Industrial decarbonisation: Managing change for the better

THE HARDER PART OF NET ZERO

Progress on electricity decarbonisation

The transformation of the UK’s electricity system over the last two decades has been remarkable. Coal has largely disappeared from the electricity mix, offshore wind has scaled at pace, and renewable generation now forms an increasingly important part of how the country is powered (Figure 1). What once felt highly ambitious is now a reality.

Figure 1 – UK electricity production by source [1]

Renewable electricity will continue to play a critical role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, when considering the wider decarbonisation challenge, electricity generation represents only part of the picture.

When we step back and consider total energy use – not simply how electricity is generated – the scale of the challenge becomes much clearer (Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Energy consumption by source, United Kingdom [2]

Transport, heating, and industry continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels, often because of the scale, reliability, and intensity of the energy required. Industry and transport account for a substantial proportion of overall energy demand in the UK (Figure 3).

Figure 3 – UK energy consumption by sector [3]

While industry’s share of UK energy demand appears relatively modest, this should be viewed in the context of the UK’s increasingly service-based economy. Over recent decades, much of the energy-intensive manufacturing that once took place within the UK has moved overseas, meaning many of the materials and products consumed domestically are now manufactured elsewhere. As a result, a proportion of the energy use and associated emissions have effectively been transferred beyond the UK’s borders rather than eliminated entirely.

This becomes more apparent at a global level, where industry remains one of the largest consumers of energy and contributors to greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 4), reinforcing why industrial decarbonisation is such a critical element of achieving net zero worldwide – particularly as fossil fuels continue to supply the large majority of global energy (Figure 5).

Figure 4 – Evolution of total final energy consumption in World since 2000 [4]

Figure 5 – Global energy consumption by source [2]

Why industry is different

The challenge of decarbonising industry is dictated by the nature of industrial processes themselves.

Heavy industry often requires large amounts of reliable, high-temperature heat delivered continuously and at scale – something that can be difficult, and in some cases currently uneconomic, to electrify. In many sectors, fossil fuels are also more than simply an energy source – they form part of the industrial process itself.

Cement, glass, and ceramics manufacturing routinely operate at temperatures exceeding 1,000°C. Steelmaking relies on carbon not only for heat, but to remove oxygen from iron ore. Chemical manufacturing depends on hydrocarbons as feedstocks for products such as plastics, fertilisers, and industrial chemicals, while cement manufacture generates emissions both from fuel combustion and the chemical reaction involved in converting limestone into clinker.

Industrial decarbonisation is therefore fundamentally different from decarbonising electricity generation. In many cases, reducing emissions requires redesigning processes, changing materials, introducing new technologies, or fundamentally rethinking how products are manufactured – not simply replacing one energy source with another.

This complexity is reflected in global assessments of progress towards net zero (Figure 6), where heavy industry consistently appears among the sectors furthest from decarbonisation pathways.

Figure 6 – IEA (2023), Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2023 [5]

More than carbon reduction

At its simplest, industrial decarbonisation is about reducing the carbon footprint of industrial operations while continuing to maintain safe, reliable, and commercially viable performance.

Industrial plants exist to manufacture products, provide services, and support economic activity. Decarbonisation therefore cannot be considered in isolation from the purpose of the facility itself. Reducing emissions, maintaining production, protecting people, and supporting long-term operational resilience are closely linked objectives.

Well-designed decarbonisation projects can deliver benefits beyond emissions reduction by improving efficiency, modernising ageing infrastructure, and increasing resilience to volatile energy markets. The greatest value is often realised where environmental, operational, and commercial objectives are considered together from the start.

WHAT INDUSTRIAL DECARBONISATION MEANS IN PRACTICE

Industrial decarbonisation can be viewed through three primary levers: using less energy, generating energy from lower-carbon sources, and releasing less carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Together, these levers provide a practical framework for reducing emissions from industrial operations.

Underpinning all three is process transformation – fundamentally rethinking how products are manufactured, how energy is supplied, and how raw materials are used. In many cases, achieving deep decarbonisation will require more than incremental improvements and instead demand new technologies, operating philosophies, and production routes.

Figure 7 illustrates these three interconnected levers of industrial decarbonisation.

Figure 7 – Industrial decarbonisation pathway 

Generate less

The cleanest energy is the energy you never need to use.

Reducing energy demand is often the fastest and most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. By using less energy, organisations can lower both operating costs and carbon footprint without fundamentally changing their operations.

Process optimisation, waste reduction, heat recovery, enhanced control systems, and targeted equipment upgrades can frequently deliver substantial reductions in energy demand.

