Structural Adhesives Market grew to USD ~18.3 billion in 2016 with the CAGR of ~7.9% from 2016 to 2022

Sep 11, 2017

Global Structural Adhesives Market Information by Product Type (Epoxy, Acrylic, Urethanes, Cyanoacrylate and others), by Technology (Water Based and Solvents based), by Application (Automotive, Transportation, Building & Construction, Furniture and Others) and by Region - Forecast to 2022

Pune, India - September 11, 2017 /MarketersMedia/ —

Market Synopsis of Global Structural Adhesives Market:
The Global Structural Adhesives Market grew to USD ~18.3 billion in 2016 with the CAGR of ~7.9% from 2016 to 2022. High demand of lightweight metals and composites in applications such as automotive, transportation, building & construction and furniture are expected to fuel the overall demand of Structural Adhesives in future. Structural Adhesive used in automotive are known for providing better adhesion between distinct substrates such as steel and plastics. Thus, these composites are used in doors, window glass attachments, brakes and clutch plates and others. On account of high demand for passenger car in countries like China and India, automotive industry requires adhesives with structural integrity and strong bonding properties that is expected to impact the Global Structural Adhesive Market growth.

Increasing government spending in public infrastructure and commercial buildings is likely to drive the demand of Structural Adhesive in construction application such as window panels, roofing, and wall coverings. Changing consumer lifestyle with changing trends in furniture designs for building and construction application is going to boost the demand. Fluctuation in raw material price and strict environmental regulation can hamper the market in the coming years.

Request a Sample Report @ https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/sample_request/2177

Water based structural adhesive is largely used in rigid joiningsuch as furniture panels, automotive assembly, joint cements and household appliances. Stringent regulations of environment agencies regarding presence of volatile organic compound (VOC) in solvent based adhesives has positively complimented the water based structural adhesive. The Structural Adhesive Market is segmented into product types such as epoxy, acrylic, cyanoacrylate, urethanes and others. Urethane adhesive are priced less and are highly preferable with respect to elastic bonding in application such as automotive and construction. They possess properties such as high elasticity, durability and flexibility when used among dissimilar materials. These factors are expected to contribute towards growth of Structural Adhesives Market which has started since in forecasted period from 2016 to 2022. Cyanoacrylic Adhesives is expected to witness high growth owing to the properties such as low toxicity and faster setting. High industrial output along with its abovementioned properties will drive the growth of Cyanoacrylic Adhesives. Epoxy adhesives provides high strength and temperature resistance which are highly preferable to enhance the rigidity and reduce noise of automotive components such as turbine and blade. These factors are expected to drive the demand of Structural Adhesive Market in future.

Asia Pacific accounts for the largest market share owing to rapid industrialization and growing demand from construction and furniture industries. China, India, Thailand and Indonesia are the fastest growing regions of Global Structural Adhesive due to government tax incentives, subsidies provided and easy availability of raw material and labor. North America is expected to witnessed a steady growth due to slow growth of industries post-recession and increase in consumer spending particularly in U.S. that will drive the demand of this market.

Make an Enquiry before Buying @ https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/enquiry/2177

Key Players:
The global manufacturing companies are increasing investment in R&D for technological advancement in structural adhesive. The key players in this segment are 3M Company, The Dow Chemical Company, Ashland Inc., SIKA AG, Henkel AG & Co., Lord Corporation, Scott Bader Company, Arkema S.A., Hubei Huitian Adhesive Enterprise Co., Ried B.V. Co. and others.

Study Objectives of Structural Adhesives Market:
• To study market overview of the Structural Adhesives.
• To estimate market size by product, raw material, product type and application.
• To provide insights about market drivers, restrains and opportunities.
• To provide geographical market analysis and future outlook for North America, Europe, Asia, along with rest of the world (ROW).
• To analyze the Global Structural Adhesives Market based on various factors- supply chain analysis, Porters Five Force analysis etc.
• To provide strategic profiling of the key players in the market, broadly analyzing their core competencies.
• To evaluate competitive developments such as joint ventures, strategic alliances, mergers and acquisitions, new product developments, and research and developments in the Global Structural Adhesives.

Key Points from Table of Contents:

11. Company Profiles

11.1 3M Company
11.1.1 Overview
11.1.2 Financials
11.1.3 Product Portfolio
11.1.4 Business Strategies
11.1.5 Recent Development

11.2 The Dow Chemical Company
11.2.1 Overview
11.2.2 Financials
11.2.3 Product Portfolio
11.2.4 Business Strategies
11.2.5 Recent Development

11.3 Ashland Inc.
11.3.1 Overview
11.3.2 Financials
11.3.3 Product Portfolio
11.3.4 Business Strategies
11.3.5 Recent Development

11.4 SIKA AG
11.4.1 Overview
11.4.2 Financials
11.4.3 Product Portfolio
11.4.4 Business Strategies
11.4.5 Recent Development

Browse Full Report Details @ https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/structural-adhesives-market-2177

About Market Research Future:
At Market Research Future (MRFR), we enable our customers to unravel the complexity of various industries through our Cooked Research Report (CRR), Half-Cooked Research Reports (HCRR), Raw Research Reports (3R), Continuous-Feed Research (CFR), and Market Research & Consulting Services.

