• SERVICES
  • INDUSTRIES
  • PERSPECTIVES
  • ABOUT

    • Who We Are

      We support businesses in their strategic decisions on growth and optimization

      Who We Are

    • Connect With Us

      let’s connect to discuss how we could support your intelligence needs

      Contact

    • Work With EOS

      We are researchers – curious, knowledge-hungry, and eager to solve problems

      Work With Us
  • Search
  • ENGAGE

EU

Home EU Page 2

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

EU New Medical Device Regulations: Cause of Ache for Medical Device Players

908views

Circling around patient care and improving overall healthcare services, the European Parliament has set new requirements for medical device and in vitro diagnostic manufacturers that distribute products in the EU. However, medical device manufacturers have realized that they are bound to face many challenges in order to make their products market-ready, not to forget the gigantic task of implementing new protocols in a timely manner, which will not be easy.

Need for a comprehensive updated medical device regulatory system

EU’s Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation (IVDR) were made official in May 2017, with transition period of three years (fully applicable from May 26, 2020) for the former and five years (fully applicable from May 26, 2022) for the latter. These regulations will replace EU’s previous directives: Medical Device Directive (MDD), Active Implantable Medical Devices Directive (AIMDD), and In Vitro Diagnostic Directive (IVDD).

The need for new regulations of medical devices in EU arose from the growing demand for technologically advanced medical products which necessitated more stringent monitoring of these devices to ensure a high level of efficacy and safety among patients.

Unlike earlier version of the regulations where the main focus revolved around the pre-approval stage of medical device manufacturing, the new regulatory guidelines promote an overall product-life cycle approach, focusing on both device safety and performance.

Enhanced supervision, easy documentation of devices, more stringent clinical evidence requirement, and increased supervision on part of authorities providing medical device certifications are some of the key changes in MDR as compared to the EU’s previous directives.

Bumpy road ahead for medical device manufacturers

Reclassifying existing product line-up

Based on the risk factor, changes have been made to the way medical devices are classified. Under MDR, the number of classification rules has expanded from 18 to 22 intensifying the task of product re-classifications by the manufacturer.

For instance, products using software for monitoring purposes being implanted in the body has been reclassified to higher-risk class (from Class I to Class III) which would now require conformity assessment by a notified body (NB – an organization that assess the conformity of medical devices before they are placed on the market), unlike earlier, when Class I products did not require assessment via a NB. This is going to burden players with increased operational costs; thus, it is imperative that the manufacturers familiarize themselves with the classification changes and study the impact on their product portfolio.

New products are also being added to the list of medical devices that earlier were not part of the medical device regulatory framework. For instance, products manufactured utilizing human tissues or cells and devices incorporating nanomaterial, under new regulations, will be considered medical devices. Manufacturers of such products have work cut out for them – from conducting clinical investigations, preparing technical documentation and evaluation processes, to product certification. Though such products could only form a very small percentage of the company’s product range, the task to make them available in the market is great, especially under current circumstances.

Manufacturers who do not comply with the new regulations will no longer be able to market their products in Europe. Thus, a robust strategy in terms of resource allocation, time management, and budget is an absolute must for manufacturers to make this transition possible.

EU MDR Cause of Ache for Medical Device Players - EOS Intelligence

Distress over notified bodies

Strict parameters are also being applied on NBs. Since all devices will require new certification from a NB, only designated NBs will be able to certify a device. The designation process is a complex procedure as it involves audits and corrective actions (once a NB expresses interest). However, while the medical device manufacturers have been in the process of switching to newer protocols since mid-2017, the first designated NB (BSI United Kingdom, the national standards body of the UK) was announced in January, 2019, almost 18 months after the regulations were announced and 14 months into the formally started designation process.

Such time-consuming process raises concern among medical device companies about the ability to complete the necessary conformity assessments within the allotted time. The huge task of recertifying medical devices with only a handful of designated NBs is a cause of worry for companies, as it could potentially result in significant backlogs as the last date approaches. However, there is only so much companies can do – even though they are proactive to comply with the new regulations much ahead of the deadline, poor process planning and lack of supporting bodies (notified bodies in this case) results in a long halt for these players.

The companies are heavily dependent on NBs for auditing and product certification, and the insufficient number of designated bodies adds to the risk of many devices being non-compliant according to new regulations. As of May 2019, less than 40 NBs have filed application for designation procedure (out of 58 designated NBs under the directives); only two have actually received a designated status – BSI UK and Germany based TÜV SÜD Product Service GmbH Zertifizierstellen (certification received in May 2019). With very little time at hand to reassess and rectify issues (if any), this could jeopardize the product availability in the market, resulting in not only risking the patients’ life (due to non-availability) but also in huge financial losses for the players.

Detailed clinical evaluation of medical devices

Owing to reclassification of product categories, many devices will require changes to their existing clinical evaluation reports, another challenge for medical device manufacturers. Manufacturers that have not previously been required to perform clinical testing will have to do so now. For instance, mechanical heart valve sizers will be moved up from Class I to Class III, and unlike in MDD where clinical evaluation was based on literature analysis, new evaluation of valve sizers will require clinical investigation. This will require a huge deal of additional time, money, and expertise, further burdening the device manufacturers.

Medical devices already in the market that remain untouched by the reclassification criteria will still require reassessment of clinical data. If the data do not meet the new requirements, devices will need to undergo additional testing to be recertified, increasing the expense for manufacturers.

MDR also calls for inclusion of risk management within the clinical evaluation expecting clinical risks to be addressed in clinical investigations and evaluation studies – adding another task to the long list of activities to be accomplished before MDR fully rolls out.

Explore our other Perspectives on medical devices markets

Comprehensive demonstration of equivalence data

Unlike MDD, where device manufacturers were able to use clinical data of an equivalent device for their own product registration, under MDR, equivalence is going to be less accepted, particularly for higher risk devices.

There are two ways out – manufacturers can either conduct their own trials not having to deal with the equivalence commotion or they can demonstrate that they have access to the equivalent device (with respect to technical and clinical properties) data. The latter is highly unlikely to happen considering equivalent device would typically belong to a competitor unwilling to grant such access. Thus, with stern requirements for comparative evaluations, more effort, planning, money, and resources will be needed for device manufacturers to demonstrate product safety and performance.

As new medical devices are developed, multiple small incremental improvements (minor changes in design, addition or subtraction of small hardware parts such as bolts or screws) happen over time. Once the device is already in the market, it is practically impossible to conduct a re-trial to gain approval for such small changes. An expected solution to this would be a provision to accept such minor changes through pre-clinical evidence or prior trial results. However, with equivalence testing being reduced drastically under MDR, unless a solution for such cases is offered, manufacturers will have to conduct re-trial and re-document everything, which would result in significantly increased cost. Another issue that could arise from such situations is the reduction in R&D activities inclined towards product improvement.

