New Articles

Record Production in 2022 to Curb Corn Price Growth

corn

Record Production in 2022 to Curb Corn Price Growth

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘World – Maize – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

In 2022, corn prices are projected to drop by approximately 10% y/y due to an expected all-time record high global production, which is to reach 1.2B tonnes. This forecast is subject to a number of risks, such as volatile fertilizer and energy prices, high freight rates, biofuel policies and weather conditions.

Corn prices are forecast to ease in 2022 due to a sharp increase in global production. The world’s corn output is to soar by 7% y/y to a record 1.2B tonnes with higher crops in the U.S. and South America. Production in Brazil is expected to rise by 31% y/y to 114M tonnes, fully recovering from the last year’s 15%-drop caused by a drought. Argentine farmers are to harvest 54M tonnes of corn, 5% more than a year earlier. U.S. production will grow by 7% y/y to 384M tonnes.

Crop increases are also forecast in China, the E.U., Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa. Significant output growth is projected in Russia and Ukraine, where corn production is to rise by 8% y/y to 15M tonnes and by 39% y/y to 42M tonnes, respectively.

According to World Bank data, the average annual price for U.S. corn (no. 2, yellow, FOB, U.S. Gulf ports) grew by 57% y-o-y to $260 per tonne in 2021. This year, the price is projected to drop by approx. 10% y/y with sufficient supply, but rising fertilizer and energy prices, logistic tensions, changing biofuel policies and weather conditions still pose risks on price stability.

World’s Largest Corn Importers

In 2020, approx. 146M tonnes of maize were imported worldwide, remaining relatively unchanged against the previous year. In value terms, maize imports stood at $35.9B (IndexBox estimates).

Japan (16M tonnes), Viet Nam (12M tonnes), South Korea (12M tonnes), China (11M tonnes), Egypt (8.5M tonnes), Spain (8.1M tonnes), Colombia (6.2M tonnes), Italy (6.1M tonnes), the Netherlands (5.9M tonnes), Taiwan (Chinese) (4.4M tonnes), Malaysia (3.8M tonnes) and Germany (3.8M tonnes) represented the major importer of maize in the world, generating 67% of total volume. Peru (3.8M tonnes) followed a long way behind the leaders.

The most notable growth rate of purchases, amongst the leading importing countries, was attained by China. Its volume of imports grew twofold in 2020.

In value terms, Japan ($3.3B), China ($2.5B) and Viet Nam ($2.4B) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of purchases in 2020, together comprising 23% of global imports.

In 2020, the average maize import price amounted to $246 per tonne, stabilizing at the previous year. Average prices varied somewhat amongst the major importing countries. In 2020, major importing countries recorded the following prices: in Germany ($265 per tonne) and the Netherlands ($224 per tonne), while Colombia ($198 per tonne) and Viet Nam ($198 per tonne) were amongst the lowest. The most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by Germany, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth in 2020.

Source: IndexBox Platform

nuclear ukraine putin united NATO

U.S. and EU Impose Sanctions in Connection with the Crisis in Ukraine: A Detailed Look

On February 21, 2022, President Biden issued a new executive order targeting the breakaway regions known as the Donetsk People’s Republic (“DNR”) and Luhansk People’s Republic (“LPR”, and together with the DNR, the “Covered Regions”) in eastern Ukraine.  On February 22, 2022, President Biden announced further sanctions, specifically designating two major Russian banks and three close associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and imposed increased restrictions on dealings in Russia’s sovereign debt.  On February 23, 2022, the EU adopted, a set of new Regulations and Decisions implementing asset freezes and travel bans notably against senior Russian officials and close associates of President Putin, financial restrictions limiting Russia’s access to the EU’s capital and financial markets, and trade restrictions targeting economic relations with the Covered Regions. The actions follow President Putin’s formal recognition of the independence of those breakaway regions and react to the continued involvement of Russian military forces.

New U.S. Sanctions

February 21, 2022 Executive Order

The February 21 executive order largely extends the existing restrictions on the Crimea region of Ukraine and applies them to the Covered Regions.  In particular, the executive order prohibits:

-New investment in the Covered Regions;

-Importation into the U.S. of any goods, services, or technology originating in the Covered Regions;

-Exportation, reexportation, sale or supply from the United States or by a U.S. persons of any good, services or technology to the Covered Regions; and

-Any approval, financing, facilitation, or guarantee by a U.S. person of prohibited transactions.

The executive order further authorizes the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) to add to the Specially Designated Nationals (“SDN”) list any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:

-To operate in the Covered Regions;

-To be a leader, official, senior executive officer, or member of the board of directors of an entity operating in the Covered Regions;

-To be owned or controlled or acting on behalf of any person blocked under the executive order; or

-To have materially assisted or supported any person blocked under the executive order.

However, although some individuals in the Covered Regions have been previously designated under the Crimea-related authorities, no person has been designated yet under the executive order as of the date of this alert.

