Breaking down barriers - a sustainable transition for cement through collaboration with the construction sector

(1)

Master's Degree Thesis

Examiner: Ph.D. Henrik Ny

Primary advisor: M.Sc. Pierre Johnson

Secondary advisor: Ph.D. Giles Redding Thomson

Breaking down barriers - a sustainable transition

for cement through collaboration with the

construction sector

.

Juliana Salamone

Johanna Mattsson

Marcus Olsson

Philippa Wisbey

Blekinge Institute of Technology Karlskrona, Sweden

(2)

Master's Degree Thesis

Breaking down barriers - a sustainable transition for cement

through collaboration with the construction sector

Juliana Salamone, Johanna Mattsson, Marcus Olsson, Philippa Wisbey

Blekinge Institute of Technology Karlskrona, Sweden

2020

Thesis submitted for completion of Master of Strategic Leadership towards Sustainability, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.

Abstract: Society is on an unsustainable course, predicted to reach a tipping point where

greenhouse gas emissions cause irreversible consequences. The cement industry is estimated to be responsible for 7% of the global CO2 emissions, but remains an essential part of building safe and affordable infrastructure for an urbanising and growing population. It is imperative that the industry urgently transitions to a more sustainable pathway. As a key stakeholder, the construction industry could play a role in this. This paper looks at the sustainability of the cement production process from a systems perspective and how the construction industry can help leverage change, ing he FSSD and Mead (1999) le e age in a a f ame k. An anal i f he cemen production method against the misalignments with the FSSD Sustainability Principles was performed, as well as a document content analysis of the WBCSD 2018 roadmap for the cement industry. We also conducted 9 semi-structured interviews with experts in the cement and construction industry. Results showed that while CO2 emissions are the biggest challenge for the industry, change will not happen fast enough while a number of structural barriers prevent this. These barriers, their potential solutions and leverage points within the construction industry are discussed.

Keywords: cement, construction, sustainability, leverage points, systems thinking, framework for

(3)

ii

Statement of Contribution

The following thesis has been written as a joint effort by our four team members. While there have been different challenges thrown at us, the research process has been smooth due in part to the foundations we laid at the beginning of the process, building strong bonds and trust between us. This allowed us to face many external adversities that impacted our work and challenged our dedication, especially because of the world crisis from the spread of covid-19. Throughout these moments, our team managed to stay connected, supporting each other in the uncertainty and e ec ing each membe ime and e nal challenge . I i fai a ha e managed face, and we are still facing, this crisis successfully. It has also emphasised to us the importance of a good team working culture, constructive feedback processes, and allowing time for fun and lightness to strengthen the overall result.

Since the beginning, we have tried to be honest with each other about our personal and group goals to achieve from the thesis project, which have included stretch goals such as winning prizes and changing the world, down to more personal achievements such as creating connections and making friends. All of these different aims and ambitions were accepted and taken on by each team member as we tried to help each other reach our own personal goals.

However, we did have one main goal and interest in common which was to understand what is stopping the cement industry from transitioning to sustainability today and we aimed to try to determine the root causes of this and explore the possible solutions from different angles. Our different backgrounds, nationalities and experience helped us to look into the topic from many e ec i e , i h a c i ical e en mind. O a i n f making change and n aking n f an answer made it possible for an economist, a psychologist, a lawyer and a business manager to put our heads together to tackle this problem, and managed to call on the expertise of some key players in Sweden and further afield.

The overall research process was characterized with many spaces for dialogue and working with rather than in opposition to each other. It goes without saying that the culture of introducing different kinds of food, sweet treats, forest walks and countryside retreats made the process even easier for all of us.

Each member of this team collaborated to the thesis process with their unique skills and everybody was able to contribute to different parts of the development process. We are very thankful for everyone's contribution and for being able to achieve such a strong bond within our team.

(4)

iii

work. She has shared her knowledge with others and been an inspiration to look up to for professional research style.

Johanna has contributed by being an enthusiastic and patient force that has driven the research forward, contacting key players, and has dedicated many hours of writing to all parts of the document - and in particular we want to thank her for shaping the Methods section. Her skills at researching, processing data and conceptualizing it in a clear manner have been invaluable to the whole process. She has also demonstrated her excellent project management skills, moving the team to meet our deadlines, scheduling meetings and helping the team to flow in an organised way.

Marcus has been the cement expert and an inspiration from day zero. He is an endless source of new fresh ideas and unseen angles for exploration, and brings a real sense of passion for change to the whole process. He has shared his expertise and contacts with regards to the cement industry, its production process and the alternatives cements with the team, and has guided the team into relevant areas of research and connecting the team with a number of key players for the interviews. He is also really skilled in reminding us of the higher purpose for the work we are doing, which is to inspire change in the industry.

Juliana has been an invaluable contributor, writing up many of our results and contributing to detailed research and understanding of many of the technical processes. She is skilled at remaining critical when it is easy to become complacent and making sure we continue to question our subject area and our research questions to help deepen our understanding of what we were researching and how. She has shown her communication and project management skills by contacting and persuading many of the people we wanted to interview and despite some setbacks and scheduling conflicts, she never took no for an answer.

We are proud and happy to share the results of this effort.

Karlskrona, Sweden

27th_{May, 2020}

(5)

iv

Acknowledgements

Firstly, we would like to extend our heartfelt thanks to all of those practitioners who were willing to share their wealth of knowledge with us. It was a pleasure to hear about your experience working with the cement and construction industries, your thoughts on the changes that need to be made and for the great strides you are already making to lead the way for a more sustainable industry. Thank you also for your interest in the work we are doing, which kept us motivated and always striving for a good result.

We would also like to extend a special thank you to our advisor, Pierre Johnson, who has kept us on track and encouraged throughout the process with his calm demeanour, thoughtfulness and attention to detail - especially on FSSD terminology! He helped us to mould and shape our research questions and topic, keep our scope from growing too large or going off on a tangent, and generally helped to challenge the things that needed challenging without ever being discouraging. He allowed us to find our own way through the process, just guiding a light when needed. We have enjoyed our meetings (and then calls!) together and always appreciated when they ran longer so we could tell stories and laugh together. We would also like to thank our secondary advisor, Giles Redding Thomson, in particular for stepping in at short notice to help shape our introduction.

A big thanks also goes out to the wider MSLS staff and student community. While our year (as for many others) has been shaped by unprecedented global events, the support from the community has been a constant encouragement. We are proud to be a part of this community and applaud the individual and collective work you are undertaking.

