UNCTAD report on COVID-19’s global impact

In its latest assessment of the impact of COVID-19 on global investment, UNCTAD found that global FDI flows fell by 49% in the first half of 2020, with the biggest decline in Europe and the US. Lockdowns across the world slowed existing investment, and fears of a recession resulted in a 37% drop in new project announcements.

Read the full assessment in the October issue of Investment Trends Monitor: https://unctad.org/…/official…/diaeiainf2020d4_en.pdf

Study says Taiwan Disproves Idea that Either Health or the Economy Must Suffer

Taiwan is one of several countries that clearly disproves the argument that governments must choose between protecting people’s health and protecting the economy in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic, an Oxford University researcher said. In a study posted on Our World in Data, an online journal run by the Oxford Martin School, researcher Joe Hasell compared COVID-19 death rates in 38 countries with their GDP data.

Hasell examined the scale of the pandemic’s economic impact by comparing second-quarter GDP figures with the same quarter last year. Taiwan was the least affected nation, with a decline of 0.6% in economic growth, followed by South Korea’s fall of 3% and Lithuania’s 3.7%, the study showed. Spain, the UK and Tunisia experienced declines of more than 20%, which Hasell said was “four to five times larger than any other quarterly fall on record for these countries.” The worst economic outcome was in Peru, which reported a year-on-year fall of 30.2%, the study said. Hasell compared the GDP data with the countries’ number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths per 1 million people as of August 30.

There was no correlation between lower death rates and higher declines in GDP, the study said. “Contrary to the idea of a tradeoff” between health and the economy, countries that had the most severe economic downturns “are generally among the countries with the highest COVID-19 death rate,” according to Hasell. For instance, research showed that in Peru, Spain and the UK, the COVID-19 death rates were relatively high at 867.62, 620.49 and 611.29 per 1 million people. Taiwan, South Korea and Lithuania had significantly lower death rates of 0.29, 6.3 and 31.59 respectively. However, the study did not look into contributing factors such as exposure to previous coronaviruses, which might have boosted a population’s alertness or immunity, and the speed of their response. It did not compare healthcare standards, or address cultural or political factors that might have contributed to or hindered pandemic responses. In some cases, countries with similar GDP declines had death rates that varied widely, the study said.

Comparing the US and Sweden with Denmark and Poland, all of which had economic contractions of 8 to 9%, Hasell said that the US and Sweden had five to 10 times more deaths per 1 million people than Denmark and Poland, suggesting the influence of additional factors. One thing the study seems to indicate is that countries that took effective action not only saved lives, but also their economy, he said. “As well as saving lives, countries controlling the outbreak effectively may have adopted the best economic strategy too,” Hasell said. China was excluded from the final data because the outbreak and economic downturn there began earlier, the study said. GDP growth in China fell by 6.8% in the first quarter, but has bounced back, growing 3.2% in the second quarter. China contained the virus’ spread relatively quickly, and the huge size of its domestic economy meant that it was not heavily dependent on trade and tourism to boost economic growth, the study said.

CNA

CACCI members invited to Financial Times (FT) Global Boardroom

CACCI herewith forward an invitation to attend the Financial Times (FT) Global Boardroom 2nd Edition, of which CACCI is a Supporting Partner, to be held on November 11-13.

With over 50,000 people from 150 countries registering for the inaugural Global Boardroom in May 2020, the second Global Boardroom to be held in November will expand further into different regions of the world, with in-depth interviews and panel discussions structured around a number of key themes: (1) Economics and geopolitics; (2) Rethinking business; (3) Disrupted industries; (4) Health; (5) Tech; (6) Banking, finance and investment; (7) Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance; (8) Emerging markets; and (9) Deal-making.  The event is a series of live online conversations between top FT journalists and the policy-makers, CEOs, investors and other thought leaders who are stepping up to these unprecedented challenges and driving change around the world due to the coronavirus.

The event introduction can be downloaded HERE for your perusal.

For more information on the event and registration, please visit the following website: https://globalboardroom.ft.com/?spoor-id=ckfbwkiz400003r60jlr4ymgb .

John Milford thanked for service to Wellington CC

John Milford is stepping down from his position as Chief Executive of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, Business Central and ExportNZ Central, and will finish at the end of November. John has been Chief Executive since the beginning of 2015, and prior to this was an active supporter of the Chamber, previously serving as board member and then President of the Wellington Chamber. “Although I am sad to be leaving the organisation, it is the right time for me to finish up.

I have thoroughly enjoyed my time, both in voluntary and paid roles,” says John Milford. “I couldn’t have done the job without the team, the staff, volunteers, and the members who have been the biggest part of the successes we’ve had. He said, “I have worked with some great people who believe in and love this city and region – and who truly want to see it succeed. There’s still much, much work to do and I know they will continue it.” “While I have no set plans presently, I will continue to contribute to the greater Wellington region, I’m a passionate and proud Wellingtonian first and foremost,” Milford added.

Combined Council Chair Vaughan Renner thanked John for his service to the organisation. “On John’s appointment, he clearly signalled to me and the Board that he felt a five-year tenure was appropriate for this role and for a position as CEO of an organisation and he has now been with us for five and a half years,” says Vaughan Renner. “He has built strong relationships and has done a great job of promoting business and the Central New Zealand region.”

“In addition to being a dedicated champion for business, John’s achievements over the last five years included: an increase and retention of membership at 3,600 represented members; stabilising the financial results of the organisation and achieving budget for the last four years; working with the Board to build a governance structure that truly reflects the business environment in which we operate today; and successfully recruiting and training a great cohort of team members who reflect the demographic make-up of business today. “On behalf of the Board, I wish John every success in any future ventures in which he may be involved. We are now looking for an excellent person to continue the organisation’s work and intend going to the market for a replacement.”

Wellington Chamber of Commerce  

The Race to Save the World Trade Organization

The World Trade Organization is at a critical moment in its history. Trade nationalism is becoming more widespread, the U.S./China dispute shows no sign of abating and the WTO is searching for a new leader to take it forward and ensure its relevance. Of the five candidates still in contention, two are women from Africa.

BRINK spoke to Robert Wolfe, professor emeritus at Queen’s University School of Public Studies and an expert on the WTO. We began by asking him where the leadership competition for WTO director general currently stands.

WOLFE: The decision is made by consensus, rather than a vote. The three WTO ambassadors running the process asked each ambassador from the 164 member countries at the WTO for a confidential list of four preferred candidates. Based on that, on September 18th, they told three of the candidates that it doesn’t look like they are going to meet with consensus. And then they’ll do that process again and hope to end up with just two candidates. And then they will try to see if one of those candidates would meet a consensus of the membership.

Delegates attend the opening session of a World Trade Organization Aid for Trade review summit on November 20, 2007, at WTO headquarters in Geneva.

Photo: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images

BRINK: Do you think there may be an outcome before the American election?

WOLFE: I think that’s at least a possibility. The only reason it wouldn’t be possible would be if major players end up supporting different candidates, with no possibility of compromise. So if the Americans and the Chinese have a diametrically opposed position on who the next director general should be, then countries would probably want to wait until next year and see if that changes.

BRINK: Two of the front runners are African women. What’s the significance of that, if any, in your view?

WOLFE: First of all, they are very highly experienced. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala had a distinguished career at the World Bank, so she knows a lot about the world of international organizations. Amina Mohamed had been both the chair of the general council as her country’s ambassador in Geneva and the chair of a WTO ministerial meeting when the WTO met in her country.

Many people think that it’s high time the WTO appointed a woman as its director general. There has never been a director general from Africa, whereas there have been from the Western hemisphere, from Asia and from Europe, of course.

Personality Matters

BRINK: How much significance does the actual personality of the director general matter in terms of global markets?

WOLFE: It matters hugely for the work of the organization, and that matters for markets. The Uruguay Round was concluded in the early 1990s in part because the then director general, Arthur Dunkel, took all the texts that chairs had been working with in the various different negotiating groups, crunched it all together, put it on the table and said, “why don’t you guys talk about this as a possible outcome for the round?” He took a risk, but it helped bring a major negotiation to a conclusion. And that sort of thing in different ways happens frequently if less dramatically.

BRINK: With regard to trade nationalism, do you think we’re heading into even worse territory, or are you starting to feel that maybe things are going to improve?

WOLFE: Well, I’m an eternal optimist, so I’m always expecting that things will start to improve. We have one rogue government at the moment, which is the United States.The U.S. has been consistently operating on a unilateral basis, instead of trying to assemble coalitions inside the WTO to take collective multilateral action.

But there is a growing willingness among the members of the WTO to negotiate differently. The mantra, the default setting for the traditional, multilateral trade negotiator, is that any negotiation has to involve the whole membership all the time. And that, of course, allows countries that don’t want to do anything to stall the whole organization.

The new WTO director general can make a difference, and if you want to know where the problems in the WTO are, look in Beijing and Washington.

Plurilateral Negotiations

What we see countries doing now is forming what are called plurilateral negotiations, where only the countries who want to participate in an issue participate in that negotiation. And they’re doing it within a WTO framework, which means that anybody who would actually like to seriously negotiate is free to join the negotiation. And anybody who would want to join later should be free to join it. Then the results are applied in a way that should not be discriminatory.

Of course, there is always the problem that if you don’t get the largest participants in world trade joining in such negotiations, then you don’t get to what’s called critical mass, and often you don’t get to critical mass if you don’t have the U.S., China and the European Union.

If they decided, “We don’t agree with each other on a lot of things, but we’re going to take our disagreements to the WTO,” then a lot of other countries would say, “Fine, let’s do it. Let’s start talking.”

BRINK: So overall, it sounds like forecasts of the WTO’s demise are premature.

WOLFE: Oh, absolutely. But, that is different from saying forecasts of the demise of multilateralism are premature. The WTO is simply a creature of the existing state of multilateral cooperation. If the leading countries have decided that they do not want to cooperate at all or do not want to cooperate multilaterally, then one of the places they won’t be cooperating is the WTO.

But it’s been clear for some years now that if the United States and China do not want to have a negotiation of the WTO, nobody can make them have that negotiation. And most negotiations that others would want to have won’t come to any useful results.

Hard to Predict Which Way China and US Will Go

China makes fine statements about how they’re committed to multilateral cooperation and how they want to cooperate in the WTO, but at the moment, they don’t have a partner in Washington. If we find ourselves with a government in Washington that says, “Right, China, you want to cooperate in the WTO? Let’s get to work.” That will create an interesting situation.

People also say the WTO’s dispute settlement system is gone — which is simply wrong. The appellate body has been put into cold storage by the U.S. The U.S. has many critiques of how the appellate body works. We did a survey last year of the trade community and found a good deal of sympathy for many of the concerns of the U.S. So if the U.S. was prepared to engage seriously with the rest of the membership, then appellate body reform should be possible.

The Dispute Settlement System Is Working

As for the rest of the dispute settlement system, it’s working just fine. There is the interim appellate process put in place by the EU, with 20 countries. They said, “Look, if we can’t appeal to the appellate body, but we need to appeal, here’s a different system we can use.” That will keep the panel process working, and a lot of countries have confidence in it.

As for negotiations, there are ongoing discussions on domestic support in agriculture, on e-commerce and on domestic regulatory measures in services. The crucial negotiation is fisheries subsidies. It’s been going on for many years. They could get a deal done. Some people even think they could get the deal done this year.

So in short, the message that business leaders should keep in mind is that the sky has not fallen. The new director general can make a difference, and if you want to know where the problems in the WTO are, look in Beijing and Washington.

Related themes: Geopolitical Conflict Trade

Robert Wolfe
Professor Emeritus at Queen’s University
Robert Wolfe is professor emeritus at the School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University in Canada and a member of the Global Affairs Canada Trade Advisory Council.  He has written extensively on WTO transparency and WTO reform issues, most recently as part of a team that surveyed 800 members of the trade policy community on their priorities for the next WTO Director-General.

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

5th ASEAN Young Entrepreneurs Carnival ONLINE – 30 November 2020

The 5th ASEAN Young Entrepreneurs Carnival is happening next week – *Monday 30th November 2020*

CACCI would like to invite members to the virtual edition for the 5th edition. Due to the current pandemic we unfortunately cannot all meet in person. This is our next best thing!

The program Agenda is below for your perusal.

We cannot wait to meet you all on screen. Please register HERE and share this with your network and friends.

Need for convergence between self-reliance, globalisation: FICCI president

There is a need for convergence between self-reliance and globalisation, according to FICCI President Dr. Sangita Reddy. The Indian industry would achieve faster growth and development under the present leadership, she said at the inaugural session of LEADS 2020, a four-day event host by the industry chamber. Dr. Reddy added that there is a need for convergence between self-reliance and globalisation, while sustainability and diversity would remain as cornerstones of future growth. Speaking on re-imagining the world post-COVID-19, she said, “I would like to assure our global partners that we are fully committed to ensuring a robust and resurgent future for our ‘Bharat’.”

FICCI Senior Vice President Uday Shankar said increasing reliance on artificial intelligence and machine learning is the need of the hour, saying: “these will be a gateway for enhanced customer loyalty, as well as business sustainability.” Governments and industries around the world have realised that business excellence, adaptability to change, gender diversity and sustainability would be key drivers for decision making towards building a resilient and smart economic framework, Shankar noted. Ahmad Abdulrahman Albanna, Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to India, said, “The pandemic is a watershed moment for the global socio-economic order.”

He added that “going forward, the two defining factors that will shape how this crisis affects us are collective Khabarhubleadership and coordinated actions.” The COVID-19 pandemic, he emphasized, would require significant innovation, out-of-the-box thinking and a massive cooperative effort to achieve stable and sustainable equilibrium between economic growth and social well-being. Andre Aranha Correa do Lago, Ambassador of Brazil to India, said it has never been more important for like-minded nations to strengthen their international relationships and ensure mutual trust and mutual benefits. Barry O’Farrell AO, High Commissioner of Australia to India, emphasised that both countries need to work together to keep the markets open and enhance the resilience of diversifying supply chains.

FICCI Media Division

Financial Times Global Boardroom set for November 11-13

CACCI Members and Officers are invited to attend the Financial Times (FT) Global Boardroom 2nd Edition — of which CACCI is a Supporting Partner — from November 11 to 13. The event will take place in a digital format.

With over 50,000 people from 150 countries registering for the inaugural Global Boardroom in May 2020, the second Global Boardroom to be held in November will expand further into different regions of the world, with in depth interviews and panel discussions structured around a number of key themes:

(1) Economics and geopolitics;

(2) Rethinking business;

(3) Disrupted industries;

(4) Health;

(5) Tech;

(6) Banking, finance and investment;

(7) Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance;

(8) Emerging markets; and

(9) Deal-making.

The event is a series of live online conversations between top FT journalists and the policy-makers, CEOs, investors and other thought leaders who are stepping up to these unprecedented challenges and driving change around the world due to the coronavirus. Key speakers include: • Suyi Kim, Head of Asia Pacific, CPP Investments • Laura Cha, Chairman, Hong Kong Exchanges and clearing (HKEK) • Ameera Shah, CEO, Metropolis Healthcare • Naveen Jindal, Chairman, Jindal Steel & Power • Heenam Choi, CEO, Korea Investment Corporation • Ajay Bhalla, President, Cyber and Intelligence Solutions, Mastercard.

To register for the event or to get more information, please click HERE.

CACCI, TaiwanICDF paper highlighted in CoNGO contribution to HLPF 2020

For the past four years, the Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations (CoNGO) has been working through its Regional Committee in Asia-Pacific (RCAP) to augment the potential for NGOs/CSOs in the region to work with the United Nations, with a particular emphasis on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Agenda 2030.

For the United Nations Highlevel Political Forum (HLPF) on July 7 to 16, 2020, the overall theme has been set as “Accelerated Action and Transformative P a t h w a y s : Realizing the Decade of Action and Delivery for Sustainable Development.” CoNGO and its RCAP focused on the last six words: ACTION AND DELIVERY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.

In a statement to HLPF 2020 participants days prior to the forum, CoNGO highlighted a paper submitted by the Confederation of Asia Pacific Chambers of Commerce and Industry (CACCI) as one of two illustrative examples of Action and Delivery that show identifiable results replicable by others.

The paper, titled “A Paradigm toward an Equitable and Sustainable Future through the Public-Private Partnership in the AsiaPacific”, highlights the best practices of Taiwan’s International Cooperation and Development Fund (TaiwanICDF) in Sustainable Agriculture, Economic Growth, Human Capital Development, and Partnerships for Sustainable Future. TaiwanICDF is one of the strategic partners of CACCI in its efforts to promote the interests of the business sector in the Asian region.

The second example is one submitted by the Pan Pacific South East Asia Women’s Association (PPSEAWA) and focuses on grass roots action in the areas of Water for Sustainable Living, and Adaptive Yoga for Vulnerabilities (notably for persons with disabilities and special needs).

Does the world need its own risk management system?

BRINK interview with David Wood, Principal of Delta Wisdom

A recently published book called Aftershocks and Opportunities – Scenarios for a Post Pandemic Future explores the impact of COVID-19 on the world’s economy, geopolitics, environment, society and working life, from now to 2035. In one of the chapters, futurist David Wood explores the idea of a global risk management system.

David Wood is the chair of London Futurists and the principal of Delta Wisdom, an independent futurist consultancy. BRINK began by asking him what the purpose of a more comprehensive risk management system might be.

Photo: Jens Schlueter/Getty Images

A shipment of 10 million protective face masks and other protective medical gear to fight against COVID-19 in Germany. The likelihood and variety of risk overall is higher than in the past.

WOOD: One reason for a more comprehensive risk system is that you often need to amalgamate insights from multiple perspectives to really appreciate the nature of the challenges and opportunities ahead. If you look at the lead-up to the 9/11 bombings, it turned out there was ample evidence and intelligence that had been seen by individual groups, but because there was insufficient sharing of information between the different agencies and insufficient imagination as to what the al-Qaida terrorists might be doing, nobody managed to join the dots in a satisfactory way beforehand.

Greater Pooling of Insights

WOOD: We must be more transparent and open in pooling our insights, because often the biggest possibilities emerge not just when one trend moves forward, but when several trends collide or converge in ways that individual observers may not have anticipated.

BRINK: To do this well would obviously involve governments cooperating with each other and sharing knowledge and information. How do you foresee that happening in an age when governments seem increasingly nationalist and there is less and less global cooperation?

WOOD: There are worrying trends toward populism, but at the same time, there are also trends that encourage countries to cooperate, even in the countries where the leaders might be hostile to each other — especially if they can be persuaded of the true scale of the risks that are confronting them.

A good example was what happened in the 1980s, between former presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. When Ronald Reagan became president, he spoke of the Soviet Union as the evil empire. When Mikhail Gorbachev took power in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union regarded the West with great hostility. But something changed that enabled them to work toward a significant reduction in nuclear weapons. And that was the new understanding that a nuclear attack would not just destroy some cities, but that the dust created by these explosions would go high into the stratosphere and could block out the sun’s light, creating a nuclear winter that would impact both sides, killing many more people than previously expected.

Understanding a Common Purpose

WOOD: There were other factors, of course, like the personal chemistry between President Gorbachev and President Reagan, but this is a model of what is needed: clear, credible discussions of huge risks that will cause even nationalist populist leaders to start reconsidering their positions.

We need global leaders and budget holders to wake up to the responsibility that there are greater numbers of large risks out there than ever before.

BRINK: What role would you imagine the United Nations would have in this? After all, the U.N. is a risk management body that was created after the Second World War.

WOOD: The U.N. was set up with the right vision and purpose for its time, but like many other organizations, it has become fossilized and is the victim of inertia. It needs to be regenerated or rejuvenated by one means or another.

We need global leaders and budget holders to wake up to the responsibility that there are greater numbers of large risks out there than ever before. Large risks are changing from matters of occasional concern to matters of constant concern. Leaders need to understand that, as technology becomes more advanced — not just artificial intelligence, but also biotech, cogno-tech, robotics and nanotech — it opens huge new risks as well as huge, new opportunities.

And so the likelihood and variety of risk overall is higher than in the past, which means it’s even more important that enough public mindshare is given to this task of understanding them.

Becoming More Risk-Literate

BRINK: You talk about the psychology of denial, which is a common human trait in risk management. You can’t imagine something like COVID-19 until it’s happened. Are there ways that you can mitigate against that in thinking about future risk?

WOOD: We need to be immersed in discussions of credible scenarios for what might and might not happen, rather than just Hollywood films. We need to become much more literate at understanding the risks of outbreaks of infectious diseases, as well as the other risks of contagion, whether it’s financial contagion or malware contagion, or fake news contagion and so on.

And we need to understand things more probabilistically. Probability is a difficult concept, but we need to help people understand it, so when things like bird flu or SARS or MERS happen, the public appreciates that things could well have turned out very differently. In each case, it was either because the diseases weren’t sufficiently infectious enough to spread easily from human to human, or because of aggressive action that various governments took that prevented these earlier cases of infection from causing wider damage.

Science isn’t a fixed, black-and-white understanding. Science reevaluates itself as it gains better insights. We need to be prepared to plug that probabilistic understanding into our actions. I wish that children at school learned more about risk planning and scenarios. We should all become more competent talking about this. We should all learn more about exponentials and know how they can accelerate and how they can slow down. And when we tell the story of recent history, we should give more credit to those instances when scenario planning had a positive role to play in the outcome.

Related themes: Regulation Risk Mitigation

David Wood
Principal of Delta Wisdom

David Wood is the chair of London Futurists and the principal of Delta Wisdom, an independent futurist consultancy. He spent 25 years as a pioneer of the smartphone and mobile computing industry, being a co-founder of operating system company Symbian. He is the author or lead editor of nine books, including Transcending Politics, The Abolition of Aging and Sustainable Superabundance.

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

How to fight off cyberattacks in an age of remote working

With tens of millions of people working remotely in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cybersecurity weaknesses of the remote work ecosystem have become apparent. Criminals and nation-state actors have been presented with an exponential growth in access points to pressure and penetrate corporate systems, and the scramble to secure systems from a menagerie of devices, networks and enterprise networks leaves many companies vulnerable to attack, theft or exploitation.

Persistent Threat

The FBI has stated that cyberattacks have drastically increased this spring; ransomware, malware, general email scams and malicious phishing expeditions abound. Some cybercriminals have even taken to providing fraudulent COVID-19 resources via apps or other downloads to target both individual and corporate systems. While these assaults have happened in an astonishing variety of industries and against a diverse array of targets, areas hit hardest by COVID-19 are the most vulnerable. These crimes can be extremely profitable, often lack sophistication to execute certain techniques, require a remarkably low financial commitment and are difficult to attribute to any particular parties.

Considering this combination, it becomes clear that this threat will be a persistent one. As corporations build out the interoperability of their corporate systems with personal technology — via either increased compatibility with personal mobile devices or other methods of accessing company databases through home computing networks — the probability of inadvertently introducing vulnerabilities into corporate systems increases. The ability to rapidly identify vulnerabilities and detect breaches will become paramount to the successful operation of any company.

Remote Working Drives Up Cyber Risk

The longer this remote work period persists, the more sophisticated and targeted the actions of criminals and bad actors will become. Considering these technical vulnerabilities in conjunction with the increased ease of exploiting human vulnerabilities (i.e., it is more difficult to exert direct control over how employees use their computer systems in a remote work environment), it is critically important to increase vigilance in adopting and maintaining proper cybersecurity hygiene.

Photo: Unsplash

The nature of the newly established remote work ecosystem means that cybercriminals have more access points and security vulnerabilities to exploit than ever before.

Despite the increased risks and the uncertainty of security protocols constructed on an ad hoc basis, working remotely is a mandatory aspect of life for tens of millions of Americans. Corporations must find a way to protect the safety and security of both their employees and the public writ large by ensuring that remote work systems are secure enough to operate for as long as needed until a significant portion of the American workforce can return to work safely. This effort requires vigilance, flexibility and a keen awareness of the threat landscape, and corporations that can create and foster a secure working environment now will be far better situated to protect themselves from cybersecurity threats in a post-COVID working environment.

The nature of the newly established remote work ecosystem means that cybercriminals have more access points and security vulnerabilities to exploit than ever before.

Review Your Data Logs

A starting point for any organization must be a thorough review of data storage: storage hardware, storage methods and access control. As myriad new devices are granted access to corporate systems, the need for careful curation of access lists and data logs recording the time and manner of access grows. Monitoring and controlling access will allow organizations to reintegrate the vulnerable and potentially compromised assets that have been out of their direct control for extended periods of time.

Institutions also need to assess their cybersecurity insurance policies to ensure adequate coverage, as well as seek to mitigate their third-party and supply-chain vendor risks. Increased use of remote work technologies and outside support systems will also require corporations to revisit and revise their risk management programs for supply chains. As the web of contact with outside systems and vendors grows, existing cybersecurity procedures may also need to be overhauled. These may include incident response plans, remote work and employee privacy policies, data privacy and security training materials, bring-your-own-device (BYOD) rules, data/record retention schedules, information security and acceptable use policies and email and messaging standards.

