Analysis

The one thing that the Egyptian cement industry really didn’t need this year was any more jolts. Since the gargantuan 13Mt/yr government/army-run El-Arish Cement plant at Beni Suef opened in 2018, the sector has been stuck in production overcapacity and struggling to catch up. Yet, like the rest of us, they got one nasty surprise in the shape of the coronavirus pandemic. This has added stress to the whole situation and we can see some of this in various news stories that Global Cement has covered recently.

HeidelbergCement’s local subsidiary Suez Cement has been busy in recent days making changes to its corporate structure in the form of a tender offer to buy a 100% stake in Egyptian Tourah Portland Cement. Production stopped at Tourah Cement in June 2019 due to market conditions. This follows yet more lacklustre financial results earlier in September 2020 that show the pain that it and other cement producers have been enduring. Suez Cement’s loss nearly doubled year-on-year to Euro38m for the first half of 2020 and its sales fell by 18% to Euro145m. This was blamed on production overcapacity and a coronavirus-related lockdown. Other producers, both multinational and local, have experienced a similar situation.

Suez Cement also announced in mid-September 2020 that its Ready Mix Beton subsidiary had secured a contract for the supply of concrete for the construction of two new monorail lines connecting the country’s new city projects. Unfortunately, as Suez Cement’s chief executive officer (CEO) Jose Maria Magrina explained in an interview to Daily Egypt News in July 2020, “the New Administrative Capital (NAC) is a very big project, but in the end it has not offset the decrease in informal buildings that have been stopped.” Despite Suez Cement being a major supplier and the proximity of its plants to the site, overall sales have gone down.

Graph 1: Cement consumption in Egypt. Source: Cement Division of the Building Materials Chamber of the Federation of Egyptian Industries.

Magrina’s gloom is shared by other industry figures with a general assumption that perhaps up to a quarter of the country’s 20-something cement plants may have to close in the next year or so. Coronavirus has only deepened this view as the government’s response was to cease issuing construction licences for private buildings in Greater Cairo, governorate capitals and major cities from late May 2020 for six months. Solomon Baumgartner Aviles, the CEO of Lafarge Egypt, said in July 2020 that local cement demand fell by 6.5% year-on-year in the first half of 2020. He added that coronavirus had ‘strongly’ impacted the building materials sector with a big effect on the individual market, and with the licence halting exacerbating the situation further. As data from the Cement Division of the Building Materials Chamber of the Federation of Egyptian Industries shows above in Graph 1 demand peaked at 56.5Mt in 2016 and has since declined to a low of 48Mt in 2019. By month the sector recovered in January and February 2020 respectively with growing cement sales on a year-on-year basis but this has since declined with losses in most months subsequently. This is set against a production capacity of 81.2Mt/yr in 2018, giving an excess of 30Mt/yr and a utilisation rate of 59%.

One story that was mentioned in the local press this week is that Arabian Cement Company (ACC) had started negotiations with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Commercial International Bank – Egypt to secure new loans worth over US$20m. The ACC has denied this publicly in a statement to the Egyptian Exchange but it’s a sign of the trouble that is expected in the sector given the current circumstances.

All of this leaves cement producers scrabbling to hold on until the market picks up again, takes action in other ways or the government intervenes. Some analysts expect the market to stabilise in the medium to longer term as work on large infrastructure projects like the NAC mounts. Suez Cement’s Jose Maria Magrina has said that, “the government must, within the law, dictate norms that will rationalise the market, while making sure that companies survive since current prices do not cover the costs of production.” Local press has since reported that the Ministry of Trade and Industry has started trying to help cement companies, including measures such as limiting production to balance supply and demand, and decrease the surplus in the market. Another option is a coordinated export subsidy programme in coordination with the government but nothing appears to have happened yet after several years of discussion. Unhelpfully for any export aspirations, Egypt finds itself in a very cement export-heavy part of the world, wedged as it is between North Africa, Turkey and Southern Europe.

Hope springs eternal though as, almost unbelievably, Egyptian Cement Group’s CEO Ahmed Abou Hashima surfaced last week to remind everyone that his company still plans to inaugurate its new integrated cement plant in 2021. The project to build a new 2Mt/yr unit in Sohag has been brewing since 2017 when it was announced with China-based Sinoma on board as the engineering partner. It was originally scheduled to open in the first half of 2020 but it was delayed by coronavirus. Let’s hope the picture looks better when it finally opens.

Cemex last week. HeidelbergCement and LafargeHolcim this week. China yesterday. One can’t seem to move for major building materials companies (or their owners) issuing carbon neutral strategies at the moment. This week HeidelbergCement first launched its ‘Beyond 2020’ plan, a mixture of financial, portfolio and sustainability goals. Then, LafargeHolcim said that it had signed a pledge with Science-Based Targets (SBT) towards meeting intermediate targets by 2030. Last night, President Xi Jinping told the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in New York that China was aiming to hit peak emissions before 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060.

