
'We won't be shy': How European companies are raising prices on American customers over U.S. tariffs
Luxury handbags, washing machines and jet engines are among the products about to become more expensive as a slew of European companies hike prices for American consumers in response to U.S. import tariffs. Major companies from across France, Sweden, Switzerland and Germany — among others — have revealed plans to raise prices for their U.S.-based customers to compensate for import duties. CNBC's analysis of earnings calls since U.S. President Donald Trump's April 2 so-called "Liberation Day" shows that many intend to raise prices to preserve profit margins, along with cutting costs by shifting supply chains away from China. Here's what the CEOs of several Stoxx Europe 600 companies had to say. Safran Jet engine maker Safran 's CEO said the company, which derives more than 25% of its sales from the United States, will raise prices for its airline customers, even if it is perceived as inflationary. "We will apply with tariff surcharge to the airlines and to our customers. There is no mystery," said Olivier Andriès. "At the end of the day, this tariff situation is creating inflation, so be it. We are going to impose tariff surcharge to our customers and we won't be shy." The France-headquartered company makes jet engines for Boeing MAX 737 and Airbus A320neo aircraft, which are popular with U.S. airlines, through CFM International, its 50% joint venture with General Electric. Safran said it will also begin raising prices by "mid to high-single-digit gross" to its airline customers, not including any hikes because of the tariffs. "We are confident to be able to pass through most of our net exposure," Andriès added. EssilorLuxottica Ray-Ban maker EssilorLuxottica said it will be raising prices for consumers, in addition to cutting costs, in order to maintain profit margins. "We're moving toward a price adjustment in the single-digit territory in the U.S. across the different product lines and across our distribution channel," said EssilorLuxottica CEO Stefano Grassi. The company's made-in-China sunglass frames, including the Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses that are sold in the United States, are affected by tariffs at 145%. EssilorLuxottica said it would raise prices further if needed. "And if we need to go deeper, we certainly have the ability and the agility to do so in the upcoming months," Grassi added. Air Liquide French multinational Air Liquide , which makes industrial gases, said it has "tools" and "systems" in place to raise prices to compensate for any impact from tariffs on products imported into the U.S. François Jackow, Air Liquide's chief executive, boasted on a call with analysts that the company had experience in raising prices, pointing to the 30% increase over the past four years. "When we look at pricing around gases, this is very, very clear. In a high inflationary market, we've done this in the past and we'll continue to do that going forward," said Adam Peters, vice president and chief executive of Air Liquide's North American operations. "When we look at tariff impacts and we look at what that can mean for pricing, I see it in the same way. I see it as the way to manage pricing effectively ahead of the cost curve and staying in line with that." Assa Abloy Sweden-based lockmaker Assa Abloy said it will raise prices by 10% for U.S. customers because of the tariffs. The company, which makes security doors and electronic key fobs, manufactures many of its goods in China. The company's CEO, Nico Delvaux, said the company had planned to raise prices by 1.5% before the introduction of tariffs. "If you have tariffs of 145%, you can say it's a tariff. It's almost an embargo you could say," said Delvaux. "We will increase prices. Prices will have to increase in a very significant way." "If tariffs would be like they are today, and obviously the 145% of Chinese an important contributor there, we would have to increase prices around 10% to fully compensate for tariffs and keep the margins in the US," Delvaux added. "The 10% is price increase in the US." Thule Thule , which makes cargo carriers for autos, is among a small group of European companies that manufactures more than half of the goods sold in the U.S. locally — yet it will be raising prices by 10% across all products in light of the magnitude of the tariffs. Mattias Ankarberg, CEO of Thule, told analysts that despite having two factories in the U.S., it will be affected by tariffs on raw materials, such as steel and aluminum, that it imports from elsewhere. "We do have two factories in the U.S. where we produce our most important product categories, but still we are impacted by the tariffs, directly and indirectly, and we are making price increases as of June 1 this year," said Ankarberg. "What was not manufactured in the US is imported either from Europe, which is the biggest part where we have some bike carriers are manufactured in Europe," he added. "We are now moving with the 10% price increases." Electrolux Electrolux group has a mainly North American manufacturing footprint for sales in the region. Assuming current level of import tariff on imports to the US, however, we are implementing price increases with the ambition to offset the impact of higher cost due to a tariff. Also in Latin America, our ambition is to offset currency headwinds with price. Yannick Fierling, CEO of Electrolux Group Group SEB With regards to imports from China, we have the plan to relocate the bulk of what we produce today in China to Vietnam. And that can be done, let's