Importance of Internal Messaging

Given the radical nature of the changes that are likely to take place, communication and education efforts are a necessary pillar of a successful transition. A combination of intensive contingency planning and aggressive outreach to employees, vendors, suppliers and stakeholders is recommended. Employees who have been working from home need to make their shared platforms, devices and databases less vulnerable to attack. It’s not just the organization’s cybersecurity that’s at risk, but the privacy interests of the individual at stake in maintaining their personal and financial security from criminals and other bad actors.

Internal messaging related to cybersecurity must be clear, compelling and consistent — whether in writing, in person, online, in a virtual training session or in a video. After employees receive training, each should be required to pass a test to ensure they understand their new cybersecurity responsibilities. An ongoing return-to-work task force should be established, with input from a variety of institutional stakeholders, from communication and human resources to the general counsel’s office and information technology. The communications elements of all cyber-crisis response plans must be thoroughly overhauled to reflect current exigencies, then incorporated into drills and tabletop exercises that engage everyone in the organization.

An Unpredictable Future

Supply-chain constituencies also need to be built out and tested in conjunction with the latest cybersecurity procedures. Once an organization’s internal priorities have been addressed, it can begin reaching out to assure local and industry media, elected officials and community leaders that it is thoroughly committed to identifying and mitigating cybersecurity assaults in this unpredictable and evolving environment.

The nature of the newly established remote work ecosystem means that cybercriminals have more access points and security vulnerabilities to exploit than ever before. To adequately address these emerging threats, corporations and institutional stakeholders must bring to bear a suite of innovative methods and tools to prevent compromise when possible and mitigate damage when necessary. While cybercriminal activity is inevitable — and emerging national security paradigms result in more sophisticated attacks than in the past — organizations that use this opportunity to implement strong, secure and flexible cybersecurity practices will find themselves on solid footing to face the known threats of today and the unknown threats of the post-COVID world.

Related themes: Cybersecurity Future Of Work Risk Mitigation

Phyllis Sumner
Chief Privacy Officer at King & Spalding
Phyllis Sumner chairs King & Spalding’s Data, Privacy and Security Practice and is the firm’s partner and chief privacy officer.

Richard Levick
Chairman and CEO of LEVICK@richardlevick
Richard Levick is chairman and CEO of LEVICK, a global advisory firm providing a full range of strategic communications consulting services to companies and nations involved in critical high-stakes issues. He can be reached at: rlevick@levick.com

What Does Issue Engagement Mean for a Company?

9 Corporate Communications Changes to Anticipate for 2020

Have You Adapted Your Communications to Our New Forms of Democracy?

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE

Three key considerations for post-pandemic site relocation

Cost is no longer the most important aspect of supply chain site selection

The COVID-19 outbreak has been an ugly shock to the system for global manufacturers. Though experts have been warning about the risk of globally dispersed supply chains for years, few companies were truly prepared for the pandemic. Ultimately, companies with local or diversified supply chains have been most able to mitigate the impact. Others have been caught flat-footed. The majority (75%) of companies surveyed by the Institute for Supply Management said they have experienced disruption, and four out of 10 (44%) said they had no plan in place to address supply disruptions from China.

Across industries, there are new and urgent conversations happening in boardrooms around how to improve mid-term resilience, and among manufacturers about whether to relocate plants — away from China in many cases — and how to put into place contingency labor and production plans that can survive future disruptions. Leaders, trying to wring some clarity from the chaos, are considering ideas for the reinvention phase of the pandemic response that can mitigate the impact of future black swan events.

Manufacturers will ultimately have to choose between two extremes: not doing anything — and hoping this will never happen again — or making investments in mapping and relocating supply networks to be better prepared if or when future disruptions occur.

Photo: Unsplash

An image of a warehouse. In the post-COVID-19 world, there are three primary considerations a company should consider in supply chain site selection

Shifting Supply Chains

Of course, betting only on option one is a risky gamble. According to a Thomas survey, 31% of respondents are turning down or delaying orders. Twenty-eight percent said they were looking for alternative suppliers internationally, and another 28% said they were looking for new suppliers domestically. Any company that fails to protect its production will be at risk of losing future contracts and existing customers.

For example, if a pharmaceutical company locates all of its plants for a key medication in the Philippines and that country is subsequently hit by a catastrophic typhoon, it could knock out all manufacturing of the drug, leading to liability, loss of business and even loss of customers’ lives. However, if that company had already diversified and located even a portion of its facilities closer to home, it would have the ability to shift production and potentially avoid a shortfall.

This same scenario can repeat itself in disruptions of supplies for original manufacturer components or consumer goods. While the threat may not be life or death, it could be existential for manufacturers who are unable to resolve off-shoring risks. More than 80% of fashion brands have said they already planned to reduce sourcing from China, and many companies are reacting similarly to Wistron Corporation, an iPhone assembler that recently told analysts it plans to locate 50% of its capacity outside of China by 2021.

Prioritizing Site Resilience

Vital industries, such as pharmaceuticals or medical supplies, may have no choice but to diversify production. There is mounting public pressure in the United States to move essential production of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment closer to home, with several bipartisan bills already in play. Japan has also made moves in this direction, putting $2.2 billion of its COVID-19 economic stimulus package into supporting manufacturers who shift production outside of China.

In the post-COVID-19 world, a company should consider three topics when choosing a location: labor market, cost and ecosystem.  

For many companies, this will mean a combination of possible solutions such as opening new, additional plants closer to consumers; expanding current plants in more favorable locations; closing existing plants and re-opening in a new location; and deprioritizing cost as the main factor in site selection — in favor of resilience.

Once a decision is made to move near-shore, one of the first questions will be, “Where should we locate?” Prior to COVID-19, Mercer’s site selection was typically based on these three criteria: cost of the labor force, cost of real estate and regulatory burden, and proximity to the existing supply chain.

Cost Is Not Overriding Concern

The convergence of cheap and plentiful labor with a low overall cost of doing business is how so many plants ended up in East Asia over the past decades. However, site cost can no longer be the only driver with the risk of disruption being as high as it is today.

In the post-COVID-19 world, what are the primary considerations a company should consider in choosing a location? There are three main considerations companies will likely prioritize: labor market, cost and ecosystem.

The labor market, or quality and composition of the workforce, should always come first. Companies should enhance their focus on workforce and labor planning, taking the time to thoroughly explore talent availability and labor quality in the areas under consideration.

Secondly, cost is not going to disappear as a critical component of this decision. Companies will be considering the comparative impact of labor costs — and other considerations like incentives and taxes — for each potential site.

And the last factor that will significantly grow in importance in the post-COVID-19 manufacturing world will be the ecosystem that provides structure and resilience to each potential plant, including infrastructure, community attractiveness, business climate and potential risks incumbent upon the available choices. How this ecosystem provides resilience in the face of shocks like COVID-19 will be of utmost importance.

Related themes: Boardroom Risk Mitigation Supply Chains

Matthew Stevenson
Partner and Leader of Mercer’s Workforce Strategy and Analytics Practice
Matthew Stevenson is a partner and leader of Mercer’s Workforce Strategy and Analytics practice, specializing in workforce productivity and strategic workforce planning.

Uniko Chen
Principal of Mercer’s Workforce Strategy and Analytics practice
Uniko Chen is a principal in Mercer’s Workforce Strategy and Analytics practice, specializing in workforce management practices and labor market conditions.

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

New CACCI Vice President from MNCCI

The Mongolian National Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MNCCI) has nominated its CEO, Mr. Duuren Tumenjargal to serve as CACCI Vice President. Mr. Tumenjargal takes over the position from Mrs. Saruul Bulgan, who is no longer with MNCCI.

Before joining MNCCI, Mr. Tumenjargal was Head of MCS Group’s Marketing Department in 2000-2005, Vice Director of the UFC Group in 2005-2010 and Vice Director of Capitron Bank in 2015-2016. He has been Member of the Board of Auto Trade Complex since 2016 and has been appointed CEO of MNCCI since 2019.

Mr. Tumenjargal studied in the University of Delhi, India and received his Bachelor degree on Economics and Marketing in 1999. In 2008, the “Altangadas” Government Medal was conferred on him in recognition of his outstanding performance.

Mr. Tumenjargal is married with two sons and is fluent in Russian and English.

ICC webinar: Ethical marketing during COVID-19

The International Chamber of Commerce’s Academy is inviting interested parties to join its free ICC livecast on “Ethical Marketing During COVID-19” to be held on Wednesday 3 June 2020 at 9:00 am EDT – 3:00 pm CET – 6:30 pm IST – 9:00 pm SGT.

Misleading or false advertising in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic can seriously undermine consumer trust and – more concerningly – public health advice.

This ICC webinar will explore the different health and financial claims made in the context of the current pandemic and demonstrate how businesses can and should advertise responsibly drawing from guidance in the ICC Marketing Code.

• Want to know?
• When health claims are considered misleading?
• How businesses can advertise responsibly?
• What mechanisms are in place to ensure that businesses do advertise responsibly? and
• What you can do as a consumer when presented with questionable health claims or “get rich quick” ads?

Then join our experts

In a discussion moderated by Raelene Martin, Knowledge Manager, ICC Commission on Marketing and Advertising to find out and learn much much more!

They will share prime examples of some of the many misleading health claims and “get rich ads” that have been circulating over past few months as the world grapples with one of the biggest health and economic crises of the last 100 years.

The ICC livecast is open to everyone and will last 1 hour with 15 minutes of Q&A.

Have a burning question? Don’t forget to submit your questions for our speakers when you sign-up for the event.

Register HERE.

Predictions for the Global Economy, Mohamed el-Erian

This is a global crisis, and yet we have seen a much lower level of global policy coordination than we did after the global financial crisis.

As the global economy emerges from lockdown, leaderships are grappling with a large number of momentous decisions about how to move forward, such as how to recover growth, how much structural adjustment to make and how long to maintain the financial support.

One of the world’s most well-known economic commentators is Mohamed el-Erian, chief economic advisor at Allianz. A Financial Times contributing editor, Bloomberg Opinion columnist and the former CEO of PIMCO, el-Erian has authored two New York Times best sellers.

Tom Carver, executive editor of BRINK, began by asking el-Erian about the stock market.

CARVER: As we speak, and obviously this can change, the stock market seems to be far ahead of the economy in its levels of optimism. Do you think that the markets have factored in enough risk?

EL-ERIAN: The markets have convinced themselves that they are in a win-win situation. They win on fundamentals, if they bet on a recovery, and that looking through the current dismal economic data is the right thing to do. So, that is the constructive, forward-looking side of the market. But, they also win if they get things wrong, because they truly believe that the Federal Reserve, and other central banks, have the markets’ back covered.

That is something that has been building for the last few years, but took a massive leap forward when the Federal Reserve decided not just to buy their investment-grade bonds, but also to venture into some areas of high-yield, including buying the high index, because in the market’s mind, high-yield is just one notch above equities. So, if the threat has come all the way down to high-yield, surely it will come into equities.

So, that win-win bet has been driving up markets to a level of decoupling from the real economy, but has a lot of unintended consequences. I understand it, but it’s not something that I feel comfortable about.

Photo: Shutterstock

CARVER: You talk about the extraordinary interventions by governments and by the Fed. Do you think we’re going to get waves three and four of these kinds of interventions?

EL-ERIAN: So, definitely we’re going to get at least one, probably two, more waves on the government side. I think we’re going to get another wave of relief, and then after that, there will be stimulus rather than relief. And that’s a really important distinction, because even though it’s been called stimulus, it’s not stimulus. This is all about trying to keep the system from imploding, trying to keep people who’ve lost jobs from real desperation, trying to stop companies’ liquidity problems from becoming sovereignty problems.

CARVER: You have written and talked in the past, with some sympathy, about modern monetary theory, which argues that governments can run much larger economically sustainable debts than conventional thinking suggests.

EL-ERIAN: I think the modern monetary theorists are pinching themselves. Because they’re seeing many elements of what they advocated now starting to be implemented. We are seeing budget deficits that were unimaginable, while interest rates have come down even more, meaning that these deficits can be financed. And then, central banks have been incredibly accommodating in terms of buying more and more government debt.

So, from a modern monetary theorist’s perspective, it’s playing out in front of your eyes: We can run the economy at a higher level of debt because interest rates are lower and will remain low for a long time. But there’s other elements that make me nervous. And that is co-opting the central bank. That is the part that makes me worry.

CARVER: Do you think we are heading into a phase where we are going to see universal basic income coming in, not just to get through this crisis, but as a permanent feature of developed market economies?

We’re realizing that we have a problem with global policy coordination: We have seen a much lower level of global policy coordination than we did after the global financial crisis.

EL-ERIAN: So, it all depends on what the crisis looks like. If we shut down again, then the answer is, it will become more common because there will be long-term unemployment if we shut down again for a long time.

But once you’ve sent people a check in the mail that’s completely unrelated to anything we normally think of, and simply they get it because they are who they are, it’s very difficult not to do that again. So, the political system has taken a step forward, and it’s going to be difficult to put this genie back into the bottle.

CARVER: Referring to the 2009 crash, you have said that we “won the war, but lost the peace of the chance to build a really inclusive economy.” Do you think we have a better chance of doing this now?

EL-ERIAN: I don’t know. We now have what I’m calling “The New Normal 1.0,” which is frustratingly low economic growth, increasing inequality — not just in income and wealth, but in income, wealth and opportunity  — and central banks becoming more and more held hostage by the marketplace.

But if we’re not careful, we’re going to go to a “New Normal 2.0,” because it’s already clear that there’s going to be a pendulum swing in corporate America and, also, around the world, from efficiency to resilience. So, the romance of just-in-time inventory management is going to give way to increasing resilience, and when you rewire the corporate sector, it takes time for productivity to go back up.

Secondly, we’re going to end up with much more involvement from government. And we’re not doing it in a principled manner; it’s being done in response to this crisis, So, you’re going to end up with a spaghetti bowl of the public and the private sector. Historically, those are very hard to untangle.

Thirdly, you’re going to have a significant era of deglobalization, because this is the third shock to globalization in 10 years, and this one has all sectors of society looking to deglobalize. So, that deglobalization process is going to also accelerate the decline in productivity.

And, then, on the demand side, I’m worried that we’re going to end up with much higher levels of unemployment than most people expect, and I worry that people may become more risk-averse. I don’t know whether we will get to the frugality of the Great Depression generation, but certainly people will be less willing to consume. So, you’ve got more sluggish demand, more sluggish supply and more debt.

But there’s nothing predestined about this. Policy can, and should, counter this, but you need the political will to do so.

CARVER: I was going to ask you whether you saw any silver lining in any of this?

EL-ERIAN: Look, I have a whole list on my desk of silver linings. We are seeing leap-frogging in scientific conventions and innovations, so that’s great. We’re seeing much more effective public-private partnerships. That’s also great. Hopefully, we’re becoming much more sensitive to tail events — highly consequential events — climate change being one.

And finally, we’re realizing that we have a problem with global policy coordination. This is a global crisis and we have seen a much lower level of global policy coordination than we did after the global financial crisis. So you have two wakeup calls, hopefully, and then you add the other things, which I think can be maintained. So, there are silver linings to this.

Related Themes: Globalization Regulation Risk Mitigation

Mohamed el-Erian
Chief Economic Advisor at Allianz@elerianm

Mohamed el-Erian is the chief economic advisor at Allianz, the corporate parent of PIMCO, where he formerly served as chief executive and co-chief investment officer. He chairs President Obama’s Global Development Council, is a columnist for Bloomberg View and a contributing editor at the Financial Times.

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

ASEAN Policy Brief on COVID-19

The ASEAN Secretariat has released a policy brief on the economic impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on ASEAN. Key points include:

• The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted economic activities and upended lives, tapering growth prospects around the world.
• ASEAN member states have rolled out various measures to counter the impact of the pandemic. Stimulus measures included tax breaks, subsidies, targeted support and cash assistance, and moratoriums on loan payments and pension contributions. Central banks also lowered interest rates, reduced reserve requirements, and purchased government bonds.
• The pandemic may lead to long-term and considerable economic implications. To restore confidence and revive the economy, ASEAN should consider mobilizing all available macro, financial, and structural policy tools; preserving the economy’s productive capacity; keeping the supply chains going; leveraging on technologies and digital trade; strengthening social safety nets; scaling up regional pandemic response; and redoubling the resolve to advance regional integration.

Read more: https://asean.org/storage/2020/04/ASEAN-Policy-Brief-April-2020_FINAL.pdf

Reducing Supply Chain on China Won’t Be Easy

The global spread of COVID-19 has sparked a clarion call to diversify supply chains away from China. But its singularity as a manufacturing location will make it hard to find alternatives.

The outbreak of the coronavirus in Wuhan in January highlighted the pitfalls of China as the dominant global manufacturer of record. A delay in orders from Chinese factories was inevitable, given the scale of dependency on Wuhan alone. According to Dun & Bradstreet, a business intelligence company, 51,000 companies have one or more direct suppliers in Wuhan, while 5 million companies have one or more tier-two suppliers in the region. The data suggests that it’s not just Southeast Asia that is dependent on Chinese suppliers — the problem appears to be much more widespread.

Another survey by the Institute for Supply Management captures the magnitude of the outbreak for global manufacturers: More than half (57%) of companies are experiencing longer lead times for tier-1 China-sourced components, while 44% are simply unprepared to address continued supply disruptions from China. A case in point — the technology giant Apple was one of the first major global companies to inform investors that it would miss Q1 revenue projections, in part due to delays in production by its China-based assembly plants. Of late, Apple had begun to move some production activities to Vietnam and India, but the company remains reliant on Chinese assembly plants to power its inventory.

The spread of the coronavirus has made one thing clear — across the technology, automotive, electronics, pharmaceutical, medical equipment and consumer goods sectors, nearly all supply chains lead back to China as the preeminent global provider of intermediate materials and components. Recognizing the risk that a dependency on China poses to national industries, some governments are offering manufacturers incentives to exit China and ease the pain of diversification. Japan is putting $2.2 billion of its COVID-19 economic stimulus package into supporting its manufacturers shift production outside of China. There’s also mounting public pressure in some countries, such as the United States, to move essential production of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment out of China and closer to home.

Photo: Loic Venance / AFP via Getty Images

A man walking around in a factory. The outbreak of the coronavirus in Wuhan in January highlighted the pitfalls of China as the dominant global manufacturer of record.

Indeed, the pandemic might accelerate pre-existing plans to reduce supply chain dependency on China. Alongside rising labor costs, the ratcheting of trade tensions between China and the U.S. had already pushed brands to re-evaluate their “single-source” strategies. More than 80% of fashion brands said they already planned to reduce sourcing from China, according to a July 2019 U.S. Fashion Industry Association report. Ensuring more resilience in supply chains is also likely to be a future expectation of investors, who will now be looking at the ability of companies to hedge risk in the event of continued outbreaks or other “Black Swan” events. The chairman of Wistron Corp, an iPhone assembler, told analysts that the company would locate 50% of its capacity outside of China by 2021. Simply put, the coronavirus has accelerated trends that have been evident for some time pertaining to China’s manufacturing stature.

As manufacturers examine their supply chains for a post-COVID 19 world, they will need to navigate the imperative for greater supply chain resilience versus the attractiveness of China as a manufacturing location.

But the reality is that a major manufacturing shift away from China is easier said than done. Even those companies that have diversified production are finding it hard to break free of China’s pervasive influence. Anticipating a rise in tariffs from the U.S.-China trade war, video game producer Nintendo had shifted the manufacturing of its blockbuster gaming console to Vietnam in 2019. Still, there is a shortage of Switch consoles in stores today due to a lack of essential components flowing to the company’s Vietnamese factories, as COVID-19 paused production by Chinese suppliers of component parts.

The global technology and consumer electronics sectors are especially reliant on China’s infrastructure and specialized labor pool, neither of which will be easy to replicate. The Chinese government is already mobilizing resources to convince producers of China’s unique merits as a manufacturing location. Zhengzhou, within Henan Province, has appointed officials to support Apple’s partner Foxconn in mitigating the disruptions caused by the coronavirus, while the Ministry of Finance is increasing credit support to the manufacturing sector. Further, the Chinese government is likely to channel stimulus efforts to develop the country’s high-tech manufacturing infrastructure, moving away from its low-value manufacturing base and accelerating its vision for a technology-driven services economy.

To this end, manufacturers are cognizant of the potential of China as a major consumer market for iPhones today and for advanced technologies such as robotics, autonomous vehicles and smart devices tomorrow. A flash poll by the Beijing-based U.S. Chamber of Commerce conducted in March shows that U.S. businesses are still bullish on Chinese consumers, despite the impact of the virus. The consumer sector had the most businesses reporting that they intend to maintain planned investments (46%), followed by the technology industry (43%).

As manufacturers examine their supply chains for a post-COVID 19 world, the imperative for greater supply chain resilience versus the attractiveness of China as a manufacturing location and tech-forward consumer market is the defining tension that they will need to navigate. The outcome is unlikely to be a clean break from China for most. Lower-value sectors, such as apparel, are most likely to expedite diversification. Indeed, many garment manufacturers have already diversified from China to the likes of Vietnam, Cambodia and Ethiopia on the basis of rising labor costs. It will be the higher-value technology and consumer electronics sectors — where the country’s manufacturing prowess and consumer potential is the most pronounced — that will find it hardest to turn away from China’s distinctive allure.

Related themes: China Supply Chains

Manisha Mirchandani
Director of Strategy at Atlantic 57
Manisha is a director of strategy at Atlantic 57 and an Asia specialist. She previously served as Asia analyst at the Economist Intelligence Unit and conducted field research in Myanmar for the United Nations Development Program. She has also authored publications for the Centre for Asian Philanthropy and Society.

Coronavirus Exposes Dependency of Southeast Asia’s Manufacturers on China

Why China Could Lead on Global Data Privacy Norms

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

Special Issue of UNCTAD’s Investment Policy Monitor during COVID-19

We are pleased to share with our members the latest “Special Issue of UNCTAD’s Investment Policy Monitor” issued by United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

This report documents and analyses investment policies response to the crisis. Below are the highlights.

• Numerous countries around the globe have taken a variety of measures in support of investment or for protecting critical domestic industries in the crisis.
• Support measures include the speeding up of investment approval procedures, the accelerated use of online tools and e-platforms, COVID-19-related services of investment promotion agencies, incentive schemes for health-related R&D and medical supplies, acquisition by states of equity in struggling domestic key companies as well as state loans and guarantees for domestic suppliers in value chains.
• To protect their health sector and industries in other sectors considered as particularly important in the crisis, several countries have tightened foreign investment screening mechanisms. Other investment-related State interventions in the health industry include mandatory production, export bans for medical equipment and a reduction of import duties for medical devices.
• The pandemic will slow the pace of investment treaty-making. At the same time, policy responses taken by governments to address the pandemic and its economic fallout could create friction with existing investment treaty obligations, hence the risk of investor-State disputes.
• The pandemic is likely to have lasting effects on investment policy making. It may solidify the ongoing trend towards more restrictive admission policies for foreign investment in key industries. At the same time, the pandemic may trigger increased competition for attracting investment in other industries as economies seek to recover from the crisis. It may also boost the use of online administrative approval procedures for investment matters. And it may provide further impetus to the reform of investment treaty regime.

For in-depth analysis on the impact of pandemic on global investment prospects and policy developments, please see World Investment Report 2020: International Production beyond Covid-19 Crisis (forthcoming in June).

Is This Year One of an Economic ‘Lost Decade’?

Governmental measures to address coronavirus stopped economies in their tracks in unprecedented ways. For example, no one could anticipate the drop in demand for oil being as significant as it was.

The latest economic data from the IMF suggests that coronavirus and the subsequent lockdowns will cause the global GDP to shrink by at least 3% this year. To get some insight into whether we might expect a quick or long recovery from that, BRINK turned to Moisés Naím, distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and chief international columnist for El País, Spain’s largest newspaper.

In the early 1990s, Naím was Venezuela’s minister of trade and industry, director of Venezuela’s Central Bank and executive director at the World Bank. BRINK’s executive editor, Tom Carver, began by asking Naím if he thought this crisis was different to anything that the global economy had had to face before.

NAÍM: Of course, this is new, but it’s also early days. We don’t know how it will evolve. If we have a vaccine in six months or so, that’s one outcome. But if it takes a couple of years, or if it becomes a chronic thing in which it becomes seasonal, it’s a completely different ball game.

But I do detect several similarities to previous crises, like 2008 and 9/11. The first is that the reaction to the crisis touched more lives and had more consequences than the event that triggered the crisis. Think about 9/11, which had a bit over 3,000 fatalities. But the reaction to it was far more costly in human lives, economic consequences and geopolitical turmoil. After two decades, the effects of the reactions to the attacks are still with us today.

The second common factor in the big crises of the last half century is an overestimation of their consequences. If you look at the media coverage, opinion columns, TV political discourse and even scholarly seminars and papers during these crises, you find that the common wisdom was that the event was a world-altering game-changer, and that nothing would remain the same. In reality, what happened is that while some important changes did indeed occur and affected parts of the world, none changed the entire world.

