05.

2020
The future of steelmaking – How the European
steel industry can achieve carbon neutrality
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

The future of steelmaking / How the European steel

industry can achieve carbon neutrality

The European steelmaking industry emits 4% of the EU's total CO2 emissions. It is under
growing public, economic and regulatory pressure to become carbon neutral by 2050, in
line with EU targets. About 60% of European steel is produced via the so-called primary
route, an efficient but highly carbon-intensive production method. The industry already
uses carbon mitigation techniques, but these are insufficient to significantly reduce or
eliminate carbon emissions. The development and implementation of new technologies
is underway.
With limited investment cycles left until the 2050 deadline, the European steelmaking
industry must decide on which new technology to invest in within the next 5-10 years.
We assess the most promising emerging technologies in this report. They fall into two
main categories: carbon capture, use and/or storage (CCUS), and alternative reduction of
iron ore. CCUS processes can be readily integrated into existing steel plants, but cannot
alone achieve carbon neutrality. If biomass is used in place of fossil fuels in the steelmaking
process, CCUS can result in a negative carbon balance.
Alternative reduction technologies include hydrogen-based direct reduction processes
and electrolytic reduction methods. Most are not well developed and require huge amounts
of green energy, but they hold the promise of carbon-neutral steelmaking.
One alternative reduction process, H2-based shaft furnace direct reduction, offers
particular promise due to its emissions-reduction potential and state of readiness. It is the
technology that we envisage steelmakers will pursue in order to achieve carbon neutrality.
H2-based shaft furnace direct reduction is ready to use and can be introduced step-by-step
into brownfield plants. This ensures operational continuity and reduced emissions during
the transition from conventional steelmaking methods.
A full transition is only achievable through high CAPEX and a plentiful supply of green
electricity. To switch the approximately 30 million tons per annum of steel produced via
the primary route in Germany to H2-based shaft furnace direct reduction would require
estimated capital expenditure of about EUR 30 bn at current prices. In addition, electricity
production of 120 TWh per annum would be required, a figure roughly equal to half the
amount of green electricity Germany produced in 2019. Political support is therefore vital
if the European steel industry is to achieve carbon neutrality. Without it, large parts of
the steelmaking value chain may move abroad.
 PAGE CONTENTS

4 1 
FEELING THE HEAT: THE CLIMATE CHALLENGE FACING
EUROPEAN STEELMAKERS

6 2 
CUTTING CARBON: THE MOST PROMISING NEW
TECHNOLOGIES COMPARED

2.1 / Carbon capture, use and/or storage

2.2 / Biomass-based ironmaking with CCUS
2.3 / H2-based direct reduced iron – Shaft furnace
2.4 / H2-based direct reduced iron – Fluidized bed
2.5 / Suspension ironmaking
2.6 / Plasma direct steel production
2.7 / Electrolytic processes

