Companies need to look at anti-counterfeiting solutions from the perspective of protecting revenue, goodwill, and patient safety

Can you briefly explain ASPA’s evolution and how the anti‑counterfeiting ecosystem has changed?

ASPA as an organisation started in 1998 as HOMAI, the Hologram Manufacturing Association of India. At that time it was a very niche industry and people were not so worried about counterfeiting.

Today HOMAI has evolved into ASPA — the Authentication Solution Providers Association — because we realised that multiple technologies need to be used together to solve the problem. Every technology independently has its pros and cons, so the idea is to augment one technology with another to create complementary solutions.

There are physical technologies and digital technologies. Physical technologies include holography, security printing, and newer technologies like micro‑optics. Holography itself has evolved through different generations — today we talk about the fourth generation of holography.

Then there are technologies linking the physical and digital worlds — barcodes and QR codes. Eventually there are digital layers such as supply chain traceability systems. Some people talk about blockchain as well, although it is not yet widely implemented in supply chain traceability.

The key point is that no single technology can solve the problem. A combination of technologies works best.

Copying of QR codes has already happened and there has been a very big case with a very prominent pharma company which suffered massive counterfeiting because distributors were involved. Doesn’t that weaken the system?

Exactly. QR codes independently used are not security technologies because they can be photocopied. But when you integrate QR codes with physical security technologies like holography or security printing, then it becomes a powerful solution.

Even if companies adopt anti‑counterfeiting technologies, consumers or patients must know how to check them. How do we create that awareness? And what is the ROI for companies investing in such technologies? Many smaller pharma companies say it is too much investment for too little return.

They need to change the conversation from cost to investment. If a ₹100‑crore company has 20 per cent of its product counterfeited, that means ₹20 crore of revenue is lost. Even with a 10 per cent margin, that is ₹2 crore of profit gone. The investment needed to secure packaging may not even be ₹50 lakh.

So the additional investment is marginal. Companies need to look at it from the perspective of protecting revenue, goodwill, and patient safety.

Historically, companies were shy about admitting that their brands were being counterfeited. But that narrative has changed in the last four to five years. Brands are now starting to acknowledge the issue and talk about it.

For example, Mankind Pharma and Alkem have openly spoken about the issue and educated consumers about how to check authenticity.

That’s encouraging, but what about broader awareness beyond individual companies? There may be many companies who still do not want to take the reputational hit of admitting counterfeiting.

As an authentication solutions industry we are seeing strong double‑digit growth across sectors. The problem exists everywhere. Pharma is particularly sensitive because you are consuming the product. Food and FMCG are also sensitive sectors.

Interestingly, in sectors like apparel consumers knowingly buy counterfeit products. But the acceptance of counterfeit pharma products should ideally be much lower.

One of the reasons people still buy counterfeit products is availability or trust in the local vendor. That trust sometimes gets misused.