Friday, October 31, 2025

India’s Edible-Oil Industry: Why Modernisation Is No Longer Optional

From Fields to Frying Pans: A Paradox of Plenty

India’s edible-oil story is one of the country’s biggest agricultural paradoxes. Despite having nearly 28 million hectares under oilseed cultivation, the nation still imports over 60 % of its edible-oil requirements, making it the world’s largest importer of palm, soybean, and sunflower oils. This dependence—costing the exchequer around USD 20–22 billion annually—makes India highly vulnerable to global price shocks, exchange-rate fluctuations, and geopolitical disruptions in commodity supply chains.

Historically, India’s Green Revolution focused on cereals like wheat and rice, while oilseeds remained outside the policy spotlight. Though initiatives such as the Technology Mission on Oilseeds (TMO, 1986) temporarily boosted domestic output, a lack of sustained investment in processing, refining, and value-addition left the sector structurally weak.


The Missing Middle: Processing, Not Production

At the heart of India’s edible-oil challenge lies an underdeveloped processing ecosystem.
While farmers grow mustard, groundnut, soybean, and sunflower in abundance, much of this produce leaves villages in raw form—unprocessed, unbranded, and low-value. The absence of integrated processing chains means that India exports oilseeds at lower margins and imports refined oil at higher prices.

This “missing middle” between farms and retail shelves reflects both infrastructural and institutional gaps:

  • Fragmented value chains: Farmers, millers, refiners, and traders rarely operate in synchrony.
  • Outdated technology: Many small-scale oil mills still use mechanical expellers rather than modern solvent-extraction or refining units.
  • Weak logistics and cold storage: Post-harvest losses and poor oil recovery rates depress returns.

If India wants to insulate its farmers from the volatility of Kuala Lumpur or Jakarta commodity markets, it must build domestic value-chains that are globally competitive.


Why Modernisation Matters Now

The global edible-oil market is undergoing a technological transformation. Countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brazil have adopted digitally tracked, integrated agri-processing ecosystems linking farmers to exporters through smart contracts, sustainability certification, and AI-driven yield management.

In contrast, Indian processors face challenges such as inconsistent feedstock, outdated refining standards, and limited export branding.
Modernisation—through automated refining plants, traceability systems, and blockchain-based supply-chain transparency—is now essential for:

  • Reducing import dependence and saving foreign exchange.
  • Increasing farmer income through better realisation for oilseeds.
  • Capturing global markets for branded and value-added products like cold-pressed oils, nutraceutical blends, and bio-diesel inputs.

Integration Is the New Innovation

For policymakers and agripreneurs, the key lies in integrating the supply chain—farmers → processors → exporters.
The National Mission on Edible Oils–Oil Palm (NMEO-OP) launched in 2021 is a step forward, but its focus remains skewed toward palm oil cultivation. What India truly needs is a cluster-based processing model, where mini-refineries, seed-crushing units, and packaging facilities operate near production zones.

Such decentralised processing hubs—supported by logistics parks and digital procurement platforms—can create agro-industrial corridors similar to those in Southeast Asia.
Moreover, aligning MSME food-processing clusters with PLI-style incentives could draw private investment and technology infusion.


Historical Perspective: Learning from Past Oversights

Between 1990 and 2010, India’s oilseed output rose modestly, but domestic refining stagnated. Import liberalisation under WTO rules made it cheaper to import palm oil than to process local crops.
This policy imbalance disincentivised domestic value addition—a lesson India cannot afford to repeat as it builds its “Atmanirbhar Bharat” framework.

History shows that industrial modernisation, not agricultural acreage alone, drives export competitiveness. Just as India’s IT sector rose by integrating global standards into domestic talent, its agri-processing sector must now integrate global technology into domestic production.


Futuristic Outlook: A Sustainable, Smart, and Sovereign Oil Economy

By 2030, the edible-oil industry could evolve into a “smart bio-agro network” where:

  • Drones and IoT sensors optimise oilseed yields.
  • AI analytics forecast demand and global price trends.
  • Farmers receive digital payments linked to quality and oil content.
  • Bio-refineries co-produce edible oil, bio-fuel, and organic cake for livestock feed.

India’s comparative advantage will depend less on acreage and more on technological sophistication.
A robust, traceable processing chain will not only reduce vulnerability to global shocks but also allow India to export trust, not just oil.

Processing Is the New Productivity

India’s edible-oil dependence is not merely an import-export issue—it’s a test of agricultural industrialisation.
Without bold reforms in processing infrastructure, the country risks staying a price-taker in global commodity markets.
With them, it could emerge as a value-creator—a nation that feeds itself efficiently, uplifts its farmers, and competes globally on quality, not quantity.

#EdibleOil #AgriProcessing #ValueAddition #FarmToFactory #FoodSecurity #AtmanirbharBharat #SustainableAgriculture #SupplyChainIntegration #BioEconomy Agritech 

Thursday, October 30, 2025

India Mobile Congress 2025 — AI as the New Engine of India’s Digital Future

A Historic Turning Point in India’s Tech Evolution

India Mobile Congress (IMC) 2025 marks a defining moment in India’s digital journey. Now in its ninth edition, the event will showcase nearly 800 artificial-intelligence (AI) use-cases across diverse sectors — healthcare, agriculture, logistics, telecom, and finance — making it one of the most ambitious technology showcases ever hosted in Asia.

From a historical perspective, India’s digital transformation began with the rollout of mobile connectivity and broadband access. The Digital India mission accelerated this by democratizing access to government services and digital payments. IMC 2025 represents the next frontier — a decisive shift from connectivity to cognitive intelligence, where AI becomes the core driver of productivity and competitiveness across industries.

Diffusion of AI into the MSME Ecosystem

Perhaps the most strategic signal emerging from IMC 2025 is the diffusion of AI into micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs). Traditionally, MSMEs have lagged behind large corporations in technology adoption due to cost barriers and lack of technical expertise. The focus on AI-driven use-cases in logistics, supply-chain management, credit-risk assessment, and customer service reveals a clear direction — the mainstreaming of digital/ICT tools into small-scale operations.

This diffusion represents an economic inflection point. In a country where MSMEs contribute nearly 30% to GDP and 45% of exports, embedding AI in their processes could unlock enormous efficiency gains. The government-industry partnership symbolized by IMC demonstrates intent: to make AI a productivity multiplier for every layer of the economy — from rural farmers to fintech startups.

From Policy Vision to Implementation

Events of this scale are not merely exhibitions; they are signals of regulatory and policy alignment. IMC 2025 underlines how India’s AI strategy, still evolving through frameworks like the IndiaAI Mission, is being operationalized in partnership with the private sector.

This synergy highlights three trends:

1. Policy-backed digital transformation, where the government facilitates infrastructure, data frameworks, and ethical AI norms.


2. Industry-led innovation, with startups and telecom giants creating scalable, localized AI applications.


3. Inclusive technology diffusion, targeting the “long tail” of users — farmers, small manufacturers, and service providers.



By emphasizing use-cases rather than just concepts, IMC 2025 bridges the gap between policy intent and grass-roots implementation.

Historical Parallels and Future Outlook

Looking back, the industrial revolutions of the past were driven by energy (coal, oil, electricity). The fifth industrial revolution, led by AI, is driven by data and algorithms. India, with its vast data ecosystem — from UPI transactions to Aadhaar authentication — stands uniquely positioned to build context-specific AI solutions for its 1.4 billion citizens.

However, the future will depend on how effectively the nation addresses three challenges:

Skill readiness — ensuring the workforce can adapt to AI-enabled processes.

Data governance — balancing innovation with privacy and ethical use.

Infrastructure parity — enabling smaller towns and rural enterprises to access computing power and connectivity.


The coming decade will thus test India’s ability to make AI inclusive and indigenous, not just imported and elite.

 AI as India’s Economic Equalizer

If India’s 2010s were about digitizing inclusion, the 2020s and beyond will be about intelligent inclusion. AI can become the great economic equalizer — enabling small farmers to predict weather patterns, MSMEs to automate logistics, and local clinics to deliver precision diagnostics.

IMC 2025, by showcasing 800 AI use-cases, isn’t just a tech fair — it’s a preview of India’s cognitive economy, where human insight and machine intelligence co-create value. For a country seeking to become a $5 trillion economy, this convergence of policy, innovation, and inclusion could well define its 2030 trajectory.

#IndiaMobileCongress #ArtificialIntelligence #DigitalTransformation #MSME #AIInnovation #PolicyReforms #DataEconomy #InclusiveGrowth #TechnologyAdoption #FutureOfIndia

Wednesday, October 29, 2025

Global Agricultural Outlook 2025–2034: Productivity, Pressures, and the Path to Sustainability

From Green Revolution to Climate Transition

The mid-20th century Green Revolution expanded food production dramatically through high-yield varieties, fertilizers, and irrigation. Yet, it also sowed the seeds of today’s sustainability crisis: degraded soils, excessive water use, and emission-intensive farming systems.

