Prime Minister Modi revamped India’s economy with his “Make in India” initiative. (Source: LinkedIn)

Most notably, Prime Minister Modi launched the “Make in India” initiative in September 2014, showing his resolve to revamp the manufacturing industry in India. Under the initiative, domestic as well as foreign companies are encouraged to manufacture their goods in India with the goal of increasing the makeup of the manufacturing industry to 25 percent of GDP by 2025.

At the heart of the initiative is the government’s efforts to ignite the steel industry. The National Steel Policy (NSP) 2017 declared that India will become self-sufficient on domestic steel supplies by increasing its steel production capacity from 122 Mt in 2015 to 300 Mt in 2030. However, the steel industry currently only makes up 1.04 percent of the country’s GDP.

Challenges Ahead for India’s Steel Industry

Despite India’s promising potential and robust government support, the steel industry has not met the government’s high expectations and growth has been modest. According to researchers in volume 4 of the Asian Steel Watch, there are deep structural flaws within India’s steel industry that need to be addressed before the country can reach its full potential.

One of the industry’s biggest challenges is its growing debt – In 2016, the steel industry surpassed INR 3 trillion in debt. Most of the country’s steel and infrastructure projects are financed by the government. What India needs is more private sector involvement, but private players are hesitant due to complex regulations, a lack of business models and no guarantee on returns on investment (ROI). The government has also been slow to secure FDI because, over the years, India’s steel industry has displayed poor planning and management of projects as well as a mismanagement of funds.

India’s mining industry will directly affect the success of the steel industry. (Source: Pinterest)

Another major challenge has to do with India’s natural resource management, as mining companies do not have fair access to the country’s abundant resources. The mining industry is subject to heavy tax burdens including the royalty, local area development tax, forest development tax and much more as it is a profitable business for the government. Plus, the costs of meeting international environmental standards are passed directly onto mining companies. Thus, the price of iron ore and other minerals do not reflect the abundant supplies available, and the higher prices ripple into the steel industry.

Moreover, the government regards the steel industry as the backbone of India’s economy, but in reality, the times are changing.

Technological advances in the manufacturing industry is making the steel production process more efficient and less labor intensive. (Source: South China Morning Post)

In the past, 70,000 workers were required to produce 1.5 Mt of steel. Today, it takes about 3,000-4,000 workers to make 5 Mt a year. The steel industry is just not what it used to be in terms of the positive effects it had on the economy as a whole. The industry requires intensive capital and the only way it will survive is with low labor costs and maximum manpower productivity.

India needs to take full advantage of the country’s abundant resources and capitalize on its competitiveness to reach its full potential. In order to do so, India can start by examining other steel industries that served as the main driver for national economic growth, such as Korea’s.

Takeaways from Korea

After the Korean war in 1953, Korea had to build its economy up from scratch. Like India, the government chose to stimulate its steel industry and spent its war reparations payment from Japan to build POSCO’s steel mill in 1969. Since then, the state-led steelmaker has been a primary engine for Korea’s miraculous economic growth.

The construction of POSCO’s headquarters began in May 1968.

So how did Korea manage such growth?

The government allocated much of its resources to infrastructure construction for efficient logistics and implemented policies to support the mutual growth of steel and steel-consuming industries. Moreover, the government practiced protectionist trade policies long enough to get Korea’s steel business on its feet, then supported a market-driven business model.

The government also kept a close watch on supply and demand forecasts and updated its supply policies timely and accordingly. Factors such as demographic changes, industrialization patterns, urbanization and labor costs should be examined holistically to prevent the gap between supply and demand from increasing too much. For example, in 2010, the Korean government implemented capacity expansion policies that resulted in oversupply and a prolonged recession. This was because policymakers failed to diagnose the symptoms of the mid to long-term steel demand forecasts that showed sluggish demand. Since then, Korean policymakers keep close watch on such measures to update the country’s supply policies.

Finally, the Korean steel industry invested heavily in knowledge accumulation and R&D to wean off of Japan’s technical support and become an exporter of steel technology.

POSCO is now a leader in steel production technology.

Compared to Korea, India has an advantage in almost every aspect. The country’s per capita steel consumption is still low and the booming population will drive demand in steel-related industries. With much room for growth, the Indian steel industry can expect to see accelerated growth when paired with the right policies and government support.

Stephen Zoepf is the executive director at the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford University.

