case study on pepsico india

A Strategic Case Study on PepsiCo

30 Pages Posted: 27 Apr 2021

Assan Jallow

College of Business and Economics, University of Wisconsin - Whitewater

Date Written: April 17, 2021

The purpose of this paper is to provide a strategic report analysis and evaluation of PepsiCo in the beverage industry. This includes the methods of analysis of PepsiCo’s external and internal analysis, its marketing strategies, and SWOT analysis from the perspectives of value-chain, resource-based, and 3-circa analysis. The research draws attention to details on the competition of PepsiCo as a strategic competitor against Coca-Cola in the beverage-cum-snacks industry. Despite being a competitive brand that is being overshadowed by Coca-Cola regarding global marketing shares and growth, Pepsi has become one of the world’s largest selling soft drinks across national boundaries as it is liked and being patronized by people of all ages, across the globe. Dozens of resources were cited to produce this strategic report. In sum, the paper analyses PepsiCo’s strategic competitiveness against its rival – Coca-Cola in the beverage and smacks industry. The paper concludes with a summary of recommendations for consideration by PepsiCo’s corporate and business level decision-makers on how well PepsiCo should manage its strategic intent of its marketing and product diversification programs across the boundaries of the global market to reposition itself as a global giant beverage and snack business player.

Keywords: PepsiCo, SWOT analysis, External and Internal Analysis, Competitive advantage and analysis

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Assan Jallow (Contact Author)

College of business and economics, university of wisconsin - whitewater ( email ).

Whitewater, WI 53190 United States 6084179508 (Phone) 53704 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://https://www.uww.edu

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, accounting, corporate governance, law & institutions ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

How Indra Nooyi changed the face of PepsiCo

Despite inauspicious beginnings, indra nooyi’s business acumen has pushed her to become one of the leading figures in the global food and beverage industry.

Top 5 forces that will shape international finance in 2023 Top 5 female-fronted fintech firms Top 5 Latin American tech hubs Top 5 sustainability pioneers in Europe Top 5 keys to global economic recovery Top 5 WFH habits, according to the world’s most successful business leaders Top 5 pandemic-proof industries Top 5 countries to be world’s next manufacturing hubs Top 5 most influential and inspirational US economists Top 5 ways to boost employee engagement and commitment Top 5 financial services that are ripe for automation Top 5 ways that GDPR has impacted digital banking Top 5 emerging fintech hubs across the globe right now Top 5 ways that the finance industry can prepare for AI Top 5 economic risk factors that must be considered

Now the highly regarded CEO of PepsiCo, Indra Nooyi was born to a Tamil-speaking family in Madras (now Chennai) in India. Academically gifted, she was awarded a bachelor’s degree in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics from Madras Christian College in 1974, which she followed up with an MBA from the Indian Institute of Management in Calcutta.

Nooyi began her career in India, holding several product management positions, firstly at Johnson & Johnson and then with textile manufacturing firm Mettur Beardsell, before moving to the US. There she returned to academia, gaining a master’s degree in Public and Private Management from the Yale School of Management. After graduating from Yale in 1980, Nooyi joined the Boston Consulting Group, before assuming senior managerial positions at Motorola and Asea Brown Boveri.

Nooyi’s influence is far-reaching, with her determination and perfectionism pushing her further through the industry than many expected

Nooyi joined PepsiCo in 1994 and had an almost immediate influence on the company’s strategic direction. An astute tactician, Nooyi oversaw a number of key restructurings during her first years with the company: in 1997, Pepsi elected to spin off its Pizza Hut, KFC and Taco Bell restaurants for $4.5bn. The company used the proceeds of the sale to slash its $8.5bn debt mountain by more than half, a move that also allowed the business to accelerate its share buyback strategy, giving it the financial flex to invest in further business development.

The following year, Nooyi played a key role in Pepsi’s acquisition of Tropicana. The $3.3bn deal was particularly significant for the company as it placed Pepsi in direct competition with rival Coca-Cola – the owner of soft beverage company Minute Maid – in the non-fizzy drinks market.

Further to this, in 2000 Pepsi made another strategic acquisition when it bought Quaker Oats. The $13.4bn price tag may have raised the eyebrows of some analysts, but the deal handed Pepsi control of Quaker’s popular and lucrative sports drink brand Gatorade.

A healthier outlook One of Nooyi’s most controversial initiatives has been to redirect Pepsi’s considerable corporate spend away from junk foods and into healthier alternatives. To this end she reclassified Pepsi’s wide-ranging products into three categories, designed to give customers more information about the foods they consume: ‘fun for you’ (such as potato chips and regular soda), ‘better for you’ (diet or low-fat versions of snacks and fizzy drinks), and ‘good for you’ (for example, the recently acquired Quaker Oats oatmeal).

Dietary balance has been a key feature of Nooyi’s strategy since day one. In 2010, she declared that Pepsi needed to be part of the solution to “one of the world’s biggest public health challenges – a challenge fundamentally linked to our industry: obesity”. Under her steer, Pepsi has reduced the portion sizes of its ‘fun for you’ products and has delivered a marketing campaign to ensure its ‘diet’ products are promoted as aspirationally as its full-sugar equivalents. For example, Gatorade is now marketed specifically towards athletes, rather than being advertised as an everyday recreational beverage.

Today, the company has a diversified portfolio of products ( see Fig 1 ). It still sells sugary drinks and potato chips, but it also has Tropicana, Naked Juice and Izze supporting the healthier end of its range. Since her inauguration at the company, Nooyi has also set Pepsi on a drive to reduce the salt, sugar and fat contents in its core products, while at the same time ramping up the production of its ‘good for you’ offerings, largely in response to the demands of modern society.

Design and innovation One of Nooyi’s most visible achievements came in the complete overhaul of Pepsi’s branding. For this mammoth task, she recruited Italian design expert Mauro Porcini with the brief of reinvigorating the product design and logo. Porcini, having previously done impressive work to transform the image of 3M, got to work on reinventing one of the world’s most recognisable brands, and today Pepsi is pushing the design through the entire system – from product creation to packaging and labelling, to how a product looks on the shelf and how Pepsi’s consumers will interact with it.

Nooyi’s innovative ideas and overall success at the helm of one of the world’s largest food and beverage producers have earned her a wealth of awards. Every year between 2007 and 2014, Forbes listed her in its World’s 100 Most Powerful Women, while Fortune named her number one on its annual ranking of Most Powerful Women in Business for 2006-10. In 2008, US News & World Report named Nooyi one of America’s Best Leaders. Clearly Nooyi’s influence is far-reaching, with her determination and perfectionism pushing her further through the industry than many expected upon her inauguration. In 2015, she declared: “We ought to keep pushing the boundaries to get to flawless execution. Flawless is the ultimate goal.” It is an ideal that has seen her welcome success after success.

Global acclaim Nooyi’s strategy to expand Pepsi’s operations into other areas has also resulted in a groundbreaking deal struck in Myanmar, where negotiations are now on track to build a separate plant and develop an agricultural area. This specialised site will produce Pepsi products to cater for the Myanmarese market, as well as create a wealth of job opportunities. Having visited the region following the World Economic Forum for East Asia meeting in 2013, she is said to have described the opportunity as “a story that is just beginning to unfold”.

Much of Nooyi’s current international strategy involves reaching out to emerging markets’ rapidly expanding middle classes. Her cross-category in-store programmes are designed to ensure the frequent purchase of Pepsi’s products in these markets; a demographic that accounts for some 35 percent of sales in emerging and developing regions.

Soda consumers are increasingly turning to alternatives they perceive as being healthier, such as energy drinks, bottled water and coffee – all of which have seen a spike in sales

In 2008, Nooyi was elected Chair of the US India Business Council. The council’s remit is to create an inclusive bilateral trade environment between India and the US by serving as the voice of the industry, linking governments to businesses and supporting long-term commercial partnerships that will nurture the spirit of entrepreneurship, create jobs and successfully contribute to the global economy. As recognition of her work on the council, Nooyi was presented with the 2015 Global Leadership Award for her commitment to driving a more inclusive global economy and encouraging the creation of more roles for female leaders.

A testament to Nooyi’s vision PepsiCo is currently the second-largest food and beverage company in the world, today boasting approximately $63bn in revenues. Some have argued this achievement is largely thanks to Nooyi, who has consistently taken the company in a profit-making direction ( see Fig 2 ).

The fact PepsiCo retains its position as the market leader for global salty snack sales – and second position in the sale of beverages – is testament to the success of Nooyi’s ongoing marketing and positional strategies. Analysts have predicted Pepsi could soon also become the market leader in terms of beverages, thanks in large part to Nooyi’s plans to enter the booming health food market with an extended range of juices, sports drinks and reduced fat and sugar carbonated beverages. While certainly lucrative, this move into a healthier market is a far cry from PepsiCo’s roots.

The company as we know it today was formed in 1965 following a merger between Pepsi-Cola Company and Frito-Lay, Inc. At that time, Pepsi-Cola Company was manufacturing Pepsi-Cola, Diet Pepsi and Mountain Dew drinks. Frito-Lay’s products included Fritos corn chips, Lay’s potato chips, Cheetos, Ruffles potato chips and Rold Gold pretzels.

In 1998, the company bought Tropicana, and in 2001 it acquired Quaker Oats – as mentioned earlier, adding Gatorade to its product portfolio in the process. At the time, Gatorade held a staggering 83.6 percent of the US retail market for sports drinks and was the world leader in its sector, with annual sales of approximately $2bn. The combination of these companies has made Pepsi a widely diversified consumer staples firm.

Challenges and successes One of the most challenging periods faced by Pepsi came in the mid-1990s, when the company struggled against major problems in its overseas beverages operations. These included vast losses that were posted by its large Latin American bottler and the defection of its Venezuelan partner to Coca-Cola.

More recently, PepsiCo has enjoyed a greater number of successes than failures. In 2015, for the first time in its history, Pepsi outsold Diet Coke to become the second most popular carbonated drink in the US. Regular Coke maintained its long-standing top position, but Diet Coke’s sales fell by 6.6 percent as consumers began to shun ‘diet’ products laced with artificial sweeteners. However, by the same hand, Diet Pepsi’s 2015 sales also fell by more than five percent, according to figures published by the trade publication Beverage Digest .

In response to slumping sales, Pepsi spent two years surveying consumers in order to formulate a new Diet Pepsi recipe. In 2015, Pepsi removed aspartame from its Diet Pepsi drink entirely in an attempt to boost sales.

However, the move was short-lived: one year later, Pepsi announced it would be reintroducing aspartame to Diet Pepsi, largely because a considerable portion of consumers did not like the taste of the new and improved version of the product. During the aspartame-free trial at the start of this year, US retail sales of Diet Pepsi fell 10.6 percent in volume terms in a single quarter, while its share of the soda market fell 0.4 percentage points to 4.1 percent, according to Beverage Digest .

However, Pepsi has been savvy in the way it has brought aspartame back into the fold. From September this year, drinkers were given a choice over which of two versions of Diet Pepsi they would prefer: one with aspartame – sold in light blue packaging and labelled ‘classic sweetener blend’ – and another containing sucralose, an artificial sweetener better known as Splenda, which will be sold in Diet Pepsi’s recognisable silver packaging. The company will also be rebranding Pepsi Max as Pepsi Zero Sugar.

