Integral Review- A Journal of Management ISSN :2278-6120, Volume 5, No. 1, June-2012,pp 42-51 http://www.integraluniversity.ac.in/net/journalsAndPublications.

aspx

THE CHANGING FACE OF INDIAN RETAILING

Prof. Kalyanasundaram
(Professor, Department of Management Studies,Garden City College, Bangalore, Karnataka, India)

Abstract : India being a signatory to World Trade Organisations General Agreement on Trade in Services, which includes wholesale and retailing services, had to open up the retail trade sector to foreign investment. Until 2011, Indian government denied foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail, forbidding foreign groups from any ownership in supermarkets, convenience stores or any retail outlets. In November 2011, Indias central government announced retail reforms for both multi-brand retail and single-brand retail. This paper captures the exisiting retail scenario in India with regard to organized and un-organized retail and presents the limitations of the current set-up along with the experiences of domestic players. The paper discusses about opening up of the retail sector to foreign direct investment by the government and tracks the efforts taken by the government with regard to foreign direct investment in retail sector. The paper also discusses the rationale for permitting foreign direct investement in retail and concerns of the stakeholders with regard to foreign direct investment in retail and discusses the experiences of other counterparts. The rationale for retail reforms and challenges to be addressed by the retail sector are discussed. The paper concludes with the opportunities and the latest developments in the Indian retail sector. Keywords: Organized Retail, Un-Organized Retail, Multi-Brand Retail, Single Brand Retail, Foreign Direct Investment Introduction : India has emerged as an attractive destination for retailing over the last few years. The most noteworthy phase of the growth of the sector was between 2000-2006, when the revenues increased by about 93.5 per cent. This encouraged international retailers to evaluate an entry into the Indian marketplace. For three consecutive years, India topped the list as the most favorable destination of retailers such as Wal-mart, Carrefour and Tesco. The estimated size of the retail industry in our nation is approximately $470 billion with an annual compounded growth rate of 11 per cent. Incidentally, the share of organized retail is relatively small at $26 billion which is just 6 per cent of the total market compared to a typical share of 70-80 per cent in North America and Western Europe and 20-30 per cent in the Far-East Asian Markets. Our share of organized retailing is significantly lower than in other Asian Countries such as China (20 per cent), Indonesia (30 per cent), Thailand (40 per cent), Malaysia (55 per cent), and Taiwan (81 per cent). Indias retailing industry is essentially owner manned small shops. In 2010, larger format convenience stores and supermarkets accounted for about 4 percent of the industry, and these were present only in large urban centers. Indias retail and logistics industry employs about 40 million Indians (3.3% of Indian population). Until 2011, Indian central government denied foreign direct investment (FDI) in multibrand retail, forbidding foreign groups from any ownership in supermarkets, convenience stores or any retail outlets. Even single-brand retail was limited to 51% ownership and a bureaucratic process. The typical