The timing of these various sustainability goals are directly or indirectly linked to Climate Week NYC, a notable annual event on the climate change calendar that is taking place at the moment. So it’s a good time for large-scale industrial CO₂ emitters, like building material producers, to have something positive to say.

China’s announcement steals the limelight given that the country produces around half of the world’s cement and holds a higher share of clinker production capacity. Western media has pointed out the geopolitical implications of Xi’s statement that was delivered shortly after a speech by US president Donald Trump, a notable climate change sceptic. Xi’s speech didn’t contain any details so it may simply have been an attempt to demonstrate global leadership. Yet if the Chinese government makes a go of it, the effect could be profound. Data from the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO) shows that the Chinese cement industry emitted an estimated 782Mt CO₂ in 2018 compared to 1.50Gt CO₂ from the cement industry globally and 37.1Gt CO₂ from all human-related sources. In other words, the Chinese cement industry was responsible for 2% of all CO₂ emissions in 2018. And this industry is mostly owned by a government that has just publicly declared a carbon neutral target.

In some ways the other announcements, by the western-based multinational building material companies, are even more radical since these producers are subject to market forces. These companies don’t have to do this. They also contain more specifics than Xi’s words so far.

HeidelbergCement says it has brought forward its CO₂ emissions target for 2030 of 525kg CO₂/t (specific net CO₂ emissions per tonne of cementitious material) to 2025. That’s a 30% decrease from 752kg CO₂/t in 1990. Its new goal for 2030 is below 500kg CO₂/t. The main emission reduction methods it outlines include: increased use of alternative raw materials and fuels; increased use of secondary cementitious materials to reduce the clinker factor of cement; investment in plant efficiency and CO₂ reduction at the plant level; and increased share of low-carbon concrete products.

Chart 1: HeidelbergCement’s path to net carbon zero concrete: Source: Leading the way to carbon neutrality, HeidelbergCement.

Chart 1 above outlines HeidelbergCement’s thinking post-2030 with further reductions to CO₂ emissions mainly achieved through circular economy methods and different carbon capture techniques. Two points to hold in mind here. One: note the current uncertainty about which route will provide the biggest share of the reduction. Two: this chart considers concrete, not cement.

LafargeHolcim’s announcement was that it has joined Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) ‘Business Ambition for 1.5°C.’ It says that by doing so it has become the first global building materials company to sign the pledge with intermediate targets for 2030, validated by SBTi. This is slightly confusing given that other building materials companies have had different dealings with the SBT as it has worked towards its current scheme. Earlier this month, for example, we reported that Taiwan Cement had started an SBT project in 2019 and had some targets approved by the SBTi in June 2020. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua (GCC) said it was joining SBTi at the start of 2020 and HeidelbergCement reported its SBTi approved targets in mid-2019. Finally, India-based Dalmia Cement is also on the SBTi ‘Business Ambition for 1.5°C’ list but it is a stretch to describe it as a ‘global’ company.

The core of LafargeHolcim’s statement is a further reduced target for CO₂ intensity in cement of 475kg CO₂/t by 2030. So far it’s decreased its CO₂ intensity by around 23% to 516 kg CO₂/t in 2019 from ~730kg CO₂/t in 1990. There’s less looking ahead after 2030 compared to HeidelbergCement but the measures outlined until then include: more use of low-carbon and carbon-neutral products; increased use of alternative raw materials and fuels; doubling waste-derived fuels in production to reach 37%; greater use of calcined clay and developing novel cements with new binders; and operating the company’s first net zero CO₂ cement production facility.

Many of the various networks and initiatives across the climate action community came together in June 2020 as part of the UN backed ‘Race To Zero Campaign,’ an attempt to align the disparate leading net zero initiatives ahead of the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP), due to take place in November 2021 in Glasgow, Scotland. This swirl of different net zero schemes also partly explains the confusion over the different organisations backing sustainability targets that companies can sign up to. So it’s a good thing to see closer collaboration here.

More cynical readers will have latched on to president Xi’s opportunity to show up President Trump in the climate change action stakes. They may also prefer news stories about activist investors prompting change at shareholder-owned companies as they increase their portfolios or stories like Morgan Stanley’s announcement this week that it has a new commitment to reach net-zero financed emissions by 2050. If the investment bank actually means it and other financiers follow suit then the fiscal incentives for net zero draw closer and the rest should follow. Moneys talks… and hopefully CO₂ stays buried in the ground.

