MAM
India preferred destination for retailers & apparel firms: Study
MUMBAI: A recent study done by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and KSA Technopak on Indian textiles throws light on South Asia’s tremendous potential to grow as a perfect sourcing destination for retailers and apparel companies with the termination of quota system.
In the region, India has become the second most preferred alternative to China and one-stop shop solution for retailers and apparel companies seeking a reliable destination for their sourcing solutions as they would no longer be constrained by quotas.
The scenario:
The report states that post January 2005, South Asia is fast emerging as a major trade block. The region presently holds 14 per cent share in the US market and 9 per cent share in the European Union (EU) market, and exports have been growing in both these main markets at a steady pace. With abundant availability of raw material, spinning, weaving and knitting capacity, low garment cost and an entire bouquet of knits, woven and home textiles on offer, South Asia is expected to be the major gainer of safeguards on China, and India has the potential to lead the race and growth of South Asia.
According to the report, the future trade would result in more drastic changes as compared to the first phase of the post quota regime and buyers and suppliers would need to adapt to various changes that would happen at the consumer level in order to be successful.
The Indian advantage over China:
Incidentally, the US has imposed safeguards, while the EU has specified quotas on China for three years in certain clothing categories. China is dependent on imported raw material for its textile industry. Besides, its manufacturing facilities require major upgradation and its domestic market dominates by consuming 70 per cent of the total textile production. Buyers too are not keen on making China a one stop-sourcing destination for textiles due to the uncertainties arising out of the safeguards, quotas and the revaluation of the Yuan, the study points out.
In these conditions, India has the potential to emerge as a reliable and high quality textile-sourcing alternative to China. India has been the second largest gainer in both the US and EU market after China. India has some inherent advantages like availability of raw material, spinning, weaving and garmenting capabilities, low cost advantage and complete bouquet of textile and apparel on offer.
Buyers mainly focus upon the strategic factors of political, social, economic and infrastructure stability in selecting sourcing destinations. Apart from these, the operational factors of labour cost advantage, raw material availability, flexibility and product mix, an established textile base as well as transportation and IT infrastructure are considered while making the final decision, states the report. Also, India is seen as stable in both the political and social areas. The country’s IT has an edge in terms of cost, availability of raw materials, flexibility and product mix.
Areas India needs to work on:
India needs to do a lot of groundwork on the economic and infrastructure fronts. The transportation and IT infrastructure as well as its established textile base have to be taken care of. According to the report, India also needs to work towards shaping up its labour laws and building international scale of operations. It needs to provide value to buyers, reduce cycle time of production, and understand the changing requirements of the market, in order to reach the top, the study says.
Report courtesy: Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and KSA Technopak
MAM
Brands push beyond compliance as trust takes centre stage
ASCI AdTrust Summit 2026 spotlights shift from legal checks to credibility.
MUMBAI: In a world where a disclaimer can be legally sound yet socially suspect, brands are learning that compliance may tick boxes but trust wins markets. At the inaugural ASCI AdTrust Summit 2026, a panel on “Beyond Compliance: The New Currency of Trust” unpacked a growing industry reality: the gap between what the law permits and what consumers accept is widening and fast.
Moderated by Meenakshi Ramkumar of National Law School of India University, the discussion brought together leaders across law, marketing and academia to examine how brands must evolve in a digital ecosystem increasingly shaped by scrutiny, scepticism and speed.
Ramkumar set the tone by highlighting a critical shift, advertising today operates in the same digital space that fuels misinformation, scams and fake news, making credibility harder to establish. “The challenge is not just about what brands do, but the broader context of low institutional trust,” she noted, adding that when violations go unchecked, trust erodes not just in brands but in the regulatory system itself.
This vacuum, she said, has given rise to consumer activism from boycotts to social media backlash as a parallel accountability mechanism.
For Amit Bhasin, Chief Legal Officer at Marico, the distinction was clear, legal compliance is non negotiable, but insufficient. “Compliance is the minimum threshold. The real challenge is staying aligned with changing consumer expectations,” he said.
He pointed to how advertising narratives have evolved from traditional depictions of gender roles to more shared responsibilities reflecting a broader societal shift. “Earlier, it was fine to show one person doing the household work. Today, that may not land well. Consumers expect brands to reflect reality,” Bhasin observed.
He also highlighted internal debates where campaigns that may be legally permissible are still rejected for being culturally insensitive, noting that responsible advertising often requires asking uncomfortable questions before the public does.
If compliance is the baseline, reputation is the battlefield.
Bhasin noted that reputational risk has become a far greater concern than legal exposure, particularly in an era where campaigns can be dissected within hours online. “Earlier, a controversial ad might invite a newspaper editorial. Today, within hours, you’re at the centre of a storm,” he said.
Brands, he added, now evaluate campaigns through a dual lens legal viability and reputational vulnerability with the latter often proving more decisive.
From a healthcare perspective, Satish Sahoo of Cipla Health underscored the complexity of operating within fragmented yet stringent regulatory frameworks, spanning drugs, food, cosmetics and Ayush. “Anything under a drug licence is the most tightly regulated,” he said, adding that this necessitates proactive, not reactive, compliance.
He shared an example from the oral rehydration salts (ORS) category, where Cipla resisted the temptation to position products aggressively despite competitive pressure. “Our product is WHO compliant, and our communication reflects that. We chose not to blur the lines, even if others did,” he noted.
The long term payoff, he suggested, lies in credibility built over consistency, not quick wins.
Yet, as Harsha N of National Law School of India University pointed out, even perfect compliance does not guarantee trust. Drawing from historical and modern examples from exaggerated product claims in the 1800s to contemporary environmental and health advertising, he argued that legal frameworks often lag behind consumer expectations. “A brand can be fully compliant and still be perceived as misleading,” he said, citing instances where fine print disclosures fail to reach or convince the average consumer. He added that larger companies carry a disproportionate responsibility to set ethical benchmarks, even in areas where the law remains silent.
The conversation also turned to digital advertising, where the challenge extends beyond content to how ads are experienced. From algorithmic targeting to personalised messaging, brands now operate in an environment where regulation struggles to keep pace with technology.
Sahoo noted that social media has amplified awareness, with influencers and consumers increasingly scrutinising product claims and calling out inconsistencies. “Awareness has gone up dramatically. People are questioning what goes into products and what brands are saying,” he said.
The role of self regulatory bodies such as Advertising Standards Council of India also came under the spotlight.
Harsha acknowledged that while SROs play a crucial role, they are not immune to criticism, particularly around perceived conflicts of interest and enforcement gaps. “SROs have a higher threshold of responsibility not just to interpret the law, but to anticipate societal expectations,” he said.
He added that failures in self regulation often push the burden back onto government intervention, underscoring the need for stronger, more proactive oversight.
One of the more nuanced debates centred on whether building trust comes at a cost. While Sahoo acknowledged that quality and compliance can increase costs, he argued that companies must absorb them as part of their long term strategy.
Bhasin, however, framed the challenge differently not as cost, but as competitiveness in a market where not all players play by the same rules. “The real tension is when others cut corners and you choose not to,” he said.
The panel concluded with a call to embed trust into business metrics.
Sahoo suggested that organisations must go beyond revenue targets to include consumer equity and trust based KPIs, ensuring that ethical considerations are not sidelined in the pursuit of growth. “Trust sounds abstract, but it can translate into measurable consumer equity,” he said.
As the discussion wrapped up, one message stood out: the rules of advertising are being rewritten not just by regulators, but by consumers themselves. In an ecosystem where attention is fleeting and scepticism is high, brands that merely comply may survive, but those that build trust are the ones that endure.
