AFRICA Archives

09/12/2015by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Botswana Diamonds – A Mixed Blessing?

1.6kviews

While Botswana has been an important player in the global precious stones industry for years, it has once again received global attention in November 2015, when the second-largest diamond ever unearthed was found in Botswana’s Karowe mine. Diamonds-derived revenues have been the key pillar to the country’s development over years, on the back of Botswana’s considerable deposits and well-performing global precious stones market. However, the outlook for Botswana might not be so bright anymore, as industry experts expect the global diamond production to decline after 2025 when majority of the mines are likely to be exhausted. Botswana, still one of the largest producers and exporters of diamonds, is already facing challenges in this industry. Being a diamond-dependent economy, will Botswana be able to maintain a sustained growth in the future as its shining precious gems industry weakens?

Diamond-fueled economic growth

Botswana, a small African country with a population of around two million people, has witnessed huge success since its independence in 1966. From being one of the poorest countries in the continent, Botswana has grown to be now considered one of the fastest developing countries in the world (with average annual GDP growth rate of 4.45% from 1995 until 2015). The success of the nation is largely attributed to the diamond deposits and the associated extraction industry. The discovery of the gems in 1967 led the way to the country becoming the poster child of the continent’s success. As of 2015, the diamond industry contributed 80% to the country’s export revenues and 30% to public revenues. In 2013, it accounted for around 25% of the country’s GDP. The success of the industry paved the way for the development of several roads, schools, and clinics in the country. Gaborone, the capital of Botswana, has transformed from a village to a city of malls and office buildings, all largely thanks to the diamond industry. Further, the sector has created job opportunities in the country and greatly contributed to raising standard of living of the country’s citizens.

“For our people, every diamond purchase represents food on the table, better living conditions, better healthcare, potable and safe drinking water, more roads to connect our remote communities, and much.” – Festus Mogae, Botswana’s President, 2006

As of 2014, Botswana was the largest producer of diamonds in terms of value and the second largest, after Russia, in terms of volume. The country’s production increased from 17.73 million carats in 2009 to 24.67 million carats in 2014. This represented a hike of almost 40% in the span of only five years.

Diamond mining operations in Botswana are controlled by Debswana Diamond Company, a joint venture between De Beers, world’s leading diamond company engaged in exploration, mining, and marketing of rough diamonds, and the Botswana government.

In the past years, the government has undertaken various initiatives to make the country a global diamond hub. In 2013, Dee Beers and the Botswana government formed the Diamond Trading Company Botswana (DTCB) to encourage the practice of sorting and marketing rough diamonds in the country itself, rather than sending them to De Beer’s Diamond Company based in London. This move facilitated job creation and upliftment of the local businesses in Botswana. Further, a state-owned company called Okavango Diamond Company was set up in order to sell 15% of the diamond production of Debswana independent of De Beers.

Grim future for Botswana

Despite being amongst the leaders in the global diamond industry, a grim future lies ahead for Botswana, driven by a range of reasons.

A weakened global demand: The global jewellery industry has been observing a sluggish demand, which has led to the global prices of diamonds witnessing a 12% decline from 2010 until 2015. To compensate for the stagnant sales, Botswana had been relying on opulent Chinese and Indian customers. However, the strengthening of the dollar and the decreasing price attractiveness of Chinese exports have weakened the Chinese economy. This was followed by a 2% devaluation of the Chinese currency, Yuan, which in turn has adversely affected the spending and demand for Botswana diamond by Chinese consumers.
Difficulty in diamond extraction: Botswana mines have reached a plateau as most of the diamond volume has already been extracted from the surface. Deeper extraction has now become a costly and time-consuming affair, showing an early sign that diamonds are likely to gradually become inaccessible in the country.
Competition from India: It is becoming increasingly difficult for Botswana to compete with a low-cost country such as India where majority of diamond cutting takes place. Although the wages in both countries are almost the same, India has levelled up its game by increasing its productivity by two to three times higher than that of Botswana’s. The cutting and polishing costs in 2013 ranged between US$ 60 and US$ 120 per carat in Botswana, whereas, in India it was between US$ 10 and US$ 50 per carat.

The above challenges have had an adverse impact on the country’s economy, particularly the employment sector. Teemane Manufacturing Company, a 20 year old diamond cutting and polishing firm in Botswana, shut down in January, 2015, leaving around 350 workers jobless. In the same period, MotiGanz and Leo Schachter, diamond cutting companies, also released almost 150 employees, and Debswana shut down two of its mines. These companies are offering retrenchment packages to their employees and ending their contracts with third parties which is likely to be affecting over 10 thousand jobs in the country. Shutting down of companies has also led to a decline in the various CSR programmes. The villages near the mines will no longer benefit from initiatives such as electrification of schools and development of roads.

The weakening demand also meant that early this year, De Beers failed to dispose off 30% of its diamonds stock. The company had to reduce its 2015 production target from 23 million carats to 20 million carats. And the impact of the sluggish demand goes beyond the industry as well. In the first half of 2015, the country witnessed a year-on-year decline of 16.8% in the export of rough diamonds. Further, since the production of diamonds is a critical element in Botswana’s GDP composition, a fall in the diamond output has reduced the country’s GDP growth forecast for 2015 from 4.9% to a mere 2.6%. Botswana’s government has decided to use its foreign reserves amounting to around US$ 8.3 billion to fuel growth in the country.