The Transitional Becomes Permanent

And the third commonality is that this crisis generates situations in which what we thought was permanent — institutions, ideologies, political and economic arrangements, business models, habits — ended up being transitional. And what we thought was temporary became permanent.

A good example, an iconic example, of this in this current crisis, is with teleworking. Of course, people working from home had already become a trend before COVID-19 but not in significant ways. Now, most companies and governments will have work from home programs even if the pandemic recedes.

CARVER: One characteristic of this crisis has been a sharp drop in the price of oil. You obviously have enormous experience running a resource economy, from your time in Venezuela. Do you put this price drop in the category of long-term or short-term change?

NAÍM: What no one could anticipate was that the drop in demand for oil was going to be as significant as it was. It was a result of the measures taken by governments to deal with the coronavirus that essentially stopped the economies in their tracks in unprecedented ways.

The conversation and the debates about oil used to be centered on production levels and prices. Now the conversation has shifted to competition for markets, clients and storage facilities. We are far from the days when producers called the shots.

Oil for Low, for Long

This is going to be part of what is going to stay with us, oil for low for long. I’m not suggesting that we’re going to have oil permanently at $25 a barrel; it may go up, may go down, but it’s not going to be near $80 or $90 levels that we have seen. There were even brief moments in which oil prices reached three digits. I don’t see that ever coming back.

I see a lot of stranded assets, meaning oil fields that are not economically viable and, therefore, left underground. I also see a redefinition of the industry, the very telling factoid about what’s going on is that the valuation of Netflix today is higher than that of ExxonMobil.

CARVER: How long do you think it’s going to be possible for governments to continue to support and pay the wages of workers who have lost their jobs and may not have jobs to come back to?

In the short term, we are going to have a combination of political turmoil, economic mediocrity and stagnation caused by COVID-19.

NAÍM: Well, it depends on the country, of course. If the world uses your money, you have a long way to go because you can just print your money. I’m thinking, of course, about the United States.

There are two protagonists of almost all economic crashes that so far have been missing in the current crisis. One is inflation and the other is devaluation. The United States just gave a stimulus equivalent to 14% of GDP. It’s quite amazing and it’s very surprising first how large it was and second how limited its stimulative effect was.

Inflation Is Missing in Action

And yet very few people believe that such a massive monetary expansion in public spending will spur inflation. In the past, that would have been the case. It hasn’t happened. And the second is devaluation of the dollar. Again, we have not seen that.

More broadly, it’s looking increasingly likely that, as Larry Summers has been alerting, we have entered a long period of secular stagnation. Low interest rates are no longer the powerful boosters of investment and consumption that they once were.

CARVER: Do you think this crisis increases the chances of some sort of permanent universal base income having to be introduced?

NAÍM: We have a very large number of countries that, in one way or another, are doling out cash to their populations in different forms. But there’s a lot we still don’t know about this crisis.

We don’t know how fiscally sustainable this is, and there’s plenty that we don’t know about the long-term effect of these instruments. But it’s already happening. It’s happening in many European countries and in emerging markets.

CARVER: What’s your view of the future of the developing world economies? They obviously have additional challenges such as weak infrastructure, weak social safety nets and so forth.

NAÍM: Unfortunately, it is a dire perspective. These emerging markets largely depend on the export of raw materials and minerals, hydrocarbons, agricultural products, commodities in general. The prices of all of these commodities have been down and will stay down until the world’s economy vigorously recovers steam. \

The Coming of a Lost Decade?

Many of these countries also depend quite significantly on remittances of their citizens living abroad and sending money back to the families. Remittances will be down by about 20%, according to the World Bank this year. Credit and foreign investment flows along with tourism are all sharply down. Capital is fleeing, inflation is up and devaluations are common, large and, of course, very damaging.

So there are some economists predicting that this could be year one of a lost decade for the emerging markets. In the eighties, you may recall, as a result of the debt crisis, there was a lost decade, at least for Latin America, in which economies were stagnating and social policies had to be curtailed. It created a lot of human suffering and political repercussions.

Let’s hope we can avoid it this time, but surely the signals are not good.

CARVER: That’s a depressing thought. With all the years of experience you have, do you feel optimistic or fundamentally pessimistic about what is going to happen over the next few years, both economically and politically?

NAÍM: If you take the long view, you’re always optimistic. Eventually humanity solves significant problems and, in the end, things end up well for some, though not for everyone. But in the short term, we are going to have a combination of political turmoil, economic mediocrity and stagnation. That is going to nurture a highly turbulent environment.

Related themes: Investment Risk Mitigation

Moisés Naím
Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace@moisesnaim
Moisés Naím is a distinguished fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and an internationally syndicated columnist. He was the editor in chief of Foreign Policy magazine from 1996 to 2010 and the author of bestsellers like Illicit and The End of Power. He is on Twitter at @moisesnaim.

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

ICC survey for Asian Chambers of Commerce

CACCI forwards herewith the request from the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) for chambers of commerce in Asia to participate in a survey on the global response to COVID-19.

This first global survey conducted by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) ‒ a major step in the private sector’s global response to COVID-19.

Complete the ICC-WHO survey now. 

This survey will take only 3 minutes to help the WHO in the global fight against COVID-19.

COVID-19 has killed public transport. How will it recover?

A man wearing a facemask for protective measures waits for the subway train on the platform as the spread of the COVID-19 continues. Transit agencies are struggling to maintain service levels, and many of them are making cuts or are planning to make cuts in the next month or two.

Photo: Adem Altan / AFP via Getty Images

Around the world, public transit ridership has been devastated by the lockdowns and social distancing related to coronavirus. According to most estimates, ridership levels are at least 70% below pre-crisis levels, with some areas losing even more, especially on longer-distance and commute-oriented services. San Francisco’s BART system, for example, has lost 93% of its riders.

BRINK executive editor Tom Carver spoke to Jarrett Walker, an international consultant in public transit planning and policy, and asked him how he assesses the present situation.

WALKER: The numbers we’re seeing are anywhere from 70% to 90%. It looks like it stabilized at -70% to 80%, somewhere in there. But of course many things are still changing.

Transit agencies are struggling to maintain service levels. Many of them are making cuts or are planning to make cuts in the next month or two. So of course, that will have a further impact on ridership.

CARVER: What are the main factors behind the ridership collapse, apart from the stay-at-home orders? Are there other factors at play as well?

WALKER: Well, the stay-at-home orders have done it — combined with the accurate perception that public transport is about being close to other people. So it’s understandable that people who have the option to drive are going to do that. Because they’re going to feel like they have control of who’s been touching the surfaces inside of their car, to the extent that they need to travel.

Why Hasn’t It Collapsed 100%?

WALKER: When you hear that, you’d expect ridership to have collapsed 100%. But we still have roughly 25% of our original ridership in the U.S. These are people traveling to reach or provide essential services and who have no choice but to use public transit. Many of these people are working in hospitals, grocery stores, and so on, things that just have to function for civilization to continue. It shows the degree to which we all depend on those people getting to work, which is one of the reasons transit can’t just shut down.

Right now, the knowledge worker, the white collar worker, is working from home. That means, for example, that rush hour has disappeared. Transit ridership is very flat across the day now, because those essential service workers are, of course, coming and going at various times of day.

CARVER: How can public transport come back from here? Will it come back in a very different form?

WALKER: It has to come back, because there are no other alternatives for doing what it does. We are seeing that there is a core of essential functions that absolutely require transit. Anybody who can find an alternative to using public transit to get to a job is doing it now.

Public transportation is going to come back gradually because the economy is going to come back gradually.

And yet we still have 25% of our ridership. That’s with schools closed, restaurants closed, a whole bunch of the economy closed. So there is a basic floor of our demand, which is also an argument for why transit must exist and why it must succeed.

Of course, once we emerge from stay-at-home, many more trips will be made, and we will quickly end up with too much congestion if we don’t bring back a transit alternative.

The End to Denser Living?

CARVER: In the last 15 years, a lot of cities have been made more walkable, with a greater focus on public transport. Do you think that trend will end?

WALKER: Well, the interesting thing is that relatively dense development has helped to make cities livable at small scale during the crisis. People can walk, people can ride bikes. We’ve seen cycling go up as people find that to be a reasonably viable way of getting around. And of course, much safer than it used to be because there are fewer cars. But that’s only possible because of density.

I don’t think there’s an alternative to the dense development form. It may very well be that we end up with more knowledge workers telecommuting permanently because they figured out how to make it work. That could move some of those people toward lower-density living.

But the city isn’t going away. Given that people want to live in those kinds of communities and that those kinds of communities are viable for so many other reasons, public transit also has to be there.

How Will Public Transit Reopen?

CARVER: How do you see public transit systems reopening? It’s obviously not going to all rush back immediately. Will they have to have social distancing on the buses, for instance?

WALKER: We have to assume that as the economy comes back, we are going to see many more people for whom transit is the best option continuing to use transit.

It will take a while to get a highly discretionary rider, the suburban person who has a car and likes driving their car, to use transit. Ultimately though, all of the reasons people have had to use transit will come back, including, of course, congestion.

It’s going to come back gradually because the economy is going to come back gradually. I think you have to look at the economic prospects. We’re clearly going to have lowered expectations for ridership for a long time.

This is why it’s critical that we all understand that public transit needs to exist for other reasons, for the way that it is supporting essential services, the way it is providing for social justice and equity outcomes, and access to opportunity. Then also, very importantly, the ability of cities to protect their economies from congestion. Which is an issue that will arise more gradually as economies come back.

Related themes: Future Of Work Risk Mitigation

Jarrett Walker
International Consultant of Public Transit Planning and Policy@humantransit

Jarrett Walker is an international consultant in public transit planning and policy. He writes the blog Human Transit, and is author of the book Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking about Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives.

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

COVID-19 exposed weakness in Risk Management

Given the ruinous business costs of COVID-19 and the failure of public health authorities to effectively respond to COVID-19, we should explore whether there was more the business community could have done to manage its own risks.

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates how vulnerable companies are to systemic risk events — and how limited our normal business risk management approaches are in these situations. In January 2019, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Harvard Global Health Institute published a white paper about how businesses should prepare for a pandemic. It recommended a number of steps companies can take to prepare for infectious disease risks.

As shown in the chart below, “advanced” recommendations included strong board-level leadership, active threat surveillance and active supply chain management.

These are all pretty conventional business-centric risk management strategies.

COVID Is a Systemic Risk

Unfortunately, even the advanced strategies have turned out to be totally inadequate in mitigating the business impacts of COVID-19. That is because a pandemic like COVID-19 represents a systemic risk, requiring systemic preparedness and a systemic response. Traditional business risk management doesn’t deliver either.

In all fairness to business decision-makers, the responsibility of preparing for and responding to a pandemic has always rested with public health authorities. Given the ruinous business costs of COVID-19, however, and the failure of public health authorities to effectively respond to COVID-19, we should explore whether there was more the business community could have done to manage its own risks.

The problem with COVID-19 has not been a lack of dedication and expertise among health professionals; rather, it’s the chronic shortfall in the political and budgetary prioritization of pandemic preparedness. Such preparedness need not have been overly costly; by one estimate, the global cost of being prepared for a pandemic like COVID-19 works out to $1-$2 per person. That’s a trivial amount, in hindsight.

Business Needs to Advocate for Better Policies

Are there tools other than the typical risk management measures suggested in the WEF white paper that the business community could have used to ensure that pandemic preparedness was prioritized, funded and implemented? Sure.

The business community could have been a powerful advocate for pandemic preparedness in policy and budgetary decision-making. With the exception of the pharmaceutical industry trying to sell its products, it’s fair to say that business involvement in advocating for pandemic preparedness has historically been very limited.

While systemic risk management has not historically been seen as a business priority, COVID-19 has exposed a material business risk that has been ignored. COVID-19 is a wake-up call for businesses to recognize that they have a legitimate risk management interest in promoting readiness for systemic risks like COVID-19.

Apply the Principles to Climate Change

A more proactive role for the private sector should not be limited to the systemic risk posed by a pandemic. Climate change, for example, comes immediately to mind. Climate change is a veritable petri dish for future systemic risk events including, coincidentally, pandemics. Even as we live through the COVID-19 crisis, scientists are publishing reports of ancient viruses discovered in melting glaciers. They may turn out to be the tip of a viral iceberg to which we have no natural resistance.

Pandemics are just one of many systemic risk events that could be triggered by climate change. Others include:

A drought that triggers an expanding geographical conflict over water supplies. Conflicts over water in the Middle East, for example, have been suggested for years as a potential flash point for the next world war.

Simultaneous droughts in three of the world’s breadbaskets, disrupting food production, food prices and, ultimately, the global economy and political stability. That is the exact scenario used by Lloyd’s of London for its seminal systemic climate change risk report in 2015.

An extreme event that triggers large-scale environmental migration, exacerbating regional tensions and conflicts.

Systemic risk events like these, caused or worsened by climate change, could manifest at virtually any time. The likelihood of such events is also increasing as climate change progresses.

Strong Business Case for Tackling Systemic Climate Risks

The literature looking at systemic business risks associated with climate change is growing rapidly. The Bank for International Settlements’ recent report on so-called green swans, for example, argues for a proactive role for banking in anticipating and mitigating climate change-induced systemic risks.

The business risk management rationale for engaging at all levels in working to tackle climate-related systemic risks is even more solid than is the case for COVID-19. First, business activities in the power, transportation and building sectors account for a large fraction of the greenhouse gas emissions over time that are causing the climate to change. Unlike COVID-19, business is actively contributing to likelihood and severity of systemic risk events.

Second, imagine if investigative reporting were to reveal that business interests had actively interfered with pandemic preparedness by lobbying against the necessary funding and could therefore be causally linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. There would be public outrage — and rightly so. Yet when it comes to climate change, business interests have a long history of obfuscating the nature and severity of the problem. Some business interests continue to oppose the adoption of policies and measures needed to mitigate climate change, as is well documented through the work of InfluenceMap in the United Kingdom.

Voluntary Initiatives Cannot Scale

But wait, you may say. Haven’t thousands of companies around the world committed to help tackle climate change through initiatives ranging from reducing their carbon footprints to adopting science-based targets, internal carbon pricing and going carbon-neutral? Certainly.

These and other measures, however, represent corporate social responsibility initiatives. Voluntary initiatives like these cannot scale to the systemic change required to mitigate climate change. As a climate change mitigation strategy, they represent “greenwishing,” at best, and “greenwashing” at worst.

Mitigating climate change and, thus, the business risks of future systemic climate risk events requires a rapid transition to a low-carbon economy.

That, in turn, requires a broad suite of policies and measures to guide business behavior in that direction. When it comes to policy advocacy for a rapid low-carbon transition, however, the business community is missing in action. Notwithstanding numerous CEO expressions of support for climate policies, for example, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse recently noted, “I am involved in a number of secret climate conversations with some of my Republican colleagues, but they can’t find a single corporation that will come out and say ‘I’ve got your back.’”

Get Engaged in Climate Policy

The failure of decision-makers to be prepared for the COVID-19 pandemic, after years of warnings from public health experts, will go down in history as an epic policy failure. In hindsight, and given the catastrophic business costs of the pandemic, it also reflects a failure of business risk management foresight and initiative.

There are lessons to be learned. Looking forward, business decision-makers need to recognize the growing business risks of climate change-induced systemic risk events. Given the role of business interests in contributing to climate change and the efforts to impede climate policy responses, whole sectors could lose their social license to operate.

Although it requires stepping outside their business comfort zones, companies should focus much more intensively on growing their climate policy footprints than on shrinking their carbon footprints. That’s what business risk management calls for in an era of climate change calls.

Related themes: Boardroom Risk Mitigation

Dr. Mark Trexler
CEO of The Climatographers@ClimateRoulette

Dr. Mark Trexler has advised companies around the world on climate change since 1991. He currently focuses on climate change decision-making support through the Climatographers and the Future Strategies Group, and is a visiting scholar at The George Washington University.

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

Oliver Wyman’s New Covid-19 Website

CACCI is pleased to convey to its members and friends the invitation from Oliver Wyman, one of the Knowledge Partners of CACCI, to visit its new Covid website – referred to as the Coronavirus Hub – at https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/hubs/coronavirus.html.

As you are well aware, COVID-19 continues to spread around the world with new information emerging daily. Designated a global emergency by the World Health Organization, the outbreak has had far-reaching effects, including on the public at large as well as travel, supply chains, and economies globally.

For organizations, especially multinational businesses, the outbreak can have extensive implications, some of which have already been felt. Hotels have been forced to close, airlines have cancelled thousands of flights, and supply chains have been hit hard, while financial markets have been volatile. Oliver Wyman and its parent company Marsh & McLennan (MMC) have been monitoring the latest events and are putting forth their perspectives – through the Coronavirus Hub – to support their clients and the industries they serve around the world.

The Coronavirus Hub will be updated regularly as the situation evolves.

CACCI members invited to EFMA’s webinars on Covid-19

CACCI is pleased to convey to its members an invitation of Efma, to participate in its upcoming webinars on the COVID-19 crisis.

As the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to amplify, financial institution leaders are looking for strategies on how to organize, protect employees, and maintain financial services for their customers. To support you during these difficult times, Efma has created new online experiences to connect you with colleagues from other financial institutions, share best practices, and get guidance on strategy implementation based on different scenarios.

Online Meetings in April

The online meetings can be mixed & matched, each dedicated to a specific taskforce group and now open to the entire Efma community (members and non-members):

REGISTER

REGISTER

REGISTER

REGISTER

REGISTER

REGISTER

ABOUT EFMA

EFMA is a non-profit organization created in 1971 by leading European banks. It has extended its borders in 2012 and is now the preferred network of over 3,300 bank and insurance brands in 130 countries all around the world. Efma aims to unite financial services industry professionals within a global and reliable network and facilitate connection and exchange among the sector’s decision-makers.

Mr. Anjum Nisar elected new President of FPCCI

The Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FPCCI) in December 2019 elected Mr. Anjum Nisar its new President whose term will be for the year 2020 till December 31, 2020.

Mr. Anjum Nisar, who is former President of The Lahore Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI), is a seasoned businessman and has a vast knowledge about the issues being faced by the trade, industry and economy. Under his leadership, the FPCCI is expected to continue playing a vital role in the development of the local business community as well as a bridge between the private and public sectors in Pakistan.

The FPCCI also voted in the election of eleven Vice Presidents in charge of different areas of developments and functions.

Trust: the most valuable asset of the Digital Revolution

The vast majority of technologies, processes and assumptions underlying the innovations that will lead to a more prosperous future rely on the use and flow of data. More and more information must be exchanged between the various actors in ever-growing ecosystems for the economy to continue to function. At the same time, however, the threats caused by cyberattacks or the misuse of data are increasing — and pose a threat to entire ecosystems. Even more important than the huge economic damage is the erosion of trust: the most valuable asset of modern societies and economies for their digital transformation.

Trust facilitates the processes that keep the ecosystem and its various relationships running. For these data streams to keep on flowing and be put to best use, many actors need to take responsibility for (re)building trust. To do so, they need to focus on one of the most important pillars of trust: cybersecurity. By developing a clear strategy for cybersecurity and data use, it will be possible to continuously build and renew the trustworthiness of ecosystems as a whole.

Photo: For the data streams to keep on flowing and be put to best use, many actors need to take responsibility for (re)building trust. (Photo: Unsplash)

The erosion of trust versus the potential of data

Building trust has always been a fundamental imperative for any organization. This need, as well as the associated responsibility for fostering the mechanisms that promote trust, will grow more challenging as the scope of digital transformation extends. Edelman’s 2019 Trust Barometer — a survey of more than 33,000 respondents from around the world — showed that trust, especially as it relates to new technology, continues to erode significantly.

This widespread erosion of trust is as alarming as the potential of data to improve business and benefit society is enormous. Procter and Gamble, for example, is using real-time production and logistics data to make for more efficient production lines and a lower carbon footprint. Siemens gas turbines generate, on average, 30 gigabytes of operating data daily; smart evaluation of this data can determine when turbines require servicing, resulting in less downtime for customers. In public transport, massive data sets from sensors are used to support predictive analytics that will, in the future, ensure close to 100% reliable rail transport. These promising applications can improve many aspects of our lives and yield the benefits expected if we can trust the system enough (and the people responsible for building and running it) to share the data that systems thrive on.

Defenders of trust must then go beyond collaboration and beyond technical expertise in distrust to understand the relationship between security, transparency, responsibility and trust.

Effective trust-building

This is why every organization and its stakeholders (innovators, business leaders and users) must understand how to achieve and maintain a high level of trustworthiness. Effective trust-building requires clear ownership from those at the highest level, who must define a trust strategy and set overall priorities. A team of IT and cybersecurity professionals should define a comprehensive set of measures to continuously work on the organization’s trustworthiness. From external ratings to standards and shared practices, such measures will define what trust means in practice and what it is to be trusted. To this end, such teams will need to probe the depths of distrust to pre-empt harmful activity and become defenders of trust by understanding the risks to trustworthiness, such as lack of privacy or irresponsible data-sharing.

Such expertise, while important, must be balanced with the potential opportunities that arise through data exchange. An important risk to innovation, for example, could be data hoarding — because hidden data cannot be used for data-based business models or applications of any kind. One solution to this risk could be to clearly understand how to classify different levels of information, facilitated by regular training. Technical solutions would then include secured communication channels and a central logging and reporting service to gather and deliver operational and security data across the organization.

Collaborating across industries

This applies not only within individual organizations but across entire industries, where distrust threatens much-needed data-sharing between companies. Again, effective and transparent cybersecurity measures as well as collaboration play an important role. To assure others of their organizational security, thereby demonstrating trustworthiness, businesses need to assume greater responsibility for their own cybersecurity. Collaborative new ways of meeting this challenge across industries and geographies would mitigate this risk.

Collaboration can be achieved on various levels and by various means. One credible way is by actively participating in — not merely passively using — information-sharing and analysis centers (ISACs). ISACs and the closely related information-sharing and analysis organizations (ISAO) gather and share information on cyber threats, but they need commitment from companies to function optimally. Business leaders must recognize the importance of building trust and create a culture in which information-sharing is accepted and encouraged. Other options for collaboration include the World Economic Forum’s Platform for Shaping the Future of Cybersecurity and Digital Trust or initiatives like the Global Cybersecurity Alliance or Charter of Trust.

Defenders of trust must then go beyond collaboration and beyond technical expertise in distrust to understand the relationship between security, transparency, responsibility and trust. Good security is the foundational element of trust, but to build a viable system of trustful relationships, other aspects of trust need to be incorporated, including transparency and accountability. These values have to underpin any system aiming to foster the long-term, sustainable trust that supports the life-improving and transformative aspects of data-based business models.

Related themes: Cybersecurity Internet Of Things

Bill Fryberger
Director of Information Security, Procter & Gamble at World Economic Forum

Bill Fryberger is a global information security leader with over 22 years in information security operations leadership, consulting and solutions design. Experience includes building cost-effective teams to deliver global information security operations, compliance, technology programs and systems aligned with critical business requirements and external industry regulations in large, multi-national organizations.

Kai Hermsen
Global Coordinator for the Charter of Trust for Siemens at World Economic Forum

Kai Hermsen is the global coordinator for the Charter of Trust for Siemens. Previously, he headed the Siemens cybersecurity strategy and worked as project manager in Siemens Management Consulting in Germany and India. He has a background in business administration.

Daniel Dobrygowski
Head of Governance and Policy at World Economic Forum

Daniel Dobrygowski is the head of governance and policy for the World Economic Forum Centre for Cybersecurity, where he advises on strategy, law, and policy around cybersecurity issues. His research areas include privacy, election security, intellectual property, competition law, digital trust, and governance of new and emerging technologies.

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

Coronavirus: One step back for the global economy

For a second there, the global economy was off to a slightly better start for 2020. The U.S. and China finally inked an initial “phase one” trade deal that at least promised to pause hostilities for a while. That provided some much-needed respite for a world economy, which last year reached its weakest point since the global financial crisis. Shortly after, the International Monetary Fund was quick to provide a more upbeat global growth outlook, suggesting that slowing economic activity might be bottoming out.

Enter the Wuhan coronavirus. We can only speculate what ultimate impact — both human and economic — the virus will have, depending on how far it ends up spreading.

The most important channel of economic impact will likely be the hit to Chinese consumer spending. That’s less a function of the inherent danger of the virus — which is still unknown — and more about the precautionary response of the government and Chinese consumers leading people to stay home instead of heading to the shops, eating out, traveling or doing leisure activities. Other government containment efforts will also add to this — including lost output as businesses stay shut for longer following the Lunar New Year.

Photo: Getty Images

Photo: People wear face masks as they wait at Hankou Railway Station in Wuhan, China. A new infectious coronavirus known as “2019-nCoV” was discovered in Wuhan in mid-January

How big of an impact for the Chinese economy might this prove? Comparing it to the 2002–03 SARS outbreak suggests the shock could be substantial. While China’s economy continued to grow briskly through that episode, the underlying story suggests today’s experience could be quite different.

