admin
June 28, 2022
June 28, 2022
Edited by Surabhi Shaurya, India.com
The blanket ban on single-use plastic items from next month poses a challenge to cool beverages such as Frooti, Real, Tropicana and Maaza. Earlier, beverage company Parle Agro, which owns Frooti and Appy had also urged the government to extend the deadline to implement the ban on plastic straws by six months. For the unversed, the government’s ban on single-use plastics, including plastic straw, is going to be effective from July 1, 2022.
Calling the government’s decision a ‘hasty ban’, Parle Agro had said it will ‘negatively impact’ overall businesses of the industry players in the FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods) and beverage segment. “While Parle Agro endorses the government-led ban on the use of plastic straws, our plea is to postpone the implementation of the injunction by six months,” the company had said in a statement.
Amul Urges Environment Ministry to Postpone Ban
Besides, leading dairy firm Amul has urged the environment ministry to postpone the ban imposed on plastic straw by one year due to lack of adequate availability of paper straws in the domestic as well as international markets. “We have written a letter to Environment Secretary on the proposed ban on single use plastic straw,” Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF) MD R S Sodhi had said last month.
GCMMF markets its milk and other dairy products under Amul brand. “The plastic straw in our butter milk and lassi is attached to tetra pack. It is part of primary packaging. So we have urged the Environment Ministry to include it as part of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and recycling,” Sodhi said.
Amul needs 10-12 lakh plastic straws daily. Besides, Sodhi said, the company has urged the ministry to provide local industry one year to set up dedicated facilities for producing paper straws. “Paper straws are not available in domestic market. We don’t have capacity. We are not getting paper straws in international market,” he added.
Why Are Beverage Makers Worried?
To ensure a smooth transition to environment-friendly options like the paper of PLA straws, non-alcoholic beverage makers would require at least 6-8 months.
Parle Agro said that India produces and sells around 6 billion packs of paper-based beverage cartons with integrated plastic straws per annum. The available capacity to provide alternatives like biodegradable PLA straws or paper straws by a local Indian manufacturer is 1.3 million units per day, which is much less than the actual requirement.
“Packaging companies will need to invest in the right infrastructure to accommodate the changes which will require time to ensure the alternative is appropriate and cost-effective, especially during inflationary times,” the company said in a statement, adding that currently, there is no local manufacturer who can accommodate the demand.”
How Will Ban Impact The Sale Of Cold Beverages
The supply chain of beverages sold in small tetra packs will be disrupted with the blanket ban. Moreover, the beverage makers might have to incur heavy import and logistics costs as they import paper straws to replace plastic straws.
Speaking to Moneycontrol, Devangshu Dutta, CEO of retail consulting firm Third Eyesight said, “The companies have to look at alternative solutions, which may increase the costs. It will be challenging for the companies to pass on the increase in cost to the consumer as it may dampen demand, especially given the fact that these products are priced at low price points to target a certain consumer cohort.”
Full list of items to be banned from July 1:
admin
June 10, 2022
Devika Singh, Moneycontrol
June 10, 2022
As the threat of a plastic straw ban looms, dairy products giant Amul has written to the Prime Minister’s Office, urging a delay of its implementation by up to one year.
Amul makes products such as flavoured milk, lassi and spiced butter milk that come in small cartons packed with plastic straws for on-the-go consumption.
The letter to the PMO, sent ahead of the proposed July 1 start of the ban on single-use plastic products, said the move may have a “negative impact” on farmers and milk consumption.
“We agree it is a positive step to reduce plastic usage,” R.S. Sodhi, managing director of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF), which owns the Amul brand, told Moneycontrol.
“However, we have requested the government to delay the implementation by six months to a year so that we utilize this time to gradually shift from plastic straws to paper straws,” Sodhi said.
The government earlier this year issued a notification banning several single-use plastic products. The ban has the potential to affect the sales of beverages sold in small tetra packs.
Here’s a rundown on all the products that are proposed to be banned, why beverage makers are pushing for a delay in its implementation and how it will affect them.
What does the government notification say?
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change released a notification in March banning single-use plastic items.
Such products include plastic plates, cups, glasses, forks, spoons, knives, straws, trays, swizzle sticks, wrapping or packing film, invitation cards, and cigarette packets and plastic or PVC banners of less than 100 microns from July 1.
