Displaying items by tag: Sustainability

It’s the end of the year so it’s time to look at trends in the sector news over the last 12 months. It’s also the end of a decade, so for a wider perspective check out the feature in the December 2019 issue of Global Cement Magazine. The map of shifting production capacity and the table of falling CO₂ emissions per tonne are awesome and inspiring in their own way. They also point towards the successes and dangers facing the industry in the next decade.

Back on 2019 here are some of the main themes of the year in the industry news. This is a selective list but if we missed anything crucial let us know.

European multinationals retreat

LafargeHolcim left the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, HeidelbergCement sold up in Ukraine and reduced its stake in Morocco and CRH is reportedly making plans to leave the Philippines and India, if local media speculation can be believed. To be fair to HeidelbergCement it has also instigated some key acquisitions here and there, but there definitely has been a feel of the multinationals cutting their losses in certain places and retreating that bit closer to their heartlands.

CRH’s chief executive officer Albert Manifold summed it up an earnings meeting when he said, “…you're faced with a capital allocation decision of investing in Europe or North America where you've got stability, certainty, overlap, capability, versus going for something a bit more exotic. The returns you need to generate to justify that higher level of risk are extraordinary and we just don't see it.”

The battle for the European Green Deal

One battle that’s happening right now is the lobbying behind the scenes for so-called energy-intensive industries in Europe as part of the forthcoming European Green Deal. The cement industry is very aware that it is walking a tightrope on this one. The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) CO₂ price started to bite in 2019, hitting a high of Euro28/t in August 2019 and plant closures have been blamed on it. The rhetoric from Ursula von der Leyen, the new president of the European Commission, has been bullish on climate legislation and the agitation of Greta Thunberg internationally and groups like Extinction Rebellion has kept the issue in the press. Cembureau, the European Cement Association, is keen to promote the industry’s sustainability credentials but it is concerned that aspects of the proposed deal will create ‘uncertainty and risks.’ Get it wrong and problems like the incoming ban on refuse-derived fuel (RDF) imports into the Netherlands may proliferate. What the Green Deal ends up as could influence the European cement industry for decades.

The managed march of China

Last’s week article on a price spike in Henan province illustrated the tension in China between markets and government intervention. It looks like this was driven by an increase in infrastructure spending with cement sales starting to rise. Cement production growth has also picked up in most provinces in the first three quarters of 2019. This follows a slow fall in cement sales over the last five years as state measures such as consolidation and peak shifting have been implemented. The government dominates the Chinese market and this extends west, as waste importers have previously found out to their cost.

Meanwhile, the Chinese industry has continued to grow internationally. Rather than buying existing assets it has tended to build its own plants, often in joint ventures with junior local partners. LafargeHolcim may have left Indonesia in 2018 but perhaps the real story was Anhui Conch's becoming the country's third biggest producer by local capacity. Coupled with the Chinese dominance in the supplier market this has meant that most new plant projects around the world are either being built by a Chinese company or supplied by one.

India consolidates but watches dust levels

Consolidation has been the continued theme in the world's second largest cement industry, with the auction for Emami Cement and UltraTech Cement’s acquisition of Century Textiles and Industries. Notably, UltraTech Cement has decided to focus its attention on only India despite the overseas assets it acquired previously. Growth in cement sales in the second half of 2019 has slowed and capacity utilisation rates remain low. Indian press reports that CRH is considering selling up. Together with the country's low per capita cement consumption this suggests a continued trend for consolidation for the time being.

Environmental regulations may also play a part in rationalising the local industry, as has already happened in China. The Indian government considered banning petcoke imports in 2018 in an attempt to decrease air pollution. Later, in mid-2019, a pilot emissions trading scheme (ETS) for particulate matter (PM) was launched in Surat, Gujarat. At the same time the state pollution boards have been getting tough with producers for breaching their limits.

