Ariticle by Pavan Kashyap

Global FMCG majors Unilever, Pepsi, GSK and others bet big on India despite slowdown

NEW DELHI: India was the flavour of the year, at least in the FMCG sector, as multinationals hiked stakes in their subsidiaries lured by long term potential of the country, while home-grown executives made their way to top hierarchy of global firms in 2013.

The Indian FMCG sector, which is currently pegged at around $13.1 billion, also saw various challenges in the form of subdued demand despite good monsoon and bumper harvest that were expected to boost rural sales.

Unilever, GlaxoSmithKline and PepsiCo made big bang announcements during the year as they decided to enhance their play in the "strategic and emerging" Indian market.

Anglo-Dutch consumer goods giant Unilever PLC spent Rs.19,180 Cr to increase its stake in the Indian arm Hindustan Unilever Ltd ( HUL) to 67.28 per cent through an open offer.

It, however, fell short of its target of 75 per cent from the earlier stake of 52.48 per cent due to lukewarm response from the shareholders to the offer.

Likewise, UK-based GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) also hiked its stake in its consumer healthcare arm in India to 72.5 per cent from the earlier 43.2 per cent stake in a transaction worth Rs.4,800 Cr. Towards, the end of the year, the UK-headquartered firm, which terms India as a key emerging market, also announced plans to raise stake in its Indian pharmaceutical arm for a total consideration of Rs.6,389.02 Cr.

The year also saw global beverages and snacks major PepsiCo announcing to invest, along with its partners, Rs.33,000 Cr in the Indian operations, as a part of which it announced to set up the company's biggest beverages plant in Andhra Pradesh at an outlay of Rs.1,200 Cr.

Signifying the importance of the Indian market, PepsiCo Chairperson and CEO Indra Nooyi said the company was making the investments in order to to more than double the capacity of the business in the country by 2020.

PepsiCo's announcement came more than a year after its arch rival Coca Cola had said it, along with partners, would invest $5 billion in India by 2020 on various activities, including setting up of new bottling plants.

The Atlanta-based firm reposed its faith in the Indian market and said it won't slow down its $5 billion investment plans in India despite the current slowdown, saying it expects the country to be in its top five global markets within the next seven years.

Writer : K. Pavan Kashyap

Finance Student at IFIM B School

Read More

Dealing with resignations ;-)

Reference:

grumpycatpics.com

Read More

What can HR expect in 2014?

This year was no walk in the park for HR pros — and there looks to be plenty to keep everyone busy in the coming year.


Here’s what should be on HR’s radar in 2014, courtesy of Fisher & Phillips’ Jim Holland and Much Shelist’s Sheryl Jaffee Halpern.


Criminal background checks


The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) hasn’t earned a boost in popularity since it publicized its new guidance on criminal background checks in 2012.


Since then, the agency hasn’t been afraid to go after companies for their policies — and companies (and judges) haven’t been afraid to voice their disapproval.


Then nine states’ Attorneys General sent a complaint letter to the EEOC. And the entire state of Texas filed suit against the agency, claiming that the EEOC’s stance unlawfully limits the ability of employers to exclude convicted felons from the workforce.


Will the EEOC back down in 2014? Unlikely, says Holland.


If anything, the agency may increase pressure on businesses to show that background checks are job related and that firms don’t exclude candidates with certain convictions.


Supreme Court rulings


Last year, the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act and repealed the 30-year-old FSA use-it-or-lose-it rule.


This year, HR pros can look forward to rulings in these cases:


§ The Supreme Court will determine if President Obama overstepped his powers when he appointed members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) during a Senate break last year.


The NLRB has remained active while the issue has wound its way through the courts.


In fact, there have been over 600 board decisions since Obama made the appointments.


Depending on the ruling, the justices may find that the NLRB has had no authority to be active this whole time – and those 600-plus rulings may be rescinded. (NLRB v. Canning)


§ The High Court will also render a decision on the healthcare reform requirement that firms offer insurance coverage for birth control without a co-pay.


