Context of Competitiveness and Sustainability:

Exploring Trends and Opportunities for Firms in the Era of Digital X

A Caselet for
Learners of Competitiveness for Sustainable Enterprises (SOM679)

by K. S. Momaya, P. Adhikari, SJM School of Management, IIT Bombay#

India and China have one of the most remarkable leaps in business competitiveness in the early
two decades of the new millennium. Scaling-up to next stages of competitiveness in 2020s for
firms or corporates or start-ups of Indian origin (FIOs) demands better strategy and innovation
in digital paradigm by sustainable focal firms, corporates, other firms, ventures, SMEs,
institutes and other organizations. For that deeper understanding of sustainability is essential for
high potential GenNext leaders. Directed efforts on basics of competitiveness by industry
professionals is a must, of which role of capable and energetic students of IIT Bombay is quite
crucial for competitiveness and Sustainability of their business, firms and cities to clusters@.

Youth is among the most exciting phase in competitiveness and growth journey of a country.
Most countries aspire to be developed; only few achieve it at the pace that also matches with
aspirations of masses. Success in achieving inclusive growth with balances and climbing up
the ladder demands firm and industrial competitiveness and rapid scale-up. A country’s youth
can drive the exciting phase in its competitiveness journey. Are leaders in India building skills
and capabilities to help their firms or organisations climb to new heights? Seeing the talent,
energy and team efforts of youth at IIT, NITs and other institutions, we are optimistic.

Scale-up in competitiveness is quite an exciting and demanding concept.

Competitiveness is an interdisciplinary area having relevance across levels: country, state,
industry, cluster and firm. In context of firm, drivers and enablers can be from any function,
e.g. operations, HR, marketing, finance or technology. We will attempt to simplify it for benefit
of readers who are actively striving for such a scale-up irrespective of their function or context:
firms, governments or institutions. We considered many perspectives on competitiveness and
popular definitions to experiment and evolve generic definitions and frameworks to evaluate
competitiveness1. Let us start from macro perspective before we get into details of highly
competitive firms from India. In simple terms, a country’s competitiveness can be defined as
its capability to produce goods and services that meet the test of local and international markets
while simultaneously enhancing the real wealth of its citizens2. In practice, it is evaluated as a
relative competitive position and is measured on more than 200 criteria including the best of
Prof. Porter’s Diamond Framework and its extensions including more relevant human factors.
Data for benchmarking is taken in our research from a comprehensive and sound country report
after careful analysis: National Competitiveness Research (NCR).

@
This case is written by K. S. Momaya (SJMSOM, IIT Bombay) and Padmanav for class discussion and
learning. It is not intended to serve as an endorsement or source of primary data. It builds on the part of a
chapter from the book Momaya K.S. (2001, 2014, 2022 under revision), ‘International Competitiveness:
Evaluation and Enhancement’, Hindustan Publishers, New Delhi.
# Dr. K. S. Momaya is a Chair Professor, Competitiveness with the Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management
(SJMSOM), IIT Bombay focusing on Management of Technology (MoT) and Competitiveness. Padmanav is a
senior research scholar with Group on Competitiveness (GoC), SJMSOM, IITB. To know more about the school
or faculty of SJMSOM, please visit: http://www.som.iitb.ac.in/ or email momaya@som.iitb.ac.in
Feel free to go in depth of article etc. that are hyperlinked (in blue).
This case is a work in process (WIP) and authorized for use only in Dr. K. S. Momaya’s Course (CSE).
Copyright©, 2020 2023 Momaya K. S.

--------------
Context Caselet on Innovation and Competitiveness… by Dr. K. S. Momaya & P. Adhikari Page 1/15
 The significant leap in competitiveness that India has achieved in the last four years is
indicative of the challenging opportunities on the road ahead. Rarely in the past has India
jumped that high on competitiveness ranks as between 2005-09—from 47 to 28 (see Table 1).
China’s massive scale-up in corporate and industrial competitiveness over several decades
reflected in factors such as double digit growth enables it to jump to rank 4 in the large strong
country group and it is aiming for rank 2 within few years. Vast gaps in per capita GDP of
India as compared to developed countries hint at huge potential opportunity. While some
leaders in G7 can say that Indians should be content with development they can have with
annual per capita income below Rs. 3 lakh (say about US$ 4,000 by 2025), that may not be
acceptable to many in India, particularly to the youth teams that have energy and capability to
play in challenging arena internationally. We must stive to break-out (e.g. Momaya, 2014) from
the lower-middle-income group (e.g. GNI per capita of $4,000).

Table 1 Trends in competitiveness ranks of India and select countries in 2000s

Population National Competitiveness Research

Per Capita GNI Year of survey
density (per
Country /GDP US $
km2)
2010 2018 2009 2023 2021 2018 2008 2005 2003
USA 33 62,850 46,381 8 7 1 1 1
Canada 4 44,860 39,669 2 1 4 2 8
Australia 3 53,190 45,587 7 9 10 15 14
Japan 336 41,340 39,731 22 18 16 19 30
Rep. of Korea 485 30,600 17,074 24 25 22 22 27
China 141 9,470 3,678 14 13 20 24 31
India 369 2,020 1,031 27 22 33 47 42
Out of No. 62
62 67 66 56
Countries
Notes: 1. Per Capita 2009 numbers are Nominal GDP.
Sources: Developed based on data from National Competitiveness Research (various years) and data
from World Bank (various years)

Why scale-up for emerging companies and India?

Many leaders and firms in India have been working hard to accelerate their development and
growth journey for quite some time and rapid scale-up in industrial competitiveness is
necessary to achieve the same. For instance, the journey post-independence has been
remarkable in several respects, but inadequate to meet the growing needs of the huge
population that India could not stabilize. Compared to its historical share of output, trade and
other contributions to the world, recovery post-independence can be considered marginal. For
instance, in the important dimension of industrial development—manufacturing—, India’s
contribution in the world was 24.5 % in 1750 and 2.4 % in 1938. India’s contribution to world
trade which was about 2.5 % at time of independence shrunk to less than 1 % and despite all
trade policies, incentives and efforts, remains below 2 % with record deficit on trade front for
most years. India’s trade deficit almost doubled in 2017-18 from the previous fiscal as the
country’s import bill continued to inflate. The gap between exports and imports widened taking
--------------
Context Caselet on Innovation and Competitiveness… by Dr. K. S. Momaya & P. Adhikari Page 2/15
the annual deficit to $87.2 billion (too high for a small base of exports of $302 billion, most of
that are low value-added items), according to data released by the commerce ministry. The
deficit was at $47.7 billion in the year-ended March 2017.

If firms and other organizations in India do not attempt a rapid scale-up in their
competitiveness with the best of its youth force available, India will face a massive turmoil
sooner or later. India's growth is dependent on the competitiveness of Indian industry which
is the chief growth engine of the economy (CII, 2019); that is a reason, CII theme for 2019-20
was “Competitiveness of India Inc.”. The opportunity to catch-up on productivity,
sustainability (e.g. see Adhikari at el., 2021) and the wealth (e.g. a simple proxy, say per capita
GDP, see Table 1) is so vast that few capable youth in India would like to fritter away this rare
opportunity. Having got a view of situation on the macro front, let us also get a glimpse on a
key performance front: e.g. business competitiveness.

