HeidelbergCement India Limited makes a corporate announcement

In Q2 FY25, HeidelbergCement India experienced significant profitability headwinds, as EBITDA margin compressed by 415 bps YoY to 8.1% and EBITDA per tonne dropped 36.4% YoY from Rs 598 to Rs 380 ^[1]. The margin compression was driven primarily by a decline in realization per tonne (~Rs 181.55/tonne drop) and operating deleverage from a 15.3% volume decline, which more than offset the benefit of lower power and fuel costs (~Rs 90.23/tonne savings) ^[1], ^[1].

Specific numerical cost-optimization targets for FY25 were not explicitly disclosed in the quarterly filings or media release ^[1], ^[2].

---

Q2 FY25 Margin Compression & Unit Economics Bridge

---

Detailed Breakdown of Drivers

• Realization Decline vs. Power & Fuel Savings: Realization per tonne declined by ~3.7% YoY (management cited a ~4% price decrease), lowering net realization by ~Rs 181.55 per tonne ^[1], ^[1]. On the cost side, power and fuel expenses per tonne fell by ~6.3% YoY (~Rs 90.23 per tonne savings) as global market fuel prices softened ^[3], ^[1]. The pricing drop was twice as large as the fuel cost relief on a per-tonne basis.
• Operating Cost Deleverage: Due to a 15.3% YoY contraction in sales volume (to 984 KT), fixed overheads were spread across lower tonnage ^[1]. Management noted that total operating costs (including freight) per tonne increased by ~1% YoY because volume deleverage negated the savings from lower fuel prices ^[1].

---

Comparison to FY25 Cost-Optimization Targets

• Operational Execution: While formal numerical targets were not disclosed, management highlighted ongoing cost and supply-chain efficiency initiatives:
• Clinker Plant Debottlenecking: The debottlenecking project at the Narsingarh clinker plant remains on track for completion by Q4 FY25 to enhance operational efficiency ^[1].
• Grinding Tie-Up: In August 2024, the company commenced buying cement under a manufacturing arrangement with HimalayaHeight Cement Private Limited's Bhabhua Grinding Plant in Bihar to optimize regional logistics and distribution costs ^[2].
• Company Disclosure Gap: Specific quantitative cost-optimization targets for FY25 (such as target percentage reductions in power & fuel consumption per tonne or absolute cost savings goals) were not publicly reported in company filings or earnings media releases ^[1], ^[2].

HeidelbergCement India's brownfield expansion centers primarily on the establishment of a cement blending and grinding unit in Khandwa District, Madhya Pradesh ^[4].

Project Status and Commissioning Timeline

• Khandwa Unit Status: The company has received the Consent to Establish (CT) from the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board for the Dongaliya Village, Khandwa project ^[4].
• Commissioning Timeline: Management expects the Khandwa blending unit to be completed within approximately two years ^[5]. Meanwhile, clinker debottlenecking at the Damoh plant has been completed ^[6].
• Investor Presentation Disclosure Gap: The latest FY26 investor presentation does not explicitly detail a revised commissioning timeline or project-specific capex incurred to date ^[7]; these operational milestones are articulated via concurrent earnings call disclosures ^[8].

Capital Expenditure Outlay and Incurred Status

• Total Outlay: The projected capital expenditure for the Khandwa blending unit is approximately Rs 130 Crores, scheduled across FY27 and FY28 with outlays weighted toward the second year ^[8].
• Capex Incurred to Date: Total capital work-in-progress (CWIP) stood at Rs 102.7 Millions (Rs 10.27 Crores) as of March 31, 2026 ^[9]. A granular breakdown of exact project-specific capex incurred exclusively for Khandwa to date is not separately itemized in reported filings.
• Annual Capex Guidance: Total capital expenditure is guided at approximately Rs 100 Crores for FY27 (comprising Rs 45 to 50 Crores of recurring sustainable capex plus initial Khandwa outlays) and approximately Rs 120 Crores for the subsequent year ^[10].

Volume Performance and Regional Comparison

During Q2 FY25, HeidelbergCement India Limited reported sales volumes of 984 KT, representing a sharp 15.3% year-over-year decline compared to 1,163 KT in Q2 FY24 ^[1]. The company attributed this contraction to a soft demand landscape driven by extended monsoons and sluggish project executions. Regarding the regional industry average for Central India, company filings and earnings disclosures do not explicitly report a specific regional industry growth benchmark for Q2 FY25, representing a disclosure gap.

Sales Strategy: Volume Retention versus Price Realization

The company's operational metrics indicate that it faced simultaneous pressure on both volume and pricing rather than successfully executing a decisive trade-off between the two:

• Volume and Price Dynamics: Revenue from operations dropped by 18.5% YoY to INR 4,614.1 million in Q2 FY25 ^[1], driven by a c. 15% decrease in volumes combined with a c. 4% decrease in price realization ^[1].
• Profitability Compression: Operating under an intense competitive pricing environment, the inability to defend realizations alongside plunging volumes caused EBITDA per tonne to collapse by 36.4% YoY to INR 380 (down from INR 598 in Q2 FY24) ^[1], with the overall EBITDA margin contracting by 415 bps YoY to 8.1% ^[1].
• Tactical Supply Adjustments: Rather than aggressively sacrificing volumes to protect price or vice versa, the company sought to protect its operational footprint by securing external grinding sources. It entered a manufacturing tie-up arrangement on July 16, 2024, and commenced procuring cement from the Bhabhua Grinding Plant in Bihar starting late August 2024 to support local product availability ^[2].

Implications

The Q2 FY25 performance underscores the severe margin sensitivity of HeidelbergCement's current cost and operating structure when regional demand weakens. With operating leverage working adversely due to the 15.3% volume drop ^[1], the company's reliance on third-party grinding tie-ups ^[2] highlights a tactical effort to sustain regional market presence while awaiting structural demand recovery.

_Scope note: this comparison also included K C P (KCP); Prism Johnson Limited (PRSMJOHNSN), which the answer above does not cover. Ask about any of them for a full side-by-side._