某企业化学行业分析报告（英文版）(ppt 33页).ppt

1、,Noordwijk, October 4, 2004,Prof. Roland Berger Chairman, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants,EU enlargement new opportunities for the chemical industry,The changing face of Europe Challenges and opportunities of enlargement for EU 15 Opportunities for EU 15 chemical players in CEE and CIS Conclusion

2、,Contents,A.,The changing face of Europe,% of EU 25,France, Germany, Italy and Benelux: Six wealthy core countries start economic integration process in 1957,1.1,EU 6 (1957)*,* 2003 data, Europes core countries had sluggish growth over the last ten years: Average growth 1.3% p.a. in Germany, 1.7% in

3、 France, 2.5% Netherlands,118.0%,75.5%,% of US,GDP USD bn,6,494,58.9%,59.0%,Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom: First acces-sion round after 16 years increases economic power,1.2,EU 9 (1973)*,* 2003 data, As a result of EU integration, Irelands economic growth has been out-standingly high over

4、the past ten years: 7.6% p.a. (DK 2.1%, UK 2.8%),120.2%,76.9%,GDP USD bn,8,655,78.5%,78.8%,% of EU 25,% of US,Greece: A poorer country joins the European Union in 1981 first discussions about dilution,1.3,EU 10 (1981)*,* 2003 data, Greece now has high average growth rates (3.8% p.a. from 1995-2004)

5、partly due to European money from structural / regional funds,GDP USD bn,8,827,80.0%,80.3%,118.3%,75.6%,% of EU 25,% of US,Spain and Portugal: Accession of two less developed southern countries reduces EUs average wealth,1.4,EU 12 (1986)*,* 2003 data, Today, the southern countries contribute to EU g

6、rowth: Spain (3.3% p.a. since 1995) and Portugal (2.4% p.a.) achieved high average growth rates,GDP USD bn,9,816,89.0%,89.3%,112.8%,72.2%,% of EU 25,% of US,Sweden, Finland and Austria: Europes northern enlargement pushes up the average GDP per capita,1.5,EU 15 (1995)*,* 2003 data, Stimulus to EU gr

7、owth over the past ten years: Finlands economy grew 3.5% p.a. on average, Swedens 2.7 % p.a., and Austrias 2.0% p.a.,GDP USD bn,10,534,95.5%,95.9%,114.1%,73.0%,% of EU 25,% of US,Eastern Europe, Malta and Cyprus: The biggest round of enlargement ever changes the face of Europe,1.2,EU 25 (2004)*,* 20

8、03 data, GDP growth rates of up to 6.5% p.a. in CEE (average 4.4% p.a. since 95) But: Enlargement is a big challenge for European Union to create wealth,64.0%,% of US,50 years of enlargement: Compared to the US, the EU has gained size at the expense of average wealth, Today, Europes GDP per capita i

9、s only about two-thirds that of the US in terms of total GDP, both economies are now comparable,EU vs. US* US=100%,59.0,77.5,80.3,89.3,95.9,100.4,78.0,102.0,106.2,123.8,130.5,156.0,75.5,76.9,75.6,72.2,73.0,64.0,1957 EU 6,1973 EU 9,1981 EU 10,1986 EU 12,1995 EU 15,2004 EU 25,GDP,Inhabitants,GDP per c

10、apita,US = 100,* based on 2003 data,1.3,Wealth gap: Ten years ago, the north of the European Union was rich and the south was poor,2.1, South gained wealth in EU: From 34.4% of EU-9 (1986) to 59.8% today,1995: Gap between north and south*,1995,* 2003 data * EU 12 * Portugal, Spain, Greece,GDPUSD bn,

11、Unemployment%,Populationm,SOUTH*,NORTH*,1,161,9,373,13.4,9.2,62,319,RATIO,9:1,GDP per capitaUSD,18,726,29,383,3:2,2:3,5:1,Today, the gap is between east and west GDP per capita in the EU 15 is four times higher than in EU 10,2.2,2004: Gap between east and west, EU support will help EU 10 economic de

12、velopment to reach EU 15 wealth,2003,EU 10,EU 15,493,10,534,10.5,8.5,74,381,RATIO,21:1,4:5,5:1,GDPUSD bn,Unemployment%,Populationm,GDP per capitaUSD,EU 25 vs. US vs. Asia: Enlarged EU is a still powerful, but the slowest growing economic region in the world,3., Opportunity: Ten new states give the E