We would also like to thank our families, for supporting us in our quest to expand our understanding of sustainability that led us to the unique place that is Karlskrona. While the distance varies for all of us, getting to and thriving in this part of the world would not have been possible without them, their unconditional love, patience and encouragement to follow our personal dreams and professional goals. A loving thanks also to our friends, for being there for us even at a distance with their supportive words, making us laugh and reminding us of our purpose for being here. A special thanks to Ulrica and family for being excellent hosts and providing us with a peaceful countryside retreat where we could all meet and work together.

We want to thank each other as well, for allowing ourselves to live this opportunity, for following our dreams, pursuing our life's purpose (or at least trying to find it!), and daring to step out of our comfort zones, living this amazing experience that is the MSLS program.

(6)

v

Executive Summary

To keep global temperature rises below 2°C, many countries have started to recognise the critical nature, as well as the high complexity, of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. Studies show that even an increase in temperature of 1.5°C would lead to devastating events, impacting the vulnerable people in the society the most. Rockström et al. (2017) argue that global emissions would need to peak in 2020 and continue to be halved each decade to limit the temperatures below 2°C. The greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut down and given that the cement industry is responsible for at least 7% of the world's CO2 emissions, they have a clear responsibility in moving toward sustainability.

Today approximately 54% of the global population live in cities (UN 2014). With trends in increasing population growth and urbanisation projected to continue, this number is predicted to rise to 85% by 2100 (OECD 2015). This will require an enormous amount of materials and there are no known viable materials in terms of cost and availability that could replace concrete and cement today (Vliet et al. 2012). Cement has the highest carbon footprint of all materials used in concrete and the most common type of cement today is known as Portland Cement (PC) (Scrivener 2014). One of the biggest efforts the cement industry has made toward sustainability so far is the Technology Roadmap published in 2018 by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). By following the roadmap, the industry is predicted to have a 50% chance of limiting the global temperature rise to 2°C. According to the IPCC (2018) this is not going far enough and so the current practices and future pathways of the cement industry need to be examined further.

PC has been tested and used for over 100 years (Scrivener 2014). Two thirds of the CO2 released comes from the chemical reaction needed to transform limestone into calcium oxide, which is the active ingredient in cement (Isaksson & Babatunde 2017). This is what makes the CO2 emissions from the cement industry a difficult problem to tackle as the chemistry of the cement itself would need to change. Other alternatives to PC are starting to emerge with a different chemistry and therefore lower CO2 emissions. The remaining one third of the CO2 is emitted due to the high energy and temperature required in the manufacturing process of the cement, where the global cement industry today relies on nearly 95% fossil based fuels (70% coal, 13% oil, 11% natural gas). In Europe the ratios are 30% coal, 35% oil, 10% natural gas and 20% waste (WBCSD 2018). Technologies for energy efficiency and substituting the fuels to alternative waste have been adopted and improved over the last decades (e.g. WBCSD 2018; van Loo 2007). The alternative to electrify the entire cement production process in recent years has been explored by e.g. Wilhelmsson et al. (2018) showing that it could be both an ecologically and economically viable option, if the electrici i f il f ee. O he echn l gical l i n he cemen ind

problem that are explored in this thesis are Carbon Capture Storage and Utilization (CCS/U) and recycling of cement.

(7)

vi

problem with regards to cement, its stakeholders and the sustainability challenge, two conceptual frameworks for complex systems are used in this study. Firstly we use the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD)(Broman & Robèrt 2017) as a definition for sustainability, and secondly the leverage point framework by Meadows (1999) is used to find the points of power within the systems in order for it to change. So far in the literature, little has previously been explored looking at the cement industry and its stakeholders as a complex system and taking a systems perspective and therefore these two frameworks are useful to support our study. We also e l e ne f he ind ke akeh lde a a d i e f change: he c n c i n ind , which leads us to our research questions.

Research Questions

1. What are the challenges and barriers facing the cement industry in their transition towards sustainability?

2. What are the solutions, given the challenges and barriers above, facing the cement industry in a transition towards sustainability?

3. How can the Swedish construction industry support the cement industry in their transition towards sustainability?

Methodology:

For this study qualitative research was conducted. Data was first collected through exploratory interviews with industry experts. In the exploratory analysis the WBCSD Roadmap was mentioned several times and therefore we chose this roadmap to understand the current practices and future pathways that the cement industry has set up for themselves. In addition we also collected data from relevant organisation websites, later also verified by an expert in the field in order to get a deeper understanding of the current cement production process. We also conducted semi-structured interviews to understand the challenges and potential solutions and leverage points for the value chain of cement. The interviews were conducted with experts within the field of cement, construction and important stakeholder within the value chain. The interviewees were mainly chosen by a stratified purposive sampling approach combined in some cases with an opportunistic sampling approach.

A 5-level model analysis was run on the roadmap published by the WBCSD, by dividing it into the five steps: System, Success, Strategic Guidelines, Actions and Tools. To add the nuance of sustainability and how the roadmap could move the industry towards this, elements from the FSSD are used to further expand on the 5LM. Furthermore, to understand the current sustainability challenges for the cement industry, ananalysis was run on the production process of PC using the sustainability principles (SPs) provided by the FSSD. To support these analyses, semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts within the value chain of cement.

Results:

(8)

vii

consequences of extracting and processing fossil materials as well as heating with fossil fuels, as well other impacts that are a direct result of the cement production process. These include water contamination, loss of biodiversity, and negative impacts on health from waste by-products or noise. Limited social misalignments were found as, beyond health, many of these are context, company and country specific, which was a limitation of the design of the study. This analysis was validated both with research and by cement industry and sustainability professionals external to the researchers.

Roadmap Document Content Analysis: The WBCSD 2018 report was analysed using the 5 level model set out in the FSSD framework.

Level Key findings

System

Analysis focused on whether the document and future pathways presented by the industry show gaps in their perception of the overall socio ecological system and the sustainability challenge

Only focuses on direct impacts of production - not up/downstream impacts

Economic security is presented as the most important aspect to maintain

Assume fossil fuels continue to be cheap and readily available until 2050

Assume CCS/U technology will be commercially viable by 2030

Success

Analysis studied the vision the industry has set out to reach by 2050, proposed pathways and actions the industry suggests in order to get there, how these misaligned with the SPs of the FSSD.

Measures in the report have a 50% chance of limiting global warming to 2C°

Challenges and solutions are purely focused on CO2 emissions. May be unintended consequences to their key CO2 reduction strategies:

- Energy efficiency: might increase the usage of electricity - Alternative fuels: could include burning of fossil materials

and releasing of CO2 to the atmosphere.

