• 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

SAMSUNG

Home SAMSUNG

Sustainable electronics transforming consumer tech companies by EOS Intelligence
by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Sustainable Electronics Transforming Consumer Tech Companies

1.2kviews

Globally, electronics are discarded at alarming rates, generating unprecedented amounts of e-waste. On the other side, finite resources such as minerals and metals, which are used to make these electronics, are getting depleted. To foster sustainability across the electronics value chain, many tech companies are adopting strategies such as incorporating long-lasting product design, using recyclable and biodegradable materials, using clean energy for power generation, etc. However, the sustainable electronics concept is still in a nascent stage of adoption, and a lot of work needs to be done. Strict legislation, cross-sectoral collaborations, organizations facilitating networking and knowledge sharing, and changes in business models are needed to implement sustainability across various business units in the electronics industry.

Growing need for sustainability in electronics

Global consumption of electronics is rising exponentially and is expected to double by 2050. This increase is set to adversely affect the environment, leading to more mining of raw materials, an unprecedented increase in e-waste, and increased carbon emissions during manufacturing.

Globally, people are discarding electronics sooner than before due to the availability of new electronics, owning outdated models, obsolescence, etc. Over the last few years, nearly 50 million tons of e-waste has been generated annually. Only 17% of this e-waste is recycled globally, and the rest is transported and dumped in developing countries such as Pakistan, Nigeria, and India, which do not have adequate facilities for processing and handling e-waste. This e-waste ends up in landfills, accounting for approximately 70% of hazardous chemicals, and pollutes the air and water streams. Moreover, e-waste generated globally contains recyclable or reusable raw materials, scrap rare earth metals, plastics, and valuable elements, which are valued at US$62.5 billion per year.

Given the economic and environmental cost of e-waste, as well as responding to growing consumer preference for sustainable products, several companies are looking to transition to sustainable electronics. Sustainable electronics are products that are made using recycled or reusable and biodegradable materials, as well as products that generate low carbon emissions during manufacturing and distribution.

Sustainable electronics transforming consumer tech companies by EOS Intelligence

Sustainable Electronics Transforming Consumer Tech Companies by EOS Intelligence

Recycling, clean energy power, and modular design for sustainable electronics

Over the last few years, consumer tech companies have been adopting many strategies for manufacturing electronics sustainably. In 2021, tech giants Cisco, Dell, Google, Microsoft, Vodafone, and many others together formed a “Circular Electronics Partnership (CEP)” to accelerate the circular economy for electronics by 2030 and to help businesses and organizations overcome barriers to sustainable electronics.

Several companies are looking to increase the life span of their smartphones to make them more sustainable. Increasing the phone’s life span by two years can reduce carbon emissions to a great extent, as 80% of the carbon emissions come during manufacturing, shipping, and the first year of phone usage. Fairphone, a Dutch-based smartphone manufacturer, has introduced smartphones with a lifespan of approximately 5 years, higher than the average lifespan of 2.5 years. Similarly, Teracube, a US-based sustainable smartphone manufacturer, has launched phones that can last up to 4 years.

Many companies are also designing their products with modularity, which allows users to repair, upgrade, customize, and disassemble their gadgets easily. For instance, Framework Computer, a US-based laptop manufacturer, sells laptops that can be upgraded. The company offers upgrading kits that contain laptop main boards and top covers to customize the device as per the user’s need. Similarly, Fairphone manufactures modular smartphones, which are easy to repair and upgrade. These kinds of gadgets eliminate the user’s need to buy new ones, saving both costs and wastage.

There is also an increased interest among consumer electronics companies to use recycled materials in various products. Sony, a Japan-based multinational corporation, has developed a recycled plastic, SORPLAS, and has been using it in a range of its products, such as audio systems and televisions, since 2011. In 2022, Logitech, a Swiss-American manufacturer of computer peripherals and software, used recycled plastic in 65% of its mice and keyboards. Similarly, in 2021, Acer, a Taiwan-based electronics corporation, launched a series of PCs named Vero, which uses recycled plastics for the chassis and keycaps. Acer also launched the Earthion program, an eco-friendly initiative, in the same year and started working closely with suppliers and partners to bring various sustainability measures in product design, packaging design, and production. Tech giant Apple stopped selling chargers and headphones along with the iPhone in 2020 to cut e-waste. The company used 20% recycled material in all its products in 2021 and uses robots to disassemble or separate metals from e-waste. There is 40% recycled content in the MacBook Air with Retina display, and 99% recycled tungsten is used for the iPhone 12 and Apple Watch Series. Samsung, a multinational electronics corporation, is using recycled plastics in refrigerators, washing machines, air conditioners, TVs, monitors, and mobile phone chargers.

Due to this increased demand for recycled materials, recycling companies are receiving investments to a significant extent. In 2021, Closed Loop Partners, a US-based investment firm, invested an undisclosed amount in ERI, a US-based electronics recycler that supplies materials to companies such as Best Buy, Target, and Amazon, to extend the capacity for the collection and processing of electronics. Similarly, in 2022, the Australian Business Growth Fund (ABGF), an investment fund focused on small to medium-sized Australian businesses, invested US$7.5 million in Scipher, an Australia-based urban mining and e-waste recycling business.

Significant activity has been happening in the refurbished electronics market as well due to the rising consumer awareness of sustainability. Trade-in and refurbishment reduce e-waste piling up at landfills, as it limits buying newer gadgets and thereby paves the way for greater sustainability across the electronics industry. Back Market, a France-based marketplace of renewed devices (which provides refurbished devices with a one-year warranty), has raised over US$1 billion since its launch in 2014. In 2022, Verdane, a European specialist growth equity investment firm, announced an investment worth US$124 million in Finland-based Swappie, a re-commerce company that sells previously owned, new, or used smartphones. Vodafone also announced a major initiative to extend the life of new mobile phones and to encourage customers to trade in or recycle their old devices. The company is planning to provide customers in European markets with a suite of services, including insurance, support, and repairs for their devices, in 2022. Samsung collaborated with iFixit, an online repair community, for its self-repair program in 2022. The company said that under this program, Galaxy device owners in the USA can make their own repairs to the Galaxy Tab S7+, Galaxy S20, and S21 products using easy-to-repair tools available from iFixit.

Tech companies have also started transitioning to renewable energy and looking for ways to reduce their carbon emissions. Intel, a US-based technology company, uses green energy of up to 3,100,000 MWh annually in the manufacturing of processors and computer accessories. Samsung’s facility operations in the USA and China switched to 100% renewable energy in 2019. In 2021, Microsoft entered into a partnership with IFC, a member of the World Bank Group, to reduce carbon emissions in the organization’s supply chain. IFC is said to work with selected Microsoft suppliers in emerging markets, primarily in Asia, to identify technical solutions and financing opportunities to reduce emissions in the production process.

