An analysis of the supply chain dynamics of 2021 in global shipping and its impact on logistics, gives a view on how prices are likely to unfold in the upcoming year.
An analysis of the supply chain dynamics of 2021 in global shipping and its impact on logistics, gives a view on how prices are likely to unfold in the upcoming year.
As the year 2021 is coming to its close (at the time of writing there is still a month to go), the S&P 500 or the Dow Jones Index is slated for a YTD projected growth close of 14 per cent, which never could have been estimated at the beginning of the year, given the mix of dampeners, starting from the progress of the Delta variant, followed by the supply chain disruptions taking the commodities and goods in circulation to the stratosphere in terms of prices. The balancing forces of vaccine dosage in the majority of the developed world, including major economies such as China, India and the major part of the developing world outside of Africa, did a commendable job of vaccine administration that dampened the progress of the virus and thus the economic impact could be tempered.
The joker in the pack however is the impact of the supply chain disruptions that continued throughout 2021 and the tip of the iceberg seems to be the global shipping puzzle that has taken the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index to the hilt (almost three times the value at the beginning of pandemic) together with Baltic Dry Index as well. The challenge is that both these seem to be staying at high levels despite a bunch of the other indices tapering off.
Running a tight ship
The global shipping puzzle needs to be deciphered, if one has to understand the future trajectory of commodity prices, which could well influence the movement of prices of intermediate goods and final goods, well into 2022.
It all started with a sharp drop in trade and global flows from systemic demand and supply shocks have several levels of supply chain disruptions to be understood.
The first line is the disruption from commodity to semi-finished goods and finished goods through assembly and manufacturing processes and from there through the distribution network to the end markets that stemmed from simple storage. Here, there are typically three dislocation points that are supposed to act as buffers, commodity storage, warehousing of finished goods and finally the storage points at the distribution centers. All the three buffers move through the push-pull global systems and keep on adjusting to the new information, flow of physical goods, absence of flow, flow of capital and labour as well.
The second line of flow is the transportation leg itself. Here the starting point is bulk shipping, moving to unit shipping and finally to flows into urban centers of consumption (last mile). The bulk shipping size change in parcels creates havoc to this flow to the final consumption point through cascades that impact storage and distribution principles in the first line.
Demand-supply correlative
The last line is also to see the supply shock, demand shock and distribution constraints fully blown up into the disruption ambit through some discernible patterns coming from the pandemic itself:
Supply shock: Lack of raw material at the right time, lack of parts at the right time and lack of manpower at the right time
Demand shock: Rise of hoarding, drop in demand and proliferation of substitution
Distribution constraints: Trade regulations, lack of workforce, closing and opening of facilities, varying speed of execution
The first fallout of these three is the rise of the bullwhip effect across the length and breadth of the chain.
The retailers continued to tune their order patterns to every discernible signal, the supply side response kept on changing in varying degrees based on changing capabilities to serve. All sides had varying degrees of access to financing; the might of financing by large retailers pulled in is proportionate volumes to their advantage, raising empties at various dislocation points.
Size matters
All this time the shipping lines and the port handling facilities acted fast to respond to the shock. The experience of the 2008 crisis had helped to decipher the puzzle – consolidation of shipping line capacity, together with the Port handling capacity, was crucial for survival.
Even if you think of those top ports that carry more than 10 million TEUs, the ship size increase has been of the order of 25 per cent. This massification of ships is at the root of the shipping mismatch problem.
A large ship that carries more containers has many advantages, mostly related to costs, but it comes with accompanying challenges of asynchronism, as parcels have to aggregated and dis-aggregated on both sides, the port handling facility has to be augmented, land parcel logistics has to be tied, many intermediaries have to be integrated together with the informational aspects; not all of this can adjust to a much larger batch size of container-shipment. If flows increase to large bulk terminals with only bulk ships and no feeder traffic, the hub and spoke model could intensify in certain directions influencing global flows as well.
However, more interestingly the Covid-19 disruption has shown some very interesting facts how the carrier consolidation, together with Port Handling Assets consolidation created a giant consortium that facilitated larger parcel volume, pushing the logistics disruption to a singular direction of un-ending asynchronism.