- CCS/U: downstream solution, diversion of focus and investment in other solutions, energy intensive

Strategic Guidelines

Focused on whether actions proposed assist decision makers to choose actions to bring them towards socio ecological sustainability

There are no explicit guidelines to help decision makers prioritise, however there is some implicit guidance.

Focus on economic viability to decrease cost

Only focusing on actions with regards to CO2 emission reduction Forecasting approach & assumptions on current trends to continue

Actions

Looked at actions and milestones the roadmap suggests to

accomplish their vision

No actions are suggested for the construction industry, a key stakeholder

Actions don't suggest a correlation in time or objectives. Actions don't seem interconnected between stakeholders

Tools Nothing relevant was found at this level

Findings from interviews: In our interviews, five overall themes emerged:

(9)

viii

(2) Challenges and barriers for the cement industry to move towards sustainability: Barriers were categorised into 5 main themes, Market (e.g. lack of competition); Industry (e.g. financial factors and current business model); Mental Model (e.g. lack of understanding of sustainability); Technology and Innovation (e.g. high cost); and Regulatory (e.g. restrictive standards, and lack of legislation).

(3) Solutions and attitudes to solutions to challenges and barriers in the cement industry: The solutions to these challenges were categorised into the same themes, and as well as the technological solutions such as CCS/U included things like changing the business model to sell cement as a function rather than as a commodity, increase collaboration, training and education across the value chain and introduce more legislation such as a CO2 tax to incentivise change in the industry.

(4) Barriers to sustainable development, with regards to cement, in the construction Industry: Barriers specific to the construction industry were categorised into Industry (e.g. conservative/ traditional attitudes); Market (e.g. many stakeholders with different goals); Understanding of sustainability (e.g. lack of clear definitions); Lack of knowledge (e.g. ratio of cement in mixes, alternatives to PC); and Regulatory (e.g. standards limiting innovation).

(5) Leverage point to the transition in the construction industry, with regards to cement: Leverage points for the construction industry were divided into 4 main themes, Regulatory (e.g. changing legislation and standards); Market (e.g. demanding sustainable alternatives); New way of thinking (e.g. innovation); and Co-operation (e.g. working together through the whole value chain).

Discussion:

Research Question (RQ) 1: A combination of the SP analysis and the interview data made it clear that while prioritising addressing the CO2 emissions is justified, there are other issues that should not be ignored in the process. It also showed the upstream impact of extracting and producing fossil fuels - today the cement industry still relies on these fuels and even with solutions such as CCS/U it would not be possible for the industry to become sustainable while still relying on them.

A challenge for the industry and its value chain is the lack of shared mental model with regards to sustainability. The interviewees made it clear that there is a lack of understanding for what sustainability is, which leaves it open for their own interpretation, for example saying cement is sustainable because buildings will last longer. Other barriers that were revealed include that the business model is based on quantity rather than quality and standards that are slowing down innovation and excluding competition. In addition, high start-up costs make it hard to enter the market and the industry itself sets goals that are not ambitious enough to avoid such catastrophic events as climate change. Furthermore, investing heavily in and counting on CCU/S could lead them to miss other solutions that might be able to tackle carbon emissions sooner.

(10)

ix

and could be an economically viable alternative, potentially saving the one third of CO2 emissions coming from existing fuel sources, but needs further development to be industrialised.

CCS/U could prevent CO2 emissions being released from burning fuel and from the calcination of limestone. However, the criticisms of this technology may lead it to be better suited to capture the last emissions after other solutions have brought down the emissions as much as possible. These other methods could include changing the composition of the cement, with alternatives using less limestone and lower temperatures among other methods to reduce the associated CO2 emissions. Recycling cement from concrete is also a possibility but needs more research and development. More awareness of these alternatives is needed, and new companies who are producing these products need to be better supported.

The cement industry is unlikely to make this transition themselves quick enough and so a number of solutions to encourage them to do so are presented, divided into shallow and deep leverage points. Shallow interventions include shifting business models while deeper interventions might include increasing cooperation creating shared mental models in the value chain. Taxes and standards could be considered both, depending on their characteristics.

RQ 3: With regards to how the construction industry can support the cement industry to move toward sustainability, a shallow leverage point that was identified is the understanding that sustainability is good for your business. Also, regulations, taxes and standards could be considered both a shallow or a deep leverage point depending on their characteristics. We argue that both Environmental Product Descriptions (EPDs) and CO2 taxes could be considered deep, game changing leverage points. Other deep and fundamentally changing leverage points identified are a new way of thinking by innovation, thinking ide he b , cooperation within the value chain and having a shared mental model where stakeholders have the same targets and understanding. Creating a cooperation platform could be a powerful tool.

Conclusion:

(11)

x

Abbreviations

5LM: 5 Level Model

BCSA: Belite Calcium Sulfo Aluminate CCS/U: Carbon Capture Utilization/ Storage CO2: Carbon Dioxide

CSA: Calcium Sulfo Aluminate CSI: Cement Sustainability Initiative EPD: Environmental Product Declarations FA: Fly Ash

FSSD: Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development IEA: International Energy Agency

IPCC: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change LC3: Portland Cement supplemented with calcined clay LFM30: Lokal Färdplan Malmö 2030

OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PC: Portland Cement

RA: Recycled aggregate

RAC: Recycled aggregate concrete

SCM: Supplementary Cementitious Materials SPs: Sustainability Principles

(12)

xi

List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 2.1. Mead el e le e age in . . .. ...12

Table 4.1. S mma f e ea ch de ign .. .. ... ...14

Table 4.2. S mma f in e ie ee lace in he al e chain ...17

Table 5.1. A mma f he main mi alignmen i h he SP and he

extrac i n f f il f el / b ning f a e a f el . ...21

Table 5.2. A summary of the main mi alignmen i h he SP and he

cemen d c i n ce . 22

Table 5.3. Key findings .a he S em Le el ... .. ...24

Table 5.4. Ke finding a he S cce Le el .. . . ..25

Table 5.5. Ke finding f m S a egic G ideline . 26

Table 5.6. Ke finding a he Ac i n Le el .. ... 26

Table 5.7. Theme a i ing f m in e ie e i n ma ed again he SP ... ... 28

Table 5.8. Q a i n ela ing Shif ing he b ine m del .... .. .. 33

Table 5.9. Q a i n ela ing Ma ke ba ed l i n .... .. .. 33

Table 5.10. Quotations relating to Regulatory solutions - legi la i n & a .. 34 Table 5.11. Q a i n ela ing B ilding ha ed men al m del : T aining & Ed ca i n ...34 Table 5.12. Q a i n ela ing Techn l g & Inn a i n: CCS/U ... ... . 35 Table 5.13. Q a i n ela ing Techn l g & Inn a i n: Elec ifica i n .. ..35 Table 5.14. Q a i n ela ing Techn l g & Inn a i n: Al e na i e cemen .. ...36 Table 5.15. Q a i n ela ing Techn l g & Inn a i n: Rec cling .. ...36