Legislation to aid the shift toward the circular economy in electronics

For years, many countries did not have appropriate policies enforcing sustainability across the electronics industry. Nevertheless, the trend is reversing with several countries adopting legislation for the circular economy. For instance, in 2020, the European Commission announced a circular electronics initiative that would promote eco-design (a design that considers environmental aspects at all stages of the product development), right-to-repair rules, including a right to update obsolete software, and regulatory measures on universal chargers, to name a few. France became the first European country to pass the Anti-Waste for a Circular Economy Act (AGEC) in 2020, which requires producers of electronic devices to provide details on how repairable their products are. According to AGEC, manufacturers are required to scale their products at a rate of 1-10 based on the reparability index. France also plans to introduce a durability index by 2024, whereby manufacturers would be asked to describe the full lifecycle of their products. Moreover, the US government passed an order in 2021 to draft regulations that protect the consumer’s right to repair electronic devices and other tools.

It is not easy to manufacture sustainable electronics

While sustainable electronics are the need of the hour, and several leading players have already started promoting and investing in this space, the sector faces many challenges. Currently, there are no established standards, concepts, or definitions concerning sustainable electronics, and there is no strict legislation to enforce sustainability practices in the electronics industry. There are some rating systems that identify energy-efficient products followed in the USA and Europe (for example, the USA’s ENERGY STAR program). However, registering and complying with the ratings and their requirements is up to the manufacturer and is not mandatory. Moreover, e-waste regulations in several countries are poorly enforced due to low financing, and illegal practices such as dumping e-waste and incineration by the informal sector still persist.

Most electronics companies are also not transparent about their environmental performance, and the impact is often hidden. The term ‘sustainable’ is widely misused as a promotional tactic by companies targeting environmentally conscious consumers.

The electronic industry also operates on a linear established model, wherein products are manufactured (with planned obsolescence) and sold to consumers. Incorporating circular strategies for recycling and reuse requires a lot of remodeling and reconfigurations across the supply chain, and the rising consumption of electronic devices makes it difficult to adapt to any new changes. Challenges, such as complex recycling processes, costs of recycling, and consumer perception of green electronics, also hamper sustainability development. Most electronics are not designed for recycling and are made of a complex mixture of materials such as heavy metals, highly toxic compounds, glass, plastics, ferrous and nonferrous materials, etc. Recycling these materials is tedious and involves several steps such as dismantling, removing the hazardous waste, shredding into fine materials, and sorting the materials into various types. The process is also resource and cost-intensive, requiring human labor, more processing time, and adequate infrastructure such as various material screening types of equipment. Recycling e-waste could also be polluting, with potential exposure to toxic metal fumes.

Finally, the perception of consumers about sustainable electronics also needs to be changed, which is challenging. There is a notion among customers that the use of recycled, sustainable materials in electronics means products would be of lower quality. A lot of investment would be required to educate and convince consumers about the benefits of sustainable electronics and to address any concerns about quality. In most cases, it is difficult to pass on these costs to the consumers as they are unlikely to accept higher prices. Thus, this cost would be required to be absorbed by the companies themselves. Due to this, most current initiatives toward sustainable electronics can be best described as half measures.

EOS Perspective

The economic benefits of sustainable electronics are enormous. The resource scarcity and the price fluctuation of various minerals and metals make them necessary to recycle, recover, and reuse in the circular economy. Over the last few years, consumer electronics manufacturers have taken many sustainability initiatives, such as reducing energy consumption, eliminating hazardous chemicals, introducing biodegradable packaging, incorporating recycled and recyclable materials in products, and investing in renewable energy projects. Also, the refurbished electronics segment is growing fast, while interest is surging in introducing devices with built-in reparability. While several small initiatives are being taken by leading players, electronics manufacturers mainly do not know how to introduce sustainability across their products in a mainstream fashion.

Sustainability in electronics has still a long way to go. Several legislative initiatives are underway toward a circular (sustainable) electronics economy, and it is high time for electronics manufacturers to be proactive and rethink their business models. A complete business model transformation is required to integrate sustainability across every unit. Cross-sector collaborations with stakeholders such as product designers, manufacturers, investors, raw material producers, and consumers are crucial to understanding the technical know-how. It is essential to analyze the entire life cycle of products, from choosing raw materials to their disposal, and to prioritize circular strategies for such products. Electronic manufacturers also need to come up with creative and rewarding ways for consumers to be willing to choose sustainable products, as, in the end, the industry cannot flourish without consumer acceptability. The future of sustainable electronics can be bright, and manufacturers who see this as a potential business opportunity rather than a problem will benefit in the long term.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

COVID-19 Unmasks Global Supply Chains’ Reliance on China. Is There a Way Out?

2.8kviews

Dubbed as the factory to the world, China is an integral part of the supply chain of a host of products and brands. From manufacturers of simple products such as toys to complex goods such as automobiles, all are dependent on China for either end products or components. However, China’s ongoing trade war with the USA and the COVID-19 pandemic have made several brands question their supply chain dependence on this country, especially in some industries such as pharmaceuticals. Moreover, aggressive investment incentives offered by countries such as India and Japan have further cajoled companies to reassess their global supply chains and reconsider their dependence on China. However, with years of investment in the supply chain ecosystem, a shift such as this seems easier said than done.

China emerged as the manufacturing hub of the world in the 1990s and hasn’t looked back since. Owing to the vast availability of land and labor, technological advancements, and overall low cost of production, China became synonymous with manufacturing. Over the past decade, increasing labor and utility costs, and growing competition from neighboring low-cost countries such as India, Vietnam, Thailand, etc., have resulted in some companies shifting out from China. However, so far, this has been limited to a few low-skilled labor-intensive industries such as apparel.

The year 2020 has changed this drastically. The COVID-19 pandemic, along with the ongoing trade war between the USA and China, made companies realize and question their dependency on China. At the beginning of last year, COVID-19 brought China to a halt, which in turn impacted the supply chain for all companies producing in China. Moreover, several pharmaceutical companies also realized that they are highly dependent on China for a few basic medicines and medical supplies and equipment, which were in considerable shortage throughout 2020. This pushed several companies across sectors, such as pharmaceuticals, automobiles, and electronic goods, to reconsider their global supply chains to ensure reduced dependence on any one region, especially China.

Currently, several companies such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft are looking to shift their production from China to other South Asian countries, such as Vietnam and Thailand.

Some of the companies looking to reduce dependence on China:

Apple

In November 2020, Apple, along with its supplier Foxconn, expressed plans to shift the assembly of some iPads and MacBooks to Vietnam from China. The facility is expected to come online in the first half of 2021. Moreover, Apple is also considering shifting production of some of its Air Pods to Vietnam as well. In addition, it has invested US$1 billion in setting up a plant in Tamil Nadu, India, to assemble iPhones that are to be sold in India. Apple and Foxconn are consciously trying to reduce their reliance on China due to the ongoing USA-China trade war.

Samsung

In July 2020, Samsung announced plans to shift most of its computer monitor manufacturing plants from China to Vietnam. The move is its response to hedge the supply chain disruptions it faced due to factories being shut in China during the early phase of the pandemic. In addition, in December 2020, the company shared its plans to shift its mobile and IT display plants from China to India. Samsung plans to invest about US$660 million (INR 48 billion) to set up the new facility in Uttar Pradesh (India).

Hasbro

Hasbro has been moving its production out of China into Mexico, India, and Vietnam over the past year. It aimed to have only 50% of its products coming out of China by the end of 2020 and only 33% of its production to remain in China by the end of 2023. In 2019, about 66% of its toys were produced in China, while in 2012, 90% of its toys were manufactured in the country. The key reason behind the consistent switch is the souring trade relations between the USA and China.