Advantage technology
Any dislocation in global trade, stemming from a recession in the past, has seen a somewhat much lower level of coordination among the carrier and port handling asset space. Take the 2007-08 global crisis and not even 15 per cent of the total container shipping space was controlled by the top 10 carriers. The Port Terminal handling consolidation is also not to be lost sight of; 41 per cent was held by the top 10, to 74 per cent now.
The crisis created a bloodshed of sorts as smaller carriers-terminal handling operators could not cope up with the challenges and either declared bankruptcy or were forced into consolidation space through acquisitions. The culmination of this is seen in the late 2020 picture of shipping carrier space, together with Port Terminal Handling assets, when 90 per cent of container volume is consolidated in the strongholds of the top 10 carriers. But consolidation alone is not the only point, the real breakthrough came from technology absorption that allowed sharing of containers among the carriers to fill up larger ships.
Larger ships have the unique advantage of not only higher fixed cost absorption, it also saves on fuel as the speed reduction gives further gains. Think of a single container picked up from mainland China and is moved to the port of Shanghai and is moved through a 22,000 container vessel to Los Angeles, the logistics cost of this movement will be 40 per cent lower just from the massification and speed advantage. If carriers consolidate, together with port handling asset consolidation, the pass through of these costs to the price that retailers have to pay cannot be arrested.
Much of what is blamed on supply chain disruption is actually a combined effect of this phenomenon driven by consolidation at a massive scale, together with massification of container and shipping parcel per ship.
The year 2022 will continue to see these influences impacting prices as logistics cost will stay high in the foreseeable future.
Indian Cement Review (ICR) and Fuller Technologies brought industry, policy and technology leaders together to discuss how cement innovation can drive green construction at scale, writes Rakesh Rao.
India is building at a pace few countries can match. Highways, airports, housing, logistics parks, industrial corridors and urban infrastructure are reshaping the country’s economic geography. But beneath this growth story lies a difficult question: can India continue to build at scale without locking itself into a high-carbon future?
That question formed the core of an online panel discussion titled “Driving Green Construction Through Cement Innovation”, organised by Indian Cement Review (ICR) in association with Fuller Technologies as the Presenting Partner on June 25, 2026. The webinar brought together experts from cement technology, R&D, global industry platforms, building performance policy and international development cooperation to examine how low-carbon cement and material innovation can accelerate India’s green construction transition.
The discussion came at a crucial time. India has committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2070 and reducing the carbon intensity of its economy by 45 per cent by 2030. At the same time, the country’s construction sector is expanding rapidly, driven by urbanisation, infrastructure development, housing demand and industrial growth. Cement, as one of the most widely used construction materials, sits at the heart of this transition. It is indispensable to development, but also central to the challenge of reducing embodied carbon in buildings and infrastructure.
Moderated by Nitika Krishan, Senior Urban Infrastructure and Sustainable Policy Consultant, the panel featured:
Dr Hemantkumar Aiyer, VP and Head R&D, Nuvoco Vistas Corp Ltd;
Devika Wattal, Innovation Lead, Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA);
Dr Sunita Purushottam, MD, GBPN India (Global Buildings Performance Network); and
Vaibhav Rathi, Senior Technical Advisor, GIZ (the German Agency for International Cooperation)
Setting the tone for the discussion, Nitika Krishan underlined the scale of the challenge before the sector. “The question before us is no longer whether we build, but how we build sustainably,” she said. She pointed out that construction accounts for nearly 40 per cent of global energy-related carbon emissions when both operational and embodied carbon are considered. Cement production, she added, remains one of the hardest industrial processes to decarbonise.
For India, this is not merely an environmental issue. It is a development issue, a competitiveness issue and increasingly, a market issue. As one of the world’s largest cement producers and among the fastest-growing construction markets, India’s material choices will influence the carbon trajectory of its built environment for decades. As Krishan observed, sustainability solutions in economies such as India must not remain limited to laboratory success. They must be scalable, commercially viable and practical at national level.
The innovation gap: From technology to market
Experts believe that there is a need to bridge the innovation gaps for making decarbonisation in cement and concrete scalable. Devika Wattal of GCCA, explained, “The starting point must be the core cement manufacturing process itself. The first and foremost is the heart of our process, the heart of cement manufacturing. How do we reduce clinker? That is always a topic where industry is working very intrinsically.”
Clinker reduction remains one of the most important pathways for lowering emissions in cement. Since clinker production is energy-intensive and chemically emits carbon dioxide, reducing the clinker factor through supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), blended cements and new chemistries can have a significant impact. Wattal also noted that carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) will have a role, though it may not be the first lever for all markets.
