## 4 Conclusions  
This work demonstrated that the valorisation of GS is highly recommended since both valorisation Scenarios 2 and 3 showed clear technical, environmental, and cost-benefit advantages when compared to current disposal in a landfill. Nevertheless, both valorisation Scenarios 2 and 3 present drawbacks that can be overcome only by introducing additional processes and, therefore, additional costs. Considering GS valorisation as a substitute for inert filler and its associated drawbacks, it can be concluded that even a symbolic percentage of GS incorporation in concrete mixes cuts off the application in structural concrete suitable for pillars or foundations since GS can't compete with fine natural inert currently used in terms of final quality achievable. Mortars can be a suitable alternative for the valorisation of GS. From the environmental side, using GS as a substitute for inert filler is more advantageous than as a substitute for feldspar for the case study taken as a reference. Considering GS valorisation as a substitute for feldspar in a ceramic paste and being aware that the fitting effect can limit noble whitish ceramic applications, this valorisation pathway allows a complete or close to complete substitution of the natural competitor. Environmental benefits are observed in the Climate Change and Fossil Depletion categories of impact for this scenario as well as evident cost-benefits from the manufacturer's perspective when compared to disposal to landfill. Considering LCC, which is a robust methodology to integrate LCA and allows to assess the real cost sustainability of a system/product along its life cycle regardless of whether the actor is paying for them, the avoided production of feldspar and inert filler decreases the final added value of the system if GS cannot be sold with an associated monetary value. From the point of view of the cost-benefit analysis, the use of GS as a substitute for feldspar is the most advantageous scenario from the manufacturer's perspective up to a GS transport distance not higher than approximately 40 km from the sawing plant. The following supporting information can be downloaded at: [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app13074513/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app13074513/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app13074513/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app13074513/s1)), Figure S1. Differential particle size distribution of GS sample, Table S1: Life Cycle Inventory assumptions for granite block sawing, Table S2. Inventories for LCA and LCC of GS disposal in a landfill (Scenario 1). All values are referred to a 1 m\({}^{2}\) granite slab (Functional Unit), Table S3. Inventories for LCA and LCC of GS valorisation as a substitute for feldspar (Scenario 2). All values are referred to a 1 m\({}^{2}\) granite slab (Functional Unit), Table S4. Inventories for LCA and LCC of GS valorisation as a substitute for fine inert filler in the production of concrete mixtures (Scenario 3). All values are referred to a 1 m\({}^{2}\) granite slab (Functional Unit). Table S5: Sensitivity analysis of the environmental impacts calculated according to the ReCiPe Midpoint (H) method for Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3 considering different transport distances. Light red and dark green cells indicate the highest and the lowest values of impact, medium and light green intermediate values. All values are referred to the functional unit 1 m2 granite slab. (Cut-off 0.1%) [3; 14; 22; 30; 35; 37; 38; 39; 40]. Conceptualization, E.S. ; methodology, J.C.M., J.A.L., J.C., and E.S. ; formal analysis, J.C.M., J.A.L., J.C., and E.S. ; investigation, J.C.M., J.A.L., J.C., E.S., J.S., and M.C. ; resources, J.S., J.C.M., J.A.L., and N.L. ; data curation, J.A.L., J.C.M., and E.S. ; writing--original draft preparation, E.S., J.A.L., and J.C.; writing--review and editing, M.C., J.C.M., N.L., and C.D.-M.; supervision, E.S. ; funding acquisition, J.A.L., J.C.M., N.L., and C.D.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.