Steady growth in the US

The US market has been a dependable one over the last year, generally propping up the balance sheets of the multinational producers. Cement shipments grew in the first eight months of the year with increases reported in the North-Eastern and Southern regions. Imports also mounted as the US-China trade war benefitted Turkey and Mexico at the expense of China. Alongside this a modest trade in cement plants has been going on with upgrades also underway. Ed Sullivan at the Portland Cement Association forecasts slowing growth in the early 2020s but he doesn’t think a recession is coming anytime soon.

Mixed picture in Latin America

There have been winners and losers south of the Rio Grande in 2019. Mexico was struggling with lower government infrastructure spending hitting cement sales volumes in the first half of the year although US threats to block exports haven’t come to pass so far. Far to the south Argentina’s economy has been holding the cement industry back leading to a 7% fall in cement sales in the first 11 months of the year. Both of these countries’ travails pale in comparison to Venezuela’s estimated capacity utilisation of just 12.5%. There have been bright spots in the region though with Brazil’s gradual return to growth in 2019. The November 2019 figures suggest sales growth of just under 4% for the year. Peru, meanwhile, continues to shine with continued production and sales growth.

North and south divide in Africa and the Middle East

The divide between the Middle East and North African (MENA) and Sub-Saharan regions has grown starker as more MENA countries have become cement exporters, particularly in North Africa. The economy in Turkey has held back the industry there and the sector has pivoted to exports, Egypt remains beset by overcapacity and Saudi Arabian producers have continued to renew their clinker export licences.

South of the Sahara key countries, including Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa, have suffered from poor sales due to a variety of reasons, including competition and the local economies. Other countries with smaller cement industries have continued to propose and build new plants as the race to reduce the price of cement in the interior drives change.

Changes in shipping regulations

One of the warning signs that flashed up at the CemProspects conference this year was the uncertainty surrounding the new International Maritime Organistaion (IMO) 2020 environmental regulations for shipping. A meeting of commodity traders for fuels for the cement industry would be expected to be wary of this kind of thing. Their job is to minimise the risk of fluctuating fuel prices for their employers after all. Yet, given that the global cement industry produces too much cement, this has implications for the clinker and cement traders too. This could potentially affect the price of fuels, input materials and clinker if shipping patterns change. Ultimately, IMO 2020 comes down to enforcement but already ship operators have to decide whether and when to act.

Do androids dream of working in cement plants?

There’s a been a steady drip of digitisation stories in the sector news this year, from LafargeHolcim’s Industry 4.0 plan to Cemex’s various initiatives and more. At present the question appears to be: how far can Industry 4.0 / internet of things style developments go in a heavy industrial setting like cement? Will it just manage discrete parts of the process such as logistics and mills or could it end up controlling larger parts of the process? Work by companies like Petuum show that autonomous plant operation is happening but it’s still very uncertain whether the machines will replace us all in the 2020s.

On that cheery note - enjoy the winter break if you have one.

Global Cement Weekly will return on 8 January 2020

Dalmia Cement threw down the gauntlet this week with the announcement of a large-scale carbon capture unit (CCU) at one of its plants in Tamil Nadu, India. An agreement has been signed with UK-based Carbon Clean Solutions Limited (CCSL) to use its technology in building a 0.5Mt/yr CCU. The partnership will explore how CO₂ from the plant can be used, including direct sales to other industries and using the CO₂ as a precursor in manufacturing chemicals. No exact completion date or budget has been disclosed.

The move is a serious declaration of intent from the Indian cement producer towards its aim of becoming carbon neutral by 2040. Dalmia has been pushing its sustainability ‘journey’ for several years now hitting targets such as reaching 6Mt of alternative raw materials usage in its 2018 financial year and reaching a clinker factor of 63% at the same time. In an article in the November 2018 issue of Global Cement Magazine it said it had achieved CO₂ emissions of 526kg/t from its cement production compared to 578kg/t from other Indian members of the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI). In its eastern operations it had gone further to reach 400kg/t.

