Displaying items by tag: Cemex

Cementos Fortaleza started building its new grinding plant in Merida this week. The 0.25Mt/yr unit is expected to open in July 2019. It marks the first new plant in the country in a while and it will be only the second in the south-eastern state of Yucatan, joining Cemex’s integrated plant. It follows a number of upgrades at existing plants over the last two years, such as various mill orders by Cruz Azul from European suppliers (as part of an upgrade at two of its plants) and Elementia’s upgrade to its Tula plant.

Note that Cementos Fortaleza is a subsidiary of Elementia, the building materials company partly-owned by ‘Mexico’s richest man’ Carlos Slim. The group has steadily been expanding with its purchase of the remaining share in Cementos Fortaleza in 2015, acquiring a controlling stake in Giant Cement in the US in 2016 and a project to build a grinding plant in Costa Rica in early 2018.

The other big news story this week with implications for the cement sector was the arrangement of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the successor to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Although the exact details of the deal are still emerging, the consensus is that the cement industry in Mexico is unlikely to be affected much. The two points that might have implications for the cement industry are changes to rules of origin regulations and tariffs on imports made by low-wage workers. Both clauses are targeted at the automotive sector to protect US industry so it is unlikely that cement will be affected. In addition it is worth remembering that Mexico was the fifth largest exporter of cement and clinker to the US in 2017 after Canada, Greece, China and Turkey. And, all the major Mexican cement producers operate plants in the US, further protecting them from any potential negative consequences of the USMCA.

Graph 1: Mexican cement production, 2009 – 2017. Source: Camara Nacional del Cemento (CANCEM).

Back in Mexico, the graph above shows that production has been growing in fits and starts over the last decade. The last growth trend started in 2013 but it stalled in 2017. However, the Camara Nacional del Cemento (CANCEM) was forecasting growth of 2.5% year-on-year for 2018 in April 2018. The last time this column covered Mexico, back in early 2017, we produced a breakdown of the industry by company and production capacity. This is worth looking at for an overview of the production base.

Cemex, the largest local producer, reported Ordinary Portland Cement sales volume growth of 3% year-on-year in the second quarter of 2018 but flat growth for the first half of the year. This growth was supported by good activity in the formal residential sector with support from the industrial and commercial sector. LafargeHolcim released less detailed figures for the first half of 2018 but it attributed its strong performance in Latin America to Mexico. Overall cement sales for the region grew by 12.1% to 12.6Mt, in part due to large infrastructure projects in Mexico, such as the new Mexico City International airport. The third biggest producer, Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, said that its cement sales volumes rose by 2.5% in the first half of the year, supported by rising prices.

As reported in early 2017, the Mexican cement industry is moving ahead with confidence. A modest amount of production capacity is being built, the steady market growth since 2013 looks set to continue after a minor blip in 2017 and the main producers are all reporting good performance so far in 2018. Finally, the USMCA looks unlikely to trouble Mexican producers much and their diversified holdings will certainly help them if it does. For the moment - bravo!

Trinidad & Tobago: Trinidad Cement has appointed Claudia Emmanuel as a director of the company to fill a casual vacancy. Emmanuel will hold the position until the company’s next annual general meeting, whereupon she will be eligible for re-election.

More positive news emerged from the UK cement industry this week with the news that Cemex is planning to restart the second kiln at its South Ferriby plant later in 2018. This marks the full recovery of the plant after a disastrous flood in late 2013 and it is an all round good news story. Around the same time the local government in Scotland approved the planning application for an upgrade to Tarmac’s Dunbar cement plant. That project involves installing a new cement grinding mill, a new cement storage silo and a rail loading facility.

Graph 1: Domestic cement, imported cement and other cementitious sales in the UK, 2001 - 2017. Source: Mineral Products Association.

The timing is interesting given the general uncertainty in the UK economy ahead of the UK exit from the European Union (EU). However, data from the Mineral Products Association (MPA) shows that total cementitious material sales (cement plus products made from fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS)) reached 15.3Mt in 2017 from a low of 10.3Mt in 2009 following the financial crash. This isn’t as high as the 15.8Mt figures recorded in 2007 but it does mark a recovery. This masks to an extent the change in the market since 2007. Cement sales in 2017 at 10.2Mt were still below a high of 11.9Mt in 2008. The recovery has been driven by higher imports, 1.9Mt in 2017, and higher use of fly ash and GGBS products, which reached 3.2Mt in 2017.

