Pepsi's Entry into India: A Lesson in GloÜfilhstion

“CoflvffîCffîq• Indfa Ihät fi needs Western Junk has Hot been easy.”'
- A New Internationalist Magazine article, commenting on Pepsi's struggle ts
enter India, in August 1988.

ALETTER TO PEPSI

In 1988, the New York office of the President of the multi-billion cola company
PepsiCo received a letter from India. The company had been trying for some time to
enter the Indian market — without much success. The letter was kitten by George
Fernandez (Fernandos), the General Secreta of one of the country's leading political
parties, Janata Dat. He wrote, “I learned that you are coming here. I am the one that
threw Coca-Cola out, and we are soon going to come back into the government. If you
come into the country, you have to remember that the same fate awaits you as
Coca-
Cola. 2

this development did not seem to be a matter that could be ignored. PepsiCo's arch-
rival and the world's number one cola company, Coca-Cola, had indeed been forced
Îo close operafions and leave India in 1977 after de Janata Dal came to power.'
Even in the late 1980s, India had a closed economy and government intervention in
the corporate sector was quite high. Höwever, multinational cornpanies such as
PepsiCo had been eyeing the Indian market for. a long time for a host of reasons.
As the major market for PepsiCo, the US, seemed to be reaching saturation levels, the
option to expand on a global scale seemed to have become inevitable for the
company.
India was a lucrative destination since its vast population offered a huge, untapped
customer base. During the late 1980s, the per capita consumption of soft drinks in
India was ody three bottles per annum as against 63 and 38 for Egypt and Thailand
respectively. Even its neighbor Pahstan boasted of a per capita soft drink
consumption of 13 bottles. PepsiCo was also encouraged by the fact that increasing
urbanization had already familiarized Indians with leading global brands.
Given these circumstances, PepsiCo officials had been involved in hectic lobbying
Cth the Indian government to obtain permis“sion to begin operations in the country.
However, the company could not deny that many political parties and factions were
opposed to its entry into the country. It had therefore become imperative for PepsiCo
to come up with a package attractive enough for the Indian government.

THE PROMISES THAT EELPED PEPSI ENTER

In May 1985, PepsiCo had joined hands with one of India's leading business houses,
be R P Goenka (RPG) group, to begin operations in the country. The company, along
with the RPG group company Agro Product Export Ltd., planned to import the cola

‘Pepsi's Push,’ w«.ne›vint.org.

‘Coke Returns from India Exile,’ (Interview with FCmandes), lnlemaiional IYloiiilor,
July/August 1995.
Jn the regulator}’ environment of the late l970s, foreign enterprises operating in any
non- priority sector in India could not own more tkan a 40% stal‹e in the ventures. Coca-
Cola ran its operations t!\rough a 100% subsidiary. After the company refused to partner
with an
)fldlâfl COITIpafl 2nd share its technology, it had to stop its operations and leave the country.
 keting