Figures

Figure 5.1. C ding f heme .. .. .. ... 27

Figure 5.2. Themes regarding ba ie in cemen ind .. .. .. 29

Figure 5.3. Themes regarding l i n in cemen ind .. .. .. ...32

(15)

1

1. Introduction

Scientific consensus shows that the world is currently on an unsustainable course, characterised by a decline in the ecological and social systems' potential to support human civilisation, leading he dec ea ing abili mee he ld ba ic h man need . Thi blem i dee l ed in the way modern society operates and is designed, leading to problems such as climate change, poverty, erosion of trust, and many others (Broman & Robèrt 2017). To complicate matters further, a fundamental characteristic of these problems is that they are complex and interdependent (Isaksson 2019), involving many intertwined subsystems on a variety of scales (Hjorth & Bagheri 2006) making it even more challenging for society to try to address them (Levin et al. 2013). A change in one element may cause unforeseen ripple effects in other areas, making it imperative to take a systems approach that considers the complexity of the problem (Hjorth & Bagheri 2006). At the moment, many of the efforts that are taking place are not synchronised, meaning even steps in the right direction are not as effective as they could be. There is an increasing need to work together to overcome these barriers and take a more transdisciplinary approach.

One of the main concerns in our current society revolves around avoiding drastic climate change due to emission of greenhouse gases, while still fulfilling basic human needs such as food and shelter for the growing world population. One of the main greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2). While it is an essential part of the natural cycles and flows of the planet (Post et al. 1990), this cycle has been disrupted by anthropogenic activity, causing systematic increases in the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. While the potential consequences of this trend first started reaching recognition in the late 1950s (Revelle & Suess 1957), CO2 emissions have continued to increase year on year and society is quickly approaching the boundary beyond which he ea h em ma fail ada and c e i h he i ing em e a e and he e changes are likely to be largely irreversible (Steffen et al. 2015).

Many countries have now recognised the critical nature of reducing CO2 emissions and, in theory, have committed to limiting a global temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels (UN 2015). However, working out how exactly to head in this direction remains an urgent challenge. To add to this, for many regions in the world, even an increase in temperature of 1.5°C would lead to extreme and devastating events, disproportionately impacting the most vulnerable people among society (IPCC 2018). For example, an increase of 1.5°C is predicted to expose over 270m people per year to water scarcity (Naumann et al. 2018), and 60m people per year to flooding by 2095 (Nicholls et al. 2018). In the 2°C scenario, these numbers rise to 388m and 72m, respectively. A ca b n la ha been ed b a eam f cien i a he a ge f ha i needed in de limit temperatures significantly below 2°C - the law states that emissions would need to peak in 2020, and then continue to be halved each decade before reaching net zero by 2050 (Rockström et al. 2017).

(16)

2

2018), this industry is likely to be a key leverage point for moving towards global sustainability. While the industry is aware of their contribution to this global challenge, the question remains as to whether they are doing enough fast enough, and whether their narrow focus on CO2 emissions will cause unintended consequences elsewhere.

1.1. Socie

s need o build

Building physical infrastructure to support an ever-growing population is central in maintaining a high quality of life (Vliet et al. 2012). However, while this infrastructure is necessary, it can also be detrimental from a sustainable development point of view. For example, the building industry has a high impact on the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Today their activities account for 30% f he ld al emi i n , i h 20% f hi c ming f m he ma e ial (I ak n & Baba nde 2019). In addition, around 60% of the raw material extracted from the lithosphere today is consumed by building construction and civil works (Zabalza, Capilla, & Usón 2011).

Looking at buildings in the world today, most of them are built at least partly out of concrete (Isaksson & Babatunde 2019) and thanks to its low cost and high availability, it is one of the most used materials on earth, accounting for more than half of the manufactured products and materials that we produce (Scrivener 2014). Cement acts as the gl e ha all c ncrete to set, providing it with its characteristic strength and durability when mixed with other materials. In 2017, global cement production was estimated at 4.65 billion tones and is likely to continue on an upward trend (CEMBUREAU 2017). The demand for increased cement production depends on various factors (Hirschnitz-Garbers et al. 2016). For example, the rapid pace of urbanisation and continued la i n g h a e end ha a e e c n in e, and mee ing e le ba ic need will rely heavily on being able to provide suitable accommodation and infrastructure.

Today, over 54% of the global population lives in cities or other urban dwellings and by 2050 that figure will rise to 66% (UN 2014). By 2100, this figure is set to be as high as 85% (OECD 2015). Some of the fastest growing cities are expected to double in size as soon as 2035 (UN 2017). These trends are making the construction industry one of the fastest developing sectors in the world (Govindan, Shankar & Kannan 2016). In order to accommodate these ever-expanding cities, the ld b ilding ck i e ec ed d ble b 2060 i h he e i alen f ne Ne Y k Ci being added every month (Gates 2019).

(17)

3

WBCSD 2018), and therefore the affordability of the materials used will play a big role in ensuring that a good standard of living is achievable for the wider population.

1.2. Current practices and future pathways of Cement

One of the biggest efforts to propose a more sustainable roadmap for the cement industry was published in 2018 by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), written in conjunction with the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Cement Sustainability Ini ia i e (CSI) called Techn l g R adma : L ca b n T an ition in the Cement Ind . The CSI was made up of 24 companies, who at the time represented about 30% of the total global cement production (WBCSD 2018). The main pathway that is promoted in the report aims to reduce the emissions directly caused by the cement industry by 24% by 2050. The report predicts that the pathways and actions it proposes have a 50% chance of being in line with the Paris Agreement (UN 2015) by limiting a global temperature rise to 2°C.

Given that an IPCC (2018) special report suggests that there will be significant consequences to even a 1.5°C rise in temperatures, this roadmap is unlikely to offer solutions consistent with avoiding catastrophes predicted with a rise of 2°C or higher. There has already been some criticism levelled at the report for not going far enough. Indeed, it is predicted that by following this current roadmap, the cement industry would ultimately be responsible for 30% of the global CO2 emissions both due to an increase in cement production, lack of decisive action by the cement industry and due to other industries significantly cutting down their own contributions (Isaksson 2019).