EOS Perspective

The Botswana economy has relied heavily on its diamond industry for survival for a long time. Since the revenues from diamonds are now becoming uncertain, the country is in a dilemma of how to keep its economy moving. Encouraging economic diversification could be one of the ways to help the country reduce its dependency on diamonds. Apart from diamonds, Botswana also produces other minerals such as coal, copper, iron ore, and nickel. The country should focus on developing a suitable industrial policy to promote the production and export of these minerals. However, whatever the alternative growth-fuelling path is chosen by Botswana, the country has a long way to go in order to shift away from over-dependence on diamonds, its largest structural weakness, to make its economy sparkle even when diamonds run out.

17/09/2014by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Is Non-Oil Sector the New Champion of the Nigerian Economy?

420views

The 1970s’ oil discovery transformed Nigeria from a largely agro-economy to a more oil-dominated one. Over the last several decades, oil played a significant role in Nigeria’s positive growth story, and its emergence as one of the key economic hubs in Africa. Interestingly, however, the last few years have seen a revival of non-oil sectors, such as agriculture, once the key economic driver of the country. What does this ‘change’ mean for Nigeria and how does oil fit into the bigger picture?

Post Nigeria’s independence in 1960, the country’s economy was primarily agrarian, with mainstay products such as cocoa, rubber, palm oil and kernels, groundnut, and cotton; the agriculture sector accounted for 60% and 75% of the country’s GDP and total employment, respectively. During the 1970s, the Nigerian government undertook various measures to exploit the naturally available oil reserves, such as extending oil exploration rights to foreign companies in Niger Delta’s offshore and onshore areas, to tune the economy to one which is oil-centered (petroleum revenue share of the total federal revenue increased from 26% in 1970 to 70% in 1977). The oil-centered Nigerian economy reached its peak in 2008 when oil accounted for about 83% of the country’s total revenue. In recent years, the oil sector has been experiencing a decline with its share in total revenue falling to 75% in 2012, largely due to a stagnant crude-oil production at 2 million barrels per day (mbpd) (2.3 mbpd in 2012 and 2.2 mbpd in 2013). A steep fall has also been observed in crude-oil exports to the USA (Nigeria’s main oil export market), which contracted by 11 percentage points in a single year, falling from 16% of Nigeria’s total oil exports in 2012 to 5% in 2013.

Upon closer introspection of the reasons for the declining dominance of oil in Nigeria, various factors come to surface. One of the main reasons is the delay in the approval of the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), which aims to ensure the management of petroleum resources according to the principles of good governance, transparency, and sustainable development; this delay has been stalling further investments in the oil sector. Perpetual oil thefts, pipeline vandalism, weak investment in upstream activities, and insignificant discoveries of new oil reservoirs have also hampered the growth of this sector. As a result, oil giants have been selling off their stakes in various onshore as well as offshore blocks. For instance, Shell sold 45% of their interest in OML 40 onshore block to Elcrest Nigeria Limited (an independent oil and gas company) and Petrobras (a Brazilian multinational energy corporation) is planning to auction its 8% and 20% stakes in Agbami oil block and offshore Akpo project, respectively.

So, where does this leave the Nigerian economy?

Apart from the unsatisfactory performance of the oil sector, Nigeria’s economic environment faces risks from security challenges prevailing in the northeastern part of the country, conflicts related to resource control in the Niger Delta region, and high levels of corruption (case in point being the suspension of Nigeria’s central bank’s governor over misconduct and irregularities).

In the midst of all these challenges, the non-oil sector (described as a sector which is not directly or indirectly linked to oil and gas, and include sectors such as agriculture, telecommunication, tourism, healthcare, and financial services) is emerging as the new champion of the Nigerian economy.

This is mainly due to various policies adopted by the government in the light of the looming oil sector, along with the complementary effect of factors such as increase in private consumption and FDI.

In addition to government policies, FDI has played a key role in nurturing the non-oil sector. Nigeria has experienced a compounded annual growth of 20% in the number of Greenfield FDI projects from 2007 to 2013; 50% (total number of projects being 306) of these projects were service-oriented. The telecom sector particularly witnessed strong growth by attracting 24% of all FDI projects, while coal, oil, and natural gas received only 8% of foreign direct investment during 2007-2013.

Private consumption (forecast to reach US$231.2 billion in 2014) has also fuelled the growth of the Nigerian non-oil sector. The largest consumer market in Africa, Nigeria’s consumer spending (an indicator of private consumption) has increased from US$94.3 billion in 2007 to US$309.9 billion in 2013.

The cumulative effect of all these factors has proven exceptionally positive for the non-oil sector. This is evident from the increase in percentage share of the sector in the Nigerian GDP. Agriculture remains the largest contributor, among both oil and non-oil sectors, with a share of 22% in GDP, in 2013. Other non-oil sectors such as manufacturing (GDP share increased from 4% in 2010 to 6.8% in 2013), construction (GDP share increased from 1% in 2010 to 3.1% in 2013), wholesale and retail trade (GDP share increased from 13% in 2010 to 17% in 2013), transport and communication (GDP share increased from 3% in 2010 to 12.2% in 2013) have also strengthened their position in Nigeria’s growth story.