13 3 
A SOLID SOLUTION: RECOMMENDATIONS

14 CONCLUSION
Cover photo sdlgzps/Gettyimages

The future of steelmaking | 3

1 / Feeling the heat
THE CLIMATE CHALLENGE FACING EUROPEAN STEELMAKERS

T
he European steelmaking industry is under recovery turbines, reduce conventional primary route
pressure. In November 2018, the European carbon emissions. Replacing coke with natural gas
Commission announced a new long-term strategy can also significantly cut CO2 in primary steelmaking,
on climate protection, aimed at fulfilling the targets of as can injecting hydrogen or ammonia into the BF to
the UN's 2015 Paris Agreement. It calls for a climate- partly replace pulverized coal. However, many of these
neutral Europe by 2050, implying net zero greenhouse gas initiatives are already standard across the industry. And
emissions by that date. This means a 100% reduction of none can ever achieve carbon neutrality because they
carbon emissions, or the introduction of compensatory don't completely remove carbon from the steelmaking
carbon-negative processes. process.
Conventional steel production is one of Europe's Lower secondary route emissions can be achieved by
biggest sources of CO2 emissions. The continent's steel making savings on the electricity used to power the EAF,
industry currently contributes approximately 4% of or shifting the electricity mix towards renewables. This,
total European CO2 emissions, and 22% of industrial in theory, makes carbon neutrality possible. The problem
CO2 emissions. Energy- and carbon-hungry upstream is, the secondary process is limited by the availability of
operations, such as the production of coke and iron, scrap, and cannot produce all steel grades or required
account for approximately 90% of these. Most emissions quantities.
come from the 30 or so integrated steel plants that
produce almost two-thirds of Europe's steel. TIME TO ACT
To meet the European Commission's goals, there is
THE STATUS QUO therefore a clear need for a new breed of primary route
The majority of European steel (60%) is made via the technologies that can produce carbon-neutral steel. Many
primary route. It involves processing iron ore to produce of these are already in development, with some in the
iron sinter or pellets, and then melting these in a blast pilot phase and others technologically ready to go. The
furnace (BF) with coke to make pig iron. This is processed challenge for the European steel industry is to identify
in a basic oxygen furnace (BOF) to create steel. The and support the right one. With only very few investment
rest of Europe's steel comes from the secondary route. cycles left before 2050, massive development expenditure
It produces steel from scrap metal by heating it in an and CAPEX expected, and a variety of possible solutions,
electric arc furnace (EAF). A this is no easy decision. But it has to be made in the next
Primary route processes emit mainly direct five to ten years.
greenhouse gases. The secondary route emits mainly
indirect greenhouse gases, which vary depending on the
electricity mix used in the EAF. As the biggest offender,
the primary route is the industry's main target to lower
emissions. With global production of crude steel set to
rise by 30-50% by 2050 according to an OECD long-term
study, it has already taken action.
Methods such as coke dry quenching and optimizing
pellet ratios, as well as BF equipment like top gas

4 | Focus
A: Making steel
The primary and secondary routes account for all European steel production (simplified)

PRIMARY ROUTE (60%1) SECONDARY ROUTE (40%1)

