Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Franchising
View on WikipediaThis article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|

Franchising is a business practice where a company licenses its business model to another company, or more precisely, where the franchisor licenses some or all of its knowhow, procedures, intellectual property and other rights to sell its branded products and services to a franchisee.[1] In return, the franchisee pays certain fees and agrees to comply with certain obligations, typically set out in a franchise agreement.
The word franchise is of "Anglo-French" derivation - from franc, meaning "free" and it is used both as a noun and as a transitive verb.[2] For the franchisor, use of a franchise system is an alternative business growth strategy, compared to expansion through corporate owned outlets or "chain stores". Adopting a franchise system business growth strategy for the sale and distribution of goods and services minimizes the franchisor's capital investment and liability risk.
Franchising is rarely an equal partnership, especially in the typical arrangement where the franchisee is an individual, unincorporated partnership or small privately held corporation, as this will ensure the franchisor has substantial legal and/or economic advantages over the franchisee. The usual exception to this rule is when the prospective franchisee is also a powerful corporate entity controlling a highly lucrative location, and/or captive market. For example, a large sports stadium in which prospective franchisors must then compete to exclude one another from. However, under specific circumstances like transparency, favourable legal conditions, financial means and proper market research, franchising can be a vehicle of success for both a large franchisor and a small franchisee.
Thirty-six countries have laws that explicitly regulate franchising, with the majority of all other countries having laws which have a direct or indirect effect on franchising.[3] Franchising is also used as a foreign market entry mode.
History
[edit]The boom in franchising did not take place until after World War II. Nevertheless, the rudiments of modern franchising date back to the Middle Ages when landowners made franchise-like agreements with tax collectors, who retained a percentage of the money they collected and turned the rest over.[4] The practice ended around 1562 but spread in to other endeavors.[5] For example, in 17th-century England franchisees were granted the right to sponsor markets and fairs or operate ferries. There was little growth in franchising, though, until the mid-19th century, when it appeared in the United States for the first time.
One of the first successful American franchising operations was started by an enterprising druggist named John S. Pemberton. In 1886, he concocted a beverage comprising sugar, molasses, spices, and cocaine. Pemberton licensed selected people to bottle and sell the drink, which was an early version of what is now known as Coca-Cola. His was one of the earliest and most successful franchising operations in the United States.
The Singer Company implemented a franchising plan in the 1850s to distribute its sewing machines. The operation failed, though, because the company did not earn much money even though the machines sold well. The dealers, who had exclusive rights to their territories, absorbed most of the profits because of deep discounts. Some failed to push Singer products, so competitors were able to outsell the company. Under the existing contract, Singer could neither withdraw rights granted to franchisees nor send in its own salaried representatives. So, the company started repurchasing the rights it had sold. The experiment proved to be a failure. That may have been one of the first times a franchisor failed, but it was by no means the last. Colonel Harland Sanders did not initially succeed in his early efforts at franchising KFC. Still, the Singer venture did not put an end to franchising.
Other companies attempted franchising in one form or another after the Singer experience. For example, several decades later, General Motors established a somewhat successful franchising operation in order to raise capital. Perhaps the father of modern franchising, though, is Louis K. Liggett. In 1902, Liggett invited a group of druggists to join a "drug cooperative". As he explained to them, they could increase profits by paying less for their purchases, especially if they set up their own manufacturing company. His idea was to market private label products. About 40 druggists pooled $4,000 of their own money and adopted the name Rexall. Sales soared, and Rexall became a franchisor. The chain's success set a pattern for other franchisors to follow.
Although many business owners did affiliate with cooperative ventures of one type or another, there was little growth in franchising until the early 20th century, and in whatever form franchising existed, it looked nothing like what it is today. As the United States shifted from an agricultural to an industrial economy, manufacturers licensed individuals to sell automobiles, trucks, gasoline, beverages, and a variety of other products. The franchisees did little more than selling the products, though. The sharing of responsibility associated with contemporary franchising arrangement did not exist to a great extent. Consequently, franchising was not a growth industry in the United States.
It was not until the 1960s and 1970s that people began to take a close look at the attractiveness of franchising. The concept intrigued people with entrepreneurial spirit. However, there were serious pitfalls for investors, which almost ended the practice before it became truly popular.

The United States is a leader in franchising, a position it has held since the 1930s when it used the approach for fast-food restaurants, food inns and, slightly later, motels at the time of the Great Depression.[6][7] As of 2005, there were 909,253 established franchised businesses, generating $880.9 billion of output and accounting for 8.1 percent of all private, non-farm jobs. This amounts to 11 million jobs, and 4.4 percent of all private sector output.[8]
Mid-sized franchises like restaurants, gasoline stations and trucking stations involve substantial investment and require all the attention of a businessperson.