Using CCU is the next step to this progression but Dalmia’s approach is not without its caveats. Firstly, despite the size of the proposed project it is still being described as a ‘large-scale demonstration.’ Secondly, the destination of all that captured CO₂, as mentioned above, is still being considered. CCSL uses a post-combustion capture method that captures flue gas CO₂ and then combines the use of a proprietary solvent with a heat integration step. Where the capture CO₂ goes is vital because if it can’t be sold or utilised in some other way then it needs to be stored, putting up the price. Technology provider CCSL reckons that its CDRMax process has a CO₂ capture price tag of US$40/t but it is unclear whether this includes utilisation sales of CO₂ or not.

The process is along similar lines to the Skyonic SkyMine (see Global Cement Magazine, May 2015) CCU that was completed in 2015 at the Capitol Cement plant in San Antonio, Texas in the US. However, that post-combustion capture project was aiming for 75,000t/yr of CO₂. Dalmia and CCSL’s attempt is six times greater.

Meanwhile, Cembureau, the European cement association, joined a group of industrial organisations in lobbying the European Union (EU) on the Horizon Europe programme. It wants the budget to be raised to at least Euro120m with at least 60% to be dedicated to the ‘Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness’ pillar. This is relevant in a discussion on industrial CO₂ emissions reduction because the scheme has been supporting various European cement industry projects, including HeidelbergCement’s work with the Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement (LEILAC) consortium and Calix at its Lixhe plant in Belgium and its pilots in Norway. As these projects and others reach industrial scale testing they need this money.

These recent developments provide hope for the future of the cement industry. Producers and their associations are engaging with the climate change agenda and taking action. Legislators and governments need to work with the cement sector to speed up this process and ensure that the industry is able to cut its CO₂ emissions while continuing to manufacture the materials necessary to build things. Projects like this latest from Dalmia Cement are overdue, but are very encouraging.

Switzerland: LafargeHolcim’s executive committee has taken on Magali Anderson in the newly-created role of Chief Sustainability Officer. Anderson is a mechanical engineer with extensive managerial and functional experience who joined LafargeHolcim in 2016 as its Head of Health and Safety. LafargeHolcim CEO Jan Jensich has stated that the appointment “will accelerate LafargeHolcim’s vision of running its operations with zero harm to people and the environment.”

There was a glimmer of good news visible through the Delhi smog this week with the launch of a market-based emissions trading scheme (ETS) for particulate matter (PM). A pilot has started at Surat in Gujarat. The scheme will apply to 350 industries in the locality and it will be scrutinised for wider rollout in the country.

China robustly started to tackle its industrial PM emitters a few years ago although the work remains on-going. In its wake India has increasingly made the wrong sort of headlines with horrifically high dust emissions. Delhi, for example, reportedly had PM2.5 emissions of over 440µg/m³ in January 2019. To give this some context, the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) annual upper guideline figure for safe human exposure is 10µg/m³. Research by the Financial Times newspaper suggested that more than 40% of the Indian population is subject to annual PM2.5 emissions of over 50µg/m³.

Air Quality Life Index (AQLI) research reckons that if India were able to meet its national PM2.5 standard of 40µg/m³ then its population would live 1.8 years longer or 4.3 years longer if it met the WHO guideline level. The current situation is an unnecessary tragedy. In strictly structural terms the country’s productivity is being thrown away by damaging the health of its workforce. For comparison amongst other major cement producing countries, AQLI data placed China’s PM2.5 emissions at 39µg/m³, Indonesia at 22µg/m³, Vietnam at 20µg/m³ the US at 9µg/m³. These figures cover all industries in different conditions and climates. If the US can do it, why not the others?

Back on trading schemes, the famous ETS at the moment is the European one for CO₂ emissions. Similar schemes are slowly appearing around the world as governments look at what the European Union (EU) did right and wrong. For example, South Africa started up a carbon tax in early June 2019. Yet as the supporting documents by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) point out there have been a variety of ETS systems’ over the years. The US’s Acid Rain Program is generally seen to have achieved significant reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions although the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) has continued this work. Chile even ran its own PM ETS in the 1990s although the outcomes have been disputed.

