BIS Allows U.S. Companies to Work with Huawei on Standards

Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade

BIS Allows U.S. Companies to Work with Huawei on Standards

June 26th, 2020 Cortney O’Toole Morgan, Grant Leach and Camron Greer Leave a comment

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) published a notice in the Federal Register announcing a rule change effective June 18, 2020, which amends the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) to allow for the release of certain technology to Huawei Technologies, Co., Ltd. and 114 of its non-U.S. affiliates designated on the Entity List without a license “if such release is made for the purpose of contributing to the revision or development of a ‘standard’ in a ‘standards organization.’”

Despite being added to the Entity List by BIS in 2019, Huawei and its foreign affiliates still participate in several international standards organizations in which U.S. companies also participate. BIS states in its notice “[a]s international standards serve as the building blocks for product development and help ensure functionality, interoperability, and safety of the products, it is important to U.S. technological leadership that U.S. companies be able to work in these bodies in order to ensure that U.S. standards proposals are fully considered.”

As a result of Huawei’s entity list designation, BIS has received questions regarding the applicability of the EAR in the context of standards-setting or development. On August 19, 2019, BIS issued a “General Advisory Opinion Concerning Prohibited Activities in the Standards Setting or Development Context When a Listed Entity is Involved”, which addressed the applicability of certain types of releases. With the issuance of this new interim final rule, that previous guidance has been rescinded.

The new rule removes certain licensing requirements imposed by the original listing and removes the need to determine the application of controls to those releases. The interim final rule revises ninety-three entries, which list Huawei and its 114 foreign affiliates by changing the text in the Licensing Requirement column from “For all items subject to the EAR (See §744.11 of the EAR)” to “For all items subject to the EAR (see § 744.11 of the EAR), EXCEPT for technology subject to the EAR that is designated as EAR99, or controlled on the Commerce Control List for anti-terrorism reasons only, when released to members of a ‘‘standards organization’’ (see § 772.1) for the purpose of contributing to the revision or development of a ‘‘standard’’ (see § 772.1).’’

According to the notice, the definition of a “standard” for the purpose of this rule can be found in the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) Circular A-119. BIS welcomes comments from interested parties on the impact of the rule change on or before August 17, 2020.

________________________________________________________________

Cortney O’Toole Morgan is a Washington D.C.-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell LLP. She leads the firm’s International Trade & Supply Chain group.

Grant Leach is an Omaha-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell LLP focusing on international trade, export controls, trade sanctions and anti-corruption compliance.

Camron Greer is an Assistant Trade Analyst in Husch Blackwell LLP’s Washington D.C. office.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Special Reports

The Real Digital Transformation In HR Tech: How Global Leaders Can Manage

June 25th, 2020 Mostafa Sayyadi Leave a comment

All executives across the globe should embrace HR technology to represent a complete answer to the need for innovation and continuous learning in today’s global market environment. In doing this, first executives must have an understanding of the concept of knowledge in companies. To analyze knowledge in organizations, there is an important taxonomy of organizational knowledge that needs to be discussed. The following section addresses this taxonomy in depth to set the record straight upon the importance of HR Technology.

Human, Social, and Structured Knowledge

Two prominent scholars that are well known in the Academy of Management, one of the largest leadership and management organizations in the world by the names of David De Long and Liam Fahey argue that knowledge can also be classified using individual, social, and structured dimensions. Executives can categorize followers based on their human knowledge which focuses on individual knowledge and manifests itself in an individual’s competencies and skills. This type of knowledge includes both tacit and explicit knowledge. David De Long and Liam Fahey suggest that this form of knowledge comprises the skills gained by individual experiences, and learned as rules and instructions formulated by executives for followers to use as a guide.

Social knowledge, on the other hand, is categorized as tacit knowledge that is shared so that it can become collective knowledge. Executives can use structured knowledge that emerges informal language from annual reports, memos, and other means of communication to be represented as statements, and is considered explicit knowledge. Therefore, consultants can classify knowledge in this way so that it emerges at three levels—-individual (i.e. human), group (i.e. social) and organizational (i.e. structured).