Performance with purpose In 2015, the company slashed the overall water use in its operations by about 3.2 billion litres in a drive towards improved water conservation. In doing so, it has saved more than $80m in production costs. Between 2011 and 2015, it reduced its water use per unit of production by 26 percent, exceeding its 20 percent goal. These actions were part of Pepsi’s broader sustainability agenda, which has delivered more than $600m in cost savings in the last five years through water, energy, packaging and waste reduction initiatives.

The firm has also partnered with non-profit organisations to provide safe water access to over nine million people in less affluent nations since 2006, exceeding its original goal of six million people by the end of 2015.

Pepsi has gone to great lengths to be seen as a company with a social conscience. Most visibly, in 2010 it announced that, for the first time in 23 years, it would not have any advertisements during the Super Bowl. Instead, the company spent its $20m advertising budget on a social media campaign branded the Pepsi Refresh Project. This was a seismic move for Pepsi, whose partnership with the Super Bowl had seen it spend more than $142m on advertisements over the course of the previous decade.

Under the Refresh campaign, customers submitted their ideas to Pepsi for ways to refresh their communities, with the proclaimed aim of ‘making the world a better place’. Pepsi then funded the projects that received the most votes. To date, more than $20m has been distributed across worthy causes including health, arts and culture, food and shelter, the planet, neighbourhoods and education.

Refresh was a huge success for Pepsi: according to feedback, consumers felt Pepsi was a brand that cared about the community. Moreover – and perhaps more importantly for its continued longevity and success – they felt Pepsi was a forward-thinking, innovative brand – something that Nooyi has pushed for since day one at the company’s helm.

The devil and the deep blue sea – Japanese whaling brings surprising conservation benefits
Trade tensions are preventing US farmers from capitalising on Chinese pork shortages
The rise of McDonald’s: from super sized criticism to progressive burger company
JAB Holdings to buy Panera Bread for $7.5bn
Restaurant Brands International to buy Popeyes for $1.8bn
Coca-Cola sued for alleged misleading advertising
The GMO debate: sowing the seeds of controversy

Beauty & Wellness
Consumer Durables & IT
Entertainment
Fashion & Lifestyle
Food & Grocery
Food Service
Home Decor & Furnishing
Speciality Retail
Digital Icon
Case Studies
Shopping Centres
Retail with Rasul Bailay

Uniqlo launches UTme! India art project

Indoor amusement centres emerging as key drivers for consumer appeal: JLL

Positive trends emerging in consumption, green shoots visible: P&G Hygiene and Health Care

Anand Mohan Sharma, director of channel, customer and go-to-market (GTM) development for PepsiCo India on the growth of the cola giant’s portfolio in India’s general and modern trade, online as well as the growing out-of-home category

As the director of channel, customer and go-to-market (GTM) development for PepsiCo India, Anand Mohan Sharma has a hand on the pulse of India’s consumption story—especially in the food and beverage segment. Sharma is a PepsiCo veteran with about 15 years of experience at the Purchase, New York-based cola giant. Sharma spoke to IndiaRetailing about the growth of PepsiCo’s portfolio in India’s general and modern trade, online as well as the growing out-of-home category. Edited excerpts:

You look at modern trade. In a way, you have a barometer on the market. If you could just talk about the growth.

There is a modern trade part, there is an e-commerce part and there is also a very big away-from-home category—the QSRs (quick-service-restaurants) and cinemas. We are seeing never-before growth for our categories—both foods and beverages—in all the channels that we operate. There’s a lot of demand for products and for brands which people can trust.

The growth rate for organised retail is 10% to 14%. What is your growth rate?

You are right, the growth rate of modern retail is between 10-14% but we are growing even faster in modern trade.

I think one big reason for that is all the innovative products that we are launching—it is helping us grow faster than the market.

And what are the innovative products?

We have a robust zero-sugar portfolio. We have a Pepsi Black, which is the zero sugar in cola. We have just also launched zero sugar in sports drinks. We have Gatorade and we also have Lipton in iced teas. These are top-of-the-mind innovative products. Recently, during the major international cricket tournament, we also launched Sting Blue and Sting, the leading energy drink.

Which segment is growing faster from e-commerce, away-from-home and modern trade?

E-commerce is the fastest. Its growth is much higher, and it is rapidly evolving and adding scale. Also, I would say away-from-home and modern trade are not far behind in terms of growth for us.

How is Pepsi trying to penetrate the vast market of millions of kirana stores as opposed to modern trade, which is just around 20%?

Broadly, you are right: 20% would be organised, 80% would be traditional trade. But it also depends on the organisation. A lot of D2C brands are much higher on the organised part, especially e-commerce. A larger organisation like us, a blue-chip FMCG company, we try to balance that. To give you a measure, there are about 11 million traditional trade outlets that sell FMCG products in the country and the reach of the beverage category is only 5 million outlets, even now. So, we have a lot of room to grow—in distribution and traditional trade. There is room to build partnerships, categories and brands in organised trade.

Retailers and restaurants are saying there has been a persistent slowdown over the months…

There was a lot of revenge buying and revenge travel post-Covid. That was a peak. Things have become a little more normalised after that. But innovation is driving distribution, categories and channels. The growth is not as high as it was, say in 2022, but the growth is still in high double digits for all our categories.

India’s per capita cola consumption is still low. How would you compare it to other Asian countries like China or even the US?

China and the US are way ahead. They are much bigger, 50 times what the consumption is in India. Our per capita consumption of cola is 13-14, China is closer to 200. If you look at closer home, Pakistan is much more than us. Pakistan is 3-4 times our consumption. So, this is not just for colas, this is for all of the CSD (carbonated soft drinks) industry. So, there is a lot of room to grow distribution.

The channels are evolving, stores are getting added, partnerships are getting built and we are adding further industrials and categories. Till two years back, energy drinks were small in terms of reach, and consumption was limited. We have been able to make that a mass product with Sting. So, there’s a lot of innovation.

Where would you rank India in terms of PepsiCo’s top markets?

India is right up there as one of the most important markets for PepsiCo. What has worked for us is our demographics. What is also now working for us is the geopolitical environment around it.

You would have read in the newspapers the kind of investments that our bottling partner is making in building capacities. To give you an example, we have doubled the capacity in just three years, the kind of capacity that PepsiCo India had built in over 30 years. This illustrates aggressiveness and more than that, the potential that the country has.

Anand Mohan Sharma
blue-chip FMCG company
capacity expansion
carbonated drinks
Cola consumption
distribution
Energy drinks
General trade
Go to Market
Kirana stores
Modern retail
Pepsi Black
PepsiCo beverages
PepsiCo India
Quick Service Restaurants
traditional retail
zero sugar drinks

Indoor amusement centres emerging as key drivers...

Positive trends emerging in consumption, green shoots..., digital icon : ketan chunchanur.

Advertise with us

Showcase your product / solution to digitally savvy decision makers from Retail, eCommerce, D2C, Fashion, Food, shopping centres and grow exponentially.

Sign-up for Newsletter

Get Indiaretailing newsletter in your inbox every morning

Business Today
India Today
India Today Gaming
Cosmopolitan
Harper's Bazaar
Brides Today
Aajtak Campus

Budget 2024
Magazine Cover Story Editor's Note Deep Dive Interview The Buzz
BT TV Market Today Easynomics Drive Today BT Explainer
Market Today Trending Stocks Indices Stocks List Stocks News Share Market News IPO Corner
Tech Today Unbox Today Authen Tech Tech Deck Tech Shorts
Money Today Tax Investment Insurance Tools & Calculator
Mutual Funds
Industry Banking IT Auto Energy Commodities Pharma Real Estate Telecom
Visual Stories

INDICES ANALYSIS

Mutual funds.

Cover Story
Editor's Note
Market Today
Drive Today
BT Explainer
Trending Stocks
Stocks List
Stocks News
Share Market News
Unbox Today
Authen Tech
Tech Shorts
Tools & Calculator
Commodities
Real Estate
Economic Indicators

How PepsiCo's Kurkure managed to grab and retain snack market share

Rs 1,000 cr Kurkure now commands 60 per cent of the market share in the so-called bridge segment of snacks.

Instead of a purely corn-based product, the team came up with a spicy flavoured Masala Munch made of lentils, rice and corn. "We were not sure if people would take to the new brand and so we had called it Lehar Kurkure," says Deepika Warrier, Vice President (Marketing), PepsiCo India. Lehar, the Indian partner's brand name, was added to Kurkure for access to local taste and cues. The team's concerns were justified as it was angling for a space between the traditional salty snack and the more western potato wafer. The company called it the 'bridge' category and Kurkure, the 'finger snack'.

Today, the company commands about 60 per cent market share in the 'bridge' category, which is worth Rs 1,950 crore. The total market for salty snacks in India is worth Rs 13,000 crore and traditional snacks account for Rs 5,200 crore. The puffed snack market too is valued at Rs 1,950 crore. The potato chips/wafer market is worth Rs 3,900 crore where Uncle Chips and PepsiCo's Lays are market leaders.

Hear the crunch

Though Kurkure created a new space in the market, the larger challenge for the company was to get the customers hooked to its unusually shape and crunchy texture. "In fact the brand name Kurkure was the outcome of a group discussion in which consumers sampled the brand and repeatedly said that it was nice and 'kurkura' (crunchy)," says Dr T.S.R Murali, Head of R&D, PepsiCo India. The first objective was to start consumer trials. "We stuck to the consumer feedbacks and used the advertising line Kya Karen Control Nahi Hota," says Warrier.

However, advertising was not the only strategy that the company relied on. While consumer trials were on, the sales team also launched an orange parade. "I remember being in Chandigarh, which was one of our first launch markets," says an industry veteran. All the three-wheelers carrying the product were painted orange. Almost the entire sales team had assembled in Chandigarh to ensure 100 per cent coverage of outlets in 10 days. Its success led to it being repeated in other regions too. "It was perhaps one of our fastest market placements ever. We knew in the first 30 days itself that there was no looking back," says a former PepsiCo India employee.

The 'Kya Family Hai' campaign tried to capture the dysfunctional family that came together at tea-time.

Party Poopers

In 2007, the company was caught off-guard when ITC Foods launched Bingo. "Their communication was gaining traction and the product caught consumers' attention," says Warrier. PepsiCo started the Tedha Hai Par Mera Hai campaign that allowed the company to win back attention of customers from Bingo, which had a variant called Tedhe Medhe. There was a minor communication challenge too when the brand switched to 'Kya Family Hai' campaign. "We thought we might create a more real family if the protagonist wasn't a celebrity like Chawla. So then came the job of telling Chawla that she was not going to be Nikki, the protagonist in our new campaign," says Sonia Bhatnagar, Executive Creative Director, JWT. But that could not be managed. Though Chawla did her role well, the feedback was not satisfactory.

The brand was also embroiled in a controversy in 2008 when allegations surfaced on social media that Kurure contained plastic. "We have countered it in whatever platform it surfaced on. This issue has withered away," says Warrier.

