Indicus Consumer Hand Book - Introduction

8/14/2019 Indicus Consumer Hand Book - Introduction

1/25

Indicus Analytics, An EconomicsResearch Firmwww.indicus.net

By

Laveesh Bhandari

Indicus Analytics

Consumer Handbook - Introduction 1
http://www.indicus.net/http://www.indicus.net/


2/25


Introduction

This chapter provides an overview into the state of theIndian economy, its growth, expenditures by households,income distribution as well as issues of ineuqlity. This isfollowed by an overview of some of the broad areas coveredin this volume.

The idea is to provide to the student and practitioner alike, abasic overview of the key demographic and macro-economicvariables that affect consumer decisions in the short andlong term. The discussion that follows then seeks to tie-inthe key aspects that determine and reflect consumerbehaviour in India.

The Macro Picture

During the post liberalization decade, from 1993-94 to 2003-04 the average annualized growth rate of Indias GrossDomestic Product was a little above 6% and has arguably

since crossed the 8% mark on a long term basis. This hasbrought about a considerable increase in Indias personaldisposable income. As a result, both saving andconsumption expenditure in the household sector has hadconsiderable growth. During 2003-04, Indias total personaldisposable income was Rs. 2,358,503 crore and 24.6% of thisincome was directed into savings by the household sector.

Table 1. Components of National Income at CurrentPrices,2003-04

EconomicIndicators(Refer Box 1for definition)

Total Per Capita

Rs.Billion

US$Billion

$ PPPterms Rs. US$

$ PPPterms

Annualized Growth

Ratebetween1993-94

and 2003-04

Gross DomesticProduct 27,600 599 3,036 25,356 550 2,789 6.18



3/25


National Income 22,520 489 2,477 20,690 449 2,276 6.41

Net NationalDisposable 25,971 563 2,856 23,860 518 2,624 6.55

Private Income 25,296 549 2,782 23,240 504 2,556 6.73

Personal Income 24,219 525 2,664 22,250 483 2,447 6.59

PersonalDisposable 23,585 512 2,594 21,667 470 2,383 6.57

Domestic Savingof Household 5,799 126 638 5,328 116 586 9.77Source: CSO and author estimates

High growth has contributed to greater incomes for Indianhouseholds which in turn has enabled Indian households toboth save and spend more. We have in the past few yearsobserved that household sector savings have in fact grownby far more than any of the other other macro-indicators.

This is of course a desirable outcome. Greater incomes doimply greater expenditures in the short term, but greatersavings (if translated into good quality investments) ensurelong term growth of the economy, employmentopportunities, and household incomes.



4/25


Income Distribution

Even though Indias total household income and saving canbe known from National Accounts Statistics, it does notprovide the same information across economic groups.

Therefore, the pattern of distribution of total income and


Box 1: Definitions Gross Domestic Product: Total value of goods and

services produced by a nation.

Net National Disposable Income :(Net value of all goodsand services produced in a nation's economy, includinggoods and services produced abroad at market prices)+ (Other net current transfers from rest of the world)

Private Income: (Income accruing to private sector fromdomestic product) + (Interest on public debt) + (Currenttransfers from govt. administrative departments) +(Other net current transfers from rest of the world) +(Net factor income from abroad)

Personal Income: (Private income) (Saving of privatecorporate sector net of retained earnings of foreigncompanies) (Corporation tax)

Personal Disposable Income: (Personal Income) (Directtaxes paid by households and miscellaneous receipts ofgovt. administrative departments)


5/25


saving across households with different economic status is

not known. Thus, What share of Indias total personaldisposable income comes from the richest 10% of thehouseholds? or Do the poorest 10% of the households saveanything at all? these questions remain unanswered fromgovernment data. Moreover, per household income orsavings, for households with different economic status is alsonot known. This typically requires using data fromhousehold surveys. The problem with using survey data toestimate aggregates on a all India basis is that surveys nomatter how well they have been conducted tend to under-report incomes and expenditures. As a consequence, werequire various types of quantiatiative excercises to correctfor this under-reporting.

Using data from NSSO, CSO, National Data Survey onSavings Patterns of Indians (NDSSPI), and a host of otherdatabases, a team at Indicus Analytics was able to estimatethe distribution of incomes at an all India level. Income andexpenditure distributions rarely differ too much from each

other.

