firms

Feb. 24 (Asia Today) — Major South Korean food companies are expanding cost-cutting and restructuring efforts after operating profits fell by as much as 30% last year amid a domestic demand slump and rising costs, industry officials said Monday.

Lotte Wellfood is running a voluntary retirement program for some employees as part of efforts to streamline its organization, according to industry sources.

The program targets workers 45 and older with at least 10 years of service. In addition to statutory severance pay, eligible employees with 10 to under 15 years of service would receive 18 months of base pay, while those with 15 years or more would receive 24 months, officials said.

The package also includes a 10 million won ($7,500) re-employment support payment and up to 10 million won ($7,500) in university tuition assistance per child.

Lotte Wellfood said it plans to pursue growth strategies such as developing major brands and expanding global business operations while improving organizational efficiency.

Binggrae carried out a similar voluntary retirement program in January, citing cost increases and weakening consumption, according to industry sources.

CJ CheilJedang has also signaled tighter management. Chief executive Yoon Seok-hwan told employees in a message earlier this month that the company needs “disruptive change and innovation,” outlining plans for business restructuring, financial improvements and organizational culture reforms.

The restructuring push follows a downturn in earnings. Industry data show operating profit last year fell 20.6% at CJ CheilJedang, 30.3% at Lotte Wellfood and 32.7% at Binggrae compared with a year earlier.

Companies have faced pressure from raw material price volatility, higher logistics costs and slowing consumer demand. Executives have also cited stronger consumer resistance to price increases, limiting their ability to pass through costs.

Some analysts cautioned that repeated short-term cutbacks could weaken competitiveness over time unless companies deliver results from new growth initiatives.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260224010007289

Feb. 22 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s industrial sector said there is no immediate change in tariff rates but warned that uncertainty has grown after U.S. President Donald Trump signaled plans to impose new global tariffs.

Trump said Friday he would raise the proposed “global tariff” rate from 10% to 15% following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down his earlier reciprocal tariffs. The 15% duties previously applied to South Korea are expected to reappear under the new global tariff framework.

Industry officials said item-specific tariffs on automobiles, steel and semiconductors have not been directly addressed in the latest announcement, leaving companies cautious about possible next steps.

Major exporters are closely monitoring developments as Washington has yet to finalize detailed tariff guidelines.

Semiconductors, one of South Korea’s top export items, are currently subject to product-specific tariff discussions but remain duty-free for now. However, companies have not ruled out the possibility that Washington could soon put semiconductor tariffs on the negotiating table or raise rates to offset revenue lost from the invalidated reciprocal tariffs.

SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won said after attending the U.S. Trans-Pacific Dialogue that he would review the court ruling before commenting further, reflecting the cautious stance of corporate leaders.

Automobile and steel tariffs are expected to remain in place regardless of the court decision. Automobiles and auto parts currently face a 15% tariff, while steel and aluminum were hit with a 50% tariff last year. Analysts said additional increases in those sectors appear unlikely in the near term.

For food, cosmetics, home appliances and chemical products, a 15% global tariff would largely mirror the current reciprocal tariff level. If the rate were set at 10% instead, exporters could see a modest reduction compared with the existing 15% rate.

While companies say there is no immediate operational impact, executives are concerned that Trump could invoke other trade authorities to introduce new measures, further complicating trade planning.

Industry officials said businesses are preparing contingency strategies as they await clearer guidance from Washington.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260222010006449

When India’s top court banned a controversial scheme in February 2024 that allowed individuals and corporates to make anonymous donations to political parties through opaque electoral bonds, many transparency activists hailed the judgement as a win for democracy.

Between 2018, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government introduced the electoral bonds, and when they were scrapped in 2024, secret donors funnelled nearly $2bn to parties.

More than half of that went to Modi’s Hindu majoritarian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has held India’s central government since 2014, and also governs at least 20 Indian states and federally controlled territories, either directly or in coalition with allies.

In striking down the scheme, the Supreme Court said that “political contributions give a seat at the table to the contributor” and that “this access also translates into influence over policymaking”.

