• SERVICES
  • INDUSTRIES
  • PERSPECTIVES
  • ABOUT
  • ENGAGE

MANUFACTURING

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Garments and Textiles In Vietnam – Is The Future As Bright As The Past?

1.6kviews

Recording a positive growth year after year since 2001, Vietnam’s garment and textile industry is now banking on a potential TPP and some FTAs to continue its journey on the success path. However, as some of the already existing problems, such as heavy reliance on imported raw materials, become a bigger concern, and new problems such as increase in production cost and threatened interest of domestic players come to surface, will the industry be able to secure its future?

Vietnam’s garment and textile industry has been one of the country’s leading sectors, recording growth of more than 15% annually between 2001 and 2014, remaining the chief contributor to Vietnam’s economy. 18% year-on-year growth was registered by Vietnam’s textile and garment exports in 2013, which took exports value to a whopping US$20 billion.

Garment and textile exports also accounted for a significant proportion of Vietnam’s GDP (approximately 15%) and total exports (about 18%), in the same year. The industry provides jobs and salaries to over 4.5 million workers, out of which approximately 2.5 million are direct workers in 4,000 textile and garment enterprises. Products of the industry get shipped to more than 180 countries across the world.

Vietnam - Major Garment and Textile Exports Markets

A lot of optimism is budding around the industry’s performance for the year 2015 and ahead, part of which is arising from the market’s consistent positive growth trajectory traced during the past several years.

Another reason for the optimism is Vietnam’s potential Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with 11 countries (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the USA) and FTAs with the EU, South Korea, and the Eurasian Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia.


Vietnam - Exports of Garment and Textile

The TPP and the FTA with the EU are in last stage of negotiations, while the FTAs with Eurasian Customs Union and South Korea were signed in December 2014 and May 2015, respectively. Industry stakeholders are relying on the TPP and the FTAs to steer the sector into the future.

Completion of the TPP is estimated to increase Vietnam’s garment and textile exports to the USA to US$30 billion by 2020, as compared with US$8.6 billion exports recorded in 2013, recording growth of approximately 250%.

With the EU being the second largest importer of Vietnam’s textiles and garments, a FTA between the two would further boost Vietnam’s garment and textile industry. It is expected that exports from Vietnam to the EU would increase by 20% during 2013-2020 as the value of textiles and garments exports is projected to increase from US$2.7 billion to US$3.2 billion.

Vietnam’s FTA with South Korea is expected to almost triple bilateral trade value during 2015-2020, to reach US$20 billion by 2020. Garment and textile industry is expected to be amongst several Vietnamese industries, which are likely to be positively impacted by the FTA. Also under the FTA between Vietnam and the Eurasian Customs Union, Vietnam’s exports, including textiles and garments, as well as seafood, wooden furniture, and agricultural products, are benefiting from preferential tariffs and are expected to increase by 30% during 2013-2020.


Opportunities for Vietnam’s Garment and Textile Industry from the TPP and the FTAs

Further expansion of the industry’s exports share in the USA
Even though the USA has been Vietnam’s largest garment and textile exports market (as of 2014), the industry’s exports account for only 8-9% of total textile and garment imports in USA. TPP offers a chance to increase Vietnam’s textile and garment’s share to 12-13% in the US market as the tariff would be reduced from 17% to 0%
Increase in the number of foreign direct investments in the industry
Number of foreign investments is likely to increase in Vietnam’s garment and textile industry with the completion of the TPP and the FTAs with the EU, the Eurasian Customs Union, and South Korea. The industry might further develop (e.g. in terms of infrastructure) through utilization of additional revenue generated from increased exports. This can perhaps become a key reason for foreign investors to initiate new investments in the industry
Becoming one of leading nations in global garment and textile production chain
Vietnam has a chance of becoming a truly global player in the world garment and textile industry if it starts manufacturing high-quality textiles and garments by upgrading and maintaining its production standards and adopting advanced production technologies with the help of FTAs
Boosting Vietnam’s local garment and textile players’ position in the market
FTAs can boost restructuring process among Vietnam’s garment and textile companies and offer a new array of opportunities arising from preferential or 0% tariffs, cheaper supplies, and loosening of other trade barriers. Vietnam’s government can also promote local players further by offering garment and textile industry related subsidies (for example, charging lower taxes on garment and textile manufacturing plants). Such subsidies would further encourage Vietnam’s local garment and textile industry players to expand their operations and help the industry in a positive way

Roadblocks for Vietnam’s Garment and Textile Industry Growth

Heavy Dependence on Imported Raw Materials

According to VINATEX (Vietnam National Textile and Garment Group, Vietnam’s state-owned largest garment and textile corporation which manages Vietnam Textile Garment Group), in 2013, the country’s domestic cotton production satisfied only 1% of the industry demand while domestic fabric production fulfilled 12-13% of the demand. Materials from China account for almost 50% of the total raw materials imported by the industry. As of 2013, cotton worth US$7.5 million, yarn worth US$350 million, and fabric worth US$3 billion were imported from China to Vietnam.