However, she stressed that innovation cannot stop at technology development. A solution that works in the lab must also be adaptable to industry, scalable in production and acceptable in construction practice. “It is important for that innovation to be adaptable, to be scalable, and so that it can be executed in real time,” she said.
Wattal also called for stronger enabling systems around innovation. These include performance-based standards, product-level embodied carbon databases and clearer frameworks for evaluating green materials. Without these, low-carbon cement products may struggle to compete with conventional materials in procurement and design.
R&D must balance carbon, cost and performance
Bringing in the R&D perspective into the discussion, Dr Hemantkumar Aiyer of Nuvoco Vistas emphasised that low-carbon cement development cannot be treated as a single-variable exercise. Cement must perform in real construction conditions. It must deliver strength, durability, consistency and cost competitiveness, while also reducing carbon.
“The root of understanding and balancing all these aspects lies in materials, and knowing the materials,” he said.
According to Dr Aiyer, R&D teams must understand the variability of raw materials such as fly ash, slag and clinker. Different sources produce different material behaviours. This makes mix optimisation, material characterisation and processing-property relationships critical. When performance is affected, cement manufacturers must understand how strength enhancers, admixtures and other performance chemicals interact with the material system.
He also linked material science with process efficiency. Clinkerisation takes place at extremely high temperatures, around 1,400 to 1,450 degrees Celsius. Any improvement in raw mix design, process control or energy optimisation can, therefore, help reduce emissions and cost. Dr Aiyer pointed to artificial intelligence-based optimisation, Cement 4.0 tools and advanced software as important enablers for real-time process and material control.
“The more you understand the materials, the more you can control it,” he said.
LC3: The promise is proven, the sequencing is not
Limestone calcined clay cement, commonly referred to as LC3, has attracted global attention because it can reduce clinker content significantly by using calcined clay and limestone while maintaining performance in many applications. Kiranmai Sanagavarapu of Fuller Technologies said the technology itself has already moved beyond proof of concept. Fuller Technologies has worked with calcined clay technology for nearly two decades and has seen plants running in France and Ghana. These plants, she said, are meeting local and national specifications, while the economics are beginning to make sense.
“The calciner is performing, the economics is stacking up, it is making business sense to produce,” she said.
But if the technology is viable, why has adoption not scaled faster? For Sanagavarapu, the answer lies in project sequencing. Too often, clay characterisation happens after equipment is specified. This, she warned, is a backward approach because calciner design depends on clay mineralogy, kaolinite content, iron levels, reactivity, moisture and other variables.
“If you don’t know what your deposit looks like before you commit for the equipment, you are, in a way, going blind into designing,” she said.
She also identified permitting and plant integration as major bottlenecks. Environmental clearances, mining permissions and local regulatory approvals must begin early. Similarly, calcined clay must be integrated into existing grinding, blending and logistics systems from the design stage, not treated as an afterthought during commissioning.
India already has IS 18189:2023 standard for LC3, but Sanagavarapu pointed out that the standard is not yet visible enough in procurement documents. “The gap between what is technically being permitted and what the procurement is asking is the single biggest bottleneck,” she said.
In her view, successful scale-up depends on getting the sequence right: clay characterisation first, permitting in parallel, standards aligned with construction, and integration built into plant design.
India’s LC3 journey: Progress, but demand remains thin
Providing details of India’s LC3 commercialisation experience, Vaibhav Rathi of GIZ noted that JK Cement carried out the first commercial production of LC3 at its Rajasthan plant, followed by JK Lakshmi Cement three months later. These initiatives were supported by the International Climate Initiative of the Government of Germany, with IIT Delhi contributing deep institutional knowledge on LC3 research and BIS certification.
Rathi said India’s early experience has produced clear lessons. One of the biggest was the need to build capacity among regulators. While BIS certification existed, State Pollution Control Boards were unfamiliar with the technology and unsure about the approval pathway.
“The capacity building is not just needed amongst the producer and the users of the cement, but also the regulators who are working with this technology for the first time,” he said.
He also highlighted the need for better information on China clay deposits. Since China clay is currently classified as a minor mineral, centralised data on availability, quality and location is limited. If cement manufacturers are to adopt LC3 at scale, stronger mineral intelligence will be important.
