Displaying items by tag: European Union

Cementos Molins has been celebrating the first anniversary this week of its alternative raw materials unit at its Sant Vicenç dels Horts plant near Barcelona. It has processed 75,000t of waste since September 2022 when the site started up. More is yet to come as the unit has a production capacity of up to 200,000t/yr. The facility receives waste in coarse, granular, powder and sludge formats. Waste from concrete plants is crushed and screened to produce recycled aggregate. Industrial and construction waste is dosed and homogenised to produce alternative raw materials for cement production.

Global Cement Weekly has covered construction and demolition waste (CDW) a couple of times already so far in 2023. A number of cement producers are investing in the sector - including Holcim, Heidelberg Materials, CRH, Cemex – by developing technology, buying up other companies, setting up internal CDW divisions and so on. Holcim and Heidelberg Materials have been the more obviously active participants over the past six months based on media coverage. In September 2023 Holcim France commissioned the Saint-Laurent-de-Mûre alternative raw materials plant and Holcim Group invested in Neustark, a company promoting technology to sequester CO₂ in CDW. In August 2023 Lafarge Canada also completed the first stage of a pilot project to use CDW in cement production at its St. Constant plant in Quebec. Heidelberg Materials meanwhile announced in October 2023 that a forthcoming upgrade to its Górażdże cement plant in Poland would include a new CDW recycling unit and in September 2023 it launched a CDW division for its subsidiary Hanson UK.

Previously we have described how the European Union (EU) has set recovery targets for CDW. However, McKinsey & Company published research in March 2023 setting out the economic case for cement and concrete companies looking at CDW. It estimated that “an increased adoption of circular technologies could be linked to the emergence of new financial net-value pools worth up to roughly Euro110bn by 2050.” It is not a certainty and there is risk involved, but adopting circular practices is one way to reduce this risk. It then went on to predict that recirculating materials and minerals could generate nearly Euro80bn/yr in earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) for the cement and concrete sectors by 2050. The biggest portion of this could come from using CDW in various ways such as a clinker replacement or as an aggregate in concrete production, or the use of unhydrated cement ‘fines.’ Capturing and using CO₂ and increasing alternative fuels (AF) substitution rates would have a financial impact but not to the same scale.

Graph 1: CO₂ abatement cost via circular technologies for cement and concrete sectors. Source: McKinsey & Company.

Graph 1 above puts all of the McKinsey circular technology suggestions in one place with the prediction that all of these methods could reduce CO₂ emissions from cement and concrete production by 80% in 2050 based on an estimated demand of 4Bnt/yr. The first main point they made was that technologies using CO₂, such as curing ready-mix or precast concrete, can create positive economic value at carbon prices of approximately Euro80/t of CO₂. Readers should note that the EU emissions Trading Scheme CO₂ price has generally been above Euro80t/yr since the start of 2022. The second point to note is that using CDW could potentially save money by offering CO₂ abatement at a negative cost through avoiding landfill gate fees and reducing the amount of raw materials required. This is dependent though on government regulation on CO₂ prices, landfill costs and so on.

Cement producers have been clearly aware of the potential of CDW for a while now, based on the actions described above and elsewhere, and they are jockeying for advantage. These companies are familiar with the economic rationale for AF and secondary cementitious materials (SCM) in different countries and locations. CDW usage is similar but with, in McKinsey’s view, existing CO₂ prices, landfill costs, and regulatory frameworks all playing a part in the calculations. Graph 1 is a prediction but it is also another way of showing the path of least resistance to decarbonisation. It is cheaper to start with AF, SCMs and CDW rather than barrelling straight into carbon capture. The beauty here is that cement and concrete sold, say, 50 years ago is now heading back to the producers in the form of CDW and it still has value.