To understand what pathways toward a more sustainable cement to be taken, we need to look at the current practices first. There are also already some alternatives that are aiming to make the industry more sustainable compared to traditional high polluting cements, which we explore in more detail in the following section.

1.2.1 Portland Cement

(18)

4

The traditional and most common process for producing PCs is what associates the cement industry with such high CO2 emissions, as it needs to be burned at high temperatures to get rid of the unwanted CO2. Two thirds of the CO2 produced in the cement production process is released as a byproduct during the chemical reaction needed to transform limestone (CaCO3) into calcium oxide, the active ingredient in cement (Isaksson & Babatunde 2019). One ton of PC emits between 600-800 kg CO2 (Scrivener et al. 2018).. Because of this, the CO2 emissions coming from the production of cement cannot only be resolved by the transition to different energy sources such as renewable or nuclear. To be able to change the volume of CO2 coming from the decomposition of limestone, the chemistry of cement and the composition of the final product - concrete - may also need to change (Scrivener 2014).

1.2.2. Emerging alternatives to Portland Cement

The cement industry has already made steps in some areas to improve their sustainability credentials. Some emerging and more sustainable alternatives to PC are starting to gain recognition, as they emit far less CO2, or no CO2 at all. Some of these alternatives are also functionally more efficient and higher performing than PC and can at the same time contribute to a circular system in the sense that it is possible to use waste materials from other industries to make them. Currently, some of the most promising in terms of availability, flexibility and potential for CO2 reduction are Belite Calcium Sulfo Aluminate (BCSA) and Calcium Sulfate Aluminate (CSA) cements, as well as substituting PC with up to 50% of Calcined Clay (LC3) combined with limestone. It is worth stating that for alternative cements and substitutes is that it is not one solution fits all, but rather a mix of methods, often depending on local pre-conditions, that when combined can reach substantial decreases in CO2 emissions (Gartner 2017; Scrivener et al. 2018).

A practice that has developed over the last 30 years is adding so-called Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs) to PC. These are materials that react with calcium hydroxide, and therefore can be used to replace part of the PC used in concrete. Examples of SCMs are different ashes, including fly ash (FA) from coal heated power plants, natural pozzolans (mainly materials from volcanic rock), slags from steel production and calcined clays (Habert 2013). Since the burning of fossil limestone stands for two thirds of the CO2 emissions of PC (Isaksson & Babatunde 2019), a lower usage of limestone in the cement is key, as well as lowering the temperature required in the heating process. For a limestone replacement of 10%, the total CO2 reductions could in theory be as high as 25% (Damtoft et al. 2008). Another benefit might be that the use of virgin materials is decreased.

(19)

5

example that the performance of the cement varies greatly depending on the quality of the fly ash (Cho, Jung & Choi 2019).

LC3: While many SCM´s suffer from limited local availability, clays are available worldwide. Very suitable clays are widely available in the required quantities in equatorial and subtropical parts of the world and which is where the highest need for cement is forecast for the coming decades (Scrivener et al. 2018). The need to calcine clays, between 700 and 850°C, means that they will normally be more costly than to use limestone. However studies have shown that a mix of 50% cement clinker combined with a blend of 30% calcined clay and 15% limestone, have proven successful. The possibility for the high addition of cheap limestone (that will not need to be calcined) will offset the extra cost of calcination and hence make LC3 economically viable. The cements produced in this way (30% LC3) have 10% lower CO2 emissions than the same cement blended with 30% FA and similar mechanical performance as a PC with clinker content above 90% (Scrivener et al. 2018). It is also cost-effective and does not require capital intensive modifications to existing cement plants (Scrivener 2014).

Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slags (GGBF): GGBF is a more sustainable construction material used to produce durable concrete (Divsholi, Lim & Teng 2014). Slag is a by-product from steel production and by cooling it fast, cement-like characteristics are achieved. Normally slags can replace around 40-50% of the PC, and by doing so, the climate footprint could be decreased by approximately 50%. Up to 85% mixing is possible (Gartner 2017). The amount of GGBF available worldwide is around 5-10% of the amount of cement produced (Scrivener et al. 2018).

Natural pozzolans: Natural pozzolans mainly consist of volcanic rock and volcanic ash, which can be used to substitute PC in a similar way to FA and GGBF (Hewlett 2003). These are available in many places around the world, including Europe, the USA, Russia, Japan and New Zealand. There are also other types of natural pozzolans, and they might all be interesting substitutes to PC where locally available (Hewlett 2003).

CSA & BCSA cements (also known as BYF cements): A good, but slightly more expensive alternative than PC are CSA and BCSA cements. These cements have a lower carbon footprint than that of PC. Thi e f cemen i al f en called high e f mance cemen (Habe 2013), since it has a better performance in many quality parameters than that of PC. It can, if blended with PC, substantially improve some parameters of the concrete and hence a decrease of the amount of PC can be possible. This makes CSA cements an interesting hydraulic binder for achieving both sustainability and durability (Chaunsali & Mondal 2015). CSA and BCSA cements are also more flexible when it comes to the possibilities of mixing different raw materials, both virgin and waste, and the proportions of these (Gartner 2017). The materials used are based on much lower levels of limestone than PC, down to 35-40% for CSA and even lower for BCSA, and other materials like anhydrite, slags, ashes, bauxites or alumina by-products and more (Beretka et al. 1993; Pace et al. 2011).

(20)

6

can be used in the manufacture of CSA cements, whose reuse and disposal is often otherwise quite complicated (Pace et al. 2011; Chaunsali & Mondal 2015).

1.2.3 Powering the cement production process

One third of the CO2 emitted during the cement manufacturing process is due to the reliance on fossil and other carbon-based fuels for high energy and temperature requirements. Globally, the cement industry still relies on nearly 95% fossil-based fuels for their thermal energy requirements (70% coal, 13% oil, 11% natural gas), though this varies by region. There has been a shift to using various forms of industrial and municipal waste for thermal energy, which globally represents 3% of the total fuel mix in cement kilns. In Europe, the ratios are roughly 30% coal, 35% oil, 10% natural gas and 20% waste (WBCSD 2018).