To kick off the forum, Stephen Zoepf, executive director at the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford University gave a presentation called “Electric Vehicles: Adapting to a Changing Marketplace” to share his insights on what future markets will look like and implications for automakers, suppliers as well as consumers.  

Here are the key takeaways.

The Future is Going to Look Very Different

According to a report by RethinkX, an independent research group, 6 trillion U.S. passenger miles will be driven in 2030, up 50 percent from 2021. Of those miles, 95 percent will be driven in self-driving, electric and shared vehicles and only 5 percent of those miles will be driven by internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

The report goes on to say that autonomous EVs (A-EV) will make up 60 percent of the U.S vehicle stock, and those vehicles will be part of a shared-mobility service. As more people start to share cars, the overall number of vehicles on U.S. roads will drop from 247 million in 2020 to 44 million in 2030.

SEE ALSO: Going Autonomous: The Transformation of the Transportation Industry

The change is already happening. In 2016, shared-mobility companies such as Uber and Lyft drove 500,000 passengers per day in New York City, which is triple the number of passengers from 2015. Today, more and more automakers like Tesla and GM are also entering the shared-mobility market.

EVs are already becoming prominent in major cities around the world. (Source: Time)

The findings illustrate a future where people drive more miles with fewer cars, which are fueled by electricity, and shared instead of owned. It’s a radical visualization of the future, but one that is driven by economic forces.

By 2021, shared vehicles will be 4 to 10 times cheaper per mile than private vehicles, and American households will save an average of USD 5600 every year by switching to shared EVs from cars fueled by gas, according to RethinkX.

Zoepf shared another report by ARK investment Management which echoes the finding above- in the next ten years, people will drive three times more kilometers using half the number of cars and the number of EVs on the road will increase 10 fold.

What It Means for Car Manufacturers and Suppliers

A shrinking vehicle fleet consisting of mostly EVs can only mean one thing: a major disruption to the current automotive market.  

Right now, the average lifecycle of a car in the U.S. is 11 years. However, the majority of a car’s total mileage is driven in its early years. It’s the same for shared vehicles, but they are driven about 80,000- 90,000 km per year, 10 times the distance of privately-owned cars. What this shows is a compression of the vehicle lifespan in its first 3 to 4 years.

These statistics pose critical concerns for automakers.

Will overall vehicle sales decrease in the coming future? According to Zoepf, that’s the wrong question to ask. Instead, automakers should be asking “will I make money?” Automakers have a couple of choices. They can either adapt early on and manufacture EVs and/or A-EVs at a competitive price, or become a shared-mobility provider. Early movers such as Tesla, GM and Volvo are already shifting their business strategies to fit these models.

GM recently launched Maven, a car-sharing service. (Source: The Verge)

Another question to ask is how these trends will affect vehicle design. With shortened vehicle life-cycles, manufacturers can either design cars to last only 3 to 4 years for quick replacements, or opt for the aviation model where the vehicle will be built to last, but the interior parts, such as seats, will be replaced frequently. Whatever route manufactures choose to take, gaining a competitive edge in vehicle and service quality early on will be key.

What Will This Mean for Vehicle Material Suppliers?

If building cars to last is no longer a primary priority, will car makers downgrade their materials? The short answer is not a chance.

Through a customer survey study Zoepf conducted of 60,000 Zipcar customers, he showed that the number one factor when choosing a car is safety. However, there is no one, ideal model or type of car that is preferred in a shared mobility framework. The purpose of the trip determines the type of vehicle, and the success of a shared mobility service provider will depend on the variety of cars it can provide – all with competitive safety ratings.

POSCO ICT already has ChargEV stations set up across Korea. (Source: POSCO ICT)

The supplier’s role will be to continue providing high-quality materials that can boost the safety and cost competitiveness of future vehicles. Steel suppliers have to keep developing lightweight and high-strength steels like POSCO GIGA STEEL, and research new materials that can boost the competitiveness of EVs such as POSCO’s Hyper NO for motor cores, battery materials and POSCO ICT’s EV charging service and infrastructure.

There remain numerous challenges that lie ahead for a greener and safer future with EVs and A-EVs, and it might take longer than experts predict for lawmakers, corporations and consumers to all agree on an optimal mobility model. However, change is already underway and automakers and suppliers alike need to strategize and adapt early on to take advantage of the upcoming opportunities.

For more information on how advanced automotive steel can benefit automakers looking for lightweight and sustainable steel solutions, take a look at our infographic on POSCO GIGA STEEL or read the full report here. 

Cover photo courtesy of GOV.UK.