MRFR team have supreme objective to provide the optimum quality market research and intelligence services to our clients. Our market research studies by Components, Application, Logistics and market players for global, regional, and country level market segments, enable our clients to see more, know more, and do more, which help to answer all their most important questions.

Contact Info:
Name: Market Research Future
Email: [email protected]
Organization: Market Research Future
Address: Market Research Future Office No. 528, Amanora Chambers Magarpatta Road, Hadapsar, Pune
Phone: +1 646 845 9312

Source URL: https://marketersmedia.com/structural-adhesives-market-grew-to-usd-18-3-billion-in-2016-with-the-cagr-of-7-9-from-2016-to-2022/237879

For more information, please visit https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/structural-adhesives-market-2177

Source: MarketersMedia

Release ID: 237879

More News

Why your health insurance is dropping GLP-1 coverage

Oct 15, 2026

Why your health insurance is dropping GLP-1 coverage

The promise of GLP-1 drugs has always depended on people being able to afford them. These drugs still cost hundreds of dollars per month if you’re paying cash, at which point access becomes a privilege: The higher-income executive who wants to trim a few pounds might be able to afford them either way, but the low-income worker who needs the drug to lose significant weight might not be able to afford them — unless their health insurance covers it. For a while, the trend lines for GLP-1 insurance coverage were positive. As of 2026, roughly two-thirds of private employer plans, which insure half of Americans, were covering GLP-1 medications for weight loss to treat obesity. Over the summer, Medicare launched a new $50-per-month prescription program. The US has struggled with an obesity epidemic for decades, but it looked like powerful drugs to treat it were finally starting to be more seamlessly integrated into the health system. At least that’s how things appeared earlier this year. But now, private plans are pulling back from GLP-1 coverage. People are being left in the lurch, debating whether to try to pay for these drugs on their own or stop taking medicines they feel are making a real difference for their health. The dilemma reveals one of the structural flaws in American healthcare. For working-age adults, your insurance depends on your job. Unfortunately, because people no longer stay at the same job for decades, there is not a strong financial incentive for employers to make investments that will benefit your health in the long term — but there is a strong incentive to minimize short-term costs as much as possible. It’s the kind of perverse rationale that could compel employer-sponsored health plans to stop covering a drug that, if taken over the full course of a person’s life, could help them not only lose weight but ultimately reduce their risk of heart disease, kidney disease and other chronic health problems, improving their health and saving all of us money as they get older. “An employer or an insurer making coverage decisions doesn’t necessarily care if they’re saving Medicare money,” said Dan Sacks, a healthcare economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “That’s a classic problem with the American health insurance system, and it’s certainly salient here.” This mismatch between what’s good for people’s health and what’s good for the corporate bottom line has long been one of the underlying flaws in the US health system. Now access to GLP-1 drugs is shrinking just as these drugs were starting to make a real dent in the US obesity crisis. The stakes couldn’t be higher. Why employer-sponsored health plans are suddenly dropping GLP-1 coverage From the beginning, insurance coverage was the big question hanging over GLP-1s and their potential to revolutionize US healthcare. But recently, it looked like we’d turned a corner. When I attended the Aspen Ideas: Health festival this summer, pharmaceutical reps seemed visibly relieved that GLP-1 coverage had been picking up among private insurers. In 2026, about two out of every three employer-sponsored plans were covering some of these drugs for weight management, up from about 20 percent just the year before. “They’re recognizing that this is an investment in their workforce,” said Laura Steele, who leads the cardiometabolic health unit at Eli Lilly, which manufactures Zepbound and Foundayo. “Yes, there is a budget, and there is a benefit design that every employer has. That’s real. That’s not going away. But they’re also recognizing the overall cost that they’re experiencing by not dealing with this too.” But as employers and private insurers make coverage decisions for next year, they are suddenly pulling back. At least 10 percent of employer plans that currently cover GLP-1s for weight loss say they are likely to discontinue coverage in 2027, according to one survey by the Business Group on Health — and that number may still increase. A Mercer survey of large employers found that 6 percent had dropped coverage in 2026 and another 5 percent were planning to in 2027 or actively considering it. A separate report from the Health Policy Commission in Massachusetts found that the number of commercially insured people in the state taking a GLP-1 drug had fallen by 50 percent between 2025 and the first quarter of 2026 as private coverage started to drop off.  Some of the biggest brands in the US are reportedly eliminating or reducing their coverage: PepsiCo, Starbucks, and Lowe’s among them. And their reasons are simple: It’s too expensive. The drugs still carry a high net price tag — $600 or more for a 30-day supply — and potential demand is high (2 in every 5 American adults have obesity).  