Comparison with Other Data

We compare individual income such as National SampleSurvey conducted by CSO or the Market Information Surveyof Household (MISH) conducted by NCAER. In order to dothat we estimated income across various quintile groupsgenerated on the basis of the following:

Per capita income Per earner income

Per household incomeThe comparative results are put below in Table 3. We findthat whatever be the unit, and whether economicclassification of households is based on expenditures orincomes, whether at the household level or per person level,



6/25


the distribution of Indian households across economic

groupings are similar and generally within 5 percentagerange.

Table 2. Pattern of Income Distribution(%) in India:1993 to 2004

Income Shares

Quintile1Or

Bottom20%

Quintile2

Quintile3

Quintile4

Quintile5OrTop20%

Top10%

Top5%

Top1%

Per Capita

NDSSP

2003-04 5.2 9.5 15.1 20.0 50.3 34.4 23.1 9.0

NSS

1993 4.0 8.6 13.4 21.2 52.9 36.3 24.2 8.5

1999 3.8 7.5 11.8 19.6 57.4 41.0 28.4 10.7

NCAER - MISH

1993 6.3 10.1 14.2 20.8 48.6 33.7 23.4 10.4

1998 6.3 10.5 15.3 22.2 45.7 30.1 19.7 7.6

Per Earner

NDSSP 2003-04 4.6 8.2 12.3 20.1 54.8 38.1 26.1 10

NSS

1993 3.8 7.8 11.8 19.4 57.3 38.6 24.2 7.5

1999 3.5 6.6 10 17 62.9 43.5 28.7 10.3

NCAER-MIMAP

1994 4.4 7.4 11.9 20.9 55.5 34.5 22.1 7.5

Per Household

NDSSP

2003-04 6.1 10.5 14.9 21.9 46.5 30.6 19.6 7.3

NSS

1993 4.1 8.7 13.6 22.3 51.3 33.7 21.5 6.9

1999 4.0 7.9 12.2 20.6 55.3 37.9 25.1 8.9

NCAER-MIMAP

1994 5.7 9.4 13.4 20.7 50.9 34.6 22.7 8.0Source: Bhalla, Surjit Singh. (2004), Reforming Personal Income Tax in India,Oxus Research & Investments, New Delhi, India.. NCAER, NDSSP: National DataSurvey on Saving Patterns, NSS: National Sample Survey, NCAER-MISH: NationalCouncil for Applied Economic Research - Market Information Survey of Household and



7/25


Indicus Estimates



8/25


Changes in distribution over time

A study by Debroy and Bhandari (2007) supports theargument that inequality is in fact increasing in India. Themost used measure for inequality is the Gini coefficient, thehigher the value of the Gini, the greater the inequality levels.

The table below shows rural and urban inequality levelsstate-wise since 1983. The broad insight is, that acrossalmost all the states, ineuqlity levels have increased.