STAY WITH CONSUMER LIKES

Advertise with us
Privacy Policy
Terms and Conditions
Press Releases

Add Business Today to Home Screen

Harvard Business School →
Faculty & Research →
December 2011
HBS Case Collection

PepsiCo India: Performance with Purpose

Format: Print
| Language: English
| Pages: 14

About The Authors

Rosabeth M. Kanter

Rakesh Khurana

Miami's Climate Tech Potential (B): The 2024 Tech Hub Proposal

Miami's climate tech potential (a): the state of play, miami’s climate tech potential (b): the 2024 tech hub proposal.

Miami's Climate Tech Potential (B): The 2024 Tech Hub Proposal By: Rosabeth Moss Kanter and Jacob A. Small
Miami's Climate Tech Potential (A): The State of Play By: Rosabeth Moss Kanter and Ai-Ling Jamila Malone
Miami’s Climate Tech Potential (B): The 2024 Tech Hub Proposal By: Rosabeth Moss Kanter and Jacob A. Small

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

How Indra Nooyi Turned Design Thinking Into Strategy: An Interview with PepsiCo’s CEO

Adi Ignatius

CEO Indra Nooyi believes that each PepsiCo product must engage customers so directly and personally that they fall in love with it. So in 2012 she hired renowned designer Mauro Porcini as PepsiCo’s first chief design officer. Nooyi says that design thinking now informs nearly everything the company does, from product creation, to the look on the shelf, to how consumers interact with a product after they buy it.

Design thinking is apparent, for instance, in Pepsi Spire, the company’s touchscreen fountain machine that gives consumers the visual experience of watching flavors get added to a beverage before the finished product is dispensed. And design thinking is an integral part of what Nooyi says makes women embrace Mountain Dew Kickstart—with its slim can, higher juice content, and lower calorie burden—as a product they can “walk around with.”

But design is not all about the way a product looks, according to Nooyi. She says that PepsiCo has delivered “great shareholder value” on her watch because the company also offers consumers true choices, as evident in its “good for you” and “fun for you” categories of products—and because she has led her workforce to adapt strategically to consumers’ constantly evolving aspirations.

HBR Reprint R1509F

“A well-designed product is one you fall in love with.”

Just a few years ago, it wasn’t clear whether Indra Nooyi would survive as PepsiCo’s CEO. Many investors saw Pepsi as a bloated giant whose top brands were losing market share. And they were critical of Nooyi’s shift toward a more health-oriented overall product line. Prominent activist investor Nelson Peltz fought hard to split the company in two.

Adi Ignatius is the editor in chief of Harvard Business Review.

Partner Center

Case Study: PepsiCo India vs. Gujarat Potato Farmers

PEPSICO INDIA offers a variety of seeds for contract farming, which aids farmers in using technology, obtaining agricultural loans, and guaranteeing their harvests in addition to offering a ready market. Farmers and businesses enter into a contract for the produce and supply of certain goods.

A given type of commodity, such as agricultural products, is regularly purchased under advance agreements at a predetermined price and quantity. This case study is an effort to highlight the successful Contract Farming for potatoes in India carried out by Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd, the Indian division of Pepsico International. The case study offers a thorough understanding of contract farming concepts as well as the interaction between farmers and the PepsiCo Company.

Contract Farming

Contract farming involves agricultural production where the farmers and buyers enter into an agreement establishing conditions for production and marketing of a farm product. It involves the specifications and requirements of the buyer and agreed quantities and price for the particular agricultural products. These farm products should meet the quality standards of the buyer and should be supplied at the determined time of the buyer. In return, the buyer agrees to buy the product and support its production by supplying agricultural input, preparing the land, and offering technical guidance.

Contract farming is fundamentally market-driven farming, as opposed to conventional farming, in which farmers first produce a product and then seek a market for it. It essentially involves four factors like pre-agreed price, quality, quantity and time.

Objectives of contract farming

To decrease the burden on the state and federal procurement systems
To encourage a reliable source of income for individual farmers
To increase the amount of private sector money going into agriculture
To reduce the amount of rural-to-urban migration
To encourage value addition and processing
To direct Indian farmers’ attention on the market when choosing crops
To encourage general rural self-sufficiency by combining locally accessible resources and knowledge to tackle new challenges

Different types of contract farming models

In India, various models of contract farming are used. The buyer has complete control over the models that should be used. The following are the different types of models:

Informal Model – Of all the contract farming methods, this one is the most speculative and transient and is employed by both promoters and farmers. This business model includes small firms and typical products which require minimal processing and packaging.
Intermediary Model – In this method, the buyer hires a middleman or an intermediary who, formally or informally, enters into agreements with farmers.
Multipartite Model – This model, which includes several entities like governmental statutory agencies, private businesses, and financial institutions, was created from centralised or nucleus estate models.
Centralised Model – In this model, the buyer’s engagement might range from providing only a little amount of input to controlling the majority of production-related factors.
Nucleus Estate Model – In this strategy, the buyer sources from contractual farmers and their estates and plantations. The buyer must make a large investment in land, equipment, personnel, and management under the estate system.

Contract farming by PepsiCo in India

India, which ranks third in the world for potato production, the efforts of the potato farmers is very significant. These efforts are vital to the production efforts of PepsiCo as well. In the year 1989, PepsiCo (formerly known as Pepsi Foods Ltd.) launched its agro business in India in Hoshiarpur District of Punjab by introducing a world class tomato processing plant. In this kind of contract farming model, PepsiCo supplied seeds or saplings and agricultural applications to the farmers and in return the farmer harvests the company’s crop on his land. Being inspired by the success of contract farming for tomatoes in numerous Punjabi districts PepsiCo has been meticulously replicating the model of food crops, such as potato and Basmati rice, as well as spices and oil seeds like ground nuts and chilis.

Contract farming for potato by PepsiCo

In the year 1987, FritoLay, a PepsiCo group company set up its first potato chips plant in Channo, district Sangrur, Punjab. Later two more plants were started, one at Ranjangaon, Pune (MH) and the other at Howrah in West Bengal. PepsiCoCompany requires more than 100,000 MT of processed grade potato annually for the operations in these factories. Though India is the third largest producer producing nearly 25 million tons per annum after China and Russia, meeting the requirement of process grade potato is still uncertain.

In India, the majority of the freshly harvested potatoes are produced in the Indo-Gangetic Plains, the North Western Plains, the Central Region, and the Northeast during the brief winter days.

However, potatoes grown in the cooler northwestern and west central plains are not suitable for processing due to the build-up of high reducing sugars and low dry matter in the potato tuber at the time of crop maturity.

Hence, FritoLay, a member of the PepsiCo group, engages in contract farming in the states of West Bengal, Maharashtra, Punjab, Jharkhand, and Karnataka to satisfy its need for processed potatoes. Acceptable variations have been identified after many years of experiments in various locations. With more than 14000 farmers across 12000 acres in several states, PepsiCo contracts with farmers to grow potatoes. Farmer relationships are long-lasting, and more than 90% of farmers are repeat cultivators.

PepsiCo India sued nine farmers on April 5, 2019, in three separate courts located in the Gujarati districts of Sabarkantha, Aravalli, Deesa, and Banaskantha for cultivating and marketing the FC5 potato variety, over which it asserted exclusive rights under section 28 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Right Act 2001 (PPVFR). PepsiCo filed a lawsuit against the farmers, claiming that they had violated its intellectual property rights and that they deserved compensation ranging from Rs. 2 million to Rs. 10 million. Following PepsiCo India’s lawsuit filing, pro-farmer rights protests and negative social media comments calling for a nationwide boycott of PepsiCo India products were made. Faced with massive protests, PepsiCo withdrew the lawsuits against the farmers.

Issues addressed

The case is structured to achieve the following objectives:-

Analyse the provisions of the PPVFR Act of 2001 with a focus on the rights of farmers and plant breeders
Understand the distinctions between national and international laws
Recognize the tactics a company uses while facing competition and a drop in sales revenues
Consider the organisation’s response to a global market catastrophe

PepsiCo India accuses farmers of violating intellectual property rights

The FC5 potato type was utilised by PepsiCo to make their Lays brand of potato chips. Compared to other potato varieties, the FC5 variety had a moisture level of 80% as opposed to the other kinds’ 85%. It was easier to store and process FC5 since it had a low moisture level, which was good for manufacturing chips. The FC5 cultivar was developed by PepsiCo India in 2009, and the firm sent the seeds to the farmers along with a repurchase agreement that required them to sell the full crop to the corporation. The problem started when some farmers in Gujarat grew the FC5 variety of potatoes without permission from PepsiCo India and sold them on the open market.

Inadequate investment knowledge
Technical specifications to ensure standard quality
Lack of refrigerated vehicles for movement
Engaging small-scale farmers is challenging

Opportunities

A new market sector
Less expensive distribution
Creation of a reliable supply chain
Agriculture productivity can be enhanced

The purpose of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’s Rights Act 2001, is to safeguard the rights of farmers. Additionally, it is a global trade reality. A robust legal system is necessary if you want people to invest in India. Strong legal protections for intellectual property rights ought to exist. TRIPS was the first step in creating a solid IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) framework. India has ratified the TRIPS system and is a party to it. India must create municipal laws in order to meet a number of requirements. However, we are permitted to safeguard our native species when we enact these laws. Different nations employ this flexibility in different ways.

This case study of PepsiCo’s Frito Lay contract farming for potatoes is a good illustration of how tiny farmers in India are able to meet international quality standards. PepsiCo Co.’s extremely robust extension network contributes to the monitoring and upkeep of quality at every level. There are obviously many advantages for farmers who work as contract growers: there is thorough training and education of farmers regarding the right timing and method of sowing, harvesting, and other field operations; farmers’ overall management capabilities are improved by meetings and visits from agricultural experts on occasion. Contract farmers have higher gross margins.

Future Perspectives

In order to see significant investments in the sector over the next few years, many organised companies should be encouraged to enter this market and make an impact. A combination of cooperative and corporate models may be the most effective for this industry, according to the Contract Farming, which anticipates significant improvements in quality, productivity, and reduced losses in the French produce supply chain. For successful growth possibilities, it might be necessary to investigate the role of subsidies.

Works Cited

Aloy Dutta. “A Case Study of Pepsico Contract Farming For Potatoes.”
International Labour Organization. “PepsiCo Contract Farming.”
“PepsiCo India vs. Gujarat Potato Farmers|Economics|Case Study|Case Studies.” Icmrindia.org , https://www.icmrindia.org/casestudies/catalogue/Economics/PepsiCo_India_Gujarat-Case.htm.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Meghana D

#contractfarming
#farmersrights
#plantvariety

Primelegal Team

Analysis of PepsiCo Case against farmers for growing FC5 potato variety

PepsiCo India Vs. V s. Gujarat Potato Farmers

INTRODUCTION

On April 5, 2019, PepsiCo India filed legal cases against nine farmers in three separate courts spread across the districts of Sabarkantha, Aravalli, Deesa, and Banaskantha in the state of Gujarat in India for growing and selling the FC5 potato variety over which it claimed it had exclusive rights under section 28 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Right Act 2001 (PPVFR).