Other products such as earbuds with plastic sticks, plastic sticks for balloons, plastic flags, wrappers for candy sticks and ice-cream sticks, and polystyrene (thermocol) for decoration also come under the ambit of the ban.
In February, the government had notified guidelines on the extended producer responsibility for plastic packaging under the Plastic Waste Management Amendment Rules, 2022.
“Directions have been issued to e-commerce companies, leading single-use plastic sellers/users, and plastic raw material manufacturers with respect to phasing out of identified single-use plastic items,” the notification said.
Why are beverage makers worried?
Non-alcoholic beverage makers like Amul; Parle Agro, maker of Frooti; and Dabur, which sells a range of fruit-based drinks under the Real brand, have a significant share of their revenue coming from low-unit packs priced at Rs 10.
These packs, which come with a plastic straw for consumers to drink the beverages, are meant for on-the-consumption and are mainly sold in rural areas. According to industry estimates, packaged consumer goods makers derive 25-40 percent of sales from low-unit packs priced at Rs 2-Rs 15.
The only replacement to the plastic straws available in the market are paper straws that are produced in a very limited quantity in India.
Plastic vs. paper
Sample this. According to the industry, about 6 billion packs of paper-based beverage cartons with integrated plastic straws are sold annually in the country.
The capacity to produce paper straws is only 1.3 million straws per day against a requirement of 6 million/day.
Paper straws are also an expensive alternative to plastic straws given their limited availability.
According to Schauna Chauhan, CEO of Parle Agro, although the company started importing paper straws to adhere to the new rules by the given deadline, it is not a sustainable solution.
“The percentage increase in the cost for importing PLA straws and paper straws goes up by 259 percent and 278 percent respectively. The economics just does not match up for a Rs.10 product,” she said.
While a plastic straw costs 10 paise and accounts for 1 percent of a Rs 10 beverage carton, a paper straw costs 40-45 paise and would account for 4-4.5 percent of the cost.
Besides paper straws, beverage makers have found another alternative in PLA straws that are made of corn starch and biodegradable.
In-house production of paper straws
Beverage companies are urging the government to delay the ban so that they can build adequate capacity for producing paper straws in the country.
Amul plans to import paper straw-making machines and start production in-house. Parle Agro, too, has similar plans.
“We have already begun work on developing many local MSMEs {micro, small and medium enterprises} to be able to cater to our volume of biodegradable straws,” said Chauhan of Parle Agro.
“A six-month extension will help straw manufacturers in India build adequate capacity to manufacture and supply biodegradable straws to beverage companies in India,” she said.
These companies source plastic straws from third-party manufacturers.
Potential impact of the ban
The ban, if it comes into effect on July 1, will disrupt the supply chain of beverages sold in small tetra packs such as Frooti, Appy Fizz, Real Fruit Juice, Amul Lassi and similar products.
The companies are also expected to incur heavy import and logistics costs as they import paper straws to replace plastic straws.
“The companies have to look at alternative solutions, which may increase the costs. It will be challenging for the companies to pass on the increase in cost to the consumer as it may dampen demand, especially given the fact that these products are priced at low price points to target a certain consumer cohort,” said Devangshu Dutta, CEO of retail consulting firm Third Eyesight.
To tackle the challenge, Amul plans to sell its products without straws until the company builds the capacity to produce paper straws in India.
“However, this impacts the on-the-go consumption of our products,” said Sodhi.
Sales in the hinterland
A majority of the sales of these low-unit packs come from rural India, and could hurt the earnings of packaged consumer goods makers. Parle Agro, for instance, derives about 50 percent of its sales from rural India.
“The increase in the product cost will lead to a fall in demand and affect sales significantly. The hasty ban will negatively impact the industry and overall businesses of numerous players in the FMCG and beverage segment.,” said Chauhan.
Experts say growth in the non-alcoholic beverages segment has been driven by tetra packs, and while plastic packaging and straws do have an adverse impact on the environment, the switchover is set to disrupt the industry in the short and medium terms.
(Published in Moneycontrol)
admin
May 30, 2022
Written By Akanksha Nagar
Having acquired Patanjali Ayurved’s food retail business, the company has ambitious plans
While its edible oil business has been its mainstay, Ruchi Soya’s CEO Sanjeev Asthana is confident that the share of FMCG revenue could touch 20% this fiscal.