In 2003, Chinese consumption growth suffered a sharp slowdown. The economy was only able to escape a drop in headline growth because investment and exports were booming at the time, with China having entered its hyper export-led growth phase following its 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization. The government was also able to help with stimulus measures.

This time around things are very different. Consumption is now an even more important driver of the economy while investment and exports have been weakening — reflecting China’s efforts to reduce its reliance on debt-fueled investment and pressure on the external front from the trade war with America.

There is also much less scope for sizable stimulus today, with Chinese policymakers aiming to stabilize macro leverage in the economy in order to contain systemic financial risks. China might also be reluctant to let a weaker yuan serve as a natural exhaust valve — for fear of encouraging capital outflows but also potentially reigniting economic tensions with the Trump administration over the exchange rate. Having said that, if things worsen, China’s top leadership may eventually judge that more support is needed to buttress things.

It is not clear how far the virus itself might spread in other countries, but the indirect effect of a sharply slowing Chinese economy would be felt by others.

All up, if the Wuhan coronavirus crisis proves around the same scale as the SARS episode, then China’s economy could conceivably be looking at economic growth dipping from the current 6.1% rate to something in the 4%-5% range this year, even on the government’s rosy numbers. This is of course simply a guess. A lot of variables could influence that. A wider epidemic would spell bigger problems. Conversely, even successful government and public precautions might still impose a significant cost on the economy, if that is what it takes to halt the spread of the virus.

What might the impact be on the global economy? China accounts for about a fifth of world output on a purchasing power parity basis — the IMF’s preferred measure — meaning a Chinese slowdown to say 4.5% would directly knock off 0.3 percentage points from the fund’s latest global forecast of 3.3% for 2020 (made only last week). That alone would effectively wipe out the 2020 uptick in global growth that the IMF was hoping for and instead keep the world economy growing at a similar pace to last year — already the slowest pace of global growth since the 2008–09 crisis.

Knock on effects for other economies could however make things worse. It is not clear how far the virus itself might spread in other countries. But the indirect effect of a sharply slowing Chinese economy would be felt by others and could be a major difference compared to the SARS experience. Not only are the risks of a sharp Chinese slowdown greater this time around, but China is also now a far more important source of demand for the rest of the world, particularly in Asia.

And what about Australia? Australia’s tourism and education exports to China would appear most in the firing line. China has announced a halt to overseas tour groups. However, Australia’s tourism exports to China only amount to about 0.2% of GDP. Education exports amount to a more sizable 0.6%. But the experience during the SARS epidemic was that education exports remained resilient, suggesting less cause for concern.

Meanwhile, the fact that the overall slowdown in China’s economy will be consumption-led should help insulate Australia’s more important commodity exports from major damage (if China were to resort to renewed stimulus, it could even provide some boost). Australia’s much less significant agricultural exports could however take a hit from weaker Chinese consumption.

A weaker Australian dollar in response to increased global risk aversion and slower Chinese growth should however provide at least a partial offset — giving a boost to Australia’s international competitiveness, including tourism, education, and agricultural exports to other countries.

The economic risks for Australia therefore look less severe than some might fear.

All of this, however, depends on how far the virus ultimately spreads.

Related themes: China Risk Mitigation

Roland Rajah
Director of the International Economy Program at the Lowy Institute@RolandMRajah
Roland Rajah is the director of the International Economy Program at the Lowy Institute. Before joining the Lowy Institute, he was a senior economist and country manager at the Asian Development Bank, where he worked on macro-fiscal policy, economic growth, and development issues in the Pacific region.

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

Global FDIs remain flat in 2019: UNCTAD Report

According to the latest issue of UNCTAD’s Global Investment Trends Monitor, global foreign direct investment (FDI) remained flat in 2019, at $1.39 trillion, a 1% decline from a revised $1.41 trillion in 2018. This is against the backdrop of weaker macroeconomic performance and policy uncertainty for investors, including trade tensions.

FDI flows to developed countries remained at a historically low level, decreasing by a further 6% to an estimated $643 billion. Flows to developing economies were unchanged at $695 billion. Flows to transition economies rose by two thirds to $57 billion.

The report can be downloaded HERE.

Trends in selected economies:

(1) FDI in the United Kingdom down 6% as Brexit unfolds.
(2) Hong Kong, China divestments cause a 48% FDI decline in turbulent times.
(3) Singapore up 42% in a buoyant ASEAN region.
(4) Zero-growth of flows to both the United States and China.
(5) Brazil up 26% at the start of a privatization programme.
(6) German inflows triple as MNEs extend loans to foreign affiliates in a year of slow growth.
Looking ahead, UNCTAD expects FDI flows to rise marginally in 2020 on the back of further modest growth of the world economy.

The China-Japan Economic Relationship Is Getting Stronger

China’s Premier Li Keqiang (R) meets with Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (2nd L) at a bilateral meeting during the 8th trilateral leaders’ meeting between China, South Korea and Japan in China’s Sichuan province. The reorientation of Japan’s economy toward China represents a paradigm shift.

Photo: Wang Zhao-Pool/Getty Images

“If the relationship between China and the United States, the world’s two largest economies, is the most important relationship in the world, then arguably the second most important relationship is that between China … and its neighbor, Japan, the third largest economy,” wrote distinguished East Asia expert, Ezra Vogel.

Indeed, Japan and China have been closely intertwined for more than 1,500 years through economic, cultural and political connections, perhaps longer than any other two countries.

Hot Economics, Cold Politics

In recent times, political relations between Japan and China have suffered from conflict, different interpretations of history, territorial disputes and Japan’s close political relationship with the U.S. But since the opening of China to the world economy in 1978, business and economic connections between these two countries have blossomed, thanks to their geographical proximity and natural complementaries.

China’s rising middle class provides a welcome market for a Japan mired in demographic stagnation, while Japan’s advanced technology offers many benefits to China, including essential components for companies like Huawei and products that China assembles on behalf of companies like Apple. The Japan-China relationship is often described as “hot economics, cold politics.”

A major rebooting of the Japan-China economic partnership occurred in 1978, when Chinese Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping visited Japan, the first-ever visit of a Chinese state leader.

Massive Technology Transfer

Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping visited a Panasonic TV factory in Osaka and said to company founder Kōnosuke Matsushita, “Mr. Matsushita, you are called the god of management in Japan. Would you be willing to help us advance the modernization of China?” The founder immediately responded, “We will do whatever we can to contribute to the modernization of China.”

Throughout the 1980s, Mr. Matsushita transferred technology, trained Chinese workers and otherwise helped China modernize its industry through 150 separate projects. China learned how Mr. Matsushita made everything from electric irons to transformers and semiconductors.

Panasonic’s investment in China was just the beginning of the wave of Japanese investment in China. The total stock of Japanese foreign direct investment in China stood at some $124 billion at the end of 2018, with about 23,000 Japanese companies now having operations in China.

Japan’s Biggest Trading Partner

In the early days, Japanese manufacturing companies in the motor vehicle, electronics and heavy industries were taking advantage of China’s low cost structure. But today, the buying power of China’s emerging middle class is a growing attraction for Japanese companies.

With such a strong investment relationship, it is not surprising that China has also become Japan’s most important trading partner.

Trade has increased from $1 billion to some $317 billion over the past 45 years and now represents more than 20% of Japan’s total trade — even though it has suffered recently from the U.S. administration’s trade war and China’s slowdown. Japan is also China’s third-largest trading partner. The recent agreement by 15 regional economies, including both Japan and China, for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership will only improve the foundations for trade relations.

Chinese Tourists

Today, Japan’s services trade is being driven by a veritable boom in inbound tourists, with the number of visitors leaping from around 8 million in 2008 to more than 31 million in 2018. And not surprisingly, Chinese tourists, now the biggest group visiting Japan, have been behind this boom.

In 2018, some 8.4 million Chinese tourists visited Japan and spent a whopping $13 billion, accounting for nearly 34% of all spending by foreign visitors.

Japan has also experienced a boom in international students, with 300,000 students in Japan in 2018, up from 124,000 a decade earlier. Once again, China is leading the way, accounting for 115,000 of these students, way ahead of Vietnam, in second place with 72,000.

Chinese Immigrants

A similar story applies to immigration. In 2018, there were some 2.7 million foreign residents in Japan, an increase of 270% since 1990, representing 2.2% of the national population. China has now jumped ahead of Korea as Japan’s biggest source of foreign residents, with close to 800 thousand. Many of these Chinese residents are skilled workers.

The reorientation of Japan’s economy toward China represents a paradigm shift.

From 1945 until the 1970s, when the People’s Republic of China was finally recognized by the U.S. and Japan, the U.S. held Japan back from doing business with China, much to the chagrin of Japanese business. The U.S.-Japan Security Alliance gave the U.S. great sway over Japanese foreign policy, and Japanese exports were thus more focussed on the U.S. market.

America Accelerating the Realignment

But with the progressive rise of a more open and dynamic China over the past few decades, it was only natural that the historical pattern of close Sino-Japanese economic relations would re-emerge.

And the recent disdain of the U.S. in regional free trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership will only further marginalize the U.S. as a trading partner for Japan and other Asian countries.

More generally, as economic relations are drawing Japan and China closer together, so too is the erratic behavior of the U.S., especially in the trade wars. With the U.S. perceived as an unreliable political and economic partner, it is only natural that Japan and China seek cooperation together.

While Japan followed America’s lead in not signing up to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, it is now seeking to cooperate with the project. And both Japanese and Chinese leaders now speak positively of the new era of Sino-Japan relations.

Moving Past Historic Rifts

We cannot say that Japan is moving away from the U.S. and toward China — the U.S. has long been Japan’s security guarantor, and Japan still feels more comfortable being aligned with another democracy. The Japan-China relationship still has many deep historical scars, too, and Japan is concerned at China’s military buildup and assertive behavior in the East and South China Seas.

But we do seem to be witnessing a slow drift of Japan to a more independent role in the Indo-Pacific and in its global relations, and as part of this, its relationship with China has become more important and will likely continue to increase in importance in the decades to come.

It’s even possible that closer people-to-people contacts between Japan and China will eventually soothe some of the wounds of history in tandem with generational change and thereby improve each country’s low public opinion of the other. Indeed, evidence is now appearing of Chinese public attitudes to Japan starting to warm.

Related themes: China Geopolitical Conflict Trade

John West
Executive Director of the Asian Century Institute
John West is author of the recent book, “Asian Century … on a Knife-edge,” and executive director of the Asian Century Institute. He is also adjunct professor at Tokyo’s Sophia University and contributing editor at FDI-Intelligence, a Financial Times magazine. These positions follow a long career in international economics and relations, with major stints at the Australian Treasury where he was director of balance of payments, OECD (head of public affairs and director OECD Forum) and Asian Development Bank Institute (senior consultant for capacity building and training).

Why Did India Suddenly Pull Out of the World’s Largest Trade Deal?
Better Corporate Governance Is Critical for Japan’s Future Prosperity
Japan Is a Poor Performer on Gender Equality. Can the ‘Womenomics’ Initiative Help?

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

Confrontations and Threats: The Prospects for 2020 and Beyond

Residents in the Sydney area were warned of catastrophic fire danger as Australia prepared for a fresh wave of deadly bushfires that have ravaged the drought-stricken east of the country. The 2020 Global Risks Report outlines the intensifying confrontations and deepening long-term threats that 2020 will encounter.

Photo: Peter Parks/AFP via Getty Images

The new decade holds immense promise for societal, economic and technological advances. At the same time, as highlighted in the 2020 Global Risks Report prepared by the World Economic Forum with the support of Marsh & McLennan and other partners, the world faces intensifying confrontations between and within countries, as well as escalating long-term threats from climate change and biodiversity loss. Emerging technologies are also amplifying some short-term risks and creating new risks, for example, with the increasingly pervasive deployments of artificial intelligence.

An Unsettled Geopolitical Landscape

Conflict continues to persist in the Middle East, tensions are growing in North Asia and there are ongoing issues in the South China Sea. The role of multilateral institutions in coordinating around critical issues has been challenged by national political agendas, with many countries choosing to forge their own path.

Economic confrontations between major powers have also been intensifying, reflected in the escalation of tariffs and trade disputes as well as increasing investment restrictions worldwide.

While trade tensions between the U.S. and China have eased to some degree recently, most risk experts see the overall level of economic confrontations between major countries growing in 2020. High debt levels in the public and private sector have also been heightening economic vulnerability.

Source: Global Risks Report, 2020

Nations also face deepening fractures in their domestic politics, with societies increasingly polarized and a growing level of protests in many regions. We have seen this in the U.K. with the frictions underpinning Brexit, in the partisan politics in the U.S., which will further intensify in the run up to the presidential election in 2020, and in the social unrest driven by systemic economic inequality in Latin America, Africa and Europe. Disapproval of how governments are addressing fundamental social and economic issues is sparking protests in the streets, for example, in Chile and Hong Kong. Domestic political polarization ranks as one of the risks most likely to continue increasing in this year’s Global Risks Report.

Technology is amplifying both domestic and international confrontations. Domestically, new digital technologies have spawned fake news and extremist content online, which has served to fracture discourse, erode trust and fuel unrest within countries. Technology is also facilitating interstate conflicts, evident in state-affiliated cyberattacks on critical infrastructure and the increasing strategic competition and conflict among countries with respect to the acquisition of sensitive technologies.

Growing Urgency on Environmental Risks

The most striking aspect of this year’s Global Risks Report is that the top five long-term risks are all in the environmental sphere.

Concerns about climate change have been rising over the past 10 years, and all key indicators point to a bad situation getting worse. The recent spike in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events has served to further elevate concerns.

Polar ice is melting more quickly than anticipated, with significant implications for sea-level rise. A growing proportion of the world’s population is exposed to catastrophic flood risk due to the combination of climate shifts and rapid urbanization in coastal and low-lying areas.

Australia is experiencing a continent-scale wildfire emergency with more than 5 million hectares burned, and California’s catastrophic 2018 wildfire season caused more than $22 billion in direct property damages. Shifts in seasonal temperature and rainfall are damaging crop yields, increasing the stress on countries dependent on agricultural output and intensifying disputes over water resources.

Biodiversity loss also rose significantly in this year’s risk ranking.

Recent reports have brought greater attention to the irreversible consequences to society from the loss of biodiversity within and between species, which threatens food security and — in a vicious circle — amplifies climate change impacts. For example, damage to coral reefs increases flood risk, and deforestation in the Amazon increases the potential for drought and fire.

Climate change activism is growing, and governments are facing mounting pressure to strengthen their efforts to address climate change mitigation and adaptation. This pressure and demand for action is also being channeled to the private sector. Companies should actively monitor legislative and regulatory developments so they don’t get caught out by unexpected policy changes or regulation and prepare for increasing pressure on climate issues from all of their stakeholders: investors, customers, employees and communities.

And as more governments are headed toward mandatory corporate disclosures of climate risks, companies will benefit from engaging in more rigorous risk quantification and scenario planning in this area.

Health Care Systems Are on Life Support

The Global Risks Report also underlines a heightened sense of urgency globally regarding health care. Surging social care and health demands and the rise of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and mental health disorders are increasing strains on an already stretched global health system. NCDs account for 41 million deaths each year, and the WHO expects this number to reach 52 million by 2030. Depression and anxiety disorders are also rising — currently 700 million people worldwide are estimated to have a mental health disorder.

Source: Global Risks Report, 2020

As an example of interconnected risks, climate change is further exacerbating the strain on health systems globally. Weather-related disruptions to health include air pollution, food and water insecurity and an increase in infectious diseases due to rising temperatures.

Technology Risk Continues As a Critical Concern for Business

Cyberattacks remain the No. 1 risk concern among business leaders in advanced economies, and the rapid expansion in internet-of-things deployment is substantially amplifying the cyberattack surface for many companies. Data fraud and theft is also a high-ranking risk for the business community.

There are also growing concerns with respect to the potential threats stemming from artificial intelligence — including safety, privacy and bias risks — and business leaders face increasing societal mistrust of emerging technologies generally.

There has been limited progress in the development of any global governance standards with respect to emerging technology risks in the public sector. Some businesses are enhancing their internal approaches to technology governance — for example, by launching AI ethics frameworks or dedicated committees to oversee AI — as leaders grapple with the wide-ranging implications stemming from deploying these technologies.

Improving Resilience and Capturing Opportunity

The Global Risks Report is a useful reference point for companies to consider external threats and their organization’s resilience to them as well the potential growth opportunities that may stem from them. Focus should center on three areas.

First, business leaders should rigorously identify and assess the potential sources of disruption specific to their company stemming from the current global risk landscape. Risk quantification and scenario planning around the potential impact of individual or interconnected global risks can help identify potential tensions between commercial innovation, operational resilience and risk appetite.

Second, they should review their risk prevention and response plans more fully, with a particular focus on whether their business is ready to respond effectively to fast-moving events that can impact operations and reputation. This process may facilitate the discovery and implementation of early-warning indicators, so that quick decision-making and response engagement can happen when a crisis arises.

Finally, businesses should consider how to turn global risks into opportunities by pursuing growth and investment strategies that align their organization with the direction of change.

In relation to climate risk, for example, many businesses are evaluating their physical and transition risk profile to consider their supply chain vulnerabilities and fulfill legal, regulatory and investor requirements.

The same analysis can be leveraged to consider the new and expanded product and market opportunities that will be created from the evolution of climate change — for example, in renewable energy, sustainability-linked finance or more general innovations that will attract customers, investors and employees with a heightened sensitivity to the issue.

The complex, multivector nature of these risks won’t make it easy for companies to navigate the coming decade. It will require a constant weather eye on the geopolitical landscape, innovation and agility in technology, and a willingness to adapt supply chains and business models to accommodate the rapidly changing climate. But for those who do succeed, the rewards will be well worth it.

Related themes: Climate Change Risk Mitigation Trade

John Drzik
Chairman of Marsh & McLennan Insights
John P. Drzik is chairman of Marsh & McLennan Insights, a research group focused on identifying breakthrough perspectives and solutions to society’s most complex challenges. He frequently writes and speaks on timely strategy, risk management and insurance issues. John previously served as president of Marsh’s Global Risk and Digital division, where his responsibilities included consulting, analytics and digital insurance solutions. Prior to this, he was CEO of Oliver Wyman. John serves on the advisory board of the International Risk Governance Council and the Wharton Financial Institutions Center.

Business As Usual Is No Longer an Option

Real-Time Risk Management and Next-Generation Insurance

Reconciling Opportunity and Resilience in Changing Times

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

Global challenges to prepare for in 2020

Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Photo: A cargo ship prepares to dock at PortMiami as the United States and China continue their trade war. The new face of trade will be something to keep a close eye on in the new year.

2019 has been a whirlwind of upheaval and change around the world. The Altamar podcast team of Peter Schechter and Muni Jensen has had no shortage of global issues to jump into, from the colossal but rocky U.S.-China trade relationship to tiny Guyana’s oil bonanza. Throw in protests in Hong Kong, the return of Peronism to Argentina, growing cyber warfare and worldwide attacks on press freedom for good measure. It’s been a turbulent year. And, it begs the question — what will 2020 have in store?

David Rothkopf, former editor-at-large of Foreign Policy magazine and U.S. undersecretary of commerce for the International Trade Administration, joined Altamar to peer into the crystal ball and predict the primary global issues to track in the coming year. Mr. Rothkopf is a prolific author and journalist who writes extensively on international affairs.

Five Trends to Watch

Altamar identified five trends it believes will shape the international political stage in 2020:

First and foremost, citizen unrest will continue to be a major global force as citizens worldwide take to the streets to express discontent with governments across the political spectrum.

We’re also witnessing the decline of the West, including the dominance of its institutions and cultural influence that spread in the wake of WWII.

2020’s third trend will undoubtedly be the ongoing climate emergency, as humanity pushes ever closer to the point of no return in addressing climate change.

Fourth, the end of privacy could be upon us with the rise of big data, coordinated election interference and worldwide disinformation campaigns.

Finally, we agree that the new face of trade will be something to keep a close eye on in the new year. Rising globalization fears have sparked a backlash, prompting countries to eschew favorable trade policies and regulate it instead — tariffs, for instance, became a weapon of choice among global players, a trend that’s unlikely to abate any time soon.

The Climate Emergency

Among these myriad challenges, Mr. Rothkopf agreed that the current climate emergency looms larger than anything else: “The damage that is being done — in some cases, irreversibly to the planet — is going to have consequences that extend as far as we can see and result in tens of thousands of lost lives, hundreds of millions of people dislocated, tens of billions — hundreds of billions of dollars in cost, and some of the world’s leading countries are doing very little about it. … We need to set real standards, to hold people to them, to penalize people for not achieving those standards, and to hold accountable those who are doing damage that the Earth cannot recover from.”

Threats to Privacy and Democracy

The rapidly evolving role of tech also makes Mr. Rothkopf believe that this issue will rise fast in 2020. He thinks that simultaneous advances in artificial intelligence, big data and the loss of privacy will soon produce a global backlash: “We’re starting to see it now, but we’re only in the very early days.

Because we haven’t really seen governments go Big Brother on this stuff, although the Chinese are getting closer and closer to it with facial recognition and giving people social points that they get charged and sort of moving us into real Black Mirror territory, and I think that’s going to happen increasingly.”

Mr. Rothkopf flags the decline of liberalism worldwide as another major, foundational change: “I think that democracy is in trouble. It’s in trouble in the United States. It never really got a foothold in China, and it’s being further suppressed there. It’s in trouble in the world’s largest democracy in India. It’s in trouble in Europe, where the Russians and the far-right and ethno-nationalists are actively working against shared institutions and democratic processes and undermining those processes.”

To protect Western institutions, Mr. Rothkopf warns that we need to update the international system: “We need to go back to these institutions and fix the ones that are old and broken. … And then we need to recognize some institutional gaps that we have that need to be addressed, whether that’s an alliance for security in the Pacific, which doesn’t exist, or whether that’s global institutions to deal with climate change or transmigration or issues like common network standards.”

Reimagining Global Institutions

Mr. Rothkopf is worried that global economic inequality has created further distress worldwide. “The top 0.01% of the U.S. population has wealth equivalent to the bottom 90% of the U.S. population. So, democracy is being quashed, but free markets have gotten out of hand, and inequality is growing at a record pace,” explained Mr. Rothkopf.

Addressing this issue head on will require enormous political will and institutional change: “I think we need to make some fundamental structural changes in our society that take the power away from those who would despoil the environment in order to profit in the short term and give it back to the people who are going to have to live in that environment, notably both those who are disenfranchised economically and those who are disenfranchised because they haven’t been born yet.”

According to Mr. Rothkopf, world leaders need to work together to combat these global, existential threats — and fast: “The next generation of leaders have the job before them sort of present at the creation 2.0. They need to reimagine global institutions.” But perhaps there is room for hope, he argued: “The best part about 2020 is that it won’t be 2019.”

Altamar is a global politics podcast hosted by former Atlantic Council SVP Peter Schechter and award-winning journalist Muni Jensen. Click here to listen to the full episode with David Rothkopf.

For the complete report, including the audio conversation, consult to Brink Asia site HERE.

Related themes: Artificial Intelligence Climate Change Geopolitical Conflict

David Rothkopf
CEO at The Rothkopf Group
David Rothkopf is CEO of The Rothkopf Group. He was the former editor-at-large of Foreign Policy magazine and served as U.S. undersecretary of commerce for the International Trade Administration.

Renewable Energy tops citizens’ demands for new infrastructure

The need to address climate change emerges as the most pressing demand in a survey of public attitudes on infrastructure across 28 countries. Three-quarters of citizens see investment in infrastructure as vital to their countries’ future economic growth, though 60% think their country is not doing enough to meet its infrastructure needs.

The Global Infrastructure Index survey was conducted by Ipsos, in partnership with the Global Infrastructure Investor Association (GIIA), and is the largest survey of its kind into public attitudes on infrastructure.

Encouragingly for international investors, around two-thirds of respondents are comfortable with private sector investment in infrastructure if it means the country gets what it needs, outnumbering those who are against foreign investors by more than three to one.

Photo: An image of a car driving past windmills. A recent survey shows how the public feels about the future of infrastructure: The issue of public or private ownership comes bottom, while addressing environmental impact is the most important.

Out of the 14 infrastructure sectors surveyed, airports received the highest approval rating (67% rate them as very/fairly good), followed by digital (55%), water supply and sewerage (also 55%), and motorways (54%). Citizens were least positive about current infrastructure related to electric vehicle charging (24%), flood defenses (31%), solar energy (33%) and wind energy (34%).

Support for Private Investment

At a time when there is much public debate over the merits of privately owned and operated infrastructure, the index shows that satisfaction with current infrastructure tends to be higher where the private sector plays a prominent role, notably in airports and water.

Furthermore, when asked to rank in importance seven factors to consider in the future, the issue of public or private ownership comes bottom, with addressing environmental impact followed by making the quality as good as possible the most important. This reinforces GIIA’s view that the debate over public or private investment is a distraction from what people really care about in terms of improving existing and delivering new infrastructure.

