8 thoughts on “Eurozone Business Magazine BusinessRiskTV Eurozone Business Risks”

1. Risk Analysis 2026: The Fragmenting Eurozone and the Polish Pivot

   

   The Eurozone enters 2026 at a critical crossroads. While headline inflation has stabilised near the 2% target, the structural integrity of the bloc is being tested by a “divergence trap.” On one side, core members struggle with stagnant productivity and mounting debt; on the other, non-euro members like Poland are openly questioning the value of the single currency.

   The “Poland Precedent”: A Vote of No Confidence?

   Finance Minister Andrzej Domański’s January 2026 declaration that the case for the Euro has “weakened” is more than just political rhetoric; it is a fundamental shift in European risk dynamics.

   Performance Gap: Poland’s projected 3.4% GDP growth for 2026 dwarfs the Eurozone’s modest 1.2%.

   Monetary Sovereignty: By retaining the Złoty, Poland has maintained a “shock absorber” that the Eurozone’s periphery (like Greece or Italy) lacks.

   Business Impact: For multinational corporations, this signals that the “two-speed Europe” is now a permanent feature. Strategic investment is increasingly flowing toward the high-growth “Złoty Zone” rather than the debt-burdened Eurozone core.

   Core Vulnerabilities: Debt and Stagnation

   Despite a “cautiously optimistic” outlook from the ECB, business risk managers should monitor three primary failure points:

   Sovereign Debt Volatility: ECB Quantitative Tightening (QT) is finally biting. With interest payments as a proportion of GDP rising, countries with debt-to-GDP ratios over 100% (e.g., France, Italy) face a “liquidity squeeze” that could lead to sudden tax hikes or austerity measures, dampening consumer demand.

   The Unemployment Paradox: While the aggregate rate is at a historic low of 6.3%, youth unemployment remains a “ticking time bomb” in the South, exceeding 20% in Italy and Greece. This creates long-term risks for social stability and skilled labor availability.

   Fiscal Divergence: Germany’s massive €127bn infrastructure and defence stimulus provides a local boost but risks widening the gap between the “spending North” and the “stabilising South,” further straining the ECB’s one-size-fits-all monetary policy.

   6 Business Risk Management Tips to Protect Your Business

   Currency Diversification: Do not rely solely on Euro-denominated cash reserves. Increase exposure to high-performing non-Euro EU currencies (like the Polish Złoty or Swiss Franc) to hedge against Euro volatility.

   Dynamic Supply Chain Mapping: Shift critical operations or “near-shoring” hubs to high-growth, lower-debt Eastern European markets to mitigate the risk of infrastructure decay or tax volatility in the Eurozone core.

   Debt Restructuring: If you have Euro-denominated debt, consider refinancing now. With long-term bond yields under upward pressure from increased sovereign issuance, the window for “cheap” long-term capital is closing.

   Scenario-Based Budgeting: Create “Downside Euro-Stress” models that account for a 1.5%–2% contraction in French or Italian consumer demand due to potential fiscal tightening.

   Agile Labour Strategies: Utilise the labour market divergence. Invest in remote or hybrid teams based in lower-unemployment hubs to avoid the “wage-push inflation” currently hitting the services sector in the Eurozone core.

   Political Risk Insurance: For long-term capital projects within the Eurozone, consider political risk insurance that covers “regulatory creep” or sudden changes in tax law as governments scramble to manage their debt-to-GDP ratios.

   #Eurozone2026 #RiskManagement #PolandEconomy #BusinessRiskTV #RiskManagement

   Log in to Reply

2. European Govt Short-Term Borrowing Risks

   Based on an analysis of current financial trends, European governments’ shift to short-term borrowing carries significant medium to high risk, while pension funds are withdrawing capital from European markets primarily due to structural inefficiencies and regulation-induced risk aversion. The two issues are interconnected, creating a challenging cycle for long-term investment.

   Here’s a breakdown of the key risks and drivers.

   ⚠️ Risk Analysis: European Governments’ Short-Term Borrowing

   The move towards shorter debt maturities exposes governments to several interconnected risks.

   • Refinancing & Interest Rate Risk
   High and rising government debt levels are a core vulnerability. With many governments running primary deficits, debt is expected to keep growing. Short-term borrowing means this large debt pile must be refinanced more frequently. If investor sentiment shifts due to policy uncertainty or fiscal stress, refinancing costs could spike. The ECB notes that more open economies with higher public debt are especially vulnerable to such shocks.

