A side-by-side look at timber, steel, and concrete — covering embodied carbon, speed of construction, cost, and where each wins
If you're choosing structural and enclosure materials for a project, the timber material vs. steel/concrete question comes up early. Each has strengths — the key is matching material to project priorities, not finding a single "best" material.
We manufacture modified timber products used in hybrid structures and low-rise timber-framed buildings. Here's an honest side-by-side comparison to help you specify.
| Material | Embodied Carbon (kg CO₂e/kg) | Biogenic Carbon |
|---|---|---|
| Structural steel (primary) | 1.8–2.8 | None |
| Concrete (structural) | 0.10–0.18 | None |
| Saown softwood timber | −0.5 to −1.2 (biogenic) | Stored in wood |
Keep in mind: Timber's carbon advantage is largest in the structure itself. For a typical mid-rise building, replacing a concrete frame with timber can reduce embodied carbon by 20–40% on the structural scope.
Material Suitability by Application
Our outdoor flame-retardant wall panels are specified in hybrid timber-concrete buildings where the facade needs timber aesthetics with fire compliance.
Specifying Timber in a Hybrid or All-Timber Build?
We provide modified timber products for structural and cladding use — with fire, durability, and carbon documentation to support your material comparison.
Or contact our technical team to discuss material selection for your project.