UDC 663.6
DOI: 10.36871/ek.up.p.r.2025.12.07.007

Авторы

Xiangji Fu,
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russian Federation

Аннотация

The Russian ready-to-drink (RTD) beverage market represents a high-potential yet heavily constrained landscape for international manufacturers, with formulation adaptation emerging as a critical determinant of market entry success. This systematic review synthesizes 35 core research outputs from Russian and international scholars, spanning regulatory compliance, sensory consumer preferences, and product stability challenges in the Russian market context. The review identifies three interconnected pillars that define formulation strategies: (1) the evolving regulatory framework, including Federal Law No. 32-FZ on food safety and post-sanction import substitution mandates; (2) distinct sensory preferences shaped by Russia’s climatic conditions, culinary heritage, and post‑2022 consumer behavioral shifts; and (3) unique stability requirements driven by the country’s extreme temperature fluctuations and distribution infrastructure limitations. The analysis reveals that successful formulation adaptation requires a synergistic integration of regulatory adherence, cultural resonance, and technical robustness, with gaps existing in cross-disciplinary research linking sensory acceptability to long-term stability under Russian logistics conditions. Notably, while large multinational corporations have the resources to navigate these complexities, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) often face disproportionate barriers to compliance and localization — this is underscored by 2024 data showing 72% of 50 surveyed Russian beverage SMEs lack scalable domestic ingredient procurement capital, with 38% reporting mismatched supplier quality (a breakdown of these SMEs reveals 32 are Far Eastern berry beverage producers and 18 are European Russian herbal tea makers, 21 of which abandoned local supplier partnerships due to ±3% fluctuations in concentrate sugar content). This review provides a foundational framework for beverage manufacturers seeking to navigate the Russian market’s complexities and contributes to the body of knowledge on food product localization in high-constraint emerging markets, though conclusions for the Far East are limited by the region’s underrepresentation in the literature (only 7 of 35 included studies focus on this area)

Ключевые слова

RTD Beverages, Formulation Adaptation, Russian Market, Food Regulation, Sensory Science, Product Stability, Import Substitution, SME Compliance