Moreover, non-oil sector’s contribution to government revenue has improved from US$154.3 million in 2000 to US$3,018.2 million in 2011, which is a significant increase. A growth has also been observed in non-oil exports, which have increased from 1.28% in 2000 to 3.59% in 2010, in terms of percentage contribution towards total exports.

The Nigerian non-oil sector has also been attracting a number of investments in recent years, for instance:

July 2014: Procter & Gamble, a multinational consumer goods company, announced the construction of a new manufacturing plant worth US$250 million, in Nigeria’s Ogun state. The manufacturing plant is expected to employ 750 Nigerians and offer opportunities to 300 SMEs
February 2013: Indorama, a global chemical producer, launched a Greenfield urea fertilizer project worth US$1.2 billion, in Nigeria’s Port Harcourt. The project claims to support Nigerian and West African requirements for affordable fertilizers

Apart from giving credit to an increase in private consumption, investments in the non-oil sector must also be attributed to the measures undertaken by the Nigerian government. To showcase the attractiveness of the Nigerian economy, the government undertook a GDP rebasing exercise (GDP calculations are now performed on 2010 year’s figures instead of 1990’s). The exercise led to a better coverage of the informal sector, addition of new industries, and increase in the contribution factor of sectors such as service, manufacturing, and construction.

According to the National Bureau of Statistics, Nigeria’s GDP is valued at US$498.9 billion as compared with US$263.7 billion, prior to rebasing, in 2013. In spite of several criticisms around the authenticity of figures, rebasing of the GDP gave a strong competitive edge to Nigeria, among other emerging and developing economies, by showcasing a high GDP to allure investments. Additionally, implementation of the government’s Industrial Revolution Plan is expected to continue driving the country’s manufacturing sector. Since regular and ample power supply is a critical issue in Nigeria, the plan has implemented reforms in the power sector which aims to facilitate a continuous power supply, thereby, supporting the manufacturing sector by reducing power generation related costs and encouraging further investments.

Final Words

While the oil sector did well to provide Nigeria with a strong foundation and help build basic infrastructure to support a long-term growth potential, the rekindling of the non-oil sector is likely to strengthen Nigeria’s growth story and help it attract much needed foreign investments to create a balanced economy.

The approval of the PIB, post 2015 elections, might improve the oil sector performance, which should go hand-in-hand with non-oil sector development, making Nigeria an attractive market for global investors. It will be important that the Nigerian government undertake continuous reforms in both sectors to ensure the emergence of a strong economy, able to compete with the more established emerging markets of the world.

27/08/2014by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Luxury Brands Losing Ground in China, Looking Elsewhere

It was not very long ago, when the European luxury products market sprung back to life on the back of the booming Asian markets. Right after the global recession, most luxury brands, however, re-strategized their efforts towards the high-end luxury-hungry markets of China and other Asia-Pacific regions. For the last several years, China has been the industry’s main growth engine, helping make up for lackluster demand in Europe and Japan. But this period seems to be ending much sooner than the industry would have wished for.

Leading luxury brands, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and Burberry, are losing their shine in the Chinese market, which along with Hong Kong and Macau, represent more than a third of global sales for most of these brands. This premature slump is attributed not only to the stagnation in the Chinese economy, but also to a maturity in consumer tastes in the region.

Over the past few years, there was an explosion of demand for luxury items that communicated wealth and status to the society. However, on the flip side, this led to over-exposure of luxury brands, which in time has resulted in them losing their premium status. This has translated into a shift in priorities among such consumers, who now feel a ubiquitous ‘logo-fatigue’ with such products and are looking for goods that provide a more unique and authentic image.

Unlike the more established European and American markets, where trends and consumer preferences take a long time to form and assimilate, Asian (especially Chinese) markets have witnessed consumer trends emerge, become a fad, and then be rejected, very quickly. The shorter life span of a trend makes it a challenge for these companies to move out of the ‘masstige’ market (a combination of mass and prestige market) and present a fresh take on luxury items with discrete or even absent logos. Several brands, such as Saint Laurent and Balenciaga, have realized this shift in consumer perception of luxury and have been successful in implementing it.

Although most leading fashion and luxury brands have now embraced this trend in their Asian strategy, the demand from China is not expected to recover enough to regain its peak. A large proportion of luxury products’ demand came from China’s deep-embedded culture of lavish gifting for favors (to government officials); however, President Xi’s latest campaign against corruption and lavish gifting have further dampened sales of luxury products, especially watches.

This puts the industry in a challenging spot to re-innovate themselves for the Asian consumers as well as to find new growth frontiers. While other Asian counterparts, such as India, continue to look promising, luxury brands are now establishing presence in African markets. Sub-Saharan Africa is being viewed as a promising market for luxury goods on the back of increasing urbanization, economic development and most importantly a burgeoning aspirational middle-upper class that view luxury goods as a sign of status and success. Although, growth is from a low base, the appetite for luxury goods in this market is expected to soar. Leading brands – Cartier, Louis Vuitton, Burberry, Gucci, Fendi, and Salvatore Ferragamo, have already set foot in Africa. While these brands are largely concentrated in South Africa and Morocco, luxury sales are also picking up in new markets like Angola and Nigeria.

Although most companies have started focusing on developing themselves in the African markets, it is far-fetched to say that these markets will be able to substitute the demand from China and other maturing Asia-Pacific regions, especially any time in the near future. This puts the industry in a precarious position in the coming years, settling down for moderate growth. Companies that push themselves at this time, to redefine luxury and bring about radical changes to advertising campaigns and store designs to recapture the audience have a strong chance of emerging as market leaders.

