• Agenda
  • Initiatives
  • Reports
  • Events
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Leadership and Governance
    • Our Members and Partners
    • Communities
    • History
    • Klaus Schwab
    • Media
    • Contact Us
    • Careers
    • World Economic Forum USA
    • Privacy and Terms of Use
  • EN ES FR 日本語 中文
  • Login to TopLink

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. By using our website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Notice.

I accept
    Hamburger
  • World Economic Forum Logo
  • Agenda
  • Initiatives
  • Reports
  • Events
  • About
  • TopLink
  • Search Cancel

Report Home

<Previous Next>
  • Foreword
  • Executive Summary
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Approach
  • 3. Description of Supply Chain Barriers to Trade
  • 4. Main Lessons
  • A. Reducing supply chain barriers to trade could increase GDP up to six times more than removing tariffs. They have been under-managed by both countries and companies
  • B. Trade increases from reducing supply chain barriers can be achieved only if specific tipping points are reached
  • C. Recommendation to countries and companies – the devil is in the details
  • 5. Policy Implication: Think Supply Chain!
  • 6. Case Examples
  • Agriculture Co.
  • Rubber Products
  • Healthcare Co.
  • Chemical Co.
  • Mexican Chemical Co.
  • eBay
  • IATA
  • Pharmaceuticals
  • Apparel Co.
  • Global Co.
  • CPG Co.
  • Semiconductor Co.
  • Tech Co.
  • Handset Distribution Co.
  • PC Co.
  • Computer Co.
  • Express Delivery Services Co.
  • Shipping Co.
  • Appendix
  • Acknowledgements
Enabling Trade: Valuing Growth Opportunities Home Previous Next
  • Report Home
  • Foreword
  • Executive Summary
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Approach
  • 3. Description of Supply Chain Barriers to Trade
  • 4. Main Lessons

  • A. Reducing supply chain barriers to trade could increase GDP up to six times more than removing tariffs. They have been under-managed by both countries and companies
  • B. Trade increases from reducing supply chain barriers can be achieved only if specific tipping points are reached
  • C. Recommendation to countries and companies – the devil is in the details
  • 5. Policy Implication: Think Supply Chain!
  • 6. Case Examples

  • Agriculture Co.
  • Rubber Products
  • Healthcare Co.
  • Chemical Co.
  • Mexican Chemical Co.
  • eBay
  • IATA
  • Pharmaceuticals
  • Apparel Co.
  • Global Co.
  • CPG Co.
  • Semiconductor Co.
  • Tech Co.
  • Handset Distribution Co.
  • PC Co.
  • Computer Co.
  • Express Delivery Services Co.
  • Shipping Co.
  • Appendix
  • Acknowledgements

CPG Co.

6. Case Examples

CPG Co.: Making Business Work in Africa’s Harsh Environment

Doing business across the African continent is as fraught with complexity for multinational companies like CPG Co. as it is filled with opportunity. In Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Kenya and Zimbabwe, the company struggles against an adverse business environment that elevates its risks and a patchy infrastructure that undermines operational efficiency. These barriers limit Africa’s integration into global supply chains and the breadth of goods available to African people. 

Companies like CPG Co., a consumer packaged-goods producer, that hope to capitalize on Africa’s strong growth potential must be prepared to encounter an adverse business environment that gives rise to a wide range of problems that makes it difficult for them to operate. Unstable politics within and among African nations have riven the continent with a wide range of internal conflicts that pose a significant threat to industry. Civil unrest in Nigeria, for example, has brought CPG Co.’s business to a temporary halt in the past. 

Political risks raise costs and complicate financing

National policies in the region lack continuity, further heightening uncertainties CPG Co. faces during and immediately following elections. When Kenya held elections recently, for example, CPG Co. stockpiled between two and three times its normal level of inventories, a precaution that proved prudent when the highly contested election outcome was followed by violence and a civil political crisis. Following Zambia’s 2011 presidential election, a switch in the party in power paired with political and economic mismanagement has had heavy implications for businesses. 

Africa’s often disruptive political environment increases personal safety and security concerns that lead many companies to decide not to enter problematic markets. For those that do, crime rate and theft across the transport chain drive up operating costs. Though less dangerous, endemic corruption further burdens operations. So-called “soft corruption” in the form of bribes paid to officials at borders and ports in order to speed up the shipment process has a negative impact in the form of severe delays on companies like CPG Co. that refuse to pay. The World Bank has estimated that corruption can absorb some 3% of revenues for business in Africa, roughly equivalent to what they pay in security costs72 (see figure).

