Economy & Market

Building Safety from the Ground Up

Published

1 year ago

August 5, 2025

admin

ICR explores how safety in the cement industry is evolving from a regulatory obligation to a strategic priority—driven by PPE compliance, digital tools, contractor management, and a safety-first mindset. Through a mix of technology, training, and behavioural change, Indian cement companies are laying the foundation for safer, more resilient workplaces.

The cement industry operates in one of the most high-risk industrial environments, where workers face extreme temperatures, high dust levels, heavy machinery, and hazardous materials. From quarrying to pyro-processing and dispatch, nearly every stage carries the potential for serious injury if not managed properly. According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), over 2.3?million people die annually from work-related accidents or diseases worldwide, with cement manufacturing a notable contributor. In India, the Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes (DGFASLI) recorded over 3,000 industrial accidents in 2022, many linked to heavy-material industries like cement. Common plant hazards include mechanical failures, falls from height, electrical risks, chemical exposure, and fire or explosion threats. The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) reports that falls, machinery entanglement, and contractor-related incidents remain leading causes of fatalities globally.
Safety in cement is far more than compliance—it is a foundation of operational excellence, corporate responsibility, and worker dignity. Investment in safety equipment, training, and systems delivers measurable business value, from higher workforce retention to reduced downtime and stronger stakeholder trust. A 2021 International Finance Corporation (IFC) study found that companies with robust Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) frameworks had 10 to 15 per cent fewer shutdowns and up to 20 per cent higher productivity. In a capital-intensive sector with tight margins, a proactive safety culture is not a cost but a strategic asset.

Common hazards in cement manufacturing
Cement manufacturing is a complex, multi-stage process involving raw material extraction, grinding, pyroprocessing, cooling, and packaging—each phase bringing its own set of safety challenges. Workers in cement plants are routinely exposed to high levels of dust, heat, noise, mechanical hazards, heights, confined spaces, and chemical agents. For instance, dust from raw materials like limestone and clinker contains respirable crystalline silica, which can cause silicosis and other long-term respiratory issues if inhaled without proper protection. According to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), workers in dusty industrial environments are 3–5 times more likely to develop occupational lung diseases compared to other sectors.
Heat and noise exposure are especially acute in areas like kilns, clinker coolers, and grinding units, where operational temperatures can exceed 1400°C and ambient noise levels often surpass 90 decibels—well above the occupational exposure limits set by the Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes (DGFASLI). Extended exposure to such conditions without proper personal protective equipment (PPE) can lead to heatstroke, permanent hearing damage, and fatigue-induced errors, which increase the likelihood of accidents. A study published in the Journal of Occupational Health in 2022 noted that nearly 40 per cent of surveyed cement plant workers experienced early signs of noise-induced hearing loss, highlighting the urgent need for auditory protection and environmental noise control.
Raju Ramchandran, SVP and Head Manufacturing – Eastern Region, Nuvoco Vistas, says, “Cement manufacturing is an intense, high-temperature and operation-heavy process, where safety is paramount at every stage. Mining operations within the industry bring their own set of hazards, with strict adherence to Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS) guidelines being essential. Exposure to dust is another area of concern, necessitating advanced dust suppression systems and protective equipment to safeguard workers’ health. Electrical safety and proper energy isolation are also crucial, given the complexity of the equipment involved. At Nuvoco, we tackle these risks with a layered approach combining engineering controls, digital monitoring and rigorous safety protocols backed by continuous training and regular mock drills to ensure preparedness for any eventuality. Safety is an unwavering commitment to safeguarding everyone who works in and around our plants.”
Another major concern lies in working at heights, especially during equipment maintenance or installation of vertical structures such as preheaters and silos. Falls remain a leading cause of fatalities in the global cement industry, according to the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA). In addition, confined spaces such as kilns, storage tanks, and maintenance tunnels pose serious risks due to restricted movement, poor ventilation, and the presence of toxic gases like CO2 or CO. Exposure to chemical hazards from fuel oils, lubricants, and additives like chromium compounds also calls for robust hazard communication and protective measures. The multifaceted nature of these risks underlines why safety in cement manufacturing must go beyond compliance—it requires a continuous commitment to hazard identification, mitigation, and a culture of proactive risk management.