Now, the global agricultural system is at a similar inflection point — one defined not by expansion, but by efficiency, innovation, and equity. The challenge is to produce 14 % more food by 2034 while curbing emissions growth and managing shrinking arable land.

The Demand Story — Urbanisation and Rising Incomes

Most of the projected consumption growth will come from low- and middle-income countries, where urbanisation and rising incomes are reshaping diets. The shift from cereals toward animal-source foods and fish reflects an aspiration for higher protein intake, but it also raises sustainability questions.

For instance, producing one kilogram of beef emits 10 times more greenhouse gases than an equivalent nutritional value of pulses. Hence, while dietary shifts improve nutrition, they could intensify environmental pressures unless technology and policy frameworks evolve rapidly.

The Supply Side — Technology, Productivity, and Emission Intensity

The report estimates that agricultural and fish production will grow ~14 % by 2034, while direct greenhouse-gas emissions rise only 6 %, assuming continued gains in productivity and adoption of low-emission technologies.
Precision agriculture, gene-editing, regenerative practices, and digital farm management tools are central to this transition.

Yet, these technologies remain unevenly distributed. Smallholders — who dominate Asian and African agriculture — often lack access to finance, digital infrastructure, and extension services. The next decade’s “green transformation” must therefore be inclusive, integrating MSMEs, cooperatives, and women farmers into modern value chains.

Falling Real Prices and Producer Pressure

Real (inflation-adjusted) agricultural commodity prices are expected to trend slightly downward, continuing a century-long pattern of declining farm-gate prices. This is good for consumers but harsh for producers, especially smallholders with limited productivity gains.

The resulting “cost–price squeeze” underscores the urgency of value-addition: rather than exporting raw produce, countries must invest in processing, branding, and export diversification. For example, India’s push to modernise its edible-oil refining sector or Africa’s investments in agro-industrial parks signal a structural response to this price-pressure challenge.

Trade and Food Security — Why Rules Still Matter

The OECD-FAO report reaffirms that international trade and a rules-based multilateral system remain essential for global food security. Yet, the rise of export bans (as seen during the 2022-23 grain crisis) and the weaponisation of food supplies have fractured trust in global markets.

Future resilience depends on balancing strategic autonomy with global integration — ensuring that trade supports local livelihoods rather than undermining them. Transparent rules under the WTO framework, coupled with digital traceability systems, could restore predictability and fairness in food trade.

Toward Agriculture 5.0

By 2034, global agriculture will likely converge around four transformative trends:

1. AI-powered agriculture — predictive analytics for climate-smart cropping and supply-chain optimisation.


2. Bio-innovation — lab-grown proteins, microbial fertilizers, and next-gen seed genetics.


3. Decentralised trade networks — blockchain-enabled traceability linking producers directly to consumers.


4. Carbon-linked value systems — where emission reductions and soil-carbon sequestration are monetised.

If embraced equitably, these innovations can make agriculture not just a source of food, but a driver of climate solutions.

The Decade of Smart Transformation

The Agricultural Outlook 2025–2034 is more than a forecast — it’s a strategic warning. Production will rise, but the winners will be those who combine productivity with sustainability and inclusivity.

Without technology diffusion, small producers risk exclusion from value chains; without climate-smart innovation, productivity gains will erode; and without fair trade systems, global food security will remain fragile.

The world’s next agricultural revolution must therefore be digital, data-driven, and democratised — ensuring that every farmer, from Punjab to Peru, participates in and benefits from the global food future.

#AgricultureOutlook #FAO #OECD #FoodSecurity #SustainableFarming #AgriInnovation #ClimateSmartAgriculture #TradePolicy #AgriTech #FutureOfFarming 🌍

Monday, October 27, 2025

When a Trade War Becomes a Food Fight: The Weaponization of Food in Global Trade

From Tariffs to Tables

Global trade wars were once defined by steel, semiconductors, and cars. Today, they are increasingly defined by soybeans, wheat, rice, and fertilizers. The battlefield has shifted from factory floors to farmlands. In the last decade, trade policy has quietly but forcefully entered the domain of food security, turning agricultural trade into a geopolitical instrument rather than a mere exchange of commodities.

From Corn Laws to Corn Tariffs

History shows that food has always carried political weight.

In the 19th century, Britain’s Corn Laws determined not just bread prices but also the country’s class politics.

During the Cold War, the U.S. used grain exports to the Soviet Union as leverage.

The 2018–2020 U.S.–China trade war revived this trend: China imposed retaliatory tariffs on American soybeans, slashing U.S. exports by nearly 75% in one year, while turning to Brazil and Argentina to fill the gap.


These moments remind us that food, when entangled in tariff politics, becomes both a weapon and a vulnerability.

The Modern Food-Trade Nexus

The 2020s have intensified this nexus between trade and food:

Export controls on fertilizers (e.g., China’s phosphate restrictions in 2021 and Russia’s nitrogen limits during the Ukraine war) disrupted global crop cycles and raised global food prices by over 30% according to FAO estimates.

Tariff wars have distorted agricultural supply chains, forcing countries to hoard essential items like rice and wheat. India’s temporary rice export bans in 2023–24 were a reflection of this—meant to protect domestic consumers but amplifying global price instability.

Climate-linked shocks (droughts in the Americas, floods in Asia) now intersect with trade barriers, magnifying volatility.


In essence, the food market has become a theater of economic nationalism.

Data Signals — How Food Became a Strategic Asset

Recent WTO data show that global agricultural trade exceeded USD 1.9 trillion in 2024, up from USD 1.3 trillion in 2015. But the number of trade interventions — including export bans, quotas, and tariffs — has more than doubled in the same period.
The trend is clear: countries view food not just as an economic good but as a strategic reserve.

This “food weaponization” is visible in:

The U.S.–China soybean standoff (2018–2020)

The Russia–Ukraine grain corridor crisis (2022–2024)

The India–UAE rice and onion trade limits (2023–2025)
Each episode reflects a growing pattern where food security is national security.


The Risks of Economic Isolationism

While protecting domestic food supply is politically tempting, the long-term risks are severe:

Trade isolation increases volatility: When multiple nations impose simultaneous restrictions, global markets enter panic mode, pushing up prices even in food-surplus regions.

Small farmers lose global access: Protectionist measures often benefit middlemen or corporates rather than marginal producers.

Nutritional inequality deepens: Import restrictions can limit access to essential foods (e.g., pulses, edible oils) in developing economies.
The world risks creating a dual food system — one for wealthy nations with diversified imports, and another for poorer ones facing chronic shortages.

Food Trade in the Age of Tech and Tension

The next decade will test how nations blend technology, trade, and trust in their food systems:

Digital traceability (e.g., blockchain in agri-exports) will make supply chains more transparent and resilient.

AI-driven crop forecasting may help anticipate trade disruptions before they hit markets.

Regional food corridors — such as India’s push for South-South grain trade and Africa’s AfCFTA agricultural network — could redefine food diplomacy.


However, the underlying tension remains: if trade wars continue to spill into agriculture, food will no longer unite nations through commerce — it will divide them through scarcity.

From Competition to Cooperation

A trade war that turns into a food fight is not just about tariffs; it’s about values. It challenges the global commitment to sustainable development and the right to food.
The lesson from history — from the Corn Laws to COVID-19 — is that protectionism may buy time but not stability. The future calls for multilateral frameworks that protect both farmers and consumers, balancing sovereignty with solidarity.

#GlobalFoodSecurity #TradeWar #FoodPolicy #TariffImpact #ExportControls #AgricultureEconomy #Geopolitics #SupplyChain #FoodDiplomacy #FuturisticTrade

Sunday, October 26, 2025

India’s Silent Growth Brake: Human-Capital Risks via Nutrition and Health



1. Two Decades of Growth and a Shadowed Domain

Over the past two decades, India has frequently been lauded as one of the world’s fastest-growing major economies. GDP growth, rising global integration, digital growth and services export strength have occupied centre-stage in the narrative. But behind the headline figures lies a subtler, more insidious constraint: the country’s human capital base — particularly as shaped by nutrition and health deficits — is emerging as a significant drag on future growth potential.

This blog takes a historical lens to trace how nutrition and health have mattered for India’s economic trajectory; examines how they are flagged today as growth constraints; and offers a futuristic, critical outlook on how these human-capital risks could shape India’s next decade (or more). Importantly, we will draw on data, reasoning and criticality (rather than mere optimism) — because if human capital is the bedrock of growth, neglecting it means mounting risk.

2. Nutrition, Health and Human Capital in India

2.1 A persistent legacy of under-nutrition

Despite economic reforms and growth since the early 1990s, India has continued to carry a heavy burden of childhood under-nutrition. Studies show that stunting, wasting and underweight children remained endemic in large parts of India even when income growth was strong. 