   • Market Stress & Contagion
   In periods of high financial stress, the traditional “safe haven” status of government bonds can break down. During the market turmoil of April 2025, for instance, government bond prices fell alongside equities once stress passed a certain threshold, as investors began fearing the real economic consequences of a recession. A shock triggering such a dynamic could make rolling over short-term debt exceptionally difficult and costly.

   • Constrained Fiscal Policy
   High debt servicing costs from short-term borrowing limit a government’s ability to use fiscal policy to respond to future economic shocks or invest in strategic priorities. This reduces overall economic resilience at a time when geopolitical tensions demand greater fiscal capacity for defense and energy security.

   💰 Why Pension Funds Are Withdrawing from European Markets

   Pension funds are reallocating capital away from Europe not due to a lack of capital, but because of structural barriers to efficient, long-term investment.

   • The Core Problem: A “Broken Financing Continuum”
   Europe has deep capital pools, with households holding €37 trillion in savings. However, the financial system fails to channel this efficiently into long-term investments. Key issues include:

   · Bank Dominance & Regulatory Constraints: European corporates get 85% of debt financing from banks (vs. 45% in the US), which are now risk-averse and hold loans to maturity. Regulations like Solvency II further discourage insurers and pension funds from investing in long-term, productive assets like private credit or infrastructure.
   · Market Fragmentation: Europe’s capital markets are split across 27 member states, draining liquidity and creating costly inefficiencies that prevent capital from flowing freely to where it’s needed most.

   • The Result: Risk Aversion and Capital Flight
   Facing these hurdles, pension funds and other institutional investors favor low-risk, low-yielding bonds to meet resilience-focused regulations. This conservative posture means they are not deploying their massive pools of long-term capital into the European real economy. Meanwhile, more promising European companies often choose to list in the U.S., and startups scale by selling to U.S. firms, effectively exporting future growth.

   • Search for Stability and Yield Elsewhere
   Globally, institutional investors are rebalancing portfolios after a long equity rally, moving into fixed income and private credit for stability. Europe’s fragmented markets and regulatory hurdles make it a less attractive destination for this reallocation compared to deeper, more unified markets.

   🔄 The Interlocking Risk Cycle

   These two trends form a self-reinforcing risk cycle:

   1. Government short-term borrowing increases sovereign risk and market volatility.
   2. Pension funds, mandated to be prudent, withdraw from riskier, long-term European assets due to this volatility and structural barriers.
   3. This capital withdrawal starves the economy of long-term investment, hindering growth and potentially worsening public finances.
   4. Weaker public finances force governments to rely more on short-term debt, restarting the cycle.

   📈 Business Risk Management Recommendations

   For businesses operating in this environment, proactive management is essential.

   Recommended Mitigation Strategies

   · Diversify Funding Sources: Cultivate relationships with both bank and non-bank lenders. Explore funding in deeper markets where possible, noting that euro funding costs can be 120-160 basis points cheaper than dollar funding.
   · Extend Debt Maturity Proactively: In stable periods, lock in longer-term financing to reduce refinancing risk. Begin refinancing discussions 12-18 months before debt maturities.
   · Prioritise Financial Flexibility: In volatile times, negotiating for covenant relief or term flexibility can be more valuable than a marginally lower interest rate.
   · Stress Test for Sovereign Shocks: Incorporate scenarios where sovereign stress leads to tighter credit conditions, reduced loan growth, and higher risk premiums.
   · Strengthen Operational Resilience: Ensure critical operations can withstand ICT disruptions, given heightened geopolitical and cyber risks that are a top supervisory priority.

   High-Priority Actions

   · Immediate (Next 3 months): Review all debt maturity profiles and develop a contingency refinancing plan.
   · Short-Term (Next 6 months): Engage with lenders across multiple markets (bank, private credit) to build optionality.
   · Ongoing: Monitor ECB supervisory priorities, especially regarding geopolitical risk integration into stress testing.

   The combined effect of sovereign financing risks and institutional capital withdrawal creates a landscape where agility, diversified funding, and robust contingency planning are critical for business resilience.