But two years later, data shows that big business continues to pump in millions of dollars in funding to political parties, with the BJP retaining its position as the biggest beneficiary, frequently raising serious concerns over a quid pro quo with donors.

The donors have returned to an older funding mechanism: electoral trusts. Introduced in 2013 by the Manmohan Singh government led by the Congress party that preceded Modi, the trusts, unlike bonds, require the donors to disclose their identities and the amount of money being given.

But that relative transparency is not dissuading companies from major mega-donations to parties directly positioned to benefit them through policies and contracts, an analysis of recent political funding by Al Jazeera reveals.

‘Money determines access’

In 2024-25, nine electoral trusts donated a total of $459.2m to political parties, with the BJP receiving $378.6 million — 83 percent of it. The main opposition Congress party got about $36m (8 percent), while other parties received the remaining amount.

This data is sourced from disclosures made during the first full year after the Supreme Court ban on bonds.

Two major corporations stood out, due to their significant financial scale and policy influence:  The Tata Group, founded in 1868 by Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata, is a global conglomerate with more than 30 companies spanning steel, IT, automobiles, aviation, and more. Its aggregate revenue for FY 2024-25  exceeded $180bn. The Murugappa Group, founded in 1900 by A M Murugappa Chettiar as a money-lending business in Burma (now Myanmar), is a prominent Indian conglomerate with 29 businesses in engineering, agriculture, financial services and beyond. Its turnover stood at $8.53bn in 2024-25.

Documents submitted to the Election Commission of India in 2024-2025 show that the Progressive Electoral Trust, backed by 15 companies belonging to the Tata Group conglomerate, distributed approximately $110.2m to 10 political parties in the run-up to the 2024 general election.

The BJP received about $91.3m – again roughly 83 percent of the total fund – while the Congress got $9.31m, with smaller sums going to several regional parties. Tata made its contribution on April 2, 2024, while Murugappa did so on March 26, 2024.

India’s general elections began on April 19 and concluded on June 1, 2024.

The timing and scale of these donations are significant, say experts. Tata’s donations came within weeks of the government approving two semiconductor projects worth more than $15.2bn announced by the Tata Group in Gujarat and Assam – both BJP-ruled states.

The Modi government also provided additional support of about $5.3bn under India’s plans to promote semiconductor development.

Meanwhile, in February 2024, the Indian government approved a semiconductor assembly and testing facility proposed by CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd, a Murugappa Group company. The project, to be set up in Sanand, Gujarat, with an investment of approximately $870m, also received central and state government incentives.

In the same financial year, disclosures showed that yet another trust called Triumph Electoral Trust received $15.06m from Tube Investments of India Ltd, another Murugappa Group company. The entire money went to the BJP, with no contribution by Triumph to other parties.The scale of these donations surprised observers as the Murugappa Group had been a modest political donor over the previous decade.

“Electoral trusts may be legal, but they normalise a system where money determines access, policy, and electoral success,” Parayil Sreerag, a political strategist, told Al Jazeera. Sreerag argued that such a mechanism “favours the ruling party, marginalises smaller movements, and erodes democratic competition and public trust”.

To be sure, corporate funding in India has a long history.

The Birla group of companies was a major financier of Mahatma Gandhi in the years leading up to independence in 1947. Since then, other companies and parties have continued the practice.

“Business houses have traditionally supported ruling political parties,” G Gopa Kumar, former vice chancellor of the Central University of Kerala and a political strategist, told Al Jazeera.

India’s legal framework governing corporate donations to political parties has evolved alongside political shifts. The Companies Act, 1956, first regulated such contributions, barring government companies and young firms, while mandating disclosure of donations. Corporate funding was later banned in 1969 under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The ban was lifted in 1985.

A major overhaul came in 2013 with the introduction of Electoral Trusts and the Companies Act, 2013. The new law capped corporate donations at 7.5 percent of average net profits, required board approval, and mandated disclosure, marking a significant attempt at regulation and transparency.