Hyundai

During the past year, Hyundai Motors has been looking at developing India into its global sourcing hub instead of China in order to reduce its over-reliance on the latter. It has been encouraging its vendors, such as Continental, Aptiv, and Bosch, to ramp up production in India so as to move their supply chain away from China. It plans to source its auto parts from India (instead of China) for its existing factories in India, South America, and Eastern Europe, as well as a planned facility in Indonesia.

Google

Google is looking to manufacture its new low-cost smartphone, Pixel4A, and its flagship smartphone, Pixel5A, in Vietnam instead of China. In addition, in 2020, it also planned to shift production of its smart home products to Thailand. This move has been a part of an ongoing effort to reduce reliance on China, which, in fact, gained momentum after supply chain disruptions faced due to the coronavirus outbreak.

Microsoft

In early 2020, Microsoft expressed plans to shift the production base of its Surface range of notebooks and desktops to Vietnam. While the initial volume being produced in Vietnam is expected to be low, the company intends to ramp it up steadily to shift volumes away from China.

Steve Madden

In 2019, Steve Madden expressed plans to shift parts of its production out of China in 2020, given growing trade-based tensions between the USA and China. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it could not make planned changes to its supply chain. In October 2020, it again expressed plans to start shifting part of its production away from China by spring 2021. It plans to procure raw materials from Mexico, Cambodia, Brazil, and Vietnam to reduce reliance on China.

Iris Ohyama

The Japanese consumer goods player expressed plans to open a factory in northeastern Japan to diversify its manufacturing base, which is based primarily in China. The company made this move on the back of increasing labor costs in China, rising import tariffs to the USA, and the supply disruptions it faced for procuring masks for the Japanese market. In 2020, it also set up a mask factory in the USA. In addition, the company plans to open additional plants in the USA and France for plastic containers and small electrical goods to cater to the local demand in these markets.

Nations using this opportunity to promote domestic production

In August 2020, about 24 electronic goods companies, including Samsung and Apple, have shown interest in moving out of China and into India. These companies together have pledged to invest about US$1.5 billion to setup mobile phone factories in the country in order to diversify their supply chains. This move is a result of the Indian government offering incentives to companies looking to shift their production facilities to India.

In April 2020, the Indian government announced a production-linked incentive (PLI) scheme to attract companies looking to move out of China and set up large-scale manufacturing units in the electronics space. Under the scheme, the government is offering an incentive of 4-6% on incremental sales (over base year FY 2019-20) of goods manufactured in India. The scheme, which is applicable for five years, plans to give an incentive worth US$6 billion (INR 409.51 billion) over the time frame of the scheme.

In November 2020, the Indian government subsequently expanded the scheme to other sectors such as pharma, auto, textiles, and food processing. In addition, it is expected to provide a production-linked incentive of US$950 million (INR 70 billion) to domestic drug manufacturers in order to push domestic manufacturing and reduce dependence on Chinese imports. Apart from incentives, India is developing a land pool of about 461,589 hectares to offer to companies looking to move out of China. The identified land, which is spread across Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh, makes it easy for companies looking to set up shop in India, as acquiring land has been one of the biggest challenges when it came to setting up production units in India.

On similar lines, the Japanese government is providing incentives to companies to shift their production lines out of China and to Japan. In May 2020, Japan announced an initiative to set up a US$2.2 billion stimulus package to encourage Japanese companies to shift production out of China. About JNY 220 billion (~US$2 billion) of the stimulus will be directed toward companies shifting production back to Japan, while JNY 23.5 billion (~US$200 million) will be given to companies seeking to move production to Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand, and other Southeast Asian countries.

In the first round of subsidies, the Japanese government announced a list of 57 companies in July 2020, which will receive a total of US$535 million to open factories in Japan, while another 30 companies will be given subsidies to expand production in other countries such as Vietnam and Thailand. The move is a combination of Japan looking to shift manufacturing of high-value-added products back to the country, and the initial disruptions caused to the supply chain of Japanese automobiles and durable goods manufacturers.

Similarly, the USA, which has been at odds with China regarding trade for a couple of years now, is also encouraging its companies to limit their exposure in China and shift their production back home. In May 2020, the government proposed a US$25 billion ‘reshoring fund’ to enable manufacturers to move their production bases and complete the supply chain from China, preferably back to the USA, and in turn, reduce their reliance on China-made goods. The bill included primarily tax incentives and reshoring subsidies. However, the bill has not been passed in Congress yet, and now, with the leadership change in the USA, it is expected that president Biden may follow a more diplomatic strategic route with regard to China in comparison to his predecessor.

In addition to individual country efforts, in September 2020, Japan, India, and Australia together launched an initiative to achieve supply chain resilience in the Indo-Pacific region and reduce their trade dependence on China. The partnership aims at achieving regional cooperation to build a stable supply chain from the raw material to finished goods stage in 10 key sectors, namely petroleum and petrochemicals, automobiles, steel, pharmaceuticals, textiles and garments, marine products, financial services, IT services, tourism and travel services, and skill development.

Similarly, the USA is pushing to create an alliance called the ‘Economic Prosperity Network’, wherein it aims to work with Australia, India, Japan, New Zealand, Vietnam, and South Korea to restructure global supply chains to reduce dependence on China.

COVID-19 Unmasks Global Supply Chains’ Reliance on China by EOS Intelligence

Is it feasible?

While these efforts are sure to help companies move part(s) of their supply chain out of China, the extent to which it is feasible is yet to be assessed. Although the coronavirus outbreak has highlighted and exposed several supply chain vulnerabilities for companies across sectors and countries, despite government support and incentives, it will be very difficult for them to wean off their dependence on China.

Companies have spent decades building their manufacturing ecosystems, which, in many cases, are highly reliant on China. These companies not only have their end products assembled or manufactured in the country but also engage Chinese suppliers for their raw materials, who in turn use further Chinese suppliers for their inputs. Therefore, moving out of China is not a simple process and will take a tremendous amount of time as well as financial resources.

While companies such as Google or Microsoft are looking to shift their assembling plants out of China, they are still dependent on China for parts. This is all the more relevant in the case of high-technology products, such as automobiles and telecommunication infrastructure, where companies have made significant investments in China for their supply chain and are dependent on the nation’s manufacturing capabilities for small, intricate but technologically advanced parts and components.

Moreover, despite significant efforts and reforms from countries such as India, Vietnam, and Thailand, they still cannot match China in terms of the availability of skilled labor, infrastructure, and scale, which is required by many companies, especially with regard to technologically advanced products. That being said, more companies are looking at a strategy where they are maintaining their presence in China, while also developing relatively smaller operations outside the country to have a fallback and to reduce total dependency on China. This is also dubbed as the China + 1 strategy.

Another reason going in China’s favor has been its capability to bounce back from the pandemic and resume production in a short span of time. While production had been halted from January to March 2020, it ramped up from April onwards and was back to normal standards within no time. This reinforced the faith of many companies in Chinese capabilities. Therefore, as some companies are already cash-strapped due to the pandemic, they are not interested in investing in modifying their supply chains when, in most cases, normalcy resumed in a relatively short span of time.

