Month: December 2016

Financial Metrics For Anti-counterfeiting Programs

By Ron Guido, president, Lifecare Services, LLC

Many companies struggle with the need to justify investments in anticounterfeiting programs. Others deem it an important part of their business rationale to help safeguard key brands; yet they question how to devise such metrics. I feel strongly that a credible scorecard can be produced, even for the ostensibly intangible results associated with combatting illicit trade.

By measuring the financial effects of brand-protection programs and their secondary impacts on operational efficiencies and effectiveness, your company will generate the management information needed to:

  • monitor the integrity of your supply chain over time in financial terms
  • quantify breaches in the supply chain that may endanger patients/ customers
  • measure the potential impact of future supply chain breaches (lost revenue or increased costs)
  • objectively inform management of benefits derived from investments in supply chain security (ROI).

Along with ongoing monitoring programs, combined with analysis of your own commercial data, a brand-protection financial scorecard is a valuable tool in your continuing efforts to fulfill your company’s promise to your patients to deliver safe medicines. In doing so, you enhance the reputation and the profitability of your businesses around the globe.

A sustainable process can be created to capture the financial benefits of brandprotection programs and counterfeiting countermeasures across all functional areas, regions, and product lines of your company. Such information can be captured and reported by brand, channel of trade, or type of violation. With the accent on both “recovery” from past/current insults and “prevention” or “loss avoidance,” this process divides reported results into two categories: recovery and avoidance.


The concept of revenue recovery, as the phrase implies, is to recognize that you, the IP rights holder and brand owner, have…


Senegal Moves Toward Nationalized Digital Currency | Goodwin

Last month, Senegal announced its intention to introduce a national digital currency based on block chain technology, and become only the second country in the world following Tunisia to do so.  Senegal’s new digital currency – called “eCFA” – will co-exist as legal tender alongside Senegal’s fiat currency, the CFA Franc.  The CFA Franc, in turn, is the name of two effectively interchangeable currencies – the West African CFA Franc and the Central African CFA Franc – which are used by fourteen African nations.  Not surprisingly, Senegal’s move toward a national digital currency likely will have broader regional implications for the future of national digital currencies in West Africa.

The eCFA is the product of a partnership between regional bank Banque Régionale de Marcheés (“BRM”), a Senegal-based bank, and eCurrency Mint Limited, a fintech company focused on enabling central banks to issue digital fiat currency.  BRM will issue eCFA in compliance with e-money regulations adopted by the Central Bank of West African States (“BCEAO”), which is the primary bank of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (“WAEMU”), comprised of Benin, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo.  BRM has announced that after eCFA is rolled out within Senegal, BRM plans to later distribute eCFA within these other WAEMU nations.

Critics maintain that the eCFA’s dependence on a centralized banking system defeats a primary purpose of digital currency (i.e., decentralization), and BRM has yet to reveal detailed technical information concerning eCFA.  Setting those issues aside, however, eCFA could have a substantial impact in West Africa, where numerous individuals lack a bank account and could benefit tremendously to the extent eCFA provides them with a secure, reliable, and cost-efficient means of sending, receiving, and storing funds.


Join the Community