But while the Modi-era electoral bonds between 2018 and 2024 drew the bulk of the criticism over electoral finance from transparency activists, the return to electoral trusts has coincided with what is, in effect, an increase in corporate funding for parties. Between 2018 and 2024, the electoral bonds led to an average of under $350m in total donations per year.

Trusts – to which corporates turned after the bonds were scrapped – donated more than $450m by contrast, in 2024-25.

“Left unchecked, it [soaring corporate funding] risks creating a duopoly between political power and corporate capital,” Sreerag said.

Al Jazeera reached out to the Tata Group, the Murugappa Group and the Election Commission of India for their responses to concerns over links between donations and influence, but it has not yet received any response.

Uncovering corruption in election funding

Transparency activists argue that the surge in corporate funding, especially for the ruling party, both reveals the access and influence enjoyed by major firms and sheds light on the disadvantages faced by smaller parties and independent candidates.

Shelly Mahajan, a researcher at the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a prominent Indian election watchdog, said unequal access to private donations undermines political participation and electoral competition.

“Despite decades of reform proposals, the nexus between money and politics persists in India due to weak enforcement and inadequate regulation,” she told Al Jazeera.

To many, the electoral bonds scheme came to epitomise that dark and cosy “nexus”.

In December, Nature magazine published a study on alleged corruption under the scheme, authored by academics Devendra Poola and Vinitha Anna John.

The authors found that newly incorporated companies made unusually large donations soon after their formation, pointing to expectations of gains from the government. In several cases, firms accused of tax evasion or other financial crimes donated after raids by India’s enforcement and investigating agencies, raising concerns of coercive political pressure: 26 entities under investigation bought bonds worth $624.7m, including $223.3m after raids by investigating agencies.

Bond purchases peaked around election cycles. That timing – around elections and after raids – was “significant”, Poola told Al Jazeera. “That sequencing is analytically difficult to dismiss as coincidence.” While the data cannot establish legal intent, Poola stressed that the pattern points to an “institutionalised quid pro quo ecosystem enabled by opacity”.

Yet critics say transparency alone does not resolve the link between public policy and political funding – as the data since the ban on electoral bonds shows.

‘What kind of democracy is this?’

Mahajan, the ADR researcher, said that in its decision to strike down the electoral bonds, the Supreme Court invoked the 2013 law on electoral trusts to reimpose a 7.5 percent cap on corporate donations based on their net profits.

Companies were ordered to disclose both the amounts and the recipients, creating greater scope for public scrutiny and detailed analysis. But that is not happening. Abhilash MR, a Supreme Court lawyer, said large corporate donations raise serious concerns, particularly under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees political equality and administrative fairness.

He said there is mounting evidence of generous government incentives followed by large corporate donations.“When policy decisions appear calibrated to facilitate corporate funding, the very idea of a welfare state is undermined,” he told Al Jazeera, adding that proving corruption in courts remains extremely difficult.

“Temporal proximity between policy benefits and donations rarely meets the evidentiary threshold needed to trigger an independent judicial inquiry,” he said. “In such situations, accountability shifts from courtrooms to the public domain.”

Mini S, a politician from the Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist) party, had hoped for that shift among voters when she contested the 2024 national elections from Thiruvananthapuram, the capital of the southern Kerala state.

She couldn’t fund air-conditioned vehicles, so her campaign during India’s notorious summer moved through neighbourhoods on hired motorbikes and autorickshaws. She hoped to unseat Shashi Tharoor, a former UN diplomat and politician from the opposition Congress party, who had been representing Thiruvananthapuram in parliament since 2009. When the votes were counted, Mini secured just 1,109 votes, while Tharoor won by a landslide. She also forfeited her $275 security deposit.

But for Mini, the outcome was less a personal defeat than an indictment of how Indian elections are fought. Her entire campaign ran on $5,500, she said, an amount much lower than the $105,000 limit set by the Election Commission of India on expenditure by a parliamentary candidate.

