Start Up-Gocoop-Case

t

os
IMB 639

rP
GOCOOP – SOCIAL MARKETPLACE
yo
op
RAMAKRISHNA S. VELAMURI, G SABARINATHAN, AND SUHRUTA
KULKARNI
tC
No
Do

Ramakrishna S. Velamuri, G Sabarinathan, and Suhruta Kulkarni, prepared this case for class discussion. This case is not intended
to serve as an endorsement, source of primary data, or to show effective or inefficient handling of decision or business processes.
Copyright © 2017 by the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. No part of the publication may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise (including internet) – without the
permission of Indian Institute of Management Bangalore.
This document is authorized for educator review use only by NAVNEET GERA, Bharati Vidyapeeth University until May 2021. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
GoCoop – Social Marketplace
t
os
Since early 2000, during my stay in Bay area, I always wanted to see how we can connect
the producers of rural India with better markets. During my early days while visiting our
village in Guntur district, I experienced how difficult it was for rural producers like farmers
and artisans to sell their products at the right price or even access the markets. After some
in research in 2009-10, I found hundreds of cooperatives and self-help groups who were
rP
struggling to market their products, from here, started my journey to aggregate smaller
groups and producers and create more equitable markets. Thus the GoCoop social
marketplace platform was born.
– Siva Devireddy, Founder, GoCoop, January 2016
It was a hot and sweltering day in March 2016. Siva Devireddy, founder and Managing Director of GoCoop,
yo
was traveling towards Guntur from Bangalore. He had been traveling across India to source handlooms to
supply them to the entire world. Handcrafted products were produced by a large population of rural artisans
all over India. The products did not have any standardization or quality checks. Supply chains were absent
for these products and only a few traders and entrepreneurs connected the artisans to the markets. Thus,
middlemen played an important role in connecting artisans to the market. However, some of these
middlemen exploited the artisans.
op
Siva had started GoCoop to provide a directory listing of artisanal products to domestic and foreign buyers.
Over a period of time he realized that the business model had to be modified, since both sellers and buyers
had different sets of problems. Sellers had to be educated about the market opportunities, production
quality, and on the usage of internet technology. They also had to be assured of timely payments. Buyers
were not interested in doing business with unknown sellers who did not even have a phone number. They
tC
also had to be assured of product quality and delivery. Siva had then refined his business model to provide
end-to-end services and developed GoCoop as a “social marketplace”1 for handcrafted products.
GoCoop had grown from strength to strength from 2011 to 2015. The business model had evolved with two
rounds of funding. GoCoop was catering to domestic and foreign individual customers (B2C2) and bulk
customers (B2B3). GoCoop had raised seed funding of USD 0.27 million (INR 18 million) in 2013 and
No
Series A funding of about USD 1 million in 2015. Worldwide, 2014 and 2015 were boom years for start-
ups and the ecosystem was flush with funds for a variety of ideas. Siva was careful in selecting his investors;
he accepted funding only from those investors who understood his ideology of helping the artisans earn a
better living. This ensured that Siva had a laser sharp focus on artisans while building a successful business.
Siva had seen tough times over the previous 4 years. Things looked better now. However, he was cognizant
of the challenges that lay ahead. Growth in turnover and profitability, working capital, product quality,
product design, and reliable supply chain were some of the business challenges juxtaposed with the social
Do
aim of providing a better livelihood to artisans. Fashion changes at a fast pace worldwide and keeping pace
1
“Social Marketplace” is a term coined by GoCoop. As per GoCoop, the definition of social marketplace is two-pronged: buyers and sellers in the
marketplace can interact socially via a listing service, search, e-commerce, and GoCoop Connect. The marketplace’s mission is also socially driven,
promoting organizations, who may not otherwise have access to fair market prices or technology.
2
B2C – Business to Customers
3
B2B – Business to Business
Page 2 of 23
t
os
with those changes was another challenge. The global economy also impacted GoCoop’s business since it
had significant exposure to foreign customers. With new investors and investments on board, Siva was
confident of facing the challenges and achieving GoCoop’s objectives.
HANDLOOMS AND HANDICRAFTS IN INDIA
rP
In India, the handloom and handicrafts industries were governed by the Ministry of Textiles. Textiles and
clothing exports were expected to reach USD 64 billion by March 2017i. Textiles accounted for 13%ii of
the total Indian exports. As per UN Comtrade 2014 data, India, with exports of USD 39 billion, was ranked
as the second largest exporter of textiles and clothing after China.iii
yo
Handlooms and handicrafts have large variety and diversity across the 29 states and 7 union territories of
India.4 Also, handloom and handicrafts industries have high export potential. These industries are
characterized by highly fragmented and unorganized operations, high labor and low capital intensity. The
artisans are generally uneducated and are unaware about market demands. Further, they do not have access
to capital, infrastructure and have very low exposure to technology. Artisans get exploited, while the
middlemen and exporters make significant profits.iv Artisans had formed cooperatives and self-help groups
op
(SHGs) to earn a better living. However, the artisans were yet to benefit from these initiatives, since
cooperatives were either state run or governed by the state, while SHGs themselves were inadequately
empowered and lacked awareness. Individual artisans do not have economies of scale and hence face high
input cost, inventory costs, and marketing costs. These industries together were expected to employ around
18 million people by 2022.v Next generation artisans were leaving the trade for better opportunities. Thus,
traditional skills which had been passed on from generation to generation were being lost.
tC
Several for-profit, not-for-profit, non-government organizations (NGOs) along with government agencies
played important roles in the handlooms and handicrafts industries. Craftsvilla, Indian Artisans Online,
Nethaat, My Earth Store, Caravan Crafts, Ecokargha, Eco Tasar Silks, and Kashmir Box were some of the
emerging private players in the crafts sector while Fabindia, Mother Earth and Goodearth were among the
larger and better established players in the private sector in the crafts industry. There were a whole host of
No
several other smaller players. Selling handcrafted products through online or offline channels to consumers,
while reducing the middlemen margins had become an attractive business model for several entrepreneurs.
Apart from these, Earthygoods Foundation, Gramin Hastkala Vikas Samiti, Craftizen Handicraft, Dastkar,
and Womenweave were some of the not-for-profit organizations and NGOs in the industry. The Handicrafts
and Handlooms Exports Corporation of India Ltd. was an export house operated by the central government.
Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts (EPCH) and Handloom Export Promotion Council (HEPC) were
statutory government bodies to promote exports. EPCH had around 8000vi members, while HEPC had
2000vii. The central government and state governments further supported these industries through trade
Do
fairs, exhibitions, emporiums, training programs, and other interventions.
4
States and union territories are the units of federal political governance into which the country is divided under the Indian constitution.
Page 3 of 23
t
os
Some of the famous handloom products from India include Banarasi, Sambalpuri, Tussar Silk,
Pochampally, Chanderi, Maheshwari, Ikat, and Paithani Sarees.5 Home furnishings such as curtains,
bedsheets, cushion covers, and Indian men’s wear such as kurtas, dhotis and jackets were also made from
handloom fabrics. Different materials such as silk, cotton, wool, chiffon, crepe, georgette, jute and muslin
were used to make handlooms. The Indian handloom industry employed around 4.3 million people on
rP
around 2.4 million handlooms and was the second largest employer after agriculture in rural areas.viii
Handlooms worth USD 360 million (INR 23,200 million) were exported in 2015-2016.ix Ninety-five
percent of the world’s hand woven fabrics originated from India. The handloom sector produced 7203
million square meters during 2014-2015, which was around 15% of India’s total cloth production. The
Handloom Mark (Exhibit 1) was launched to provide a guarantee to buyers that the product that they had
purchased was indeed hand woven and not machine made. The National Handloom Development Program
yo
(NHDP) was implemented in 2012 to revive, reform and restructure the handloom sector. In India, mega
handloom clusters were present in Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh), Godda (Jharkhand), Sivasagar (Assam),
Murshidabad (West Bengal), Virudhunagar (Tamil Nadu), Prakasam & Guntur (Andhra Pradesh) and
Trichy (Tamil Nadu). Apart from these, there were 1137 handloom clusters across the country (Exhibit 2),
which were smaller in size than the mega clusters.
op
The handicrafts sector employed around 7 million people.x Indian handicrafts were based on a variety of
materials such as metal, clay, glass, ceramics, wood, marble and other stones, and textiles. Handicrafts were
marketed as daily use articles, household decorations, gift items, toys etc. Carpets formed a major segment
of handicrafts industry. The handicrafts sector was predominantly rural-based and unorganized. Earlier,
handicrafts were a part-time activity. However, with significant market demand and export potential, the
sector has transformed into a flourishing economic activity. In 2015-2016, handicrafts worth USD 3.4
tC
billion (INR 223 billion) were exported.xi There were 630 handicraft clusters in India (Exhibit 2). The
Office of Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) under Ministry of Textiles had implemented seven
schemes for the sector (Exhibit 3). Although, these schemes had been designed with good intentions, there
were flaws in their design and implementation along with a lack of synergy among them. See Exhibit 4 for
examples of some of the assisted schemes.
No
Cooperatives in the handloom and handicrafts sectors included Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers
Cooperative (APCO), Karnataka State Co-operative Handloom Weavers Federation (Cauvery Handlooms),
Apex Co-operative Society of Handloom Weavers in Kerala (Hantex), The Tamil Nadu Handloom
Weavers’ Cooperative Society (Co-Optex), Maharashtra State Handloom Co-operative Federation Ltd.
(Mahatex), Tribal Co-operative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. (TRIFED) and The All
India Handloom Fabrics Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd. (Handloom House) among others.
SIVA DEVIREDDY – “FROM AIRBUS TO REDBUS”