concentrate and sell soft drinks under the Pepsi label. To make its proposal
attractive to the Indian government, PepsiCo said that the import of cola
concentrate would essentially be in return for exporting juice concentrate from
operations to be established in the north Indian state of Punjab.
In its proposal submitted to the Ministry of Industrial Development, company
sources said that the objectiYes of PepsiCo's entry into India resolved around
‘promoting and developing the export of Inhian agro-based products and introducing
and developing PepsiCo's products in the country.’ However, the government
rejected this proposal primarily on two grounds: one, the government did not accept the
clause regarding the imporl of the cola concentrate and, two, the use of a foreign
brand name (Pepsi) was not allowed as per the regulatory framework. The association
with the RPG group too ended at this juncture.
Not willing to sit quietly on the issue, PepsiCo put forward another proposal to the
government a few months later. The company knew that tire political and social
problems' that plagued Punjab were an.extremely sensitive issue for India in the
1980s. PepsiCo's decision to link its entry'with the development and welfare of the
state was thus a conscious one, aimed at winning the goYernment over. The fact that
Punjab boasted a healthy agricultural sector (with good crop yields in the past) also
played a role in PepsiCo's decision.
Repoñedly, the new proposal gave a lot of emphasis to the effects of PepsiCo's entry
on agriculture and employment in Punjab. The company claimed that it would play a
cendal role in bringing about an agricultural revolution in the state and would create
many employment opportunities. To make its proposal even more lucrative, PepsiCo
claimed that these new etriployment opportunities would terript many of the teITorists
to return to society. Thjs added a lot of ‘plus points’ to PepsiCo's proposal, since a
large number of young people in the state had become terrorists during the 1980s,
causing socio-cultural and economic problems of a serious nature for many families in
the state.
Repoñedly, even as the government contemplated PepsiCo's proposal, many Indian
soft-drinks companies, and social and political groups strongly voiced their
opposition to it. Protestors said that the company would siphon out money from the
country in the form of profits, promotional fees, and various other means. Protestors
argued that the same money could be used for the development of the country.
Scme critics even cited the instance of PepsiCo's involvement in Chile's political
turmoil to support their opposition to the proposal. Most of the opponents said that
allowing a foreign company into a non-priority sector went against the existing
government’s [of the Congress (I) party, led by the Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi]
foreign trade policies.

4
The rise of militant groups demanding the creation of a separate state, KhaliHan, led
to serious religion-based terrorism in Punjab throughout the 1980s and early 1990s.
Hundreds of people were killed in terrorist violence and security forces and the police had a
tough time bringing the situation under control. By the mid-1990s, the terrorist movement
had been
controlled to a large extent.
5
In the early 1970s, Chile's pro-socialism President Salvador Allende was killed after a
military coup toppled the government. According to reports, the United States (US) had a
'hidden role to play in this coup as it wanted to curb the growth of socialism in Chile. Reports
claim fat the then PepsiCo Rairman Donald Kendall had personally sought the US
government's help for protection of the company's commercial interests in Chile.
 Pepsi's Entry into India: A Leseêtf @ëbsllzation
” *”””‹””"›

Meanwhile, to ‘sweeten’ the proposal, PepsiCo made many coinfiiltii Q Jett

f l e

dedelop eet of the aremo pl ed toopera ein. Soiiie of e imperial c whirl "“"
were: /\ i:.
• The company would focus on food and agro-processing and ody 25% of tlic "
investment would be déected toads the soft business
• The company would not oaly bring advanced food processing technology to
India, but also provide a boost to the image of products made in India in foreign
markets
• Half of the production would be exported and the export-import ratio would be
5:1 for a period of 10 years (80% of the exports to be of food products
manufactured by the coippany and 20% of the exports to be of food products
from a select list manufactured by other companies)
• Cieation ofjobs for Î0,000 people across the nation, of whicb 25,000 were to be
in Punjab
• Foreign bian5 names would not be used
• An agricultural Research center would be established.
The government was apparently quite impressed with the terms and conditions
PepsiCo had proposed. Thus, despite continuing protests, the Pepsi Foods Ltd.
(Pepsi) venture was finally cleared by the government in September 1988. Pepsi
was a joint venture between PgsiCo, Punjab Agro Industrial Corporation
(PAIC, a body established by the Punjab government) and Voltas India Ltd. (a
company owned by the business house of Tatas) While PépsiCo held 36.89% of the
venture's stake, PAIC and Voltas held 36.11% and 24% stakes respecdvely. The
company launched the soft business with great fanfare and an elaborate multi-
media advertising campaign
in 1989.
The success of PepsiCo's efforts to enter India generated a significant amount of
attention. While tie political groups opposing the company's entry continued to
criticize the government’s decision, there were many who appreciated the way in
which PepsiCo had clinched the deal. Some years later, commenting on how the
company effectively used meganiarketing to enter the Indian market, renowned
marketing expert Philip Kotler said, “Pepsi bundiea a set of benefits that won
the support of various interest groups inIndia. Instead of relying on the normal four Ps
for
entering a market Pepsi added to additional Ps, namely, Politics and Public
7
Opinion He added that committing to work tocards developing the niial economy
and bringing in new food-processing packaging and water-öeatment technologies
tumed ä lot of votes in PepsiCo's fa or.

