartiles.This data is not typically reported, but is mandatory for all organisations with 250+ employees in the United Kingdom since 2017.In 2023, the median hourly gender pay gap (acknowledged as a more relevant value than the mean hourly gender pay gap (Andrews 2018)) for UK cement manufacturing companies varied from 24.3% (Heidelberg Materials UK 2024) to −4.3% (Breedon Group 2024).These two particular companies have similar proportions of female employees in their upper (12.8% and 15.5%, respectively), upper middle (12.4% and 14.6%) and lower middle (18.8% and 12.1%) pay quartiles, whereas Heidelberg Materials UK has higher female representation in the lower quartile (35.8% and 12.9%); as a result, Heidelberg Materials UK has a higher median gender pay gap.The variation between companies in gender pay gap, resulting from differences in female representation across different pay quartiles, is amplified when the female proportion of the workforce is generally low across all levels (including senior and leadership levels) to begin with.However, aggregated data across different countries would be needed to draw representative insights for the entire cement and concrete sectors.Data comparing the average pay for women and men in the same role would be valuable for further understanding workplace pay inequalities, but this data is so far not publicly available.Gender representation and equality in the cement and concrete sectors have so far received less attention than many other sectors, such as the mining sector (also an extractive industry with generally low levels of female workforce representation) (Sasikala and Sankaranarayanan 2022).Research into the mining sector is a relevant precedent for how the root causes of low female representation can be investigated and practical recommendations developed, as well as the challenges involved (Kansake et al 2021, Bansal et al 2024).
Other aspects of workplace equality have been recognised.FICEM states that 'all employees are hired, developed and promoted… without considering race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, appearance, age, national origin, and/or physical disability' (FICEM 2023).VDZ aims to 'Eliminate and permanently prevent any discrimination on the basis of gender, descent, home and origin, ethnicity, language, faith, religious and political views or disability' (VDZ 2023a).However, no specific initiatives, or progress reporting, was found in relation to aspects of workplace inequalities beyond gender in any of the associations' public facing online materials.The evidence base in this exploratory analysis only includes publicly available online materials, and so there may be a greater breadth of initiatives and depth of reporting within industry associations' internal activities.Nonetheless, this exploratory analysis indicates two trends: gender inequalities do exist within cement companies at executive levels and within the workforce as a whole; and, other characteristics relevant to workplace equality have so far received less attention than gender.
There are numerous exercises of power which these two inequalities can be attributed to.Regarding gender inequality in the workforce, in numerous countries there have been, and still remain in some cases, legislation to prevent women working in certain sectors, or working at all, within the modern era of cement production.This inequality therefore results from overt power dynamics, which can be understood in relation to Lukes' first dimension of power.Alongside such legislative discrimination, there also has been, and continues to be, societal expectations about the types of employment women and men should do, for example in construction (Akinlolu 2022).Thus, the emergence of this inequality can also be understood in relation to Lukes' third dimension of power.In addition, the currently limited scope in which the industry associations' publicly available online materials have considered inequality within the workforce, can also be understood to be a third dimension exercise of power, in terms of underlying expectations of what societies understand to be important regarding inequalities.

Inequalities intersecting with concrete in built assets
The assets stage covers the key activities of design, use, management and ownership of concrete buildings and infrastructure (figure 1).Concrete plays an important role in many types of physical infrastructure that provide public goods (Thacker et al 2019, Omer andNoguchi 2020).For example, concrete is relied upon in many bridges to enable connectivity through both public and private transport networks; concrete is used for the platforms of wind turbines, whose energy production enables a range of services and societal functions.Concrete is also a key material used in housing, estimated to make up over 90% by mass of all housing stocks (Marinova et al 2019).The split in in-use cement stocks varies between countries, but for the largest countries there is an approximately equal split between residential buildings, non-residential buildings and infrastructure (Cao et al 2017).Whilst concrete is not the only material used in housing and infrastructure, it is a key material that is used in large quantities for both applications.

Inequalities in historical consumption of cement and concrete
The Global South currently has lower in-use stocks of cement and concrete per capita than the Global North (Cao et al 2017) (figure 6).This difference reflects a current inequality in the amount of concrete buildings and infrastructure per capita between Global South and Global North, as well as a historical inequality in cumulative consumption of construction minerals over several decades (Miatto et al 2017).This inequality in current concrete stocks and historical concrete consumption is significant-under the current economic paradigm, the extent of a country's concrete consumption has been linked to the extent of that country's development (Steinberger et al 2010).Because concrete is a material enabler of many public goods and services in the built environment (Thacker et al 2019, Omer andNoguchi 2020), an international inequality in cement and concrete consumption has contributed towards inequalities in numerous dimensions of development, such as access to adequate housing, energy and sanitation.The underlying mechanism for this inequality is attributed to the structural wealth inequalities between countries in the Global South and Global North, which as previously discussed, can be understood in relation to Lukes' third dimension of power.

