Holcim published its financial results for 2025 this week. Most of the larger cement producers with operations in Europe have now released either preliminary or full results too. This makes it a good time to recap how these multinational companies all performed in 2025.

Graph 1: Sales revenue from selected cement producers in Europe. Source: Financial releases. HM – Heidelberg Materials.

Graph 2: Cement sales volumes from selected cement producers in Europe. Source: Financial releases.

The first point to note from Graph 1 is the reduction in Holcim’s sales revenue. However, the graph shows the restated figure for 2024 from the reduced business. Its sales were around €25bn before the American business Amrize was spun-off in mid-2025. All of the other companies here continue to have operations in North America to varying degrees. Cemex has its headquarters in Mexico and CRH moved its primary stock market listing to the US in 2023 (but still has its headquarters in Ireland).

Holcim’s sales were down on a like-for-like basis in 2025 mainly due to Europe. Here, even the sales figures for the adjusted sales figures such as in local currencies and organic growth also declined. This may be a problem given that about half of the group’s revenue comes from the region. Happily for Holcim though, its recurring earnings before interest and taxation (EBIT) rose in Europe. All the other regions showed sales revenue growth of some kind. The other point of interest is that the group’s Building Solutions product line delivered lower sales growth than the Building Materials line. The former is the group’s building envelope segment away from heavy building materials. In terms of merger and acquisition activity, the big deal for cement has been the agreement to buy Cementos Pacasmayo in Peru that was announced in December 2025.

CRH is now the biggest cement producer with operations in Europe based on overall group sales revenue. Of course, a hefty chunk of that comes from its businesses in North America. Its International Solutions division, covering operations outside of North America, reported sales revenue of €11.4bn in 2025. Cement divisions in North America and elsewhere both grew revenue and earnings on the back of acquisitions and price increases. The group’s largest acquisition in 2025 was of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) supplier Eco Material Technologies in the US.

Heidelberg Material’s (HM) early results indicate a modest rise in sales revenue and a higher increase in operating earnings in 2025. Small rises in revenue were reported in Europe and North America, alongside a decline in Asia - Pacific and sharp growth in Africa-Mediterranean-Western Asia. Earnings were stable in North America but grew modestly in Europe and markedly in Africa-Mediterranean-Western Asia. Naturally, given the investments it has made, the group was keen to highlight that its specific net CO₂ emissions fell by 3% to 512kg/t of cementitious material.

For Cemex, its Europe, Middle East, and Africa segment reported significant increases in sales revenue and earnings due to higher prices, volumes and cost cutting. The group’s other two larger geographic regions, Mexico and North America, didn’t perform as well. Recovery was reported in Mexico in the second half of 2025 though.

Of the other larger Europe-based cement producers, Buzzi improved net sales in Europe, outside of Italy. A fall in sales in the US was blamed on weak demand at the start of the year, particularly in the residential market. Vicat’s overall sales and earnings were up. It did best in Europe outside of France and in its Mediterranean region. Cementir’s revenue was down but its earnings were up. It attributed this to negative currency exchange effects particularly in Türkiye as sales volumes of cement were up. Growth was reported in Türkiye, Egypt, and Asia Pacific in contrast with decline in Northern Europe and Belgium.

In summary, Europe remained a mixed market for most of the companies covered above in 2025. Yet, with a slowdown reported in the US, Europe also delivered growing sales revenue and/or earnings for most of these businesses. Decline in Europe for heavy building materials may be overrated in 2025 based on these results at least.

Finally, some of these multinational companies have operations in the Middle East and all of them run energy-intensive operations. Holcim, for example, divested companies in Iraq and Jordan in 2024 but it retains other businesses in Iraq and the UAE. The war launched by Israel and the US upon Iran in late February 2026 is likely to have an economic impact upon the next set of financial results for many of these cement companies, even if the war ends swiftly.

The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) carbon price took a tumble this week following comments suggesting a rethink by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Minds have been focused by the start of the Cross Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) in January 2026, high energy prices and poor growth. The challenge is now on in the lead up to the next proposals to update the EU ETS, expected by July 2026.

As the abrupt change in the carbon price shows, words have power. Especially from prominent politicians. So, when former President Barack Obama told a podcast host this week that aliens were real, the world took notice. Obama subsequently clarified, with some exasperation, that he had responded to a light-hearted question in kind with his belief. Similarly, when Merz said last week that the EU’s carbon market should be revised or delayed, the markets took note. The ETS carbon price fell by 12% from €79/t on 11 February 2026 to €69/t on 16 February 2026. The share prices of large Europe-based cement producers such as Holcim and Heidelberg Materials also fell.

