Global brands on edge as India’s quality crackdown signals a manufacturing reset
17 June, Mumbai 2025
India’s ambitious push to increase manufacturing standards is triggering a global recalibration. Under the stewardship of commerce minister Piyush Goyal, the country’s sweeping implementation of Quality Control Orders (QCOs) and mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certifications has created tremors across global boardrooms. What was once seen as a growing consumer market is now being dubbed a “bureaucratic minefield” by international brands scrambling to keep up.
With the BIS now enforcing a massive expansion in mandatory certification—from just 180 products to more than 730—India is no longer content with being a dumping ground for subpar imports. But the rigor of this shift is putting major global players like Nike, Adidas, and Puma at risk of vanishing from Indian retail shelves by the end of 2026 unless they fall in line with India’s new quality-first regime.
Inspecting the world, a logistical nightmare
At the heart of this transformation lies a requirement: any product sold in India must meet stringent quality benchmarks, similar to those in developed economies. For global brands, this involves not only meeting technical standards but also undergoing physical inspection of overseas factories by BIS officials—a tall order given their widespread manufacturing bases in Vietnam, China, Indonesia, and Europe.
Despite offers from companies to cover travel costs for inspectors, the BIS has declined, citing neutrality. As a result, progress has been slow, with only a small fraction of international sites inspected so far. The delays are mounting, even as the list of targeted products continues to grow—from sports footwear and mobile chargers to baby diapers, sanitary pads, and even children’s toys. Toy major Lego, for example, faced BIS action despite arguing its products cater to children above 14. The company's shipments were seized from Indian warehouses, setting a precedent that the government means business.
Raids, seizures, and industry Jitters
This policy isn’t just about paperwork—it’s being enforced on the ground. In March, BIS conducted coordinated raids on Amazon and Flipkart warehouses in Delhi, Coimbatore, and Lucknow. The outcome: thousands of products were confiscated for failing to meet BIS standards, including stainless steel bottles, toys, and high-end sports shoes.
These actions marked a shift in BIS’s public persona—from a compliance facilitator to an aggressive enforcer. The Press Information Bureau cited violations of Section 17 of the BIS Act (2016), warning that even showcasing uncertified goods online is grounds for legal action.
The ripple effects have spread to brick-and-mortar retail as well. Small retailers, watching the e-commerce seizures with unease, now fear they could be next in line, raising the specter of supply chain disruptions and inventory losses.
‘Make in India’, the strategy behind the stringency
Behind this regulatory assertiveness is a calculated strategy: push global brands to manufacture in India. The vision is aligned with Prime Minister Modi’s flagship ‘Make in India’ initiative, which aims to transform the country into a manufacturing hub for the world.
Commerce Minister Goyal has made it clear—the government prefers production over imports. Footwear companies, in particular, are under pressure to shift operations to India. But for many global players, this isn't a simple decision. Setting up factories requires massive investment and depends heavily on local demand volume and export viability.
India’s absence from trade blocs like RCEP further dampens appeal, making Indian-made exports less competitive globally. Add to that India’s infamous bureaucratic red tape and the recurring BIS certification cycle, and the case for moving operations becomes daunting for all but the most committed brands.
Global pushback trade talks heat up
India’s regulatory shift is not happening in a vacuum. Countries like the US and the UK have raised concerns in trade talks, labeling the QCO regime as a non-tariff barrier. These concerns are growing, with several global trade bodies scrutinizing India’s actions as protectionist.
Yet, India remains unyielding. Goyal has emphasized “quality reciprocity”—a call for Indian exports to receive equal recognition abroad if they meet international standards. While the government remains open to “trusted partner” arrangements that might simplify certification, the direction is clear: India wants to set the rules on its turf.
Disruption or transformation?
The times ahead promises major upheaval and potential opportunity.
1. Compliance overhaul and higher costs
International brands will need to realign global operations, invest in Indian certifications, and possibly retool supply chains. These added costs may be transferred to consumers, making foreign products more expensive or less accessible.
2. Possible market exits
Brands that consider India a secondary market may choose to withdraw or reduce presence, unwilling to invest in compliance. This opens the door for domestic players or more agile foreign brands to fill the gap.
3. Push towards domestic manufacturing
Larger companies may eventually cave in to India's demands, setting up or expanding local production. If successful, this could lead to job creation, technology transfer, and stronger supply chains within the country.
4. Diplomatic friction and adjustments
India may face growing pressure at global forums. However, some middle-ground arrangements might emerge—like streamlined certification processes for certain allies—though the government appears committed to its regulatory overhaul.
5. The rise of a new BIS
Once a quiet standards body, the Bureau of Indian Standards is transforming into an assertive, enforcement-led agency. Businesses must adapt to this new avatar and approach BIS not as a formality but a strategic stakeholder.
6. Consumer repercussions
In the short term, Indian consumers may have fewer international choices and rising prices. But in the long term, the government envisions a market filled with safer, higher-quality products, both foreign and domestic.
A make-or-break moment
India’s aggressive quality regime is more than a trade policy—it is a bold industrial strategy. For international brands, this is not just about meeting a standard; it’s about deciding whether India remains central to their global plans or becomes a market too difficult to serve.
As the 2026 deadline looms, global companies face a stark choice: comply, manufacture, or exit. For India, the outcome could define its path from a consumer market to a manufacturing powerhouse with teeth—one where quality isn’t just expected, but enforced.