PepsiCo India, the maker of Lays chips, claimed damages from the farmers against whom it filed the lawsuits. While four of the farmers were sued for Rs. 1 crore each , five were sued for Rs 2 crore each. The filing of the lawsuits by PepsiCo India led to protests from farmer rights activists and to adverse comments against the company on social media which called for a boycott of PepsiCo India products all over the country. More than 190 farmer rights activists petitioned the central government to make PepsiCo India withdraw the lawsuits against the farmers .

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as The Act’) provides for the establishment of an effective system for the protection of plant varieties and the rights of farmers while encouraging the development of new varieties of plants.

This was the first of its kind case under the Act, where PepsiCo instituted a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain infringement of the variety, FL 2027 (commercial name FC-5) and also seeking damages to the tune of Rs. 1.0 crores from each farmer. The company contended that the farmers had been illegally producing, selling, etc. the variety without their permission, thereby violating PepsiCo’s statutory right under Section 641 and 652 of the Act.

PepsiCo claims to have first-hand knowledge about the production of the said variety by the farmers in January 2019, following which samples were collected and sent for testing. The DNA samples matched with that of the farmers’ potato variety , confirming a possible infringement and resulting in PepsiCo being granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction vide an order dated 8th April 2019, thereby restraining the farmers from producing, selling the produce of the variety registered by PepsiCo until the next hearing, i.e. 26th April.

PepsiCo was known to have agreements with farmers in Punjab for the cultivation of the concerned variety under the buyback system, however, this was the first time that a farmer in Gujarat was found in possession of the variety allegedly registered with PepsiCo .

According to Chapter VI section 39 (1) (iv) of The Protection Of Plant Varieties And Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 Farmers’ rights.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,—

which is provide that a farmer shall be deemed to be entitled to save, use, sow resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act:

Provided that the farmer shall not be entitled to sell branded seed of a variety protected under this Act.

Explanation.—For clause (iv), “branded seed” means any seed put in a package or any other container and labelled in a manner indicating that such seed is of a variety protected under this Act.

Organisations said the Act was tailored to give farmers free access to seeds. Kavitha Kuruganti of Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture, a nationwide network of more than 400 organisations, said the rights on a patented seed differ from country to country. “In the US, if someone has patented a seed, no other farmer can grow it. If PepsiCo is looking at enjoying similar rights in this country, it does not hold

PepsiCo on the other hand is relying on Section 64 of The Protection Of Plant Varieties And Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001which states that a right established under this Act is infringed when a person who is not the breeder, registered agent or licensee of a variety, sells, exports, imports or produces such variety without the permission of the breeder by such selling, exporting, importing, causes confusion in the minds of general people. It remains to be seen whether the farmers sold potato seeds (to be cultivated), or sold the unprocessed potato produce, which is the raw material which is used to make Lay’s chips. Another interesting point to note is that farmers claim protection under Section 39 (1) (iv) claiming that the seed was already available in the market much before registration by PepsiCo, raising the question as to why PepsiCo took action only in 2019 when it could have been initiated much before it.

We have a seeds act which was passed in 1996. So, in the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, seeds are not considered as a patent . However, it is considered as a sui generis right for the farmers. However, there are certain standards which the seed should follow for being considered in that sense. Thus, it is a moral issue, and it is a legal issue as well. In India, we do not allow these kinds of bio-materials to be patented. In the U.S. it is allowed, but in India, it is not . Thus, seeds are not exactly considered as a patent.

However, this Act is to protect the farmer’s rights. It is an international reality of trade as well. If you want people to invest in India, then there should be a strong legal regime. There should be a strong legal regime which protects intellectual property rights. The first initiative towards building a robust IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) system was with TRIPS. India is a party to the TRIPS regime; India has also ratified the same. Thus, there are certain obligations which India has to fulfill by making municipal legislations. However, when we make these legislations, we are allowed to protect our indigenous things. This leeway is used by countries differently .

However, on 10th May 2019, the company reportedly withdrew all its cases against the farmers under intense pressure from its headquarters as well as the public and political parties in India. In a statement, PepsiCo stated: ―After discussions with the Government, the Company has agreed to withdraw cases against farmers. We are relying on the said discussions to find a long term and an amicable resolution of all issues around seed protection.

KEY QUESTIONS

Question 1. What were the key factors that led the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Authority to revoke PepsiCo’s patent on the potato variety?

Answer – On 3rd December 2021 the registration of PepsiCo on the potato variety FL-2027(FC) was revoked under Section 34. The revocation of the patent was done on several grounds, including incorrect information provided by PepsiCo India at the time of patent application and the necessary documents were not submitted at the time of registration.

Following are the key factors that led the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights (PPVFR) Authority to revoke PepsiCo’s patent on the potato variety –

It was noted that the certificate was based on incorrect information furnished by the applicant (Section 34(a)), was granted to a person not eligible for protection (Section 34(b)) and that the breeder did not provide the Registrar with such information, documents or material as required for registration (Section 34(c)). The authority noted that the Registrar had only cursorily glanced through the information without checking its incompleteness and incorrectness.
This violated the public interest (Section 34(h)) because even “without being the legitimate breeder or his successor and also not being the assignee of the breeder of the potato variety FL 2027, the Registered Breeder (PepsiCo) exercised his Plant Breeder’s right to file a suit for infringement against farmers. It was noted that “the registrar being the protector of farmers’ rights, violated the rules and this has caused hardship to the farmer and others.
No assignment deed was submitted between FLNA (Frito-Lay’s North America) and PepsiCo India and the application for patent registration was filed by PepsiCo India which was technically wrong.
PepsiCo did not disclose the complete agreement between FLNA and Dr Hoops and the unstamped assignment deed was submitted at the time of patent registration between Dr Hoops and FLNA which is inadmissible in the court of law.
PepsiCo India had claimed that there was an oral assignment between it and FLNA, a submission which was rejected by the authority.
Technically the application should have been filed by Dr Hoops as a breeder.
It was stated that fact that several farmers were put in looming possibility of paying a huge penalty for casing infringement of rights that did not even exist undoubtedly caused severe hardship upon the farmers.

“ Please note that Section 39 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPV&FR) Act,2001 specifically says that a farmer is allowed to grow and sell any variety of crop or even seed as long as they don’t sell branded seed of registered varieties ”

Question 2. What were the steps PepsiCo could have taken to safeguard their patent in the first place?

Answer – India is an agriculture-based economy so the government of India is more concerned about the farmers and their rights so following are the steps PepsiCo could have taken to safeguard their patent in the first place –

PepsiCo should have a properly written assignment between FLNA (Frito-Lay’s North America) and PepsiCo India which is required for the patent registration and the agreement should be proper stamped signed, witnessed and properly executed.
PepsiCo should have a deep understanding of the local laws in India specially the PPVFR Act 2001, how it give more importance to farmer rights and protection and how they are interpreted differently in the different part of the world.
PepsiCo India should have disclosed the complete assignment deed between FLNA and Dr Hoops and the deed should be stamped, signed, witnessed and properly executed as per the United States law so it is admissible in the Indian court of law.
PepsiCo India has put in place an effective inter control mechanism to protect their plant verity from being supplied in the market by an unauthorized entity.
PepsiCo India has spared the local trader who allegedly supplied the seeds to the local market to escape from legal battle instead, the Company had moved against the weaker section of society the local farmer growing FC-5 potato variety for their livelihood.

Question 3. What you would have done differently if you were heading PepsiCo’s legal team?

Answer – As a legal head of the PepsiCo legal team following things I would have done differently-

First of all the proper understanding of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPV&FR) Act,2001 more importantly section 39 and 42 dealing with farmer’s right how is interpreted differently in India.
Food processing Companies like PepsiCo should take the initiative towards educating and providing training to the farmers so they can take care of their interests as well as the interest of the Company.
Instead of suing the farmer, I try to find out midway and achieve a win and win situation, in this case, do not put a hardship on the farmers to stop this issue to become a matter of public interest.
Instead of demanding the monetary compensation of Rs. 1.00 crore from each farmer first try to seek the clarification or justification from farmers that how did they get the seed of FC-5 potato variety and try to involve the farmer into contract farming.
PepsiCo generating billions of dollars of revenue from the Indian market so my more focus on trying to protect the PepsiCo brand image in India. Pepsico should have avoided the litigation, in the wake of constant litigation, trust would be lost further, if the trust is lost, then in future, it would be difficult to again imagine the farmers getting into contract farming.
India is an agriculture-based economy and has a different geopolitical scenario and our government is more concerned about farmer rights and interests, so PepsiCo’s legal keep that in mind and must act accordingly.

Question 4. What are the key lessons from the above case?

Answer – Following are the key lessons from the above case –

Analyze the provisions of the PPVFR Act 2001 with emphasis on farmers’ rights and plant breeders’ rights.
Farmers must be organized into some kind of farm producing group, this would enable farmers to be empowered as a group to enter into a contractual arrangement with companies on equal terms.
There should be some kind of local-level participatory dispute settlement mechanism, in these forums representatives from farmer’s groups, government and companies would be there.
Analyze how international laws are different from local laws.
Understand the strategies an organization adopts when faced with competition and a decrease in sales revenues.
Evaluate how an organization deals with a crisis in an international market.

{The author i.e. Shahbaz Khan is a Company Secretary in Practice at Shahbaz Khan and Associates and can be reached at (M) 8982766623 and (E) [email protected] }

Government Policy
« Previous Article
Next Article »

Name: CS Shahbaz Khan

Qualification: cs, company: evalueserve, location: jabalpur , madhya pradesh, india, member since: 27 aug 2020 | total posts: 30, my published posts, join taxguru’s network for latest updates on income tax, gst, company law, corporate laws and other related subjects..

Join Our whatsApp Group
Join Our Telegram Group

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Comment

Subscribe to Our Daily Newsletter

Latest posts, filling gst appeal under section 107 after 4 months from order date: key insights, summary on direct tax vivad se vishwas scheme, 2024, tax benefits for nris on income earned in india or outside india, price control gone wrong: cci fines maruti suzuki for market manipulation, comparative study of rbi’s monetary policy with other emerging economies, nps vatsalya: a groundbreaking pension scheme for minors, section 148a of the income tax act, fair court reporting keeps judges in check: p&h hc, companies (prospectus and allotment of securities) amendment rules, 2024, gem drastically cuts transaction charges for public procurement, featured posts, capital gain exemption on investment in two adjoining properties, webinar today: budget 2024 tds amendments & its impact on tax audit, no provision under gst to disclose goods transportation route: allahabad hc, concerns over technical issues on income tax portal affecting audit filings, ₹2645 crore gst scam: hc grants bail as co-accused with bigger role already released, nps vatsalya scheme: pension plan for minor children, icai membership fee payment & kym submission reminder fy 2024-25, tragic loss of anna perayil: a plea to reform work culture at ey, faqs & manual on e-invoice system under gst, 78% tax plus 6% penalty for unexplained investments, popular posts, rates of depreciation as per income tax act, 1961, rates of depreciation as per companies act, 2013, due date compliance calendar september 2024, carry forward and set off of losses with faqs, income tax audit under section 44ab: faqs, section wise income tax deductions for ay 2025-26/ fy 2024-25, clubbing of income under income tax act, 1961 with faqs, tax deducted at source (tds): faqs, tax benefits available to senior citizens, corporate compliance calendar for september, 2024.