Executives can implement HR technology to create conducive organizational climates that foster organizational learning in which individual knowledge is shared and utilized. Unshared individual knowledge is like lettuce in the refrigerator—if shared, everyone enjoys it, if not, it could not have any use. In the next section, I present a factor that executives have embraced—–HR technology.

Managing Knowledge and Innovation through HR Technology

HR technology is an internal resource that increasingly facilitates HR business processes and improves the search for information and knowledge around the company. For example, HRIS (Human Resource Information System) software enables companies to overcome space constraints in communications and promotes the depth and range of knowledge access. HRIS software can be also employed to enhance the conversations and knowledge exchanges between organizational members. Three prominent scholars in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill by the names of Andrew Gold, Arvind Malhotra and Albert Segars argue that this knowledge shared through technology could positively contribute to knowledge integration. Executives can apply HRIS software to develop and disseminate information throughout the company which can improve the search for information in order to adapt to today’s uncertain business environment.

HCM (Human Capital Management) software is an important resource for strategic planning for knowledge integration. Robert Grant highlights knowledge integration as a major reason for the existence of a company. This software enhances learning and sharing information by providing access to accurate information and knowledge. HCM software also stimulates new knowledge generation, through transferring knowledge to other members and departments. Knowledge sharing itself can in turn develop more innovative climates and facilitate knowledge creation in organizations. HCM software can, therefore, play a crucial role in improving knowledge creation and transference. Executives can use HCM software to develop an effective learning culture that disseminates knowledge around the company.

HRMS (Human Resource Management System) software can be also used by executives to facilitate of the knowledge creation process through providing the essential infrastructures to store and retrieve organizational knowledge. HRMS software encourages executives to embark on technological facilities to provide new and possible solutions for solving organizational problems and transferring individuals’ knowledge to other members and departments and improving knowledge capturing, storing, and accumulating to achieve organizational goals.

In Conclusion

This article advances the current literature on HR technology and knowledge management by offering novel insights into how better HR technology leads to better knowledge management. Executives can apply HR technology in their decision-making processes in order to investigate various alternatives and options.

Success in today’s global business environment can be more effective when HR technology is effectively applied and widely used to achieve a higher degree of competitiveness. Importantly, knowledge management performance at all levels of the company is positively associated with using HR technology and setting up useful software and systems to enhance strategic decision-making. Executives can implement HR technology by employing IT professionals and allocating more budgetary resources to share and utilize knowledge within companies.

_______________________________________________________________

References

Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. 2001. Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185-214.

Grant, R.M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109-122.

Long, D.W.D., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113-127.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

Global Canned Meat Market Grows For the Fourth Consecutive Year

June 25th, 2020 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

In 2019, the global canned meat market increased by 2.9% to $245.5B, rising for the fourth year in a row after two years of decline. The market value increased at an average annual rate of +3.2% over the period from 2007 to 2019; the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2008 with an increase of 13% against the previous year. Global consumption peaked in 2019 and is likely to see steady growth in the immediate term.

Consumption By Country

China (10M tonnes) constituted the country with the largest volume of canned meat consumption, comprising approx. 18% of total volume. Moreover, canned meat consumption in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest consumer, India (3.8M tonnes), threefold. The third position in this ranking was occupied by Russia (2.1M tonnes), with a 3.6% share.

In China, canned meat consumption increased at an average annual rate of +1.1% over the period from 2007-2019. In the other countries, the average annual rates were as follows: India (+2.7% per year) and Russia (+1.7% per year).

In value terms, China ($45.8B) led the market, alone. The second position in the ranking was occupied by India ($16.7B). It was followed by Japan.

The countries with the highest levels of canned meat per capita consumption in 2019 were the UK (18 kg per person), Japan (16 kg per person) and Germany (15 kg per person).

