## 1 Introduction  
Products containing cementitious material including concrete and mortar are some of the most widely used materials in the global building construction industry [1]. Previous studies have discussed methods for the calculation of the primary energy and associated emissions in concrete and other cementitious products [2, 3, 4]. However, these studies often highlight inconsistencies in outputs due to lack of transparency, unavailability of local inventory data, differences in scope, assumptions, and system boundaries. Therefore, there has been limited adoption and application by decision makers and design engineers to compare the primary energy requirements and environmental impacts of different construction-related processes and products. Most variations observed in comparative studies have been shown to arise from differences in assumptions, system boundaries of assessment, and a lack of accurate input data [5]. Concrete, despite traditionally having high compressive strength characteristics, performs poorly under tensile forces and is highly energy intensive during the virgin material extraction [2]. Supplementary cementitious materials have been extensively researched across the globe in cement composites to replace virgin material extractions, mainly due to the recent sustainability advancements and drive towards greener applications. Replacing cement and steel from reinforced concrete is one of the most effective ways to reduce the embodied carbon emissions from construction materials [6]. Reinforcing the concrete mix with randomly distributed short fibre reinforcements (most typically steel, glass, or synthetic) can enhance the tensile strength of the matrix [7; 8; 9]. These fibres can be extracted from virgin sources that are extremely resource and energy intensive to manufacture, which, in turn, causes high pollution and carbon dioxide emission. Moreover, several cement replacement materials have been extensively researched in previous studies with highly satisfactory laboratory results [10; 11]. However, the majority of the studies have focused only on laboratory scale development with limited comparative studies on industry implementations. This lack of studies and analyses often restricts the comparison options and decision making towards commercialization of the innovative products. Moreover, the majority of these studies have focused only on the recycling stage while neglecting the other \"R\" stages of the circular economy concept, which limits holistic comparison options [12]. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool that allows architects and other building construction professionals to understand the energy use and other environmental impacts associated with all life cycle phases of the building construction materials, including concrete procurement, construction, operation, and decommissioning. The LCA methodology dates to the 1960s, when concerns over the limited availability of raw materials and energy resources led to new ways to account for energy use and the consequences of these uses considering the whole life cycle [5]. However, based on the objectives and the priorities, the scope and the system boundary for a study can fit to include only a few emission substances and environmental impacts [13; 14; 15]. Moreover, studies on manufacturing costs have seldom been considered while trying to benchmark characteristics strength and carbon emissions [16]. Thus, the current study aimed to assess and compare carbon emissions and costs associated with the manufacturing of a novel concrete mix, Tex-crete, incorporating textile fibres and carboard fibres. The textile fibres were processed fibres extracted from end-of-life Hi-Viz tests used as a fibre-reinforced material while converted cardboard fibre composite mix was used as a cement replacement material in the concrete matrix. Two case studies including a temporary compound at a construction site and foot path were used to compare the cradle-to-gate carbon emissions.