Factores que influyen en la toma de decisiones

Firm profitability is the result of various factors: price, production costs, sales volume and other costs, and that for the full product line. Each of these factors may be impacted be food taxes, as partly discussed in previous sections, but also by other factors, like costs of raw materials, cost of labour and exogenous developments in demand. As a result, linking developments in profit levels to introduction of food taxes is not straightforward. The overview of information from the data analysis, presented in Table 3.1, illustrates that development of profitability shows a diverse picture.

133

Forebyggelseskommissionen (2009): Vi kan leve længere og sundere – Forebyggelseskommissionens anbefalinger til en styrket forebyggende indsats, p. 153.

134

Lovbemærkninger i Forslag til Lov om afgift af mættet fedt i visse fødevarer (Fedtafgiftsloven), fremsat d. 19. januar af Skatteministeren http://www.ft.dk/RIpdf/samling/20101/lovforslag/L111/20101_L111_som_fremsat.pdf.

135

Dansk Erhvervs Perspektiv 2012 #23: Fedtafgiften: et dyrt bekendtskab.

136

DI Fødevarer (2012): Problemstillinger – fedtafgiften (notat).

137

https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=143480&exp=1.

138

Table 3.1 Ecorys data analysis observations on sectorial profitability effects of food taxes*

Country – Tax Observations on sectorial profitability

DK –saturated fat No information available.

DK - soft drinks and juices No information available.

DK – confectionery and chocolate No changes directly after the first tax increase. No information available for more recent years.

FI – confectionery The profitability decreased directly after the introduction of the tax.

FI – ice cream No information available.

FI – soft drinks No information available.

FR – regular cola Increase of profit in the year of the first tax increase, in line with the trend of previous years. No information is available for more recent years.

FR – juices (1-99%) No information available.

HU – confectionery and chocolate Profit remained stable throughout the observed period, including in the year the tax was introduced.

HU – sugar-sweetened beverages The profitability showed a slight increase in 2011. No information available for more recent years.

HU – energy drinks No information available.

HU – salty snacks No information available.

Note: Data presented is at sectorial level and thus figures should be interpreted with caution. As the impact of food taxes on competiveness differs by firm, aggregated sector data may not adequately represent heterogeneity in individual firms’ development. Secondly, the level of aggregation for most sectors is higher than the tax base. For instance the information for Finland is available at beverages level, which is a broader category than the tax base (i.e. it includes alcoholic drinks as well).

Comparing developments is the sector with the taxed products, with the developments in the broader agri-food sector does not improve the results. For example, the changes in added value of the cocoa, chocolate and sugar confectionery industry in Denmark and Finland follow the same trend as the overall food sector in the respective countries. In Hungary, the stable profitability of the cocoa, chocolate and sugar confectionery industry outperforms the general trend in the food sector, which has shown a strong decline. This lack of difference or better performance of the cocoa, chocolate and sugar confectionery industry compared to the overall food industry means no impact of the food tax on the cocoa, chocolate and sugar confectionery industry can be isolated.

Hungary – public health product tax

PwC conducted impact studies139 in 2012 and 2013 on the Hungarian public health product tax. Both impact studies were commissioned by the Association of Hungarian Confectionery

Manufacturers (Hunbisco). PwC examined effects of the public health product tax on confectionery products, salty snacks and seasoning industry using industry data, market research data from Nielsen and Euromonitor International and publicly available statistical and public health data.

In analysing the industry data, PwC observed that domestic sales of the products subject to NETA and net domestic sales revenue had declined since introduction of the tax. PwC concluded that the permanent (and significant) drop of sales diminishes the efficiency and competitiveness of

Hungarian food manufacturers, and has a detrimental effect on the whole industry. A very important factor in the discussion on sales and revenue changes for Hungarian manufacturers is that the prices of raw materials increased substantially and the rate of VAT increased from 25% to 27% in the period that NETA came into effect. Therefore prices of affected products generally increased and PwC found the sales revenue therefore increased slightly for most product categories despite falling sales. Even so, this sales revenue was found not to cover the public health product tax payments required by the industries concerned and thus, companies suffered considerable losses which they had to fund from other sources e.g. (profit from product lines not subject to NETA).

139

60 Food taxes and their impact on competitiveness in the agri-food sector

According to the industry association in Hungary, the introduction of the public health product tax had a significant impact on the competitiveness of affected companies in the sector with a decline in consumption and cost increases leading to very low profit levels (around 1-2% at best).

Finland – tax on confectionary, ice cream and soft drinks

From 2008 to 2010, the Finnish ice cream market has presented sales of 71 to 73 million litres with slight fluctuations between years. Following the introduction of the sweet tax in January 2011, sales of ice cream dropped to 65 million litres in 2011 and further down to 58 million litres in 2012. This trend has continued since then. This indicates that the introduction of the sweet tax has imposed a loss in terms of sales volume onto the manufacturers of ice cream.

One example was provided by Nestlé. Nestlé, holding 50% of the Finnish ice cream sales, claims to have suffered a loss of 5 million litres as a consequence of the sweet tax; this equals a reduction in sales volume of 18-20% and a loss in sales of € 25 million. The reduced sales volume inevitably leads to higher overhead costs, and this is claimed to have caused Nestlé a 5% decrease in the company’s competitiveness in the ice cream market.

For the other countries, no figures on firm profitability were obtained in the case studies.