Trouble galore for SME’s

While making amendments and prioritizing to comply with new regulations seems to be the top most priority for medical and diagnostic device manufacturers, it seems SMEs will be dramatically more impacted than large players – in Europe, a small-sized company employs less than 50 people and has a turnover of less than or equal to €10 million while a medium-sized company employs less than 250 people and has a turnover of less than or equal to €50 million. Owing to the increase in cost, time, and resources associated with the process, the new regulations may put smaller companies under pressure, possibly resulting in altering (such as merging with or being acquired by larger companies) the European medical device market structure, currently dominated by SMEs – there are nearly 27,000 medical technology companies in EU, 95% of which are SMEs.

SMEs also need to be more vigilant when it comes to being associated with a designated NB as not all currently functioning NBs are expected to get a designated status. With their already dwindling numbers married with an increased demand for their services, once the new regulations roll out, it is quite possible that small manufacturers are orphaned since NBs could be partial towards larger players and prioritize them over other small and medium players.

Smaller players will not only have to hire additional personnel for dealing with regulatory issues but also employ clinical trials specialists (for documenting insights to be presented and approved by the NB) for launching products in the market which means higher costs. Adjusting budgets to keep costs under control would hamper other critical business operations, e.g. reduce R&D activities or cut the number of products being launched in the market.

As a step to overcome these issues, players with limited financial resources should strategically study their product portfolio to determine which products are worth investing in for MDR compliance. For doing this, they should lay out a detailed plan for each product and decide whether to remediate, transition, or divest.

It is also advised that SMEs should devise a clear step-by-step approach plan to ensure compliance. As an alternative to hiring transition specialists, they could engage employees from various functions within the organization to take responsibility for specific processes thus keeping costs in check.

EOS Perspective

The changes and revisions required to be carried out under MDR are company-wide and require significant investment to plan and execute. This will lead to players devising a business strategy based on assessing risk associated with product portfolio (whether some products need to be pulled out from the market and what effect it would have on future revenue) or looking for acquisition partners. Based on these decisions, the medical device market topography in EU is expected to see some major changes in the coming years – small companies looking for partners to get acquired or for new partnership with a service provider (specializing in regulations compliance). This will also result in organizational restructuring, revamping design processes, and systems implementation.

Companies have to make crucial decisions around the product portfolio. For some of the already existing products, if reclassified, the cost of compliance could be much higher than actual market returns. In such cases, manufacturers may be compelled to pull away such products from the market resulting in high healthcare costs and ultimately burdening the patients, who (theoretically) form the center point of the MDR. Though this is unlikely to happen at a large scale, since there are always alternative products available, it cannot be denied that this may be a major loophole in MDR requiring immediate attention.

Since SMEs drive the EU medical device market, as an immediate consequence, MDR is not likely to have any positive effect on these players other than distorting their business operations. However, it can only be anticipated that, with time, MDR may adapt and amend to offer some relaxation in provisions especially for small and medium-sized players. Nonetheless, MDR also brings an opportunity for such players to audit their current offerings and come out with an enhanced product portfolio, which could be an opportunity to be capitalized on in the distant future.

Modifications being made in the functioning of NBs are also likely to have an impact on the device manufacturers. For high risk devices, manufacturers may expect deeper scrutiny of design records and data files leading to providing more credentials, in case any query arises. This, along with long wait time for product review (due to reduction in the number of designated NBs) and limited availability of resources (again on account of NBs), could lead to unknown delays for obtaining product re-certification. Thus, companies need to chalk out their market strategies very effectively and be prepared to address any concern that rises during product reviews.

The aim of implementing new regulations is to bring a transparent and robust regulatory framework for medical devices. However, there is no assurance that the new regulations are completely accurate and will apply seamlessly to live case scenarios. Therefore, once implemented, there is a possibility that MDR may see revisions in the initial months of coming into action.

These changes, though certainly positive from a healthcare point of view, are enormous. Transitioning to meet the new standards within the stipulated time frame is challenging for manufacturers. Not adapting to the changes is not a choice for manufacturers as non-compliance could result in losing license to operate in the EU market. And for players fearing stringent scrutiny in the future, operating in the European healthcare market will not be easy once the new regulations come into force.

Europe Fights Back to Curb China’s Dominance
by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Europe Fights Back to Curb China’s Dominance

827views

Given the swiftness of China’s economic development in the past three decades, transitioning from an impoverished and insular country to one of the formidable economic powers of the world, it has taken some time for Europe to accept China’s growing power and influence. Not only does China sit on largest currency reserves worldwide, but it has also become a significant provider of foreign investments, including in EU nations. This has recently strengthened China’s influence over the EU, which has created a sense of caution amidst European policymakers.

How is Europe benefiting from China’s growing investments?

Europe-bound Chinese investments were six times higher than Chinese investments in the USA – in H1 2018, Chinese investments in Europe stood at US$ 12 billion as compared to US$ 2 billion in the USA. For some of the economically struggling EU countries, Chinese investments are critical for developing and upgrading infrastructure, including energy plants, railways, motorways, and airports.

China’s Belt and Road initiative, under which cross-border infrastructure will be developed, will reduce transportation costs across Europe and China, creating an opportunity to facilitate trade expansion, regional integration, and attract foreign investments.

Besides infrastructure development, the investments are likely to create job opportunities and enhance economic competitiveness across Europe.

Then why is China’s growing influence alarming Europe?

Europe now sees a range of threats that China’s rising dominance in the region could bring along. Recently, the European Commission labelled China as economic competitor seeking technological leadership and systemic rival encouraging alternative models of governance. Europe realizes that China pursuits to shape globalization to suit its own interests.

The EU is deeply concerned regarding China exercising divide and rule tactics to strengthen its relationship with individual member countries that are susceptible to pressure, which could eventually harm the European cohesion. Recently, Italy signed the Belt and Road initiative, a landmark move against the counsel of western European nations, such as France and Germany, thus, raising questions on cohesion of EU countries.

The other concern is China’s rising influence over key governments of EU nations, thus, empowering itself with political leverage across the continent. China has already yielded political returns by wearying EU unity, particularly, when it is related to European policy on international law and human rights. In 2017, Hungary broke EU’s consensus by refusing to sign letter on human right violation against China. During the same year, Greece blocked an EU statement, which condemned China’s human rights record, at the UN human rights council.

Besides politics, China has also spread wings across key sectors of economy such as infrastructure, high-end manufacturing (including critical segments such as electronics, semiconductors, automotive, etc.), and consumer services, among others – growing dominance of China across these sectors is another cause of worry for the EU.

Europe also condemns China’s discrimination against foreign businesses, rendering limited market access to European firms and employing a non-transparent bidding processes. European firms operating in China face several trade and investment barriers such as joint venture obligations and discriminatory technical requirements that entail forced data localization and technology transfers. On the other, European markets have been open to foreign investments leading to massive Chinese FDI. However, lack of reciprocity harms European interest and could lead to unfulfilled EU-China trade ties.