For instance, the paper “Nutrition Research in India: Underweight, Stunted or Wasted?” noted that India was “burdened with an unfinished agenda of under-nutrition” even as it underwent rapid growth. 

2.2 Human Capital and Growth – the missing link

Human capital is often thought of in terms of education and skills. But health and nutrition are equally foundational. The World Bank’s Human Capital Index (HCI) for India shows how under-investment in health and nutrition reduces future incomes. 

Empirical research in the Indian context reveals a strong link: poor nutrition in early childhood correlates with lower adult human-capital attainment (education, labour productivity) and thus weaker economic returns. 

2.3 Growth without broad human-capital gains

Interestingly, the relationship between economic growth and nutrition is complex in India. For example, an econometric study found that while economic growth Granger-causes improvements in nutrition intake, the reverse (nutrition driving growth) was not clearly established. 

In other words: India may have seen rising incomes, but these have not automatically translated into commensurate improvements in the human-capital stock via better health and nutrition.

3. Why Nutrition and Health are a Growth Constraint

3.1 Nutrition & health as infrastructure for growth

A recent policy study highlights that maternal health, early-childhood nutrition, and universal healthcare are as important to GDP growth as physical infrastructure (roads, power, etc.). 

In India’s context this means: if large cohorts of children enter adulthood with sub-optimal health or cognitive development, their productivity will lag — and this drags down aggregate growth potential.

3.2 Persistent regional and socio-economic disparities

Data from the project “India Policy Insights” shows that across 720 districts and 543 parliamentary constituencies, health and social-determinant indicators vary widely. 

Such heterogeneity means that while some states or districts may march ahead, large pockets remain where human-capital formation is weak — creating a structural drag.

3.3 Nutrition deficits translate into macro-losses

A piece by Observer Research Foundation emphasises that poor nutrition “costs billions in lost productivity” in India. 

These are not small numbers: when children are stunted, or adults carry health burdens (e.g., anaemia, chronic illness), their lifetime contributions to GDP diminish; the economy loses through reduced labour participation, lower efficiency, higher healthcare costs.

4. What Could the Future Hold?

4.1 Scenario 1 – Business-as-usual: Sub-optimal growth

If current patterns persist (uneven human-capital development, pockets of under-nutrition, weak health infrastructure), India could see moderate growth but below its full potential. Instead of becoming a high-income economy by mid-century, it might plateau at upper-middle income, with productivity growth hampered by human-capital deficits.

In this scenario:

A sizeable portion of the workforce enters adulthood with inadequate cognitive/physical preparation

The “demographic dividend” may become a demographic burden (if large cohorts are unhealthy or under-skilled)

Growth could be driven by capital and technology but human-capital multiplier weakens, leading to increasing inequality and frustration.


4.2 Scenario 2 – Human-capital redemption: Growth acceleration

Alternatively, if India manages a breakthrough in early childhood nutrition, universal health access, and widespread skill development, the payoff could be large. Improved human capital would amplify productivity, innovation and growth — potentially allowing India to punch above its weight globally.

Key enablers would be:

Strong public investment and reform in maternal/child health, nutrition programmes, early education

Integration of health, nutrition, education and labour policy into a human-capital agenda

Private-sector and social-sector collaboration to close gaps in hard-to-reach regions

Use of technology and data analytics to target interventions precisely.


4.3 Risks on the horizon

Even as we hope for scenario 2, there are critical risks:

Rising non-communicable diseases (NCDs) with urbanisation and changing diet patterns could increase health burdens.

Nutrition transition: over-nutrition and obesity may offset gains from reducing under-nutrition, especially in urban/rural low-income groups.

Climate change, air pollution and environmental stress pose further health challenges, especially for children and the poor.

If human-capital gaps remain unaddressed, inequality could deepen, leading to social and political instability — which in turn undermines growth.


4.4 The importance of timing

One of the most crucial aspects is timing: The earlier the intervention in the lifecycle (pre-birth, early childhood), the higher the human-capital returns. Delays mean that deficits compound, are harder to reverse, and the economic cost widens.

5. Policy and Strategic Imperatives for India

Elevate nutrition and health as core elements of the economic growth strategy — not just welfare concerns.

Prioritise early childhood development: maternal health, infant nutrition, preschool education — as foundational.

Strengthen data systems and district-level analytics (as emerging via the India Policy Insights project) to target lagging geographies and groups. 

Bridge urban–rural and inter-state disparities: national averages may hide concentrated vulnerabilities.

Adapt to emerging challenges: NCDs, environmental health risks, nutritional transition — and ensure human-capital policy is future-proof.

Mobilise public–private partnerships and innovation (e.g., in nutrition delivery, tele-health, skill-building) to scale interventions.

Monitor and reform large programmes (e.g., the Integrated Child Development Services – ICDS) to ensure effectiveness, quality and coverage.

6. A Strategic Warning and Opportunity

India stands at a pivotal moment. On one side is the opportunity to convert its demographic and growth potential into sustained high-income status — if it gets human capital right. On the other side lies the risk that nutrition and health deficits will erode that potential invisibly, creating long-term drag.

In critical terms: growth is not just about infrastructure, capital, or technology — it is also about people. If large sections of India’s human capital are under-nourished, under-prepared or unhealthy, then the gains from other inputs will be muted.

From a futurist’s vantage, consider this: in the global economy of 2040–50, competitiveness will depend not just on robots or AI but on the quality of human capital — health, cognitive ability, creativity, adaptability. If India lags, it may find itself competing not as peer to advanced economies but as follower in the middle-income trap.

Conversely, if India invests now, decisively and early in its human-capital base, the dividend could be vast: a leap in productivity, innovation and global resilience — turning what is currently framed as a “risk” into one of India’s greatest strategic assets.#HumanCapital
#NutritionEconomy
#HealthAsGrowthDriver
#IndiaDevelopment
#DemographicDividend
#ProductivityChallenge
#InclusiveGrowth
#PublicHealthInvestment
#SustainableFuture
#EconomicResilience

Saturday, October 25, 2025

India’s Demographic Dividend: Promise or Peril?

The Paradox of Plenty

India today stands at the crossroads of history. With over 65% of its population below the age of 35, the nation possesses one of the youngest workforces in the world — a demographic advantage that many ageing economies would envy. This so-called demographic dividend offers India a once-in-a-century opportunity to accelerate growth, innovation, and productivity. Yet, as the Business Standard editorial rightly warns, the dividend could morph into a demographic burden if the country fails to translate youthful energy into productive employment.

 Learning from Asia’s Transitions

Historically, nations that harnessed their demographic window — such as South Korea, Singapore, and China — invested heavily in education, urban infrastructure, and labour flexibility. In contrast, countries in Latin America and Africa that did not create productive jobs during their demographic peak witnessed social unrest and income stagnation.

India’s own experience since the 1991 economic reforms shows that while GDP growth has been robust, employment generation has lagged. The share of manufacturing in employment has stagnated, and the shift from agriculture to industry and services — the hallmark of successful economic transitions — remains incomplete.

The Mobility and Productivity Trap

At the core of India’s employment dilemma lies three intertwined challenges:

1. Low Labour Mobility:
India’s internal migration remains limited compared to its population size. Cultural barriers, lack of housing, and non-portable social benefits prevent workers from moving to more productive regions. The absence of a unified labour market reduces allocative efficiency.


2. Low Productivity in Informal Sectors:
Nearly 85% of India’s workforce remains in informal employment, contributing disproportionately less to national income. Productivity gaps between the informal and formal sectors are wide, and without digital and skill integration, the divide may worsen.


3. Weak Sectoral Transition:
While the services sector contributes over 50% of GDP, it absorbs less than 30% of the labour force. Agriculture, still employing around 42%, contributes under 15% of GDP — a clear indicator of underemployment and disguised labour.


Education and Skills: The Missing Link

India’s education system produces millions of graduates each year, yet only a fraction are job-ready. The ASER reports have repeatedly shown basic learning deficiencies, while the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) highlights skill mismatches.

Without a comprehensive reform in vocational training, apprenticeships, and industry-academia linkages, the economy risks creating a generation that is educated but unemployable. Digital literacy, AI readiness, and green skills will define the next decade — and India cannot afford to lag behind.

Converting Potential into Power

To avoid a demographic reversal, India must pursue fundamental reforms across multiple fronts:

Labour Mobility: Implement portable social security systems, housing policies for migrant workers, and inter-state recognition of skill certifications.

Human Capital Upgradation: Reform curricula to include digital, technical, and entrepreneurial competencies.

Sectoral Strategy: Promote labour-intensive manufacturing (textiles, leather, electronics assembly) alongside modern services (healthcare, logistics, AI).

Regional Development: Encourage investment in aspirational districts to prevent urban overconcentration and ensure balanced growth.