Raw material development in Vietnam is challenged by environmental protection laws implemented by Ho Chi Minh City Garment and Textile Association (HCMC, a government association) wherein limited licenses have been awarded to Vietnam’s garment and textile dyeing and weaving plants as they cause heavy pollution. Moreover, farmers have been earning higher profits through plantation of crops other than cotton which further hampers local cotton production.

Vietnam - Garment and Textile Raw Material Imports

The potential TPP is likely to be based on the yarn-forward principle. The principle mandates every stage of garment and textile production (such as sourcing/developing of raw materials, weaving, dyeing, finishing, and sewing) to be executed in Vietnam or 11 other TPP member countries. Only if this requirement is met, the products will be eligible for a duty-free export to other TPP member countries. Since China accounts for almost 50% of the total raw materials imported by Vietnam’s garment and textile industry, the yarn-forward principle would further compel Vietnam to locally produce raw materials to manufacture garments and textiles to be exported to other TPP member countries.

Increasing Production Costs

Growing prices of electricity and transportation, along with an increase in minimum wages are also becoming new causes of headache to the industry players. In Vietnam, minimum wages witnessed a hike of 15.2% in 2014 (while it is generally assumed that already a 10% increase in minimum wages pushes up a company’s salary costs by almost 17% due to increased allowances and other social benefits).

For the year 2015, Vietnam’s garment and textile manufacturers believed that if the increase in minimum wages goes beyond 12%, the impact of the increase will be noticed in terms of higher market selling prices of Vietnam’s garments and textiles. Such a situation would reduce total revenue generated by the industry as higher selling prices might adversely affect exports and thereby, take away some FTA-related potential revenue. In order to avoid the situation, Vietnam’s garment and textile manufacturers attempted to cap the increase in minimum wages by a maximum of 12%, in 2015. However, Vietnam’s government decided the hike for the year 2015 to be 13-15%, which is bound to adversely affect selling prices of the industry’s products.

Interest of Domestic Market Players at Risk

FTAs such as those with the Eurasian Customs Union, the EU, South Korea, and the TPP would open doors of Vietnam’s garment and textile industry for foreign players. Foreign companies have already accelerated their investments in the industry. This is leading to higher number of foreign firms, which are usually technologically advanced and capital rich, sidelining local industry players (as per Viet Nam Chamber of Commerce and Industry report published in 2014, as of 2013, 96% Vietnamese companies operated on small scale and lagged behind on capital and technology fronts).

Some examples of foreign players planning to enter the industry include Kyung Bang Vietnam (a 100% South Korean invested enterprise), which is in the process of establishing a spinning plant with a capacity of 6,000 tons per annum in Vietnam’s Binh Duong province. Another example is a Hong-Kong based company, Texhong, which is also planning to build a spinning plant in the country’s Quang Ninh province. The entry of foreign players in the industry is likely to intensify competition among all the industry players (both local and foreign).


Future Outlook

For the period 2015-2020, Vietnam’s garment and textile industry targets a production growth of 12-14% on an annual basis, 3 million people additionally employed in the industry, and export revenues valued at US$25 billion by end of 2020.

In the light of challenges faced by the market, the industry has started to take efforts in order to have a roadblock-free path ahead to achieve its targets.

Reduce heavy dependence on imported raw material
Localization of Raw Material Development

After realizing the importance of localizing raw material production for the industry, initiatives to increase domestic raw material production are being undertaken. A cotton manufacturing plant, known as “Rang Dong Industrial Park” (infrastructure development expected to complete by end of 2015), at a size of 1,500 hectares and worth US$400 million is being established in Vietnam’s Ninh Thuan province. The park is expected to record production value of US$3 billion on an annual basis.

In addition to this, Vietnam is urging for inclusion of “weak rule of origin” or “single transformation rule” in the TPP agreement. Inclusion of the rule will mandate only cutting and sewing aspects of garment and textile manufacturing process to be performed in one of the TPP member countries. This would allow Vietnam to export garments and textiles manufactured with imported raw material to other TPP members.


Lower production cost
Lowering Production Costs

Since the production cost is bound to increase due to growth in minimum wages, it is of paramount importance for Vietnam’s garment and textile manufacturers to look for ways to control and minimize the overall production cost hikes. This might be possible through adoption of more efficient and advanced technologies.

To make the adoption possible, the government in channeling its efforts to attract higher number of FDIs in the industry.