13、U momentum to increase growth,ECONOMIC POWER GDP, USD bn,Comparative indicators 2003,POPULATION m,WEALTH GDP per capita, USD,GROWTH avg. GDP growth 1999-2003, %,10,988,290,3.3,11,028,455,2.3,US,EU 25,ASIA*,* Aggregated data for Japan, China, ASEAN,8,458,1,947,4.8,37,890,24,237,12,058,B.,Challenges a

14、nd opportunities of enlargement for EU 15,Eastward enlargement entails threats and opportunities for economies, companies, and governments,Economies Unit labor cost advantages in EU 10 challenge existing value creation structures in EU 15, but also offer momentum for structural change / innovation i

15、n EU 15 Companies Competition in EU 15 as well as in EU 10 is increasing, but also new sales, investment, growth and relocation opportunities for EU 15 companies in Eastern Europe Governments Existing institutional setups in EU 15 are challenged by lower taxes / contributions and higher flexibility

16、in EU 10, but also momentum for political change, Effects of enlargement on macroeconomic and microeconomic levels,Macroeconomic threats: Pressure on EU 15 labor markets and competition for best institutional setup,Low wage-competition / unemployment threats Migration (up to 3.8 m people from CEE wi

17、ll move to the EU 15) Offshoring (e.g. 830,000 people in CEE employed by German firms in 2004) Low tax / social contributions competition Also: Less regulation (e.g. IMD bureaucracy index: Estonia ranked 9th, UK ranked 33rd) Financial burden (EU budget) Cost of enlargement (2004-2006): 49 bn EUR, Di

18、fferences: Countries with high degree of regulation, geographical proximity to CEE and net contributors to EU budget are more affected,1.1,39,0,19,0,15,0,0,0,17,4,15,0,8,5,12,5,GER,POL,LIT,EST,Taxes,Contributions,CORPORATE TAXES % / SOCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS 2004 % of GDP,Macroeconomic opportunities: Hig

19、her growth momen-tum for structural / institutional change and innovation,Enhanced growth in east and west EU 15 benefits from backlog of demand in CEE New momentum in New Europe through increased trade / know-how Momentum for structural change / innovation Labor-intensive / low value creation indus

20、tries/ products no longer competitive in EU 15 Structural change towards high-tech goods and services the only choice for Old Europe (- growth / wealth) Momentum for institutional change Regulations, taxes, subsidies, flexible markets, EU enlargement helps policymakers bring about necessary but ofte

21、n unpopular structural reforms in their respective countries,1.2,Source: EU Commission,IMPACT OF 2004 ENLARGEMENT ON GDP GROWTH %,Microeconomic threats: Increasing competition for EU 15 due to lower labor / unit costs in Eastern Europe, Differences: Mature industries more affected than innovative on

22、es, border regions more than western, small companies more than large,2.1,2.82,1.19,0.56,-0.15,-1.03,-2.26,Chemi-cals,Medicaltechno-logy,IT equip-ment,Auto-motive,Steelindustry,Wood,Industries with comparative ADVANTAGE in GER,Industries with comparative DISADVANTAGE in GER,More attractive business

23、conditions in CEE Labor costs only between 10.4% (Slova-kia) and 17.8% (Hungary) of EU 15 level Taxes lower and social contributions only between 10.0% (Poland) and 16.3% (Czech Republic) of German level Capital costs about 20% lower because of lower investment needs due to flexible labor markets Ne

24、ed for Industry restructuring Innovation (creative destruction),REVEALED COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGEGERMANY VS. EASTERN EUROPE Index,Microeconomic opportunities: CEE offers new markets and growth / investment / offshoring opportunities, Labor costs in CEE will remain attractive for at least 30 more years,

25、2.2,2001,2010,2020,2030,39.4,66.3,POL,42.4,67.9,EST,61.4,78.5,CZR,71.5,84.1,SLO,100,EU 15,New markets for infrastructure, capital and consumer goods 75 m new consumers with increasing purchasing power for consumer goods High demand for modernized infrastructure and capital goods New growth and inves

26、tment opportunities Privatization of state-owned companies Acquisition / restructuring of EU 10 enterprises Low unit costs through offshoring Setup of own production facilities Outsourcing of labor-intensive production Lower taxes and social contributions,CONVERGENCE IN PER CAPITA INCOME index, EU 1

