Cement industry leaders on growth, decarbonization and competitiveness

Looking ahead to 2026–2030, what do you see as the main drivers of the cement cycle — volume growth, value creation or decarbonization? Where do you expect the key demand inflection points to be in this period?

The war in the Middle East reminds us that a more confrontational geopolitical world is emerging and that the future of the cement industry will no longer be driven primarily by economic and construction cycles. It will increasingly be shaped by structural geopolitical and regulatory shifts, protectionism and the reshaping of capital allocation.

The future of the cement industry will likely be impacted by this geopolitical fragmentation and the shift from global to regional business models. Europe and Australia will be driven by decarbonization and associated regulatory frameworks, while emerging markets, including India, will still be driven by the old cyclicality model.

Other parts of the world will be hybrid, with different components: the US with a temptation toward protectionist tariffs, while China will evolve in an environment of systemic overcapacity and respond to a new decarbonization framework.

I can clearly see three zones of growth in the midterm. The Middle East could see an incremental 20 million to 30 million metric tons of additional demand, driven by reconstruction needs over the next decade. Africa will be driven by economic growth and huge needs across all types of infrastructure and buildings. India is expected to increase demand by an additional 50%, from 430 million mt to over 600 million mt.

Which key developments could accelerate the decline in clinker demand?

Overall, many markets are already in significant overcapacity, in Europe, Asia and even in certain countries in Africa. Coupled with the significant decline in demand in China, which is now moving from a clinker importer to an exporter, there will be overall global overcapacity that will also affect global trade.

In addition, with the impressive work done by the cement industry to develop low-carbon cement through increased use of supplementary cementitious materials, or SCMs, including newer materials such as calcined clay, which are now being used more widely, clinker demand is expected to come under pressure.

Which decarbonization levers can deliver the most by 2030?

I strongly believe that the first priority is to reduce CO₂. Almost 50% of CO₂ reduction could come from three areas: low-carbon cement and concrete, through clinker factor reduction and accelerated use of SCMs; energy efficiency, with the use of alternative fuels, renewable energy and waste heat recovery; and operational excellence, including the deployment of digitalization and artificial intelligence.

These drivers also have the advantage of being financially attractive, as they require a minimum to medium investment and could positively impact costs. However, benchmarking shows that these drivers are not fully utilized. For example, the use of alternative fuels is in the 20% range, while best-in-class operations could reach close to 100%, and many are still in the 5% range. I understand the constraints, but there are many opportunities that are not being captured. These should be the priorities through 2030.

At WCA, we strongly believe that artificial intelligence, which is now moving from pilot projects to real industrialized deployment, can have a significant impact on the decarbonization process, both in operations and product quality.

One thing I learned at the annual WCA conference, held in Bangkok this April, is that the payback of AI implementation projects is extremely fast and below one year for many initiatives.

Regarding carbon capture, utilization and storage, or CCUS, we are still facing the problem that it requires massive financial investment, exceeding the investment cost of a clinker plant, and additional R&D is probably required to have technologies that could be financially sound. To achieve this additional step, the industry will need to work closely with governments and financial institutions.

How will carbon regulation reshape competitiveness and trade in the cement industry?

It is a long and complex process. We are monitoring the implementation of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) at the European border. While CBAM is required to protect European producers who are facing carbon taxes, the current impact on exporters and importers is significant and will definitely drive decarbonization roadmaps in export countries.

Those who take the lead on the transformation will win. The WCA aims to foster collaboration among its members and support them through its platforms to exchange the latest technologies, best practices and guidelines.

What impacts are you observing in the cement market as a result of the ongoing crisis in the Middle East?

The Middle East crisis already has negative effects on energy costs, fuel and petcoke costs, clinker costs, freight and trade routes. As of today, and based on IMF information, GDP growth could reduce from 3.1% to 2.5%, with inflation going up to above 5%.

We can already see that the initial construction recovery experienced in early 2026 is fading due to the high jump in building material costs. We can expect an overall reduction of initial global demand forecasts, even if the war ends soon.

In the short term, prices will go up due to product availability and cost increases, with no doubt. In the long term, producers will develop more localization strategies for energy, including alternative fuels and renewable energy, and local SCMs will become highly strategic.

India’s cement output is projected to reach 1.5 billion metric tons by 2070. How is the industry planning to balance this growth with its net-zero CO₂ emissions target?

The Indian cement sector is recognized as one of the most energy-efficient in the world and has developed a comprehensive decarbonization plan to support future growth.