The Global 500 represents an interesting arena of business competitiveness, where

differences in patterns of two countries can hint at lagging trends in economic development.
Despite the size and other limitations of the sample, trends hint at a quite divergent performance
of India and China in terms of focal firms. Focal firms are often large firms and are close to the
centre of production networks and can be first points of impactful initiative due to influence
they can have on whole ecosystem of an industry. While the number of firms from India has
stagnated near 8 over the period 2005-2010, the same for China has grown to more than 5 times
from 16 in 2005 to 89 in 2013 (Table 2). In fact, more numbers of firms from China entered
in the Global 500 in each year since 2009 than the best India could reach over decades. The
differences seem to be starker, if we go into details of other dimensions such as total
employment, revenues, exports, technological and other capabilities of the firms in the sample.
This difference in acceleration (vividly reflected in sports too) provides exciting prospects for
research on competitiveness. The last raw hints at relatively slower competitiveness journey of
focal firms in other Asian countries, except China. Several Asian countries and firms are
revisiting their approaches to competitiveness, an exciting opportunity for research and strategy
execution.
Catch-up on technology management by several countries and shortening “Windows of
Opportunities” for competitiveness indicates that focal firms and cities in India will have to
strive for break-out in near future. Several countries in East Europe (e.g. Austria) or Asia (e.g.
Vietnam) have caught-up massively on technology management and export competitiveness,
but strides by large countries such as China demand urgent attention. Not only in defence or
fin-tech related technologies, China has surged far ahead of India in most of the strategic sectors
it identified. For instance, massive catch-up (e.g. on innovation capabilities, Awate et al., 2012)
by focal firms of China are making India-China comparisons less relevant in several industries.
For instance, Chinese technology MNC, Huawei’s R&D spend is considered more than R&D
spend by all private, public sector and academia in India (Forbes, 2021). No wonder, the firm
has massive patent portfolio in technologies such as 5G and may set dominant designs in 6G
and beyond in telecom.
Commitment and aspirations of masses in India for scale-up is reflected in a clear
mandate for strong and stable government at the centre for two terms. The resulting clean-up
for better governance and enhancing capabilities are just starters. India is gearing up for revival
of manufacturing by initiatives such as “Make in India” (e.g. industry specific PLI programs).
In corporate context, some firms of Indian origin (FIOs) have already started internationalizing
(e.g. Parthasarathy et al., 2017), but vast opportunities for emerging multinationals (including
born global ventures) are to be tapped and knowledge-creating companies and managers /
researchers can play a key leadership roles for strategies for the growth (Ghosh, 2010) through

--------------
Context Caselet on Innovation and Competitiveness… by Dr. K. S. Momaya & P. Adhikari Page 3/15
internationalization3. Environmental sustainability (e.g. see Adhikari et al., 2021) is other
frontier of opportunity as we explore paradigms such as “Carbon neutrality”. All these can
open up opportunities for energetic youth, professionals and researchers.

Table 2 Trends in players from select key countries in business competitiveness

No. of firms in the sample of Global 500
2022
Country 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
The USA 176 162 140 133 132 128 133 124
JAPAN 81 67 68 68 62 54 51 47
CHINA 16 24 37 61 89 98 109 145
FRANCE 39 38 40 35 31 31 29 25
GERMANY 37 37 39 34 29 28 29 28
BRITAIN 35 33 25 30 26 28 21 18
SWITZELAND 11 13 15 15 14 12 14 14
SOUTH KOREA 11 14 14 14 14 17 15 16
NETHERLANDS 14 14 12 12 11 13 14 11
CANADA 13 16 14 11 9 11 11 12
ITALY 8 10 10 10 8 9 6 <12
INDIA 8 6 7 8 8 7 7 9
Contribution 176 182 217
from Asia in the
Sample 116 111 126 151 173

Source: Developed by members of Group on Competitiveness (GoC) at IITB based on data

from Fortune Global 500, various years
Glimpse of competitiveness of select high potential firms from India and role of
management of technology and innovation (MoT)
Entering, climbing and sustaining positions in rankings such as Global500 (e.g. Table 2) or
Global2000 or better, demands deeper knowledge of competitiveness factors, some of which
can help you climb the ladder of growth. At least tens of Indian industrial houses (if not firms)
had the potential to grow, move up the ladder (Ghosh, 2010), and enter and climb such heights
since liberalization. For instance, Ghoshal et al. (2000) give examples of scores of Indian firms
with aspirations to be world-class and emphasized radical change. Several Indian firms have
deeper knowledge of competitiveness and are attempting catch up with international MNEs.
What do you infer from a comparative caselet highlighted in Table A1 in the Appendix?
Some firms of Indian origin are seriously breaking out from barriers and the vicious
loops, and are growing steadily. Only a glimpse of learning from our exploratory research can
be shared here. After careful review of industries, we selected one firm from a traditional
industry (Foodie1) and other from greener emerging polar industry (Bony) to have polarity,
including in terms of Technology and Innovation Management (TIM). Each of them had done
break-outs (Momaya, 2014) and climbed several stages to compete internationally. While
Foodie achieved 295 % jump in net sales over the period 2004-13 (Table A1) (through periods
of sustaining shocks of 2008 tsunami), Bony’s sales dropped by -3.54 % over the period. From
about half the size of Bony, Foodie has grown double in terms of net sales and has more than

1
The names are changed based on request of the firms that are cooperating in our research.
--------------
Context Caselet on Innovation and Competitiveness… by Dr. K. S. Momaya & P. Adhikari Page 4/15
11 point lead in PBIDT as percentage of sales in 2013. Can you find reasons for difference in
competitiveness and growth performance of the two firms? Do you see links between
competitiveness and approach to growth strategy? Since both emphasized technology, can the
difference in approach to management of technology / innovation (MoT; e.g. Nobeoka, 2006)
explain the difference? It may be due to something we call deeper sources of competitiveness,
a profound concept with relevance across levels, functions and era. CII adopted it as theme of
the year 2019-20 to spread awareness about competitiveness in firms in India.

What can be key enablers of break-out of India @ 100?

In life cycle of a century, some may consider the milestone of completing 75 an entry in Q4,
but for us at the Group on Competitiveness (GoC), IIT Bombay, it is about aiming high in Q1.
Our quarterly thinking is much longitudinal; rather then worrying @ popular notion in
corporate world @ quarter of a year for performance, GoC associates often think about
Competitiveness Assets and Processes that shape Competitiveness Performance on carefully
selected factors, such as international performance (can be measured on net forex, export
earnings,…). Also GoC associates can think about next levels beyond competitiveness
companies to industrial houses (e.g. AVBirla, Bajaj,..to Reliance, Tata and TVS, Wipro).
While software services and other services industries have enabled break-out of several
firms of Indian origin (FIOs) in many countries, we should explore challenge questions about
which industries and firms can be enablers of India’s respectful break-out in Q1 in samples
related to IC. In large samples of more than 200 countries, Top10 positions come by default
to populous countries such as India, on quantity related criteria of ‘factor countries’ such as
(un/)skilled workers, ….. But challenge questions are ‘how can India enter in Q1 in criteria
related to critical factors such as quality & IC of professionals (e.g. engineers, managers,
accountats, researchers,..), entrepreneurs, politicians and bureaucrats (P&B). While FIOs in
select manufacturing industries such as two wheelers, three wheelers are competing in more
than 70 countries, which can be next and bigger enablers of break-out of India in Q1 and
creation of job and other opportunities for youths? A study by McKinsey authors identified
following industries with high potential (see & complete task in Table 3). What other mature
or emerging industries (e.g. logistics, healthcare or e-commerce) have high potential to enable
India gain international competitiveness in your understanding?