27、5 = 100,Result of 2004 enlargement: New European division of labor based on regional comparative advantages,RELATIVE ABUNDANCEOF CAPITAL AND TECHNOLOGY,WESTERN EUROPE: Capital/knowledge-intensive economies,EASTERN EUROPE: Labor-intensive economies,RELATIVE ABUNDANCEOF LABOR AT LOW COSTS,3., Free exc

28、hange of goods and services, financial and human capital will allow EU to compete head to head with the United States and Asia,96.2,109.8,117.2,97.7,121.1,132.6,134.7,74.8,1999,2000,2001,2002,= Imports from CEE,= Exports to CEE,BRAIN,BRAIN,TRADE RELATIONS BETWEEN EU 15 AND CEE EUR bn,Major industria

29、l sectors are already reaping the benefits of the new European division of labor through FDIs,4.,Leading sectors in terms of FDI in Eastern Europe,= % of all extra-EU 15 flows,1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,6.0,9.8,12.1,19.9,16.3,5.5,4.5,3.9,4.9,12.4,16.1,6.3, Also chemical firms have moved eastwards

30、 in search of new markets .,AUTOMOTIVE,FINANCIALSERVICES,FOOD,TELECOMS,26.9% of all German FDI flows go to CEE,EU 15 FDI IN CEE 1997-2002 EUR bn,C.,Opportunities for EU 15 chemical players in CEE and CIS,Chemical industry in CEE / CIS: Still small in size but growing at 2.5 times the speed of Wester

31、n Europe,Chemical output growth 2004-2014 % p.a.,Chemical revenues of 34.3 bn USD in Eastern Europe (CEE 23.5 bn USD, CIS 10.8 bn USD) are comparable in size to Ireland or the Netherlands,8.5,7.5,5.3,4.9,4.2,2.2,1.9,1.2,IND,CHN,CEE,CIS,Middle East,EU 15,JPN,NAFTA,2.3,5.3,1.6,0.8,3.6,33.0,11.0,27.8,G

32、lobal share %,1.,1,2,3,4,5,CEE vs. CIS: Basic structural differences in chemicals despite of similarly good growth perspectives,2.,Very different (market entry) strategies necessary for CEE and CIS !,1) Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria,2) Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbe

33、kistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova,CEE 1),CIS 2),PLAYERS / ACTIVITIES,Local / regional players producing value-added chemicals,Big private oil/gas companies producing mainly petrochemicals and commodities,COMPETI-TIVENESS,Domestically but not yet globally com-petitive production / asset footprint,

34、Uncompetitive production / logistics, but competitive raw materials / feedstock,TRADE,High imports of high-/medium-value chemicals, low level of exports,High petrochemical exports, high consumer chemicals imports,DEGREE OF PRIVATIZATION,State-owned / -controlled companies still dominant,Privatizatio

35、n of Russian players largely completed (Renationalization?),ACTIVITIES OF WESTERN COMPANIES,Greenfield investments and JVs in consumer-driven segments,Demand-driven Greenfield and supply-driven Brownfield investments / JVs,Players / activities: Local players producing value-added chemicals in CEE CI

36、S strong in raw materials,2.1,Local/regional players in CEE and strong resource-driven players in CIS,CEE,CIS,PLAYERS: Weak, big state-owned /-controlled players and some strong private local / regional chemical producers Largest players on various value-chain levels: CIECH, Zaklady Azotowe, Unipetr

37、ol, Duslo, Novacke Chemicke Zavody, etc. ACTIVITIES: Value-added chemical production sites in all parts of CEE Ethylene: CZ, HU, PL, RO, BG, SL Polyethylene: HU, PL, CZ, HU Ammonium nitrate: PL, SK, BG, RO,PLAYERS: Strong oil / gas companies and weak SMEs Large oil / gas companies: Yukos, Lukoil, Su

38、rgutneftegas Some agrochemical companies: Azot, Akron, PhosAgro, Eurockim, Uralkalii ACTIVITIES: Production of low-cost commodities (gas, raw material and energy-based chemicals) Dispersed and dislocated production centers remain from Soviet era Production in CIS dropped 60% in early 1990s today mor

39、e or less at 1990 level again Unfavorable logistics for world markets,Competitiveness: CEE assets competitive domestically CIS assets not, but competitive raw materials,2.2,ASSETS: Production sites are competitive (technology, scale) but only on domestic markets Example (Ammonium nitrate production

