Displaying items by tag: Global Cement and Concrete Association

There was good news from the corporate finance sector for cement producers this week in the form of an approving statement by Fitch Ratings. It declared that it expected the sector to be able to pass on the costs of decarbonisation to customers due to a lack of alternatives. It recognised the challenges posed by regulators, investors and societal pressure but, even so, it suggested that cement was still an industry worth backing. Or at least for now. Added to this, it forecast that demand for building materials would grow to support the transition to a low carbon economy and to combat the damage caused by climate change. It did admit that the capital or operating costs required to decarbonise are seen as being potentially large, especially with uncertainty over how much governments will pay or incentivise. Yet the timescales involved are beyond the ratings agency’s ‘horizon’ hence no really disruptive shifts in producer economics are expected anytime soon.

This was obviously a win for the cement industry and its cheerleading associations led by the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA), the World Cement Association and the regional associations. After all, the increasingly convergent message to the wider world has been along the lines of ‘concrete is part of the solution and you need our products because there’s nothing else.’ Good timing then for the GCCA to launch its collaboration with the World Economic Forum, the ‘Concrete Action for Climate’ (CAC) initiative. The collaborative platform is planned to help drive the industry’s journey to carbon neutral concrete by 2050 as part of the wider Mission Possible Partnership, a wider coalition of public and private organisations working on setting the heavy industry and transport sectors towards net-zero. Expect lots more of these kinds of announcements on the road to the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) taking place in Scotland in late October 2021.

Fitch Ratings did point out that societal awareness was likely to accelerate decarbonisation. The sharp end of this trend was experienced by the building materials industry this week when environmental activist group Extinction Rebellion forced operations to stop temporarily at LafargeHolcim’s Port de Javel ready-mixed concrete plant in Paris on 30 June 2021. This followed a similar incident by the same group at a LafargeHolcim subsidiary ready-mix plant in London in mid-2019. Given the share of global CO₂ emissions from the cement-concrete production chain, it is perhaps surprising that climate activists haven’t targeted clinker-producing cement plants directly in the same way that they have gone after coal-fired power stations. Clinker kilns are, after all, the source of the majority of the sector’s emissions. However, blockading a concrete plant in the city may conjure up a more potent media image than doing the same to a factory out in the country.

Instead the battles with cement plants and their quarries tend to be of a ‘not in my back yard’ (Nimby) nature. Or rather ‘not in my monastery (Nimmon?) this week, with the news that a subsidiary of YTL Cement in Malaysia is attempting to evict a group of Buddhist monks and their underground place of worship from a quarry on Mount Kanthan in Perak. In the latest twist of the long running saga, the monks have hit back with an attempt to get their portion of the site recognised as a place of worship and a heritage site. Thankfully a more positive example of how quarries can fit in with the wider community could be found this week in the guise of an archaeological dig at CRH subsidiary Tarmac’s Knobb’s Farm quarry in Cambridgeshire, UK. The discovery of a Roman Britain-era cemetery with a high proportion of decapitated bodies may have been gruesome but the relations between the operator and the archaeologists were much more harmonious. Another recent example was the discovery of what may be a new precursor species of humans, unearthed at a quarry run by Nesher-Israel Cement Enterprises site at Ramla in late June 2021.

The paradox building materials producers pose to environmental activists could be summed up by the record heat wave that hit the north-western region of North America recently. CO₂ emissions, in minor part produced by the cement and concrete industries, are the most likely reason for an increased frequency of extreme weather events such as this. Yet, infrastructure such as pavements and roads were widely reported as having buckled in the heat, principally because they weren’t built for such high temperatures. They will have to be rebuilt to withstand similar temperatures in the future. Building materials can thus be seen as both part of the problem and part of the solution. Yet with net zero targets nearly 30 years away it seems likely that continued extreme weather events and their potentially lethal consequences will speed up the public demand for decarbonisation. It is worth noting here that one of Extinction Rebellion’s demands in the UK is that the country should become net zero by 2025.

Fitch Ratings has cast its vote for now and Extinction Rebellion and its fellows are set to continue to wage their political campaigns. In the meantime it is debatable how much spiritual solace will be found by the monks of Mount Kanthan during blasting hours at the neighbouring quarry.

