Analysis

Data is starting to emerge about how the Chinese cement industry has coped with the economic effects of government action regarding the coronavirus. National cement industry output fell by 29% year-on-year to 150Mt in the combined months of January and February 2020. Output then picked up to 149Mt in March 2020, a drop of 17% compared to March 2019. These are massive figures, larger than the annual output of most countries, but they give some idea of what shutting down economies does to demand for cement and concrete.

Graph 1: Year-on-year change in cement output in China, April 2018 - March 2020. Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China. Note that accumulated data is issued for January and February each year so these months show a mean figure.

Graph 1 above gives the general picture of changes in cement output in China over the last couple of years. Growth fell in early 2018 as the government implemented its supply-side reforms, including measures such as industry consolidation and peak shifting. This improved in the second half of the year and throughout 2019. January and February output has been steady for the last few years, possibly due to peak shifting, but this year the trend was massively more pronounced. In March 2020, meanwhile, output fell by 17% compared to a rise of 17% in 2019. On the demand side, reporting from the Chinese Cement Association reveals that national infrastructure investment (excluding electricity) decreased by 19.7% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2020. National real estate development investment fell by 7.7% to US$310bn.

The figures above are for the whole of China whilst the outbreak was centered in Wuhan in Hubei province. The government implemented its toughest public health measures in this city and the surrounding Hubei province, with other regions using social distancing and tracking methods to various degrees. The Chinese Cement Association explains that, once other cities in Hubei province were released from lockdown, construction projects were allowed to resume but that progress was limited due to a lack of workers. Three weeks after measures were relaxed, the average shipping rate for cement producers was only 60% in these outer regions. In Wuhan the situation was more stark with demand for cement at only 20% of expected levels at the time the lockdown ended on 8 April 2020. Data from the Hubei Cement Association reports that on 30 March 2020 only half of Hubei province’s 57 clinker production lines were producing cement. The rest were suspended. To compound the problems here once logistics networks started to reopen imports of cement from other provinces flooded in taking advantage of price differences.

Few if any of the larger domestic producers have released their first quarter financial results for the first quarter of 2020. Huaxin Cement has said that its sales fell by 36% and that this is expected to cause a profit drop of 46% year-on-year to US$100m. Shanshui Cement has said likewise, although it has not released any forecasts. In its annual report for 2019 released in early April 2020, Anhui Conch said that the coronavirus had exerted a ‘short-term negative impact’ on the group’s business due to the slowdown in supply and demand in the construction materials industry. CNBM also acknowledged the situation in its 2019 report saying that it would, ‘impact on economic activity.’ CNBM’s subsidiary BNBM, a gypsum wallboard manufacturer, has released a forecast for the first quarter predicting a 90% drop in net profit due to poor sale volumes.

How this can inform the cement industries of other countries around the world that have enacted restrictions on their populations is unclear. China, as ever, is an exceptional outlier both economically and as a cement producer. Plus, the severity of how a country enacts a lockdown is crucial here. If the early reports above are indicative then half of Hubei’s clinker lines were forced to suspend production, demand for cement fell by 80% at the time the lockdown ended and imports headed in once transport networks were reopened. Issues were also noticed with labour shortages. Forewarned is forearmed as they say. The next point of focus will be how fast the Hubei and Chinese cement industry recovers from this shock. More on this as we have it.

Yesterday, on 14 April 2020, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecast a 3% gross domestic product (GDP) growth contraction in 2020 due to negative economic effects from the coronavirus outbreak and its containment. Most regions around the world may experience negative growth in 2020 with exceptions only in so-called Emerging and Developing Asia and Low-income Developing Countries. This is just one projection among many coming out at the moment but the prognosis is downward. This begs the questions: how will cement companies cope?

Markets for building materials are not going to disappear in these conditions but demand looks likely to be reduced. Added to this, an industry that’s been facing increasing production overcapacity over the years may be challenged by additional competition effects. Here we will look at the debt profile of some of the major multinational cement producers outside of China. Please note that this is a cursory examination of corporate debt that only looks at simple financial indicators. Company financial officers want to present themselves in best possible light and will have alternatives that point to their strengths. For a detailed view we refer readers to the credit rating agencies and the companies’ published financial information directly.

Graph 1: Net debt and EBITDA for selected multinational cement companies in 2019. Source: Company financial reports and investor presentations. Note, Conversion for reporting currencies to US$, HeidelbergCement uses Result from Current Operations Before Depreciation and Amortisation (RCOBD) and UltraTech Cement results from 2018 – 2019 financial year.

