Modi’s New E-Commerce Policy 2018 (Impact on Online Retail Giants Amazon/ Flipkart, End Consumers and Benefits to the Local Retail Sector)

“Kya apna Kya paraya, iska farq hume aaj samjh aaya, thoda der se aaya par durust aaya”

Ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections Prime Minister Narendra Damodar Modi and BJP Government has brought in another Masterpiece legislation which is a Point Blank hit to online Retail Giants like Flipkart and Amazon. This is the Era of E-commerce from clothes to groceries, from furniture to electronics you and me buy everthing online  as a result of which, Jeff Bezos Founder , CEO, Chairman of Amazon ( Apni Dukaan) is one of the richest in the World whereas small retailers in your community, neighbourhood( actually apni dukaan) are vanishing day by day as they are unable to cope up with the hefty discounts and exclusive sale agreement of these big shots. However the Indian Government has come to their rescue, call it a pre-election gimmick or a masterstroke. Ladies and Gentlemen presenting the Latest E-commerce Policy of India, 2018.

The Policy
The retail sector in India  is one of the most regulated sectors and due to the involvement of a huge population, it is also politically sensitive. The government has often sought and tried to make policies which tend to restrict retail trade by foreign companies. The E-commerce policy of 2018 introduced by DIPP (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) under the Ministry of Commerce is one such policy which governs foreign direct investment (FDI) in E-commerce sector and thereby restrains online retail giants like Amazon, Walmart owned Flipkart etc and forces them to revamp their trade practices. There are speculations that due to this policy, business in India will no longer be viable for these online retailers.

Who will face the Impact?
This policy has impact on three major groups, i.e. the online retailers themselves, the small brick and mortar retailers which compete with the online retailers and finally, the end consumers. The small, local retailers have welcomed this policy as they will benefit from it, whereas the online retailers have labelled it as authoritarian. End consumers will not be able to make use of flash sales , high discounts which seems to be a prima facie loss to them. The key features of the policy and its implications on all the stakeholders have been discussed in detail in this article.

Highlights of the E-commerce policy, 2018

  • Any entity involved in e-commerce marketplace shall not exercise ownership or control over the inventory it offers to sell. Any such ownership over the inventory will convert it into inventory based model from marketplace based model, which is not entitled to FDI. Explanation – An entity shall be deemed to own the inventory of a vendor if over 25% of the purchases of such a vendor are through the said entity.
  • An entity shall not be permitted to sell products of a vendor if it owns any stake in the vendor’s company or exercises any form of control over the inventory of such vendor. The entity will also be prohibited from selling products of vendor companies over which it has equity interest.
  • All online retailers are required to maintain a level playing field for all the vendors selling their products on the platform, and it shall not affect the sale prices of goods in any manner. Further, the entity cannot enter into exclusive sales agreements with the vendors, pushing them to sell their products only on one platform.
  • The deep discounts offered by these online retailers will no longer be available, and they will have to make new business models to continue business in India.
  • According to an independent analysis conducted by PwC ( PriceWater Cooper) based on estimates and other publicly available information, online retail sales growth, tax collections and job creation would be directly and severely affected by this new policy. The analysis showed that the gross-merchandise value of goods sold online could reduce by $800 million. It is further predicted that the sales would hit a new low, dropping off by almost $46 billion by 2022.[1]
  • Soon after Thomson Reuters’ story on the PwC analysis was published, the Confederation of All India Traders, which has forever advocated tougher scrutiny over online retailers, refuted the predictions of PwC.

Effects of the policy on Online retailers
The online retail giants like Flipkart, Amazon, EBay  will now have to completely revamp and reform their business models  to comply with the policy. They will no longer be able to encourage sales of their preferred vendors as they are now required to make a level playing field for all vendors. They will also not be able to sell products of brands in which they have direct or indirect equity interest involved.