17/06/2014by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

A Dragon Unfurls its Wings – How China’s Economic Slowdown Is Rippling Through Emerging Markets

351views

Almost 10 years ago, Goldman Sachs published a report, in which it predicted Chinese GDP to overtake the USA’s GDP by 2020. Today, this prognosis looks like a far-fetched dream as China has recently been riding a wild economic horse. When Chinese economy was growing, its demand for various products and services contributed to the economic growth of emerging markets across the world. The deteriorating performance of Chinese economy over the past few years appears to have started adversely affecting these markets. Will the emerging markets be able to successfully sustain in future?

China witnessed a spectacular and continued rise of its GDP during major part of last three decades. However, end of 2007 saw a turning point, and the country’s economic growth rate cooled off from 14.2% still in 2007 down to 9.6% in 2008, reaching mere 7.4% in the first quarter of 2014. This single digit growth would be more than satisfactory for a lot of economies. However, for China, which regularly recorded double digit rates, this extended period of slower growth is disappointing, with some calling it as ‘an end of an era’.

For years, China was enjoying relentless economic growth through massive investments, exemplary rise in exports, as well as abundance of labor force which was available at low wages. Due to these factors, economists started referring to China’s economic growth model as an investment-and-export driven model. This model has played a key role in driving exports also from emerging markets such as Latin America, Asia, and Middle East, as there was substantial demand for commodities from China’s end to support its domestic consumption as well as export requirements. With the weakening of foreign demand and internal consumption, China’s export demands have considerably weakened, leading to declining prices of export-related commodities and resulting in an adverse impact on emerging markets’ GDPs.

Is the Slowdown for Real?

China’s economic slowdown has not only been reflected in its modest GDP growth figures, but also in several other negative trends that have been observed. These include a continuous decline in the percentage of fixed-asset investments as a part of China’s GDP. Investments contracted from 24.8% in 2007 to 19.6% in 2013. Reduction of fixed-asset investments is likely to negatively contribute towards a country’s economic slowdown by adversely affecting sectors such as real estate, infrastructure, machinery, metals, and construction.

Moreover, yuan has depreciated against US dollar (with average exchange rate of 7.9 in 2006 down to 6.26 in April 2014). In addition to this, Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI), which is a composite index of sub-indicators (production level, new orders, supplier deliveries, inventories, and employment level), has plunged from 52.9 in 2006 to 48.3 in April 2014, below the middle value (50), thus indicating some contraction of China’s manufacturing industry. This industry contributes significantly to China’s GDP, therefore, the industry’s deterioration has a direct adverse effect on China’s economy.

This negative twist in China’s economic growth story is believed to be a result of a synergetic effect of various internal and external factors, some of which include:

Over-reliance on abundant supply of low-cost labor. For decades, China has based its growth on production of goods requiring high amount of cheap manual labor. However, as the economy continued growing, the demand for higher wages has increased, pumping up the labor cost. This cost is contributing to the inflation of products’ export prices, which is ultimately translating to a lower demand of Chinese goods.
The focus of Chinese workforce has been shifting from rural agriculture to urban manufacturing. The government has been taking steps to propel this transition in order to boost economic growth, prosperity, and industrialization. As more and more Chinese moved to urban areas, gradually, the transition has started yielding diminishing returns mainly due to saturation in the manufacturing industry.
Europe has also played a villainous role in China’s story. It has been one of China’s largest export markets but has recently been extending a significantly low demand for commodities and products from China. In 2007, the European Union accounted for 20.1% of all the exports from China. This percentage has fallen to 16.3% in 2012.

Chinese Leaders React

The Chinese government is in a reactive mode and has been unveiling a plethora of actions to bolster growth. The overall approach looks conservative in nature with a targeted GDP growth of 7.5% for this year, after recording a growth of 7.7% in 2013.

In an attempt to improve the situation, some of the expected financial and fiscal reforms are in the pipeline. Liberalizing bank deposit rates and relaxing entry barriers for private investment are some of the moves to be implemented by 2020. Various property measures (such as relaxing home purchase rules, providing tax subsidies, or cutting down payments) are planned to be introduced (based on local demands and conditions prevailing in a particular city) in order to balance the property market as a whole. A target of creating 10 million new jobs in Beijing has also been set for 2014. The underlying motive of all the rescue measures is strengthening the Chinese economy’s reliance on domestic consumption and services.

Influence on Emerging Markets

Undoubtedly, swing of the Chinese economy towards consumption and services is expected to considerably affect all the connected economies, several of them being emerging markets economies (EMEs). Commodity producing emerging markets such as Latin America, Middle East, parts of Africa and Asia are likely to be affected. Within this group, metal producers will probably suffer the most, as China had a significant demand for iron ore, steel, and copper during its investment boom phase. Within this subgroup, economies which are running current account deficits are forecast to be more susceptible to the ill-effects of China’s economic slowdown.