Cemex and Tarmac are not alone in announcing projects. HeidelbergCement’s local subsidiary Hanson is upgrading its Padeswood plant with a new Euro22m mill. Irish slag cement grinding company Ecocem opened its import terminal at Sheerness in mid-2017 and French grinding firm, Cem'In'Eu, has also expressed interest in building a plant, in this case in London.

As discussed earlier in the year, new upgrade projects in the UK appear to carry an element of risk given the unknown status of its departure from the EU. Supply chains may be affected, companies are delaying investment and the value of Pound Sterling is falling. The collapse of construction services company Carillion also had a knock-on effect in the industry and, with major work on the Crossrail infrastructure project finishing, the industry has no major infrastructure projects in support. A quarterly graph of UK construction industry output volume by Arcadis shows almost uniform growth since mid-2012 although this started to flatten in 2017. A badly-handled Brexit (UK exit from the EU) could undo this growth.

All of this presents a picture of risk-adverse capital projects in the UK. The MPA figures help to explain the focus on grinding at Padeswood and Dunbar. The market has changed since 2007, with a growing focus on imports and secondary cementitious materials. Hence spending money on equipment to process these inputs makes sense. The decision to increase production at South Ferriby meanwhile depends on reviving existing equipment. Regional cement sales figures to 2016 from the MPA appear to indicate static demand in counties close to the plant (Yorkshire and Humberside) but sales have increased in the East Midlands and the East of England.

Just compare the current UK approach to the situation in Egypt. This week the head of the cement division of the Chamber of Building Materials described the decision to build the Beni Suef cement plant to local media as “not based on precise information” and that it had harmed local production. In case you had forgotten, that plant is one of the biggest in the world with six lines. The commentator may well have been representing smaller local producers but opening a 12Mt/yr plant in Egypt in these turbulent economic times marks a different approach to risk than the modest plant upgrades in the UK. Let’s wait and see who has the best approach.

Cemex joined the divestment party this week with the news that it plans to sell up to US$2bn worth of assets by the end of 2020. Put that together with LafargeHolcim’s own divestment plan of selected assets worth up to US$2bn as part of its Strategy 2022 and there is potentially a lot of cement production infrastructure going on sale over the next few years.

Both companies say that they will start announcing the latest round of divestments in the second half of 2018. Prices vary considerably around the world - and remember this is not only cement - but at, say, US$250m per integrated plant that could amount to 16 units. That’s a big enough manufacturing base to build your very own cement production empire! So, which markets might the two companies be considering leaving?

Cemex’s weaker areas in its half-year report were its South, Central America and the Caribbean region and, to a lesser extent, its European region. The former reported falling sales, cement volumes and earnings. The latter reported falling earnings on a like-for-like basis with issues noted across cement, ready-mix concrete and aggregate business lines in the UK. Back in Central and South America, problems were noted in Colombia due to a 10% fall in cement sales in the first half. An important point to make here is that despatch figures from the National Administrative Department of Statistics (DANE) out this week suggest that Colombia’s overall cement market has picked up since April 2018 (see Graph 1), in contrast to Cemex’s experience. Panama, meanwhile, saw cement volumes wither by 22% due to the 30-day strike by construction workers. Other operations to consider for the chop might include Cemex Croatia, which the company attempted to sell to HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement in 2017, before the European Commission put an end to that idea.

Graph 1: Annual change of cement despatches in Columbia in 2017 and 2018. Source: DANE.

When asked directly during its second quarter results call which assets it was intending to sell, chief executive officer (CEO) Fernando Gonzalez didn’t answer on commercial grounds. What he did say though was that the company had faced ‘headwinds’ in the Philippines, Egypt and Colombia, particularly in relation to fuel prices. He also said that Cemex had finished its market analysis, that it knew exactly which assets it would like to sell already and that it was in ‘execution’ mode. In Gonzalez’s own words, “we do have a number of assets to be divested, either because they are low growth, or because they are not necessarily integrated to other business lines.”

As covered a couple of week ago, the obvious location for LafargeHolcim to exit is Indonesia. CEO Jan Jenisch continued to refuse to comment on rumours that the company was leaving the country during its second quarter results call. Yet, local production overcapacity, falling earnings and profits and an underperforming but still sparky market make it the ideal candidate. What Jenisch did reveal was that the country had ‘positive momentum.’ Perhaps more importantly he added, “We are not selling because we want to sell. We are selling for high valuations only.”