Role of personal protective equipment
In the high-risk environment of cement manufacturing, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) plays a frontline role in safeguarding workers from a wide range of occupational hazards. From exposure to high temperatures and airborne particulate matter to mechanical injuries and chemical contact, the need for comprehensive, head-to-toe protection is non-negotiable. Standard PPE in cement plants typically includes hard hats, earplugs, respirators, safety goggles, flame-resistant clothing, cut-resistant gloves, and safety shoes compliant with IS 15298 or EN ISO 20345 standards. According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), proper use of PPE can reduce workplace injury and illness by up to 40 per cent, yet studies by India’s Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes (DGFASLI) reveal that lack of proper PPE usage or ill-fitting gear continues to be a common root cause in many reported incidents in industrial settings.
Anuj Kumar Mathur, Industry Expert and Retd. DGM – Safety, Health and Environment, Indian Oil Corporation, explains that the cement manufacturing process involves exposure to a wide range of occupational hazards including dust, noise, high temperatures, mechanical injuries and chemical exposure. The use of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is essential for safeguarding workers’ health and safety at every stage. PPE, however, serves as the last line of defence against occupational hazards in any industry. While engineering controls and administrative measures are essential, the proper selection, use, and maintenance of PPE can significantly reduce the risk of injury and illness.
Equally important is ensuring that PPE is not just available but also compliant with national and international safety norms. Indian Standards such as IS 2925 for helmets, IS 8519 for gloves, and IS 11226 for respiratory protection provide specific performance benchmarks tailored for heavy industries. In many leading cement plants, regular audits are now conducted to check PPE condition, fit, and user compliance. A recent report by the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) highlights that cement companies with strong PPE monitoring programs report significantly fewer recordable injuries per million man-hours. However, the challenge remains in ensuring contractor-level compliance, as outsourced workers often fall outside direct control systems. Bridging this gap through robust training, fit testing, and digital PPE tracking systems is becoming an industry best practice—and a critical component of building a truly safe and resilient cement workforce.

Fire safety in cement plants
Fire safety is a critical yet often underemphasised aspect of cement plant operations. The combination of high-temperature processes, combustible materials, heavy electrical loads, and complex machinery creates multiple ignition points across production and storage areas. Key fire risks in cement manufacturing include overheated bearings, short circuits, flammable oils and fuels, coal dust in mills, and welding or hot work activities during maintenance. According to a 2023 report by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), industrial fires caused an estimated $1.2 billion in direct property damage globally, with cement and mineral plants accounting for a significant share of incidents in developing economies. In India, several fire-related accidents in the cement sector have drawn attention to the urgent need for advanced fire suppression systems, periodic fire safety audits, and better-trained emergency response teams.
Priya Ajbani, Founder, Firescue, says, “High-risk industrial environments demand products that can perform under pressure literally and figuratively. In such cases, we focus on supplying robust, industrial-grade fire extinguishers, flexible sprinkler hose droppers that can be easily installed around tricky ductwork or high ceilings, and high-capacity hose reels with quality nozzles that ensure water pressure isn’t compromised. The key is to offer certified, tested equipment that meets international standards and lasts long despite heat, dust, and vibration- conditions that are typical in cement plants. At the end of the day, a good product doesn’t just save lives- it simplifies the fire safety process for the people who operate it on the ground.”
Modern fire safety in cement plants now goes beyond extinguishers and hose reels. Plants are increasingly deploying automatic fire detection and suppression systems, such as foam-based suppression in fuel storage areas, water mist systems for electrical rooms, and tube-based fire suppression for enclosed equipment like panels and conveyor belts. Fire audits, mandated under the Factories Act, 1948 and National Building Code (NBC), are conducted at regular intervals to assess readiness, check compliance, and recommend corrective actions. Additionally, leading cement manufacturers are investing in IoT-enabled hydrant systems and mobile-based emergency notification tools to improve incident response time. A 2022 study by the Indian Institute of Fire Engineers (IIFE) revealed that plants with digital fire safety systems experienced 35 per cent faster emergency response and 25 per cent lower downtime after fire-related events. As the sector moves toward more automated and sustainable operations, embedding robust fire safety frameworks remains a non-negotiable pillar for risk mitigation and operational resilience.