Gender Inclusion: Increasing women’s labour participation from ~25% to even 40% could boost GDP growth by 1.5–2 percentage points annually.

The AI–Automation Dilemma

By 2035, automation and AI could displace up to 20% of current routine jobs, but could also create new opportunities in AI maintenance, data services, and green technologies. The key will be reskilling rather than resisting automation. India must align its demographic dividend with the AI dividend, leveraging its youthful population to supply the global demand for digital labour and innovation.

From Numbers to Competence

India’s demographic advantage is not a guarantee — it is a responsibility. History teaches that numbers alone do not ensure prosperity; only productive employment and institutional reform do. As the global economic map shifts toward technology and sustainability, India’s challenge will be to transform its young population from a statistical blessing into a strategic asset.

The next decade will decide whether India’s youth becomes its engine of growth — or its greatest missed opportunity.

#DemographicDividend #IndiaGrowth #LabourReform #SkillDevelopment #YouthEmployment #AIWorkforce #EconomicTransition #HumanCapital #InclusiveGrowth #FutureOfWork

Friday, October 24, 2025

AI Startups Dominate Global VC Funding in 2025: Promise, Pressure, and the Next Frontier

A Historic Inflection Point in Venture Capital

For the first time in modern venture capital history, AI-focused startups have captured over 51% of global VC funding in 2025, according to BusinessWorld. This marks not just a funding milestone but a structural realignment of global innovation priorities. Artificial Intelligence, once a specialized frontier of computer science, has now become the nucleus of entrepreneurial imagination, investor conviction, and geopolitical ambition.

Historically, such inflection points occur when a technology transitions from experimentation to indispensable infrastructure. The 1980s belonged to personal computing, the 1990s to the internet, the 2000s to mobile and social media, and the 2010s to cloud computing and fintech. 2025 stands out as the year when AI officially became the gravitational center of venture capital.

Why Investors Are Betting Big on AI

The surge in funding reflects deep investor confidence in AI’s potential to transform sectors — from healthcare and manufacturing to education and finance. The emergence of AI copilots, autonomous decision systems, and AI-powered product design has created a belief that future economic productivity will depend less on labor and more on algorithms.

However, this optimism carries nuance. Many investors acknowledge that valuations have stretched beyond rational metrics. The rush to capture “AI real estate” echoes the early-2000s dot-com frenzy — when market capitalization often preceded market readiness. The challenge now lies not in capital availability but in the sustainability of AI business models: can these startups convert computational innovation into durable economic value?

Global Context: Between Boom and Bubble

Across major innovation hubs — from Silicon Valley to Shenzhen, London to Bengaluru — venture funds are recalibrating portfolios to ensure AI exposure. In 2025, BusinessWorld estimates that over USD 350 billion of global VC funding flowed into AI-related ventures, compared to less than USD 80 billion just three years ago. This exponential rise is driven by:

Generative AI breakthroughs, making content and code creation frictionless.

Data infrastructure startups, powering model training and enterprise integration.

AI-driven cybersecurity, becoming a strategic priority amid rising digital threats.

AI-in-health and biotech, accelerating diagnostics and drug discovery.


Yet, the speed of capital flow also raises systemic risks. High valuations may push startups toward unsustainable growth models, while dependence on cloud hyperscalers and GPU supply chains introduces concentration risk. The ecosystem must now mature — shifting from hype to durable innovation.

India’s Wake-Up Call

For India, the 2025 AI funding trend is both an opportunity and a warning. Indian startups, though increasingly visible in global tech conversations, face two critical challenges:

1. Global Competition: U.S., Chinese, and European startups command larger R&D budgets, stronger IP protection, and deeper market access.


2. Execution Pressure: Global investors now expect scalability, ethics, and explainability — not just innovation.

That said, India’s advantages are structural. With the world’s largest pool of tech talent, growing AI research clusters (in Bengaluru, Hyderabad, and Pune), and government initiatives such as IndiaAI Mission and Digital India Bhashini, the ecosystem has begun bridging the capability gap. The coming years could see India move from being a service hub to a product-driven AI innovation base — if it can align policy, capital, and capability.

Historical Parallels and Lessons

Looking back, the AI boom mirrors earlier industrial transformations. The 19th-century railway mania in Britain, though speculative, laid the foundation for modern transport and logistics. The dot-com bubble, despite its crashes, birthed Amazon, Google, and Alibaba. Similarly, the current AI funding wave — even if it cools — will define the next generation of digital infrastructure. Failures will be frequent, but the survivors could reshape entire sectors.

The Futuristic Outlook: From AI to Intelligence Infrastructure

The next frontier is not merely AI as a product but AI as infrastructure — embedded in governance, logistics, energy, and education. As quantum computing, edge AI, and neuro-symbolic reasoning mature, the startups that survive 2025’s valuation race will become the architects of a new cognitive economy.

By 2030, venture funding may no longer distinguish between “AI startups” and “others.” Much like how “internet startups” became simply “startups,” artificial intelligence will become the invisible backbone of every digital enterprise. The real winners will be those who balance technological ambition with human-centric ethics and sustainable scale.

Beyond Capital, Toward Capability

The 2025 surge in AI venture funding signals both confidence and caution. Investors are betting that AI will define the productivity frontier of the 21st century, but the real test lies in execution — in aligning innovation with governance, transparency, and inclusive growth. For India and the world alike, the future of AI entrepreneurship depends not on how much is funded, but on how wisely it is built.
#AIStartups #VentureCapital #ArtificialIntelligence #IndiaAI #TechInnovation #DigitalEconomy #StartupEcosystem #FutureOfWork #GenerativeAI #InnovationLeadership

Thursday, October 23, 2025

India: The New Frontier of Global AI Talent Wars

The Context: A Quiet Revolution in Talent Sourcing

In a landmark shift, global AI players like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Perplexity are now actively sourcing engineering, research, product, and sales talent from India. What began as a scattered trend of remote hires has now evolved into a deliberate, structured move toward deep engagement with India’s AI and tech ecosystem.

This change is not coincidental—it reflects a global recalibration of the innovation map, where India is transitioning from being a support engine of the world’s software economy to a core contributor in the next phase of AI-driven global growth.


Historical Perspective: From Back Office to Brain Trust

Over the last three decades, India’s technology evolution has followed a clear trajectory:

  • 1990s–2000s: Dominance in IT services through firms like Infosys, TCS, and Wipro.
  • 2010s: Rise of startups and digital platforms—Flipkart, Paytm, Ola—creating a domestic innovation ecosystem.
  • 2020s: The “AI Decade,” with India emerging not only as a digital market of scale but as a knowledge and R&D hub for cutting-edge technologies.

Global Capability Centres (GCCs)—over 1,600 now operating in India—have matured from executing outsourced tasks to owning core R&D mandates. OpenAI and Anthropic’s current talent search from Indian startups and GCCs marks the beginning of a new chapter: India as a global AI brain trust.


Data and Trends: Why India Now

Several data points explain this talent shift:

  • Cost-Quality Advantage: Top AI engineers in India cost roughly one-fourth to one-third of their U.S. counterparts while maintaining world-class skills.
  • Expanding AI Workforce: India has over 400,000 professionals with AI and data science capabilities (NASSCOM 2024).
  • Startup Ecosystem: Over 3,000 AI-focused startups are registered, spanning generative AI, deep learning, and AI infrastructure.
  • Global Integration: Major tech multinationals (Google, Microsoft, Amazon) have long operated AI labs in India, familiarizing global teams with Indian R&D excellence.

Thus, for frontier AI companies, India is not an experiment—it’s a strategic inevitability.


Disruption Ahead: The Great Talent Reordering

The recruitment wave will inevitably disrupt India’s existing tech talent pipelines.

  1. Migration from Services to AI-Product Roles: The next 12–24 months will see engineers moving away from traditional IT services into product-driven AI ecosystems.
  2. Upward Salary Pressure: Global companies will push wage benchmarks up, creating inflationary pressure in niche roles like ML engineering, LLM optimization, and AI infrastructure design.
  3. Startups at Risk: Indian AI startups may struggle to retain top talent, as global firms offer higher compensation and visibility.
  4. Brain Gain, Not Brain Drain: However, this time, talent flight could strengthen India’s global footprint, as many professionals will remain geographically in India but work for global AI enterprises.

Strategic Implications: Two Faces of Opportunity

For India’s startups, this scenario is both a test and an opportunity:

  • On the upside, collaboration or acquisition by global AI firms opens access to capital, IP, and global markets.
  • On the downside, losing critical technical staff could slow indigenous innovation and widen dependence on global ecosystems.

For global companies, India offers a long-term solution to the AI talent bottleneck. However, they must tread carefully—balancing competitive hiring with ecosystem building.


Critical Outlook: Policy, Education, and the Future

The next decade will hinge on how India institutionalizes its AI talent advantage.

