• 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

REGULATORY LANDSCAPE

Home REGULATORY LANDSCAPE Page 3

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

China Bike-Sharing Market Moving towards Consolidation

648views

Though several bike-sharing start-ups in China flourished in past two years, mainly due to backing from venture capital funding, many are finding it difficult to keep up the momentum as the investment dries up in absence of sustainable business profitability model. Small players in particular are struggling to comply with recently introduced regulatory standards for the industry. In our article titled ‘Bikes Are Back: China Gaining Pedal Power’, published in April 2017, we discussed the outlook for the bike-sharing app-based businesses in China, and now we are taking a look again into the current market dynamics in view of new regulatory framework that can reshape the competitive landscape.

The bike-sharing industry in China has noted a steep growth in a short span of time. As per estimate of Ministry of Transport, there were about 70 bike-sharing companies operating in China by July 2017 (as compared to 17 in January 2017). However, the market is skewed towards the duopoly of MoBike and Ofo. According to Sootoo (an online service platform providing analysis for internet and e-commerce industry in China), as of March 2017, MoBike and Ofo accounted for 56% and 30% market share, respectively. Other companies face cut-throat competition to carve up the remaining 14% of the market.

The summer of 2017 was particularly harsh on several small players unable to bear the heat of increasing competition and financial crunch. Chongqing-based Wukong, which shut down its operations in June 2017, is believed to be the first bike-sharing company to collapse. Subsequently, several other small companies, including 3vBike, Xiao Ming Bike, Cool Qi Bike Ding Ding Bike, Kala Bike, and Kuqi Bike, also wound up their businesses citing issues such as lack of investment, cash flow crisis, mismanagement, competition, losses due to theft and vandalism, etc.

Intense competition, especially among the second-tier companies, is driving the market towards consolidation. In October, Youon, a Shanghai-listed company operating in 220 cities and owing 800,000 bikes, acquired 100% stake in Hellobike (a Shanghai-based company with presence in 90 cities across China). In November 2017, Bluegogo, owning fleet of 700,000 bikes and 20 million registered users, announced that the company was facing financial troubles and hence the business was sold to another Chinese start-up, Green Bike-Transit. This acquisition trend is likely to continue, as the capital intensive and cash-burning bike-sharing businesses has come under the purview of strict regulatory framework.

In August 2017, Ministry of Transport and nine other ministries jointly issued the first set of guidelines with the aim to better regulate and standardize the emerging bike-sharing market in China. State governments developed their own standards and regulations based on the guidelines.

Some of these regulations are in favor of bike-sharing companies. For instance, central government directed state authorities to step up their efforts in providing protection to bike-sharing companies against vandalism, theft, and illegal parking issues. The users are required to register with the bike-sharing operators using their real name. This will allow the security forces to easily identify and penalize the offenders. This may bring some respite to small players such as 3Vbike, a Beijing-based company with a fleet of over 1,000 bikes, which shut down its operations in July 2017 after most of its bikes were stolen. Moreover, local authorities need to work with bike-sharing operators to develop dedicated parking spaces near high-demand locations such as shopping areas, office blocks, public transportation stations, etc. This is likely to ease up chaos and nuisance caused by illegal parking.

On the other hand, some of the regulations call for bike-sharing companies to bear additional expenses. As per the new regulations, all bike-sharing operators are required to provide accident insurance to their users, a practice which was earlier followed only by the market leader, MoBike. The companies are also required to set-up support mechanisms to manage customer complaints. In the guidelines, central government also advised state governments to develop local standards for regular maintenance of bikes. Accordingly, the government of Shanghai and Tianjin instructed bike-sharing operators to appoint one maintenance personnel per 200 bikes and the bikes need to be discarded after three years in operation. Such standards are certainly necessary to enhance user experience and safety, but it will put additional strain on already financially-stressed companies.

As per the new guidelines, companies are encouraged not to charge security deposits at all. If security deposit is collected, the company must clearly distinguish security deposit fund from other funds and ensure timely refund of the deposits. The bike-sharing companies typically charge CNY 99 – CNY 299 (~US$15 – US$45) as one-time refundable security deposit and then a rental fee of CNY 0.5 – CNY 1 (US$0.08 – US$0.15) is charged for every half-hour to one-hour ride. Since the firms need to refrain from using the deposits, and given that the rental fees are likely to remain significantly low due to intense competition, the companies might struggle to manage day-to-day operations. Investor money will dry out eventually, hence the companies are in dire need of developing new revenue streams. Besides in-app advertising, companies are also exploring the use of their bikes as an advertising space. For instance, Ofo customized number of bikes with Minions characters to generate revenue from advertising the release of ‘Despicable Me 3’ movie in China.