Overall, Europe scored the worst rating of any region (29%) in terms of overall satisfaction, with Asia Pacific highest with 47%, closely followed by BRIC countries with 44% and the Middle East and Africa with 44%. North America scored 38%, Latin America 31% and the G-8 35%.

Source: Global Infrastructure Index, 2019, Ipsos and GAIIA

Climate Tops Citizens’ Concerns

When asked to identify priorities for future investment, respondents across the globe said that more needs to be done in the areas of renewable energy, indicating a strong and increasing level of public support for government policies to address climate change.

Investment in solar energy (42%) topped the list of global priorities ahead of wind energy at 34%. Other sectors identified by respondents as being priorities for future investment included both water supply (39%) and flood defenses (38%).

Source: Global Infrastructure Index, 2019, Ipsos and GAIIA

However, only a fifth globally (22%) believe there should be increased spending on infrastructure if it means funding through higher taxes or government borrowing. This compares to 53% who think public spending is already high and that taxes and government borrowing should not be increased any further to improve infrastructure.

These results reinforce the critical importance of the need for an honest conversation between government and citizens on how infrastructure is paid for. Respondents also expressed a firm belief that technical experts, not politicians, are best placed to make decisions on new infrastructure (59% to 21%).

The Nimby Factor Matters

For the first time, the index also looked at factors that influence support for new infrastructure. Globally, levels of support for new infrastructure are highest when projects improve the local economy (75%) and create jobs (74%). However, support wanes significantly when it involves building on greenfield sites (47%) or increasing traffic congestion (34%).

“The index runs from 1 to 100 based on participants’ positivity towards building new infrastructure, with the maximum value of 100 set at Serbia, which scored the highest (and Japan, at 1, the lowest). The index thus shows the relative ‘nimbyism’ between countries,” according to the index report.

Source: Global Infrastructure Index, 2019, Ipsos and GAIIA

G-8 countries were the least receptive to new infrastructure being built in their local area (defined as a 10-minute walk from where they live) with the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, Germany, France and Japan all toward the bottom of the rankings. This strongly points to a greater need for government and investors to ensure they are effectively communicating the benefits that new infrastructure can deliver in the face of greater skepticism from local communities.

Serbia, Poland and Peru come top of the Nimby Index as being the most consistently positive about building new infrastructure locally.

Ben Marshall, research director at Ipsos MORI, commented: “Our annual survey shows a relative improvement in global public’s ratings of infrastructure, but also continues to underline people’s strongly held conviction that governments need to do more.

“We’re seeing growing salience of environmental considerations and also interest in investment in renewable energy. People are pragmatic — saying they are comfortable with foreign and private investment — but are also wary of tax rises and borrowing and, on balance, favor maintaining and repairing existing infrastructure over investing in new projects.”

Related themes: Climate Change Infrastructure Investment Renewable Energy

Jon Phillips
Director of Corporate Affairs for the Global Infrastructure Investor Association

Jon is the director of corporate affairs for the Global Infrastructure Investor Association (GIIA). GIIA represents 70 of the leading institutional investors around the world along with many of the professional services firms that advise the infrastructure sector. Jon has spent over 25 years in infrastructure-related sectors spanning both the private and public sectors.

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

Why did India suddenly pull out of the world’s largest trade deal?

After seven long years of talks, leaders of 15 Asia-Pacific nations finally reached an agreement on the world’s largest trade deal, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), in Bangkok in November (the RCEP will likely be formally signed next year).

India’s Sudden About Face

China pushed to finalize the RCEP deal as it faces slowing growth in part due to its trade war with the U.S. But at the very last minute, even after the leaders’ photo was taken, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi pulled his country out of the deal.

India has since been subject to much criticism. It is alleged to be missing out on a new growth opportunity, caving into domestic protectionist pressures and allowing China to dominate trade in the Asia-Pacific. It has also been accused of taking other countries for a ride, by jumping ship following seven years of tough negotiation. What is the truth behind this talk?

Photo: AFP via Getty Images

Photo: A farmer winnows paddy crops at a field on the outskirts of Agartala. Today, about half of India’s workforce is still employed in agriculture and has relatively low levels of education, which means that alternative work opportunities are very limited.

The RCEP’s objective was to create one single free trade agreement (FTA) between the 10 ASEAN member states (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam), which already have their own FTA, and those six countries which already have FTAs with ASEAN — Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea and New Zealand — the “Plus-6 countries.”

The World’s Largest Trading Bloc

The negotiations had several elements — consolidating the “noodle bowl” of many disparate FTAs; aiming for “significant improvements” over the existing agreements; and achieving agreements between those Plus-6 countries that don’t already have agreements among themselves.

On paper, the RCEP looks like a huge deal, even without India. The participating countries account for 30% of global GDP and about a quarter of world exports and foreign investment. It could thus become the world’s biggest trading bloc.

But the RCEP is not very ambitious and could not be compared with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP or TPP 11), which covers a broad range of issues of relevance to international business, like intellectual property, competition policy, state-owned enterprises, government procurement, labor, the environment and transparency and anti-corruption. RCEP is more narrowly focussed, with an emphasis on merchandise trade barriers.

What Are India’s Reasons?

India already has FTAs with ASEAN, Japan and Korea, and talks are also underway for an FTA with Australia and New Zealand. So India is not excluded from the Asia-Pacific trade world. Its main gap is the lack of FTAs with China (and Australia and New Zealand), which the RCEP would have covered.

India has a number of concerns about the RCEP. First, the country already has trade deficits with 11 of the 15 other RCEP members (amounting to more than $100 billion in total), with half of the deficit being with China.

It was thus concerned that the RCEP would lead to even more cheap Chinese products flooding into India, a risk that is heightened by excess capacity across a range of Chinese industries, at a time of economic slowdown. During the RCEP negotiations, India’s request for slower phasing of market opening and safeguards against surges in imports were resisted by other countries.

India’s Fear of a Widening Trade Deficit

Indeed, India’s experience has been that following each FTA it has negotiated, its trade deficit has expanded. It also fears that the RCEP would undermine its ambitions to develop its historically weak manufacturing sector.

Moreover, some of the more competitive sectors of the Indian economy, notably IT and pharma industries (India is the world’s largest supplier of generic medicines), face great restrictions in attempting to enter the Chinese market, as Beijing protects its own companies. These restrictions have not been solved by RCEP.

Another area of concern for India is agriculture, especially the dairy industry. It was worried about a surge of imports from Australia and New Zealand that could disturb its agricultural sector, which remains very backward. Today, about half of India’s workforce is still employed in agriculture and has relatively low levels of education, which means that alternative work opportunities are very limited.

Chronically Weak Competitiveness

Lastly, despite the recent hype surrounding the RCEP deal, most expert analyses point to the RCEP generating only very minimal benefits for participating countries. This is hardly a source of enthusiasm for a country like India whose economy has been slowing sharply for the past few quarters.

India’s withdrawal from the RCEP agreement was a great disappointment to both Japan and Australia, which are both seeking to foster India as a regional counterweight to China.

Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison has insisted that the RCEP door is still open for India, while there are reports that Japan may not ultimately sign up to the RCEP unless India is also a member. In other words, it seems very possible that further talks will take place, and it may be possible to resolve India’s concerns.

Be that as it may, India’s reluctance to sign FTAs reflects, in part, an incapacity to benefit sufficiently from past FTAs. And this is due to India’s chronically weak competitiveness for which the government is substantially responsible.

India ranks only 58th out of 140 countries in the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report, whereas China has already climbed the ladder to the 28th position. India’s competitiveness is hampered by many factors in the hands of government, like its poor human capital, inadequate infrastructure, low adoption of information and communications technology, antiquated labor and land laws, inefficient logistics systems and gender discrimination. And the recent trend of discrimination against certain religious minorities is only destabilizing and fracturing this already difficult-to-govern country.

Need for More Open Trading

If India is to realize Prime Minister Modi’s dream of India becoming a manufacturing superpower, it will not only have to revolutionize its competitiveness, but it will need to become significantly more open to international trade and investment.

Global value chains, the grand vehicle for modern manufacturing, are based on a rich web of trade in inputs, parts, components and final goods, as well as foreign investment. Any hint of protectionism provides a great deterrent.

RCEP may not have been a very attractive deal for India, but open trade and investment, bolstered by strong domestic competitiveness is a sure recipe for the kind of economic success that India is seeking.

Related themes: Geopolitical Conflict Trade

John West
Executive Director of the Asian Century Institute

John West is author of the recent book, “Asian Century … on a Knife-edge,” and executive director of the Asian Century Institute. He is also adjunct professor at Tokyo’s Sophia University and contributing editor at FDI-Intelligence, a Financial Times magazine. These positions follow a long career in international economics and relations, with major stints at the Australian Treasury where he was director of balance of payments, OECD (head of public affairs and director OECD Forum) and Asian Development Bank Institute (senior consultant for capacity building and training).

Better Corporate Governance Is Critical for Japan’s Future Prosperity

Japan Is a Poor Performer on Gender Equality. Can the ‘Womenomics’ Initiative Help?

The G-20 Summit Showed a World in Disarray, but Events on the Margins Suggest Progress

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

CIPE Sessions at the 33rd CACCI Conference on November 26-27, 2019 in Dhaka

Delegates to the 33rd CACCI Conference to be held on November 26-27, 2019 in Dhaka, Bangladesh can look forward to another interesting and highly informative gathering, as this year’s program will feature special sessions to be organized by the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE).

The two sessions to be organized by CIPE are the following:

Plenary Session 4 – This session will focus on the topic “Building an Enabling Environment for Inclusive Digital Transformation in the Asia-Pacific”. According to CIPE, the digital economy, including cross-border services, digital trade, and electronic commerce (e-commerce), contributes to democratic and economic development by expanding market access for local businesses, promoting inclusive trade, creating jobs, and expanding tax revenue for governments to provide essential services. As the scope of digital innovation expands around the globe, so must national and regional policies that facilitate business growth and competitiveness.

Invited speakers will share their perspectives on how to as business people they engage entrepreneurs/businesses and other stakeholders regarding digitalization and how to encourage chambers/associations to play an active role in achieving this objective. Potential question areas of discussion include: (a) Regional eCommerce and eTrade regulations; (b) E-payment solutions; (c) Data flows and data privacy; and (d) Policies for workforce readiness in ICTs/ 4th Industrial Revolution

Breakout Session on Overcoming the Digital Gender Divide – Speakers will share best practices and successful country examples and initiatives in bringing women into the digital economy. Research by the International Trade Centre shows that the share of women-owned firms doubles when moving from traditional offline trade to cross-border e-commerce. Including women entrepreneurs and business owners in developing the rules and regulations that govern online trade is crucial to promote participation and growth in e-commerce.

Potential areas of discussion include: (a) Opportunities for digitally-driven growth that empowers women and the barriers they still face (e.g., access to infrastructure, capital, technology, and to regional and global markets); (b) Best practices and successful country examples in bringing women into the digital economy (BWCCI could discuss their work on women’s digital empowerment; inclusive public private dialogue and policy reforms; discussion from Entrepreneurs); and (c) Potential synergies with existing regional initiatives (e.g., APEC Policy Partnership on Women in the Economy includes legal and business indicators such as the percentage of women using the internet and digital payments for online transactions; other relevant ASEAN initiatives, etc.)

CIPE is one of the four core institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy and an affiliate of the US Chamber of Commerce. Since 1983 CIPE has been working from the ground up with partners to find locally driven solutions to problems that affect the lives of millions of people. Working with our local partners that include business associations, chambers of commerce, think tanks, universities and advocacy organizations, CIPE is helping create the enabling environment for business to thrive.

The latest Conference program is available HERE

We encourage you to register now at the official Conference website at http://fbcci.org/2019cacci/

Thank you, and we look forward to seeing you in Dhaka.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Lin
Director-General
CACCI

“Regional Conference on Preventing and Combating Corruption in Infrastructure in Asia-Pacific,” on December 3, 2019 in Hanoi

CACCI would like to convey to its members an invitation from Business at OECD (BIAC) to participate in the “Regional Conference on Preventing and Combating Corruption in Infrastructure in Asia-Pacific” to be held on December 3, 2019 in Hanoi, Vietnam.

As part of the OECD Southeast Asia Anti-Corruption and Business Integrity Project, the OECD is organizing a series of regional workshops on the role of business in combating corruption and promoting integrity in the first week of December 2019.

During the week-long Conference, the first day, (December 3^rd), is open to business participation, and the BIAC has been invited to suggest participants as well as a Business at OECD speaker.

Should member organization, company or individual member be interested in participating and/or suggesting an expert from your company or association who is active in the region, please contact directly BIAC via e-mail: rosenbaum@biac.org.

The concept note and agenda can be downloaded HERE.

For more information on the Conference, interested parties may wish to visit the following website: https://www.oecd.org/site/adboecdanti-corruptioninitiative/meetingsandconferences/combatting-corruption-in-infrastructure-projects.htm

“2020 Smart City Summit & Expo” on March 24-27, 2020 in Taipei

CACCI forwards herewith an invitation to attend the “2020 Smart City Summit & Expo (SCSE)” to be held on March 24-27, 2020 in Taipei, Taiwan.

Organized by the Taipei Computer Association, the four-day event aims to accelerate the application of AI technologies in different areas such as transportation, healthcare, education, energy efficiency and sustainability, and architecture design through exhibitions, forums, and networking events.  By creating strong global networks for groups and individuals in the industry, the SCSE is expected to bring together more than 30,000 professional visitors and more than 250 exhibitors from around the world to share their insights and facilitate in-depth discussion at more than 60 parallel conference sessions.

Information kit of 2020 SCSE can be download it HERE.

Interested parties may wish to visit the event website at https://en.smartcity.org.tw/index.php/en-us/ for more information.

As ASEAN enters an infrastructure boom, geopolitical and economic risks abound

Photo: STR/AFP/Getty Images

Photo: A newly launched bullet train undergoes a test run between Yancheng in Jiangsu province and Lianyungang in China. Southeast Asia is witnessing an infrastructure boom, through loans provided by Japan and China.

Southeast Asia is witnessing an infrastructure boom, with major projects approved in Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. In several cases, these have been facilitated through loans and other assistance provided by Japan and China.

However, despite this boom, there’s also a clear gap in spending. The 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) require a collective $2.76 trillion in infrastructure spending between 2016 and 2030, according to the Asian Development Bank. That is about 5.7% of gross domestic product. Given that ASEAN states spend only about 2.3% of GDP on infrastructure, they are plainly falling far short of their needs.

Slowly, leaders in the region are waking up to the urgent need to spend.

Recently, Indonesian President Joko Widodo, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha have linked infrastructure development to their political destinies. Numerous infrastructure projects have been approved across the region in Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia.

The efforts of ASEAN nations to build and maintain basic infrastructure have often been supported by major overseas funders. Traditionally, loans and other assistance have come from Japan, but in recent years, China has stepped up its financing of large-scale projects in the Asia-Pacific region.

Japan is the biggest financier

Currently, Japan remains far ahead of China in terms of infrastructure investment in Southeast Asia. In 2018, Japan’s investments totaled $367 billion, compared to $255 billion from China. Japan is also ahead in terms of the number of infrastructure projects, with engagement in 240 projects, versus 210 by China. Vietnam is, by far, the largest recipient of Japan’s infrastructure investment in the region, with pending projects worth $209 billion, including a $58.7 billion high-speed rail line connecting Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City.

China, meanwhile, has poured $93 billion of its infrastructure investments in Southeast Asia, or 36% of the total, into Indonesia. The biggest Chinese project in the country is the $17.8 billion Kayan River hydropower plant on the island of Borneo.

But China’s involvement is growing fast

The comparison of Japan and China’s investments in Southeast Asia in a single year only reflects part of the story. In fact, China’s infrastructure investments in ASEAN have grown rapidly over the past few years. From 2012 to 2017, the value of China’s ASEAN construction contracts doubled to $19 billion. China not only wants to win the infrastructure race with other competitors, especially Japan, but it also wants to dominate this game and alter the overall economic order in the region. In the recent preliminary bidding for the North-South Expressway in Vietnam, the majority of the 60 potential investors came from China.

ASEAN should take a comprehensive and coordinated approach to receiving China’s infrastructure investment.

For ASEAN countries, accepting Chinese financing is considered a relatively wise choice to boost economic development, as these investments are affordable, unconditional and include the necessary funding and resources to process such megaprojects. In accordance with China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, Beijing has come to the aid of Laos by funding 70% of a $7 billion high-speed rail project, while its investments in Cambodia have helped sustain the country’s economic growth.

Concerns about a debt trap

Of course, there is no free lunch — such generous investments do not come without strings. Indeed, many of these investments are facing a lot of issues, including slow progress and low-quality management, and some critics argue the investments are a debt trap with unsustainable borrowing and unstable balance of payments.

Consequently, some countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia have grown cautious about BRI opportunities, and other concerns have put a damper on the excitement among ASEAN members. Indeed, China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea is a major challenge that prevents them from trusting China with large-scale projects that could affect their economies and political stability.

For Vietnam, one of the six countries with maritime jurisdiction claims in the area, its deep-rooted rivalry with China has made the idea of cooperating with China on large-scale projects a political taboo that has triggered public outcry.

Connective infrastructure can act as a tool for asserting power. Dominant powers may seek to reshape regional infrastructure to benefit their own interests. The Suez and Panama Canals are prominent examples of how major trade and transportation infrastructure served to project and bolster hegemonic power by Great Britain and the United States, respectively.

ASEAN’s hopes of fostering transportation connectivity with China in a way that would profit all sides with a “win-win” solution fail to consider China’s wider strategic view and self-interest. While China’s statements about BRI may align with ASEAN’s development and commercial aspirations, Beijing accords these infrastructure systems far greater strategic importance than do ASEAN nations. If Southeast Asian countries do not take this into account, the new infrastructure connections, which would tie each nation individually to China rather than link China with ASEAN as a whole, could ultimately pose a threat to regional connectivity, a key principle in the maintenance of the organization’s integrity, unity and security.

Despite the risks from China’s investments and its political calculations, China possesses the key resources for infrastructure development. It has amply demonstrated the depth of its pockets and its capacity to finance and execute deals around the world from Africa to the South Pacific to Latin America.

To cooperate with China and use these resources, ASEAN should take a comprehensive and coordinated approach to receiving China’s infrastructure investment. ASEAN members must have a joint vision of connectivity and a common standard for project approval, management, implementation and monitoring. Without these shared values and guidelines, the competition for limited infrastructure investments not only reduce the bargaining positions of Southeast Asian nations, but would likely trigger a “race to the bottom” in terms of project quality, undermining the fragile solidarity among ASEAN members and preventing collective efforts to restrain an assertive China and its ambitions in the region.

This piece first appeared in AsiaGlobal online.

Related themes: China Infrastructure Investment

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

Truong-Minh Vu
Lecturer at Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City
Truong-Minh Vu is a lecturer at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City. He has also been a senior fellow of Indiana University’s O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs since 2018. He is co-editor of Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters: Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea.

The digital economy is boosting productivity — but official measures aren’t capturing the benefits

The new digital economy has become a key driver of United States economic growth and productivity. For instance, the real value added has grown at an average annual rate of 7.2% over the past 10 years — four times faster than GDP. The recent raft of technological advances has also led to the emergence of deflationary price dynamics among digital goods and services. This has allowed more and more businesses to embrace new technologies that enhance corporate efficiency such as the internet of things or cloud computing. In other words, businesses in the digital era can operate faster and at a lower cost.

Despite the undeniable boost from digital innovations, U.S. productivity growth has slowed sharply since the early 2000s, which is a paradox. From 2014 to 2018, the government’s official labor productivity measure has grown 1% per year on average — a rate typically associated with economic recessions rather than expansions.

Can improvements in statistical methodologies reveal just how important the digital economy is to overall economic prosperity? Partly, but there is more to the story.

Photo: Shutterstock

Photo: An employee on a digital device at their desk. Businesses in the digital era can operate faster and at a lower cost.

The Underrated Boost From the Digital Economy

New data from the Department of Commerce offers some valuable insights into the economic benefits of the digital economy. In 2017, the digital sector accounted for 7% of nominal GDP, a larger share than many traditional sectors such as retail trade (5.6%) or construction (4.0%). Since it is growing much faster than the overall economy, its contribution to GDP growth has been outsized: The real digital economy accounted for close to 30% of the overall U.S. expansion in 2017 (Chart 1).

The boost from the digital sector has not only been limited to output but has also filtered into productivity. Over the past decade, productivity in the digital economy has, on average, grown twice as fast as aggregate productivity (1.1% versus 0.5%, respectively). In 2016, the digital economy’s positive contribution to productivity growth helped mitigate the aggregate productivity decline.

Digital price deflation is another manifestation of how the digital economy is providing an underestimated boost to productivity and economic growth. Whereas prices in traditional sectors of the economy have tended to increase in recent decades, prices in the digital sector have unrelentingly declined. In 2017, the price deflator for the overall economy increased by 1.9% year over year, while that of the digital economy declined by 2.2%.

Are We Measuring Correctly?

One explanation that economists use to explain sluggish aggregate productivity growth in the post-recession era is mismeasurement: the idea that official statistics are incapable of capturing productivity gains in IT-related goods and services. In this regard, the most critical issues relate to the measurement of price and quality change. If official price measures do not accurately capture quality improvements, price deflators are likely overestimated and therefore real economic output is also likely underestimated. Encouragingly, statistical agencies are increasingly adopting hedonic measures to capture the utility of products and services and the use of matching-products techniques to ensure similar products with similar quality are used across time.

Another measurement issue relates to the changing composition of a rapidly evolving economy. Whether it is businesses introducing new products and services, consumption substitution, or quality enhancements, these developments can bias estimates of GDP and labor productivity growth downward. Anecdotal evidence illustrates how more and more services, such as Airbnb and Uber, are transforming the economy in a way that may be increasingly tough to capture through official statistics. While it is extremely difficult to estimate the productivity growth bias from these economic transformations, it appears quite clear that these innovations have both boosted productivity growth and gained in importance over the past decade.

However, it’s likely that these measurement issues only explain a small portion of the productivity shortfall. As David Byrne, John G. Fernald and Marshall Reinsdorf pointed out in a 2017 report, the mismeasurement challenge was already present before the slowdown and there is no evidence that it has worsened over time. Rather, major structural impediments — technologies’ slow adoption and diffusion through the economy in particular — are preventing the digital economy from contributing as much of a boost to productivity as past innovations.

The Missing Link

In 1987, Robert Solow, the Nobel Prize winning economist, famously joked that “you can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.” At the time, annual labor productivity growth had slowed sharply to around 0.5% despite major advances in IT. The solution to the Solow paradox came in the following decade when labor productivity surged back above 2% as more and more firms leveraged IT advances to fundamentally change the way they operate. In that light, it’s likely that the productivity slump over the last decade is not so much due to a lack of transformative innovations, but more about a lack of innovation diffusion between firms and industries.

Examining firm-level productivity growth globally, it appears that the general slowdown in annual productivity growth has predominantly affected productivity-laggards, which are firms that have a lower rate of technological adoption. Meanwhile, global frontier firms (top 50 firms in a sector) have continued to experience relatively strong growth. For instance, data from Dan Andrews, Chiara Criscuolo and Peter N. Gal in a 2016 report show that productivity growth in the services sector has been about eight times faster in the global productivity-frontier firms than in laggard firms since 2000 (see Chart 2).

The Next Productivity Boom

To be sure, the lack of diffusion is not irreversible; there is room for optimism about the potential for the digital economy to support stronger productivity growth. Policy changes could spur a more widespread adoption of innovations: specifically, policies that promote increased competition in product markets and lower barriers to entry, encourage higher non-tangible investments and support adequate training to enable new technologies.

Moreover, a look back at previous eras of innovation reveals that there has been a significant delay between the inception of new technologies and their diffusion through the economy. That’s especially true for far-reaching technological innovations, also called general-purpose technologies (GPTs), such as the steam engine, electricity and the computer. It is difficult to predict when the next productivity boom will occur, but it could take a while yet — it took as long as 30 years with previous GPTs — before it’s in sight.

Related themes: Disruption Internet Of Things

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

Lydia Boussour
Senior Economist at Oxford Economics
Lydia Boussour is a senior U.S. economist at Oxford Economics.

“Asia-Pacific Agribusiness Development and Matching Forum,” October 24, 2019, New Taipei City, Taiwan

CACCI would like to forward an invitation to its members from the International Cooperation and Development Fund (TaiwanICDF) to attend the “Asia-Pacific Agribusiness Development and Matching Forum” to be held on October 24, 2019 in New Taipei City, Taiwan.

As a platform for international exchange, the Forum is expected to be attended by government officials and business representatives from India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka for discussions on international aid effectiveness and the benefits that could be brought to enterprises.  Representatives from the government, agribusiness chamber, banks and international aid agencies of Taiwan are also invited to share their experience and insights.

In addition, the event will also witness the launching of the TaiwanICDF Business Matching Platform (TBMP) which aims to enhance the linkage between the overseas market and Taiwan companies as well as explore business opportunities.

The introduction of the forum can be downloaded HERE and its flyer HERE for your perusal.