   #EuropeanSovereignDebtRisk #PensionFundDivestmentEurope #EUCapitalMarkets

   Log in to Reply

3. EU Russian Sovereign Assets Risk Analysis

   

   The European Union has approved a €90 billion interest-free loan to fund Ukraine for 2026-2027. The loan will be raised on capital markets and backed by the collective budget of 24 EU member states, not by the frozen Russian assets as initially proposed. If Russia does not pay reparations to Ukraine after the war, the EU states involved will be liable, though leaders stated the EU reserves the right to use the immobilised Russian assets to repay the loan. Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic have a formal opt-out from any financial liability.

   The practical likelihood of Russia paying reparations. Based on the newly agreed-upon deal, if Russia does not pay, the financial burden will ultimately fall on the taxpayers of 24 European Union member states.

   Here is a breakdown of the loan’s terms and who is responsible for repayment:

   Loan Details

   · Amount & Structure: €90 billion, interest-free loan to cover Ukraine’s military and budgetary needs for 2026-2027.
   · Source of Funds: Raised on capital markets, backed by “headroom” in the EU’s common budget.
   · Key Condition: Official text states Ukraine will repay the loan only after receiving war reparations from Moscow. The EU reserves the right to use the frozen Russian assets to repay the loan if that happens.

   Who Repays if Russia Doesn’t?

   While the official condition links repayment to Russian reparations, leaders and analysts acknowledge this is improbable. Therefore, the guarantee structure determines the backup payer.

   Guarantor

   The loan is secured against the EU’s common budget. This means the 24 participating EU member states are the collective guarantors.

   · Exemptions: Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic have a formal opt-out and bear no financial liability.
   · Consequence of Default: If Ukraine cannot repay (due to a lack of Russian reparations), the EU budget, funded by the 24 states, covers the debt. This effectively transfers the cost to their taxpayers.

   Ultimate “Backstop”

   Frozen Russian assets (€210 billion held in the EU, mostly in Belgium) remain immobilised. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that if Russia does not pay reparations, the EU will use these immobilised assets to repay the loan “in full accordance with international law”. However, this is a complex legal and political hurdle that was just avoided in this deal.

   🧠 Why the “Reparations” Condition Exists

   The structure serves specific political and strategic purposes:

   · Political Signal: It formally upholds the principle that Russia must be held financially accountable for the war’s damage. Framing it as a “reparations loan” reinforces this narrative.
   · Practical Reality: As Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán bluntly stated, the loan “looks like a loan, but the Ukrainians will never be able to pay it back… it’s basically lost money” that the guarantor states will have to cover. This is an open secret among leaders.

   📜 How It Differs From the Original Plan

   This deal is a significant pivot from what was originally proposed.

   · Original Plan: A loan directly backed by profits from frozen Russian assets. Belgium, where most assets are held, rejected this due to fears of unlimited legal and financial retaliation from Moscow.
   · Agreed Plan: A loan backed by the EU budget, with frozen assets mentioned only as a potential future source for repayment. This removed Belgium’s immediate risk and unblocked the deal.

   #EUBudgetUkraineLoan #WhoPaysUkraineLoan #RussiaAssetsDebate

   Log in to Reply

4. Russian Lawsuit on Euroclear’s Frozen Assets

   Russia’s lawsuit against Euroclear is highly unlikely to be successful in forcing the return of its frozen assets. However, it carries significant implications for the war by complicating and delaying Europe’s efforts to financially support Ukraine.

   Below is a risk assessment of the key legal and geopolitical factors at play.

   ⚖️ Legal & Enforcement Risk Assessment

   The primary risks and obstacles centre on jurisdiction and the ability to enforce any Russian court ruling.

   · Jurisdiction & Venue: The lawsuit is filed in Moscow Arbitration Court. Euroclear is based in Belgium and operates under EU law. Russian courts have no direct jurisdiction over assets physically held in Belgium.
   · Probability of Success in Russia: A Russian court ruling in favour of the Central Bank is considered likely, given the domestic venue. The claimed damages are approximately 18.2 trillion rubles ($229 billion), matching the value of frozen assets plus “lost profits”.
   · Major Enforcement Obstacle: The critical hurdle is enforcing this judgment against Euroclear’s assets in Europe. EU law and policy, including a new mechanism to indemnify Euroclear for losses in Russia, actively block this.
   · Potential Retaliatory Targets: Russia’s main leverage is seizing Euroclear’s assets within Russia. However, reports indicate these remaining balances are relatively small (around €0.5 billion as of 2024), and EU safeguards exist to neutralize this financial impact.