Private companies say they can refuse to do so on the claim it violates their religious beliefs. (Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius)


§ Finally, the Court will consider what qualifies as “changing clothes” under the Fair Labor Standards Act.


The case may finally clarify when firms have to pay staff for putting on and taking off safety gear at the beginning and end of work shifts. (Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp.)


Medical marijuana


Illinois recently became the 20th state (along with the District of Columbia) to legalize marijuana for medical use – and it definitely won’t be the last.


If you’re like most companies, you’ve already got a drug and alcohol use policy, and the changes in marijuana regs for certain states won’t change its effectiveness.


At the same time, you may want to revise your policy if you’re in one of the 18 states where marijuana use has been legalized. (Here’s a full list.)


If you do update your policy, make it clear that despite the expansion of people’s rights outside the workplace, your company still prohibits its use and can do so legally.


You should also communicate that to staff — just so no one tries to test the policy’s legality.


If you’re not in a state that’s approved medical marijuana use, keep an eye on your state legislations to see if medical marijuana is gaining support.


Healthcare reform


You knew this was coming.


No two ways about it: Healthcare reform is going to be HR’s biggest headache moving forward. In fact, all other topics of concern cower in the face of the ongoing struggles companies will face with reform next year. Holland notes that:


Uncertainty about how the Affordable Care Act will unfold is creating havoc for employers. It’s possible that executive orders will unilaterally change the directives being debated, that more provisions will be postponed or changed — or that the ACA will simply implode under its own weight.


This ambiguity will overshadow every other employment issue in 2014.


Yes, the employer mandate to provide reform-compatible health insurance was pushed back to 2015, giving companies an extra year to prepare.


But 2014 will still see a number of major regs taking effect, including:


§ the 90-day max waiting period for health insurance coverage


§ elimination of annual dollar limits on “essential benefits”


§ the elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, and


§ additions to the Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) statements.


The feds have also announced they’ll be auditing employers’ plans for health reform compliance.

Read More

What affected HR’s job the most in 2013? Top 6 trends

It’s almost the end of the year, and you know what that means: It’s time to look back at the past 12 months in employment law and see what mattered most to HR.


Fisher & Phillips’ Richard Meneghello laid it all out for readers. Here’s some of what he found relevant about the past year:
Healthcare reform


This past year was supposed to be the year of implementation and compliance for President Obama’s key piece of legislation, but that was thrown out the window when the Treasury department announced the employer and insurer reporting requirements — and the accompanying penalties — under the law will be delayed until 2015.


Coupled with the issues the feds ran into the healthcare reform’s website, Menenghello notes that “the prognosis for 2014 is bound to be better, if only because it’s hard to imagine a year going more poorly.”
The EEOC


It was a mixed bag in 2013 for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.


Yes, despite sequestration and a decline in staffing and budget, HR’s favorite government agency still managed to obtain $372.1 million for bias victims in the 2013 fiscal year — a new record. That number beat the previous year by a cool $6.7 million.


And the EEOC received a total of 93,727 private sector charges of discrimination in FY 2013, a 6,000 charge decrease from the prior three fiscal years — but 2013 still comes in among the agency’s top five fiscal years. (A breakdown of types of bias claims filed in FY 2013 is expected to be released shortly.)


But this was also the year the agency truly began getting flack for its stance on criminal background checks.


As you’ll recall, in early 2012 the EEOC released guidance stating that criminal background checks could have a disparate impact on minorities, and that the agency would be keeping a close eye on firms that made those checks part of their hiring process.


Since then, the agency hasn’t been afraid to go after companies for their policies — and companies (and judges) haven’t been afraid to voice their disapproval.


Then nine states’ Attorneys General sent a complaint letter to the EEOC. And the entire state of Texas has filed suit against the agency, claiming that the EEOC’s stance unlawfully limits the ability of employers to exclude convicted felons from the workforce.


Bad news for companies: The EEOC isn’t likely to back down anytime soon.
LGBT employees


In June, the Supreme Court overturned the federal prohibition on same-sex marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).