Automation and digital tools enhancing safety
As the cement industry embraces Industry 4.0, automation and digitalisation are playing a transformative role not only in improving operational efficiency but also in elevating workplace safety standards. Traditional safety practices are being augmented—and in many cases replaced—by intelligent systems such as Permit-to-Work (PTW) software, IoT-based monitoring, Behaviour-Based Safety (BBS) platforms, and real-time safety dashboards. These tools offer real-time visibility into safety compliance, worker behavior, equipment health, and hazardous conditions—enabling faster, more informed decision-making. According to a 2022 report by McKinsey & Company, industries implementing digital safety tools saw a 25 to 40 per cent reduction in recordable incidents, thanks to improved monitoring, predictive analytics, and timely intervention.
Ganesh W Jirkuntwar, Senior Executive Director and National Manufacturing Head, Dalmia Cement (Bharat), says, “At Dalmia, safety is embedded into daily work, not treated as a separate task. Integrating safety into day-to-day operations is critical to its sustainability. Every morning begins with structured toolbox talks mandatorily attended by all workforce and ‘Suraksha Vartalaps’, where teams collectively identify job-specific risks. Across units, daily safety reviews are held as part of the operations rhythm, with real-time data and feedback feeding directly into corrective actions.”
“Digital tools like the ‘KAVACH’ and ‘Boots on Ground’ platform allow supervisors to log observations, track unsafe conditions and monitor action closures with location-tagged evidence. The Permit to Work (PTW) system is fully digitised, ensuring consistent protocols and visibility for all critical jobs. These practices ensure safety is not a standalone agenda, but rather, an integral part of the operating DNA” he adds.
In the context of cement plants, these tools are particularly valuable given the scale, complexity, and inherent risks of operations. IoT sensors installed on kilns, conveyors, and high-risk zones can track temperature spikes, gas leaks, or unauthorised access to restricted areas. PTW systems ensure that only trained personnel perform critical tasks like confined space entry or hot work, reducing human error. Behaviour-Based Safety platforms use data analytics to identify unsafe acts and reinforce positive habits through coaching and alerts. Meanwhile, centralised safety dashboards provide plant managers with real-time alerts, compliance reports, and actionable insights—enabling them to proactively manage risk across multiple sites. A case study from Dalmia Cement revealed that the integration of mobile-based PTW and IoT-linked hydrant systems led to a 30 per cent improvement in emergency response time and a measurable drop in near-miss incidents. The message is clear: digital tools are no longer optional add-ons—they are now integral to building safer, smarter, and more accountable cement operations.

Training and behaviour-based safety
While equipment and protocols are essential, the foundation of any truly safe cement plant lies in the behaviour and preparedness of its workforce. Training and Behaviour-Based Safety (BBS) programs are now recognised as critical components in reducing accidents, empowering employees, and fostering a proactive safety culture. Cement plants are increasingly investing in structured skill development initiatives—ranging from Emergency Response Training (ERT) and safe equipment handling to hazard identification and near-miss reporting. According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), nearly 80 per cent of workplace incidents globally are caused by unsafe behaviours rather than unsafe conditions—highlighting the need for consistent behavioural interventions alongside technical controls.
Sujeet Kumar Singh, Founder, HSESkillEdge, says, “Contractor and worker compliance for routine activities is effectively managed through a Contractor and Logistics Safety Management System, supported by rigorous training, on-the-job observations, and active worker engagement in risk assessments. This includes regular toolbox talks, safety skits during monthly safety gate meetings, and, most importantly, positive reinforcement through public recognition, praise for safe behaviours, and continuous feedback on observations related to at-risk behaviours or opportunities for improvement (OFIs).”
“The Indian cement industry has also taken a progressive step by initiating the development of a Safety Passport System for contractors, contract workers, and drivers. This initiative, in collaboration with the Global Cement and Concrete Association (India) and the National Safety Council of India, is highly practical and focuses on hand-holding and capacity building to ensure health and safety, especially in non-routine and high-risk jobs. I am truly grateful to be part of the core team driving this initiative, alongside corporate safety heads from all GCCA (India) member companies” he adds.
In the Indian cement sector, leading companies have adopted comprehensive BBS models that combine real-time observations, peer-to-peer feedback, coaching, and performance tracking. Training modules are also being digitised using 3D animations, e-learning platforms, and simulation-based safety drills to enhance retention and engagement. A 2023 report by the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) showed that plants with active BBS and workforce training programs reported 40 to 50 per cent fewer lost-time injuries (LTIs) than those relying only on physical safety systems. Furthermore, integrating behaviour-focused audits with standard operating procedures (SOPs) ensures that safety becomes second nature rather than a checklist. In essence, when safety becomes a mindset—nurtured through daily reinforcement and skill building—it transforms from a policy into a way of life on the shop floor.

Contractor safety management
In the cement industry, a significant portion of the workforce comprises contracted or third-party workers—particularly in operations such as maintenance, loading/unloading, material handling, and logistics. This creates a complex safety challenge, as contractors often operate outside the core company’s direct control systems, making it harder to enforce uniform safety protocols. In India, the Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes (DGFASLI) reported that nearly 40 per cent of serious industrial accidents in manufacturing units involved contract labour, largely due to inadequate training, lack of PPE compliance, and poor safety orientation. In cement plants, where high-risk environments are the norm, the lack of contractor safety governance can have severe and sometimes fatal consequences.
To address this, leading cement manufacturers have begun implementing structured Contractor Safety Management (CSM) programs that include prequalification audits, induction training, real-time safety tracking, and accountability frameworks. Some are also deploying digital ‘worker passport’ systems, which log training history, medical fitness, and access permissions for every contractor on site. The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) recommends integrating contractors into core Behaviour-Based Safety (BBS) programs, and ensuring they are part of regular tool-box talks, emergency drills, and incident investigations. In fact, a 2023 GCCA survey showed that cement plants with dedicated contractor safety governance reported 32 per cent fewer injuries among third-party workers compared to those without. Effective contractor safety isn’t just about regulatory compliance—it’s about aligning everyone on site with a common safety culture, where accountability and awareness are universal.