EOS Perspective

Companies have been looking to diversify their supply chains and reduce dependence on China for a couple of years now, however, the trend has gained momentum post the coronavirus pandemic and growing US-China trade tensions. The onset of the COVID-19 outbreak exposed several vulnerabilities in the supply chain of global manufacturers, who realized the extent of their dependence on China. Moreover, several countries realized that they relied on China for key medicines and medical supplies, which cost them heavily during the pandemic.

Given this situation, several nations such as Japan, India, and the USA – together and individually, have started giving incentives to companies to shift production from China into their own borders. While this has resulted in several companies, such as Apple, Microsoft, Sanofi, Samsung, etc., expanding their manufacturing operations out of China, it does not necessarily mean that they are moving out of China. This is primarily due to heavy investments (in terms of both time and money) that they have already made into developing their intricate supply chains, as well as the inherent benefits that China provides – technologically skilled labor, sophisticated production facilities, and quick revamping of production after a calamity.

That being said, it has come into the conscience of companies to reduce their over-reliance on China, and while it may not impact the scale and extent of operations in the country in the short run, it is quite likely that companies will phase out their presence (at least part of it) in China over the coming decade.

A lot depends on the level of incentives and facilities provided by other nations. While countries such as India, Vietnam, and Thailand can offer low-cost production with regard to labor and utilities, they currently do not have the technological sophistication possessed and developed by China. Alternatively, while Japan and the USA are technologically advanced, without recurring incentives and tax breaks, the cost of production would be much higher than that in China. Thus, until there is a worthy alternative, most companies will follow the China +1 strategy. However, with growing trade tensions between China and other nations and ongoing efforts by other nations to encourage and support domestic production, China may risk losing its positioning as the ‘factory of the world’ in the long run.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Decoding the USA-China 5G War

1.1kviews

The USA perceives Huawei, world’s largest telecom network equipment supplier and second largest smartphone manufacturer, as a potential threat capable of using its telecom products for hacking and cyber attacks. The US government suspects that China could exploit Huawei for cyber espionage against the USA and other countries. Amidst national security concerns, the US government has called for global boycott of Huawei, including of its 5G product range. The USA’s efforts to clamp down Huawei have rippling effect across the 5G ecosystem.

The USA and China have been trading rivals since 2012, particularly on the technology grounds. This resulted in a ban on China-based telecom equipment provider Huawei preventing it from trading with the US firms, over the accusation of espionage of critical information to the Chinese government. As a result, Huawei was barred from selling any type of equipment to be used in the US communication networks. This ban pertained to the 5G network equipment as well, and thus, Huawei’s 5G network equipment was ruled out from deployment in all parts of the USA. Few other countries, which agreed with the USA’s accusations on Huawei, also imposed a ban on the company’s 5G network equipment. The move severely affected Huawei’s exposure to some of the potential 5G markets, but it came as sigh of relief for its global competitors wary of Huawei’s growing dominance in 5G space.

Further, on May 16, 2019, the US government decided to put Huawei on the Security Entity List which restricted the company from buying any US-based technology (key hardware and software) for their 5G network equipment without approval and license from the US government, thus aggravating the 5G war. This not only brought new set of challenges for Huawei, but also created a rough path for the USA’s own technology firms involved in supplying components to Huawei. Considering impact on the US technology firms having Huawei as a key customer, on June 29, 2019, the US government announced relaxation on the Huawei ban, thereby allowing these US firms to continue their supply to Huawei for a 90-day period which got over in mid-August. The relaxation period was further extended till November 18, 2019, giving temporary relief to Huawei and its US-based business partners.

Huawei bears the brunt of USA-China 5G clash

The USA has initiated a global campaign to block Huawei from next-generation wireless communication technology over security concerns and it is pressuring other countries to keep out Huawei from 5G rollout. This invited quite a few repercussions for the company. One of the major and obvious consequences involved a major loss of potential market opportunity in the US territory as well as in other countries which are under strong influence of the USA.

After prolonged persuasion by the US government, in July 2018, Australia banned Huawei from 5G rollout in its territory. Japan also joined the league in December 2018 by imposing a ban on Huawei’s network equipment for 5G deployment, amid the security concerns to avoid hacks and intelligence leaks. Further, New Zealand and Taiwan also followed the suit in shutting out Huawei from 5G deployment.

In June 2019, the founder and CEO of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, indicated that the company is likely to experience a drop in its revenue by US$30 billion over the next two years, which can be seen as a knock-on effect of growing US sanctions on Huawei. Also, Huawei expects its smartphone shipments to decline by 40% to 60% by the end of 2019 as compared to the total shipments in the previous year.

Despite repeated warnings from the USA, some countries have come out in support of Huawei by rejecting the USA’s claims. The regulatory bodies of countries such as Russia, Germany, Brazil, South Korea, Finland, and Switzerland have taken their decisions in favor of Huawei and allowed the company to deploy its 5G network equipment in their territories, affirming that they do not see any technical grounds to ban the company from their telecom networks.

Moreover, the US government has been persistently urging many European countries, especially the UK, to join its decision of barring 5G trade with Huawei. In March 2019, the EU recommended its member countries not to impose outright ban on Huawei, but instead assess and evaluate the risks involved in using the company’s 5G network equipment. Already earlier, in February 2019, the UK government concluded that any risks from the use of Huawei equipment in its 5G network can be mitigated through certain improvements and checks which the company will be asked to make and hence the decision of completely banning the company’s equipment from UK’s 5G network was not taken.

Among Asian countries, India, the second-largest telecom market in the region, has not decided whether to allow Huawei to sell its 5G network equipment in the country. China has warned the Indian government that the repercussions of banning Huawei equipment would include challenges in catering to the demand for low-priced 5G devices, thus causing a hindrance in rapid development of India’s telecom sector. In June 2019, the Department of Technology of India indicated that, since the matter of Huawei concerns the security of the country, they will scrutinize the company’s 5G equipment for presence of any spyware components. India will see how other countries are dealing with the potential security risks before giving a green light to the company.

The USA’s allegations against Huawei have made all the countries cautious over dealing with the company. Despite having proven technological supremacy in 5G network equipment market, Huawei has come under strong scrutiny for its 5G network equipment across the globe.

Huawei ban: Boon for some, bane for others

Huawei’s troubles are turning into major opportunity for its competitors in the 5G network equipment and smartphones market space. However, suppliers to Huawei, particularly US-based companies providing hardware and software for 5G devices and network equipment, took a hard hit as they lost one of their key customers because of the trade ban.

Huawei ban presents increased opportunities for its global competitors in 5G network equipment market

Major competitors of Huawei in 5G network equipment manufacturing business – Samsung (South Korea), Nokia (Finland), and Ericsson (Sweden) – are positioned to get the inadvertent benefit of expanded market opportunities with one competitor less. With Huawei losing potential market in countries where it is facing backlash, its competitors managed to grab a few contracts.