Coal Iron ore Scrap

Sinter plant

Coke plant

Pellet plant
Coke Iron sinter/pellets

Blast furnace Electricity

Pig iron
O2 Scrap
EAF

BOF

Crude steel Crude steel

1
Share of production in Europe
Source: Eurofer, EEA, Roland Berger

The future of steelmaking | 5

2 / Cutting carbon
THE MOST PROMISING NEW TECHNOLOGIES COMPARED

E
merging technological solutions designed to Processes include post/pre-combustion capture, and
reduce or eliminate carbon emissions from the compression-transport-store/use. B
steelmaking process can be divided into two Pros: The main advantage is that CCUS systems can
distinct categories: carbon capture, use and/or storage be fairly easily integrated into existing conventional
(CCUS), and alternative reduction of iron ore. brownfield plants. And as the technology is not specific to
CCUS employs different methods to capture CO2 steelmaking, other industries can share development and
emissions and either process them for onward utilization infrastructure costs (for example, around the synthetic
(for example, as fuel) or store them (for example, in fuel market, transportation and storage). Also, future
geological formations such as exhausted undersea operating costs are largely predictable.
gas reservoirs). Alone, CCUS cannot achieve carbon Cons: As well as the fact that CCUS is not fully carbon
neutrality. But it could yield a negative CO2 balance if neutral, as the carbon capture process alone captures
fossil fuels used in the steelmaking process are replaced only about 90% of CO2, there are several other challenges.
by biomass. Public acceptance of carbon storage is not guaranteed,
The second range of potential technologies involves disadvantaging first movers. And currently, excepting
replacing coke or natural gas with alternative reductants minor onshore storage locations, the North Sea offers
of iron ore. These include hydrogen (H2) and direct the only suitable large storage location in Europe,
electric current. Their advantage is that they can, in necessitating considerable transportation efforts. In
theory, make steel production fully green. However, most addition, utilization of emissions must rule out carbon
will likely require even more time and money to set up release at a later stage for the process to be carbon
than CCUS. neutral. CCUS equipment also increases maintenance
Below, we assess a selection of the most promising of burdens and shutdown times with a significant impact
the new CCUS and alternative reduction technologies, on operating costs.
including their pros and cons and examples of pilot Pilot projects: The Carbon2Chem project, backed by
projects. We also compare each against key criteria, such industrial conglomerate thyssenkrupp, is piloting the
as industrial production readiness, expected duration processing of emissions such as CO2 to make synthetic
until plateau of productivity, development and operating fuel. But this is currently not carbon neutral as CO2 is
costs, and CAPEX requirements. emitted at a later stage.
In the next chapter, we use this analysis to offer
insight on which technology to pursue – H2-based shaft 2.2 BIOMASS-BASED IRONMAKING WITH CCUS
furnace direct reduction – and give our reasons for it. How it works: The basic idea is that carbon-neutral
biomass partially replaces fossil fuels in preprocessing
2.1 CARBON CAPTURE, USE AND/OR STORAGE or as an iron ore reductant. For example, carbon-rich
How it works: CO2 is separated from other gases and 'chars' made from raw biomass (raw algae, grass, wood
captured during heavily emitting processes, such as etc.) are used to produce a substitute coke, or biogas
ironmaking. The captured CO2 is then either transported is injected into a shaft furnace instead of natural
via a pipeline or ship to an onshore or offshore storage gas. Processes include pyrolysis and hydrothermal
location (in Europe, old North Sea gas fields have huge carbonization. CCUS systems mop up any remaining
potential) or used, for example as fuel or biomass. carbon emissions.

6 | Focus
 Pros: Biomass alone can cut up to 40-60% of CO2
B: Carbon capture, use and/or storage emissions, and in combination with CCUS can achieve
The production route (simplified) carbon-neutral steelmaking. In the shorter term, biomass
is an instant partial replacement for fossil fuels, allowing
Iron ore quick-win emission reductions at existing plants. CO2
from emissions can also be recycled using CCUS to
CO2
produce fresh biomass.
Cons: Cultivation of biomass is problematic.
Sinter plant Environmentally, it can lead to deforestation, pollution
Coal
and reduced biodiversity, and socially, increased food
CO2 Coke Sinter iron prices and agricultural land use. Political and social
acceptance therefore has a high risk. In addition, biomass
has a lower calorific value than fossil fuels, limiting its
use in large blast furnaces or lowering efficiencies. And
Coke plant due to its high water content, it can also be too heavy for
use in large blast furnaces.
CO2 Pilot projects: A biomass study by the Swedish research
Blast furnace group SWEREA at an SSAB steel plant in Luleå identified
potential for a 28% reduction in CO2 emissions.
CO2

2.3 H 2-BASED DIRECT REDUCED IRON –

Pig iron SHAFT FURNACE
Carbon capture
How it works: Instead of a carbon reductant such as coke,
H2 is used to reduce iron ore pellets to "direct reduced
Scrap iron" (DRI, or sponge iron). The reaction takes place in a
Use Transport
O2 shaft furnace, a type of furnace that uses gas reductants
to make DRI. The operating temperature can be fairly
low, around 800°C. The DRI is then fed into an EAF and
Basic oxygen furnace1
turned into steel by further processing it and adding
Storage carbon. As an interim technology to pave the way towards
carbon-neutral steelmaking, it can also be fed into a blast
furnace in the form of "hot briquetted iron" (HBI), a high-
Liquid Slag quality DRI. This significantly increases the blast furnace
steel
efficiency and reduces coke usage. The most common
processes are the MIDREX method and Tenova's HYL. C
Pros: If powered solely by green electricity, the process
1
Incl. secondary metallurgy makes the whole primary steelmaking route carbon
Source: Roland Berger neutral and fossil fuel-free. Other benefits include high

