论文部分内容阅读
After nine milk powder en- terprises actively lowered the price， the battle against monopolization was gradually spread to the upstream suppliers. Recently， the General Administration of Industry and Commerce of China confirmed the initiation of the investigation into the Tetra Pak’s abuse of its market dominance.
Since the 1980s， Tetra Pak has been taking the No. 1 place of the aseptic packaging market in China， and is still enlarging the gap between itself and the runner-up.
According to the official website of Tetra Pak， this company now has 39 sales agencies， 42 packaging material and lid factories and eight filling and equipment assembly factories. In 2012， Tetra Pak produced 173.2 billion packages， which brought the income of 11.155 billion euros.
Among them， one third of the income comes from China. “Last year， about 110 billion aseptic packages were needed by China’s dairy industry and Tetra Pak provided about 60 billion packages， more than half of the total volume，” says Wang Dingmian， an expert in the dairy industry.
In recent years， Tetra Pak， riding the trend of rising normal temperature milk， has already become the biggest winner in China’s dairy industry by forging the alliance with large dairy enterprises like Yili and Mengniu， even though its Chinese partners have been brought down by the endless scandals one by one.
However， such a bound-based de- velopment pattern now leads Tetra Pak into the vortex of anti-monopolization in China.
The announcement from the General Administration of Industry and Commerce of China revealed that Tetra Pak is suspected of making use of its advantages in the device of liquid food packaging and related maintenance skills for the tied sale of packing materials and the differentiated treatment， which have violated the clause about “misusing the market dominance” in the Anti-Monopoly Law in China.
A Chinese enterprise producing cool tea also reported that Tetra Pak’s package materials are usually more expensive than the other companies. This company once tried to change the Tetra Pak materials into other less costly materials， which were found to be hard to be compatible with the production devices of Tetra Pak. In addition， the quality is worsened as well and therefore they had to re-select Tetra Pak’s packaging materials again.
The Debate over Monopolization
The aseptic packaging was invented by Tetra Pak in the 1950s and was initially widely used in the dairy product industry. By now， the downstream applications of aseptic packaging have been spread to juices， soft drinks， soups， cream， ketchup and wine. According to the statistical data of Frost & Sullivan， an American consultancy company， the global aseptic packaging market had the 4.9% annual compound growth rate from 2009 to 2015. Prior to that， Dennis J？nsson， president and
CEO of Tetra Pak， confirmed that China became the largest market （as a single country） of Tetra Pak early in 2008.
But it has never stayed away from the criticism over its “monopolization”since its entry into China. It is not the first time that it was accused of “selling packaging materials along with devices and providing differentiated treatment”.
Great View Pack said in its prospectus that the dominant enterprises in the aseptic packaging market used to apply restrictive conditions for clients and heighten the threshold for the new aseptic packaging suppliers. Such a phenomenon was not stopped until the 1990s when the EU stuck its nose into this several times. Tetra Pak was also punished several times by the EU due to the monopolization.
The Chinese government issued the Anti-Monopoly Law in 2008， which aims at keeping the malpractices of Tetra Pak and so on at bay. But seemingly it is not working very well.
Presently， there are two different packaging systems in the aseptic packaging industry. The suppliers mainly provide customers with the roll and embryonic aseptic packaging materials. The two systems are not interchangeable with each other， because each system requires different filling machines. Therefore the clients could not change suppliers easily.
“In addition， the supplier might set up some parameters for the device， making it incompatible with materials offered by other suppliers. That means the clients have to buy the materials from where they get the devices，” says a practitioner of the packing.
However， an insider from Tetra Pak denied the accusation of “misusing its dominance”. He stated that “Tetra Pak provided devices， packaging materials， related technologies and services to clients. But they are independent from each other and the said tied sale is nothing but a rumor”.
According to Wang Dingmian， the average aseptic package containing 250ml costs about RMB 0.18-0.24， but Tetra Pak’s package of the same size costs RMB 0.28， most of which is caused by the materials.
The Development Based on“Bound”
In 2009， fewer than 40 billion aseptic packages were needed in the Chinese market， but in 2012 the figure increased to 110 billion. A Guangzhou-based dairy enterprise reflected that Tetra Pak treats clients unfairly when it comes to the sale of devices and materials. It is said that a consensus has been reached inside Tetra Pak： the big clients are the foremost. From 2000， Tetra Pak chose to work deeply with Yili and Mengniu， both of which are large-sized dairy enterprises in China. It not only sold the devices valuing millions of US dollars to these companies at enviably discounted prices， but also sent some types of production lines to these enterprises free of charge. In exchange，these enterprises promised to purchase Tetra Pak’s packaging materials. Later， Tetra Pak even extended the cooperation into the development of new dairy products and marketing ads.
The research of ACNielsen showed that the market share of the low-temperature milk products dropped to below 35% from 2000 to 2004 because of the fast development of high-temperature sterilized dairy products driven by Tetra Pak.
Ironically， this also laid the foundation for the anti-monopoly investigation that trapped Tetra Pak at present.