Graph 1 presents a comparison between net debt and earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) in real terms. The bigger the gap between debt and earnings then the more one starts to wonder how it can be repaid. One feature to note in this graph is the size of the debt of the three largest producers – LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and Cemex – despite the fact that the companies are of different sizes. Cemex’s high debt to earnings ratio has been much commented on previously following its acquisition of Rinker just before the financial crash in 2007 and 2008. Unfortunately though, despite strenuous mitigation efforts, it remains prominent. Other positions to note are those of Buzzi Unicem and Dangote Cement, which have higher earnings than debts. These are envious positions to be in.

Graph 2: Net debt/EBITDA and EBITDA Margin for selected multinational cement companies in 2019. Source and notes as in Graph 1.

Graph 2 shows the ratio of net debt and EBITDA and the EBITDA Margin, a company’s earnings divided by its revenue. This graph better shows the relationship between debt and earnings. This can be seen well in a comparison between LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement. The latter has higher debts with respect to its earnings. Its debt jumped in 2016 following its acquisition of Italcementi. LafargeHolcim’s debts ballooned followed its formation by merger in 2015 but this was in line with the jump in its equity. Where it struggled was with slow earnings in the years afterwards. However, bold divestments in South-East Asia in 2018 and 2019 appear to have fixed this.

Other companies to watch in the higher Net debt/EBITDA category include India’s UltraTech Cement and both of the large Brazilian multinationals, Votorantim and InterCement. In recent years UltraTech Cement has been busy buying up other cement producers in India. The difference between the Brazilian companies may reflect the fallout from their fight to buy Cimpor back in 2012. InterCement and its parent company Camargo Corrêa won the battle to acquire the Portuguese company but Votorantim was given selected international assets outside of Brazil. Unfortunately, the Brazilian market then collapsed and Camargo Corrêa has reportedly been trying to sell some or all of its cement assets ever since.

The other financial indicator in Graph 2 is EBITDA margin or earnings/operating profit as a percentage of revenue. Higher is generally seen as better here in comparison to other companies in the same sector. Note how LafargeHolcim is ahead of HeidelbergCement and Cemex, possibly due to its cost cutting and synergies since the merger. InterCement also has a relatively high EBITDA margin, boosted by a pickup by the Brazilian economy in 2019. Again, Buzzi Unicem and Dangote Cement stand out. Both of these are public companies but are associated with family or individual ownership, although in very different markets. Neither has really indulged in any large-scale acquisitions in recent years. Dangote Cement has been steadily expanding but through building its own plants and distribution networks.

We’ve not mentioned CRH as its figures seem ‘average’ compared to the other cement producers discussed here. Average is of course relative for one of the world’s biggest building materials manufacturers with a net of debt of US$7.4bn in 2019! Yet, despite battles with activist investors over board member pay aside, CRH might be the rare producer that knows when to stop expanding. Notably in 2018 after an expansion phase, including acquisitions of Ash Grove Cement and LafargeHolcim assets previously, it publicly decided in 2018 to take a pause. There may be weaknesses in the company’s balance sheets yet to be revealed but they are not apparent using these metrics.

In summary, we’ve focused on corporate acquisitions here as the main source of debt in cement producers. This is simplistic but timing is everything when taking on a large amount of debt. Cemex is still carrying the scars from buying Rinker over a decade ago and InterCement and HeidelbergCement, to a lesser extent, are ones to watch through the next bad patch. Other things to consider are a general move to a more regional model for these producers away from a global one. UltraTech Cement’s focus on the Indian sub-continent or Dangote Cement’s work in Africa are examples of this. This approach could go wrong if the sole regions they operate in suffer disproportionately from the economic fallout from coronavirus. Or, if any producer, even one with high debts, has the good fortune to be present in a territory that suffers less from the downturn it may benefit. On a final note, it is worth mentioning that government data reports that China’s domestic cement production capacity utilisation in the two-week period ending on 10 April 2020 bounced back to 95% following the relaxation of the lockdown.

As India reaches two weeks into its 21 day lockdown to combat coronavirus, the financial analysts are starting to publish their forecasts as to what the effects will be for the cement industry. The results are gloomy, with demand predicted to drop by up to 25% in the financial year to March 2021 by one analyst and 40% in March 2020 alone by another.

Graph 1: Indian cement production, rolling annual by month, January 2018 – February 2020. Source: Indian Ministry of Commerce & Industry.