Market Forecast 2019-2030

Driven by increasing demand for canned meat worldwide, the market is expected to continue an upward consumption trend over the next decade. Market performance is forecast to decelerate, expanding with an anticipated CAGR of +0.2% for the period from 2019 to 2030, which is projected to bring the market volume to 58M tonnes by the end of 2030.

Production 2007-2019

For the fifth consecutive year, the global market recorded growth in production of canned meat, which increased by 1.6% to 57M tonnes in 2019. The total output volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.8% over the period from 2007 to 2019; the trend pattern remained relatively stable, with only minor fluctuations being observed in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2016 with an increase of 3.3% against the previous year. Over the period under review, global production hit record highs in 2019 and is likely to see gradual growth in the immediate term.

In value terms, canned meat production rose modestly to $1,808.7B in 2019 estimated in export prices. The total output value increased at an average annual rate of +3.9% from 2007 to 2019; the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period.

Production By Country

China (11M tonnes) remains the largest canned meat producing country worldwide, comprising approx. 19% of total volume. Moreover, canned meat production in China exceeded the figures recorded by the second-largest producer, India (3.8M tonnes), threefold. Russia (2.1M tonnes) ranked third in terms of total production with a 3.6% share.

From 2007 to 2019, the average annual rate of growth in terms of volume in China totaled +1.0%. The remaining producing countries recorded the following average annual rates of production growth: India (+2.7% per year) and Russia (+1.8% per year).

Exports 2007-2019

In 2019, approx. 3.9M tonnes of canned meat were exported worldwide; standing approx. at the year before. The total export volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.7% over the period from 2007 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2011 when exports increased by 8.9% against the previous year. Over the period under review, global exports hit record highs in 2019 and are expected to retain growth in years to come.

In value terms, canned meat exports rose modestly to $16.9B (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. The total export value increased at an average annual rate of +3.9% from 2007 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period.

Exports by Country

Thailand (632K tonnes), China (432K tonnes), Germany (358K tonnes), Poland (275K tonnes), the U.S. (272K tonnes), the Netherlands (236K tonnes), Brazil (217K tonnes), Belgium (149K tonnes), Ireland (145K tonnes), Denmark (144K tonnes) and France (139K tonnes) represented roughly 76% of total exports of canned meat in 2019. Italy (78K tonnes) held a relatively small share of total exports.

From 2007 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Poland, while shipments for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Thailand ($2.9B), China ($1.9B) and Germany ($1.7B) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of exports in 2019, together accounting for 38% of global exports. These countries were followed by the U.S., Poland, the Netherlands, Brazil, Ireland, Belgium, France, Denmark and Italy, which together accounted for a further 42%.

Export Prices by Country

In 2019, the average canned meat export price amounted to $4,278 per tonne, therefore, remained relatively stable against the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2019, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.2%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 when the average export price increased by 12% year-to-year. Global export price peaked at $4,550 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2019, export prices remained at a lower figure.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of origin; the country with the highest price was Ireland ($5,652 per tonne), while Poland ($3,607 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by China, while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Imports 2007-2019

In 2019, purchases abroad of canned meat decreased by -0.4% to 3.8M tonnes for the first time since 2015, thus ending a three-year rising trend. The total import volume increased at an average annual rate of +2.6% over the period from 2007 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2011 with an increase of 12% y-o-y. Over the period under review, global imports hit record highs at 3.8M tonnes in 2018, and then dropped in the following year.

In value terms, canned meat imports declined to $16.3B (IndexBox estimates) in 2019. The total import value increased at an average annual rate of +3.6% over the period from 2007 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded throughout the analyzed period.

Imports by Country

Japan (723K tonnes) and the UK (584K tonnes) represented roughly 34% of total imports of canned meat in 2019. Germany (235K tonnes) occupied the next position in the ranking, followed by the Netherlands (192K tonnes) and China, Hong Kong SAR (181K tonnes). All these countries together held near 16% share of total imports. The following importers – France (153K tonnes), the U.S. (146K tonnes), Canada (128K tonnes), Belgium (104K tonnes), Ireland (102K tonnes), Denmark (77K tonnes) and Sweden (57K tonnes) – together made up 20% of total imports.