The EU also criticizes China’s Belt and Road project for its lack of respect for labor, environment, and human rights standards. Other concerns include non-transparent procurement procedures with majority of contracts being awarded to Chinese companies without issuing public tenders, meagre use of domestic labor and limited contractor participation from host country, and use of construction materials from China – all of which undermine Europe’s interests.

Europe Fights Back to Curb China’s Dominance

How is Europe responding to China’s actions?

Europe is adopting strategies to limit China’s influence and reach across Europe and beyond, in African and Pacific countries.

Development of EU-Asia Connectivity Strategy

The EU’s new initiative, EU-Asia Connectivity Strategy, is an implicit response to China’s Belt and Road initiative, signifying a crucial first step to promoting European priorities and interests in terms of connectivity. The initiative aims to improve connectivity between Europe and Asia through transport, digital, and energy networks, and simultaneously promote environmental and labor standards.

The EU’s initiative emphasizes sustainability, respect for labor rights, and not creating political or financial dependencies for the countries.

Robust FDI screening process

European nations have been increasingly alarmed due to state-owned Chinese companies acquiring too much control of critical technologies and sensitive infrastructure in the continent, while China shields its own economy.

For the same reason, EU parliament is developing an EU-level screening tool to vet foreign investments on grounds of security to protect strategic sectors and Europe’s interests. The regulation will protect key sectors such as energy, transport, communication, data, space, technology, and finance.

While the EU still remains open to FDI, the regulation will protect its essential interests. Nonetheless, stringent investment screening procedures are likely to limit foreign investments in the continent, particularly from China.

Tackling security threat posed by China

In March 2019, the EU Parliament passed resolution asking European institutions and member countries to take action on security threats arising from China’s rapidly rising technological presence in the continent.

The resolution is likely to impact the ongoing debate of whether to eliminate China’s Huawei Technologies from building European 5G networks. The EU is concerned that the Chinese 5G equipment could be used to access unauthorized data or sabotage critical infrastructure and communication systems in the continent.

To minimize dependence on Chinese technology firms (such as Huawei Technologies), EU countries would need to diversify procurement from different vendors or introduce multi-phase procurement processes.

EU countries expanding footprint to counter China’s reach

Since 2011, China has invested US$ 1.3 billion in concessionary loans and gifts across the Pacific region, and has established its supremacy by becoming the second largest donor. China has been trying to build its influence, as the Pacific is bestowed with vast expanse of resource-rich ocean and the regional countries have voting rights at international forums such as the United Nations.

To counter China’s reach and ambitions across the Pacific countries, European nations such as the UK and France plan to open new embassies, increase staffing levels, and engage with leaders in the region. The UK plans to open new high commissions in Vanuatu, Tonga, and Samoa by the end of May 2019 and France is looking to meet and engage with Pacific leaders during the year.

Investment in Africa to limit China’s influence

As a strategy to curb China’s growing influence, the EU plans to deepen ties with Africa by boosting investment, creating jobs, and strengthening economic relations. The plan is to create 10 million jobs in Africa over the next five years. Europe is also aiming to establish free trade agreement between the two continents.

In recent times, China has been blamed of neo-colonial approach towards Africa, which is aimed at emptying the continent of its raw mineral in exchange for inexpensive loans, extensive but inferior infrastructure, among others. Europe aims to curb such influence by attempting to do business ethically. 

EOS Perspective

Unnerved by flurry of Chinese investments in the continent, the EU is looking to regain its control over matters. Europe has adopted a defensive approach against China’s initiatives, reflected through measures taken to protect critical sectors using investment screening system. The EU understands the downsides of enormous Chinese investments/loans, which may seem hugely enticing in the beginning, but could saddle vulnerable countries in debt they cannot repay – for example, a Chinese-built highway in Montenegro is likely to increase the country’s debt to about 80% of its GDP.

Currently, the key issue is the fact that Europe is standing divided on the right strategy to respond to bolder and ambitious China. While countries such as Germany, France, and UK have grown skeptical of China and are revolting against it, Italy, Hungary, Portugal, Greece, among others, are generally China-friendly. Europe has certainly become stern and tougher on China, but cannot pursue its interests without standing united.

The current situation does not demand Europe opposing China outright, but rather ensuring fair business conditions and equal market access through dialogue and cooperation with China.

Nonetheless, the EU has been quite slow to wake up to the various challenges that excessively ambitious China brings to the table. However, if Europe is able to become united now, there is still a chance to build a decent Sino-European partnership that serves interests of both parties.

Tunisia’s Bruised Tourism Industry Starts to Recover
by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Tunisia’s Bruised Tourism Industry Starts to Recover

1.5kviews

The tourism sector of Tunisia has been in turmoil over the past few years. The terrorist attacks on Sousse beach and Bardo National Museum in Tunis in 2015 crippled the industry, which had been witnessing a healthy growth before these events. As the Tunisian government and tourism industry players have been implementing strategies to revive the industry, some progress has been witnessed. However, the damage to the country’s image was grave and it is yet to be seen if the measures being taken will put the industry back on the growth trajectory.

Grave repercussions to the sector

Post Tunisia’s political revolution in 2011, the government started promoting tourism both domestically and internationally, and by 2014, the tourism sector contributed 15.4% to the country’s GDP. However, the terrorist attacks in 2015 in Sousse and Tunis killed nearly 60 foreign tourists (including 30 UK nationals) and significantly tarnished the image of Tunisia as a safe tourist destination.

The concerns over safety, reinforced by travel bans and no-travel recommendations issued by some EU countries, resulted in a drastic fall in the number of overseas tourists arriving in Tunisia. A travel ban issued by the UK authorities was particularly damaging to the local tourism sector, as UK had been the key demand-generating market for Tunisia. Between 2014 and 2017, the number of incoming travelers from the UK declined by 93% to 28,000 and many renowned UK travel companies, including Thomas Cook and TUI, discontinued their services in Tunisia.

The tourism sector had always been crucial for Tunisia’s economy and was one of the country’s key employment sectors, employing over 200,000 people before the attacks. The sudden decline in country’s tourism industry impacted cash inflow, business operations of several tourism industry players, and further destabilized the already faltering economy of the country.

The Recuperating Tourism Sector of Tunisia

Government reaction and first results

After two years of struggle, the Tunisian tourism market started showing first modest signs of recovery in 2017, following measures undertaken by the government to boost tourist footfall in the country. The Ministry of Tourism’s initial steps to help the industry survive included covering of social security contributions for tourism entities such as hotels, resorts, restaurants, etc., by the government, with the intention to help the providers maintain their employees and stay afloat. While this helped reduce the impact, the country still saw a massive loss of jobs in travel and tourism in 2015.

Simultaneously, the government tried to address the most pressing issue directly responsible for the decreased demand for Tunisian tourism services – traveler safety. To make tourists feel safe, the government tightened security around touristic sites, particularly in Sousse and Tunis. Additional surveillance equipment was placed at airports, hotels, and resorts to enhance security, while sector staff and various security forces received training on detecting suspicious behaviors and on counter-terrorism. Over the following years, Tunisia also received help from western countries in raising its security standards and procedures.

