Corporate Investment in India – Profitability, Demand and Cost of Credit

Corporate Investment

Corporate Investment Latest News

  • A recent analysis examines the prolonged decline in corporate investment as a share of GDP in India and argues that weak demand expectations, profitability and differences in access to credit across firms are more important than simply reducing interest rates or corporate taxes.

Corporate Investment in India

  • Corporate investment refers to expenditure by businesses on productive assets such as factories, machinery, equipment, technology and other forms of fixed capital.
  • It is an important driver of economic growth because it expands productive capacity, creates employment and can improve productivity.
  • A recently conducted study examines corporate investment through the lens of manufacturing firms and asks why private investment has remained subdued despite measures such as corporate tax cuts and a relatively low-interest-rate environment.

Trend in Corporate Investment

  • According to the analysis, corporate investment as a share of GDP experienced a major increase in 2004, rising from 6.5% to 10.3% in a single year. It subsequently increased during India's high-growth period.
  • Investment declined during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) but later began recovering. This revival continued until demonetisation in 2016, after which corporate investment entered a prolonged decline.
  • The study highlights that the decline after demonetisation is particularly significant because, unlike the Global Financial Crisis, which originated from an external global shock, demonetisation was a domestic policy shock. 
  • The analysis also notes that investment had already begun declining before the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that the pandemic alone cannot explain the prolonged weakness.

What Determines Corporate Investment?

  • There are three major factors influencing a firm's decision to invest in a new factory or other productive assets.
  • Expected Profitability
    • A firm will invest when it expects the additional productive capacity to generate sufficient profits.
    • Economies of scale mean that larger factories and equipment can often generate higher profit rates than smaller investments. However, every firm also faces a limit to how much it can sell. 
    • Once productive capacity exceeds potential demand, additional investment may remain underutilised.
    • Therefore, investment depends not simply on whether a firm can build a factory, but on whether it expects sufficient future demand and profitability from that factory.
  • Confidence in Future Returns
    • Investment involves a long time horizon. A factory may operate for decades, meaning firms must form expectations about future demand, profits and government policy.
    • The study uses Keynes's concept of "animal spirits" to describe this confidence.
    • When businesses are optimistic, expected profitability increases and firms are more willing to invest. When businesses become pessimistic, their expected profitability falls, reducing investment.
    • The authors argue that demonetisation affected investment not only by reducing immediate profitability but also by weakening confidence in future economic and policy conditions.
  • Cost of Credit
    • Interest rates matter in two ways. 
    • First, a firm compares the expected profitability of an investment with the return it could obtain by simply holding interest-bearing assets. 
    • Investment therefore becomes attractive when expected profitability exceeds the relevant market interest rate.
    • Second, firms that need to borrow to finance investment face a direct cost of credit.
    • However, the importance of interest rates differs according to firm size.

Why Firm Size Matters

  • The analysis distinguishes between small, medium and large firms because their investment constraints are different.
  • The authors compiled a balanced panel dataset of listed manufacturing firms between 2000 and 2024 using the Prowess database and categorised firms into three size groups.
  • The analysis finds a clear asymmetry:
    • Smaller firms: Lower profitability and higher interest costs. 
    • Larger firms: Higher profitability and lower interest costs. 
    • This difference has important implications for investment policy.
  • Smaller Firms Are More Credit-Constrained
    • Smaller firms generally have less internal capital. Consequently, they need to depend more heavily on external borrowing to finance investment.
    • As borrowing increases, the cost of credit can rise because lenders perceive greater risk. This reflects what economist Michal Kalecki described through the principle of increasing risk.
    • Therefore, even when a small and large firm have access to similar technology, the smaller firm may face a significantly higher financing constraint.
  • Large Firms Are More Demand-Constrained
    • Large firms typically possess greater internal capital and therefore face less severe financing constraints.
    • However, they may already have sufficient productive capacity relative to the market they can serve. Their investment is therefore constrained more by demand and expected sales than by the availability of credit.
    • This produces an important asymmetry:
      • Small firms are more likely to be constrained by finance, while large firms are more likely to be constrained by demand.