Integral Review - A Journal of Management, Vol.5 No.1, June-2012

42

The Changing Face of Indian Retailing

Indian retailshopsareverysmall.Over14 millionoutlets operateinthecountryandonly4%ofthembeinglargerthan 500 sq ft (46 m2) in size. India has about 11 shop outlets for every 1000 people. Retail Industry Divisions : The retail industry can be divided into (i) organized large, (ii) unorganized and (iii) informal sector enterprises. The first category retailers comprise traders who possess legal permissions or licenses to undertake the activity, are registered with sales tax/VAT etc. Such enterprises are super markets, hypermarkets, retail chains, and also the privately-owned large retail businesses. Their presence on scene, though of a recent origin, is gradually gaining in importance, and slowly eating into the business of second category of retailers. By unorganized retail trade enterprises, we mean all those local kirana & general shops, family managed Own Account trade enterprises (Mom-Pop shops), registered under the Shops and Establishment Act (s), administered by the local authorities. Their number is very large and this category of enterprises dominate Indian scenario. At this juncture, they, apparently, are providing tough competition to large retail outlets. The third category of retailers include small shops such as tiny grocery and vegetable shops run from a room of a house, paan/beedi kiosks (often selling a variety of items, like small toothpaste tubes, tooth brushes, soaps, pouches of shampoo, etc), way-side vendors, and hand carts operating without any licences. This is not any past-time activity for owners, but is an economic necessity. The Indian retail sector is highly fragmented with 94 per cent of its business being run by the unorganized retailers. The organized retail however is at a very nascent stage. This sector is the largest source of employment after agriculture, and has deep penetration into rural India generating more than 10 per cent of Indias GDP. The total retail market in India is estimated at US$ 470 Bn in 2011. The Food & Grocery segment is the largest retail category and accounts for about 70% of the total retail market. Table 1: Retail Market Categories Category Food and Grocery Apparel Jewelry and Watches Consumer Electronics & IT Pharmacy Furnishings and Furniture Restaurants & Food Joints Footwear Beauty Services Health/Fitness Services Others Total (US $ Bn)
Source: Technopak Analysis Integral Review - A Journal of Management, Vol.5 No.1, June-2012

2011 Estimates (in US $Bn) 325 35 25.6 22.7 13.9 9.1 8.8 4.5 1.3 1 23 470

43

Prof. Kalyanasundaram

FDI in Retail : India being a signatory to World Trade Organisations GeneralAgreement on Trade in Services, which includewholesaleandretailingservices,hadtoopenup theretail tradesectortoforeigninvestment.Therewereinitial reservationstowardsopeningupofretailsectorarisingfromfearofjoblosses,procurement from international market, competition and loss of entrepreneurial opportunities.However, the government inaseries of moves has opened up the retail sector slowlyto Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). In 1997, FDIin cash and carry(wholesale) with 100 percent ownership wasallowed. 51percent investmentin a single brandretailoutlet was alsopermittedin2006. FDI in Multi-BrandretailingisprohibitedinIndia. Until 2011, Indian central government denied foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail, forbidding foreign groups from any ownership in supermarkets, convenience stores or any retail outlets. Even single-brand retail was limited to 51% ownership and a bureaucratic process. In November 2011, Indias central government announced retail reforms for both multi-brand stores and single-brand stores. These market reforms paved the way for retail innovation and competition with multi-brand retailers such as Wal-Mart, Carrefour and Tesco, as well as single brand majors such as IKEA, Nike, and Apple. The announcement sparked intense activism, both in opposition and in support of the reforms. In December 2011, under pressure from the opposition, Indian government placed the retail reforms on hold till it reaches a consensus. In January 2012, India approved reforms for single-brand stores welcoming anyone in the world to innovate in Indian retail market with 100% ownership, but imposed the requirement that the single brand retailer source 30 percent of its goods from India. Indian government continues the hold on retail reforms for multi-brand stores. IKEA announced in January that it is putting on hold its plan to open stores in India because of the 30 percent requirement. Fitch believes that the 30 percent requirement is likely to significantly delay if not prevent most single brand majors from Europe, USA and Japan from opening stores and creating associated jobs in India. Limitations of the present set up: Limited choice to the consumer :Most Indian shopping takes place in open markets or millions of small, independent grocery and retail shops. Shoppers typically stand outside the retail shop, ask for what they want, and cannot pick or examine a product from the shelf. Access to the shelf or product storage area is limited. Once the shopper requests the food staple or household product they are looking for, the shopkeeper goes to the container or shelf or to the back of the store, brings it out and offers it for sale to the shopper. Often the shopkeeper may substitute the product, claiming that it is similar or equivalent to the product the consumer is asking for. Pricing Issues :The product typically has no price label in these small retail shops; although some products do have a maximum retail price pre-printed on the packaging. The shopkeeper prices the food staple and household products arbitrarily, and two consumers may pay different prices for the same product on the same day. Price is sometimes negotiated between the shopper and shopkeeper. The shoppers do not have time to examine the product label, and do not have a choice to make an informed decision between competitive products. If you consider jewelry retailing, the concept of price labels is of recent phenomenon. Prior to this, buyers of gold were not aware of quality (purity), wastages and the price of the gold that they bought. Competition and opening up of economy has brought in transparency in pricing and genuineness in transaction.
Integral Review - A Journal of Management, Vol.5 No.1, June-2012