Figure 28: Security and corruption absorb some 6% of revenue

Risks and uncertainties scramble the company’s willingness and ability to arrange financing. In the historically highly unstable markets of Zimbabwe and Malawi, CPG Co. withholds credit and insists on ending each month in a positive cash-flow position. The company’s reliance on its ability to generate cash limits its growth, curtails investment and inhibits ongoing operations in both countries. When cash collections needed to keep the business running lag, CPG Co. has been forced to suspend operations – in one instance stalling production in a country for some four to five weeks. 

Not surprisingly, perceived instability and deep uncertainties in high-risk countries are a major influence on corporate investment decisions and have major consequences for country competitiveness. For example, CPG Co. has lost € 6 million (US$ 7.9 million) because of currency depreciation in one instance alone, an important factor in its decision not to tie up capital in the country affected. But CPG Co. is open to re-evaluating investment decisions when policies warrant, as it is doing in response to the recent relative stability enjoyed by Zimbabwe. Any change, however, will require that the investment have a rapid payback period in order to mitigate the still extraordinarily high risk of committing capital there.

In African countries characterized by a moderate risk environment, CPG Co. applies its more general global criteria on investment decisions and focuses specifically on the risk to cash flow. For an investment to get a green light, its expected return on investment (ROI) and payback period must be on par with global standards – typically, an ROI of between 25% and 50% with a payback period of less than four years, depending on the investment. In some cases, the business need for making the investment may influence CPG Co.’s decision to proceed. For example, the company decided to invest in a warehouse in Nigeria despite a slight lower ROI and longer payback period because the lack of logistics services in the country made having one urgent. 

Depending upon the country and degree of risk it presents, CPG Co. weighs three different investment options for building its market presence. The first approach, importing finished goods, requires no investment and exposes CPG Co. to the least risk, but it results in the most expensive landed unit costs. One factor that drives up costs is the need to import three to four months’ worth of stock with the attendant freight, clearance and duty expenses. The second approach, manufacturing goods locally through third-party contractors, requires minimal investment, but it exposes CPG Co. to greater risk than importing does. Local contract manufacturers lack the scale necessary to maximize production efficiencies, resulting in higher overhead costs per unit. The final approach, producing goods onshore, carries the highest risk. Heavy investment is needed to build capacity, but controlling production results in the lowest cost finished goods. As scale ramps up, unit costs fall. 

Poor infrastructure hobbles operations

The poor quality of infrastructure across Africa slows the movement of goods through the supply chain and cuts off access to some regions. Ports operate beyond capacity at most African harbours. At Mombasa, Kenya, the main port for all of East African trade, docking and unloading can stretch out from five to 14 days. Lagging telecommunications infrastructure makes it difficult to track containers, rendering operations and planning cumbersome and time consuming. As a result, vessels departing from Mombasa sometimes depart half-empty due to poor tracking infrastructure that leaves containers “lost” within the system. Finally, weak road and rail infrastructure make it difficult to reach many inland markets. The less efficient transport means that raw materials shipped to African destinations will face higher overall logistics costs than other destinations with fewer barriers (see figure). The inaccessibility and high cost to reach some markets requires CPG Co. and other large shippers to set up additional regional plants to cover the geography and to carry excess inventories at each node of the supply chain. 

Figure 29: African countries are at a disadvantage – they have less competitive input costs

Figure 28: Security and corruption absorb some 6% of revenue

Source: Private Sector Development blog, World Bank.

Figure 29: African countries are at a disadvantage – they have less competitive input costs

72
72 Private Sector Development Blog, World Bank. “Costs of Doing Business in Africa: Security vs. Corruption.” Appfrica. N.p., 2009.
Back to Top
Subscribe for updates
A weekly update of what’s on the Global Agenda
Follow Us
About
Our Mission
Leadership and Governance
Our Members and Partners
The Fourth Industrial Revolution
Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Communities
History
Klaus Schwab
Our Impact
Media
Pictures
A Global Platform for Geostrategic Collaboration
Careers
Open Forum
Contact Us
Mapping Global Transformations
Code of Conduct
World Economic Forum LLC
Sustainability
World Economic Forum Privacy Policy
Media
News
Accreditation
Subscribe to our news
Members & Partners
Member login to TopLink
Strategic Partners' area
Partner Institutes' area
Global sites
Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Open Forum
Global Shapers
Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship
EN ES FR 日本語 中文
© 2022 World Economic Forum
Privacy Policy & Terms of Service