Why Lower Interest Rates May Not Be Enough

  • The study argues that this distinction helps explain why conventional cost-side measures have not produced a strong investment response.
  • India reduced the corporate tax rate from 30% to 22% in 2018, while the Reserve Bank of India also maintained a relatively low-interest-rate environment for a period.
  • Yet corporate investment did not experience a corresponding revival.
  • The study argues that reducing interest rates may not substantially increase investment among smaller firms because their fundamental constraint may be access to credit and insufficient internal capital, rather than simply the headline interest rate.
  • For large firms, lower interest rates may have an even smaller effect because these firms are primarily constrained by market demand rather than financing costs.
  • Similarly, tax cuts may increase post-tax profitability but may not induce investment if firms do not expect sufficient demand for additional output.

What Could Revive Corporate Investment?

  • The analysis argues that policies should focus on shifting the profitability curve outward rather than relying primarily on cost-side interventions.
  • The proposed mechanism is stronger autonomous government expenditure.
  • Government expenditure can create additional demand for goods and services. Higher demand can improve firms' expectations regarding future sales and profitability, encouraging both small and large firms to invest.
  • Such expenditure can therefore influence investment through the demand channel, rather than merely reducing the cost of financing.

Conclusion

  • The prolonged weakness of corporate investment in India cannot be explained by interest rates alone. 
  • The analysis highlights a fundamental difference between firms: smaller firms face greater financing constraints, while larger firms are more constrained by demand. 
  • This means that policies such as lower interest rates or corporate tax cuts may have limited effects when businesses lack confidence in future demand. 
  • The authors therefore argue that stronger demand creation through government expenditure could play a more important role in reviving private investment and generating employment.

Source: TH

Corporate Investment FAQs

Q1: What are the three major factors determining corporate investment?

Ans: Expected profitability, confidence in future profitability, and the cost of credit.

Q2: When did corporate investment in India experience a major increase?

Ans: Corporate investment rose sharply in 2004, increasing from 6.5% to 10.3% of GDP.

Q3: Why are smaller firms more constrained by credit?

Ans: Smaller firms generally have less internal capital and therefore depend more on external borrowing, which can increase their financing costs and risk.

Q4: Why are larger firms more constrained by demand?

Ans: Larger firms generally have greater access to internal capital and credit, but their investment can be limited by the amount of additional output that the market can absorb.

Q5: Why does the article argue that government expenditure can stimulate private investment?

Ans: Government expenditure can generate additional demand, improve firms' expectations of future sales and profitability, and thereby encourage both small and large firms to increase investment.

Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026: Government-Judiciary Conflict and Judicial Independence

Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026

Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026 Latest News

  • Parliament passed the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 — introduced in Lok Sabha on August 10, 2026, and passed by both Houses within two days.
  • The Bill repeals the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, and seeks to restructure tribunal governance in line with Supreme Court directions, ending a near-decade-long confrontation between the judiciary and the executive.
  • Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies set up to provide swift, specialised resolution of disputes and to reduce the caseload of regular courts.

Background: A Decade of Government-Judiciary Conflict

  • 2017: The Finance Act empowered the Centre to frame rules governing tribunal appointments and service conditions.
  • 2019: In the Rojer Mathew case, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down these rules for undermining judicial independence.
  • 2020: When the Centre notified fresh rules, the Supreme Court suggested modifications, including a five-year tenure for members.
  • 2021: Instead of accepting these suggestions, the Centre promulgated an Ordinance fixing tenure at four years, setting a minimum appointment age of 50, and requiring selection committees to give the government a panel of two names to choose from.
  • After the Supreme Court struck down these provisions as arbitrary, Parliament re-enacted the same provisions through the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 — effectively overriding the Court's ruling.