For inquiries, interested parties may wish to contact Mr. Tim Tseng, Junior Specialist, Partnerships and Development Division, Research, Development and Evaluation Department, TaiwanICDF via e-mail: cy.tseng@icdf.org.tw.

The International Cooperation and Development Fund (TaiwanICDF) is dedicated to boosting socio-economic development, enhancing human resources and promoting economic relations in a range of developing partner countries. It also offers humanitarian assistance and provides aid in the event of natural disasters or international refugee crises.  For more information on TaiwanICDF, please visit its official website at: https://www.icdf.org.tw/mp.asp?mp=2

No sign of a trade war resolution. How is China adjusting its supply chains?

In November 2018, BRINK spoke to Gary Gereffi, director of the Global Value Chains Center at Duke University, about what impact the U.S.-China trade dispute was having on global supply chains. We caught up with him recently to see how his view had changed over the last 10 months.

An interview with Gary Gereffi, Director of the Global Value Chains Center at Duke University

Gary Gereffi: Ten months ago, when we spoke, I expected that the trade wars were a tactical gamble by President Donald Trump to get at some of the deeper issues in the U.S.-China relationship.

But a larger discussion or agreement hasn’t been forthcoming, and the trade wars now seem to be locked into the multiple rounds that we’ve seen over recent months and will be affecting all of U.S.-China trade by the end of this year.

Photo: A container ship sits docked in California. The trade war between the U.S. and China seems locked in, with no type of agreement on the horizon.

BRINK: How has the Chinese economy adapted to this? 

Professor Gereffi: China has been identifying various ways to deal with a prolonged trade war with the U.S. I recently came back from China, where I talked to a range of companies, and several things are happening simultaneously.

One, exporting companies from China are accelerating their moves to other countries as sourcing bases in order to avoid the trade war restrictions. A favored country is Vietnam. But some other Southeast Asian and South Asian countries like Indonesia and Bangladesh are also sites where export firms are moving their operations.

Another response has been for export companies from China to set up facilities in or near the U.S. Mexico has been a preferred location. Many of these investments were already in place even before the trade wars started, but the amount of exports from those locations has accelerated and diversified.

A third big change is for Chinese companies to focus more on sales to the large domestic market. China had been wanting to move out of low-cost, export-oriented industrialization as a primary development strategy ever since the 2008-2009 global recession, and it views the domestic market as a way to move into higher-value branded production in some cases. So that’s also been happening.

BRINK: Some CEOs, such as Amar Hanspal, have suggested that, with rising protectionism and climate change, you’re going to see things sourced nearer to the market that they’re serving, rather than having extended global value chains. Do you agree?

Professor Gereffi: We may be moving into a world of parallel systems in the digital economy value chains. So, if you look at a key field like e-commerce, China and the U.S. have top firms that are supplying both the domestic and global markets. In China’s case, Alibaba is basically focusing on the domestic market, but with some inroads into Southeast Asian countries, while Amazon has been a global leader from the start.

If Africa begins to adopt more of China’s advanced technologies, then maybe China would gain momentum in terms of expanding its technologies.

U.S. companies are far more global in terms of their impact on value chains around the world, while China has been launching a very strong national value chain strategy around these key technologies, but is hoping to expand outward from that. With Huawei, China was hoping to have a global pacesetter in the global telecom industry.

BRINK: What do you mean by parallel worlds?

Professor Gereffi: Well, parallel in the sense that we might have two different sets of global standards emerging. For example, China has had its own great China firewall since the early 2000s, where e-commerce inside China operates according to a Chinese set of standards and regulations that restrict access to many foreign websites. In contrast, U.S. and European companies have adopted relatively open international standards, although global internet governance is becoming increasingly contested over issues like data privacy and international tax laws.

So, if pushed, China would continue to try to develop its own standards that would apply to the China market and maybe to its allies in East Asia and elsewhere. We’ve had those technology battles before between the U.S. and Japan, involving Sony’s Betamax videocassette recorders and the rival VHS format in the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s.

I don’t think the parallel systems approach is sustainable long term. One standard is usually going to win out, and everybody wants to be connected to that platform. But even in contemporary IT, we have seen Apple standards coexist with Android standards in the mobile phone market. So, in some ways, we’ve got parallel value chains in that area. So it’s not inconceivable that we might have that kind of outcome, at least in the short term.

BRINK: What about Africa and the Middle East — how do they fit into this dynamic?

Professor Gereffi: Africa is actually an area where China can score some significant wins. One of the big advantages of China in terms of these digital technologies has been mobile money and its pervasiveness in China. If you look at Kenya’s M-Pesa system for mobile phone money transfers, they have become a leader in sub-Saharan Africa in mobile money.

China is emerging as a major investor in Africa through its Belt and Road Initiative. So Africa, for sure, and potentially the Middle East, are areas where China-based technologies could be supported by heavy China investments. They’ve already got massive infrastructure investments linked to the BRI, which opens up to a broader participation by Chinese companies in those regions, including sub-Saharan Africa.

If sub-Saharan African countries begin to adopt more of China’s advanced technologies, then maybe China would actually gain considerable momentum in terms of expanding its technologies and standards to other countries or regions around the world.

Related themes: China Supply Chains Trade

The original article can be read at Brink website HERE.

What’s the right balance of energy, security and sustainability?

Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Photo: Wind turbines spin next to an electric cable pylon as the sun sets near Schönwalde in eastern Germany. Renewable installations in the power sector now account for almost two-thirds of new generation capacity.

An energy transition is unfolding around the world. In efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and air pollution, governments are installing increasing amounts of wind and solar. Since 2000, renewable installations in the power sector have risen from 20 GW per year to around 160 GW per year and now account for almost two-thirds of new generation capacity.

But the challenge for policymakers is not only to decarbonize energy systems, it is to do so while simultaneously ensuring the security and affordability of energy. Should either goal be seriously compromised, the economic, social and political ramifications may be severe.

The World Energy Trilemma 2019 examines the progress governments have made in the continual struggle to balance the critical policy objectives of security, equity and sustainability. By objectively measuring individual countries’ performance on each since the year 2000, it provides a unique insight into policymakers’ achievements and failures.

Uneven Progress

The overall picture is one of progress. Out of 128 countries assessed, fewer than 10 have seen their aggregate score across the three dimensions decline since 2000. Progress is also accelerating. Between 2000 and 2004, only 11 countries managed to improve their aggregate score; from 2015 to 2019, this number rose to 31.

Although progress has been widespread, it has not always been even or consistent. No country has managed to achieve continuous improvement in each of the dimensions. All countries have experienced setbacks in one or more dimensions at some point, illustrating the challenge of balancing three distinct policy objectives that do not always align. Trade-offs are sometimes unavoidable.

Security

The top three performers on security are Sweden, Denmark and Finland. The high energy security of the Nordic countries comes from their diverse energy systems, achieved by early and sustained investments in renewables and reduced reliance on fossil fuels (see chart below). In doing so, the Nordic countries have simultaneously improved the security and sustainability of their energy systems. In addition to being the top performers on security, Sweden, Denmark and Finland all receive the highest grading on sustainability.

Source: World Energy Trilemma Index 2019, World Energy Council

The rest of the security top 10 is overwhelmingly European, reflecting the security benefits realized by integrated governance arrangements, including stable regulatory and market frameworks and stockholding obligations.

Remarkable Improvements in Asian and African Countries

Hydrocarbon-rich Gulf countries dominate the top performers on affordability and accessibility of energy. Their populations enjoy access to some of the cheapest energy in the world due to generous subsidies that keep domestic energy prices low. This has come at a price to overall trilemma performance, however.

Cheap energy does not encourage efficiency, and inefficient burning of fossil fuels means the Gulf countries are among the worst performers on sustainability. A number have also seen deterioration in their security scores, as their reliance on fossil fuels has increased. The future trilemma performance of the Gulf countries will, therefore, depend heavily on current efforts to reduce energy subsidies and promote renewable energy. Success will allow them to diversify their energy systems, increase efficiency and reduce emissions intensity.

Outside the Gulf, small wealthy countries with geographically concentrated populations such as Luxembourg, Singapore and the Netherlands perform well. But the real story is in parts of Asia and Africa, which have witnessed remarkable improvements in energy access and affordability as incomes have risen and investments in electrification have taken effect.

The fastest improvers since 2000 include Cambodia, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Ethiopia and Kenya. While equity scores — measuring a population’s access to affordable energy — for the top performing countries have remained relatively flat, scores among this group of countries have soared, driving a number of them into the top 10 improvers across all three dimensions. This progress is a testament to the success of efforts to deliver Sustainable Development Goal 7: to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.

China Scoring Well on Sustainability

The most sustainable energy systems are in Europe, where some of the world’s most ambitious climate change policies can be found. Eight of the top 10 performers on sustainability are European. Costa Rica, which has similarly adopted highly ambitious climate change goals and has a high penetration of renewable energy, also makes the top 10.

However, the energy transition is not confined to Europe, and some of the most rapid progress on sustainability has occurred elsewhere. Notable within the top 10 improvers are the world’s two largest greenhouse gas emitters: China (fifth) and the U.S. (ninth). Both have invested significantly in renewable energy technologies, and the U.S. has also benefited as shale gas has displaced coal on its grid. Although coal remains a significant source of energy in China, clean energy has expanded significantly, and the country has persistently topped renewable investment tables in recent years.

Of the three dimensions of the trilemma, the sustainability dimension has shown the most marked improvement at the global level, reflecting the increasing focus on energy sector decarbonization.

Looking to the Future

The 2019 World Energy Trilemma reveals much to celebrate. Access to affordable energy is increasing rapidly, and energy sectors are decarbonizing. More countries are managing to balance the trilemma and achieve progress across the three dimensions. But despite this progress, the world remains way off track to meet its climate goals.

Achieving the Paris Agreement’s objective of limiting temperature increases to well below 2 degrees Celsius requires that net global greenhouse gas emissions peak in the next few years and decline to zero early in the second half of the century.

This means the global energy transition must be complete within the next 30 to 40 years. However, global emissions are still rising, and although renewables are ramping up, it is from a small base, and we are burning more fossil fuels than ever before (see chart below).

Source: BP

In short, progress on energy sustainability needs to increase dramatically.

Policymakers can take heart from the previous 20 years, which show that decarbonization has not undermined progress on security and affordability of energy. But they face new challenges as the energy transition accelerates. How will power sectors cope with saturating levels of intermittent renewables and increasing demand from electric vehicles? Will the countries that have displayed remarkable progress on improving access to energy be able to maintain that progress without increasing their dependency on fossil fuels? How will energy security evolve in a future of increasing electrification, more extreme weather and heightened cyber threats?

The next 20 years of the energy trilemma will not look like the last.

Related themes: Climate Change Renewable Energy

The original articles can be read at Brink website HERE.

Rob Bailey
Director of Climate Resilience at Marsh & McLennan Insights
Rob Bailey is the director of Climate Resilience at Marsh & McLennan Insights. Before this, he was the research director for Energy, Environment and Resources at Chatham House.

Global Climate Regulation Looms on the Horizon. Are Banks and Insurers Ready?

As Wildfires Get Costlier and Deadlier, Insurers and Utilities Pay the Price

Climate Change Has Claimed Its Biggest Corporate Victim. Now Banks Are on Alert.

François Austin
Partner and Head of Energy Practice for Oliver Wyman
François Austin, Partner and Head of Oliver Wyman’s Energy Practice, has 20 years of consulting experience focused on translating business strategies and ideas into demonstrable results. François specializes in business strategy, post-merger integration, performance improvement, risk management, and leadership development, and has led a number of change improvement programs working at board level within the Oil and Gas, Utilities and Financial Services sectors.

Progress Toward Balanced, Sustainable Energy World Remains Slow

Is 5G technology bad for your health?

Photo: Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty Images

Photo: A technician checks an antenna for the 5G mobile network service on the rooftop of a building in Seoul. 5G is designed to permit much faster transmission of data than present day 3G and 4G technologies.

Pushback to technological revolutions sometimes arises in unexpected places. Case in point is the tiny island of Stronsay, off the north coast of Great Britain. Last year, the BBC installed one of the first 5G cellular systems in the U.K., bringing live BBC radio programming for the first time to an area that heretofore had little or no digital radio coverage and slow broadband coverage.

It mounted the antennas above the Stronsay Junior High School, which, in retrospect, may not have been the best choice of location. In the uproar that ensued, one family withdrew its children from the school. A petition, circulated on the internet, so far has garnered over 900 signatories urging the local government to stop “rolling out 5G.”

5G refers to the latest iteration of cellular telephone technology, which is designed to permit much faster transmission of data than present day 3G and 4G technologies. In many respects, 5G builds on present cellular technologies, with many initial installations — as in Stronsay — transmitting on similar frequencies and power levels as those used by present cellular systems.

What’s the Controversy?

While there has always been some level of public opposition to cellular telephone systems, 5G has become intensely controversial in many locations, with citizens’ groups and a few scientists expressing concerns about the possible health effects of radiofrequency (RF) energy transmitted by 5G base stations.

Two features of the technology appear to have ignited their concerns.

One is the use of “small cells,” with a multitude of small (half meter or smaller) antennas mounted on utility poles or other low structures, as opposed to meter-long antennas mounted atop buildings, as is the usual practice for existing cellular networks in urban areas. Existing cellular networks are also moving toward installation of many small cells to accommodate ever-increasing data traffic, and this feature is not particular to 5G. However, 5G networks will rely on thousands of small cells scattered around a city. The prospect of large numbers of transmitting antennas on familiar structures such as utility poles is undoubtedly disquieting to many citizens, as is the limited ability of cities to control the installation of such facilities.

A second feature is the planned — or, in some 5G networks, actual — use of RF signals close to or within the millimeter wave band (which extends from 30-300 gigahertz or GHz), compared to present cellular bands that are chiefly between 0.7 and 2.6 GHz. Millimeter waves have been used for many applications, including microwave links between present day cellular base stations, airport security scanners, and anti-collision radar for automobiles, but not heretofore for cellular communications.

More generally, as 5G becomes established, its advocates expect it to be used to connect many wireless-enabled devices on the body, in the home, and elsewhere and, ultimately, to enable cellphone control of automobiles and even surgery without direct human intervention. Apart from RF safety issues, potential implications of such applications need to be carefully examined.

Are Radiofrequency Signals Bad for Your Health?

For many years, there has been some level of public concern about possible harms from exposures to radiofrequency signals at ordinary environmental levels. In a 2017 survey of 2,450 residents of six European countries, Peter Wiedemann, then at the University of Wollongong in Australia, found that 40% of the respondents had some concerns, with 12% describing themselves as “enduringly concerned” — that is, frequently thinking and talking about — electromagnetic field exposure. Their concerns chiefly focused on involuntary exposures to RF signals from environmental sources, including cellular base stations.

However, numerous expert reviews under the auspices of health agencies around the world have consistently concluded that there is no clear evidence — despite thousands of studies — that RF exposures below accepted limits carry any health risks. Data on the Stronsay Junior High School website show that RF exposures at the school are far below U.K. limits, which are generally similar to those in the U.S. and in many other countries. The reported levels, in fact, are typical of those present in many ordinary settings and are at the same frequency range as used by present day cellular communications.

Using Millimeter Waves

There has recently been an upsurge of research using millimeter waves, although none at the precise — and, for the most part, still undetermined — frequencies to be used by 5G systems. Millimeter waves are absorbed within about 0.5 mm of the skin surface.

Their obvious potential hazards — thermal damage to skin or cornea of the eye — were studied by the U.S. Air Force beginning in the mid-1990s (the present author participated in several of these studies). More recently, a group at Kanazawa Medical University in Japan has studied ocular damage by millimeter waves, among other groups. The U.S. Air Force also sponsored one long-term cancer study involving repeated exposures of mice to pulsed millimeter waves at 94 GHz.

Health Authorities Are Not Too Concerned, but Want More Research

For their part, health agencies have not concluded that exposure to RF signals, including millimeter waves, below recommended limits carries health risks, even as they recommend that more research be done. For example, in 2019, the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority concluded that “despite the lack of established mechanism[s] for affecting health with weak radio wave exposure, there is however need for more research covering the novel frequency domains used for 5G.”

Nor has there been a rush to revise exposure limits in the face of 5G.

In August 2019, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced that the FCC proposes to maintain its current RF exposure safety standards, adopted in 1996, quoting a statement from the director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”

But Allegations Continue

In contrast to the assessments of health agencies, a few scientists have warned about possible hazards of 5G. An appeal, signed by 245 scientists as of August 2019, recommended “a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated.” The appeal mentions many harms that the signatories consider to be caused by exposure to RF fields at typical environmental levels. This controversy has continued for many years and is not specific to 5G.

In a response to the appeal, in late 2017, Vytenis Andriukaitis, head of the Cabinet of Commissioners of the European Union, reiterated reassuring advice of expert reports and indicated that the request to “stop the distribution of 5G products appears too drastic a measure. We first need to see how this new technology will be applied and how the scientific evidence will evolve.”

The EU should support more studies on possible health effects of millimeter waves. Given the many poor-quality studies in the literature, any new research needs to be focused on endpoints with plausible connection to human health and be of very high quality.

For their part, teenagers in Stronsay have become big fans of the music played over their newly accessible programs on BBC.

Related themes: Healthcare Infrastructure

The original Brink’s article can be read HERE.

Kenneth R. Foster
Professor of Bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania
Kenneth R. Foster is an emeritus professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, who has been involved in studies of health and safety aspects of RF energy for many years. He belongs to the department of the Institution of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), that sets exposure limits for RF energy.

ASEAN Young Entrepreneurs conclude energetic Summit in Bangkok

Thirty-six visionary young leaders of ASEAN gathered at the Royal Orchid Sheraton Bangkok on September 2^nd and 3^rd 2019 to share with other young businessmen their successes, failures, challenges, concerns, and future plans.

Guided by a vision for a smart, sustainable and empowered ASEAN, the ASEAN Young Entrepreneurs Carnival was attended by global change makers, high level entrepreneurs, impact investors and high ranking governmental officials forming the ASEAN (+6) community; as well as by delegates from China, Japan, India, South Korea, Taiwan and Australia all of whom were interested in meeting and establishing ties with the new generation of young and dynamic ASEAN entrepreneurs.

The ASEAN Young Entrepreneurs Carnival was a great opportunity to open new lines of communication with the upcoming generation of new businessman and build genuine friendships.

The successful Young Entrepreneur Carnival was organized by Young Entrepreneurs Chamber of Commerce (YECBK) led by Rutt Pongsurapipat, the Young Entrepreneur Chamber of Commerce (YEC) of the Thai Chamber of Commerce led by Gavin Vongkusolkit, and The Board of Trade of Thailand led by Prim Jitcharoongphorn.

First Day

The first day events received the greatest support from all the members of ASEAN states. It started with a stunning Muay Thai grand opening performance followed by remarks from Kobsak Pootrakooi, Deputy Secretary General of the Prime Minister Office for Political Affairs. Then, Kalin Sarasin, the Chairman of Thai Chamber of Commerce, proceeded to welcome the hundreds of young entrepreneurs conforming the audience.

Kobsak Pootrakool

Soon after, an exciting line-up of great speakers ignited the morning session, which was concentrated on themes such as Hi-tech, sustainable society 5.0, changes in retail business, Blockchain, entrepreneurs’ capacity to solve global problems, and 5G and its impact on the new society.

Kalin Sarasin

The afternoon continued at a fast pace, with presentation on mindfulness against technology’s distractions, women empowerment, gaming, re-skilling the workforce, the cultural power of ASEAN, and AI and VR.

The diverse and interesting day of presentations of September 2^nd concluded with a banquet party at LLhong 1919, a chic restaurant-bar on the other bank of the Chaopraya river where everybody had the opportunity to further commingle while enjoying a beautiful sunset. The evening reception had indeed the Carnival atmosphere that delivered a very unique and unforgettable experience among new friends.

Second Day

The second day continued with a dynamic presentation format where changemakers from Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam spoke candidly about their businesses, projects, problems, challenges, failures and futures plans.

The speakers

Here we present most of the successful ASEAN Young Entrepreneurs speakers featured during the Carnival, who enlightened the Summit with their experiences, humor, and young wisdom.

The first speaker was Philaiphone Vongpraseuth, the first female CEO leading a construction company to be listed successfully in the Lao Stock Exchange in 2017. Philly is the CEO of Solver Laos-Business & Investment Consultancy and partner in many other enterprises.

The next speaker was PaiPon Saiyadeth, CEO of Capital Residence managing residences and properties. She has a creative fabric factory that manufactures luxury hand-woven textiles for the global interior market. She is also involved in other businesses.

The following speaker was Douglas Corley, a China-based healthcare entrepreneur with eight year experience in transnational research and market entry strategy for growth-stage startups. He is passionate about problem solving and is bringing the next generation of solutions to the China healthcare market.

Dato Daniel Lee Kee Foong is Chief Executive Officer of Gofay Group, an airline that provides chartering flight, travel agency and other travel related businesses. He explained to the audience the challenges operating a new airline growing rapidly, specially has Gofay schedules 300 departures per day.

The next speaker brought change into the food business routine. Matt Reid, the co-founder at Maximal Concepts, changed the conversation into new restaurant management and branding. He participated in the creation of Mott 32, the Group’s flagship restaurant.

Phonesavanh Vilivong is a mother of three who uplifts and supports the Lao Coffee sector through Direct Trade. She tailored coffee training program for local baristas in the HORECA and consciously implements PPP model (profit, planet and people).

Wai Phyo is the Managing Director of Yathar Cho Industry Ltd., one of the largest food manufacturing companies in the country. He explained his business expansion into distribution, IT space and ecommerce ebusinesses.

Satoshi Takahashi, co-founder and CDO of Cost Science Inc., researches global economic trends and Japan’s future, focusing on disruptive technologies that could be implemented into large companies.

James Goh, a very young member of the Young Entrepreneur Association of Brunei, works in the renewable energy industry. In 2016, he founded G-Bio Energy Sdn Bhd, a company managing the whole supply chain from agriculture to logistic and to generating electricity.

Douglas Ga is a Singaporean technology entrepreneur founder of GBCI, a leading smart city solutions provider. Douglas deals with AI, robotics, virtual reality, big data and IoT to build smart cities all around Asia with the objective of connecting them into borderless urban services.

Pech Bolen, Chairman and CEO of Westline Education Group Co., manages six education brands in Cambodia and is successfully expanding into new areas. He delivered a powerful presentation about business and growth.

The next speaker, Doga Makiura from Japan, turned the audience attention into government impact on businesses. As CEO of Degas, Doga somehow ended up in Africa where his company buys and sells commodities on behalf of farmers in Ghana. He is also expanding online education service “Quipper” in Indonesia and the Philippines among many other endeavors in his portfolio.

Izzat Hazim, as Director of Sword GRC Malaysia and ASEAN Region, provides Risk Management Software to clients such as NASA, Nestle, Airbus and has over 1000 clients worldwide. In 2011, he returned to Malaysia to start an Aquaculture farm. Izzat is currently the Managing Director of Agro Gold Industries; which uses advanced farming technology to grow rockmelons. His products supply supermarkets across Malaysia and internationally.

Dr. Vanessa Teo is the founder and CEO of agri-tech startup company Agrome IQ International Sdn Bhd. Her services empower farmers to maximize plantation procedures. She uses modeling systems and algorithms to support in rice farming system optimization in Brunei.

She collaborated with University of Brunei Darussalam, IBM Research Lab New Delhi, Bangalore, Brazil and the USA and the Ministry of Industry and Primary Resources, Brunei.

Jirawat Panpiemras, Vice President at Bangkok Bank Public Company Limited, researches complex issues such as intellectual property, and policy issues in Thailand’s health insurance system among many other problems.

Thaweelap Rittapirom, member of the Board and an executive director of Bangkok Bank Public Company Limited, explained the changing role of bankers and the evolution of banking into the new economy.

Audrey Pe might have been the youngest entrepreneur among all presenters. She founded Women in Technology (WiTech) to bring up the number of women into the IT industry. WiTech also provides used laptops and curated tech education modules to under privileged school. Audrey will enter Stanford University in the fall of 2020.

Jack Thomas, the founder and CEO of BASE gym won “Asia’s Gym of the Year” at the region’s biggest fitness industry awards. Now, he is expanding from 1 to 3 branches in central Bangkok. Jack spoke about the fitness industry in Asia and the challenges ahead.

Dr. Thant Myint-U, an award-winning writer, historian, conservationist, and a former advisor to the President of Myanmar, brought academic perspective to the changes affecting ASEAN and the path forward.

Mrs. Christy Le (Lê Diệp Kiều Trang) is the CEO of GO-VIET, an on-demand multi-service platform providing a range of services including transportation, logistics, food delivery and payments. She is passionate about uplifting socioeconomically challenged members of the Vietnamese society.

She was Misfit’s CFO and COO from its founding until its acquisition by the Fossil Group for US$260 million.

For the past twenty one years, Dr. Mai Huu Tin has been Chairman and CEO of U&I Investment Corporation (Unigroup), the company he founded. His company currently owns over 50 subsidiaries and affiliates, and employs more than 20,000 people.