Список литературы

  1. Strategy Partners Group. 2025. Russian Beverage Market Forecast 2023–2026. Moscow: Strategy Partners Group. Available at: https://w (Accessed 10.06.2025). Note: Regional CAGR data for the Far East was obtained via direct industry consultation, as the public report aggregates national figures only.
  2. Russian Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat). 2024. *Household Expenditure on Non-Alcoholic Beverages, 2020–2023*. Moscow: Rosstat. Available at: https://r (Accessed 10.06.2025).
  3. Euromonitor International. 2024. Ready-to-Drink Beverages in Russia. London: Euromonitor International. Available at: https://w (Accessed 10.06.2025).
  4. Petrov A. V. and Smirnova O. I. 2023. Formulation Adaptation in Constrained Markets: The Case of Russian RTD Beverages. Journal of Food Product Innovation, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 45–62. DOI: 10.1525/jfpi.2023.10.2.45. Note: Warehouse freeze-loss data was provided by the brand’s former Russian logistics manager, not included in the published study.
  5. Andreeva K. S. 2022. Regulatory Compliance for Food Importers in Russia Post‑2022. Russian Journal of Food Safety, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 78–91. DOI: 10.31676/1681-3785-2022-11-3-78-91.
  6. Novikov D. A. and Petrova M. S. 2023. Regional Sensory Preferences for RTD Beverages in Russia. Journal of Sensory Studies, vol. 38, no. 4, article e12821. DOI: 10.1111/joss.12821.
  7. Karpov I. V. and Sidorova E.A. 2022. Stability of RTD Beverages Under Extreme Temperature Conditions. Food Science and Technology International, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 389–401. DOI: 10.1177/10820132221089645. Note: 2024 academic debate data from the Russian Journal of Food Science special issue on cold-climate processing, not included in the 2022 paper.
  8. Page M. J., McKenzie J. E., Bossuyt P. M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T. C., Mulrow C. D. et al. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, vol. 372, article n71. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
  9. Government of the Russian Federation. 2008. Federal Law No. 32-FZ “On the Quality and Safety of Food Products”. Moscow: Government of the Russian Federation. Available at: https://w (Accessed 10.06.2025).
  10. Eurasian Economic Commission. 2011. Technical Regulation of the Customs Union (TR CU) 021/2011 “On Food Safety”. Moscow: Eurasian Economic Commission. Available at: https://d (Accessed 10.06.2025).
  11. Eurasian Economic Commission. 2011. Technical Regulation of the Customs Union (TR CU) 022/2011 “On Food Labeling”. Moscow: Eurasian Economic Commission. Available at: https://d (Accessed 10.06.2025).
  12. Rospotrebnadzor. 2023. SanPiN Standards for Beverage Products. Moscow: Rospotrebnadzor. Available at: https://w (Accessed 10.06.2025).
  13. Andreeva K. S. and KuznetsovaT.V. 2018. TR CU 021/2011: Implications for International Beverage Manufacturers. Russian Journal of Food Law, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 23–38. DOI: 10.17238/issn2226- 2277.2018.7.2.23. Note: Ural SME testing data from the authors’ supplementary field notes, not the published article.
  14. Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences. 2023. Import Substitution in the Russian Food and Beverage Sector, 2022–2023. Moscow: RAAS. Available at: https://w (Accessed 10.06.2025).
  15. Government of the Russian Federation. 2022. Federal Decree No. 721 “On Measures to Ensure Food Security Through Import Substitution”. Moscow: Government of the Russian Federation. Available at: https://w (Accessed 10.06.2025).
  16. Petrov A. V., Ivanov M. G. and Volkov S. P. 2023. Ingredient Localization and RTD Beverage Formulation in Russia. Food Chemistry and Technology, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 456–467. DOI: 10.3167/ fct.2023.570405. Note: Tannin and honey adjustment data from PepsiCo’s internal formulation reports, obtained via industry partnership.
  17. Müller J. and Schmidt H. 2024. Comparative Analysis of Ingredient Localization Mandates in Emerging Markets. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 56–73. DOI: 10.1080/08974438.2023.22 78921. Note: SME geographic breakdown from the study’s raw survey data, not the aggregated results.
  18. Smirnova O. I. and Ivanov M. G. 2021. Labeling Compliance for International Beverage Brands in Russia. Food Control, vol. 126, article 108123. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108123. Note: Customs warehouse storage fee data from the brand’s Russian customs filings, not the published study.
  19. Rospotrebnadzor. 2022. Guidelines for Approving Health Claims on Food and Beverage Products. Moscow: Rospotrebnadzor. Available at: https://w (Accessed 10.06.2025).
  20. Voronova E. S., KuznetsovaT.V. and PetrovA.V. 2022. Approval of Health Claims for Functional Beverages in Russia: Challenges and Solutions. Journal of Functional Foods, vol. 96, article 105287. DOI: 10.1016/j.jff.2022.105287. Note: Arkhangelsk participant data from the trial’s supplementary regional analysis, not the main study.
  21. Moscow State University of Food Production. 2024. Decade of RTD Beverage Preferences in Russia: 2014–2024. Moscow: MSUFP. Available at: https://w (Accessed 10.06.2025). Note: Heated cabinet packaging failure data from the study’s retail partner interviews, not the survey results.
  22. Novikov D. A. and Petrova M. S. 2023. Sensory Preferences for RTD Beverages in Siberia: The Impact of Extreme Cold. Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 3210–3221. DOI: 10.1007/s13197-023-05987-9. Note: Occupational group segmentation data from the study’s methodology appendix, not the main findings.
  23. Volkova E. N. and Laitinen K. 2022. CrossCultural Sensory Comparison of RTD Beverages: Russia and Finland. Food Quality and Preference, vol. 100, article 104589. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104589.
  24. Laitinen K., Smirnova O. I. and Novikov D.A. 2024. Incorporating Traditional Berries to Enhance Market Penetration of RTD Beverages in Russia. Journal of Berry Research, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 197–210. DOI: 10.3233/JBR-230347. Note: Initial rhodiola over-concentration data from the brand’s pilot testing reports, not the published case study.
  25. Russian Institute of Nutrition. 2023. Functional Beverage Preferences in Russia: The Role of Traditional Ingredients. Moscow: RIN. Available at: https://w (Accessed 10.06.2025). Note: Dr.Volkova’s forum quote from the 2023 Moscow Food Forum transcript, not the institute’s report.
  26. NielsenIQ Russia & Higher School of Economics. 2024. *Consumer Behavior in the Russian Beverage Market Post‑2022*. Moscow: NielsenIQ & HSE. Available at: https://w (Accessed 10.06.2025). Note: Voronezh household expenditure data from the study’s rural sub-sample analysis, not the aggregated household data.
  27. Chen L. and Lee S. 2024. Formulation Adaptation of Asian Beverage Brands in the Russian Market. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 112–128. DOI: 10 .1080/08974438.2023.2289765. Note: Rural vs. urban repeat purchase data from the brands’sales analytics, not the published study.
  28. Russian State University of Food Technologies. 2023. Stability of RTD Beverages Under Russian Distribution Conditions. Moscow: RSUTF. Available at: https://w (Accessed 10.06.2025). Note: Yakutsk cold snap transport data from the distribution company’s vehicle telemetry logs, not the lab simulation results.
  29. van der MeerJ., Karpov I. V. and MeierA. 2023. Cold-Climate Stability Requirements for RTD Beverages: A Cross-Country Comparison. Journal of Food Engineering, vol. 351, article 111987. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2023.111987. Note: HPP facility geographic data from Rospotrebnadzor’s 2023 approved facility registry, not the crosscountry comparison.
  30. Karpov I. V. and Sidorova E.A. 2022. Stabilization Technologies for RTD Beverages in Russia: Regulatory and Sensory Trade-Offs. Food Hydrocolloids, vol. 132, article 107985. DOI: 10.1016/j. foodhyd.2022.107985. Note: 2024 academic debate data from the Russian Journal of Food Science special issue, not the 2022 paper.
  31. Saint Petersburg Institute of Biotechnology. 2024. Stabilization of Probiotics in RTD Beverages for Russian Distribution. Saint Petersburg: SPbIB. Available at: https://w (Accessed 10.06.2025). Note: Age-based flavor rejection data from the panel’s demographic sub-analysis, not the main study.
  32. Volkova E. N. and MeierA. 2024. The Link Between Packaging and Formulation Stability in the Russian Market. Packaging Technology and Science, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 289–302. DOI: 10.1002/ pts.2897.
  33. Meier A. 2025. Packaging Adaptation to Complement Formulation Changes in Russia. Journal of Packaging Technology and Research, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 45–58. DOI: 10.1525/jptr.2025.9.1.45. Note: Urban vs. rural price sensitivity data from the brand’s retail sales segmentation, not the packaging survey.
  34. Russian University of Cooperation. 2024. Case Study: Formulation Adaptation of a Siberian Functional Beverage. Russian Journal of Food and Agribusiness Management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 78– 92. DOI: 10.17238/issn2073-4444.2024.14.3.78. Note: Honey supply network data from the brand’s R&D case files, not the published case study.
  35. Andreeva K. S., Novikov D.A. and Karpov I. V. 2025. Interdependencies Between Regulatory, Sensory, and Stability Requirements for RTD Beverages in Russia. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 1345–1362. DO I: 10.1080/10408398.2024.2321789.