   💰 Strategic Goals & Likelihood of Success

   Russia’s lawsuit serves multiple strategic purposes beyond the immediate legal claim, but its overall prospects are low.

   Primary Goals:

   · Political Signal & Deterrence: To create legal uncertainty and deter the EU from finalising plans to use the frozen assets for Ukraine.
   · Exploit EU Divisions: To amplify internal EU disagreements. Belgium’s strong opposition, driven by fear of legal liability, is a key point of leverage.
   · Establish Legal Precedent: To build a record of contesting the asset freeze in all available forums, potentially for future international claims.

   Likelihood of Success:

   · Return of Frozen Assets: Very Low. The EU has solidified the legal basis for an indefinite freeze and is structuring any aid as a loan with Russia remaining the legal owner, avoiding outright confiscation.
   · Blocking or Delaying EU Aid: Moderate. The lawsuit reinforces Belgian and other members’ caution, making a complex EU consensus harder to achieve. Delays are a tangible Russian victory.

   🔮 Impact on the War in Ukraine

   The lawsuit’s real impact lies in influencing the flow of financial aid to Ukraine, which is directly tied to battlefield dynamics.

   Scenario 1: If the Lawsuit Successfully Delays/Blocks EU Aid

   · Impact on Ukraine: Creates a critical funding gap. EU officials warn Ukraine’s state reserves could be exhausted by April 2026. The EU’s proposed €90 billion loan for 2026-27 is designed to cover two-thirds of Ukraine’s estimated needs. A delay would force cuts to military and civilian spending.
   · Impact on Russia: Would provide a major strategic advantage, allowing Russia to pressure a financially weakened Ukraine and hope for Western disunity to grow.

   Scenario 2: If the EU Overcomes Legal Hurdles and Proceeds with Aid

   · Impact on Ukraine: Provides predictable, multi-year funding essential for long-term defense planning and economic stability. It signals unwavering European commitment.
   · Impact on Russia: Represents a significant strategic defeat. It permanently turns Russia’s immobilised assets into a key resource for Ukraine’s resilience, undermining Russia’s war economy and demonstrating that aggression will not be rewarded.

   📍 Conclusion

   Russia’s lawsuit is a high-profile political and legal manoeuvre with a very low chance of repatriating frozen assets but a serious capacity to slow down Western support for Ukraine.

   The most likely outcome is a protracted legal standoff where Russia wins a symbolic judgment in Moscow, while the EU, after difficult negotiations, finds a legally fortified way to channel the assets’ value to Ukraine. The speed and unity of the EU’s response will be the decisive factor in determining whether this legal tactic translates into a tangible battlefield advantage for Russia.

   #Euroclear #FrozenRussianAssets #UkraineWarFinance

   Log in to Reply

5. Impact On Audi From Tariffs

   German automaker Volkswagen’s premium brand Audi lowered its full-year financial guidance on Monday, citing the impact of higher U.S. import tariffs and ongoing restructuring costs.
   The Ingolstadt-based company now expects revenue of between 65 billion euros and 70 billion euros ($76 billion and $82 billion), down from its previous forecast of 67.5 billion euros to 72.5 billion euros. Audi also cut its operating margin forecast to 5% to 7%, compared to the earlier range of 7% to 9%.
   Audi said it is still assessing the implications of the trade deal reached between the United States and the European Union on Sunday.
   The agreement set a 15% baseline U.S. tariff on imports from the EU, including cars, which had previously faced customs duties of 27.5%.

   Log in to Reply

6. EU-US trade agreement risk analysis: managing tariffs, supply chain impact & UK business opportunities

   A significant trade agreement has just been concluded between the EU and the US, largely averting the previously threatened steep tariffs. This agreement sets a 15% tariff on most EU goods entering the US, down from a potential 30%, with exemptions for certain strategic sectors like aircraft, some chemicals, semiconductor equipment, specific agricultural products, and critical raw materials. The deal also includes substantial EU commitments to purchase US energy (LNG, oil, nuclear fuels) and increase investments in the US, as well as a commitment to buy US military equipment. While this provides some stability, it also introduces new dynamics and risks for businesses on both sides.