September 2024
M	T	W	T	F	S	S




23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30

India is counting pastoral livestock for the first time in history

What impact could the RG Kar protests have on Bengal politics?

Interview: Behind Sony LIV’s ‘less is more’ slate, a push for non-Hindi shows and period dramas

A personal history of the elegant, intricate gharara – and how to make one in a pandemic

Booker Prize review: Rachel Kushner’s spy novel ‘Creation Lake’ shows us hurtling towards extinction

‘Glass Bottom’: An unexpected, wondrous, and brave new way to tell a story

Over 1,300 students, faculty members ask IISc to cancel India-Israel business meet

Chess, Olympiad 2024: India win historic double gold in Budapest

Cats in Japanese fiction: 12 novels since the 1900s where cats are as important as human characters

How Hindutva groups in the US have adopted the strategies of White supremacists and Zionists

Explained: The legal battle over the potatoes used to make Lay’s chips

Pepsico has appealed in the delhi high court against the revocation of its registration of a potato variety..

An ongoing court case between multinational food and beverage company PepsiCo India and the petitioner, farmers’ rights activist Kavitha Kuruganti, has highlighted the tensions between plant-breeding corporations which want a stricter intellectual property rights regime and farmers’ rights in developing countries.

International intellectual property rights conventions seek to give plant variety breeders the right to enforce patents they hold on plant varieties. The market for plant variety breeders, activists say, is increasingly dominated by a handful of large corporations both globally and in India. Developing countries like India want to protect their farmers’ rights to use, sow and sell the harvest, including seeds, of any plant variety they produce, even International intellectual property rights-registered ones.

On September 12, 2022, the Delhi High Court heard an appeal by PepsiCo India against a December 2021 order by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority , which had granted Kuruganti’s application for the revocation of PepsiCo India’s registration of the potato variety FL-2027, used to make its Lay’s potato chips .

The registration had been granted in February 2016 under India’s Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 . The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority is a statutory body under the Act. PepsiCo India asked the High Court to reinstate their registration of FL-2027, a company spokesperson told IndiaSpend in an email.

Kuruganti’s application had come in wake of PepsiCo India lawsuits filed against nine farmers in Gujarat in April 2019, which had alleged that these farmers were “illegally” growing the FL-2027 potato variety without licence or permission from the company, in violation of its rights under the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act, 2001.

The lawsuits had altogether demanded damages of over Rs 5 crore . PepsiCo India had held an “ Extant Variety ” registration over the FL-2027 variety under the Act, meaning that production of the seed variety pre-dated its registration by PepsiCo India and there was common knowledge about it among Indian farmers, per the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Authority.

“In principle, India does not allow exclusive patent rights on life forms, particularly agricultural seeds, but to set up a structure that would more or less reflect the international patent regime, India came up with the PPVFR Act in 2001 to allow for the registration of plant seeds,” said Kiran Kumar Vissa , a Hyderabad-based activist with the Association for India’s Development volunteer movement, which promotes sustainable, equitable and just development, and an activist with Rytu Swarajya Vedika , an independent farmers’ organisation based in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

Unlike exclusive patents, however, India’s Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act gives farmers the right to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell their farm produce, including seeds, even of varieties registered under the law.

The Act only restricts farmers from selling seeds of a protected variety in packages or containers with labels bearing the brand name of a protected variety.

The farming system in developing countries is characterised by small-scale farming, which relies heavily on the informal seed system, Vissa explained. The lawsuits against the Gujarat farmers were withdrawn by PepsiCo India the same month they were filed.

Kuruganti, in a letter to the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Authority, after the lawsuits were filed, had accused PepsiCo India of going against farmers’ rights over plant varieties.

The PepsiCo India spokesperson told IndiaSpend that the company wants the High Court to restore its registration of the FL-2027 variety in order to safeguard the interests of thousands of farmers who grow the variety in contract with the company, through its collaborative farming programme.

Farm activists dismiss this argument, saying the case shows how companies which have registered plant varieties use coercive tactics against farmers to protect their interests. Legal experts, however, counter that intellectual property rights protection is important to incentivise the development of new plant varieties, a process which takes several years, for better harvests. PepsiCo India’s case has been listed for the next hearing on November 2, 2022.

Ahead of that date, India will host the Food and Agriculture Organization’s International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Conference , from September 19-24. The 148-member country treaty, which came into force in 2004, has specific provisions to recognise farmers rights to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.

IndiaSpend has asked the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare for their views on the clash between rights of India’s farmers over the seeds they produce and corporations’ IPRs. We will update the story when they respond.

How PepsiCo lost its registration

I n 2009, PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd , a subsidiary of American multinational food and beverage corporation PepsiCo, Incorporated, imported the FL-2027 potato variety from the US and started commercially using it in the Indian market, through a contract farming arrangement with farmers. The company supplied FL-2027 potato seeds to these farmers and bought back the potato harvest at pre-agreed rates, per the contract .

Potatoes are among the 172 crop species that are open for registration for intellectual property rights protection under the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights.

As of August 2022, a total of 42 potato varieties have been registered. Of these, 17 varieties have been registered by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research , a central government body under the agriculture ministry; one is registered to an individual farmer; and the rest are registered by private companies including PepsiCo India, French corporation Germicopa SAS and Dutch corporations HZPC Holland BV and C Meijer BV.

In 2019, Kuruganti, convenor of the Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture network, which comprises more than 400 sustainable and viable farm livelihoods organisations, alleged in a letter to the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Authority that PepsiCo India had employed a private intelligence agency to pose as interested buyers and visit the fields of some potato farmers in Gujarat between January and February 2019.

The company claimed it had subsequently tested the potatoes grown by these farmers, who had no contract with the company, and found these to be of the FL-2027 variety. PepsiCo India then brought individual lawsuits in the Ahmedabad civil court in April that year, to stop these farmers from growing this potato variety, Kuruganti’s letter alleged.

Kuruganti had said that the Gujarat farmers may not have been aware that they were infringing the exclusive rights of any corporation, and averred that even if they were, that this was immaterial per provisions of the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act 2001, which upheld farmer’s rights to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell farm produce, including seeds, even of varieties protected under the Act.

Sometimes traders put potato tubers that are too small for processing into the farming grey market, without the original name or brand that is protected, and the farmers who buy these tubers run the risk of being at the receiving end of intellectual property right infringement actions, explained Shalini Bhutani, a legal researcher and policy analyst based in New Delhi, who tracks agriculture and biodiversity issues.

Reportedly, PepsiCo India withdrew all the lawsuits against the farmers within days. But in June 2019, Kuruganti moved the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Authority, to revoke the food giant’s registration over the FL-2027 potato variety.

In her petition , Kuruganti averred that registration of the variety was granted on the basis of incorrect information furnished by the breeder, PepsiCo India, that PepsiCo India had not complied with the provisions of the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act, 2001, or rules and regulations, and also that the grant of certificate of registration was not in public interest.

In December 2021, the authority ruled in favour of Kuruganti, and revoked PepsiCo India’s registration of the potato variety. The company in May 2022 appealed to the High Court of Delhi, seeking a stay on the revocation order, “to protect PepsiCo’s proprietary rights in its potato variety FL-2027”, the company spokesperson told IndiaSpend .

Plant variety, international patent

“ The PepsiCo India case is reflective of how companies, when they have rights on seeds, tend to use it coercively to protect their interest, even if it means farmers’ interests are compromised,” said Vissa. India’s legal arrangements around plant variety rights, however, mean farmers’ rights cannot be superseded by those of corporations, say legal experts.

In the 1960s, developed countries had demanded that plant varieties be protected by private property rights under an act, whose framework was delineated in the International Union of the Protection of New Varieties of Plants , adopted in 1961.

The Union of the Protection of New Varieties of Plants ensured that plant variety breeders acquired sole rights to produce and sell new varieties. Organisations in developing countries protested against the Union of the Protection of New Varieties of Plants convention , saying it would adversely affect small farmers and their right to decide what they want to do with the seeds they produce. India is not a signatory to the Union of the Protection of New Varieties of Plants convention.

India, however, is a World Trade Organisation member and adopted its Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights , or TRIPS, Agreement, introduced in 1994.

The TRIPS agreement dictates that member countries provide some form of patent protection to plant varieties , either through a domestic law that reflects the agreement, or with their own sui generis ( unique ) legal system. India took the latter route and came up with the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act Authority Act in 2001, Suman Sahai, founder and chairperson of Delhi-based research and advocacy organisation Gene Campaign , which works on food and livelihood security of rural communities, told IndiaSpend .

“The UPOV system is really a platform for the seed industry, who are the breeders. In the UPOV system, rights are granted only to the breeder, there are no rights for the farmer. In India, the position is very different. We do not have big seed companies in major seed sectors, such as rice, wheat, corn, pulses, and our seed producers are largely farmers and farming cooperatives,” said Sahai, who was also part of the expert committee which drafted the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act Authority Act.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas , adopted in 2018, contains a very clear directive to countries to “ensure that seed policies, plant variety protection and other intellectual property laws, certification schemes and seed marketing laws respect and take into account the rights, needs and realities of peasants and other people working in rural areas” .

By limiting the saving, exchanging and selling of farmer-produced seeds of protected varieties, intellectual property rights may reduce the effectiveness of informal seed systems, which are the primary source of seeds in developing countries, a 2005 World Bank-commissioned study investigating the impact of the strengthened IPR regime on the plant breeding industry, had noted.

More recently, a 2018 European Parliament Report called for “the need to prevent the potentially negative impact of IPR clauses” in trade agreements on food sovereignty, such as clauses that will lead to seed privatisation.

“Logically, our law will have to concentrate on protecting the interests of the farmers in their roles as producers as well as consumers of seeds,” said Sahai. Thus, India’s Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Rights Act allows for three different varieties of plants to be registered: farmers’ variety (traditionally cultivated and developed by farmers in their fields), extant variety (whose production by farmers pre-dates its registration by a breeder), and new variety, said Sahai.

“Since globally, laws on plant variety protection differ, PepsiCo India’s decision to enforce their right was in line with UPOV’s principles. However, India is not a member of UPOV. And in India, breeder’s rights cannot supersede farmers’ rights. Therefore, PepsiCo India’s decision to enforce its rights and sue farmers was not correct,” Sarah Hasan Usmani, a Netherlands-based lawyer working with Corsearch , a multinational brand protection company which works with corporate clients to protect against intellectual property rights threats, told IndiaSpend . As said earlier, the cases against the farmers were quickly withdrawn.

“The 2021 [Kuruganti v/s PepsiCo India] case established that if the registration granted to a company is used to harass and intimidate farmers, then the registration itself should be revoked. This stance had never been taken before by the PPVFR Act,” added Vissa.

Usmani, however, says intellectual property rights protection for plant varieties is important. “The idea behind protecting plant varieties (through IP) is to promote the development of new varieties of plants and better quality seeds. Since it takes years to develop a new plant variety, protection provides incentives for the efforts of the breeder. If there is no protection, anyone could sell the new variety on a commercial scale and the breeder would not accrue any benefit,” said Usmani.