PEPSI'S PROMISES — KEEP SOME, BREAK SOME!

Pepsi began by setüng up a fruit and vegetable processing plant at Zahura village in
Punjab's Hoshiarpur district. The plat ould focus on processing tomatoes to
make tomto paste. Since töe local varieties of tomatoes were found to be of inferior
quality,

Megarnarketing refers to the strategic coordination of economic, psychological, political

ind pttbIic relations skills to gain the cooperation of a number of parties in order to
enter or opcrate in a marko.
As mentioned in Harl‹eting Managerieñt (The Millennium Edition) by Philip Kotler.
The four Ps being referred to are ‘Product’ ‘Place,’ ‘Promotion’ and ‘Price.’
43
International Marketing

Pepsi imported the required material for tomato cultivation. The company entered into
agreements with a few big farmers (well-off farmers with lar8e land holdings) and
began gro g tomatoes through the contract farming route‘ (though the agro-climatic
profile of Punjab was not exactly suitable for a crop like tomato, Pepsi had chosen the
state because its farmers were progressive, Weir landholdings were on the larger side,
and water availability was sufficient).
Initially, Pepsi had a tough time convincing farmers to work for the company. Its
experts fiom the US had to interact extensively with the farriers to explain how they
could benefit from working with the company. Another problem, although a minor
one, was regarding financial transactions with the farmers. When the company
insisted on payments by cheque, it found out that as many‘as 80% of the farmers did
not even have a bank account!
Soon other problems cropped up. When the crop was harvested at the end of 1990, the
Zahura plant had still not been made operational. As a result, the crop could not be
utilized as planned and the local farmers had to bear combined losses of Rs 2.5
million.’ In addition, critics cowm.-n:.•d that °epsi paid tire farmers only Rs 0 75 per
kg of tomatoes, when the market price was Rs 2.00 per kg. Pepsi's detractors also
alleged that the company had selected only big farmers, deliberately neglecting the
small and medium farmen.
Pepsi received a lot of criticism for failing to create jobs. The company had
promised to provide jobs to 50,000 people, but by 1991 it had employed oaly 783
people as direct employees. By 1992, this figure increased marginally to 909 and by
1996 it rose to 2400. Pepsi claimed that it had provided eg;ployment to around 26000
people in the
country through indirect emploJoieilt.

Industry observers commented that the company had included even the small vendors
who sold its soft drinks as indirect employees. They argued that all these vendors
could not be regarded as be employees of Pepsi. Information given by the company
revealed that more than 50% of its employees were working for the concentrate and
bottling business, and not the food processing activities. This prompted critics to say
that Pepsi was not focusing on generating Employment in the agriculture sector.
Pepsi hafi a majority hoiding in Futura Polymers Ltd. (Futura), a company that was
involved in the business of recycling plastic. This company was reported to be
working towards replacing many workers Cth machines. A senior manager at the
company, L R Subbaraman, said, “Later they will ask for more money, form
organizations, may be unions. We are always trying to be more machine oriented.”"
This attenpt at reducing the workforce seemed to go against the company's
commitments to create jobs.
Pepsi devised a clever way to handle the commitment it had made that it would not
use a foreign brand name in lnhia. Its cola was named ‘Lehar Pepsi’ to differentiate it
dom Pepsi, as the product was known outside India. In the packaging and promotion,
where the product name was visible, the name Pepsi was given a prominent position
while the Lehar part of it was relegated to the background. Consumers thus invariably
had a stronger, more lasting impression of’Pepsi’ than ‘Lehar Pepsi.’