Role of Digital X and Technology Management for Business Competitiveness

Gradual increase in value-added through digital means got major boost due to discontinuity
such as corona crisis. The challenge provided a golden opportunity to innovate across industry
value systems of different industries. For instance, education which was largely imparted
through physical infrastructure, had to suddenly be provided through digital channels. While
such opportunities can be best leveraged by flexible private players such as Byju’s and upGrad,
even public systems from primary schools to IITs are learning about options, advantages and
limitations.

--------------
Context Caselet on Innovation and Competitiveness… by Dr. K. S. Momaya & P. Adhikari Page 5/15
Table 3 Example of opportunities and competitiveness challenges for next technology or
innovation intensive industries for FIOs

Industry Examples of enablers Examples of competitiveness Remarks, e.g. Which

of opportunities or innovation challenges FIOs has higher
capabilities to BO

Aerospace and Scale; maturing value Major transformation needed

defence chains in PSUs/SUs to face likes of
Amazon, SpaceX,

Electronics and Digital Myths; Gaps in understanding e.g. TVSE/Wipro eP /

semiconductors transformation; of leaders; Gaps in value- Tata C/D/E Reliance
Largest no. of youth system that FIOs are less Jio/ ???You can
always keen on confident to play; Gaps in identify
electronics for digital MoT capabilities
era

Renewable Huge market driven

energy by renewable
commitments

YOU can
identify, select
& suggest

Notes: 1. PSU=Public sector units, SU=State undertakings or agency e.g. ISRO Now
digital is considered a key enabler of many businesses in India and has high potential to play
the role in transforming businesses, their international competitiveness, if real challenges of
digital innovation can be understood and addressed logically. Technically, several functions
in a firm can benefit from digital transformation. Many examples of firms of Indian that
leveraged digital for export and international competitiveness can be found beyond software
services (for a glimpse see Tables in the Appendix). For instance, in manufacturing, Asian
Paints, Balakrishna Tyres, Bharat Forge, Motherson Sumi, Tata Motors (e.g. Malagihal, 2021)
are just few examples of firms that seems to leverage digital innovation quite well for
international competitiveness (that also gets reflected in net foreign exchange earnings). Such
leverage and climb on the ladder of competitiveness depends on effectiveness of
competitiveness processes, the maturity of people competency is very important.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is around us and promising to radically transform business.
Pioneer companies are using AI to innovate and grow fast4. What role can AI play to enhance
business competitiveness? This is a challenge question which business leaders can ask and
engineers or managers can address. We are on the cusp of a very different world, where the
world is expecting lot more from India, including technological innovations. Value in
increasingly digital industry is being jointly created by customers, company and network of
partners (e.g. Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Like most other disruptive technologies, in
AI also, firms of Indian origin (FIOs) are often at receiving-end, as dominant designs are set
by technology giants in the USA (or now Asia; e.g. China/Japan/Korea). Still, they can
leverage AI for business competitiveness, if they adapt elements of management of technology
and innovation (MoT, also referred to as technology management) to make strategic choices
(e.g. case of Vonda Motors; Momaya, 2017).
Among the elements of MoT, technology selection and adaptation are perhaps most
relevant for most FIOs in current context. While giants such as Google or Microsoft may leave
--------------
Context Caselet on Innovation and Competitiveness… by Dr. K. S. Momaya & P. Adhikari Page 6/15
little choice of technology or platform for you in some projects, indigenous, innovative,
configurable and affordable DiY platforms such as WKA Studio may provide you strategic
flexibility and differentiation for business competitiveness. An international research found
that majority companies anticipated a rapid increase in the degree of digitization in both their
innovation engines and product offerings (Kolk et al., 2018). Innovation capabilities are
emerging as a critical success factor (CSF) in several industries (e.g. pharma, Bhat and
Momaya, 2019). Promised collaboration between human and machine for productivity can be
alluring, but without strategic insights, including about MoT, costs can outweigh benefits in no
time. Classical views on place of machines by giants such as Mahatma (Gandhi, 1929) are
very deep and can guide us, if we lose balances in role of HR and Machines. Hope this small
caselet helps you make sense of less-thought linkages between your business competitiveness,
problem(s) and MoT for better leverage of your skills related to AI. Do explore the questions
below, references and links (several hyperlinks are given in this artefact) at your peaceful time
to think deeper about business competitiveness—a necessity for your business to grow in
VUCA world.
Why Sustainability?
India has rich traditions of sustainability and is proactive to contribute its fair share to recent
developments such as UN sustainable development goals (SDGs), Conference of the Parties
(COP, e.g. COP28). For instance, despite being the most populous country striving to break-
out from traps (e.g. middle income trap) with massive problems on fronts such as low education
levels, lower (than e.g. OECD levels) health and energy (can result into much lower incomes),
India has made very ambitious commitments e.g. at Global forums such as COP26 on
renewable energy, carbon emissions for climate action. It may adversely impact its trade and
financial balances, but professionals, leaders and entrepreneurs of Indian origin will still strive
hard on such committments and innovate to break-out.
Among many dimensions of sustainability, we will focus on two more relevant here—
Environmental Sustainability and Enterprise Sustainability. Environmental sustainability
(henceforth called EnvS) has attracted lot of attention worldwide. The focus has intensified, as
we become aware about “Super-Wicked Problems” such as climate change, pollution, and
over-consumption-induced imbalances. While firms from developed countries have a head-
start due to their resource slack, firms from developing countries have a relatively tougher job
of finding a balance between continued economic growth and reduced negative ecological
externality. While developed countries can still mull on the ideas of sectoral degrowth2 (Kallis,
2011), it might be difficult for the developing counties to achieve even the very basic economic
and social goals (such as SDGs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 etc.; see Figure 1) without focusing their effort
on continued economic growth. On the other hand, given the enormous imbalances foreseen
from a climate crisis and the nearness of the climate inflection point (Rockström et al., 2009;
Whiteman et al., 2013), firms from developing countries must take proactive steps (Boiral,
2006) to at least maintain status quo, if not improve the state of the natural environment they
operate in. It therefore becomes quintessential for firms from such countries to work towards
eco-innovations (Berrone et al., 2013; Dangelico, 2016; Khan et al., 2021; Vasileiou et al.,
2022) that at least help them improve their eco-efficiency if not de-carbonify. This is where
premier educational institutions from developing countries such as IIT Bombay have a huge
role to play (Momaya et al., 2017; Adhikari et al., 2021). On one hand, they can train climate-
aware professionals and executives who recognize the need for achieving balances on both
environmental and economic (incl. forex) front. On the other hand, they can spearhead eco-

2
Degrowth has been defined as the “equitable downscaling of production and consumption that increases human
well-being and enhances ecological conditions at the local and global level, in the short and long term” by
François and colleagues (2010).
--------------
Context Caselet on Innovation and Competitiveness… by Dr. K. S. Momaya & P. Adhikari Page 7/15
innovation efforts that fit more with the socio-economic contexts of developing countries.
Thus, IIT Bombay has a tremendous opportunity to contribute to sustainability on several
dimensions, including environmentally sustainable practices (ESPs).