For sustainability comparisons among the top global cement producers see the October 2020 issue of Global Cement Magazine

Cemex’s transition from a multinational building materials producer to a regional one continued this week with the launch of its ‘Operation Resilience’ strategy. The plan is a stew of coronavirus response, earnings growth, debt reduction, portfolio sharpening and sustainability measures. Yet the intent to “construct a portfolio more weighted towards the US and Europe” marks a public confirmation of the company’s direction in recent years.

Chart 1: Geographic breakdown of Cemex’s revenue in the first half of 2020. Source: Cemex.

This direction of travel for the company has at least two threads that can be seen in the announcements surrounding its new strategy. The first covers the geographical spread of its current portfolio of assets. European countries and the US represented a little under half of Cemex’s revenue in the first half of 2020 as can be seen in the chart above. So focussing on these territories makes sense from an existing portfolio perspective, especially if growth has continued throughout the coronavirus crisis, as is the case in the US. In the general information accompanying its new strategy it broke down revenue by business line so far in 2020 as cement (42%), concrete (41%) and aggregates (17%).

To be fair to Cemex, its decision to focus on certain geographical regions mirrors recent moves at other multinational producers like LafargeHolcim and CRH. The former (mostly) sold its operations in South-East Asia in 2018 and 2019. Albert Manifold, the chief executive officer (CEO) of the latter, memorably favoured the safe and stable earnings of investing in assets in Europe or North America over doing so in somewhere ‘more exotic’ in an earnings meeting in 2019. However, Cemex doesn’t seem overly wedded to sticking to assets in Europe and/or the US either. It recently decided to mothball its South Ferriby integrated cement plant in the UK and sold a plant owned by its Kosmos Cement subsidiary in the US earlier in the year. Fernando A González, the chief executive officer (CEO) of Cemex, confirmed this in the questions and answer session after the strategy launch on 10 September 2020. When asked whether the company was considering selling assets in Asia and Latin America he replied that Cemex was open to divestments in Latin America or in the Mediterranean or in Asia but that driving down debt was the motivator, not coronavirus.

Debt is the other factor that has been persuading Cemex to focus on the US and Europe. It has been the smell clinging to its decisions over the last decade since its poorly timed acquisition of Rinker in 2007. The company stuck out with a high debt to earnings ratio when this column looked at the state of the major cement producers as the coronavirus lockdowns started in Europe: hence all the talk of paying down debt in its ‘Operation Resilience’ strategy. The company now hopes to whittle its net leverage down to at most 3x by 2023. At the same time as this market-calming announcement, it is in the process of changing some of its credit agreements such as extending a US$1.1bn loan from 2022 to 2025. It has also priced another US$1bn worth of senior secured bonds this week in its ongoing drive to raise more funds. This reliance on loans may explain why Cemex has shrunk back towards ‘safe’ markets over the last decade.

Cemex isn’t alone in cooing out market-calming noises as the coronavirus crisis continues. Buzzi Unicem has done the same thing this week for example. Yet, these announcements are instructive because they show what’s on the minds of these companies at least, or what they think investors want them to be thinking about. In Cemex’s case it could be summarised as: make more money more efficiently, cut debt and try to factor sustainability into all of this. Note, however, that as dominance in both industry and geopolitics heads east, Cemex is sticking to the west.

The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) has warned local cement producers to rein in their more outlandish claims. In a letter reported upon by the Economic Times newspaper this week, the government department has accused some manufacturers of making both objective and subjective claims about their products that strained credulity and didn’t fit the corresponding official standards. One industry source from the newspaper blamed the crackdown on some producers claiming that their cement products helped protect people from Covid-19! In their view the bureau was now over-enforcing its rules in retaliation. Given the severity of the outbreak in India - it has the second highest number of reported cases in the world this week - the response of the authorities is understandable to say the least.

The distinction between objective and subjective exaggeration that the BIS makes it worth looking at in more detail. For example, objective or supposedly fact-based claims the BIS cited included: ‘Protect Steel in Concrete’; ‘Protect Concrete from Corrosion’; ‘Corrosion Resistant’; ‘Weather Proof’; and ‘Damp Proof.’ Then, there were subjective, or more emotionally evocative, claims along the lines of ‘strong’ or ‘high performance.’ The BIS then outlines the specific ways in which objective and subjective assertions can be used. Objective claims should be avoided on marketing and packaging material. Subjective claims should, “explicitly indicate that such claims are not covered under the scope of BIS licence granted to them and the responsibility of such claims lies with them.”

Marketing is a big part of standing out in the crowded Indian cement market with producers sponsoring major sports teams. This might seem odd to readers elsewhere in the world but it demonstrates the target market, the importance of cement as a commodity to the general public and the power of brand awareness. Amubja Cement’s logo of a man with a Charles Atlas style physique cuddling a building sums up the message they want to convey: strength. No wonder producers are wary of the BIS wading in.