Conclusion
As the cement industry evolves to meet the demands of sustainability, scale, and operational excellence, the importance of a robust safety framework has never been greater. From managing high-risk environments and enforcing PPE compliance to leveraging automation, fire safety systems, and Behaviour-Based Safety (BBS) programs, the industry is steadily moving toward a culture where safety is not just enforced—but embedded. What’s clear is that safety must go beyond audits and checklists; it must become a continuous, organisation-wide commitment that includes not just full-time staff, but also contractors, suppliers, and every individual entering the plant gate.
The integration of digital tools, advanced training, and strict contractor safety management is not just about regulatory alignment—it is about building resilient operations that protect people, reduce downtime, and drive long-term value. With increasing awareness, global benchmarks, and support from industry bodies like the GCCA and CMA, Indian cement manufacturers are now well-positioned to lead by example. By putting “safety from the heart” into action—through technology, accountability, and culture—the industry can lay the foundation not just for stronger infrastructure, but for safer, smarter workplaces across the country.

– Kanika Mathur

Up Next

Zero Harm isn’t a target; it’s a mindset

Don't Miss

A proud milestone of India’s innovation and growth

Concrete

UltraTech Cement expands green logistics with 600+ electric truck fleet

Published

1 day ago

September 3, 2026

admin

The e-truck fleet will be used to transport five million MT of clinker and other key materials with potential of over 1,17,000 tonnes of net annual CO₂ reduction, displacing the equivalent of 39 million litres of diesel per year.

Mumbai

UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group company and the world’s largest cement company by sales volume and capacity outside China, has announced that it will scale up its electric vehicle fleet in its logistics operations to 600+ EV trucks by December 2026.

UltraTech has signed service contracts with leading EV prime mover manufacturers including Tata Motors, Ashok Leyland, IPLTech, Energy in Motion and Sany, along with their subsidiaries and other third-party logistics providers, to deploy EV trucks.

The total fleet of 600+ EV trucks will transport about five million MT of clinker and other key materials per annum across Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Odisha. Once fully operational, this fleet of over 600 EV trucks will enable a net annual CO₂ reduction of more than 1,17,000 tonnes, displacing the equivalent of 39 million litres of diesel per year.

K C Jhanwar, Managing Director, UltraTech Cement Limited, said, “UltraTech is expanding sustainability beyond its plants by adopting greener logistics solutions. This large-scale transition to green logistics underscores our focus on decarbonising every link of our value chain and supports our commitment to achieving Net Zero.”

UltraTech has been a pioneer in advancing sustainable transport in the cement sector, being the first cement company to deploy heavy-duty electric trucks for long-haul transport of clinker and other materials at scale. The company was among the first in India to introduce green logistics, deploying CNG trucks in 2021 and electric trucks in 2024. UltraTech currently operates 850+ trucks as part of its green logistics operations, including CNG and electric trucks.

UltraTech, with a grey cement capacity of over 200 MTPA in India, operates one of the country’s most complex logistics networks. Its electrification strategy covers the entire supply chain—from mine-to-plant movement to inter-plant transport of clinker and other key materials.

The $ 10 billion UltraTech, the cement flagship company of the Aditya Birla Group, has a total Grey Cement capacity of 205.5 MTPA and White Cement/Putty capacity of 3.2 MTPA. It is a signatory to the GCCA Climate Ambition 2050 and has committed to the Net Zero Concrete roadmap announced by GCCA.

Concrete

Protect Your Margins

Published

7 days ago

August 28, 2026

admin

In a research-backed article, Dr SB Hegde examines why carbon-adjusted profitability and LC3 will decide the next set of winners in cement manufacturing.