Figure 1: Sustainable Development Goals (collection of seventeen interlinked objectives designed to

serve as a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future.)

Enterprise sustainability (EntS), is a major opportunity for high potential future leaders
from IIT Bombay, such as you. As the most populous country, India needs better balances
on many fronts. Better balances on role of “Start-ups” and sustained enterprises (SEs)
one that is very important. Sustained enterprises are visionary and long-lasting companies (e.g.
at least half a century; Collins and Porras, 2005) that make massive contributions to not only
employees, shareholders and suppliers (e.g. in related and supporting industries), but even
communities and the country. For instance, in context of the USA, firms such as 3M, Boing,
GE, HP, IBM were considered as cases in a classic study by Collins and Porras (2005). Today’s
technology giants such as Alphabet, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft, Samsung, Sony have build
on solid foundations that leadership of sustained enterprises such as HP and IBM build. In
recent context when 4 of Top5 firms in Global 2000 list of Forbes (3 are SOEs 3 banks from
China), leadership of SOEs from India have huge opportunities e.g. through catch-up on Digital
X (DX). Leadership here may be defined as executive(s) who displayed high levels of energy,
attracted dedicated people, mentored them to achieve goals and many other things,
sustainably. For instance, Bank of Baroda (happy to be India’s international bank with
presence in 17 countries and more than 150 million customers) can have aspirations to enter
quadrant 1 (Q1) through better management of technology and innovation (MoT, incl. DX)
Wouldn’t you dream to be a part of such a leadership team to shape journey of MNEs of
Indian origin towards century and beyond?

3
SOEs (State Owned Enterprises), also popularly referred to as Public Sector Units (PSUs) in India.
--------------
Context Caselet on Innovation and Competitiveness… by Dr. K. S. Momaya & P. Adhikari Page 8/15
 As we aspire to help our firms break out in competitiveness through digital X, let us refresh
a relevant “Though of Power” from one of the Great Thinker of India:
“To succeed, you must have tremendous perseverance, tremendous will.”
-Swami Vivekanand (p. 6)

Examples of Learning Tasks / Questions

Basic Tasks
1. Find out working definitions of competitiveness at firm level. Explore their applicability
in context of digital innovation of your firm or a firm (name it) in a knowledge-based
industry of your choice.
2. Contrast the differences in pattern of competitiveness performance for firms from India,
Japan, USA and China in Global500 (or better) and think about reasons, incl. related to
digital innovation.
3. What approaches can you use to find major opportunities for improvement (OFIs) in
practices related to digital transformation or sustainability or diagnose major problems in
the practice? List the OFIs and prioritize.
4. Contrast the trends in net forex and R&D spend as % of sales for the firm you work in
and its benchmark competitor to draw few inferences (at least 4).
Challenge Tasks for Energetic High Potential Leaders
5. Estimate no. of FIOs in Global2000 in mid-term (assume the year and state). How many
in quadrant 1? How many from your industry or cluster? Any in most innovative?
6. Estimate levels (e.g. on “ladder of international competitiveness”; measured on a
competitiveness criteria net forex {e.g. in billions or 100s of billions of INR}) can your
firm (e.g. mini-project) climb. May get clues from Tables in the Appendix.

References / Suggested further readings

An attempt has been made to identify more balanced sources of knowledge on
competitiveness, in line with findings, glimpse of which is provided above. Select articles
from classic practice-oriented journals (e.g. JGBC), books and reports that one can start with
are:

Adhikari, P., & Momaya, K. S. (2021). Innovation Capabilities, Environmentally Sustainable Practices
and Export Competitiveness: An Exploratory Study of Firms From India. International Journal of
Innovation and Technology Management, 18(06), 2150035.
Awate, S., Larsen, M. M., and Mudambi, R. (2012). EMNE catch‐up strategies in the wind turbine
industry: Is there a trade‐off between output and innovation capabilities?. Global Strategy Journal,
2(3), 205-223.
Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., & Gomez‐Mejia, L. R. (2013). Necessity as the mother of
‘green’ inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic
Management Journal, 34(8), 891–909. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2041

--------------
Context Caselet on Innovation and Competitiveness… by Dr. K. S. Momaya & P. Adhikari Page 9/15
Bhat S. and Momaya K. S. (2019), Learning from the Giants: Critical Success Factors for
Pharmaceutical EMNEs from India, Journal of International Business and Economy, Vol. 20 (2),
pp. 29-53.
Boiral, O. (2006). Global Warming: Should Companies Adopt a Proactive Strategy? Long Range
Planning, 39(3), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2006.07.002
CII, (2019), Competitiveness of India Inc.—India @ 75: Forging Ahead, Confederation of Indian
Industry, New Delhi.
CII, (2016), Future of Jobs in India: Enterprises and Livelihoods: A Systematic View and Scenarios,
Confederation of Indian Industry, New Delhi.
Dangelico, R. M. (2016). Green Product Innovation: Where we are and Where we are Going.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(8), 560–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1886
Gandhi M. K. (1929), ग ांधी मोहनद स करमचांद (१९२१), न नवटी अमत
ृ ल ल ठ कोरद स
(अनुव दक), हहन्द स्वर ज्य (in Hindi), सवव सेव सांघ-प्रक शन, र जघ ट, व र णसी।
Ghosh A., (2010), Strategies for Growth: Help your business move up the ladder, IIM Ahmedabad
Business Books, Random House India, Noida.
Ghoshal S., Piramal G. and Bartlett C. A., (2000), Managing Radical Change: What Indian
Companies Must Do to Become World-Class, Penguin, New Delhi.
Kallis, G. (2011). In defence of degrowth. Ecological Economics, 70(5), 873–880.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.007
Khan, S. J., Kaur, P., Jabeen, F., & Dhir, A. (2021). Green process innovation: Where we are and
where we are going. Business Strategy and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2802
Kolk M., Hatton C, Woerner H. C. and Mitsuya S. (2018), Innovating in the digital age— Successfully
combining intelligence, foresight and interaction, Arthur D. Little Prism, Vol. 2, pp. 28-39.
Malagihal, S. S. (2021). Strategic Options for Automobile OEMs of Indian Origin to have Sustained
Competitive Advantage: A Case of Tata Motors. International Journal of Global Business and
Competitiveness, 16(2), 139-152.
Momaya, K. S. (2014), Break-out for Competitiveness of Indian firms: Context, need and opportunities.
International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 9(1), iii-vii.
Momaya, K. S., Bhat, S., & Lalwani, L. (2017). Institutional Growth and Industrial Competitiveness:
Exploring the Role of Strategic Flexibility Taking the Case of Select Institutes in India.
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 18(2), 111–122.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-016-0144-2
Momaya, K.S. (2020). Return from COVID-19: Thinking Differently About Export Competitiveness
and Sustainability. JGBC 15, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42943-020-00012-6
Nobeoka K. (2006), MOT[技術経営]入門 (in Japanese), {Introduction to Management of
Technology}, 日本経済新聞出版社, Tokyo.
Parthasarathy, S., Momaya, K. S., & Jha, S. K. (2016), Internationalization of Indian Firms: An
Exploratory Study of Two Firms from the Tyre Industry. Journal of East-West Business, 22(4),
324-350.
Parthasarathy, S., Momaya, K. S., & Jha, S. K. (2017), EMNEs venturing into advanced economies:
Findings from comparative cases of two Indian MNEs. Thunderbird International Business
Review, 59(3), 437-454.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004), The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with
customers. Harvard Business Press.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S. I., Lambin, E., Lenton, T., Scheffer,
M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., Wit, C. de, Hughes, T., Leeuw, S. van der,
Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., … Foley, J. (2009). Planetary
Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2).
https://doi.org/10.5751/es-03180-140232