Other potential locations for LafargeHolcim to leave might include Brazil and parts of the Middle East and Africa. Brazil’s cement market recovery has been a few years coming and was delayed again by a truck drivers’ strike in May 2018. The Middle East Africa area was the worst performing region in LafargeHolcim’s mid-year results with problems noted in South Africa.

With all of this in mind we have a rough idea of what Cemex and LafargeHolcim might be considering selling. The obvious candidates for both companies seem to be solid markets that promise growth after a period of underperformance. Just like Colombia and Indonesia in fact. Looking at the track record for both of them in recent years Cemex has seemed to be more ready to sell individual plants such as the Odessa and Fairborn plants in the US to different buyers. LafargeHolcim for its part has generally gone for larger more complete sales of regional or country-based chunks of its business such as in Chile or Sri Lanka.

Finally, don’t forget that Cemex’s Fernando Gonzalez said in March 2018 that the company was considering acquisitions again after a decade of austerity. He mentioned an interest in India and in Brazil. If he meant that last one then maybe he should give LafargeHolcim’s Jan Jenisch a call.

Earlier this year South Africa’s PPC commented on the drought facing Cape Town. It said that cement manufacturing was not water intensive, that its operations were ‘totally’ self-sufficient from its own surface water sources with capacity for several months and that it was working with the local government which viewed construction as an important economic sector. Point made!

Water conservation is an established part of the sustainability toolkit for cement producers. Yet recent weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere may also test how well companies are doing. Above average temperatures have been recorded this summer, in some places accompanied by unusually dry conditions. A news story this week about Cemex Colombia being fined for using water from a river shows one aspect of the problems that can face industrial users. Another story that we’ve covered previously has been the legal action taken against producers using water from a site near to the Katas Raj Temples in Pakistan.

Wet process cement manufacturing uses more water than dry process but even modern plants use water for cooling equipment and exhaust gases, in emission control systems such as wet scrubbers. In addition, quarrying and aggregate production may require water, and concrete production also needs water. Issues also arise with quarry dewatering and discharging water into rivers and the like. Global Cement Directory 2018 data indicates that, where known, about 10% of integrated cement plants still use a wet production method.

Graph 1: Specific water consumption by selected cement producers in 2017. Source: Corporate sustainability reports.

As Graph 1 shows there is some variation between the major cement producers with regards to how much water they use. They all operate with different types of equipment and production methods in different geographical locations so the difference between the companies is to be expected. A cement plant in northern Europe that normally experiences high levels of rainfall will have a different approach to water conservation than one, say, in a water stressed area like the Middle East. Incidentally, the definition used to define a water-stressed or scarce area is one where there is less than 1000m³/yr per person. One other point to note here is that each of the companies has a higher consumption figure than the 100 – 200L/t that the Cement Manufacturers' Association of the Philippines (CeMAP) reckoned that an average dry-process cement plant used when it was promoting water conservation back in 2013.

Looking at specific recent success stories, India’s UltraTech Cement reported a specific water consumption of 54L/t of clinker at its Star Cement plant in Dubai, UAE in 2016 – 2017 following a dedicated initiative at the site. An another milestone that UltraTech Cement was keen to point out in its last sustainability report was that three of 13 integrated plants had achieved water sufficiency though the use of the company’s 360° Water Management Model with its use of rainwater harvesting and recharging groundwater. These plants are not dependent on any groundwater or fresh water sources. The other larger cement producers all have similar water management schemes with reduction targets in place.

Climate change models generally predict hotter and wetter weather but changing weather patterns and growing populations are likely to impact upon water management and consumption. Given the integral nature of water in the cement production process, many cement producers have realised the importance of it and treat it as an input material like fuel or limestone. Hence the highlighting of water conservation in company sustainability reports over the last decade. The test for the success of these initiatives will be how producers cope in drought situations where they may be seen as being in competition with domestic users. Thankfully in PPC’s case, Cape Town avoided having to ration water to the general public, as the rains returned in the spring.

Hillhead 2018 is on this week and where better to capture a feel of the UK’s quarrying and construction industries? For those that don’t know, Hillhead is a biennial show that takes place in a quarry in Derbyshire. The show bills itself as the largest quarrying, construction and recycling event in the world. A large scale UK show gives us the opportunity to look at the local cement industry and we did exactly that in the June 2018 issue of Global Cement Magazine with Edwin Trout’s feature on the UK cement sector in 2017 and 2018. Following on from that article we’ll pick up a few threads.