Do
Siva Devireddy had completed his Master’s in Industrial Engineering and Management Systems from
Arizona State University in 2000. He joined Exemplary Inc., a Hewlett Packard start-up company in the
5
The saree is a traditional Indian women’s garment.
Page 4 of 23
t
os
San Francisco Bay Area in the United States. The start-up was building a business application for supply
chain management for the semiconductor industry.
I was building a marketplace for the semiconductor industry, where the manufacturers
were mostly in Taiwan or China, while buyers were in USA or Europe. Supply chain
rP
management in the semiconductor industry was very complex, since demand changed
within a month’s time. What you ordered now, may become obsolete in six months. The
industry was moving very fast even back then in 2000.This was a very interesting project
at the very beginning of my career.
– Siva Devireddy
yo
Although Exemplary Inc. had raised some funds and had a great product, the downturn of 2002-2003 hit
them and eventually the company was acquired and most of the employees moved on from the company.
In 2003, Siva moved to Accenture and worked in different roles in large transformation projects across the
United Kingdom, United States, and Europe and for close to nine years.
However, the idea of building a seamless transparent supply chain for buyers and sellers across the world
op
remained with him. Siva recalled:
I pretty much decided that I need to think of something which has more social impact, where
we can potentially use technology but to solve an actual problem that we have in a country
like India.
tC
During 2006 and 2007, Siva was in Denmark. There he used to frequently shop at the Coop grocery store.
Coop was a large supermarket chain in Europe. He further observed that most of the biggest retailers in
Europe such as E.Leclerc, Systeme U and Migros were cooperatives.
When Siva returned from Denmark, he started researching cooperatives in India and got in touch with the
Regional Institute of Cooperative Management (RICM), Bangalore in 2009-2010. Dr. S.A. Siddhanti was
No
the Executive Director of RICM and was impressed with Siva’s interest and enthusiasm and helped Siva in
understanding the cooperative sector. Siva said:
Our village was in the district of Guntur, some 7 to 8 km from Tenali in Andhra Pradesh.
I used to go there for a couple of months every summer. We used to see dairy cooperatives
and weavers coming together to work. After understanding a little bit of cooperative sector,
I realized why these people come together to work. They cannot survive without coming
together. Agriculture and dairy sectors are surviving today, thanks to cooperatives.
Do
Cooperatives are present in artisan sector as well, but they have not come together in a
big way. The initial idea was to build an online platform to bring together marginalized
artisans and small cooperatives.
Page 5 of 23
t
os
Siva spoke about his idea to his friends and colleagues at Accenture. Two of his friends, Jagan and Srinivas,
were socially aware and interested in working in this area. While all three of them pooled in capital with
Siva Jagan was the first to join Siva in starting GoCoop and Srinivas joined in the first year. Siva quit his
job at Accenture, while others continued in their jobs. GoCoop was incorporated in October 2011 and
started with a team of six people. The initial years were very tough for the team. They spent considerable
rP
amount of time with cooperatives in the rural areas to understand critical problems and build trust among
cooperatives. That combined with the limited amount of funds in the early stage, the newness of the business
and the team made it challenging. Nagaraja Prakasam from Indian Angel Network (IAN), which was an
investor in GoCoop said:
I joked about Siva – he had gone from Airbus to Redbus6. He was a guy flying business
yo
class in Accenture. Now he has to catch a bus and go and meet weavers in rural areas of
India.
THE BUSINESS MODEL – LISTING SERVICE TO MARKETPLACE PLATFORM
Siva wanted to provide an access to a larger market in the most efficient way to the weavers. With this
op
objective, GoCoop was started as a directory listing service, where buyers could access sellers’ information.
The buyers were expected to connect directly with sellers and conduct the required transactions. However,
Siva soon realized that buyers were interested in purchasing from known entities. They were also not
confident in dealing with artisans or small cooperatives that were not accessible through telephone.
Similarly sellers were unaware about the internet and ecommerce. It was difficult for sellers to believe that
there could be an interested buyer in another city or even country. They had neither knowledge of nor access
tC
to infrastructure to execute business. Thus, GoCoop had to change the business model to become a mediator
between the buyer and seller and also ensure delivery of quality products to buyers and timely payment to
sellers. A significant percentage of buyers were interested in buying either a single piece or a few pieces of
handlooms. In order to cater to this need, GoCoop evolved into an online marketplace model in 2013.
GoCoop further established trust between buyers and sellers by setting up escrow accounts for large value
transactions.
No
Large cooperatives were capable of doing transactions themselves. In these instances, GoCoop provided
the marketplace for a commission of 10% to 15% and did not do any intermediation. For small cooperatives
and in the instance of exports, GoCoop played the role of an intermediary wherein it procured orders,
negotiated with buyers, worked with the suppliers to obtain high quality products, delivered them to buyers,
obtained payments and paid the suppliers. In the latter instance, GoCoop played the role of a wholesaler in
the market. The markup earned ranged between 10% and 20%, depending on the product and the buyer.
GoCoop ensured that it had a transparent process for pricing.
Do
6
Redbus (www.redBus.in) is a bus ticketing platform in India
Page 6 of 23
t
os
In terms of product selection, GoCoop focused on handlooms over handicrafts, since handlooms could have
some level of consistency over several meters, while each handicraft product was different from others.
Ninety percent of GoCoop’s products were handlooms, while 10% were handicrafts.
A standard dilemma faced in the early stages of its evolution by a multisided platform is similar to GoCoop
rP
choosing between creating supply capabilities and developing a franchise with customers. Coming from
the point of view of improving the lot of artisans and weavers, that choice was easy for GoCoop and Siva
– they chose to invest in the creation of supply capabilities, in working with artisans and cooperatives to
identify products that would have a ready demand in the international market, enabling the cooperatives
scale their production capacity and to ensure that they received fair and reasonable terms of trade that would
make it attractive to continue with their craft.
yo
Cluster Development to Sales
Geographically, concentrated units (households or common work areas) producing artisanal products were
called clusters. Siva explained that he classified clusters as small (<500 artisans), medium (500 to 1000
artisans), large (5,000 to 15,000 artisans) and mega (>15,000 artisans) based on the number of artisans in
op
each cluster. In India, cluster development took place in the eleventh five year plan (2007-2012) under the
Integrated Handloom Development Scheme. Some of the states took advantage of the scheme and made
significant progress in developing clusters, while other states did not make much progress.
GoCoop worked with around 45 clusters by March 2016 and was continuing to develop its cluster base. It
had started with the four states of Odisha, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Siva’s thinking was
tC
that focusing on clusters in a few states would enable GoCoop to work more effectively towards getting
more artisans with it; however, large buyers generally had demand for multiple products from across India.
Hence, GoCoop entered other states such as Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil
Nadu, and West Bengal as well.
Cooperatives generally had 50 to 500 artisans each. Some of the cooperatives were government controlled
No
while others were autonomous. Some of the large cooperatives that were present on the GoCoop platform
were Lepakshi, APCO, and Indrayani. By 2016, GoCoop worked with around 3500 cooperatives. From
2011 to 2016, GoCoop had seen significant growth across different parameters such as the number of
clusters, cooperatives, and artisans that it worked with as well as the number of products it carried, orders,
and sales value that it had realized, as shown in the data in Exhibit 5.
GoCoop was essentially a supply organization. It supplied indigenous handcrafted products to customers.
It had to perform five distinct activities to achieve this – identify clusters, develop clusters, merchandise
Do
products, develop catalogs and market the products.
In order to identify a cluster, GoCoop firstly analyzed the market to understand the demand for a specific
product. The analysis was based on its internal sources of information along with scanning of the external
Page 7 of 23
t
os
environment. GoCoop received around 100 trade enquiries in a month from retailers and traders7. Multiple
trade enquiries for a specific product indicated high market demand. GoCoop, then, identified clusters for
that specific product. It also analyzed the online search trends for the given product. This analysis provided
them with insights on demand for the specific product. A cluster also had to be fairly large because if a
cluster was small and if some of the cooperatives in that cluster were uninterested, then GoCoop would not
rP
be able to fulfill orders. Geographical accessibility to the cluster was another criterion in selecting a cluster.
Some of the clusters in India were difficult to access. In order to fulfill large orders, GoCoop team had to
visit the clusters multiple times and difficult accessibility made this expensive. Sometimes, even buyers
insisted on visiting clusters and better accessibility made it easier to take the buyers to the clusters. Cultural
issues also played an important role in identifying clusters. Artisans in certain clusters or geographical areas