--------------
Context Caselet on Innovation and Competitiveness… by Dr. K. S. Momaya & P. Adhikari Page 10/15
Schneider, F., Kallis, G., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2010). Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for
social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 18(6), 511–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.014
Tale, N., Johari, C., Thapliyal, R., Adhikari, P., & Momaya, K.S. (2020). Grassroot Innovations for
Institute Flexibility: Leveraging Management of Technology to Improve Learner Health through
Regular Practices. Proc. of 29th International Conference on Management of Technology, Sept. 13-
17, 1400-1409
Vasileiou, E., Georgantzis, N., Attanasi, G., & Llerena, P. (2022). Green innovation and financial
performance: A study on Italian firms. Research Policy, 51(6), 104530.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104530
Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary Boundaries: Ecological Foundations for
Corporate Sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 307–336.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01073.x

Acknowledgements
I acknowledge cooperation from researchers (Ph.D./M.Mgt./Alumni) at SJMSOM, IITB.
Particularly associates of Group on Competitiveness (GoC) Shivakumar, and Dr. Ajitabh Dr.
Sneha Bhat, Dr. P. Sundar, Rahul andPranusha, at Competitiveness Lab have been
contributing singificantly. Cooperation from other members of Group on Competitiveness
(GoC) at IIT Bombay, and participating companies for interactions for research and data
collection is acknowledged. Contribution by Padmanav Adhikari for tables on Quick
Benchmarking of select companies is acknowledged.

Notes
1
For details, readers can refer to Momaya K., 1998, “Evaluating International Competitiveness at the Industry
Level,” Vikalpa-The Journal for Decision Makers, IIM Ahmedabad, April-June, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 39-46;
Momaya K., 2001, International Competitiveness: Evaluation and Enhancement, Hindustan Publishing
Corporation, New Delhi; Banwet, D.K., Momaya, K., and Shee, H.K., 2002 “Competitiveness: Perceptions,
Reflections and Directions,” Management Update, IIMB Management Review, 14 (3), Sept., pp. 105-116;
Ajitabh and Momaya, 2004 “Competitiveness of Firms: Review of Theory, Frameworks and Models”,
Singapore Management Review, First half, Vol.26, No.1, pp. 45-61; Momaya, K. S. 2016 “City clusters and
break-out in corporate competitiveness: Patterns and perspectives focusing on innovation capabilities and
India,” Competitiveness Review, 26(4), 415-434.

2
Adapted from the most popular classic definition in the Report of the President’s Commission on
Competitiveness , USA.
3
Internationalisation of emerging multinational firms from India is an exciting phenomenon. Our exploratory
research has indicated some exciting achievements by FIOs across industries, including automotive and
chemicals (Parthasarathy et al., 2017) and tyre (Parthasarathy et al., 2016), Some useful concepts for industry
and academia, as well as a framework are proposed.4 To have a glimpse of conversation we need to have about
the future of computer and human collaboration, please have a look at books such as Daugherty and Wilson
(2018), Human + Machine: Reimagining Work in the Age of AI, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.
To download articles, cases, caselets and paper by Associates of Group on Competitiveness (GoC) at SJMSOM/
IIT Bombay, please explore links to publication on our web pages at SJMSOM, Google Scholar, ResearchGate
(you need to be registered to download of ResearchGate).

--------------
Context Caselet on Innovation and Competitiveness… by Dr. K. S. Momaya & P. Adhikari Page 11/15
 Table A1: An example of quick benchmarking (QBM)
Trends in select criteria of competitiveness for two polar firms belonging to the Indian software industry
All amounts are in ₹ Crores (except when they stated as % or as ratio in the header columns)

Wipro Ltd.
Financial year ending in → Mar-20 Mar-19 Mar-18 Mar-17 Mar-16 Mar-15 Mar-14 Mar-13 Mar-12 Jump % Jump % CAGR
Total revenue (TR) 52,724 50,748 47,132 48,530 47,445 43,963 40,368 34,570 32,865 19,858 60% 5%
Operating income (OI) 12,684 11,330 11,433 12,203 12,020 11,698 10,720 8,259 7,270 5,414 74% 6%
OI as a % of TR 24% 22% 24% 25% 25% 27% 27% 24% 22% 2% 9% 1%
Earnings in forex 46,079 44,458 39,181 40,400 40,486 36,767 32,434 28,103 23,441 22,638 97% 8%
Expenses in forex 22,949 23,036 20,783 21,291 21,466 20,318 16,329 14,189 12,337 10,612 86% 7%
Net forex earnings 23,130 21,422 18,398 19,109 19,021 16,448 16,105 13,913 11,104 12,026 108% 8%
Earnings in forex as a % of TR 87% 88% 83% 83% 85% 84% 80% 81% 71% 16% 23% 2%
Net forex earnings as a % of TR 44% 42% 39% 39% 40% 37% 40% 40% 34% 10% 30% 3%
Ratio of earnings/ expenses in forex 2.01 1.93 1.89 1.90 1.89 1.81 1.99 1.98 1.90 11% 6% 1%
Total R&D expenditure 462 394 304 334 256 251 266 220 190 272 143% 10%
Total R&D expenditure as a % of TR 0.88% 0.78% 0.65% 0.69% 0.54% 0.57% 0.66% 0.64% 0.58% 0.30% 51% 5%

HCL Technologies Ltd.