The industry plans to host “Vietnam Garment and Textile Forum – 2015 edition” in June 2015 in Hanoi. Major garment and textile companies such as H&M, Adidas, Puma, and Li & Fung are expected to participate in the forum.


Protect the interest of domestic market players
Protecting the Interest of Domestic Players

The government undertook attempts to help domestic raw materials producers as it noticed that certain raw materials utilized by the Vietnamese industry are being imported without any tax.

As such imports tend to hurt domestic producers, in May 2015, Vietnam’s Ministry of Textile and Garment proposed a 2% import tax on polyester staple fibre, which is presently enjoying no import tax.

Objective of the proposal is to safeguard the interest of domestic fibre producers, who were found not to be running at full capacity while imports of the fibre were being recorded at around 150,000 tonnes on an annual basis



All these initiatives will have to stand the test of time, and whether they prove themselves to be sufficient to help Vietnam’s garment and textile industry grow while deriving maximum benefit from the potential of the TPP and various other FTAs, is to be seen.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Local Sourcing – It’s The New Global Sourcing

Not long ago, the buzz term for the automotive world was global sourcing. OEMs aimed to standardise product offerings and pricing by producing in select emerging countries that offered low production costs. This rendered the supply chain long and complex, but equally justified in the name of cost saving. Recently, however, global sourcing seems to be on the reverse gear, with local sourcing gaining momentum among OEMs globally.

Localisation brings cost-savings across the supply chain, especially in light of climbing costs in traditionally low-cost regions. According to a study by BCG, manufacturing costs in previously low cost sourcing locations like China, Latin America and Eastern Europe that for many years attracted global vehicle manufacturers, are reaching parity with manufacturing costs in developed countries, once productivity, energy prices and currency conversions are factored in.

To continue reading, please go to the original article on Automotive World.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Mexico: The Next Manufacturing Powerhouse?

347views

As China’s cost advantages continue to erode with its increasing wages and fuel costs, the trend of nearshoring surges in popularity. North American manufacturers have started to include Mexico in their supply chains to achieve operational efficiencies such as speed to market, lower inventory costs, and fewer supply disruptions. As a result, Mexico’s manufacturing industry has gained tremendous momentum in recent times and industry experts often cite Mexico as ‘China of the West’.

The Changing Global Manufacturing Landscape

“There is always a better strategy than the one you have; you just haven’t thought of it yet” – this quote from Sir Brian Pitman, former CEO of Lloyds TSB, captures the dire need for companies seeking to gain competitive edge. In the current business environment with shrinking profits and increased competition, companies are under tremendous pressure to gain operational efficiencies.

More than a decade ago, when in 2001 China joined the World Trade Organization, it changed the dynamics of the global manufacturing industry. It became the safe haven for manufacturers across many industries and geographies due to significantly lower wages it offered as well as the abundant workforce. However, more recently, with sharp wage and energy cost increases, declining productivity, as well as unfavorable currency swings in China, the global manufacturing industry is witnessing another paradigm shift, as outsourcing production near home has gained popularity amongst North American companies. The economic growth, skilled labor force, proximity to the US market has allured firms to open up their manufacturing operations in Latin America region. Companies are investing billions of dollars into new production capacities in Latin America to serve their North American markets. In 2011, Gartner predicted that by 2014, 20% of Asia-sourced finished goods and assemblies consumed in the USA would shift to the Americas. Although, the entire Latin American region has witnessed an influx of investments, Mexico seems to have outperformed its peers.

Why Mexico? Why Now?

Mexico received a record US$35.2 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2013 from various countries, of which 74% was directed towards the manufacturing sector. According to a 2014 AlixPartners study, Mexico continues to be the top-choice for North American senior executives from manufacturing-oriented companies to outsource. So what has suddenly attracted manufacturers towards Mexico?

On the one hand, labor costs have seen a sharp rise in China over the past 7 years. Wage inflation has been running at about 15-20% per year and this trend is expected to continue in the coming years. The tax incentives offered by the Chinese government for foreign companies are diminishing, while local energy costs and costs of shipping goods back to the USA continue to increase. As per AlixPartners’ 2013 estimates, by 2015, manufacturing in China is expected to cost the same as manufacturing in the USA. Additionally, going forward, China is set to be more focused on catering to the rising domestic demand, as its domestic businesses grow and consumers are strengthening their purchasing power. These factors have made North American companies to re-think their outsourcing strategies, previously heavily linked to China-based manufacturing. Mexico seems to have seized this opportunity and started to reap the rewards by establishing itself as a lucrative manufacturing hub.