The third issue is demand. LC3 has already been used in projects such as Palava City in Mumbai and Noida International Airport, but these remain limited examples. “It is in a chicken and egg situation,” Rathi said. “Cement companies are saying we need more demand, and users are saying there is not enough cement available.”
Public procurement, he suggested, could help break this cycle. If agencies such as CPWD and other public bodies begin testing, accepting and specifying LC3, it could create the market confidence needed for cement companies to invest in production and storage.
Building codes must catch up with innovation
Dr Sunita Purushottam of GBPN India argued that material choices will determine built environment emissions over the long term, but India’s current policy signals remain fragmented. Although LC3 has received BIS recognition, she pointed out that building codes, municipal bylaws, schedules of rates and sustainability codes do not yet provide uniform guidance on low-carbon cement.
“The current cement regulations are largely prescriptive and favouring traditional materials,” she said. This limits the ability of alternative materials to compete on performance, durability and emissions.
Dr Purushottam also raised the issue of taxation. Cement, including LC3, currently falls under the same GST bracket as conventional cement. A differentiated tax structure, she argued, could help accelerate market adoption. “In order for the market to demand LC3, that differentiation in the GST could go a long way,” she said.
She noted that green building certifications such as IGBC and GRIHA are already creating demand for low-carbon materials by assigning points for embodied carbon and sustainable material use. However, she said large-scale adoption will require regulatory mandates, particularly through building codes and state-level notifications.
She also cautioned that low-carbon cement alone does not solve the entire building performance problem. A material may reduce embodied carbon, but the operational carbon of a building depends on thermal performance, design, insulation and energy use. “The energy part has two elements,” she said. “One is the embodied carbon of the material itself, and the other is the operational carbon.”
Collaboration is the bridge between invention and impact
Wattal said GCCA sees innovation as a strategic priority and works through platforms that connect industry with academia and start-ups. “There is no way we will decarbonise our sector without innovation,” she said.
However, she stressed that research must be connected to actual industry challenges. Innovations developed in isolation may fail when they encounter real-world barriers such as raw material variability, plant integration, cost, standards and finance. Start-ups, too, need industry mentorship and scale-up pathways.
Wattal also flagged the importance of finance. Even strong technologies may struggle to attract investment if there is no common understanding of bankability. “We have always put projects into, is this a bankable project? But the definition of a bankable project has never been defined,” she said.
For India, she saw strong potential in its academic and start-up ecosystem, but said the challenge lies in alignment and prioritisation. The country has the research base, industrial capacity and market size. What it now needs is a coordinated route from innovation to deployment.
There is a practical concern for cement manufacturers: how can existing plants be adapted for lower emissions without compromising reliability or commercial viability?
Kiranmai Sanagavarapu addressed, “The reliability risk in calcined clay retrofit is definitely real, but it is almost always self-inflicted. The risk arises when a new process is added to an existing circuit without properly redesigning grinding and blending configurations.”
Existing cement plants, she explained, can take two broad routes. The first is external sourcing of calcined clay combined with mill optimisation. This requires lower capital investment and can potentially move in 12 to 18 months if other conditions are in place. It may reduce emissions by around 20 to 30 per cent. The second route is integrated calcination on site, which requires higher capital expenditure and longer lead times, but provides greater control over quality, supply and emissions reduction potential.
For Sanagavarapu, the principle is simple: low-carbon retrofits must be designed with intent. “Design it with an intent properly from the start. Start in the market conditions where the economics are already working,” she said.
Circularity: The overlooked advantage
According to Vaibhav Rathi, fly ash and slag are already well established in cement and construction (C&D), but construction and demolition waste remains underutilised. “C&D waste is a growing business opportunity which not many have taken up,” he said. India’s continuous construction and demolition activity creates huge volumes of waste, much of which contributes to air pollution, land degradation and material inefficiency. With the right processing and standards, this waste can be converted into useful construction products.
Rathi also pointed out that LC3 has a circular economy dimension that is often overlooked. It can use low-grade kaolin-rich clay left behind after high-grade clay is extracted for other applications. “LC3 is not only a low-carbon solution, but also a circular economy solution,” he said.
At the same time, he cautioned that LC3 in India is not yet cheap because it has not reached scale. Site-specific techno-commercial feasibility studies, supported jointly by development agencies and industry, could help companies assess whether LC3 production makes technical and financial sense at a given location.