Bulgaria: Heidelberg Materials subsidiary Devnya Cement has commenced construction of the ANRAV.beta carbon capture pilot unit at its Devnya cement plant near Varna. Construction will take ‘a few months,’ followed by a pilot trial lasting 12 – 24 months. The ANRAV system will rely on OxyCal oxygen-enriched burner technology to eventually capture 800,000t/yr of CO₂ from 3Mt/yr of plant flue emissions. The project has Euro190m in grants from the EU Innovation Fund and is scheduled for delivery in 2028.

Heidelberg Materials’ Northern and Eastern Europe-Central Asia regional director Ernest Jelito said “The OxyCal technology we will be trialling in Devnya is a crucial addition to our portfolio of capture technologies. Obtaining solid operational data from industrial pilots like this is essential to ensure the successful implementation of projects under our comprehensive CCUS investment programme. At the same time, we can demonstrate an economically feasible way to decarbonise carbon-intensive industries in Eastern Europe.”

Algeria: Amouda Cement plans to start exporting cement to the European Union (EU) by end of 2023. It obtained a certificate of conformity to EU standards in March 2023, according to the Algeria Press Service. Djarmoun Fatimé, the cement producer’s Marketing and Communications Director, made the announcement at the Batiwest 2023 trade show taking place in Oran. The company has exported nearly 200,000t of cement and clinker to Mali and Niger since 2021. It is also hoping to target countries in West Africa such as Mauritania and Senegal.

The company operates a 2.5Mt/yr integrated cement plant with two production lines at El Beïda in Laghouat province.

The European Union (EU) carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) started its transitional phase this week ahead of the full adoption of the scheme in 2026. Importers of goods with a high carbon cost, including cement, will have to report the direct and indirect CO₂ emissions associated with production. No financial penalty will be incurred during the transition period, but from 2026 onwards importers will have to start buying certificates at the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) price. However, even the full version of the CBAM will be phased in with the cost of embedded emissions increased gradually from 2026 to 2034. Readers can catch up on the CBAM guidance for importers here.

Graph 1: Sources of cement and clinker imports to the EU in H1 2023. Source: Eurostat/Cembureau.

Global Cement Weekly has covered the EU CBAM frequently, but it is worth remembering which countries are most likely to be affected. According to data from Eurostat and Cembureau, the EU imported just over 10Mt of cement and clinker in 2022. This compares to around 2.5Mt in 2016. Graph 1 (above) is even more instructive, as it shows where the cement and clinker came from in the first half of 2023. Most of it was manufactured in countries on the periphery of the EU with, roughly, a third from Türkiye and a third from North Africa. These are the countries with the most to lose from the CBAM.

Graph 2: CO₂ emissions intensity for cement exports. Green signifies cleaner than the EU average, Red signifies more carbon intensive than the EU average. Source: World Bank.

Türkiye is the most exposed. Data from Türkçimento shows that it exported 3.4Mt of cement and clinker into the EU in 2022 or 13% of its total exports. Bulgaria, Italy and Romania were the main destinations for cement. Belgium, Spain and France were the main targets for clinker. Notably, more clinker than cement was exported to the EU. For context, in total Türkiye exported 18.5Mt and 8.5Mt of cement and clinker respectively in 2022. The US was the leading destination for Turkish cement at 9.7Mt and Ivory Coast for clinker at 1.3Mt. Türkiye seems set to tackle the problem that CBAM poses for its iron and cement sectors by introducing its own emissions trading scheme. One view expressed has been that if the country has to pay for its carbon emissions it would much rather pocket the money domestically than see it go to a foreign entity. A relative CBAM Exposure Index put together by the World Bank by June 2023 suggested that Türkiye would actually benefit slightly in comparison to some of its cement exporting rivals as the CO₂ emissions intensity of its cement exports was 4.85kg CO₂eq/US$. This study’s pivot point was 4.97kg CO₂eq/US$, putting Türkiye just across the line for increased competitiveness.