Standards also appeared in another news story this week with the announcement that Taiwan Cement Corporation (TCC) had obtained the first cement product carbon footprint label issued by the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) in the country. Its products will be marked with carbon footprint labels from the fourth quarter of 2020.

This shows a general trend in cement products towards showing sustainability credentials from putting environmental footprint data in front of specifiers for large projects towards making it a more basic retail selling point. Lots of other cement producers around the world have done and/or are doing similar things, from the dedicated slag cement manufacturers to the larger producers routinely releasing and promoting new low-CO₂ products. To pick one example from many, in July 2020 LafargeHolcim France introduced ‘360Score CO₂ emissions reduction ratings’ to its bagged cement range. The score, between ’A’ and ’D,’ corresponds to the factor of CO₂ compared to CEM-I Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), with ‘A’ products producing less CO₂ than ‘D’ products in their overall creation.

To look at an older example of the need for standards generally, building collapses in Nigeria appeared to increase post-2000, with the misuse of lower-grade cements blamed for the situation. The Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON) took action in 2014, local producers introduced higher strength cements and the problem was reduced. Given the intangible nature of measuring sustainability in cement products there is a need for reliable standards. Unlike performance metrics, such as a strength or durability, the CO₂ footprint of a cement product will generally remain utterly intangible for most end-users. The effects of CO₂ emissions are continually analysed and debated, but the negative climate effects of cement products are more akin to someone else’s house flooding on the other side of the world 50 years later, than one’s own house falling down a decade later due to using the wrong strength cement. So, some form of trustworthy enforcement for sustainability standards is crucial. Standards may represent ‘boring’ bureaucratic red tape at its most officious but we need them. In India and elsewhere though, the debate on enforcement continues.

It’s back to work for many in Europe this week following the summer break and so too for the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) with the release of its 2050 Climate Ambition mission statement. Talk about setting the bar high for the rest of us struggling to remember how to log into our computers! The short version is that the association aspires to deliver society with carbon neutral concrete by 2050. The actual detail will be published in the second half of 2021.

What it does say is that, “detailed actions and milestones” will be set out in the forthcoming roadmap. This will include, “working across the built environment value chain to deliver the vision of carbon neutral concrete in a circular economy, whole life context.” This focus on concrete and end-product life-cycles looks likely to be the wriggle room cement and building materials producers need to actually meet the goal. To put it another way, as the press release helpfully reminds us, things that people need are made out of concrete. So, until a viable alternative to clinker turns up, the cost in CO₂ emissions needs to be spread as far and wide as possible. At the same time everyone needs to be continually told how much they need cementitious products: don’t think of the CO₂ released to build your new house. Rather: think of the CO₂ saved annually by living in a well-constructed dwelling, as opposed to the alternatives, and consider what happens to the concrete once the structure is demolished.

A few ideas of what strategies the roadmap may use to reach its target are revealed. This is fairly standard current thinking including: cutting direct energy-related emissions; increasing co-processing; increased renewable electricity usage; 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; more efficient use of concrete in construction; reprocessing concrete from construction and demolition waste to produce recycled aggregates; and quantifying and enhancing the level of CO₂ uptake of concrete through recarbonation in a circular economy, whole life context.

It’s early days yet, with the roadmap not due for at least a year, but deploying carbon capture methods at scale will be expensive and difficult. Whatever target the GCCA sets here will be keenly observed, especially so given that the association is a global concern. So far carbon capture in the cement industry has generally been linked to regions with market or legislative encouragement. How, for example, would a producer in a country with low environmental restrictions react to its peers trying to get it to make cement production more expensive? The rest of the points seems more tangible at the moment but will require lots of work to realise. They are also interlinked and this reinforces the need for someone to continually remind society about the life cycle of concrete. Taking concrete recycling into the mainstream is great but the world has to be told that it is happening.

This last point brings us to the perceived success of the GCCA’s ambitions: will a successfully realised strategy to make carbon neutral concrete by 2050 be enough to make environmental activists like Greta Thunberg happy? Probably not. Pure environmentalists seem unlikely to accept whole lifecycle thinking while limestone decomposition in kilns continues without capture or cessation. Even if the cement and concrete industries hit the target they will have to shake off the taint that the achievement was at least partly down to sneaky carbon accounting. Suddenly saying that concrete buildings have been sucking up CO₂ all along and that the industry is now, say, 20% closer to its carbon neutral target may feel like cheating to some observers. Step forward a global association to say otherwise. The need for industry associations making the case for the sector’s aspirations seems more essential than ever.