Simultaneously with the issuance of the executive order, OFAC issued six general licenses to permit otherwise prohibited activity in the Covered Regions.  Most significantly, General License 17 authorizes all transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the winddown of transactions in the Covered Region until March 23, 2022.  Note, however, that a specific license from OFAC would still be required for any transactions with an SDN designated under the executive order.  The other five general licenses authorize the following activity:

General License 18– authorizing the export or reexport to the Covered Regions of certain agricultural, medical, and COVID-19 related products and services;

General License 19– authorizing transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the receipt or transmission of telecommunications in the Covered Regions;

General License 20– authorizing transactions by the United Nations and other specified non-governmental organizations;

General License 21– authorizing transactions related to non-commercial, personal remittances to the Covered Regions; and

General License 22– authorizing transactions related to the exportation of services or software from the United States or by U.S. persons that are incident to the exchange of personal communications over the internet, such as instant messaging, chat and email, social networking, sharing of photos and movies, web browsing, and blogging.

One key question following the issuance of the executive order is how the specific territories of the Covered Regions will be determined.  This may be particularly challenging, given the shifting borders of the DNR and LPR throughout their prolonged conflict with the Ukrainian government.  We anticipate that OFAC will seek to clarify this question through the guidance in the form of responses to “Frequently Asked Questions” in the coming days.

February 22, 2022 Actions

On February 22, 2022, in a speech in which President Biden stated that “Russia has now undeniably moved against Ukraine,” he announced “the first tranche of sanctions to impose costs on Russia,” promising to “continue to escalate sanctions if Russia escalates.”  Subsequently, OFAC issued a press release detailing the specific actions, all of which were taken pursuant to the existing Executive Order 14024, which included the designation of two major Russian banks and three close associates of President Putin as SDNs as well as restrictions on transactions involving Russian sovereign debt.

Specifically, the two Russian banks targeted are the Corporation Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs Vnesheconombank (“VEB”) and Promsvyazbank Public Joint Stock Company (“PSB”), along with 42 of their subsidiaries.  The designations were made pursuant to a contemporaneous determination issued by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen that Russian financial institutions are eligible for sanctions under Executive Order 14024 (previously, determinations had also been made on April 15, 2021, with respect to the technology sector and defense sectors).  Both banks are state-owned institutions and play key roles in servicing Russia’s sovereign debt and defense contracts.  Further, in connection with PSB’s designation, OFAC designated the following five Russian-flagged vessels in which PSB has an interest:

-Baltic Leader (IMO: 9220639), a cargo vessel;

-Linda (IMO: 9256858), a crude oil tanker;

-Pegas (IMO: 9256860), a crude oil tanker;

-Fesco Magadan (IMO: 9287699), a container ship; and

-Fesco Moneron (IMO: 9277412), a container ship.

In addition, three close associates to President Putin – including the Chairman and CEO of PSB and two sons of previously designated oligarchs – were added to the SDN list.  As a result of these designations, U.S. persons are prohibited from virtually all transactions with the listed parties or entities of which they own fifty percent or more, directly or indirectly.  In addition, “significant” transactions with these entities could create secondary sanctions liability under Section 228 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (“CAATSA”).

OFAC also issued a new Directive 1A under Executive Order 14024, which replaces the prior Directive 1.  The effect of the new Directive 1A is to expand existing sovereign debt prohibitions to cover participation in the secondary market for bonds issued after March 1, 2022 by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, or the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.  Specifically, Directive 1 previously prohibited U.S. financial institutions from, as of June 14, 2021, participating in the primary market for bonds issued by Russia’s Central Bank, National Wealth Fund or Ministry of Finance, or lending funds to those organizations.  Directive 1A keeps those prohibitions in place, and additionally prohibits U.S. financial institutions – effective March 1, 2022 – from participating in the secondary market for bonds issued by the listed organizations.  Note that OFAC clarified in FAQ guidance that the fifty percent rule does not apply to Directive 1A so that entities owned by the institutions identified in Directive 1A are not themselves automatically subject to the restrictions.

In conjunction with these restrictions, OFAC also issued General License 2, which authorizes transactions involving the servicing of bonds issued by VEB prior to March 1, 2022, and General License 3, which authorizes a winddown period with respect to VEB through March 24, 2022.  No similar general license has been issued yet regarding transactions involving PSB.

Potential Further Action

The Biden Administration has also implied that additional multi-lateral sanctions could be forthcoming, indicating an incremental approach.  A Fact Sheet issued in conjunction with the February 21, 2022 executive order explained that the executive order “is distinct from the swift and severe economic measures we are prepared to issue with Allies and partners in response to a further Russian invasion of Ukraine. We are continuing to closely consult with Ukraine and with Allies and partners on next steps and urge Russia to immediately deescalate.”  As also noted above, President Biden characterized the February 22, 2022 actions as the “first tranche” of sanctions and kept open the possibility for “escalation” depending on how Russia responds.  An embargo on semiconductors and advanced technology has reportedly been considered as part of a second tranche of actions if Russia escalates or continues its incursion further into Ukraine.

New EU Sanctions

February 21, 2022 Designations

On February 21, the Council of the European Union (“EU”)  imposed travel bans and asset freezes (including a prohibition to make funds or economic resources available) on five new individuals “for actively supporting actions and implementing policies that undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine,” bringing the total number of designated parties to 193 individuals and 48 entities on the EU’s list of parties subject to Ukraine-related sanctions.

The new designations include members of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, who were elected to represent the annexed Crimean peninsula and the City of Sevastopol on 19 September 2021, as well as the head and deputy head of the Sevastopol electoral commission.