were found to be more entrepreneurial and completed orders within the given time, while others had to be
yo
chased to fulfill orders. Government support also influenced cluster selection. With the support of local and
state governments, it was easier for GoCoop to establish itself in a cluster.
After identifying a cluster, GoCoop would visit the cluster and conduct awareness meetings and workshops.
This would help in gaining trust from artisans and also mobilizing them to work with GoCoop. The meetings
and workshops would also emphasize the importance of standardization and quality to the artisans. The
op
instance of Molakalmuru illustrates how GoCoop engaged with various collectives. Molakalmuru, in the
North Karnataka district, was one of the first clusters developed by GoCoop, while working on a project
funded by the state government of Karnataka. This cluster had silk weavers who were leaving the
profession, since it was becoming unviable to sustain themselves. The silk weavers used to avail loans from
money lenders to buy yarn. They used to then weave it and sell it to middlemen, with whom they could not
negotiate much. After repaying the loans with high interest costs to moneylenders, nothing much was left
tC
for the sustenance of their families. On asking the weavers their reasons for not purchasing yarn from
vendors accredited by the National Handloom Development Corporation (NHDC), Siva learnt they were
not aware of either NHDC or its accredited vendors. When Siva met the NHDC officials, he realized they
were not aware of Molakalmuru weavers either, since it was a very small cluster for NHDC. Siva then
proposed to NHDC to fund him to train and equip the weavers with technology and knowledge. Siva got
together more villages, which made it a big enough cluster for NHDC to not just provide yarn, but also
No
credit. With inexpensive credit and lower cost yarn, the weavers began to earn more. Once the back-end
was streamlined to ensure smoother production and delivery of high quality products, Siva focused on the
sales part and decided that a platform was required so that the handlooms could reach the consumers without
the middlemen’s profits, which would provide higher incomes to artisans. On the marketing side, GoCoop
approached Central Silk Board (CSB) to seek their support for marketing products from the Molakalmuru
cluster. Molakalmuru was an example of a government-funded project that GoCoop successfully executed
during the initial few months where it supported the cluster on the production as well as marketing side of
the supply chain.
Do
Once GoCoop established itself in a cluster, it had to identify products from the cluster which could be
tailored towards demand. Most of the products which were produced could cater neither to urban India nor
to the international markets. Artisans used bright colors, while the international market preferred pastel or
7
As of January 2016
Page 8 of 23
t
os
sober colors. Indian silk had much sheen, while international customers preferred silk with low sheen.
GoCoop studied the products available in the identified cluster and the market trends. It then suggested
changes in terms of colors, designs, and quality to the artisans. GoCoop referred to this process of
identifying and modifying the product design as merchandising. GoCoop engaged designers from the
National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT) who would work with the artisans to develop products. It
rP
would also take inputs from retailers and wholesalers for product merchandising.
As Siva noted:
(Y)ou have to have a vision to spend a few years to really enable these rural cooperatives
and artisans, bring them online, get them market connect and actually continuously train
yo
and educate them that over a period of time they can do this themselves and we can just
become a service provider after that.
After merchandising, products were cataloged and were made available online. Products were generally
catalogued at the local offices of GoCoop. In 2015, these offices were present in Hyderabad, Delhi,
Bhubaneshwar, and Bangalore. Seventy percent of GoCoop business came from products sourced by the
op
Hyderabad office, which catered to clusters from Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The Delhi office served
clusters from Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, and Bihar. The Bhubaneshwar office
looked after Orissa, West Bengal, and Chhattisgarh, whereas the Bangalore office catered to Karnataka,
Tamil Nadu, and Kerala. GoCoop’s local offices played an important part in managing the back-end. Apart
from identifying clusters, merchandising and cataloging, the local offices also helped GoCoop establish its
credibility among the weavers and cooperatives, since they could see GoCoop executives and signboards,
tC
which gave them comfort that GoCoop was an established player and that they would receive their
payments. These offices were also used to conduct training programs and quality checks along with buyer–
seller meets.
GoCoop used both online and offline channels for marketing. Blogs and videos on art of weaving and
artisans were used for online marketing. A blog was written on every new cluster developed by GoCoop.
No
Offline marketing was done by reaching out to traders and exporters from databases obtained from trade
agencies and those developed within the organization through incoming enquiries. Buyer–seller meets were
also organized at the clusters, which made buyers confident of working with GoCoop for the given cluster.
Supply Chain
GoCoop was operating in a sector where the demand came from mainstream markets, while the supply was
catered by non-mainstream producers. Artisans had exceptional skills to weave handloom; however, the
Do
products had scalability issues, since no two handmade products could ever be the same. The artisans and
consumers came from very different economic and cultural backgrounds, which made the development of
stable supply chains even more important and difficult.
Page 9 of 23
t
os
Key inputs for production of handloom were yarn, colors, credit and labor. Yarn was manufactured by yarn
mills across the country. Cotton yarn was mainly produced in the western parts of the country, while jute,
silk and wool yarn came from the eastern, southern, and northern parts, respectively. The National
Handloom Development Corporation (NHDC) was set up by the Government of India to enable weavers
across the country to access yarn. NHDC operated yarn depots and also provided yarn at the mill gate price
rP
to weavers. However, transparency, accountability and reliability were missing from the supply of yarn to
weavers. Traders and middlemen also interfered in the yarn supplies. Since, weavers bought yarn in small
lots, traders used to buy yarn in bulk at subsidized rates from yarn depots and sell it at high prices to
weavers. Weavers then had to compulsorily sell their products back to those traders who had supplied the
yarn and that too at prices which afforded the weaver very low margins. Although rules and regulations
were in place to prevent exploitation of weavers, corruption and lack of transparency made their
yo
enforcement difficult.
After the handloom was woven, the weavers sold it to traders and middlemen, who in turn sold it to large
buyers or export houses. These then sold to customers though online or physical stores. Between the
ultimate customer and weaver, there were layers of middlemen. Neither customers nor weavers could do
away with middlemen, since they played an important role of providing market access and sometimes credit
op
and/or yarn to weavers. Customers neither had knowledge about weavers nor the time to reach out to them.
Thus, middlemen enjoyed their privileged status and made significant profits.
In the traditional supply chainxii (Exhibit 6), there were several problems other than the multiple layers of
middlemen. Firstly, the weavers had to rely on either expensive credit or expensive yarn. Secondly, there
was a lack of quality checks and hence middlemen asked weavers to supply more pieces, since they knew
tC
that some percentage would get rejected. Thirdly, since the weavers were not aware of the market trends,
they were not able to innovate to create what customers required, which also resulted in commoditization
of hand crafted products. Fourthly, sensitive customers, who cared for handcrafted products and who were
willing to pay a premium for them, were unable to verify the products’ authenticity, owing to layers of
middlemen.
No
GoCoop tackled these problems in the supply chain through its platform and by working with the artisans.
It created awareness among artisans about government schemes and enabled them to take advantage of
them. It also sensitized artisans towards the importance of quality and customer requirements. Through the
platform, artisans and cooperatives could directly reach out to the customers. GoCoop worked mostly with
cooperatives and weavers who had the handloom mark and encouraged weavers to acquire the mark and
also apply for the India Handloom Brand. Further, and more importantly, through its transparent supply
chain (Exhibit 7), it could provide details of the artisan who made the product. Siva said:
Do
We are developing a system which will provide complete traceability. If you scan the
barcode, you would be able to see the details of the cluster, cooperative, product
composition, product specifications, artisan details along with his or her photograph. This
will not only provide customers the trust in buying truly handmade products, but will also
Page 10 of 23
t
os
instill a sense of pride in artisans. Further, this will be powerful from a business
perspective as well – knowing the granular details of the entire value chain!
Long working capital cycle was another challenge faced by GoCoop. The working capital cycle with
international buyers was longer than with domestic buyers, owing to the time required for shipping the
rP
goods. Generally, GoCoop made an advance payment to cooperatives against an order; on certain occasions,
the buyer would provide some amount as advance payment against the order. The production time was
around 3 months, while the shipping time was around 1 month. Further, realizing the payments took another
month because of the sheer steps involved in the process. Thus, the working capital cycle was around 6
