Project On Cement Industry

A Project
On
CEMENT INDUSTRY
By
Deendayal Mishra
Bachelor of Business Administration
VI Semester
PACIFIC INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS STUDIES

Pacific Academy of Higher Education and Research University,
Udaipur, Rajasthan, India
2021
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my gratitude towards all the class

teachers for guiding me throughout the project. I also
feel thankful and express my kind gratitude towards our
Principal Mr. Anurag Mehta Sir for allowing me to conduct
project report on topic CEMENT INDUSTRY. I thank all
participants for their positive support and guidance.
I feel thankful to the college staff for giving me such a
big opportunity. I believe I will enroll in more such events
in the coming future. I ensure that this project was done
by me and is not copied.
INDEX
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 INTRODUCTION OF CEMENT INDUSTRY
 HISTORY OF CEMENT
 PARTICIPATION OF MAJOR COMPANIES
 MARKET SHARE OF TOP 10 CEMENT COMPANIES GLOBALLY.
 CHALLENGES FACED BY THE CONCRETE SECTOR
 FUTURE PLANS OF CEMENT INDUSTRY
 RECOMMENDATION FOR BETTERMENT
 REFRENCES
A cement is any substance which binds together other materials by a combination of
chemical processes known collectively as setting. Cements are dry powders and should
1
not be confused with concretes or mortars, but they are an important constituent of both
of these materials, in which they act as the 'glue' that gives strength to structures.
Mortar is a mixture of cement and sand whereas concrete also includes rough
aggregates (Figure 1). 2,3
Because it is a major component of both of these building materials, cement is an

extremely important construction material. It is used in the production of the many
structures that make up the modern world including buildings, bridges, harbours,
runways and roads. It is also used for facades and other decorative features on
buildings. The constant demand for all of these structures, increasingly from the
developing world, means that cement is the second most consumed commodity in the
world after water.
Modern cement has come a very long way from its origins. Archeological evidence has
been found that a form of crude concrete was used in hut construction in the areas now
covered by Serbia, dating from around 5600BC and Israel (7000BC). Although the
7
materials were never sufficiently strong to form monolithic structures, they provided
some elements of stability to otherwise loose structures. The ancient Greeks also had
access to lime plaster, which was often used for decorative purposes and crude
8
cements derived from calcined lime were also used by the Roman empire, notably in
9
the construction of the Pantheon in Rome. 10
The progress of cement development was slowed in the Middle Ages, with significant
information being lost, but by the industrial revolution, cements (and the concretes that
they could be used to make) were increasingly being researched as an alternative to
wood and stone. In the late 1700s and early 1800s a great number of novel cement
patents and formulations were devised by those keen to exploit the need for new
building materials. 11
Among the first to realise the great potential of cement and concrete for modern
engineering was James Smeaton, who was charged with the task of rebuilding the
Eddystone Lighthouse on the English Channel in 1755 following a devastating fire.
Smeaton researched the properties of lime from many regions of the UK and tested
them systematically for their resistance to water. After much research he determined
that lime obtained from Aberthaw in Wales was the most suitable and remarked that he
had found a cement that could, "equal the best merchantable Portland stone in solidity
and durability."
11
A string of others were awarded patents for novel cementitious materials in the coming
years, including James Parker (1796), Edgar Dobbs (1810), Louis Vicat (1818), Maurice
St. Leger (1818), James Frost (1822) and Joseph Aspdin (1824). The most successful
of these were Parker, who termed his invention 'Parkers Cement' then 'Roman Cement',
Frost who coined the term 'British Cement' and Aspdin, who (possibly inspired by the
earlier work of Smeaton) termed his invention 'Portland Cement.' 11
For much of the 1800s, Roman cement dominated, but in the latter part of the century
developments into the use of rotary kilns for cement production in the US led to Portland
cement becoming the dominant cement type. By 1900, Atlas Cement Company, based
in the Lehigh Valley, had 29 rotary cement kilns producing cement 10 times more
rapidly than earlier kilns. By this point Portland cement had undergone a large number
of incremental improvements, but its place at the top of the global cement pile was far
from assured. 11
Writing in 1882, British construction consultant Henry Faija wrote, "I do not wish to
frighten manufacturers, but my own impression is that in a few years Portland cement
will be superceded by another material. Portland cement, as at present made, is a
chemical combination carried out in the crudest way."12 His prophecy did not come
true, however, and Portland cement is still the industry standard cement. It represents
around 90% of British cement production and is by far the most common cement type
13
in the world. 14
Cement has been in use by humans throughout history; variations of the material were used by the ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians, with
the earliest archaeological discovery dated to 12-10,000BC in modern-day Turkey. The Romans used a mixture of lime (calcium oxide) and
pozzolan – crushed volcanic ash – to create hydraulic cements, which could set under water. Other cements used crushed brick, tiles and
ceramic pottery as aggregates. Famous historical buildings made from concrete, still standing today, are the Colosseum and Pantheon in Rome,
and the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul.
The Middle Ages were a quiet time in the history of cement; any discoveries made during this era remain unknown, although masons are known
to have used hydraulic cements to build structures such as fortresses and canals.
The Industrial Revolution in Europe in the late 18th century saw a flurry of new developments in cement and concrete, with important
contributions made by John Smeaton, who discovered that the hydraulicity of lime was directly related to the limestone’s clay content, James
Parker, Louis Vicat and Egor Cheliev.
The precursor to modern-day cement was created in 1824 by Joseph Aspdin, a British bricklayer and builder, who experimented with heating
limestone and clay until the mixture calcined, grinding it and then mixing it with water. Aspdin named this Portland Cement, after the famously
strong building stone from the Isle of Portland in Dorset, UK. His son, William Aspdin, made the first cement containing alite (an impure form of
tricalcium silicate).
In 1845, Isaac Johnson fired chalk and clay at much higher temperatures than the Aspdins, at around 1400-1500oC, which led to the mixture
clinkering, and produced what is essentially modern-day cement.
Since the 1900s, rotary kilns have replaced the original vertical shaft kilns, as they use radiative heat transfer, more efficient at higher
temperatures. achieving a uniform clinkering temperature and produces stronger cement. Gypsum is now also added to the resulting mixture to
control setting and ball mills are used to grind clinker.
Other developments in the last century include calcium aluminate cements for better sulphate resistance, the blending of Rosendale (a natural
hydraulic cement produced in New York) and Portland cements to make a durable and fast-setting cement in the USA, and the increased usage
of cementitious materials to store nuclear waste.
New technologies and innovations are constantly emerging to improve the sustainability, strength and applications of cement and concrete. Some
advanced products incorporate fibres and special aggregates to create roof tiles and countertops, for example, whilst offsite manufacture is also
gaining prominence with the rise of digitalisation and AI, which could reduce waste and improve efficiency and on-site working conditions.
Cements are also being developed which can absorb CO2 over their lifetimes, reducing the carbon footprint of the building material.

1. UltraTech Cement Ltd
UltraTech Cement Ltd. is the largest manufacturer of grey cement, Ready Mix Concrete
(RMC) and white cement in India. It is also one of the leading cement producers
globally. Ultratech is the Largest among the top 5 cement companies in India . Ultra
tech is the subsidiary of Grasim Industries which is owned by Aditya Birla Group.
 Revenue: Rs 38,657 Cr
 Production capacity: 102.75 MTPA
 Employees: 120,000
 Market Share: 21.4 %
The company has a consolidated capacity of 102.75 Million Tonnes Per Annum (MTPA)
of grey cement. UltraTech Cement has 20 integrated plants, 1 clinkerisation plant, 26
grinding units, and 7 bulk terminals. It is the leading cement companies in India.
Its operations span across India, UAE, Bahrain, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. UltraTech
Cement is also India’s largest exporter of cement reaching out to meet the demand in
countries around the Indian Ocean and the Middle East. Ultratech is best cement in
India
 Market Cap: 107,207 Cr.