One problem with a CO₂ ETS, and anthropomorphic or man-made climate change in general, is that it is intangible. Even if sea levels deluge major coastal cities, rising mean temperatures reduce agricultural yields and human populations contract sharply, people will still be arguing over the research and the causes. The beauty of a PM ETS is that if it works you can literally see and feel the results. A famous example here is the UK’s Clean Air Act in the 1950s that banished the fog/smog that London used to be famous for.

The Gujarat PM ETS is a pilot, the results of which will be considered by researchers from a number of US-based universities and the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab. Explicitly, the study plans to use a randomised control trial to compares its results against the command and control style approach used in the rest of the country. On the cement-side various Indian news stories have emerged as state pollution boards have increasingly started fining producers for emission limit breaches. Clearly the government is taking dust emissions seriously. Reduction is long overdue.

There were two main takeaways from the Global Future Cement Conference that took place in Brussels last week. Firstly, there are not any obvious alternatives to using cement and concrete. Secondly, serious at-scale commercial investment on capturing CO₂ process emissions from clinker production is still waiting for the right economic conditions.

Graph 1: Embodied energy versus embodied CO₂ of building materials. Source: Hammond & Jones, University of Bath, UK.

Although the conference was heavily focused on Europe, the graph above explains why the cement and concrete industries are sitting pretty right now in the face of mounting environmental activism. The sector may be responsible for 5 - 10% of annual CO₂ emissions but, put bluntly, there is simply no alternative. As Karen Scrivner from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) explained during her presentation, concrete uses some of the most abundant minerals present on earth, notably silicon and calcium. Alternative chemistries are simply not backed up by available materials. The cement and concrete associations have strongly promoted the unique position by focusing on the whole lifecycle of building materials.

The energy and emissions research needs to be scrutinised much more closely but, if it’s correct, there is no way to maintain modern standards of living without concrete. And, judging from the response by the French public to a badly handled meagre carbon tax on diesel by the so-called Yellow Vest movement, whacking up the price of housing or infrastructure might go down badly, especially in developing countries.

Two immediate ‘outs’ presents themselves. Cement doesn't necessarily have to be made from clinker as Robert McCaffrey’s presentation reinforced (also given at the IEEE/IAS-PCA Cement Conference this year). Future research may find alternatives to clinker and wipe out the cement business in the process. Also, the graph above is based on per kilogramme amounts of each building material. It doesn’t indicate how much of each material is required to build things. Even if clinker-based building materials are irreplaceable, there is no reason why their market share might not decrease. This could have large consequences in a market already burdened by over-capacity.

Graph 2: Comparison of cost of carbon capture technology for the cement industry. Source: European Cement Research Academy (ECRA).

Solid research into carbon capture technology is proceeding apace, from the LEILAC project at HeidelbergCement’s Lixhe plant, to oxyfuel kiln development and other methods, as Jan Theulen from HeidelbergCement demonstrated in his presentation. Off-the-shelf technologies from other industries also exist ready to be used. Today, for example, Inventys has announced plans to test its own CO₂ capture technology with Lafarge Canada. Yet there are no commercial-scale installations in Europe. most likely due to the price burden it would place on the end product.

With the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) entering its fourth phase and the carbon price holding above Euro20/t the question is: when will the serious investment begin in Europe? Notably, more than a few major European cement equipment manufacturers attended the Global Future Cement Conference, yet none are offering mature products to capture CO₂ emissions. Most or all have projects up their sleeves ready to be developed and sold but orders aren’t being received. The carbon price in Europe is the problem here. If it's too low then nothing happens outside of government subsidy. Too high and cement plants start being shut down because they become too expensive to run. To be fair to the cement sector other carbon emission mitigation strategies are being employed from alternative fuels usage to lowering the clinker factor and other methods but the endgame is based on reducing process emissions.