From 2007 to 2019, the biggest increases were in China, Hong Kong SAR, while purchases for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, Japan ($3.2B), the UK ($2.5B) and Germany ($1.1B) appeared to be the countries with the highest levels of imports in 2019, with a combined 41% share of global imports. The U.S., the Netherlands, France, Canada, China, Hong Kong SAR, Belgium, Ireland, Denmark and Sweden lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 32%.

In terms of the main importing countries, China, Hong Kong SAR recorded the highest rates of growth with regard to the value of imports, over the period under review, while purchases for the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Import Prices by Country

The average canned meat import price stood at $4,294 per tonne in 2019, flattening at the previous year. Over the period from 2007 to 2019, it increased at an average annual rate of +1.0%. The most prominent rate of growth was recorded in 2008 when the average import price increased by 12% y-o-y. Over the period under review, average import prices attained the peak figure at $4,656 per tonne in 2014; however, from 2015 to 2019, import prices failed to regain the momentum.

Prices varied noticeably by the country of destination; the country with the highest price was the U.S. ($6,862 per tonne), while China, Hong Kong SAR ($3,121 per tonne) was amongst the lowest.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of prices was attained by the U.S., while the other global leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

Archives, Executive Education, Global Trade Daily

IS THERE A BRIGHT FUTURE FOR TRADE IN EDUCATION?

June 25th, 2020 Alice Calder Leave a comment

American University Blues

The arrival of COVID-19 sent students packing mid-semester as many universities continue to mull over options for restarting in-person classes in the fall. Many international students who had returned home for the spring break were unable to return to the United States to finish out their studies.

Travel restrictions and changing student visa rules will have international applicants questioning whether to pursue studies abroad. Universities are working to increase their capabilities to deliver courses virtually but online classes may be less attractive when part of the allure and prestige of American universities is associated with the campus experience. Prospective foreign students may also decline to enroll if they cannot network to secure post-degree employment in the United States.

This is happening against a backdrop of declining new enrollment in American universities by foreign students after a decade-long boom. New international student enrollment has decreased year on year since the 2016/2017 academic year, though the overall number of international students in the United States has increased as more students take advantage of Optional Practical Training, which allows them to stay under their student visa to work for one year.

Education as an Export for International Students

During the 2017/2018 academic year, American educational institutions hosted over one million students. When foreign students come to the United States to study, those institutions are exporting their educational services. Perhaps surprisingly, educational service exports ranked 5^th among all U.S. services exports, valued at $45.3 billion in 2018, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Services trade can be described as supplied in one or more of four ways: the service itself travels over a border but the provider and consumer remain in their home countries; the consumer travels across a border to receive a service; the provider establishes a commercial presence in another country to provide the service; and/or, the service provider travels to another country to provide the service.

Educational services – to varying degrees – are being provided today in all four of these ways. Of course, the most traditional approach is for students to enroll and travel to attend classes in educational institutions abroad for a semester, a year or for a full degree. To a lesser extent, professors may travel to campuses overseas to teach in residence.

As communications technologies improve and become more widely used, virtual education is increasing in popularity. Think: distance learning, corporate training online and expansion of educational software and platforms. Lastly, it has become much more popular in recent years for large universities to open satellite campuses overseas.

Limited Trade Commitments

In the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), members have taken commitments to create more market access, enabling the expansion of global educational exports. However, education services still rank among the least committed of all sectors subject to GATS coverage (after audio-visual and energy services).

WTO members are not required to make any commitments to liberalize their markets for educational services and GATS provides exemptions for members to avoid commitments where services are supplied “in the exercise of governmental authority,” or in other words, providing a public service. Furthermore, where educational services are covered in a country’s commitments, they may maintain some limitations on foreign investment, or set limits on the number of service suppliers, on the total value of service transactions or assets, or other types of limitations such as ensuring that quality standards are maintained.

