Quartz 4

Research: Scrape 10-K "Beyond Beer" segments for COGS proxy data

6 min read

Research: Scrape 10-K “Beyond Beer” segments for COGS proxy data

10-K “Beyond Beer” Segments and COGS Proxy Data

This page synthesizes data extracted from public corporate filings (such as 10-Ks, Annual Reports, and Investor Presentations) and industrial economic studies to map the unit economics, Cost of Goods Sold (COGS), and profit margins of the “Beyond Beer” and non-alcoholic (NA) beverage categories. By analyzing financial disclosures from global conglomerates alongside independent cost breakdowns, we can proxy the exact nolo-unit-economics that define the modern beverage landscape.

Macro-Level Category Performance

Corporate filings indicate a structural shift in the global beer market. In measured off-premise channels in the US (as of early 2025), the total Beer Market reached 10.7 billion) [1]. This shift is characterized by a 4.4% increase in Beyond Beer sales, contrasting with a 2.8% decline in traditional beer [1].

The Beyond Beer segment is highly competitive and fragmented:

  • Flavored Malt Beverages (FMBs): Comprise approximately 42% ($4.5 billion) of the Beyond Beer category, experiencing volatile single-digit growth and decline cycles [1].
  • Hard Seltzers: Make up 28% ($3.0 billion) of Beyond Beer, continuing to see significant volume declines (e.g., 8% in 2024 and 4.5% in 2025) after rapid expansion between 2018 and 2021 [1].
  • Spirits-based RTDs: A primary growth driver in the space. Brands like cutwater achieved triple-digit revenue growth and significant market share gains in the total spirits industry [3, 5].

Conglomerate Unit Economics & Margin Expansion

Global brewers are utilizing Beyond Beer and NA portfolios to drive premiumization and expand overall corporate margins.

AB InBev

anheuser-busch-inbev reported that its Beyond Beer portfolio accelerated to $1.5 billion in revenue in 2023 [3] and grew by 23% in FY25 to represent 3% of the company’s total revenue [5]. The company reported mid-single-digit EBITDA growth with clear margin expansion specifically within its Beyond Beer segment [2]. Across its entire global portfolio in 2025, AB InBev achieved a gross margin of 55.9% (up 78 bps) and a normalized EBITDA margin of 35.8% [5]. Volume growth was supplemented by the company’s low- and no-alcohol portfolio, which saw low-twenties volume growth [2].

Heineken NV

heineken-nv has aggressively expanded its Beyond Beer and NA lines, reaching nearly 16 million hectoliters (hl) in Beyond Beer alcoholic beverages by 2024 [6]. Through effective master-brand-leveraging, the company reported double-digit growth for heineken-0-0 in numerous markets alongside robust performance from non-alcoholic line extensions like zywiec-0-0 and savanna-cider [6]. The growth of the low- and no-alcohol segment, expanding at high-single digits, directly supports Heineken’s broader operating profit (beia), which stood at €4.38 billion in 2025 [8, 12].

Proxying Non-Alcoholic COGS and Production Economics

While top-line margins are expanding for major conglomerates, the underlying COGS for NA beer reveals a complex operational reality characterized by high capital expenditures offset by tax advantages.

Dealcoholization and Manufacturing Costs

The production of high-quality NA beer requires traditional brewing followed by intensive dealcoholization—typically via membrane-filtration-ro (reverse osmosis) or thermal-dealcoholization (vacuum distillation) [13, 15].

  • Capital Expenditures (CapEx): Dealcoholization machinery requires an upfront investment of approximately €225,000 to €350,000+, depending on scale and technology [11].
  • Operational Expenditures (OpEx): Annual maintenance costs range between €3,500 and €10,000 [11]. The processes are highly energy-intensive, requiring substantial electricity, water for cooling and blending, and strict microbial stabilization since the product lacks the protective qualities of ethanol [11, 13].
  • Yield Loss: The dealcoholization process naturally results in volume loss as alcohol and water are extracted, which impacts per-unit production efficiency [11]. Additional costs include the premium raw materials required for cryogenic fermentation or specialized yeast reuse [13].