February 22-23, 2022 Actions

On February 22, the Presidents of the European Council and European Commission jointly announced that an additional package of restrictive measures will be swiftly adopted by the EU in reaction to Russia’s latest aggression against Ukraine, which the EU sees as “illegal and unacceptable” under the Minsk Agreements, which stipulate the full return of the Covered Regions to the control of the Ukrainian government.

The same day, Josep Borrell, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, urged Russia “to reverse the recognition, uphold its commitments, abide by international law and return to the discussions within the Normandy format and the Trilateral Contact Group.” Borrell later announced in a joint press conference with French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Yves Le Drian that the 27 Member States had unanimously agreed on a new package of sanctions.

The new package has been swiftly adopted and published in the Official Journal of the EU on February 23 through 4 Council Decisions and 5 Regulations amending EU’s current sanctions program targeting Russia progressively strengthened since 2014, which already included:

-Individual restrictive measures consisting of travel bans and assets freezes on designated individuals and entities;

-Comprehensive restrictions on economic relations with Crimea and Sevastopol, including (i) an import ban on goods from Crimea and Sevastopol, (ii) restrictions on trade and investment related to certain economic sectors and infrastructure projects, (iii) a prohibition to supply tourism services in Crimea or Sevastopol, and (iv) an export ban for certain goods and technologies;

-An import and export ban on trade in arms as well as an export ban for dual-use items for military end-users or end-use in Russia;

-Financial restrictions limiting access to EU primary and secondary capital markets for certain Russian banks and companies;

-Economic restrictions limiting Russia’s access to sensitive technologies and services that can be used for oil production and exploration.

As announced, the new package of sanctions is quite wide-ranging and intended to “hurt [Russia] a lot” in the words of High Representative Borrell.

First, the legal acts of February 23 (Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/260 and 2022/261 ; Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/267) formally designate individuals and entities which will be subject to individual restrictive measures, namely a travel ban and an asset freeze, in the Union. The new designations target:

-336 members of the Russian State Duma who voted for the recognition of the two self-proclaimed republics; and

-22 decision-makers involved in the illegal decision in addition to 4 entities (Internet Research Agency, Bank Rossiya, PROMSVYAZBANK and VEB) financially and materially supporting, or benefiting from them, those operating in the Russian defense sector and having played a role in the invasion such as senior military officers, as well as individuals engaging in a “disinformation war” against Ukraine.

The legal acts (Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/259 ; Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/265) also provided for a derogation from the application of the new restrictive measures targeting Bank Rossiya, PROMSVYAZBANK and VEB. The competent authorities of a Member State may authorize the release of certain frozen funds or economic resources belonging to these Russian banks, or the making available of certain funds or economic resources to those entities, under such conditions as the competent authorities deem appropriate and after having determined that such funds or economic resources are necessary for the termination by August 24, 2022, of operations, contracts, or other agreements, including correspondent banking relations, concluded with those entities before February 23, 2022.

Moreover, further financial restrictions limiting Russia’s access to the EU’s capital and financial markets will now apply (Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/262 ; Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/264) including notably:

-A prohibition to directly or indirectly purchase, sell, provide investment services for or assistance in the issuance of, or otherwise deal with transferable securities and money-market instruments issued after March 9, 2022 by Russia and its government, the Central Bank of Russia or any person or entity acting on behalf or at the direction of the said Central Bank;

-A prohibition to directly or indirectly make or be part of any arrangement to make any new loans or credit to the above-mentioned persons and entities;

-The current prohibitions applicable to securities giving the right to acquire or sell such transferable securities are extended to the securities giving rise to a cash settlement determined by reference to transferable securities.

Finally, the legal acts (Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/263 ; Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/266) introduce extensive trade restrictions targeting economic relations with the Covered Regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, on the model of those already targeting Crimea and Sevastopol including:

-A prohibition to import goods from the Covered Regions into the EU and to provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance as well as insurance and reinsurance related to such imports;

-A prohibition to (i) acquire any new, or extend any existing participation in ownership of, real estate in or located in the Covered Regions, including the acquisition in full of such an entity or the acquisition of shares therein, and other securities of a participating nature of such an entity; (ii) grant or be part of any arrangement to grant any loan or credit or otherwise provide financing, including equity capital, to an entity in the Covered Regions, or for the documented purpose of financing such an entity; (iii) create any joint venture in the Covered Regions or with an entity in the Covered Regions; and (iv) provide investment services directly related to these prohibited activities;

-A prohibition to sell, supply, transfer or export goods and technology listed in Annex II suited for use in the transport, telecommunications, energy, oil and gas and mineral sectors, to (i) any natural or legal person, entity or body in the Covered Regions, or (ii) for use in the Covered Regions;

-A prohibition to provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to the goods and technology listed in Annex II, or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of such items to any natural or legal person, entity or body in the Covered Regions or for use in the Covered Regions;

-A prohibition to provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial assistance related to the goods and technology listed in Annex II to any natural or legal person, entity or body in the Covered Regions or for use in the Covered Regions.

-A prohibition to provide technical assistance, or brokering, construction or engineering services directly relating to infrastructure in the specified territories in the mentioned sectors, independently of the origin of the goods and technology; and

-A prohibition to provide services directly related to tourism activities in the Covered Regions.

The new restrictive measures entered into force on February 23, the date of their publication in the Official Journal of the EU.