Financial year ending in → Mar-20 Mar-19 Mar-18 Mar-17 Mar-16 Mar-15 Mar-14 Mar-13 Mar-12 Jump % Jump % CAGR
Total revenue (TR) 33,193 26,817 22,775 20,274 14,403 18,353 17,156 12,990 9,208 23,985 260% 15%
Operating income (OI) 13,367 11,223 10,041 8,809 6,104 8,059 7,970 5,063 2,811 10,556 376% 19%
OI as a % of TR 40% 42% 44% 43% 42% 44% 46% 39% 31% 10% 32% 3%
Earnings in forex 29,195 22,892 19,275 19,545 11,625 14,685 14,240 11,381 8,384 20,811 248% 15%
Expenses in forex 7,644 6,539 5,452 2,392 1,402 1,737 1,587 1,266 1,084 6,560 605% 24%
Net forex earnings 21,551 16,353 13,823 17,153 10,223 12,948 12,653 10,116 7,300 14,251 195% 13%
Earnings in forex as a % of TR 88% 85% 85% 96% 81% 80% 83% 88% 91% -3% -3% 0%
Net forex earnings as a % of TR 65% 61% 61% 85% 71% 71% 74% 78% 79% -14% -18% -2%
Ratio of earnings/ expenses in forex 3.82 3.50 3.54 8.17 8.29 8.45 8.98 8.99 7.73 -391% -51% -8%
Total R&D expenditure 381 229 128 115 103 182 153 158 168 213 127% 10%
Total R&D expenditure as a % of TR 1.15% 0.85% 0.56% 0.57% 0.71% 0.99% 0.89% 1.22% 1.82% -0.67% -37% -5%

Table A2: Line by Line Comparisons on Select Criteria of Competitiveness

All amounts are in ₹ Crores (except when they stated as % or as ratio in the header columns)
Criteria of competitiveness Mar-19 Mar-18 Mar-17 Mar-16 Mar-15 Mar-14 Mar-13 Mar-12 Mar-11 Jump % Jump % CAGR
Total revenue (TR)
Wipro Ltd. 52,724 50,748 47,132 48,530 47,445 43,963 40,368 34,570 32,865 19,858 60% 5%
HCL Technologies Ltd. 33,193 26,817 22,775 20,274 14,403 18,353 17,156 12,990 9,208 23,985 260% 15%

Net forex earnings

Wipro Ltd. 23,130 21,422 18,398 19,109 19,021 16,448 16,105 13,913 11,104 12,026 108% 8%
HCL Technologies Ltd. 21,551 16,353 13,823 17,153 10,223 12,948 12,653 10,116 7,300 14,251 195% 13%

Earnings in forex as a % of TR
Wipro Ltd. 87% 88% 83% 83% 85% 84% 80% 81% 71% 16% 23% 2%
HCL Technologies Ltd. 88% 85% 85% 96% 81% 80% 83% 88% 91% -3% -3% 0%

Net forex earnings as a % of TR

Wipro Ltd. 44% 42% 39% 39% 40% 37% 40% 40% 34% 10% 30% 3%
HCL Technologies Ltd. 65% 61% 61% 85% 71% 71% 74% 78% 79% -14% -18% -2%

Ratio of earnings/ expenses in forex

Wipro Ltd. 2.01 1.93 1.89 1.90 1.89 1.81 1.99 1.98 1.90 0.11 6% 1%
HCL Technologies Ltd. 3.82 3.50 3.54 8.17 8.29 8.45 8.98 8.99 7.73 (3.91) -51% -8%

Total R&D expenditure

Wipro Ltd. 462 394 304 334 256 251 266 220 190 272 143% 10%
HCL Technologies Ltd. 381 229 128 115 103 182 153 158 168 213 127% 10%

Total R&D expenditure as a % of TR

Wipro Ltd. 0.88% 0.78% 0.65% 0.69% 0.54% 0.57% 0.66% 0.64% 0.58% 0.30% 51% 5%
HCL Technologies Ltd. 1.15% 0.85% 0.56% 0.57% 0.71% 0.99% 0.89% 1.22% 1.82% -0.67% -37% -5%

Source: Developed based on data extracted from the CapitaLine Plus database.
Notes: 1. The example firms and years are just representative. Similar patterns are visible for many firms and for recent years.
Notes: 2. Standalone (not consolidated) figures used for the various financial measures.

--------------
Context Caselet on Innovation and Competitiveness… by Dr. K. S. Momaya & P. Adhikari Page 12/15
 Table A3 An Example of Quick Benchmarking

Trends in select criteria of competitiveness for two firms in polar industries

All amounts (except stated as % in header column) are in Rs. Crore
Financial year ending in --> 201303 201203 201103 201003 200903 200803 200703 200603 200503 200403 Jump % Jump
Foody 2004-13 2004-13
Net Sales 3,151 3,686 2,947 1,814 1,996 2,142 1,835 1,531 1,167 797 2,355 295.55
Cost of production 2,437 2,770 2,237 1,455 1,638 1,668 1,397 1,167 851 572 1,865 326.35
Operating income / PBIDT 818 912 762 448 407 641 541 442 334 259 559 215.57
PBIDT as % of sales 26 25 26 25 20 30 29 29 29 33
Capital Employed 4,219 4,158 3,497 3,380 3,295 2,761 2,728 2,157 860 537 3,682 685.92
Revenue earnings in forex 1,609 1,784 1,257 738 1,061 1,067 836 719 535 346 1,262 364.36
Revenue expenses in forex 265 238 154 133 184 178 179 138 65 50 215 433.82
Total R&D expenditure 14.72 8.89 7.52 2.86 3.64 6.88 4.76 8.17 4.12 2.89 11.83 409.34
Bony
Net Sales 2,139 1,918 2,111 2,249 1,965 2,075 1,732 1,353 1,578 1,086 1,054 97.08
Operating income / PBIDT 328 229 635 544 534 602 414 386 659 408 (80) -19.53
Capital Employed 3,249 3,773 3,875 4,026 4,587 3,822 3,660 3,615 3,405 2,324 925 39.80
Revenue earnings in forex 1,339 1,092 1,306 1,519 1,344 1,591 1,409 1,004 1,235 927 412 44.50
Revenue expenses in forex 624 813 822 924 826 848 965 691 634 369 255 68.96
Total R&D expenditure 5.73 7.92 21.14 35.67 35.5 30.6 -30.6 -100.00

Criteria of Competitiveness 201303 201203 201103 201003 200903 200803 200703 200603 200503 200403 Jump %
Net Sales
Foody 3,151 3,686 2,947 1,814 1,996 2,142 1,835 1,531 1,167 797 2354.56 295.55
Bony 2,139 1,918 2,111 2,249 1,965 2,075 1,732 1,353 1,578 1,086 1053.84 97.08
Net Forex Earning
Foody 1,344 1,546 1,103 606 877 889 657 581 470 297 1047.26 352.76
Bony 716 279 483 595 518 743 444 313 601 558 157.94 28.31

Revenue earning in forex as % of net sales

Foody 51.06 48.41 42.65 40.70 53.15 49.83 45.56 46.96 45.83 43.49 7.57
Bony 62.61 56.92 61.86 67.55 68.39 76.69 81.38 74.21 78.28 85.39 -22.78
Ratio of net forex earning as % of net sales
Foody 42.65 41.95 37.44 33.38 43.95 41.51 35.78 37.97 40.24 37.27 5.39
Bony 33.46 14.53 22.90 26.47 26.37 35.82 25.65 23.10 38.11 51.39 -17.93
Ratio of earning / expenses in forex
Foody 6.08 7.50 8.18 5.56 5.78 5.99 4.66 5.23 8.19 6.98
Bony 2.15 1.34 1.59 1.64 1.63 1.88 1.46 1.45 1.95 2.51
Total R&D expenditure
Foody 14.72 8.89 7.52 2.86 3.64 6.88 4.76 8.17 4.12 2.89
Bony 5.73 7.92 21.14 35.67 35.5 30.6
Total R&D exp. as % of sales
Foody 0.47 0.24 0.26 0.16 0.18 0.32 0.26 0.53 0.35 0.36
Bony 0.27 0.35 1.22 2.64 2.25 2.82
Financial year ending in --> 201303 201203 201103 201003 200903 200803 200703 200603 200503 200403

Source: Developed based on data extracted from the database Capitaline.