Generate cleaner

For the energy that is still required, the focus shifts to generating it from lower-carbon sources.

This often involves introducing clean energy technologies to industrial sites to provide the energy needed to support operations whilst reducing associated emissions. Examples include onsite renewable generation, such as wind and solar, which can supply low-carbon electricity directly to industrial processes. As these energy sources are inherently variable, battery energy storage systems are often deployed alongside them to help balance supply and demand, improve reliability, and maximise the utilisation of renewable energy.

Industrial facilities may also seek to replace traditional hydrocarbon fuels with lower-carbon alternatives such as hydrogen, ammonia, or sustainable biofuels. These fuels can provide the high-temperature heat and energy required for many industrial processes where direct electrification may not be practical or economically viable.

Together, these technologies can significantly reduce emissions associated with industrial energy consumption.

Release less

For most industrial processes it will not be possible to avoid emissions entirely.

Carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) seeks to capture carbon dioxide before it is released to the atmosphere, enabling it to be reused in other industrial processes or permanently stored underground. CCUS is therefore likely to play an increasingly important role in decarbonising harder-to-abate sectors. The hazards and risks of CCUS are explored further in Reference 6.

Process transformation

The three decarbonisation levers – use less, generate cleaner, and release less – are often applied incrementally to existing industrial processes and facilities. They can deliver significant reductions in emissions whilst preserving the fundamental nature of the process itself.

However, achieving deep decarbonisation may require something more fundamental: transforming the process rather than simply optimising it.

Process transformation goes beyond incremental improvements, replacing existing production routes with fundamentally different approaches that inherently produce fewer emissions.

This can involve adopting entirely new technologies, alternative production routes, lower-carbon materials, or circular economy principles. For example:

• Hydrogen-based steelmaking replaces traditional coal-fired blast furnaces, fundamentally changing both the energy source (generate cleaner) and the production process itself.
• Lower-carbon cement production can reduce the amount of clinker required, lowering both energy demand (use less) and process emissions (release less).
• Alternative chemical pathways may reduce reliance on carbon-intensive feedstocks (use less), cutting process emissions at source (release less) rather than managing them afterwards.
• Recycling and circular economy approaches can significantly reduce the energy and raw materials required to manufacture products (use less) whilst reducing the need for carbon-intensive primary production.

In practice, process transformation and the three decarbonisation levers work hand in hand. The outer levers provide a practical framework for reducing emissions from today’s industrial processes, whilst process transformation enables the step-change improvements often required to achieve deep and sustainable decarbonisation over the longer term.

THE PRACTICAL REALITIES AND RISKS OF INDUSTRIAL DECARBONISATION

Whilst the opportunities presented by industrial decarbonisation are significant, implementing them within existing facilities is rarely straightforward.

Unlike a new-build facility, where equipment, infrastructure, and operating philosophies can be designed around low-carbon technologies from the start, most industrial decarbonisation projects must work within the constraints of existing assets. In many cases, these facilities were designed and constructed decades ago for very different operating conditions, technologies, and energy sources.

As a result, decarbonisation often involves introducing new technologies, equipment, and ways of operating into environments that were never intended to accommodate them. Electrification, renewable energy integration, battery storage, hydrogen, ammonia, and carbon capture can all create new interfaces, dependencies, and operational challenges that must be carefully understood and managed.

The challenge is therefore often not simply determining what needs to change, but how those changes can be implemented safely, reliably, and commercially whilst maintaining ongoing operations. These challenges are fundamentally different from those associated with designing a facility from scratch and can introduce a range of technical, operational, and safety risks. While every facility is unique, the practical realities and risks associated with industrial decarbonisation can broadly be grouped into four areas.

1. Implementation risk

Industrial decarbonisation projects are essentially brownfield modification projects, requiring significant changes to be delivered within existing operational facilities.

Unlike greenfield developments, construction, installation, and commissioning activities need to take place alongside live operations, creating complex interfaces between project activities and ongoing production. Personnel undertaking the modifications must be protected from the hazards associated with the operating facility, whilst the operating facility must remain protected from the hazards introduced by the modification works.

Additional challenges can arise from ageing infrastructure, legacy systems, space constraints, limited access, and restricted shutdown opportunities. Where process outages are required, these must be carefully planned and executed to minimise impacts on production, asset availability, and commercial performance.

The challenge is therefore to develop an implementation strategy that balances safety, operational reliability, and commercial viability. Successful decarbonisation projects are not simply those that deliver lower emissions, but those that do so whilst protecting people, maintaining process safety, and supporting continued, sustainable operations.