The Supreme Court's 2025 Verdict

  • In November 2025, a two-judge Bench struck down the 2021 Act's provisions, terming their re-enactment an "impermissible legislative override" of earlier judgments.
  • The Court criticised the government for repeatedly reopening settled constitutional debates instead of implementing its rulings.
  • It held that a four-year tenure was "anti-merit" and increased executive interference, jeopardising judicial independence. 
  • It also held that a two-name panel gave the executive undue discretion in appointments.
  • The judgment reiterated the need for a National Tribunals Commission and directed the Centre to set one up within four months, while protecting certain existing appointments in the interim.
  • By December 2022, chronic vacancies had left several tribunals "virtually defunct" — for instance, the National Company Law Tribunal had 24 vacancies against a sanctioned strength of 32, and the Armed Forces Tribunal had 24 vacancies against 34.

Key Provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026

  • National Tribunals Commission
    • The Bill establishes a National Tribunals Commission to:
      • Conduct the selection process for filling tribunal vacancies.
      • Review the performance of tribunals.
      • Oversee inquiries into complaints against chairpersons or members.
      • Develop and maintain a National Tribunals Data Grid.
  • Composition of the Commission
    • A chairperson (a former Supreme Court judge or High Court Chief Justice), two judicial members, and two technical members with at least 25 years' experience in relevant fields.
    • Term of five years or till age 70, whichever is earlier.
    • The chairperson and judicial members are appointed by the central government after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
  • Selection Process for Tribunals
    • A search-cum-selection committee, headed by a Commission member, will include a retired High Court judge, a government secretary, a technical member, and experts.
    • For each vacancy, the committee will recommend one name, with one additional name on a waiting list — a significant shift from the 2021 framework's two-name panel system.
    • The government must make the appointment within three months of receiving the recommendation.
  • Tenure and Removal
    • Tribunal chairpersons and members will serve five-year terms, with age limits of 70 years (chairpersons) and 67 years (members).
    • Grounds for removal include insolvency, conviction involving moral turpitude, incapacity, abuse of position, incompetence, or engaging in paid assignments outside office.

Does the Bill Fully Insulate Tribunals from the Executive?

  • Not entirely. While the Bill addresses the Supreme Court's core concerns on tenure and appointment discretion, the Centre still:
    • Appoints the Commission's chairperson, members, and secretary.
    • Provides funding/grants to the Commission.
    • Retains rule-making powers over qualifications, service conditions, salaries, and removal procedures.

Conclusion

  • The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 marks a significant course correction, aligning tribunal governance with Supreme Court mandates on tenure and merit-based appointments. 
  • However, by retaining control over funding, rule-making, and key appointments, the Centre ensures its administrative footprint persists — meaning the underlying tension between executive oversight and judicial independence may not be fully resolved.

Source: IE | PRS

Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026 FAQs

Q1: What is the Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026?

Ans: The Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026 repeals the 2021 Act and restructures tribunal governance following Supreme Court directions on appointments, tenure and independence.

Q2: What is the National Tribunals Commission under the Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026?

Ans: The Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026 establishes a National Tribunals Commission responsible for appointments, performance reviews, complaints, and maintaining a National Tribunals Data Grid.

Q3: How does the Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026 change tribunal appointments?

Ans: The Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026 replaces the earlier two-name panel with one recommended candidate and one waiting-list candidate, reducing government appointment discretion.

Q4: What tenure does the Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026 provide?

Ans: Under the Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026, chairpersons and members receive five-year terms, subject to maximum age limits of 70 and 67 years respectively.

Q5: Does the Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026 completely remove executive influence?

Ans: The Tribunals Reforms Bill 2026 does not completely eliminate executive influence because the Centre retains powers over appointments, funding, qualifications, service conditions, and rules.

SHANTI Act Rules: Why Russia May Gain an Edge in India’s Small Modular Reactor Race

SHANTI Act Rules

SHANTI Act Rules Latest News

  • Draft rules issued by the Department of Atomic Energy under the SHANTI Act could give Russia a significant advantage in India's nuclear sector, particularly in the emerging field of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).