The discounts, flash sales and other benefits like cash backs offered by these online retailers will now become a thing of past, and this will severely hit their sales as these are the most alluring features which attract the customers to their platform. This policy  aims to clamp down huge online retailers and strengthen small retailers and encourage them to sell goods of their own label.

In response to this move of the government, online retail giants like Amazon and Flipkart plan on discussing their concerns with the government with the help of industry bodies like Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and & Industry FICCI, other e-commerce firms, and investment giants such as SoftBank, Tiger Global, Sequoia and Naspers.[2]

Benefits to the Local Small Retailers
The present policy clearly aims to help small retailers to compete with the corporate giants. The customers who had been lured away by these big online retailers will again turn back to the local, brick and mortar retailers as they will get lesser options on online platforms. This policy is another step contributing to the Make in India project of the government. This policy will also ensure that money of India remains in India and is circulated in the market, which was not happening now. Each one of us, bought from online retailers majority of which was foreign owned, money flew from India, markets were cashless and circulation of money was restricted.

The Confederation of All India Traders has come out in support of the new policy, stating that it would bring equality and fair play in retail sector and stop multinational corporations from adopting unfair means to boost their own trade.[3]

Apart from these local retailers, small online retail companies (for example, Snapdeal, ShopClues etc) will also benefit from the policy as they will now be able to compete with the giants.

Impact on End Consumers
The group which is most affected by the policy is the end consumers, who made use of offers and discounts of online retailers for all their needs, including the most basic needs of groceries and clothing. The attractive flash sales and discounts going year round offered affordable products to middle class customers, but these will not be available to them anymore. Further, as the local and online retailers will offer no different facilities, and the discounts offered by online retailers will reduce substantially, they will be forced to switch to local retailers and look into more options to find the best price.

As the provision of cash backs will also be regulated, the incentive given to customers to shop more often from a said platform will reduce, affecting the decision of the customer. This will ultimately result in less shopping by a majority of customers. The end of exclusive deals will also implicate the customers, for example, there won’t be and exclusive partnership between OnePlus and Amazon that enables OnePlus to give away earphones for free.[4]

Contrast View
The new policy can also be seen as a heavy blow in the online retail sector, and has caught online retailers off guard and clueless about their future business policy in India. It will discourage foreign investment in the country as the investors will not be interested in investing in entities over which they have no control and which do not guarantee profits like the giant corporations do. Instead of making the retailers independent and strong enough to compete with MNCs, this policy blocks out competition in the market, and only provides crutches to the local retailers by reduced competition.

This policy can be seen as a example of excessive control of the government over trade, as it also restricts what can and what cannot be sold by the entities.

The policy was introduced in December, 2018, just a few months before the Lok Sabha elections, which the ruling party wishes to win. This policy can said to be a populist one, and it is an attempt to appease the small shopkeepers and local retailers, which form a major chunk of voters. Since these retailers were long been threatened by multinational giant retailers, they had been pressurizing the government to make amends to the E-commerce policy so that they can also compete viably.

End note
This article is only intended to provide information to the readers and the readers are free to choose whichever side of the coin is pleasant to him.

Author: Mr. Shubham Borkar, Senior Associate – Litigation and Business Development  and Nayanikaa Shukla – Intern, at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at shubham@khuranaandkhurana.com or at www.linkedin.com/in/shubhamborkar.

References:

[1]https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-india-ecommerce-exclusive/exclusive-indias-e-commerce-curbs-could-hit-online-sales-by-46-billion-by-2022-pwc-draft-analysis-idUKKCN1PA219

[2]https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/flipkart-amazon-to-put-up-united-front-against-populist-e-commerce-policy-119010200954_1.html

[3]https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/retail/modis-e-commerce-policy-here-are-the-winners-and-losers/articleshow/67285057.cms

[4]https://www.businesstoday.in/current/policy/achhe-din-over-for-indian-consumers-5-reasons-why-new-e-commerce-policy-should-worry-shopaholics/story/304655.html

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010