“India likes to call itself the world’s largest democracy, but it’s not,” Mini told Al Jazeera. “When corporate money openly funds mainstream parties – through electoral bonds and trusts, often in clear quid pro quo arrangements – and the Election Commission stays silent, what kind of democracy is this?”

In such a scenario, Mini said, government policies “serve corporate interests, not the constitution”.

“Ordinary people are sidelined, and the marginalised are pushed further into the margins. With money of this scale in elections, anyone without corporate backing, like us, is effectively locked out of politics,” she said.

Winning bidders include Chevron, Eni, QatarEnergy and Aiteo.

Libya has assigned new oil and gas exploration rights to foreign firms, aiming to revamp the sector after years of civil strife.

The country’s National Oil Corporation (NOC) announced the results of its first licensing round since 2007 on Wednesday. Winners included US oil giant Chevron and Africa’s largest privately-owned energy company, Nigeria’s Aiteo.

Other winning bidders were consortia: Spain’s Repsol with British Petroleum, Eni North Africa with QatarEnergy, and Repsol with Hungary’s MOLGroup and Turkiye Petrolleri.

The licensing awards signal some renewed interest in Libya’s oil sector, which foreign investors had long been wary of after the country erupted into conflict in 2011 with the overthrow of longtime ruler Muammar Gaddafi. But experts said the response was smaller than expected.

“It is likely that lingering uncertainty over Libya’s political dysfunction and insecurity in the areas around the blocks on offer were factors in the underwhelming response,” Hamish Kinnear, an analyst with UK-based risk consultancy Verisk Maplecroft, told the AFP news agency.

Libya remains politically divided between rival administrations in the east and west, and disputes over the central ‌bank and oil revenues often disrupt production at key oil fields.

‘Return of trust’

The licensing round, in which five of 20 blocks on offer were awarded, follows a $20bn deal last month with France’s TotalEnergies and ConocoPhillips to boost oil production over 25 years.

Prime Minister Abdelhamid Dbeibah, who announced the deal, said the goal was to increase daily oil production by 850,000 barrels within that timeframe. Libya currently produces approximately 1.4 million bpd.

The round used a new, more investor-friendly contract model to replace the rigid terms that previously deterred investment.

NOC chief Masoud Suleman said a committee will be created to further “improve the terms” of the bidding system and negotiate with candidates to grant unallocated blocks.

Speaking at the bid’s announcement ceremony, he said “a return of trust and resuming institutional work in one of the country’s most important sectors after a long period of pause and challenges.”

“They are part of a broader national path that aims for prosperity, growth, the return of normalcy,” he added.

An association of South Korean companies that previously operated at an inter-Korean factory zone in North Korea on Tuesday called on the government to make efforts to allow business owners to visit the now-shuttered complex.

About 80 representatives from 38 member companies of the Corporate Association of Gaeseong Industrial Complex (CAGIC) made the request at a press conference held at the customers, immigration and quota (CIQ) office at Dorasan Station in Paju, just north of Seoul.

The association said its members hope to present the Kaesong Industrial Complex, which has been closed for the past decade, to inspect their business assets there.

“Ten years after the closure of the Kaesong Industrial Complex, companies that operated there are facing a threat to their survival. We want to return to Kaesong,” CAGIC Chairman Cho Kyung-joo told reporters.

The Park Geun-hye administration shut down the industrial complex on Feb. 10, 2016, in response to North Korea’s nuclear test and long-range missile launches.

Launched in 2004 as a flagship project symbolizing inter-Korean economic cooperation and reconciliation, the complex once employed about 55,000 North Korean workers at 120 South Korean firms.

Cho also urged the U.S. government to play a responsible role in approving visits by South Korean business owners aimed at protecting their assets in Kaesong.

“Just as the United States recently granted sanctions exceptions for humanitarian assistance in several global cases discussed at United Nations meetings, it should make clear that business owners’ visits to inspect their assets in Kaesong do not fall under sanctions”, he said.