Farmers’ rights

Globally, India is the fifth largest market for seed varieties, with a market size estimated at $3 billion (Rs 22,500 crore), according to the National Seed Association of India, a seed industry body. More than 500 private seed companies operate in India at different levels.

Globally, just a handful of multinationals control the seed market, due to factors like consolidation through mergers and acquisitions, which “has led to the disappearance of most of the small and medium-sized seed companies and a reduction in the range of varieties that are being developed”, per a 2016 report by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, an independent panel studying transitions to sustainable food systems around the world.

“India’s largest seed producer has been the farming community, but that changed gradually with the development of hybrid seeds,” said Sahai. Hybrids are products of two or more inbred parent seeds. “Now, the seed industry also knows that hybrids are a way to bypass the patents that they couldn’t get. What they wanted to achieve with the patent was that farmers had to go back and buy seeds fresh from them, every time,” said Sahai.

“The seed industry is consolidating and pyramiding into mega mergers, so on the top there are just about a handful of three-four companies worldwide which are taking patent rights and monopolising planting material,” said Bhutani. These include Bayer (which bought out Monsanto in 2008), Corteva, BASF and Syngenta, per a June 2021 report in the Nature research journal. These multinational corporations also hold a significant presence in India.

“A downside of this concentration is it reduces genetic diversity of crop species and varieties,” said Bhutani

The farmers rights clause in the 2001 Act, which talks of farmer’s rights to sow, use and save seeds even of an intellectual property-protected variety, among other rights, has been a subject of constant tussle with the seed industry who demand a Union of the Protection of New Varieties of Plants-style plant breeder rights to protect their innovation and claim compensation for producing/ re-producing, selling, stocking, exporting/ importing the variety, according to experts. Seed companies want a strengthened IP regime , per the Federation of Seed Industry of India, but that comes with several implications.

If the farmers are to be stopped by law from selling seed, the market automatically becomes available to the next alternative, the multinational corporations, said Sahai. “If the seed supply system only creates a supportive environment for seed companies to sell their seed varieties, how are farmers going to benefit from this system of registration if they cannot multiply their [own seeds], package and sell it in competition with the same company?” Bhutani added.

Weak farmers’ rights will allow seed corporations to dominate the seed market, while strong farmers’ rights keep the farming community alive and as viable competitors in the seed market, noted Sahai. “Control over seed production is central to self-reliance in food.”

This article was first published on IndiaSpend , a data-driven and public-interest journalism non-profit.

Lay's Chips
PepsiCo India
Agriculture

Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

Advance articles
Author Guidelines
Submission Site
Open Access Options
About Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
Editorial Board
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network
Self-Archiving Policy
Dispatch Dates
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

< Previous

Revocation of PepsiCo India’s rights over Lay’s potato variety

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Saurav Ghimire, Revocation of PepsiCo India’s rights over Lay’s potato variety, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice , Volume 17, Issue 3, March 2022, Pages 213–214, https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpac006

Permissions Icon Permissions

Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority, Kavitha Kuruganti v PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited , New Delhi, 3 December 2021

The chairperson of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority revoked the registration of PepsiCo India’s potato variety FL 2027. The decision was based on three major grounds: firstly, PepsiCo India had furnished incorrect information to acquire the certificate of registration; secondly, PepsiCo India was ineligible to hold the certificate; thirdly, there was a violation of public interest by PepsiCo India suing farmers on the basis of the certificate.

Personal account

Sign in with email/username & password
Get email alerts
Save searches
Purchase content
Activate your purchase/trial code
Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with username/password
Recommend to your librarian
Institutional account management
Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institutionâ€™s website and Oxford Academic.

Click Sign in through your institution.
Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institutionâ€™s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see â€˜Sign in through society siteâ€™ in the sign in pane within a journal:

Click Sign in through society site.
When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Month:	Total Views:
March 2022	17
April 2022	27
May 2022	5
June 2022	11
July 2022	6
August 2022	10
September 2022	5
October 2022	12
November 2022	10
December 2022	27
January 2023	22
February 2023	5
March 2023	8
April 2023	8
May 2023	7
June 2023	7
July 2023	10
August 2023	29
September 2023	11
October 2023	5
November 2023	13
December 2023	10
January 2024	6
February 2024	5
March 2024	7
April 2024	3
June 2024	5
July 2024	2
August 2024	1
September 2024	2

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

About Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
JIPLP Weblog
Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1747-1540
Print ISSN 1747-1532
Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Rights and permissions
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Dissecting The PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs Kavitha Kuruganti Case

Contributor.

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (hereafter referred to as "the Act") provides an effective system for the protection of varieties, the rights of breeders and farmers, and encourages the development of new varieties. The registration of a variety under the Act confers an exclusive right on the breeder to produce, sell, market, distribute, import, or export the variety under Section 28 of the Act.

The effect of the grant of registration under the Act is 'quid pro qua' i.e., the monopoly granted to an applicant for the term of registration must accompany the knowledge disclosed to the public. It means that the holder of plant variety registration would secure financial gain in return on investment made in R&D activities during the life of registration of variety. However, in return, the applicant needs to fully disclose the developments claimed in the variety developed so that the protected variety could be produced by any person after the expiry of registration i.e., when the variety comes into the public domain.

Where the applicant fails to comply with such requirements, the variety, even if registered, is liable to be revoked under Section 34 of the Act. The judgment dated July 05, 2023, of Delhi High Court, in PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kavitha Kuruganti addresses the crucial issue of the validity of the Authority's decision in revoking the registration granted to the appellant by invoking the grounds mentioned in Section 34 (a), (b), (c) and (h) of the Act.

Background of the Case

The appellant had applied for registration of a chipping potato variety of denomination FL 2027 on February 18, 2011, under the 'new' category at the Plant Variety Authority under the Act. The Registrar, after substantive examination of the application, raised certain queries including that based on the date of commercialization, the variety falls under the 'extant' category rather than the 'new' category.

The appellant filed the revised application; however, due to a bona fide mistake ticked the box in the form depicting FL 2027 as a 'new variety', with the date of commercialisation as 17.12.2009 in India. The Registrar granted registration to FL 2027 on 01.02.2016, treating it as an 'extant variety'. Though no opposition was received to the application within the prescribed under section 21(2) of the Act after publication of the application; however, the respondent had filed an application under Section 34 of the Act before the Authority for revocation of registration granted in favour of the appellant.

The Authority allowed the application and passed the impugned order revoking the registration of FL 2027 under Section 34(a), (b), (c), and (h) of the Act. Due to revocation of registration, the appellant's application for renewal of registration was also rejected vide Authority letter dated 11.02.2022. Being aggrieved by the Authority's decision, the appellant filed the present appeal under section 56 of the Act challenging the impugned order and the letter.

At the outset, the appellant argued that by re-evaluating the facts pertaining to the appellant's application for registration of the FL 2027 potato variety, the Authority exceeded its jurisdiction vested under Section 34 of the Act and as the registration is based on Registrar's best judgement, the Authority cannot substitute the same.

Appellant's Argument under Section 34(a)

Section 34(a) of the Act states that the grant of a certificate of registration based on incorrect information furnished by the applicant is liable to be revoked by the Authority. In the present case, the appellant argued that the Authority had erred in finding that the appellant had furnished incorrect information regarding the category in which the registration was sought. The appellant submitted that in response to queries raised by the Registrar, the appellant had filed the revised application changing the category to 'extant' however due to an inadvertent bona fide mistake, ticked the box next to 'new variety' in the application form.

However, said inadvertent error in the application category had no impact on the registration as the Registrar had granted registration treating the FL 2027 as an 'extant variety'. Further, the appellant argued that the impugned order wrongly considered the deficiencies in the application pertaining to a bona fide mistake on the date of first sale mentioned as 17.12.2009 in the application and the proof submitted in support was an invoice dated 18.12.2009, as a ground to revoke the registration granted to the appellant. The appellant submitted that such a mistake was inadvertent having no impact on the registration.

Respondent's Argument under Section 34(a)

The respondent argued that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity. The appellant had deliberately ticked the box against 'new variety' in place of 'extant variety'. Also, the respondent argued that as per records, the first date of sale of FL 2027 was 2002 in Chile, hence, after 2017 i.e., after the expiry of fifteen years from the date of first sale, the variety is now in the public domain. Therefore, the appellant would also not be eligible for renewal of registration. Therefore, section 34 (a) is rightly invoked by the Authority.

Appellant's Argument under Section 34 (b) and (c)

According to Section 34(b) of the Act, the certificate of registration granted to a person who is not eligible for protection under this Act is liable to be revoked by the Authority. Section 34(c) states that the breeder did not provide the Registrar with such information, documents, or materials as required for registration under this Act. In the present case, the appellant argued that the impugned order wrongly declared the assignment deed as invalid, unstamped, and unwitnessed hence, revoked under Section 34 (b) and (c) of the Act. The appellant argued that the assignment was executed in the USA where there is no requirement of stamping or registration. As the same was accepted by the Registrar and no objection regarding the same was raised, the registration granted cannot be revoked under Section 34 of the Act.

Respondent's Argument under Section 34 (b) and (c)

The respondent argued that the appellant did not provide any documentary proof of the right in the appellant to make the application and there was no valid assignment of such right in its favour. Furthermore, the prescribed form for proof of right to make an application (PV-2) was not signed by the breeder of the candidate variety. Hence, section 34 (b) and (c) was rightly invoked by the Authority to revoke the registration granted in favour of the applicant.

Appellant's Argument under Section 34(h)

According to Section 34(h) of the Act, if the Authority finds that the grant of certificate of registration is not in the public interest, it is liable to be revoked by the Authority. In the present case, the appellant argued that the authority erred in invoking Section 34(h) that the grant of certificate of registration is not in the public interest as the suit was filed against the defendants who claimed to be farmers but were not entitled to protection under Section 39(1)(iv). Also, the appellant had a valid registration certificate and there was no revocation application as of the date of filing of suits hence a post facto revocation in 2021 cannot deem the appellant's acts regarding the enforcement of its rights in 2019 as against public interest.

Respondent's Argument under Section 34(h)

The respondent argued that the appellant abused the registration by filing suits against some potato farmers in Gujarat, claiming exorbitant and arbitrary sums of money as damages. Such acts were intended to cause intimidation, harassment, and severe anxiety amongst the farmers. The registration was, therefore, rightly revoked under Section 34(h) of the Act.

Court's Findings and Decision in the Subject Appeal

The Court considered the submission made by both the parties and held that though the appellant has nothing to gain by misrepresenting FL 2027 as a 'new variety' as against what it truly was, an 'extant variety' but the revised application filed, admittedly, had an error. The Registrar instead of calling upon the appellant to amend the application, proceeded to consider the application as if such amendment had been made. Therefore, the appellant could not have been held guilty of having obtained the registration by providing incorrect information and said mistake could not have provided ground to the Authority to revoke the registration under Section 34(a) of the Act.

Regarding the bona fide mistake of the appellant on the incorrect date of commercialisation of the variety, the court held that the date of the first sale of the variety is important and material information for the application and the applicant must provide correct information in the application, failing which it opens itself up to revocation of the registration granted under Section 34 (a) of the Act. In the present case, the appellant had filed the proof of right form (PV-2) in blank without the signature of the breeder or FLNA, the alleged assignee of the breeder.