The challenge for the cement and concrete industry is to show legislators that their materials are essential and irreplaceable. They are doing this. The legislators then need to concoct ways of encouraging mass scale rollout of carbon emissions abatement technology without destroying the cement industry. This is far from certain right now. If nothing else it’s in governments’ interest to get this right because, as the Yellow Vest protests show, if they get it wrong their voters become angry. All of this is happening against the clock as CCU/S is required to get the cement industry past the 2050 2°C maximum warming target set by the Paris Agreement. In the meantime the cement industry is essentially in a holding position on the more far-reaching aspects of CO₂ emissions mitigation. Its products are likely irreplaceable but its carbon capture technology has to be encouraged by governments. This means that, for most cement producers, waiting to see what happens next is the way forward.

The 3rd Future Cement Conference and Exhibition is scheduled to take place in Vienna, Austria in 2021

Today is the first day of the Global FutureCem Conference taking place in Brussels, Belgium. The event is looking at how the cement industry can adapt to a low or zero carbon world. Although Global Cement is organising the event, it is clearly topical as two news stories this week demonstrate.

Firstly, the chief executive officers (CEO) from 13 US companies, including LarfargeHolcim, announced that they were lobbying the US government to enact business-led climate change legislation. The initiative, known as the CEO Climate Dialogue, included principles such as ‘significantly’ reducing US greenhouse gas emissions. This is shocking because, at face value, large-scale CO₂ emitters like LafargeHolcim have the most to lose from more rigorous environmental regulations. What do they have to gain from doing this? This is like turkeys voting for Christmas!

Interpretations of why LafargeHolcim and others might want to do this could go in a few directions. Firstly, the intention might be fully plausible. These companies could genuinely want to combat climate change. Secondly, more cynically perhaps, leading demands for legislation puts the lobbyists in the room when change is actually made. Given the integral nature of concrete in modern construction this is not necessarily a bad thing. Environmentalists may want to ban building materials that create CO₂ emissions but, until they can offer an alternative or convince people to accept reduced quality of life, then cement is the material of choice. Thirdly, leading change allows one to stay ahead of it or at least give the sector more time to react to it. The ‘turkeys’ may not want to vote for ‘Christmas,’ but perhaps ‘Christmas’ could be replaced with something else?

This latest initiative by the CEOs in the US has parallels with the creation of the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) in 2018. Like the current moves in the US, cement producers led the creation of the GCCA, to promote concrete as the sustainable building material of choice.

Meanwhile, Germany’s HeidelbergCement also announced this week that its CO₂ reduction targets to 2030 have been assessed against the Science Based Targets initiative’s (SBTi) criteria. Its SBTi target is to reduce scope 1 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% per ton of cementitious material by 2030 from a 2016 base year. HeidelbergCement has also committed to reduce scope 2 GHG emissions by 65% per ton of cementitious materials within the same timeframe. The SBTi target follows HeidelbergCement’s previous goal of a 30% reduction in its specific net CO₂ emissions by 2030 compared with 1990. It says it has achieved a reduction of 20% so far.

HeidelbergCement is a sustainability leader in the sector with various projects on the go including the Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement (LEILAC) consortium direct separation pilot project at the Lixhe cement plant in Belgium. Following SBTi is a continuation of this trend, albeit one that anchors it with a global consensus.

Coincidence perhaps but when the two largest non-Chinese cement producers start announcing sustainability stories like then the picture is changing. The questions at this point is how far will it go.

A full review of the 3rd Global FutureCem Conference will be published after the event. To find it and more information visit: http://www.globalcement.com/conferences/global-future-cement/introduction

RHI Magnesita has taken the step this week of raising its prices globally by 5% for its products for its industrial and steel divisions. It has applied the increase to both its basic (magnesia and dolomite based) and non-basic products, varying in a range of 3% to 20%. It has blamed this on a global scarcity of raw materials caused mostly by Chinese environmental regulations on mining and processing. It goes on to attribute the issue to increased export taxes, more restrictive allocation of explosives and the nationalisation or controlled consolidation of mining operations in China. All of this has, “...structurally altered the production, pricing and dynamics for industrial minerals.”