Table 3a: Gini Ratios based on per capita

consumption expenditureStates/UTs 1983

Rural1983Urban

1993-94

Rural*

1993-94

Urban*

2004-05

Rural*

2004-05

Urban*

Andhra Pradesh 0.294 0.327 0.290

0.323

0.294

0.375

Arunachal Pradesh - - 0.306

0.279

0.280

0.248

Assam 0.192 0.276 0.179

0.290

0.199

0.320

Bihar/Jharkhand 0.256 0.301 0.225

0.309

0.213

0.355

Goa 0.287 0.297 0.313 0.278 0.322 0.419

Gujarat0.256 0.172 0.23

90.29

10.27

30.31

0

Haryana0.272 0.313 0.31

10.28

40.33

90.36

6

Himachal Pradesh0.264 0.312 0.28

40.46

20.31

00.32

6

Jammu & Kashmir0.222 0.238 0.24

10.28

60.24

70.24

9

Karnataka0.303 0.334 0.26

90.31

90.26

60.36

9

Kerala

0.33 0.374 0.30

1

0.34

3

0.38

1

0.41

0MadhyaPradesh/Chhattisgarh

0.295 0.306 0.281

0.331

0.277

0.407

Maharashtra0.285 0.337 0.30

70.35

80.31

20.37

8

Manipur0.269 0.169 0.15

40.15

70.16

00.17

7

Meghalaya- - 0.28

10.24

50.16

20.26

3



9/25


States/UTs 1983Rural

1983Urban

1993-94

Rural*

1993-94

Urban*

2004-05

Rural*

2004-05

Urban*

Mizoram0.141 0.187 0.17

30.18

20.20

10.24

9

Nagaland- - 0.16

50.20

10.22

90.24

2

Orissa0.267 0.296 0.24

60.30

70.28

50.35

3

Punjab0.279 0.319 0.28

20.28

10.29

40.40

2

Rajasthan0.343 0.304 0.26

50.29

30.25

00.37

1

Sikkim- 0.332 0.21

20.25

50.27

30.25

7

Tamil Nadu0.325 0.348 0.31

20.34

80.32

20.36

1

Tripura- - 0.24

30.28

30.21

90.34

2UttarPradesh/Uttarakhand

0.29 0.319 0.282

0.326

0.291

0.367

West Bengal0.286 0.327 0.25

40.33

90.27

40.38

3Andaman & NicobarIslands

0.303 - 0.254

0.404

0.336

0.376

Chandigarh0.254 - 0.24

60.46

80.25

30.36

0

Dadra & Nagar Haveli0.244 - 0.25

90.32

50.35

50.30

1

Daman & Diu0.287 0.297 0.26

10.21

20.26

40.26

1

Delhi0.314 0.332 0.27

70.40

60.28

20.33

6

Lakshadweep- - 0.25

70.30

60.31

70.39

4

Pondicherry0.275 0.383 0.30

40.30

10.34

80.31

6

All India0.298 0.33 0.2

860.344

0.305

0.376

Source: * - Author Estimates from NSS 1993-94 & 2004-05 Consumption ExpenditureRounds.

This of course has many ramifications for consumer markets.Greater inequality levels reflect that the higher economicsegments are rising relatively faster than the lower ones.



10/25


But it is not that the poorest segments are necessarily

becoming worse off, as the following discussion shows. Forboth rural and urban India, the highest increase in averageper earner income has been for the relatively poor (thebottom 20%) and the relatively rich (the top 20%), with themiddle (particularly the third quintile) becoming squeezed.

This is a trend that is more marked for urban India than forrural India. Table 4b, which shows the shares of the quintilesin total income, reinforces the picture. The share of the top20% in total income has increased, particularly sharply forurban India. However, subject to some differences betweenrural and urban India, the squeeze in incomes has primarilybeen for the second, third and fourth quartiles, not so muchfor the bottom 20%. The squeeze is also more for urbanIndia than for rural India.

Table 3b: Average annual per capita income forwage and salary earners(in constant 2004-05 prices)

Quintiles 1993-94 2004-05 Annualizedgrowth b/w

1993-94 2004-05

Rural Income Quintiles

RQ1 Lowest 20% inrural areas

4,226 11,808 9.8%

RQ2 8,347 21,562 9.0%RQ3 12,262 31,032 8.8%

RQ4 17,203 44,496 9.0%RQ5 Highest 20% inrural areas

43,827 129,945 10.4%

Total 17,172 47,767 9.7%

Urban Income Quintiles

UQ1 Lowest 20% inurban areas

7,889 23,285 10.3%

UQ2 18,854 47,771 8.8%

UQ3 32,258 75,890 8.1%

UQ4 55,041 145,628 9.2%

UQ5 Highest 20% inurban areas

109,979 378,040 11.9%

Total 44,802 134,113 10.5%



11/25


Source: Author Estimates from NSSO 1993-94 and 2004-05 Employment &Unemployment Rounds.

Notes: Since survey data typically under-report incomes and expenditures thereported incomes have been appropriately adjusted using the ratio of reportedaggregate expenditures in NSSO and total household expenditures in NAS, as theadjustment factor. The percentage change pattern is not affected significantly due tothis adjustment though the quantum is. All figures are in 2004-05 prices calculatedon the basis of CPI-AL for rural and CPI-UNME for urban, at the state level. RQI/UQ1refers to bottom-most quintile in rural/urban areas and RQ5/UQ5 refers to upper-mostquintile in rural/urban areas.