The Anti-Monopoly Law of China stipulated that the “dominant place in the market” refers to market place that gives the operator the power to control the product price， number and other trade conditions in a certain market， or the ability to prevent and affect other operators’ entry into the market.
There are two methods to affirm the “dominant place in the market”. The first one is the direct affirmation with solid facts. The second one is based on inference. The solid facts cover the market share， the status of competition， the market control， the clients’ reliance on the supplier and the operator’s power. The inference is comparatively simpler. An operator might be considered to dominate a certain market when its market share exceeds 50%.
It was once reported that Tetra Pak took over 90% of the aseptic packaging market in China， which is thought to be ridiculous by a senior executive of Tetra Pak China. He says that the number （of market share） is not that high， but he does not reveal the real number.
The available data from Frost & Sullivan said that Tetra Pak took 70.2% of the aseptic packaging market in 2009. Wang Dingmian， along with some other experts， expects a lower market share of Tetra Pak in China in recent years as the competition got intensified， but its market share is still believed to be not lower than 50%.
Investigations and Countermeasures Ma Pingchuan， a lawyer from Guangdong International Business Law Firm， says that it is easy to see the market dominance of Tetra Pak in the Chinese market. The key to accuse it of monopolization is whether it “abuses this dominance”.
“We see whether the operator takes advantage of this dominance to purely earn more profits or to reduce the com- petition and hit the competitors，” says Ma Pingchuan.
According to the 47th clause of the Ant-Monopoly Law， if Tetra Pak is confirmed to abuse its market dominance， it will be put under the punishment of“stopping any illegal behaviors， confiscating all income from the abuse and paying the fines accounting for 1%-10% of the annual operating income”.
“We are actively working the governmental departments for the investigation， but we do not know when the result will come out，” says a senior executive of the headquarters of Tetra Pak.
Several days prior to the initiation of the investigation into Tetra Pak， the National Development and Reform Commission of China just started the anti-monopoly investigation into foreign dairy companies， forcing nine of them to lower the prices.
“The frequent food safety problems called for the actions of the government. The investigation into dairy enterprises must be spread to the upstream and downstream links of the milk industry，” an expert says. Tetra Pak， a well-known supplier of packages， can definitely affect the production and sale of dairy enterprises in China. When the monopolization of foreign companies in the milk powder became a problem， Tetra Pak ccould not stay away from any shockwaves.
An experienced lawyer says that the present anti-monopoly maneuver is a two-point system with the Anti-Monopoly Committee as the leading organization and the Ministry of Commerce， the General Administration of Industry and Commerce and the National Development and Reform Commission as the departments for implementation. In the future， all functions and facilities of antimonopoly actions might be taken by one organization.”
Since the 1980s， Tetra Pak has been taking the No. 1 place of the aseptic packaging market in China， and is still enlarging the gap between itself and the runner-up.
According to the official website of Tetra Pak， this company now has 39 sales agencies， 42 packaging material and lid factories and eight filling and equipment assembly factories. In 2012， Tetra Pak produced 173.2 billion packages， which brought the income of 11.155 billion euros.
Among them， one third of the income comes from China. “Last year， about 110 billion aseptic packages were needed by China’s dairy industry and Tetra Pak provided about 60 billion packages， more than half of the total volume，” says Wang Dingmian， an expert in the dairy industry.
In recent years， Tetra Pak， riding the trend of rising normal temperature milk， has already become the biggest winner in China’s dairy industry by forging the alliance with large dairy enterprises like Yili and Mengniu， even though its Chinese partners have been brought down by the endless scandals one by one.
However， such a bound-based de- velopment pattern now leads Tetra Pak into the vortex of anti-monopolization in China.
The announcement from the General Administration of Industry and Commerce of China revealed that Tetra Pak is suspected of making use of its advantages in the device of liquid food packaging and related maintenance skills for the tied sale of packing materials and the differentiated treatment， which have violated the clause about “misusing the market dominance” in the Anti-Monopoly Law in China.
A Chinese enterprise producing cool tea also reported that Tetra Pak’s package materials are usually more expensive than the other companies. This company once tried to change the Tetra Pak materials into other less costly materials， which were found to be hard to be compatible with the production devices of Tetra Pak. In addition， the quality is worsened as well and therefore they had to re-select Tetra Pak’s packaging materials again.
The Debate over Monopolization
The aseptic packaging was invented by Tetra Pak in the 1950s and was initially widely used in the dairy product industry. By now， the downstream applications of aseptic packaging have been spread to juices， soft drinks， soups， cream， ketchup and wine. According to the statistical data of Frost & Sullivan， an American consultancy company， the global aseptic packaging market had the 4.9% annual compound growth rate from 2009 to 2015. Prior to that， Dennis J？nsson， president and
CEO of Tetra Pak， confirmed that China became the largest market （as a single country） of Tetra Pak early in 2008.
But it has never stayed away from the criticism over its “monopolization”since its entry into China. It is not the first time that it was accused of “selling packaging materials along with devices and providing differentiated treatment”.