While these initiatives were needed and welcome, preventing attacks of this sort in a country located in close proximity to conflict zones, requires massive funding and complete, deep overhaul of its security and counter-terrorism system at all levels. Regardless of whether the steps already taken are sufficient or not to truly ensure safety, they certainly offered greater sense of protection to tourists, a fact promptly and extensively communicated to target customers across British and other European media.

The government of Tunisia has also taken measures to balance out the losses by trying to diversify its demand markets. To attract tourist from outside Europe, visa requirements for countries including China, India, Iran, and Jordan were eased with the introduction of visa on arrival. This strategy helped Tunisia attract Chinese tourists, whose footfall increased 56% y-o-y in January-May 2018 period.

To fuel business travel arrivals, the MoT started granting one-year multi-entry visa to businessmen and investors of these countries as well. Further, the MoT also removed entry visa requirements for countries including Angola, Burkina Faso, Botswana, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Cyprus.

In parallel, the industry realized the need to broaden the sector’s offering. One such initiative was to expand the premium and luxury tourism segment targeting (quite interestingly) particularly British affluent travelers (indicating a continuous bet placed on British customers). In 2017, Four Seasons Hotel Tunis was opened, a major step in putting the country on the luxury tourism map, followed by a few more luxury resorts openings. In several locations premium activities have been developed, including marine spas and golf courses.

Europe’s cautious return to holidays in Tunisia

The measures appeared to have worked, and in 2017, the industry witnessed growth of the number tourists by 23.2% y-o-y to reach 7 million. While the government actions were to some extent successful, it was the lifting of travel ban to Tunisia by EU countries including Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, and the UK that was the main factor leading to growth.

Recovery was further supported by the return of travel companies such as Thomas Cook and TUI, which resumed operations in Tunisia. Moreover, an air service agreement was signed in late 2017 between the EU and Tunisia to increase the number of direct flights between European countries and Tunisia, which soon led to the return of European airlines including Air Malta and Brussels Airlines on these routes.

All these developments have helped to revive tourism sector and regain European visitors to a certain extent. The number of tourists, particularly, from France and Germany, increased by 45% and 42%, respectively, y-o-y for the period of January-May 2018. This growth in tourist footfall was a great sigh of relief for local industry players, whose businesses have suffered tremendously post attacks.

UK tourist, the most valuable visitor, reluctant to come back

Despite Tunisia’s attempts to diversify its demand markets, the country sees UK as the most important source of tourists for its tourism sector. According to the Tunisian Hotel Association, the market will not fully recover until the British visitors are back in numbers from before the attacks, which will also send a strong message to the world that Tunisia is safe for travel again.

Before the attacks, tourists from the UK formed the bulk of most valuable visitors to Tunisia with high spending capacity, the strongest inclination to spend on high-end accommodation and local cuisines, staying for longer duration in the country, and shopping extensively for locally-made products.

Rebuilding Tunisia’s image in the eyes of British tourists is therefore seen as of great importance. While some British tourists started to return to Tunisia (following tightened safety measures and an extensive publicity thereof) many UK travelers continue to remain wary, and in spite the lift of the travel ban, British arrivals have not reached pre-2015 levels. This reluctance is difficult to break, as UK tourists still do not fully trust that their safety will be ensured, a fear further underpinned by tensions in Tunisia’s neighboring Muslim countries (e.g. Libya).

Some issues remain unresolved

The inability to bring back the UK tourists at levels from before 2015 is still a major problem to the local industry. Although the government undertook several initiatives to improve tourist safety, these steps are likely to be insufficient to prevent such events in the future.

Amidst Tunisia’s frail economic conditions, the availability of sufficient funds to truly and permanently ramp-up security is limited. Moreover, Tunisia must be able to ensure ongoing counter-terrorism abilities as a preventive measure, a task requiring a systematic approach and continuous financing, without dependence on western governments. Considering Tunisia is surrounded by areas prone to continuously produce this sort of danger, ensuring the right intelligence and financing is likely to be a challenge.

Tunisian tourism sector is fighting several battles at the same time, and the blow it received in an aftermath of the attacks had broad repercussions. Various structural issues, which had been present before 2015, still persist. This includes a relatively large share of poor quality accommodation and hotel services, which are not up to par with international standards and expectations of a western tourist, therefore are detrimental to market growth. The 2015 events put several hotel operators under heavy debt and in fight for survival, which pushed upgradation of hotel facilities much lower on their priority list.

There is also a shortage of well-trained hotel and other tourist services staff, which makes it difficult for the Tunisian tourism industry to compete with countries such as Turkey, especially if the substandard service level is paired with outdated and poorer hotel amenities and services. Tunisia does have training centers, however the aftermath of 2015 attacks put the entire sector along with ancillary industries in a standstill, therefore several training center have not been functioning at full capacity. Recovery will take time and it will be a while till a sufficient number of well-trained hotel staff will become available.

EOS Perspective

With tourism playing a pivotal role in Tunisia’s economy, the country found itself in a very difficult position as a result of the attacks. The revival of tourist footfall since the summer of 2017 is definitely encouraging, however the industry is still not out of the woods and needs to continue to work along with the government to ensure the return of the tourists, by addressing the key issues – safety and quality of services.

This should also be a good moment for Tunisia to realize the risks of reviving the industry with the same over-dependence on limited variety of demand markets as before (i.e. UK), and intensify its efforts to diversify target markets across Europe and beyond.

Apart from introducing and maintaining fundamental changes to the safety of the traveler and to what the industry offers, the country needs to revamp the way it markets itself so that it can improve its image and boost tourism. In the past, public authorities and industry players have not paid much attention to promoting the country’s tourism market on social media, relying largely on tour operators and agencies. However, promoting a positive image of the country along with advertising tourist facilities through online channels might help Tunisia reach broader customer segments across markets, e.g. by influencer endorsements (quite a successful approach for Abu Dhabi and Turkey, to name just a few, in the past).

It is also important for Tunisia to look beyond traditional mass-market, organized tourism and explore other avenues of revenue. More focus could be put on promoting cultural tourism as well as access to Sahara Desert – key attraction for people visiting south of Tunisia. Local investors have already started working to develop offers with local cuisines and immersive desert experiences, along with authentic-themed hotels and restaurants.

Tunisia has also made the right (although modest) steps to address the issue of substandard hotel amenities and unclear standard of accommodation that can be expected by tourists. Changes are being made to classification of hotels, as the current star rating system is outdated and based on size and capacity rather than quality of services. Efforts are being made to re-classify hotels in line with international standards. Such reforms are crucial for the industry to ensure higher level of customer satisfaction.