The point being made is that increasing inequality does notmean that poverty is rising, there is incrotovertible evidencethat poverty levels in India have been falling in almost all thestates. Currently, among the larger states, J&K, Punjab andHimachal have the lowest poverty levels. Among the smallerstates, Meghalaya, Manipur and Mizoram follwed byArunachal tend to have poverty levels in the single digits.Orissa, Bihar, UP and MP have amongst the highest povertylevels amongst the larger states. Note that these states alsotend to have low inequality levels, indicating that overallthese states are poor with high levels of deprivation.

Table 4: State-wise Poverty Ratios (%)States 50th Round(1993-94)

61st Round(2004-05)

Percentagepoint change

b/w 1993-94 &2004-05

Large States

Assam 41.40 20.38

-21.02

Himachal Pradesh 28.63 9.83

-18.80

Bihar + Jharkhand* 54.92 41.98

-12.94

Tamil Nadu 35.45 22.

79

-12.66

West Bengal 37.02 24.73

-12.29

Haryana 25.02 13.57

-11.45

Kerala 25.02 14.80

-10.23

Karnataka 32.89 24.34

-8.55



12/25


Jammu & Kashmir 13.18 5.06

-8.12

Uttar Pradesh +Uttarakhand*

40.79 33.03

-7.77

Gujarat 24.20 16.96

-7.24

Andhra Pradesh 21.82 14.79

-7.03

Maharashtra 36.99 30.59

-6.40

Rajasthan 27.46 21.44

-6.02

Madhya Pradesh +Chhattisgarh*

42.57 38.92

-3.65

Punjab 11.27 8.

14

-3.13

Orissa 48.69 46.61

-2.09

Small States

Arunachal Pradesh 37.00 9.90

-27.10

Meghalaya 21.29 3.11

-18.18

Sikkim 29.38 14.33

-15.05

Manipur 15.54 3.35

-12.19

Goa 14.93 10.92

-4.01

Mizoram 4.26 1.69

-2.57

Nagaland 1.68-

-1.68

Tripura 21.29 30.52

9.23

All India 35.86 27.47

-8.38

Source: Estimates by Amaresh Dubey from NSS 2004-05 Consumption ExpenditureRounds.Notes: * - Undivided States

A comparison of the State level GDP growth and povertyreduction shows that indeed, those states that have hadhigher levels of growth have been able to reduce povertylevels much more than those with lower GDP growth. This isan important learning for policy and marketers alike. Indeed,



13/25


greater growth is a very good predictor of the rise in

consumer buying power.

Figure 1: Poverty reduction and GSDP growthbetween 1993-94 and 2004-05 (Large States)

Notes: Bihar includes Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh includes Chhattisgarh and UttarPradesh includes Uttarakhand.

Consumer Handbook - Introduction

Asm

HP

Bih

TN

WB

Har

Ker

Kar

JK

UP

Guj

AP

Mah

Raj

MP

PunOri

3

4

5

6

7

%G

rowthinGSDP

0 510 15 20

Percentage point reduction in poverty

13


14/25


The above data use state level insights. (See Debroy and

Bhandari (2007)) But if we bring occupation also into theanalysis, a highly interesting set of insights are derived. There is an interesting link between the percentagereporting themselves as self-employed and the level ofinequality. This is partly obvious from the following figures.About 52% of the Indian work force reports itself as self-employed. Table 6 below shows Gini coefficients acrossemployment categories. Gini coefficients are lower for theself-employed category. Stated differently, self-employmentis a dampener on inequality and it is also probably the casethat in countries where inequality has not shot up, afacilitating environment has been created for self-employment to thrive and foster. This is also true of India inthe inter-State comparison, a proposition reinforced byFigure 2, which plots the percentage of self-employed inStates against the level of inequality. In States where self-employment is high, inequality tends to be lower. In otherwords, higher levels of inequality are observed when there isgreater dependence on wage based occupations.

Table 5: Gini coefficients across employmentcategories

Employment Categories GINI based on incomes of salaried/wageearmers 2004-05

All India Rural 0.305

All India Urban 0.376

All India Total 0.363

Self Employed Rural 0.294

Self Employed Urban 0.362

Self Employed Total 0.333

Employed Rural 0.313

Employed Urban 0.384



15/25


Employed Total 0.394

Agriculture (self-employed+employed)- Rural

0.281

Self employed agriculture- Rural 0.284

Employed agriculture- Rural 0.233

Source: Author estimates from NSS 2004-05 Employment & Unemployment Round.