say, largely by the end of this year or early part of next year. And secondly, we have the ability, of course, to pass some of that impact to the final customers through price increases. Olivier Jean Casanova, senior executive vice president of finance at SEB SA Kering We are vigilant on the high level of uncertainty on it, but we would most likely adopt a careful and gradual approach, protecting our gross margin, but also mindful of consumer sentiment, which means that we could implement this support either only in the US or more globally, leveraging on seasonal adjustment and the differentiated by category and price point. Armelle Poulou, Kering CFO Sandvik Group We have put in tariff clauses and revisited our commercial agreements, where applicable. We have also notified customers and partners in several of our businesses on potential upcoming tariff surcharges. We are re-balancing product capacity, where, in some cases, we might produce today in Europe, sending to the US and vice versa, we produce something else in the US and sending to Europe. Stefan Widing, CEO of Sandvik Group LVMH I think we all need to stay very calm because we are in unknown territories and we are now in a process with 90-day suspension period, which we can hope will enable some negotiation and bring some maybe positive outcomes. The worst is never certain. Having said that, this is not under our control. So, back to what is under our control, it's – price increase is one part, but there are also some other mitigants. Cécile Cabanis, CFO of LVMH
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ampere Analysis Breaks Down The Threat U.S. Tariffs Would Pose To European Film & TV
Speaking at NEM in Croatia, Ampere Analysis Co-Founder Guy Bisson ran the rule over the so-called plan to save Hollywood from Jon Voight and associates, and assessed the potential impact on the European film and TV biz. 'A 120% tariff on incentives to cancel out global schemes is patently ridiculous and obviously very damaging, potentially, to the European industry,' he said. 'Tax treaties, local tax treaties in the U.S., and incentive schemes, just like we use in Europe, clearly, are the way to go if you want to re-enliven your industries.' More from Deadline Donald Trump's Tariffs Deemed Unlawful & Blocked By Trade Court; White House Appeals Instantly Life After Peak TV: "It's A New World Order... There's A Rethink Required" - Berlin Streamer Content Spend To Top Commercial Broadcasters For First Time In 2025 - Report A draft of Voight's Make Hollywood Great Again plan, obtained by Deadline, included a mixture of production incentives and a 120% tariff on the value of a foreign incentive received. After he presented the plan to Donald Trump, the President public proposed a 100% tariff on all U.S. film imports, including productions that shoot in other countries. The NEM confab and sales market is held annually in Dubrovnik. The latest edition kicked off, Monday, with Bisson's session, which was entitled: 'Content Trends in the Era of Trump: Protectionism, Production and International Markets'. The Ampere executive set the scene by showing how the European content business has benefitted from the U.S. studios widening their production bases and streamers setting up shop in several parts of the continent, resulting in orders for thousands of hours of first-run programming. He also said international markets are key to those same U.S. giants monetizing their series and movies with, for example, 54% of the total box office for U.S. films coming from international markets, according to Ampere. Getting into the weeds on the suggested measures, he said a 120% tariff on any incentive received overseas is 'one of the most concerning aspects of the proposal, effectively closing the door on U.S. producers making use of any overseas incentive.' He went on to break down what might happen if the proposed measure were introduced with a slide that pinpointed the UK and Spain as the two biggest potential losers in Europe, given the volumes of U.S. production in both countries. 'Obviously the big European markets – the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany – are on that list, but so is Poland, for example, and Turkey, and the Scandinavian markets. They have been the [among] biggest beneficiaries of that 'runaway' production.' Speaking about the notion of tax treaties with certain countries for films substantially produced in U.S., Bisson said the idea is interesting: 'While you still have to make a majority, or spend a majority of the budget, in the U.S., you can effectively stack or double dip incentive schemes through those treaties.' He also said any re-introduction of rules that prohibit networks (and now, SVODs) fully owning shows 'would remove one of the things that's annoyed producers so much, which is streamers taking all rights in perpetuity.' Trump has said that he would meet with industry officials, and the White House said no final decisions have been made regarding the plan. Voight, Sylvester Stallone and a group that included studios and unions later wrote a letter to Trump emphasizing the need for production incentives While punchy, the NEM presentation was, thusly, analyzing what are currently theoretical scenarios. Bisson said that the best hope for the European biz is that theory never becomes practice. 'None of this is actually happening or being put in place yet, it's just a suggestion,' he said. 'Who can predict what Trump will do next. You may have heard the nickname that Trump has been given: TACO; Trump, Always Chickens Out on tariffs. That's what we can hope will happen again when it comes to our industry and the suggested protectionism being placed on film and TV.' Ted Johnson contributed to this report. Best of Deadline 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery Tony Awards: Every Best Musical Winner Since 1949 Tony Awards: Every Best Play Winner Since 1947