As China tilts towards domestic consumption, Latin America has started to witness a dawdling growth as the region’s growth rate dropped from an average of 4.3% in the period of 2004-2011 to 2.6% currently. For instance, as Chile depends heavily on copper exports to sustain its economic expansion, the country has been regularly reporting sluggish growth rates (5.8%, 5.9%, and 5.6% in 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively) due to the decline in the price of copper, largely fueled by a lower demand from China. In addition to this, Brazil and Mexico are struggling to survive through falling benchmark stock indexes. The fall is mainly due to declining prices of commodities, as exports to China from Brazil and Mexico have weakened.

Middle East will probably register both positive and negative effects of China’s economic slowdown. One of the ill-effects could be reduction in oil prices, from US$140 per barrel in 2008 to approximately US$80 per barrel by the end of 2014, due to China’s lower demand of oil. On the positive side, Middle East is strengthening its position as an attractive region with long-term growth since China is being considered as a slightly less attractive option for investment by a majority of investors. This is mainly due to Middle East’s good infrastructure and accelerated development of industries such as defense, chemical, and automotive, and not only traditionally developed energy and petrochemicals.

The impact on African countries is expected to be negative primarily due to declining commodity prices. As Africa’s growth substantially depends on its exports to China, some African commodity exporters, such as Zambia, Sudan, and Angola, have started to feel the strain as China’s demand for commodities is weakening. This weakened demand has led to lower prices of commodities such as aluminum, copper, and oil, which registered a y-o-y decline by 4%, 9.5%, and 5.4%, respectively in January 2013. Zambia is likely to receive the strongest hit as copper constitutes almost 80% of the country’s total exports and reduction in copper prices could make its current account deficit to account for almost 4% of GDP in 2014.

Effect of China’s economic slowdown will vary from country to country in case of Asia. Countries such as Indonesia and Philippines, which have significant domestic demand, would be less adversely affected as they are less dependent on commodities exports to China. China’s unstable economy has spurred new investments in other growing Asian economies such as Cambodia. India is also likely to benefit from the ability to import oil at lower prices, which are pushed down by China’s weakened demand for oil. At the same time, however, export of cotton and metals such as copper and iron ore from India to China is dampened, adversely affecting India’s economy.

While EMEs have already been witnessing a lower demand from their traditional trading partners such as European Union and the USA, China’s slowdown will be an added burden to their economies.

It’s Touch and Go

It is rather evident that Chinese economic slowdown is having an adverse impact on emerging countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. One can hope that the measures taken by the Chinese leadership to curtail the slowdown will soon start taking effect and gradually lift up the economy, and in doing so, control the extent of damage spilling over many emerging countries and their economies.

In the event that the Chinese economy is unable to recover from this period of slowdown soon, it will continue to be a terrible blow to the economic ambitions of several emerging markets, especially those in Africa and parts of Asia-Pacific, which are heavily reliant on Chinese investment and trade relations.

Simultaneously to absorbing fewer production inputs imported from emerging countries, it is worth noting that China’s role in world economics might start to alter as it transforms to a consumption-led economy. This transformation is likely to slowly increase China’s appetite for imports of products and services, apart from traditional commodities-focused imports. It will be interesting to observe whether and how some of the emerging economies will attempt to satisfy this new Chinese hunger for goods extending beyond simple commodities.

16/04/2014by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Evolving Business Needs to Pave Way for Retail Distribution Centers in South Africa

353views

Traditionally, retail distribution in South Africa was largely in the hands of the manufacturers, who solely owned and operated the warehouses and fleet of vehicles that were used to distribute products to retail stores. Today, this system is seen as inefficient and is increasingly losing in popularity. Leading retail chains, such as Shoprite, SPAR, Pick n Pay, and Woolworths, established centralized distribution centers and implemented warehouse management technologies to cut costs and ensure that there are no disruptions in demand and supply. While online retailers have also established central warehouses, it is still to be seen if they can implement the model with equal success as online retailing supply chain is more complex.

Back in the day, it was a well stated fact in the country and also across the world that manufacturers were responsible for moving goods from their manufacturing hubs to the retailer’s back door. These manufacturers would own and operate large warehouses and vehicles for distribution, and would supply to several retailers in its coverage area. As retailers were largely at the mercy of the manufacturer’s delivery schedule, this system put significant control of the supply chain in the hands of the manufacturer. Moreover, retailers could not cater to unexpected demand spurs, which in turn hampered their business.

Over the years, several leading retail chains in South Africa have abandoned this system and worked towards gaining complete control of their supply chains. This has resulted in them establishing their own centralized distribution centers (DCs). Under this system, retailers buy in bulk and then distribute from their DCs to various outlets on a need-be basis. This has not only helped them gain autonomy over their inventory levels, but has also reduced their distribution costs as well the lead time between order and delivery time to stores. Moreover, with self-owned distribution centers, retailers have been able to re-engineer their retail stores and improve its space utilization by dedicating a minimum required area to storage and all the remaining space to sales.

Benefits of centralized retail distribution centers are not only limited to retailers, but extend both ways in the supply chain to manufacturers and end consumers as well. This model enables the manufacturers to keep inventory levels as low as they can and eliminate the risk of obsolete or over stock positions. In addition, this model empowers smaller manufacturers, who do not have the financial strength to maintain their own warehouses or large distribution fleet. Under this model, they can compete with larger manufacturers as they only have to deliver their products to the retailers’ centralized distribution centers instead of investing heavily in their own distribution network and infrastructure. At the consumer end, retailers pass on a part of the benefit accrued (in terms of savings and discounts, respectively) from the elimination of a middle man and buying in large quantities from manufacturers.