Ruchi Soya has its sights set on clocking `20,000 crore- `22,000 crore in revenue over the next five years from its FMCG business, after recently having acquired Patanjali Ayurved’s food retail business worth `690 crore. The Patanjali food portfolio comprises 21 major products, including top-selling items such as ghee, honey and juices, besides staples such as atta and spices.
To achieve its target, Ruchi Soya plans to launch a D2C (direct-to-consumer) channel in the next two months for its nutraceuticals business, with more categories to follow, while also increasing its investment on e-commerce and expanding its offline footprint. It is quite active across all key online marketplaces including Flipkart, Amazon and JioMart.
According to the latest Statista report, India’s FMCG market was valued at $110 billion in 2020, and by 2025, it is expected to touch $220 billion, as more brands adopt the D2C route. Several top FMCG makers, including Hindustan Unilever, Dabur and Emami, have launched D2C brands in the past two years.
Oiling other products
While its edible oil business has been its mainstay, Ruchi Soya’s CEO Sanjeev Asthana is confident that the share of FMCG revenue could touch 20% this fiscal. It is targeting `7000 crore in revenue from FMCG and `25,000 crore from commodity sales by the end of FY23. “Over the next five years, the revenue split between FMCG and commodities will be equal,” he says.
Furthermore, Ruchi Soya plans on consolidating and rationalising the Patanjali food portfolio, while simultaneously revamping some of its existing products. “The aim is to reposition the entire company towards being a food FMCG major,” says Asthana.
Following the acquisition, Ruchi Soya will be renamed Patanjali Foods (after regulatory approvals). Asthana says that brands such as Nutrela, Mahakosh, Ruchi Gold and Sunrich will continue to be marketed under their existing names, while all the businesses that are coming in from Patanjali will use the Patanjali brand in exchange for a brand licensing fee
evangshu Dutta, chief executive, Third Eyesight, says the company name change may work in its favour, since there is a large audience aligned with the image and values of Patanjali Group and its founder Baba Ramdev.
Casting a wide net
But not all is smooth-sailing. Alagu Balaraman, CEO, Augmented SCM, suggests for the company to scale up, it needs to build a robust traditional distribution network, since a bulk of sales still happens through these channels. “The cost of doing e-commerce delivery is significantly high,” he notes.
Ruchi Soya is working on those lines. Asthana says besides utilising Patanjali’s existing distribution muscle, it is expanding its offline retail footprint by adding 10,500 non-exclusive modern grocery stores and 4,500 exclusive ones every month.
Source: financialexpress
admin
April 24, 2022
Written By Devika Singh
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on April 19 accused Amway India of running a “multi-level marketing (MLM) scam” and attached its assets worth Rs 757.77 crore. This is not the first time that Amway India has been accused of running a ‘pyramid scheme’. Read on to understand how direct selling is different from pyramid schemes and why has the ED attached Amway India’s assets?
The direct selling industry is again under the regulatory scanner in India with the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) move to attach the assets of the Indian unit of US-based direct selling company, Amway. The ED has accused the company of running a “multi-level marketing (MLM) scam” and attached its assets worth Rs 757.77 crore.
According to an ED statement, the attached property includes Amway India’s land and factory building at Dindigul district in Tamil Nadu, plant and machinery vehicles, bank accounts and fixed deposits.
“Immovable and movable properties worth Rs 411.83 crore and bank balances of Rs 345.94 crore from 36 different accounts belonging to Amway attached,” the ED said. The seizures, the ED said, have been made under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
This is not the first time that Amway India has been accused of running a ‘pyramid scheme’. The company faced accusations on similar lines in the US in the 1970s and has been under government scrutiny in Karnataka and Kerala in the past. In fact, in 2013, Kerala police arrested then Amway India chief William Scott Pinckney and its directors, accusing them of running a pyramid scheme.
Direct selling has come under scrutiny time and again, as over the years, consumers have been duped by fake sellers hawking defective products and services in the garb of direct selling. To discourage such schemes, the government had proposed a draft policy last year, which aims at regulating the direct selling market segment.