months, which increased GoCoop’s financial costs. It was also trying to persuade buyers to furnish a Letter
of Credit against the orders, which would ease the working capital finance for GoCoop, albeit at a cost.
yo
As GoCoop scaled, it also invested considerable effort in ensuring that international quality standards were
maintained even while servicing large orders. This was among the more serious challenges given that the
distinguishing feature of handloom weaving, namely, the human touch, was also a source of variation in
product quality when the production runs grew in size. The team at GoCoop worked hard to ensure that the
quality of dyeing and weaving remained largely uniform and of high quality even in the case of large
op
production orders. This called for close engagement between the team at GoCoop and the weavers. It was
not without its share of challenges in the beginning and continued to remain a point of focus for the
company.
For Siva and GoCoop, developing the supply base was more than just a business proposition. As Siva noted:
tC
And for me it is like you know, ‘why am I doing this? If I am going to push them again for
credit and kind of going back to the old trader model?’ I don’t negotiate on prices also with
them. We want to make sure that they are getting prices for the products. …So we have
actually worked with them, looked at their costing and we try and tell them that ‘let us
work out the costing in a way that the weavers are getting ten to fifteen percent more for
the orders that we are giving you.
No
The net result of all the effort that had gone into the development of clusters was summed up by Naga in
the following observation:
(T)oday we can comfortably say to this leading global fashion retailer, ‘I will give you one
lakh meter of Khadi’ which nobody in the world could do. And similarly we are telling
some Italian guys that we will give 30000 meter of Ikat…. Yesterday we were with this
large domestic retailer of traditional wear like Dhotis…. He wants to test us…. He is giving
Do
around 100-200 sarees order yesterday to try it out. This is where now the major challenge
earlier was, building the supply chain but now we can say that reasonably we are in seven
states we have covered and we have the supply taken care (of).
Page 11 of 23
t
os
Customers and Go to Market Strategy
GoCoop catered to both individual and large customers such as retailers and wholesalers. In India, GoCoop
had large customers such as some of the leading Indian textile and fashion retail chains. Most of the
cooperatives were more comfortable with bulk order sales, since, they did not have the ability to hold
rP
inventory. GoCoop also did not hold any inventory. However, the larger cooperatives such as APCO had
the ability to hold inventory and hence were open to both B2B and B2C. For GoCoop, it was challenging
to do both B2B and B2C, since the skill sets and teams required for the two types of businesses were very
different. The online platform was relevant for both B2B and B2C. GoCoop earned almost 50% revenues
from B2B sales, up from 10% a few years before. It received 100 to 200 leads per month for B2B through
its online platform.
yo
GoCoop’s B2B customers were both domestic and international. Domestic buyers had the advantage of
approaching clusters themselves to reduce their costs. Domestic buyers were price sensitive and would
change their suppliers for small margins. For international buyers, relationship with the supplier, deep
sourcing capabilities, ethical, and transparent sourcing were important and generally they did not negotiate
much on the prices, since they appreciated the fact that artisans received higher wages. Some of the
op
international buyers provided 100% advance against orders, while domestic buyers paid after delivery and
often a long time after delivery.
GoCoop had tied up with a leading state-owned financial institution for availing their marketing assistance
program which was focused on marketing rural products. GoCoop had also tied up with HEPC and was
able to reach out to several buyers and agents in countries across the world. The company had also partnered
tC
with Ministry of Textiles, Government of India as an e-commerce partner for handlooms. Tie-ups with
agents in foreign countries were essential to accelerate the process of finding buyers, since agents had local
intelligence. Also, physical presence through agents helped in establishing credibility. However, there were
also instances of a buyer being interested and then not placing the order. For example, GoCoop had been
working on several designs for an international buyer for a large order. It had put in more than 6 months of
efforts. Eventually, the buyer backed out, alluding to unfavorable economic conditions. Thus, GoCoop
No
required both large and small buyers. Handlooms and handicrafts were generally purchased by large buyers
through agents. These agents, however, did not cater to smaller businesses and individual consumers, since
it became operationally expensive. Through its platform, GoCoop wanted to reach all segments – large
buyers, small buyers and individuals. For GoCoop, technology enabled low costs. Thus, GoCoop could
build an effective and efficient supply chain, wherein its platform played a significant role.
As GoCoop’s evolved, its customer acquisition endeavors were the result of two principal dilemmas:
Focusing on international versus domestic customers and choosing from B2B, B2C and multichannel
Do
strategies. Both Naga and Siva had exercised their minds on it. At some point in time, they had also
consulted some of the investors from Indian Angel Network (IAN) who had participated in the angel round.
While there was no conscious preference towards the B2B or B2C model, GoCoop clearly had found it
more attractive to work with international customers. The challenges were the cost of customer acquisition,
Page 12 of 23
t
os
the long lead times, and the considerable upfront investment required as some of its experience so far had
demonstrated.
The choice between B2B and B2C was a well-understood problem. B2C required considerable investment
in customer acquisition. Siva estimated the existing cost of acquiring a customer at between INR 1000 and
rP
INR 2000. The high level of price-led competition among B2C enterprises increased the riskiness of a B2C
strategy for the entrepreneur even further. That said, most investors seemed to like the B2C story although
a slight shift had been noticed lately towards well-executed B2B enterprises as well. On the B2B side,
GoCoop had established a significant capacity to deliver; with a supply chain geared to play the role of an
agent for well-institutionalized customers and had managed to catch the attention of marquee buyers.
However, executing the B2B strategy too had its own need for capital to develop a product line for a
yo
customer with the attendant risk that the customer might not place any orders for the same.
ORGANIZATION BUILDING
The initial team of six consisted of five fresh graduates from RICM and Siva’s former colleague, Anand.
Anand had one year of work experience as part of Siva’s team at Accenture and had the energy and
op
willingness to accept the challenge and excitement of working for a start-up. Siva could pay market-based
salaries only for fresh graduates. However, Anand took a pay cut. The first 2 years were very difficult for
the team and they had a very tough time convincing cooperatives to join the GoCoop platform.
All the initial six members left the organization within 2 years, of which Anand was the last to leave. The
founding team left primarily because the company could not afford to pay market-based salaries for the
tC
first 2 years in the absence of external funding. At the same time, the founding team members had personal
commitments that they could not meet out of the salaries that GoCoop paid them.
After the seed funding, Naga played an active part in building the organization. Siva had discussed with
Naga and Srinivas about their joining GoCoop. Naga and Siva however decided against joining for two
reasons. First, they felt that the cut that they would need to accept in compensation would make it unfair to
No
them. Further, they also felt that GoCoop needed to bring on board at that stage people with profiles aligned
to the business needs of a start-up. Several of their initial attempts to bring on board a senior professional
did not succeed either because of their lack of integrity or competence or alignment of their backgrounds
with the needs of GoCoop..
At the operational level, Siva focused on hiring people with an educational background in textiles or fashion
who could also go to a rural area and work with artisans. However, people from textiles background
preferred to go to large, known textile companies such as Shahi Exports, Gokuldas Exports, Arvind,
Do
Raymonds, Digjam, Bombay Dyeing, and Reliance Industries. Some people who were socially inclined
joined GoCoop. As Siva pointed out, “The biggest challenge was in finding someone who was willing to
work on a model which is not proven yet.” The organization structure in 2016 is shown in Exhibit 8.
GoCoop had identified two senior-level people to join as COO and CTO. Siva mentioned:
Page 13 of 23
t
os
In an organization such (as) ours, relevant experience is critical. We do not have the luxury
of time. Most of our people are from the textile domain – they have the relevant knowledge
and experience and also the ability to work in rural areas with weavers. They are more
effective with lower salaries. Finding someone who will work with an unproven business
model is always a challenge.
rP
Siva believed that this was the reason that they had the organizational ability to ensure the quality of the
product. This was in contrast to the well-known mainstream e-commerce players. By way of evidence, Siva
adds:
A good statistic I have is, we have done now close to four thousand orders. Of the four
yo
thousand orders that we have done – the number may sound unreal – but we have less than
fifty orders which have either returns or any challenges in quality. This is like, unheard of
in artisan sector. In the craft sector, you have 20% of the order.
After experiencing different types of people and their performance over a period of 4 years, Siva had put in
place a six-monthly performance appraisal system. Given that the pace at which Siva wanted business to
op