The  Decarbonization Roadmap for the Indian Cement Sector: Net Zero CO₂ by 2070 — developed by GCCA India and The Energy and Resources Institute, in consultation with member companies, key stakeholders, and academia, sets out key strategies, including cement use efficiency, carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), decarbonization of electricity, supplementary cementitious materials, alternative fuels, thermal efficiency and development of new binders.

The road map aims to serve as a framework for companies to design their own decarbonization pathways, with the aspiration of reducing carbon intensity from 0.68 tons of CO₂ per ton of cement to net-zero CO₂ by 2070.

GCCA India also supports the sector to balance growth with companies’ net-zero targets by advocating for policy changes on decarbonization, releasing technical studies, and sharing best practices. We introduce global technologies to India and disseminate findings and learnings.

How is GCCA India working to move CCUS from pilots to commercial use?

Deep decarbonization of the cement sector is not possible without CCUS. However, high capital and operating costs make it challenging for cement companies to implement CCUS independently.

Infrastructure, market creation and utilization need to be supported across the broader ecosystem, not only by the cement sector. Over the longer term, carbon transport and storage infrastructure will also need ecosystem-level support as India increases its focus on CCUS.

The Department of Science and Technology has approved five test beds using indigenous technologies for carbon capture and utilization by cement companies. The Government of India has also allocated Rupees 200 billion (approximately $2.1 billion) for CCUS projects across five sectors. These initiatives are expected to build confidence among sector stakeholders and financing institutions in indigenous CCUS technologies.

GCCA has also conducted two studies on ‘CCUS hubs and clusters in India’ and ‘Policy and Financing in the Indian Cement Sector’. These studies aim to facilitate the adoption of CCUS in India.

How much can concrete carbonation offset emissions, and do you believe it should be formally recognized in national carbon accounting?

The Study on Carbon Uptake by Concrete, released by GCCA India and the National Council for Cement and Building Materials in 2025, highlights concrete’s natural ability to absorb carbon dioxide.

Between 1996 and 2024, carbon uptake by concrete in India has been estimated to be 22.45 million metric tons (mt) of CO₂. According to the GCCA India-TERI road map, carbon uptake could contribute to a 5.9% reduction in emissions by 2070.

GCCA India believes carbon uptake by concrete should be recognized as a carbon sink in UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) reporting and is working with various nodal agencies to institutionalize this.

Are new cement plants in India incorporating low-carbon technologies from the start, and what are the main challenges in scaling hybrid systems and waste heat recovery?

As knowledge of decarbonization technologies, energy efficiency and alternative fuels expands, most new plants are incorporating low-carbon technologies from the outset. These include co-processing systems for alternative fuels and raw materials, waste heat recovery systems and clean energy sources.

This is supporting more efficient plant designs and reducing the risk of locking in higher-emissions infrastructure.

The Indian cement industry faces several bottlenecks in scaling hybrid systems and waste heat recovery. Technical issues such as high dust loads, space constraints and integration challenges reduce efficiency, and high capital costs and long payback periods discourage mid-sized plants from investing. Policy gaps also remain, with waste heat recovery not fully recognized as renewable, limiting incentives and financing.

Grid integration, variable kiln heat output and the lack of affordable energy storage also limit the shift to renewable round-the-clock power.

What policy measures are needed to increase the use of alternative fuels in India’s cement industry?

GCCA India advocates a streamlined and consistent supply of high-quality refuse-derived fuel (RDF) and biomass. Cement plants incur retrofitting costs, but those investments become ineffective if RDF supply is inconsistent.

During the monsoon, RDF with high moisture content can become unusable. The Solid Waste Management Rules 2026 support the use of municipal solid waste above 3,000 kcal/kg as RDF in cement kilns, but the procurement and transport rules need further streamlining.

Reliable supply and consistent quality of RDF and biomass will be critical for Indian cement companies to achieve higher thermal substitution rates.

What is the outlook for LC3 (limestone calcined clay cement), and what challenges remain for its wider adoption?

LC3 is a key component of the sector’s long-term strategy. However, adoption faces supply and demand challenges, as appropriate-quality clay reserves have not been adequately mapped or made available to the cement producers in India.

There is also a lack of confidence among builders regarding the use of LC3 in construction. Clay calcination increases capital expenditure, and with fly ash and slag still readily available, adoption is likely to be slow.

According to the decarbonization road map, higher LC3 uptake is expected to begin by 2030.

How is GCCA India preparing members for carbon pricing and trade measures?

India’s cement exports to the EU are minimal, making the direct impact of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism negligible.

India has also launched the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme for cement and other carbon-intensive sectors, which will affect the sector. Companies have been given plant-level emission intensity targets starting in the financial year 2025-26.

