Countering the Counterfeiters
Andrew Goddard, Chairman, Verification of Lubricant Specifications
Counterfeiting is a huge, global problem. The cost of counterfeiting is estimated to be $1.8 trillion each year worldwide. In the EU alone, the European Union Intellectual Property Office estimates that 60 billion Euros are lost in sales every year.
It’s not just high-end fashion brands that are counterfeited. Pharmaceuticals, car parts and even lubricants are used by fraudsters as a means of generating income.
In 2018, Shell reported they found a problem with oil being sold under their brand in Malaysia. From the samples obtained in stores and online channels, they found that one-third of these were counterfeit. Nigerian oil marketers too complained in 2017 that counterfeit products were costing their industry the equivalent of $200m in lost sales each year.
With lubricants containing complex chemistry in response to regulators’ demands for improved efficiency and end users’ requirements for application protection and performance, these sophisticated products are being increasingly targeted by fraudsters. Poor quality, sub-standard formulations or even repackaged waste oil is being used to rip off end users, damaging consumer confidence and potentially damaging vehicles too.
So, what can be done to fight back against the fraudsters?
Current security measures include batch codes on product labels which are a requirement of any quality management system. Although the validity of the sequencing of the batch code might not be apparent to the fraudster, lubricants purchased through online channels might not include any sort of batch code. By the time the end user has taken delivery of the product, it may be too late, or easily go unnoticed. Tamper evident caps or even holograms on labelling
56 LUBE MAGAZINE NO.154 DECEMBER 2019
can also add an extra level of security to the product. But in the age of 3D printing, replacing a product cap or seal can prove both cost-effective and relatively easy for fraudsters. More recently, chemical fingerprinting has been introduced as a means of proving the source of the product. Soluble markers and markers that only show up under certain conditions, such as through a mass spectrometer, can provide added security and product identification. These chemical fingerprints allow products to be subject to scrutiny, but in the absence of concern (or suitable equipment) from the end user, their benefit is limited.
As the technology deployed in lubricants improves and the associated cost of the product increases, lubricant companies will be forced to look to higher- level security markings and anti-fraud measures to protect the interests of end users and the reputation of their brands.
In Malaysia, Shell used QR codes which could be authenticated via Shell’s SHARE website, to prove that the product had come from authorized outlets.
Here in the UK, we encourage anyone with concerns about a product being sold to raise a case with the Verification of Lubricant Specifications (VLS). As industry regulator, our role is to uphold standards and maintain a level playing field for all suppliers. Our technical review panel can source, test and work with companies whose products concern complaints, to address any issues of non-compliance.
LINK
www.ukla-vls.org.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
