top of page

By:

Rashmi Kulkarni

23 March 2025 at 2:58:52 pm

Loss Aversion Is Why Your Good Idea Fails

Your upgrade is their loss until you prove otherwise. Last week, Rahul wrote about a simple truth: you’re not inheriting a business, you’re inheriting an equilibrium. This week, I want to talk about the most common reason that equilibrium fights back even when your idea is genuinely sensible. Here it is, in plain language: People don’t oppose improvement. They oppose loss disguised as improvement. When you step into a legacy MSME, most things are still manual, informal, relationship-driven....

Loss Aversion Is Why Your Good Idea Fails

Your upgrade is their loss until you prove otherwise. Last week, Rahul wrote about a simple truth: you’re not inheriting a business, you’re inheriting an equilibrium. This week, I want to talk about the most common reason that equilibrium fights back even when your idea is genuinely sensible. Here it is, in plain language: People don’t oppose improvement. They oppose loss disguised as improvement. When you step into a legacy MSME, most things are still manual, informal, relationship-driven. People have built their own ways of keeping work moving. It’s not perfect, but it’s familiar. When you introduce a new system, a new rule, a new “professional way,” you may be adding order but you’re also removing something  they were using to survive. And humans react more strongly to removals than additions. Behavioral economists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky called this loss aversion where we feel losses more sharply than we feel gains. That’s why your promised “future benefit” struggles to compete with someone’s immediate fear. Which seat are you stepping into? Inherited seat:  People assume you’ll change things quickly to “prove yourself”. They brace for loss even before you speak. Hired seat:  People watch for hidden agendas: “New boss means new rules, new blame.” They protect themselves. Promoted seat:  Your peers worry the old friendship is now replaced by authority. They fear loss of comfort and access. Different seats, same emotion underneath: don’t take away what keeps me safe. Weighing Scale Think of an old kirana shop. The weighing scale may not be fancy, but it’s trusted. The shopkeeper has used it for years. Customers have seen it. Everyone has settled into that comfort. Now imagine someone walks in and says, “We’re upgrading your weighing scale. This is digital. More accurate. More modern.” Sounds good, right? But what does the shopkeeper hear ? “My customers might think the old scale was wrong.” (loss of trust) “I won’t be able to adjust for small realities.” (loss of flexibility) “If the digital scale shows something different, I’ll be accused.” (loss of safety) “This was my shop. Now someone else is deciding.” (loss of control) So even if the new scale is better, the shopkeeper will resist or accept it politely and quietly return to the old one when nobody is watching. That is exactly what happens in companies. Modernisation Pitch Most leaders pitch change like this: “We’ll become world-class.” “We’ll digitize.” “We’ll improve visibility.” “We’ll build a process-driven culture.” But for the listener, these are not benefits. These are threats, because they translate into losses: Visibility can mean exposure . Process can mean loss of discretion . Digitization can mean loss of speed  (at least initially). “Professional” can mean loss of status  for the old guard. So the person across the table is not debating your logic. They’re calculating their losses. Practical Way Watch what happens when you propose something simple like daily reporting. You say: “It’s just 10 minutes. Basic discipline.” They hear: “Daily reporting means daily scrutiny.” “If numbers dip, I will be questioned.” “If I show the truth, it will create conflict.” “If I don’t show the truth, I’ll be accused later.” In their mind, the safest response is: nod, agree, delay. Then you label them “resistant.” But they’re not resisting change. They’re resisting loss . Leader’s Job If you want adoption in an MSME, don’t sell modernization as “upgrade”. Sell it as protection . Instead of: “We need an ERP.” Try: “We need to stop money leakage and order confusion.” Instead of: “We need systems.” Try: “We need fewer customer escalations and less rework.” Instead of: “We need transparency.” Try: “We need fewer surprises at month-end.” This is not manipulation. This is translation. You’re speaking the language the system understands: risk, leakage, blame, customer loss, cash loss, fatigue. Field Test: Rewrite your pitch in loss-prevention language Pick one change you’re pushing this month. Now write two versions: Version A (your current pitch): What you normally say: upgrade, modern, efficiency, best practices. Version B (loss prevention pitch): Use this template: What are we losing today?  (money, time, customers, reputation, peace) Where is the leakage happening?  (handoffs, approvals, rework, vendor delays) What small protection will this change create? (fewer disputes, faster closure, less follow-up) What will not change?  (no layoffs, no humiliation, no sudden policing) What proof will we show in 2 weeks?  (one metric, one visible win) Now do one more important step: For your top 3 stakeholders, write the one loss they think they will face  if your change happens. Don’t argue with it. Just name it. Because once you name the fear, you can design around it. The close If you remember only one thing from this week, remember this: A “good idea” is not enough in a legacy MSME. People need to feel safe adopting it. You don’t have to dilute your standards. You just have to stop selling change like a TED talk and start selling it like a protection plan. Next week, we’ll deal with another invisible force that keeps companies stuck even when they agree with you: the status quo isn’t a baseline. It’s a competitor. (The writer is CEO of PPS Consulting, can be reached at rashmi@ppsconsulting.biz )