' Contract farming refers to a farming arrangement. Under lhis arrangement, farmers enter into
a contract with a buyer to supply a specific quantity of the produce at a pre-determined price
and quality. The buying company pr0vidcs some inputs and technology to the farmers.
July 2003 exchange rate: Rs 47 = 1 US $.
‘° ‘Dui:°ping Pepsi's Plastic,’ w\y.multinationalmonitor.org, September 1994.
 Pepsi's Entry into India: A Les6o llzation

Pepsi also failed to adhere to its commitment to export 50% of its proéoNoii, gJc
its agricultural initiatives were not turning out to be as productiYe
expoñ of fruit/vegetable based products was negligible. To make up for
began exporllog products such as tea, rice and shrimps. In addition, it exported gt¿t *\. .
bottles, leather products aztd evea cI›aoipagae. Critics pointed out tbese products bad
always been exported from India and that Pepsi was deliberately not meeting its
expoñ obligations. “
Pepsi's detractors, such as Fernandez, were still focused on proving that allowing the
company to operate in India was not a good decision. In fact, the decision to allow
the company to enter the country was the subject matter of many heated debates in
the Indian parliament. In one such debate in 1991, Fernandes asked the Food
Processing Ministry why Pepsi was not being forced to honor its commitments.
Another parliament member, S K Gangwar, said that the fact that Pepsi was being
allowed to function normally even though it had not adhered to many of its
commitments was Yery disturbing. He said, “When the Pepsi company has not
fulfilled its commitments, why it is being allowed to continue to function here?""
To deal with this wvest, a team of government officials visited the company's plant in
December 1990. The team included a Director (Food, Vegetable Products department)
. and a Deputy Secretary from the Ministry of Food Processing Industries. The team's
findings corroborated most of the charges leveled against Pepsi. It found that Pepsi
had not made any efforts to export 40% of the goods it manufactured and that it had
not taken any concrete steps to set up an agro-research institute. The team then
referred the matter to the Ministry of Commerce, which in turn issued a show-cause
notice to the company.
However, even by late 1991, the company had n9t replied to this notice. Many
parliament members demanded closure of the company's operations to punish it for its
numerous violations. This was easier said than d0ne, since the closllfe of a company
needed the coordination of the Food Processing Ministry and officers of the
Ministries of Commerce, Finance, Industry and Food Processing. An Inter-Ministerial
committee was therefore set up to look into the matter.
All the above incidents prompted crifics to comment that Pepsi never had any
serious intentions of developing Punjab's agricultural sector. Many of them felt that
Pepsi's proposal to better the lives of the state's people and develop the rural
economy were just ploys to gain entry into the country.
Luckily for Pepsi, it did not have to face criticism on many of the above grounds for
long.

INDIA LIBERALIZES — A BOON FOR PEPSI

In the early 1990s, the Government of India was facing a foreign exchange crisis. The
country was finding it extremely difficult to borrow funds from the international
markets due to a host of problems on the political, economic and social fronts.
Organizations like the International Monetary Fund agreed to help the
Indian government deal with the financial crisis, on condition that it liberalized the
Indian economy. As a result, the government decided to liberalize the economy. The
removal of the numerous restrictions on foreign trade and the increased role of
private equity in Indian markets were the two most prominent features of the
government's new economic policy.

'' http://alfa.nic.in.