16/25


Figure 2: Percentage Self Employed Households

and Gini (based on NSS 2004-05 ConsumptionExpenditure Round)

Table 6: Average annual income growth acrosseducation categories for wage and salary earners (in

constant 2004-05 prices)GeneralEducation

1993-94 2004-05 Annualizedgrowth b/w 1993-

94 & 2004-05

Not literate 13,171 32,362

8.5%

Literate belowprimary

18,220 42,709

8.1%

Primary 21,377 49,962

8.0%

Middle 28,144 62,271

7.5%

Secondary 46,634 103,6 7.5%

Consumer Handbook - Introduction

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 65.00 70.00 75.00 80.% Indiv. in Self Employed Households

Gini(expenditurebased)

16


17/25


GeneralEducation

1993-94 2004-05 Annualizedgrowth b/w 1993-

94 & 2004-0502

Higher Secondary 55,789 139,600

8.7%

Graduates &above

85,515 270,103

11.0%

Total 24,980 73,145

10.3%

Source: Author Estimates from NSSO 1993-94 and 2004-05 Employment &Unemployment Rounds. Notes: Since survey data typically under-report incomesand expenditures the reported incomes have been appropriately adjusted using theratio of reported aggregate expenditures in NSSO and total household expendituresin NAS, as the adjustment factor. The percentage change pattern is not affected

significantly due to this adjustment though the quantum is. All figures are in 2004-05prices calculated on the basis of CPI-AL for rural and CPI-UNME for urban, at the statelevel.

Table 7 shows the average annual income growth acrosseducation categories and highlights the lack ofeducation/skills as perhaps the single most important sourceof income differentials. The impact of reforms in creatinggreater opportunities is not the issue; the issue is related tothe ability of the available human resources to benefit from

such opportunities. The poor educational regime both at theprimary and higher levels is aiding the other forces that pushtowards increasing inequalities.

Differences in relative growth aside, it is quite apparent thateconomic growth has led to high levels of income growthacross the board. This has created greater opportunitiesforall kinds of marketers, whether oriented at the bootm of thepyramid, or at niche commodities aimed at the higherincome segments.

This Volume

This volume contains the following sections, each of whichreflects an integral and important aspect of consumermarkets in India. These are briefly reviewed .below



18/25


Consumption and National Accounts: The national accountsprovide an overview of the Indian economy and how it isgrowing over time. A good aggregate picture is found in theestimates of Indias GDP, national income, and how thesetranslate into savings and expenditures. High growthenables households to both save more and spend more, asthe Indian experience since the 1990s has shown. IN factsavings are growing more rapidly than any other macro-indicator. However when compared with China, ourachievements are not as impressive.

Consumer Demography is the cornerstone around whichmost marketers build their strategies. This section providesinsights into age distribution and the famed demographicdividend that India is enjoying, and going to benefit from inthe next few decades. It shows the historical growth ofpopulation and how Indias population density is risingrapidly. For instance, India had a population density that wasabout twice that of China in 1961, but is much higher now.

Life expectancy is also rising though slowly. The section alsolooks at family structures, and marriage status, apart fromthe overall population break-ups to provide a better overviewof the state of Indian demography.

Education is an important aspect that reflects a range ofinsights on incomes and expenditures. Greater educationlevels affect long term incomes, and the trends there arequite apparent across time. Rural areas typically have lower

education levels and so do females. However, we find thatamong the younger age groups the male-female differenceshave narrowed over time, having tremendous implicationson not only economic variables but also lifestyles. The youthwill drive the India of tomorrow and todays youth are farbetter educated than the older age groups.



19/25


The affluent and Income distribution is perhaps the most

important determinant of market potential. We find thatthough the lowest income groups are the largest in terms ofnumbers, in terms of aggregate incomes it is the higherincome groups that together earn much more. This in turnimpacts the range of commodities that are available for thebetter off vis--vis the poor. Incomes also affect the savingspotential, and though all income groups have positivesavings, it is the highest income groups that not surprisinglysave the most. The richest Indians in terms of incomes tendto be located in a few metros Mumbai and Delhi being themost popular residences, and it is expected that if the ITboom continues Bangalore will catch up very fast. TheAffluentsections have the highest incomes and the highestsavings rate as well. They are more likely to be in urbanareas, and save as much as a third of their incomes. This istrue across both rural and urban areas. With greatereconomic growth, the number of affluent will grow muchfaster than that of the lower economic classes. For marketersof premium products, therefore the importance of this

segment will only rise.