For instance, in March 2019, Denmark’s leading telecom operator TDC, which had worked with Huawei since 2013, chose Ericsson for the 5G rollout. Further, in May 2019, Softbank Group Corp’s Japanese telecom unit, which had partnered with Huawei for 4G networks deployment in the past, replaced Huawei with Nokia for its end-to-end 5G solutions including 5G RAN (i.e. radio access network equipment including base stations and antennas which establish connection between individual smart devices and other parts of the network). In the USA, Samsung is gaining significant traction as it has started supplying 5G network equipment to some of the leading US telecom operators including AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint.

A report released in May 2019 by Dell’Oro (a market research firm specializing in telecom) indicated that Samsung surpassed Huawei for the first time by acquiring 37% of the share of total 5G RAN revenue in the first quarter of 2019. In the same period, Huawei stood second with 28% share, followed by Ericsson and Nokia with 27% and 8% share, respectively. Earlier, Huawei led the 5G RAN market in 2018, accounting for 31% share of total 5G RAN revenue that year. Huawei was followed by Ericsson, Nokia, ZTE (China), and Samsung with 29.2%, 23.3%, 7.4%, and 6.6% share, respectively. Due to widespread skepticism about Huawei over espionage accusations, a shift in 5G network equipment market can be expected by the end of 2019, since competitors are likely to gain more growth momentum over Huawei.

Demand for Samsung smartphones gets a boost as Google blocks Android support to Huawei

In the smartphones sector, Samsung, which is the world’s largest smartphones manufacturer, may turn out to be the winner in the Huawei ban situation. Huawei, through its low-priced Android smartphones with features similar to Samsung’s smartphones, is emerging as the largest rival of Samsung in the smartphone market.

As per IDC data, Samsung’s market share (by total smartphone shipments volume) declined from 21.7% in 2017 to 20.8% in 2018, whereas Huawei recorded 33.6% year-on-year growth as market share increased from 10.5% in 2017 to 14.7% in 2018. But since Huawei was placed on US trade blacklist, Samsung is likely to benefit from the situation because of the broken deal between Google and Huawei which led Huawei to lose access to Google’s Android operating system (OS) for its next-generation 5G smartphones.

While Google managed to get a temporary license to continue to provide update and support for existing Huawei smartphones, it prevented Google from providing Android support for Huawei’s new products including soon to be released 5G smartphones. Huawei indicated that its latest 5G smartphones Mate 30 series, which will be launched on September 19, 2019, will run on open-source version of Android 10 and it will not have any of the flagship Google apps such as Google Maps, Google Drive, Google Assistant, etc.

Huawei unveiled its own operating system named HarmonyOS on August 9, 2019, but it still seeks support of Google’s Android OS for its upcoming 5G smartphones along with access to widely popular apps such as Facebook and WhatsApp which all belong to American firms. Android OS, controlling over three-fourths of the mobile OS market as of August 2019, is widely adopted by both the app developers as well as the users. As of second quarter of 2019, Android allowed its users to choose from 2.46 million apps. Encouraging app developers to rewrite their apps as per platform-specific requirements of a new OS with low user base is challenging. Conversely, consumers prefer OS which allows them to use all the apps they like. If HarmanyOS needs to be used as Android replacement, Huawei will need considerable time and financial resources to work with app developers to add similar apps to Huawei’s HarmonyOS.

Explore our other Perspectives on 5G

The future scenario for global 5G smartphones market will depend on the pending decision of the US government over allowing US technology firms to trade with Huawei. If the US government allows the trade, Huawei will have high chances of leading in the 5G smartphones sector owing to its competitive pricing and innovative solutions. On the other hand, if the ban still persists in future, the market of Huawei’s global competitors, Samsung in particular, is likely to swell, owing to their trusted brand name and reliability along with the support of Android OS.

US-based hardware suppliers for telecom devices face revenue loss as they lose their key customer, Huawei

The US government’s executive order issued in May 2019 blocking US exports to Huawei led to adverse effect on the revenue of the US-based companies that used to supply key hardware to Huawei for its 5G network equipment and devices.

For example, Qualcomm which was one of the largest sellers of modem chips, mobile processors, and licenses for 3G, 4G, as well as 5G technology in the Chinese market, has experienced a decline in revenue by 13% year-on-year in the third quarter of 2019 along with decline of approximately 36% in shipments of chipsets and processors. Similarly, Broadcom, which supplies switching chips used in network equipment, is also facing challenges with loss of its highest revenue-generating customer, Huawei, accounting for US$900 million of company’s revenue in 2018. Considering the Huawei blacklisting’s impact on financial results in the first two quarters of 2019, Broadcom has even cut its revenue outlook of the fiscal year 2019 from US$24.5 billion to US$22.5 billion.

In view of financial implications of Huawei blacklisting on the businesses of US-based technology firms, the US government, in June 2019, reprieved the trade ban on Huawei till November 18, 2019. Post the relaxation period, the US government may again ban Huawei from doing business with US technology firms. In case the US government puts the ban in effect owing to the security concerns, the repercussions are likely to deepen further for the US firms over losing considerable revenue coming from China’s telecom hardware industry.

Ban on Huawei means telecom operators will have to pay a higher price for 5G network equipment

Huawei ban is also seen to be impacting the US telecom operators as they face a particular challenge of increasing outlay to build the 5G networks. This is because the 5G network equipment provided by Nokia and Ericsson is more expensive than Huawei’s. In March 2019, Huawei claimed that allowing the company to compete in the telecom market in North America would reduce the total cost of wireless communication infrastructure development in the region by 15%-40% and provide an opportunity for telecom operators to save US$20 billion over the next four years.

The cost factor has also made some European countries sway their decision in favor of Huawei. In June 2019, GSMA, an industry association with over 750 telecom operators as members, indicated that shunning Chinese equipment from 5G network deployment in Europe would add EUR 55 billion (~US$61 billion) to the costs of telecom operators and will also cause the delay of about 18 months in 5G network deployment. In fact, to avoid such repercussions, many European countries have already decided to continue buying telecom equipment (including 5G network equipment) from Huawei and other Chinese firms, Greece being the latest one to join the group of countries including Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, and few more.

India, which is a huge market for low-priced smartphones and telecom network equipment, still remains undecided on the proposed ban on Huawei. The 5G network equipment supplied by Nokia and Ericsson in India is expected to be 10%-15% more expensive as compared to Huawei’s. Also, Huawei claims that imposing a ban on the company will push back 5G deployment in India by two to three years. Moreover, the prolonged decision-taking has also affected the 5G network deployment timeline of the country and thus slowing down the overall development of its telecom industry. Dilemma whether to work with Huawei is seen to have wide-reaching implications on overall development of 5G technology in some countries.

Decoding USA-China 5G War - EOS Intelligence

EOS Perspective

The USA-China 5G war has taken many unpredictable turns over the last year, resulting in adverse implications for Huawei and its US-based business partners. The current status of the 5G war indicates a relaxation over the Huawei ban till November 18, 2019. This allows the US companies to continue supply of their technology products including key software and hardware required by Huawei for 5G equipment manufacturing. However, the relaxation of the ban is not intended to remove Huawei from the US Department of Commerce’s Entity List and the US companies still have to apply for temporary license for exporting products to Huawei.