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump cancels $87 million grant for planned low-carbon cement plant in Holyoke
HOLYOKE — President Donald Trump's administration recently canceled an $87 million grant issued to Sublime Systems, whose low-carbon cement manufacturing plant is scheduled to open in Holyoke in 2027. Sublime has technology developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to make cement using electricity, a process designed to cut down the amount of carbon released by a traditionally emission-heavy process. It planned to employ 70 to 90 people with production expected to begin in 2027 or 2028. It already secured and cleared a 16-acre site in Holyoke's industrial flats area. Sublime chose the area, in part, because of Holyoke's hydropower, which is a successor to the 19th century turbines that made Holyoke famous as the 'Paper City.' Sublime is still seeking financing despite the loss of federal money. 'All our meetings with the Sublime team indicate this project is moving forward,' said Aaron Vega, head of planning and economic development for Holyoke. 'We do not yet have site plans submitted for review, but the city has had pre-application meetings with their design team and are working through the issues and opportunities at their location.' U.S. Rep. Richard E. Neal, D-Springfield, said the Trump administration terminated $3.7 billion in grants issued by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Clean Energy. That includes the Holyoke grant. 'The Trump Administration's decision to kill critical clean energy projects is deeply irresponsible and is a betrayal of American innovation, workers, and the fight against climate change,' Neal said in a statement Monday. 'Scrapping funding for projects for innovators like Sublime Systems in Holyoke undercuts years of progress in decarbonizing heavy industry, and it jeopardizes good-paying jobs and economic development in communities that need it most.' The funding came through the Inflation Reduction Act, which was written in the House Ways and Means Committee that Neal chaired at the time. 'I can say unequivocally that this was not the intention of the bill; it was designed to accelerate the clean energy transition through innovation, not stall it,' Neal said. 'This isn't just about climate — it's about global competitiveness and leadership. Calling the move to shortsighted, Neal's statement called on the Trump administration to reinstate the grant. Sublime already had a deal to sell 623,000 tons of cement products to Microsoft over six to nine years. Previously, Neal said he expected the climate provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act to survive because many of the projects are in Republican-leaning southern states where GOP congress members would fight for them. In January, Joe Hicken, Sublime's vice president of business development and policy, said he would be surprised if the incoming adminstration canceled the 'investments in clean American manufacturing,' because the United States imports millions of tons of cement. Springfield Pride headliner Dawn Richard told 'Diddy' jurors of threats, violence, abuse Breeze Airways adds new flights from Bradley to NC Western New England University names interim president Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk, the Budget, and the Coming Labor Crisis
Other than the president himself, no one has had a greater impact on the first months of the new Trump administration than Elon Musk. Not only was Musks support critical in getting Donald Trump elected, but his empathy-free approach at the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) made headlines that dominated news cycles while helping flood the zone with contentious and newsworthy actions designed to overwhelm an already exhausted public. Even after departing his government role, Muskcontinued - in rather spectacular fashion -exerting outsized influence on American politics. His incendiary opposition to the administrations "big beautiful" budget bill significantly complicates the path for congressional Republicans eager to prove their loyalty to the president. Until Musks spectacular split with the president, support for the worlds richest man broke almost entirely along partisan lines. For Republicans, he was lauded for a willingness to tackle the difficult and thankless task of taking on an entrenched bureaucracy. For Democrats, he was an oligarch looking to use his government role to enrich himself while callously demeaning civil servants. But there was always more nuance to what the worlds richest man was doing in Washington. While Elons DOGE efforts were often ham-handed, his opposition to the Republicans expensive budget bill reinforces the belief that he genuinely wants to help the government become more effective stewards of taxpayer dollars. Musks detractors have suggested his efforts were entirely self-serving, an attempt to curry favor with Trump to benefit all the companies in his orbit. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, for instance, recently released a report outlining as many as 130 instances where Musk "potentially" used his government role and proximity to Trump to enrich himself. But there was less to this critique than meets the eye. A close reading of Warrens report reveals that most of the items listed are related to things that might benefit Musk and his companies in the future. They were speculative benefits, in other words. Moreover, Musk swiftly eroded the goodwill he had accumulated with the president, likely eliminating those speculative benefits while simultaneously reinforcing the view that his approach to DOGE was principled, regardless of its effectiveness. In raw dollar terms, no one has sacrificed more financially to serve in the U.S. government. From the time of Trumps inauguration to April 22, the date Elon Musk announced in a Tesla analyst call that he would be returning to the automaker, Tesla stock fell by more than 45%. In the process, it erased more than $80 billion from Musks net worth - an amount that, by some analysts estimates, exceeds the net savings from the DOGE efforts. Yes, a few of Musks other businesses may have benefited from his government service, but the magnitude of any such gains is far less than the loss he suffered on Tesla stock. While more than half of those paper losses have been recovered since Musk signaled a return to his company, its not clear Teslas fortunes in the auto business will ever rebound. Teslas impact on Musks net worth is, however, a less relevant issue than what the company is signaling about the direction of American life. Despite single-handedly transforming the automobile industry, Teslas dominance in the electric vehicle space is now gone. So, why does the company still command a trillion-dollar valuation in the equity markets? A simple analysis of its stock suggests its value is not about its car business. That realization is a window into the future. As of the end of May, Teslas market capitalization exceeded $1.1 trillion - more than the value of the next nine auto companies combined. This is despite the fact that Tesla sells fewer cars than all but three of those companies. With a brand in free fall, declining sales and profitability, and rising competition from Chinese manufacturer BYD, it would be hard to argue that Teslas auto business should trade at a premium to other manufacturers. Assuming Teslas auto business is worth roughly the same amount as Mercedes Benz, General Motors, or BMW (all companies with unit sales at least 30% greater than Teslas and lacking Teslas significant brand issues), the selling of cars would account for a paltry 5% of Teslas implied value. Solar City, on the other hand, could be worth as much as twice its rival First Solar, given its relative size. Assuming thats correct, another $30 billion or 3% of Teslas valuation is explained by the worth of Teslas solar power and energy storage division. Even adding in the $24 billion of net cash Tesla has on its balance sheet, we have a company worth between $100 and $110 billion - one-tenth of what the market says Tesla is worth. So, why has the market rewarded Tesla with a valuation thats roughly 10 times the sum of its operating businesses? What do investors see in Tesla that they dont see in other similar companies? The answer would seem to be Musks investment in future technologies, most notably humanoid robots (Musk says hes going to sell a million devices at $30,000 a piece by 2030 and is positing a future where there is one humanoid robot for every person on the planet) - not to mention self-driving vehicles. In short, 90% of Teslas valuation is about one thing - eliminating jobs currently held by Americans. This isnt a future entirely inspired by Musks vision alone. Dozens of major companies are charting a course in this direction. In some ways, its a natural evolution of a number of technological advances in material science, artificial intelligence, energy storage and management, and sensors and perception. So, while Musk has been a lightning rod for all sorts of criticism and approbation, our leaders would be wise to examine what his company is telling us about the future - and legislate appropriately. From a policy standpoint, the questions that need to be answered are obvious. How will Americans feed themselves and their families when the job they depend upon is being done by a machine? How will the job destruction from these technological advances affect tax receipts, which are overly dependent on income taxes? How will Americans find fulfillment in life without work? How can we best share the benefits of this fourth industrial revolution to ensure they arent overly concentrated in a few hands? Policymakers failed to realize the impact of early automation and offshoring on average Americans, leading to significant income and wealth concentration. They cant make the same mistake again. Our leaders ushered in an era of globalization, during which imports as a percentage of GDP increased by three times from 1970 to the present. We now have $4 trillion of imports flooding our shelves, giving Americans access to low-cost electronics, clothing, and other consumer goods. While average Americans benefited from these price reductions, as a country, we largely overlooked those Americans who lost their jobs as a result of these import gains. In fact, weve never spent more than a billion dollars annually on trade adjustment assistance, 4,000 times less than the imports we have coming on shore every year. Compounding the mistakes of globalization by neglecting the implications of whats about to come will lead to an even more alienated and divided electorate. America wont survive the outcome of that policy failure. Greg Orman is a Kansas entrepreneur, author of 'A Declaration of Independents,' and a former independent candidate for governor and senator of his state. His website is