Displaying items by tag: Competition Commission

South Africa: Mining and materials company Afrimat says that further regulatory conditions as part of its ongoing acquisition of Lafarge South Africa have been met. The Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy of South Africa has consented in terms of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, the Financial Surveillance Department of the South African Reserve Bank has approved the acquisition in terms of the Exchange Control Regulations and the respective Competition Authorities in Botswana and eSwatini have approved the implementation of the acquisition. Approval by the Competition Commission is still outstanding but it recommended the transaction to the Competition Tribunal in November 2023. However, the Competition Commission highlighted ‘horizontal overlaps’ in the aggregates and ready-mix concrete sectors and recommended that the parties be required to divest assets across the affected sectors.

Afrimat first announced in June 2023 that it had agreed a share purchase agreement with a Holcim Group subsidiary, Caricement, to acquire 100% of the issued share capital of Lafarge South Africa. The proposed acquisition will become unconditional and be implemented once approval by the Competition Tribunal has been obtained.

South Africa: The Competition Tribunal has confirmed an agreement between PPC and the South African Competition Commission granting the company immunity from prosecution in an investigation allegedly involving price fixing and market sharing between local cement producers from 1995 to 2009. The Cape Times newspaper has reported that the ruling additionally granted the company immunity from related fines. PPC has reportedly agreed not to engage in price fixing or prohibited conduct in the future. The Commission said, "In addition, it will have to develop a competition law compliance programme."

AfriSam and Lafarge Industries South Africa paid fines related to the case. However, a case against Natal Portland Cement (NPC) was dismissed.

South Africa: The Competition Tribunal has resumed hearings into allegations of cartel-like behaviour by Natal Portland Cement (NPC), Pretoria Portland Cement Company (PPC), Lafarge Industries South Africa (Lafarge) and AfriSam Consortium (AfriSam). It follows a referral by the Competition Commission following an investigation in 2015 that examined collusive conduct between the cement companies between 2008 and 2012. At the time PPC was granted conditional leniency and AfriSam and Lafarge settled with the Commission.

Colombia: The Council of State has confirmed a US$0.31m fine to Holcim Colombia imposed by the Superintendent of Industry and Commerce (SIC) for fixing the price of cement. The ruling follows a similar confirmation of a fine to Cemex. The court found that an agreement between Cemex Colombia, Holcim Colombia and Cementos Argos distorted the price, supply and sales of Ordinary Portland Cement in the second half of 2005.

CRH's ambitions took a setback this week when the Irish Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) raided the offices of its subsidiary Irish Cement as part of an investigation into the bagged-cement industry in Ireland. Details are vague but the media reports state that the inquiry is examining whether or not the Irish market leader has abused its dominant position in the market, valued at Euro50m/yr.

Undoubtedly CRH and Irish Cement hold a leading place in the local cement industry. Irish Cement runs two integrated cement plants in the Republic with a combined production capacity of 2.7Mt/yr. This constitutes 79% of the country's 3.4t/yr total capacity.

Previous acquisition activity such as CRH's purchase of Dudman Group's UK import terminals in July 2013 has led to concerns regarding market competition. At that time Irish cement importer Eircem complained to the UK Competition Commission (CC), claiming that 'there is no free competition' in the market and also to initiate proceedings against CRH for damages relating to alleged anti-competitive behaviour in that market.

Roll the clock forward nearly two years and CRH is making the headlines once more for a much larger acquisition portfolio: the purchase of the largest chunk of assets sold from the merger of Lafarge and Hocim. With regards to Ireland and the UK, CRH will take on three (Dunbar, Tunstead and Aberthaw) of Lafarge Tarmac's five cement plants. Lafarge Tarmac's other two plants (Cookstown and Cauldon) will become part of the Aggregate Industries division of Lafarge Holcim. And once again, following acquisition activity competition, questions are looming as the CCPC raid suggests. This time though the potential impact of any market abuse, if it is actually happening, is far larger given the influx of UK and European assets that CRH are taking on.

We don't know what the CCPC will find but we can look at how CRH was viewed in the UK CC report on 'Aggregates, cement and ready-mix concrete market investigation' published in January 2014. At that time the CC concluded that, "We have seen nothing to suggest... that the recent acquisitions by CRH will result in importers collectively or individually offering a significantly greater constraint on cement producers than in the past." Amusingly though CRH also told the CC that it had no major expansion plants for the UK.