grow at GoCoop, he believed that a person could have maximum 6 months to prove himself or herself.
INVESTORS’ PERSPECTIVE, FUNDING, AND PIVOTS
Siva had estimated that GoCoop would obtain Series A funding within 18 months of starting up. However,
that did not happen and it put considerable pressure on operations and growth. Siva had sent his business
tC
plans to several venture capitalists and angel investors. He was looking for an investment of USD 1.5
million (INR 100 million). Siva had also sent his business plan to the IAN secretariat. IAN had started IAN
Impact to invest in social enterprises. Naga Prakasam from IAN had seen the plan, however, IAN Impact’s
sweet spot for investment was around USD 0.3 million, hence the plan was not considered.
Naga was attending a conference by Rockefeller Foundation, which was attended by Siva as well. At that
No
conference, Siva had asked a question about how cooperatives can play a role in social enterprises. Naga
liked the question and realized that cooperatives ought to play a major role in the economy. He started
engaging with Siva in a funding discussion over the next few days. Naga mentioned:
I pulled him out and said, “Hey I received your deck. However, you are asking for too
much. Let me spend some time with you.” Then, I met him and understood the details. It
was fantastic – his story, background and his approach. I then told him to split up his
business, start getting traction – because in 2013, VCs needed to see traction. Today in
Do
2016, VCs may even fund ideas, but that was not the case in 2013. So, I worked with him
to start with a round of angel funding. Siva accepted. That way he was mentorable and for
angels, that is important.
Page 14 of 23
t
os
At that time, in 2013, GoCoop had a primitive platform where suppliers and customers could register
themselves. Several dozen cooperatives had registered with GoCoop and APCO was in the pipeline. On the
people front, Dr. Siddhanti was the domain expert-cum-mentor and GoCoop also engaged two retired
people for finance and marketing. Naga was further impressed with Siva for employing the finance person,
since it was not common for start-ups to focus on finance from the very beginning. GoCoop also earned
rP
some revenues through the government-funded projects. Naga believed that government projects were not
a sustainable business model from the perspective of scaling up and Siva too became convinced and moved
towards a market-driven business model.
Naga was keen to understand the interest in the investment space among the venture capital investors. He
considered them to be potential providers of liquidity to angel investors that he might bring on board. Hence,
yo
he started discussions with a few venture capital funds. Most of them were interested in the government-
funded projects model, which they believed were impactful in reaching out to the people. However, Naga
believed that the market-driven model would lead to scalability and eventually benefit the artisans better.
Naga said:
Artisans may not have access to resources, but they know what they want. The moment,
op
they have more money, they will send their children to a private school, since they know
what is the best for their children. Hence, my philosophy was that GoCoop should help
them sell more products at better margins and put more money in their hands.
Naga brought in Unitus Seed Fund as a co-investor and a funding of USD 0.28 million (INR 180 million)
was completed in December 2013. After this round of funding, the investors and Siva held several strategic
tC
discussions for the future of GoCoop. Some of the angel investors themselves had varying opinions on the
business model. GoCoop had several options. Firstly, it could have become a B2C venture by selling
designer handloom clothes on its platform, wherein the artisans and cooperatives would have been required
to change their ways of working. Secondly, it could have preserved the way artisans worked and sold the
cloth to designers and retailers, who could then use it as per their requirements. The second method was
better from an artisanal and preserving traditions perspective; however it faced challenges of marketing
No
traditional designs in contemporary markets. GoCoop decided to adopt this difficult path, since artisans
were its main focus. Although GoCoop embraced this path, it still made slight modifications such as change
of colors for handlooms, which did not impact the artisans significantly, yet, catered to the product
requirements of customers.
After the seed funding, several investors became interested in GoCoop from a strategic perspective. One of
them was a large global ecommerce company, which wanted to acquire significant stakes in GoCoop and
conduct B2C e-commerce for GoCoop products, while GoCoop could conduct B2B. However, GoCoop
Do
had two apprehensions. Firstly, the e-commerce giant might discontinue with a cluster, if the products were
not selling, thus deserting the artisans. Secondly, by signing up with one e-commerce company, they might
lose the opportunity to work with other ecommerce companies or develop their own model. Nevertheless,
GoCoop still undertook a pilot project and in spite of the prospective partner’s big budget marketing, the
B2C sales were not very high. The second investment opportunity came from a large domestic chemicals
Page 15 of 23
t
os
manufacturer with good exposure to the crafts sector. This firm received a significant percentage of its sales
from pigments, which were used by cooperatives. It wanted to invest in GoCoop to reach out to more
cooperatives for a significant stake. This would have again interfered with the artisanal way of working and
hence GoCoop informed the firm that it could undertake investment for a small stake but would not push
the investor’s products. The prospective investor backed out as this did not meet its objectives. On both
rP
these occasions, some of the angels were keen to exit; however, Naga persisted and convinced them that
the investments were not in the best interests of the GoCoop. Although, Siva needed funding to reach out
to more cooperatives, he appreciated that these decisions would help GoCoop in the long run.
Lone founder start-ups were a concern for several investors, since a start-up requires much work to be done
in different spheres such as marketing, sales, production, finance, accounting and human resources.
yo
Additionally, decision making may become skewed with a lone founder. IAN and Unitus were cognizant
of these problems, yet they decided to back Siva, since he came across as a well-rounded person who could
handle the supply chain, production, marketing, finances, and technology, while he had domain experts on
board as well. He had also built a good team by the time of seed funding. However, Siva was getting
stretched while delivering on all fronts and the investors advised him to add a second layer of people or
CXO level people who could deliver, lead, and also help with strategy. By 2015, Siva had identified two
op
people who would join as CTO and CMO.
By 2016, the existing investors in GoCoop were joined by Kris Gopalakrishnan, co-founder of Infosys, the
Saha Fund and others who committed fresh funding of USD 1.50 million (close to INR 100 million) in
Series A round. During discussions for Series A, several investors had said that they liked the idea and the
team. However, most of the mainstream investors backed out owing to GoCoop’s focus on the B2B business
tC
model; they believed that B2C had better scalability. The impact investors seemed to be favorably inclined
towards the B2B model. However, for the GoCoop team, the focus was clear – operate in the best possible
way to put more money in the hands of artisans.
In 2015, GoCoop’s gross merchandise value (GMV) was USD 0.62 million (INR 40 million) and this was
expected to reach USD 3 Million (INR 200 million) in 2016 and USD 30 million (INR 2000 million) by
No
2020.
SCALING UP AND GROWTH – WHAT NEXT AND HOW?
GoCoop had made significant achievements in the last 4 years. Siva and GoCoop were getting noticed
internationally. The International Cooperative Alliance (ICA), which included cooperative organizations as
members across the world, had invited Siva to present his paper on GoCoop as a platform for all the
cooperatives in the world. More importantly, GoCoop had built its trust among 3500 cooperatives and
Do
several thousand artisans.
The business of connecting artisans to customers in India and outside was getting crowded. Several players
were already in the market before GoCoop and many more were entering, who were trying to connect
artisans to the marketplace. Each of them had some unique element in their strategy. At the same time, most
Page 16 of 23
t
os
of them were struggling with some common difficulties too. GoCoop distinguished itself from these players
through its combination of a high level of commitment to the welfare of the artisans, working closely with
them to raise their products to international standards, providing global reach to them by harnessing
technology and assuring the customer of the authenticity of the product by way of full traceability. In pursuit
of the mission, Siva was prepared to work with a careful but slow addition of products, a more deliberate
rP
market development strategy and a building a true impact enterprise that would blend the social cause of
the artisan with that of financial self-reliance of the enterprise.
Siva had closed the first tranche of a Series A round on the back of a plan to achieve INR 2000 million by
2020. However, scaling was not that easy and he had to develop a strategy for that. Further, he had to grow
his organization with the right people to achieve its goals. Siva was almost nearing Guntur and the questions
yo
still remained. What strategy should he choose from B2B, B2C and what he referred to as the multichannel
strategy? What was clear though in Siva’s mind was his commitment to improve the lot of the artisans
through the mechanism of trade and the approach of bringing international customers to Indian craft as it
was rather than taking Indian products to the world market by substantially transforming the product as
most of the extant players seemed to have done so far.
op
tC
No
Do
Page 17 of 23
t
os
Exhibit 1
Handloom Mark
rP
Source: http://www.handloommark.gov.in/
yo
Exhibit 2
Handloom and Handicraft Clusters in India
State Handloom Clusters* Handicraft Clusters**