On the other hand, a dramatic improvement in cost competitiveness is driving Mexico’s manufacturing industry growth. Mexico government’s economic reforms, sound policy framework, and investments in infrastructure have boosted investor confidence and attracted several corporations to open their manufacturing operations in Mexico. According to BCG’s Global Manufacturing Cost-Competitiveness Index of 2014, Mexico has positioned itself as a rising star of global manufacturing. Besides having a growing aerospace industry, the country now has positioned itself as a major exporter of motor vehicles, electronic goods, medical devices, power systems, and a variety of consumer products.

Including North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico has more free-trade agreements than any other country in Latin America. For manufacturers, this results in ease of doing business as well as a range of tax and financial benefits. Additionally, lower wages and energy costs offered by Mexico, strengthens its prospects as an outsourcing destination for North American manufacturers. Mexico is US’ third largest trade partner and has seen its exports to the USA increasing from US$51.6 billion in 1994 to US$280.5 billion in 2013, an increase of a whopping 444%.

US Imports from Mexico

 

The mass consumerization of IT, increased competition, and changes in consumer behavior are forcing companies to develop and deliver products at a faster pace than ever before. Manufacturers need to streamline their supply-chain operations in order to be more agile and customer-centric. Mexico’s proximity to the US market makes it compelling for North American companies to nearshore their manufacturing as this can drive transport costs down, increase their speed to market, and reduce inventory cost. Besides, it helps them to avoid supply-chain disruptions and serve the markets better by reducing shipping lead times, ensuring on-time deliveries to customers, and responding faster to customer issues.

In the past few years, North American aerospace companies such as Bombardier, Cessna Aircraft, Honeywell, General Electric, Hawker Beechcraft, and Gulfstream Aerospace have all developed major operations in Mexico. In the electronics industry, 2014 figures from BCG show that Mexican exports of electronics have more than tripled to US$78 billion from 2006 to 2013. This has also attracted the eyes of Asian electronic giants such as Sharp, Sony, Samsung, and Foxconn who invested heavily in Mexico as a part of their outsourcing strategy to effectively serve their North American markets. In 2013, they account for nearly one-third of investment in Mexican electronics manufacturing.

In the automobile sector, Mexico today is the world’s fourth largest exporter of light vehicles. On top of Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler’s significant investments towards manufacturing facilities in Mexico, the country is now gaining traction from the likes of global players such as Nissan, Honda, Toyota, Mazda, BMW, and Volkswagen. By investing in Mexico, all companies have committed to establish or strengthen their manufacturing capabilities there. According to IHS’s 2012 estimates, by 2020, Mexico will have the capacity to build 25% of the vehicles remaining on roads in North America.

Why manufacturing companies are running to Mexico with their manufacturing needs makes perfect sense due to its cheap and well-educated labor force and the proximity that can provide companies a strong supply base to cater the North American markets. Combining these factors with the rising middle-class population and increasing consumer spending across several South American nations, offers manufacturers a strong value proposition not only to use Mexico-based manufacturing to support their established North American markets, but also to penetrate and grow its customer base in emerging South American markets.

Challenging Times Ahead

Despite Mexico’s emergence as a leading destination for manufacturing nearshoring, there are certain pain-points that need to be addressed. Mexican government lowered its growth projections for 2014 after a disappointing economic performance during the first quarter of the current year. As reported by Bloomberg in May 2014, the economy is struggling to re-bound from 1.1% growth last year and many analysts predict the growth to be extremely modest in the short term.

Security concerns top the list of worries due to the nation’s history of drug-related crime and attempts to slip contraband into trucks moving north across the Mexico border. It will be interesting to see how the government plans to keep this under control, and whether these attempts will result in investors’ increased confidence in this market.

Further, despite recent reforms and investments made in infrastructure, there are large gaps that need to be filled. The country has areas with unstable supplies of water, electricity, and gas. In order to compete with the likes of China, and to further encourage the influx of foreign investments, Mexico’s government will have to make continued investments in infrastructure in the foreseeable future.

Additionally, over longer term, as Mexico continues to attract manufacturers from across the globe, leading to growth in manufacturing employment and increase of wages, the country might face a similar challenge to that of China, where labor rates continuously increase over years and cease to be as attractive as they used to be. This can hamper the nation’s competitiveness as a lucrative outsourcing destination. It is now the task for policy makers to develop policies that can enable Mexico to be more than just a source of cheap labor. To maintain good availability of skilled labor both in terms of quality and quantity that can meet the global manufacturing demands is a rather complex challenge.

 

For manufacturers operating in today’s cost-conscious environment, Mexico is becoming their top manufacturing go-to destination to shorten supply chains, cut inventory and logistics costs, and reduce delivery lead times. Although Mexico seems to be on the right path towards establishing itself as the manufacturing hub for the North American markets, it still has a long way to go in order to become the global manufacturing hub. Together with ongoing economic, social, and political reforms, as well as a progressive work environment, Mexico definitely can hope for a bright future as the hotspot for global manufacturing.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Alcohol in Pouches – Fad or Business Reality?