The cement process also uses a relatively high level of electrical energy outside of the kilns (such as for grinding). As electrical power is usually dependent on the national supply, the type of fuel powering this process will vary per country. Significant improvements in energy efficiency, both in terms of thermal and electrical, have been made in the last decade through improvements in technology (WBCSD 2018), however improvements in this area a e f en bjec Je n paradox (Jevons 1866) where increased capacity through efficiency improvements are offset through higher energy demands (Alcott 2005). This effect was seen in a study of German cement plants, where despite improvements to processes, the energy demands of the German cement industry stayed constant between 1995-2012 (Hoenig et al. 2013). Therefore, while further efficiency improvements are likely as technology evolves, a focus on this is unlikely to yield further CO2 reductions.

Substituting fossil fuels with alternative waste derived fuels is a practice that has been growing in recent times and has been used in several countries for over 30 years (van Loo 2007). This alternative waste can take many forms, and some examples include waste oil, animal meal, rubber tyres, sludge or solvents. Using these alternative wastes is one option for energy recovery as it can help lower the fossil fuel consumption in the cement production process (CEMBUREAU 2016).

EU's waste management hierarchy is prioritised in the following order, starting with the highest: Prevention (minimizing the amount of waste produced in the first place); Re-use, (meaning we should repurpose waste where possible); Recycling (meaning we should save energy and raw materials through recycling); Recovery, (where energy gets recovered through the combustion of waste) and Disposal (where waste is sent to landfills). Burning waste as a source of energy in cement kilns fits into recovery (CEMBUREAU 2016), which is only one step above sending it to landfill according to the EU hierarchy.

(21)

7

of cement production, there have also been a number of concerns raised by environmental groups about this practice (Simon 2014; Raleigh 2019). As well as going against the EU hierarchy, criticisms levelled by these groups include the potential for the release of harmful substances into the atmosphere, the fact that this fuel still releases high levels of CO2 when burnt, and that it having this as a waste management technique may be a disincentive for preventing the creation of waste in the first place.

An alternative to burning any types of fuel is to electrify the entire cement production process. While this is not yet a practice, there is evidence that it could be possible and effective under the right circumstances. CemZero is a feasibility study by Wilhelmsson et al. (2018) that evaluates a way to electrify the cement production to reach a more sustainable cement. The study shows that electrification through plasma technology of the cement production process is technically feasible. This is an indicator that it is possible to create a fossil free value chain through electrifying the cement making process. However, these findings need to be further investigated and scaled up for verification (Wilhelmsson et al. 2018). While the production cost for cement in an electrified process would be approximately twice the cost of today's technology, the study shows that electrification of the cement production process compares economically well with currently available carbon capture technologies. Electrification of the process also has a significantly lower energy consumption than the technology that exists in cement plants today. Together with the forecasted prices of energy, carbon dioxide emissions and raw material, an electrified cement production process based on fossil free electricity would be economically viable (Wilhelmsson et al. 2018).

1.2.4 Carbon capture storage/utilization

Different types of innovative technology are currently emerging for solving the Climate impact of the cement industry. Carbon Capture Utilization (CCU) and Carbon Capture Storage (CCS) are two technologies which focus on capturing CO2 from industrial processes.

CCS is a range of technologies that are being developed that in different ways make carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels go to geological storage instead of being emitted out to the atmosphere (Gibbins and Chalmers 2008). Many researchers (eg. Wennersten, Sun & Li 2015; Budinis et al. 2017) argue that Carbon capture and storage is a critical, partial solution to the problem of too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, as it stands today, the cost for emitting CO2 is still much lower than implementing CCS technologies, which is a big barrier for large scale implementation of these technologies (Wennersten, Sun & Li 2015). In addition, CCS technology is very energy demanding and could cause rebound effects such as extending the fossil fuel era (Budinis et al. 2017).

(22)

8

to CCS (Dowell et al. 2017). Although, in addition to the criticism levelled at CCS, Dowell et al. (2017) argue that the contributions of CCU will be negligible in the global challenge of carbon dioxide mitigation. If too much focus is put on CCU, there is a real risk that the targets set for carbon mitigation will not be met. CCU can be used and encouraged when CO2 could be used as a cheap feedstock or when it can prove that the product can displace the product of today that is delivering the same service at the same price and not result in an increase of CO2 emission.

1.2.5 Recycling Cement

As a way of reducing the impact of cement in its production and as waste at the end of its life cycle, many efforts recycling these materials have been attempted. Cement and concrete are part of what is called the construction and demolition waste (CDW) that accounts for about 25-30 % of all waste produced in the EU (European Commission 2019a) but rates of recovering this type of material were reaching 89% by 2016 (European Commission 2019b). So far, the way cement has been recycled is indirectly, when concrete waste is reused as recycled aggregate (RA) to produce recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) (Tam et al. 2009). RA is produced by crushing the demolition concrete waste, and it is added along with other ingredients to make recycled concrete or RAC which is later used in other construction applications; today, it is most often used as filling material in roads for example (Tam et al. 2009).

It is expected that many buildings will be demolished to make way for more modern structures, and this trend will continue especially with those buildings constructed a century ago (Stripple & Jäglid, 2019). Considering what has already been mentioned about the increasing trends with regards to building construction in society, this will add more pressure on the raw materials. Other routes are being studied as alternatives to recycle cement in the best way possible to help solve those concerns.

(23)

9

1.3. Sustainable change in complex systems

The cement industry today is part of an interconnected value chain of institutions and actors that together can support positive or negative change, which means they can act as change agents in the context of broad and evolving systems. To be able to effect large scale change, a fundamental shift in the core values and priorities is needed within organisations and industries (Waddock et al. 2015). For a shift to occur, we need to look for answers outside the current system (Vogt, Brown & Isaac 2003). To structure, guide and accelerate a fundamental shift in business and organisations toward sustainability, tactical networking and building coalitions with stakeholders is one crucial part (Loorbach & Wijsman 2013). This process of collaboration would also need to be well coordinated and facilitated in order not to create unintended consequences for oneself but also for other stakeholders. Therefore, to be able to transition toward a sustainable society, collaboration and cooperation across disciplines and sectors will be crucial (Broman & Robèrt 2017).

Today, we can see indications of what might be the start of a shift towards a more sustainable mindset within the cement and construction industries in Sweden. Several key players are starting to shift their values and ways of acting in favour of the environment. One of the major cement producers in Sweden, Cementa, has committed to become climate neutral by 2030 (Cementa 2018). One other example is Lokal Färdplan Malmö 2030 (LFM30), where the goal is to have a climate neutral construction and civil engineering sector in Malmö by 2030. LFM30 involves around 120 companies, within the whole value chain to make this possible, though currently there is little representation from the cement industry (LFM30 2019). Another example of the start of this shift is the big construction company PEAB in Sweden, whose subsidiary Swerock has started to make their own ECO-concrete to aim to be climate neutral by 2045 (Swerock 2019).