Through GCCA-India, our decarbonization road map provides the technical framework for clinker reduction, alternative fuels and other decarbonization levers that members can apply to develop their own road maps to reach these targets. We also share Indian and global best practices with our members.

What are Turkey's cement industry's core competitive advantages today, and which are most under pressure?

Turkey’s core advantages remain scale, geography, strong port access, product quality and decades of export experience. Recent geopolitical disruptions have reinforced these strengths. While some ports in the Middle East and other regions have faced accessibility issues, Turkey has maintained reliable service through dependable infrastructure, operational safety and proven export capability.

The greatest pressure today is energy, followed closely by freight. Coal, petcoke, electricity, bunkers and ocean freight have all risen significantly, while CBAM is adding uncertainty for both exporters and customers. Because Turkey is a regular supplier to Europe, carbon-cost exposure is a major concern.

We are especially concerned about the use of default carbon values for Turkish producers. Our plants are professionally run and emissions are measured with support from universities and public institutions. We are confident in our actual performance and believe default values would unfairly penalize Turkish producers. We remain in continuous dialogue with the European Commission to explain our position and seek a fairer approach.

How will Turkey's cement industry define itself over the next decade and how are producers adapting to structural challenges?

Over the next decade, Turkey’s cement industry should be known for leadership in verified low-carbon production, supported by logistics reliability and consistent product quality.

Turkish companies are also moving beyond traditional FOB exports. They are investing in terminals, silos, and local grinding capacity in destination markets, supplying customers on a delivered basis rather than simply from Turkish ports. This improves reliability and strengthens long-term customer relationships. As Turkish Cement, we support our members in exploring these overseas investment opportunities.

The main challenge is not a single factor, but the way multiple pressures reinforce one another. Producers face high nominal capacity, volatile energy and freight costs, process emissions, an underdeveloped ecosystem for alternative fuels and supplementary cementitious materials, heavy financing needs, and concentration in certain export markets. Together, these factors compress margins and limit investment capacity.

The industry is adapting through more disciplined strategic planning. Instead of treating Turkey as one uniform market, producers increasingly define the role of each plant according to location, port access, raw material quality, energy options, customer base, and carbon intensity. Some plants are best suited to domestic supply, others to port-linked exports, and others to low-carbon or specialty products.

Which export markets offer the most promise and which markets are becoming more difficult?

In the near term, the US and Syria offer the strongest potential. Southern Europe and the Balkans provide selective, margin-focused opportunities, while West Africa remains a tactical growth area. Ukraine is an important medium-term opportunity, but it depends on security, financing, logistics and reconstruction timing. Israel remains closed under the current trade suspension.

Long-haul spot clinker is also becoming harder as freight volatility, insurance costs, and carbon exposure increase. However, Turkey will remain a major global clinker supplier for strategic reasons. Maintaining traditional clinker markets is important for customer relationships, market presence, and long-term positioning. The aim is to maximize value without abandoning the markets where Turkey has built reliability over many years.

Syria, Ukraine and Libya will all require substantial cement volumes for reconstruction and infrastructure. If trade restrictions with Israel are lifted, that market could also become important again.

How are regional geopolitical shifts affecting Turkish cement trade flows?

The sector remains largely fully booked, although some spot availability may appear in the final quarter. For next year, producers are seeking higher contract prices. This is not about taking advantage of market conditions; it reflects sharply higher production costs, especially energy. Those costs must be passed through to maintain financial sustainability.

Domestic reconstruction demand remains important, but its profile is changing. In some earthquake-affected regions, particularly in the southeast, activity is gradually easing. Plants that previously served those areas may redirect more volume to export markets. At the same time, infrastructure demand in other parts of Turkey is increasing, so the overall balance will be mixed. More export availability is possible next year, but not dramatically.

Do you view CBAM primarily as a risk or as a catalyst for modernization?

In the short term, CBAM is primarily a market-access and margin risk. The key challenges are emissions verification, certificate costs, importer behavior, working-capital requirements, and product mix. If Turkish producers cannot verify actual emissions in time, they may be assessed using default values, which can overstate carbon intensity and damage competitiveness.

What would success look like for Turkish cement producers by 2030?

By 2030, success should mean verified actual emissions on all EU-bound shipments, environmental product declarations and digital carbon passports for main export products, carbon-adjusted netback calculations in every commercial offer, higher alternative-fuel substitution, lower clinker ratios, and deeper long-term customer relationships.