 Stock P/E: 35.61
 Dividend Yield: 0.29 %
 ROCE: 10.22 %
 ROE: 8.58 %
 Sales Growth (3Yrs): 14.12 %
 Promoter holding: 61.68 %
 Debt to equity: 0.80
 Price to book value: 3.78
In the white cement segment, UltraTech goes to market under the brand name of Birla
White. It has a white cement plant with a capacity of 0.56 MTPA and 2 WellCare putty
plants with a combined capacity of 0.8 MTPA. Ultra Tech is one of the best cement
company in India.
It employs a diverse workforce comprising of 120,000 employees, belonging to 42
different nationalities across 36 countries. It is the largest producer of cement in India
based on turnover and market share.
2. Ambuja Cements Ltd
Ambuja Cements Ltd, a part of the global conglomerate LafargeHolcim, is among the
Top 10 Cement Companies in India. It is the second-largest producer of cement in India
based on turnover.
 Employees: 5180
Ambuja Cement has provided hassle-free, home-building solutions with its uniquely
sustainable development projects and environment-friendly practices since it started
operations. Ambuja cement is in the list of top 5 cement companies in India. One of the
best cement in India

 Stock P/E: 15.76
 ROCE: 15.03 %
 ROE: 10.59 %
Currently, Ambuja Cement has a cement capacity of 29.65 million tonnes with five
integrated cement manufacturing plants and eight cement grinding units across the
country. The company also generated 7.4% of its power needs from renewable
resources. The company produces one of the best quality cement in India.
3. ACC Ltd
ACC Limited is one of India’s leading manufacturers of cement and ready-mix concrete
with 17 cement factories, 75 ready mix concrete plants, over 6,700 employees, a vast
distribution network of 50,000+ dealers & retailers and a countrywide spread of sales
offices. It is the 3rd leading cement companies in India
 Employees: 6731
 Market Share: 6%
ACC has consistently set benchmarks in cement and concrete technology since its
inception in 1936. From the Bhakra Nangal Dam in 1960 to the Mumbai-Pune
Expressway, ACC cement is at the foundation of iconic landmarks across the country.
 Market Cap: 27,886 Cr

 Stock P/E: 16.00
 ROCE: 16.06 %
 ROE: 15.28 %
In 2005, ACC Limited became a part of the reputed Holcim Group of Switzerland. In
2015 Holcim Limited and Lafarge SA came together in a merger of equals to form
LafargeHolcim – the new world leader in the building materials industry. ACC Cement is
one of the best cement brand in India
4. Shree Cement Ltd
Shree Cement Ltd is the Fourth among the Top 10 Companies in Cement in terms of
sales. Incorporated in 1979 by renowned Bangur family based out of Kolkata. Set-up
the first Cement Plant in 1985 with an installed capacity of 0.6 Mtpa. Today Total
Cement Capacity of the Company is 29.30 Million tons.
 Market Share: 7 %
Came out with a Public Issue in the year 1984. Listed on National Stock Exchange
(“NSE”) and Bombay Stock Exchange (“BSE”). The total no of employees in 1985 was
around 100. Total No. of Employees as on 31st March 2017 was 6299. It is on the list of
top 5 cement companies in India.

 Stock P/E: 56.41
 ROCE: 12.61 %
 ROE: 12.30 %
5. Dalmia Bharat Ltd
Dalmia Bharat Ltd is Fifth Among the Top 10 Companies in Cement by Total Revenue.
The Company has cement manufacturing plants in southern states of Tamil Nadu
(Dalmiapuram & Ariyalur) and Andhra Pradesh (Kadapa), with a capacity of 9 million
tonnes per annum. Dalmai Bharat cement is among the list of best cement brand in
India
A leader in cement manufacturing since 1939, DCBL is a multi-spectrum Cement player

with double-digit market share and a pioneer in super-specialty cement used for Oil
wells, Railway sleepers, and Airstrips. It is last in the list of top 5 cement companies in
India.

 Stock P/E: 40.15
 ROCE: 4.14 %
 ROE: 1.76 %
Dalmia holds a stake of 74 % in OCL India Ltd., a major cement player in the Eastern
Region. Recently acquired the brands Adhunik Cement & Calcom Cement in North
East. The group now controls an expandable capacity of 25 million tonnes. One of the
best cement in India.
6. Birla Corporation Limited
Birla is the flagship Company of the M.P. Birla Group. Incorporated as Birla Jute
Manufacturing Company Limited in 1919, it was Late Mr. Madhav Prasad Birla who
gave shape to it. As Chairman of the Company, he transformed it from a manufacturer
of jute goods to a leading multi-product corporation with widespread activities. It is one
of the Top leading cement companies in India
Under the Chairmanship of Mrs. Priyamvada Birla, the Company crossed the Rs.
1,300 – crore turnover mark and the name was changed to Birla in 1998. Mr. Harsh V
Lodha is now Chairman of the Company. It is sixth in the list of top 10 cement company
in India.
The Company is primarily engaged in the manufacturing of cement as its core business
activity. It has a significant presence in the jute goods industry as well. The company
produces one of the best quality cement in India.
 Market Cap: 4,307 Cr

 Stock P/E: 13.79
 ROCE: 8.02 %
 ROE: 5.70 %
The Company has acquired 100% shares of Reliance Cement Company Private Limited
(Reliance Cement), a subsidiary of Reliance Infrastructure Limited (RIL). After this
acquisition, Reliance Cement has become a wholly-owned material subsidiary of the
company. The entire cement business of RIL has been acquired for an Enterprise Value
of Rs. 4,800 crores. This acquisition provides with the ownership of high-quality assets,
taking its total capacity from 10 MTPA to 15.5 MTPA.
7. India Cements Ltd
India cements Ltd was founded in the year 1946 by two men, Shri S N N Sankaralinga
Iyer and Sri T S Narayanaswami. They had the vision to inspire dreams for an industrial
India, the ability to translate those dreams into reality and the ability to build enduring
relationships and the future.
 Production capacity: 15 MTPA
 Employees: 4300
 Market Share: 3
From a two plant company having a capacity of just 1.3 million tonnes in 1989, India
Cements has robustly grown in the last two decades to a total capacity of 15.5 million
tonnes per annum. It is seventh in the list of top 10 cement company in India.

 Stock P/E: 123.54
 ROCE: 4.62 %
 ROE: 0.38 %
India Cements has now 8 integrated cement plants in Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Andhra
Pradesh, and Rajasthan and two grinding units, one each in Tamil Nadu and
Maharashtra. India Cement is one in the list of best cement brand in India
8. The Ramco Cements Limited
The Ramco Cements Limited is the flagship company of the Ramco Group, a well-
known business group of South India. It is headquartered in Chennai. It is eight in the
list of top 10 cement company in India.
 Employees: 3034
 Market Share: 3
The main product of the company is Portland cement, manufactured in eight state-of-
the-art production facilities that include Integrated Cement plants and Grinding units
with a current total production capacity of 16.45 MTPA. The company is the fifth largest
cement producer in the country.

 Stock P/E: 29.83
 ROCE: 13.64 %
 ROE: 11.87 %
It is the most popular cement brand in South India. The company also produces Ready
Mix Concrete and Dry Mortar products and operates one of the largest wind farms in the
country.
9. Orient Cement Ltd
Established in 1979, Orient Cement was formerly, a part of Orient Paper & Industries. It
was demerged in the year 2012 and since then, it has emerged as one of the fastest-
growing and leading cement manufacturers in India.
 Employees: 1500
Orient Cement began cement production in the year 1982 at Devapur in Adilabad
District, Telangana. In 1997, a split-grinding unit was added at Nashirabad in Jalgaon,
Maharashtra. It is ninth in the list of top 10 cement companies in India.

 Stock P/E: 21.02
 ROCE: 8.26 %
 ROE: 4.58 %
In 2015, Orient Cement started commercial production at its integrated cement plant
located at Chittapur, Gulbarga, Karnataka. With a total capacity of 8 MTPA, they serve
Maharashtra, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and parts of Madhya Pradesh,
Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Gujarat, and Chhattisgarh.
10. HeidelbergCement India Ltd
Heidelberg Cement India Limited is is a subsidiary of HeidelbergCement Group,

Germany. The Company has its operations in Central India at Damoh (Madhya
Pradesh), Jhansi (Uttar Pradesh) and in Southern India at Ammasandra (Karnataka).
 Production capacity:5.4 MTPA
 Employees: 1100
The Company increased its capacity to 5.4 million tones p.a. through brownfield
expansion of its facilities in Central India in 2013. It is 10th in the list of top 10 cement
companies in India.