There are also large franchises like hotels, spas and hospitals, which are discussed further under technological alliances.
"No poaching" agreements are prevalent within franchises, thus limiting the ability of employers at one franchise establishment to hire employees at an affiliated franchise. Economists have characterized these agreements as a contributor to oligopsony.[9]
Fees and contract arrangement
[edit]Three important payments are made to a franchisor: (a) a royalty for the trademark, (b) reimbursement for the training and advisory services given to the franchisee, and (c) a percentage of the individual business unit's sales. These three fees may be combined in a single 'management' fee. A fee for "disclosure" is separate and is always a "front-end fee".
A franchise usually lasts for a fixed time period (broken down into shorter periods, which each require renewal), and serves a specific territory or geographical area surrounding its location. One franchisee may manage several such locations. Agreements typically last from five to thirty years, with premature cancellations or terminations of most contracts bearing serious consequences for franchisees. A franchise is merely a temporary business investment involving renting or leasing an opportunity, not the purchase of a business for the purpose of ownership. It is classified as a wasting asset due to the finite term of the license.
Franchise fees are on average 6.7% with an additional average marketing fee of 2%.[10] However, not all franchise opportunities are the same and many franchise organizations are pioneering new models that challenge antiquated structures and redefine success for the organization as well as the franchisee.
A franchise can be exclusive, non-exclusive or "sole and exclusive".
Although franchisor revenues and profit may be listed in a franchise disclosure document (FDD), no laws require an estimate of franchisee profitability, which depends on how intensively the franchisee "works" the franchise. Therefore, franchisor fees are typically based on "gross revenue from sales" and not on profits realized. See remuneration.
Various tangibles and intangibles such as national or international advertising, training and other support services are commonly made available by the franchisor.
Franchise brokers help franchisors find appropriate franchisees.[11] There are also main 'master franchisors' who obtain the rights to sub-franchise in a territory.
According to the International Franchise Association approximately 44% of all businesses in the United States are franchisee-worked.
Example
[edit]As of 1983[update] each ComputerLand store paid 8% of revenue to the company as a franchise fee, which in turn sold products at cost to the stores. ComputerLand provided sales training and marketing assistance but did not train franchisees on individual products, relying on their vendors to do so. The company provided 85-90% of stores' products, choosing them mostly on franchisees' requests, and usually did not accept returns. Stores could purchase merchandise from other distributors, and traded with or sold inventory to each other as needed.[12]
Rationale and risk shift
[edit]Franchising is one of the few means available to access venture capital without the need to give up control of the operation of the chain and build a distribution system for servicing it. After the brand and formula are carefully designed and properly executed, franchisors are able to sell franchises and expand rapidly across countries and continents using the capital and resources of their franchisees while reducing their own risk.
There is also risk for the people buying the franchises. However, failure rates are much lower for franchise businesses than independent business startups.[13]
Franchisor rules imposed by the franchising authority are becoming increasingly strict. Some franchisors are using minor rule violations to terminate contracts and seize the franchise without any reimbursement.[13]
Advantages and disadvantages of franchising as an entry mode
[edit]Franchising brings with it several advantages and disadvantages for firms looking to expand into new areas and foreign markets. The primary advantage is that the firm does not have to bear the development cost and risks of opening a foreign market on its own, as the franchisee is typically responsible for those costs and risks, putting the onus on them to build a profitable operation as quickly as possible.[14] Through franchising, a firm has the potential of building a global presence quickly and also at a low cost and risk.[14]
For the franchisee, the primary advantages are access to a well-known brand, support in setting up the business using operating manuals, and ongoing operational support including access to suppliers and employee training.[15]
A primary disadvantage to franchising is quality control, as the franchisor wants the firm's brand name to convey a message to consumers about the quality and consistency of the firm's product.[14] They want the consumer to experience the same quality regardless of location or franchise status.[14] This can prove to be an issue with franchising, as a customer who had a bad experience at one franchise may assume that they will have the same experience at other locations with other services. Distance can make it difficult for firms to detect whether or not the franchises are of poor quality.[14] One way around this disadvantage is to set up extra subsidiaries in each country or state in which the firm expands. This creates a smaller number of franchisees to oversee, which will reduce the quality control challenges.[14]
Obligations of the parties
[edit]Each party to a franchise has several interests to protect. The franchisor is involved in securing protection for the trademark, controlling the business concept and securing know-how. The franchisee is obligated to carry out the services for which the trademark has been made prominent or famous. There is a great deal of standardization required. The place of service has to bear the franchisor's signs, logos and trademark in a prominent place. The uniforms worn by the staff of the franchisee have to be of a particular design and color. The service has to be in accordance with the pattern followed by the franchisor in the successful franchise operations. Thus, franchisees are not in full control of the business, as they would be in retailing.