Ultimately, every metric ton sold should be lower-carbon, higher-margin, better-protected contractually, and more closely integrated into the customer’s supply chain.

Indonesia's cement industry continues to face significant excess capacity, with utilization rates remaining well below installed capacity. How are producers adapting to this imbalance, and what key factors do you expect will influence cement demand and capacity utilization over the next two to three years?

Indonesia currently has around 120 million metric tons/year of installed cement capacity, with utilization rates of only 54%-56%. To navigate this imbalance, producers are focusing on improving operational efficiency, optimizing supply chains, accelerating digitalization, increasing the use of alternative fuels and developing lower-carbon cement products. At the same time, many are exploring export opportunities to help absorb excess capacity.

Looking ahead, the demand outlook remains broadly positive, supported by infrastructure development, housing projects, industrial estates, mining activity and regional construction growth. However, demand growth is expected to be gradual and depend on factors such as project execution, the property sector's recovery, household purchasing power and overall economic conditions.

Stronger economic growth, continued infrastructure investment, and improved export opportunities could help increase capacity utilization over time. Indonesia's per-capita cement consumption also remains below the global average, indicating further room for long-term demand growth.

To support a healthier industry balance, ASPERSSI continues to advocate limiting the construction of new integrated cement plants in regions already facing oversupply, while encouraging investments that enhance productivity, competitiveness, and decarbonization efforts.

How does Indonesia position itself in the regional clinker and cement trade, and which export markets offer the strongest opportunities?

Exports remain an important outlet for Indonesian producers amid weak domestic utilization. Indonesia exported about 12.3 million mt of clinker and 1.3 million mt of cement in 2025.

Major clinker export destinations include Bangladesh, Taiwan, Australia, Sri Lanka and the Philippines, while key cement markets include Timor-Leste, Australia, the Philippines, the Maldives and Taiwan.

Indonesia remains one of Asia's leading clinker exporters but faces intense competition from other regional suppliers and elevated freight costs.

Looking ahead, competitiveness will increasingly depend on logistics efficiency, supply reliability, product quality, cost competitiveness and carbon performance. While exports will continue to play an important role, stronger domestic demand remains critical for improving industry fundamentals.

Competition among Asian cement exporters remains intense. What factors will determine Indonesia's competitiveness in regional and international markets?

Competition is likely to remain strong as many countries across Asia continue to face excess production capacity.

Indonesia's competitiveness will be shaped by efficient production, reliable energy supply, logistics infrastructure, stable operating costs, product quality and emissions performance.

In the future, success will not depend on price alone; producers capable of combining efficiency, innovation and lower-carbon production will be best positioned to compete.

With decarbonization now a strategic priority, what initiatives are Indonesian cement producers pursuing to reduce emissions, and what challenges remain in advancing these efforts?

Decarbonization has become a core strategic priority across Indonesia's cement sector, with producers increasingly pursuing projects that reduce emissions while improving competitiveness.

Key initiatives include improving thermal and electrical energy efficiency, increasing the use of alternative fuels, reducing clinker factors through blended cement production, expanding renewable electricity use, digitalizing operations and preparing for future carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) deployment.

It should not be viewed solely as a compliance requirement.

Whenever possible, we prioritize initiatives that deliver both environmental and economic value by reducing emissions while improving operational efficiency and competitiveness.

Challenges remain, particularly around securing adequate alternative fuel supplies, improving access to climate finance, advancing CCUS technology readiness and creating stronger demand for low-carbon cement through supportive policy frameworks and green public procurement initiatives.

What is the potential for expanding the use of refuse-derived fuel and biomass in Indonesia’s cement kilns?

Indonesia has significant potential to expand the use of biomass and refuse-derived fuel (RDF), supported by substantial municipal, agricultural and industrial waste streams.

Unlocking this potential will require improvements in waste segregation, more consistent RDF quality, greater investment in waste processing facilities and long-term supply agreements.

Enhanced coordination between government agencies, waste operators and industry participants will also be critical to establishing a reliable alternative fuel supply chain.

Increasing alternative fuel usage could help accelerate decarbonization efforts, strengthen energy security and improve the industry's long-term competitiveness.

Looking ahead to 2030, what are the biggest opportunities and risks facing Indonesia's cement industry?

The industry remains optimistic about long-term growth prospects. Indonesia's relatively low per-capita cement consumption, ongoing urbanization and government ambitions to achieve around 8% GDP growth by 2029 are expected to create opportunities for continued demand expansion.

Key opportunities include the development of low-carbon cement products, greater alternative fuel adoption, operational efficiency gains, export growth and technological innovation.