Cement export data for Algeria is harder to find but state-owned Groupe des Ciments d'Algérie (GICA) has been regularly issuing bulletins since 2018 detailing its cement exports. It previously had an export target of 2Mt for 2023 with destinations in Africa, Europe and South and Central America. Looking more widely, research by the African Climate Foundation (ACF) and the Firoz Lalji Institute for Africa at the London School of Economics and Political Science estimated that 12% of Africa’s cement exports ended up in the EU. It reckoned that the introduction of the CBAM and an EU ETS price of Euro87/t would reduce total African exports of cement to the EU by 3 - 5% if the EU ended its ETS free allowance. The World Bank CBAM Exposure study found that Egypt and Morocco were likely to become more competitive for cement exports but Tunisia less so. Unfortunately this analysis did not cover Algeria.

The third largest individual source of imports into the EU in the first half of 2023 was Ukraine. Research from the Kiev School of Economics estimated that the start of the CBAM would reduce the export volume of cement to the EU by 2 - 5%/yr. The World Bank study found that Ukraine would become less competitive as the emissions intensity of its cement exports was 7.62kg CO₂eq/US$. This would be compounded by the fact that more than 90% of the country’s cement exports ended up in the EU. However, since the EU backed the country when Russia invaded in early 2022, imposing the CBAM on exports has acquired geopolitical consequences. There has been lobbying on this issue from various sources, so this situation might be one to watch to gain a sense of how the EU might react when its sustainability aims clash with its political imperatives.

One major risk for the cement exporting countries soon to be affected by the CBAM is if other countries start to do the same in a domino effect before the exporters introduce their own carbon pricing schemes. Türkiye is clearly alert to this. Other countries are thinking the same way. The US, for example, has had senators discuss the merits of setting up its own version. It is also wise to using sustainability legislation to further its own economic ends as the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 showed. At the moment the US needs lots of cement imports but were this to change then the case to enact a US CBAM might grow.

Finally, one should never discount the sheer amount of bureaucracy involved when dealing with the EU. The UK discovered this when it voted to leave the EU and now the rest of the world gets to enjoy it too! Christian Alexander Müller of Evonik told the Die Welt newspaper this week that Brussels had created a bureaucratic ‘Godzilla.' Another commentator noted that the European Commission only published its guidance document for importers on CBAM in mid-August 2023 and that helping export partners would be like teaching them Latin in just a few weeks. Bona fortuna!

Europe: Six cement plants were reportedly issued around Euro88m in free European Union emissions allowances (EUA) from 2019 to 2022 despite the clinker kilns at the units being idle or running at low levels. Research by the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS) has revealed that plants operated by Buzzi, Cementos Portland Valderrivas (CPV), Cemex, Holcim and Votorantim Cimentos all benefited from the scheme despite only emitting 36,370t of CO2. The companies would then have been able to use the subsidy to cover emissions costs at other plants or sell the permits. OPIS identified five plants in Spain and one in Germany.

Australia’s Climate Change Minister announced plans this week to look at a potential carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM). Chris Bowen told an Australian Business Economists forum in Sydney that policies were needed to ensure a level playing field for Australian firms. Mentioning the European Union’s (EU) CBAM by name, he said that his department would prepare a review to assess carbon leakage risks, develop policy options and look at the feasibility of an Australian CBAM, particularly in relation to steel and cement.

The Antipodean nation has past form when it comes to carbon legislation. Back in 2012 it introduced the Clean Energy Act under the Gillard administration. The legislation was intended to introduce an emissions trading scheme with a carbon pricing scheme. However, it faced opposition from rival political parties and the Cement Industry Federation warned that the local cement sector was vulnerable to overseas competitors outside of the scheme. Job losses followed and Adelaide Brighton appeared to react by focusing more on imports. The Abbott administration then abolished the act in 2014 putting forward its Clean Energy Future package instead, which focused more on investing towards change. Jump forward nearly a decade and the Albanese government passed its Climate Change Bill in 2022. This set legally binding targets, including a commitment to cut CO2 emissions by 43% from 2005 levels by 2030. Bowen’s look at a CBAM is an obvious next step from here, addressing one of the main criticisms of the previous Clean Energy Act.