Shoprite, a leading retail chain in South Africa was one of the first to adopt the centralized distribution strategy, giving it a strong competitive advantage. The group has distribution centers in Centurion (145,000 m2), Cape Town (45,000 m2), and Durban (11,500 m2). SPAR, another major retail group operates six technologically advanced DCs across South Africa. Two other retail chains, Woolworths and Pick n Pay, also receive their stocks from self-owned DCs. Experts estimate that retailers, which follow the centralized distribution system, manage savings of about 5-7% of supply chain costs.

In addition to working wonderfully for retail stores, centralized warehouses have lent immense support to the online retail model. While e-commerce in South Africa is still in its nascent stage (with Internet penetration at around 34%), online retailing has been growing rapidly (33% year-on-year in 2013) owing to attractive pricing, as well as improved technology and online payment security. Usually, online retailers store their goods in a central warehouse. However, the delivery of large volumes of value goods within short periods gives rise to the need for more distribution points that are located close to stores. E-commerce companies undertake direct-to-customer deliveries through their own internal facilities or through outsourced partnerships. They extensively use the services of courier and express parcel (CEP) industry to distribute their goods.

Another important aspect for efficient distribution is supply chain information technology and sharing. South African retailers have invested heavily in advanced distribution and supply chain technologies, such as RFID, electronic point of sales (EPOS), and electronic data interchange (EDI) that link the physical inventory levels with the information flows to adapt quickly to changes in demand.

The introduction of RFID into the distribution system helps in attaining real-time access and updation of current store inventory levels, along with increased inventory visibility, availability of accurate sales data, and better control of the entire supply chain.

EPOS facilitates the consolidation and transmission of aggregated sales data and other information from individual retail stores to the centralized DC. Alternatively, the centralized warehouse uses EDI to share information among all its supply chain trading partners. Over and above the inventory and warehouse management solutions, retailers also use transport route planning and scheduling system that optimizes store deliveries and integrates the operations of the distribution center and the transport division.

Although it is safe to say that the evolution of centralized warehouses have benefited retailers, manufacturers, and customers alike, the ever-evolving and digitally empowered consumer is driving the need for further innovation in the way companies, especially online retailers, are managing their distribution and supply chain operations. The rise in e-commerce and its inherent challenges and opportunities is spurring the need for greater visibility across the entire supply chain. While South African retail chains are on the right track with centralized distribution centers and warehouse management technologies, only time will tell if they manage to optimize their retail industry to the levels of the developed nations.

06/05/2013by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Africa is Ready For You. Are You Ready For Africa?

642views

For decades, Africa was associated with poverty and helplessness rather than business opportunities and thriving markets. But the reality is evolving, and companies from across industries are increasingly including the African continent in their investment plans. Global FMCG players too have started to set their eyes on this untapped goldmine of opportunities. However, the market is much more complex than its thriving counterparts in Asia and companies must get hold of the market dynamics before entering or they stand the risk of getting their hands burnt.

Some two decades ago, it became apparent to the leading international FMCG companies that many of their core developed markets in the USA and Europe were no longer able to provide sustainable growth, which made them extend their business focus to include developing markets in Asia. While these economies will continue to still generate significant returns for quite some time, many global FMCG giants are already exploring new growth avenues and are turning their eyes towards the African continent. Growing middle class (already accounting for more than one-third of the continent’s total population, it is expected to hit 1 billion people by 2060), paired with accelerating economic growth, large youth population, overall poverty decline, and urbanization trends are the key factors underpinning Africa’s position as the next frontier in the global FMCG arena.

This has already spurred investment activity amongst leading FMCG players. By 2016, Unilever and P&G plan to invest US$113 million and US$175 million, respectively, to expand their manufacturing facilities in the continent. While these facilities are to be developed mostly in South Africa, they are expected to cater to developing markets across eastern and southern regions. Godrej, a relatively smaller India-based company, has taken up the inorganic route to tap this market, by acquiring Darling group, a pan-African hair care company.

Despite luring growth potential offered by the continent, the African markets are much thornier to penetrate than it seems. A shaky political and regulatory environment acts as one of the largest roadblocks. The continent has witnessed 10 coup d’états since 2000 and has been subject to countless changes in business policies resulting from unstable governments. Further, inefficient distribution networks, inadequate business infrastructure, as well as complex and inhomogeneous marketplace housing 53 countries, 2,000 dialects, and countless cultural groups, all cause African consumer markets difficult to navigate through.

Notwithstanding the challenges, the potential offered by the African continent overweighs. Companies, however, must mould their strategies and offerings to the realities of African markets in order to succeed. Here are a few pointers to consider:

Bring affordability and quality to the same side of the coin: Contrary to popular perception, the middle-class African consumer attaches much importance to quality and brands. Companies that have long followed the strategy of selling poor-quality products in this market cannot sustain for long. Having said that, affordability still stays as an important factor for the middle-class Africans. To deal with this, companies can look at offering good quality products in smaller packaging, to ensure low unit price. For several years, African consumers have gotten used to buying smaller quantities that could fit their limited budgets.
Discard the one-size-fits-all approach: On a continent with 53 nations, companies looking to enter African markets with blanket approach are likely to fail. While South Africa is relatively more developed and has slower growth, markets such as Nigeria and Kenya are developing at a rapid pace, and thus their dynamics differ. Consumer shopping behaviors and patterns also vary. Sub-Saharan nations, in comparison to North African consumers, tend to exhibit more brand loyalty and are more conservative in trying new things. North African countries also present stronger desire for international brands. Thus, it is most critical for international players to identify the characteristics of a particular market that they plan to enter.
Locate the right partners: Informal trade dominates African markets making distribution a daunting task. However, this challenge can be turned into an opportunity for companies to improve their competitive edge and bypass the lack of sufficient distribution and retail facilities. In rural areas of Nigeria and Kenya, Unilever has replicated its Indian direct-to-consumer distribution scheme, wherein a host of individuals undertake direct selling to consumers in their communities. Similarly, other companies have posted sales executives with each sub-distributor to manage inventory and brand image. Distribution costs are high in Africa but bearing them is not optional.
Move beyond traditional media: TV and print remain a popular and trusted media for advertising to urban consumers. However, owing to their low penetration in rural regions, they have limited impact on rural consumers. This brings forth the need to reach mass consumers through in-store marketing. Over the coming years, companies can also look into mobile advertising as surveys reveal that the number of Africans having access to mobile phones is already higher than those with access to electricity. Mobile penetration in the Sub-Saharan Africa stood at 57.1% in 2012 and is expected to reach 75.4% in 2016. This promises a gamut of mobile marketing opportunities for consumer companies.
Deal with infrastructural woes and innovate to compensate: Power outages, poor transportation, and limited access to cold storage facilities make public infrastructure undependable for businesses. Thus, companies must be open to invest in own power generators and water tanks. Innovations at the product end may also help overcome infrastructural limitations. For instance, Promasidor, an African food company, uses vegetable fat instead of animal fat to extend its milk powder’s shelf life when stored without refrigeration. While spending on infrastructure heavily increases costs, it can provide companies with a competitive advantage in the longer run.
Invest in personnel management and grow new talent: The fear for personal safety among foreign nationals and lack of skilled professionals within Africa makes recruitment a challenging task, especially for mid- and top-level management. Tapping into African diaspora located throughout the world comes across as a win-win solution. Moreover, providing training and management courses to local graduates allows addressing personnel needs over long term.

The African market can be a goldmine for FMCG players, if entered cautiously. However, the same can become a landmine, if proper investments and planning are not undertaken. Despite the present challenges, increasing number of companies will be looking into Africa, however only few will have the skill set to translate this opportunity into a great success.

01/04/2013by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Will Shale Gas Solve Our Fuel Needs for the Future?

366views

At first glance, shale gas might look too good to be true: large untapped natural gas resources present on virtually every continent. Abundant supplies of relatively clean energy allowing for lower overall energy prices and reduced dependence on non-renewable resources such as coal and crude oil. However, despite this huge potential, the shale gas revolution has remained largely limited to the USA till now. Concerns over the extraction technology and its potentially negative impact on the environment have hampered shale gas development in Europe and Asia on a commercial scale. However, increasing energy import bills, need for energy security, potential profits and political uncertainty in the Middle East are causing many countries to rethink their stand on shale gas extraction development.

How Large Are Shale Gas Reserves And Where Are They Being Developed?

An estimation of shale gas potential conducted by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) in 2009 pegs the total technically recoverable shale gas reserves in 32 countries (for which data has been established) to 6,622 Trillion Cubic Feet (Tcf). This increases the world’s total recoverable gas reserves, both conventional and unconventional, by 40% to 22,622 Tcf.

Continent	Shale Gas Reserves and Development
North America	Technically Recoverable Reserves: 1,931 Tcf Till now, almost whole commercial shale gas development has taken place in the USA. In 2010, shale gas accounted for 20% of the total US natural gas supply, up from 1% in 2000. In Canada, several large scale shale projects are in various stages of assessment and development. Despite potential reserves, little or no shale gas exploration activity has been reported Mexico primarily due to regulatory delays and lack of government support.
South America	Technically Recoverable Reserves: 1,225 Tcf Several gas shale basins are located in South America, with Argentina having the largest resource base, followed by Brazil. Chile, Paraguay and Bolivia have sizeable shale gas reserves and natural gas production infrastructure, making these countries potential areas of development. Despite promising reserves, shale gas exploration and development in the region is almost negligible due to lack of government support, nationalization threats and absence of incentives for large scale exploration.
Europe	Technically Recoverable Reserves: 639 Tcf Europe has many shale gas basins with development potential in countries including France, Poland, the UK, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden. However, concerns over the environmental impact of fracturing and oil producers lobbying against shale gas extraction are holding back development in the region with some countries such as France going as far as banning drilling till further research on the matter. Some European governments, including Germany, are planning to bring stringent regulations to discourage shale gas development. Despite this, countries such as Poland show promising levels of shale gas leasing and exploration activity. Several companies are exploring shale gas prospects in the Netherlands and the UK.
Asia	Technically Recoverable Reserves: 1,389 Tcf China is expected to have the largest potential of shale gas (1,275 Tcf). State run energy companies like Sinopec are currently evaluating the country’s shale gas reserves and developing technological expertise through international tie-ups. However, no commercial development of shale gas has yet happened. Though both India and Pakistan have potential reserves, lack of government support, unclear natural gas policy and political uncertainty in the region are holding back the extraction development. Both Central Asia and Middle East are also expected to have significant recoverable shale gas reserves.
Africa	Technically Recoverable Reserves: 1,042 Tcf South Africa is the only country in African continent actively pursuing shale gas exploration and production. Other countries have not actively explored or shown interest in their shale gas reserves due to the presence of large untapped conventional resources of energy (crude oil, coal). Most potential shale gas fields are located in North and West African countries including Libya, Algeria and Tunisia.
Australia	Technically Recoverable Reserves: 396 Tcf Despite Australia’s experience with unconventional gas resource development (coal bed methane), shale gas development has not kicked off in a big way in Australia. However, recent finds of shale gas and oil coupled with large recoverable reserves has buoyed investor interest in the Australian shale gas.