Rebuilding damaged image is always a long and difficult process and Tunisian authorities must do whatever possible to prevent similar attacks in the future. If the public authorities along with the industry players continue to make efforts to pull the country’s tourism market out of the pit, the optimistic expectations about tourist arrivals reaching 12 million by 2028, with a CAGR of 4.6% over 2018-2028, are likely to become reality, bringing back much needed employment and revenue to the economy.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Dual Quality of Food Products Questions EU’s Single Market Strategy

884views

Several countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) allege that some multinational brands and supermarkets’ private-label food products sold in Western Europe are of superior quality than those available under the same brand name and packaging in their home markets. Food producers contend that they often change composition or characteristics of food products in different countries to adapt to local taste preferences. However, this practice has led to resentment among the CEE consumers who feel that food producers deliberately offer inferior quality products in CEE to save on costs. Taking into consideration the results of comparative tests (conducted by few CEE member states) indicating dual quality of food products to be a fact, European Commission has come out in support of countries complaining about double standards of food products. As European Commission is working out an approach to tackle the issue of dual quality of food products, the packaged food industry must prepare for possible impact.

Slovakia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Croatia, Bulgaria, Poland, Slovenia, Estonia, and Romania are among the countries that have voiced their concerns over dual quality of food products. These countries claim that some of the packaged food products sold in their home markets differ in composition and ingredients when compared to same brands’ food products sold in western markets, for instance, some products contain lower quality of the primary ingredient (e.g. less fish in fish fingers) or contain ingredients considered as less healthy (e.g. sweeteners instead of sugar in beverages). Some countries also complain about the difference in sensory characteristics such as taste, texture, or color.

Investigations by national institutions of few CEE countries revealed that, despite being marketed under identical packaging, many packaged food products differ in composition and characteristics across European Union (EU) member states. In many cases, food products available in CEE markets were less healthy as compared to same brand products available in western markets such as Austria, France, or Germany. In 2015, the Prague University of Chemistry and Technology tested 23 products marketed under the same brand name in Czech Republic and Germany and uncovered differences in eight products. Slovak Agriculture Ministry and the State Veterinary and Food Administration (ŠVPS) conducted a similar study in 2016 and found discrepancies in nearly 50% of the products tested. In 2017, NEBIH, Hungary’s food safety authority, compared 96 products in Hungary, Austria, and Italy. The study included multinational brands, supermarkets brands, as well as some products with similar composition but not the same brand. While 25 of these products were found to be identical, 8 products were different in composition and 30 products exhibited difference in sensory characteristics, whereas 33 products indicated differences in both.

Multinational companies contend that this is a common business practice to change the composition of the branded products as per the local preferences and demand, difference in purchasing power, local sourcing requirements, variation in production lines, etc. EU legislation requires companies to properly label ingredients, but it does not mandate sale of the same recipe under the same brand name across the EU markets. However, it is difficult for consumers to identify the difference in quality of products based solely on information presented on the label. Consumers generally expect that products of the same brands with identical packaging and appearance are the same and thus the purchase decision is often based on brand image and reputation.

The frustration and dissatisfaction is building up among consumers in these markets as they feel as if they are being unfairly treated as second-class consumers. The dual food quality issue has now come under the political radar as the concerned countries have joined forces compelling the European Commission to take necessary actions to eliminate double standards in the quality of food products sold across EU.

EU-Dual Quality of Food Products

After years of perseverant diplomatic efforts, in 2017, European Commission finally acknowledged the issue of dual quality in food products and pledged necessary action against such practices as they may lead to single market fragmentation. In September 2017, the European Commission offered a grant of EUR 1 million (~US$1.2 million) to the Joint Research Centre (European Commission’s science and knowledge service) to develop a common methodology which can be used across the EU market for comparison of products. Additional EUR 1 million (~US$1.2 million) will be offered to member states for conducting further tests and to take actions to ensure compliance.

Alongside, European Commission also released guidelines highlighting application of the existing EU food and consumer protection legislation to determine whether a brand is acting in breach of these laws when selling products of dual quality in different countries. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) prohibit “a misleading commercial practice if in any way it deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, even if the information is factually correct, in relation to the main characteristics of the product”. National authorities are directed to determine on case-by-case basis whether consumers would still buy a product of a particular brand if they were aware that its main characteristics differ from those of the product sold under the same brand name and packaging in most EU member states – if they would not, then the company can be considered acting in violation of UCPD (though such a determination will undoubtedly be challenging with regards to maintaining objectivity and common fixed criteria). European Commission, along with the help of industry stakeholders, is also preparing a new code of conduct that will include standards to improve transparency and thereby avoiding the dual quality issue.

EOS Perspective

Dual quality of food products has been proven to be a fact and is perceived as an unfair distortion of EU single market. European Commission advocates to strengthen enforcement of existing consumer protection laws, however, some of the EU member states’ representatives are demanding legislative amendments as they believe that the current laws are inadequate to tackle the issue of dual food quality. CEE countries demand that the multinational brands must standardize their food products across the EU market to put an end to the discriminatory practice. However, this would require revision of EU food legislation, a proposal relished by neither the European Commission nor the industry.

In May 2017, Hungary submitted a draft legislation to European Commission to introduce a labelling obligation to include distinctive warning on dual quality food products. However, food law experts contest that such an obligation will restrict the food producers to distribute their products freely in Hungary, unless they bear an additional cost for labelling. This conflicts with article 34 of EU’s treaty that guarantees free circulation of goods within EU. However, if a similar proposal is considered for EU, it would force the food producers to include a warning on the labels, and this could be perceived as a mark of a potentially negative marketing.

It is about time that multinational brands offering dual quality products acknowledge the intensity of the allegations. Companies must prepare an acceptable justification for the difference in quality of their products, more specifically, if their products in certain markets are of inferior quality. Companies may consider reformulating their products in CEE markets to standardize their product offering across the EU bloc. For instance, in September 2017, HiPPs, a German baby food producer, announced that it would reformulate one of its Croatia-sold products to match with the German recipe.

Rebranding is another option that the companies could explore. Products with significant difference in composition could be launched under a new brand name exclusively for that local market. Companies for whom rebranding and reformulating is not deemed feasible, should consider relabeling and repackaging their products to clearly differentiate the products across markets. For instance, Tulip is considering changing the packaging of canned luncheon meat in the Czech Republic to differentiate it from the similar product available in Germany. An unquestionable fact here is that whichever approach companies take to address the dual quality issue, it will result in additional costs, which might affect the products’ prices and make them less accessible, especially for consumers from low-income sections of the CEE population.

For the multinational brands offering identical products across EU, the dual quality issue can be seen as an opportunity. Such companies could consider multilingual labelling informing consumers that same product is sold across markets, and this approach would also help standardize the packaging and labelling across the region. Further, these companies could also benefit from a positive PR and marketing campaigns to reinforce the fact that they consider all their customers equal across EU single market.

Packaged food producers who have presence only in Western Europe are presented with a unique opportunity to expand in CEE markets. As the general perception in CEE is that packaged food products made in western EU countries are often of superior quality, the western-recipe version of a given product may be well received by the CEE consumer.