Additionally, the breeder did not provide the Registrar with such documents as required for registration. The court held that it remains the fact that the application filed by the appellant contained deficiencies and the Authority, under Section 34 (b) and (c) of the Act, was justified in revoking the registration granted. Regarding Section 34 (h), the court held that mere filing of the litigations by the appellant against the farmers, even presuming the same to be completely frivolous, cannot be construed as satisfying the test of the grant of registration itself not being in the public interest. Therefore, the Authority had erred in revoking the registration granted under Section 34 (h). Given the above, the court found no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed without cost.

The court's decision emphasised that the application for registration of a variety should be filed strictly in conformity with the Act, the Rules, and the Regulations. The onus for providing the correct information in the application is on the applicant and the application if filed casually is liable to be revoked under Section 34 by the Authority, even if it is granted a certification of registration under the Act.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

How we do it
Imperatives
Vision 2050
Corporate Performance & Accountability
Be the voice of leading business
Become more circular
Cultivate sustainable agriculture
Finance the transition
Halt and reverse nature loss
Improve buildings and transport
Improve performance & accountability
Learn and educate
Manage materials and deal with pollution
Put people in focus
Reduce emissions

Unleashing corporate target-setting for nature at scale

Climate Week NYC is a key milestone ahead of CBD…

Press release: Global regenerative agriculture initiative hits major milestones as collaborative efforts accelerate

5-Year Progress Report: Global Regenerative Agriculture Coalition Reaches Major Milestone…

How trade associations can help put the world on a sustainable path

WBCSD and Volans are collaborating to co-create best practice guidance…

Global network
Our history
Asia Pacific
North America
Publication
Past events
Insights from the CEO
Member spotlight
WBCSD insights
Become a member

Companies joining forces to make impact

This case study has been developed in response to WBCSD Scope 3 action agenda publication which identified in value chain collaboration in co-financing as one of the key barriers to scope 3 action. This case study is intended to demonstrate that collaboration to reduce shared emissions between upstream and downstream stakeholders in a value is not only possible, but also cost-effective, impactful and scalable.

Here, we focus on a critical decarbonization lever, fertilizer management and the partnership between a nitrates manufacturer, food company and farmers. Upcoming cases will provide co-financing examples in other critical decarbonization levers. The series of case studies will form part of a broader toolbox to support in scope 3 action for the agriculture and food industry.

The combination of PepsiCo Europe’s strong agronomy team and access to on-farm data with Yara’s knowledge on nutrient management and digital tools makes the partnership very complementary.

To transform our food system, we need to collaborate across the entire food value chain. Working with first movers like PepsiCo Europe will help make this a reality.

Yara and PepsiCo Europe joining forces on crop nutrition

Around half of the food we eat is produced using fertilizers, which provide crops with the essential nutrients they need to improve yield and quality, helping ensure food security and human health. However, fertilizers also contribute significantly to global warming , representing roughly 5% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions where one third of the emissions come from the production of fertilizers and two thirds from their on-farm use. Reducing these GHG emissions is therefore crucial.

Yara, a leading crop nutrition company, and PepsiCo Europe, a leading food and beverage company, have entered into a long-term partnership to reduce on-farm GHG emissions through best practice in fertilizer management. The emissions relative to fertilizer and its use on the farm are shared emissions between Yara and PepsiCo. For Yara, the fertilizer product carbon footprint (PCF) is classified as scope 1, and emissions from the use in the field as scope 3 (category 11).

Indirect GHG emissions related to the use of its products represented around52% of Yara’s total emissions in 2023. For PepsiCo Europe, fertilizer production and its use in the field contributes to 50% of the agricultural crop PCF (scope 3, category 1), and 50% of purchased crop PCF (scope 3, category 1). This represents a huge opportunity for the two companies to collaborate to reduce common shared emission hotspots.

A long-term collaboration addressing key decarbonization levers

PepsiCo Europe is supplying Yara fertilizers and services to farmers, including digital tools to optimize nitrogen use efficiency:

Reducing the carbon footprint of fertilizers: Yara is providing PepsiCo farmers with low-carbon footprint fertilizers, produced from renewable ammonia or low-carbon ammonia via carbon capture and storage (CCS). Yara has invested in solutions to reduce GHG emissions from the production of fertilizer and will continue to invest in innovation in manufacturing processes to further reduce fertilizer PCF.
Improving fertilizer application on the farm: Yara is providing in-field services to farmers to advise them on the best crop nutrition practices and digital tools to improve nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), boost yields, improve soil health and reduce the carbon footprint of crops. Yara invests in R&D to develop tools to scale up solutions to reduce emissions on the farm.
Planning seasonal crop nutrition management: At the start of the crop season, Yara agronomists define a customized crop nutrition plan based on soil analysis, context and geography. During the season, the data is collected to finetune fertilization plans according to the needs of the crop and to plan for the following crop cycle.

Yara will deliver up to 165,000 tons of fertilizer/year to PepsiCo Europe, meeting the needs of 25% of farmers within its European supply chain by 2030.

The key objective of the partnership is to reduce the GHG emissions on farm relative to fertilizer, reducing the PCF of crops, while improving yield (which can increase up to 15% depending on the current practices and geographies). Farmers are at the center of this initiative.

Partnership results and scale-up

The partnership kicked off in 2024 with a selective group of potato farmers in continental Europe. The rollout will be progressive and cover ~128,000 hectares and include ~1,000 farms across the EU (Belgium, France, Poland, the Netherlands) and the UK. For PepsiCo Europe, the initial priority is potato, but the project will be scaled to include additional crops such as oats, oilseed and corn.

The partnership is expected to result in a reduction of up to 80% in GHG emissions related to fertilizer production and a reduction of up to 20% of in-field fertilizer use emissions by 2030, while maintaining crop quality and yields.

This type of partnership is easily replicable and Yara is alreadycollaborating with other agri-food companies towards reaching common decarbonization goals, with companies such as Lantmännen, Bindewald & Gutting Milling Group and Simpsons Malt.

Monitoring, reporting and verification

The partnership leverages industry-recognized measurement tools and third-party verification. The project expects to improve the measurement approach over time and is considering how to develop technology to streamline data collection as part of a continuous digital improvement journey.

Production of fertilizers: Yara collects and monitors the GHG emissions from the production of fertilizers and calculates fertilizer PCF, which is verified by an independent third-party DNV.
On-farm emissions: Prior to the start of the partnership, PepsiCo Europe and Yara Europe [BN5] [JN6] [BN7] worked together to collect information on farm data and current practices to set the baseline. Yara and PepsiCo Europe collect on-farm data relative to farm practices and Yara calculates the PCF of the crop (e.g., CO 2 /ton) and passes this data to PepsiCo along with information relative to yield and quality.

Collaborating to reduce shared on-farm emissions will impact the GHG inventory of both companies

Yara: The investment made to transition to more sustainable production practices results in scope 1 and 2 GHG emission reductions. The improvement of on-farm crop nutrition practices reduces Yara’s scope 3 emissions. These GHG emission reductions are reported within Yara’s GHG inventory and towards its climate targets.
PepsiCo Europe : Purchasing crops with a lower PCF from suppliers reduces scope 3 (cat. 1). Food companies can claim in their inventory the benefit from reduced fertilizer PCF, and reduced use of fertilizer in the field.

Success factors and learnings

Sharing costs and benefits: By collaborating, both companies are able to share costs and mitigate risks in the transition to a more sustainable food system, while also benefitting from the reduction of emissions from a scope 3 hotspot.
Shared climate objectives: The collaboration underlines the two like-minded companies’ shared commitment to building a more sustainable food system in line with their climate targets.
Structured agreement, clear KPIs: The collaboration has well-defined KPIs and governance as well as a long-term roadmap taking into account each company’s priorities regarding crops, geographies and objectives.
Multidisciplinary teams: Multidisciplinary teams with different expertise are needed to execute on the actions in the roadmap.
Farmers at the center: Solutions are tailor made to meet farmers’ needs.
Significant impact: Long-term, large-scale partnership designed to deliver significant impact.

Reducing GHG emissions of fertilizer is a significant mitigation action that is actionable today, cost effective compared to other levers and scalable to other geographies, crops and farmer archetypes. It also has a significant impact in terms of decarbonization in food and agriculture and can be considered a ‘ no regret’ mitigation action.

Acknowledgements

WBCSD developed this case study in collaboration with Anthesis.

About Anthesis

With world-class expertise in science-based advisory, market-leading digital solutions, the development of high-quality carbon removal projects and purpose consulting, strategy, and communications, Anthesis is uniquely positioned to manage risk and find value for our clients on their transformation journeys. Anthesis supports over 4,000 clients, across all industry sectors, including multinationals such as Reckitt, Cisco. Tesco, Nestlé, and Target. The company brings together 1,400 experts guiding clients in 80 countries around the world. For more information, visit www.anthesisgroup.com .

Yara’s mission is to responsibly feed the world and protect the planet. We pursue a strategy of sustainable value growth through reducing emissions from crop nutrition production and developing low-emission energy solutions. Yara’s ambition is focused on growing a nature-positive food future that creates value for our customers, shareholders and society at large and delivers a more sustainable food value chain. To drive the green shift in fertilizer production, shipping, and other energy intensive industries, Yara will produce ammonia with significantly lower emissions. We provide digital tools for precision farming and work closely with partners at all levels of the food value chain to share knowledge and promote more efficient and sustainable solutions. Founded in 1905 to solve the emerging famine in Europe, Yara has established a unique position as the industry’s only global crop nutrition company. With 18,000 employees and operations in more than 60 countries, sustainability is an integral part of our business model. For more information, visit www.yara.com

About PepsiCo

PepsiCo products are enjoyed by consumers more than one billion times a day in more than 200 countries and territories around the world. PepsiCo generated more than $91 billion in net revenue in 2023, driven by a complementary beverage and convenient foods portfolio that includes Lay’s, Doritos, Cheetos, Gatorade, Pepsi-Cola, Mountain Dew, Quaker, and SodaStream. PepsiCo’s product portfolio includes a wide range of enjoyable foods and beverages, including many iconic brands that generate more than $1 billion each in estimated annual retail sales. Guiding PepsiCo is our vision to Be the Global Leader in Beverages and Convenient Foods by Winning with pep+ (PepsiCo Positive). pep+ is our strategic end-to-end transformation that puts sustainability and human capital at the center of how we will create value and growth by operating within planetary boundaries and inspiring positive change for planet and people. For more information, visit www.pepsico.com

A framework for carbon emissions management along the building and construction value chain

17 December, 2019

Value Chain Carbon Transparency Pathfinder

4 March, 2021

The Value Chain Carbon Transparency Pathfinder: Accelerating decarbonization by increasing Scope 3 emissions transparency across value chains

The Economic Times daily newspaper is available online now.

Cognitive biases in trading: understanding trading psychology with four case studies.

The Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) case study involves a hedge fund founded by Nobel laureates and finance experts in 1994 to trade global bond markets. Spectacular success in the initial years, the world's top pedigree and sophisticated mathematical models fed to the overconfidence in 1998 bond arbitrage. The symptoms exhibited for overconfidence were high leverage and ignoring warning signs of the trade going wrong.