Andhra Pradesh 78 27
Arunachal Pradesh 44 6
op
Assam 158 44
Bihar 17 6
Chhattisgarh 16 6
Delhi 1 4
Gujarat 9 89
Haryana 1 17
Himachal Pradesh 12 20
tC
Jammu & Kashmir 15 34

Jharkhand 57 22
Kerala 29 11
Karnataka 26 19
Madhya Pradesh 23 49
Maharashtra 7 32
Manipur 128 30
No
Meghalaya 84 4
Mizoram 26 2
Nagaland 54 6
Orissa 61 35
Rajasthan 6 17
Sikkim 4 2
Tripura 48 19
Telangana 27 Included in Andhra Pradesh
Tamil Nadu 93 13
Uttarakhand 10 15
Do
Uttar Pradesh 62 72
West Bengal 42 29
Total 1137 630
* Source: Compiled from “Statewise details of handloom cluster sanction under various schemes during 2006-07 to 2015-16” from
http://handlooms.nic.in/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f on April 20, 2016
** Source: Compiled from http://www.craftclustersofindia.in/site/Cluster_Map.html on 20th April 2016
Page 18 of 23
t
os
Exhibit 3
Handicraft Schemes in India
Name Objective
Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hastshilp To promote Indian handicrafts by developing artisans’ clusters into
rP
Yojayana professionally managed and self-reliant community enterprise on the
principles of effective member participation and mutual cooperation
Design and Technology Up- To upgrade artisan’s skills through development of innovative designs and
gradation prototypes products for overseas market, revival of languishing crafts and
preservation of heritage
Marketing Services and Support To provide marketing support for domestic and international marketing
though events, fairs, exhibitions, buyer–seller meets workshops, seminars
and marketing studies.
yo
To provide publicity to handicrafts through different media
Research and Development To conduct surveys and studies of important crafts and perform in-depth
analysis of specific aspects and problems of handicrafts in order to generate
useful inputs to aid policy planning and fine tune the ongoing initiatives;
and to conduct independent evaluation of the schemes implemented by the
government
Human and Resource Development To provide qualified and trained work force to the handicraft sector
op
Handicrafts Artisans To provide health and life insurance, credit, interest subsidy and identity
Comprehensive Welfare Scheme cards to artisans
Infrastructure and Technology To develop world class infrastructure in the country to support handicraft
Development Scheme production and enhance the product quality and cost, to enable it to compete
in the world market
Source: Ministry of Textiles, Government of India