A service can be successful if equipment and supplies are purchased at a fair price from the franchisor or sources recommended by the franchisor. A coffee brew, for example, can be readily identified by the trademark if its raw materials come from a particular supplier. If the franchisor requires purchase from her stores, it may come under anti-trust legislation or equivalent laws of other countries.[16] So, too, with purchases such as the uniforms of personnel and signs, as well as the franchise sites, if they are owned or controlled by the franchisor.
The franchisee must carefully negotiate the license and must develop a marketing or business plan with the franchisor. The fees must be fully disclosed and there should not be any hidden fees. The start-up costs and working capital must be known before the license is granted. There must be assurance that additional licensees will not crowd the "territory" if the franchise is worked according to plan. The franchisee must be seen as an independent merchant. It must be protected by the franchisor from any trademark infringement by third parties. A franchise attorney is required to assist the franchisee during negotiations.[17]
Often the training period – the costs of which are in great part covered by the initial fee – is too short in cases where it is necessary to operate complicated equipment, and the franchisee has to learn on their own from instruction manuals. The training period must be adequate, but in low-cost franchises it may be considered expensive. Many franchisors have set up corporate universities to train staff online. This is in addition to providing literature, sales documents and email access.
Also, franchise agreements carry no guarantees or warranties and the franchisee has little or no recourse to legal intervention in the event of a dispute. Franchise contracts tend to be unilateral and favor of the franchisor, who is generally protected from lawsuits from their franchisees because of the non-negotiable contracts that franchisees are required to acknowledge, in effect, that they are buying the franchise knowing that there is risk, and that they have not been promised success or profits by the franchisor. Contracts are renewable at the sole option of the franchisor. Most franchisors require franchisees to sign agreements that mandate where and under what law any dispute would be litigated.
Regulations
[edit]Australia
[edit]In 2016 there were an estimated 1,120 franchise brands operating in Australia and an estimated 79,000 units operating in business format franchises, with a total brand turnover of approximately $146 billion and a sales revenue of approximately $66.5 billion.[18] In 2016 the majority of franchise brands were retailers with the largest segment being non-food retailing, accounting for 26 percent of brands, a further 19 percent of brands were involved in food retailing, 15 percent of franchisors operated in administration and support services, 10 percent in other services, 7 percent in education and training and 7 percent in rental, hire and real estate services.[18]
Franchising in Australia commenced in a significant way in the early 1970s under the influence of the franchised US fast food systems such as KFC, Pizza Hut, and McDonald's.[19] It was however underway prior to this and a decade earlier in 1960 Leslie Joseph Hooker, considered a pioneer of franchising, created Australia's first national real estate agency network of Hooker real estate agencies.[20][21]
In Australia, franchising is regulated by the Franchising Code of Conduct, a mandatory code of conduct concluded under the Trade Practices Act 1974.[22] The ACCC regulates the Franchising Code of Conduct, which is a mandatory industry code that applies to the parties to a franchise agreement.[23] This code requires franchisors to produce a disclosure document which must be given to a prospective franchisee at least 14 days before the franchise agreement is entered into.
The code also regulates the content of franchise agreements, for example in relation to marketing funds, a cooling-off period, termination, and the resolution of disputes by mediation.
On 1 January 2015, the old Franchising Code was repealed and replaced with a new Franchising Code of Conduct.[24] The new Code applies to conduct on or after 1 January 2015.
The new Code:
- introduces an obligation under the Code for parties to act in good faith in their dealings with one another
- introduces financial penalties and infringement notices for serious breaches of the Code
- requires franchisors to provide prospective franchisees with a short information sheet outlining the risks and rewards of franchising
- requires franchisors to provide greater transparency in the use of and accounting for money used for marketing and advertising and to set up a separate marketing fund for marketing and advertising fees
- requires additional disclosure about the ability of the franchisor and a franchisee to sell online
- prohibits franchisors from imposing significant capital expenditure except in limited circumstances.
These are significant changes and it is important that franchisors, franchisees and potential franchises understand their rights and responsibilities under the Code.
For further information about the changes to the Code, please see the updated Franchisor Compliance Manual and the Franchisee Manual.
