Introduction Spark Notes

This essay has a total of 1913 words and 10 pages.

Introduction


Introduction

To give a short introduction to the circumstances affecting this case of Pepsi & Coca Cola
it has to be said that in general it is not just simple for MNEs to invest and enter
foreign markets as regulations and restrictions differ from coutry to country and hence
ifluence international business negotiations to a great extend. Therefore MNEs
investigating in foreign markets have to either adopt to those condition given by the host
country government, which of course to a certain extend has to be negotiated as no one of
those parties want to loose their maximum independence- or the MNE decides not to take
further steps towards the foreign operation and leaves the feeld by assumingly - in turn -
missing out a great opportunity, but this again depends on a complexity of economic and
cultural reasons influencing international trade, which I will develop critically in the
further case study of Pepsi & Coke in accordance to the following questions.




1.) Did PepsiCo make too many concessions in order to enter the Indian market?
Could the company have negotiated better?

In this case study PepsiCo - for the second time - intends to enter the Indian market,
though already having experienced major problems which consequently led to their first
departure (for non profitability). As well Coca Cola departured India after harsh
disagreements with the government.


Why after all did Pepsi enter again, facing a country with such strongly adverse feelings
towards foreign companies - which is rooted in Indians history of colonialistic times when
the British, French and Portuguese were extracting the country‘s recources ‚‘its
wealth‘ without returning noticeable benefits to its economy.

Moreover they feared that national companies would not be able to compete with foreign
investors and as a result of this high artificially prices and profit margins reduced
incentives for national companies to enter. This almost irrepairable bad approach towards
foreigner went even that far that journalist widely reported that PepsiCo had a CIA
connection aimed at undermining India‘s independence.


However returning to the argument of PepsiCo having too many concessions or not, first as
should have become clear now, the company was confronted with a govvernmental volatility
and unwillingness to negotiate. It was rather a one-way game wherein PepsiCo had to agree
with completely, or take its departure, as the company was not only faced with economic
but also with moral issues (as mentioned above). Especially the confidence factor plays a
great part in her which for the company turned out to be a rather costly factor as PepsiCo
had to make various concession before they could enter the Indian market.









The company had to agree to the following provision given by the government;

? having to export five times the value of its imports over the first ten-year period;
? soft drink sales would not exceed 25 % of joint-venture sales;
* PepsiCo would limit ownership to 39.9%;
? Seventy five % of concentrate to export;
* Establish R & D centre in agriculture;
? joint-venture would set up fruit and vegetable plants


Having a look at the the above provision given by Indian government it seem rather
unsupportable not to consider further extensions/changes by new governments, where I will
come to further on.


Considering the economical factors facing the country, PepsiCo may well be suported by its
decision to make all those concessions. The Indian market for soft-drink had been growing
rapidly (by 1990 a whole of 3 billion bottles a year consumption expecting to quadrupple
during the 1990s. Furthermore India‘s population was expected to grow - even surpass
China - and researchers have even estimated India to become an economic giant in the
future as the worlds most poplated country which of course enhanced foreign investments as
major sales are expected in the long-run.


Now, PepsiCo entered the market with great potential for the future they did a great step
by only investing $15 million, which was a rather small amount compared to other foreign
investments. This low investment reduced the risk the company was already to taking to a
large extend , while being able to expand after time and waiting for political changes
towards FDI restrictions offering better conditions for further investments. In fact
PepsiCo is planning an investment of $ 1 billion in the 1990s.

Moreover the company could gain from cheap labour costs leading to cheaper cost of
production. Finally the company is gaining a major competitive advantage for being the
first, which is an important factor in the highly competitive sof-drink market as to
tighten up brand loyalty and gaining the best distributers.


This analysis of the situation above presents a rather convincing view towards PepsiCo
negotiating but coming to answer the question, ‚could the company have done better‘ my
answer is yes, the company could have done better in various points even if they did quite
well already. For example PepsiCo did a reat fob on dreating joint-venture with the most
powerful private firm and second a government owned company, whose involvement gave the
appearance that the public interst would be served in the venture, but they could most
probably have done better by agreeing into a joint-venture, which Coca Cola did later on,
with an other soft drink producer like Parle Export and hence gaining benefits through
already existing capacities like for example highly expanded distribution net-works,
machinery etc. for lowering cost of production.


Secondly it could be assumed to PepsiCo could have gotten a better deal out of the
provision; only allowing 25 % of joint-venture sales to be invested into soft-drinks,
which in all respects, is for a main soft-drink producer a rather discouraging result of
negotiations. But probably they could have negotiated stronger on the employment factor in
Punjab 25,000 and 25,000 some where else and the opportunities of foreign soft-drink
Continues for 5 more pages >>