The new guidelines also allow the local authorities to limit the number of bikes to check over-supply and traffic congestion. Following the announcement of this new guideline, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Wuhan, Shenzhen, and eight other cities reportedly banned deployment of additional bikes. As a result, the prime markets are now off-limits for new entrants.

china bike sharing

EOS Perspective

App-based bike-sharing start-ups have revived the biking culture in China. By July 2017, the bike-sharing companies, claiming 130 million registered users in total, flooded the streets of China with 16 million bikes. The bike-sharing boom is certainly more than a fad, however, a shift in market composition is expected in the near future.

The new regulations have paved the way for development of higher industry standards aimed at better user experience and safety. However, compliance with these regulations is likely to put an additional financial burden on small players. Moreover, small players are finding it difficult to challenge the duopoly of MoBike and Ofo (together accounting for 86% of the market share as of March 2017). The consolidation among second-tier companies might ease the competition, however, this might not be enough to level with the market leaders. To survive the competition, small companies will need to either innovate or capitalize on niche markets and opportunities. Most of the companies operating in the market today have similar service model. Technological innovation or distinguished service model can enable the company to stand out from their competition. Furthermore, with rising level of competition and market saturation in major cities, small companies need to shift focus on underserved third and fourth-tier cities. For instance, in May 2017, Shanghai-based Mingbike announced its plan to gradually move out of Shanghai and Beijing in a strategy shift towards smaller cities. In these smaller cities, the companies can also explore niche business opportunities such as gaining exclusive contract for operating around local attractions.

Speculation about the merger of two dominant players MoBike and Ofo surfaced in October 2017. The two bike-sharing giants are under investor pressure to consolidate and put an end to the competitive pricing war. For now, both the companies have clearly stated that they are not interested in merger at this point. However, industry experts are hopeful of a merger in the future given the history of the investors – Tencent (backing MoBike) and Alibaba (backing Ofo), who separately invested in taxi-haling rival companies that eventually merged to become a single dominant player in China. Didi Chuxing, a taxi-hailing service company, was formed with merger of Tencent backed Didi Dache and Alibaba backed Kuaidi Dache in 2015. In 2016, Uber merged its China operations with Didi Chuxing, while retaining a minority stake. Travis Kalanick, co-founder of Uber, acknowledged that both the companies were making huge investments in China but unable to retrieve profits and the merger was aimed to build a sustainable and profitable business in China. Bike-sharing industry in China is also at a similar juncture. Since both MoBike and Ofo have not achieved profitability yet and they largely depend on investments, they might give in to the interest of the investors. Hence, one can expect that the bike-sharing industry in China might eventually move towards monopoly.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Indian Nutraceuticals – Potentially Rich Market Momentarily Disrupted by Frail Policies

1.7kviews

Over the past few years, consumption of diet supplements and functional foods and beverages has seen a rise in India, fueled by an increasing health awareness and a slow shift towards preventative health care. India’s nutraceutical sector offers tremendous opportunities, a fact that has led to the emergence of various players offering wide range of nutritional products. Other than nutraceutical companies, a mass of pharmaceutical and FMCG companies has entered the market leading the dietary supplement and the functional food and beverage category. India’s future in nutraceuticals industry looks promising, however, there is an immediate need for regulatory clarity and cost efficiency to streamline the otherwise progressing sector.

Currently, the USA, Japan, and Europe account for more than 90% of the total global nutraceutical market. But with these markets attaining maturity, the focus of nutraceutical players is shifting towards developing economies, especially those across Asia Pacific, including India. Indian market holds only a 2% market share of the global nutraceutical market and its estimated valuation stands at around US$4 billion as of 2017. It is expected to reach US$10 billion by 2022, increasing at a CAGR of 21% over the period of five years. The high potential of the Indian nutraceutical sector is propelled by the growing awareness of healthy lifestyle and the benefits of a balanced and nutritious diet in Indian population (especially in its urban section). India’s promise to remain a growing market, at least in the near time, also lies in the increasing income of the country’s vast middle class.