Local building materials company Boral reacted positively to a CBAM in its annual results released earlier this week with chief executive officer Vik Bansal saying that the company was “...advocating for an effective Carbon Border Adjusted Mechanism for Australia.” He also reconfirmed the group’s commitment to a target of net zero emissions by 2050. However, at the same time, Boral also reduced its emissions reduction target to 2025 from 2019 figures to up to 14% from 19% previously. This was blamed on “external factors” such as delays in securing the required regulatory approvals for the next phases of an alternative fuel program. Mining company Rio Tinto also warned in late July 2023, as part of its half-year financial results, that it might potentially miss its emissions target for 2025 unless it resorted to buying carbon credits.

CBAMs became serious in 2023 when the EU passed its own scheme into law in May 2023. The EU CBAM will now enter into a transitional phase from 1 October 2023 until the end of 2025. During this period importers of goods covered by the legislation will be required to report greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) embedded in their imports (direct and indirect emissions) but they will not have to make any financial payments or adjustments. The system will then enter its full format from 1 January 2026, with affected importers being forced to purchase and surrender CBAM certificates, which will be priced at the EU emission trading scheme (ETS) rate, currently at around Euro88/t. Other CBAMs have also been mooted in Canada and the US. In Canada the government ran a consultation on border carbon adjustments in 2021. It is currently considering its next steps. The US meanwhile has had both Republican and Democrat party senators make separate suggestions for a CBAM since at least 2021.

Just because the EU is set to implement its CBAM and other countries are considering their own versions doesn’t mean that they are necessarily a good idea. Cembureau, the European cement association, has been steadily lobbying on the details such as indirect emissions and waste incineration in the EU CBAM for years. Criticisms of CBAMs in general include potential clashes with World Trade Organisation rules, accusations of protectionism, triggering inflation, not being equitable to less developed nations and even failing to stop carbon leakage in the first place. The EU CBAM has also linked itself to the local ETS price. So, even after the transitional period, the carbon price may start to jump about in unpredictable ways once the system fully goes live in 2026.

The game-changer in recent years for international carbon emissions reduction legislation though was arguably when the US government introduced its Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. This is because it served both sustainability and self-interest on a grander scale than seen previously. The act promised US$369bn in subsidies for companies to invest in low carbon technology. However, the catch was that the investment tied supply chains to the US market, much to the ire of some of the US’ trade partners such as the EU. CBAMs offer a similar opportunity to governments around the world if they choose. They can be used to protect domestic carbon emission reduction effects in heavy industry but they can also be used for protectionism. Hence Bowen was due to say during his speech that the Inflation Reduction Act and other policies elsewhere “mean that Australia needs to act to stay in the game.” Australia has the advantage that it can watch how the EU CBAM pans out before it implements its own version.

The close of the first half of 2023 brought the latest crop of seasonal cement data from the Vietnam National Cement Association (VNCA). Vietnam sold 61.4Mt of cement and clinker during the first half of 2023, up by 2.7% year-on-year.¹ Graph 1 (below) tracks the progress of full-year Vietnamese cement and clinker sales over the six years up to 2022, as well as the most recent half-year.

Graph  1 - Vietnamese annual cement production, January 2017 – June 2023

The first half of 2023 marks the first half-year in which lockdown restrictions have been absent in both Vietnam and its main export market, China, since the start of the Covid-19 outbreak.² Vietnam was especially hard-hit: it implemented the first lockdown outside of China in March 2020, and has recorded the 13th most Covid-19 cases of any country up to July 2023. Then, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 caused uncertainties for cement producers and importers all around the world. Yet the price of imported coal across Southeast Asia had returned to pre-war levels by the end of June 2023.³ This indicates that the first half of 2023 may represent a ‘typical’ first half for the Vietnamese cement industry, for the first time this decade. During the 2010s, this meant growth margins of over 10% year-on-year.