  • Education & Research: Integration of AI in curricula across IITs, NITs, and private universities must accelerate.
  • Ethical AI & Regulation: As India becomes a global hub, policy clarity on AI ethics, data protection, and IP ownership will shape investor confidence.
  • AI Hubs Beyond Metros: Expanding R&D and startup ecosystems beyond Bengaluru, Hyderabad, and Pune to Tier-2 cities can democratize opportunities.

In essence, the battle is no longer about who builds the best models—but who builds the most sustainable AI talent pipeline.


Futuristic Perspective: The “India Model” of AI Globalization

Looking ahead, India’s AI story could evolve into a distinct “India Model” of globalization—where domestic innovation, affordability, and global collaboration converge.
The next wave may not just see India exporting engineers—it will export AI frameworks, products, and ethical standards.

As OpenAI and Anthropic hunt for Indian minds, the question is not whether India will be part of the global AI future—it’s how India will define it.


#ArtificialIntelligence #AITalent #IndiaTech #OpenAI #Anthropic #Perplexity #FutureOfWork #GlobalCapabilityCentres #AIInnovation #DigitalIndia

Wednesday, October 22, 2025

Agriculture as a Red Line in India–U.S. Trade Talks: A Battle Between Sovereignty and Global Integration

Agriculture has always been more than just an economic sector for India—it is a matter of livelihood, identity, and political stability. In the recent rounds of India–U.S. trade discussions, this reality resurfaced sharply when India’s Finance Minister declared agriculture and dairy as “non-negotiable” sectors. The stance underlines a historic truth: agricultural markets are not merely commercial spaces but arenas of national security, social justice, and strategic power.

Historical Context: A Sensitive Legacy

Since independence, India’s trade policy has walked a tightrope between protecting farmers and engaging with global markets. The 1991 economic liberalization opened many sectors to foreign competition, but agriculture remained largely shielded. Lessons from the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) still echo today—while developed nations maintained massive subsidies under “green boxes,” developing countries like India faced pressure to reduce tariffs and domestic support.

The memory of the 2008 Doha Round deadlock, where India refused to compromise on food security provisions, shapes today’s negotiation posture. For India, every clause in a trade agreement touching agriculture carries the weight of millions of smallholders whose livelihoods depend on price stability and government intervention.

The U.S. Perspective: Market Access and Strategic Interests

For the United States, the agricultural agenda is driven by efficiency, scale, and surplus. American agribusinesses—particularly in dairy, ethanol, and grain—are seeking new markets as domestic consumption plateaus. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has consistently flagged India’s “high tariffs” and “non-tariff barriers” as obstacles to fair trade. Behind these statements lies the push to integrate American farmers and processors into India’s vast consumer base, particularly its growing middle class with changing dietary patterns.

However, India’s cautious approach stems from structural asymmetry. U.S. farmers operate in a heavily mechanized, subsidized environment, while Indian agriculture is fragmented and labor-intensive. The entry of large U.S. dairy or ethanol producers could distort domestic prices, undermine cooperatives like Amul, and threaten rural income security.

The Economics of Protection: Rational or Regressive?

Critics argue that India’s protectionist stance prevents efficiency and global integration. Yet, data reveals a nuanced reality. Agriculture employs nearly 42% of India’s workforce but contributes only around 17% of GDP. Productivity gaps and climatic risks make the sector fragile. Unfettered liberalization, without safety nets, could destabilize rural demand and trigger socio-economic distress.

At the same time, maintaining protection indefinitely is unsustainable. India’s agricultural exports—rice, sugar, and spices—face retaliatory tariffs abroad whenever domestic restrictions are imposed. Thus, a selective and calibrated liberalization, supported by technology adoption and better infrastructure, is essential for long-term competitiveness.

Global Geopolitics: From Subsidies to Sovereignty

Agriculture is no longer just about crops—it is a pillar of geo-economic sovereignty. From climate-linked crop failures to supply chain disruptions during the pandemic, nations have realized that food security is strategic security. The U.S. views trade liberalization as a route to global influence, while India perceives self-reliance as a bulwark against vulnerability.

Recent geopolitical tensions—whether over fertilizers, ethanol blending mandates, or export bans—show that agriculture is a frontline of the new trade order. India’s decision to keep agriculture “off the table” reflects both defensive realism and developmental pragmatism.

Future Outlook: Navigating the Tightrope

The coming decade will likely witness a re-definition of agricultural diplomacy.

  • Technology will be the bridge: Precision farming, agri-AI, and biofuel cooperation could offer neutral grounds for India-U.S. collaboration.
  • Climate commitments will reshape trade: Both countries may integrate sustainability standards into agricultural trade norms.
  • Regional alliances will diversify dependencies: India’s outreach to Africa and ASEAN for agri-trade partnerships could balance U.S. pressure.

Ultimately, India’s red line in agriculture is not about isolation—it is about negotiation on equal terms. Protecting farmers need not mean rejecting reform; it can mean designing reform that uplifts them before exposing them to global volatility.

Conclusion: The Politics of Food and the Future of Fair Trade

Agriculture will remain a defining test of how India reconciles global integration with local protection. The “red line” drawn today may, in hindsight, represent a prudent safeguard—ensuring that trade serves people, not just markets. The challenge for policymakers is to turn this stance from a defensive posture into a proactive strategy that combines sustainability, competitiveness, and social justice.

In the evolving India–U.S. trade narrative, agriculture is not a roadblock—it is the mirror reflecting each nation’s priorities, politics, and principles.

#IndiaUSRelations #AgriculturePolicy #TradeTalks #FoodSecurity #DairySector #GlobalCompetitiveness #Subsidies #FarmerWelfare #GeoEconomics #AgriTrade

Tuesday, October 21, 2025

Gen Z and the New Politics of Power: Why Business Can’t Afford to Ignore the Generational Earthquake

A Global Wave Beyond Party Lines

Across continents—from youth-led protests in Madagascar to climate marches in Europe and digital campaigns in Asia—Generation Z is reshaping the meaning of political participation. No longer confined to the ballot box, this generation’s activism flows through social media, consumer choices, and workplace demands. Their politics are not just ideological; they are existential—driven by climate anxiety, identity, fairness, and authenticity.

Historically, youth movements have defined turning points in governance—the anti-colonial uprisings of the 1940s–60s, the civil rights movements of the 1960s, and the Arab Spring in the 2010s. But Gen Z’s rise marks something different: a digitally networked consciousness that fuses economics, ethics, and emotion. The tools of protest—hashtags, boycotts, petitions—are instantaneous, borderless, and often leaderless, giving this generation unparalleled reach but also volatility.

The Economic Ripple: Activism as a Market Force

The shift isn’t merely political—it’s economic. Consumer activism is now market behaviour. Gen Z buyers demand sustainability, gender inclusion, ethical sourcing, and social responsibility. A company’s silence on global or local injustice can directly impact its bottom line. Fast fashion, for example, has faced declining loyalty among younger consumers due to environmental concerns, while ethical brands have become symbols of social identity.

Moreover, Gen Z workers—who will make up over 25% of the global workforce by 2030—expect purpose-driven employment, hybrid flexibility, and transparent corporate values. Businesses that fail to embed social purpose risk higher attrition and reputational decline. Traditional corporate hierarchies are being tested by employees who see work not just as income but as moral alignment.

The Fragility of Fast-Activism

However, there’s an underside to this generational surge. Much of Gen Z activism is instantaneous, emotionally charged, and expectation-heavy. The same digital tools that enable mobilization can also breed impatience and polarization. Social causes risk dilution when attention shifts rapidly from one trend to another. Governments and corporations face turbulence when the “demand for change” meets the slow realities of institutional process.

This fragility has precedent: the 1968 Paris student protests reshaped discourse but struggled to convert momentum into policy. Similarly, modern youth movements may face burnout or fragmentation without systemic channels for dialogue and reform.

Strategic Implications for Business and Governance

1. Reputation is policy. Corporate neutrality is no longer neutral—silence can be interpreted as complicity. Firms must anticipate social sentiment and act with authenticity, not tokenism.


2. Engagement must be dialogic. Businesses and governments must create listening platforms where young voices influence decisions meaningfully, not superficially.


3. Adapt governance and communication. Political and corporate leaders need agility to respond to emotional economies—where perception, not just performance, drives legitimacy.


4. Integrate foresight into strategy. As Gen Z’s priorities—climate, equity, digital freedom—reshape policy agendas, long-term competitiveness will depend on aligning with these values.

A Historical Continuum and a Futuristic Warning

History reminds us that every generational transition redefines social contracts. The post-war boom was built on Baby Boomer labor and optimism; the 1990s tech revolution was powered by Millennials. Now, Gen Z inherits a fractured world of debt, inequality, and climate instability. Their impatience is not recklessness—it’s urgency born of existential uncertainty.

