2005 Sustainability Report - Lafarge

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Monitoring our performance PAGE 40 | 2005 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT | LAFARGE Our environmental, social and community performance To ensure that our sustainable development indicators are transparent, independent and reliable, Lafarge initiated an external verification process in 2005. International auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers handled the verification of four additional indicators, bringing the number of verified indicators to seven and marking the first stage of our campaign to produce reliable indicators. ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CO2 EMISSIONS GROUP’S CEMENT PLANTS GROSS CO2 EMISSIONS * Only 1990 figures have been recalculated to account for change of perimeter. Despite a 10% increase in cement production between 2004 and 2005, gross CO2 emissions rose by only 5%. This was achieved by increasing the amount of alternative raw materials used. For the countries included in Annex 1 to the Kyoto Protocol, while cement production capacity rose 4%, gross CO2 emissions increased by only 1%. Benchmark> Lafarge's current reduction rates are well above the sector average, but slightly behind those achieved by two of our global competitors. FUEL MIX EVOLUTION IN THE CEMENT BUSINESS (millions of tonnes) 2003 2004 2005 Coal 46.4% 45.3% 43.8% 79.5 81.3 85.2 89.3 24.5 55 34.5 46.8 35.4 49.8 38.8 50.5 No objective 49.5 (-10% vs 1990) 90 03* 04* 05 Objectif 2010 ● Emerging markets ● Industrialized countries Coke 26.9% 28.2% 29.5% Oil 5.0% 6.2% 6.4% HVF** 2.5% 0.3% 0.3% Gas 10.5% 11.5% 11.4% Biomass 2.6% 2.1% 1.8% Waste 6.0% 6.5% 6.7% Others 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% ** HVF: High Viscosity Fluids.
LOCAL EMISSIONS AND POLLUTANTS NOX EMISSIONS (grammes/tonne of clinker) 2,075 2,000 03 04 05 2,014 The 3% reduction in NOx emissions compared with 2003 is mainly due to the installation of gas treatment equipment in Europe, which keeps levels down. We will continue these efforts in future years. SO2 EMISSIONS (grammes/tonne of clinker) 800 03 04 05 The increase in SO2 emissions can be explained by higher emissions in North America, but also by more comprehensive and reliable reporting in this field. STACK DUST EMISSIONS (grammes/tonne of clinker) 03 04 05 The increase in stack dust emissions can be explained by more comprehensive and reliable reporting in this field, particularly in Central Europe. Benchmark> Seven major competitors currently publish information on this subject. Comparability is limited as reporting often covers only a sample of kilns. According to the information published in 2004, Lafarge's NOx and stack dust emissions are on average higher than those of its competitors. However, in terms of SO2, Lafarge is in second place. Methodology: These emissions are estimated from continuous measurements in 80% of kilns (recommended by Cement’s reporting standards), or otherwise by one-off, extrapolated measurements. RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT BREAKDOWN OF LCR* R&D BUDGET (millions of euros) * Central Research Laboratory (LCR) budget 766 1,057 162 LAFARGE | 2005 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT | PAGE 41 124 2003 2004 2005 LCR budget 18 21.4 24,2 Exploration of new levers to reduce CO2 emissions 0.3 1.1 1.9 Programs with high impact on our CO2 emissions (developing levers currently used) 2.4 2.5 1.5 Programs with indirect impact on our CO2 emissions (high-performance products) 3.4 3.8 4 Other programs with no major impact on our sustainability performance 11.9 14 16.8 REHABILITATION QUARRIES WITH A REHABILITATION PLAN 2003 2004 2005 Cement 65% 42% 32% Aggregates & Concrete 85% 93% 88% Roofing 90% 91% n/a Gypsum 44% 69% 75% Group 80% 79% 71% In 2005, an independent third party verified this indicator (see third cover page). Since this verification revealed differences in the interpretation and the implementation of the Group policies, the figures have been modified accordingly. Roofing has not formalized its reporting methodology, so we decided not to consider its figure. Benchmark> In 2004, Lafarge ranked third among the three cement producers publishing information on this subject. The rate achieved for Cement is 8% below that of the second-ranked producer and 44% below that of the number one. However, rehabilitation standards are not necessarily comparable between the different cement producers. 171
Page 1 and 2: 2005 Sustainability report Contents
Page 3 and 4: As we head into the 21st century, o
Page 5 and 6: Involvement of the Group in sustain
Page 7 and 8: PERFORMANCE PROGRAMS IN EACH BUSINE
Page 9 and 10: Encouraging local initiatives The p
Page 11 and 12: Beginning in 2000, a list of 250 su
Page 13 and 14: yearly* 2005 2008 yearly* 2004 2005
Page 15 and 16: AN EXAMPLE OF RESPONSIBLE PARTNERIN
Page 17 and 18: REACH Lafarge believes that the REA
Page 19 and 20: 5.5% 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 20.1% 14.1% BU
Page 21 and 22: Optimizing our consumption of non-r
Page 23 and 24: Lafarge invests in Clean Developmen
Page 25 and 26: Rehabilitating our quarries and pro
Page 27 and 28: LIVIA TIRONE Architecte Lafarge has
Page 29 and 30: AVERAGE TRAINING TIME PER YEAR AND
Page 31 and 32: Assuring our employees' safety and
Page 33 and 34: Preventing health risks CONTINUED P
Page 35 and 36: DIALOGUE WITH EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATI
Page 37 and 38: Two social audits were conducted du
Page 39 and 40: PROVIDING SOLUTIONS GEARED TO LOCAL
Page 41: Banda Aceh city ravaged by the tsun
Page 45 and 46: 03 04 05 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS PERCE
Page 47 and 48: Social Percentage of women in senio
Page 49 and 50: Enhancing the comparability of our
Page 51 and 52: PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS’ INDEPENDE

2005 Sustainability Report - Lafarge

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?