1.7kviews

Packaging and labeling are one of the key factors driving alcohol purchasing decision for an average consumer. For years, the alcohol packaging industry focused on developing sleek, sophisticated bottles with elegant labels, a significant factor in brand positioning. Beer was amongst the first alcoholic beverages to be poured into something other than glass container. Beer cans gained popularity several decades ago, however always posed the problem of lack of resealability, one of the most important package attributes for consumers. In wine segment, sales of carton box (e.g. Tetra Pack) and bag-in-box packaged wine started to accelerate in early 2000s, though these were mostly associated (sometimes not without a reason) with substandard quality products. This has continued to improve, however till date, it is the bottle that still rules alcohol packaging, and any other form of packaging in alcohol drinks generally meets with consumers’ skepticism and assumption of inferior quality.

With a relatively new concept of alcohol sold in pouches, it is unreasonable to expect a different reaction, with associations with baby beverage rather than classy adult drink. However, something is buzzing in the alcohol pouch packaging industry, and while still marginal, several launches of alcoholic drinks and beverages in this packaging format were welcomed with surprising consumer acceptance.

What’s the growth story so far?

In September 2012, Nielsen reports indicated that retail sales of pouch-packaged alcoholic beverages were about US$200 million annually (compared to US$12 million sales in a comparable period in 2010). This growth is being eyed by more and more producers, and invites market entries across new products, flavors, and alcohol types. Interestingly, it is being observed that this new packaging format brings additional sales and expands the market – while there is some level of cannibalization of existing sales with consumers shifting from purchases of bottled drinks to pouched drinks, there is a number of new consumers, who never bought such drinks before (and probably would not have tried them in bottled format, if it was not for the curiosity of trying a new drink in a pouch).

Ready-to-drink and frozen cocktails are currently the leading segment, in which pouches are gaining popularity. For instance, sales of several frozen cocktails such as margaritas and daiquiris, offered by brands such as Daily’s and Cordina in 187ml and 296ml pouches, are known to have witnessed healthy growth in 2012 in the USA, and it is expected that majority of growth will continue to be experienced in this market. The UK has also seen launches of pouched alcoholic drinks over the past few years; however, they were typically associated with summer season.

Another segment to have seen pouch launches was, surprisingly, vodka. In early 2013, Good Time Beverages launched its first Ultra Premium Vodka in flex pouches, positioning the product as an environmentally- and budget-friendly option. This was an addition to the existing line of pouched Good Time Beverages’ products, Bob & Stacy’s Premium Margarita and Big Barrel Spirits.

In wine segment, while multiple wineries in the USA, Australia, Europe, and South Africa have been using pouches for several years, the trend is yet to take off in mainstream use. This is mostly due to the fact, that the common perception of wine being a traditional and sophisticated product clashes with pouches being typically associated with hip, unsophisticated, low quality products. Launches of pouched wine products tend to focus around multiple-serve quantity pouches, e.g. launches by Echo Falls and Arniston Bay, both in 1.5 liter stand-up pouches with dispensers, launched in the UK in ASDA in summer 2013. The products were so popular that, ASDA followed with the launch of its own pouch wine brand. ASDA’s sourcing arm, IPL Beverages, which deals with bottling and pouching, said that the demand for pouched wines was so great that it led to sales forecasts being outstripped by 400% by the actual demand.

What’s so great about the pouches?

Contamination and oxygen barrier

Glass has long been considered the best material to store wine and other alcohols, mostly due to the fact that it is neutral and does not lend flavors to the bottle’s content, even during long-term storage. Alcohol was also too aggressive for most flexible packaging available in the market, affecting the layers of films used in such pouches and compromising their safety and durability. Therefore, previous limitations to the introduction of pouches in alcohols packaging were driven not by the problems with leakage or thickness, but rather with the right choice of materials and laminating – materials that would offer adequate protection and prevent product’s ingredients from changing their properties. The currently available pouches do not pose such problems, e.g. with triple-layer structure: polyethylene terephthalate, aluminum metalized film, and polyethylene. Instead, they offer very good oxygen barrier with around one year shelf life as the tap nozzle allows for one way flow, and once the beverage is poured, oxygen does not enter the container, extending the product’s freshness.

Ability to compete in economy price range

Selling alcoholic beverages, such as wine or vodka, in a pouch, enables the producer to compete against the glass bottle in the economy price range, both in single serving capacity, as well as larger 1.5-2 liter pouches. For instance, in 2012, the single-serve 10-ounce pouches of fruity malt-beverage alcoholic drinks by Parrot Bay or Smirnoff retailed for around $1.99 in the USA. Thus, it was a cheap, easy-to-carry option that offered these alcoholic drinks at a fraction of a bar or bottled equivalent price. In Europe too, economy packs of wine, sangria, and other drinks in larger 1.5 liter pouches meet with customer acceptance, allowing the producers to increase sales.