The Indian cement industry has achieved world-class operational efficiency through lower specific energy consumption, high plant utilisation and a reduced average clinker factor of approximately 67.5 per cent. These traditional measures of operational excellence remain essential. However, they are no longer sufficient. Carbon now carries a measurable financial cost under India’s Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS) and under European carbon markets. Future leadership will be defined by carbon-adjusted profitability, the ability to generate strong returns while systematically lowering the carbon intensity of every ton sold.
Limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) offers a practical, scalable pathway to achieve this dual objective. By replacing up to 50 per cent of clinker with calcined clay and limestone, LC3 can reduce CO2 emissions by 30–40 per cent while delivering comparable or superior durability performance.
This article examines the technical foundations of LC3, European industrial practices, the emerging Indian carbon market and a concrete roadmap for Indian companies to embed carbon-adjusted metrics and LC3 into daily operations, incentives and commercial strategy.

Limits of traditional operational excellence
For many years, plant performance has been judged primarily by five indicators: specific heat consumption, specific power consumption, kiln and mill utilisation, clinker factor and overall equipment effectiveness. These metrics drove continuous improvement and helped the industry reduce energy use and increase the share of blended cement. Three structural changes have rendered them incomplete as sole measures of success.
First, carbon now carries a real or opportunity cost. Plants that improve volume or lower cash cost while raising or stagnating emissions intensity create a hidden liability that will surface as CCTS trading matures and as green procurement expands.
Second, lower-carbon products such as LC3 and high-performance blended cements are creating differentiated market segments. Customers in infrastructure, real estate and export-oriented construction are beginning to specify embodied-carbon limits.
Third, investors and lenders increasingly treat carbon intensity as a financial risk factor. Traditional KPIs can mask the divergence between short-term cash profit and long-term carbon-adjusted value.

What is carbon-adjusted profitability?
Carbon-adjusted profitability evaluates normal profit after explicit adjustment for carbon performance. A practical expression is:
Carbon-Adjusted EBITDA = Conventional EBITDA – Carbon Cost + Green Premium Income
Carbon cost may be an internal carbon price, the actual cost of purchasing Carbon Credit Certificates under CCTS, or the opportunity cost of high emissions relative to peers. Green premium income arises when customers pay more for verified lower-carbon cement or when the company sells surplus credits. Tracking both conventional and carbon-adjusted profit side-by-side gives management a clearer picture of value creation under evolving market rules.

Table 1. Traditional KPIs versus Carbon-Adjusted Leadership Metrics
Traditional Focus New Leadership Metric Why It Matters
Specific energy consumption Emissions intensity (kg CO2/t cement) Directly linked to future CCTS and CBAM costs
Kiln utilisation Carbon-adjusted contribution margin Reveals true value of incremental volume
Clinker factor Share of lower-carbon products sold (incl. LC3) Measures commercial success of the transition
Power cost per tonne Effective carbon cost per tonne sold Expose hidden liabilities
Absolute EBITDA Carbon-adjusted EBITDA + green premium Aligning profit with future market reality

LC3: Technical foundations and performance advantages
LC3 is a ternary blended cement that typically combines approximately 50 per cent clinker, 30 per cent calcined clay, 15 per cent limestone and 5 per cent gypsum (the classic LC3-50 formulation). The decisive technical advantage is that clay is calcined at 700–850 °C, far below the 1,450 °C required for clinker production. This lower temperature, together with the substantial reduction in clinker content, delivers CO2 reductions of 30–40 per cent relative to ordinary Portland cement (OPC).
Chemistry is synergistic. Calcined kaolinitic clay (metakaolin) reacts with calcium hydroxide from clinker hydration and with limestone to form additional C-A-S-H gel and carboaluminate phases. These phases densify the microstructure, reduce porosity and improve durability.
Field experience shows superior resistance to chloride ingress, sulphate attack and alkali–silica reaction. Early-age strength can match OPC with high-reactivity clays; later-age strengths routinely meet 42.5 and 52.5 grade requirements.
Importantly, LC3 does not require high-purity kaolin. Clays with 40 per cent or even lower kaolinite content can be activated successfully, expanding raw-material availability across India. Calcination can use adapted rotary kilns or dedicated flash calciners, making the technology compatible with existing plant infrastructure and far less capital-intensive than carbon capture.
Economic analyses show that LC3 can be produced at equal or lower cost than OPC in many locations because of reduced energy demand and cheaper clay. Life-cycle assessments consistently report 30–40 per cent lower embodied CO2 per tonne of cement.
Table 2. Comparative profile: OPC versus LC3-50
Parameter OPC LC3-50
Typical clinker content ~95 per cent ~50 per cent
CO2 emissions (relative) Baseline (≈0.85 t CO2/t cement process + fuel) 30–40 per cent lower
Clay calcination temperature Not applicable 700–850 °C
Key hydration products C-S-H, portlandite, ettringite C-A-S-H + carboaluminates
Chloride & sulphate resistance Good Superior
Production cost potential Baseline Equal or lower in most locations
Infrastructure compatibility Existing High (minor adaptations)