It’s not all nice and easy

While India may seem to be a favorable location for nutraceutical players to enter because of the rising urban income and increasing health consciousness, setting up new business here is not easy. Nutraceutical companies have the opportunity to develop and offer wide range of nutritive products for the populace but face challenges in broadening their reach in the local market.

The lack of consistent regulation and standardization of nutraceutical products is one of the key challenges faced by nutraceuticals producers in India. Product cycle in the nutraceutical industry is regulated by strict guidelines through each phase of product development, from the selection of raw materials to the packaging stage. FSSAI (Food Safety and Standards Authority of India) issues regulations on licensing and registration of business, packing and labelling, food products standard, additives, etc. However, irregularities in laid guidelines for registration of nutraceuticals, permitted additives, and packaging often create problems for companies to get product approval quickly leading to costly delays. The most common concern that nutraceutical manufacturers face is the lack of clear differentiation between raw materials, additives, or colors categorized as permitted to use in a pharma drug or a nutraceutical product. What is more, some colors and additives commonly used in food do not find place in the list of permitted additives for nutraceuticals under the regulations. Similarly, any product packaged and marketed in the form of a gelatin capsule is considered as a drug and not necessarily a nutraceutical or dietary product, regardless of its function and indication. Thus, it is necessary to have regulations for permitted additives, product registration, product approval, and pricing specifically for nutraceuticals. In the light of the rapid growth of this segment in India, it is imperative to treat this segment as a separate entity and have clear product definitions and production guidelines.

Another challenge for producers is to arrive at the right pricing for their products in the local market. Though the demand for nutraceuticals is expected to rise considerably, the high prices of nutraceuticals limit their adoption in the Indian market. Nutraceutical producers try to recover their R&D costs in a short span of time by putting a high price tag on their products, but in a price-sensitive market such as India, high costs associated with producing nutraceuticals (or putting high margins on products) is a major restraining factor. Also, affording health products, which cost much more than some of the basic food items, is a key concern for majority of Indian population.

Moreover, with the introduction of GST (Goods & Services Tax) in July 2016 (we talked about it in our article GST Likely to Become India’s Biggest Tax Reform in August 2016), nutraceuticals and other health supplements are subject to 18% tax (with few categories even taxed at 28%), making these products considerably more expensive than before (when they were taxed at 12%). High taxes associated with nutraceutical products could also affect the entry of new players in the market as these new players would be pressed to launch their products at lower prices in order to get a slice of the market. This could only be achieved by either lowering the cost of production or accepting a lower margin, and both of these options might make the new players apprehensive about entering the market now.

Nutraceuticals in India

Evolving competitive landscape

Pharmaceutical and FMCG companies dominate the nutraceutical market with very few pure play nutraceutical companies. Key players in the Indian market consist of both domestic and multinational players. While MNCs such as Amway, GSK, Abbott, and Danone are focusing more on regional penetration, domestic players such as ITC, Dabur, Himalaya, and Patanjali are launching new products to reach out to newer segments. The range of dietary supplements that accounts for about a third of the nutraceuticals market in India is captured by pharmaceutical companies. Meanwhile, there has also been a compelling change in consumer preferences towards functional foods and beverages. These consumables have nutritional and disease preventing qualities and are mainly catered to by the companies in the FMCG domain. The market for functional products is most likely to see a higher growth than the dietary supplements owing to the increasing number of people being affected by lifestyle diseases.

EOS Perspective

FSSAI is keen to introduce amendments to the existing regulations pertaining to nutraceuticals and dietary supplements, so much so that a set of new and (allegedly) consistent regulations and standardization procedures for nutraceutical products are to be implemented in January 2018. This raises hopes that the nutraceutical companies will be able to produce, distribute, and sell products within a clearer framework pertaining to permissible ingredients, labeling, etc., in nutraceutical products. The regulations also include an exhaustive list of ingredients, which are permissible in nutraceutical products, enabling players to introduce new products in the Indian market.

Apart from restructuring the regulations, there is also an urgent need to reduce the price of these products to make them accessible to consumers across many income levels, across the country. Currently, the penetration of nutraceuticals in urban India is 22.5% but this rate stands only at 6.3% in rural parts of the country. Urban consumers, though are aware of the benefits of nutraceuticals and often have higher disposable income, are somewhat reluctant to add these products in their monthly budgets on a regular basis, unless required, due to exorbitant prices. Making these products available at more competitive prices could enable players to capture a good share of urban Indian market over a short span of time.