Local e-tailers as well as retailers in border cities can also be at gain. For instance, Czech e-tailers such as Rohlik.cz and Košík.cz have added special sections on their websites offering German products; likewise, supermarkets in German towns such as Altenberg and Heidenau have put up sign in two languages, due to increasing footfall from Czech cities across the border.

As the debate on dual quality of food products is gaining heat, multinational brands such as HiPPs and Tulip are already considering changing product composition or packaging to reflect the differentiation of their products across member states. Though food producers are not required to offer standard products across the EU countries, they will need to justify the difference in their products, and failure to do so may lead to legal action. The recent guidelines announced by European Commission are more of a soft warning to food producers. If the issue remains unresolved, then European Commission may consider more extreme measures. European Commission warned that if the situation does not improve, it will make the name of brands that are involved in the practice of dual quality publicly available. This might severely impact the brand image of these multinational brands in consumer’s view. Revision of packaging and labelling law is also one of the recommended alternatives that might be explored as a last resort.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

EU-Mercosur FTA: Old Negotiations, New Zest

809views

The EU and Mercosur (a trade bloc comprising Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay*) free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations date back almost two decades, to 1999. After failing to seal the deal in 1999 and again in 2004, the countries initiated new negotiations in 2010 and though started out slowly, they accelerated the process in 2016 (with hopes to finalize the deal by the end of 2017). A trade deal at this moment will be of significant importance to both sides owing to substantial amount of trade between the two blocs. The EU is Mercosur’s largest trading partner accounting for 21% of the bloc’s trade in 2015, while Brazil alone is the EU’s eleventh largest trading partner. However, despite a positive framework for the agreement to happen, there is still a great deal of resistance from few EU countries regarding the opening up of their agriculture sectors. Now it remains to see whether the two blocs can reach the much needed compromises and end up with an agreement by the end of the year or talks will remain hanging once more.
*Venezuela has been suspended from the trade bloc in 2016 and therefore is out of the negotiations

While this may not be the first time the EU and Mercosur sit to negotiate the terms of an FTA, it definitely seems to be the most promising one. The main reason the earlier efforts have gone in vain was the Argentinian leftist government’s adverse stance on trading outside their own backyard. This changed with the election of president Mauricio Macri in December 2015, who unlike his predecessor (Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner), looks at international trade as a growth opportunity for Argentina. Similarly, the impeachment of the Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff in May 2016 resulted in a new political wave in Brazil. While Brazil’s former president did take small steps towards trade liberalization, her successor, Michel Temer, has accelerated this process and has made the EU-Mercosur deal one of his top priorities.

Another reason this deal has gained immense importance for the Latin American bloc has been a declining bilateral trade among Mercosur’s two largest members, Argentina and Brazil, owing to recession. Trade between the countries declined from US$36 billion to US$22 billion during 2013-2016. This has forced the two nations to soften their stance on global trade.

Considering these developments, as well as the changing political and trade dynamics between several Latin American countries and the USA, following the arrival of Trumps administration at the White House, Mercosur’s openness and renewed interest in strengthening international trade ties is fully understandable. We wrote about it in February 2017 in our article Trump in Action: Triumph or Tremor for Latin America? and again later in June 2017 in Japan Hopes to Get a Slice of Mercosur Opportunity Cake as LATAM Exports to USA Decline.

On the other side of the negotiations table, as the EU has maintained a positive outlook towards foreign trade in general, the lost prospect of a Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the USA under Donald Trump has also reinvigorated EU’s interest in the Mercosur FTA. Moreover, the EU views the deal with Mercosur as a suitable counter-measure to the growing Chinese influence in Latin America.

Apart from these aspects, the main reason for renewed commitment to the deal by both sides is the significant and increasing level of trade and investment between the two blocs. In 2014, EU’s investments in Mercosur countries reached US$494 billion. The EU’s exports to Mercosur expanded from about US$24.6 billion (€21 billion) in 2005 to about US$54 billion (€46 billion) in 2015. Similarly for Mercosur, its exports to the EU increased from US$37.5 billion (€32 billion) to US$49 billion (€42 billion) during the same period. Agriculture products constituted 48% of Mercosur’s exports to the EU, while machinery (29% of exports) and vehicle and parts (17% of exports) were EU’s largest export categories to the Latin American bloc.

The EU stands to gain a great deal from the FTA. As per current calculations, EU exporters would save about US$5.2 billion (€4.4 billion) annually on trade tariffs and stand to double their exports within five years of reaching a deal.

Despite hefty trade benefits and a lot of political and economic factors being in favor of the deal, agriculture remains a sore point. Several EU countries, led by France, do not want to open up their agriculture sector to Mercosur’s exports as they feel their domestic produce (especially grains and meat) cannot compete with that of Brazil and Argentina in terms of price. In addition, they are concerned that Mercosur’s agricultural produce are not subject to the same health standards as their domestic produce.

A quick glance at the average production costs indicates that the EU farmers have a reason to worry. As per estimates, if the deal comes through, the amount of maize available in Brazil and Argentina for export by 2020 will be between 23 and 26 million tonnes. While the average production cost of cereal in Mercosur is close to US$94/ tonne (€80/tonne), it is about US$141/tonne (€120/tonne) in the EU. This is likely to result in substitution of EU-grown maize with that from Mercosur, which will most likely result in a loss of about US$2.3 billion (€2 billion) by 2020 for EU’s agriculture sector. In addition, it can be expected to result in an indirect loss of about US$1.2-3.5 billion (€1-3 billion) as Mercosur-produced maize is likely to also replace wheat for animal feed during high production and harvest months.

In case of meat products, beef produced in Mercosur is more competitive than EU’s beef in terms of pricing. Moreover, a study of the usual trend of beef quotas suggest that they are first filled with noble cuts exports (including filet, entrecote, and rump steak) followed by other hindquarter cuts (such as topside and silverside). In case the deal takes place, it is expected that Mercosur’s beef will largely substitute local beef produce with Mercosur’s export volume (keeping in mind higher quantities of noble cuts, such as Hilton beef) expecting to reach 1 million tonnes. These would be worth US$18.8 billion (€16 billion) and would directly impact the local production and sales value. To bring this into perspective, the value of Brazil’s beef exports (the largest beef exporter among the Mercosur countries) to the EU was US$485 million in 2016. Moreover, low-priced imports from Mercosur will put pressure on the pricing in the domestic EU market resulting in close to a 30% downward price revision, which in turn is highly likely to result in further losses of about US$10.6 billion (€9 billion). In case the EU agreed to 300,000 tonnes at zero duty, this would expectedly result in US$3.5 billion (€3 billion) in direct costs and US$7.1 billion in indirect costs (€6 billion).

In addition to this, there are several non-tariff related issues with Mercosur’s produce, such as lack of tagging and traceability of livestock to identify and guarantee origin. Also, several drugs, such as hormones and growth promoters, as well as few antibiotics and insecticides that are banned in the EU are legally used in Mercosur. These factors have resulted in countries such as France, Ireland, and Poland opposing the EU-Mercosur FTA.