However, risks remain. These include persistent overcapacity, rising energy costs, evolving carbon market regulations, limited climate financing, slower-than-expected demand growth and policy uncertainty.

With greater efficiency, innovation and collaboration between industry, government, technology providers, financial institutions and academia, Indonesia's cement industry can become more resilient and better prepared for a lower-carbon future.

How is Washington's infrastructure agenda evolving as IIJA (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) funds continue to move through the system, and what role could the BUILD America 250 Act play in advancing permitting reform and transportation reauthorization?

You’re seeing a real focus on permitting reform. Looking at major projects, whether they’re highway, bridge projects, vertical construction projects or water infrastructure projects, they're really being held up because of the permitting process.

I think with this administration in particular, there’s a commitment to building and maintaining the infrastructure that we need here in the US. We’re coming off the IIJA — it was five years ago — so a lot of the funding from the IIJA is still kind of going through the process in terms of infrastructure being built using those funds. So that gives us the BUILD America 250 Act, where we are today.

The transportation portion of the IIJA expires on Sept. 30, and Congress has been working to reauthorize those programs for much of this year.

You hear this a lot from policymakers in the US and from advocates: there’s no Republican bridge; there’s no Democrat bridge. This is something that we work on together. We may have issues with how the money is spent and how much we invest, but at the end of the day, infrastructure, particularly transportation infrastructure, is bipartisan.

Where does the BUILD America 250 Act currently stand in Congress, and what are the next critical steps before it can translate into real project spending and market impact?

The House of Representatives committee passed the bill in May. The full House of Representatives hasn’t taken up that bill yet.

The ACA and other transportation infrastructure advocates had hoped for the House of Representatives to vote on the bill before Congress left for its August recess.

We’re pressing to get that done before the extension expires. For the industry, it means there is some uncertainty. What’s critically important for industry is the certainty of a five-year or six-year authorization.

That’s why they do those authorizations; they don’t do it annually. They do them over five or six years, which allows state departments of transportation, general contractors, architects and materials providers, such as the cement industry, to plan and invest in their businesses.

How effectively can the US cement industry’s domestic supply chain handle the pressures of sustained infrastructure investment, given ongoing logistics, capacity and import challenges?

I think we’re advocating for policies that will increase domestic production. When you look at the supply chain that we currently have using domestic cement, we have the supply chain to address most of our needs — but we don’t see that we will structurally eliminate the need for imports.

You’ll continue to see the need for imports in areas with regional availability constraints and that will continue to play a role in addressing our infrastructure needs as we try to become more reliant on domestic production.

How does the ACA approach balancing domestic cement production with the need for imports to ensure supply reliability, and what role do procurement policies play in shaping this market?

There is an exemption for construction materials from the BUILD America requirements — cement, aggregates, asphalt binder and, ultimately, manufactured products such as concrete and asphalt.

That policy continues in the BUILD America 250 Act, largely to recognize that we still structurally need imports to meet demand. Ultimately, we want to see more domestic cement used in federal infrastructure projects, but we’re very keenly aware that we do not want to delay any projects.

How is the ACA addressing carbon regulation at both federal and state levels, and which policies are most critical for industry decarbonization and competitiveness?

When you look at our policy agenda with the federal government, we’re still focused on innovation and lowering our carbon footprint. The current administration: it’s not a priority of theirs. But our work to increase domestic manufacturing and cement production in the United States is almost a win-win for us.

Our members are very focused on increasing the use of supplementary cementitious materials. We’re working with the Environmental Protection Agency to allow for greater use of coal combustion residuals in the cement-making process. That increases domestic production but it’s also a carbon reduction tool. Alternatively, we have a focus on using more alternative fuels in the cement-making process.

We’ve got a very complicated regulatory framework that limits US cement manufacturers' overall use of alternative fuels. That’s well below our European friends. That’s due to a complex regulatory framework.

If you look back at what we were working on five years ago, it was increasing the use of alternative fuels and introducing more SCMs (Supplementary Cementitious Materials) into the cement manufacturing process. We’re just messaging it a little differently now, but I think it is finding similar levels of success with the current political environment.

Which policy and regulatory trends do you expect will have the greatest impact on investment, trade and competitiveness in the US cement industry over the next five years?

From ACA’s perspective, the goal is to ensure we have the policies and regulations in place that enable our members to continue investing in their people and companies and to grow the domestic cement market while recognizing that imports will continue to play a role in the US market.

But ensuring we have the right regulatory and market environments to continue investing in and growing our facilities and our people. If we have that right, I think that’s a good thing as we look forward to the next five years.