The Margin Arbitrage: Tax Savings vs. Production Costs

Despite the elevated manufacturing costs, NA beer can achieve superior net earnings due to excise-tax-savings and pricing-parity strategies [11].

  • Excise Duty Reductions: In jurisdictions like the Netherlands, traditional alcoholic beer faces duties of €28.49 to €37.96 per hl. In contrast, NA beer is legally categorized as a “lemonade” or soft drink, bearing a duty of only €8.83 per hl [11].
  • VAT Differences: NA beer often qualifies for lower Value-Added Tax brackets (e.g., 9% vs. 21% for alcohol in some EU markets) [11]. Because brewers maintain pricing-parity—charging the consumer the same price for a 0.0% beer as a full-strength beer—the massive reduction in taxes absorbs the increased COGS of dealcoholization, resulting in a higher net margin per unit sold [11]. This dynamic is a fundamental driver of the discrepancy between paper-margins-vs-realized-margins.

The Scale Divide and Craft Beer Challenges

While global giants absorb high fixed costs through massive volume, independent producers face significant under-absorption-of-fixed-costs [13]. Macro-economic headwinds, such as a 14% Q/Q increase in utilities and an 11% Q/Q increase in distribution costs, severely impact smaller operations [14]. To survive, craft NA producers are increasingly reliant on shared dealcoholization equipment, co-packing arrangements, and retail crowdfunding—as evidenced by craft brands needing to raise upwards of $22.5 million purely to scale the extensive reverse-osmosis supply chain [14, 15].

Data Gaps and Contradictions

  1. Aggregated Reporting: Conglomerate 10-K and Annual Reports routinely bundle NA beer, RTD cocktails, and cider into monolithic “Beyond Beer” or “Non-Beer” reporting segments [5]. This obfuscates the specific gross margins of dealcoholized beer versus the much simpler margins of mixing spirits-based RTDs.
  2. The Cannibalization Blindspot: While companies tout incremental revenue from Beyond Beer, their filings rarely isolate the cannibalization-data-gap. When a brand like Heineken highlights 0.0 volume growth, it does not explicitly disclose what percentage of those sales directly cannibalized their master brand’s traditional volume in identical retail accounts [6, 10].
  3. Byproduct Disclosures: Filings do not explicitly disclose the financial gains from byproduct-valorization—specifically, how much revenue is recouped by reselling the concentrated ethanol stripped during the thermal dealcoholization process [11].

Suggested Additional Sources

To build a more granular proxy of COGS and margins, future research should cross-reference:

References

  1. 10-K — sec.gov
  2. [PDF] AB InBev Reports Third Quarter 2025 Results - JSE — senspdf.jse.co.za
  3. [PDF] AB InBev - Annual report 2023 - IBR/IRE — ibr-ire.be
  4. [PDF] Annual Report 2021 - AB InBev — ab-inbev.com
  5. AB InBev Reports Full Year and Fourth Quarter 2025 Results — finance.yahoo.com
  6. [PDF] Heineken NV reports 2024 full year results - OTC Markets — otcmarkets.com
  7. [PDF] 2022 Heineken NV Annual Report — theheinekencompany.com
  8. [PDF] 2025 Heineken NV Annual Report — theheinekencompany.com
  9. [PDF] 2024 Heineken NV Annual Report — theheinekencompany.com
  10. 2023 Heineken NV Annual Report — heinekenholding.com
  11. [PDF] Economic viability of non-alcoholic craft beer production — edepot.wur.nl
  12. [PDF] Investor Presentation – May 2025 - The HEINEKEN Company — theheinekencompany.com
  13. Non-Alcoholic Beer Pricing Challenges Explained - Impossibrew — impossibrew.co.uk
  14. [PDF] Investor Presentation — bigrockbeer.com
  15. Investors Tap Into The Zero Proof and Non-Alcoholic Beverage Market — forbes.com

Graph View