The future of steelmaking | 7

 production flexibility: the process is easy to start and
C: H2-based direct reduced iron – stop, and the ability to use smaller units enables greater
Shaft furnace scalability. In addition, the ability to feed DRI as HBI into
The production route (simplified) a BF-BOF system means existing conventional brownfield
plants can be used while shaft furnace/EAF production
Green electricity Iron ore
is ramped up.
Today, in Germany, there is nowhere near
enough cheap green electricity available Cons: The process still requires iron ore pellets, and
producing them can cause significant emissions
depending on the heat source of the pellet plant.
+ - Green
Supplying the necessary amount of H₂ is also a
energy
Pellet plant problem and efficient large-scale electrolyzers need
to be developed. In addition, as the process relies on
O2 H2 costs need to be vast amounts of cheap green energy, steel producing
below ~EUR 2 k per
Iron ore countries like Germany must import H₂ or pre-processed
ton for production
Electrolyzer pellets
to be economical iron, hurting their value chains, if they fail to significantly
H2 ramp up their own green energy production. There is also
uncertainty around future operating costs, for example
Expected installation costs3/
CAPEX in Germany ~EUR 0.6-
relating to H₂ and electricity prices.
0.8 bn per 1 mt annual capacity Pilot projects: The EU-funded Project GrInHy 2.0, which
H 2O
incl. electrolyzer involves several firms including Tenova, Salzgitter and
Paul Wurth, aims to develop the world's largest H₂-
producing steam electrolyzer for use in MIDREX and HYL.
Hot
briquetted iron
Shaft furnace 2.4 H 2-BASED DIRECT REDUCED IRON –
Scrap Sponge iron FLUIDIZED BED
How it works: As with the shaft furnace version, this
method uses H2 to reduce iron ore and produce DRI
Carbon2 Blast furnace
to feed into an EAF. The differences are that reduction
Possibility to inject occurs in a fluidized bed rather than a furnace, and finely
DRI into BF to slowly processed iron ore powders (fines) are used instead of
transform brownfield pellets. Fluidized beds are reactor chambers that can
plant by ramping up
shaft furnaces and continuously mix solid feedstocks with a gas to produce
EAF1
EAFs and replacing BF a solid. There are several possible processes, including
Liquid Slag,
and BOF plants FINEX and Circored. D
steel CO22
Pros: The use of fines over iron pellets has the advantage
1
Incl. secondary metallurgy of removing the need to pelletize, cutting costs and
2
Adjust desired carbon content between 0.002% and 2.14%
3
In today's monetary value the high CO2 emissions involved in the process. In
Source: Roland Berger addition, fluidized bed reactors have fewer internal

8 | Focus
sticking problems than shaft furnaces, achieving higher
metallization (approx. 95% to 90%). D: H2-based direct reduced iron –
Cons: The process shares the same H2 supply, electrolyzer Fluidized bed
and operating cost problems as the shaft furnace method. The production route
Its electricity supply must also be 100% green to achieve
Green electricity
carbon neutrality. In addition, the use of fluidized bed
reactors in steelmaking is less developed than shaft
furnaces, requiring higher investment.
+ -
Pilot projects: Outokumpu, the Finland-based stainless-
steel producer, began production of an H2-DRI plant
Iron ore fines
using the Circored process in Trinidad and Tobago in
1999 (today, it is owned by ArcelorMittal and has been O2
idle since 2015). It can produce up to 65 tons per hour
H2
of hot briquetted iron. Electrolyzer