Notes: 1. The example firms and years are just representative. Similar patterns are visible for many
firms and for recent years.

2. The names of firms have to be changed to maintain confidentiality.

--------------
Context Caselet on Innovation and Competitiveness… by Dr. K. S. Momaya & P. Adhikari Page 13/15
 Group on Competitiveness
IIT Bombay
Table A4: Quick Benchmarking: Trends in select criteria of competitiveness for four Indian banking companies
All amounts are in ₹ millions (except when they stated as % or as ratio in the header columns)
State Bank of India
Criteria of competitiveness 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Jump % Jump % CAGR
Revenue from business activities (R)* 8,67,717 9,06,145 10,04,743 11,70,922 7,75,854 14,12,680 14,59,213 16,43,683 18,56,152 21,13,480 24,31,128 27,48,752 18,81,034 216.78 11.05
Operating profit (OP)* 2,58,856 2,43,773 2,03,657 2,34,567 1,81,768 27,106 -79,525 63,244 2,51,915 4,05,302 6,72,739 8,18,341 5,59,485 216.14 11.03
OP as a % of R 29.83 26.90 20.27 20.03 23.43 1.92 (5.45) 3.85 13.57 19.18 27.67 29.77 (0.06) (0.20) (0.02)
Net foreign exchange income/(expenses)* 16,883 19,026 22,972 23,858 - 27,922 25,225 22,091 25,816 24,577 35,302 53,855 36,972 218.99 11.12
Net forex income/expenses as a % of R 1.95 2.10 2.29 2.04 - 1.98 1.73 1.34 1.39 1.16 1.45 1.96 0.01 0.70 0.06
Gross value of investment - in India 30,28,562 33,07,184 37,51,905 45,16,350 53,71,091 72,54,214 1,02,64,384 92,66,506 1,01,05,990 1,31,44,241 1,43,96,489 1,52,41,893 1,22,13,332 403.27 15.82
Gross value of investment - outside India 1,14,367 2,12,576 2,51,569 3,06,037 3,94,963 4,18,158 4,66,589 5,14,734 4,74,487 4,74,614 5,35,376 6,32,089 5,17,722 452.69 16.81
Net value of investment - in India 30,10,210 32,99,929 37,45,399 45,14,017 53,68,146 72,48,637 1,01,67,402 91,75,564 1,00,11,689 1,30,52,562 1,42,80,061 1,50,89,361 1,20,79,151 401.27 15.78
Net value of investment - outside India 1,11,766 2,08,846 2,42,596 3,03,570 3,94,367 4,17,307 4,61,507 5,13,152 4,72,978 4,74,311 5,34,394 6,14,301 5,02,535 449.63 16.76
No. of employees 2,15,481 2,28,296 2,22,033 2,12,874 2,07,739 2,09,567 2,64,041 2,57,942 2,49,448 2,45,652 2,44,250 2,35,858 20,377 9.46 0.82
No. of branches 14,270 15,002 16,059 16,524 16,982 17,365 22,620 22,218 22,374 22,448 22,493 22,640 8,370 58.65 4.29
Revenue per employee (₹ millions) 4.03 3.97 4.53 5.50 3.73 6.74 5.53 6.37 7.44 8.60 9.95 11.65 7.63 189.41 10.14
Revenue per branch (₹ millions) 60.81 60.40 62.57 70.86 45.69 81.35 64.51 73.98 82.96 94.15 108.08 121.41 60.60 99.67 6.49
Employees per branch 15.10 15.22 13.83 12.88 12.23 12.07 11.67 11.61 11.15 10.94 10.86 10.42 (4.68) (31.01) (3.32)

Bank of Baroda
Criteria of competitiveness 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Jump % Jump % CAGR
Revenue from business activities (R)* 1,33,509 1,52,977 1,71,215 1,88,902 1,86,026 2,11,994 2,26,436 2,56,513 3,67,350 4,05,115 4,28,570 5,40,162 4,06,652 304.59 13.55
Operating profit (OP)* 63,035 51,958 59,961 59,833 -58,945 29,808 -14,269 16,743 5,927 72,047 1,23,374 2,37,116 1,74,081 276.17 12.80
OP as a % of R 47.21 33.96 35.02 31.67 (31.69) 14.06 (6.30) 6.53 1.61 17.78 28.79 43.90 (3.32) (7.02) (0.66)
Net foreign exchange income/(expenses)* 7,026 8,240 10,686 10,308 12,774 10,030 9,338 7,239 10,208 10,781 11,859 6,903 (123) (1.75) (0.16)
Net forex income/expenses as a % of R 5.26 5.39 6.24 5.46 6.87 4.73 4.12 2.82 2.78 2.66 2.77 1.28 (3.98) (75.72) (12.07)
Gross value of investment - in India 7,98,188 11,75,375 11,14,246 11,56,464 11,16,934 12,21,692 15,55,143 17,24,122 26,50,156 25,17,084 30,40,620 35,28,752 27,30,564 342.10 14.47
Gross value of investment - outside India 40,945 47,754 57,076 75,007 98,922 85,495 95,175 1,18,481 1,30,325 1,31,855 1,67,534 1,55,374 1,14,429 279.47 12.89
Net value of investment - in India 7,92,650 11,67,596 11,06,555 11,51,271 11,08,852 12,13,979 15,40,129 17,07,468 26,20,174 24,82,745 30,01,120 34,85,745 26,93,095 339.76 14.41
Net value of investment - outside India 39,444 46,342 54,572 71,926 95,654 82,327 91,716 1,15,513 1,25,972 1,29,457 1,56,834 1,39,108 99,664 252.67 12.14
No. of employees 42,175 43,108 46,001 49,378 52,021 52,420 55,662 55,754 84,283 82,886 79,806 78,122 35,947 85.23 5.76
No. of branches 3,959 4,336 4,934 5,250 5,390 5,481 5,526 5,598 9,528 8,258 8,209 8,258 4,299 108.59 6.91
Revenue per employee (₹ millions) 3.17 3.55 3.72 3.83 3.58 4.04 4.07 4.60 4.36 4.89 5.37 6.91 3.75 118.42 7.36
Revenue per branch (₹ millions) 33.72 35.28 34.70 35.98 34.51 38.68 40.98 45.82 38.55 49.06 52.21 65.41 31.69 93.96 6.21
Employees per branch 10.65 9.94 9.32 9.41 9.65 9.56 10.07 9.96 8.85 10.04 9.72 9.46 (1.19) (11.20) (1.07)