During the first half of 2023, Vietnam’s sales volumes grew by 30% from pre-Covid-19 levels of 47.1Mt in the first half of 2019, confirming the industry trend of rapid capacity expansion. Just in the course of the half year, Vietnam’s integrated cement capacity rose by 7.9% to 123Mt/yr.⁴ It previously rose by 6.9% year-on-year to 114Mt/yr in 2022. That year, first-half cement sales also grew by 6.9% year-on-year, to 59.8Mt from 55.9Mt. In the first half of 2023, capacity growth has outstripped the country’s sales growth, of 2.7% year-on-year.

Meanwhile, Vietnam exported 15.7Mt of cement and clinker in the first half of 2023, 26% of its total despatches.⁵ This corresponds to a decline of 31% year-on-year from 22.7Mt (38% of despatches) in the first half of 2022 and a rise of 0.5% from pre-Covid-19 levels of 15.6Mt (33%) in the first half of 2019.

Chinese construction is the lynchpin in the Vietnamese cement industry’s current growth model. Over successive Five-Year Plans, it has consumed increasing volumes of clinker from Vietnam, as well as cement, at diminishing prices. This strategy overreached itself in the first quarter of 2023, more than a year into an on-going Chinese property market slump, when the value of Vietnam’s cement and clinker exports to the country fell by 95% year-on-year, to US$11.4m.⁶

By lowering prices, Vietnam’s cement sector charts a careful course within the contested waters of global trade rules, but it has run aground before. Most recently, from the start of 2023, the Philippines attached tariffs of up to 28% (and up to 55% for blended cement) to Vietnamese cement from 11 different producers.⁷ The Philippines Tariff Commission had found that ‘dumped’ cement from Vietnam – constituting over 50% of cement imports over the 18 months up to the end of 2020 – threatened the domestic industry. The failure to diversify its markets is a further sign that Vietnam’s current positioning in the cement and clinker trade is, at best, medium-term.

From October 2023, cement entering the European Union (EU) will become subject to extra taxes under the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM).⁸ The EU is a relatively small trade partner for Vietnam, but the longer-term effect of this policy will be to replicate itself in the statute books of other nations and trade blocs, beginning in the Global North. With forecast lignite imports of 70 – 75Mt to Vietnam in 2023 – 2026, opportunities for cement exports from Vietnam, and countries like it, are diminishing.

The best situation for Vietnam would be accelerated growth in its domestic consumption base. The government is attempting to trigger a construction boom with its 2023 budget, which includes US$5bn in residential construction funding. Meanwhile, full-year infrastructure spending will rise by 25% year-on-year.⁹ To this end, it also needs to keep the cement price low. From 1 January 2023, Vietnamese exporters paid a tax of 10% of value on shipments of cement and clinker, instead of the previous 5% rate. If successful, this will nourish booming consumption with booming, and cheap, supply. Vietnam is grafting its Chinese model back onto the domestic market.

Producers will keep exporting. In May 2023, Nghi Son Cement Corporation despatched a first shipment of 31,500t of cement to the US. Nghi Son Cement Corporation’s cement, produced with fly ash, is clearly considered by the company and its owners to have some long-term marketability in the US. Said owners include Japan-based Taiheiyo Cement, which produces cement in the US via its CalPortland subsidiary.

In Vietnam, the cement industry has undergone a period of unparalleled growth, fuelled by exports. It can now reinvest the proceeds in establishing a self-sufficient construction sector around an ever more sustainable cement industry, ready to become the first choice across new markets as they arise in Southeast Asia and beyond.