Roadmaps towards decarbonisation have been written for the cement industry, which map out challenges and solutions for sustainability, and so we aim to examine these in more detail. In addition, little has been explored about how the construction industry value chain, one of the biggest stakeholders connected to the cement industry, can help to support this transition, and therefore we explore further what exists within their realm of influence.

1.4. Research Questions

1. What are the challenges and barriers facing the cement industry in their transition towards sustainability?

2. What are the solutions, given the challenges and barriers above, facing the cement industry in a transition towards sustainability?

(24)

10

2. Conceptual Frameworks

It is clear that the current practices and trends within the cement industry are leading them down an unsustainable pathway, and that system wide change needs to take place. However, the problems are complex and highly interrelated. The cement industry is a key part of the infrastructure system but, as we have explored already, also heavily interacts with other industries such as energy, waste and construction. Through our exploratory interviews, we heard that the cement industry is removed from the end consumers, that there is a lack of transparency between the stakeholders with regards to materials and that the Swedish cement industry is dominated by ne big la e . I ha al been iden ified a a ha d aba e ind , ec gni ing ha he a k of reaching net zero CO2 emissions is far from a simple one (Energy Transitions Commission 2018).

Due to this complex nature of the industry, its stakeholders, and the importance of affordable building materials for a rapidly expanding and urbanising world, a system wide change is easier said than done. In addition, what is lacking in the literature is an overview of the cement industry as a complex system, and the challenges and barriers that this brings. Therefore, we have chosen the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD), created by Göran Broman & Karl-Henrik Robèrt (2017) and the leverage points framework first proposed by Donella Meadows (1999). We have used these two as a lens through which to analyse the activities, plans and potential solutions moving the cement industry towards sustainability.

There have been several attempts to try to define what is meant by sustainable development. One of the best known and most cited is the Brundtland et al. (1987) definition: Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs . While this is a succinct description which gives people an emotive snapshot of the essence and values held at the core of sustainability, it also gives little information about what actions need to be taken or avoided. In contrast, a definition of sustainability provided by the FSSD (Broman & Robert 2017) uses scientific based principles, in other words, conditions that should be met in order for something to be defined as sustainable. These principles are as follows:

In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing: 1. concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth s crust;

2. concentrations of substances produced by society; 3. degradation by physical means;

and, in that society, people are not subject to structural obstacles towards: 4. health;

(25)

11

Since the cement industry has a heavy focus on CO2 mitigation, to move towards sustainability without causing unintended consequences in other areas or even undermining their capacity to mitigate CO2 emissions, they will need to take a systems perspective. The FSSD is a framework that is specifically designed with complex systems in mind, particularly focused on moving systems towards sustainability. The framework includes the principled, science based definition of sustainability outlined above. Using these sustainability principles as well as taking a clear systems view minimises the risk of causing unintended consequences of any particular action, by considering the impact and any knock-on effects it could have across all areas and aspects of sustainability. There is no other working definition of sustainability which has scientific foundations, sets out clear criteria for achieving sustainability and that can also be used for a backcasting planning approach (Broman & Robert 2017).

In addition, the industry could be considered far removed from its stakeholders in some cases, and will need to collaborate across various sectors to have the best chance of moving towards sustainability. The the FSSD could support this as it is designed to be used by all stakeholders and industries, allowing a shared mental model to be reached and make sure all actors within a value chain are working to the same understanding and definition of sustainability. This means it is a particularly useful tool for guiding cross-sector collaboration (Broman & Robert 2017).

While the FSSD provides us with a frame to work within to move toward sustainability, sometimes other tools are needed to complement the framework. Different approaches have different primary focuses and perspectives, which can add value and work in synergy with the FSSD. The FSSD only provides basic strategic guidelines and in order to prioritise solutions for the cement industry further we also chose to look further into the leverage point framework of Meadows (1999) in order to find the best places to intervene in the system. Using the leverage point framework as a complement to the FSSD, we can explore how a system wide change in a sustainable way can occur in the cement industry supported by its stakeholders.

(26)

12

Table 2.1: Meadows (1999, p. 3) twelve leverage points (number 1 is the most effective).

12. Constants, parameters, numbers 6. The structure of information flows

11. The size of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows

5. The rules of the system

10. The structure of material stocks and flows 4. The power to add, change, evolve or self organize system structure

9. The lengths of delays 3. The goals of the system

8. The strengths of negative feedback loops 2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system arises

7. The gain around driving positive feedback loops 1. The power to transcend paradigms

Abson e al. (2017) ha e l ked a Mead f ame k h gh he len f em hinking help address sustainability and have merged Meadow 12 le e age in in f em characteristics. The first one is parameters, which includes leverage point 12-10 in Mead model. These system characteristics are modifiable and have a mechanistic element to them, such as taxes and standards or physical elements such as material flows or size of stocks. The second one is feedback which includes leverage points 9-7 in Mead m del and ela e he interaction between elements within the system. These could be events which reinforce or dampen the internal dynamic through feedback loops or that provide information regarding the desired outcome, like an incentive scheme. These two characteristics are in the shallower range of leverage points, where places for interventions are relatively easy but only brings a little change in the overall system. Abson et al. (2017) argues that most of today's sustainability research and policy have mainly targeted these shallower leverage points.

(27)

13

3. Scope and limitations of the study

In this subchapter we want to first of all explain the scope of the study and the reasons behind it. The target audience of this report will be people working in the cement and construction industries, specifically working to improve sustainability in these fields.

In research question number one, the study is focusing on the general production process and overall effects of cement production. When looking at the challenges for the industry we chose to look at one of the ind i en adma . The adma e e en f he ld' cemen production and it claims to be one of the largest global sustainability projects undertaken by a single industry sector (WBCSD 2018). It also came up in our exploratory interviews as a key document and that is why we chose to analyse it to understand the challenges they are considering facing when moving toward sustainability. This could also be a limitation for our study, since we have not investigated any country-specific roadmaps that might have other challenges and solutions, since some of these challenges might look different in different parts of the world.

When analysing the cement production process only misalignments with the FSSD definition of sustainability are considered to find improvement points for these misalignments. Since the first research questions are addressing challenges and to identify what these challenges are, we only focused in our analysis on the misalignments of sustainability. Another chosen scope is that we have only interviewed people with experience working with sustainability. This means that we might miss the angle of employees that are not familiar with the sustainability challenge and might see other problems than mentioned working with sustainability.