44

The Changing Face of Indian Retailing

No sales and service support to the consumer :Vast majority of the unorganized retail shops in India employ family members, do not have the scale to procure or transport products at high volume wholesale level, have no quality control or fake-versus-authentic product screening technology and have no training on safe and hygienic storage, packaging or logistics. The unorganized retail shops source their products from a chain of middlemen who mark up the product as it moves from farmer or producer to the consumer. The unorganized retail shops typically offer no after-sales support or service. Infrastructure :There has been a lack of investment in the logistics of the retail chain, leading to an inefficient market mechanism. Though India is the second largest producer of fruits and vegetables (about 180 million MT), it has a very limited integrated cold-chain infrastructure, with only 5386 stand-alone cold storages, having a total capacity of 23.6 million MT. , 80% of this is used only for potatoes. The chain is highly fragmented and hence, perishable horticultural commodities find it difficult to link to distant markets, including overseas markets, round the year. Storage infrastructure is necessary for carrying over the agricultural produce from production periods to the rest of the year and to prevent distress sales. Lack of adequate storage facilities cause heavy losses to farmers in terms of wastage in quality and quantity of produce in general. Though FDI is permitted in cold-chain to the extent of 100%, through the automatic route, in the absence of FDI in retailing; FDI flow to the sector has not been significant. Intermediaries dominate the value chain :Intermediaries often flout mandi norms and their pricing lacks transparency. Wholesale regulated markets, governed by State APMC Acts, have developed a monopolistic and non-transparent character. According to some reports, Indian farmers realize only 1/3rd of the total price paid by the final consumer, as against 2/3rd by farmers in nations with a higher share of organized retail. Indian farmers get only one third of the price consumers pay for food staples, the rest is taken as commissions and markups by middlemen and shopkeepers. For perishable horticulture produce, average price farmers receive is barely 12 to 15% of the final price consumer pays. Indian potato farmers sell their crop for Rs. 2 to 3 a kilogram, while the Indian consumer buys the same potato for Rs. 12 to Rs. 20 per Kg. Improper Public Distribution System (PDS) :There is a big question mark on the efficacy of the public procurement and PDS set-up and the bill on food subsidies is rising. In spite of such heavy subsidies, overall food based inflation has been a matter of great concern. The absence of a farm-tofork retail supply system has led to the ultimate customers paying a premium for shortages and a charge for wastages. No Global Reach :The Micro Small & Medium Enterprises (MSME) sector has also suffered due to lack of branding and lack of avenues to reach out to the vast world markets. While India has continued to provide emphasis on the development of MSME sector, the share of unorganized sector in overall manufacturing has declined from 34.5% in 1999-2000 to 30.3% in 2007-08. This has largely been due to the inability of this sector to access latest technology and improve its marketing interface. FDI in Retail : Apprehension :A number of concerns were expressed with regard to partial opening of the retail sector for FDI. The Honble Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce, in its 90th Report, on Foreign and Domestic Investment in Retail Sector, laid in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on 8 June, 2009, had made an in-depth study on the subject and identified a number of issues related to FDI in the retail sector. These included:
Integral Review - A Journal of Management, Vol.5 No.1, June-2012