   Business Risk Management Analysis of the EU-US Trade Agreement
   Overall Impact: The immediate impact is a reduction in uncertainty and the avoidance of a full-blown trade war. However, the 15% tariff is still higher than the previous average and will increase costs for many European exporters and potentially for US consumers.

   Key Risks for EU Businesses:

   Increased Costs and Reduced Profit Margins: The 15% tariff on most goods will directly impact the cost of European exports to the US. Businesses will either have to absorb these costs, leading to lower profit margins, or pass them on to US consumers, potentially reducing competitiveness and market share.

   Sectoral Disparities: While some sectors (e.g., aircraft, pharmaceuticals, certain chemicals) enjoy exemptions or lower tariffs, others face the full 15%. This could lead to an uneven playing field and shifts in investment and production within the EU. German automakers, for instance, are expected to be significantly impacted.

   Supply Chain Re-evaluation: Businesses may need to re-evaluate their supply chains to mitigate the impact of tariffs. This could involve exploring options for localisation of production within the US or diversifying suppliers to other regions.

   Complexity and Administrative Burden: The agreement, while providing a framework, still has details to be sorted out. This ongoing negotiation and the potential for further adjustments could create administrative burdens and require continuous monitoring for businesses.

   Dependency on US Energy and Military Goods: The significant commitment by the EU to purchase US energy and military equipment could create new dependencies and expose the EU to potential geopolitical risks related to these supplies.

   Impact on Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs): SMEs often have fewer resources to absorb increased tariffs or reconfigure supply chains, making them particularly vulnerable to the new trade landscape.

   Key Risks for US Businesses:

   Potential for Reciprocal Tariffs (if deal unravels): While the immediate threat of EU retaliation has been averted, any future disputes or changes to the agreement could lead to reciprocal tariffs from the EU, impacting US exporters.

   Increased Competition from Exempted EU Sectors: US businesses in sectors where EU counterparts receive tariff exemptions might face increased competition from these European goods.

   Shifts in Global Trade Dynamics: The agreement, alongside other US trade deals, signifies a shift towards more security-driven trade alignments. This could lead to a fragmented global trade environment and necessitate strategic re-evaluation for US companies operating internationally.

   Dependence on EU Investment and Energy Purchases: While beneficial, the reliance on stated EU investments and energy purchases creates a level of dependency that US businesses should monitor.

   Domestic Market Price Increases: If European businesses pass on the 15% tariff to US consumers, it could lead to higher prices for certain goods within the US market, potentially affecting consumer demand.

   Business Risk Management Tips for Business Leaders in EU and U.S.
   For all Businesses (EU & US):

   Conduct Thorough Impact Assessments: Analyze how the 15% tariff (or exemptions) will specifically affect your raw material costs, production, export prices, and ultimately, your profitability.

   Review and Diversify Supply Chains: Identify critical components and raw materials. Explore diversifying sourcing to reduce reliance on single regions or suppliers heavily impacted by tariffs. Consider near-shoring or re-shoring production where economically viable.

   Optimize Pricing Strategies: Determine whether to absorb the tariff costs, pass them on to consumers, or a combination. Assess the elasticity of demand for your products to avoid significant loss of market share.

   Enhance Contractual Agreements: Review existing contracts with international partners (suppliers, distributors, customers) to ensure they account for new tariff structures and potential future changes. Include clauses for renegotiation in case of significant shifts.

   Strengthen Financial Resilience: Maintain healthy cash reserves to weather potential fluctuations in revenue or increased operational costs. Explore hedging strategies for currency fluctuations if trade volumes are substantial.

   Invest in Digitalization and Automation: Streamline customs processes and supply chain logistics to minimize administrative burdens and improve efficiency in navigating complex trade regulations.

   Stay Informed and Engaged: Continuously monitor trade policy developments from both the EU and US. Engage with industry associations and legal counsel to understand the nuances of the agreement and its evolving implications.

   Focus on Value-Added and Differentiation: For sectors facing increased tariffs, emphasize unique selling propositions, product innovation, and superior customer service to justify potentially higher prices.

   Specific Tips for EU Business Leaders:

   Explore Market Diversification: While the US remains a key market, actively seek new export markets or deepen existing relationships in other regions to reduce reliance on the US market and mitigate tariff impacts.