Graph 1: Revenue in 2018 from industrial divisions at selected refractory producers. Source: Company reports.

Other major refractory producers, including Imerys and Vesuvius, reported similar mounting raw material costs in 2018. They also implemented price changes to maintain income and/or sales growth. As can partly be seen in Graph 1 some of the major refractory producers reported mixed fortunes in 2018 for their divisions that produce products for the cement industry.

RHI Magnesita noted that 2018 was a year of steady refractory market growth and relative stability for cement and lime from a global market perspective, with some significant variances on a regional basis. Imery’s Energy Solutions & Specialties division suffered due to flat markets. However, its High Resistance Materials division (not shown in Graph 1) benefited from the ongoing integration of Kerneos into the group. The group restructured its businesses at the end of 2018 creating a High Temperature Materials & Solution segment that brings together its various refractory concerns. Vesuvius' Steel Advanced Refractories division, which include monolithic products, reported particular growth in the Americas in 2018. Although it noted some market share loss in North Asia and in certain European countries, the latter due in price increases.

Refractories aren’t the only material or commodity used by the cement industry that has been distorted by Chinese domestic policy. Regulations on imports of waste streams including plastics started in 2017 leading to European and US suppliers struggling to find alternate markets. One implications of this appears to have been waste firms focusing on separating plastic into high and low calorific fractions to fight the downward price trends of a market glut. The outcomes are different but the sheer size and variety of China’s economy is increasingly affecting the cement industry in new and different ways.

RHI Magnesita’s travails in China and the debacle of waste imports bring to mind the quote by the 19th century Austrian diplomat Klemens von Metternic, ‘When Paris sneezes, Europe catches a cold.’ Metternic was referring to Napoleonic-era France and its aftermath. The modern version may have been used to reference the US but maybe it should be instead, ‘When China sneezes, the world catches a cold.’ Gesundheit.

Research from the Global Carbon Budget (GCB) this week forecasts that fossil CO₂ emissions from the Indian cement industry will rise by 13.4% in 2018. This is in stark contrast to the smooth mood music from the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) last week, which stated that the local industry was on track to meet its commitments towards decarbonisation. So what’s going on?

The situation is akin to the fable about the blind men and the elephant. Both the GCB and the CSI are approaching the emissions of the Indian cement industry from different directions. The GCB is using available data (including data from the CSI) to try and estimate what the CO₂ emissions are. It takes cement production data using a method adapted from a paper published by Robbie M Andrew of Norway’s CICERO Center for International Climate Research in 2018 and then it takes into account the types of cement being produced and the clinker factor. This is then converted into an estimated clinker production figure and this is then converted into a CO₂ figure.

However, the CSI meanwhile actually has direct data from its local members. At the moment these include ACC, Ambuja Cements, CRH, Dalmia Cement (Bharat), HeidelbergCement, Orient Cement, Shree Cement, UltraTech and Votorantim Cimentos. As part of the Getting the Numbers Right (GNR) database it collects production and sustainability related data from its members. However, for reasons of competition, it maintains a year gap before it reports its data. This means that the GCB can report its estimate ahead of the CSI data.

There is nothing to stop the CSI reporting its progress against its targets though. And this is exactly what it has done in India with the recent document outlining progress towards the 2030 targets from the low carbon technology roadmap (LCTR). The headline CSI metric was direct CO₂ emission intensity. According to the CSI, this has fallen by 32kgCO₂/t cement to 588kgCO₂/t cement in 2017 mainly due to an increased uptake of alternative fuel and blended cement production, as well as a reduction in the clinker factor. This is bang on target with its aim of hitting 320kgCO₂/t in 2050 (around 560 kgCO₂/t in 2020, assuming a linear decrease).

