Manufacturing corporate sector’s GVA grows 9.28% in FY25: Govt survey

Gross value added, or GVA, is the value created by production. In simple terms, it is the value of a factory’s output minus the cost of intermediate inputs, such as raw materials, energy and purchased services. It shows how much value the factory itself adds.

Gross output or total sales counts the full value of goods produced or sold. For example, if a factory sells products worth ₹100 but uses ₹70 of purchased materials, its GVA is roughly ₹30 before other adjustments. The ₹70 is not newly created by that factory.

This distinction matters because GVA prevents double counting. The Annual Survey of Industries uses value added to track the registered manufacturing sector’s contribution to the economy. In FY25, manufacturing corporate-sector GVA grew 9.28%, while net value added per factory increased 6.59%.

India’s manufacturing corporate-sector GVA grew 9.28% in 2024-25. This was the strongest headline measure in the survey because GVA captures the value created by production, not merely the amount sold. The sector also remained the dominant part of registered manufacturing.

The number of factories in operation increased 3.45%. Total employment rose faster, by 7.57%. Gross value of plant and machinery climbed 7.25% over the previous year. These figures show expansion in factories, jobs and productive assets at the same time.

Efficiency measures also improved, but more modestly. Net value added per operating factory rose 6.59%, while GVA per person engaged increased 2.25%. Together, the results describe a manufacturing sector that expanded its scale and workforce, with investment and value creation also moving upward during FY25.

The 89% figure means the manufacturing corporate sector generated more than nine-tenths of all GVA recorded in registered manufacturing during FY25. GVA measures the value added by production after intermediate inputs are accounted for. It is therefore a measure of economic contribution, not simply sales.

The comparison is about the registered manufacturing sector covered by the survey. Within that measured group, corporate manufacturing supplied the overwhelming share of value added. Its contribution was much larger than the remaining part of registered manufacturing, even though the article does not provide that remainder as a separate figure.

This concentration makes corporate-sector performance especially important for interpreting registered industrial output. Its 9.28% GVA growth helped shape the sector’s overall results. The finding also shows why the ASI is useful for national and state-level accounts: it identifies where measured industrial value is being created.

The survey identifies five leading industries in employment: food products, textiles, basic metals, motor vehicles and wearing apparel. Together, they accounted for more than 41% of total manufacturing employment in 2024-25. These industries therefore formed the largest employment group within the surveyed manufacturing sector.

The leading states by manufacturing GVA were Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh. Collectively, they contributed more than 54% of the national manufacturing GVA total. This shows that value addition was concentrated among a small group of major manufacturing states.

The article separates the measures rather than naming one combined leader for every category. The industries are highlighted for employment, while the states are ranked by GVA. The results show both industrial concentration by geography and a strong employment role for the five named industries.

The figures compare the share of factories with their share of total fixed capital. Factories investing at least ₹10 crore in plant and machinery made up only 15.84% of operating units, but they accounted for 87.42% of fixed capital. A small group therefore held most of the sector’s machinery and other fixed productive assets.

This can happen because factories differ greatly in size and capital intensity. One large factory may own machinery worth far more than many smaller factories combined. The same high-investment group also accounted for 59.66% of employment, 76.82% of gross output and 78.07% of net value added.

The figures reveal concentration rather than a contradiction. Factory count measures how many units exist, while fixed-capital share measures the value of their assets. The survey’s results show that registered manufacturing contains many smaller units alongside a smaller number of much more heavily capitalised factories.

The concentration means smaller manufacturing units have a broad presence without matching larger factories in output or value creation. Factories with investment of up to ₹5 crore represented 78.69% of operating units. Yet they contributed 10.55% of fixed capital, 19.24% of total output and 17.61% of net value added.

They still matter for employment. These smaller-investment factories accounted for 34.32% of persons engaged. By comparison, factories investing at least ₹10 crore formed 15.84% of units but accounted for 59.66% of employment, 76.82% of gross output and 78.07% of net value added.

The survey therefore presents smaller units as numerous employers with a relatively limited share of measured production and value added. Larger factories play the bigger role in capital, output and value creation. Any reading of manufacturing performance must account for both the sector’s wide base and its concentrated economic weight.

The Annual Survey of Industries is the principal source of industrial statistics for India’s organised manufacturing sector. It measures capital formation, employment, wages, input costs, output and value addition. These indicators show both the resources used by factories and the economic value they create.

Its coverage includes registered factories, certain bidi and cigar manufacturing establishments, electricity undertakings and eligible establishments with 100 or more employees. Data are collected electronically through a dedicated web portal. Results are published at national, state and industry levels, with classifications based on NIC 2008.

The findings are used in compiling national and state-level national accounts statistics. That role matters because the survey supplies structured evidence on manufacturing activity, rather than relying only on a single measure such as sales. Its FY25 publications include detailed factory-sector statistics, summary indicators, unit-level data and metadata.