In India, commercial adoption has begun in earnest. JK Cement commenced the first commercial production of LC3 in the Indian subcontinent at its Mangrol plant in Rajasthan in 2025 under BIS standard IS 18189.
By early 2026, approximately 2,000 tonnes had been produced and sold, avoiding an estimated 500 tonnes of CO2. JK Lakshmi Cement followed with commercial launch of its Green PRO LC3 grade from the Jaykaypuram plant. As of mid-2026, two producers are supplying LC3 to the market. The first large-scale infrastructure application is the Noida International Airport (Jewar), where LC3 was used in the runway and a building complex, demonstrating full constructability and performance under demanding conditions. These early volumes are still small relative to national cement demand, but they mark the critical transition from pilot to commercial reality. Companies that scale capacity now will be positioned to capture both CCTS credits and emerging green-procurement demand.

Why the shift is accelerating
According to the World Bank’s State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2026, direct carbon pricing now covers nearly 30 per cent of global greenhouse-gas emissions and generated more than US$107 billion in public revenue in 2025. The average global carbon price stands at approximately US$21 per tonne, although regional prices vary widely.
In Europe, the EU ETS price has traded near €80–85 per tonen in mid-2026. Free allocation for cement is being withdrawn in parallel with CBAM. European producers therefore face a clear signal: every tonne of avoided CO2 improves both compliance and competitiveness. Holcim has scaled calcined-clay production, including Europe’s first dedicated line at Saint-Pierre-la-Cour (France) and a second line in the Czech Republic (2026). Heidelberg Materials, Cementir (FUTURECEM) and others have commercialised low-clinker calcined-clay blends across multiple markets, showing that carbon-adjusted profitability is already reshaping capital allocation in the world’s most mature carbon market.India’s CCTS is now operational. Binding emission intensity targets apply to 186 cement facilities for FY 2025–26 and FY 2026–27. Average required reductions for integrated plants are modest (around 2.7 per cent by FY 2027), yet the direction is clear.
Trading of Carbon Credit Certificates is expected in the second half of 2026, with early prices likely in the `800–1,500 per tonne range. Plants that outperform targets can sell credits; those that underperform must buy them or face compensation. Cement is well positioned to be a net supplier of credits if clinker factor continues to fall through LC3 and other low-clinker systems.

Way forward for India
India starts from a strong baseline, world-class energy efficiency and a clinker factor already lower than the global average. The next competitive frontier is the deliberate reduction of process emissions through clinker substitution at scale. LC3 is uniquely suited to Indian conditions because suitable clays are widely distributed, the technology fits existing kiln and grinding infrastructure, and the resulting product can meet the performance demands of both infrastructure and building construction.
A practical national pathway contains five interlocking elements:

Standards and acceptance: Accelerated finalisation and promotion of BIS specifications for calcined-clay and limestone–calcined-clay cements will remove a key barrier to commercial uptake. Alignment with European practice (EN 197-5) can facilitate knowledge transfer and export readiness.
Supply-chain development: Investment in flash calcination capacity and systematic characterisation of regional clay deposits will secure reliable, low-cost feedstock. Existing rotary kilns can be adapted for initial volumes while dedicated calciners are built.
Incentive alignment: Part of variable compensation for plant managers, sales teams and senior leadership should be linked to emissions intensity reduction and to the volume of lower-carbon products (including LC3) sold. Without this link, traditional volume and cost targets will continue to dominate behaviour.
Product-level carbon accounting: Reliable measurement of emissions intensity at the individual cement grade level, supported by third-party verification where required, is essential for both CCTS compliance and credible green claims.
Demand-side pull: Green public procurement policies that specify maximum embodied-carbon thresholds for major infrastructure projects will create a predictable market for LC3 and other low-carbon cements, accelerating scale and cost reduction.
Companies that treat LC3 as a strategic product line rather than a niche offering will be better positioned to generate surplus Carbon Credit Certificates, capture any emerging green premium, and protect margins as carbon costs rise.

Organisational changes required
Technical capability alone is insufficient. Three organisational shifts are required.
Daily management: Emissions intensity must appear on the same daily and monthly dashboards as heat consumption, power consumption and utilization. Plant reviews should examine both conventional and carbon-adjusted results.
Incentives: A meaningful portion of bonuses for plant heads, technical teams and sales leadership should be tied to lower emissions intensity and successful commercialisation of LC3 and other low-carbon grades.
Commercial approach: Sales teams need clear volume and pricing targets for lower-carbon products, supported by technical service that helps customers specify and place the material correctly. Without commercial pull, excellent technical performance remains under-utilised.