Inequalities in design and investment into infrastructure projects
There are inequalities in terms of how infrastructure projects are designed, and consequently in who benefits from them.In both the Global South and Global North, investments into infrastructure projects are shaped by powerful actors' interests, which do not necessarily align with the actual needs of wider populations-Lewis (2011) describes how vested interests 'twists the flow of development to its own ends and to its own advantage' .When decisions on design and investment into infrastructure negatively affect a specific group(s) in society, this phenomenon is referred to as 'Infrastructural violence' (Rodgers and O'Neill 2012).Hence, infrastructure can play a significant role in perpetuating or exacerbating urban inequalities, resulting in extensive consequences for citizens (Rodgers andO'Neill 2012, Kumar et al 2021) and the environment (Enns and Sneyd 2021).
Given the prominent role of concrete within physical infrastructure in the built environment, these inequalities strongly intersect with the use of cement and concrete.For example, access to water and sanitation is the topic of SDG #6 'Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all' (United Nations 2015b); water and sanitation infrastructure is critical for achieving this (Waage et al 2015).Cement and concrete are widely used materials in pipework for transport of drinking water and wastewater, either as lining materials or for the pipes themselves (Selvakumar and Tafuri Anthony 2012).In Cape Town, South Africa, Storey (2021) described how water supply infrastructure stopped short of informal settlements, putting citizens in the precarious position of accessing these water systems informally, or illicitly.Investment and design decisions resulted in the exclusion of vulnerable citizens from water supply infrastructure, perpetuating water inequalities (Storey 2021).In the USA, Wilson (2015) described how technical/engineering decisions relating to the use of concrete in water systems in the Columbia River Basin have often been overshadowed by 'a set of intertwined social choices and interconnected political calculations' (p.109) that have emerged over long periods of time by powerful actors, and thus, are very difficult to challenge.An example in transport infrastructure is the Nairobi expressway in Kenya-this links the city's international airport with its business district (Ram 2021) (Figure 7).To elevate the roadway above ground level required large amounts of concrete for structural elements.Prior to the construction of the expressway, Kimari (2021) documented the opposition that arose within a public planning meeting.These concerns related to how the expressway would intrude on a public park extensively used by less advantaged citizens within Nairobi, in addition to concerns relating to environmental damage and social disruption (Kimari 2021).The construction has resulted in devastating consequences for citizens living within surrounding informal housing, with an estimated 13 000 homes demolished ((BBC 2018, Ram 2021).In addition, the expressway will be a toll road to enable the cost of its construction to be recouped (Kimari 2021, Ram 2021), reducing accessibility for the poorest members of society.In these cases presented for intra-national infrastructure inequalities, there are demonstrable exercises of power underlying the political decisions around the design and investment of infrastructure, in which powerful actors have succeeded in advancing their interests over overt opposition.Thus, the inequalities that emerge here can be understood in relation to Lukes' first dimension of power.
Large infrastructure projects often involve investment from inter-national actors, and power dynamics arise in both the investment and construction stages.For example, the Aswan High Dam4 was originally offered financial and technical assistance by the USA, which then withdrew its support when the Egyptian government refused to follow the USA's political demands; assistance was subsequently provided by the USSR (Biswas and Tortajada 2001).This famous case demonstrates that historically, Global South countries have had less resources to invest in major infrastructure projects; this has led to greater dependence on Global North institutions for investment, and hence greater vulnerability to powerful global North inter-national actors exercising their interests (Hickel 2017).The global emergence of Chinese lending and construction actors in recent years has reduced the reliance of Global South countries on traditional development finance institutions in the Global North, and created a more multi-polar environment for funding infrastructure projects in the Global South (Tekdal 2022).The high-profile Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has so far focused on physical infrastructure, such as hydro-electric schemes (Chheat 2022), meaning these issues have a particular relevance for concrete.Emerging scrutiny of BRI schemes has highlighted that whilst powerful Chinese actors do influence these schemes, they are also influenced (in some cases more so) by powerful actors within the recipient country-in particular, government ruling parties and construction companies on both sides (Jones & Hameiri 2020, Loughlin and Grimsditch 2021).Such power dynamics can lead to projects not delivering on their promised benefits to wider society whilst still enriching elites, exacerbating existing intra-national inequalities (Jones & Hameiri 2020).In terms of how infrastructure is built once projects have been funded, donor-funded infrastructure projects in the Global South have tended to rely heavily on international external contractors, with little capacity-building in local workforces and businesses (Mold 2012, Wethal 2018).This approach perpetuates inter-national inequalities between the Global South and Global North in terms of workforce skills and training in concrete construction previously described in section 4.2.5.Thus, concrete's use in internationally-financed infrastructure projects is shaped by powerful actors through both the investment and construction stages, in a complex mix of both intra-national and inter-national power dynamics.Much of the infrastructure development financing in the 20th century has been characterised by an underlying neoliberal value system (Del Cerro Santamaria 2019); the inequalities that emerge here can therefore be understood in relation to Lukes' third dimension of power, with powerful actors promoting values around how development should be carried out and what its purpose should be.For the construction process itself, the inequalities that result from the exercise of power to determine who is allowed access to contracts, by powerful construction companies and lending/investment agencies, can be understood in relation to Lukes' second dimension of power.