Graph 1: Domestic cement production in the UK, 1996 - 2016. Source: Mineral Products Association (MPA).

Cement production in the UK fell by 5Mt/yr during the financial crisis of 2007 - 2008. Since then, as Graph 1 shows, production has been growing almost uniformly. However, it may have reached a plateau in 2017, with the major producers complaining about a weakened market due to Brexit uncertainty.

Main points from a news angle are the rise of the Breedon Group with its acquisition of Ireland’s Lagan Cement in April 2018, investments at Hanson’s Padeswood cement plant and Tarmac’s Dunbar cement plant and a fairly static market reported by the major producers. Alongside this, Ireland’s Ecocem opened a terminal in Sheerness in June 2017 and, more recently, has just inaugurated its slag grinding plant on the other side of the English Channel at Dunkirk.

The decision by Breedon to straddle an impending UK-European Union (EU) border seems wise with Hanson’s parent company HeidelbergCement actively blaming Brexit for market uncertainty in the UK. The rise of Ecocem, a slag cement grinder and distributor, also seems to suit the atmosphere with its smaller, more nimble operation than a clinker producer. It’s into this situation that Hanson is reusing a mill from Spain for its Padeswood project and Tarmac is buying its mill from Cemengal, a manufacturer known for making modular mills that can be moved after installation if so desired.

Banging on about Brexit, and indeed Brexit uncertainty, can’t last forever and once clarity appears then the building industry can focus on various pressing issues. One is the country’s lack of residential housing supply. One possible solution for this is a new national planning policy. The government finished a consultation period in May 2018 for the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and industry bodies like the Mineral Products Association (MPA) have been making their views known. The MPA worries that that the proposed changes will weaken the mineral planning system and threaten the replenishment of aggregate and other mineral reserves. It argues that to secure the essential minerals required to build all those new houses the government needs an, “...efficient and effective mineral planning system with up to date plans, well-resourced planning departments and good data, which are prerequisites, as is appropriate capacity and capability in the ministry to ensure the system is planned, monitored and managed.” Detractors may point out that once the NPPF gets sorted we can all get on with the job of actually, like, building things but, as ever, the MPA has its part to play in the process.

Another indicator for the resumption of ‘business as normal’ might be the number of exhibitors at a trade show like Hillhead. The oranisers say that the exhibitors have grown by 10% in 2018 from 2016. With a heatwave forecast, the group stages of the football World Cup continuing and live demonstrations ongoing there are worse places to be to ponder the state of the industry. Come and find Global Cement at our stand (PC45) in the main pavillion at Hillhead 2018 and tell us what you think.

UK: Albert Manifold, the head of CRH, has been elected as the president of the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) at its first meeting. Fernando A González, chief executive of Cemex, and Jianglin Cao, chief executive of CNBM, were named as vice-presidents.

“We are proud to launch this new global cement and concrete advocacy platform. Cement and concrete are integral elements of the built environment around the world and the GCCA represents a strong sector-wide voice and responsible industrial leadership in the manufacture and use of these materials,” said GCCA President, Albert Manifold.

The GCCA comprises 10 cement companies including Cemex, CNBM, CRH, Dangote, Eurocement, HeidelbergCement, LafargeHolcim, Taiheiyo, UltraTech and Votorantim. All board appointments are on an interim basis until formal elections can take place of the full board comprising 15 members at the organisation’s first annual general meeting to be held in London, UK in November 2018. The association will also present a work programme, launch its sustainability charter and run a conference at the same time. The GCCA has established its headquarters in London.

The latest data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) shows that cement shipments rose by 2.4% year-on-year to 95.5Mt in 2017. Readers with elephantine memories may remember that the Portland Cement Association (PCA) revised its forecast for 2017 down to 3.1% from 4.2% in a release made in late 2016. Shipments and consumption are different metrics but the PCA was heading in the right direction. Unfortunately, however ebullient the PCA’s chief economist Ed Sullivan was at the IEEE-PCA in 2017 about growth in the US in 2018 and 2019, the necessary rise required seems quite steep. President Donald Trump may have handed the major cement producers a tax break but until his infrastructure spending materializes the US construction industry is on its own.

Graph 1: Clinker production in the US, 2013 – 2017. Source: USGS.