 Stock P/E: 17.53
 ROCE: 24.83 %
 ROE: 19.90 %
There are still a number of challenges facing the Concrete Industry. From a political and
social viewpoint, improving the sustainability of concrete construction has to be the first
challenge, not because concrete solutions are poor when compared with alternatives,
but due to the volume needed for the modern economy. To get a fair comparison of
alternatives, sustainability has to be at the level of the structure and include all three
pillars of sustainability. Finding a system for combining the different indicators is
essential if sustainability is to be assessed correctly and in a holistic and comparative
way.A technical challenge is developing a practical, robust, reliable and cost-effective
method of specifying durability by performance. There are still unanswered questions
that require further research. These include the development of test methods, the
relationship between performance in the test and performance in structures, and the
impact of normal variations in production on the results of standard tests. There are
issues that are known about and solutions are available, but they still blight the
Concrete Industry. These are the uncontrolled addition of water on site and the failure to
achieve the specified minimum cover in the structure.
As cement has several uses, converting this figure to cubic metres of concrete is not
precise. Assuming 75% of cement is used in concrete and the cement content of
concrete is typically 300 kg/m3, this gives a world volume of concrete as 11.5 billion
cubic metres in 2016. On this basis, concrete would use about 72 billion metric tons of
aggregates. The sustainability of concrete construction is the first challenge facing the
industry. Concrete solutions are often the most sustainable and have the potential for a
very long service life, but because concrete is used in vast quantities, its use does have
a global impact.With the increasing number of cement types, additions and different
aggregates, the use of maximum w/c ratio and minimum cement content as the main
means of achieving acceptable durability becomes questionable and specifiers are
seeking to specify durability by performance. How to provide a technically sound, cost-
effective system for specifying durability by performance is another challenge facing the
concrete sector.
The production of cement in 2016 accounted for about 4% of emissions from fossil fuels
[2] and while this figure is large, it is due more to the quantity of concrete produced and
not the impact per functional unit. While GWP is an important aspect of sustainability,
there are other equally important aspects. Sustainable resource use and the social and
economic benefits of using a local material are equally important factors and often not
taken into account.The sustainability experts working within the European
Standardization Committee (CEN) have agreed that sustainability assessment should
be undertaken at the building level and not at the level of the constituents and that it
should include all three pillars of sustainability. The Concrete Industry should support
this approach and the procedures given in CEN standards such as EN 15643 [3], EN
15798 [4], EN 16309 [5] and EN 16627 [6]. The information to make building level
assessments for the environmental pillar of sustainability is provided by environmental
product declarations in accordance with EN 15804 [7]. The social and economic
aspects of sustainability are only assessed at the building level, but some technical
information is provided in EN 15804 [7].

Nevertheless, there remains a significant challenge on how to use and apply all these
different indicators. The European Commission is pressing CEN to find a way to
combine these indicators to make the information more user-friendly, but how do you
combine 'chalk and cheese'? Given the complexity of assessing the numerous
indicators, the tendency is to ignore more of them and focus only on GWP.

A solution would be to ask a large sample of users their view on the weighting of the
different indicators, but any such survey might get skewed by views from commercial
interests. One should expect a commercial interest to give a higher weighting to the
aspects in which their product performs well with respect to competitors and a lower
impact to those in which it does not perform well. With care such bias can be minimised.

With certain impacts, e.g. GWP, the impact will be the same regardless of where the
structure is located, but other impacts depend on location, e.g. water use. The
importance of water use will vary depending upon whether water is abundant or scarce.
The social and economic aspects of sustainability will also be dependent on location. A
solution would be to provide a range for such impacts and guidance on how to select at
the local level the appropriate weighting.

It is in the interest of the Concrete Industry that a holistic view is taken of sustainability
and, therefore, it should contribute to the development of a system where the different
indicators can be combined to give a single combined and comparative rating.
There is significant scope for improving the environmental impact of using concrete
solutions both at the concept design stage and in the material selection. Using the
thermal mass of concrete to cool/heat buildings is a rapidly developing technology that
is already being applied in practice [8, 9].

Using concrete as a means of storing energy shows exciting possibilities. When the
temperature of one cubic metre of concrete is raised by 4K, it can store 2.67 kWh of
heat. Figure 3 [9] shows a demonstration house in Austria using wind energy and a heat
pump for its power supply and the concrete ceiling slab as its heat store. When the
250mm ceiling slab in this building was heated using its renewable energy sources to
26ºC, the room temperature stayed in the comfort range of 22ºC to 24ºC for 50 to 120
hours depending upon the outside temperature.
With the trend to move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources such as
solar and wind, means of storing the energy generated for use overnight are needed
and concrete has the potential to provide the most cost-effective solution. Turning this
potential into reality is a challenge for the Concrete Industry.

Whether a thin section of high strength concrete is more sustainable than a thicker
section of normal strength concrete is an open question, but once a system for
determining a holistic view of sustainability is agreed, it should be possible to answer
the question.

The main way in which the environmental impact of the material concrete can be
improved is by reducing its embodied carbon dioxide. Harrison [10] using data from the
Mineral Products Association showed that cement was the main contributor to the
embodied carbon dioxide in concrete,Calcium sulfoaluminate cement has been widely
used in China for over 35 years, but this is due in part to the availability of bauxite rather
than by technical necessity. There are numerous types of alkali-activated cementitious
materials and, so far, none have stood out as the front runner, furthermore their reliance
on fly ash or GGBS means these materials face the same problems discussed above.
Moreover, there are questions over the sustainability of the alkali sources being used.
The production of magnesium oxide based cement has not yet reached a commercial
stage but work continues to refine the manufacturing process but again the geological
availability of the raw rock source is not widespread meaning long distance
transportation will be a necessary part of any widespread use, compared to limestone or
chalk quarries, which are also much easier to grind.

Another approach to achieving lower embedded energy in concrete is to use a lower
cement/binder content per unit strength required. The use of superplasticizing
admixtures to significantly reduce the water demand for a specified consistence is
established practice. Nevertheless as the cement content is reduced, so is the 'fines'
content of the concrete and this may result in concrete that does not have a 'closed'
structure, i.e. there will insufficient paste to fill the voids between the aggregates, and
consequently a reduction in its durability [12].

Sustainable use of resources is equally important as GWP. Too frequently the word
'sustainable' is ignored and resource use is measured in term of total mass of resources
used. Such a system gives equal impact to a tonne of gold to a tonne of aggregate! EN
15804 [7] has 12 resource indicators, Table 1. Having so many indicators is impractical
from a user's point of view and the University of Dundee developed a system where
only two indicators are needed; one covering the sustainable use of resources and the
other the use of water [13].

The University of Dundee system uses the residual life of a resource. This is the
estimated world reserves of the resource divided by the current rate of use. While both
sides of this equation are likely to change, it uses the best information currently
available and the abiotic depletion potential used in EN 15804 is based upon the same
approach, but presents the values in a way few people would understand what it is
indicating.
Adding water on site in a controlled manner under the full responsibility of the concrete
producer is not bad practice and it is a solution to situations where travel time to site is
highly variable or where the exact consistence at discharge is critical, e.g. diaphragm
walling. In this situation the procedure is agreed between all the parties beforehand and
typically some of the mix water is held back and added on site, followed by mixing at
high speed for the agreed time. The volume of water added is recorded and samples for
testing the consistence and strength are taken from the re-mixed concrete. The
producer remains fully responsible for the quality of the supplied concrete.

This section is not about this practice, but about the uncontrolled addition of water to
concrete on site. From a supplier's viewpoint, the specification has been changed by the
client instructing the producer to add more water, but it is questionable whether the
person ordering this change has the authority to do so. If the producer does not have
this instruction and the volume added written on the delivery ticket and signed, they
have little proof that they were following instructions. What is worse is if the sample for
testing is taken prior to adding water. While the producer will claim that this sample
represents the quality of concrete supplied to the site, it does not reflect the quality of
concrete in the structure and this is the key concern of owners of structures.