Appealing to North Korea, Cho said companies operating at the complex had conducted business in good faith based on inter-Korean agreements and called on Pyongyang to cooperate in allowing business owners to visit the industrial zone.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Feb. 4 (Asia Today) — Canada’s minister responsible for defense procurement toured major South Korean defense companies this week, praising their technology and production capabilities as Ottawa moves ahead with large-scale land and naval modernization plans.

Stephen Fuhr, Canada’s minister of state for defense procurement, visited facilities operated by HD Hyundai and Hanwha during a three-day trip to South Korea, industry officials said Tuesday.

Canada is preparing to procure new submarines valued at up to 60 trillion won ($44.9 billion) and self-propelled howitzers worth about 8 trillion won ($6.0 billion). Korean firms used the visit to highlight their submarine construction, artificial intelligence applications and plans for local production in Canada.

HD Hyundai said Fuhr and his delegation toured its research and development center in Pangyo, south of Seoul, where they reviewed models of destroyers, frigates and submarines built by its shipbuilding arm, HD Hyundai Heavy Industries. The delegation also examined progress on autonomous ship technologies incorporating AI.

Earlier, Fuhr visited Hanwha Ocean’s Geoje shipyard and boarded the Jang Young-sil, a next-generation Korean submarine proposed for Canada’s Canadian Patrol Submarine Project. The project, with bids due in early March, is expected to reach up to 60 trillion won and has attracted competition from Germany’s TKMS.

Industry officials said Fuhr’s tight schedule, traveling from South Gyeongsang Province to Gyeonggi Province, reflected Ottawa’s intent to closely assess Korea’s special-purpose shipbuilding capacity. Analysts say Korean firms have emerged as strong contenders in the final stage of the bidding.

“It is meaningful that Korea, with less than 50 years of submarine development experience, is competing head-to-head with Germany,” said Jang Won-jun, a professor of advanced defense technology at Jeonbuk National University. He added that Korean submarine construction has reached roughly 90% to 95% of Germany’s technical level, with an edge in price competitiveness.

Industry sources said Fuhr spoke favorably of the technology on display, describing the facilities as “feeling like the future has already arrived,” remarks viewed as an implicit endorsement of Korea’s capabilities.

Beyond submarines, Canada is also advancing its Indirect Fire Modernization program, which emphasizes land-based systems and involves investments of more than $6 billion to acquire new self-propelled howitzers and long-range rocket systems.

Fuhr visited Hanwha Aerospace’s Changwon plant, where he toured production lines for the K9 self-propelled howitzer, K10 ammunition resupply vehicle and Cheonmu multiple rocket launcher, and observed live maneuver demonstrations. The company proposed an integrated firepower and mobility package and pledged to establish manufacturing operations in Canada to support local jobs and technology transfer.

Hanwha Aerospace CEO Son Jae-il said the company aims to become a key partner in Canada’s military modernization based on its track record in delivery and accumulated technological expertise.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260205010001719

Musk says solar powered and space-based data centres are the only way to meet AI’s burgeoning energy demands.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX has acquired his AI company xAI as part of an ambitious scheme to build space-based data centres to power the future of artificial intelligence.

The billionaire, who is also the CEO of Tesla, announced the merger in a statement on Tuesday on the SpaceX website.

Musk said the merger will help to address the emerging question of how to meet the power-hungry demands of artificial intelligence.

AI demand will require “immense amounts of power and cooling” that are not sustainable on Earth without “imposing hardship on communities and the environment,” he said.

Space-based data centres that harness the power of the Sun are the only long-term solution, according to Musk.

“In the long term, space-based AI is obviously the only way to scale. To harness even a millionth of our Sun’s energy would require over a million times more energy than our civilisation currently uses!” he wrote.

“The only logical solution therefore is to transport these resource-intensive efforts to a location with vast power and space,” he continued, predicting that within the next “2 to 3 years, the lowest cost way to generate AI compute will be in space”.

The merger of SpaceX and xAI will bring several of Musk’s space, artificial intelligence, internet, and social media projects under one roof.