We also know how one of CRH's competitors felt about them. One of the more telling quotations from the CC report was from a Commercial Manager, at Lafarge Cement Ireland who viewed expansion in Ireland by Lafarge as a 'mechanism' to control CRH's ambitions by attacking it in its home market by showing CRH that Lafarge was a global player. Ironically the comments of that anonymous manager look very different now that CRH is on track to becoming a global player itself.

Following a two-year investigation, the UK Competition Commission (CC) has concluded that the UK needs a new cement producer to further encourage competition. Lafarge Tarmac will be required to sell one of its five cement plants. Additionally the CC wants the HeidelbergCement subsidiary Hanson to sell one of its slag grinding plants to increase competition in the supply chain for ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS).

The CC's competition investigation estimated that UK customers were cost at least Euro55m/yr between 2007 and 2012 due to high cement and GGBS prices, brought about by a lack of competition. According to Mineral Products Association (MPA) cement sales data, over the same period cement sales in the UK fell from 12Mt in 2007 to 8Mt in 2012.

Although it seems strange that the CC has acted again to support competition in the UK (just one year afterthe Lafarge Tarmac merger) the CC defended its actions in a letter to the December 2013 issue of Global Cement Magazine. According to Rory Taylor, the Lafarge Tarmac merger inquiry could only maintain pre-existing levels of competition, while the investigation's remit was to increase competition if it found a problem.

Explaining their administrative procedures provided little comfort for Lafarge Tarmac, which complained about the ruling. "Its analysis of industry profitability, which is central to its conclusion of Adverse Effect on Competition, is flawed, grossly overestimating the returns made. It has also failed to take into account the new business environment that has been established by our divestments - only 12 months ago - to create a new competitor (Hope Construction Materials), and the entry of new importers into the market."

One such importer, Quinn Cement, popped up this week with news that it is to invest Euro16m in its cement plant at Cavan, Ireland. It has hopes to capture 1% of the mainland British market, making it up to Euro9.6m in the process. Although the CC doesn't think that imports significantly effect cement prices in the UK, those Irish hopes have likely been boosted following the UK CC's decision. Whether it is in the interest of UK consumers remains to be seen. One measure of the CC's activity this time might be the time that passes before its next intervention in the cement industry.

Returning briefly to last week's column (MINT cement focus: Indonesia, GCW133), Holcim Indonesia has reported that its sales fell by 2% in 2013. Growth in the cement industry in Indonesia is by no means assured. Holcim will publish its full annual results for 2013 on 26 February 2014.

Well, it seems like they were serious.

The UK Competition Commission has provisionally decided that Lafarge Tarmac should sell off one of its cement plants in the Midlands. The Commission also wants the sale to exclude buyers from any pre-existing UK cement producer. The door is open from Holcim or CRH downwards to enter the UK market. Although if the enforced Lafarge sale of Hope to Mittal Investments in 2012 is indicative, it may well be to an industry outsider.

If the move goes ahead it will open up the Midlands and north of England from four cement producers - Hope Cement, Lafarge Tarmac, Hanson and Cemex - to five. Lafarge Tarmac's cement production capacity lead of nearly 4Mt/yr will be knocked down to nearer 3Mt/yr, putting it level with Hanson Cement's production capacity.

Unsurprisingly Lafarge Tarmac is not best pleased, putting out the following in response to the commission's announcement. "The Commission's assumptions and reasoning have serious flaws and the biggest loser in this process will be the customer. There is strong evidence to demonstrate there is effective competition in the sector – with new players having recently entered the marketplace."

The Commission also wants to increase competition in the supply chain for ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS). According to the Commission findings Hanson dominates the UK GGBS market and Lafarge Tarmac controls the market for its precursor, granulated blast furnace slag (GBS). So production facilities may need to be sold by both Hanson and Lafarge Tarmac.

As an aside it's worth noting that the Belgian Competition Council recently imposed fines due to anti-competitive practices also related to GGBS. Also, elsewhere in the news this week Irish GGBS cement producer Ecocem is aligning itself with the EU carbon roadmap to 2050, partly at least because its product produces less CO₂ per tonne of cement. Whoever or whatever controls the supply of GGBS in the UK has implications for how emissions are lowered in the cement sector.

Other suggested measures from the Commission such as restricting the publication of UK cement market data seem problematic. Although it may make it more difficult for UK cement producers to collude it will also make it harder for related businesses (including press and industry analysts like Global Cement) to understand what is happening at any given time.

Finally, we have to ask what the effects of the Commission's suggestions might be at the start of an uncertain recovery in the UK construction market might be. According to the Minerals Production Association cement production fell from 8.5Mt in 2011 to 8Mt in 2012, the first decrease since 2009. 2013 seems set for modest growth on 2012. The implications of Commission's plans - if they happen – could be huge.