When a lot of people start taking an expensive medication all at once, it’s going to raise costs for employer insurance plans — and they have to figure out how to adapt. Insurers set premiums at the start of each year, based on how many people are on the plan and how much healthcare they are expected to need. But if those estimates are off — say, if more people take an expensive GLP-1 drug than the insurer expected — they have to offset those costs somehow, and raising premiums the following year is a common solution. According to one estimate, premiums are projected to grow by 5 to 13 percent due to GLP-1 costs — and the burden of paying those higher premiums is likely to fall on the workers. The employer can also try to limit GLP-1 use by, for example, asking workers to pay more out of pocket for these drugs; according to Mercer, 27 percent of large US employers instituted some kind of utilization controls for GLP-1 drugs over the past year or plan to next year. They also have the option to simply stop covering these drugs for weight loss altogether — and that’s the route more and more of them are deciding to take. The abrupt reversal has even caught economists like Sacks off guard. 3 big reasons employer health plans are dropping GLP-1 coverage Employers aren’t invested in people’s long-term health: As Americans switch jobs more often, companies want to cut short-term costs. GLP-1 prices are still high, upwards of $600 per month per person for insurers. A lot of people are eligible to take them for weight loss; 2 in 5 US adults have obesity. “I was surprised that anyone would do an about-face because I thought they understood the trade-offs well,” Sacks said. “My guess is that it turned out to be more expensive than they anticipated: take-up is higher, and possibly more people are sticking with it. That’s one reason that you might not want to continue to offer it.” For employers, the short-term costs of covering a drug often outweigh the long-term benefits that medication may confer, at least from the employer’s POV. One analysis — notably produced by Blue Cross Blue Shield Kansas — concluded that covering GLP-1s for weight loss increased average employee health costs by $7,000 in the first year and another $4,200 in the second, largely due to the cost of the drugs themselves. And yet at the same time, there were no decreases in obesity-related medical events in that time period. Another study from Sacks and his colleagues at Indiana University and the University of South Carolina found that GLP-1 use did not lead to any cost savings over five years. So in the short term, these employers are arguably making an economically rational decision — but one that may still come at their employees’ expense. “I’m completely screwed,” said one person on Reddit about Cigna’s plans to drop GLP-1 coverage for their own employees. They’re looking at at least $300 for one month’s supply at cash prices.  They weren’t alone either: “I’m devastated,” said another person, commenting on Starbucks’s decision to stop covering GLP-1 drugs. They said they had an autoimmune condition that had made it difficult to lose weight — until this new class of medicines came along. Where GLP-1 coverage goes from here How could we end up here, where it makes good business sense for companies to make a decision that could potentially harm their workers’ health in the long term? It is at least in part a result of the haphazard way the US has ended up insuring people. When employer-sponsored insurance started to arise in the mid-20th century, eventually becoming the primary way to cover the working-age population, people tended to stay at the same job for a long period of time. In theory, there was a synergy: Companies wanted their workers to stay productive, and so it was worth it for the company to invest in their long-term health via their insurance benefits. And research has found that people who stay with the same company — and the same insurance plan — tend to have better health than those who switch a lot. But these days, people change jobs all the time or work various gigs to piece together an income. You probably don’t expect to stay at your job for 10 years — and your employer doesn’t expect you to either. Instead, they want to keep their own costs as low as possible in the short term. This leads them to cut GLP-1 coverage, even though doctors do believe that people could benefit tremendously long term from the weight loss these drugs help them achieve and all of its potential health benefits.  “There are very real health benefits of these drugs,” Sacks told me. “The fact that we don’t find offsets or they’re even more expensive than we thought doesn’t necessarily mean that we shouldn’t cover them.” Sign up for the Good Medicine newsletter Our political wellness landscape has shifted: new leaders, shady science, contradictory advice, broken trust, and overwhelming systems. How is anyone supposed to make sense of it all? Vox’s senior correspondent Dylan Scott has been on the health beat for a long time, and every week, he’ll wade into sticky debates, answer fair questions, and contextualize what’s happening in American healthcare policy. Sign up here. In theory, the market is supposed to fix the

YOUR NEWS, OUR NETWORK.

Do you have Great News you want to tell the world?

Be it updates about your business or your community, you can make sure that it’s heard by submitting your story to our network reaching hundreds of news sites across 6 verticals.

Central News Today

Central News Today breaks down complex issues with unique perspective, bringing high-quality journalism to millions of readers around the world.

NEWSLETTER