In the last research question we are narrowing the scope down to the construction sector. In our exploratory interviews they were identified as a key stakeholder and since they are not elaborated

n m ch in WBCSD adma e ch e hi angle in der to find new solutions to the cement

ind ainabili challenge.

(28)

14

4. Methodology

For this thesis, qualitative research was conducted. The target audience is the cement industry itself, but also their key stakeholders and more specifically the construction industry. What follows in this section is a summary of the research design, a description of how data was collected and analysed to answer the research questions, followed by a discussion on the ethics of the study.

4.1 Summary of research design

The research design has been divided into the three research questions that are helping us to fulfill the purpose of our research. The focus is on how the data has been collected and how we then analysed this data.

Table 4.1: Summary of research design.

Research question Data Source Data analysis

What are the challenges and barriers facing the cement industry in their transition towards sustainability?

Exploratory interviews and semi-structured interviews with industry experts WBCSD (2018) Roadmap Document content analysis and

verification with industry expert for the current cement production process

Looking at the WBCSD (2018) roadmap through the lens of the FSSD and 5LM (see chapter 4.3.1)

Analysis of the current cement production process using the SPs.

Transcription & coding of interviews

What are the solutions, given the challenges and barriers above, facing the cement industry in a transition towards sustainability?

Opportunistic sampling (Savin-Baden & Major 2013, 315) and Stratified purposive sampling (Bryman 2012, 419) to find interview subjects

Semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in the cement industry

Transcription & coding of interviews

How can the Swedish construction industry support the cement industry in their transition towards sustainability?

Opportunistic sampling (Savin-Baden & Mayor 2013, 315) and Stratified purposive sampling (Bryman 2012, 419) to find interview subjects Semi structured interviews

with experts from the construction industry and the cement industry

(29)

15

4.2 Data collection

This section explores how data was collected to be able to answer the research questions. Firstly, exploratory interviews were conducted. During these interviews, we were recommended to examine the WBCSD Technology roadmap towards a Low Carbon Transition in the Cement Industry. We chose to analyse the document through the lens of FSSD to gain a holistic understanding of the roadmap and how it relates to the global socio-ecological sustainability challenge. We also analysed the cement production through the lens of FSSD to find the main misalignments of the eight sustainability principles in the cement production process, that could be generalised globally. After that we conducted semi structured interviews to find barriers but also new pathways and routes for the cement industry, supported by the construction industry toward sustainability.

4.2.1 Exploratory interviews

In the pre-phase of the research we conducted seven exploratory interviews with both experts in the cement and construction industries. The aim was to explore the field to get a sense of the current issues and barriers faced by the cement and construction industries, as well as to be able to structure the research in a logical and effective way. The sampling of the participants was partly from recommendations and partly from convenience, by interviewing people that were either recommended to us or people that were available and willing to speak to us at relatively short notice. These people were chosen mostly from an opportunistic sampling approach because we wanted to keep our minds open and explore the field by using the contacts that we already had or experts provided to us.

4.2.2 Cement Analysis

To answer research question number one and to be able to map out the challenges and barriers for the cement industry, we needed to look at what the they define as the current practices and future pathways of the industry. In our exploratory interviews a roadmap set out by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) came up in four of the interviews. The roadmap is called Techn l g R adma : L -Ca b n T an i i n in he Cemen Ind and i i a gl bal effort, including 24 major cement producers with operations in over 100 countries and together they stand for about one- hi d f he ld cemen d ction.

(30)

16

4.2.3 Semi-structured interviews

To answer the research questions, we also conducted semi-structured interviews to find feasible alternatives and to map out challenges moving toward sustainability within the value chain of the cement industry. The construction industry was mentioned a lot in our exploratory interviews and that is why we chose to look further into this sector as well. According to Savin-Baden and Major (2012) a semi-structured interview has a set of questions as guidance but is free to add additional questions along the way of the interview. This gives the interviewer freedom on how to spend the limited time effectively, although a challenge could be that the interviewee does not fully get to share his/hers full and unique perspective since they are asked specific questions.

The structure of the interview went from broad questions about the participan ele an experience and the challenges facing the cement and/or the construction industry (not specifically citing sustainability), into more specific questions to assess their understanding of sustainability and knowledge of any potential solutions and leverage points to tackle the challenges and barriers. See Appendix A for an example of some of the questions that were asked.

The interviews were done with a number of experts of the fields of cement, construction and other important stakeholder within the value chain of cement. A purposive sampling requires deep thought, planning, reflection and creativity to be able to decide who can provide the best information. The researchers need to be flexible in their sampling and combining different sampling strategies is often a good idea (Savin-Baden & Major 2012). We have, in order to stay flexible, combined different types of sampling strategies along the way. The units have been selected by relevance in order for us to be able to answer our research questions.

To be able to answer the research questions through the interviews, we have sampled individuals from a stratified purposive sampling approach where we have contacted people working within the cement industry, but also along the value chain, like within research, government and regulations, construction and recycling (see figure 4.2). Also, some of the interviewees had experience in more than one field. We made sure that these individuals on the one hand had experience working with sustainability in their working position and on the other hand had at least 5 years of experience working within their field of expertise. We also made sure that the interviewees with regards to construction had Swedish-specific expertise and experience (see Appendix B). Why we chose Sweden as the scope for the construction industry can be found under chapter 3. Bryman (2012) refers to this type of analysis as when researchers sample typical individuals within subgroups of interest. The subgroups in this case have been evolving over time. We started with the subgroups or stakeholders that work most closely to the industry within the value chain and then we expanded when we found out who the key players towards a transition could be.

Breaking down barriers - a sustainable transition for cement through collaboration with the construction sector

Breaking down barriers - a sustainable transition

for cement through collaboration with the

construction sector

Juliana Salamone

Johanna Mattsson

Marcus Olsson

Philippa Wisbey

Breaking down barriers - a sustainable transition for cement

through collaboration with the construction sector

Juliana Salamone, Johanna Mattsson, Marcus Olsson, Philippa Wisbey

Statement of Contribution

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

Abbreviations

Table of Contents

List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Figures

1. Introduction

1.1. Socie

s need o build

1.2. Current practices and future pathways of Cement

1.3. Sustainable change in complex systems

1.4. Research Questions

2. Conceptual Frameworks

3. Scope and limitations of the study

4. Methodology

4.1 Summary of research design

4.2 Data collection