45

Prof. Kalyanasundaram

It would lead to unfair competition and ultimatelyresult in large-scale exit of domestic retailers,especially the small family managed outlets, leading to large scale displacement of personsemployed in the retail sector. Further, as the manufacturing sector has not been growing fast enough, the persons displaced from the retail sector would not be absorbed there. Another concern is that the Indian retail sector, particularly organized retail, is still under-developed and in a nascent stage and that, therefore, it is important that the domestic retail sector is allowed to grow and consolidate first, before opening this sector to foreign investors. Antagonists of FDI in retail sector oppose the same on various grounds, like, that the entry of large global retailers such as Wal-Mart would kill local shops and millions of jobs, since the unorganized retail sector employs an enormous percentage of Indian population after the agriculture sector; secondly that the global retailers would conspire and exercise monopolistic power to raise prices and monopolistic (big buying) power to reduce the prices received by the suppliers; thirdly, it would lead to asymmetrical growth in cities, causing discontent and social tension elsewhere.Hence, both the consumers and the suppliers would lose, while the profit margins of such retail chains would go up. Rationale for Permitting FDI in Retail : FDI can be a powerful catalyst to spur competition in the retail industry, due to the current scenario of low competition and poor productivity. The policy of single-brand retail was adopted to allow Indian consumers access to foreign brands. Since Indians spend a lot of money shopping abroad, this policy enables them to spend the same money on the same goods in India. FDI in single-brand retailing was permitted in 2006, up to 51 per cent of ownership. Between then and May 2010, a total of 94 proposals have been received. Of these, 57 proposals have been approved. An FDI inflow of US$196.46 million under the category of single brand retailing was received between April 2006 and September 2010, comprising 0.16 per cent of the total FDI inflows during the period. Retail stocks rose by as much as 5%. The policy of allowing 100% FDI in single brand retail can benefit both the foreign retailer and the Indian partner foreign players get local market knowledge, while Indian companies can access global best management practices, designs and technological knowhow. By partially opening this sector, the government was able to reduce the pressure from its trading partners in bilateral/ multilateral negotiations and could demonstrate Indias intentions in liberalizing this sector in a phased manner. Apart from this, by allowing FDI in retail trade, India will significantly flourish in terms of quality standards and consumer expectations, since the inflow of FDI in retail sector is bound to pull up the quality standards and cost-competitiveness of Indian producers in all the segments. It is therefore obvious that we should not only permit but encourage FDI in retail trade. Lastly, it is to be noted that the Indian Council of Research in International Economic Relations (ICRIER), a premier economic think tank of the country, which was appointed to look into the impact of BIG capital in the retail sector, has projected the worth of Indian retail sector to reach $496 billion by 2011-12 and ICRIER has also come to conclusion that investment of big money (large corporates and FDI) in the retail sector would in the long run not harm interests of small, traditional, retailers.
Integral Review - A Journal of Management, Vol.5 No.1, June-2012