2. Changes to the hazard profile

Industrial decarbonisation can fundamentally change the hazard profile of an industrial facility. These changes are not always obvious and, for organisations with limited experience of major accident hazards or process safety, the implications can easily be underestimated. Decarbonisation technologies are often viewed as equipment replacement or engineering upgrades, when in reality they may introduce entirely new hazards, alter existing risk controls, and change how a facility behaves during abnormal or emergency conditions.

Broadly, these changes arise in two ways.

Firstly, decarbonisation may change the hazards within the process itself. This typically occurs where new fuels, feedstocks, process chemistry, technologies, or operating conditions are introduced. Hydrogen, for example, is a highly flammable gas with different combustion characteristics from conventional fuels and can be more prone to leakage from piping and equipment. Electrification may reduce reliance on fossil fuels but introduce higher-voltage systems and associated hazards such as electric shock, arc flash, and fire. Carbon capture technologies can introduce hazards associated with high-pressure systems, carbon dioxide release, and the handling of potentially harmful substances.

However, the implications often extend well beyond the new equipment itself. Changes to fuels, chemistry, or operating philosophy can fundamentally alter how hazards develop, how they are controlled, and how a plant responds during abnormal or emergency conditions. Existing assumptions relating to operability, process control, maintenance, inspection, and emergency response may no longer remain valid.

Secondly, decarbonisation may introduce new hazards around an otherwise unchanged process. Onsite renewable generation, battery energy storage systems, hydrogen production or storage facilities, and carbon capture infrastructure can all create new external hazards capable of affecting the safe and reliable operation of existing assets. Wind turbines may introduce blade throw or ice throw hazards, whilst battery energy storage systems can present fire, explosion, or thermal runaway hazards that were never considered when the facility was originally designed.

These additional systems also create new physical, operational, and organisational interfaces. Renewable energy systems, battery storage, hydrogen infrastructure, and carbon capture equipment frequently interact with existing process, utility, and control systems in ways never envisaged during the original design. Understanding these interfaces, how failures can propagate across them, and who is responsible for managing them is essential to maintaining a safe and resilient facility.

Ultimately, the challenge is not whether hazards are introduced within the process itself or around it but ensuring the complete hazard context is understood before changes are implemented. This requires a systematic process of hazard identification, risk assessment, and inherently safer design to ensure new hazards, altered operating conditions, and interfaces are properly understood and risks to workers, the public, and the environment remain as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP).

3. Operational and business risk

Reducing emissions cannot be considered in isolation from the wider purpose of the facility.

Industrial facilities exist to safely, reliably, and commercially produce products, energy, or services. Decarbonisation initiatives must therefore be assessed not only on their ability to reduce emissions, but also on their impact on operational performance and business objectives.

Changes to fuels, feedstocks, technologies, and operating philosophies can influence plant reliability, availability, throughput, product quality, maintenance requirements, and workforce competence. New equipment and systems may introduce additional operational complexity, increase dependence on external infrastructure, or require new skills and ways of working.

Key considerations therefore extend well beyond carbon reduction itself:

• Does the modification affect reliability, availability, or resilience?
• Does it impact production, throughput, or product quality?
• Does it increase operational complexity or maintenance burden?
• Does it require new competencies, procedures, or ways of operating?
• Does it create new dependencies on utilities, suppliers, or third-party infrastructure?

A decarbonisation project that successfully reduces emissions but compromises safety, reliability, or commercial performance will not represent a sustainable long-term solution.

Industrial decarbonisation therefore requires a balanced approach, ensuring that carbon reduction objectives are delivered alongside the broader requirements of safety, operability, reliability, maintainability, and business performance. The most successful projects are those that achieve meaningful emissions reductions whilst continuing to support safe, resilient, and commercially viable operations.

SUSTAINABLE-BY-DESIGN: USING RISK MANAGEMENT TO GUIDE DECARBONISATION

Successfully decarbonising an industrial facility requires more than simply identifying opportunities to reduce emissions. It requires organisations to determine which changes will deliver the greatest benefit and then implement those changes safely, efficiently, and sustainably.

This requires two complementary processes working hand in hand.

Decarbonisation roadmap

The first is a clear and practical decarbonisation roadmap.

Its purpose is to identify where the most meaningful emissions reductions can be achieved and to prioritise actions based on their overall effectiveness, practicality, and impact on the business. This requires organisations to look beyond headline carbon savings and consider the wider implications of each opportunity, including cost, technical feasibility, operational impacts, and long-term sustainability.

The outcome should be a prioritised programme of decarbonisation initiatives, identifying which opportunities can be implemented relatively quickly, which require more significant investment or technological development, and how these can be sequenced to deliver progressive emissions reductions over time.