The graph above sets the scene for what may be to come by showing the state of production in India in recent years. From early 2018 it picked up by 17% to 337Mt by March 2019 and stayed around there through the rest of year before breeching 340Mt in January and February 2020. The (relative) lull in production growth in 2019 was blamed by some analysts on the general election in mid-2019 and then the monsoon rains. In summary the market was improving and seemed set for further growth in 2020. Alas, this does not now seem to be the case.

Looking ahead, Rating’s agency CRISIL has published a research paper on the topic and here are some of the highlights. They break the damage down into two separate scenarios. The first, where the social distancing measures last until the end of April, cause a 10 – 15% fall in cement demand with the pain limited to the first quarter of the Indian financial year, which starts on 1 April. The second, where distancing measures last until June, cause a 20 – 25% decrease in demand, with the problems extended into the second quarter. Salient points that it makes about the anticipated recovery include a delay in infrastructure spending due to the government diverting funds to healthcare, reduced private and real estate markets and a divide between state-led affordable housing schemes in urban and rural areas. It pins its hopes on rural housing to grab demand first, followed by key infrastructure projects, especially transport schemes.

Examining the cement producers directly, CRISIL reckons that prices will fall in the face of dropping demand but that power, fuel and freight costs are all expected to fall also. Profit margins are forecast to drop compared to the 2019 – 2020 financial year but still remain higher than the two previous ones. Finally, it looked at the credit profiles of 23 companies, representing over 70% of installed production capacity. Together they had a total debt of US$7bn. It flagged up four of these companies as having high debt/earnings ratios and five with low interest coverage. The latter were described as ‘small regional firms with weak cash balances.’

That’s one view on what may happen but two recent general industry news stories offer snapshots on what may be to come for the Indian market. The first is an immediate consequence of a nationwide lockdown in a country with a population of 1.3bn and a low cost of labour. 400 construction workers at a grinding plant build for Ramco Cements in Haridaspur, Odisha, were stranded at the site when the quarantine restrictions stopped them travelling home to Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal. They took up residence at the building site and then protested when the food ran out. This point about migrant labour is noteworthy because how the Indian government relaxes the lockdown could have massive consequences upon how the construction industry recovers. A possible parallel from elsewhere in the world is the slowdown effect the Saudi Arabian cement industry suffered in late 2013 when the government took action against illegal foreign workers in the construction industry.

The second news story to keep in mind is the annual results from refractory manufacturer RHI Magnesita this week. It reported growing revenue from its cement and lime customers in 2019 but it blamed a weaker market in Europe on producers stockpiling product due to tightening magnesite and dolomite raw material availability. The takeaway here is that if supply chains supporting the cement sector and the rest of the construction industry in India at the moment are affected by the coronavirus outbreak, and government action to stop it, then there may be consequences later on. So far Global Cement hasn’t seen anything like this but the preparation for coronavirus advice from industry expert John Kilne has been to indentify and secure medium term needs, including refractory and critical spare parts and to consider potential disruption to supply chains.

In terms of what happens next once the lockdown ends in India (and other countries), one media commentator has described the response to coronavrius as the ‘hammer and the dance.’ The hammer is the economy-busting measures many governments have implemented to stop local epidemics. The dance is/are the measures that countries are using before and after an outbreak to keep it suppressed until a vaccine is developed. The worry for building material producers is how much the ‘dance’ disrupts business over the next year. All eyes will be on the East Asian producer market figures for the first quarter to see how this plays out.

Cement and concrete products with sustainability credentials have increased in recent years as societies start to demand decarbonisation. In spite of the recent drop in the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) price, there has been a trend in recent years in the construction industry towards offerings with better environmental credentials. Indeed, this week’s position paper from Cembureau on a carbon border mechanism concerns directly the growth of these kinds of products within Europe. Typically, the higher profile projects have been slag cement or concrete implementations such as Hanson’s use of its Regen cement substitute in a London sewer project or David Ball Group’s Cemfree concrete in a road project also in the UK. In this short review we’ll take a selective look at a few of the so-called low carbon cement and concrete products currently available.

Table 1: Some examples of methods to reduce embodied CO₂ in cement and concrete. Note - the product examples are selective. In some cases many other products are available.