There are also considerable opportunities beyond the urban segment, as population in rural parts of the country represents a huge untapped potential for nutraceuticals sales. Financial capabilities of rural consumers are surely much lower than of their urban counterparts, but this does not mean that the rural market should be ignored altogether, as this segment can offer considerable sales volume, especially that the incidence of undernutrition in rural population is higher than in urban areas. This market, however, should be approached with a different tactic. Players should consider expanding their reach in this segment with simpler, lower-priced, generic products and with products on which they can afford cutting their margins the most. It is important that they also broaden their distribution reach to make their products available in local dispensaries in rural areas, and work with local healthcare providers to drive awareness and demand for nutraceutical supplementation. But in order to really get a firm grip on the rural segment, the pricing should be much more attractive, and this could be potentially achieved by working with the government, local authorities, and healthcare organizations to launch initiatives in the form of subsidies, tax rebates, or other co-payment forms to allow to bring the product price significantly down. Obviously, this might be difficult to achieve in the near term, as public entities are unlikely to see this as a priority in assigning funds. So till this changes, it appears that a refurbishment of the regulatory framework is going to be the only turning point in the growth route that the nutraceutical players can hope for.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

China’s Cross-Border E-Commerce Sector Enjoying Government Support – But for How Long?

882views

It is a well-known fact that China, today, is the largest and fastest growing e-commerce market globally. Accounting for close to half of the global e-commerce sales, China’s e-commerce industry is witnessing a double-digit growth, rising by about 26% in 2016. Leading the growth in China’s e-commerce sector is cross-border e-commerce (CBEC), which is currently witnessing close to double the growth compared with the overall industry and is expected to continue to grow robustly over the next five years. The government has not only been charging favorable duty to promote CBEC, but has also created special customs-clearing zones in 13 cities to support cross-border trade. However, in 2016, the government came up with a new set of taxation and a list of items that were allowed to be only imported. Following a significant industry pressure, the government has pushed the implementation of these rules to the end of 2018, and it now remains to be seen whether the industry will continue to receive government support which is instrumental for it to flourish.

Cross-border e-commerce (CBEC) has been creating quite a buzz globally, and leading this global trend is China, one of fastest growing markets with respect to CBEC. A plethora of social factors such as improved standards of living, increased awareness about foreign products through greater international travel as well as access to information online, increased quality consciousness among consumers, limited options available locally (especially in product categories such as infant milk formula and health supplements) have resulted in escalated demand for international products in China. All these factors, along with the ease of buying through e-commerce and the growing tendency of Chinese people to use their mobile phones to shop, have resulted in exponential growth of the CBEC sector in the country.

China’s CBEC Industry – At a Glance

Retail Sales and Growth: The industry was estimated at US$85.8 billion in sales in 2016 and is expected to double up sales to about US$158 by 2020. The number of CBEC customers in China is estimated to rise from about 181 million in 2016 to close to 292 million in 2020.

Trade Partners and Goods: The UK, USA, Australia, France, and Italy are some of China’s largest trading partners with regards to CBEC. Cosmetics, food and healthcare products, mother and child solutions (including infant formula), clothing and footwear are the most shopped categories through CBEC.

Consumer Profile: About 65% of the customers are male and 75% are between the age of 24 and 40. Most of the customers are well-educated, with three-fourth of them having at least a graduate degree. The ticket size for about half of these purchases ranges between US$15 and US$75 (RMB100-500).

Leading Players: Most cross-border online sales are undertaken through third-party online marketplaces such as TMall Global (owned by Alibaba group) and JD Worldwide (owned by JD Group, China’s second largest e-commerce player). Global e-commerce leader, Amazon is also becoming increasingly active in China.

The government has also provided immense support to the CBEC sector, a fact that has been critical to the market growth. As an effort to weed out the illegal grey market imports and to promote e-commerce, China’s government relaxed cross-border e-commerce rules and the applicable custom rates (close to 15 to 60% depending on the item). Moreover, custom duty amounting to less than US$7.5 (RMB50) was exempted. The government also created 13 CBEC zones across the country in order to expedite custom clearing of foreign items ordered online. These zones house large warehouses where foreign brands and retailers stock items, which, upon being ordered, are put through custom clearance (under relaxed rules). This way the consumer receives foreign goods within few days of ordering it.