Read on to understand what is direct selling, why the ED attached Amway India’s assets, what is Amway’s stand on the issue, how is direct selling different from pyramid schemes, and what are government regulations around direct selling in India?
What is direct selling?
Direct selling firms deploy agents who buy products from the company and then directly reach out and sell to consumers at their homes or other places instead of through a retail format like a store. The direct selling entity and the agent share the profits made through the sale of products. According to industry estimates, there are about 60 lakh agents in the country, who pursue direct selling as a means of earning additional income.
The direct selling industry, as per estimates, is pegged at Rs 10,000 crore in India, and has been growing at 12-13 percent per annum over the last five years. Experts say multi-vitamins, and home care and personal care products are the top-selling categories through this channel.
Beside Amway, companies such as Avon, Oriflame, Modicare and Tupperware operate in the direct selling segment. Some of these companies have been in India for decades now.
What is pyramid scheme and how is it different from direct selling?
Pyramid schemes are defined as a form of investment in which a paying participant recruits further participants and gets rewarded for it. Over the years, consumers have been duped by fake sellers hawking defective products and services in the garb of direct selling, often bringing the direct selling industry too, under scrutiny.
“Pyramid scheme is a scam to make money for a few people and it is based on selling an empty promise, multiplying it through recruiting people,” said Devangshu Dutta, CEO of retail consultancy Third Eyesight.
However, he added, it has to collapse somewhere because you are selling a product or service that does not exist.
“As opposed to that, in direct selling, the companies are selling products and at the end of it there is a tangible exchange of goods or services. So, even if you have downline distributors, as long as at the end of it the customer is getting something of value, then it’s not really a pyramid scheme,” he added.
Why has ED attached Amway India’s assets?
According to the ED’s press statement, Amway India runs a multi-level-marketing scheme or pyramid scheme, which “induces the common gullible public to join as members of the company and purchase products at exorbitant prices.”
The ED said the prices of most Amway products are “exorbitant as compared to the alternative popular products of reputed manufacturers available in the open market”. The new members, who are asked by the company to join it, are not buying the products to be used by themselves, but to become rich by becoming members as showcased by the upline members, said ED.
“The reality is that the commissions received by the upline members contribute enormously to the hike in prices of the products,” the ED said.
And this, indicated the ED, makes Amway’s operations similar to a pyramid scheme, where new members are recruited by existing members with claims of amassing wealth and becoming rich.
The agency claimed that between FY2003 and FY2022, Amway collected Rs 27,562 crore, of which it paid commissions worth Rs 7,588 crore to affiliate members and distributors in the United States and India.
What is Amway’s stand on the issue?
Amway, however, claims that it does not offer any incentives to new members to join the company and the members are only paid once they make a transaction or sell the product, and hence they are not operating a pyramid scheme.
The company has released a statement saying that the action of the authorities is with regard to the investigation dating back to 2011 and since then Amway has been co-operating with the department and has shared all information as sought from Amway from time to time. Amway said it will continue to cooperate with the government authorities for a fair, legal, and logical conclusion of the outstanding issues.
“As the matter is sub judice, we do not wish to comment further. We request you to exercise caution, considering a misleading impression about our business also affects the livelihood of over 5.5 lakh direct sellers in the country,” it said in a statement to media.
In an conversation last year with Moneycontrol, Amway India CEO Anshu Budhraja had said that Amway India does not charge any registration fee to its agents.
“There are no charges for joining Amway business. Further, to ensure that the customers have a satisfying experience with Amway, our products are backed by a money-back guarantee for 100 percent satisfaction of use,” Budhraja had said.
What are the regulations around direct selling?
The government last year included Direct Selling under the Consumer Protection Act (Direct Selling) Rules, 2021. These new rules prohibit direct selling companies from charging registration fees from their agents, and bars them from charging their agents for the cost of demonstration to prospective buyers.
The rules also forbid direct sellers from engaging in pyramid and money circulation schemes. The rules mandate that the companies operating in the segment would have to appoint a Chief Compliance Officer, a Grievance Redressal Officer, and a Nodal Contact Person. The companies would also need to be registered with the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade and must have an office in India.
They would also be mandated to maintain a website with all relevant information.
“Every direct selling entity shall establish a mechanism for filing of complaints by consumers through its offices, branches and direct sellers through a person, post, telephone, e-mail, and website,” as per the regulation.
