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.

The U-Shaped Relationship

However, the argument is not so black and white according to Spyridon Stavropoulos, Ronald Wall and Yuanze Xu’s Environmental regulations and industrial competitiveness: evidence from China. The study suggests that the relationship between stringent economic regulations and industrial (or economic) competitiveness is U-shaped. Meaning, initially, stringent regulations will increase the cost of production and make companies less profitable, but after a certain turning point, companies will be forced to adapt and innovate, thus becoming more competitive in the long run.

Many activists sit on both sides of the debate. (Source: Ethical Shopper)

When regulation policies are consistent over a long period of time, companies are forced to tackle the root of the problem, instead of focusing on meeting certain numbers. In today’s global economy, many governments have already begun to implement stringent economic regulations that only look to get tighter in the future. In such a context, companies that choose to innovate and come up with solutions to global pollution problems will come out more competitive in the end.

Sustainability Equals Competitiveness

Looking at major economic players around the world, it’s safe to say that environmental sustainability is a common topic on each of their respective national agendas. Pressing national challenges are tied to the environment in one way or another. For example, many countries are shifting their policies to ensure energy security. Countries that import most of their energy from external regions are subject to volatile prices and thus unstable economies. Thus, governments are actively supporting companies that can cultivate domestic, renewable energy sources. Another, more obvious, example is the direct link between pollution and health risks.

China is the fastest developing country in the world, and by 2035, it will be responsible for 28 percent of the total global energy demand. China also happens to be almost completely dependent on energy imports. Subsequently, the government has started a variety of government programs to boost sustainability as part of President Xi Jinping’s pledge to build a “Beautiful China”. These policies also come in the wake of shocking statistics: in 2015, pollution led to 1.8 million premature deaths in China.

Chinese President Xi Jinping laid out a 2-step plan to achieve a “Beautiful China.” (Source: News Gru)

Sustainable Steelmaker

Even with strong government commitment and plenty of programs to support sustainable business, most developing countries lack affordable renewable energy sources and the technology to apply those sources to existing production processes. Nevertheless, the world is changing and only those that adapt and innovate survive and thrive. That’s exactly what POSCO did starting back in 2007.

FINEX: A Game Changer

POSCO came up with a new molten iron production technology called FINEX. The technology allows molten iron and non-coking coal to be produced directly in a blast furnace during the iron-making process. It is different from the conventional blast furnace process, as it combines the coking plant, sinter plant and blast furnace into a single iron-making unit. This lowers production costs and reduces harmful emissions.

FINEX is a sustainable game-changer for steel production.

Ultimately, FINEX is one of the most cost-effective and eco-friendly ways to make steel. The technology mitigates the use of C02, has the lowest process-related emission rates and preserves resources through the use of a wide range of iron ores and non-coking coals. FINEX reduces SOx and NOx emissions by 40 and 15 percent respectively, and fine dust particles can be reduced by 34 percent compared to traditional blast furnaces. Furthermore, the by-products from the process generate highly valuable export gas that can be used for various purposes like electric power generation or natural gas substitution.

On December 7, 2017, POSCO reached 20 million cumulative tons of molten iron production using the FINEX technology. POSCO is not the only company enjoying the benefits of sustainable competitiveness – POSCO’s manufacturing partners can see lower emissions levels when evaluating the entire life cycle of their products.

SEE ALSO: POSCO Reaches 20 Million Tons of Production Using FINEX Technology

Sustainability is no longer just jargon. As environmental issues are intricately tied to the economy and even national security, governments around the world will be actively supporting sustainable companies in the years to come. Companies can expect sustainability and competitiveness to become interchangeable terms in the near future.