UK: The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) has launched Concrete Action for Climate (CAC) in partnership with the World Economic Forum. The GCCA says that CAC will support industry, civil society, governments and investors to coordinate global climate actions towards 2050 net-zero targets. The initiative represents 40% of the global concrete and cement industry through the GCCA and will bring it together with external expertise and influence. It will achieve its aims by helping to help deliver and coordinate global climate action, stimulating demand for sustainable materials and ensuring appropriate financing and public policy is in place to help the sector reduce its carbon footprint, according to the association.

CAC chair Dominik von Achten said, “Concrete is vital to the development of the modern world, being used to develop key infrastructure like safe homes, bridges and hospitals, as well as supporting the transition to clean energy. Strong action to improve the sustainability of cement and concrete is already underway, but the industry needs to engage and collaborate with others to help drive collective action towards achieving carbon neutral concrete for the world. Today’s launch of the CAC platform is a great example of such collective action. It’s encouraging and exciting to see influential, global organisations from across the world come together to support the cement and concrete industry on its path to carbon neutrality.”

Mexico: Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua (GCC) has joined other members of the UK-based Global Cement and Concrete Association(GCCA) in committing to carbon-neutral concrete production by 2050. The association launched the ambition in September 2020.

GCC chief executive officer Enrique Escalante said, “Sustainability is an important element of our long-term strategy. GCC is committed to implementing global best practices throughout the organisation while further strengthening the Company’s long-term profitability.”

UK: The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) has published its 2050 Climate Ambition, a joint industry commitment to net-zero carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions by 2050. The association’s 40 members have committed to, “eliminating direct energy-related emissions and maximizing the co-processing of waste from other industries, reducing and eliminating indirect energy emissions through renewable electricity sources, reducing process emissions through new technologies and deployment of carbon capture at scale, reducing the content of both clinker in cement and cement in concrete, as well as more efficient use of concrete in buildings and infrastructure, reprocessing concrete from construction and demolition waste to produce recycled aggregates to be used in concrete manufacturing and quantifying and enhancing the level of CO₂ uptake of concrete through re-carbonation and enhanced re-carbonation in a circular economy, whole-life context.”

President Albert Manifold said, “The 2050 Climate Ambition represents our industry’s commitment to further reducing emissions and ensuring that the vital product we provide can be delivered on a carbon-neutral basis by 2050. There is a significant challenge involved in doing so and achieving alignment across our industry on a sustainable way forward is an important first step. We cannot however succeed alone and in launching our ambition statement we are also highlighting the need for our industry to work collaboratively with other stakeholders in support of our ambition for a more sustainable future.”

HeidelbergCement released their sustainability report for 2019 this week. Every large cement producer publishes one but this one is worth checking out because of the company’s ambition to become CO₂ neutral. Other companies are heading the same way but few of them have such developed and public plans.

Sustainability reports are often a hodgepodge of non-financial reporting bringing together environment, health and safety, community and other topics. Multinational companies cover a wide range of jurisdictions and combining reporting in these kinds of fields can be beneficial. Typically they are members of various bodies like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or the Global Cement & Concrete Association (GCCA) that give various levels of conformity between reports. Yet, the wider focus of sustainability reports gives companies a chance to promote what they are doing well, away from balance sheets.

One highlight of HeidelbergCement’s report is its progress towards reducing its specific CO₂ emissions per tonne of cement and its recognition by the Science Based Targets (SBT) initiative towards this goal. So far it has achieved a reduction of around 22% from 1990 levels to 599kg CO₂/t (net) with a target of a 30% reduction or 520kg CO₂/t by 2030. There is a lot more going on in the report but it’s led by the vision, ‘to offer CO₂-neutral concrete by 2050 at the latest.’ It plans to achieve this by increasing the proportion of alternative CO2-neutral raw materials and fuels, developing lower clinker cement types and capturing and utilising CO₂ emissions. A focus on concrete is worth noting given the pivot by building materials manufactures towards concrete in recent years.