That’s meant some changes for HR in states that allow same-sex marriage, especially for the Family and Medical Leave and the application of benefits for same-sex couples.
Social media


Menenghello notes that at least 10 states (Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington) passed laws in 2013 preventing firms from asking for employees’ or candidates’ social-media passwords.


Another 36 states have introduced similar legislation — or already have it pending.
The NLRB


The National Labor Relations Board, which has been sticking its nose into employers’ business for the past three years, hit a roadblock in 2013 when the a federal appeals court found that President Obama may have illegally appointed members to the board.


That means hundreds of cases may be overturned depending on how the Supreme Court rules in 2014.


If that wasn’t bad enough, a Washington, DC federal appeals court struck down the National Labor Relations Board’s bid to require employers to put up a special notice that outlines workers’ rights to organize.
Bullies


Workplace bullying remained a concern for many firms, and received national attention when Miami Dolphins’ lineman Richie Incognito’s was accused of egregiously bullying fellow player Jonathan Martin.


Not surprisingly, a number of states, including New York and Illinois, are looking into passing anti-workplace-bullying legislation.
Unpaid interns


Unpaid interns finally had their “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore” moment in 2013, filing and winning myriad lawsuits claiming they should have been paid for their work.


The downside? Some firms have begun pulling back or completely eliminating their intern programs.

Read More

Article by Abhishek

FRIENDSHIP PARADOX

Why are your friends more popular than you?

DO YOU ever feel like your friends are more popular than you are? That may be because it is true—for nearly everyone. This odd result, dubbed the "friendship paradox", has most recently seen in twitter. When researchers from the University of Southern California looked at 5.8m micro bloggers (and 194m links between them) they found that, on average, both the people a user follows and, worse, those who follow him, have more followers than he does. How can this be?

            The friendship paradox was first identified in 1991 by Scott Feld, a sociologist working at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Back then, of course, Dr Feld was looking at real-world social networks rather than online ones. Then, last year, scientists from Cornell University confirmed that the result holds for Facebook's active users (721m people at the time of the research, joined by 69 billion virtual bonds of friendship). In fact, it obtains for any network where some members are more popular than others. And it stems from basic arithmetic.

            Consider a simple social network composed of four people: Prakash, Pavan, Ashok and Shashi. Prakash's only friend is Pavan. Pavan is also friends with both Ashok and Shashi, who are friends with each other, but not with Prakash. This means that Prakash has one friend (Pavan); Ashok and Shashi each have two friends (one another and Pavan); and Pavan has three. On average, then, each person in the network has two friends (eight friends divided by four people). But now consider how many friends each person's friends have (in other words, friends of friends). Prakash has one friend, Pavan, who in turn has three friends. Ashok's friends are Pavan, who has three friends, and Shashi, who has two, which means that Ashok's friends have five friends between them (even though their lists of friends overlap). The situation is analogous for Shashi. Pavan's friends, Prakash, Ashok and Shashi, have five friends in all. So the total number of friends of friends is 18. But the total number of friends in the network is eight, as before. So the average number of friends of friends (ie, how many friends each person's friends have) is 2.25 friends each (18 divided by eight), more than the two friends, on average, of the four people in the network. The reason, of course, is that Pavan, who has most friends in the first place, is also counted most often in the friends-of-friends category, raising the average. The same is true for other networks: a few well-connected individuals have more friends than most people, and they skew the average for everyone in whose network they appear (which, because of their connectedness, is a lot of people).

This number-crunching has some intriguing consequences—other than to justify not getting worked up about your relative social status. During the H1N1 flu outbreak in 2009, for instance, Nicholas Christakis of Harvard University and James Fowler of the University of California, San Diego, kept tabs on a large group of randomly picked Harvard undergraduates. They also monitored the people those participants named as friends. Remarkably, the friends became ill about two weeks before the random undergraduates, probably because they were, on average, better connected. With the world only imperfectly prepared for pandomic, being able to spot trends in this way could be useful.

Reference :

Economist 

Writer : Abhishek Vadlakonda
PGDM Student at IFIM B School

Read More