But the next decade will test whether this moral energy can evolve from protest to policy, emotion to institution. Businesses and governments that ignore it risk not just irrelevance but backlash. Those that adapt could gain a generation of loyal citizens, consumers, and collaborators.

From Hashtags to Heritage

Gen Z’s rise is not a fleeting youth rebellion; it’s a structural realignment of values and power. The future of politics and economics will depend on whether institutions learn to translate this moral momentum into lasting reform. For businesses, that means re-defining success not just by profit, but by participation—becoming partners in a generational transition that is already rewriting the global script.

#GenZPolitics #YouthActivism #CorporateStrategy #FutureOfWork #GenerationalShift #EconomicTransformation #DigitalDemocracy #EthicalConsumerism #Sustainability #PoliticalEconomy


Monday, October 20, 2025

Global Agriculture at a Crossroads: Stalled Productivity and Shifting Trade Winds

Agriculture has long been the bedrock of civilisation — from ancient ploughs turning soil in the Fertile Crescent, to the high-tech, drone-scattered fields of today. But as we move deeper into the 21st century, the sector faces twin structural challenges: slowing productivity growth and tectonic shifts in trade and self-sufficiency strategies. Left unaddressed, these trends threaten not only global food security but also economic stability, geopolitics and ecological resilience. In this blog I will offer a historical perspective on how we got here, dive into current evidence of the slowdown and trade realignment (with a particular focus on China), and then project a futuristic and critical outlook on what agriculture might look like — or need to look like — in the decades ahead.

1. A historical sweep: How productivity soared — and now stalls

For much of the 20th century and into the early 21st, global agriculture rode a wave of spectacular productivity gains: the Green Revolution, widespread mechanisation, improved fertilisers, seed breeding, irrigation expansion, and global trade networks that allowed surpluses and specialisation. 

To illustrate the trend with numbers: over the long period from 1961–2021, world agricultural output increased at about 2.3 % annually. Total factor productivity (TFP) — a measure of output produced per unit of input — grew at about 1.1 % per year over that span. 

However the last decade shows a much less impressive story: between 2011–2020, output grew around 1.93 % per year, compared with 2.72 % in the 2001–2010 decade. More strikingly, TFP growth fell to just about 1.14 % annually in 2011–2021 from 1.93 % in 2001–2010. 

Why is this slowdown so worrying? Because agriculture is a fundamental enabling sector: it supplies food (and increasingly bio-inputs), stabilises incomes in many countries, supports economic development, and underpins food security. When productivity slows, it means either inputs must rise (land, water, fertiliser, labour) or production growth must fall (with attendant implications for food prices, trade imbalances, rural employment, biodiversity and environment).

Several key drivers of the slowdown have been identified:

Climate change and extreme weather events are reducing yield potentials and increasing risks. One study estimates that anthropogenic climate change has reduced global agricultural TFP by about 21 % since 1961, equivalent to losing roughly nine years of productivity growth. 

Research & development, extension of innovations, and adoption of technologies are lagging. In regions where the “easy” gains (irrigation expansion, high-yield varieties) have already been captured, incremental improvements are harder to come by. In the U.S., research shows agriculture is facing its first productivity slowdown in decades, partly from weak R&D investment. 

Soil degradation, diminishing returns on input intensification, ecological constraints (water, land, nutrients) impose harder limits.

The “low-hanging fruit” of productivity have largely been picked; future gains will likely require more radical changes (digital agriculture, precision farming, biology-based seeds) which are more complex, costly, and risk-laden.

A golden era of productivity acceleration has given way to a more challenging plateau — and perhaps a deceleration — just when global demand (driven by population growth, diets, rising incomes) still aims upward.

2. Trade shifts & self-sufficiency: The changing map of global agriculture

While productivity dynamics are internal to the farming and production system, the external dimension of global trade is shifting dramatically — with major implications for how countries organise agriculture and how global markets work.

China as a case study

One of the most consequential actors is China, whose agricultural and trade policies are helping reshape global flows. Consider these pieces of evidence:

China has set an ambitious self-sufficiency agenda: the country has declared a “red line” for arable land and emphasised “zero tolerance” for falling below it, aiming to bolster domestic production and reduce import dependence. 

Historically, China’s agricultural trade shifted markedly. After its accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001, China moved from being a modest exporter of agricultural products to a major net importer. For example, exports grew ~8 % annually over two decades, but imports grew ~15 % annually. 

The sectoral composition of trade is changing: for instance in one recent study raw agricultural imports still account for more than 60 % of China’s total agri-imports, while the share of raw products in exports dropped below 40 % by 2023. 

Underlying this are structural constraints: China’s arable land declined by over 12 million ha between 2009–2021, while intensification (fertiliser use, chemical inputs) has created soil, water and environmental stress. 


The upshot: China’s push for self-sufficiency (especially in staple grains) and its changed import/export posture are tilting the global agricultural map.

Global implications

Countries that previously relied on export-oriented agriculture catering to China’s import demands must now reassess: if China shrinks its import growth, this will reverberate through global commodity markets.

Supply chains will see increasing regionalisation or re-orientation: e.g., producers may shift toward other emerging demand centres, or rethink which crops make sense to export versus produce domestically.

Strategic geopolitics enters: food security is increasingly intertwined with national security. Self-sufficiency, domestic buffers, and control of value-chains matter.

Smaller or open-economy agricultural exporters may face risk of demand shocks if major importers shift their strategies.

Trade policy, tariffs, subsidies, and bilateral/multilateral agreements will matter more: production may become more localised or constrained by strategic considerations rather than purely comparative advantage.

3. A future-critical outlook: Where agriculture is headed (and what must change)

Putting together the productivity slowdown and the trade re-shaping, we enter a crucial inflection point for global agriculture. The decisions made (and the innovations adopted) now will shape outcomes for food security, sustainability and geopolitical stability. Here are some of the key elements and what to watch for — with a critical lens.

3.1 Productivity renaissance or stagnation?

Scenario A: Renaissance: If agricultural systems invest heavily in the next wave of technology — precision/robotic farming, gene-edited crops, vertical/controlled-environment agriculture, digital data analytics, AI + remote sensing (what some call “Agriculture 4.0”) — then we might re-accelerate productivity growth. Indeed studies suggest this is feasible but only with concerted investment. 

Scenario B: Stagnation / decline: If investment remains low, R&D lags, climate effects worsen, and socio-economic barriers (adoption, infrastructure) persist — then we may see productivity growth fall further, perhaps to under 1 % annually. That would severely constrain output growth in the face of rising demand.


Criticality: The difference between these scenarios is not trivial. A sustained productivity growth of ~2 % annually might allow supply to keep pace with moderate demand growth without huge expansions of land or inputs. But growth at <1 % means either demand must moderate (hard politically) or supply will struggle, pushing up food prices, intensifying land conversion, increasing environmental degradation and contributing to social unrest.

3.2 Demand–supply mismatch & environmental trade-offs

With a global population projected to reach ~9–10 billion this century and rising per capita demands, agriculture will need to deliver more with less (land, water, ecological impact).

If productivity fails to keep up, the only recourse may be intensification (more inputs per hectare) or expansion (bringing more land into production) — both of which come with environmental costs (soil degradation, deforestation, biodiversity loss, water stress). For example, one model shows supply-side improvements alone trigger compensatory land expansion that undermines ecological gains. 

Therefore, demand-side change (diet shifts, food waste reduction, more plant-based diets) becomes a critical lever. Without it, the ecological burden of agriculture will balloon.


3.3 Trade re-wiring and strategic agriculture

As major players like China orbit toward self-sufficiency in certain crops and try to de-risk imports, global supply-chains will re-wire. Countries will be forced to ask: Which crops am I going to export, which will I produce domestically? Where are my competitive advantages?

Some regions may transition away from bulk commodity crop production (if their customers change), toward higher-value crops, services (ag-tech), or diverse systems. Others may double down on staple production to serve export markets still open.

Strategic backup and resilience will matter: nations may maintain buffer stocks, diversify geographic sourcing, and invest in domestic capacity for staples (even if not fully competitive).

Trade alliances and agricultural diplomacy will become more prominent — agriculture will more explicitly be part of geopolitical strategy (not just commercial trade).


3.4 Sustainability, agriculture as climate actor

Agriculture will be simultaneously part of the solution and part of the problem: it must feed billions, but also reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, protect soils, restore landscapes and manage water. The global agrifood system is already under scrutiny for its environmental footprint. 

Productivity gains alone are insufficient if they degrade ecological capital (soil, biodiversity, water). The future must integrate regenerative agriculture, agro-ecological practices, and closed-loop systems.

From a risk standpoint: if agricultural productivity lags and environmental degradation accelerates, the outcome could be a vicious cycle — degraded soils lower yields, yield drops drive expansion, that expansion degrades more land, etc.