tC
Exhibit 4
Assisted Successful Cooperatives in India
Segment Cooperatives
Agricultural  The Regional Agro-Industrial Development Cooperative Ltd., Kannur, Kerala
Inputs
No
Computerization  Jawahar Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Shri Kallappana Awaede Naga
Kolhapur, Maharashtra
 Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Old Palace, Kolhapur, Maharashtra.
Fisheries  Kerala State Coop. Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd., Karuvankonam,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.
 Karanja Machhimar Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Karanja, Maharashtra
 Arnala Machhimar Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Arnala, Thane District,
Maharashtra
Handlooms  Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers' Coop. Society Ltd., Egmore, Chennai-8.
Do
Spinning Mills  ShetkariSahakari Soot Girni Ltd., District Sholapur, Maharashtra.

 Gujarat State Coop. Cotton Federation. Ltd. Ahmedabad-9.
Sugar Mills  The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Kurukshetra, Haryana.
Page 19 of 23
t
os
Exhibit 4 (Contd.)
Cold Storage,  HOPCOMS, Lalbagh, Bangalore

Fruits &  MAHAGRAPES, Pune, Maharashtra
Vegetables  Lahoul Potato Growers Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Manali (LPS), Himachal
rP
Pradesh
 The Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Marketing and Consumers’ Federation Ltd.,
(HIMFED), Shimla
 Regional Fruits and Vegetables Producers Coop. Society Ltd., (VEGCO),
Thaliparamba, Kerala
 NAFED, New Delhi
 Rau Cooperative Cold Storage, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
 Uttar 24 Parganas Krishi Samabya Himghar Samity Ltd., District 24 Parganas, West
yo
Bengal.
 Mahua Cooperative Cold Storage Ltd. District Vaishali, Bihar
Source: http://www.ncdc.in/index_files/FewSuccessfulCooperatives.htm
Exhibit 5
Summary Data indicating progress achieved by GoCoop +
op
Mar-12 Mar-13 Mar-14 Mar-15 Mar-16
Clusters 8 12 19 30
Cooperative Sellers/Partners 50 115 200 250
Employees 6 8 22 35 40
tC
Sales (INR Lacs) 20 40 100 200