Potential Further Action

In reaction to the latest events, Olaf Scholz, Germany’s Chancellor, announced that Germany will halt the certification of Nord Stream 2, a gas pipeline designed to bring natural gas from Russia directly to Europe, a decision welcomed by both High Representative  Borrell and President Ursula von der Leyen.

On February 23, 2022, President Biden announced that he would direct OFAC to sanction Nord Stream 2 AG – a wholly owned subsidiary of Gazprom, which is already subject to U.S. sectoral sanctions – and its corporate officers.

The EU had warned it will leave the door open to the adoption of more wide-ranging political and economic sanctions at a later stage should Russia use “the newly signed pacts with the self-proclaimed “republics” as a pretext for taking further military steps against Ukraine.” As President Putin declared war against Ukraine and escalated military action on February 24, President Michel of the European Council urgently convened an extraordinary meeting of the European Council. EU leaders intend to meet later today to discuss further restrictive measures that “will impose massive and severe consequences on Russia for its action, in close coordination with our transatlantic partners.”

The Member States will also keep a close eye on Belarus, which is said to have “aided and supported the Russian actions” in Ukraine, and the EU is ready to enlarge the listing criteria “to target those who provide support or benefit from the Russian government – the oligarchs, in plain language,” if needed.

seed

U.S. Rape Seed Prices to Spike 74% to Over $320 per tonne in 2022

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘U.S. – Rape Or Colza Seed – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights‘. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

This year, the average rape seed price in the U.S. is forecast to pick up 74% y/y to a record $320 per tonne owing to reducing supply. Unfavourable weather in North Dakota adversely affected yields, decreasing the total rape seed output.

The average rape seed price in the U.S. is forecast to skyrocket from $184 per tonne in 2021 to a record $320 per tonne due to lower supply. Although the area under canola was expanded by 328K acres to 2.15M acres, poor weather in North Dakota led to yields reducing sharply last year. Dakota’s production accounts for 85% of total American rape output.

An expected decrease in rape imports to the U.S. will be another driver of the price growth. Much like in North Dakota, Canadian farmers saw poor yields and produced a record-low canola seed volume. This eventually will make Canada, which shapes 92% of U.S. rape seed imports, reduce exports to the country. Suppliers from Ukraine and the EU will likely expand their canola shipments to the U.S., filling the gap after reduced availability in North America.

U.S. Rape and Colza Seed Imports

In 2020, the amount of rape or colza seed imported into the U.S. expanded rapidly to 567K tonnes, with an increase of 12% compared with the year before. In value terms, supplies rose to $254M (IndexBox estimates).

Canada (524K tonnes) was the leading supplier of rape and colza seed to the U.S., with a 92% share of total imports. Moreover, rape and colza seed imports from Canada exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest supplier, Argentina (25K tonnes), more than tenfold.

In value terms, Canada ($226M) constituted the most significant rape and colza seed supplier to the U.S., comprising 89% of total imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Argentina ($13M), with a 5.3% share of total imports.

Top Rape and Colza Seed Suppliers Worldwide

Global exports of rape or colza seeds amounted to 25M tonnes in 2020.In value terms, supplies totaled $11.1B.

Canada was the largest exporter of rape or colza seed globally, with the volume of supplies recording 12M tonnes, which was approx. 47% of total exports in 2020. Ukraine (2.4M tonnes) took a 9.5% share (based on tonnes) of total exports, which put it in second place, followed by the Netherlands (7.8%) and Australia (6.7%). France (1,060K tonnes), Belgium (946K tonnes), Hungary (714K tonnes), Lithuania (675K tonnes), Russia (647K tonnes), Romania (542K tonnes), Latvia (501K tonnes) and Poland (410K tonnes) took a little share of total exports.

In value terms, Canada ($4.7B) remains the most significant rape and colza seed supplier worldwide, comprising 42% of global supplies. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Ukraine ($1B), with a 9.1% share of total exports. It was followed by the Netherlands, with a 7.9% share.

Source: IndexBox Platform

ceramic

Global Ceramic Sanitary Ware Trade Accelerates with U.S. Imports Surpassing Record $1.7B

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘World – Ceramic Sinks, Baths, Water Closet Pans And Similar Sanitary Fixtures – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights‘. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

Trade in the global ceramic sanitary ware market is gaining momentum. U.S. imports surpassed a record $1.7B last year, while India emerged as the fastest-growing buyer in the past decade.

In 2021, trade value on the global ceramic sanitary ware market totalled $7.8B. The U.S., the largest sanitary ware importer, purchased abroad ceramic products worth a record $1.7B, which was 3.2% more than a year earlier. Germany, ranking second, recorded an import value of $556M, a 5.6%-increase against 2020. The third-largest buyer worldwide, France also expanded purchases by 3.7% y/y to $409M.

The American housing boom shows signs of calming down; therefore, the demand for ceramic sinks, baths, water closet pans and similar sanitary fixtures in the U.S. is forecast to decelerate in several years. By contrast, in the EU, ceramic sanitary ware imports are expected to rise due to intensifying construction activity driven by renovation programs.

India became the fastest-growing importer of ceramic sanitary ware from 2007 to 2021. During that period, supplies to India rose from $21.4M to $123M. India’s sanitary ware imports should stay at the current level thanks to continuing the ‘Housing for all by 2022’ program.

Top Largest Exporters of Ceramic Sanitary Ware Worldwide

China was the leading exporting country with a volume of around 72M units, which recorded 41% of total exports. Mexico (11M units) held the second position in the ranking, followed by Thailand (8.3M units). All these countries together held near 11% share of total exports.