Inequalities in the suitability and availability of housing
There are multiple inequalities regarding housing-these include the current distribution of access to adequate housing, the process of how investments in new housing are made, as well as which groups in society housing is designed for.Housing inequalities are a key intersection with cement and concrete, given that concrete is the most widely used material in housing worldwide (Marinova et al 2019), and housing makes up a substantial proportion of overall in-use concrete stocks (Cao et al 2017).
Access to adequate housing is the subject of SDG Target 11.1-'By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums' (United Nations 2015b).Adequate housing can be defined as housing that fulfils thresholds for adequacy across multiple essential criteria, including habitability, availability of services and materials, affordability, accessibility, location, cultural adequacy and security of tenure (OHCHR 2009).There is already a deficit of adequate housing across the Global South (United Nations 2019), which is expected to continue based on projected population growth and urbanisation rates in the Global South.Adequacy of housing is typically not quantified, given the qualitative nature of several criteria.The World Bank developed an Adequate Housing Index (AHI) which aggregates information regarding durable materials and good structural quality, adequate living space, access to water and sanitation, access to electricity and clean cooking, and security of tenure (Behr et al 2021).In an analysis across 64 emerging economies, a positive correlation was found between housing adequacy and national GDP per capita (Behr et al 2021).From this data and high level reports on housing (King et al 2017, United Nations 2019), it can be broadly stated that access to adequate housing is typically lower in the Global South compared to the Global North, representing an inter-national inequality.At the same time, there are also intra-national housing inequalities experienced both in the Global South and Global North, which partly arise from how investment is made in housing.Housing is a sector in which investment decisions have not always aligned with the needs of society, resulting in investments which have exacerbated housing inequalities rather than reducing them.For example, in London, United Kingdom, the government has promoted the redevelopment of public housing in council estates.This process has involved the selling of public land, the demolition of council estates, and then the construction of 'mixed-tenure' housing by private developers.These new housing developments often provide significantly less social and affordable housing, in comparison to what was previously available, as developers seek to maximise their investment (Lees 2014, Atkinson 2021, Watt 2022).Thus, this process of redevelopment has resulted in the short or long-term displacement of large numbers of unemployed or low-income citizens (Lees 2014, Watt 2022).An illustration of this includes the demolition of 1212 council houses on the Heygate estate in London, to accommodate for the development of 2535 new homes, only 79 of which were designated for social housing (figure 8) (Lees 2014).Another example is in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, where the government's 20 000 Plots Project was intended to tackle the large proportion of informal housing within the city, through the provision of formal housing plots (Kironde 2015).However, only 14% of the finished plots were affordable, resulting in the plots being predominantly bought by middle-and high-income citizens (Oates et al 2020).From this evidence, the implementation failed to meet its objectives, and thus helped perpetuate housing inequalities rather than help to address them.
Outcomes which fail to meet the needs of wider society have sometimes been framed as accidental failures of process.In a general perspective on construction in the Global South, Ofori commented that 'The reviews of individual projects and national development plans often show that failure to involve the community in an effective manner is one of the major causes of poor project outcomes' (Ofori 2019).The examples above show that this observation is true for both the Global North and Global South.However, underlying the processes behind housing design and investment are clear power dynamics, in which powerful actors have intentionally advanced their interests, sometimes in the face of direct opposition from wider society.For example, in the case of the Heygate Estate in London, the developers' plans were carried out despite extensive protests (Lees 2014), demonstrating an overt success in a direct struggle.This inequality can therefore be understood in relation to Lukes' first dimension of power.At the same time, dominant political views exist in relation to promoting privatisation, maximising land values, and attracting investment within the housing sector (Harvey 2006, Sayer 2015, Atkinson 2021).Thus, these prominent political views shape approaches to housing redevelopment, towards demolition and new construction, and away from refurbishment of existing public housing which has been argued to be more environmentally and socially sustainable (Power 2008).This then results in certain groups of people in society being less represented, and thus perpetuates inequalities that exist in society in relation to the type of housing which is constructed.This shaping and influencing of prominent public narratives can be understood in relation to Lukes' second dimension of power (Lukes 2005).