While this has been greatly benefiting the Chinese consumers who now have an access to a range of products that were once seemingly out of reach for the public at large, it is also revolutionizing how foreign players are operating in China. Traditionally, foreign companies (brands) required to have a legal entity in China (subsidiary, partner, or own manufacturer) to import goods through the general trade channels. These legal entities had the task to clear import customs and pay duties on goods imported into the country. However, under the CBEC channel, these foreign players are freed from the requirement of establishing a local entity before selling their goods in the Chinese market. This also relieves companies from several compliance procedures that they were required to follow in case they were entering the market through offline trade channels. Therefore, several players, who shied away from China in the past (owing to cumbersome product registration and approval process), are looking at this as their entry strategy in the market. Simpler compliance checks and reduced import taxes have also made it easy for companies to experiment and launch a host of products (on a hit and miss basis) in the Chinese market without much investment.

However, while CBEC has greatly supported the cause of promoting e-commerce and aiding international companies in accessing the Chinese markets, it has seriously hampered the business of several domestic players (especially in the cosmetics and health supplements industry) who have been protected from foreign competition in the past owing to strict import rules. Moreover, it has resulted in a major disadvantage for conventional retailers with a brick and mortar setup as goods sold through the CBEC route are levied with a lower number of taxes compared with similar goods sold through traditional trade channels in China.

Owing to these factors, in April 2016, the government revised the taxation rates for CBEC goods resulting in a marginal increase in taxes for few categories. Under the new rules, products would be temporarily levied with 0% import tariff but would be taxed at 70% of the applicable VAT and consumption tax rate, which changes based on the product category. For instance, cosmetics worth RMB500 (US$75) ordered through CBEC would be taxed 0% import tariff + VAT at 11.9% (i.e. 70% of applicable VAT rate for cosmetics – 17%) + consumption tax at 21% (i.e. 70% of applicable consumption tax for cosmetics – 30%), thereby, making the total amount equal to RMB664.5 (US$100). In addition to the changes in taxation, the government removed the waiver of custom duty of up to US$7.5 (RMB50) and set a limit of US$302 (RMB2,000) on a single transaction and of US$3,020 (RMB20,000) on purchase by a single person per year. It also released a list (termed as a ‘positive list’) of 1,293 products that were allowed to enter the Chinese market through CBEC. While the goods under the ‘positive list’ are exempted from submitting an import license to customs, few products from this list that come under China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA), such as cosmetics, infant formula, medical devices, health supplements, etc., require registration before import. This entails the same tedious registration or filing requirements required for products imported through the traditional trade channels. This greatly limits the inherent benefits of the CBEC model for these products.

While the government had initially intended and aimed for immediate implementation of these new regulations, protests and pressure from Chinese e-commerce companies and the ultimate objective of promoting the country’s e-commerce sector resulted in the government agreeing to a one-year transitional phase for these rules (which was to end in 2017). However, in September 2017, the government decided to extend the transitional period until the end of 2018 and to set up new trade zones for CBEC, reinforcing its support for the cross-border e-commerce sector. While changes in the regulation do seem to be a certainty in the future, the timeline for their introduction remains ambiguous as several industry analysts anticipate that they may get pushed off again.

Cross Border e-com in China

EOS Perspective

The cross-border e-commerce sector in China has been witnessing exponential growth and despite the looming new regulations, is expected to continue to grow at least over the next five years. While leading e-commerce companies in China (such as Alibaba group and JD group) have acted swiftly to benefit from this growing space, the greatest benefit has been for the foreign players who now have an easy access to Chinese consumers without the need of setting up a shop in the country. However, these benefits may be short-lived considering the new set of regulations. Few product categories such as infant formula, cosmetics, and health supplements (which have in actuality been the most popular categories for CBEC) will be subject to registration and filing requirements, thereby their so-called ‘honeymoon phase’ in the country is likely to end. Although a lot of products do not have to comply with registration/filing requirements and are only subject to a marginal increase in taxes (as per the new rules), this does not guarantee that future regulations will not impact their presence and sales in China. Therefore, while CBEC may be the smartest way for companies to test their products with limited investment in China, they may need a back-up plan in case the government further regularizes the industry to create a level-playing field for the traditional retail.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Mobile Cuisine in Mexico and Brazil: Are Food Trucks Ready to Roll?