Back in the present, HeidelbergCement is roughly in the middle of the pack of major European multinational cement producers with its specific CO₂ emissions for cement in 2019. LafargeHolcim reported 561kg CO₂/t and Cemex reported 622kg CO₂/t. This is a bit of a moving target since corporate acquisitions and divestments can change both the starting point and the apparent current progress. HeidelbergCement’s acquisition of Italcementi in 2017 or CRH’s purchase of Ash Grove did exactly that. The other thing to consider is that these companies manufacture a lot of cement. The actual gross CO₂ emissions from a multinational cement producer are immense. LafargeHolcim, one of the world’s largest multinational producers, emitted 113Mt of CO₂ in 2019 from process and fuel sources whilst making cement. To put that into context, estimates for total global CO₂ emissions range from 33 – 36Gt for 2019. The cement industry’s entire share was estimated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) to be 4.1Gt in 2018.

Where this sustainability report starts to become really interesting is where it talks about CO₂ capture and utilisation. Its plans in this department are more mature than many of its competitors with various initiatives at different levels of development, mostly in Europe. Norcem, its Norwegian subsidiary, recently signed an agreement with Aker Solutions to order a CO₂ capture, liquification and intermediate storage plant at its integrated Brevik cement plant. The deal is dependent on government support but it’s a serious proposal. As reported previously from the Innovation in Industrial Carbon Capture Conference 2020, HeidelbergCement is actively preparing to hook up with CO₂ transport and storage infrastructure. The driver is CO₂ pricing from initiatives like the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). With the EU preparing for the next phase of the ETS and talk of the European Green Deal gathering pace, before the coronavirus outbreak at least, CO₂ prices in Europe look set to rise. HeidelbergCement is positioning itself to benefit from being the first major cement producer to head into CO₂ capture and storage/utilisation with a variety of methods intended for different CO₂ prices and regional requirements.

HeidelbergCement doesn’t mention the coronavirus pandemic in its latest sustainability report. The report covers 2019 after all, before all of this happened. These reports do include health and safety information of employees, so this may be something to look out for next year. However, Cemex did mention the coronavirus in relation to its climate action plans this week. Essentially it wants to maintain its plans as a ‘fundamental component’ of its efforts to recover from the health crisis. This chimes with media talk around so-called ‘green-led’ government-backed relief programmes. Governments are the ones who are likely to be handing out the money, probably in the form of infrastructure projects. So it’s the perfect opportunity for them to encourage change from the companies bidding for this funding. Sustainability reports and the information behind them will be a useful tool in accessing this cash.

UK: The Global Cement and Concrete Research Network (Innovandi) has launched a week of online workshops dedicated to lowering cement and concrete’s carbon footprint through research and development, with the participation of 30 companies and 40 scientific institutions.

Global Cement and Concrete Association cement director Claude Loréa said, “Cement is fundamentally important to our world today and will play a crucial role in building the sustainable world of tomorrow. It is therefore critical to support and accelerate the breakthrough processes and products that will improve sustainability and decrease carbon emissions. The Innovandi Kick-off Week offers a platform for leaders from across the world of cement and concrete to collaborate with academic institutions and define the cutting-edge research that will address these challenges and help us create a better future.”

The Queensland state government in Australia took a blunt approach to health and safety earlier this month when a report it commissioned said that it expected 12 deaths to occur in the mines and quarries sector over the next five years unless changes were made. This is far removed from the usual news stories that industry magazines like Global Cement and others cover. Typically, these are either plants or companies reaching Lost Time Injury (LTI) milestones or sad (but thankfully rare) reports of death.

The forecast in Queensland was based on a review of fatalities in the sector that the state commissioned from Sean Brady, Department of Natural Resource, Mines and Energy, looking at the years 2000 to 2019. Year-by-year the figures were significantly lower than those occurring in the 1900 to 2000 period but didn’t appear to have any discernable pattern. However, when presented as a 12-month rolling sum of fatalities, a two to three year cycle seemed to occur. Brady then went on to look at how the fatalities happened, how the industry behaved and reacted and what could be done to improve the situation. His recommendations included looking more deeply at the causes of seemingly unrelated accidents and then changing overall organisational behaviour and insight through methods such as adopting principles of High Reliability Organisational theory, simplifying the reporting system and changing the standard safety indicators like LTI.