Merz’s speech to the European Industry Summit in Antwerp on 11 February 2026 called for the EU to become competitive again. He noted that the economy had grown by 8% in China in recent years, by 2% in the US and only 1% in the EU. His remedy is to reduce bureaucracy, promote a common European legal framework to make trans-national business easier, improve the common energy market to reduce energy prices, cut AI regulations in and make ‘better’ merger rules. However, all of these well-signposted measures paled in comparison to comments Merz made on a panel at the event about the possibility of changing the ETS. His words were also similar to those of Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who told reporters last week that the EU needed to review the ETS.

Meanwhile, across the channel in the UK, the government launched its second consultation on its CBAM. The British version is set to start in 2027 and exactly the same kind of arguments and counter-arguments are popping up as in the run up to the EU CBAM. The UK’s Mineral Products Association (MPA) has been lobbying to make sure that the scheme doesn’t hurt the local cement and concrete sectors. Cue familiar issues such as time to test the new system, clarity on the default values importers will pay when emissions can’t be verified, protection for local manufacturers… and so on.

Carbon taxes like the EU ETS are political instruments. They require certainty that they will persist for years or decades before companies will make investments in response to them. So, if the heads of some of the largest economies within the EU start to publicly question the viability of the ETS, why should anyone take it seriously, much less open up the cheque book to build fancy untested technologies such as carbon capture plants!? Naturally, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen defended the scheme at the Antwerp event. She argued that decarbonisation has been possible in tandem with economic growth over the longer term. It is likely to have been a tough crowd, given that she was making this point at a conference about industrial competitiveness in Europe.

The most likely amendment to the ETS being touted in the press may be an extension of the free allocation system beyond the mid-2030s. Or, in other words, a brake could be imposed on how fast the cost of the carbon tax mounts up for protected industries such as cement. This would also effectively restrict more expensive forms of sustainability such as carbon capture to projects funded by governments, unless there was a step-change in the technology, CO₂ transport infrastructure and so on. All the talk by industry in the run-up to the CBAM was about stopping an external leak of the system and exposing local industry to ‘unfair’ imports. At the moment it looks like the actual leak will come from within. At which point, accusations about carbon taxes merely being a form of economic protectionism seem more credible.

Molins’ proposed acquisition of Portugal-based Secil seems set to complete. First, the competition body the Autoridade da Concorrência (AdC) approved the transaction this week. Then Molins’ shareholders consented to the deal on the following day. Let’s take a look at what’s been happening.

Spain-based Molins announced in late December 2025 that it had struck a deal with Portugal-based Semapa to buy the latter company’s cement subsidiary outright for €1.4bn. The transaction was expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2026. Barring the unexpected, this now looks likely to happen. Molins said it would pay for the acquisition using a combination of cash and funds from a syndicated credit agreement and a bond issuance.

Molins placed Secil’s cement production capacity at around 10Mt/yr. This compares to an integrated capacity of 9.1Mt/yr as calculated from the Global Cement Directory 2025 with integrated plants in Angola, Brazil, Lebanon, Portugal and Tunisia. In addition the group also runs a grinding plant in Angola. Plus, on the cement side, Secil manages a terminal in Spain, a terminal in the Netherlands and has operations in Cape Verde. This gives a price of €153/t for the integrated cement plant capacity in the acquisition deal using the latter capacity figure.

This should be added to Molins’ existing cement footprint around the world. It operates majority-controlled cement companies in Spain, Argentina and Tunisia. It also holds joint-control of Cementos Moctezuma in Mexico (with Buzzi) and owns minority stakes in cement companies in Bangladesh, Bolivia, Colombia and Uruguay. Working out Molins’ current cement production capacity around the world is difficult due to the number of minority stakes it owns. However, Global Cement Magazine placed it at around 11Mt/yr in the December 2025 issue. Molins placed its ordinary Portland cement (OPC) production capacity at around 23Mt/yr in its annual report in 2024.