The problem is that cement production growth in India suddenly sped up in 2018. Global Cement estimates that India’s cement production is set to rise by 7% year-on-year to 296Mt in 2018 from 280Mt in 2017. Data from the Ministry of Commerce & Industry shows that cement production rose by nearly 16% year-on-year to 244Mt in the first nine months of 2018 from 211Mt in the same period in 2017. Along these lines the Cement Manufacturers Association of India has forecast growth of 10% in the 2019 financial year to the end of March 2019. It reckons that this is the fastest growth in the sector since the industry slowed down in 2011.

India’s per capita cement consumption is low (222kg/capita) and its urban population is also low (around 30%). That’s a lot of cement that’s going to be used as it shifts to developed global rates and already it’s the globe’s second biggest cement market. The CSI was right to get in there eight years ago. Yet, the question now is can CO₂ emissions decrease whilst the market grows? Research in the US suggests that the real reason for emission drops in the 2010s was the economic recession, not policy shifts or changes in the energy mix. If that holds in India then the cement industry will have a hard time reducing its carbon footprint irrespective of the work the CSI has done.

Chief executives from over 30 companies attended the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) inaugural event last week in London. Its first president Albert Manifold, the chief executive officer (CEO) of CRH, laid out the line by saying that, “For the first time we have a global advocacy body.” He followed this up by emphasising that ‘our product’ is the most used man-made product in the world. Just like the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI), the body the GCCA is partly-replacing, it is a CEO-led organisation. The target is very much about giving a global voice to the cement and concrete industries and the vertically integrated companies that produce these products.

Along with the head of CRH, the leaders of LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement, CNBM, Votorantim, Buzzi Unicem and Eurocement, amongst others, were all on the attendance list too. That kind of representation gave the event a charged air and a real sense of intent. At present the association says it represents 35% of global cement production and its aim is to reach 50%. That compares to the 30% base that the CSI had.

Representatives from some major cement associations were also present, including Europe’s Cembureau, the Federación Interamericana del Cemento (FICEM), the Canadian Cement Association and the VDZ. The only thing stopping the US Portland Cement Association being there was reportedly the Thanksgiving holiday. Although not comprehensive, that kind of representation suggests serious interest from the regional cement associations. The word from the GCCA CEO Benjamin Sporton was that the GCCA is here to provide a global level of coordination to the advocacy and sustainability side of the industry dealing with global organisations like the United Nations (UN), development banks, other associations and non-government organisations (NGOs).

How this will work in practice has yet to be seen, but at the very least, the GCCA can take over the work of the CSI and run with it. The word from the attendees we spoke to was uniformly positive for the association. It was seen as a long-overdue move to finally give the industry some sort of uniform voice at a global scale. In this sense it is catching up with similar bodies in industries like wood and steel. One benefit from moving from the CSI to a full advocacy organisation is that the industry can actually talk about the good things it does rather than being limited to sustainability and environmental data reporting. It seems like a small change in focus but it’s a big shift in mind-set.

A cynic might suggest that the exercise is one of a dirty industry trying to wrest the Overton window, or window of public discourse, back from legislators facing mounting environmental pressure. The latest UN Emissions Gap Report for 2018, for example, reported this week that CO₂ emissions rose in 2017 after four consecutive years of decline. This is the latest environmental report in a long line pointing out bad news. Yet, the GCCA’s unwritten mantra, that concrete improves lives, is sound. Somebody or something needs to link it all up. That somebody might just be the GCCA.

A review of the inaugural annual general meeting and symposium of the GCCA will be published in a forthcoming issue of Global Cement Magazine.

The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) announced this week that it intends to take over the work done by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI). This marks a change in how the cement industry as a whole approaches sustainability and in the wider context how the sector manages itself on the world stage.