Lightweight for reduced transportation costs and greener label

The traditional glass bottle always brought challenges, due to its energy intensity in production process, as well as weight and fragility in transportation. Pouches, on the other hand, offer reduced weight and by far greater resistance in transportation, considerably reducing transportation costs (using less fuel to transport same amount of the product), at a lower risk of breakage. Pouches are also presented as a greener alternative to glass, as they do not require such energy-heavy production process. Additionally, many currently available pouches are increasingly made with recyclable materials. Overall, pouches are believed to offer an 80-85% reduced carbon footprint compared to glass (i.e. flexible film pouch is said to offer a carbon footprint of approximately 20% of traditional glass bottles). Also, producers indicate that in alcohol packaging, the cost of pouches stands at around 68% of the cost of traditional bottling.

Frozen single- and multiple-serve convenience

From consumer’s perspective, too, pouches have the potential to deal with some of the disadvantages inherent to glass bottles. Several alcoholic drinks launched in a pouch are positioned as straight-from-the-pouch, instant, ready-to-drink cocktails, that do not require the use of cork pullers or even glasses. Currently offered pouches, thanks to metalized layers, allow for faster cooling (about half the time required to chill a bottle), and can be frozen, while cans and bottles cannot. Such ready drinks are typically launched in single- or double-serve size, allowing the consumer to save time of preparing a real drink. There have been several launches in larger capacities as well, such as Pernod Ricard’s Malibu rum launched in 2010, at 1.75 liters pouch size. The product was not positioned as a single serve but rather emphasized it was enough for 10 cocktails, for use in larger gatherings or over period of time, thanks to resealable nozzle. Also in wines segment, pouches, thanks to their reduced weight and resistance, can be larger, at 1-2 liters. 2-3 liter pouches are particularly popular in food service sector, e.g. in restaurants selling wine by the glass.

Lightweight for on-the-go use by consumers

Reduced weight and resistance to breakage have found consumers’ acceptance, as pouched alcoholic beverages are often positioned as on-the-go, convenient, easy products for use in outdoor situations, picnics, concerts, boating, barbecues, etc. Convenience of pouches also comes from the pack’s stability thanks to the popular stand-up design, commonly offered reseability (in a form of a tap or screw cap, a considerable advantage over vast majority of cans). Pouches are believed to be stronger, safer, and more convenient for consumer transportation, and they eliminate the risk of an unpleasant realization of having left the cork puller at home.

Challenges and question marks

It is unlikely, to say the least, that the nearest future will see pouches enter the mainstream dinner-table use. As of 2013, pouches had rather limited application in retail alcoholic drinks markets globally, with differing levels of popularity across regions and seasons. The most significant challenge for this packaging format is still to build consumer trust in quality of an alcoholic drink sold in a pouch. Equally important challenge is to overcome the consumers’ perception that classy alcoholic beverages (wine, vodka) should come only in a bottle and perception of mismatch of pouched wine and traditional wine etiquette.

While the list of potential advantages of pouches in alcohol packaging is unquestionably robust, there is still a key question of the consumer’s long term acceptance of this packaging format. It remains unclear what it will mean to a range of alcoholic beverages, especially in wine, whisky, and vodka segments, which have traditionally positioned themselves in upper to premium segments. Will the pouches, no matter how sleek or elegant in design, affect such a brand positioning? Will they ever go beyond the outdoor use, and enter mainstream use (dinner tables in homes and restaurants)? Will a pouch be ever fully accepted in such sophisticated setups, or will the association with juices, baby drinks, or inferior quality remain too strong? And finally, while producers emphasize green aspects of pouches in terms of production and transportation, what is the real environmental impact of such pouches ending up in a landfill, considering that not all used pouches will enter recycling stream?

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

An Eco-Friendly Product Or Just A Mere Marketing Gimmick? Bio-plastics Are Gaining Momentum.

676views

The term ‘bio-plastics’ appears fascinating as it seems to revolutionize what plastics have always stood for. Being derived from plants and having the ‘bio-‘ prefix in their name, these plastics are considered to offset the main underlying negatives of conventional plastics, thus seem like ideal products. However, there is more to bio-plastics than meets the eye, as they carry their own fair share of baggage.

We are surrounded by plastics all the time and everywhere – may it be at home, at work, or in transit. The use and abuse of products containing plastics has increased exponentially over the past few decades, fuelled by low oil prices and limited awareness about their ill-effects on the environment. But the tide is turning now, with bio-plastics entering the stage.