Not all decarbonisation initiatives deliver the same benefit. Organisations should therefore focus on measures that provide the greatest emissions reduction for the effort and investment required, whilst avoiding solutions that deliver limited environmental benefit at disproportionate cost or complexity. Equally important is avoiding measures that constrain future improvements – an investment that delivers a modest reduction today but limits a greater one tomorrow can leave an organisation further from its long-term target, not closer.

The objective is not simply to demonstrate action, but to establish a credible and deliverable pathway towards net zero through a structured, evidence-based approach.

Design risk management process

The second approach for successful decarbonisation is an effective design risk management process.

Every decarbonisation initiative introduces change, and with change comes risk. New technologies, modified processes, altered operating conditions, and new infrastructure can introduce hazards, create new interfaces, and change the way existing risks manifest themselves within a facility.

A robust design risk management process ensures these risks are identified, assessed, and managed throughout the lifecycle of the project. This includes understanding new hazards introduced by decarbonisation technologies, changes to existing process risks, interactions between old and new systems, and the potential for escalation or domino effects across a site.

As illustrated in Figure 8, effective risk management is an iterative process centred on three core activities: risk assessment, risk treatment, and risk monitoring. Hazards must first be identified and understood, risks then eliminated or reduced through inherently safer design and other appropriate safeguards, before being continually monitored and reviewed as the design develops and the facility moves into operation.

Figure 8 – Effective risk management

It must also consider the safety of those implementing the modifications as well as the safety of those operating and maintaining the facility once the changes have been completed. The objective is to ensure risks to workers, the public, and the environment remain ALARP whilst maintaining safe, reliable, and commercially viable operations.

Two sides of the same coin

These two processes cannot operate independently.

A decarbonisation roadmap that identifies ambitious carbon reduction opportunities but fails to consider safety, operability, or deliverability is unlikely to succeed. Equally, a design risk management process cannot optimise a solution if the underlying decarbonisation objectives are poorly defined.

This interaction begins long before individual projects enter detailed design. As potential decarbonisation initiatives are identified and prioritised, organisations should apply a proportionate assessment of their technical feasibility, operability, and safety. A few simple but important questions will often suffice:

• Can this project be implemented safely?
• Could it introduce significant new hazards or interfaces?
• Are there fundamental constraints that make it unsuitable for that specific facility?

Asking these questions early helps ensure the roadmap focuses on opportunities that are both achievable and sustainable, whilst screening out options that would prove impractical or disproportionately challenging.

Once projects have been prioritised, a structured design risk management process provides the detailed assessment needed to understand hazards, develop inherently safer solutions, and ensure risks are reduced to ALARP throughout design, implementation, and operation.

The greatest value is realised when the decarbonisation roadmap and design risk management process are developed together. The roadmap identifies the right opportunities to pursue, while the design risk management process ensures those opportunities are conceived, designed, and implemented safely, reliably, and effectively.

Successful industrial decarbonisation is therefore not simply about reducing emissions. It is about identifying the most effective opportunities for change and then conceiving, designing, and implementing those changes in a way that protects people, maintains safe and reliable operations, and supports the long-term viability of the business.

CONCLUSION

Industrial decarbonisation will play a critical role in achieving net zero, yet it remains one of its hardest challenges. Unlike electricity generation, heavy industry often depends on fossil fuels not only for energy but within the processes themselves, so meaningful progress demands more than substituting one fuel for another.

A practical framework – using less energy, generating it more cleanly, and releasing less carbon, underpinned by deeper process transformation – sets out the routes forward. Delivering these changes within existing facilities, however, introduces new hazards, interfaces, and operational risks that must be carefully managed.

Success therefore depends on pairing a clear decarbonisation roadmap with an effective design risk management process. Done well, decarbonisation is not a constraint, but an opportunity to modernise, strengthen resilience, and create lasting value.

References

1. Electricity production by source, United Kingdom. From source: https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/united-kingdom
2. Primary energy consumption by source, United Kingdom. From source: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
3. Chart 3.1 Primary energy consumption by sector, 1970 to 2024 (Table P2). From source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-consumption-in-the-uk-2025/energy-consumption-in-the-uk-ecuk-2025#chapter-1-energy-consumption
4. IEA, World Energy Balances, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-balances, Licence: Terms of Use for Non-CC Material
5. IEA (2023). Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2023, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/tracking-clean-energy-progress-2023, Licence: CC BY 4.0
6. The Cairn, Keeping CCUS safe: From start to storage https://cairnrisk.com/knowledge_bank/keeping-ccus-safe-from-start-to-storage/