Asbestos’s heat resistance, tensile strength and insulation properties made it a cornerstone of twentieth-century industry. However, its legacy now imposes enormous global economic burdens through healthcare costs, litigation, environmental remediation and regulatory compliance.

This analysis presents a comprehensive view of how asbestos influenced industrial economies, the financial fallout of related diseases, the cost of cleanup and compensation frameworks, and strategies for mitigating these impacts moving forward.

Understanding Asbestos in the Global Industrial Economy

Asbestos’s unique physical characteristics—resistance to heat, chemicals, and wear—prompted its widespread adoption in construction, shipbuilding, defence, and automotive manufacturing.

Governments and corporations valued its durability and low cost, integrating it into cement, insulation, brake linings and gaskets.

During and after the world wars, demand surged as nations rebuilt infrastructure and expanded industrial capacity. Peak global production reached nearly 4.8 million tonnes in the late 1970s, underpinning employment in mining and processing operations across Canada, South Africa, Russia and India.

Strategic Role During and After War

In wartime, asbestos was critical for naval-vessel insulation and armoured-vehicle components, protecting personnel from fire and heat. Post-war reconstruction relied on asbestos-cement roofing and piping for rapid, cost-effective rebuilding.

Construction of homes pre-1990s used asbestos widely

This strategic deployment created millions of jobs and contributed up to 0.5 percent of GDP in major producer countries at its height. Yet these early benefits have been overshadowed by long-term liabilities explored in subsequent sections.

The Economic Upside: Early Gains from Asbestos Use Worldwide

Asbestos industries once drove substantial economic growth across multiple regions, including:

  • Russia – Asbestos exports valued at US $191 million in 2019, supporting thousands of jobs in remote industrial zones.
  • Canada – Chrysotile mining significantly contributed to provincial GDPs, especially in Quebec’s rural economies.
  • South Africa – Mining operations boosted local development with strong export revenues and infrastructure investments.
  • India – Domestic asbestos-cement manufacturing achieved up to 70 percent market penetration in the 1980s, accelerating affordable construction.
  • Brazil – Export-led asbestos production supported industrial diversification and created employment in underdeveloped regions.
  • China – Large-scale use of asbestos in construction and manufacturing underpinned rapid urban expansion during early development phases.

Employment and Trade Growth

At its production peak, the global asbestos workforce numbered over one million. Mines and mills in Canada and South Africa employed tens of thousands each, and downstream manufacturing sustained millions more.

International trade flows strengthened economic ties between producer and consumer nations, though these gains proved short-lived as health risks became evident.

Hidden Costs: Health-Driven Economic Burdens from Asbestos Exposure

Treating asbestos-related diseases (ARDs) imposes staggering direct medical expenses. In high-income countries, lifetime costs for mesothelioma and asbestos—including surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and palliative care—range from $80,000 to $120,000 per patient.

Cost of direct health costs from the use of asbestos-related diseases ranges from $80,000 to $120,000 per patient in a high-income country like the UK.

In low-income settings, limited access to advanced treatment caps costs below US $10,000 but leads to poorer outcomes and higher indirect societal burdens.

Indirect Productivity Losses

ARDs manifest 20–50 years post-exposure, causing a loss of eight to ten productive working years per patient.

This translates to annual GDP losses estimated at US $1 billion in countries heavily affected by mesothelioma, such as Australia and the UK. Carer support and disability benefits add further strain, with welfare outlays exceeding US $5 million per 1,000 cases in some jurisdictions.

Jurisdictions vary in their approach to asbestos claims. In North America, contingency-fee models dominate, yielding average awards of US $1 million but consuming up to 40 percent in legal fees.

UK settlements for senior claimants typically fall between £50 000 and £200 000. Asbestos trust funds in the US hold over $30 billion in reserves, disbursing about $2 billion annually to victims.

Ripple Effects Employers

Beyond direct payouts, insurers facing large claims raise premiums by 10–15 percent for exposed industries. Companies experience reputational damage, regulatory fines and higher compliance costs in subsequent years, further eroding profitability.

Decline of the Asbestos Industry and Global Supply-Chain Reconfiguration

National bans in Canada and Italy led to total cessation of domestic mining and sharp employment declines. Exports that once peaked at 750,000 tonnes in the 1990s have fallen below 50,000 tonnes in many countries.

Regions dependent on asbestos production have had to diversify their economies, investing in clean-tech manufacturing and workforce reskilling.

Emerging alternatives such as fibre-cement composites and polymer-based materials captured 35 percent of the roofing market by 2020, reducing reliance on asbestos. Some regions have implemented targeted programmes to support affected workers, achieving gradual recovery in local employment rates.

Environmental Cleanup Costs and Waste-Legacy Economics

Asbestos abatement and disposal costs in Europe are US $25–50 per m², while in North America, they reach US $100 per m² due to stricter landfill regulations.

Remediation—including soil sampling, encapsulation and monitoring—averages US $200 per tonne of contaminated material, with industrial sites sometimes exceeding US $500,000 in total abatement expenses.

Policy Variance in Funding Cleanup

Some governments subsidise up to 70 percent of the costs for asbestos removal to accelerate the remediation of public buildings. Others assign full responsibility to property owners, leading to uneven rates of asbestos removal and persistent environmental hazards.

Regulatory Impact on National Economies and Trade Policy

Draughting and enforcing an asbestos ban involves upfront costs of $1–5 million for legislative development, public consultation, and IT systems, plus ongoing inspection budgets of around $500,000 per year in mid-sized nations.

Industries must also cover transition expenses—retraining staff and replacing equipment—averaging US $10,000–50,000 per facility, with materials substitution adding about US $20,000 more.

Shifts in International Trade

Countries enforcing full bans have seen asbestos imports decline by over 90 percent. Partial-control jurisdictions maintain residual markets of 10–20 percent, often with lax enforcement, which perpetuates health risks and undermines global harmonisation efforts.

Financing Mechanisms and Policy Instruments for Economic Mitigation

Public-funding models in the EU can cover up to 70 percent of first-year abatement costs, while international aid programmes in low-income countries subsidise up to 90 percent of ARD treatment expenses.

Innovative instruments, such as green bonds, have raised US $500 million globally for remediation efforts, while public-private partnerships in Australia and Japan have funded large-scale asbestos removal from public housing.

Make an Enquiry