Market evolution: Cement and concrete articles (CN 681099) — 2015–2025

Introduction

This report examines the evolution of EU trade in articles of cement, concrete, or artificial stone (excluding prefabricated structural components, tiles, paving, and bricks) — classified under Customs code 681099 — over the period 2015–2025. This residual category encompasses products such as pipes, vases, garden ornaments, statues, and other non-structural cement articles.

The EU maintains a structural surplus in this product category, with the trade balance remaining positive throughout the period. However, a closer look reveals a fundamental divergence: while the value of exports and imports both grew, the underlying volume trends moved in opposite directions — EU export volumes contracted sharply while import volumes surged, a pattern that reshaped the market's structure over the decade.

1. The value-volume divergence: pricing power on the export side, volume-driven growth on the import side

The most striking feature of the 2015–2025 period is the divergence between trade values and trade volumes, particularly in EU exports.

1.1. Export volumes fell while export values grew, driven by a near-doubling of unit prices

EU export volumes declined by 22.9%, falling from 679,509 tonnes in 2015 to 523,681 tonnes in 2025. Yet export value rose by 27.2%, from €498 million to €633 million. The explanation lies in a 65.0% increase in the average export unit price, which climbed from €733 per tonne to €1,209 per tonne. This indicates that EU exporters have progressively shifted toward higher-value, more specialised products — or have successfully passed on cost increases — rather than competing on volume.

Source: General Overview

1.2. Import growth was almost entirely volume-driven, with stable unit prices

In contrast, EU imports followed a different logic. Import value grew by 84.1% (from €140 million to €257 million), but the import unit price barely moved, rising only 2.0% (from €823 to €840 per tonne). The real story is the 80.4% increase in import volumes — from 169,777 tonnes to 306,235 tonnes. This suggests that EU imports are driven by price-competitive suppliers in developing and emerging economies, rather than by a shift in product mix.

Source: General Overview

1.3. The EU production base shrank in volume but increased in value, mirroring export trends

EU domestic production data confirms this structural shift. Production volumes fell by 23.7% (from 22.3 billion kg to 17.0 billion kg), while production values increased by 27.9% (from €2.54 billion to €3.25 billion). The European cement articles industry appears to be producing less but at significantly higher value, consistent with a move upmarket or with sustained cost inflation that has not been fully offset by volume growth.

2. Geographic reorientation: emerging-market imports and concentrated export markets

The period saw significant shifts in both the origin of EU imports and the destination of EU exports, with broader implications for market concentration and supply resilience.

2.1. China dominates imports but emerging suppliers have grown fastest

China remained the largest single source of EU imports throughout the period, with its share rising 71.6% from €73 million to €126 million (peaking at €216 million in an intermediate year). However, the most dramatic growth came from other emerging suppliers:

Source: Top Partners

The rapid growth of Türkiye, Serbia, and Belarus as import sources reflects both geographic proximity and cost competitiveness, particularly for construction-related cement articles. The United Kingdom's growth as an import source is notable and likely reflects post-Brexit trade dynamics.

2.2. EU exports are concentrated in a few mature markets, with the United States as the dominant partner

The United States was by far the largest destination for EU exports, growing 80.5% from €157 million to €284 million (peaking at €491 million). The top three markets — the US, UK, and Switzerland — together absorbed a substantial share of EU export value. Canada showed the strongest relative growth at 162.9%.

Source: Top Partners

The near-total collapse of exports to Algeria (−97.8%) and the steep declines to Australia and Norway suggest that some traditional markets have been lost, potentially due to the rise of competing suppliers or domestic capacity building in those countries.

2.3. Export concentration has increased significantly while import sources have diversified

The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) tells an important story. On the import side, the HHI fell by 15.4% (from 3,140 to 2,655), indicating a meaningful diversification of supply sources — a positive development for resilience. On the export side, the HHI rose by 66.9% (from 1,455 to 2,428), reflecting growing dependence on fewer destination markets, particularly the United States. This export concentration represents a vulnerability, as a slowdown in US demand or trade barriers could disproportionately affect EU exporters.

Source: Concentration (HHI)

2.4. Spain, Estonia, and Poland lead EU export specialisation

The specialisation data for 2025 shows which EU member states have a revealed comparative advantage in this product. Spain stands out as both the largest exporter (€392 million) and one of the most specialised (RSCA: 0.44), alongside Estonia, Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania — all of which show strong specialisation indices. France, Luxembourg, and Sweden, by contrast, show negative specialisation, indicating they are net importers or lack competitive advantage in this category.

3. Supply volatility, price shocks, and sectoral resilience

Beyond the aggregate trends, the data reveals episodes of significant volatility and notable price shocks that affected specific trade flows during the decade.

3.1. Import volatility is concentrated in emerging and politically sensitive suppliers

The coefficient of variation (CV) of import values reveals highly unstable supply chains for several partners. North Macedonia (CV: 2.00), Türkiye (CV: 0.94), and Serbia (CV: 0.60) show the highest volatility, while China (CV: 0.18) and Viet Nam (CV: 0.19) have been the most stable import sources. This volatility likely reflects the smaller scale of trade with these partners, making year-on-year swings more pronounced in proportional terms.

3.2. Export volatility is driven by distant or unstable markets

On the export side, Senegal (CV: 2.62), Algeria (CV: 2.20), and Andorra (CV: 0.87) exhibit the highest volatility. The large swings in Algeria — which saw exports collapse from €33.5 million to €0.7 million — and Senegal are consistent with the loss of traditional African export markets. By contrast, the three largest export destinations — the US (CV: 0.31), UK (CV: 0.18), and Switzerland (CV: 0.20) — show relatively stable demand patterns.

3.3. Two significant price shocks were detected in the import flows

The shock analysis identified two notable price shocks:

1. Serbia (2019): A price shock with an abnormality score of 19.6 and a 68.5% price shift, affecting a 4.0% value share of imports. This may reflect a one-off contract or a quality shift in the bilateral trade.

2. Viet Nam (2022): A price shock with an abnormality of 5.0 and a 42.7% price shift, affecting a 15.7% value share. Given Viet Nam's position as a significant supplier, this event likely had a material impact on overall import pricing in that year.

These shocks, while notable, did not destabilise the broader market given the diversified nature of EU import sources.

3.4. The EU's export-oriented members have absorbed significant structural change

Among EU reporting countries, Spain has consolidated its position as the EU's leading exporter, growing from €243 million to €392 million (+61.8%). Meanwhile, Germany and Italy — traditionally strong industrial exporters — saw their export values decline by 27.7% and 27.0% respectively, potentially reflecting cost competitiveness challenges or shifts in production focus. On the import side, Ireland (+344.8%), Spain (+280.4%), and France (+93.0%) showed the largest increases, suggesting growing demand for imported cement articles in these markets.

Conclusion

The EU trade in cement and concrete articles (CN 681099) over 2015–2025 is a story of structural transformation. The European industry has moved toward producing and exporting fewer tonnes at higher prices, suggesting a shift toward more specialised, higher-value products. Meanwhile, imports have grown substantially in volume, driven by cost-competitive suppliers from China, Türkiye, Serbia, and other emerging economies.

The EU maintains a healthy trade surplus (€376 million in 2025), but the growing concentration of exports in a small number of mature markets — particularly the United States — introduces risk. On the import side, the diversification of supply sources is a positive development for resilience. The collapse of certain traditional export destinations (notably Algeria) and the erosion of German and Italian export shares signal that the competitive landscape is evolving.

Looking ahead, the key question is whether EU producers can sustain their pricing premium in an environment of increasing import competition, and whether the growing export concentration can be managed without significant market disruption.