Back in November 2012 this column asked whether the UK cement market had become more competitive following the sale of the Hope cement plant. Broadly, we thought it had. Half a year later though and it seems that the UK Competition Commission doesn't think so. On 21 May 2013 it released provisional findings that the UK's three major cement producers were failing to compete on price with each other.

Its three main points of evidence included increases in average cement prices between 2007 and 2011, rising profitability for UK producers between 2007 and 2011 and only small changes in annual market share of sales. All of these market outcomes occurred despite a 'significant' slump in demand for cement from 2007 to 2009.

The problem here is that the Competition Commission's data refers to the UK market before it took action. In 2012 it forced the sale of Lafarge's Hope cement plant as a condition of the joint-venture between Lafarge and Tarmac. Subsequently, Lafarge and Tarmac's combined cement production capacity in the UK fell from 5.15Mt/yr to 3.85Mt/yr. However, the Competition Commission has modelled Hope Construction Materials as an effective replacement of Tarmac's previous market share in its analysis. With no major change to the status quo in the UK cement industry, it feels that competition is unlikely to improve. Hence the need for further action.

It must be emphasised that the Competition Commission did not find any evidence of explicit coordination between the producers. Professor Martin Cave, Competition Commission Deputy Chairman and Chairman of the Inquiry Group, summed it up as follows: "In a highly concentrated market where the product doesn't vary, the established producers know too much about each other's businesses and have concentrated on retaining their respective market shares rather than competing to the full."

To look at just one example, it should be noted that most of the management team of Hope Construction Materials came originally from jobs at either Lafarge or Tarmac. However in Hope's defence, who else would the new company hire except seasoned industry personnel. Naturally they would want the best people possible!

With the revival of the UK construction industry hanging in the balance the Competition Commission has a tough job ahead to ensure increased competition in the future.

Back in May 2012 we asked who would buy Lafarge's Hope cement plant in Derbyshire. The answer was, of course, a company with an Indian background: Mittal Investments.

The sale was a condition of the UK Competition Commission in response to the proposed joint venture between Lafarge and Tarmac. It also included 172 ready mix concrete plants, five aggregates quarries, two asphalt plants, one marine aggregates wharf, one rail-linked aggregates depot and the sale of Tarmac's 50% ownership interest in Midland Quarry Products. Mittal has paid Euro339m for the assets, including up to Euro37m dependent on the performance of the assets over the next three years.

At the time we predicted that it might be a company from a fast growth area, with excess cash and a desire for technical knowledge, perhaps from China or the Middle East. Far more fitting for the UK, however, was a company with Indian roots, especially considering the cultural links between the two countries dating back to the colonial era.

Originally from India but based in London, owner Lakshmi Mittal runs steel multinational ArcelorMittal and he frequently tops UK rich lists. The Mittal family even own shares in Premier League football team Queens Park Rangers. The sale follows acquisitions of well-known British brands such as car manufacturers Jaguar Land Rover and British Steel/Corus to the Tata Group.

The sale to Mittal leaves the UK cement market with four companies. Mittal's new plant in the UK joins Lafarge's four plants, Cemex's two plants, Hanson Cement's three plants and Tarmac Buxton, Lime & Cement's single plant, which is soon to join with Lafarge's plants in the joint-venture. Geographically the sale to Mittal breaks up a concentration of three Lafarge and Tarmac plants in Derbyshire in the southern Pennines. Presumably this was the aim of the Competition Commission in the first place.

Selling the Hope plant makes sense for Lafarge and Tarmac. The sale leaves Lafarge's generous spread of plants across the UK in key locations except the south of England. The combined cement production capacity of Lafarge and Tarmac will fall from 4.35Mt/yr to 3.85Mt/yr. The reduction may actually help Lafarge, given its 9% fall in cement sales volumes so far in 2012 and the pessimistic outlook for the UK cement sector in 2013. The reduction in capacity manages this decline closely at 11%.

The UK cement industry has likely become more competitive with the range between the production capacities of the four companies reduced. However the price Lafarge and Tarmac have paid the Competition Commission for their joint venture was almost certainly worth it. Lafarge-Tarmac retains Lafarge's dominant position in a streamlined shape now matching the market reality.

Update: This article was corrected on 27 November 2012. The UK temporarily has five cement producers until the Lafarge-Tarmac joint venture gains approval from the UK Competition Commission. Then it will return to four.