2.5 SUSPENSION IRONMAKING

How it works: The process begins with the ultrafine
grinding of low-grade iron ore to produce iron ore
concentrate. This is then reduced using hydrogen in a H 2O
high-temperature "flash" reactor for just a few seconds,
directly producing steel once carbon is added. The
iron ore concentrate can also be pre-reduced at a lower
temperature in a separate reactor before being added to Fluidized bed

the flash reactor. E

Scrap Sponge
Pros: The direct reduction of iron ore to steel in one iron
reactor, removing the need for ironmaking, sintering or
pelletization, has significant cost and emission benefits. Carbon2
It also produces "cleaner" steel as the high temperatures
and fast reaction times ensure fewer impurities.
Cons: The technology is not well developed and is still
at an experimental stage, with no large-scale reactor
tests yet conducted. As a result, the process is a long EAF1
way from commercialization and will require significant Liquid Slag,
steel CO22
investment. From a practical point of view, the iron ore
must be ground to particles of <100 micrometers in
diameter, requiring high energy intensity and increased 1
Incl. secondary metallurgy
plant maintenance. 2
Adjust desired carbon content between 0.002% and 2.14%
Pilot projects: The University of Utah in the USA has Source: Roland Berger

The future of steelmaking | 9

 conducted proof-of-concept tests in laboratory reactors
E: Suspension ironmaking and is developing the process and reactor design for
The production route (simplified) industrial use.

Green Green
2.6 PLASMA DIRECT STEEL PRODUCTION
electricity electricity Iron ore How it works: Iron ore, raw or in the form of fines or
pellets, is reduced using hydrogen plasma in a plasma
steelmaking reactor. At the same time, carbon is added to
the reactor to produce steel. Hydrogen plasma is H2 gas
that has been heated or electrically charged to separate,
+ -
or ionize, it into its constituent particles. The process
may use either thermal plasma (produced by directly
heating H2) or non-thermal plasma (produced by passing
O2
a direct current or microwaves through H2). F
Ultrafine grinding Pros: The process removes the need for preprocessing of
High energy intensity iron ore and allows for lower reactor temperatures. It is
Electrolyzer and wear of the plant also highly integrated, with some methods (for example,
hydrogen plasma smelting reduction) requiring only
a single step. This makes it commercially attractive: if
H2 Iron ore
concentrate
the technology was ready to use today, it would have the
potential to reduce costs significantly, as well as offering
higher product quality and better production flexibility.
Cons: The technology is at a very early stage of
development, with an optimal process and full reactor
Carbon2 design yet to be developed. Its commercial feasibility is
H 2O
also still to be proven.
Slag, CO22 Pilot projects: As part of its Sustainable Steel (SuSteel)
project, the Austrian steelmaker voestalpine has built
a small pilot hydrogen plasma reduction reactor at its
Flash reactor1 Donawitz site.

2.7 ELECTROLYTIC PROCESSES

How it works: There are two types: electrolysis and
Steel
electrowinning. Electrolysis transforms iron ore at
approx. 1550°C into liquid steel using electricity as a
reductant. In electrowinning, iron ore is ground into an
1
Incl. secondary metallurgy
2
Adjust desired carbon content between 0.002% and 2.14% ultrafine concentrate, leached and then reduced in an
Source: University of Utah, Roland Berger electrolyzer at around 110°C. The resultant iron plates

10 | Focus
F: Plasma direct steel production G: Electrolytic processes
The production route (simplified) The production route (simplified)

Green Iron ore, Iron ore

Green electricity carbon2
electricity

O2
Slag,
+ - CO22

ULCOLYSIS1)

O2 Ultrafine grinding

Liquid steel Iron ore Lime

Electrolyzer concentrate

H2 Iron ore/iron fines/

iron pellets
Iron ore
Green concen-
electricity trate

Leaching
Green
electricity

H 2O Carbon2

Slag, CO22 Ironplate

ULCOWIN

Green electricity,
Plasma steel-making carbon2
reactor1

EAF1
Liquid Slag,
Steel steel CO22
1
Incl. secondary metallurgy
1
Incl. secondary metallurgy 2
Adjust desired carbon
Adjust desired carbon content between 0.002% and 2.14%
2
content between 0.002% and 2.14%
Source: Roland Berger Source: ULCOS, EU Commission IERO, Roland Berger