U.S. is Still Top Destination

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that 8 million students will be studying abroad by 2025.

The United States has long held the number one spot for students seeking an international education. According to the Institute of International Education’s 2019 Open Doors Report, the United States played host to over 30,000 students per year during the 1950s. By the late 1990s, that number reached 500,000 and reached an all-time high of 1,095,299 students in the 2018/2019 academic year, including undergraduates, graduate-level students, and students undertaking a one- or two-year post-graduation experience under their student visa.

The U.S. education system attracts students from virtually every country of the world. China sends the most students to the United States by far. India is a not-so-close second.

As a percentage of total students in higher education, however, the United States has relatively fewer international students than many other countries, at only 5.5 percent. By comparison, Australia’s average foreign student body is 28.0 percent, Canada’s 21.4 percent, the U.K.’s 20.9 percent, France’s 12.8 percent, and Russia’s 8.6 percent.

The Foreign Student Premium

It pays for universities and governments to attract international students. Aside from the cultural value, diversity of perspectives and ideas they bring, international students studying at U.S. colleges and universities contributed $41 billion in revenue and supported 458,290 jobs during the 2018/19 academic year, according to NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

International students in the United States, as well as in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, pay on average double the tuition fees paid by domestic students. In the United States, this is largely due to the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition at public universities, but in other countries, international students are charged separate – often much higher – tuition rates.

In addition to padding university budgets, international students bring additional spending to local shops and restaurants, and tend to travel in their host country, helping to support jobs in the community and through tourism. For example, NAFSA found that international students in the top two enrolling states, California and New York, contributed $6.8 billion and $5.3 billion to each state’s economy, and supported 74,814 and 59,586 jobs, respectively.

Graduating to the Next Level?

Educational service exports are facing some serious headwinds. If schools want to keep hold of the huge benefits international students bring, they must incentivize new student enrollment and ensure safe returns to campus. One country doing just that is Australia, which is trialing a pilot scheme to gradually reintroduce international students, whose presence in the country supports 259,000 jobs.

In addition to delivering their educational services on campus, the global health pandemic is forcing universities to adapt and innovate to deliver education online. The mainstreaming of distance learning may also create opportunities for more providers to offer educational services across international borders. We’re all learning in this new environment.

__________________________________________________________

Alice Calder received her MA in Applied Economics at GMU. Originally from the UK, where she received her BA in Philosophy and Political Economy from the University of Exeter, living and working internationally sparked her interest in trade issues as well as the intersection of economics and culture.

This article originally appeared on TradeVistas.org. Republished with permission.

Archives, Global Trade Daily, Imports/Exports

The EU Honey Market Slipped Back Slightly to $1.4B

June 24th, 2020 IndexBox Leave a comment

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

In 2019, after two years of growth, there was significant decline in the EU honey market, when its value decreased by -6.1% to $1.4B. The market value increased at an average annual rate of +3.8% over the period from 2007 to 2019; however, the trend pattern indicated some noticeable fluctuations being recorded in certain years. The pace of growth was the most pronounced in 2008 with an increase of 17% y-o-y. Over the period under review, the market attained the peak level at $1.5B in 2018, and then declined in the following year.

Consumption by Country

The countries with the highest volumes of honey consumption in 2019 were Germany (69K tonnes), France (52K tonnes) and the UK (45K tonnes), with a combined 38% share of total consumption. These countries were followed by Spain, Poland, Italy, Greece, Romania, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Czech Republic and Croatia, which together accounted for a further 47%.

From 2007 to 2019, the biggest increases were in Croatia, while honey consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

In value terms, the largest honey markets in the European Union were Germany ($214M), France ($184M) and Greece ($133M), with a combined 37% share of the total market. These countries were followed by the UK, Italy, Spain, Romania, Poland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Portugal, which together accounted for a further 45%.

The countries with the highest levels of honey per capita consumption in 2019 were Croatia (2.59 kg per person), Greece (2.47 kg per person) and Romania (1.13 kg per person).