Entrepreneur India
Oct 23, 2025

Indian consumers are increasingly opting for private labels and in-house brands over established ones, and retailers are taking note. According to EY’s ‘Future Consumer Index 2025’, more than half of India’s consumers are now choosing in-house brands over legacy labels.

The report highlights that 52 per cent of Indian consumers have switched to private labels for better value, while 70 per cent believe these in-house brands offer comparable or superior quality. Backed by this shift, retailers from BigBasket to DMart, and quick-commerce players like Zepto and Blinkit, are doubling down on their private label strategies, viewing them as a path to higher margins, stronger brand loyalty, and greater pricing control.

“Indian consumers’ growing preference for private labels reflects both short-term price pressures and a longer-term structural evolution in retail,” said Devangshu Dutta, CEO of Third Eyesight, speaking to Entrepreneur India.

Trending globally

The surge isn’t unique to India. A recent report by the Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) notes that globally, private labels now account for over 45 per cent of grocery volume and are expanding faster than legacy brands.

In India, this shift is becoming increasingly visible in-store. The EY report found that 74 per cent of consumers have noticed more private label options where they shop, and 70 per cent say these products are now displayed more prominently, often placed at eye level, signalling a strategic retail push.

Commenting on this trend, Angshuman Bhattacharya, Partner and National Leader, Consumer Products and Retail Sector, EY-Parthenon, said, “Consumer behaviour has traditionally evolved in response to changing economic situations, but the current shifts appear to be more permanent. Retailers are confidently launching private labels and allocating prime shelf space to them, while technology is enhancing the shopping experience by providing consumers with limitless options and the ability to compare products.”

From price-fighters to power brands

According to Dutta, private labels are no longer just “copycat” alternatives meant to undercut national brands.

“For retailers, not just in India but globally, lookalike private labels used to be tools at the opening price point to hook the customer, who saw them as credible, affordable alternatives to national brands,” he explained, adding, “However, as retailers have grown, they have gained both scale and expertise to widen and deepen their supply chains.”

Over time, he said, investments in formulation, packaging, and quality consistency have increased consumer trust.

“Private labels now compete on functional benefits rather than only on price, particularly in food staples and apparel, but also in brown goods and white goods, and increasingly in personal care and other FMCG categories,” he added. [Must read: “Private Label Maturity Model”]

Retailers scale up private labels

As demand for in-house brands grows, retailers are scaling up their strategies across sectors.

BigBasket, one of India’s largest online grocery platforms, reported that 35–40 per cent of its FY24 sales came from private labels like Fresho, BB Royal, and Tasties. The company aims to push this share closer to 45 per cent through expansion in frozen foods and ready-to-eat categories.

DMart’s private label arm, Align Retail, has reportedly more than doubled its sales in two years, touching INR 3,322 crore in FY25. The retailer’s in-house brands in staples, apparel, and home essentials have helped boost margins in a highly competitive retail landscape.

Zepto, the quick-commerce player, is taking private labels into the 10-minute delivery domain. Its brand Relish, focused on meats and eggs, has achieved INR 40 crore in monthly sales.

Meanwhile, Reliance Retail has also expanded its portfolio of private labels, including Good Life, Enzo, and Puric, across groceries, personal care, and household products, strengthening its broader FMCG play. In 2024, Reliance Retail’s Tira Beauty also announced the launch of its latest private label brand, Nails Our Way, signifying a major expansion in its beauty offerings.

Capturing a lion’s share in retail

Dutta noted that in India, private labels will remain a core pillar of modern retail strategy rather than a cyclical response to cost pressures.

“Consumers increasingly view retailers as brand owners rather than intermediaries. As private labels mature in branding and innovation, their growth aligns more and more with brand equity development rather than just opportunistic cost-saving,” he said.

From a retailer’s perspective, private labels deliver higher gross margins and greater strategic control, Dutta said. [Must read: “Private Label Maturity Model”]

Another report by the Private Label Manufacturers Association (PLMA), using Circana data, found that in 2024, private-label sales in food and non-edible categories grew faster than bigger brands globally. While figures vary by region and quarter, the pattern remains consistent: private labels are outpacing traditional FMCG growth.

Collectively, these shifts show that private labels are becoming a major revenue driver for retailers in India, and are fast evolving from value alternatives into brands with genuine consumer pull.

(Published in Entrepreneur India)

This article is based on a presentation at the 2nd International Summit of Processed Food, Agribusiness and Beverages, organised by the Associated Chambers of Commerce (ASSOCHAM) and supported by the Ministry of Food Processing, Government of India. The presentation was made to a mixed audience of retailers, manufacturers, farmers, government functionaries and service providers, and rather than provide answers, the objective was to raise questions that were not being discussed.

The old saying goes: where there are issues, there are opportunities. By that standard, the perishable commodities supply chain offers plenty of issues and, hence, opportunities.

Part of the problem, or opportunity, is that there are so many steps between the farmer and the consumer, so many hands through which the produce passes, especially in the case of India. With every step in this supply chain, there is the potential of waste and deterioration with time, and on the flip side, there is also an opportunity to add value and improve.

Misalignment on Motivation

One core issue, at the heart of most problems with the perishables supply chain, is widely different perspectives and the lack of alignment.