Viewing the US as a whole is a little unfair given its wide regional variation. As can be seen in Graph 1 clinker production jumped up from 2013 to a high of 76.5Mt in 2015 before taking a dip in 2016 and then rising again to 76.9Mt in 2017. Cement shipments of Ordinary Portland and blended cement show a similar trend over the same timescale except without the decrease in 2016. Interestingly, imports of cement and clinker rose by 18% to 13.6Mt in that year. The major exporters to the US were Canada, Greece, China and Turkey, in that order.

Graph 2: Cement and clinker imported for consumption to the US in 2017 by country. Source: USGS.

From a producer perspective LafargeHolcim described 2017 as a ‘disappointing’ year, with overall net sales down slightly on a like-for-like basis. The group remained optimistic for 2018 though, with its hopes pinned on rising employment and housing construction. HeidelbergCement rode high on its acquisition of Italcementi’s local subsidiary Essroc, which enabled it to grow its business in the northeast and midwest. Its cement sales volumes rose by 2.3% to 4.1Mt. CRH noted similar cement sales volume growth of 3% and attributed this to stronger demand. Its business also benefited from the acquisition of Suwannee American Cement with its 1Mt/yr cement plant in Florida. Further growth to its production base is also expected soon as it completes its acquisition of Ash Grove Cement.

By contrast Buzzi Unicem reported a tougher year with its net sales barely increasing from 2016 to 2017. It blamed a tough first half of the year for this as well as weather-related issues due to Hurricane Harvey and then snow in December 2017. Cemex too reported harder conditions in the US, with cement sales volumes down by 6% for the year. Although on a like-for-like basis with plant sales excluded it reported this as a rise of 2%. Again, it blamed the weather but it did note an increase in residential housing construction as the year progressed.

In this kind of mixed environment for cement producers no wonder the PCA backed or, perhaps more accurately, reminded the President of his pledge to spend US$1.5tn to be invested in infrastructure. As per usual the PCA forecasts fair weather ahead for the US industry once the latest roadblock is overcome. At the last assessment it was inflationary pressure. As ever the government opening its cheque book to build things is exactly what the industry needs to build on its promise. Until then expect more of the same. One more thing to consider though is that the Trump administration is also trying to change the ratio of federal-to-state funding for cross-state infrastructure projects. If the states end up having to pay more money for these kinds of projects these may end up running out of funds, delaying or cancelling them. Counting on that infrastructure spend may be unwise until if or when the cement orders come piling in.

HeidelbergCement’s acquisition of Italcementi really sticks out in a comparison of the major multinational cement producers in 2017. Both its sales revenue and cement sales volumes jumped up by more than 10% year-on-year from 2016 to 2017. It still puts HeidelbergCement behind LafargeHolcim and CRH in revenue terms but the gap is shortening. Although, as we reported at the time of its preliminary results in late February 2018, on a like-for-like basis its sales and volumes only rose by 2.1% and 1.1% respectively.

Graph 1: Sales revenue from multinational cement producers in 2016 and 2017 (Euro billions). Source: Company financial reports.

The European markets may be back on their feet but serious growth came from mergers and acquisitions. Along the same lines, India’s UltraTech Cement is set to reap the reward of its US$2.5bn acquisition of six integrated cement plants and five grinding plants from Jaiprakash Associates in mid-2017. Although as can be seen in graphs 1 and 2 it had been doing fairly well even before this.

Graph 2: Cement sales volumes from multinational cement producers in 2016 and 2017 (Mt). Source: Company financial reports.

We’ve included Ireland’s CRH this year to present the scale of the company. When it says that it is the world’s biggest building materials company, it means it! CRH doesn’t publish its cement sales volumes, which makes it hard to compare it to other cement producers. In part this may be due to the company’s regional-focused structure and its approach to the construction industry. In Global Cement Magazine’s Top 100 Report 2017 – 2018 feature, CRH was placed as the seventh largest cement producer by installed capacity with 50.5Mt/yr. The major story with CRH in recent years has been its steady stream of acquisitions, notably Ash Grove Cement in the US in 2017.

LafargeHolcim may remain the biggest cement producer in the world outside of China but it made an income loss of Euro1.46bn in 2017. At face value its cement sales volumes fell by 10.2% to 210Mt in 2017 from 233Mt in 2016 but this was mainly due to divestments in China, Vietnam and Chile. On a like-for-for-like basis its volumes rose by 3.3%. To this kind of mood music the emphasis on the release of its 2017 results this week was the announcement of a five-year plan to refocus the company. However, reports of overcapacity in Algeria that also emerged this week suggest the group may have its work cut out.