HDFC Bank
Criteria of competitiveness 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Jump % Jump % CAGR
Revenue from business activities (R)* 1,87,687 2,27,470 2,67,075 3,20,624 3,93,790 4,71,147 5,78,239 6,86,733 8,29,272 9,51,568 10,39,207 12,28,336 10,40,649 554.46 18.62
Operating profit (OP)* 77,560 99,702 1,31,974 1,60,096 1,95,431 2,33,508 2,86,529 3,43,319 3,88,785 4,42,176 4,92,624 6,19,540 5,41,980 698.79 20.79
OP as a % of R 41.32 43.83 49.41 49.93 49.63 49.56 49.55 49.99 46.88 46.47 47.40 50.44 9.11 22.05 1.83
Net foreign exchange income/(expenses)* 12,654 10,101 14,008 10,280 12,277 12,634 15,235 17,204 21,547 24,384 39,079 40,819 28,165 222.58 11.23
Net forex income/expenses as a % of R 6.74 4.44 5.25 3.21 3.12 2.68 2.63 2.51 2.60 2.56 3.76 3.32 (3.42) (50.71) (6.23)
Gross value of investment - in India 9,77,092 11,13,472 12,02,029 15,06,499 19,45,832 21,34,072 24,08,998 29,18,787 39,05,737 44,22,049 15,30,152 15,09,398 5,32,306 54.48 4.03
Gross value of investment - outside India 6 5,031 9,216 11,059 13,727 11,207 15,607 15,120 22,314 23,752 26,252 16,019 16,013 2,66,881.67 104.88
Net value of investment - in India 9,74,823 11,11,105 12,00,295 15,05,359 19,44,636 21,33,453 24,06,526 29,16,109 38,96,439 44,13,602 45,29,133 51,55,004 41,80,181 428.81 16.35
Net value of investment - outside India 6 5,031 9,216 11,059 13,727 11,180 15,477 15,052 21,828 23,681 26,224 15,010 15,004 2,50,065.00 103.67
No. of employees 66,076 69,065 68,165 76,286 87,555 84,325 88,253 98,061 1,16,971 1,20,116 1,41,605 1,73,255 1,07,179 162.21 9.16
No. of branches 2,544 3,062 3,403 4,014 4,520 4,715 4,787 5,103 5,412 5,608 6,342 7,831 5,287 207.82 10.76
Revenue per employee (₹ millions) 2.84 3.29 3.92 4.20 4.50 5.59 6.55 7.00 7.09 7.92 7.34 7.09 4.25 149.60 8.67
Revenue per branch (₹ millions) 73.78 74.29 78.48 79.88 87.12 99.93 120.79 134.57 153.23 169.68 163.86 156.86 83.08 112.61 7.10
Employees per branch 25.97 22.56 20.03 19.00 19.37 17.88 18.44 19.22 21.61 21.42 22.33 22.12 (3.85) (14.82) (1.45)
 Group on Competitiveness
IIT Bombay

Table A5: Quick Benchmarking: Line-by-line Comparisons on Select Criteria of Competitiveness

All amounts are in ₹ millions (except when they stated as % or as ratio in the header columns)

Criteria of competitiveness 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Jump % Jump % CAGR
OP as a % of R
State Bank of India 29.83 26.90 20.27 20.03 23.43 1.92 (5.45) 3.85 13.57 19.18 27.67 29.77 (0.06) (0.20) (0.02)
Bank of Baroda 47.21 33.96 35.02 31.67 (31.69) 14.06 (6.30) 6.53 1.61 17.78 28.79 43.90 (3.32) (7.02) (0.66)
HDFC Bank 41.32 43.83 49.41 49.93 49.63 49.56 49.55 49.99 46.88 46.47 47.40 50.44 9.11 22.05 1.83

Net foreign exchange income/(expenses) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Jump % Jump % CAGR
State Bank of India 16,883 19,026 22,972 23,858 - 27,922 25,225 22,091 25,816 24,577 35,302 53,855 36,972 218.99 11.12
Bank of Baroda 7,026 8,240 10,686 10,308 12,774 10,030 9,338 7,239 10,208 10,781 11,859 6,903 (123) (1.75) (0.16)
HDFC Bank 12,654 10,101 14,008 10,280 12,277 12,634 15,235 17,204 21,547 24,384 39,079 40,819 28,165 222.58 11.23

Net forex income/expenses as a % of R 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Jump % Jump % CAGR
State Bank of India 1.95 2.10 2.29 2.04 - 1.98 1.73 1.34 1.39 1.16 1.45 1.96 0.01 0.70 0.06
Bank of Baroda 5.26 5.39 6.24 5.46 6.87 4.73 4.12 2.82 2.78 2.66 2.77 1.28 (3.98) (75.72) (12.07)
HDFC Bank 6.74 4.44 5.25 3.21 3.12 2.68 2.63 2.51 2.60 2.56 3.76 3.32 (3.42) (50.71) (6.23)

Revenue per employee (₹ millions) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Jump % Jump % CAGR
State Bank of India 4.03 3.97 4.53 5.50 3.73 6.74 5.53 6.37 7.44 8.60 9.95 11.65 7.63 189.41 10.14
Bank of Baroda 3.17 3.55 3.72 3.83 3.58 4.04 4.07 4.60 4.36 4.89 5.37 6.91 3.75 118.42 7.36
HDFC Bank 2.84 3.29 3.92 4.20 4.50 5.59 6.55 7.00 7.09 7.92 7.34 7.09 4.25 149.60 8.67

Revenue per branch (₹ millions) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Jump % Jump % CAGR
State Bank of India 60.81 60.40 62.57 70.86 45.69 81.35 64.51 73.98 82.96 94.15 108.08 121.41 60.60 99.67 6.49
Bank of Baroda 33.72 35.28 34.70 35.98 34.51 38.68 40.98 45.82 38.55 49.06 52.21 65.41 31.69 93.96 6.21
HDFC Bank 73.78 74.29 78.48 79.88 87.12 99.93 120.79 134.57 153.23 169.68 163.86 156.86 83.08 112.61 7.10

Employees per branch 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Jump % Jump % CAGR
State Bank of India 15.10 15.22 13.83 12.88 12.23 12.07 11.67 11.61 11.15 10.94 10.86 10.42 (4.68) (31.01) (3.32)
Bank of Baroda 10.65 9.94 9.32 9.41 9.65 9.56 10.07 9.96 8.85 10.04 9.72 9.46 (1.19) (11.20) (1.07)
HDFC Bank 25.97 22.56 20.03 19.00 19.37 17.88 18.44 19.22 21.61 21.42 22.33 22.12 (3.85) (14.82) (1.45)

Source: Developed based on data extracted from CMIE ProwessIQ and Refinitiv Eikon databases. Data for criteria marked with asterisks (*) are collected from Refinitiv Eikon. Data for other criteria are
either collected from CMIE ProwessIQ or computed from data already collected. Standalone figures are taken.