46

The Changing Face of Indian Retailing

In light of the above, it can be safely concluded that allowing healthy FDI in the retail sector would not only lead to a substantial surge in the countrys GDP and overall economic development, but would inter alia also help in integrating the Indian retail market with that of the global retail market in addition to providing not just employment but a better paying employment, which the unorganized sector (kirana and other small time retailing shops) have undoubtedly failed to provide to the masses employed in them. Industrial organizations such as CII, FICCI, US-India Business Council (USIBC), theAmerican Chamber of Commerce in India, The RetailAssociation of India (RAI) and Shopping CentersAssociation of India (a 44 member association of Indian multi-brand retailers and shopping malls) favor a phased approach toward liberalizing FDIin multi-brand retailing. The international retail players such as Wal-mart, Carrefour, Metro, IKEA, and TESCO share the same view and insist on a clear path towards 100 per cent opening up in near future. Large multinational retailers such as US-based Wal-mart, Germanys Metro AG and Woolworths Ltd, the largest Australian retailer that operates in wholesale cash-and-carry ventures in India, have been demanding liberalization of FDI rules on multi-brand retail for some time. Allowing FDI in multi brand retail can bring about Supply Chain Improvement, Investment in Technology, Manpower and Skill development,Tourism Development, Greater Sourcing from India, Up-gradation in Agriculture, Efficient Small and Medium Scale Industries, Growth in market size and benefits to government through greater GDP, tax income and employment generation. Challenges to be addressed : To become a truly flourishing industry, retailing in India needs to cross the following hurdles: Automatic approval is not allowed for foreign investment in retail. Regulations restricting real estate purchases, and cumbersome local laws. Taxation, which favours small retail businesses. Absence of developed supply chain and integrated IT management. Lack of trained work force. Low skill level for retailing management. Lack of Retailing Courses and study options Intrinsic complexity of retailing rapid price changes, constant threat of product obsolescence and low margins. Retail Reforms : Until 2011, Indian central government denied foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand Indian retail, forbidding foreign groups from any ownership in supermarkets, convenience stores or any retail outlets, to sell multiple products from different brands directly to Indian consumers. The government announced on 24 November 2011 the following: India will allow foreign groups to own up to 51 per cent in multi-brand retailers, as supermarkets are known in India, in the most radical pro-liberalization reform passed by an Indian cabinet in years; Single brand retailers, such as Apple and Ikea, can own 100 percent of their Indian stores, up from the previous cap of 51 percent. Both multi-brand and single brand stores in India will have to source nearly a third of their goods from small and medium-sized Indian suppliers.
Integral Review - A Journal of Management, Vol.5 No.1, June-2012

47

Prof. Kalyanasundaram

All multi-brand and single brand stores in India must confine their operations to 53-odd cities with a population over one million, out of some 7935 towns and cities in India. It is expected that these stores will now have full access to over 200 million urban consumers in India. Multi-brand retailers must have a minimum investment of US$100 million with at least half of the amount invested in back end infrastructure, including cold chains, refrigeration, transportation, packing, sorting and processing to considerably reduce the post harvest losses and bring remunerative prices to farmers. The opening of retail competition will be within Indias federal structure of government. In other words, the policy is an enabling legal framework for India. The states of India have the prerogative to accept it and implement it, or they can decide to not implement it if they so choose. Actual implementation of policy will be within the parameters of state laws and regulations. The opening of retail industry to global competition is expected to spur a retail rush to India. It has the potential to transform not only the retailing landscape but also the nations ailing infrastructure. According to the Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Government of India, fresh investments in Indian organized retail will generate 10 million new jobs between 20122014, and about five to six million of them in logistics alone; even though the retail market is being opened to just 53 cities out of about 8000 towns and cities in India (Sadanand, 2011). It is expected to help tame stubbornly high inflation but is vehemently opposed by millions of small retailers, who see large foreign chains as a threat. The need to control food price inflation-averaging double-digit rises over several yearsprompted the government to open the sector, analysts claim. Hitherto Indias food supplies have been controlled by tens of millions of middlemen (less than 5% of Indian population). Traders add huge mark-ups to farm prices, while offering little by way of technical support to help farmers boost their productivity, packaging technology, pushing up retail prices significantly. Analysts said allowing in big foreign retailers would provide an impetus for them to set up modern supply chains, with refrigerated vans, cold storage and more efficient logistics. The following arguments can be presented in support of the retail reforms: Organized retail will need workers. Walmart employs 1.4 million people in United States alone.With United States population of about 300 million, and Indias population of about 1200 million, if Walmartlike retail companies were to expand in India as much as their presence in the United States, and the staffing level in Indian stores kept at the same level as in the United States stores,Walmart alone would employ 5.6 million Indian citizens. In addition, millions of additional jobs will be created during the building of and the maintenance of retail stores, roads, cold storage centers, software industry, electronic cash registers and other retail supporting organizations. Instead of job losses, retail reforms are likely to be massive boost to Indian job availability. KPMG - one of the worlds largest audit companies - finds that in China, the employment in both retail and wholesale trade increased from 4% in 1992 to about 7% in 2001, post China opening its retail to foreign and domestic innovation and competition. In absolute terms, China experienced the creation of 26 million new jobs within 9 years, post China announcing FDI retail reforms. Additionally, contrary to some concerns in China, post retail reforms, the number of traditional small retailers also grew by 30% over 5 years.
Integral Review - A Journal of Management, Vol.5 No.1, June-2012