This issue is one that continues to blight the industry and resolving it remains one of the
challenges facing the Concrete Industry. The solution may appear simple, ban the
practice in the concrete specification, but this is ineffective if it is not enforced on site.
The one certainty is that nothing will be recorded on the delivery ticket and if this
practice is spotted on site, the producer will not want to lose a customer and, therefore,
they will work together to claim this was an exception!!!
There are still a number of challenges facing the Concrete Industry. From a political and
social viewpoint, improving the sustainability of concrete construction has to be the first
challenge, not because concrete solutions are poor when compared with alternatives,
but due to the volume needed for the modern economy. To get a fair comparison of
alternatives, sustainability has to be at the level of the structure and include all three
pillars of sustainability. Finding a system for combining the different indicators is
essential if sustainability is to be assessed correctly and in a holistic and comparative
way.A technical challenge is developing a practical, robust, reliable and cost-effective
method of specifying durability by performance. There are still unanswered questions
that require further research. These include the development of test methods, the
As cement has several uses, converting this figure to cubic metres of concrete is not
precise. Assuming 75% of cement is used in concrete and the cement content of
concrete is typically 300 kg/m3, this gives a world volume of concrete as 11.5 billion
cubic metres in 2016. On this basis, concrete would use about 72 billion metric tons of
aggregates. The sustainability of concrete construction is the first challenge facing the
industry. Concrete solutions are often the most sustainable and have the potential for a
very long service life, but because concrete is used in vast quantities, its use does have
a global impact.With the increasing number of cement types, additions and different
aggregates, the use of maximum w/c ratio and minimum cement content as the main
means of achieving acceptable durability becomes questionable and specifiers are
seeking to specify durability by performance. How to provide a technically sound, cost-
effective system for specifying durability by performance is another challenge facing the
concrete sector.
The production of cement in 2016 accounted for about 4% of emissions from fossil fuels
[2] and while this figure is large, it is due more to the quantity of concrete produced and
not the impact per functional unit. While GWP is an important aspect of sustainability,
there are other equally important aspects. Sustainable resource use and the social and
economic benefits of using a local material are equally important factors and often not
taken into account.The sustainability experts working within the European
Standardization Committee (CEN) have agreed that sustainability assessment should
be undertaken at the building level and not at the level of the constituents and that it
should include all three pillars of sustainability. The Concrete Industry should support
this approach and the procedures given in CEN standards such as EN 15643 [3], EN
15798 [4], EN 16309 [5] and EN 16627 [6]. The information to make building level
assessments for the environmental pillar of sustainability is provided by environmental
product declarations in accordance with EN 15804 [7]. The social and economic
aspects of sustainability are only assessed at the building level, but some technical
information is provided in EN 15804 [7].

Nevertheless, there remains a significant challenge on how to use and apply all these
different indicators. The European Commission is pressing CEN to find a way to
combine these indicators to make the information more user-friendly, but how do you
combine 'chalk and cheese'? Given the complexity of assessing the numerous
indicators, the tendency is to ignore more of them and focus only on GWP.

A solution would be to ask a large sample of users their view on the weighting of the
different indicators, but any such survey might get skewed by views from commercial
interests. One should expect a commercial interest to give a higher weighting to the
aspects in which their product performs well with respect to competitors and a lower
impact to those in which it does not perform well. With care such bias can be
minimised.With certain impacts, e.g. GWP, the impact will be the same regardless of
where the structure is located, but other impacts depend on location, e.g. water use.
The importance of water use will vary depending upon whether water is abundant or
scarce. The social and economic aspects of sustainability will also be dependent on
location. A solution would be to provide a range for such impacts and guidance on how
to select at the local level the appropriate weighting.There are still a number of
challenges facing the Concrete Industry. From a political and social viewpoint,
improving the sustainability of concrete construction has to be the first challenge, not
because concrete solutions are poor when compared with alternatives, but due to the
volume needed for the modern economy. To get a fair comparison of alternatives,
sustainability has to be at the level of the structure and include all three pillars of
sustainability. Finding a system for combining the different indicators is essential if
sustainability is to be assessed correctly and in a holistic and comparative way.A
technical challenge is developing a practical, robust, reliable and cost-effective method
of specifying durability by performance. There are still unanswered questions that
require further research. These include the development of test methods, the
To get a fair comparison of alternatives, sustainability has to be at the level of the
structure and include all three pillars of sustainability. Finding a system for combining
the different indicators is essential if sustainability is to be assessed correctly and in a
holistic and comparative way.A technical challenge is developing a practical, robust,
reliable and cost-effective method of specifying durability by performance. There are still
unanswered questions that require further research.
Today, most plants operate in a traditional, nonagile manner with manual or outdated
technology infrastructure, and they struggle to acquire and retain skilled workers in
important roles. A history of mergers and capacity expansions has led to legacy
investments that hamper the ability and appetite to make drastic changes. Moreover,
while the cement industry has seen major advancements in IT infrastructure and
operational technology over the past two decades, return has been below expectations.
The efficacy of new enterprise-resource-planning systems, process-optimization tools,
and even predictive maintenance has lagged behind due to change-management
challenges and cultural differences between sites.
To understand the gaps and opportunities in each market subsegment, cement players
should start by conducting an initial assessment of their plants and their entire value
chain. Doing so will not only define realistic digitization and sustainability aspirations
but also facilitate discussions of a comprehensive strategy that is codified into a
detailed road map for each plant. Cement players can either define top-down targets for
each plant or bottom-up targets depending on specific use cases for each plant. Either
way, they can simultaneously build digital capabilities through a dedicated academy.
They should then challenge themselves to focus on activities that will generate the
largest margin gain for their business and customers.
Each plant will also need to establish an agile operating model that will include
adjustments to the organizational structure, capabilities, infrastructure, processes, and
partnerships. Local leaders need to be empowered to guide the way to achieve those
goals, instilling transparency, customer orientation, and a sense of ownership within
local teams. The plants also need to move away from being pure cost centers and
focus on initiatives that generate high value while running day-to-day operations in a
lean way. A stable organizational backbone ensures an organization has a common
purpose, standards, platforms, culture, and set of values—allowing for open and simple
knowledge sharing.There is no single approach for success, and each plant should
choose its own path depending on context, goals, desire for centralization, existing in-
house capabilities, and so forth. The most important questions for cement players to
answer before embarking on this journey are around value generation. More specifically:
what use cases generate the most margin gain? Is it better to have peak efficiency or to
maximize throughput? Can a fully integrated manufacturing process that has raw
material–based production generate higher margins?The Indian cement industry has
evolved significantly in the last two decades, going through all the phases of typical
cyclical growth process. After a period of over-supply and a phase of massive capacity
additions, the industry is currently in a consolidation phase. With sound economic
growth and infrastructure development, the demand for cement is on an upward trend
(R. Rehan, 2005).
Being one of the basic elements for setting up strong and healthy infrastructure,
Cement plays a crucial role in economic development of any country (M.Z. Soguta,
2009). Having more than a hundred and fifty years history, it has been used extensively
in construction of anything, from a small building to a mammoth multi-purpose project
(Qinghua Zhu, 2009). The manufacturing process of cement consists of mixing, drying
and grinding of limestone, clay and silica into a composite mass (M.B. Alia, 2011). The
mixture is then heated and burnt in a pre- heater and kiln to be cooled in an air-cooling
system to form clinker, which is the semi-finished form. This clinker is cooled by air and
subsequently ground with gypsum to form cement. There are three types of processes
to form
cement – the wet, semi-dry and dry processes (Chun-Jen Chung and Hui-Ming Wee,
2008). In the wet/semi-dry process, raw material is produced by mixing limestone and
water (called slurry) and blending it with soft clay. In the dry process technology,
crushed limestone and raw materials are ground and mixed without the addition of
water (Rajiv K. Srivastava, 2012.).
The Beginning of Indian Cement Industry The attempt to produce cement in India dates
back to 1889 when a Calcutta firm attempted to produce cement from Argillaceous
(D.B. Desai, 2013). The factory could not succeed hence it failed. However, it was in
1914 that the first commissioned cement-manufacturing unit in India was set up by
India Cement Company Limited at Porbandar, Gujarat, with an installed capacity of
10,000 tonnes and production of 1000 tonnes. Subsequently two plants; one at Katni
(M.P.) and another at Lakheri (Rajasthan) were set up. The First World War gave
positive stimulus to the infant industry (M. Ziya SÃ–GÃœT, 2012.). The following
decades saw increase in number of plants, installed capacity and production. This
period can thus be called the Nascent Stage of Indian cement industry (Darshak A.
Desai, 2012).
Over a 5-year period, capacity has grown at six percent as against eight per cent growth
in cement consumption. Major players in the industry are in fact, operating at 90 to 100
per cent of capacity (Wee-Kean Fonga, 2009). Many have announced expansion plans to
meet the growing demand. Major capacity additions will be completed by the end of the
year 2008-09.The increase in demand for cement has attracted global majors to India
(Leif Gustavsson and Roger Sathre, 2006). In a short span of one year (2005-06), four of
the top five cement companies of the world entered into India either through mergers or
acquisitions or joint ventures or green field projects (Sunil Luthra, 2011). These include
Frances Lafarge, Switzerlands Holicm, Italys Italcementi and Germanys Heldelberg
cement (Nilesh Vijay Fursule, 2012). The industry has witnessed flurry of mergers and
acquisitions among domestic players also, bringing smaller players under the umbrella
of large players, such as ACC, Gujarat Ambuja, Grasim Industries, Ultratech and India
Cements which in turn have come under the leadership of global players like Lafarge,
Holicm, Italcements and Heldelberg (Sabuj Kumar Mandal and S. Madheswaran, 2010).
There are different varieties of cement based on different compositions according to
specific end uses, namely, Ordinary Portland Cement, Portland Pozzolana Cement,
White Cement, Portland Blast Furnace Slag Cement and Specialised Cement (Sabuj
Kumar Mandal and S. Madheswaran, 2010). The basic difference lies in the percentage
of clinker used.
 Ordinary Portland cement (OPC): OPC, popularly known as grey cement, has
95 per cent clinker and 5 per cent gypsum and other materials. It accounts for
70 per cent of the total consumption.
 Portland Pozzolana Cement (PPC): PPC has 80 per cent clinker, 15 percent
pozolona and 5 per cent gypsum and accounts for 18 per cent of the total
cement consumption. It is manufactured because it uses fly ash/burnt
clay/coal waste as the main ingredient (Ahmed M. Deif, 2011.).
 White Cement: White cement is OPC – clinker using fuel oil (instead of coal)
with iron oxide content below
0.4 per cent to ensure whiteness. A special cooling technique is used in its
production. It is used to enhance aesthetic value in tiles and flooring. White
cement is much more expensive than grey cement.
 Portland Blast Furnace Slag Cement (PBFSC): PBFSC consists of 45 percent
clinker, 50 per cent blast furnace slag and 5 per cent gypsum and accounts for
10 per cent of the total cement consumed. It has a heat of hydration even
lower than PPC and is generally used in the construction of dams and similar
massive constructions.
 Specialised Cement: Oil Well Cement is made from clinker with special
additives to prevent any porosity.
 Rapid Hardening Portland cement: Rapid Hardening Portland Cement is similar
to OPC, except that it is ground much finer, so that on casting, the
compressible strength increases rapidly (Kuo-Chung Shang, 2010).
 Water Proof Cement: Water Proof Cement is similar to OPC, with a small
portion of calcium stearate or non- saponifibale oil to impart waterproofing
properties.
The development of different types of concrete will not necessarily result in an
increase in the number of cement types to be produced, but it will require that
the quality of the cement be much more consistent than at present (Youjuan
Wang, 2011). In the future, cements will have to fulfill tighter specifications
(Breno Nunes, 2010).
The development of numerous high-tech concretes will also not neessarily
result in an increase of the overall consumption of cement or binder used in a
cubicmetre of concrete because cement and binders will be used more and
more efficiently: in the best-case scenario, in developed countries, it will be
possible to make more concrete with the same amount of binder (Chun-Jen
Chung and Hui-Ming Wee, 2008).
The aim of this study is to design and test a diagnostic instrument relating to a
set of factors affecting TQM and to critically examine whether these factors
have linkages with the factors affecting organizational performance. We
propose a more involved analysis that includes structural, external and internal
factors in case of
Indian organizations who have implemented TQM during the last decade.
Literature Review:
Though a plenty of related works are available in the literature, a concise
number of works are reviewed just below.
Guofei Ren et al. [21] have proposed a method for cement industry changed
tremendously with economic development of China. In this paper, they
reviewed the history of Chinese cement industry and analyzes the current
situation of cement industry from the political, environmental, and the other
aspects by using the PEST analytic method. The challenges for the evolution
of Chinese cement industries are also clarified.
Sadhana Chaurasia et al. [22] have proposed a research work for data of the
ambient air quality status of Nambahera district of Chittorgarh Rajasthan,
India. The Air quality was assessed based on New National Ambient Air
Quality Standard. The selected parameters were SPM, PM10, SO2, NOx. The
average value of PM10 was found beyond the permissible limit at near power
plant and near coal mill. The outcome of the study has been presented in the
form of Air Quality Index. AQI was found moderate for PM10 and SO2 & NOx
were observed in good range.
Mohsen Attari et al. [21] have discussed a technique how environmental
evaluation of the cement industry in Iran can be facilitated. In this proposed
method, they have developed cooperating with experts from university,
industry and policy makers. The importance of the indicators was determined
with the help of the cooperating industrial partners. By using the TOPSIS
method, indicators were prioritized and improvement strategies for this
industrial sector were derived. 15 indicators were introduced; among them
seven are for the intensity of consumptions during production of cement and
emissions production, three for control of emissions to air, four for capacities
of control of water pollution and one for the inefficiency level in the execution
of ISO 14000. It shown that the last indicator has the highest priority followed
by the intensity of CO2 emission.
Y. Pontikesa et al. [25] have presented in depth review of these cases by
providing a critical overview of the on-going research over the last forty years.
To facilitate the transition from laboratory to industrial scale, a barriers and
drivers analysis was also presented for the case of BR addition in the raw meal
of cement clinker, following both BR and cement producers perspective. It was
demonstrated that tangible results can be achieved with present-day
technology and that one of the major barrier is economic. A number of clear
actions were suggested to accelerate the transition towards a more
sustainable management of BR.
C. Meyer et al. [24] have proposed a method for increasing use of
cementationsmaterials that can serve as partial substitutes for Portland
cement, in particular those materials that are by-products of industrial
processes, such as fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag. In
addition, the substitution of various recycled materials for aggregate has
made significant progress worldwide, thereby
reducing the need to quarry virgin aggregates. The most important ones
among these were recycled concrete aggregate, post-consumer glass, scrap
tires, plastics, and by-products of the paper and other industries.To study the
progress of Indian cements industry since 1991, in terms of its growth in
installed capacity, production, exports, and value additions.
We developed a survey to explore issues regarding different existing report in cement