The USA has been targeting Huawei since 2012, and there seems to be no stopping. Considering the implications of the US sanctions, Huawei has been making notable efforts to end the ongoing discord with the US government. Huawei has always denied all the accusations and maintained that the company is willing to work with the US government to alleviate their concerns over cybersecurity. In May 2019, Huawei proposed implementation of risk mitigation programs to address potential security threats. To further appease the US government, on September 10, 2019, Huawei proposed selling its 5G technology (including licenses, codes, technical blueprints, patents, as well as production know-how) to an American firm. This is seen as one of the boldest peace-offering deals by Huawei to win back the trust of the US government. Huawei claimed that the buyer will be allowed to alter the software code and thereby eliminate any potential security threats.

Currently, there is no US company manufacturing 5G network equipment. Acceptance of Huawei’s proposal would enable the USA to gain footing in the 5G network equipment market and mitigate the fears over rising dominance of Huawei in global 5G space. While the move risks to create a competitor for Huawei in the 5G network equipment market, the company could also use this as an opportunity to evolve from core manufacturing business to providing technical expertise to other companies for manufacturing 5G equipment. The proposal is still subject to approval from the USA and Chinese governments.

While Huawei is ramping up its efforts to break the deadlock with the US government, at the same time, the company is also devising a parallel strategy presuming the worst possible outcome of USA-China trade tensions over 5G, i.e. the USA eventually cutting off ties with Huawei. The company is working towards a contingency plan with an ambition to take control of its supply chain and reduce its dependency on the US technologies and supplies.

One of the major actions of its plan B includes developing its own operating system HarmonyOS as a substitute to Google’s Android OS. While Huawei wants to continue with Android OS for its future 5G smartphones, in case the US government blocks Huawei’s access to Google’s services, Huawei will have to switch to own HarmonyOS.

China, Huawei’s home market, is more receptive to the company’s products, and switching to own operating system is expected to work in favor of the company. In July 2019, Canalys, a Singapore-based technology market research firm, estimated that China would account for over one-third of 5G smartphones globally by 2023. Huawei could use this opportunity to develop its proprietary OS based on the learnings in China before expanding globally to compete with more established and mature OS such as Android OS and iOS (which respectively controlled 76.23% and 22.17% of the smartphone OS market as of August 2019).

On the other hand, in anticipation of loss of partnerships with key suppliers such as Qualcomm and Broadcom, Huawei had stockpiled critical components between May 2018 and May 2019, according to a research report by Canalys. This move was aimed at ensuring the continuity of production of 5G products that rely on core technology from US-based firms for three to twelve months.

Further, Huawei has been developing proprietary chipsets for its 5G smartphones and networking products, which are being considered as alternatives for products offered by Qualcomm and Broadcom. On September 6, 2019, Huawei launched Kirin 990, a new 5G processor for smart devices, which will power Huawei’s upcoming 5G smartphone including Mate 30 series. Further, in January 2019, Huawei launched a 5G multi-mode chipset, Balong 5000 that supports a broad range of 5G products including smartphones, home broadband devices, vehicle-mounted devices, and 5G modules. The company claims this chipset to be the first to perform to industry benchmark for peak 5G download speeds.

Seeing such developments at the Huawei’s end, it is clear that the company is striving hard to remain on the top of 5G network equipment and device manufacturing sector. The USA’s efforts to derail Huawei from its path to dominance in 5G are certainly going to impact the overall growth of the company in short term, but, with its plan B, things are expected to smooth out for Huawei in future. Even if Huawei is not be able to retain its current global leading position in 5G network equipment and device manufacturing, it will certainly remain one of the strong contenders. The US sanctions are further encouraging Huawei to evolve as an all-round player in the 5G ecosystem.

On the contrary, the USA’s aggression against Huawei is expected to hit its own technology industry in the long term. For instance, the blacklisting of Huawei will not only cost the US technology firms to lose one of its largest customers, but will also result in intensified competition as Huawei ramps up its in-house capabilities to fulfill the demand of the entire 5G ecosystem. An example of this could be Huawei’s announcement in April 2019 that the company was open to selling the 5G chips to rival smartphone companies, including Apple. Moreover, if Huawei’s HarmonyOS is able to succeed in gaining significant user base, it would challenge the dominance of Android and iOS. Hence, it would be in best interest of the USA and its technology industry, if the country could take a different approach and try to control and minimize security risks related to Huawei’s engagements, rather than placing an outright ban on the company. Similar to what Germany did in December 2018, the USA could encourage telecom operators to establish verification centers and hire third-party experts to identify and resolve vulnerabilities in Huawei’s 5G network equipment and devices.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Refurbished Smartphones – the Future of High-end Devices in Emerging Markets

2.1kviews

An anticipated slowdown in the global smartphone sales forecast for 2016 due to lack of new first-time buyers in large markets such as the USA, China, and Europe, has been alarming for large players who have turned their focus to other emerging markets. To fit the expectations and financial capabilities of price-sensitive consumers in these markets, companies are lining up to sell refurbished smartphones as a strategic move to increase sales volume. However, competition – primarily from new smartphones – in these markets is still fierce, due to some smartphone makers (such as Chinese mobile phone manufacturer Tecno Mobile) reaching consumers with more economic devices. Are second-hand smartphones capable of outshining new devices in emerging markets?

The global smartphone market has been witnessing a slowdown in sales during 2016 in comparison to previous years, partially because some markets, such as the USA, China, and Europe have become saturated (in large part with mid-range and high-end models, such as Apple’s iPhone and Samsung’s Galaxy). Therefore, to avoid a decrease in sales and a subsequent loss in profits, smartphone makers are readjusting their strategies to focus on marketing economic second-hand sets in developing countries.

Refurbished Smartphones - Market Growth

 

 

According to a 2016 Deloitte report, refurbished smartphones global sales volume is expected to increase from 56 million units sold in 2014 to 120 million in 2017, growing at a CAGR of 29%. Large part of this growth is likely to occur in emerging markets, such as India, South Africa, or Nigeria, which is a sound reason for large players to venture into these geographies.

Most smartphone buyers in these markets are highly price-sensitive and frequently precede their phone purchasing decisions with intensive online research to get a good understanding of options that are available to them based on their financial capabilities. These consumers are likely to prioritize price over features and appearance of a smartphone. Therefore, refurbished devices from well-known brands, such as Samsung or Apple, need to offer satisfying functionalities yet be available at affordable price in order to be attractive for buyers in these emerging economies.

Refurbished Smartphones - India, South Africa, Nigeria

Refurbished smartphones hit obstacles across the markets

Emerging markets, despite their favorable dynamics that should at least in theory offer a great environment for refurbished phones sales to skyrocket, are not easy to navigate through, especially for high-end devices makers.

Some markets are becoming protective of their local manufacturing sectors, and introduce regulations that make it difficult to import smartphones, especially refurbished ones. India is one such case. In 2014, the Indian government rolled out the Make in India program, with the idea to promote local manufacturing in 25 sectors of various industries, one of them being electronic devices (including smartphones).