The addition of Secil is a serious acquisition for Molins that expands its geographic footprint. The new network of plants in the Iberian peninsula is the obvious sign of enlargement in its home territory. Yet, the plants in Brazil give the company the makings of a regional market leader in Latin America approaching the likes of Cemex, Cementos Argos and Votorantim. Molins’ made acquisitions in 2024 in the aggregates business in Spain and Bangladesh, and the concrete business in Colombia. Investments in recycled aggregates in Spain and alternative fuels - with a focus in Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia and Bangladesh - were also made that year. Major acquisitions in 2025 included a deal with Titan to buy 80% of Baupartner, a Bosnia-based pre-cast company, the purchase of a 90% stake in Zenet, a Spain-based manufacturer of reinforced and prestressed precast concrete components, and Concremat, the leading precast concrete company in Portugal.

A separate point to note was the resignation of Molins’ previous chair Juan Molins Amat in mid-2025. He was succeeded by Julio Rodríguez. Local press has framed this as a battle between the three arms of the Molins family that controls the company. However, the three parties reportedly coordinated to vote for the Secil deal.

Molins’ decision to buy Secil looks set to take the cement business to a new level, particularly in Iberia and South America. To finish, concrete is a major part of this deal that we’ve not really covered here. Molins reported concrete sales of 1.6Mm³ in 2024. However, Secil said it produced just under 2Mm³ in the same year. This will be a major increase in output in addition to all of these recent precast expansions in Europe.

The long-running debate over the price of cement in Nigeria flared up again once more this week. Think tank Agora Policy published a report on the local cement sector and it blamed the structure of the industry for the situation. What’s more it also presented a compelling range of data backing up its argument. We’ll take a closer look.

Agora Policy published its report entitled ‘Market Power and Failure of Competition Policy in Nigeria’s Cement Industry,’ in early February 2026. It is well worth a read. It questions why the price of cement was so high in a country that had declared itself ‘self-sufficient’ in cement in 2012 and where production capacity was higher than demand. Its data then goes on to show that cement producers in Nigeria appeared to have higher profit margins than producers in Asia, Europe and elsewhere in Africa. It stated that cement producers in Nigeria reported average profit margins of approximately 49% in September 2025 and 34% in 2024. This compared to 20 - 36% in North America, 15 - 25% in Asia, 20 – 30% in Europe and 18 – 30% elsewhere in Africa. It then noted that cement prices in Nigeria had been higher than the average for Sub-Saharan Africa for nine of the 11 years from 2015 to 2025. It acknowledged that input costs such as taxes, negative currency exchange rates, energy prices and transport fees had played a role in pushing up prices. However, it directly blamed the structure of the market citing price leadership, regional dominance and control of critical inputs.

Distinctly from previous rows about prices in Nigeria, the think tank does not call for imports to be allowed in or increased. Instead, it recommends the following measures: access to limestone and clinker to be liberalised; logistics to be improved; regional market share to be scrutinised; operational data to be submitted to competition authorities; and general competition regulations to be tightened.

Notably, one of the things Agora Policy’s report mentions is how it views the use of excess production capacity by the local cement companies to control the market. Its interpretation is that, “incumbents with large unused capacity can credibly threaten to temporarily flood the market and cut prices if a new competitor attempts to enter.” So, plans by producers, such as BUA Cement announcement in January 2026 to build a new 3Mt/yr cement production line in Sokoto State, can be viewed as both addressing a market need and a strategic one. More capacity can potentially relieve price pressure or even reduce it but it can also be used to deter competitors from building plants. Another example of producers building new capacity in a market where capacity is greater than demand occurred in the last week. Lafarge Africa said it plans to expand its Ashakacem Plant in Gombe State and Sagamu Plant in Ogun State.

None of this is to say that the main cement companies in Nigeria appear to have broken any competition laws. They may simply be taking advantage of the existing market structure as most companies would in this situation. The debate on the price of cement in Nigeria has been a recurring one since 2020, with few answers so far. The acquisition of Lafarge Africa by China-based Hauxin Cement in mid-2025 did mark a change to the market composition. Yet, whether Huaxin Cement chooses to follow the logic of the local market situation or do something different remains to be seen. The real question at this point is whether the recommendations that Agora Policy has made are the right ones and if a government would actually want to implement them and be able to. A criticism of Agora Policy’s recommendations might point out that it is simply identifying general features of the cement business. Clinker production requires a high level of capital investment, mineral resources need to be secured, logistics are key for a heavy commodity and so on.

Finally, Arvind Pathak, the Group Managing Director of Dangote Cement reminded investors this week that his company is planning to make all of Africa self-sufficient in cement production. It’s both a noble goal and a commercial prize for a region with Africa’s demographic potential. Yet, if the experience in Nigeria is anything to go by, simply becoming self-sufficient in cement without governments making other changes may not be enough to build the Africa of tomorrow.