The Code explanatory materials are available from the ComLaw website (link is external).[25]
New Zealand
[edit]New Zealand is served by around 423 franchise systems operating 450 brands, giving it the highest proportion of franchises per capita in the world. Despite (or because of) the 2008–2009 recession, the total number of franchised units increased by 5.3% from 2009 to 2010.[26] There is no separate law covering franchises, so they are covered by normal commercial law. This functions very well in New Zealand and includes law as it applies to contracts, restrictive trade practices, intellectual property, and the law of misleading or deceptive conduct.[27]
The Franchise Association of New Zealand introduced a self-regulatory code of practice for its members in 1996. This contains many provisions similar to those of the Australian Franchising Code of Practice legislation, although only around a third of all franchises are members of the association and therefore bound by the code.[28]
A case of fraud in 2007 perpetrated by a former master franchisee of the country's largest franchise system[29] led to a review of the need for franchise law by the Ministry of Economic Development.[30] The New Zealand Government decided there was no case for franchise-specific legislation at that time.[31] This decision was criticised by the opposition,[32] which had initiated the review when in power, and the review process was questioned by a leading academic.[33] The Franchise Association originally supported the positive regulation of the franchise sector[34] but its eventual submission to the review was in favour of the status quo of self-regulation.[35]
Brazil
[edit]By the end of 2012, about 2,031 franchise brands were operating in Brazil, with approximately 93,000 locations,[36] making it one of the largest countries in the world in terms of number of units. Around 11 percent of this total were foreign-based franchisors.
The Brazilian Franchise Law (Law No. 8955 of December 15, 1994) defines the franchise as a system in which the franchisor licenses the franchisee, for a payment, the right to use a trademark or patent along with the right to distribute products or services on an exclusive or semi-exclusive basis. The provision of a "Franchise Offer Circular", or disclosure document, is mandatory before execution of agreement and is valid for all of the Brazilian territory. Failure to disclose voids the agreement, which leads to refunds and serious payments for damages. The Franchise Law does not distinguish between Brazilian and foreign franchisors. The National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) is the registering authority. Indispensable documents are a Statement of Delivery (of disclosure documentation) and a Certification of Recording (INPI). The latter is necessary for payments. All sums may not be convertible into foreign currency. Certification may also mean compliance with Brazil's antitrust legislation.
Parties to international franchising may decide to adopt the English language for the document, as long as the Brazilian party knows English fluently and expressly acknowledges that fact, to avoid translation. The registration accomplishes three things:
- * It make the agreement effective against third parties
- * It permits the remittance of payments
- * It qualifies the franchisee for tax deductions.
Canada
[edit]In Canada, recent legislation has mandated better disclosure and fair treatment of franchisees. The regulations also ensure their right to form associations and launch collective action, even if they signed contracts prohibiting such moves. Franchising in Canada involves 1,300 brands, 80,000 franchise units accounting for about 20% of all consumer spending.[37]
China
[edit]China has the most franchises in the world but the scale of their operations is relatively small. The average franchise system in China has about 45 outlets, compared to more than 540 in the United States. Together, there are 2600 brands in some 200,000 retail markets[clarification needed]. KFC was the most significant foreign entry in 1987 and is widespread.[38] Many franchises are in fact joint-ventures, as at their forming the franchise law was not explicit. For example, McDonald's is a joint venture. Pizza Hut, TGIF, Wal-mart, Starbucks followed not long thereafter. But total franchising is only 3% of retail trade, which seeks foreign franchise growth.
The year 2005 saw the birth of an updated franchise law,[38] "Measures for the Administration of Commercial Franchise".[39] Previous legislation (1997) made no specific inclusion of foreign investors. Further updates were made in 2007, with the objective of increased clarity of the law.[citation needed]
The laws are applicable if there are transactions involving a trademark combined with payments with many obligations on the franchisor. The law comprises 42 articles and eight chapters.
Among the franchisor obligations are:
- The FIE (foreign-invested enterprise) franchisor must be registered by the regulator
- The franchisor (or its subsidiary) must have operated at least two company-owned franchises in China (revised to "anywhere") for more than 12 months ("the two-shop, one-year" rule)
- The franchisor must disclose any information requested by the franchisee
- Cross-border franchising, with some caveats, is possible (2007 law).
The franchisor must meet a list of requirements for registration, among which are:
- The standard franchise agreement, working manual and working capital requirements,
- A track-record of operations, and ample ability to supply materials,
- The ability to train the Chinese personnel and provide long-term operational guidance,
- The franchise agreement must have a minimum three-year term.
Among other provisions:
- The franchisor is liable for certain actions of its suppliers
- Monetary and other penalties apply for infractions of the regulations.