industry throughout the world for Indian market. The study was not designed just to
look at different issues of existing methods but also find out the importance of existing
methods review practices. Rather than considering researcher alone, the study aimed to
survey outcome of correction and regression analysis for cement industry. Company
from different region of the world.
Research Methodology
The research methodology is a way to methodically solve the research problem. The
proposed study is based on exploratory research, with purposes of finding issues,
screening of various alternatives, and discovering new paradigms.
Data Source
The data has been collected from both primary and secondary sources. The primary
source consists of a questionnaire survey. 450 structured questionnaires had
distributed to the respondents throughout the world for the purpose of gathering
needed data. The questionnaire is included questions to address the stated research
objectives. All the questions have designed in such a way that the responses generated
on the crucial issues which are directly and indirectly focused on the research goals.
This data helps in making projections in this research investigation in cement
industry.The secondary source is also included scanning and searching of related past
works in print form and electronic form on websites.
Sampling Procedure
In the present research, a sample size of 450 (collected from all over India) was chosen
for the final survey. However data collection through questionnaire method has several
advantages but it alsohave so many disadvantages likeLow rate of return of the duly
filled in questionnaires; bias due to no-response is oftenindeterminate; It can be used
only when respondents are educated and cooperating; Thecontrol over questionnaire
may be lost once it is sent; There is also the possibility ofambiguous replies or omission
of replies altogether to certain questions; interpretation ofomissions is difficult and last
but not least this method is likely to be the slowest of all (Stephan Vachon and Robert D.
Klassen, 2010).To overcome all above difficulties following care has been taken to
ensure goodresponse. The questionnaire was mailed along with prepaid envelop in
order to facilitatequick reply. Close friends and associates were identified in each area
and thequestionnaire was explained
to them. They were entrusted with the responsibility toanswer the queries of the
respondents and also to do follow up. To start with, the rate ofreturn of the complete
questionnaire was very fast, but when the rate of flow sloweddown, reminders were sent
to them for an early reply. Telephone calls and e-mail werealso made besides personal
contacts with the organization. The hectic efforts and thesupport of the friends and
institutes generated a good response representing 48% responserate which was quite
encouraging. Table 3 gives details about the profile of the respondents.
Analysis:
After collecting all the data, the process of analysis had done. To summarize and
rearrange the data several interrelated procedures has been performed during the data
analysis stage. For quantitative data analysis, statistical tools of Microsoft excel and
SPSS has been used for data input and analysis. The statistical results presented in
graphical form with a detailed description. Statistical tools like tables and percentages
applied for analyzing the data for the study. Thus the validation of data has been
scientifically established.
In this paper, an attempt has been made to review the literature on GM in cement
industry. The authors have presented a literature classification and categorized content
related to cement industry. This paper will assist researchers and cement industrialist to
understand and integrate GM in cement industry. However, few of them focus on
studying the life cycle and green product design by the help of GM process. Available
resources should be used effectively and efficiently to achieve Green productivity with
Green industry. In this paper, a challenge has been made to explore green process
responsibility for initiating quality management in cement industry and planning for
performance management in cement education by evaluating percent analysis. With the
analysis result, we are getting a model and result for organization structure, company
management, and regulation of GM for all cement industry in India. We get the better
survey result for green manufacture in cement industry. This research
instrument/questionnaire will provide impetus for further research aimed at gaining a
more comprehensive understanding and better result for Indian cement industry. Here
we have intended to propose a proper changed in perspective of GM. The information
obtained in the current study will be invaluable not only for finding all gases emissions,
but also for assessing the most practicable ways of making improvements to dst air
quality, waste utilization and environment protection. The forecast for the global economy
in 2019 has been lowered, with the IMF decreasing its global growth expectations to 3.5
percent, 0.2 percentage points below its October report, while the World Bank is projecting
global growth to slow down to 2.9 percent during the year in its most recent Global
Economy Prospects.
The slowdown is mostly expected due to the impact of the trade conflict between the US
and China, among others, and to softening international investment and production, as well
as financial distress in some of the strongest economies, such as Germany and China.
Financial policies around the world are also expected to tighten as economic conditions are
set to worsen, which could make it more difficult for investors to borrow credit, a problem
that could impact the industry in both the growth of supplies, and in the number and size of
projects, leading to a decline in demand.China’s sluggish economy in 2019 is one of the
most concerning factors for the global cement market, as the country is one of the largest
producers and consumers of cement. The IMF and the World Bank are forecasting the
Chinese economy to grow by 6.2 percent in 2019, a pronounced decrease from the
exponential expansion from the previous decades, and one of the smallest since 1990,
according to Bloomberg.
Cement companies in the country are expected to shut down some of their capacity due to
tighter environmental regulations, which could offset the increase of almost four percent per
year between 2018 and 2023 projected by CW Research for global ex-China.
In its latest Global Cement Volume Forecast Report, CW Research projects cement capacity
in China to slow down and contract at an annual average of 3.0 percent between 2018 and
2023, as the country rolls out new capacity rationalization efforts related to its new
environmental policies.
Likewise, CW Research forecasts Chinese cement demand will continue sliding through
2023, whereas consumption in global ex-China is poised to improve by one percent during
the same period.
The lack of investment in the real estate and infrastructure sectors by the Chinese
government is one of the factors weighing cement demand down, as the market’s
consumption is estimated to have decreased by almost three percent from 2017 to 2018, to
2.55 billion tons.Cement-based materials, such as concrete and mortars, are used in
extremely large amounts. For instance, in 2009 concrete production was superior to 10
billion tons. Cement plays an important role in terms of economic and social relevance
since it is fundamental to build and improve infrastructure. On the other hand, this
industry is also a heavy polluter. Cement production releases 5–6% of all carbon dioxide
generated by human activities, accounting for about 4% of global warming. It can
release huge amounts of persistent organic pollutants, such as dioxins and heavy metals
and particles. Energy consumption is also considerable. Cement production use
approximately 0.6% of all energy produced in the United States. On the other hand, the
chemistry underlying cement production and its applications can be very helpful to
overcome these environmental issues. In terms of manufacture, there are many
alternative materials that can be used to minimize carbon dioxide production and
reduce energy consumption, such as calcium sulfoaluminates and β-Ca2SiO4—rich
cements. Using residues from other industrial sectors can also improve the
sustainability of cement industry. Under adequate conditions, waste materials such as
tyres, oils, municipal solid waste and solvents can be used as supplementary fuel in
cement plants. Concrete can be used for encapsulation of waste materials such as tyres,
plastics and glasses. In this review, we discuss some aspects of the cement industry
associated with environmental science. Other issues such as economic aspects, the
chemistry of cement manufacture and its properties are also presented. Special
attention is given to the role that cement chemistry can play in terms of sustainability.
The most relevant aspects are outlined, such as the use of alternative materials, new
possibilities and also the recycling of materials. It is also argued that an important
aspect is the role of research and development necessary to improve cement
sustainability.