Theodore Khng is a 29 year-old accountant who has invented many organic skincare and healthcare products and has opened up his manufacturing unit in Singapore. Temasek Holding backed his research laboratory to co-develop more natural and organic products to fight common diseases rampant in the region.

Woo Sze Min is the founder of Gamurai, software-as-a-service technology enabler company marketing its flagship product – VEON@Experience. It is a suite of SaaS tools to empower the salon and stylists in their daily business operations. The invention has increased clients’ sales revenue by 10% and achieved cost savings of at least $4,000 per year by empowering staff with digital tools.

Nicole Zycinski-Singh was an advocate & solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. An unexpected visit to Myanmar ignited her entrepreneurial spirit. Now she is managing the operations of the Killem Pest Pte Ltd and its sister companies in Singapore. The Killem Group of companies specialises in urban pest management and uses only the most effective technology and methods, and environmentally friendly chemicals.

Okhna Sok Piseth launched his first company “Toys and Me” in 2007 in Cambodia, and then expanded it into a diversified business that included G Gear, a mechanical and electrical engineering company. His company is the official distributor of LG Electronics products, and Hyundai Elevator.

Jirayut Srupsrisopa, co-founder and group CEO at Bitkub Capital Group Holding, has dedicated the majority of his career to the cryptocurrency and blockchain technology industry. His presentations focused on the emerging conditions and opportunities of this new currency market.

The current Thailand’s Minister of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Dr. Suvit Maesincee also used the opportunity to speak about the ASEAN markets and opportunities for economic development.

Tom Chirathivat, a data driven new retail x digital expert, implements customer data initiatives to grow business opportunities. He has been dwelling into artificial intelligence and data analytics.

Vikrom Kromadit, chairman of AMATA Corporation and founder of industrial states, encouraged the audience to invest and develop new business in ASEAN. Moreover, he explained that new opportunities are arising out of the China and USA trade dispute that will benefit ASEAN.

Sam Lee is the founder and CEO of Blockchain Global Limited. Under his vision and leadership, the company has invested more than $300 million in 80 blockchain-enabled companies and projects.

Kosta Miachin, founder and visionary behind Vikasa, presented an up and coming lifestyle/experience brand of wellness, nutrition and hospitality. For him, all started with a passion for yoga, nutrition and well being. Now, his business has grown to a 54 key resort and 100 employee operation in just 6 years.

Ken Lai is the owner of Brandoville Studios and Brandoville Academy (Indonesia) and co-owner of Lemon Sky Studios (Malaysia). Ken Lai is responsible for running all facets of the two businesses in Jakarta and Malaysia. Lemon Sky now has more than 300 artists.

Mr. Alan Archapiraj, the founder and CEO of MAD virtual reality studio, concentrates his efforts in the innovative, dynamic and highly competitive gaming and interactive exhibition sectors. In establishing MAD, Alan was guided by his long-term commitment to social enterprises and innovation.

Lina Khalifeh, the Founder and owner of SheFighter (The First Self-Defense studio for women only in Jordan and the Middle East), empowers women physically, mentally and emotionally through self-defense training. The studio was founded in 2012 and has trained more than 15 thousand women all over the globe.

Richard Webb is an entrepreneur who has taken seven of his start-ups global and successfully exited those start-ups with trade sales and an IPO. Five years ago he founded Cataliize to help scale up businesses to the world and in doing so he created a new business model to more effectively catalyse ventures and social enterprises. Cataliize team has grown to over 180 people in 36 cities and serves over 40 ventures.

Pranitan Phornprapha, Kelly Go, Chakrapol Chandavimol, Suradech Taweesaengsakulthai and Wareeerat Toni Kitchaixankul completed the energetic lineup of young speakers featured during the two-day Young Entrepreneur Carnival in Bangkok on September 2^nd and 3^rd of 2019.

2019 Taiwan Business Alliance Conference on October 7, 2019 in Taipei

CACCI would like to convey to all its members an invitation to attend the 2019 Taiwan Business Alliance Conference to be held on October 7, 2019 in Taipei, Taiwan.

Carrying the theme of “Secure and Trustworthy,” the one-day event serves as a platform for showcasing the achievements of international corporations operating in Taiwan as well as Taiwan’s investment potential. The Conference will focus on emerging business areas such as 5G mobile telecommunications, the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), Big Data, electric vehicles, and self-driving cars. Senior managers of transnational corporations operating in Taiwan have been invited to participate in the Conference, and will provide in-depth analysis of industry trends and the opportunities associated with investing in Taiwan.

By attending the Conference, participants will have the opportunity to learn about new cutting-edge technology applications and changing patterns in global business.  E-DM of the Conference is presented here for your perusal.

For more details on the event and on-line registration, interested parties are encouraged to visit the official website at: http://2019tba.cier.edu.tw/index.aspx?lang=en

Blockchain promised a revolution. It’ll have to clear three governance hurdles first

(Photo: Giant letters, spelling out the word “blockchain,” are displayed at the Blockchain Centre in Lithuania’s capital, Vilnius. Blockchain is a relatively new technology with no predetermined governance structure.)

Today, traditional digital platform companies are governed like most firms and institutions — one entity is in charge. It’s responsible for maintaining its platform, attracting users and fixing problems when things go wrong. This is a standard setup found anywhere from the biggest tech companies to a small-town grocer.

Blockchain is different, working through a mechanism known as shared consensus. In simple terms, this means that rather than having one entity in charge — like a company or board — all platform participants can propose and effect change. Information is broadcast network-wide, and anyone can access and verify it in real-time without any need for third-party confirmation. It dramatically decreases transaction times, lowers transaction costs and has been described as a revolutionizing force for industry.

But as amazing as all of that sounds, the reality of blockchain — particularly for business — isn’t so simple. One problem, for example, is governance.

Blockchain is a relatively new technology with no predetermined governance structure. As a result, startups and industry-wide initiatives alike have all emerged with their own governance solutions, each with resulting problem-points. The most common tend to come from three essential questions: how networks engage with competitors, how regulators are involved and how they should size their voting base.

Competition, Consortia and Antitrust

Many industry-wide blockchain initiatives have emerged with the simple principle of: If I’m going to take a chance on this technology, I’m not doing it alone. Consortia such as MOBI, BiTA and the Global Shipping Business Network are all comprised of industry competitors working together to uncover how this potentially revolutionary technology can streamline their businesses. R3, too, was originally founded as a consortium of banks. This trend is only continuing; before 2016, only an average of four blockchain consortiums were added per year — there were 65 added in 2018.

Unfortunately, consortia can also raise antitrust concerns. Especially in the maritime space — which includes cargo shipping and transport logistics — consortia have faced grilling by lawmakers to ensure that they don’t take up too much market share. This is due to the concentrated nature of the industry, where, as an example, 65% of the containerized shipping market is covered by just five players.

The worries are valid — too much concentrated power can yield results like the manipulation of technical standards and use of blockchain as a vehicle for collusion. On the other hand, if success in an industry hinges on a single platform controlled by a limited number of players, then gatekeeping could become an issue. As the OECD points out, consortia could exclude or raise costs for outside rivals and allow firms to soften price competition.

This then poses a paradox for consortium members — how can they ensure total inclusion of other competitors without becoming a monopoly? There is no easy answer to this question, but companies should be aware that it could become a problem.

What’s the right level of regulator engagement?

Another area of focus lies in regulator engagement. Right now, one of the most high-profile blockchain stories surrounds issues with the cryptocurrency, Libra, at the regulatory level. The U.S. government has already called for its development to be halted until after regulators have examined it more closely. Outside of the U.S., representatives from the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, India and even China have already voiced their concerns.

These regulators — understandably — want to gauge Libra’s likely impact and its developer’s intentions. Furthermore, if Libra succeeds, that just means it’ll be subject to even more rules, like the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures set by the Bank for International Settlements and the International Organization of Securities Commissions.

And therein lies the problem: Blockchains and cryptocurrencies must abide by the laws of where they’re located. The challenge, though, is that regulators themselves are still learning about blockchain. Such a nascent industry has a great deal of conflicting, confusing and even misleading information. As a result, officials could unintentionally impose laws that stifle growth, or — as in the case of Libra — threaten to halt initiatives as a whole. To ensure the success of their projects, firms and consortia must take an active role in helping to engage and educate regulators about blockchain and the industry impacts of their policies.

Too many players

For blockchain applications, the issue of internal governance has also proven a very tricky problem to solve, specifically regarding how decentralized a decentralized platform should be.

Let’s see what happens where there are too many players. Here, Bitcoin is a useful case study.

Bitcoin update proposals are submitted by core developers and subject to a community vote. This sounds pretty centralized, but it’s important to note that there are over 300 Bitcoin core contributors, and upgrades require a 95% consensus from miners.

So, when it comes time to vote on important platform decisions, consensus can be near-impossible to achieve. The clearest example of this comes from 2015, when it looked like bitcoin transaction sizes would exceed the hard cap of 1MB per block. Those aforementioned developers proposed many solutions, ranging from Bitcoin XT to a 17.7% annual block size increase to a 2MB “emergency” increase. Some developers thought it would just be best to leave the block size the way it was, and others suggested a lightning network or the creation of sidechains.

But despite all these proposals, the limit never changed. Bitcoin’s average block size today has actually exceeded the 1MB cap, and though miners have been able to skirt around shutdowns for now, it’s only a temporary Band-Aid, and Bitcoin’s core has not changed.

Not enough players

Now let’s contrast this with too few decision-makers.

Two years after all that, a cryptocurrency called Tezos emerged that promised a solution to all of Bitcoin’s governance problems. It would implement something called “on-chain voting,” and give the users of the currency, not just miners and developers, a say in what happens to the coin’s protocol. Tezos’ two founders were able to raise a whopping $232 million to launch their coin, but before it could even be deployed, its development team was torn apart by infighting. The two founders of the currency were pitted against the holder of all the fundraising proceeds. These three leaders couldn’t agree on how much power and responsibility they would share, and as a result, the launch of the coin was delayed for more than a year after its ICO.

From here, it becomes clear that blockchain is not immune to issues that plague traditional businesses; namely, that the size of the governing body can either become too cluttered to function efficiently, or is not large enough to accommodate internal strife.

Some takeaways

For all the disruptive potential of decentralization, blockchain can suffer from old problems. Governance models for distributed platforms vary dramatically, and each one has its own shortcomings. Consortia, though they provide excellent ways to usher in industry-wide development, face a hard antitrust problem. Government oversight is a difficult subject, as a lack of understanding means projects are in danger of being shut down by regulators. And both the Bitcoin and Tezos examples show that all the efficiencies of blockchain can be undercut by the very decentralization that makes it appealing.

What is clear is that while distributed digital architecture that has the potential to revolutionize business today as we know it, because of the newness of this technology and the rapid pace at which it’s growing, there are still plenty of hurdles it has to overcome. Blockchain could, one day, disrupt the business environment as we know it, but that’s only if it can get over its biggest stumbling block — governance.

Related themes: Blockchain Regulation

The original Brink’s article can be read HERE.

Alisa DiCaprio
Head of Research and Global Trade Strategy at R3
Alisa DiCaprio is the head of research and global trade strategy at R3. Previously she was with the Asian Development Bank working on trade and digitization.

What Can Brexit Teach Us About Blockchain’s Use Cases?
Blockchain, Trade Finance, and the Role of SMEs
What Role Can Blockchain Really Play in Smart Cities?

Jacqueline Yang
Researcher at R3
Jacqueline Yang is a researcher at R3, where she focuses on blockchain applications in supply chain management and logistics.

VCCI conducts “Short Term Trade Finance and International Trade” in partnership with CACCI, ICC CR

Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) in partnership with CACCI and International Chamber of Commerce Czech Republic (ICC CR), conducted a workshop on “Short Term Trade Finance and International Trade” on April 17-18, 2019 in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

Pavel Andrle from ICC CR led the workshop attended by over 350 participants from 150 businesses (import-export companies, banks, and lawyers among others). He covered practical aspects of using documentary credits from the importer´s and exporter side, as well as various forms of receivable finance such as factoring and supply chain finance.

The role of credit insurance was also explained, including new trends and developments in the area of continuing attempts of digitalization of trade finance. The afternoon session was focused on the ICC model sales contract and introduction to the new revision of Incoterms.

Experts from Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC) were also invited to share their experience on international contracts.

EU GDPR: A Look Back and Ahead

When the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) took effect one year ago this week, on May 25th 2018, proponents of the new law promised a profound change in data privacy protection. The sweeping regulation has not disappointed. Here’s a quick look at where we are one year later.

Open for Business

The European Data Protection Board, which coordinates the EU’s data protection authorities, recently reported that regulators brought more than 200,000 cases in 31 countries and issued nearly 56 million euros ($62 million) in fines in the first nine months the GDPR was in effect. That tally includes a 50 million euro fine levied against one company that regulators claim inadequately advised customers about how it collected personal data from new customer accounts and subsequently used that data. (Given the company’s size, the fine did not approach the maximum possible 4 percent of its annual revenue.)

Perhaps more striking than the monetary value of fines imposed is the diversity of enforcement actions. Some cases involve traditional privacy concerns, such as the failure to encrypt or control access to personal data. Others demonstrate the GDPR’s broad scope.

In Poland, for example, regulators penalized a company that scraped data—mostly mailing and email addresses—from public sources because the company only provided notice passively in a statement on its website. In Austria, regulators fined a local business for performing excessive surveillance when its security cameras recorded people walking on the sidewalk outside the business. More recently, the European data protection supervisor announced that it would audit contracts between EU agencies and a major cloud vendor to make sure data transferred abroad by the vendor would be protected by GDPR standards.

These initial actions confirm that the GDPR carries many obligations well beyond data breach notification and that regulators are holding companies accountable. No penalties have come close to the much-discussed maximum fine of 20 million euros or 4 percent of annual revenue, whichever is greater. But companies can expect data protection authorities to be aggressive with their sanction powers, which are entirely new for some EU members, and expansive in their interpretation of data privacy rights.

Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Photo: A worker handling wires behind server and data storage devices. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation took effect one year ago this week.

Global Regulatory Momentum

Regulators intended for the reach of the GDPR to extend far beyond the EU’s borders, with the rights granted under it following wherever an individual’s data may sprawl. However, the GDPR has also prompted many nations to introduce comprehensive data privacy rules of their own. Brazil, India, Japan, Thailand, the U.S. and others have adopted laws with protections similar to those in the GDPR.

In the U.S., the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) mimics the GDPR in many ways. It includes a broad definition of personal data; creates new rights for individuals to challenge how companies collect, protect or store that data; and applies to a broad range of companies. The CCPA also features the GDPR concept of the individual’s right to have personal data expunged (the “right to be forgotten”), an emphasis on providing clear consent notices, and the right to opt out of commercial sales of personal data. While changes to the CCPA are still being considered before it takes effect in 2020, other U.S. states have followed with similar proposals.

A consequence of this regulatory wave is the drive toward greater data localization—the practice of keeping personal data stored on devices or servers that are physically present in the territory where the data is generated. As many large technology companies have already discovered, transferring large amounts of data outside of the EU can quickly run afoul of GDPR requirements and prompt EU regulators to scrutinize the receiving jurisdiction’s data protection standards. Outside of the EU, some nations’ laws overtly require data localization.

These laws assert greater control over privacy, but they also present challenges for cloud solutions and data sharing practices intended to create greater flexibility and efficiencies. We can expect these challenges to provoke discussion about efforts to harmonize data protection standards globally. Ultimately, however, companies may incur substantial costs in order to bring their data use practices into compliance.

Implications for Technology

While the GDPR made a bold statement about the need to protect the individual’s right to privacy, businesses are quickly discovering that no policy exists in a vacuum.

Since its implementation, the GDPR has butted up against some law enforcement practices. German regulators, for example, have raised objections to the German Federal Police’s choice of body camerasbecause they store data in a cloud environment outside of the EU.

A more far-reaching situation has provoked debate about access to data of website registrants. That information, which is made available by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), is commonly known as WHOIS data. ICANN’s mission is to ensure that when a domain name is typed in, the associated webpage loads. As part of its mission, ICANN collects basic information on domain name registrants, such as names, mailing addresses, email addresses and phone numbers for administrative and technical contacts.

For decades, law enforcement, cybersecurity researchers and intellectual property owners used the WHOIS database to shut down illicit websites, stop spam and enforce copyrights. Since the GDPR took effect, however, public access to the WHOIS data has been blocked. Many in the cybersecurity field and in law enforcement have criticized the loss of this capability, and recently the U.S. Department of Commerce urged ICANN to find a solution that would allow third-party access for legitimate purposes.

The GDPR and similar privacy laws will also face challenges related to evolving technology. The growth and development of 5G networks, the Internet of Things and artificial intelligence all depend on greater connectivity and increased data sharing. The European Parliament recently issued ethics guidelines that identify AI as “a growing threat to the right of human beings to form their own opinions and take autonomous decisions.” The guidelines call for greater scrutiny of AI’s ability to “use personal and non-personal data to sort and micro-target people, to identify individual vulnerabilities and exploit accurate predictive knowledge.”

As AI evolves, however, it should help companies comply with privacy regulation by tracking the use and transfer of personal data. But there will be growing pains as the technology develops. Businesses should expect the EU to take an active approach to AI’s consumption and processing of personal data, especially when that processing distinguishes individuals based on race, gender, political beliefs or any other sensitive category, even where the consequences are unintentional.

More Work Lies Ahead

The enactment of the GDPR marked a titanic shift for data privacy, signaling the start of more aggressive privacy oversight and enforcement in an era of rapidly advancing technology.

Thousands of GDPR actions are currently pending, and organizations should expect EU regulators to continue to aggressively pursue instances of noncompliance.

The GDPR has brought regulatory momentum to other regions, including the U.S. The standards being enacted are not uniform, and companies may struggle to comply where privacy regimes conflict. In addition, the evolution of technology will have privacy impacts that will challenge many organizations.

The combination of these factors creates the potential for a hydra-like cyber risk for businesses. Risk professionals should prepare for the potential pitfalls that lie ahead by consulting with their advisers and insurance brokers about evolving regulatory standards and changing technology and adopting insurance policy terms and conditions to address their organizations’ widening exposures.

Related theme: Cybersecurity Regulation

Matthew McCabe
Senior Vice President and Assistant General Counsel on Cyber Policy at Marsh

Prior to joining Marsh, Matthew McCabe served as senior counsel to the US House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security. He previously served in the administration of President George W. Bush as a policy director on the Homeland Security Council.

How the C-Suite Can Fight Back Against Cyber Threats

The original version can be read at the Brink website here.

Promises & pitfalls of 5G Technology

In December, the Federal Communications Commission will undertake the largest spectrum auction in U.S. history—putting 3.4 GHz of airwaves on the market to free up space for 5G communications.

As the next generation in wireless technology, 5G promises to boost data speeds by up to 100 times, making it competitive with the fastest wired broadband networks. In April, the White House planted an official stake in the 5G race, with President Donald Trump calling it a “big deal,” as it will change the way Americans work, learn, communicate and travel.

A lot of expectations are riding on 5G—and for good reason. The Knowledge@Wharton radio spoke to business and economics professors for their perspective on 5G technologies, and the risks and opportunities involved.

Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images

A traffic light shows red under a cellular phone tower that stands on top of an office building in Berlin, Germany. What are the implications of the introduction of 5G technology?

Will Augmented Reality Finally Have Its Day?

A potential killer app for 5G is augmented reality (AR), according to Jeffrey Reed, Virginia Tech professor of electrical and computer engineering and founding director of Wireless@Virginia Tech. That means “being able to superimpose on your field of view augmentation that may explain the things around you,” he said. “That could have a very dramatic effect, impacting everything from tourism to education.”

5G can supercharge AR and virtual reality by placing “virtual items, virtual characters and augmented contextual information” in TV shows and movies or even projecting 3D holographic displays, according to the 5G Economics of Entertainment report by Intel and Ovum.

But the cold reality is that a fully functioning 5G future is still a long ways away.

“5G is called 5G because it is the fifth generation of wireless technology, and so, obviously, there were four prior generations,” said Kevin Werbach, a Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics who used to work for the FCC.

Mr. Werbach added, “These are things that evolve and develop and get implemented over a long period of time. They involve extensive standards work in the industry; they involve extensive deployment work.” Even the FCC’s plans took time. “All of these spectrum auctions for the high frequency spectrum to be used for 5G have been in the works for a long time,” he said.

Only Viable over Short Distances

5G can use any band of spectrum, but it thrives in the extremely high frequency range of 30 to 300 GHz, compared to today’s cellphones that are in much lower bands. But a key drawback is that these signals travel only short distances. The wavelengths in this band range from 1 mm to 10 mm—the FCC’s December auction is called the millimeter wavelength auction—so these can’t reach very far and are easily degraded.

Because millimeter wavelengths are short, they need more antennas to connect. “One of the things that 5G requires is a much denser network,” Mr. Werbach said. “You need many more nodes. That is partly how the capacity increases, which means either more towers or more cells in more places. You need equipment that is running on those cell sites, and then you need chips that go into people’s handsets and devices.”

At least, the 5G antennas are small and can be installed easily on top of telephone poles and other locations, according to Gerald Faulhaber, professor emeritus of business economics and public policy at The Wharton School.

5G is feasible mainly for more populated areas, where many antennas can be placed close together. This brings another challenge: the widening of the digital divide.

Will It Increase the Digital Divide?

Because it requires density, 5G is feasible mainly for more populated areas, where many antennas can be placed close together.

“The nature of the infrastructure is that it works in dense areas; it doesn’t work as well in other areas,” Mr. Faulhaber said. “Will there be 5G in [rural areas]? The answer is yes, but it won’t be over these high-frequency antennas. It will be basically where 4G is today, so you won’t get the high-capacity [service].”

This brings another challenge: the widening of the digital divide by geography.

“It is a real problem,” Mr. Werbach said. “There are still too many Americans who don’t have broadband service and many more who have inferior quality broadband service.” The reality is it’s “harder and more expensive to provide wireless service and wireline service in rural and hard-to-reach areas.” While the FCC has set aside $20 billion to expand broadband access in rural areas, he said, the commission was short on details and where the funds would actually come from.

Major Telecom Investment

Telecom companies and other providers will have to invest billions to make 5G a reality—not only to buy more spectrum, but also to build out the infrastructure. Because it’s yet uncertain how much revenue 5G will bring, for now, the most prudent path for telecom firms is to upgrade the capacity of their 4G networks by reclaiming airwaves allocated for 2G and 3G. But there will come a time when these tactics won’t be enough.

Historically, data traffic rises by 20 percent to 50 percent a year, and 5G could put the traffic increases at the higher end of that range. That means most telecom companies will have to embark on a major expansion between 2020 and 2025. And to handle higher traffic, carriers have to install fiber in their wired networks, where wireless connects to the Internet. “It’s rather ironic that the projected performance goals of 5G wireless will depend on the availability of wireline fiber,” an executive at telecom equipment maker Ciena said.

At least, 5G standards have been finalized by the 3GPP, an international group whose members work together to develop cellular standards. These are standards that networks must meet to be considered 5G.

5G Hype and China’s Huawei

Politics also influence the U.S. carrier adoption of 5G. The government has security concerns about using 5G telecom equipment from China’s Huawei because of fears over spying. Huawei is the world’s largest maker of telecom equipment, including the equipment needed for 5G.

Huawei became a colossus, and “a key reason for that is they produce very inexpensive equipment. It is much cheaper than [that of] their European competition,” Mr. Reed said. Huawei doesn’t have any U.S. competition, because U.S. infrastructure providers left the business about 20 years ago, he added.

Today, Europe and other parts of the world are customers of Huawei. Britain and Germany specifically are resisting pressure from the U.S. to stop using Huawei. Their carriers have used Huawei in their networks for years, so “for them, it is very difficult to say … ‘rip it all out and go find someone else,’” Mr. Werbach said. “They’re just not going to do it.”

Mr. Reed added: “Even though a security threat exists with Huawei, companies tend to look the other way to maximize profits, lower costs.” As for security, “that’s way down on their list,” Mr. Reed said.

Mr. Werbach explained that the U.S. can’t address these security concerns by merely saying it will not use this equipment. It has to be more proactive. “We need to invest in companies in the U.S. and bring trust around the world that, for example, the U.S. is not putting similar kinds of back doors into equipment made by U.S.-based service providers.”

This piece first appeared in Knowledge@Wharton.

Related themes: Cities Cybersecurity Infrastructure

Knowledge@Wharton at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Making Way for Generation Z in the Workplace

The original article can be read at Brink website here.

Electricity Grid Cybersecurity Will Be Expensive. Who Will Pay, and How Much?

Photo: David McNew/Getty Images

(Photo: A figure looks at the dynamic map board showing power distribution through California’s electrical grids in Los Angeles, California. People rarely consider whether they’re paying the right amount to ensure that the lights come on when they’re needed.)

Recently, a neighbor asked one of us whether Russia, China, North Korea and Iran really are capable of hacking into the computers that control the U.S. electricity grid. The answer, based on available evidence, is “Yes.” The follow-up question was, “How expensive will it be to prevent, and who will end up paying for it?”