3.5 What must change — policy, investment, mindset

Massive investment in agricultural R&D, extension services, infrastructure (rural roads, digital connectivity) and adoption mechanisms. Without bridging the “innovation-to-practice” gap, productivity will stall. 

Adoption of smart farming: IoT sensors, drones, robotics, gene technologies, precision irrigation — these must move from niche to standard, globally, including in lower-income countries. 

Re-orientation of trade policies: Governments must recognise that self-sufficiency goals may conflict with comparative advantage and global efficiency — trade diversification, regional cooperation and strategic reserves become more critical.

Demand-side strategies: Encourage dietary shifts, reduce food waste, promote more sustainable consumption. This eases the pressure on supply systems.

Environmental integration: Reward systems and policies must value soil health, water sustainability, biodiversity. Agriculture must earn the right to expand or intensify by safeguarding the ecosystem.

Resilience mindset: Climate shocks, supply-chain disruptions, trade wars will continue — systems need built-in buffers, flexibility and redundancy. The era of “just-in-time” global food may be more brittle than recognised.

4. A visionary scenario to 2050 and beyond

Imagine the global agricultural landscape in 2050 under two divergent pathways:

Pathway 1: “Stagnation & Stress”

Global agricultural productivity grows at ~0.5–1.0 % annually.

Staple crop output barely keeps pace with demand; food prices steadily climb; pressure on marginal lands intensifies.

Major importers like China reduce dependence, forcing export-oriented producers to scramble for new markets or shift crops.

Environmental degradation accelerates — soil loss, water scarcity, biodiversity erosion become limiting factors.

Food insecurity hotspots increase; trade disruptions (due to climate, geopolitics) become more frequent.

Agriculture becomes a significant risk vector for instability (migration, conflict over resources, price shocks).


Pathway 2: “Transform & Thrive”

Productivity rebounds to ~1.5–2.0 % annually via widespread adoption of advanced technologies and regenerative practices.

Smart farming, biological innovations, precision inputs, AI-driven crop management become mainstream globally.

Agriculture is decoupled from heavy land/chemical expansion: more yield per hectare, less environmental damage.

Trade flows stabilise but shift: self-sufficient nations still trade high-value speciality crops, services and technologies, while staple chains become regionalised and resilient.

Demand-side moderation (plant-rich diets, lower waste) ensures supply stress is manageable.

Agriculture becomes part of the climate solution: sequestering carbon, restoring soils, integrating agro-forestry, supporting biodiversity.

Food systems are more robust: better buffers, diversified sourcing, resilient to shocks.


Which path unfolds depends critically on decisions taken now. The stakes are high. In agriculture, a half-percent difference in productivity growth adds up to massive output shortfalls by mid-century.

5. Final reflections

The era of sweeping productivity gains in agriculture is waning; the next decade is likely to bring slower growth, higher risks unless we act.

Global trade in agriculture is being re-calibrated — countries like China are shifting toward self-sufficiency, altering demand landscapes and forcing realignment of supply chains.

Agriculture now sits at the conjunction of food security, climate change, trade geopolitics, technological disruption and environmental sustainability.

The imperative is not just produce more — but produce better, smarter, more sustainably, and integrate demand-side moderation.

For policymakers, businesses and farmers alike, the coming years will require strategic foresight, investment in innovation, agility in trade and commitment to ecological health. Without this, we risk a world where agricultural growth stalls, food becomes more expensive and fragile, and the ecological cost becomes unbearable.


Agriculture is not just facing another incremental phase of growth — it is entering a period of transition. The choices we make now will determine whether that transition leads to renewed vitality or systemic strain.

#agriculturalproductivity
#foodsecurity
#globaltrade
#climatechange
#selfsufficiency
#sustainablefarming
#agricultureinnovation
#chinaagriculturepolicy
#regenerativeagriculture
#futureoffood



Saturday, October 18, 2025

From Sustainability as Buzzword to Sustainability as Business Imperative

The idea of corporate sustainability — blending environmental, social and governance (ESG) concerns with financial performance — is no longer a niche or feel-good add-on. In the early 2000s, many firms talked of “going green” or “corporate social responsibility” but few seriously aligned that with their core business model or financial returns.
Over the last decade the paradigm has shifted: investors, regulators, civil society and customers increasingly demand that companies manage the risk of the climate transition, adapt to resource constraints, and embed measurable sustainability into their strategy.

So when IBD (Investor’s Business Daily) launches its “50 Most Sustainable Companies 2025” list, it is doing so not merely as a recognition of virtue signalling, but as a signal of how sustainability is increasingly treated as a material business factor.

What the IBD List Tells Us: Methodology, Metrics & Meaning

The list is built on more than branding: IBD’s methodology starts with the Morningstar Sustainalytics Low Carbon Transition Leaders index and filters firms by strong technical and fundamental stock ratings. 
Key criteria included:

A climate-management score (0-100) from Sustainalytics, where above ~56 is “strong” and above ~76 “very strong”. 

A stock price of at least $10 and consistent five-year outperformance relative to the S&P 500. 

Companies must earn an IBD Composite Rating of 80 or above. 


In effect, the list filters out pure virtue signalling firms: only companies combining sustainable strategy and financial discipline make the cut. As IBD puts it, “not just how green the company is, but can it grow and deliver returns in all types of market environments”. 

This dual-focus (sustainability and fundamentals) is key: it signals to investors that managing climate transition risk, resource efficiency, product-innovation for a lower-carbon world, etc., can coincide with strong business performance.

A Look Back: Why This Matters Historically

Let’s pull back and see why this sort of list is not just nice-to-have but rooted in deeper shifts.

1. The resource & climate shock era
For much of the 20th century, companies could assume cheap energy, abundant natural resources, and externalising environmental cost. That assumption is eroding. Rising energy and raw-material costs, supply-chain shocks (pandemic, geopolitics), and mounting regulatory pressure mean that the “business as usual” model is fragiler than ever.


2. Investment and risk-management evolution
Only a few years ago ESG investing was often relegated to niche funds. Now, mainstream investors treat climate risk, transition risk, stranded-asset risk, supply-chain vulnerability, and social licence to operate as real financial risks. The IBD list is a symptom of that shift: sustainability metrics are being embedded in financial screens.


3. Technological and market paradigm shifts
Electric vehicles, grid-modernisation, hydrogen, data-centre electrification, renewables — these trends unlock new business opportunities. Companies that are aligned to these secular megatrends stand to benefit. The historical pivot is that sustainability is no longer just compliance or cost-avoidance, it is becoming growth-lever.


4. Accountability & measurement advances
In the past, sustainability claims were inconsistent: “We aim to be carbon-neutral by 2050” without much disclosure or metrics. Today, firms are increasingly publishing Scope 1-3 emissions, setting science-based targets, and being ranked by third-party providers like Sustainalytics. The IBD list leverages these advancements.

In short: the IBD list reflects a mature moment — sustainability isn’t peripheral, it’s embedded in how companies are being judged for future viability.

What the 2025 List Suggests About the Present and Near Future

A few observations from the actual content of the list:

The winners are not all niche green firms. Some are large companies in sectors like electrical equipment (for example Eaton Corporation), health care (Eli Lilly and Company), financials and consumer brands. This breadth signals that sustainability has become cross-sector, not just confined to “clean energy” firms. 

Take Eaton: three-quarters of its 2024 net sales came from products and solutions that contribute to sustainability. It has pledged $3 billion in sustainability R&D by 2030, invested $1.7 billion so far. These are heavy commitments. 

Take Eli Lilly: in a sector (pharmaceuticals) that is energy/water/materials-intensive, the company has cut Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 37% from 2020–24 and sources 58% of electricity from renewables. 

Politically and socially: even amid rising “anti-ESG” rhetoric (especially in the U.S.), the data shows that sustainable/low-carbon companies are outperforming fossil-heavy peers. 

What this suggests:

Investors are no longer willing to accept sustainability as a side-note. Firms are being evaluated on how well they transition into the low-carbon future, not simply how green they appear today.

Companies that integrate sustainability into the core of their business (products, services, value chain) are likely to gain a competitive edge.

The transition is not linear or optional. Firms that fail to align risk becoming stranded assets — whether via regulatory pressure, supply-chain disruption, consumer shifting, or physical climate impacts.

Transparency and data matter: having targets is good, but measurable progress, disclosures, external verification count. The IBD list leans heavily on such metrics.


A Critical Outlook: Challenges, Risks & What to Watch

While the IBD list is encouraging, a genuinely robust outlook demands critical reflection. Here are key caveats and forward-looking risks.

1. Greenwashing and “look good” risk
Even with increased metrics, the risk remains that companies highlight sustainability initiatives while the bulk of their revenues still derive from high-carbon or unsustainable activities. Sustainability must be deeply embedded, not peripheral.