An ambitious vision for decarbonization of cement and concrete is not only a question of scaling
up the use of low-carbon materials and putting the sector on a Paris-compatible pathway. It is
also about meeting the vision set out in the SDGs: a more flexible, cleaner living environment
for the 100 million people who are expected to move to cities over the next 10 years, and for the
almost 4 billion people living in cities today.
In the coming years, large quantities of concrete will continue to be used, and transforming how
it is made to radically reduce the use of Portland cement is essential. As Section 3.3 explains,
low-clinker and novel cements that release far fewer emissions in production are capable of
matching the performance of Portland cement. Some already perform better than traditional
cement in certain applications.
Today, these alternatives are rarely as cost-effective as Portland cement, and they face
constraints in terms of raw material supply, resistance from customers and the difficulty of
scaling up industry participation. The challenge is to overcome these barriers via a combination
of policy mechanisms, enhanced collaboration, a concerted effort on disseminating best practice
and targeted R&D. By creating the conditions for a race to the top, the sector could even become
a low-carbon leader.
There is no simple formula or silver bullet. Moreover, while this paper focuses on the many
exciting opportunities around clinker substitution and novel cements, greater action is also
needed on energy efficiency, sustainable fuels and investments in CCS.
Yet it is entirely feasible that the cement and concrete sector can deliver the rapid
decarbonization required to keep the rise in global temperature well below 2°C, and as close as
possible to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Current models indicate this can be achieved
through incremental steps, and can rely to a significant extent on CCS technology. But other,
more disruptive pathways could be accelerated by new business models, advances in material
science, digital transformation and a revolution in the wider built environment. Disruptive
change in the cement and concrete sector could look quite different to what has been seen in
other sectors. In the context of telecommunications or transport, the term ‘disruption’ is usually
reserved for transformative changes that radically alter how people think, behave or do business,
which often means rethinking from first principles. Such approaches are contrasted with
‘incremental’ or ‘sustaining’ innovations that simply improve existing products and processes.
This understanding of disruption only goes so far in the context of a heavy-industry commodity
business such as cement and concrete. The physical importance of construction materials is
unlikely to diminish in the same way, for instance, that newspapers have been replaced by news
websites. Moreover, a ‘move fast and break things’ approach without safeguards – an approach
seen in some sectors, particularly the digital sphere – is far from desirable in the cement and
concrete sector, given the importance of maintaining safety and structural performance.
Disruption in the cement and concrete sector will hinge on incremental and transformative
solutions alike. On the one hand, smarter approaches are needed to deploy a plethora of already
available technologies, while matching solutions to specific locations and the right set of policies
to enable such solutions to be scaled up. These individually incremental gains could add up to a
step-change in emissions reduction. On the other hand, a much greater push is needed to make
tomorrow’s transformative approaches, including the ‘holy grail’ of carbon-negative cements,
commercially viable on a wide scale.
A global plan for cement sector decarbonization could be rooted in location-specific challenges
and opportunities. The availability of a given material, the local climate and soil conditions,
access to necessary finance and technology, and material/construction standards all vary across
regions and determine the set of options available to cement and concrete producers.
Connectivity between regions or cities matters too, not only in terms of infrastructure planning,
but also for defining which construction materials can be economically traded.
This is about finding the optimal combination of technology, practice-related and policy
solutions for a given location. For instance, while parts of Europe and the US are already feeling
the effects of decreasing supplies of traditional clinker substitution materials, such as fly ash and
blast furnace slag, China and India are currently producing huge volumes of these. Volcanic
rocks and ash will become important in regions such as Italy, Greece and the west coast of North
America, where these materials are plentiful.
Several studies suggest that calcined clays present a significant opportunity to increase clinker
substitution around the world. These could have particular relevance for emerging and
developing countries, especially in locations with existing stockpiles of suitable clays from
ceramics industries, notably China and Brazil. Moreover, calcined clays are already being used
in reconstruction efforts in Cuba, following damage from Hurricane Irma in 2017. This growing
body of experience could lead to the widespread use of alternative materials to accelerate
rebuilding after natural disasters.
Trade plays a small but significant and growing role in the availability of clinker substitutes,
particularly for countries like Brazil where there is scarcity of key materials. Even within
countries, transport is a significant factor. In China, there are underutilized supplies of fly ash in
the west of the country, but a scarcity in the east. In Europe, a concentration of well-connected
urban areas enhances the viability of concrete recycling.
The availability of construction materials is not just a question of cement and concrete. The
viability and sustainability of potential bio-based substitutes for concrete, such as wood and
hemp, also depend on local conditions. The environmental benefits could vary significantly, for
example, between a well-managed Norwegian forest versus one in a country with weak forest
governance.
Major regional infrastructure and connectivity initiatives may shape resource demand for a
number of years. China has become a global enabler for infrastructure development through its
overseas investments and its growing partnerships with countries involved in its Belt and Road
Initiative. Ensuring that mega-initiatives such as these also create the right enabling environment
for investment in sustainable infrastructure will require concerted efforts to collaborate and
harmonize approaches at the global level.
High-performance building materials will be particularly important for enhancing resilience,
including for flood defences and critical-infrastructure protection. Risks to infrastructure and
cities posed by extreme weather events are especially serious for those places exposed to flood
and hurricane damage, but also where residents need protection from extreme summer
temperatures. Traditional concrete can come under strain when exposed to humidity and higher
concentrations of atmospheric CO2. While concrete is likely to remain important in applications
where the environment is challenging, novel, smarter and more adaptable materials are also
needed.

