Last week Lafarge received a US$20m slap-in-the-face for cartel-like activity in South Africa. The case, which has been running since 2008, has investigated dealings at Lafarge, Pretoria Portland Cement, AfriSam and Natal Portland Cement-Cimpor. Yet the question remains: are cartels ever a good thing for the industry?
Back in December 2011 we covered the Common Price Agreement (CPA) in an article on cement price trends in the UK in Global Cement Magazine. This legally-approved cartel, operated by the UK Cement Makers' Federation, ran from 1934 until 1987. It was dissolved to allow UK producers to compete with cheaper foreign imports. Its supporters argued that it kept prices down in remote areas and stabilised the industry, a situation that cement buyers faced with escalating prices in Tanzania and Saudi Arabia might sympathise with this week. Despite this, prices in the UK fell after the CPA ended in 1987.
An uncited 'fact' on Wikipedia – itself a virtual monopoly on online knowledge – suggests that the median price increase achieved by cartels over the last 200 years could be 25%. Lafarge's fine represented 6% of its 2010 annual turnover in the region. Depending on how Lafarge's sales relate to its turnover this raises the possibility that even with its hefty fine Lafarge may still be in profit over the venture.
Cartels dog the cement industry given the prevalence of small groups of sellers in many markets. Throw in the current economic pressures in regions with over-capacity and the temptation must be irresistible. When one makes a link from this week's story from Pakistan about over-capacity to January's headline of 'inexplicably high' prices, the feeling occurs that Lafarge's chastening in South Africa is just the tip of the iceberg.
What do you think? Join our discussion on cartels in the Global Cement LinkedIn Group