For instance, there is competition at the basic level between cities and villages. But there is even misalignment between the development needs of ever-growing cities that are taking over neighbouring agricultural lands, and the need to feed people living in those very cities. Similarly, the motivations for small sustenance-driven landholders are different from those of the wealthier farmers with large holdings. And, of course, within the supply chain, the tug of war is between consumer vs retailer, retailer vs brand, brand vs producer.

This is but natural in any economy, even more so in India whose rapid growth is widening the already existing gaps and intensifying the inherent disconnects.

Misalignment on Value

However, there is also another significant potential misalignment, of which we need to be keenly aware. This is in the very definition of value.

Given that we have been discussing “value-addition” as a driver for the food supply chain, I think we also need to understand that the word value has various connotations and implications, depending on who we are speaking about. Each throws up different challenges, and needs to be dealt with differently.

In my mind, the three aspects of value related to the food sector are:

• Calorific
• Nutritional
• Economic

The complication is that these three aspects address three very different audiences in society.

For a large part of India’s population, simply providing adequate calories is the main problem. For this chunk of people, not only do we need to have more productive land under use, we need to maximise the output from each piece of land, and ensure that the productive output reaches the population that needs it the most. Within that, there are several social, political, logistical and economic challenges to tackle: clarity of land-holding, availability of arable land to agriculture rather than non-agricultural uses, unit area productivity with efficient use of other resources, safety during transportation and storage, and distribution at prices that are affordable.

Nutritional value is the next step up: packing more nutrients into each gram of produce and delivering the right mix and balance is a critical issue for consumers who get enough calories, but can benefit hugely in physical and mental health through the quality of the nutrition they are taking in.

In pushing up both calorific and nutritional value, we also run into two entirely different debates.

One is whether genetic modification (GM) is desirable. The argument against GM foods is that we shouldn’t tamper with the most basic building blocks of biology, because we don’t understand the implications completely. The powerful argument for GM is that it is a must, to ensure that we have enough and ever-improving food available to a growing population.

The second debate is about organic produce. The organic camp believes strongly that organic is better, nutritionally superior. The other side argues that organic delivers no clear demonstrable increase in either calories or nutrition, and instead pushes production down and prices up: a recipe for complete disaster in a growing country.

But most interesting to me is the fact that in most industry platforms such as this, when we speak of “value-addition”, it is neither calorific nor nutritional value that is being targeted, but only economic value.

Obviously, companies are profit-driven by their very nature, and if calorific or nutritional value does not deliver economic value to them, they will not focus on those aspects. For that reason, most companies engaged in or being encouraged to participate in the food supply chain do so through food processing: the transformation of the basic produce into a manufactured packaged product with higher economic value per gram. A thinking consumer may be tempted to ask, am I getting proportionately better food (especially more nutrition) for the extra unit value that I am paying for orange juice (as compared to oranges), ketchup (as compared to tomatoes) or chips (when compared to potatoes)?

My concern is that such a deep misalignment in the definition of value can cause a huge amount of friction and potential politicisation, especially if only one aspect of “value-addition” is constantly in focus.

Misalignment on Losses

I’d also like to briefly comment on another aspect of value: losses.

We’ve all come across the much-quoted “fact” that in India 30-40% of the agricultural produce is wasted. That’s incredible! A country otherwise so frugal pushes a third of its valuable food into the gutters? Can that really be true?

I have not come across any authoritative study that clearly demonstrates that India actually wastes that much food.

Of course, there is wastage due to improper harvesting, lack of post-harvest processing and gaps in the storage and transportation infrastructure. But that figure, depending on what product and part of country you pick, varies hugely and the overall average is nowhere close to the 30-40% figure.

Overestimating the size of the problem leads to overestimation of the opportunity, and that misdirects investment. I think the correct way to look at the issue is not just in terms of value-lost, but in terms of opportunity lost. There is certainly an opportunity for farmers to grow their incomes by ensuring that better agricultural and post-harvest techniques are followed. If harvesting products at the right time, chilling the produce at the farm immediately, adequate sorting and grading, or even the simple act of washing can lead to higher prices for the farmer, I’m all for it.

The opportunities we are missing may be bigger than the waste that we imagine.

The Drivers of Value

Obviously, the technological, political and business mandate changes dramatically, depending on where we want to focus on building value. Is it to increase, improve, protect or change the produce? Are we going to focus on the seed, on growth, on harvest and post-harvest, on processing, on storage, on packaging or marketing.

Given the diversity of the questions, I think the discussion on value should also include – openly – a widely inclusive group. Obviously large corporate retailers, brands and producers, and the various arms of the government would be part of the discussion, but the table should also have room for farmers of every hue, technology innovators that address not just aggregated large land-holdings but also small farms, and platforms that encourage both ultra-modern and traditional knowledge, both from within India and outside.

By focussing on an over-simplified view of “value-addition”, we risk not addressing fundamental issues. In fact, we could be losing sight of humongous opportunities.

In the food supply chain, we are dealing with a product that is perishable; given our economy’s rapid transformation, the opportunities are perishable, too. We should get cracking.

(To download the PDF of the presentation, please click here.)