Another source of disagreement for the EU lies in the trade of sugar and ethanol, which the European producers claim should be excluded from the list of freely-traded items. This stems primarily from the fact that the Brazilian government provides subsidies worth US$1.8 billion annually to its ethanol and sugar producers, a fact providing them with an undue advantage compared to the European counterparts.

On the other hand, Mercosur is discontent with EU’s limited concessions on agricultural imports and its stance to continue quotas on the Mercosur’s food imports. Mercosur also has some concerns regarding providing the EU with access to public tenders, which in Brazil alone are worth about US$176 billion (€150 billion), however, they are positive that they will be able to reach a consensus during negotiations.

While few points of contention remain, negotiators at both ends are keen on resolving these issues and signing the deal by the end of 2017, remaining aware of the significance of this deal for both the sides as well as of the tendency for these talks to remain unresolved if not pushed soon. Moreover, both sides want to exploit the current favorable political scenario in Brazil and Argentina. With Brazil heading for presidential elections in 2018, the chances of a leftist-government coming to power do exist, and this can again put the deal in danger if it is not completed by then. Both sides of the negotiating table want to reach an agreement sought-after for the past 20 years as early as possible, even if it means compromising on some expectations.

EU Mercosur FTA Old Negotiations New Zest

EOS Perspective

A goal of completing the deal by the end of 2017 seems like quite a gun to the heads of both the blocs, as past experience, both in the case of this deal as well as other FTAs, proves that the process is never quick nor simple. Moreover, the EU seems somewhat divided on the deal, with Spain, Portugal, and Germany advocating for it and France, Poland, and Ireland opposing it. That being said, this deal – which has been on and off again and again since 1999 – has never been as close to getting finalized as it is now. This is primarily due to the fact that both Argentina and Brazil (that were the two main factors holding the deal back all these years) are extremely keen on reaching this agreement with EU, to the extent that they may be willing to compromise quite a bit as long as the deal includes provisions that leave room for future improvements and it brings increase in trade and thus growth for local economies. However, it remains to be seen whether they will be willing to stretch their compromises far enough to agree to the EU’s terms on the agriculture produce trade. At the same time, it is not clear how much the EU is going to push for these provisions, so there is a chance that both parties will manage to reach a well-rounded deal for both the sides. The least probable scenario is that the deal will come to a stand-still once more, however till the ink dries on the deal, nothing can be considered as certain.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

UK Airlines Expected to Face Turbulent Times with Brexit on the Horizon

353views

As the UK heads towards a hard Brexit, one of the industries that could be facing the maximum heat is the airline sector. The country’s aviation sector has for long enjoyed the perks of UK being an EU member, as its business greatly benefits from two of the EU’s four fundamentals of freedom of movement – freedom of movement of people and of cargo/goods (with the other two being freedom of movement of capital and of services). However, with UK triggering Article 50 (divorce clause) of the EU treaty, the European Commission has warned British airlines about several restrictions that are likely to be imposed on their EU routes in case the UK and EU fail to reach a new agreement. This has left the airline sector in a state of high uncertainty. While several airlines, such as EasyJet, have already started working on a contingency plan, others chose to follow a wait-and-watch approach.

Airlines industry has definitely been one of the key beneficiaries of the UK being an EU member. As per the EU’s Open Skies Agreement, all EU members are allowed to fly anywhere across the EU states. This rule gave the British airlines access to fly not only from London to Paris but also from Milan to Paris, expanding the airlines’ passenger base.

However, with Brexit being an absolute certainty, UK airlines fear losing access to the EU’s single aviation market which they have for long promoted and championed. Since the EU-UK divorce seems to be a rough one, airlines have little hope for a continued Open Skies Agreement. The sector’s worries have been further deepened by the fact that British PM, Theresa May, has clearly expressed her inclination to end the authority of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over the UK matters. Since ECJ (which is the highest court in the EU in matters of European Union law) also presides over European Aviation Law and in turn the Open Skies Agreement, the end of its authority over the UK will automatically result in the removal of UK’s aviation sector from the Open Skies Agreement.

Moreover, within days of the UK triggering Article 50 of the EU treaty (i.e. formalizing the exit process that needs to be completed over two years), the European Commission has sent out warnings to British airlines about several compliances they must adhere to, to continue flying intra-EU post Brexit. In order for these airlines to continue flying on these routes, they must comply with EU’s strict ownership rules, which state that airlines operating intra-EU flights must be based in an EU state and their majority stake must be owned by EU citizens. Failing to abide by these regulations will result in the UK losing its rights to fly intra-EU flights. Alternatively, as a counter to EU’s regulations on UK airlines, it is well expected that the UK will put similar stipulations on EU-based airlines that wish to fly intra-UK flights.

These two-sided restrictions will affect several airlines such as British EasyJet, Irish Ryanair, and IAG-owned airlines – Irish Aer Lingus as well as Spanish Iberia and Vueling, which derive a great deal of their business from flying within the EU countries and UK cities. While some of these airlines have preemptively started deploying a contingency plan, others are still waiting for some more clarity and are hoping for a positive outcome in the form of an agreement similar to Open Skies.

UK Airlines Expected to Face Turbulent Times

EasyJet

One of the first movers with regards to an action plan has been EasyJet. Being a UK-based company deriving a large part of its revenue from low-cost intra-EU flights, EasyJet will be one of the airlines hit the worst. Since losing its intra-EU business is not an option for the carrier, it has already set up a European sister company in Vienna, EasyJet Europe, in July 2017. About 100 planes have been assigned to the subsidiary and the total cost of the project is about US$13 million.

EasyJet does not face a major hurdle with regards to ownership requirements for EU airlines. It is currently 84% owned by EU citizens, a stake that will fall to 49% post Brexit provided that the shares of its owner, Stelios Haji-Ioannou, who is a dual UK and EU citizen, are accounted as EU citizen-owned. However, since the 49% ownership is going to be only slightly below the required mark, the airlines will not have much issue in meeting the requisite ownership requirement.

With these two aspects settled, the EasyJet is likely to be able to continue operating its international and domestic flights across the EU states.

Ryanair

Ryanair, unlike EasyJet, does not need to move its base as it is already headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. However, the airline faces ownership pressure as the shares owned by EU citizens will fall from 60% to 40% after Brexit. To ensure compliance with the ownership rule, as a first step, the airlines could possibly ask the fund managers holding their stock to switch the funds in which the shares are held from their UK-based funds to Dublin-, Milan-, Frankfurt-, Ireland-, or Luxembourg-based funds. However, if that does not work, the company does have extraordinary provisions in its articles of association to force non-EU investors to sell their stake to ensure major control and ownership by EU nationals.

However, the airline might be facing a larger threat looming on the horizon. In case the UK replicates similar flying barriers on EU-based carriers, Ryanair might be negatively affected, as the UK is an important domestic market for the airline. To ensure smooth operations in the UK, the company will need to apply for a domestic UK Air Operator Certificate (AOC) which will let it continue its operations without major changes.