The future of steelmaking | 11

 are fed into an EAF, which turns it into steel. ULCOLYSIS long and costly development phase. The process is
is the main electrolysis method, ULCOWIN the main also relatively inflexible compared to H2 direct reduced
electrowinning one. G iron methods as it cannot be stopped easily. Lastly,
Pros: Because they skip the upstream stages required in while green electricity remains expensive and storage
other production routes, such as producing coke or H2 possibilities few, profitability will be low as the process
as reductants, electrolytic processes have the potential to needs a constant source of electricity and therefore
become the most energy-efficient steelmaking methods, cannot take advantage of excess cheap green energy.
especially electrolysis. They also promise to significantly Pilot projects: The EU's ULCOS project, which involved
lower CAPEX as, in the case of electrolysis, only very few many European steelmakers including ArcelorMittal,
aggregates are needed. led the development of ULCOLYSIS and ULCOWIN.
Cons: The technology, especially electrolysis of iron It demonstrated laboratory-scale high-temperature
ore, is still being tested in laboratories, suggesting a electrolysis for direct production of liquid steel. H

H: Technologies compared
How the seven processes perform against key criteria for future steelmaking

Technology Years until Develop- CAPEX Operating Public Possibility

readiness plateau of ment require- costs3 acceptance to transform
productivity costs1 ments2 brownfield plant

Carbon capture, use and/or

storage 5-10
CCUS

Carbon capture, use and/or

storage with biomass 5-10

H2-based direct reduced

iron – Shaft furnace 0-3
Alternative reductant agent

H2-based direct reduced

iron – Fluidized bed 5-15

Suspension ironmaking
technology 17-22

Plasma direct steel

production 20-25

Electrolytic
processes 20-30

High Low
1
Compared to the other presented carbon neutral technologies 2
Compared to CAPEX of BF-BOF greenfield plant in 2040-2050
3
Compared to BF-BOF plant in 2040-2050 (incl. carbon tax) Source: Roland Berger

12 | Focus
 3 / A solid solution
RECOMMENDATIONS

W
ith a decision looming for steelmakers on These also remain problematic. All five of our
which technology to pursue, we believe clear, considered methods require massive amounts of
evidence-based insight is helpful. affordable green electricity – for iron ore preprocessing,
It's apparent from our analysis above that CCUS H2 electrolyzers, furnaces and electrolysis – to meet the
is unlikely to be sufficient to ensure carbon-neutral carbon neutrality goal. But such energy sources are far
steelmaking by 2050. Nor is the public likely to accept from meeting the required price points compared to coke
it within that timescale. This leaves the alternative (excl. carbon tax) and will take time to develop.
reduction technologies.

I: The carbon-neutral future

How to transform a brownfield steel plant into an H2-based DRI shaft furnace plant
Illustration Thomas Andrae