1.4kviews

Food trucks, a new trend in food service combining gourmet cuisine and low cost establishment, have been increasingly rolling around the world. The concept originated in the USA, where feeding consumers from trucks has been gaining popularity with the market CAGR expected at 17% between 2012 and 2017. Around 2012, this business model reached Mexico and Brazil, appearing as an attractive option for entrepreneurs to invest in the eatery business. But no matter how promising this niche may appear, inadequate regulations, lack of licenses, and poor infrastructure represent major roadblocks for the mobile cuisine business to pick up in these geographies. Do food trucks stand a chance to become the new wheels to the Mexican and Brazilian gastronomy industries?

In 1974, an ice cream truck was converted into the first taco truck in east Los Angeles in the USA, and by 2010, food trucks became a prospering industry spreading across almost all major cities in the country, as well as in other large cities globally. But it is Mexico and Brazil which seem to be promising markets with an increasing amount of investors venturing into cuisine on wheels as a prosperous and flourishing business.

1-Food Truck

2-Food Truck2

 

Mexico, where over five million people ate on the street every day in 2014, has witnessed a remarkable growth of the food truck sector, boosted mainly by the country’s increasing unemployment rate and economic slowdown. A similar situation has been happening in Brazil, where since 2014, a deepening crisis has hit the country’s economy allowing food truck businesses to become increasingly successful. In both these countries, an increased demand for cheap food has been driving the growth of food truck businesses, which are proliferating due to the low initial investment required to start such an endeavor.

3-Setting up

Despite the fact that food trucks businesses seem to be profitable and low risk, their growth is challenged by deficient regulatory frameworks, poor street infrastructure, and inadequate scope of licenses to operate. Both in Mexico and Brazil, food trucks can only circulate and sell their food in a private circle, i.e. specialized fairs, events, concerts, food parks, pre-assigned parking lots, and in some cases, business owners have to pay high fees just to park in these events.

4-Challenges

EOS Perspective

Food trucks markets in Mexico and Brazil show an immense potential due to a growing appetite for low-priced food options from the expanding price-sensitive consumer segment. This demand, paired with low investment required to enter the food truck business, makes the food truck concept an attractive option for investors and entrepreneurs looking for profitability in food service businesses.

However, the issues of inadequate regulation and lack of government encouragement for the industry in both markets continue to hamper the industry growth. An introduction of appropriate legislation would likely push the sector up on its growth trajectory. For instance, if regulations allowed food trucks to circulate anywhere in Mexico, it is estimated that the business could triple its earnings up to US$19,000 a month. Further, if dedicated laws were developed to regulate food trucks operations, business owners would be likely to pay a set fee to obtain permits and licenses to function, instead of paying varied high fees to work in a private space (which currently makes it more expensive and less transparent to operate such a business). In Brazil, some prefecture authorities have sanctioned regulations allowing food truck owners to operate in already assigned slots, however, not allowing food trucks to circulate on the city streets. Many of these assigned spaces are usually occupied by private cars, since they are not properly marked, making it difficult for food trucks owners to reach new customers, which in turns hinders the industry growth.

There is no doubt that authorities in both countries need to update and implement proper regulations and permits designed specifically for food trucks sector, as only regulation that clearly establishes operating fees and free circulation for food trucks is likely to translate into a growing market. Further, only by setting proper regulations specific to the food truck sector, local authorities would be able to guarantee consumers all sold food is safe for human consumption. Moreover, government investment in street infrastructure (e.g. electricity, running water) is required to attract new entrants, who are likely to be lured to business concept due to the low initial investment, also boosting market growth. Considering the economic situation in both countries, it is clear that the authorities should be motivated to look for any possible avenue of revenue and employment growth, taking advantage of consumers’ demand for good quality low-priced food.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Sharing Economy Needs Regulator Support

523views

Sharing economy works on a business model where individuals have the ability to borrow or rent goods or services owned by someone else. The concept has been widely accepted in a short span of time and companies such as Uber and Airbnb have become well known among consumers. The sharing economy sector has witnessed tremendous growth with aggregate valuation of the companies operating in this market reaching US$ 140 billion in 2015. The industry has already started causing a shift in the employment sector and is said to have far-reaching implications which are likely to disrupt the traditional rental business model, particularly for companies in hotel and transportation sectors. The growth potential of sharing economy has become of considerable interest to policy makers around the globe as well, and the industry has recently come under scrutiny of various governments and regulators, and is likely to face regulatory barriers affecting its potential to scale up.