1. Global Cement, 'Vietnam's first-half cement production declines in 2023,' 29 June 2023, https://www.globalcement.com/news/item/15941-vietnam-s-first-half-cement-production-declines-in-2023

2. The Observer, ‘‘It was all for nothing’: Chinese count cost of Xi’s snap decision to let Covid rip,’ 29 January 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/29/chinese-cost-covid-xi-lockdowns-china

3. Reuters, ‘Column: Asia thermal coal prices get the blues from Europe and LNG,’ 20 June 2023, https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/asia-thermal-coal-prices-get-blues-europe-lng-russell-2023-06-20/

4. Việt Nam News, ‘Record input costs thwart cement groups,’ 12 July 2023, https://global.factiva.com/ha/default.aspx?mod=SavedSearch_SelectSearch&page_driver=SavedSearch_SelectSearch#./!?&_suid=168119771197707004455190223307

5. Việt Nam News, ‘Industry: Vietnam’s Cement, Clinker Exports +82.2% y/y to $116M in Jun: GSO,’ 4 July 2023, https://global.factiva.com/ha/default.aspx?page_driver=searchBuilder_Search#./!?&_suid=168908188871006418595282713178

6. Vietnam Investment Review, ‘A strenuous year ahead in cement,’ 9 May 2023, https://vir.com.vn/a-strenuous-year-ahead-in-cement-101707.html

7. Global Cement, 'Philippines Department of Trade and Industry to impose anti-dumping duties on cement from Vietnam,' 22 December 2022, https://www.globalcement.com/news/item/15084-philippines-department-of-trade-and-industry-to-impose-anti-dumping-duties-on-cement-from-vietnam

8. Global Cement, 'Too taxing? How the CBAM affects cement exporters to the EU,’ 29 June 2022, https://www.globalcement.com/news/item/14316-too-taxing-how-the-cbam-affects-cement-exporters-to-the-eu

9. Customs News, ‘Cement enterprises expect a "brighter" second half of 2023
https://english.haiquanonline.com.vn/cement-enterprises-expect-a-brighter-second-half-of-2023-25368.html

Belgium: The European cement association, Cembureau, has asked the Europen Union (EU) to provide a regulatory framework to support the work of the European cement industry in co-processing waste composite materials as alternative raw materials. The materials in question consist of glass, carbon or other fibres and polymer matrices. The association called on the EU to recognise co-processing as ‘recycling’ under the EU Waste Framework Directive, to establish waste composite materials collection schemes and phase out landfilling, and to introduce dedicated waste codes for the materials. Cembureau said that the last of these proposals would help to increase visibility and attract investments.

Cembureau set out its proposals in a joint statement with resins associations Cefic UP/VE and Cefic Epoxy Europe, boating association EBI, composite materials association EuCIA, glass fibre association Glass Fibre Europe and wind energy association WindEurope.

Lithuania: Akmenes Cementas has benefitted from a European Union (EU) ban on cement exports from Belarus in response to the Russian-led invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The subsidiary of Germany-based Schwenk Zement reported a profit of Euro16m in 2022, according to the Baltic News Service. This is its first recorded profit since 2013. Artūras Zaremba, the head of Akmenes Cementas, added that higher cement prices, further borrowing from its parent company and fixed electricity prices also helped it make a profit.

The company’s income grew by 53% year-on-year to Euro134m in 2022 from Euro87.5m in 2021. Its cement sales volumes increased by 6% to 1.5Mt and cement production rose by 8% to 1.1Mt. Around 1.1Mt of cement was sold domestically with the remainder exported to other countries within the EU. Cement sales are expected to fall in 2023 due to changes in the local market.

Betolar has called today for a global performance-based standard to replace existing prescriptive standards. Riku Kytömäki, the head of Betolar, argued at the London-based Concrete Expo that the lack of a performance-based standard is holding back the use of low-carbon materials from replacing cement in concrete production. He said “the current regulations across the markets are restricting the use of circular materials allowed in concrete buildings.” Betolar produces Geoprime, an additive designed for use in cement-free concrete production with ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS). This gives the company a financial reason to want standards to change, as it will potentially allow it to sell more of its product. However, as the company points out, “there is a huge need for new alternatives.” The world needs around 4Bnt/yr of cement but there is only 300Mt/yr of slag available.