In value terms, China ($2.7B) remains the largest ceramic sanitary ware supplier worldwide, comprising 37% of global exports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by Germany ($563M), with a 7.9% share of total supplies. It was followed by Mexico, with a 5.5% share.

Source: IndexBox Platform

manufacturing

Is It Time to Reignite North American Manufacturing?

For the last four decades, manufacturing jobs have left North America. While this has led to lower prices for consumer goods, the supply chain issues laid bare over the last two years have demonstrated the unwritten costs inherent in this shift to foreign imports. Thousands of container ships are stranded in the Pacific Ocean, and many factories overseas are months (or even years) behind schedule. As a result, the cost of items has risen sharply for industries ranging from retail to automotive to construction, and caused brands to focus on how to reintroduce manufacturing to North America on a wider scale. 

The Plot of Every Springsteen Song  

Manufacturing jobs have been leaving North America since the 1970s, partly due to the perception that the industry has changed in ways North American workers wouldn’t like. But this is largely untrue — manufacturing jobs pay higher wages than comparable “blue collar” positions, and many come with benefits. Before the labor exodus, manufacturing jobs could support whole towns through a middle-class lifestyle. Showing the benefits of these rewarding industrial positions is North America’s best bet to reinvigorate the working middle class that fuels our consumer economy, while helping North American workers learn key technical skills for the new job market. But to do so, we’ll have to change those mistaken perceptions. 

Workers aren’t the only ones who would benefit from bringing manufacturing back. Smaller or midsize companies find themselves at a serious recruiting and production disadvantage, even before international shipping went awry. Unlike bigger companies who both have a larger stockpile of goods and talent and who can pay to expedite deliveries, smaller businesses are left adrift with their late arrivals. For these companies, investing in North American manufacturing can secure their supply chains and intellectual property while planting deeper roots in their communities. 

The Smart (Factory) Advantage  

Cutting-edge technology can give North American manufacturing the edge it needs to compete with inarguably cheaper services overseas. We are in the midst of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” wherein the manufacturing sector integrates ideas like artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, and Smart Factories. This increased use of machine learning and automation means the sorts of factories we can build in North America will be more productive than those overseas, while giving employees new opportunities to learn and grow. Those employees will be required more to maintain and program the machines than to assemble stock by hand, and the training they receive will also make for a more agile working class on the continent. 

Potholes and Speed Bumps  

Of course there will be challenges in reinvigorating North American manufacturing. Modern products, especially the electronics so central to our lives, require worker specialization. Even if a smart factory is automating every step, workers must know exactly what those steps are and how to ensure they’re being automated correctly. This advanced training is part of the overall cost of “scaling up” but in the end serve to illustrate the importance of manufacturing and the careers available for those who embrace the learning and development available in the industry. 

And speaking of supply, the manufacturing exodus has caused continental supply chains to atrophy, and these will need to be redeveloped to make delivery from North American factories to North American stores as fast as it is to those same stores from foreign factories. With today’s major trucker shortage, that rehabilitation is easier said than done.  

Embracing Challenges  

Many North American companies should seriously consider taking these hard but necessary steps to bring their manufacturing efforts back in-house. Not only would the investment pay off in greater independence and control over stock, but also reinvigorate industrial employment sectors in supply chains and manufacturing. While the current status quo is efficient when everything is going right, the past few years have proven how fast everything can go wrong. In those situations, the advantage lies with companies that can provide their own supply of goods and recruit and retain workers who have intimate knowledge of the products and processes.   

_________________________________________________________

Carl Schweihs is President and Chief Operating Officer of PeopleManagement, TrueBlue’s workforce management division specializing in onsite and contingent workforces. He leads three staffing businesses – Centerline Drivers, SIMOS Solutions and Staff Management | SMX, combining innovative, technology-based solutions with workforce strategy to help bridge talent gaps and prepare tomorrow’s supply chain talent for the future.   

biodiesel fuel

U.S. Biodiesel Market: Price Rally to Continue in 2022, Making Biofuel Uncompetitive

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘U.S. – Biodiesel – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends And Insights‘. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

Biodiesel prices in the U.S. soared by 59% y/y last year, making biofuel less competitive compared to fossil fuels. The average FOB price for American biodiesel B100 was $5.58 per gallon in November 2021, while the on-highway average price for conventional diesel was $3.74 per gallon.

Biodiesel prices skyrocketed in the U.S. in 2021, and their growth is to continue this year. According to USDA data, the average spot FOB export price for biodiesel B100 from the plants in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio reached $5.58 per gallon in November 2021, surging by 59% against 2020. The on-highway average price for conventional diesel soared by 41% y/y to $3.64 per gallon, remaining much lower than those of biodiesel.

The rising costs of vegetable raw materials and energy were the key reasons for the biodiesel price increase and will further propel the biofuel prices this year. According to World Bank’s forecast, the price for soybean oil, one of the significant raw inputs for biodiesel production, is set to grow by nearly 4% totalling $1,425 per tonne in 2022. The cost of fossil fuels is also projected to remain at the high level of 2021, which implies increased expenditures for energy in biodiesel manufacturing.