40、in Pulawy, Poland): Capacity 700 kt Minimum domestic size550 kt Minimum global size 1,000 kt LABOR PRODUCTIVITY: Uncompetitive vs. EU 15 industry turnover per employee at 30% of EU 15 level in 2003 Significant increases: Up from 19% in 1995,ASSETS: Uncompetitive production sites, but competitive raw

41、 materials Example: Methanol and derivatives (Natural gas at Middle Eastern costsof 60-75 cents / MBTU) Fully fledged combinates and dislocation of process chains Uncompetitive logistics costs LABOR PRODUCTIVITY: Uncompetitive vs. EU 15 industry turnover per employee only at 3% of EU 15 level in 200

42、3 Stagnating or even decreasing: In 1995 CIS productivity level was 4% of EU 15, CEE slowly catches up with EU 15 efficiency unsolved problems in CIS,CEE,CIS,Trade: High level of imports in both CEE and CIS CIS with significant exports of mainly commodities,2.3,HIGH IMPORTS: 16.6 bn USD Specialty /

43、fine chemicals polymers Consumer chemicals LOW EXPORTS: 5.0 bn USD Polymers Petrochemicals DOMESTIC PRODUCTION covers 53% of domestic demand of 35.1 bn USD,HIGH IMPORTS: 8.1 bn USD Consumer chemicals HIGH EXPORTS: 7.0 bn USD Agrochemicals / fertilizers Raw material-based chemicals Gas-based chemical

44、s DOMESTIC PRODUCTION covers 32% of domestic demand of 11.9 bn USD,Increasing high-value added imports in CEE / CIS in the coming years likely to be followed by import substitution international investments,CEE*,CIS*,*) 2002/2003 data,Degree of privatization: Most players in CIS are in private hands

45、 today CEE still largely state-owned,2.4,EXTENT OF PRIVATIZATION: Only in Hungary / Slovakia privatization has been completed, in Poland / Czech Republic the state still holds major shares RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Poland: CIECH group partially privatized in September 2004 (IPO) Czech Republic: Unipetrol

46、sold 63% to PKN but significant restructuring and further ownership changes are expected OUTLOOK: Privatized CEE players will enhance their impact via M&As in CEE,EXTENT OF PRIVATIZATION: In Russia, more than 96% of the top 400 chemical firms are privatized, in rest of CIS ongoing process RECENT DEV

47、ELOPMENTS Russia: Joint ventures with Western companies, e.g. Gazprom with Sibur and Nizhnekamskneftekhim with BASF Ongoing activities also in rest of CIS: In the Ukraine a privatization program of large enterprises has just been approved OUTLOOK: Technology- and know-how-based input of Western comp

48、anies will increase,Privatization / restructuring is still an issue in Poland and the Czech Republic companies in CIS are more open for partnership / know-how,CEE,CIS,Likely future developments in CEE: Significant changes in industry structure opportunities for EU firms,3.1,Significant industry stru

49、cture changes are expected Only few competitive companies remain, many (even privatized, but uncompetitive) companies are likely to fail Unclear role of state-owned companies big, still state-owned companies are likely to stay (even if privatization fails) Privatized companies that are active in res

50、tructuring / M&As will follow their path mainly without Western partners CEE chemical companies can become serious competitors on the EU stage,Capture market potential and growth through export and FDI Enter market with brand and marketing power Participate in market developments through Greenfield

51、investments Use time window of low factor costs to optimize EU 25 global footprint Capture the advantage of homogeneous EU-25 policy and market, EU firms must integrate the new CEE countries in their EU-25 strategies,KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN CEE,OPPORTUNITIES FOR WESTERN COMPANIES,Likely future developme

52、nts in CIS: Large players win against small ones also opportunities for EU firms,3.2,Big gas-oil-driven and Western com-panies will gain momentum against SMEs Many SMEs are likely to disappear (weak financial resources, limited marketing power, lack of R&D, uncompetitive price position, etc.) Gas-/o

53、il-based and selected raw material-based companies will expand their chemicals portfolio downstream Often in cooperation with international partners Open for FDIs,Participate in raw material / supply advantage by trading in technology and process know-how and capital Cooperate with big oil / gas and

54、 raw material firms Capture consumption-driven market potential through Greenfield investments or joint venture with raw material / basic chemicals manufacturers In the meantime: Build up consumer-driven segments with export and marketing activities in CIS,EU firms can capture supply / energy advantages and market potential,KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN CEE,OPPORTUNITIES FOR WEST