Dr Purushottam added that India must address both low-carbon cement and construction waste together. “Both low-carbon cement and C&D waste go hand in hand. India does not have an option but to work on both,” she said.
Dr Aiyer called for policy shifts from both government and industry, including preferential purchasing of sustainable materials, minimum supplementary cementitious material requirements in public and public-private projects, and faster regulatory implementation. “If we can fast-track the regulatory standards and their implementation on the ground, that is the way to go,” he said.
From green ambition to green construction
Cement innovation is no longer only about chemistry. It is about systems. Low-carbon cement will scale only when technology, standards, procurement, finance, regulation, education and construction practice move together.
LC3 and other low-carbon technologies have shown promise. India has early commercial examples, strong research capability and growing market interest. But mainstream adoption will depend on whether demand can be created, regulators can be capacitated, standards can be embedded in procurement, and manufacturers can see a clear business case.
For a country building at India’s scale, the opportunity is enormous. Cement will continue to be central to infrastructure and urban development. The challenge now is to ensure that the cement used in India’s growth story carries a lower carbon burden.
Rakesh Rao
Participate in Cement Expo 2026 and discover how next-gen infrastructure can be built with innovations in cement.
JK Cement gained after being declared preferred bidder for the Gilund Limestone Block in Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, a lease area of 370.96 hectares. The firm saw its shares trade at Rs. 5550.05, up by 28.45 points or 0.52 per cent from the previous close of Rs. 5521.60 on the BSE. The scrip opened at Rs. 5569.15 and touched a high of Rs. 5625.00 and a low of Rs. 5531.00.
The stock recorded turnover of 1742 shares on the counter and the BSE group A stock with face value Rs. 10 has a 52 week high of Rs. 7565.00 on 20-Aug-2025 and a 52 week low of Rs. 4670.05 on 12-Jun-2026. Last one week high and low stood at Rs. 5625.00 and Rs. 5329.00 respectively. The promoters holding in the company stood at 45.66 per cent, while institutions and non-institutions held 40.61 per cent and 13.73 per cent respectively.
The e-auction conducted by the Government of Rajasthan resulted in the company being declared preferred bidder for the mining lease, and the allocation will enable the company to plan phased development of the deposit, subject to regulatory approvals. The Gilund block spans 370.96 hectares and its allocation is intended to support raw material security for the company’s cement operations in the region. The designation follows the government auction process and will allow the company to plan development and integration of the deposit into its supply chain.
The current market capitalisation stands at Rs. 430.38 billion (bn), reflecting market response to the mining news and prevailing valuation levels for the sector. Investors and analysts will watch for formal allotment and related disclosures that can clarify timelines, capital expenditure and expected production profiles. The report is intended for informational purposes and does not constitute investment advice, and market participants are advised to consult advisers before making decisions.
Star Cement has been declared the preferred bidder for the mining lease for Boro Lakhindong West Block following e-auctions conducted by the Government of Assam. The block is located in Boro Lakhindong Village, Umrangso Tehsil, Dima Hasao District, Assam, and extends over an area of 123 hectares. The estimated limestone resource is 207.822 million (mn) tonnes (t), a quantity that will supply raw material for cement production and support the company’s manufacturing operations in the region.
The company is engaged in the manufacturing and selling of cement clinker and cement and distributes products across the north-eastern and eastern states of India. Star Cement operates plants and logistics networks that procure and process limestone to produce clinker for cement, and the addition of Boro Lakhindong is presented as a strategic enhancement of feedstock availability. The preferred bidder status secures rights to the specified lease area under the terms of the auction process.
Financial results for the company in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2026 showed a consolidated net profit rise of 20.24 per cent to Rs 1,481.0 mn on an 11.54 per cent increase in revenue to Rs 11,735.5 mn compared with the corresponding quarter of the previous year. Those results reflected higher sales volumes and revenue growth in the company’s primary markets and are cited in company disclosures accompanying the lease announcement. The reported performance provides context to the company’s ability to pursue and finance new mining lease opportunities.
Market reaction to the declaration was modest, with the scrip rising zero point thirty six per cent to trade at Rs 212 on the BSE. The award of the Boro Lakhindong lease concludes the e-auction process for the west block and assigns operational rights to Star Cement as the preferred bidder, subject to completion of statutory and contractual formalities.