Investment (INR Lacs) 80 180 600
+ Some of the data have been masked to preserve the confidentiality of the numbers.
Source: Based on information provided by GoCoop

No
Do
Page 20 of 23
t
os
Exhibit 6
Traditional handloom supply chain
rP
yo
op
Exhibit 7
tC
GoCoop’s supply chain
GoCoop
Yarn or Market
Credit Access
No
Weavers Finished GoCoop

/Cooperatives Product Platform
Do
Foreign Bulk Export Large

Online Sales Exhibitions,
Domestic
Trade Fairs Buyers Agencies
Buyers
Page 21 of 23
t
os
Exhibit 8
Organization structure8
rP
CEO/MD
Advisory Board
Chief Marketing
Officer
yo Chief Operations
Officer (Textile
Engineer, 20+ years of
work-ex)
Administrative Officer
Chief Technology
Officer (B.E., MS,
MBA with 12+ years
of work-ex)
op
Head Sourcing &
Head, B2B Head , B2C Finance
Production
(Textile design, 12 (MBA with 8 years of (ICWA, 20+ years of
(Textile graduate,
years of work-ex) work ex) work-ex)
12+year of work-ex)
Head, Quality Control

Executive, B2B
& Logistics
HR Executive
tC
(NIFT Graduate,
(Textile graduate, 8+
2+years of work-ex)
years of work-ex)
Executive, B2B
(NIFT Graduate, Legal/CS Consultants
2+years of work-ex)
No

Do
8
Some employee related details have been masked at the request of the company.
Page 22 of 23
t
os
END NOTES
i
Annual Report, 2015-16, Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, Page 12
ii
iii
iv
rP
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1105_021105_IndiaSariWeaving.html,
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-sundaymagazine/the-last-drape/article4818913.ece,
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/weavers-woes-despite-welfare-
schemes/article1292520.ece
v
http://www.nsdcindia.org/sites/default/files/files/Handlooms-Handicrafts.pdf
vi
http://epch.in/moreDetails.htm
vii
http://www.ibef.org/exports/handloom-industry-india.aspx
viii
yo
ix
http://www.ibef.org/exports/handloom-industry-india.aspx
x
xi
xii
http://usf.vc/disrupting-exploitive-supply-chains-comparing-two-approaches-enabling-indias-artisans/
op
tC
No
Do
Page 23 of 23

Start Up-Gocoop-Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Start Up-Gocoop-Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Start Up-Gocoop-Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

t

HANDLOOMS AND HANDICRAFTS IN INDIA

fairs, exhibitions, emporiums, training programs, and other interventions.

SIVA DEVIREDDY – “FROM AIRBUS TO REDBUS”

THE BUSINESS MODEL – LISTING SERVICE TO MARKETPLACE PLATFORM

products, develop catalogs and market the products.

INVESTORS’ PERSPECTIVE, FUNDING, AND PIVOTS

SCALING UP AND GROWTH – WHAT NEXT AND HOW?

several thousand artisans.

State Handloom Clusters* Handicraft Clusters**

Jammu & Kashmir 15 34

Source: Ministry of Textiles, Government of India

Spinning Mills  ShetkariSahakari Soot Girni Ltd., District Sholapur, Maharashtra.

Cold Storage,  HOPCOMS, Lalbagh, Bangalore

Sales (INR Lacs) 20 40 100 200

Source: Based on information provided by GoCoop

GoCoop’s supply chain

Weavers Finished GoCoop

Foreign Bulk Export Large

Source: Based on information provided by GoCoop

Head, Quality Control

Source: Based on information provided by GoCoop

You might also like