45
International Marketing

Pepsi benefited from the economic changes in many ways. The removal of various
restrictions meant that it no longer had to fulfill many of the commitments it had made
at the time of its entry. "the government removed the restrictions that bounh Pepsi's
investments in the soft drinks business to 25% of the overall investments and requéed
it to export 50% of its production. The co any took full advantage of the new
economic policy. In 1994, it bought off its partners in the venture; while Voltas sold
off its stake completely, PAIC's stake was reduced to less than l%.
The company established a wholly-owned subsidiary, PepsiCo Holdings India Pvt.
Ltd. (PHI), which was completely devoted to the soft drinks business. Soon, all of
Pepsi's investments in the country were being rented through this new company..
Under the new economic policy, the use of foreign brand names in India was allowed.
Consequently, Pepsi changed its cola's name from Lehar Pepsi to Pepsi.
.In 1993, Pepsi's decision to sell off its tomato paste plant to the Indian FMCG major, .. -
the-Unilever-subsidiary, Hindustan Leve.r Ltd. (HLL), added to the negative publicity ;:
surrounding the company. The only liak that Pepsi maintained with its agriculture
related commitments was the contract famiing of tomatoes over 3,500 acres of ’* i‘
land.
HLL used the buk of the tomato paste produced by the plant for its tomato ketchup '
and pi;;eeofferings. The rest was handed over to Pepsi for export.
Developments over the next few years seemed to support the critics’ view that the
company's main focus was clearly on the soft drinks business. In 1995, the
beverages business grew by as much as 50% aid as a result, by 1996, PHI's turnover
surpassed Pepsi’s.turnover by Rs 1.25 billion. By 1996, fniit/vegetable-based
products food a minuscule 1.5% of PHI's exports, whereas plastic ‘exports (bottles
manufaCtllfed dt Futura) were as high as 67% (it was alleged that the plastic bottles
business resulted in the emission of highly toxic material that was polluting the ireas
around the factory
and jrreparably damaging the ecosystem). Also, even by 1997, the agro-research
center promised by the company was nowhere in sight.

PEPSI DOES FARMING — FINALLY

Though Pepsi attracted a lot of criticism, many people felt there was a positive side
to the company's entry ;into India. According to a new.agroindia.org article,
Pepsi's tomato farming project was primarily responsible for increasing India's
tomato production. Production increased from 4.24 million tonnes in 1991-92 to
5.44 million tones in 1995-96. The company’s use of high yielding seeds was
regarded as one of the reasons for the increase in productivity in tomato
cultivation .during the same period.
Commenting on the above issue, Abhém Seth, [Seth, the company's Executive
Director(Exports and External Affairs)] said, “When we set up our tomato paste
plant in 1989, Punjab's tomato crop was just 28,000 tonnes, whemas our own
requirement alone was 40,000 tonnes. Today, the state produces 210,000
tonnes. Per hectare yields, which used to be 16 tonnes, have crossed 50 tonnes.”"
Pepsi was, however, not as successful in the chili contract farming venture that was
started soon after the tomato venture stabilizcd. While the area under cultivation
was 1,750 acres in 1997, it was reduced to around 300 acres by 2000. According
to company sources, the chili venture failed é•caiise the main market for Pepsi's
processed chili paste was the South-East Asian region. Due to the financial crisis in
the region in the late 1990s, the demand for chili pastc pctcred out. As a result, Pepsi
decided to cut back on chili farming and focus on more profitable crops.
 ., . . ..‹ ’y « .
Pepsi s Entry into India: A Lesson fit Ization

