The European construction sector’s shift toward sustainability is no longer driven by broad claims, but by rigorous, verifiable data. Under evolving European Union regulations—such as the revised Construction Products Regulation (CPR)—ASSIMAGRA (Portuguese Association of Mineral Resources Industry) has presented the results of its study, “Environmental Footprint of the Natural Stone Sector”.
The research quantifies the environmental performance of Portuguese natural stone and benchmarks it directly against major competing cladding and flooring materials: ceramics, concrete, and laminated glass.
The findings offer scientific validation for what the sector has long observed in practice: natural stone exhibits the best overall environmental performance at the product stage (Cradle-to-Gate), maintaining a clear lead in carbon footprint.
Key Takeaways at a Glance
- Leader in Carbon Footprint: With a median value of just 4.8 kg CO₂eq/m², natural stone records the lowest greenhouse gas emissions among all evaluated materials.
- Low Fossil Resource Intensity: Fossil fuel consumption stands at 136.3 MJ/m², matching concrete and remaining significantly lower than ceramics and glass.
- Balanced Overall Profile: Across remaining environmental categories (such as water use and eutrophication), natural stone maintains low-to-moderate values, benefiting from the absence of energy-intensive thermal processing.
Comparative Material Assessment: Natural Stone vs. Competitors
The comparative report was drawn from third-party verified Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). The comparison evaluates the product stage (Modules A1 to A3: raw material extraction, transport to factory, cutting, and surface finishing) for a functional unit of 1 m² of cladding or flooring.
| CARBON FOOTPRINT (Global Warming Potential)
| Natural Stone ████ 4.8 kg CO₂eq/m²
| Ceramics ███████████ 13.4 kg CO₂eq/m²
| Concrete █████████████ 15.3 kg CO₂eq/m²
| Laminated Glass ██████████████████████████████████ 39.1 kg CO₂eq/m²
| *Median values – Product Stage A1-A3
1. Carbon Footprint
The median value for natural stone (4.8 kg CO₂eq/m²) is:
- 2.8 times lower than ceramics (13.4 kg CO₂eq/m²),
- 3.2 times lower than concrete (15.3 kg CO₂eq/m²),
- 8.1 times lower than laminated glass (39.1 kg CO₂eq/m²).
Even when evaluating arithmetic means (where specific high-intensity processing routes raise natural stone’s average to 9.9 kg CO₂eq/m²), natural stone maintains first place over ceramics (12.1 kg CO₂eq/m²), concrete (17.4 kg CO₂eq/m²), and glass (40.0 kg CO₂eq/m²).
2. Fossil Resource Consumption
In fossil resource use, natural stone shares top performance with concrete at 136.3 MJ/m² (median). In contrast, ceramics require 206.6 MJ/m² (+51%), while laminated glass reaches 542.1 MJ/m² (+297%).
3. Water Footprint & Particulate Matter
In water resource management, natural stone holds a mid-range position with a median of 4.1 m³/m², performing noticeably better than glass (10.6 m³/m²), though higher than ceramics (1.8 m³/m²) and concrete (1.4 m³/m²), which rely more heavily on closed-loop systems. In particulate matter emissions, stone records very low values, whereas concrete exhibits higher impacts due to cement production.
Comparative Data Summary Table (A1–A3)
| Environmental Indicator | Unit | Natural Stone (Median / Mean) | Ceramics (Median / Mean) | Concrete (Median / Mean) | Laminated Glass (Median / Mean) |
| Total Carbon Footprint (Total GWP) | kg CO₂eq/m² | 4.8 / 9.9 | 13.4 / 12.1 | 15.3 / 17.4 | 39.1 / 40.0 |
| Fossil Carbon Footprint (Fossil GWP) | kg CO₂eq/m² | 5.3 / 9.2 | 14.1 / 12.7 | 15.3 / 17.4 | 38.6 / 39.6 |
| Fossil Resource Use | MJ/m² | 136.3 / 223.2 | 206.6 / 183.9 | 135.6 / 135.3 | 542.1 / 532.6 |
| Water Use | m³/m² | 4.1 / 40.2 | 1.8 / 1.8 | 1.4 / 1.4 | 10.6 / 111.3 |
| Particulate Matter Emissions | disease inc./m² | 0.0000034 / 0.0000053 | 0.0000005 / 0.0000005 | 0.0002808 / 0.0007287 | 0.0000014 / 0.0000014 |
What Drives Natural Stone’s Performance?
The environmental advantage of natural stone stems from four core factors:
- Geological Pre-processing: Nature completed the thermal and pressure processes over millions of years. The material does not need to be manufactured from scratch in high-temperature kilns like cement (1,400°C+), ceramics (1,100°C+), or glass (1,500°C+).
- Mechanical vs. Thermal Processing: Processing stone (sawing, diamond-wire cutting, surface polishing) is essentially a cold mechanical process. Energy demands are centered on grid electricity and quarry fuel consumption.
- Reference Service Life: The reference service life for natural stone in EPDs is set at 50+ years (compared to 20–30 years for glass). When environmental impact is spread across the actual operational lifecycle of a building, stone’s advantage multiplies.
- Sector Modernization: The growing adoption of photovoltaic systems for self-consumption and closed-circuit water recirculation across Portuguese processing plants continues to reduce direct operational impacts.
“StonePRINT”: Digital Calculation Tool for the Industry
Beyond aggregated data collection, ASSIMAGRA announced the launch of the “StonePRINT” platform. This digital calculation tool will enable companies within the StonebyPortugal ecosystem to input primary production metrics (energy, water, and material inputs) to independently calculate carbon and water footprints for their specific product ranges.
The tool aims to streamline EPD generation, support compliance with Green Public Procurement (GPP) tender criteria, and provide verified technical documentation for international specifiers, architects, and engineers.
Data Source: ASSIMAGRA Study / Project “Environmental Footprint of the Natural Stone Sector” (February 2026) – https://assimagra.pt/wp-content/uploads/ARTICLE_NATURAL-STONE_FOOTPRINT.pdf
Methodological Note: Data sourced from Reports E7 and E9 (February 2026) under ASSIMAGRA’s project, following ISO 14040/44, EN 15804:2012+A2, and GHG Protocol frameworks, referencing primary data from 2023.
