Holcim's stock market split in 2024 marked a strategic turning point for the Swiss group: following the separation of North American activities, the cement maker now announces positioning low-carbon concrete at the heart of its positioning. This reorientation occurs in a context of increased regulatory pressure, notably with the entry into force of the European CBAM and the tightening of decarbonization requirements in the construction sector. For planners and specifiers, however, the central question remains: does this repositioning rest on proven technologies and measurable commitments, or is it a communication strategy aimed at anticipating future regulatory constraints?
Context of the split: concentration on hydraulic binders
The separation of North American activities, which represented approximately 40% of consolidated revenue, allows Holcim to concentrate its investments on European and Asian markets, where demand for low-carbon solutions is strongest. This portfolio reconfiguration is accompanied by a product repositioning around three axes: reducing the clinker factor in cements, increasing the share of CEM II and CEM III in formulations, and developing recycled concretes compliant with DIN EN 206 standard. According to the group's statements, the goal is to achieve a 30% reduction in CO₂ emissions per ton of binder by 2030, compared to the 1990 baseline.
This repositioning is not, however, isolated: Heidelberg Materials recently announced a partnership with SSAB to valorize steel slag from green steel production, while CEMEX is betting on vertical integration with dedicated concrete plants for projects certified DGNB and LEED. Competition is therefore structuring around the ability to provide verified EPDs and formulations adapted to the most demanding exposure classes.
Available technologies: clinker substitutes and alternative fuels
The decarbonization of Portland cement relies on two main levers: partial substitution of clinker with mineral additions, and replacement of fossil fuels with renewable or recycled alternatives. Holcim communicates about increased use of blast furnace slag and fly ash in its formulations, allowing reduction of the clinker factor to approximately 0.65 for CEM II/B-S type cements, compared to 0.95 for pure CEM I. This approach complies with European standards EN 197-1 and EN 206, which permit up to 35% slag in composite cements without special exemption.
However, the availability of mineral additions remains a limiting factor. Granulated slag production is directly linked to steel industry activity, which is experiencing structural decline in Europe with the transition to hydrogen-based direct reduction processes. Similarly, fly ash from coal combustion is set to become scarcer with the progressive closure of thermal power plants. Holcim will therefore need to develop alternatives, such as calcined clays or finely ground limestone, whose mechanical and durability performance must still be validated at large scale for high strength classes (C35/45 and beyond).
On the fuel side, the group announces a thermal substitution rate of 45% on average in its European cement plants, with a target of 60% by 2028. Alternative fuels include SRF (solid recovered fuel), biomass, and waste tires. While this strategy reduces direct fossil emissions, it also raises questions about air quality and management of heavy metal emissions, subject to strict thresholds under the IED directive.
Comparison with competitors: Heidelberg Materials and regional players
Holcim's positioning must be put into perspective with that of its main European competitors. Heidelberg Materials recently inaugurated a low-carbon cement production line in Hanover, with a clinker factor reduced to 0.60 through the use of steel slag from the DRI process. This partnership with SSAB, already operational at the Slite site in Sweden, illustrates a vertical integration strategy between decarbonized steelmaking and hydraulic binder production, offering complete traceability of CO₂ flows. This approach contrasts with Holcim's, which currently favors diversified supply sources without exclusive commitment to secondary raw material streams.
Among regional players, Buzzi and Vicat focus on niche strategies, with specialized cements for offshore applications or structures in marine environments (XS3 class according to DIN EN 206-1). These products, formulated with high slag content CEM III/B, display CO₂ emissions 40% lower than a reference CEM I, while guaranteeing sulfate resistance and increased durability. This technical differentiation allows capturing high added-value market segments, where Holcim favors larger volumes on standardized segments.
Regulatory challenges and verification: EPDs, CBAM and carbon traceability
The credibility of Holcim's announcements largely depends on the availability of verified environmental declarations. EPDs (Environmental Product Declarations) constitute the transparency benchmark for environmental impacts of construction materials, in accordance with ISO 14025 standard and the IBU program in Germany. Holcim has EPDs for several ranges of cements and concretes, but updating these documents remains irregular, with gaps potentially reaching three years between two publications. This lag is problematic for engineering offices wishing to integrate updated data into carbon balance calculations according to SIA 2040 standard or ÖKOBAUDAT tool.
The entry into force of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) in 2026 also requires enhanced traceability of CO₂ emissions for imports of clinker and cement into the European Union. Holcim, which has cement plants in third countries (Turkey, Egypt, India), must justify verified emission data to maintain competitiveness on the European market. This constraint could accelerate closure or modernization of high-carbon sites, while favoring low-footprint local production.
Finally, the question of traceability at the site level remains open. Concrete plants must be able to provide delivery notes mentioning the type of cement used, strength class and associated CO₂ emissions, in accordance with DGNB or BREEAM certification requirements. This requirement necessitates complete digitization of the logistics chain, an area where Holcim still lags behind certain digitalized players like HeidelbergCement, which is deploying blockchain traceability solutions across multiple markets.
Economic viability: surcharges and market acceptability
The transition to low-carbon concretes implies production surcharges, linked both to the cost of alternative raw materials (slag, fine limestone) and investments in grinding and mixing equipment. Market analyses estimate this surcharge at between 8 and 15 € per ton of cement for a CEM II/B-S compared to standard CEM I, or approximately 3 to 5 € per cubic meter of concrete for a C30/37 formulation. This differential remains acceptable for projects subject to environmental certifications, but can be a barrier on volume markets, particularly in collective housing or road infrastructure.
Holcim communicates about "reduced footprint concrete" solutions without always specifying associated surcharges, making comparison difficult for specifiers. By comparison, Heidelberg Materials offers ranges priced transparently, with a clearly displayed price gap between "standard" and "low-carbon" concretes. This tariff transparency constitutes a competitive factor in public tenders, where environmental criteria now represent 15 to 25% of offer weighting according to sustainable public procurement directives.
Conclusion: structural transformation or communication adjustment?
Holcim's repositioning on low-carbon concrete rests on existing technologies and CO₂ reduction targets aligned with European sectoral trajectories. However, several areas of uncertainty persist: future availability of mineral additions, regular updating of EPDs, and tariff transparency on surcharges. Compared to Heidelberg Materials, which displays a vertical integration strategy with secured supply chains, Holcim appears to favor a more flexible but also more exposed approach to secondary raw material tensions. For clients and engineering offices, vigilance therefore focuses less on strategic announcements than on the actual availability of certified, traceable and competitive formulations throughout the project lifecycle.