The Key Rule That Could Favour Russia

  • The draft SHANTI rules mandate that foreign nuclear technology imported for use in India:
    • must have its design certified or approved by the regulatory body in its country of origin, and 
    • must already be operational there or in another foreign country.
  • This "already operational" requirement is significant because very few global SMR designs currently meet this bar — giving an edge to countries with proven, running reactors.

What Are SMRs?

  • Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are advanced nuclear reactors with about a third of the generating capacity of conventional nuclear plants, yet capable of producing substantial low-carbon electricity. 
  • They are particularly suited to remote regions with limited grid infrastructure and to localised industrial applications.

Russia's Global SMR Lead

  • Currently, only two SMR projects are operational worldwide: 
    • Russia's Akademik Lomonosov floating power unit (two 35 MWe modules), commercially operational since May 2020 — the world's northernmost nuclear power plant, based in Pevek, Russia.
    • China's HTR-PM demonstration project, grid-connected in December 2021 and commercially operational since December 2023.
  • Other global SMR developers — Holtec International, Rolls-Royce SMR, NuScale's VOYGR, Westinghouse's AP300, and GE-Hitachi's BWRX-300 — remain in the design certification stage, with none yet operational. 
  • Under the draft SHANTI rules, this could disqualify them from entering India's market in the near term. 
  • Russia is the only country in the world with proven expertise in floating nuclear power solutions, having presented India with details of this technology in April 2024.

Russia's Broader Nuclear Push in India

  • The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) in Tamil Nadu — India's largest nuclear power station – is a flagship India-Russia nuclear cooperation project. 
    • KKNPP Units 1 and 2 (VVER-1000 reactors) were connected to the grid in 2013 and 2016 respectively.
      • A VVER-1000 is a 1,000 MWe Russian-designed pressurized water reactor (PWR) where ordinary water acts as both coolant and neutron moderator.
    • The project envisions six units with a total installed capacity of 6,000 MWe.
  • Russia is pushing for serial construction of new-generation VVER-1200 reactors in India, alongside its SMR proposals. 

Cost Advantage for Russian Reactors

  • Light Water Reactors (LWRs) offered by French and US firms are significantly costlier than India's indigenous Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs). 
  • Russian reactors are only marginally more expensive than Indian PHWRs, while remaining cheaper than Western LWR alternatives: 
    • Indigenous PHWRs: ~Rs 18 crore per MW-electric.
    • Russian reactors: ~Rs 34 crore per MW-electric.
  • As per the World Nuclear Association, capital costs account for at least 60% of the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from nuclear plants, making upfront cost and financing terms critical factors — an area where Russia currently holds an edge over Western competitors.

Conclusion

  • As India expands its nuclear ambitions through the SHANTI Act framework, the "proven and operational" technology requirement — combined with Russia's existing SMR expertise and cost competitiveness — positions Moscow favourably over Western players. 
  • This could shape the geopolitics of India's clean energy transition, reinforcing Russia's role as a key nuclear partner even as India pursues technological diversification.

Source: IE

SHANTI Act Rules FAQs

Q1: What are the SHANTI Act Rules?

Ans: SHANTI Act Rules require imported foreign nuclear technology to be certified in its origin country and already operational domestically or elsewhere.

Q2: Why could SHANTI Act Rules favour Russia?

Ans: SHANTI Act Rules could favour Russia because its Akademik Lomonosov is an operational SMR, while most Western designs remain under certification.

Q3: What are Small Modular Reactors under the SHANTI Act Rules framework?

Ans: Under SHANTI Act Rules, SMRs are advanced nuclear reactors offering roughly one-third conventional plant capacity and suitable for remote or localised applications.

Q4: Which countries currently have operational SMRs under the SHANTI Act Rules criteria?

Ans: The SHANTI Act Rules criteria are currently met by Russia's Akademik Lomonosov and China's HTR-PM, both operational nuclear reactor projects.

Q5: Why are Russian reactors considered cost-competitive under SHANTI Act Rules?

Ans: SHANTI Act Rules may strengthen Russia's position because Russian reactors cost less than Western LWR alternatives while remaining relatively competitive with Indian PHWRs.

Enquire Now