The future of steelmaking | 13

 Conclusion

M
In addition, three of the five – suspension ironmaking, aking a prediction is one thing, executing it
plasma direct steel production and electrolytic processing is another. As well as the specific problems
– are at an early stage of development themselves. Their with the technologies assessed in this report,
technical and economic viability in large-scale production including our favored method, Europe's steelmaking
is yet to be tested, leaving a degree of uncertainty over industry faces wider challenges in its shift to a greener
their industrial deployment. future.
The H2-based reduction technologies are more As outlined above, CAPEX requirements for carbon-
developed and lower risk, but not without challenges. neutral steel production are high and operation is only
As yet, for example, there is no sufficiently large-scale H2 sustainable and economically viable if cheap green
electrolyzer, a prerequisite to produce sufficient H2 for energy is available. For example, as a rule of thumb, the
the reduction process. For example, the world's largest CAPEX of every million tons of H2-DRI-EAF production
H2 electrolyzer, with 100 MW performance, is planned in capacity is EUR 1 billion at today's prices. This results
Hamburg. Neglecting any degree of efficiency or possible in an EU-wide CAPEX requirement of up to EUR 100 bn
shutdowns, this would result in only < 1 TWh H2 produced to make the approximately 100 million tons of crude
per annum. This compares to the ~70 TWh of H2 required steel produced in the bloc today via the integrated blast
to shift the 30 million tons of crude steel produced in furnace route carbon neutral. This means European
Germany via the blast furnace route to H2 direct reduction steelmakers are dependent on political support to meet
in a shaft furnace. Total energy consumption sums up the EU's carbon emissions targets. Only governments can
to ~120 TWh of required green electricity to run the offer the necessary tax breaks, levies, subsidies, financing
pelletizing plant, shaft furnace preheater, EAF and to etc. to ensure cheaper green electricity and help with the
account for conversion losses in the electrolyzer in high CAPEX requirements.
addition to the required ~70 TWh H2. The EU itself must also step up. It needs to ensure
Despite this, we see H2-based direct reduced iron that imported steel and steel products are also carbon
either in a shaft furnace or a fluidized bed as the neutral, or taxed accordingly if they are not (via a carbon
dominant future technology to produce carbon-neutral tax). In addition, the bloc must ensure its long-term
steel. We expect steelmakers to support the shaft furnace rules and targets are set in stone to safeguard the huge
DRI process. amount of investment required to meet them. It should
As well as the promise of future carbon neutrality, also seek agreements with other countries and trading
it offers short-term, transitional benefits as it is ready blocs to align these rules and targets. This will level the
to use. DRI can be fed into existing brownfield blast playing field when it comes to exporting carbon-neutral
furnaces in the form of hot briquetted iron to make them steel, and make the process easier.
instantly more CO2 efficient. This also creates operational Without such support, there is a high risk that large
breathing space to ramp up the replacement of blast parts of the steelmaking value chain will be moved out
furnaces with shaft furnaces. In a second transitional of Europe to countries with cheap access to energy,
step, BOFs can be maintained alongside new electric and fewer regulations. This would damage not just the
arc furnaces until sufficient capacity is built up to fully European steel industry, but also the chances of a global
switch to the H2-based DRI shaft furnace method. Then, carbon-neutral future.
just add green electricity. I

14 | Focus
CREDITS AND COPYRIGHT

AUTHORS EXPERTS

AKIO ITO AMBROISE LECAT

Senior Partner Partner
+49 89 9230-8583 +33 1 70928-944
akio.ito@rolandberger.com ambroise.lecat@rolandberger.com

BERNHARD LANGEFELD GARETH HAYES

Partner Partner
+49 69 29924-6143 +1 312 662-5537
bernhard.langefeld@rolandberger.com gareth.hayes@rolandberger.com

NICOLAS GÖTZ YOUYE CHEN

Senior Consultant Principal
+49 89 9230-8344 +86 10 84400088-662
nicolas.goetz@rolandberger.com youye.chen@rolandberger.com

We welcome your questions,

comments and suggestions

WWW.ROLANDBERGER.COM

This publication has been prepared for general guidance only. The reader should not act according to any information provided in this publication without receiving
specific professional advice. Roland Berger GmbH shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any use of the information contained in the publication.
© 2020 ROLAND BERGER GMBH. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ROLAND BERGER, founded in 1967, is the only leading global
consultancy of German heritage and European origin. With
2,400 employees working from 35 countries, we have successful
operations in all major international markets. Our 52 offices
are located in the key global business hubs. The consultancy is
an independent partnership owned exclusively by 250 Partners.

PUBLISHER:
ROLAND BERGER GMBH
Sederanger 1
RB_PUB_20_007

80538 Munich
Germany
+49 89 9230-0