The concept of sharing economy, also known as peer-to-peer economy, facilitates a direct contact between consumers and service providers and is centered around the use of privately owned, unused inventory. Technology is key to the growth of this type of economy, which has already witnessed the emergence of several sharing platforms enabling consumers to share products and services such as cars and houses.

Sharing EconomySharing EconomySharing EconomySharing EconomyEOS Perspective

Companies such as Uber and Airbnb have become the talk of the town, due to their tremendous growth achieved thanks to a simple business model: providing consumers the ability to monetize idle inventory and rent an asset, instead of purchasing it. Sharing economy also meets consumers’ desire for social interaction, lower costs, and technology-based access to goods and services. However, the sudden and overwhelming rise in its popularity has shaken the governments’ ability to appropriately and sufficiently regulate this economy. Weak legal frameworks hampering consumer’s safety and tax collection have led to debates around the benefits of sharing economy.

Implementation of the traditional regulatory frameworks in the sharing economy sector is likely to upend the peer-to-peer business model. Inclusion and implementation of monetary employee benefits, tax obligations, and safety regulations in the sharing economy can be expected to lead to an increase in the cost of services offered by these companies, thereby defeating the purpose of the existence of sharing economy. Thus, instead of imposing regulations originally developed and meant for traditional rental sector, there arises a vital need to develop a new policy framework best suited to the peer-to-peer business model.

Instead of completely imposing bans on these services and eliminating the opportunity to make use of idle inventory, governments should work alongside these companies and create regulations tailored to their regions to encourage safe business conduct. For instance, Airbnb signed an agreement with the City of Amsterdam to promote responsible home sharing in 2015. The agreement includes a set of rules for the hosts to be followed before activating their listing, and also stipulates the collection and remittance of tourist tax by Airbnb on behalf of the hosts. In addition, the agreement also includes a partnership with Airbnb to collect content from the company’s database to shutdown illegal hotels. These efforts are expected to ensure the hosts receive clear information on renting their homes and promote consumer safety.

Sharing economy has the potential to make a tremendous impact on the traditional rental sector and is likely to create opportunities across various different economic activities. However, from a legal perspective, it cannot be ignored that the model lacks a strong regulatory support, which over time will continue to put pressure on this newly emerged sector. The peer-to-peer model will be required to address these imperatives in the near future in order to scale to new heights.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Bayer-Monsanto Deal to Genetically Modify the Agriculture Industry

pot with coins saving concept

After its abandoned attempt to acquire Syngenta in October 2015, Monsanto stated it would continue its search for best acquisition targets within the agriculture industry claiming that “consolidation is inevitable”. The statement turned out to be prophetic. The agriculture industry has seen a signification M&A activity throughout 2016 – first with ChemChina acquiring Syngenta in a US$43 billion deal, followed by a planned merger of Dow and DuPont (probably two of the largest agrochemical companies), and now with Bayer announcing a US$66 billion deal to acquire Monsanto – putting further pressure on the already competitive and consolidated industry.

Every deal can bring positives and negatives, depending on from whose point of view the deal is looked at. While some may see positives in the Bayer-Monsanto deal, indicating it as the logical step of vertically integrating in the agriculture supply and value chain, others see it as a risk, and a desperate move by Bayer to remain competitive in a consolidating industry, especially when Monsanto has a not-so-good reputation among consumers.

Investors’ point-of-view

The joint portfolio of Bayer and Monsanto will surely allow the combined entity to move to the forefront and become a leader in seeds and pesticides market (holding more than a quarter share in the segment post the acquisition), which will allow the company to dictate terms in the market – definitely a positive from the investors’ point of view. Further, a cash-only deal, financed by the company’s cash reserves and new debt, display Bayer’s optimistic expectations about the company position in the near future, acting as a sweetener for the investors.

The combined Bayer-Monsanto entity is also expected to achieve improved operational efficiencies. Bayer claims the merger will result in annual synergies of US$1.5 billion after three years, bringing in operational costs reduction. Consolidation of R&D expenditure is also likely to result in further cost savings.

However, there are some critical voices as well. Historically, Monsanto has had a bad reputation for its aggressive policies, and was rated the third most hated company in the USA in 2015. Acquiring such a company could backfire on Bayer. Moreover, certain investors feel that pursuing the cash only deal may put pressure on Bayer’s core pharmaceutical business.