Governments, especially in OECD countries and China, should consider giving a clear market
signal by setting a target date for the achievement of net-zero carbon emissions in cement
production and/or in the construction sector – recognizing that negative-emissions technologies
may need to play a role.
A credible commitment by policymakers to decarbonize the sector could be a major driver of
low-carbon innovation. In the past, anticipation of a Copenhagen summit deal and expectations
of further tightening of the EU ETS led to a surge in innovative activity in research and in
industry efforts such as the Cement Sustainability Initiative. However, patenting activity soon
faded in the absence of a strong agreement and the lack of a high carbon price in most markets.
Following the 2015 Paris Agreement, there is now a critical opportunity to recreate this
momentum and to define a climate-compatible pathway for specific industrial sectors, including
cement and concrete.
In many countries, governments are the largest procurers of construction products and services.
(In the Netherlands, for example, public procurement has already helped increase demand for
low-carbon cement.) Sub-national entities, cities, local authorities and housing corporations have
a key role to play in exploring such approaches. A growing number of companies in various
countries are also setting carbon-intensity targets for their construction projects. More generally,
the major companies committed to 100 per cent renewable energy and electric vehicles could
demonstrate further commitment to climate action by requiring the use of low-carbon materials
in any buildings or infrastructure they choose to build.
New product standards have long been seen as vital for shifting industry practices and
stimulating demand for lower-carbon products, but in the short term these are unlikely to provide
sufficient incentive to expand the markets for such products or build sustainable supply chains
around them. Current standards, in particular for concrete, hold back the deployment of very-
low-clinker cements. Yet it can take decades for a new standard to be approved – and even once
this exists, it can take a long time for customers to accept a new type of cement. One recent
report suggests that there is little prospect of an overhaul of European cement and concrete
standards.In the short to medium term, standards-setting bodies have a key role to play in
developing the technologies needed to make more flexible approaches to standard-setting
possible, such as accelerated durability testing
The other widely cited policy approach is carbon pricing. Carbon prices could create the
necessary incentive to scale up investment in early-stage low-carbon cements, but sufficiently
high price levels are unlikely for at least the next few years in key markets such as the EU,
China, India and the US. Moreover, carbon prices alone are unlikely to deliver enough
investment in new approaches fast enough to generate the deployment rates needed. Evidence
from other sectors suggests that breakthroughs can be made through more innovation-led
policymaking. One option that has not yet been fully explored is differentiated carbon pricing on
the final product, i.e. consumers would be charged for the carbon embedded in the building
materials they procure.
Policymakers will need to consider how to encourage a more open approach to data among
existing and future market players. This is not straightforward given the vertical integration of
the sector today. Several of the opportunities outlined in this report for digital technologies to
unlock the potential of low-carbon innovations rely on access to data so that advanced analytics
can play a role.
Cement producers can reasonably expect that regulatory frameworks for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions will come under greater scrutiny from civil society and governments, and that
growing demand for cleaner air will continue to shape public opinion and policy. As confidence
grows around the decarbonization of the energy sector and electric vehicles, other industrial
sectors may be next in line. Some companies are better placed than others to move fast on
decarbonization, or to profit from opportunities to move up the value chain. The launch of the
Global Cement and Concrete Association in 2018 appears to represent a potential new coalition
of the willing.