   Advocate for Further Exemptions: Through industry associations, continue to lobby EU and national governments for further exemptions or reductions in tariffs for specific sectors where the impact is severe.

   Leverage EU Support Mechanisms: Investigate any potential EU funding, grants, or support programs aimed at helping businesses adapt to new trade realities.

   Emphasize European Quality and Brand: For products facing higher tariffs, double down on marketing efforts that highlight the quality, craftsmanship, and unique value proposition of European goods to maintain consumer demand.

   Specific Tips for US Business Leaders:

   Capitalize on Energy and Investment Opportunities: Businesses in the energy, infrastructure, and military equipment sectors should actively pursue the opportunities presented by the EU’s commitments to increased purchases and investments.

   Assess Domestic Competitive Landscape: Understand how the 15% tariff on EU goods might affect the competitiveness of domestic alternatives. This could create opportunities for US manufacturers to gain market share.

   Advocate for Fair Competition: If perceived unfair advantages arise due to EU exemptions, US businesses should engage with their government to ensure a level playing field.

   How the UK Could Take Business Advantages from the EU-US Trade Deal

   The UK, now outside the EU, has a unique position. While not directly party to this EU-US deal, it can leverage the new trade dynamics:

   Position as an Alternative Hub for EU-US Trade: With new tariffs between the EU and US, the UK could position itself as a strategic hub for businesses looking to navigate these new complexities. This might involve:

   “Assembly and Re-export” Operations: For some products, it might become economically viable to import components from the EU into the UK, perform final assembly or value-added processing, and then export the finished product to the US, potentially under more favorable UK-US trade terms (if applicable) or by exploiting different rules of origin.

   Logistics and Warehousing Hub: The UK could become a preferred location for warehousing and logistics for goods moving between the EU and US, providing efficient distribution and potentially mitigating some tariff impacts by altering the point of entry or origin.

   Accelerate UK-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Negotiations: The new EU-US trade landscape might create renewed impetus for a comprehensive UK-US FTA. A strong FTA could offer UK businesses a competitive advantage in the US market compared to their EU counterparts facing the 15% tariff. UK businesses should advocate for this.

   Focus on Sectors with EU-US Tariff Disadvantage: The UK should identify sectors where EU businesses are now at a disadvantage due to the 15% tariff (e.g., certain manufactured goods, automobiles) and actively promote UK exports in those areas, highlighting their competitive pricing due to different trade terms.

   Attract Investment from EU and US Companies: Both EU and US companies looking to optimize their trade routes or diversify their supply chains might consider investing in the UK to bypass the new tariffs. The UK government should actively promote these investment opportunities.

   Leverage Bilateral Agreements for “Zero-for-Zero” Equivalents: The UK could seek to negotiate similar “zero-for-zero” tariff agreements with the US for its strategic industries, mirroring the exemptions granted to the EU where the UK has a strong competitive advantage.

   Promote Services Trade: The UK’s strong services sector might find new opportunities if goods trade between the EU and US becomes more complex. Providing consulting, legal, financial, or logistics services related to navigating the new trade environment could be a significant advantage.

   #EUSTradeDeal
   #BusinessRiskManagement
   #GlobalTradeImpact
   #BusinessRiskTV
   #ProRiskManager

   Log in to Reply

7. Trump’s 30% tariffs on EU imports to the US, effective August 1st, pose significant risks for EU businesses

   Reduced competitiveness in the crucial US market is a primary concern, as higher prices will deter consumers and impact sales volumes. Profit margins will shrink, forcing businesses to either absorb costs or pass them to consumers, risking market share loss. Supply chains reliant on US inputs or with significant US sales will face disruptions. Retaliatory tariffs from the EU, if they occur, would further compound challenges for businesses exporting to the US. The threat of even higher tariffs if the EU retaliates adds an element of severe uncertainty.

   3 tips to protect EU businesses:

   Diversify markets: Explore new export markets beyond the US to reduce reliance and mitigate tariff impact.

   Re-evaluate supply chains: Identify opportunities for reshoring production or sourcing materials from non-US/non-tariffed countries.

   Optimise pricing & product strategy: Analyse if absorbing some costs, adjusting product offerings, or focusing on high-value items can soften the blow.

   Log in to Reply

8. Business Risk Management Club

   Log in to Reply