Summary of inequalities and power dynamics
The key aspects of the inequalities above have been summarised in table 1.This shows that inequalities are a systemic issue in relation to cement and concrete: inequalities are present at the commodity and asset stages of the value chain, at the intra-national and inter-national levels, and the underlying power dynamics span across all three dimensions of Lukes' framework.Some of these inequalities arise from issues which are specific to the cement and concrete sectors, and give opportunities for action-for example, minimising air pollution during the production cycle, more progress of achieving gender equality in the workforce, and broadening the understanding of inequalities within the workforce itself.However, the majority of these inequalities around cement and concrete arise from much broader underlying inequalities in society: principally, from the underlying, structural historical inequalities between Global North and Global South, and also broader inequalities between elites and wider society within individual countries (Hickel 2017).This presents a wicked problem, and highlights the importance of inequalities with regards to numerous dimensions of sustainable development (e.g.access to adequate housing, water and sanitation) and the importance of cement and concrete as a medium for development, both as a commodity and asset.

Inequalities in relation to decarbonisation and sustainable development aspirations of the cement and concrete sectors
The cement and concrete sectors aspire towards sustainability, and to contribute towards sustainable development; so far this aspiration has placed most focus on decarbonisation, and lesser focus on inequalities (section 4.1).This observation is consistent with broader trends around the conceptualisation of Net Zero (Khosla et al 2023), which focus on measurable objectives but do not incorporate the principles of climate equity stated in Article 4.1 of the Paris Agreement: 'to achieve the long-term temperature goal… on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty' (United Nations 2015a).Acknowledging this current framing, it is helpful to explore how reducing inequalities may become increasingly important for the cement and concrete sectors to achieve their decarbonisation targets, and their aspirations for sustainable development.
Firstly, there are unintended consequences that decarbonisation strategies may have on other aspects of sustainable development that are mediated by inequalities.For example, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is strongly endorsed by the cement and concrete sector as a vital decarbonisation strategy (GCCA 2021).However, evidence so far suggests that the extra energy requirements of CCS will increase the price of cement (Habert et al 2020); this will likely have a disproportionate impact on access to affordable, adequate housing in the Global South, and, especially on poorer members of society.An increase in the price of cement driven by CCS adoption would therefore be likely to exacerbate intra-and inter-national inequalities regarding housing.In another example, some decarbonisation strategies are predicted to exacerbate air pollution levels (Miller and Moore 2020), which in turn would exacerbate health inequalities (as described in section 4.2.2).Thus, considering inequalities is important for being aware of the inter-connected effects between different dimensions of sustainable development when it comes to decision-making on technological strategies.Incorporating climate equity into Net Zero transitions requires 'a thoughtful balancing of responsibilities between countries at different levels of development, a recognition of transitions tailored to "different national circumstances", and concern for distributional impacts within a country' (Fankhauser et al 2022).A key contextual aspect of climate equity is historical, cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases (Khosla et al 2023); the equivalent metric for cement and concrete decarbonisation is historical, cumulative consumption of concrete.In practice, this might involve cement plants in Global North countries (i.e.those with higher historical, cumulative concrete consumption) taking on the burden of the extra capital investment for CCS, and accepting the burden of higher cement costs accordingly.
Secondly, reducing the quantities of cement and concrete consumed is a decarbonisation strategy which is widely acknowledged in academic perspectives but less so in industrial perspectives (Marsh et al 2023).But given the importance of cement and concrete consumption in providing housing and physical infrastructure, and economic growth, the question of who should consume less cement and concrete is controversial.A focus on cumulative historical concrete consumption, in line with principles of climate equity, can help navigate this question too.Cumulative greenhouse gas emissions have determined the extent of climate change (Matthews et al 2009), and cumulative concrete stocks are strongly linked to countries' extent of development (Steinberger et al 2010).A historical understanding of inequalities in concrete consumption can therefore inform debates around whose need is greatest for future concrete consumption, and who has held historical responsibility for the cumulative emissions from cement consumption that has contributed to climate change.The concept of societal needs for sustainable development has been explored for several key resources and services (O'Neill et al 2018, Rao andMin 2018), but has been less explored for cement and concrete (Rao et al 2014).A top-down 'burden-sharing' model of country-based allocations of concrete consumption would be unlikely to work, given known limitations from similar mechanisms for greenhouse gas emissions in general (Khosla et al 2023); an inclusive and equitable process would be needed to navigate questions around reducing consumption of concrete.
Lastly, the publicly available online materials describe an argument that the cement and concrete sectors indirectly contribute to sustainable development through the use of cement and concrete in a variety of built assets (e.g.transport infrastructure, housing) to provide vital public goods for development (section 4.1).This argument is demonstrably true in many cases, but the cement and concrete sectors should be aware that the benefits delivered by built assets in reality are often not aligned with their original intention, or societal needs.As sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3have shown, countries need concrete to help build the infrastructure and housing that their societies need-but in reality, the infrastructure and housing that is actually built does not necessarily serve those who need it the most.Whilst cement and concrete are key to delivering many aspects of sustainable development, its indirect impact is not described simply by what has been built, but rather who has benefitted, and how.