Looking at cement first, the easiest way for many producers to bring a lower carbon product to market has been to promote cements made using secondary cementitious materials (SCM) such as granulated blast furnace slag or fly ash. These types of cements have a long history, typically in specialist applications and/or in relation to ease of supply. For example, cement producers in eastern India often manufacture slag cements owing to the number of local steel plants. However, cement producers have more recently started to publicise their environmental credentials as they reduce the clinker factor of the final product. Alongside this though, in Europe especially, a number of so-called low carbon cement producers have appeared on the scene such as EcoCem and Hoffman Green Technologies. These newer producers tend to offer SCM cement products or other low carbon ones built around a grinding model. It is likely that their businesses have benefitted from tightening EU environmental legislation. How far cement producers can pivot to SCM cement products is contentious given that slag and fly ash are finite byproducts of other industries that are also under pressure to decarbonise. Although it should be noted that other SCMs such as pozzolans exist.

As will be seen below a few of the methods to reduce embodied CO₂ in cement and concrete can be used in both materials. SCMs are no exception and hold a long history in concrete usage. As mentioned above David Ball Group sells Cemfree a concrete product that contains no cement. Harsco Environmental, a minerals management company, invested US$3m into Carbicrete, a technology start-up working on a cement-free concrete, in late 2019.

Limestone calcined clay cements are the next set of products that are starting to make an appearance through the work of the Swiss-government backed LC3 project, more commercial offerings like FutureCem from Cementir and H-EVA from Hoffman Green Technologies and today’s announcement about ThyssenKrupp’s plans to fit the Kribi cement plant in Cameroon with its Polysius activated clay system. They too, like SCM cements, reduce the clinker factor of the cement. The downside is that, as in the name, the clay element needs to be calcined requiring capital investment, although LC3 make a strong case in their literature about how fast these costs can be recouped in a variety of scenarios.

Calcium silicate cements offer reduced process emissions by decreasing the lime content of the clinker lowering the amount of CO₂ released and bringing down the temperature required in the kiln to make the clinker. Solidia offers its calcium silicate cement as part of a two-part system with a CO₂ cured concrete. In the US LafargeHolcim used Solidia’s product in a commercial project in mid-2019 at a New Jersey paver and block plant. Solidia’s second core technology is using CO₂ to cure concrete and reducing water usage. They are not alone here as Canada’s CarbonCure Technologies uses CO₂ in a similar way with their technology. In their case they focus more on CO₂ mineralisation. In Germany, Schwenk Zement backed the Celitement project, which developed a hydraulic calcium hydro silicate based product that does not use CO₂ curing. Celitement has since become part of Schwenk Zement.

Solidia isn’t the only company looking at two complementary technologies along the cement-concrete production chain. A number of companies are looking at recycling concrete and demolition waste. Generally this splits into coarse waste that is used as an aggregate substitute in concrete and fine waste that is used to make cement. LafargeHolcim has Evopact for the coarse waste and Susteno for the fine. HeidelbergCement has EcoCrete for the coarse and is researching the use of fines. Closing the loop for heavy building material producers definitely seems like the way to go at the moment and this view is reinforced by the involvement of the two largest multinational producers.

Of the rest of the other low carbon cement methods detailed in table 1 these cover other non-Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) such as geopolymer and calcium sulphoaluminate cements. The former are a type of alkali activated binder and generally lack common standards. The latter are similar to slag cements in that they are established specialist products with lower CO₂ emissions than OPC.

With concrete when trying to make a low carbon product the first choice is whether to choose a low-carbon cement as the binder or even not to use cement at all in the case of Regen or Cemfree. From here the next step is to simply use less cement in a concrete mixture. There are a number of ways to do this from optimising aggregate gradation, following performance specifications more closely, using strength tests like maturity methods and generally adhering to quality control protocols better to deliver more consistency. Read the Mineral Production Association (MPA) publication Specifying Sustainable Concrete for more detail on this. Using concrete admixtures can also help make concrete more sustainable by improving quality and performance at construction sites through the use of plasticisers and accelerators, by decreasing embodied carbon through the use of water reducers and by improving the whole life performance of concretes. The use of locally-sourced aggregates is also worth noting here since it can reduce associated transport CO₂ emissions.

More novel methods of reducing embodied CO₂ emissions in concrete include the use of geopolymer concrete in the case of Zeobond Group’s E-Crete or adding graphene as Concrene does. Like geopolymer cements, geopolymer concretes are relatively new and lack common standards. Products like Concrene, meanwhile, remain currently at the startup level. Finally, if all else fails, offsetting the CO₂ released by a cement or concrete product is always an option. This is what Cemex has done with its Vertua Ultra Zero product. The first 70% reduction in embodied CO₂ is gained through the use of geopolymer cement. Then the remaining 30% reduction is achieved through a carbon offsetting scheme via a carbon neutral certification verified by the Carbon Trust.