2. Scope 3 & value-chain complexity
Many companies may have strong performance on Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, but Scope 3 (supplier, product-use, end-of-life) is vastly harder to measure and control. The transition risk is often hidden in those parts of the chain.


3. Technology and economy-transition uncertainty
The low-carbon transition path is not guaranteed. There are risks of technology delays (e.g., energy storage), policy reversals, raw-material scarcity (critical minerals), or unexpected physical climate shocks. Companies must not only commit but adapt.


4. Valuation and competitiveness
The flipside of being “most sustainable” is that valuations may already incorporate much of the upside. Investors must critically assess whether the sustainability premium is justified, and whether companies can continue to deliver growth. Sustainability is no guarantee of outperformance.


5. Geopolitics and regulatory shifts
As the recent “anti-ESG” backlash in the U.S. shows, regulatory and political risk remains high. A company may be doing well in one region but face backlash, disclosure mandates, subsidy shifts or litigation in another. Being globally diversified and resilient is key. 


6. Lagging sectors and transition winners/losers
Not all sectors are equally positioned. Some legacy sectors (fossil fuels, heavy industry) will face stiff headwinds; new sectors (electric infrastructure, data-centre electrification, sustainable mobility) may be winners — but also crowded. Investors must discriminate.



Looking Ahead: The Futuristic Frame (2030 & Beyond)

Projecting forward to 2030 and beyond, a few frames emerge:

Carbon as strategic input: By 2030, the cost of carbon (whether via regulation, taxation, or opportunity cost) will likely be far higher. Firms that have internalised carbon cost modelling, circular-economy thinking, and product-life-cycle design will be advantaged.

Sustainable product-revenue growth: Companies whose future revenue increasingly comes from “sustainability-enabled” products/services (say electrification equipment, clean-energy infrastructure, low-emission pharmaceuticals, circular-economy models) will differentiate themselves. The IBD list already highlights this trend (e.g. Eaton).

Integration of ESG into all decision-making: By 2030, ESG will not be a separate “sustainability” department; it will be woven into strategy, risk-management, R&D, supply-chain, reporting, and board governance. Firms that don’t make this integration risk being left behind.

Data & disclosure as competitive weapon: Transparency will become the baseline. Investors increasingly demand granular metrics: real-time emissions, product lifecycle footprint, supplier risks, resource-intensity, circularity. Companies that excel here will build trust, avoid surprise liabilities and unlock capital at lower cost.

Transition-resilient business models: It’s not just about being green today, but being resilient across scenarios: “What if raw-material prices surge?”, “What if regulation tightens sharper than expected?”, “What if consumer behaviour shifts faster?”. The firms that show adaptability will be winners.

Stakeholder/mission alignment: More than ever, companies will be judged by how they treat their workforce, communities, supply-chain partners, and the environment. Diverse boards, equitable pay, human-rights safe supply chains will matter. The notion of “social licence” will become a financial factor.


Why the IBD 2025 List Matters—and How Investors / Corporates Should Use It

For investors, the list is a valuable screening tool: it highlights firms that are not only talking sustainability, but seem to be embedding it and delivering financial strength. It helps identify companies better positioned for a low-carbon future.

For companies, the list reinforces that sustainability is now a strategic imperative. It signals that to rank among the leaders, you must integrate sustainability into core operations, commit to measurable targets, and align with growth.

For market watchers and policy-makers, the existence of such a list highlights how mainstream the sustainability agenda has become — and how firms that fail to align risk being marginalised.


However, one must approach with nuance: being on the list is not a guarantee of outperformance. The broader transition is fraught with risk, the competitive field is increasing, and sustainability credentials will increasingly be table stakes, not differentiators.

The IBD 50 Most Sustainable Companies 2025 list is more than a ranking — it is a mirror of where business is heading, and a benchmark for how companies must evolve. The question for investors and firms alike is not simply who is on the list now, but who will still be on the list in 2030 and beyond — and how their business models will have transformed in the process.
#SustainabilityLeadership
#ESGPerformance
#ClimateManagement
#ResponsibleInvestment
#CorporateResilience
#GreenInnovation
#SustainableFinance
#TransitionRisk
#CircularEconomy
#FutureReadyBusiness






Friday, October 17, 2025

From “Just-in-Time” to “Just-in-Case”: The Great Rethink of Global Supply Chains

The Rise of Just-in-Time Efficiency

For decades, the just-in-time (JIT) model was celebrated as the hallmark of modern industrial efficiency. Born in postwar Japan, refined by Toyota, and embraced worldwide by the 1980s, it revolutionized manufacturing. The philosophy was simple: minimize inventory, eliminate waste, and synchronize production to demand. For multinational corporations, JIT meant higher profits, lower carrying costs, and faster turnover.

But this model depended on one crucial assumption — that the world was stable enough to keep supply chains frictionless. When global trade flowed freely and geopolitical risks were low, this system thrived. Firms scattered production across continents, sourcing the cheapest inputs from wherever efficiency dictated.

The Shock: When Efficiency Collided with Fragility

That illusion of stability shattered in the 2020s. The COVID-19 pandemic was the first blow, exposing how razor-thin inventories and complex logistics networks could paralyze entire industries overnight. A chip shortage halted auto production in Europe and the U.S.; shipping delays left retailers empty-handed; and even medical supplies became scarce.

Subsequent geopolitical events — from the Russia-Ukraine war to U.S.-China trade tensions and disruptions in the Red Sea — deepened the crisis. Suddenly, efficiency without resilience looked reckless. The GPPI (Global Public Policy Institute) analysis rightly observes that nations and firms are now pivoting from “just-in-time” to “just-in-case,” emphasizing buffer stocks, redundancy, and regional diversification.

Germany’s Lesson: The Cost of Overdependence

Germany provides a striking case study. As Europe’s industrial powerhouse, it outsourced critical upstream processes — particularly to China — in pursuit of cost efficiency. German manufacturing became dependent on Chinese rare earths, processed metals, and electronic inputs.

This dependency now constrains Germany’s autonomy. As global competition for critical minerals intensifies, Berlin faces strategic vulnerabilities in its auto and defense sectors. The same holds true for semiconductors and battery technologies. What once seemed like smart globalization has become a structural risk to national security and industrial sovereignty.

The New Logic: Resilience as a Strategic Asset

The emerging “just-in-case” model represents not a retreat from globalization, but a smarter recalibration. The logic has shifted from cost minimization to risk optimization. Firms are diversifying suppliers, building regional hubs, and maintaining safety stocks.

Governments, too, are stepping in. The European Union’s Critical Raw Materials Act, America’s CHIPS and Science Act, and Japan’s economic security laws all aim to reduce single-point dependencies. These policies mark the dawn of geo-economic realism — an understanding that resilience has both economic and strategic value.

Data & Trends: The New Geography of Production

Recent data shows that global supply chains are fragmenting into regional blocs:

Nearshoring and friendshoring: Mexico has overtaken China as the largest exporter to the U.S. in several categories.

Inventory rebuilding: Average days of inventory among Fortune 500 manufacturers rose by over 25% since 2020.

Strategic stockpiling: Nations like South Korea and India are building national reserves for semiconductors and rare earths.


These shifts point toward a world of controlled interdependence rather than pure globalization — a balance between efficiency and security.

The Futuristic Outlook: Supply Chains as National Infrastructure

In the future, supply chains will no longer be viewed as private corporate systems but as part of national critical infrastructure. Artificial intelligence will forecast disruptions before they occur. Blockchain-based traceability will ensure trust in origin. Additive manufacturing (3D printing) may localize production for high-value parts, reducing the need for long-distance shipments.

We may even see the rise of supply chain diplomacy — bilateral agreements that guarantee continuity of trade in critical sectors such as energy, healthcare, and semiconductors.

From Global Efficiency to Strategic Resilience

The transition from “just-in-time” to “just-in-case” is not merely operational; it is philosophical. It acknowledges that resilience is a form of efficiency — one measured not by quarterly margins but by long-term continuity.

However, there is a delicate balance to maintain. Too much protectionism risks stifling innovation and raising costs. Too little foresight leaves economies exposed. The challenge for policymakers and CEOs alike will be to build systems that are not only lean but adaptive — capable of absorbing shocks without collapsing.

A New Age of Smart Interdependence

The great supply chain rethink signals the end of naïve globalization and the rise of strategic interdependence. As the GPPI insightfully notes, the future belongs to those who blend agility with autonomy, redundancy with innovation, and national security with global collaboration.

In this new era, the question is no longer “How lean can we go?” but “How resilient can we afford to be?”

#GlobalSupplyChains #JustInTime #JustInCase #Resilience #Germany #China #TradePolicy #CriticalMinerals #SupplyChainStrategy #Geopolitics #IndustrialPolicy

Kerala’s Tourism Model: Growth Without Losing Its Soul

Kerala’s evolution as a tourism powerhouse stands out in a global landscape where destinations often trade identity for scale. F...