Table 3. Three-stage roadmap to carbon-adjusted profitability
Time Horizon Priority Actions Expected Outcome
Next 12 months Add emissions intensity to plant dashboards; establish internal carbon price; initiate LC3 pilot production and customer trials Visibility and early organisational learning
12–24 months Revise incentive systems; scale LC3 and other low-carbon grades to key accounts; secure third-party verification capability People and sales aligned with carbon goals
24–36 months Embed carbon-adjusted metrics in board reporting and capital allocation; expand calcined-clay capacity Full system integration and competitive advantage

Questions senior leaders should ask
Boards can accelerate the transition by insisting on answers to a short list of questions:
• Is our carbon-adjusted profit improving, stable or declining relative to conventional EBITDA?
• Did recent volume growth improve or worsen our emissions intensity?
• What share of sales already comes from lower-carbon products, including LC3, and what is the trajectory?
• How exposed is our capital expenditure plan to rising carbon costs under CCTS and potential CBAM-related requirements?
• Do our incentive systems still reward only volume and cost, or have they been updated to include carbon performance?
Treating carbon with the same seriousness as energy cost or kiln utilization does not diminish operational excellence; it expands the definition of excellence to match the new competitive reality.

Looking ahead
By 2030 the gap between leading and lagging cement companies will not be decided by who records the lowest specific heat consumption. It will be decided by who delivers the strongest carbon-adjusted profits.
Absolute emissions may still rise as national production grows. That is not the issue. Companies that reduce intensity year after year and successfully sell cleaner products will pull ahead in both domestic and export markets. Those that do not will fall behind, even if their traditional efficiency numbers look strong.
Operational excellence built the Indian cement industry. It remains the foundation. It is no longer the complete picture. Carbon-adjusted profitability is the clearer measure of success.
LC3 is not a distant technology. It is available now. It cuts CO3 by 30–40 per cent, works with existing plants, and is already in commercial production in India. Companies that treat it as a strategic product, not a pilot, will protect their margins and generate tradable credits.
Leaders who act now will place carbon metrics on daily dashboards, link incentives to intensity reduction and LC3 sales, invest in calcined-clay capacity, and build commercial capability to sell lower-carbon products. They will shape the next chapter of the industry.

References

World Bank. (2026). State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2026. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP). (2026). India Carbon Credit Trading Scheme – Status and Coverage. Berlin: ICAP.
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change / Bureau of Energy Efficiency. (2025). Greenhouse Gases Emission Intensity Target Rules, 2025. New Delhi: Government of India.
Scrivener, K., Martirena, F., Bishnoi, S., & Maity, S. (2018). Calcined clay limestone cements (LC3). Cement and Concrete Research, 114, 49–56.
RMI. (2024). The Business Case for LC3. Rocky Mountain Institute.
European Commission. (2026). EU Emissions Trading System – Allowance Price Data and Free Allocation Phase-out Schedule. Brussels.
Holcim. (2025–2026). Scaling Calcined Clay for Sustainable Building – Corporate Updates on European and Latin American Capacity. Zurich: Holcim Ltd.
LC3 Project / EPFL. (2026). LC3 – A Guide to Best Practices for Scalable, Affordable and Sustainable Low-Carbon Building. Lausanne: École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.
Business Today / Industry Reports. (2026). First Large-Scale LC3 Application at Noida International Airport, Jewar. New Delhi.
NITI Aayog / Industry Analyses. (2026). Roadmap and Baseline Performance Indicators for the Indian Cement Sector. New Delhi.
Springer / Innovative Infrastructure Solutions. (2026). LC3 Systems: A Review of Chemistry, Performance, Durability and Sustainability toward Market Adoption.
Cementir Holding / Industry Sources. (2025–2026). FUTURECEM and Related Low-Clinker Technologies in Europe.
Climate Risk Horizons & Independent Analyses. (2026). Assessment of Emission Intensity Targets under India’s CCTS for Cement and Other Hard-to-Abate Sectors.
GCCA / TERI. (Various years). Decarbonization Roadmaps for the Indian Cement Industry.
EN 197-5:2021. Cement – Part 5: Portland-composite cement CEM II/C-M and Composite cement CEM VI. European Committee for Standardization.

Concrete

More Oversight Makes Cement Plants Less Safe

Published

7 days ago

August 28, 2026

admin

Dijam Panigrahi makes a counterintuitive but data-backed argument that routing every sensor alert through human approval does not make cement plants safer.