Asset penetration and Activities and assets and HouseholdCharacteristics of a range of household items are bestunderstood through their usage of household amenitiesincluding electricity and LPG. We find that hough a largenumber of households do have this access, many remainuncovered. Whether it is toilets or access to LPG or evenbasic electricity, there is a large segment of the population

that is yet to access these services. Moreover, few numberof rooms, lack of a kitchen also affect the ability ofhouseholds to use many durables. As incomes gorw andgovernment programs deepen the spread of electricity, andas the relative prices of durables reduce, such items willpenetrate more and more into the Indian market.



20/25


Expenditure on food and other items reflect how different

types of household differ in their consumption habits. It iswell known that poorer households spend a larger share oftheir total budget on food and within food on cereals.Specific food items are consumed differently by differentkinds of households; a large proportion of the Indianpopulation is non-vegetarian, a very large proportionconsumes green leafy vegetables on a regular basis, in somecases consumption habits differ between men and womenand are very similar in the case of some items.

Finance and Investment is a critical aspect for betterunderstanding savings behaviour of Indian households. Alarge proportion of Indian households save in banks, postoffices, insurance linked schemes, informal instruments andso on. The greater the education the greater thedependence on formal instruments such as commercial banksavings accounts. Increasingly equity and mutual funds arebecoming more and more popular. The growth of theseitems is very well reflected in the growth of the investments

by these organizations.

Forecasts and Projections of economic variables provide apicture into how things are going to unfold in the foreseeablefuture. This in turn helps us to better understand the actionsthat need to be taken today for being well placed in thefuture. Indias population will continue to grow beforestarting to stabilize in the next few decades. Its GDP is alsoexpected to continue its rapid upward trajectory through the

next few decades. International comparisons show howIndias growth is expected to be vis--vis other largedeveloping countries.

Indices are created by aggregating many differentquantitative variables. Each index seeks to reflect certainaspect of the state or city that it seeks to rate. We find that



21/25


certain locations are among the best to reside in, but are not

necessarily the best to invest in. Such ratings and rankingsmake it easier for the decisionmaker to prioritise theiractions.

Access to Media, Internet and Telecom usage is growingrapidly in the country, and is expected to eventuallypenetrate into every household in the country. Greaterpenetration of media, and telcom, it is well known changeshouseholds in many ways and affects a range of householdactivities; households getting access to internet for instancehave been known to change their banking habits,entertainment habits, social communications and networkingas well as a range of other lifestyle changes.

Consumer markets can be reported in many different ways,size of the market in terms of number of people orhouseholds, size of the market in terms of the total oraggregate disposable incomes in those markets, or theaggregate expenditure of people or households. Therev are

35 states and Union Territories in India; among cities thereare more than 5000 cities and towns, but the top 100 oddcities account for a large majority of the urban populationand an even larger share of household expenditures.

These and many more insights are available from a range oftables culled from some of the most repected publications onIndian consumer markets.



22/25


23/25


Per Household Expenditure

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

1 714

21

28

34

40

46

53

59

66

72

78

84

90

96

Percentiles

Expendit

(Rs.T

hous

Per Household Expenditure



24/25


Household Consumption Expenditure

0

100,000,000,000

200,000,000,000

300,000,000,000

400,000,000,000

500,000,000,000

600,000,000,000

1 611

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

56

61

66

71

76

81

86

91

96

Household Percentiles

Amount(

Cons. Services, taxes, entertainment, rent, fuel, toiletries and other misclleneous expenses

EducationMedical

Clothing & FootwearDurables

High Value FoodBasic Food



25/25


Percentage share of expenditure on different items by each percentile

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 71

31

925

31

37

43

49

55

61

67

73

79

85

91

97

Household Percentile

%sh

areofexpenditur

Cons. Services, entertainment, rent, fuel, toiletries and Misc.

Education

MedicalClothing & Footwear

Durables

High Value Food

Basic Food

100%

Indicus Consumer Hand Book - Introduction

Documents