According to data from global information board for counterfeiting, the ERAI, reports of counterfeit electronic products are on the rise. Realistically though, it is impossible to put an exact figure on the volume of counterfeit products in circulation, because many will go undetected. What we do know is that they are costly. In the United Kingdom alone, it is estimated that counterfeit goods cost the economy £30 billion each year.

A counterfeit is an illegal imitation of a legitimate product. Sounds harmless, but in manufacturing, they can be dangerous. Electronic component supply has long been plagued by counterfeit products with semiconductors, integrated circuits and programmable logic devices among the most targeted devices. Many replicas originate in China and are often manufactured to inferior standards. What’s more, they are not required to pass the same testing procedures as real versions and can present hazards when incorporated into larger systems and create the potential for malfunction.

Industrial products and factory equipment pose the same threats. Larger pieces of kit, such as robots and large-scale automation, are less at risk than smaller components due to the colossal expense of replicating these products. However, counterfeit versions of even small components can have a detrimental effect on a production line.

Unplanned downtime and damage 

Consider an electric motor as an example. An overheated or faulty motor could result in hours of unplanned downtime for the rest of the production line. If the breakdown is hazardous, of which many counterfeit breakdowns are, this could also cause damage to peripheral equipment and risk injury to staff. Moreover, because the motor will not be covered by a legitimate warranty, replacing it can become a longwinded and expensive process.

Replica parts are undoubtedly a poor choice. Unfortunately, many factories are already using fake products — and just don’t know it. Counterfeits are increasingly sophisticated, possessing engraved identification marks and false certifications appearing to be from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). Even large industrial equipment distributors are falling victim to the scam, with many trading counterfeit products unknowingly.

Unsurprisingly, purchasing online is the most unreliable method for ensuring parts are legitimate, but frankly, if the equipment isn’t sourced directly from the OEM or a first-tier authorised distributor, there is a risk it could be counterfeit.

It is impossible to completely prevent the distribution of counterfeit parts. But it is critical that manufacturers ensure their organisation — and those it does business with — are protecting themselves. Establishing supply chain legitimacy should be the first step. Manufacturers shouldn’t be afraid to ask for evidence of exactly how distributors operate with a product’s OEM. Should the relationship be legitimate, there will be no problem providing traceability for the product.

In the case of TM Robotics, the company was established from a close working relationship with Shibaura Machine — previously known as Toshiba Machine until a corporate rebrand in April 2020. For the last 20 years, TM Robotics has operated as a single point of contact for Shibaura Machine’s industrial robots’ customers in the EMEA and North and South America regions, with all its global partners trading directly through TM Robotics.

With the industrial supply chain awash with counterfeit parts, manufacturers must take steps to protect their operations. When dealing with an equipment supplier, it is recommended to choose authorised distributors wherever possible.

Investigating the origin of the equipment— separating the hover flies from the wasps, so to speak — will reduce the chance of purchasing counterfeits and in turn, protect the production line. Without this consideration, the manufacturer risks getting stung.  
 

The world’s first robot tax was introduced in South Korea last year. The tax was created amid fears that a rise in automation and robotics was threatening human workers and could lead to mass unemployment in the country. But, this so-called robot tax was not actually a tax at all. Instead, the country limited tax incentives for investments in automation, lessening the existing tax breaks for automation. 

Calling it a tax was simply rhetoric delivered by its opponents. Essentially, it was just a revision of existing tax laws. Regardless of its name, South Korea’s announcement sparked several debates as to whether a robot tax would be advantageous in other countries. 

At the time, Bill Gates famously called for a technology levy, suggesting that a tax could balance the Government’s income as jobs are lost to automation. The levy was suggested to slow down the pace of change and provide money for Government to increase job opportunities in other sectors.

Fewer workers, fewer tax contributions 

While most manufacturers and those operating in the robotics sector would disagree with the idea of a tax on robots, the debate does raise questions of how we tax employment in Britain — and how technology could affect this. The obvious fear at Government level is that if we replace people with robots, we reduce national insurance contributions, lessening a Government’s ability to support its people. 

As an alternative, perhaps the answer to this problem is switching to a system where, rather than paying tax per employee through national insurance contributions, NIC was formulated based on a company’s overall operating costs. Using this method, NIC could take account of the impact of all forms of advanced technology, not just robots.

That being said, we are not tax experts at TM Robotics. However, we are experts in industrial robots. We sell industrial robots to manufacturers across the globe and advise them on how robots can increase productivity, efficiency and in turn, create new jobs.

Creating, not destroying jobs

Much of the debate about the potential robot tax has focused on the threat that robots and automation pose to humans. However, we should remember that robots don’t always replace a human job, often they work alongside people to reduce the risk of injury — particularly in the supply chain. 

Consider this as an example. TM Robotics recently introduced a robot box opening cell to its range of industrial equipment. This type of automation would typically be used by companies like DHL and UPS who are delivering product directly into manufacturing plants and retail warehouses to allow them to reduce the risk of injuries from knives. In this instance, a robot tax would undermine a company’s ability to deliver a safe environment for its workers.

The bottom line is that robots create jobs, they don’t take them away. This is supported by the UK Government’s recent Made Smarter review on digitalisation in industry. The review concludes that over the next ten years, automation could boost UK manufacturing by £455 billion, with a net gain of 175,000 jobs.

Robots are tools and they will create work, especially new kinds of work — taxing them would be a tax on net job creation. Instead of implementing a tax on robots, I believe we should actually be providing tax breaks for companies investing in robotics.

Bowl feeders, also referred to as circular vibratory or vibratory bowl feeders, are a traditional method of handling and sorting bulk products before manoeuvring them onto further processing machinery on manufacturing lines. TAD manufacturers an extensive range of vibrating and electromagnetic feeding bowls, including bespoke bowl feeding systems that are custom-made for clients in niche industries, or manufacturers with specific challenges.

TAD feeding systems are industry specific and are designed to meet the different requirements of different manufacturing sectors. The manufacturer’s custom vibratory feeding bowls can cover any type of implementation, including high difficulty selections, positioning of geometrically complex parts, gentle handling and high frequency rates.  

For example, TAD feeding systems for food and beverage or pharmaceutical manufacturing are designed to comply with all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. Every bowl feeder in the range is made of AISI 304 or 316L stainless steel with mirror polished, electro-polished or projected polyurethane finishes, ensuring high levels of hygiene.  

TAD’s introduction of vibratory bowls to the UK market is supported by the company’s UK sales representative, TM Robotics. The feeders expand the company's range of peripheral manufacturing equipment, which also includes soldering technology, machines and systems, as well as small manufacturing conveyors.  

Nigel Smith, CEO of TM Robotics and sales representative for TAD Bowl Feeder in the UK, says: “TAD implements a series of procedures for every customer — providing technical texts and proactive advice about the equipment in question – as well as global technical support and a predictive, preventative and corrective maintenance service.”