“Every direct selling entity shall establish a mechanism for filing of complaints by consumers through its offices, branches and direct sellers through a person, post, telephone, e-mail, and website,” as per the regulation.
It adds: “Every direct selling entity shall ensure that such registration number is displayed prominently to its users in a clear and accessible manner on its website and each invoice issued for each transaction.”
In addition, such companies would have to maintain a record of direct sellers working with them, including their ID proof, address proof, email ID, and other contact information.
Source: moneycontrol
admin
April 24, 2022
Written By Suvashree Ghosh, Bijou George, and Sankalp Phartiyal
It was a contentious plan to repay overseas bondholders in full that brought what would have been India’s biggest retail deal to a grinding halt.
Debt-laden Future Retail Ltd.’s offshore bondholders — a relatively smaller part of the creditor pool — were promised 100% payment in the rescue offer from billionaire Mukesh Ambani, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Indian lenders were asked to take a haircut of as much as 66%, the people added, asking not to be identified discussing confidential information.
The unequal treatment led to the move last week, when the local banks rebuffed the $3.2 billion offer from Ambani’s conglomerate. Reliance Industries Ltd. announced the purchase plan in August 2020 but struggled to complete the transaction in the face of legal challenges mounted by Amazon.com Inc., which argued it had the first right of refusal contractually.
Bank of India and State Bank of India, the main bankers to Future Retail, didn’t immediately respond to emails seeking comment on reasons for voting down the deal. Representatives for Future Group and Reliance also didn’t immediately comment.
State-run lenders risked probes from federal agencies if they accepted these discriminatory terms, they said, explaining their preference now for a court-mediated insolvency process where bids are called in and there’s no risk of them being accused of cutting a bad deal. Bank of India has already requested an Indian court to initiate the process.
Hard-Nosed Decision
The hard-nosed decision by Indian banks has pushed the teetering Future Retail, which ran one of the nation’s largest retail grocery chains before the pandemic struck, one step closer to bankruptcy. Future Retail is almost certain to default on its $500 million bond coupon payment due July 22, S&P Global Ratings said Tuesday, while downgrading the company’s ratings deeper into junk territory.
The lenders’ action has also taken the wind out of a tortuous two-year-old litigation between Reliance and Jeff Bezos-owned Amazon — the e-tailer had started arbitration proceedings in Singapore to block the deal — but left the door open for Ambani to snag these retail assets, possibly at an even cheaper price, under the bankruptcy process.
“Reliance and other parties could be eligible to bid for its assets by submitting their resolution plans” even if Future Retail ends up in bankruptcy, according to Satwinder Singh, New Delhi-based partner at law firm Vaish Associates Advocates. “This would also lead to moratorium on any or all ongoing arbitration proceedings against Future.”
While the local lenders were agreeable to the deal when it was first announced, a lot changed in the past year or so, the people said. While the Amazon lawsuit dragged on, the asset value eroded and the pandemic worsened the cash crunch at Future Retail that began defaulting on its debt repayments.
Secured Indian lenders were promised recoveries ranging between 34% to 88% of the total $4 billion in dues and even those payouts were staggered over seven years, the people said.
Bloodless Coup
Reliance dealt a body blow to the Kishore Biyani-led Future Group in February when it quietly began poaching employees and taking over rental leases of hundreds of stores earlier run by Future Retail and Future Lifestyle Fashions Ltd. Ambani’s bloodless coup prompted Amazon to suggest settlement talks on the bitter dispute and alarmed Future’s investors and lenders who worried about asset-stripping.
Reliance’s unexpected takeover of Future’s stores eroded bankers’ confidence in the deal as it stripped off value from the chain and potentially could erode Reliance’s offer terms.
The out-of-court truce talks between Amazon, Future and Reliance collapsed soon after the store-purchases were initiated, the companies informed India’s top court on March 15. Amazon will continue with its arbitration proceedings against Future Group in Singapore, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified as the deliberations are private.
“A major turning point was when Reliance physically took over Future’s stores, which turned it into a no-holds barred situation,” said Devangshu Dutta, head of New Delhi-based retail consultancy Third Eyesight. “Before this the battle was being fought in courts and across the negotiating table. But at this point it moved over to the real business.”
Source: bloomberg