India’s cement industry has spent the last two years wiring kilns, mills and coolers with sensors and automated control systems, and the safety case for doing so is strong on paper. Contract workers still make up the majority of the industry’s workforce, and fatal accidents remain a recurring problem. The Indian National Cement Workers Federation has noted that around 83 per cent of workers in the sector hold precarious positions, a fact that resurfaced after an oxygen cylinder explosion killed three contract workers at a plant in Chhattisgarh.
Industry tallies compiled by IndustriALL found cement plants recorded at least seventeen accidents in one year with 21 workers killed, and ten accidents the following year with nine killed, most of them contract staff. Automated monitoring, in theory, closes that gap. A sensor never gets complacent and never skips a check because a shift is short staffed.
However, plants that respond by routing every anomaly reading to a person for approval are quietly building a system that fails the same way understaffing does. When operators receive dozens of flagged deviations a shift, most of them minor, they learn a simple lesson: the fastest way through the queue is to approve without reading closely. The safety benefit disappears, not because the technology failed, but because the humans supervising it adapted to the volume.

Why alerts get ignored
A study cited by manufacturing technology publisher Applied SmartFactory found more than 95 per cent of alarms in a semiconductor fab were low priority, and only about 4 per cent ever triggered an action, with just 100 out of 5,000 alarms accounting for 70 per cent of all alarm activity. The mechanism is the same whether the trigger is a vibration sensor or an AI model flagging a kiln temperature swing. Once the ratio of noise to signal crosses a threshold, workers stop treating the system as a decision aid and start treating it as a formality to clear.
The scale of AI deployment underway makes this more than a theoretical risk. Stanford’s 2026 AI Index Report found organisational adoption of AI has reached 88 per cent, even as documented AI incidents rose to 362 in 2025, up sharply from 233 the year before, according to analysis of the report. The Index also found only about a third of organisations have adopted a formal governance framework, with NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework cited by 33 per cent and ISO/IEC 42001 cited by 36 per cent.
Most manufacturers are deploying monitoring systems faster than they are building the judgment for when a flagged event actually needs a person’s attention. In India, plants run by JK Cement have begun pairing CCTV feeds with AI to define safe zones around heavy machinery, a promising direction that still depends on operators trusting and reading the alerts the system generates.

A three-tier model for cement plant
The fix is not less monitoring or more monitoring. It is classifying decisions by risk and by novelty, rather than treating human oversight as a single switch that is either on or off. A workable model sorts factory floor events into three tiers.
The first tier, proceed, covers deviations the plant has seen before that fall within known safe bounds, such as a kiln feed rate adjustment within an established range. These should run without a stop for approval, because routing them to a person only trains that person to click through.
The second tier, pause, covers events that are unusual but not yet dangerous, such as a vibration reading trending toward a limit or a fuel blend shifting outside its typical mix. These warrant a brief human check before the system proceeds, giving an operator the chance to apply judgment the model does not yet have.
The third tier, escalate, covers events that are both high risk and unfamiliar, such as a pressure reading combined with a temperature spike that has no close precedent in the plant’s history. These should stop the process entirely and require a decision from someone with the authority to shut down a line.

Who should set the threshold
Where these tiers get drawn matters as much as the framework itself. Threshold setting is frequently handed to the vendor supplying the monitoring software or to a plant’s IT department, both of which understand the technology but not the specific tolerances of a given kiln, mill or line. Operations staff, who know that a particular grinding unit runs hotter under monsoon humidity or that a calciner behaves differently after a refractory reline, are better positioned to calibrate what counts as routine on their own equipment.
Handing threshold ownership to operations does not remove IT or vendors from the process, but it puts the calibration decision closest to the people who live with its consequences on the floor.

Signals that oversight is actually working
A few concrete indicators reveal whether a monitoring setup is functioning as intended or simply providing the appearance of safety. The escalation rate over time is the first: a rate that stays flat or climbs slowly as operations mature is healthy, while one that spikes and then falls sharply often means operators have started overriding the system rather than engaging with it. Time to resolution is the second: escalations that take progressively longer to close suggest fatigue or confusion about ownership, not diligence. The third, and most telling, is how accurate the system’s own uncertainty estimates turn out to be, meaning whether events flagged as high risk actually correlated with real incidents, and whether events waved through stayed incident free. A system whose escalations do not track with actual outcomes trains operators toward the same complacency that unmonitored equipment produces.
None of this argues against automation in Indian cement manufacturing, where a labor structure built on contract work and a track record of serious accidents make better monitoring an urgent need. It argues for treating human oversight as a design problem with three distinct settings, rather than a single
dial turned up whenever a plant wants to look safer on paper.

About the author:
Dijam Panigrahi, Co-founder and COO, GridRaster, is a spatial computing platform for industrial enterprises and manufacturers.