Pepsi offered its contract famiers advanced equipment such as transit {J

planting tomato and chili saplings) and seeding machines (for groundnuls).}t
them carry out their tasks efficiently and speedñy. The equipment, which was o
flee of cost to the farmers, had been in§iorted and modified to suit Indian conditions.’›
Pepsi gradually expanded its contract farming network fro
Ainritsar, Patiala and Sangrur (in Punjab). Over the next few years, the contract
farming initiative (for potatoes) was extended to Uttar Pradesh (in the city of Meerut),
Madhya Pradesh (in the city of Indore), Karnataka and Maharashda.
In the late 1990s, the company finally met its commitment to set up agro-research
centen. Such centers were set up in Jallowal and Channo (in Punjab) and
Nelamangala (in Karnataka). These centen carried out field trials for various crops,
vegetableasnd fniits and maintained nurseries for tomato, chili, potato and basmati
rice. Through a ’Pepsi Agri Backward Integration Program, Pepsi encouraged
Punjab's farmers to cultivate potatoes with low sugar content (potatoes with high
sugar content arc unsuitable for making chips).
“' In October 1999, inspired by the promising tria! runs of its basmati rice farming
efforts, Pepsi decided to give a special thnist on contract fa;ming for this crop. In
2000, the company'extended its contract fanning initiative to groundnuts. It planned
to grow about 34,000 tonnes over the next 3-4 years. Seth said, “The 34,000 tonnes
(over two crops) will yield around 20,000 tonnes of shelled nuts, of which we plan
to expoñ 12,000 tonnes to European confectioneries, salters and roasters and
another 2,000 tonnes to the Far East. '3Pepsi planned to use a pañ of the crop to
manufacture peanut butter for export.
The company chose Punjab for its groundnut project. It believed that
groundnut production in the state had declined over the years ody becauie the state
had not paid adequate attention to the crop's cultivation. Pepsi sources also said that
as compared to paddy, which required extensive water (a scarce commodity in
the monsoon- dependent Indian agriculture sector), growing groundnuts
(which requires comparatively less water) in Punjab made more sense.
The fact that the Punjab government was actively looking for means to replace one-
third of its paddy cultivation with a less water-intensive crop made Pepsi's new
Yenture very attractive. To encourage farmers to grow groundnuts, the company stated
that it would help them in all possible ways to get good yields. Later on, groundnut
farming initiatives were introduced in Gujarat also. Pepsi imported superior
technology kom China and transferred it to groundnut farmers in Punjab and
Gujarat. As a result, the yield per hectare improved from 1 tonne to 3.3- 4.5 tonnes.
In June 2000, while revealing plans to invest Rs 1.25 billion every year in Karnataka
during 2000-02, Pepsi's President P M Sinha (Sinha) said that the company planned
to further expand its raw material sourcing operations in the state. This was in addition
to the Rs 1.4 billion akeady invested in the state. The company planned to
further expand its operations related to the processing of guava, pineapple, sweet
lime and ginger. In this context, it planned to work in association with the
Karnataka government and various raw material suppliers.
Sinlia said that since its entry into India, Pepsi had invested over Rs 18 billion by 2000
(of this. Rs 1.5 billion had been invested in Punjab, where around 8,000 people were
working for the company). He said the company's agri-program had been successful
because of its unique ‘laboratory-fami-factory approach.’

" ‘Pepsi into Groundnut Contract Farming,’ www.hinduonnet.com, March 13, 2000.

47
International Marketing

DOING BUSINESS 0N ITS OWN TERMS

The company's contract farming initiatives and its focus on improving Punjab's
agricultural sector seemed to indicate that Pepsi had been working towards fulfilling
its pre-entry commitments. However, the reality was quite different.
In 2000, the company's exports added up to Rs 3 billion. The items exported
included not only processed foods, basmati rice ad guar gum,l4 but also soft drink
concentrate. Though the company did not make the figures public, in all probability,
the por6on of soft drink concendate in its exports was much highs than that of any
other product. In fact, the company met the soft drink concentrate requirements of
many of its plants worldwide through its Indian operations.
Even by 2000, of its annual reqčlreznent of 25,000 tornles of potatoes per
annum, Pepsi got only 3,000 tonncs from its contract farmers. Given tticse figures, it
would be toterestiag to see ftow it planned to acLieve its objectives of meetiag its
complete requfrcment ofpotatoes througb the contract farmtng route by 2004.
Many analysts said that since the regulatory framework had changetl entirely after
its entry into India, Pepsi was not at all bound to honor its earlier commitments.
They said that given this context, the fact that it had done so much for the
country's agriculture sector was something to be appreciated.
Even in 2002, Pepsi entered into various contact farming deals. In August 2002, it
joined hands with a Punjab state government body, Punjab Agri Export Corporation
(Pagrexco), to process citrus fruits. The coiiipany planned to identify, source and
process citnis fruits for its juices venture Tropicana. In the same month, Pepsi began
farming to kinds of seaweeds in Tamilnadu tliat were us‹id‘tp make carrageenan (a
product used in many FMCG and food products). This was the fast instance of
organized, commercial seaweed farming ever in the country.
By 2003, Pepsi's soft-drinks, snacks, fruitjuices and mineral water businesses had
established themselves firmly in India. While the cola and snack brands had
enviable market positions, the mineral water anfi.juices businesses were still
experiencing
›o•'ip
For millions of Indians, Pepsi had become apart of their lives in many different ways.
A far cry indeed from the days when the cola giant was stniggling to enter the country
and had to use the cnitcbes of agri-business initiatives and export commitments!