Cemex described 2017 as a ‘challenging year’ as its operating earnings fell due to a lower contribution from the US and South America despite growth in Mexico and Europe. Hurricanes in Florida had a negative impact in the US and the Colombian market suffered from falling production in 2017. UltraTech Cement uses a different financial year to the other companies detailed here, which makes comparisons a little harder. However, its profit after tax fell in the third quarter that ended on 31 December 2017 due to rising costs of petcoke and coal. Undeterred though, its expansion drive continues this week with its continued efforts to try and win the bid for Binani Cement. Vicat, meanwhile, reported falling earnings in part due to the poor market in Egypt. Yet overall its sales and volumes rose in 2017 aided by recovery in France. Finally, Buzzi Unicem rode out the Italian market with its acquisition of Zillo Group delivering a rise in sales and cement volumes.

Wider trends are hard to call given the differing geographical spreads of these cement producers. Europe has been recovering from a decade of stagnation and Asian markets are no longer reliable. South America is mixed with places like Brazil, and now Colombia, underperforming. Yet Argentina is proving one of the fastest growing construction markets at the moment with local plants unable to meet demand. Africa remains profitable and promising as ever but divided between the north and the Sub-Saharan region.

Once the effects from mergers and acquisition activity by the larger cement producers start to fade then the actual situation may become clearer. In the meantime, the effects of the recent cold snap in Europe on the first quarter results for 2018 could be pretty varied. The Financial Times newspaper, for example, quoted one pundit from the Construction Products Association who estimated the industry lost 1% of its annual output to the bad weather in the UK. This may not be great news for any company relying on the European market.

The old saying goes that nothing is certain except for death and taxes. But maybe that should be cement and taxes. Paying your taxes is something most people and companies just get on with, perhaps with some grumbling or perhaps not, but certainly with little press. So two news stories popping up in the same week about cement plants with tax issues is out of the ordinary.

The first concerned Lucky Cement’s battle in Pakistan to keep one of its plants open following accusations of underpaying its taxes. The local tax office tried to shut the Pezu plant down for not paying its property tax. The cement producer hit back with a restraining order from the provincial high court. The second detailed efforts by the Ethiopian authorities efforts to claw back US$10m from a local cement producer accused of deliberately understating its profits. In both cases it’s hard to tell if there is an obvious right or wrong party. Yet if these kinds of stories are hitting the local press headlines then either something has gone wrong or both parties are digging in for a fight.

Looking over a longer time frame two major stories about tax have been doing the rounds over the last year in the industry news. India’s Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a classic example of how cement producers sometimes have to deal with changes to existing regulations. It received another outing this week in the form of the credit agency ICRA’s latest forecast. It explained how the introduction of the new tax, a consolidation of other existing indirect taxes, had slowed production in the second quarter of the Indian financial year in 2017 - 2018.

The other example from a large cement producing country was US President Donald Trump’s cut to federal corporate tax in December 2017. The tax cut was expected to particularly benefit companies that produce materials, like building materials manufacturers. It prompted HeidelbergCement to say in early January 2018 that it expected to see a boost to its profits in 2019. Warren Buffet, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and owner of insulation producer Johns Manville amongst other companies, put it bluntly when he said in his 2017 annual report that nearly half the gain of his company’s net worth came from the changes to the US tax system.

Multinational companies, including some cement producers, face issues when dealing with different rules and regulations between the various countries that they operate in. However, sometimes unfairly, sometimes not, large companies also hold a reputation for trying to avoid paying tax.

In this context it’s interesting to look at how LafargeHolcim says it approaches the issue. The company published its tax principles in 2016 where it talks about being responsible and that it, “…accepts tax as a necessary and required contribution to society.” It then talks about the necessity of transparency and good relationships with tax authorities. The same year it declared a total tax bill of Euro726m versus total sales revenue of Euro23bn. By contrast Cemex UK in its tax strategy talks about how it follows the US Sarbanes Oxley Act 2002, which applies a more stringent international accounting and auditing standard. It feels far more honest when it says that it aims to minimise the tax burden upon its shareholders by using methods outlined by the UK government. Taxes may be a certainty but nobody wants to pay a penny more in taxes than they have to.