The CSI was set up in 1999 with the aim of advancing a sustainability agenda for the cement industry. It has done this by laying out strategy for the industry to follow in the form of technology roadmaps and publishing its ‘Getting the Numbers Right’ (GNR) data on CO₂ and energy performance information. By 2018 it had 24 cement company members composed of nine core members, 14 participating members and one affiliate member. It represents around 2.4Bnt/yr of global cement production capacity or over half of the world production, according to Global Cement Directory 2018 data.

The idea behind the membership was that the core members are all members of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and that the members would contribute ‘modest’ funds to run the organisation. That last point about WBCSD membership is worth noting because members need to stick to conditions such as publishing an annual sustainability report and agree to have the sustainability report reviewed and benchmarked by the WBCSD.

Figure 1: Outline of selected current global cement organisations with a sustainability remit. Source: Association websites, Global Cement Directory 2018.

The GCCA, which formed in early 2018, says it had formed a ‘strategic’ partnership with the WBCSD and that it will take over the work previously done by the CSI from the start of 2019. Although there’s no mention so far whether GCCA members have to actually become WBCSD members with all that this entails. At present the GCCA consists of nine major international cement producers, including over half of the world’s top 10 producers by production capacity, with a production base in every inhabited continent except Antarctica. Roughly speaking it represents just under 2Bnt/yr of global cement production capacity or about half of the world’s total.

Now where this starts to get confusing is that other cement associations exist with their own established advocacy roles and sustainability agendas. The established players include the various regional associations such as the Portland Cement Association in the US, Cembureau in Europe and so forth. The multinational ones also often represent national bodies.

Then there is the World Cement Association (WCA), which formed in 2016. This independent body is a private company run out of an office in London, UK with non-profit aims. It has 45 members but only three quarters are actual cement producers. Of these most are single-country cement manufacturers. The glaring standout is China National Building Material (CNBM) and its subsidiaries, representing over half of the association’s member’s cement production capacity. The production capacity of the WCA’s members is around 1Bnt/yr or a quarter of the global total. More than half of this comes from CNBM and its subsidiaries. Unsurprisingly then that Song Zhi Ping, the head of CNBM, is the president of the WCA. It too supports a sustainability agenda, saying that it, “seeks to co-operate with the WBCSD, CSI and regional and national Cement Associations.” What is noteworthy is how few of the current members of the WCA joined the CSI previously.

There is definitely a need for a global organisation advocating sustainability issues for the cement industry and by taking over the work of the CSI and the GCCA has cornered this part of what a global cement association might do. However, the GCCA represents less cement production capacity than the CSI did. The main omissions are the Indian producers, led by UltraTech Cement, as well as others. It seems likely that they will join the GCCA following the end of the CSI but there is no guarantee.

The other point arises when looking at these various cement associations is: who does what exactly? The CSI’s focus on sustainability gave it a purpose that it did well with a genuine appearance of independence. Its narrow focus also gave it a complimentary role to the existing national and regional associations. Global bodies like the GCCA and the WCA are clearly more into advocacy territory for their members. Also, a more general association approach like the GCCA and the WCA may clash with regional bodies like the PCA and Cembureau. Regional bodies seem better suited to the way governance works globally with regional groups such as the European Union (EU) or government departments in continental sized countries such as the US, China and India. However, a truly global cement body could respond better to coordinated environmental lobbying and fill in the gaps around the world in places with looser regional representation.

Sustainability is the immediate link between the CSI, the GCCA and the WCA. Indeed the WCA recently held a ‘Global Climate Change’ forum in Paris to discuss its own climate action plan. Yet, with the GCCA taking over the work the CSI does and the WCA saying it wants to cooperate with the CSI, the obvious outcome is that the GCCA will become the world’s apex cement association. It will represent the companies with the most cement production capacity, have a presence in every inhabited continent and take the lead on WBCSD issues. Beyond this though it will be interesting to see what, if anything else, the GCCA chooses to do.