An ambitious vision for decarbonization of cement and concrete is not only a question of scaling
up the use of low-carbon materials and putting the sector on a Paris-compatible pathway. It is
also about meeting the vision set out in the SDGs: a more flexible, cleaner living environment
for the 100 million people who are expected to move to cities over the next 10 years, and for the
almost 4 billion people living in cities today.
In the coming years, large quantities of concrete will continue to be used, and transforming how
it is made to radically reduce the use of Portland cement is essential. As Section 3.3 explains,
low-clinker and novel cements that release far fewer emissions in production are capable of
matching the performance of Portland cement. Some already perform better than traditional
cement in certain applications.
Today, these alternatives are rarely as cost-effective as Portland cement, and they face
constraints in terms of raw material supply, resistance from customers and the difficulty of
scaling up industry participation. The challenge is to overcome these barriers via a combination
of policy mechanisms, enhanced collaboration, a concerted effort on disseminating best practice
and targeted R&D. By creating the conditions for a race to the top, the sector could even become
a low-carbon leader.
There is no simple formula or silver bullet. Moreover, while this paper focuses on the many
exciting opportunities around clinker substitution and novel cements, greater action is also
needed on energy efficiency, sustainable fuels and investments in CCS.
Yet it is entirely feasible that the cement and concrete sector can deliver the rapid
decarbonization required to keep the rise in global temperature well below 2°C, and as close as
possible to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Current models indicate this can be achieved
through incremental steps, and can rely to a significant extent on CCS technology. But other,
more disruptive pathways could be accelerated by new business models, advances in material
science, digital transformation and a revolution in the wider built environment. Disruptive
change in the cement and concrete sector could look quite different to what has been seen in
other sectors. In the context of telecommunications or transport, the term ‘disruption’ is usually
reserved for transformative changes that radically alter how people think, behave or do business,
which often means rethinking from first principles. Such approaches are contrasted with
‘incremental’ or ‘sustaining’ innovations that simply improve existing products and processes.
This understanding of disruption only goes so far in the context of a heavy-industry commodity
business such as cement and concrete. The physical importance of construction materials is
unlikely to diminish in the same way, for instance, that newspapers have been replaced by news
websites. Moreover, a ‘move fast and break things’ approach without safeguards – an approach
seen in some sectors, particularly the digital sphere – is far from desirable in the cement and
concrete sector, given the importance of maintaining safety and structural performance.
Disruption in the cement and concrete sector will hinge on incremental and transformative
solutions alike.Sharing experience and knowledge within and across industries, as well as
between different regions around the world, should be encouraged and facilitated. International
alignment on embodied-carbon targets and measurement for building materials is important as
countries increasingly rely on imported materials. Policies directed solely at domestic material
producers are unlikely to achieve sufficient reductions in embodied emissions.
The EU can play a powerful role in sharing lessons from its own attempts to shape innovation in
heavy industries. Not only are many of the largest cement producers with the greatest R&D
capacity headquartered in Europe, but the EU has also been behind some of the most advanced
attempts to develop innovation pathways through its ETS. Exchanging knowledge with other
countries and regions, such as China, that might hope to promote low-carbon cements through
carbon-pricing schemes will be key. Moreover, a shift to using performance-based standards in
Europe would be particularly effective, given that European cement and concrete standards are
often followed elsewhere.
Cities will play a critical role in delivering these decarbonization strategies, but today they rarely
have access to all the necessary policy levers or the capacity for implementation. Cooperation
between cities, including on shared lessons on the future of the built environment, will be
important. Rapid shifts could be delivered through pilot schemes, smart public procurement, and
incentives and regulations encouraging the use of waste materials in cements. Cities can work
together to build the market for low-carbon cements through C40-type initiatives – a network of
the world’s largest cities committed to addressing climate change – and city pledges.
To be effective and truly disruptive, cooperation will need to bring together new combinations of
market actors capturing cross-sector opportunities and addressing cross-cutting challenges in the
built environment. Long-term planning can be aided by innovative institutional arrangements to
engage a new set of actors at national and regional levels and within different sectors. Existing
initiatives, such as the National Infrastructure Commission in the UK,which acts as an
independent body, collecting evidence and engaging stakeholders throughout the country, may
play an important role in providing a long-term vision for the built environment.
It would be a game-changer if such megaprojects specified the use of lower-carbon cements or
alternative products for a large share of their construction. There are many examples of
governments already setting ambitious requirements. In the UK, the concrete for London’s
Crossrail project must have a minimum cement-replacement content of 50 per cent. Since 2015,
the United Arab Emirates has required all major infrastructure projects to use cements that
contain at least 60 per cent blast furnace slag or fly ash. Multilateral development banks will
have a vital role to play in encouraging or requiring such approaches in the projects they help
finance.
Yet while major infrastructure projects are well suited to the introduction of novel products,
another test is whether governments start to commit to ambitious sustainability targets for social
housing or even all new buildings, which would likely trigger profound changes in market
structure.
The ultimate goal here should be material and technology neutrality at the building or city scale.
This would guide consumers to choose not only more sustainable solutions but also the most
appropriate option for any given project, while allowing suppliers to innovate to meet those
demands. Policies and regulations should encourage a shift towards functional or performance-
based specifications, rather than prescribing or forbidding the use of a particular material.
In the meantime, targets for embodied carbon in construction materials could be introduced with
little risk of carbon leakage helping to align incentives and responsibility for net-zero-emissions
construction along the value chain. This matters because concrete often accounts for a small
share of the total cost of construction projects, and the end-users in construction may be better
able to absorb the costs of mitigation.
Key recommendations
 Mainstream embodied carbon. An international standards committee should convene
expert stakeholders, construction firms, architects and structural engineers to establish an
industry-wide methodology for measuring embodied carbon, as well as a process for
gathering and sharing data on buildings and materials. This methodology would need to
be granular enough to capture supply-chain-specific aspects. Governments should
mandate the measurement of embodied carbon across projects. They should provide
information sources, training and support for contractors and engineers who might be
asked to carry out these assessments. Metrics on embodied carbon should be integrated
into sustainability-rating codes.
 Introduce CO2 footprint labelling for construction materials. Material suppliers should
establish labelling schemes indicating their carbon credentials. The introduction of
reliable and certified CO2-footprint marking of materials (down to zero CO2 emissions
per tonne) would help to make it attractive for users to pay a premium for CO2-neutral
building materials. Policymakers should also explore setting a maximum threshold for the
embodied carbon allowed in the construction of low-risk, non-structural applications such
as house slabs and non-load partition walls.
 Promote a whole-life-cycle approach to low-carbon public procurement. Governments
should restructure the typical tender route for building materials on large public projects
so that it integrates embodied-carbon measures and end-of-first-life considerations in
addition to the operational phase emissions usually considered, with bidders required to
calculate the embodied carbon of the materials they are supplying. Governments could
set maximum embodied-carbon levels in public tenders, specify minimum cement-
replacement levels for large infrastructure projects, or implement scoring systems that
strongly favour low-carbon proposals. Public agencies and companies should seek to
specify a service rather than a product, encouraging a shift towards less resource-
intensive business models. Policymakers should also work with insurers to ensure that
clients who specify novel materials are not constrained by unnecessarily high insurance
rates.
 Secure commitments from major concrete-consuming companies. Firms with significant
influence over construction decisions or with major capital investments in construction
should set ambitious carbon-intensity targets for major projects and engage with
construction companies, design teams, contractors and material suppliers to encourage
them to find the lowest-carbon, most viable options for a given project. Construction
companies and material suppliers should collaborate on training to encourage design
teams and contractors to familiarize themselves with novel materials, so that
designers/contractors can in turn recommend them to clients or specify them when
ordering from material suppliers.
 Develop demonstration projects. Large-scale demonstration projects are needed to build
confidence in novel products and engage stakeholders along the supply chain. Initiatives
should involve a broad group of universities, construction companies, engineering firms,
regulatory authorities, asset owners and industry stakeholders. As part of these efforts,
novel financing mechanisms could be explored, such as investing in accelerators or
incubators to stimulate innovation capacity within the sector and enhance private
financial participation in R&D projects.
 Expand R&D capacity in the sector. Industry stakeholders, governments and research
funds such as the EU’s Horizon 2020 should focus efforts on basic materials such as
cement and concrete. In particular, belite ye’elimite-ferrite (BYF) clinkers, carbonatable
calcium silicate clinkers (CCSC) and magnesium-based cements require further research
support. Engineering courses should include novel cements and low-carbon
considerations in their syllabuses.
 Explore new models for cooperative innovation. Governments should create new avenues
for cooperation both among cement producers and along supply chains to promote the
development and diffusion of novel products. The current reluctance of cement producers
to collaborate is born out of previous experiences with antitrust legislation and
uncertainty over the application of competition law. Governments, cement producers and
actors in the broader supply chain should work together to identify ‘pre-competitive
areas’ – in which companies work together to tackle systemic issues, and in which
collaboration could be encouraged through, for example, stakeholder advice platforms.
At the more ambitious end of the scale, governments could consider creating patent pools
or cross-licensing schemes to encourage innovation and mass diffusion of relevant novel-
cement technologies.
 Support and expand joint R&D at the international level. Governments and research
funds should support and enhance capacity for joint R&D on lower-carbon cements at the
international level, including by expanding Mission Innovation – a commitment to invest
in R&D for energy – to have a remit for low-carbon construction materials. National
standards institutes should collaborate on testing facilities. Universities could lead work
to establish accelerated laboratory endurance tests to validate new materials and bring
these options to scale.
 Build diagnostic tools. Material-science laboratories should work with technology and
construction companies to develop effective diagnostic tools and field-based detection
tools for assessing the strength and durability of concrete. Policymakers, insurers and
local authorities should stipulate the use of in situ testing, data collection and data
dissemination for major projects using novel products.
4. Harnessing digital disruption
The digital revolution will not remove all the physical and economic challenges of decarbonizing
cement and concrete, but it can make a dramatic difference – whether via optimizing supply
chains, enhancing collaboration, or providing workers in all relevant fields with the data needed
to make economically viable and technically appropriate decisions on low-carbon materials.
Digital tools, for instance, will play a key role in building the market for novel cement and
concrete products by addressing misinformation, enhancing collaboration, disseminating best
practice and reducing asymmetries in access to relevant information at different points along the
value chain. These tools are especially important for growth markets such as China, India and
countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
Industrial sectors also offer some of the most promising near-term opportunities for using
machine learning to increase profit margins and reduce emissions. Today, the application of AI
in industrial and commercial applications is primarily focused on optimizing logistical operations
in the high-tech, relatively controlled environment of industrial plants, or on identifying
promising new materials. But many of the recommendations in this report depend on decisions
being made based on factors ranging from material availability to expectations of material
performance in specific contexts. Machine learning is well suited to this challenge. Where it is
not yet capable of producing fully fledged autonomous decisions, it could still have powerful
applications in the sector: for instance, by providing a clear set of decisions for workers to select
from, drawing on a wealth of historical and real-time data.

 Design digital tools for disseminating best practice. Material-science labs, cement
companies and engineering firms should work with leading technology firms and internet
platform providers to design open-source, user-friendly and affordable digital tools to
disseminate best-practice guidelines on how to optimize concrete mixes for locally
available materials and given applications.
 Develop platforms for coordination along the value chain. Enhancements to existing
digital tools, such as BIM, could help ensure the integration and engagement of all key
players along material and construction supply chains. However, this depends heavily on
the use of appropriate and effective mechanisms for data sharing.
 Safeguard beneficial applications of AI in industrial sectors. A major push is needed by
industry stakeholders and technology pioneers to explore the beneficial uses of machine
learning and wider AI in terms of meeting the challenge of deep decarbonization in
industrial sectors. Such an initiative could be convened by the Partnership on AI – a
technology industry consortium focused on establishing best practices for AI systems –
including leading firms in cement and concrete, steel, chemicals and other heavy
industries.
 Support open and inclusive innovation. Governments should work with universities to
host open innovation platforms for exploring the potential for digital technologies to
transform processes in the built environment. Innovation partners should work together to
build the stack of digital assets needed to integrate real-time decision tools, supply chain
optimization and lesson-sharing from experience into the development of new materials
and blends. Governments should also provide training to address the digital-skills
shortage in the construction sector and cement and concrete sector, also with a view to
retaining the number and improving the quality of jobs in each sector.

Project On Cement Industry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project On Cement Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Project

PACIFIC INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS STUDIES

I would like to express my gratitude towards all the class

Because it is a major component of both of these building materials, cement is an

the construction of the Pantheon in Rome. 10

1. UltraTech Cement Ltd

 Market Cap: 107,207 Cr.

 Market Cap: 39,187 Cr.

 Market Cap: 27,886 Cr

 Market Cap: 64,420 Cr.

5. Dalmia Bharat Ltd

A leader in cement manufacturing since 1939, DCBL is a multi-spectrum Cement player

 Market Cap: 16,343 Cr.

 Market Cap: 4,307 Cr

 Market Cap: 2,462 Cr.

 Market Cap: 17,090 Cr.

 Market Cap: 1,838 Cr.

Heidelberg Cement India Limited is is a subsidiary of HeidelbergCement Group,

 Market Cap: 4,357 Cr.

We developed a survey to explore issues regarding different existing report in cement

You might also like