The Truth About Ultra-Processed Foods

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

Processed Foods

In today’s health-conscious world, the term “Ultra Processed Foods” (UPFs) frequently surfaces in discussions about diet and nutrition. These foods are often viewed as unhealthy, though opinions vary on their necessity and role in modern lifestyles. Before diving into these debates, let’s first define UPFs. According to the NOVA classification system, developed by Brazilian researchers, UPFs are foods that undergo extensive industrial processing and contain additives like colourants, emulsifiers, and flavour enhancers to improve taste, texture, and shelf life. These processes transform the original ingredients into products that bear little resemblance to their natural form.


Depending on the level of processing, foods are classified into four categories: unprocessed or minimally processed foods, processed ingredients, processed foods, and ultra-processed foods. Each category reflects a different stage in transforming raw ingredients into consumable products.

1. Unprocessed or minimally processed foods include fresh fruits, vegetables, and milk, which have no added ingredients or undergo minimal processing. These are the closest to their natural state.

2. Processed ingredients refer to items such as salt, sugar, and oils, which are not eaten on their own but are added to foods to enhance flavour or shelf life.

3. Processed foods combine unprocessed foods with processed ingredients, such as homemade dishes or pickles. These are typically prepared at home using basic methods.

4. Ultra-processed foods, on the other hand, are factory-made and contain ingredients rarely found in a home kitchen, such as preservatives, emulsifiers, sweeteners, artificial colours, and flavours.


The United Nations (UN) has declared 2016–2025 as the Decade of Action on Nutrition, recognising the growing need to address dietary challenges worldwide. In this context, ultra-processed foods have been highlighted as a global crisis, contributing significantly to the rise of non-communicable diseases, such as obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, which are reaching epidemic levels in many parts of the world. Despite the growing awareness of the health risks associated with ultra-processed foods (UPFs), their production and consumption continue to rise at an alarming rate. This surge is largely due to the appeal of their taste, convenience, extended shelf life, wide availability, and relatively low cost, making them a popular choice for many.


According to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), UPFs fall into Group C, which includes a wide variety of commercially produced items such as bread, biscuits, mayonnaise, chips, fries, jams, sausages, cakes, breakfast cereals, and refined oils. Other products in this category include artificially flavoured cereals and pulses, mass-produced milk and soft drinks, energy and health drinks, fruit juices, and commercially manufactured ice creams. These foods, despite their widespread consumption, are heavily processed and often contain artificial additives that can have adverse effects on health over time.


To effectively reduce the intake of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), it’s essential to adopt mindful habits that promote healthier eating choices.


Each of these steps can make a significant difference in reducing reliance on processed foods and ensuring a more balanced and nutritious diet.


Despite the harmful effects of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), the global food industry faces significant challenges. A key concern is the reduction of post-harvest losses, which occur when food is wasted after harvesting but before reaching consumers. Additionally, extending the shelf life of raw materials and preserving perishable foods is critical, especially in areas with limited refrigeration and storage access.


There is also a strong push to promote the growth of food processing industries, as they play a vital role in ensuring that food remains available and affordable for a growing global population. While addressing these concerns, it is equally important to strike a balance that prioritises health.


This delicate balance between food security, convenience, and accessibility on one side and health on the other poses a pressing challenge for policymakers, researchers, and the food industry. So, do you have an answer? The time to act is now.


(The author is a food processing expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page