IAG-owned Airlines (British Airways, Aer Lingus, Iberia, and Vueling)

IAG-owned British Airways is likely to remain among one of the least Brexit-affected airlines as is does not fly intra-EU flights. Moreover, the group’s other airlines including Spanish Iberia and Vueling, as well as Irish Aer Lingus already are based in the EU and therefore can continue flying within the EU. However, the group has refused to comment on its shareholding structure which will be required to be majority EU-based for the latter three airlines to continue intra-EU operations. As per industry experts, IAG, which also has extraordinary provisions for force sale in their articles of association, may need to divest some of their non-EU-based stake and replace it by stake held by EU nationals.

EOS Perspective

While there is a significant uncertainty about the fate of the airline industry post Brexit, there is a common consensus that the sector is likely to be hit hard by the divorce. The UK and EU markets aviation sectors are largely inter-dependent, whether it is about air traffic or employment in the sector, and potential lack of regulations similar to the Open Skies Agreement will be detrimental to the industry in general as well as its consumers. This makes it vital for the Brexit negotiators to try to develop a mutually beneficial deal for the sector in general.

Having said that, it is clear that the airlines must prepare for the worst as the UK and EU seem to be heading for a hard divorce. Brexit process was formally started in March 2017 and the UK has two years to conclude all procedures and negotiations leading to the EU exit, which also puts the same timeframe for the sector to develop contingency plans. Some players, such as Ryanair hope that some form of Open Skies Agreement will be replicated, and continue to put pressure on their government for such a similar agreement to be negotiated. Other players, such as EasyJet, seem to take a more proactive approach, already investing resources in ensuring their smooth operations even if the worst case scenario materializes. Such an uncertainty about shifts in the operating environment is never favorable for any sector, UK airlines included, and as the future developments of the operating framework lie largely in the hands of negotiators, the industry players hold rather limited control over the future changes.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

BREXIT: First Thoughts

Streit ums Haus

In a landmark decision, UK’s citizen expressed their preference to leave the European Union. While the process is not straight forward, and will take at least two years to complete, Britain could struggle to lift the markets sentiment in a short to medium term.

Sterling Pound, probably one of the strongest currencies in the world, immediately suffered the largest drop in the past 30 years. Stock markets across the world have also responded to the news, with most stock exchanges witnessing a significant drop in share prices. This only reciprocates the negative market sentiment currently dominating the market. Some even feel that announcement of BREXIT could be a dawn a new recession period, similar to the 2008 crisis.

Britain will have to undergo massive negotiations over the next two years – not only in terms of their relations with other EU member countries, but also at a more granular level. Most companies will have to renegotiate their EU-wide contracts, to enable provisions for a separate/independent Britain. A major challenge will be addressing trade with EU member states, as well as countries with which EU has signed free trade agreements, which according to estimates puts about £250 billion worth of trade at risk.

Several companies, especially the ones which use Britain as the base to serve other EU markets, have been left in the midst of turbulent waters, unsure of what pans for them in the future. All will again depend on how negotiations go among the 27 EU member states during a long drawn process, after Britain enforces the Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, for officially exiting the EU.

China, already suffering from the stock market and debt crisis in early 2016 following a crash in crude oil prices, could see its trade with European countries taking a hit. UK is the second largest customer for China in Europe. Weakening of the Sterling Pound and Euro is expected to erode the competitive advantage that China sought by devaluing its currency several times since August 2015. Moreover, the negative market sentiment is also likely to drive the crude oil prices further downwards, which could add the pressure on the debt-ridden country.

The knock-on effect will also be felt in other emerging markets in Asia. Nomura’s analysts predict growth rates in other Asian emerging markets to drop by up to 1.0 percentage point.

EOS Perspective

While many expect the impact of BREXIT to be felt gradually, the short terms scenario certainly seems to point otherwise. All will depend on how the exit process progresses, along with the negotiations, which might leave Britain in a slightly less advantageous position. Even if all goes well, it will take several years to attain normalcy.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Future of Global Solar Power Industry – Tense, But There’s Still Hope.

The global solar power industry was always viewed as one based on flawed business principle of artificial sustenance. With prolonged low economic growth, the artificial support base disintegrated, resulting in shutdown of multi-million dollar business across the globe.

Several leading players, such as Siemens, Solar Millennium, First Solar Inc, and SunPower Corp and Suntech Power, have either filed for bankruptcy or pulled out of their loss-making solar power businesses. Others, such as Germany-based Bosch, have decided to wrap-up solar operations at the end of 2013 after having “tried unsuccessfully to achieve a competitive position”.

A 60% fall in solar panel prices between 2010 and early 2013, as well as the rapid expansion of natural gas production in the USA and curtailment of subsidies in the EU were some of the key reasons for growing losses. What is also worth noting is the overcapacity in the market – global production capacity for photovoltaic panels reached about 60 GW in 2012, while expected demand was only 30 GW. Driven by such unsustainable market conditions, no wonder solar power companies went out of business.

Industry experts, however, view the above factors as simply the result of China’s growing dominance in the global solar power industry. Driven by government subsidies, China became the largest solar panel supplier, accounting for 60% of global solar power production capacity. This domination of the industry has, however, come at a price. Amidst growing unhappiness with China-made products leading to local companies becoming uncompetitive, USA imposed a 40% anti-dumping duty in 2012 while in May 2013 the EU imposed provisional duties of 12% (likely to increase to 47% in August) on imports of Chinese-made solar panels. Whether this will deter China or encourage local growth is unknown; this might however have a negative effect of pushing the industry further into crisis.

Beneficiary of the present situation are likely to be manufacturers in countries like Taiwan which are not yet subject to US/EU import tariffs. About 90% of solar cells manufactured in Taiwan are exported to the USA, Europe, and China. Taiwan might also benefit from the EU’s imposition of duties on China made products, driving Chinese investment into Taiwan for setting up manufacturing plants to then directly export to the EU from Taiwan without having to pay the duties. Recent activities of some Chinese companies have indicated Turkey and South Africa being possible destinations for setting up manufacturing units.

The Chinese will find ways to get their products into the US and EU markets, even if it means moving their operations to Taiwan or other countries which are not subject to the high duties. The real issue, however, is the state of the global solar industry – with some of the major players shutting down operations and funding of solar power depleting, is the end of the road? We doubt it.

There is still hope for the solar power industry, largely driven by favorable policy measures in emerging Asian and Latin American countries. The first half of 2013 witnessed solar power investments in several countries, including Kuwait, South Africa and Chile. The industry received a major boost from Middle-East when Saudi Arabia announced a US$100 billion investment plan in 2012, to generate one-third of the country’s electricity demand through solar energy. Although current demand in these emerging markets is relatively low and may take about 10-15 years to develop into a sizeable market, the scope for growth is immense.

Top