U.S. Biodiesel Exports by Country

Biodiesel exports from the U.S. surged to 476K tonnes in 2020, rising by 25% from the previous year’s figure. In value terms, supplies fell modestly to $381M (IndexBox estimates).

Canada (424K tonnes) was the leading destination for exports from the U.S., with an 89% share of total supplies. Moreover, exports to Canada exceeded the volume sent to the second major destination, Peru (19K tonnes), more than tenfold. The Netherlands (14K tonnes) held the third position in this ranking, with a 2.9% share.

In value terms, Canada ($351M) remains the key foreign market for biodiesel from the U.S., comprising 92% of total exports. The Netherlands ($9.9M) held the second position in the ranking, with a 2.6% share of total supplies. It was followed by Peru, with a 2.3% share.

Source: IndexBox Platform

orange juice

U.S. Orange Juice Prices Skyrocket on Low Output in Florida

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘World – Unconcentrated Orange Juice – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights‘. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

Instigated by low production in Florida, the monthly average retail price for 16 oz of orange juice concentrate in the U.S. peaked at $2.65 in December 2021. Although U.S. orange juice output is expected to drop, global production is forecast to rise by 11% to over 1.9M tonnes in 2022 due to high output in Brazil.

Orange juice prices skyrocketed in the U.S. on decreased production in Florida. The monthly average retail price for 16 oz of orange juice concentrate in the U.S. peaked at $2.65 in December 2021, rising by 14% from the figure of December 2020.

According to IndexBox estimated based on USDA data, U.S. orange juice production is forecast to drop by 6.5% y/y to 215K tonnes in 2022 owing to reduced output in Florida, where plantations were affected by citrus greening. U.S. ending stocks are projected to remain stable at the level of 246K tonnes this year.

Global production is expected to grow by 11% y/y to 1.9M tonnes thanks to increasing outputs in Brazil and Mexico, offsetting U.S. and EU production declines. World’s consumption is set to match production but continue its long’term downward trend.

Brazil’s orange juice production is projected to rise by 16% y/y to 1.1M tonnes in 2022. Mexico is forecast to produce 170K tonnes, 25% more than a year earlier.

EU orange juice production is set to fall by 10% y/y to 70K tonnes on reduced volumes of fruits available for processing. To compensate for the losses, the EU is projected to ramp up imports, primarily from Brazil.

Global Orange Juice Imports by Country

In 2020, global orange juice imports soared to 2.9M tonnes, jumping by 16% compared with 2019 figures. In value terms, orange juice supplies expanded rapidly to $2.1B (IndexBox estimates).

The countries with the highest levels of orange juice (single strength) imports in 2020 were Belgium (626K tonnes), France (498K tonnes) and the Netherlands (459K tonnes), together comprising 54% of the total imports. Germany (306K tonnes) ranks next with a 10% share, followed by the UK (9.4%), the U.S. (7.9%) and Canada (4.5%).

In value terms, France ($376M), Belgium ($284M) and the Netherlands ($241M) were the most significant orange juice (single strength) importing markets worldwide, with a combined 44% share of global imports.

In 2020, Belgium recorded the highest growth rates of imports, expanding purchases fourfold, while supplies into other countries experienced more modest paces of growth.

In 2020, the average orange juice (single strength) import price amounted to $704 per tonne, shrinking by -7.9% against the previous year. There were significant differences in the average prices amongst the major importing countries. In 2020, the country with the highest price was Canada, while Belgium was amongst the lowest.

Source: IndexBox Platform

capacitors

Germany Expands Electrical Capacitor Imports 40% to Over $2B

IndexBox has just published a new report: ‘Germany – Electrical Capacitors – Market Analysis, Forecast, Size, Trends and Insights’. Here is a summary of the report’s key findings.

Germany, the second-largest importer in the global electrical capacitor market, increased purchases last year. In Q1-Q3 2021, its electrical capacitor imports totalled $2B, rising by 40% compared to the same period of 2020.

During Q1-Q3 2021, Germany imported electrical capacitors worth $2B, 40% more than in the same period a year earlier. Japan, China and South Korea remain the major providers of electrical capacitors to Germany. In Q1-Q3 2021, imports from China amounted to $333M, soaring by 55% against the same period in 2020. During that time, Japan expanded capacitor exports to Germany by 41% to $597M, while shipments from Korea surged by 34% to $147M.

Germany Electrical Capacitor Imports by Country

In 2020, the volume of electrical capacitors imported into Germany shrank markedly to 29K tonnes, which is down by -16.9% compared with 2019. In value terms, supplies fell markedly to $2B (IndexBox estimates).

Japan ($667M) constituted the largest supplier of capacitors to Germany, comprising 34% of total imports. The second position in the ranking was occupied by China ($319M), with a 16% share of total purchases. It was followed by South Korea, with a 7.7% share.

Overview of Global Electrical Capacitor Imports

Global capacitor imports totalled $31B in 2020. Multilayer ceramic capacitors ($19.1B) constituted the largest type of electrical capacitors imported worldwide, comprising 62% of global supplies. Aluminium electrolytic capacitors ($5B), with a 16% share of global imports, took second position in the ranking. Other types of capacitors comprised 22% of total supplies.

The largest capacitor importing markets were China ($8.8B), Hong Kong SAR ($5.4B) and Germany ($2B), together comprising 52% of global imports. The U.S., South Korea, Mexico, Singapore, Viet Nam, Malaysia, Thailand, the Czech Republic, Hungary and India lagged somewhat behind, comprising a further 29%.