48

The Changing Face of Indian Retailing

India needs trillions of dollars to build its infrastructure, hospitals, housing and schools for its growing population. Indian economyis small, with limited surplus capital. Indian government is alreadyoperating on budget deficits. It is simply not possible for Indian investors or Indian government to fund this expansion, job creation and growth at the rate India needs. Global investment capital through FDI is necessary. Beyond capital, Indianretail industryneeds knowledge and global integration. Global retail leaders, some of which are partly owned by people of Indian origin, can bring this knowledge. Global integration can potentially open export markets for Indian farmers and producers. Walmart, for example, expects to source and export some $1 billion worth of goods from India every year, since it came into Indian wholesale retail market. Walmart, Carrefour, Tesco, Target, Metro, Coop are some of over 350 global retail companies with annual sales over $1 billion. These retail companies have operated for over 30 years in numerous countries. They have not become monopolies. Competition between Walmart-like retailers has kept food prices in check. Canada credits their very low inflation rates to Walmart-effect. Price inflation in these countries has been 5 to 10 times lower than price inflation in India. The current consumer price inflation in Europe and the United States is less than 2%, compared to Indias double digit inflation. With 51% FDI limit in multi-brand retailers, nearly half of any profits will remain in India. Any profits will be subject to taxes, and such taxes will reduce Indian government budget deficit. Many years ago, China adopted the retail reform policy India has announced; China allowed FDI in its retail sector. It has taken FDI-financed retailers in China between 5 to 10 years to post profits, in large part because of huge investments they had to make initially. Like China, it is unlikely foreign retailers will earn any profits in India for the first 5 to 10 years. Ultimately, retail companies must earn profits with hard work and by creating value. States have a right to say no to retail FDI within their jurisdiction. States have the right to add restrictions to the retail policy announced before they implement them. Thus, they can place limits on number, market share, style, diversity, homogeneity and other factors to suit their cultural preferences. Finally, in future, states can always introduce regulations and India can change the law to ensure the benefits of retail reforms reach the poorest and weakest segments of Indian society. Free and fair retail competition does indeed lead to sharply lower inflation than current levels, small farmers get better prices, jobs created by organized retail pay well, and healthier food becomes available to more households. Inbuilt inefficiencies and wastage in distribution and storage account for why, according to some estimates, as much as 40% of food production doesnt reach consumers. Fifty million children in India are malnourished. Food often rots at farms, in transit, or in antiquated state-run ware houses. Cost-conscious organized retail companies will avoid waste and loss, making food avail able to the weakest and poorest segment of Indian society, while increasing the income of small farmers. Walmart, for example, since its arrival in Indian wholesale retail market, has successfully introduced Direct Farm Project at Haider Nagar near Malerkotla in Punjab, where 110 farmers have been connected with Bharti Walmart for sourcing fresh vegetables directly, thereby reducing waste and bringing fresher produce to Indian consumers.
Integral Review - A Journal of Management, Vol.5 No.1, June-2012