Cognitive biases in trading: Understanding trading psychology with four case studies

Stock Trading

Market 101: An Insight into Trendlines and Momentum

By - Rohit Srivastava, Founder

Markets 102: Mastering Sentiment Indicators for Swing and Positional Trading

Market 103: Mastering Trends with RMI and Techno-Funda Insights

Market 104: Options Trading: Kickstart Your F&O Adventure

By - Saketh R, Founder- QuickAlpha, Full Time Options Trader

ROC Made Easy: Master Course for ROC Stock Indicator

By - Souradeep Dey, Equity and Commodity Trader, Trainer

RSI Made Easy: RSI Trading Course

Technical Analysis for Everyone - Technical Analysis Course

By - Abhijit Paul, Technical Research Head, Fund Manager- ICICI Securities

Introduction to Technical Analysis & Candlestick Theory

By - Dinesh Nagpal, Full Time Trader, Ichimoku & Trading Psychology Expert

Options Trading Course For Beginners

By - Chetan Panchamia, Options Trader

Options Scalping Made Easy

By - Sivakumar Jayachandran, Ace Scalper

Futures Trading Made Easy: Future & Options Trading Course

By - Anirudh Saraf, Founder- Saraf A & Associates, Chartered Accountant

Stock Markets Made Easy

By - elearnmarkets, Financial Education by StockEdge

Renko Chart Patterns Made Easy

By - Kaushik Akiwatkar, Derivative Trader and Investor

Options Trading Made Easy: Options Trading Course

Stock Investing Made Easy: Beginner's Stock Market Investment Course

Macroeconomics Made Easy: Online Certification Course

Stock Valuation Made Easy

By - Rounak Gouti, Investment commentary writer

To post this comment you must

Fill in your details:

Will be displayed

Will not be displayed

Share this Comment:

Uh-oh this is an exclusive story available for selected readers only..

Worry not. You’re just a step away.

Prime Account Detected!

It seems like you're already an ETPrime member with

Log out of your current logged-in account and log in again using your ET Prime credentials to enjoy all member benefits.

To read full story, subscribe to ET Prime

₹34 per week

Billed annually at ₹2499 ₹1749

Super Saver Sale - Flat 30% Off

On ET Prime Membership

Unlock this story and enjoy all members-only benefits.

Offer Exclusively For You

Save up to Rs. 700/-

ON ET PRIME MEMBERSHIP

Get 1 Year Free

With 1 and 2-Year ET prime membership

Get Flat 40% Off

Then ₹ 1749 for 1 year

ET Prime at ₹ 49 for 1 month

Market Savvy Offer

Get flat 20% off on ETPrime

90 Days Prime access worth Rs999 unlocked for you

Exclusive Economic Times Stories, Editorials & Expert opinion across 20+ sectors

Stock analysis. Market Research. Industry Trends on 4000+ Stocks

Get 1 Year Complimentary Subscription of TOI+ worth Rs.799/-

Stories you might be interested in

IMAGES

PepsiCo India: Performance with Purpose Case Solution And Analysis, HBR
Coke and PepsiCo marketing in India Case Study
Products Of Pepsico In India 2023: A Comprehensive List
Case study: PepsiCo
Pepsico India Market Research Analysis
Coca Cola And Pepsi In India Case Study

VIDEO

PepsiCo India Presents #AwaazMittiKi
Case Study Pepsico Project I Maciej Kupczyk I Arup Polska sp. z o.o. I BIM4industry 2023
Pepsico inc. Case study
Case Study: Developing PepsiCo Beverages’ AI Media Capability
This Country Declared A WAR On PEPSI #infofusion
Pepsico Secret Business

COMMENTS

A Strategic Case Study on PepsiCo by Assan Jallow :: SSRN
Abstract. The purpose of this paper is to provide a strategic report analysis and evaluation of PepsiCo in the beverage industry. This includes the methods of analysis of PepsiCo's external and internal analysis, its marketing strategies, and SWOT analysis from the perspectives of value-chain, resource-based, and 3-circa analysis.
Pepsi's Entry into India: A Lesson in Globalization
PepsiCo's arch-rival and the world's number one cola company, Coca-Cola, had indeed been forced to close operations and leave India in 1977 after the Janata Dal came to power. 3 Even in the late 1980s, India had a closed economy and government intervention in the corporate sector was quite high. However, multinational companies such as PepsiCo ...
How Indra Nooyi changed the face of PepsiCo
Now the highly regarded CEO of PepsiCo, Indra Nooyi was born to a Tamil-speaking family in Madras (now Chennai) in India. Academically gifted, she was awarded a bachelor's degree in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics from Madras Christian College in 1974, which she followed up with an MBA from the Indian Institute of Management in Calcutta.
In 3 years, PepsiCo India doubled its previous 30 ...
Case Studies. Research. Shopping Centres. Videos. Retail with Rasul Bailay. IR Studio. The Store ... development for PepsiCo India on the growth of the cola giant's portfolio in India's ...
How PepsiCo's Kurkure managed to grab and retain snack market share
The case study looks at how PepsiCo managed to grab and retain the market space. When it comes to describing the 15-year-old brand Kurkure, the Rs 1,000-crore snackbrand of PepsiCo India, the old ...
PDF CASE 1-3 Coke and Pepsi Learn to Compete in India
for PepsiCo India commented: "For the first time, Pepsi has tied up with the Gujarati TV channel, Zee Alpha, to telecast 'Navratri Utsav' on all nine nights. ['Utsav' means festival.] Then there is the mega offer for the people of Ahmedabad, Baroda, Surat, and Rajkot where every refill of a case of Pepsi 300-ml. bottles will fetch
PepsiCo India: Performance with Purpose
Abstract. In 2010, PepsiCo India's management is working to translate PepsiCo's new mission, "Performance with Purpose," into practice in the India market. The mission calls for continued financial performance and market leadership, as well as greater emphasis on healthy products, natural resource management, and employee empowerment.
How Indra Nooyi Turned Design Thinking Into Strategy: An Interview with
Emir Uzun. Summary. CEO Indra Nooyi believes that each PepsiCo product must engage customers so directly and personally that they fall in love with it. So in 2012 she hired renowned designer Mauro ...
PepsiCo India vs. Gujarat Potato Farmers|Economics|Case Study|Case Studies
PepsiCo was established in 1965 in the US by Donald Kendall, CEO of Pepsi-Cola, and Herman Lay, CEO of Frito-Lay. The company was formed out of the merger of Pepsi-Cola and Frito-Lay with the vision of serving the perfect salty snack with the best cola. By 2014, PepsiCo had operations in more than 200 countries with 22 brands.
(Pdf) Corporate Social Responsibility Program of Pepsico India: a
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY PROGRAM OF PEPSICO INDIA: A UNIQUE AGRO-BASED CSR MODEL. May 2011. Acta Horticulturae. DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.895.5. Authors: Debabrata Basu. Bidhan Chandra ...
Case Study: PepsiCo India vs. Gujarat Potato Farmers
Farmer relationships are long-lasting, and more than 90% of farmers are repeat cultivators. Case Study: PepsiCo India vs. Gujarat Potato Farmers. PepsiCo India sued nine farmers on April 5, 2019, in three separate courts located in the Gujarati districts of Sabarkantha, Aravalli, Deesa, and Banaskantha for cultivating and marketing the FC5 ...
Analysis of PepsiCo Case against farmers for growing FC5 ...
PepsiCo India Vs. Vs. Gujarat Potato Farmers INTRODUCTION. On April 5, 2019, PepsiCo India filed legal cases against nine farmers in three separate courts spread across the districts of Sabarkantha, Aravalli, Deesa, and Banaskantha in the state of Gujarat in India for growing and selling the FC5 potato variety over which it claimed it had exclusive rights under section 28 of the Protection of ...
PepsiCo`s Sustainability Strategy to Build a Positive Value Chain
PepsiCo's sustainability strategy targeted every stage of the value chain. The case first touches upon the early initiative taken by the company in 2006 through the establishment of its 'Performance with Purpose' program. It also mentions the company's ambitious commitments to science-based climate goals made in 2016.
PDF The poTaTo supply chain To pepsico's FriTo lay
This paper studies the PepsiCo supply chain for manufacturing Frito Lay potato crisps through contract farming for potatoes in India. PepsiCo is one of the pioneers of contract farming in India since 2001. Their experience in contract farming has covered many crops: potato, basmati rice, tomato, chili, peanut, oranges and more recently sea weed.
PepsiCo: The legal battle over the potatoes used to make Lay's chips
An ongoing court case between multinational food and beverage company PepsiCo India and the petitioner, farmers' rights activist Kavitha Kuruganti, has highlighted the tensions between plant ...
Revocation of PepsiCo India's rights over Lay's potato variety
Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority, Kavitha Kuruganti v PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited, New Delhi, 3 December 2021. ... Hence, it is unclear whether the outcome of the case would have been the same had PepsiCo India been a legitimate owner. In other words, it is uncertain whether bringing PVP suit against ...
PDF A CASE STUDY OF PEPSICO CONTRACT FARMING FOR POTATOES
The total procurement of potatoes by way of contract farming by PepsiCo was about 70,000-75,000 tonne in 2009-10. The company's potato procurement from West Bengal witnessed a 100 per cent growth from about 11,000 tonne in 2008-09 to around 22,000 tonne in 2010-11. PepsiCo is expanding facilities in the existing plant.
A Study of Business Process: Case Study Approach to PepsiCo
Abstract. The case study narrates different phases of the business that occur in a diverse product. portfolio. Peps iCo being a conglomerate tries to bal ance its business an d channelize d ...
Dissecting The PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs Kavitha Kuruganti Case
The judgment dated July 05, 2023, of Delhi High Court, in PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kavitha Kuruganti addresses the crucial issue of the validity of the Authority's decision in revoking the registration granted to the appellant by invoking the grounds mentioned in Section 34 (a), (b), (c) and (h) of the Act. Background of the Case
National Stock Exchange: Failure of Corporate Governance
The case explores the corporate governance challenges that arose at the National Stock Exchange (NSE), India's leading stock exchange. Chitra Ramkrishna served as the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (MD and CEO) of NSE from 2013 to 2016. In 2013, she was recognized by Fortune magazine as one of the most powerful women in business.
Value chain co-financing mechanisms
This case study has been developed in response to WBCSD Scope 3 action agenda publication which identified in value chain collaboration in co-financing as one of the key barriers to scope 3 action. This case study is intended to demonstrate that collaboration to reduce shared emissions between upstream and downstream stakeholders in a value is not only possible, but also cost-effective ...
Scaling Tesla Semi Electrification: A Case Study with PepsiCo ...
Here is the full discussion of the Tesla Semi program lead Dan Priestley and PepsiCo's Dejan Antunović, which just took placeat the IAA Transportation show i...
Cognitive biases in trading: Understanding trading psychology with four
The Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) case study involves a hedge fund founded by Nobel laureates and finance experts in 1994 to trade global bond markets. Spectacular success in the initial years, the world's top pedigree and sophisticated mathematical models fed to the overconfidence in 1998 bond arbitrage. The symptoms exhibited for overconfidence were high leverage and ignoring warning ...