Conclusions
This exploratory analysis has demonstrated that inequalities intersect with cement and concrete across the commodity and asset stages of the value chain, and at the intra-national and inter-national levels.Using Lukes' framework to explore the underlying power dynamics behind these inequalities showed two key trends.Firstly, that some inequalities are related to specific power relations within the cement and concrete sectors-for example, inequalities in the workforce.These are inequalities which these sectors do have direct influence over, and which (to varying extents) industry associations are already aware of and supporting initiatives to address.Secondly, that other inequalities are 'knock on' inequalities arising from deeper-lying, structural inequalities, and manifesting as inequalities in the production and use of cement and concrete.This latter group of inequalities forms a 'wicked problem'-there are no clear answers around where responsibility lies, given the structure of the value chain and the numerous underlying factors.Inequalities have been a neglected issue in relation to cement and concrete-this exploratory analysis shows they are a systemic issue which are linked to numerous aspects of sustainable development, including decarbonisation.
Further research is needed to examine the issues explored here in more detail and with a wider range of research methods.Drawing on other relevant sources, such as individual companies' publicly available online materials, there is scope to develop a full thematic analysis.This could offer a platform to develop the theoretical framework around the cause and effect between inequalities and cement and concrete.A needs-based approach to countries' future cement and concrete consumption, informed by development status and historical consumption, can help to navigate difficult questions around decarbonisation through dematerialisation.A detailed study of workplace equality, and current strategies, should be undertaken using individual cement companies' publicly available online materials and other publicly available data, supplemented with interviews with key decision-makers where possible.This line of research can help focus near-term action by the cement and concrete sectors around equality in the workforce.The topic of inequalities in relation to cement and concrete offers a fertile ground for future research, both to develop theory and guide practical actions in the cement and concrete sectors.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.The supply chain of cement and concrete, showing the primary stages and physical form corresponding to their role as commodities and in assets.Actors are mapped onto the stages where they have a direct or indirect role interacting with cement and concrete, in addition to general actors who have an over-arching role across multiple stages.

Figure 2 .
Figure2.A schematic diagram describing Luke's three dimensions of power(Lukes 2005); whilst the first dimension is most easily observed, the third dimension underpins the first and second dimensions and is ultimately judged to be the most powerful.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Chart showing the number of organisations referring to specific SDGs within their publicly available online material.SDG #10 'Reduced inequalities' is highlighted with a dashed box.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5.The disparity in the affordability of bagged cement between countries.Reproduced from Mwiti Marangu et al (2023).CC BY 4.0.

Figure 6 .
Figure 6.A global map categorising countries by their trends in cement in-use stocks.The five types (A/B/C/D/E) of cement in-use stock accumulation correspond to different stages of stock accumulation over time, as shown in the schematic insert figure (lower left).t/cap refers to tonnes of cement within in-use stocks per capita.Reprinted with permission from Cao et al (2017).Copyright (2017) American Chemical Society.

Figure 7 .
Figure 7. Construction of the Nairobi Expressway.Image used with permission from Ed Ram.

Figure 8 .
Figure 8. Graffiti on Heygate Estate before its demolition, visually voicing opposition to the redevelopment project.Image used with permission from Loretta Lees.

Table 1 .
Summary, classifying inequalities by commodity or asset, inter-and/or intra-national inequalities, dimension(s) within Lukes' framework, and whether within direct influence of cement and concrete sectors.