49

Prof. Kalyanasundaram

Indian small shops employ workers without proper contracts, making them work long hours. Many unorganized small shops depend on child labour. A well-regulated retail sector will help curtail some of these abuses. Domestic Players : Given the fact that only 6% of the Indian Retail Space is organized has lured many Indian business conglomerates into the business. In the past several years, almost every conglomerate in India has entered the space, albeit not always in the same form. Reliance Retail aside, the Tatas have Trent and Infiniti Retail, Aditya Birla Group has More, Godrej Industries has Natures Basket gourmet supermarkets, Videocons retail venture has Next stores, Bharti has the Walmart tie-up and RPG has Spencers. Trouble is, none of these is doing well. The reasons are, soaring rentals, shortage of quality retail space, different consumer mindsets and volatile political climate. The most prominent example is that of Aditya Birla Retail that acquired Trinethra Stores (170) outlets. In FY 2009-10 they had to close about 168 outlets out of 582 due to wrong catchment area and wrong size of the store. The company is a loss making venture with a loss of Rs. 423 Crore (FY 2011). Last fiscal RPG made a loss of Rs. 183 Cr. on revenues of Rs. 1000 Cr. Another prominent example is that of Subiksha that went on an unmindful and uncontrolled expansion from 150 stores to 1665 stores with focus on value retailing. As global recession set in, and as credit froze, Subiksha stumbled and operations came to stand still as rent and salary could not be paid. In the middle-class dominated Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad, there were dozen such retail outlets in an area of about 15 square kms. until some two years back. The breakup was: Aditya Birlas More, 4; Spencers, 1; Reliance Fresh, 2; Heritages Fresh, 2; Magna,2 (one of these was Cash and Carry type) and Subiksha, 1. Of these, five are no longer in business now (one each of Reliance, Heritage Fresh, Spencers and Subhiksha and both the Magna stores). It is not that everyone is making losses. REIs Six Ten Retail for instance with FY11 sales of Rs. 717 Crore recorded a net profit of Rs. 29 Cr. . The Retail chain D-Mart made a profit of Rs. 41 Cr on a turnover of Rs. 1595 Cr. Food retailers like Nilgiris and Pazamuthir Nilayam (Rs. 130 Cr.) have survived and are making a decent profit. Conclusion : Retail has a promising future in India for three simple reasons: 1. Size of the domestic market particularly the burgeoning middle class of over 350 million people. 2. Young market with over 65 per cent of the population under the age of 35 years. Also this segment is relatively well educated and thus, economically active. 3. Rising per capital income. In keeping with times, retail store formats have also emerged and evolved. From traditional neighborhood stores, super markets, hyper markets, department stores and specialty stores have emerged. The India consumer is spoilt with choices and continues to be grossly pampered by the retailers. Online retail, which is around 6 per cent of the total e- commerce, is estimated to be around USD 0.6 billion in 2011 and growing at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 70 percent. The total e-commerce business in India, including other products and services such as travel and financial services, is estimated to be USD 10 billion at present and is expected to touch USD 200 billion mark by 2020. The use of location-based services (LBS) in mobile marketing has exploded. For a retailer, knowing when its best customers are nearby-and simultaneously being able to reach out and invite them into its stores with a message or promotional offer- might seem like the ultimate marketing dream come true. Pruning down SKUs and retaining only profitable SKUs, 50 Integral Review - A Journal of Management, Vol.5 No.1, June-2012

The Changing Face of Indian Retailing

Focus on Private Labels, Closing down underperforming franchisees are some of the steps taken by Retail Chains for survival and growth. Retailers who are cost effective, with scalable and sustainable business models and who are willing to understand and adapt to the Indian sensibilities are more likely to succeed in the future. References : 1. Dhume, Sadanand (November 29, 2011). India Goes Wild Over Wal-Mart. The Wall Street Journal 2. DIPP. (2010), Discussion Paper on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Multi-brand Retail Trading, New Delhi: Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion. 3. Guruswami, M., Sharma, K., Mohanty, J., & Korah, T., FDI in Indias Retail Sector: More Bad than Good? New Delhi: Centre for Policy Alternatives. 4. Prasad V.N. and Koshy Perumal , FDI in Multi-brand Retail Trading: MSE Sector Need Level Playing Field., DIPP-Discussion Paper 5. Press Note No.1 (2012 Series), DIPP, Policy on Foreign Direct Investment- Liberalization of the policy in Single-Brand Retail Trading.

Integral Review - A Journal of Management, Vol.5 No.1, June-2012

51