Coincidentally, two years later, when Apple initiated efforts to start importing and selling its refurbished smartphones as a way to increase the iPhone’s market share in the country, these efforts were unsuccessful. The Indian government rejected Apple’s plan, justifying its decision with a concern about the electronic waste increase caused by a deluge of refurbished smartphones entering the country. As a result, the refurbished version of Apple’s iPhone is currently sold only by online commercial platforms (e.g. Amazon, Snapdeal) from vendors that are not always official company retail stores. This could fuel sales in a parallel market, not necessarily benefiting either India’s local manufacturing or Apple.

In case of South Africa and Nigeria, both markets share similarities in terms of advantages as well as potential barriers for refurbished smartphone sales volume to grow. Nigeria’s GDP contracted by 2.06% in the second quarter of 2016, causing wary consumers to maintain their old phones or purchase very economic options due to decreasing disposable income. In South Africa, consumers are also highly price-sensitive with a very limited brand consciousness.

The rapid level of smartphone adoption registered in both markets is seen mainly in handsets with retail price of US$150 or less in South Africa and US$100 or less in Nigeria. Therefore, refurbished high-end models may dazzle local consumers, but low-cost devices can be expected to represent an obstacle for brands such as Samsung or Apple, as these smartphone makers are likely to sell their refurbished devices for half the original price which is still above the consumer-accepted purchase price in these two markets.

EOS Perspective

In case of India, the recent rejection of Apple’s plan to import and sell refurbished smartphones is an indicator that similar issues might be faced by other large players willing to do the same in the future. However, as one of the world’s largest smartphone markets, India is likely to continue building a strong sense of brand loyalty among consumers, especially towards Samsung’s and Apple’s brands in general (smartphones and beyond), and consumers will demand access to these brands (Samsung and Apple already held a 44% and a 27.3% market shares, respectively, in 2016).

The risk of India’s market being flooded with refurbished smartphones sold in a parallel market or online commercial platforms without proper regulation by authorities could result in lost control over excessive e-waste in the country, without necessarily driving local production of competitive products. Consequently, India’s government might have to consider the possibility of allowing large manufacturers to import factory-certified second-hand smartphones into the country, perhaps under the condition of refurbishing the devices in India.

In Nigeria and South Africa, the consumer price sensitivity and limited brand loyalty seem to be the most pressing issues for large players such as Apple or Samsung intending to sell their refurbished phones. In both markets, the rivalry is rather fierce, mainly due to a relatively strong presence of smaller regional manufacturers and large Chinese companies (e.g. Xiaomi) that offer affordable smart devices. While consumers in these markets are willing to spend up to US$100-150 for a device, in most cases they lack brand loyalty.

Apple or Samsung are likely to be negatively affected by this when launching their refurbished high-end handsets at half of the device’s original retail price, which in most likelihood would still be above the price consumers in these markets can and are willing to spend. As a result, large players may have to set their eyes on a long-term horizon, and slowly build the brand loyalty sense in local consumers and temporarily relinquish on large profits in order to enter these markets and settle among their potential customers.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Mexico: The Next Manufacturing Powerhouse?

389views

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

The Changing Global Manufacturing Landscape

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

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

Why Mexico? Why Now?

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

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

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

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

US Imports from Mexico

 

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

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

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

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

Challenging Times Ahead

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

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

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

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

 

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

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Wind Energy in South Korea – Aiming High

SouthKoreaWind

Over the past couple of years, South Korea has undertaken considerable efforts to research and develop renewable energy generation across technologies such as fuel cell, solar, wind, geothermal heat, and tidal power. While supporting growth in several renewable energy sectors, the country has focused on expanding wind power generation in particular, given Korea’s access to strong and steady winds due to its long coastal line and mountainous terrain, as well as relatively well developed wind power technology and related skill set. We take a look at current state of affairs in the renewable energy sectors in Korea as well as the development of wind energy capacity goals set by the country’s government.

Read Our Detailed Report.

by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Mexico – The Next Automotive Production Powerhouse?

389views

As the first of our five part automotive market assessment of the MIST countries – Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Turkey, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Mexico as an emerging automotive hub, and the underlying potential in this strategically located gateway to both North and South America.

Emergence of Mexico as a major automotive production hub is the result of a series of events and transformations over the past decade. The most important of which is the growing trend among automotive OEMs and auto part producers to have production bases in emerging economies. And the earthquake in Japan in 2011 tilted the tide in favour of Mexico just as ‘near-shoring’ was already becoming a key automotive strategy in 2011.

Automotive production in Mexico increased by 80% from 1.5 million in 1999 to 2.7 million units per year in 2011, largely thanks to a significant boost in investment in the sector.

Between 2005 and 2011, cumulative foreign direct investment (FDI) in the automotive sector amounted to USD10.3 billion. In the last year, several automotive OEMs have initiated large scale projects in Mexico; some of these projects include

  • Nissan – building a USD2 billion plant in Aguascalientes; this was the single largest investment in the country in 2012 and should help secure the country’s position as the eighth largest car manufacturer and sixth largest car exporter in the world

  • Ford – investing USD1.3 billion in a new stamping and assembly plant in Hermosillo, New Mexico

  • Honda – investing USD800 million in a new production plant in Celaya, Guanajuato

  • GM – investing USD420 million at plants in Guanajuato and San Luis Potosi

  • Daimler Trucks – investing USD300 million in a new plant to manufacture new heavy trucks’ transmissions

  • Audi – has decided to set-up its first production facility across the Atlantic in Mexico; with planned investment outlay of about USD2 billion, this move by Audi represents a significant show of trust by one of the world’s leading premium car brands

  • Mazda – building a USD500 million plant in Guanajuato; it has reached an agreement to build a Toyota-branded sub-compact car at this facility and will supply Toyota with 50,000 units of the vehicle annually once production begins in mid-2015

Bolstered by this new wave of investment, Mexico’s vehicle production capacity is expected to rise to 3.83 million units by 2017, at an impressive CAGR of 6% during 2011-2017.

Why is Mexico attracting such large levels of investment from global automotive OEMs? Which factors have positively influenced these decisions and what concerns other OEMs have in investing in this North American country?

So, What Makes Mexico A Favourable Destination?

  1. Trade Agreements – Mexico has Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with about 44 countries that provide preferential access to markets across three continents, covering North America and parts of South America and Europe. Mexico has more FTAs than the US. The FTA with the EU, for instance, saves Mexico a 10% tariff that’s applied to US-built vehicles, thereby providing OEMs with an incentive to shift production from the US to Mexico.

  2. Geographic Access – Mexico provides easy geographical access to the US and Latin American markets, thereby providing savings through reduced inventory as well as lower transportation and logistics costs. This is evident from the fact that auto exports grew by 12% in the first ten months of 2012 to a record 1.98 million units; the US accounted for 63% of these exports, while Latin America and Europe accounted for 16% and 9%, respectively (Source – Mexican Automobile Industry Association).

  3. Established Manufacturing Hub – 19 of the world’s major manufacturing companies, such as Siemens, GE, Samsung, LG and Whirlpool, have assembly plants in Mexico; additionally, over 300 major Tier-1 global suppliers have presence in the country, with a well-structured value chain organized in dynamic and competitive clusters.