As can be seen, a variety of methods exist for cement and concrete producers to reduce the embodied CO₂ of their products and call them ‘low-carbon.’ For the moment most remain in the ‘novelty section’ but as legislators promote and specifiers look for sustainable construction they continue to become more mainstream. What has been interesting to note from this short study is that some companies are looking at multiple solutions along the production and supply chain whilst others are concentrating on single ones. The companies looking at multiple methods range from the biggest building material producers like LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement to smaller newer ones like Solidia and Hoffman Green Technologies. Also of note is that many of these products have existed already in various forms for a long time like SCM cements and concretes or the many ways concretes can be made more sustainable through much simpler ways such as changing aggregate sourcing or working more efficiently. In many cases once markets receive sufficient stimulus it seems likely that low carbon cement and concrete products will proliferate.

Global Cement is researching a market report on low carbon cement and concrete. If readers have any comments to make please contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Cement producers and suppliers are now reacting to the coronavirus pandemic at scale. The biggest obvious development has been the lockdown in India that began on 24 March 2020. The implications for the cement industry are profound given the country’s population (1.3Bn) and massive cement consumption under normal conditions. It is the country with the world’s second largest cement production capacity.

UltraTech Cement, the biggest producer, said that it was suspending production at ‘various’ locations although it added that the situation was ‘dynamic’ and that it was monitoring it from time to time. Ambuja Cement and JK Lakshmi Cement have done likewise. The latter has suspended cement production at an integrated plant in Rajasthan and three grinding plants in Gujarat. Some Indian states have moved faster than others towards shutting down movement of people so JK Lakshmi’s decision may merely be based on legal necessity. However, a difference may arise in producer strategies between keeping integrated and grinding plants open. Building up inventory is one strategy seen in poor market conditions previously around the world. Alternatively, moving to more of a grinding model might make sense in some territories if, as is happening, countries implement lockdowns at different periods. However, some Indian states have moved faster than others towards shutting down movement of people and JK Lakshmi Cement’s closure pattern may simply reflect this.

At the international scale HeidelbergCement gave an idea to Reuters of the challenge facing the multinationals. Chief executive officer (CEO) Dominik von Achten described the start of 2020 as being strong but that construction projects were being delayed in the US and that activity in France and Spain was starting to weaken. Unsurprisingly, the company has shut down three of its plants in Lombardy at the centre of the Italian epidemic. He added that the group was holding a daily crisis call to assess the effect of the virus upon staff. He also said that the group was stockpiling cement amid the disruption. The clear warning sign was of an existential threat like that faced by the airlines whereby sales could simply stop for a three or four week period… or longer.

On the supplier side, Denmark’s FLSmidth has issued a robust plan on how it is aiming to maintain service and support for its customers. Past all the now-usual stuff such as remote working it included detail on how to support clients on site where absolutely necessary on a case-by-case basis. With regards to its supply chain it pointed out that it was confident, “that any local interruptions to our suppliers can be minimised, even when the agility of some suppliers is put to the test. We have redundancy built into the system.” To this end it emphasised the global nature of its business to ensure that it could deliver parts and equipment to its customers. It claimed that it coped with coronavirus in China due to its ‘very flexible’ supply chain but did admit to some supply chain impacts. Yet it says that production is back to approaching full capacity with workshops in Qingdao and Shanghai above 90% as they work their way through accumulated backlogs. Finally, it is also offering advice on how the company can support its customers on reducing or shutting down operations.

Other supplier comments on the situation have mainly been about protecting staff, working remotely and supporting customers through continued supply of equipment and services. Back in India, Sameer Nagpal, the CEO of refractory manufacturer Dalmia-OCL told Business Standard that the company was coping so far with the crisis with little major impact seen so far. Its raw material supply chain was dependent on China but after some minor disruption it was secure. Most of its customers are domestic, where it hadn’t reported problems so far, although this may change with the Indian lockdown. Exports were a different story as it sends around 10% of its production abroad and it has a plant in Germany. In Europe it was seeing a challenge due to supply chain disruption.

The experiences above are a snapshot of some of what is happening in parts of the industry as coronavirus disruption hits home. China’s restrictions are easing, most of Europe is in lockdown, India has started its quarantine and the US has restricted movement in about a third of its states. The current restrictions in the UK, for example, allow for construction work to continue but local media is debating the associated risks for workers. Other territories have different rules. All of this is affecting demand for cement and concrete. This in turn feeds through to producers and their suppliers. Global Cement continues to monitor the situation and wishes readers a safe passage through the pandemic.