~ 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 .