The Challenges

  1. Heavy Dependence on USA – While it is good that Mexico has established strong relations with American OEMs, it cannot ignore the fact that with more than 60% share of its exports, the country is heavily dependent on the US. The country needs to grow its export markets to other countries and geographies to hedge against a downturn in the American economy. For instance, during the downturn in the US economy in 2008 and 2009, due to decline in sales in the US, automotive production in Mexico declined by 20% from 2.17 million in 2008 to 1.56 million in 2009. Mexico has trade agreements with 44 countries (more than the USA and double that of China) and it needs to leverage these better to promote itself as an attractive export platform for automotives.

  2. Regional Politics – Mexico is walking a tight rope when it comes to protecting the interests of OEMs producing vehicles in the country. In 2011, Mexican automotive exports caused widespread damage to the automotive industries in Brazil and Argentina and in a bid to save their domestic markets, both the countries briefly banned Mexican auto imports altogether in 2012. Although, later in the year, Mexico thrashed out a deal that restricts automotive imports (without tariffs) to its two South American neighbours rather than completely banning them, it does not augur well for the future prospects of automotive production in Mexico. One of the reasons automotive OEMs were expanding their capacity in the country was to be able to cater to the important markets in Latin America, particularly Brazil and Argentina. Now the Mexican government has the challenge of trying to keep everyone happy – its neighbours, the automotive OEMs and most importantly its own people for whom it might mean loss of jobs and income.

  3. Stringent Regulatory Environment – The Mexican government, the Mexican Auto Industry Association and International Automotive OEMs are locked in a tussle over the government’s attempts to implement fuel efficiency rules to curb carbon emissions. Mexico has an ambitious target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020, and 50% by 2050. The regulations are similar to the ones being implemented in the USA and Canada, however, the association has complained that the proposal is stricter than the US version. Toyota went as far as filing a legal appeal against the government protesting the proposed fuel economy standard. Although the government eased the regulations to appease the automotive OEMs in January 2013, the controversy highlights resistance by the country’s manufacturing sector to the low-carbon regulations the government has been trying to introduce over the past few years. Such issues send out wrong signals to potential investors.

So, does Mexico provide an attractive platform for automotive OEMs? From the spate of investments in the country so far, it seems so – over the past few years, the country has finally begun to fulfil that potential and is now a key driver in the ‘spreading production across emerging economies’ strategy of companies looking to make it big in the global automotive market. However, there are still a few concerns that need to be addressed in order for Mexico to become ‘the’ automotive manufacturing hub in the Americas.

———————————————————————————————————————
In our next discussion, we will assess the opportunities and challenges faced by both established and emerging automotive OEMs in Indonesia. Does Indonesia continue to be one of the key emerging markets of interest for automotive OEMs or do the challenges outweigh the opportunities?

Samsung vs Apple
by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Apple Vs Samsung: The Battle of the Wrong Contenders

On August 24, 2012, a jury in San Jose, California drew curtains (for the time being at least) on the long-drawn saga between Apple and Samsung. The court delivered a verdict largely favorable to Apple, validating most of Apple’s claims and ordering Samsung to pay Apple $1.05 billion in damages.

The verdict followed months of bitter battle between the two companies, which together sell more than half of the world’s smartphones and tablets. Although Apple’s charges against Samsung are more about design and features, it is actually an attack on Google and its Android software, which drives Samsung’s devices and has become the most widely used mobile software.

Since Apple, Google and Microsoft belong to the operating platform universe, their patent strategies differ vividly from the old mobile telecommunications world of essential patents. The mobile telecommunications industry is not new to IP litigations. However, current litigations concern the operating software used in smartphones, whereas earlier litigations were targeted at mobile telecommunications standards. This situation has arisen as Google did not have ex ante licenses from Apple and Microsoft.

There are two IP regimes, ‘essential patents’ (radio, transmission and telephony) and ‘platform patents’ (operating system software). In the Apple vs. Samsung case, the charges filed against Samsung relate both to essential patents (related to design of Samsung phones and tablets) and to platform patents (related to certain features allegedly copied by Android from iOS). However, when it comes to mobile internet, there is no overlap between the two patent regimes. The current IP litigation game (between Apple, Google and Microsoft) is only about platform patents (operating system software) and not about ‘essential patents’ (radio, transmission and telephony).

The mobile telecommunications market is currently undergoing upheaval as mobile internet is becoming the dominant application and phones are practically turning into mobile internet devices. For mobile telecommunication incumbents (such as Ericsson, Motorola, Nokia, Sony and Samsung), competition remains heated with direct threat from the likes of Apple and indirect competition from Google and Microsoft.

Apple and Microsoft are expected to be the winners in the current IP litigation scenario, since their IP is considered to have value in smartphones, while as Google’s IP, in comparison, is considerably lower, the Android operating system and its alliance network seem to be losing. The role of mobile telecommunication incumbents, with respect to patent portfolios is still important but limited to essential patents.

The unique position of Google as merely the provider of Android has also protected it from any direct IP litigation. However, to fight with Google, both Apple and Microsoft have filed IP litigation against the adopters of Google’s platform ecosystem, which includes original equipment manufacturers (e.g., HTC, Motorola Mobility, and Samsung) and application developers (Lodsys sues Rovio).

These attacks are global and are spread across four continents; specifically, Apple has sued the largest producer of Android-based devices, Samsung, in the USA and the rest of the world, except for China. It will be interesting to see the outcome of these litigations, as it might change the way the global mobile sector currently functions – if Samsung were to lose, it will shake-up Google’s ambitions of becoming the global leader in mobile telephony software; if the outcome comes out in favor of Samsung, both Samsung and Google will lead the market, and perhaps give rise to smaller hardware manufacturers which could use the Android platform to enter the market.

Whatever the outcome of these lawsuits, it sure is expected to spur innovation among relevant industry participants. Android (Google) has been found to be vulnerable/susceptible to litigation and unless they significantly strengthen their patent portfolio, hardware manufacturers would be wary of adopting android and will look for alternatives (such as MS Windows Mobile or develop their own operating systems). And if Apple wins, then OEMs will still have to look for alternative operating platforms. So the path is not as rosy for the Android system as it seems at the outset.

Thus, two key observations from the Apple vs. Samsung patent disputes can be noted:

  1. Apple’s patents are only valid and enforceable in the USA and the company will have difficulty in leveraging these outside the USA, for example in Europe and Asia.

  2. Apple’s patent portfolio outside the USA is minimal and the company will therefore struggle to protect its products in Europe and Asia. Moreover, the company would be forced to sign cross-licensing agreements with old mobile phone incumbents (Apple and Google Subsidiary – Motorola Mobility Consider Arbitration).

The current IP litigation scenario in mobile telecommunications shows how the industry is transitioning from an industry dominated by standards and essential patents in the late 1990s to an industry increasingly dominated by platform patents.

What’s next in this battle? Where might this lead the industry to?

Courts in different jurisdictions, such as in the UK, Korea, Japan, Australia and Germany have all given varied verdicts and the litigation battles are expected to continue (Samsung has already challenged the San Jose verdict). However, if Apple is able to enforce its patents outside the USA as well, mobile phone incumbents would feel hesitant to use Android and may opt for competing operating systems such as the Windows Phone.

Even then, it is unlikely to represent the demise of Android. Some of the features in contention have already been removed, while other features are given significantly lesser protection outside the USA.

The story, clearly, is far from over.

Top