What Are The Potential Negative Impacts Of Shale Gas Production?

Despite the large scale exploration and production of shale gas in the USA, countries around the world, especially in Europe, remain sceptical about it. Concerns over the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, lack of regulations and concerns raised by environmental groups have slowed shale gas development. Though there is no direct government or agency report on pitfalls of hydraulic fracturing, independent research and studies drawn from the US shale gas experience have brought forward the following concerns:

Will Shale Gas Solve Our Future Energy Needs?

Rarely does an energy resource polarize world opinion like this. Shale gas has divided the world into supporters and detractors. However, despite its potential negative environmental impact, shale gas extraction is associated with a range of unquestionably positive aspects, which will continue to support shale gas development:

Shale gas production will continue to increase in the USA and is expected to increase to 46% of the country’s total natural gas supply by 2035. USA is expected to transform from a net importer to a net exporter of natural gas by 2020.
Despite initial opposition, countries in Europe are opening up to shale gas exploration. With the EU being keen to reduce its dependence on imported Russian piped gas and nuclear energy, shale gas remains one of its only bankable long-term options. Replicating the US model, countries like Poland, the Netherlands and the UK are expected to commence shale production over the next two-five years and other countries are likely to follow suit.
Australian government’s keenness to reduce energy imports in addition to the recent shale gas finds has spurred shale gas development the country. Many companies are lining up to lease land and start shale gas exploration.
More stringent regulations from environment agencies are expected to limit the potential negative environmental impact of shale gas exploration.
Smaller energy companies that pioneered the shale gas revolution in the USA are witnessing billions of dollars worth of investments from multinational oil giants such as Exxon Mobil, Shell, BHP Billiton etc. are keen on developing an expertise in the shale gas extraction technology. These companies plan to leverage this technology across the world to explore and produce shale gas.The table below highlights major acquisitions and joint venture agreements between large multinational energy giants and US-based shale gas specialists over the last three years.

Major Deals in Shale Gas Exploration

Company	Acquisition/Partnership	Year	Investment
Sinopec	Devon Energy	January 2012	USD 2.2 billion
Total	Chesapeake Energy	January 2012	USD 2.3 billion
Statoil	Brigham Exploration	October 2011	USD 4.4 billion
BHP Billiton	Petrohawk	July 2011	USD 12.1 billion
BHP Billiton	Chesapeake Energy	February 2011	USD 4.75 billion
Shell	East Resources	May 2010	USD 4.7 billion
Exxon Mobil	XTO Energy	December 2009	USD 41.0 billion
Source: EOS Intelligence Research

Shale gas production is expected to spike in the coming three-five years. Extensive recoverable reserves, new discoveries, large scale exploration and development and technological improvement in the extraction process could lead to an abundant supply of cheap and relatively clean natural gas and reduce dependence on other conventional sources such as crude oil and coal For several countries including China, Poland, Libya, Mexico, Brazil, Algeria and Argentina, where the reserves are particularly large, shale gas might bring energy stability.

The need for energy security and desire to reduce dependence on energy imports from the Middle East and Russia (and hence to increase political independence), are likely to outweigh potential environmental shortfalls of shale gas production, and some compromise with environment protection activist groups will have to be worked out. Though the road to achieving an ‘energy el dorado’ appears to be long and rocky, it seems that with the right governments’ support, shale gas could become fuel that could significantly contribute to solving the world energy crisis over long term.

13/02/2013by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

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

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

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

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

Slowly, but gradually the cost benefit of off-shored production will narrow, given the faster rise in labour costs in locations such as China
Shipping costs associated with long-distance logistics are also increasing, e.g. shipping rates, cutbacks in logistics infrastructure, are estimated to have caused an average hike of 70% in shipping costs between 2007-2011
Quality inconsistency issues, both real and perceived, continue to resurface in Asia-manufactured products – flawed production lots, inaccurate specifications, as well as end customers’ continued scepticism towards the ‘made in China’ label
Production is increasingly executed in small lots to ensure responsiveness to fluctuations in demand volume and structure, customization requests, and to mitigate the risk of reduced liquidity with cash trapped in inventory
Supply chains are found to be more and more vulnerable to disruptions caused by ‘beyond control’ factors, from natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis in Asian locations) to political disruptions affecting smooth and timely shipping
Weaker dollar requires US-based companies to spend more bucks on the same foreign-based production and transportation services
While economic result matters most, producers also consider the customers patriotic interest to buy products that are ‘local’ to them – in terms of appeal as well as the production location, which can be an extra public relations benefit for the company re-shoring its manufacturing jobs back to the USA.

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

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

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

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

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

Who We Are

Connect With Us

Work With EOS