Abstract:As the second most used material after water and the producer of 8%–9% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, concrete is a key target for environmental sustainability efforts. Of these efforts, a main focus has been the use of industrial byproducts as supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) to replace some of the cement binder, the source of most of the GHG emissions from concrete production. As byproducts, these SCMs are frequently assumed to have limited or no emissions from production. Our goal is to see if this assumption should continue to drive mitigation efforts and to arrive at a clearer understanding of the contribution of SCMs to the environmental impacts of concrete. Needing further examination are: (1) how environmentally beneficial SCMs are if some of the primary process impacts are attributed to them rather than considering them waste products; (2) whether transporting SCMs creates greater environmental impacts than the materials they are replacing; and (3) whether location of primary processes that result in SCMs as well as location of concrete production creates particular burdens on lower income and minority communities. This work focuses on three of the most common industrial byproduct SCMs, namely silica fume, fly ash (FA), and ground granulated blast furnace slag (BFS), exploring both GHG and particulate matter emissions. We show that allocation of impacts from primary processes dramatically increases emissions attributed to SCMs. High levels of transportation of FA and BFS typically do not result in these SCMs having higher GHG emissions than a 95% clinker-content Portland cement. We find that SCMs may be produced in areas with low income or minority populations then used to lower GHG emissions concrete in another location. As such, beyond common environmental impact assessment methods, the role of environmental justice should be incorporated into impact assessments.