Source: IndexBox Platform

wagner circle third-party logistics market

A Comprehensive Guide to Picking a Third-Party Logistics (3PL) Partner for Your Business

The right third-party logistics partner can help your organization improve customer service, control costs, and increase efficiency. It’s important to properly vet possible logistics partners to ensure your brand and services are well represented and the partner can deliver according to your needs.

Establish Communication

Logistics have gotten more sophisticated in recent years, and logistics partners need to maintain high levels of communication and data sharing between the provider and the company. It’s important to find a third-party logistics provider that you can trust and one that shares your brand’s culture and values.

Do Your Due Diligence

Not all logistics providers are created equal. If you’re selecting a new provider or changing to a different provider, it’s important to look for logistics partners with the resources and capabilities you need to reach your business goals. Providers should also be able to integrate with your existing systems, or be willing to work with you to find an agreeable solution.

Ideally, look for outstanding service across financial history, brand stability, experience working in your industry, experience in specific geographic regions, owned vs. rented assets, and compliance with regulations.

Along with talking to the providers themselves, do outside research and read reviews from other companies that worked with them. If possible, ask the provider to connect you with satisfied customers. If they stand behind their service, they will be happy to showcase happy customers.

Look for Diverse Offerings

Logistics providers typically specialize in a few domains, including commodity services, industry services, and logistics services. Their offerings can range from sourcing, shipping, transporting, and customs management to multi-function supply chain management and oversight for specific industries or specialization in particular sections of the supply chain.

Service add-ons are valuable to both parties. A single provider can supply several services to make your supply chain scalable and seamless. You can look for value-added amenities like IT asset management, quality control, and high-tech logistics solutions. Some common service add-ons may include rush order or emergency order handling, product kitting, reverse logistics programs, and returned material authorization agreements.

Choose Partners with Advanced Technology

A third-party logistics provider’s IT infrastructure is vital to your needs and their own. Your possible provider should own and operate the contemporary technology needed for their side of the partnership, including warehouse management systems, fleet tracking systems, and inventory analytics and controls. You could also look for order fulfillment systems, freight theft or damage management, and wares tracking using RFID or EDI.

The logistics industry is undergoing rapid change. It’s important to find providers with advanced technology solutions to address your needs as the business evolves.

Look for Customization

Depending on your industry, you may need additional customization options for your business. An experienced third-party logistics provider can help you optimize inventory and deliver excellent service for your customers. Building to order, rather than relying on stock, allows you to reduce inventory and production costs.

Opt for Omnichannel Expertise

Omnichannel is essential in the modern business world and necessary for enhanced customer experience. Your third-party logistics provider should understand the ins and outs of omnichannel commerce and how to provide that exceptional experience for customers.

Look for partners with repeatable business models, proven performance with previous customers, and experience with your business type, industry, or customer base. Depending on your needs, you may want to opt for a dedicated provider that focuses on one part of the supply chain or specific product types.

Work with a Network of Locations

Effective logistics partners have strategic network configuration with optimized distribution centers. It’s vital to understand the third-party logistics provider’s warehousing asset ecosystem, such as rented or proprietary storage facilities. If your products will need multiple storage stops on domestic or international routes, you will need a provider that owns and manages these warehouses for quality control and security.

You should also investigate more details about the warehousing assets, including the facility sizes and capacities, scalability, and future expansion plans. Are the warehouses close to ports, airports, highways, and railways? How many trailers and containers do they typically handle in a day? Is there anything you need to be aware of regarding service during the busy seasons or in the event of high shipping demands?

Prioritize Excellence in Service

An experienced logistics partner is dedicated to service excellence and quality management. Your third-party logistics partner will have a significant impact on how your own business and customer service functions, so you want to be sure you’re choosing a provider that’s committed to delivering for you and improving their own product.

A provider with a dedication to service excellence will continue to optimize their own processes and will look for opportunities to implement better solutions whenever possible. They should be invested in their service and its success, like you are to your own company and product, and always looking to excel.

Find Brand Alignment

Your logistics partner reflects on your brand and impacts your business. To ensure your brand and your vision are represented, you need to look for a provider with a long history of success, adherence to compliance and regulations, financial stability, and a continued interest in investing in the company, facilities, equipment, systems, and resources for optimal logistics.

With the right partner on your site, you can grow into a solid relationship with a third-party logistics provider that can grow and evolve with your business. While switching to different providers occurs as business needs change, it’s much simpler to find the right provider at the start and work on developing a long-term partnership.

Key Takeaways

The supply-chain management industry has undergone radical changes in the last decade. Many third-party logistics providers emerged on the market in response to this boom and the increasing opportunities with a global marketplace. Not every provider has the tools, resources, and expertise to deliver for you, however, so do your due diligence and find a provider with a positive reputation, proven processes, and a willingness to adapt and grow. 

__________________________________________________________________

David is CEO of DB Schenker USA, a 150-year-old leading global freight forwarder and 3PL provider. David Buss is responsible for all P&L aspects in the United States, which is made up of over 7,000 employees located throughout 39 forwarding locations and 55 logistics centers.

sustainability

Stakeholder Influence on Sustainable Supply Chain Management in 2022

Sustainability is the new catchphrase in processes around the development of goods or products. The aim is to protect the earth so that future generations can enjoy it. It requires a concerted effort to avoid anything that can damage the environment. 

The UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) highlight 17 key areas of concern. These include clean water and sanitation, clean and affordable energy, and reduced inequality. 

And, the world is already adopting sustainability. There is, for example, a shift towards using renewable energy sources. 

Solar and wind are replacing the need for fossil fuel. Industries must be more stringent about not polluting the environment during manufacturing. 

It is without a doubt a process that requires the input of all stakeholders within the supply chain. That is why it is important to understand how they influence supply chain sustainability. 

Understanding Supply Chain Sustainability 

Supply chain sustainability is any step to reduce negative impacts. It covers both the environment and humans. 

It looks at the whole supply chain process. That is, from the raw material stage to the delivery of the final product to customers. 

These include manufacturing and production, storage, and transportation. So it is not only about minimizing harm from the process. It should also include the positive impact on the communities. 

The advantages of embracing sustainability are many. These include positive brand perceptions amongst customers. Investor relations can also improve because of sustainability efforts. On the other hand, a negative media report on supply chain practices can hurt stock prices. 

Some investors would even cut ties with the company. It will depend on how strongly they believe in sustainability. And, of course, there is the aspect of compliance with regulatory guidelines.

The Impact of Sustainability on Stakeholders 

The term stakeholders cover a wide variety of people. They may, directly or indirectly, influence a company’s development plans and strategies. 

These include employees, customers, shareholders, and the community at large. And within these groups, there are two distinctions. There are the primary stakeholders who have a complex relationship with the company. They do have some similarities in expectations, rights, and responsibilities. 

Secondary stakeholders can influence the company. But, they are not essential for its continued existence. 

A study on how stakeholders can influence sustainability in the supply chain shared interesting insights.

-Pressure from stakeholders on sustainability can result in greater awareness. 

-Stakeholders have a critical role to play in the adoption of sustainable goals. 

-The impact of stakeholders is dissimilar in key decision areas. 

-The sustainability issue influences the weight of what the stakeholders have to say. It could, for instance, have more impact depending on whether the issue is social or environmental. 

Without a doubt, stakeholders have a crucial role to play in sustainability. After all, the organizations depend on them for business success. 

And, there is the important role of employee or worker feedback. How do they feel about what the company is doing with regard to sustainability? Are they facing issues around human rights or labor practices they would want to share? 

But, a huge challenge remains. Many workers may not be willing to speak up for fear of reprisal. Finding a way to allow them to communicate anonymously can help. 

Some companies will use suggestion boxes. But, employees may shy away for fear of watchful eyes. To counter this, tech-forward companies are automating this feedback process by investing in tools like Ulula. 

Ulula is a mobile-enabled platform that can help with anonymous surveys. It sends digital questionnaires to the stakeholders’ phones. Thus, it enables real-time data collection, while respecting the respondents’ preference for privacy.

The anonymity helps in collecting more honest feedback. And, the system can identify fraudulent activity, thus ensuring better data quality.

Clarifying The Role of Stakeholders in Influencing Sustainability

The role of stakeholders in influencing sustainability has three characteristics. These are power, legitimacy, and urgency. Stakeholders have the critical role of control and accountability. 

Accountability makes the company liable for processes that happen within the supply chain. Control is the ability of the stakeholders to regulate some of the company’s activities. 

Let’s explore these by looking at some stakeholders. 

The Government or Regulatory Authorities 

Take the example of the government as a stakeholder. They have power, legitimacy, and urgency. They can pressure the company into sustainable practices. 

Non-adherence to sustainability guidelines can lead to the loss of operating licenses. The company can also find itself facing stiff penalties from the regulatory authorities. 

Customers 

Let’s start by saying that modern customers are very conscious. They know the important role of sustainability and are more demanding of it. 

Customers have a great deal of power. Their influence can be the reason for a company adopting sustainable practices. Like the government, they have power, legitimacy and can create a sense of urgency. 

Take the example of a community demonstrating against pollution by a company. The resulting pressure can force the company into taking the right sustainable action. 

Industry giants like Kellogg’s, Coca-Cola, Unilever, Nestle, and PepsiCo understand this well. Behind the brand’s campaign allowed customers to demand sustainability from companies. These included demanding greater accountability from those within the supply chain. 

The customers also wanted the ten drink companies to tackle gender inequality. Other areas of interest were climate change and land grabbing. Many of the companies changed their process due to the campaign. 

They established zero tolerance to unethical practices within the supply chain. Others like General Mill and Kellogg’s paid keener attention to reducing emissions.

The Media 

What about the media as a secondary stakeholder? Well, you may have heard that the pen is mightier than the sword. They have power, legitimacy and can create urgency. 

The media are a key driver when it comes to sustainability. Not only can they get the companies to change their practices. 

But, the customers look to them for information. Do you know up to 60% of customers consider the company’s sustainability practices when purchasing a product? 

One-third of customers have no problem paying premium prices for sustainable items. It could explain why organic products, despite being more expensive, are so popular. 

Final Thoughts 

We all want to leave our kids and their kids a healthy environment. And that, in its simplest, is what sustainability demands. In fact, embracing sustainability within the supply chain may no longer be a choice. That is, if you want your company to remain relevant. 

You see, modern customers are very demanding of ethical and clean processes. And the same applies to other stakeholders within the supply chain.