Building materials producers and related companies wanting to change rules and standards in response to new trends is a common refrain. For instance, the increased use of alternative fuels by the cement sector has prompted all sorts of regulatory changes. However, rather than simply asking for amendments to the existing ways of doing things, Betolar is advocating for more wholesale change. It isn’t alone. Also this week the ASTM in the US announced that it is writing a specification to include a wider range of secondary cementitious materials (SCM). In addition, many of the interviews Global Cement Magazine has conducted with companies developing and marketing new types of cement and concrete in recent years have said similar things. Examples include the use of graphene, carbon nanotubes or sequestering CO₂ into industrial by-products to create novel secondary cementitious materials (SCM).

Prescriptive versus performance-based approaches to buildings and building materials tie into wider design philosophies about construction. The prescriptive approach provides detailed descriptions of regulations, methods and components, such as cement and concrete standards. With respect to concrete standards, this might mean setting mandatory SCM and cement proportions, determining allowable water content, certain types of aggregate to be used and so on. The performance approach focuses on the end results, although it can be just as codified and standardised as the prescriptive route. For concrete, for example, this means that performance is measured by standard test methods with defined acceptance criteria stated in the contract documents with no restrictions on the parameters of concrete mixture proportions.

For cement and concrete standards the prescriptive approach dominated in Europe and North America in the 20th century. However, this began to change in the US in 2002 when the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) started working on its roadmap towards its Prescription to Performance (P2P) initiative. The key aim of the scheme was to shift the emphasis from prescribing (or indeed proscribing) the ingredients and their proportions in a concrete mixture to an emphasis on the performance properties of the combined materials. A decade later in the mid-2010s it found during a progress review that about half of the sample of project specifications studied were classified as ‘prescriptive.’ The biggest prescriptive restriction was on the quantity of SCMs set by specification writers. These were often percentages required in certain circumstances, such as freezing and thawing cycles, but imposed on all usage.

The current bout of interest in performance-based standards appears to be driven by the growing demand for cement and concrete products to lower their clinker factor by using higher amounts of SCMs. A far wider range of SCM-based products are being developed and coming to market and then encountering regulatory burden. These new material manufacturers are meeting up with the sustainability lobby, which also has an interest in decarbonising building materials. In 2022, for example, the Belgium-based Environmental Coalition on Standards (ECOS) started pushing for performance-based standards for cement. In a statement it said that, “it is commonly accepted that prescriptive specifications are convenient, but that this convenience is obtained at the expense of (eco-) innovation and decarbonisation.” It added that the switch to performance-based standards would also strengthen the European internal market for construction products as part of the Construction Products Regulation (CPR). It noted the ASTM standards for hydraulic cements (ASTM C-1157), that were developed in the 1990s in the US, and more recent developments in the field in Latin America.

It is worth pointing out that the prescriptive route does have its advantages. Using a prescriptive system is easier for less-experienced practitioners or generalists as it sets a minimum standard, even if it is over-engineered. Responsibility is shared out among the supply chain under a performance-based system for the quality of concrete. Under a prescriptive system, the supplier or contractor can be held responsible for quality control issues. For the performance approach this has to be specifically defined, although systems are in place to help. Making it harder via ‘red tape’ for new products to enter a market may stifle innovation but it also gives these new products far more time to be tested rigorously.

The whole prescriptive-performance standards issue opens up the wider implications of decarbonising construction materials. Where once there was a relatively small number of different types of cement and concrete now there are potentially hundreds, each looking for market share. Whether this situation will be the same in a decade’s time remains to be seen. A few common SCM-based cement and concrete products and formulations may predominate. For now, the future seems wide open and bigger changes, such as the global performance-based standards Betolar is advocating, may be required to support this. Considering the massive variation between countries and states, even within the US and the European Union, let alone the rest of the world, this seems ambitious. But it is not impossible!