That last point is interesting given the prevalence of LTI indicators on corporate sustainability reports in the cement industry. The point that Brady cites here is that LTI can become a measure of how well injuries are managed, not how safely an organisation is performing. For example, the definition of what an injury is can be manipulated, leading to distortion, as can workers being brought back to work before they recover or into lighter duties. Instead he recommends that ‘serious accidents’ be used in place of LTI. These are defined as incidents that result in a fatality or incidents where an individual requires admission to hospital for treatment of an injury. The preference here is based on so-called ‘serious accidents’ being unambiguous and transparent because they are defined by a third-party medical practitioner.

Wider critiques of health and safety measurements have identified under-reporting of incidents arising from safety incentive programmes, safety culture, employee perceptions of reporting and workplace bullying. This isn’t to say that the LTI measure is not fit for purpose. It has undoubtedly led to higher safety conditions around the world, with reduced injury and mortality from working conditions, and it allows for comparisons between organisations. Yet, any health and safety metric or indicator could be liable to bias or manipulation either unconsciously or consciously. Serious accidents, for example, could be potentially undermined by an organisation having its own medical centre and would also suffer from different health care systems in different locations. Throw in different legislative frameworks around the world and comparing countries can also start to become confusing.

This tension between data and real-life safety is acknowledged by the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) in its sustainability guidance from late 2018. It distinguishes between so-called ‘lagging’ indicators, like LTI and fatalities, which show the effectiveness of a safety programme after the fact and the importance of continual safety improvement plans that aim to prevent adverse events before they happen. It is easy to become lost in a dust storm of facts and figures on health and safety but, as the Queensland authorities and the GCCA agree, measuring health and safety is a means to an end. The aim is zero harm to everyone involved.

UK: The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) has launched ‘Innovandi,’ a research network between industry and scientific institutions. The network intends to research the areas of process technology, including the impact of co-processing, efficiency of clinker production and implementation of CCUS/ technologies, and products. This will include the impact of clinker substitutes and alternative binders in concrete, low carbon concrete technology and improve the understanding of CO₂ reduction through re-carbonation.

“Our industry is fully committed to taking action to reduce CO₂ emissions. As such, Innovandi is an industry led initiative and will bring together the best minds from all corners of the cement and concrete world, academia and business. Together we will truly collaborate on a global scale and use our expertise to find new ways of working and developing effective innovations,” said Benjamin Sporton, the chief executive officer (CEO) of the GCCA.

24 companies from the cement and concrete industry, including cement and concrete manufacturers, admixture specialists and equipment suppliers, have committed to the initiative, with scientific institutions and additional companies set to join as its work begins work. These include Buzzi Unicem, Cementir Holding, Cementos Argos, Cementos Molins, Cementos Pacasmayo, Cemento Progresso, Cemex, CNBM, Chryso, CRH, Dalmia Cement, FLSmidth, Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua (GCC), GCP Applied Technologies, Mapei, HeidelbergCement, LafargeHolcim, Nesher Israel Enterprises, SCG Cement, Titan Cement, Refratechnik Cement, Sika Technology, Subote New Materials and Votorantim.

As part of the new initiative, the GCCA also intends to establish an annual Innovandi global conference to promote collaboration on innovation and research in the sector.

UK: The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) has launched the GCCA Industry EPD Tool (Version 2.0) to support the publication of environmental product declarations (EPDs) by cement and concrete producers. Originally commissioned by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development Cement Sustainability Initiative, the new GCCA Industry EPD Tool includes the latest database of energy impacts from cement production from across the world, supporting the output of more accurate EPD data. The GCCA is making the tool available to all producers and organisations in the cement and concrete industry to increase availability to designers and clients of EPDs to support the sector deliver a sustainable built environment.

“We are committed to supporting the cement and concrete industry to reduce its environmental impact and support global sustainability goals. With the launch of the new EPD Tool, we are enabling the industry and its customers to better quantify and verify the life cycle environmental impact of existing products and to develop lower-impact products in the future,” said Andrew Minson, GCCA Concrete and Sustainable Construction Director.

The GCCA Industry EPD Tool has been developed by Quantis, verified by Studio Fieschi, and the GCCA says it is the first industry tool in the International EPD System. It is based on internationally recognised standards and product category rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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