Great View Pack said in its prospectus that the dominant enterprises in the aseptic packaging market used to apply restrictive conditions for clients and heighten the threshold for the new aseptic packaging suppliers. Such a phenomenon was not stopped until the 1990s when the EU stuck its nose into this several times. Tetra Pak was also punished several times by the EU due to the monopolization.
The Chinese government issued the Anti-Monopoly Law in 2008， which aims at keeping the malpractices of Tetra Pak and so on at bay. But seemingly it is not working very well.
Presently， there are two different packaging systems in the aseptic packaging industry. The suppliers mainly provide customers with the roll and embryonic aseptic packaging materials. The two systems are not interchangeable with each other， because each system requires different filling machines. Therefore the clients could not change suppliers easily.
“In addition， the supplier might set up some parameters for the device， making it incompatible with materials offered by other suppliers. That means the clients have to buy the materials from where they get the devices，” says a practitioner of the packing.
However， an insider from Tetra Pak denied the accusation of “misusing its dominance”. He stated that “Tetra Pak provided devices， packaging materials， related technologies and services to clients. But they are independent from each other and the said tied sale is nothing but a rumor”.
According to Wang Dingmian， the average aseptic package containing 250ml costs about RMB 0.18-0.24， but Tetra Pak’s package of the same size costs RMB 0.28， most of which is caused by the materials.
The Development Based on“Bound”
In 2009， fewer than 40 billion aseptic packages were needed in the Chinese market， but in 2012 the figure increased to 110 billion. A Guangzhou-based dairy enterprise reflected that Tetra Pak treats clients unfairly when it comes to the sale of devices and materials. It is said that a consensus has been reached inside Tetra Pak： the big clients are the foremost. From 2000， Tetra Pak chose to work deeply with Yili and Mengniu， both of which are large-sized dairy enterprises in China. It not only sold the devices valuing millions of US dollars to these companies at enviably discounted prices， but also sent some types of production lines to these enterprises free of charge. In exchange，these enterprises promised to purchase Tetra Pak’s packaging materials. Later， Tetra Pak even extended the cooperation into the development of new dairy products and marketing ads.
The research of ACNielsen showed that the market share of the low-temperature milk products dropped to below 35% from 2000 to 2004 because of the fast development of high-temperature sterilized dairy products driven by Tetra Pak.
Ironically， this also laid the foundation for the anti-monopoly investigation that trapped Tetra Pak at present.
The Anti-Monopoly Law of China stipulated that the “dominant place in the market” refers to market place that gives the operator the power to control the product price， number and other trade conditions in a certain market， or the ability to prevent and affect other operators’ entry into the market.
There are two methods to affirm the “dominant place in the market”. The first one is the direct affirmation with solid facts. The second one is based on inference. The solid facts cover the market share， the status of competition， the market control， the clients’ reliance on the supplier and the operator’s power. The inference is comparatively simpler. An operator might be considered to dominate a certain market when its market share exceeds 50%.
It was once reported that Tetra Pak took over 90% of the aseptic packaging market in China， which is thought to be ridiculous by a senior executive of Tetra Pak China. He says that the number （of market share） is not that high， but he does not reveal the real number.
The available data from Frost & Sullivan said that Tetra Pak took 70.2% of the aseptic packaging market in 2009. Wang Dingmian， along with some other experts， expects a lower market share of Tetra Pak in China in recent years as the competition got intensified， but its market share is still believed to be not lower than 50%.
Investigations and Countermeasures Ma Pingchuan， a lawyer from Guangdong International Business Law Firm， says that it is easy to see the market dominance of Tetra Pak in the Chinese market. The key to accuse it of monopolization is whether it “abuses this dominance”.
“We see whether the operator takes advantage of this dominance to purely earn more profits or to reduce the com- petition and hit the competitors，” says Ma Pingchuan.
According to the 47th clause of the Ant-Monopoly Law， if Tetra Pak is confirmed to abuse its market dominance， it will be put under the punishment of“stopping any illegal behaviors， confiscating all income from the abuse and paying the fines accounting for 1%-10% of the annual operating income”.
“We are actively working the governmental departments for the investigation， but we do not know when the result will come out，” says a senior executive of the headquarters of Tetra Pak.
Several days prior to the initiation of the investigation into Tetra Pak， the National Development and Reform Commission of China just started the anti-monopoly investigation into foreign dairy companies， forcing nine of them to lower the prices.
“The frequent food safety problems called for the actions of the government. The investigation into dairy enterprises must be spread to the upstream and downstream links of the milk industry，” an expert says. Tetra Pak， a well-known supplier of packages， can definitely affect the production and sale of dairy enterprises in China. When the monopolization of foreign companies in the milk powder became a problem， Tetra Pak ccould not stay away from any shockwaves.
An experienced lawyer says that the present anti-monopoly maneuver is a two-point system with the Anti-Monopoly Committee as the leading organization and the Ministry of Commerce， the General Administration of Industry and Commerce and the National Development and Reform Commission as the departments for implementation. In the future， all functions and facilities of antimonopoly actions might be taken by one organization.”