Still in their nascent stage of commercialization, bio-plastics are portrayed as able to revolutionize the plastics industry over the next couple of decades. Playing on the key drawbacks posed by traditional plastics, such as limited supply and rising prices of feedstock as well as environmental concerns, the currently insignificant bio-plastic share of about 1% of overall demand for plastics is expected to soar to about 25% over the next 15-20 years. Advanced technical properties, potential for cost reduction (owing to easily available feedstock), biodegradability options, and higher consumer acceptance, are some of the key factors that usher the market to higher growth rate, especially in products such as PET bottles and disposable cutlery used by foodservice industry. While the market stands to grow at about 20% a year, there are also several factors that conspire to withhold the potential of the market.

First and foremost, bio-plastics cannot replace conventional plastics in all applications, and at this stage of development and commercialization are also known to generally offer poorer quality. While they are suitable for disposable products, they cannot yet replace traditional plastics where stability of material properties and durability over time is necessary, therefore, discouraging traditional plastics’ substitution on a mass scale.

At the bio-plastics production end, large land requirement for bio-feedstock (corn, sugarcane, etc.), which leads to conversion of forests into agricultural lands and increases the use of fertilizers and pesticides, may just negate the ecological benefits of bio-plastics to a certain extent.

At the consumption side, the key challenge is the lack of dedicated end-of-life facilities for bio-plastics. There is limited infrastructure for industrial composting and incineration worldwide, which largely limits the benefits reaped from the biodegradable property of these plastics. Moreover, bio-plastics are not uniform and vary greatly, thereby require different end-of-life infrastructure (including segregation, disposal, composting, and incineration). This makes it a much more complicated and expensive process. The recyclability of bio-based plastics is also limited and relatively more expensive. Furthermore, the mixing of conventional plastics and bio-plastics in the recycling stream results in poorer quality of the resultant recycled plastic.

Lastly, the traditional plastics market is much more developed. Bio-plastics on the other hand, are still in the pilot production stage and generally lack economies of scale, thereby costing much more than synthetic plastics. Instead of substituting incumbent plastics, the bio-based plastics market currently caters to a niche audience, which is highly environmentally-conscious and is willing to pay a premium for such products.

Follow the Leaders

Despite the mixed opinions on bio-plastics, several small- and large-scale bio-plastic adoption programs are increasingly undertaken by leading consumer goods producers. It can be expected that these programs and investments will eventually lead to economies of scale for bio-plastics, but as of now it seems that these players have been jumping into the bio-plastics arena mainly for marketing and PR-building purposes, as the group environmentally-conscious consumers expands globally. Here are some examples of investments and innovations by leaders in bio-plastics adoption-

Coca-Cola
  • In 2009, it launched PlantBottle, made of 30% bio-plastics and 70% oil-based plastics

  • The company aims at using the PlantBottle technology for all its bottles globally by 2020, in place of the current distribution network of 20 nations

  • Coca-Cola claims it is also looking into innovation in feedstock for bio-plastics, moving from food crops to waste and agricultural residues

  • It has also entered into agreements with three technology firms, Avatium, Gevo, and Virent, to develop and bring 100% bio-plastics bottle technology to commercial scale

PepsiCo
  • Pepsi developed the world’s first 100% bio-based PET bottle in 2012 and has been working towards its commercialization ever since

Coca-Cola, Ford Motors, H.J Heinz, Nike, and Procter & Gamble
  • In 2012, the companies formed a strategic working group called Plant PET Technology Collaborative (PTC), focused on the development and use of 100% bio-based PET materials in their products

Panasonic Corporation Eco Solutions Company
  • In 2012, the company used bio-based resins to manufacture a range of kitchen countertops and bathroom ceilings for its premium product lines

Gucci
  • Also in 2012, Gucci launched a range of women and men’s shoes called ‘Sustainable Soles’ made from biodegradable bio-plastics

  • In the same year, it also released an eyewear line wherein it manufactures sunglasses made from bio-plastics

Toyota
  • For the past few years, the company has been using bio-plastics (PET and PLA) in the manufacturing of several automobile parts (vehicle liners, interior surfaces, upholstery material on doors, luggage area trims, etc.)

  • It aims to have 20% of all plastic components in its automobiles to be made of bio-plastics by 2015


Notwithstanding the many benefits of using bio-plastics, they are not the perfect eco-friendly products the world would want them to be – at least at the current level of development and commercialization. While the benefits reaped from them at this point are marginal, companies are marketing these new plastics as the revolutionary heroes that will save our environment. However, with a strong momentum towards innovation to improve product quality, huge investments by leading players, drive towards commercialization, and a host of government initiatives, it seems too early to judge the industry as of yet.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Production Re-shoring – a Great Idea That Won’t Materialize?