Questions for Discussion:

Why do companies like Pepsi need to globalize? What are the various ways in
which foreign companies can enter a foreign market? What hurdles and problems
did Pepsi face when it tried to enter India dzGg the 1980s?
2. Critically analyze the strategy adopted by Pepsi to sell itself to the Indian
government. Do you think the biggest factor responsible for the acceptance of its
proposal by the regulatory authorities was its projection of its operations as the
solution to many of Punjab's problems? Why/Why not?

’4 Guar gum is extracted from the seed of Cyamopsis tetragonoloba, a legurninous plant. It is
used as an emulsifier, thickened, and stabilizer in a wide range of foods, cosmetics,
and pharmaceuticals.
 important for multinational corporations to work towards the improvement of
the economy of the countries in which they operate? What are the various other
ways ie wbicb tkis caobc done?

O 2003 The ICFH Center

This case was written by A. ñfukund.

49
International Marketing

Additional Readings & References:

1. “Coke Returns from India Exile,” international Monitor, July 1995.
2. Chakravarti V K, “Pepsi to Experiment with Contract Farming on Basmati,
Pulses,” Financial Express, April 26, 1999.’
3. Singh Kavaljit,“Broken Commitments: The Câse of Pepsi in India,” PR£i Update,
lssile no.1, May l9, 1997:
4. Srinivas Nath Nidhi, “Basmati is tiieRigJit Choice for Pepsi,” The Economic Times,
October 26, 1999.
S. Damodaran Harish,”Pepsi into Groundnut Contract Fanning,”www.hinduonnet.com,
March 13, 2000. *
6. “Pepsi Foods to Invest Rs 125 Cr. in Karnataka,” The Hindu Business:Line, June 06,
2000.
7. “Pepsi to Expand Clianno Plant,”www.tribuneindiacoin, March 29, 2001.
8. Dutta Jyothi P T,“Clianno Unit2“Phase Launched,” The Hindu Business Line, April
01, 2001.
9. Dutta Jyoiiii F T, “PepsiCo io Invest Rs 20i) Cr. in Infiis,'Apni 02, 2001.
10. “Pepsi Foods Eipoñs to Touch Rs 400 Cr. in 2001,” .expressindizcoin, April 03,
200).
11. “Contract Farming—PepsiCo Style,” .tribuneindizcom, December 06,2001. ,
. - - ' '“.:" E
12. ‘Co -operafive Models to Help Farmers, ww w.etagricu1ture.com, January 2002.
13. “Pepsi, Pagrexco Tie Up for Citnis Cultivation,” kttp://in.biz.yahoo.com, February 13, , . ””: "
2002.
.•
14. Damodaran Harish, “Pepsi Forays into Seaweed Farming,” The Hindu Business Line,
August01,2CO2
l5. “Pepsi, Punjab Govt. Sign Deal for Citnis Cultivation,” The Hindu Business Line,
August 20, 2002.
16. “Pepsi's Push, Indians Open Door,” .newint.org.
17. http://alfa.me.in.