Market’s point-of-view

If the Bayer-Monsanto deal, as well as the Dow-DuPont merger, get the regulatory approvals, they will effectively end up consolidating more than 75% of the agricultural supplies market in the hands of four companies (Bayer-Monsanto, Dow-DuPont, ChemChina-Syngenta, and BASF). This presumably is likely to leave smaller companies at a very disadvantageous position, fighting for their survival.

A number of regulatory authorities (30 in case of Bayer-Monsanto deal) will engage in a long drawn process (lasting the entirety of 2017) to ensure the market remains competitive, and that must be enough for smaller companies and consumers to cling onto.

Consumer point-of-view

Experts feel the Bayer-Monsanto merger might lead to poorer choice and lower number of product options for consumers to choose from. This may lead to a rise in prices of agricultural supplies, which is not likely to go down well with the consumers, as the agricultural commodity prices and incomes have dropped to their lowest levels in the past couple of years. Any increase in raw material prices is likely to leave consumers scraping for margins.

EOS Perspective

Which of these positive and negative outcomes actually materialize will likely depend on how the industry behaves in the next year and a half, as Bayer and Monsanto wait to get the required regulatory approvals. If the deal gets a green light, the nature of competition in the agricultural supplies industry is undoubtedly destined to be ‘genetically modified’.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Uncertain Impact of the 2016 FDI Reforms on the Civil Aviation Sector in India

502views

Indian aviation industry is aiming high and intends to grow at a fast pace. Studies forecast that India could become world’s third largest aviation market by the end of this decade. In June 2016, the Indian government opened doors to 100% foreign investments in the Indian aviation sector. With an aim to establish one of the most FDI liberal economies across the globe, the government has taken steps to ensure easy and smooth inflow of foreign currency to India. This move has triggered mixed reactions – some raised their eyebrows while others welcomed the change.

With the objective of driving growth in the local aviation market, spurring airport infrastructure improvements, as well as giving the employment sector a push and creating new jobs in the country, the Indian government announced amendments to the FDI policy for the aviation sector. Under the new regulations, 100% FDI is allowed for both greenfield and brownfield projects through the automatic route. Regulations have been updated also in other categories of aviation operations. In Scheduled Air Transport Service/ Domestic Scheduled Passenger Airline Service, though Non-Resident Indians continue to be allowed to invest up to 100% FDI without any approval, foreign investment is capped at 49% under the automatic route and any investment beyond this share must go through the government approval route, however allowing for the possibility of 100% FDI by only non-airline players. This effectively maintains the previous limitation for foreign airlines to bring in only up to 49% of the capital in Indian carriers operating scheduled and non-scheduled air transport services.

1-FDI Reforms In Indian Civil Aviation

Under substantial ownership and effective control, any foreign airline that invests in domestic carriers via non-airline investors, is bound to have an Indian chairman and at least two-thirds of its directors of Indian origin, so that majority of the ownership rights are vested in the hands of Indian nationals. Indian Civil Aviation Ministry say that though the new provisions allow full investment of foreign parties in the national aviation sector, 100% foreign ownership dominated airlines will still not enjoy the freedom to fly internationally. International investors can own full stakes only in domestic airlines but will have to bear the heat of the government procedures and approvals to fly overseas. Though the new changes in the policy give hope to increase the ease of doing business in the country thus increasing FDI inflow, a question still remains why an international carrier would enter the Indian market to operate primarily on the domestic front. Also, owing to heavy debt, high input costs, and rigid competition, most of the domestic players are already registering business losses, so whether a new entrant in this segment would earn profits is rather questionable.

EOS Perspective

Foreign air carriers face various hindrances when planning to enter the Indian civil aviation landscape. The leverage offered currently by the Indian Civil Aviation Ministry allowing 100% foreign direct investment in the sector may look rosy but it comes with fine print, i.e. despite allowing 100% FDI, the regulators still kept several limitations, effectively reducing the attractiveness for foreign players to invest in India.

The relaxation in the FDI norms is likely to attract many overseas carriers to invest in existing airlines that were looking to expand their operations in India. The deteriorating financial condition of domestic players is expected to improve with investment from foreign players.

Improved service standard, professionalism, and adoption of industry best practices are likely to be seen in existing air services within the country. Nevertheless, a doubt still remains whether these amendments in the FDI regulations that aim at boosting the aviation sector will really be fruitful.

Top