After years of shifting American production capabilities to China as the primary low-cost location, the trend might be somewhat changing. As costs increase in this previously cheap destination, American executives have started to question whether it still makes economic sense to spend more and more on Chinese labour and transport the products back half across the world to the final customer.

With estimations that Chinese wages double every four years, it is clear that the cost benefit of off-shoring to China is narrowing and the country might start losing its competitive edge. It has been, and will continue to be, a very slow process, and we will surely hear stories of another industry giant opening another production facility in this ‘global manufacturing centre’. Yet, the concept of re-shoring, i.e. shifting manufacturing capabilities, once off-shored in search for decreased costs, back to the USA, has been the story of several American producers for the past couple of years. While reasons vary, cost element is probably a key deciding factor, as cited to be the reason behind the re-location of some of the capabilities by Apple or General Electric.

But it is not only the cost that is forcing companies to think of bringing manufacturing capabilities back home. There is a range of reasons indicated as strong factors that should force American manufacturers to consider re-shoring:

  • Slowly, but gradually the cost benefit of off-shored production will narrow, given the faster rise in labour costs in locations such as China

  • Shipping costs associated with long-distance logistics are also increasing, e.g. shipping rates, cutbacks in logistics infrastructure, are estimated to have caused an average hike of 70% in shipping costs between 2007-2011

  • Quality inconsistency issues, both real and perceived, continue to resurface in Asia-manufactured products – flawed production lots, inaccurate specifications, as well as end customers’ continued scepticism towards the ‘made in China’ label

  • Production is increasingly executed in small lots to ensure responsiveness to fluctuations in demand volume and structure, customization requests, and to mitigate the risk of reduced liquidity with cash trapped in inventory

  • Supply chains are found to be more and more vulnerable to disruptions caused by ‘beyond control’ factors, from natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis in Asian locations) to political disruptions affecting smooth and timely shipping

  • Weaker dollar requires US-based companies to spend more bucks on the same foreign-based production and transportation services

  • While economic result matters most, producers also consider the customers patriotic interest to buy products that are ‘local’ to them – in terms of appeal as well as the production location, which can be an extra public relations benefit for the company re-shoring its manufacturing jobs back to the USA.

While reasons are varied and not mutually exclusive, there is still a question whether re-shoring is actually a strong trend, and whether jobs will return to the USA. The question cannot be ignored – if re-shoring turned out to be a persisting trend, it could be a well-needed kick to this crisis-shaken American economy.

Not long ago, in mid-2012, Forbes published an article, in which it asked whether re-shoring is actually a trend or more of a trickle. A simple survey conducted amongst MFG.com members, an online marketplace space for the manufacturing industry, proved that re-shoring can be a real trend, as a number of American executives indicated new contracts being awarded to them – contracts that had previously been off-shored. The re-shoring trend seems to be further confirmed by the frequently quoted 2010 Accenture report, which indicated that around 60% of manufacturing executives surveyed considered re-shoring their manufacturing and supply capabilities. The trend could be additionally supported by tax incentives proposed by Barack Obama for companies re-shoring back to the USA, as well as drives such as The Reshoring Initiative, founded by Harry Moser in 2010, aiming at promoting the concept amongst American businesses and tracking the phenomenon. According to Moser, re-shoring brought some 50,000 jobs back to the USA during the period of 2010-2012.

But, with all these points being legitimate reasons for American companies to re-think their off-shoring, perhaps the big believers in the return of the ‘Made in the USA’ era, should curb their enthusiasm just yet. It is quite unlikely that low-cost producers will return to the American soil for good – on a scale large enough to have a positive impact on American economy.

First of all, China will still hold enough advantage over the next couple of years – an unbeatable advantage of a large pool of workers available for $2 an hour wage, which, even if increases, will still be far lower than in the USA. And it is not only about the cost, but also about the relatively high elasticity of low-cost Chinese labour supply (in terms of wage accepted and workers volumes available), which even at its lower productivity, makes it still more economical to stick to factories based in China, than re-shoring on big scale to the US market. The public relations dimension of bringing back jobs has to be approached realistically too, keeping in mind that much higher productivity of American workers means that for each 4-5 Chinese jobs being cut, American market would gain probably not more than 1, making the job creation benefit much more modest than hoped for. And even if, over long term, the increasing labour cost squeezes the cost benefit tight enough to make the producers leave China, it is highly unlikely that they will turn to American workers as first priority. There are more economical options available across Asia and other geographies (perhaps at higher cost than in China but still well below American levels). We might see some of these manufacturing jobs fly to India, Bangladesh, and the emerging African continent.

It seems that this big re-shoring move might be just wishful thinking, which will translate to a few jobs brought back to the USA, in numbers not significant enough to actually make much difference.

Top