SpaceX operates the Falcon and Starship rocket programmes, while xAI is best known for developing the AI-powered Grok chatbot. Last year, xAI also acquired X, the social media platform known as Twitter, until it was bought by Musk in late 2022.

Both companies have major contracts with US government agencies such as NASA and the Department of Defense .

SpaceX’s Starshield unit specifically collaborates with government entities, including military and intelligence agencies.

Musk is not the only tech CEO looking to space as a solution to AI’s energy quandary.

Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin and Google’s Project Suncatcher are both working on solar-powered space-based data centres.

“In the history of spaceflight, there has never been a vehicle capable of launching the megatons of mass that space-based data centres or permanent bases on the Moon and cities on Mars require,” Musk wrote.

Musk also said his long-term plan for SpaceX is to launch a million satellites.

To achieve this aim, SpaceX’s Starship rocket programme aims to one day launch one flight per hour with a 200-tonne payload, he said.

Musk said Starlink, a subsidiary of SpaceX that offers satellite-based internet service, will soon get a major boost with the launch of SpaceX’s next generation of V3 satellites.

They will each add “more than 20 times the capacity to the constellation as the current Falcon launches of the V2 Starlink satellites”, he wrote.

The Los Angeles City Council has again increased what it will pay Gibson Dunn to represent it in a contentious homelessness case, bringing the law firm’s contract to nearly $7.5 million.

In mid-May, the council approved a three-year contract capped at $900,000. The law firm then billed the city $1.8 million for two weeks of legal work, with 15 of its attorneys charging nearly $1,300 per hour.

In a closed-door meeting Wednesday, the council voted 9-4 to approve an increase of about $1.8 million from the current $5.7 million, with Councilmembers John Lee, Tim McOsker, Imelda Padilla and Monica Rodriguez opposed. It was not clear why the additional money was needed.

Rodriguez said that spending resources on outside lawyers instead of complying with the settlement terms in the case is “simply a waste of public funds.”

“In the face of a mounting homelessness crisis, it’s misguided for the City to continue pouring our scarce resources into outside counsel instead of housing the most vulnerable Angelenos,” Rodriguez said in a statement.

The contract “has expanded significantly beyond its original scope,” Lee said in a statement, later adding, “I believe the Council has a duty to demand transparency and closely scrutinize costs.”

The L.A. city attorney’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

The city reached a settlement with the nonprofit LA Alliance in 2022, agreeing to create 12,915 homeless shelter beds or other housing opportunities, while also clearing thousands of encampments.

Since then, the LA Alliance has repeatedly accused the city of failing to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.

Gibson Dunn was retained by the city a week before a federal judge called a seven-day hearing to determine whether he should take authority over the city’s homelessness programs from Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council. Alliance lawyers said during those proceedings that they wanted Bass and two council members to testify.

The judge later declined to put Los Angeles’ homelessness programs into receivership, even as he concluded that the city failed to adhere to the settlement.

Theane Evangelis, a Gibson Dunn attorney who led the firm’s LA Alliance team, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto has praised Gibson Dunn’s work in the LA Alliance case, saying the firm helped the city retain control over its homelessness programs while also keeping Bass and the two council members off the stand.

She commended the firm — which secured a landmark Supreme Court ruling that upheld laws prohibiting homeless people from camping in public spaces — for getting up to speed on the settlement, mastering a complex set of policy matters within a week.

Faced with lingering criticism from council members, Feldstein Soto agreed to help with the cost of the Gibson Dunn contract, committing $1 million from her office’s budget. The council has also tapped $4 million from the city’s “unappropriated balance,” an account for funds that have not yet been allocated.

On Thursday, Matthew D. Umhofer, an attorney who represents LA Alliance, called the Gibson Dunn contract increase “predictable.”

“It’s a taxpayer-funded debacle designed to help city officials avoid being held accountable for their failures on homelessness,” Umhofer said in a statement. “The amount will keep going up as long as the City is more interested in ending oversight than ending homelessness.”