The answers are: Likely tens of billions of dollars, and probably us, the electricity customers. This is a major—and, in our view, vital—investment in community and national security. But as scholars of grid cybersecurity, we understand it’s not very clear what consumers will be getting for their money, nor whether utility companies themselves should bear some share of the cost.

In the U.S., the electricity grid is a ubiquitous system that’s highly reliable. Most consumers expect the lights to turn on when they flip the switch and don’t think much more about it—except when paying the monthly bill.

Electric power companies’ high levels of performance depend on interconnected computer systems, which are vulnerable to cyberattacks. Hackers took down portions of Ukraine’s electricity grid in 2015 and 2016, cutting power to hundreds of thousands of people. U.S. officials regularly report that foreign agents are working to infiltrate critical infrastructure systems, like computers that control the power grid. An as-yet-unspecified cyber event affected the power grid in California and Wyoming in March 2019, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

While media coverage and neighborly conversations have increased public awareness of the risks to the grid, most people’s thinking hasn’t changed much. People regularly evaluate how much they pay for car insurance, whether they need to buy life insurance, what the risks are of a recommended medical procedure or whether they feel safe flying. But they rarely consider whether they’re paying the right amount to ensure that the lights come on when they’re needed.

It can be difficult even for experts to keep track of all the potential risks to the grid, an interconnected set of industrial control systems. There are big threats from very rare events, like massive solar flares. And there are relatively minor threats from nearly certain incidents, like trees falling on wires. In between are cybersecurity concerns—which themselves can range from one individual hacker playing around to a national government orchestrating intrusion attemptsinto the national grid.

Now consider how much we, as consumers of a utility service, might be willing to pay to protect against those dangers. Making a system more secure and reliable costs money, but often the economic benefits are hard to quantify. How much was saved by preventing a citywide blackout? Was it worth millions—or billions—of dollars invested in protection? Even if that could be calculated, it’s not easy to communicate effectively to the public, who regularly face many difficult choices about where to spend their limited money.

Recouping the Costs

Collectively, utility companies in the U.S. are already planning to spend billions of dollars a year on grid cyber defenses. Those investments will include securing locations and equipment, improving the security of the utility supply chain, and continuous training and workforce development. This spending in turn brings up another complication: Most electricity utilities are highly regulated by the government, so they have to provide a certain level of service and spend money on required compliance activities. In return, those utilities are permitted to recover a certain return on their investment.

When utility companies’ costs rise, they typically ask for permission from regulators to raise the prices they charge customers. What those customers can ask for, and in our view, what regulators should insist on, is clear information about what those charges will be paying for.

Right now, there is ongoing research exploring what the best practices are for cyber defense of public utilities, but there is only limited useful information about what those measures should cost. Ultimately, consumers can reasonably expect to shoulder some of the cost—but should get as much information as possible about the benefits that will result from the rates they’re paying.

This article, which was previously published by The Conversation, was written in collaboration with Wei Chen Lin of the Illinois Commerce Commission.

Related themes: Cybersecurity Disruption Infrastructure

Manimaran Govindarasu
Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Iowa State University
Manimaran Govindarasu is currently the Mehl Professor of Computer Engineering in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Iowa State University. He received his Ph.D degree in Computer Science and Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Chennai, India, and has been on the faculty of Iowa State University since 1999.

Dominic Saebeler
Adjunct Instructor of Business Administration at University of Illinois at Springfield
Dominic Saebeler is the Director of Cybersecurity and Risk Management at the Illinois Commerce Commission. He is also an Adjunct Instructor in the Department of Business Administration at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

The original Brink’s article can be read HERE.

Kowloon CC invites CACCI members to 125th Canton Fair

Hong Kong – The Kowloon Chamber of Commerce (KCC) is inviting CACCI members to participate in the 125th Canton Fair to be held from April 15 to May 5, 2019 in Guangzhou, China.

The Canton Fair (also known as the China Import and Export Fair) is an international exhibition organized jointly by the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China and the People’s Government of Guangdong Province.

During the 125th Canton Fair, the KCC and the Canton Fair Hong Kong Representative Office will jointly organize a four-day tour to visit the fair, Guangzhou and nearby cities to learn about the Canton Fair and Lingnan culture from different angles. Participants are expected to increase their understanding of China’s reform and opening-up, economic development, and will be able to explore business opportunities to promote economic and trade cooperation between the Belt and Road countries/regions and China.

Interested CACCI members can download further information and the registration form about the 125th  Canton Fair HERE.

For additional information, please contact Ms. Chen Min from the KCC via e-mail at chenmin@hkkcc.org.hk  or telephone at +852 2760 0393.

Invitation to Cebu Business Month Innovation Expo on June 12-14

The Cebu Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCCI) is inviting CACCI members to the Cebu Business Month (CBM) 2019 Innovation Expo on June 12 to 14 at the Waterfront Cebu City Hotel and Casino.

The CBM is one of CCCI’s flagship projects held annually in order to inspire, promote and grow Cebu business by gathering industry stakeholders in a month of relevant businesses and projects in the following areas: tourism, information & communications technology/business processing management (ICT/BPM) and entrepreneurship.

CBM provides a platform for the chamber to boost its connection and collaboration established with new and existing partners, thereby, creating and strengthening linkages among the key players in the global market place.

CBM is celebrating its 23rd year in June 2019 with the theme “Innovation in Action.” The three-day event shall feature the following:

• Conference with High-powered Speakers who will share & discuss success stories, Live Cases or Breakthrough Ideas and ENTREP-ICT SOLUTIONS
• Break-out Sessions
• 3-IN-ONE Expo with an International Pavilion for Tourism/Travelmart, Entrepreneurship and ICT-BPM Thrusts. The event will be open to the public.
• Business forums, networking, B2B business matching
• Exhibitors presentation area at the Grand Ballroom Staging Area (to be arranged with Organizer)

For more information or registration, please email the CCCI through secretariat@cebubusinessmonth.com

Greetings from the 11th World Chambers Congress

Rio de Janeiro – The ICC trusts that you’ve had an opportunity to learn about our upcoming 11th World Chambers Congress, the largest international gathering for chambers of commerce and their business members, from our news feeds.

Need guidance or more information? The Congress team is here for you. Don’t hesitate to contact them.

Register now and until 28 February to benefit from our early bird offer.

Looking forward to hearing back from you and  #SeeYouInRio!

Best regards,

Julian Kassum
Global Membership & Services Director

Deadline extended for submission of nominations for the 2019 World Chambers Competition

Rio de Janeiro – CACCI wishes to inform Primary and Affiliate members that the deadline of submission of nominations for the 2019 World Chambers Competition has been extended to give all chambers the opportunity to send their innovative projects. The new deadline is on February 15, 2019.

The 2019 World Chambers Competition will be held in conjunction with the 11th World Chambers Congress scheduled to take place on June 12-14, 2019 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

If your Chamber is interested to participate, please click HERE.

KCC Officers forge links with IEAT

Taipei – Secretary-General Mr. Peter Huang of the Importers and Exporters Association of Taipei (IEAT) (4th from right, left photo) received key officers of the Kowloon Chamber of Commerce (KCC) during the latter’s visit to Taipei on January 25. KCC Permanent Chairman Mr. Conrad Lee (3rd from left), KCC Vice Chairman Mr. Ernest Yuen (4th from left) and KCC Vice Chairman Mr. Wyler Wong (2nd from left) formally – accompanied by CACC Director-General Mr. Ernest Lin (leftmost) – introduced KCC to IEAT and exchanged ideas on possible areas of cooperation between the two business associations. They agreed to formally sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) during the next visit of the KCC officers to Taipei soon.

Nepal Investment Summit – March 29-30 in Kathmandu

Kathmandu – CACCI members are invited to Nepal Investment Summit (NIS) on March 29-30, 2019 at Soaltee Crowne Plaza in Kathmandu.

The Summit aims to promote Nepal as a promising investment destination and brings together high-level government authorities, leading business executives from across the globe, senior officials of the international financial institutions, representatives of global lending agencies, national and international experts, non-resident Nepalis and international development partners.

The two-day event is organized by the Office of the Investment Board of the Government of Nepal, with the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI), Confederation of Nepalese Industries, and Nepal Chamber of Commerce as co-organizers.

To be inaugurated by the Prime Minister of Nepal, the Summit will be addressed by prominent leaders from political, business and financial sectors. It will hold plenaries and breakout thematic sessions, covering various components such as policy environment, sector-specific potential investment areas, and experience sharing of investors, among others. The Summit will also provide a platform for foreign investors to interact with the representatives of Government agencies and domestic business representatives to explore business opportunities in Nepal.

Brochure of the Summit can be downloaded HERE:

Please visit Investment Summit Nepal for more information or email to 2019@investmentsummitnepal.com

HKCBMIA newsletter – January edition available

Hong Kong – CACCI is pleased to send you herewith a copy of the January 2019 issue of the Newsletter of the Hong Kong Children, Babies, Maternity Industries Association (HKCBMIA), an Affiliate Member of CACCI.

The newsletter can be downloaded HERE.

For more information on HKCBMIA, please visit its website at hkcbmia.com.hk.

Doing Business 2019: World Bank’s report

Washington D.C. – Doing Business 2019: Training for Reform, a World Bank Group flagship publication, is the 16th in a series of annual reports measuring the regulations that enhance business activity and those that constrain it. Doing Business presents quantitative indicators on business regulations and the protection of property rights that can be compared across 190 economies—from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe—and over time.

Doing Business measures regulations affecting 11 areas of the life of a business. Ten of these areas are included in this year’s ranking on the ease of doing business: starting a business, dealing with construction permits, getting electricity, registering property, getting credit, protecting minority investors, paying taxes, trading across borders, enforcing contracts and resolving insolvency.

Doing Business also measures labor market regulation, which is not included in this year’s ranking. Data in Doing Business 2019 are current as of May 1, 2018. The indicators are used to analyze economic outcomes and identify what reforms of business regulation have worked, where and why.

Doing Business 2019: Training for Reform publication can be downloaded directly from the World Bank’s website by clicking HERE.

For more details about other World Bank’s publications, please visit https://www.worldbank.org/en/research

ASEAN Investment Report 2018 published

Singapore – CACCI is pleased to share with its members a copy of the ASEAN Investment Report 2018, which was launched at the ASEAN Business and Investment Summit held in Singapore on November 12, 2018.

The ASEAN Investment Report is an annual report analysing investment and related issues in the region. It is prepared under a technical cooperation arrangement between the ASEAN Secretariat and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

The 2018 edition examines ASEAN’s rapidly growing digital economy backed by fast expanding digital networks. This year’s report also offers a dedicated chapter that examines the increasing trend of Australia’s Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Multinational Enterprise (MNE) activities in the region, highlighting Australia as a key partner of ASEAN.

Report Abstract

According to the Report, FDI flows to ASEAN rose to a record level, from $123 billion in 2016 to $137 billion in 2017, underpinned by significant rise in investment in eight Member States. As a result, ASEAN’s share of FDI flows to developing economies rose from 18 per cent in 2016 to 20 per cent in 2017. Of the total FDI flows to East and South-East Asia, ASEAN’s share also increased from 31 per cent in 2016 to 34 per cent in 2017. Intra-ASEAN investments, the biggest contributor to FDI flows in the region, reached a new high of $27 billion, or around 19 per cent to total inflows in the region.

An important development in ASEAN is the rising investment in the digital economy, which includes e-commerce, fintech, venture capital and other digital activities such as in the development of data centres and various information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure. Foreign and ASEAN digital MNEs and ICT companies are now increasing their attention on the region. Greenfield non-manufacturing ICT investment projects have grown rapidly from $2.8 billion in 2010 to $3.9 billion in 2017, while cross-border ICT mergers and acquisitions rose from just $172 million in 2010 to $3.6 billion in 2017.

At the regional level, ASEAN Member States are intensifying cooperation to strengthen the competitiveness of their ICT industries, expand e-commerce and facilitate digital connectivity, including through working towards the signing of an ASEAN e-commerce agreement and adoption of an ASEAN Digital Integration Framework to facilitate transformation of the region into a competitive global digital hub.

Given the above developments and the promising prospect for investment in the digital economy in the region, this year’s ASEAN Investment Report is very timely.  The 2018 Report looks into the investment landscape and implications of digital economy and e-Commerce in ASEAN, and also discusses the policy options and digital economy strategy for the region.

ASEAN needs to keep the momentum of rising investment in the ICT sector by intensifying its collective effort to narrow the digital divide, develop digital skills, address logistical bottlenecks and payment systems, and manage the potential risks of the digital revolution, as it moves forward to embrace the fourth industrial revolution (4IR).

The ASEAN Investment Report 2018 can be downloaded HERE.

Jamshed Jumakhonzoda – Tajikistan CCI’s new chairman

Taipei – The Director General of CACCI, Mr. Ernest Lin, extended a congratulatory letter to Mr. Jamshed Jumakhonzoda, the new Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Republic of Tajikistan (CCIRT.) The text of the missive is as follows:

New Economic Plan will ensure confidence on Turkey – Turkish Vice President Fuat Oktay

Istanbul – Turkish Vice-President Fuat Oktay said during the Opening Ceremony of the 32^nd CACCI Conference held on November 23-24, 2018 that “by applying powerful and practical action plans against the speculative attack on the Turkish economy, the New Economic Program will be firmly implemented for 2019-2021 to ensure confidence on Turkey as a global economic actor.”

Fuat Oktay conveyed Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s greeting to the conference’s participants and voiced his pleasure at hosting the CACCI Conference in Istanbul. Under the auspices of Turkey Chambers and Commodity Exchanges (TOBB) and in cooperation with the Confederation of Asia-Pacific Chambers of Commerce and Industry (CACCI), the 2-day conference was considered a tremendous success for the quality of its speakers, the rank of special speakers and the content of the business discussions.

Turkish Vice President Fuat Oktay stated that the Asia-Pacific region is becoming the epicenter of world trade and that the Asia-Pacific countries’ share of the total global economy increased from 20 percent in 2001, to today’s 30 percent.

Oktay emphasized CACCI’s important role as a key chamber of commerce in the development of economic boundaries of Asia, regional economic integration and broadening consultation on new economic trends.

Vice-President Fuat Oktay also said that it is important to use the momentum in the conversion to sustainable partnerships in order to constitute economic value. “The participation of professional organizations in Turkey, the private sector, legal representatives, and TOBB as one of the most powerful members in CACCI is satisfactory” Turkish Vice-President added.

Source: TOBB website https://www.tobb.org.tr/Sayfalar/Detay.php?rid=23991&lst=MansetListesi

“Strengthening Global Trade Through Reform”

Joint Statement of the Global Chamber Platform

16th Annual Gathering, 4th October 2018, Buenos Aires, Argentina

This year’s Global Economic Report released in March, visibly underlined the confidence of the Global Chamber Platform (GCP) in sustained economic growth for 2018. At a juncture in which world growth is slowly picking up steam after a strong 2017 that brought notably recoveries in investment, manufacturing, and trade, the Global Chamber Platform is optimistic that the economic momentum can be sustained throughout 2018. However, in its report the GCP also issued a stark warning against a further trade escalation and rising protectionism, being the number one perceived risk to the global economic recovery.

Since the report was released in March, trade tensions among major economies have unfortunately not eased. In fact it has worsened, with threats and rhetoric slowly martializing into higher tariffs and obstacles to cross border trade. This poses real risks in dampening growth perspectives and business confidence across the global economy. This past July, the WTO also released its annual report on trade restrictiveness measures of the G20 economies. Its findings further contribute to an increasingly worrying outlook for global business, as G20 economies continue to increase their trade restrictive measures in an already hostile climate for global trade.

In its report, the WTO found that the G20 applied 39 new trade-restrictive measures during the review period, which would equate to an average of almost six restrictive measures per month, a number which is significantly higher than the three measures recorded during the previous review period.

The Global Chamber Platform therefore calls on the G20 economies ahead of their November Summit in Buenos Aires, to reverse that worrying trend without delay by reducing considerably the imposition of new trade restrictive measures, in order to bring back predictability and certainty to global trade. By doing so the G20 should commit to expand trade facilitating measures and policies in order to help sustain the global economic upswing.

At the same time, the Global Chamber Platform expects a clear signal from this year’s G20, that political leaders are willing to collectively strengthen and uphold the rules based multilateral trading system by putting forward a credible path for its reform. There is a renewed sense of urgency that challenges to

the global economy need to be more adequately addressed a the global level, starting by resolving as soon as possible the deadlock at the Appellate Body and ensuring its proper functioning.

In addition a series of long standing systemic concerns underlying the current set of trade rules, a perceived lack of efficiency in the decision making procedures and governance structures, as well as the need for the negotiation agenda to deliver on the expectation of entrepreneurs, are all vital elements in that equation. In particular the following deserve increased focus:

* Reducing the timeframes for proceedings and consultation procedures at the WTO in order to deliver results quicker

* Ensuring the impartiality of arbitrators and AB members and the improving compliance with its rulings

* Improving transparency and compliance with existing notification requirements of WTO members

* Enhancing flexibilities in the decision making procedures where consensus continuously fails to deliver, such as considering the possibility for qualified majority voting.

At the same time, the negotiation agenda at the multilateral level needs to reflect business needs and be in line with topics that will move the economy of tomorrow. In this regard, the Global Chamber Platform has identified three main priority areas in its report, which can help guide policy makers and the G20 in identifying areas to be tackled at the WTO. These are:

* A better inclusion of SME’s (Small and Medium sized Enterprises) in global trade rules

* Rules for digital trade and e-commerce

* Increased services liberalization

The world has changed dramatically over past number of years in economic, political and technological terms. We have witnessed an increased importance of services, which has so far not been matched at the global level by a commensurate increase in commitments by WTO Members. We have equally witnessed the rapid pace of digitalization transforming almost every aspect of business life. However this development too, has so far not been accompanied by global rules, leading to a fragmentation of rules, as well as risks of discrimination and protectionism.

Lastly, we have also witnessed an exponential development of global value chains over the past years. Yet many SMEs are still struggling to adapt to this reality, with a significant gap between the number of existing SMEs with export potential and those that already export. As it is well documented by now, SMEs are not only engines for growth and critical to stimulate competitiveness in an economy, they are also one of the main sources of employment across the global economy.

Against this backdrop it is imperative that the policy makers send a strong signal by committing to an ambitious SME agenda at the WTO, in order to make the system more inclusive for the bulk of global enterprises. By doing so they should build on the outcomes of MC11 and the efforts undertaken by the “Friends of MSMEs”

MNCCI CEO becomes 1st Mongolian to receive Golden Camel Award

Hunan – Mrs. M.Oyunchimeg, CEO of the Mongolian National Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MNCCI) and Vice President of the Silk Road Chamber of International Commerce (SRCIC), has been awarded the SRCIC Golden Camel Award alongside five people including Mr. Jemal Inaishvili, President of the Confederation of Asia Pacific Chambers of Commerce and Industry (CACCI) and Mr. Peter Mihok, Chairperson of the ICC World Chambers Federation.

A ceremony of the award took place within the 2018 Silk Road Business Summit held on October 17 in Zhang Jiajie, with the attendance of 400 representatives from 84 countries and regions, SRCIC website has published.

During the one-day event, attendees from Chinese and foreign governments, international organizations and chambers of commerce explored the issues such as maintaining multilateral trade system, building an open world economy, creating a safe international business environment and promoting the development of traditional medicine.

Addressing at the opening ceremony, SRCIC Chairman Lu Jianzhong said as this year marks the 40th anniversary of China’s reform and opening-up, the 5th of the Belt and Road Initiative as well as the 30th of the founding of the city of Zhangjiajie, holding such event is of extraordinary significance, during which topics on deepening cooperation in the Belt and Road Initiative, developing an open world economy and building a community of common destiny for mankind will be discussed. One of the achievements of the summit is the release of the Zhangjiajie Consensus that aims to maintain multilateral trade system and promote an open world economy.

The consensus says that chambers of commerce of different countries should coordinate with their governments and corporations to take the opportunities brought by the BRI, set up platform for trade and investment cooperation and promote the implementation of the projects in order to facilitate the high-quality and sustainable development of the world economy.

Guided by China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, China NGO Network for International Exchanges and China Council for Brand Development, the summit is jointly organized by China Chamber of International Commerce, the government of Zhangjiajie, China Association for Friendship, China Council for the Promotion of International Trade Hunan sub-council and SRCIC.

Courtesy: Mongolian National Chamber of Commerce & Industry

Lub-rref renews BAB Accreditation

Dhaka – Lub-rref (Bangladesh) Ltd., a lifetime member of CACCI, has recently received its renewed Accreditation Certificate from Bangladesh Accreditation Board (BAB). Through this achievement, Lub-rref (Bangladesh) Ltd can perform test of all type of Petroleum Products in its laboratory situated in Chattogram, Bangladesh and issue test report that will have global acceptance. It is to mention that, Lub-rref (Bangladesh) Ltd was first awarded the certificate in 2013.

Importers and Exporters Association of Taipei (IEAT) – New CACCI Affiliate Member

Taipei – The Importers and Exporters Association of Taipei (IEAT) is the newest affiliate member of CACCI. We welcome IEAT to the growing CACCI family!

Established in 1947, the IEAT represents businesses engaged in import-export trade. With some 5,700 members, IEAT is the largest importers and exporters association as well as one of the most influential private chambers of commerce in Taiwan.

The IEAT provides comprehensive services to members which can be classified into the following areas: Enhancing Members’ Right and Benefits, Furthering Foreign Trade, Strategic Alliance and Collaboration, Comprehensive Information Resources, and Developing Trade Expertise. The IEAT recognizes that with the advent of globalization and the Cloud Era, cross-border E-commerce is to set to shape future trading patterns. Thus, the IEAT aims to integrate the resources of the industry, the academia and the government for the development of a trade platform and e-commerce expertise to pave the way for global outreach and new business opportunities.

CACCI President Jemal Inaishvili and Senior Vice President Samir Modi had the opportunity of visiting the IEAT office in September where they met with IEAT Secretary General Mr. Peter Huang.

ASEAN launches Mentorship for Entrepreneurs Network (AMEN)

Singapore – ASEAN Business Advisory Council Philippines (ASEAN BAC PH) Chairman and ASEAN Mentorship for Entrepreneurs Network (AMEN) Founding Chair Joey Concepcion officially launched AMEN in Singapore last August 27, 2018.

ASEAN BAC PH Chair Concepcion was joined by ASEAN BAC 2018 Chair Robert Yap together with ASEAN CSR Network CEO Thomas Thomas and ASEAN CSR Network Chair Yanti Triwadiantini. After launching in Manila (November 2017), Australia (March 2018), South Korea (June 2018) and Malaysia (July 2018), the AMEN network was introduced in partnership with the ASEAN CSR Network, ASEAN BAC’s Sector Champion for Responsible, and Inclusive Business.

AMEN is a private-public partnership platform which was a legacy project of the ASEAN BAC during the Philippines’ ASEAN chairmanship in 2017. The integral essence of this public-private partnership deals will strengthen the aspiration for inclusive and sustainable growth. AMEN partnership aims to jointly develop and undertake programs, projects, and advocacy initiatives pursuant to the development and operationalization of responsible and inclusive business in ASEAN and ASEAN dialogue partners.

The program’s mentorship advocacy provides a platform to promote best practices and maximize potential in the path towards inclusive growth throughout the member states and the ASEAN dialogue partners. It seeks to prepare the MSMEs to face the growing challenges in the business community and to scale up their operations to increase the production of their goods and products through the training modules provided in the mentorship program. It is intended to bring the 3Ms – money, market, and mentorship – of entrepreneurial success, especially to micro and small enterprises.

Along with this, Concepcion was also invited as one of the key speakers during the ASEAN Responsible Business Forum.

Go Negosyo

HKCBMIA – New CACCI affiliate member

Hong Kong – The newest CACCI Affiliate Member is the Hong Kong Children, Babies, Maternity Industries Association Ltd. (HKCBMIA). Established in September 2016, the HKCBMIA aims to: (a) build up the data base of the industry to promote and enhance information exchange among its members; (b) organize business teams in Hong Kong and abroad to work with its counterpart organizations in other countries; (c) develop its market at home and abroad by organizing sales exhibitions, seminars, business matching services, etc.; (d) conduct training and exchange of information on management, technology, and marketing; (e) represent the industry in dealing with government to obtain support particularly in the area of business development; (f) encourage and nurture young people to join the industry; and (g) provide relevant industry information to members through publications and fellowship activities.

FICCI to hold 15th edition of CAPAM

Mumbai – The 15th edition of the Annual Capital Markets Conference – ‘CAPAM 2018’ – is being organized by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) on 11 September, 2018 at Hotel Trident, Nariman Point, Mumbai.

CAPAM is recognized as the leading and most sought-after capital markets event in India and it provides an excellent platform to share views, experiences, international developments and best practices in the capital market domain.

Mr Ajay Tyagi, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has kindly agreed to deliver the Inaugural Address at CAPAM 2018.