The disclosure must take place 20 days in advance. It has to contain:
- Details of the franchisor's experience in the franchised business with scope of business
- Identification of the franchisor's principal officers
- Litigation of the franchisor during the past five years
- Full details about all franchise fees
- The amount of a franchisee's initial investment
- A list of the goods or services the franchisor can supply, and the terms of supply
- The training franchisees will receive
- Information about the trademarks, including registration, usage and litigation
- Demonstration of the franchisor's capabilities to provide training and guidance
- Statistics about existing units, including number, locations and operational results, and the percentage of franchises that have been terminated, and
- An audited financial report and tax information (for an unspecified period of time).
Other elements of this legislation are:
- The franchisee's confidentiality obligations continue indefinitely after termination or expiration of the franchise agreement
- If the franchisee has paid a deposit to the franchisor, it must be refunded on termination of the franchise agreement; upon termination, the franchisee is prohibited from continuing to use the franchisor's marks.
India
[edit]The franchising of foreign goods and services to India is in its infancy. The first International Exhibition was only held in 2009.[40] India is, however, one of the biggest franchising markets because of its large middle-class of 300 million who are not reticent about spending and because the population is entrepreneurial in character. In a highly diversified society, (see Demographics of India) McDonald's is a success story despite its menu differing from that of the rest of the world.[41]
So far, franchise agreements are covered under two standard commercial laws: the Contract Act 1872 and the Specific Relief Act 1963, which provide for both specific enforcement of covenants in a contract and remedies in the form of damages for breach of contract.
Kazakhstan
[edit]In Kazakhstan franchise turnover for 2013 is US$2.5 billion per year. Kazakhstan is the leader in Central Asia in the franchising market. A special law on franchising came into effect in 2002. There are more than 300 franchise systems and the number of franchised outlets approaches 2000.[42] Kazakhstan franchising began with the emergence of a Coca-Cola factory, opened to sublicense a Turkish licensor of the same brand. The plant was built in 1994. Other brands that are also present in Kazakhstan through the franchise system include Pepsi, Hilton, Marriott, Intercontinental, and Pizza Hut.
Europe
[edit]Franchising has grown rapidly in Europe in recent years, but the industry is largely unregulated. The European Union has not adopted a uniform franchise law.[43] Only six of the 27 member states have a pre-contract disclosure law. They are France (1989), Spain (1996), Romania (1997), Italy (2004), Sweden (2004) and Belgium (2005).[44] Estonia and Lithuania have franchise laws that impose mandatory terms on franchise agreements. In Spain there is also mandatory registration on a public registry. Although they have no franchise specific laws, Germany and those countries with a legal system based upon that of Germany, such as Austria, Greece and Portugal, probably impose the greatest regulatory burden on franchisors due to their tendency to treat franchisees as quasi consumers in certain circumstances and the willingness of the judiciary to use the concept of good faith to make pro-franchisee decisions. In the UK, the recent[when?] Papa John case shows that there is also a need for pre-contractual disclosure and the Yam Seng case shows that there is a duty of good faith in franchise relationships.
The European Franchising Federation's Code of Ethics has been adopted by seventeen national franchise associations. However this has no legal force and enforcement by the national associations is neither uniform of rigorous. Commentators like Dr Mark Abell, in his book The Law and Regulation of Franchising in the EU (published in 2013 by Edward Elgar, ISBN 978 1 78195 2207) consider this lack of uniformity to be one of the greatest barriers to franchising realising its potential in the EU.
When adopting a European strategy, it is important that a franchisor takes expert legal advice. Most often one of the principal tasks in Europe is to find retail space, which is not so significant a factor in the US. This is where the franchise broker, or the master franchisor, plays an important role. Cultural factors are also relevant, as local populations tend to be heterogeneous.
France
[edit]France is one of Europe's largest markets. Similar to the United States, it has a long history of franchising, dating back to the 1930s. Growth came in the 1970s. The market is considered difficult for outside franchisors because of cultural characteristics, yet McDonald's and Century 21 are found everywhere. There are some 30 U.S. firms involved in franchising in France.[45]
There are no government agencies regulating franchises. The Loi Doubin Law of 1989 was the first European franchise disclosure law. Combined with Decree No. 91-337, it regulates disclosure, although the decree also applies to any person who provides to another person a corporate name, trademark or trade name or other business arrangements. The law applies to "exclusive or quasi-exclusive territory". The disclosure document must be delivered at least 20 days before the execution of the agreement or any payments are made.
The specific and important disclosures to be made are:[46]
- The date of the founding of the franchisor's enterprise and a summary of its business history and all information necessary to assess the business experience of the franchisor, including bankers,
- A description of the local market for the goods or services,
- The franchisor's financial statements for the previous two years,
- A list of all other franchisees currently in the network,
- All franchisees who have left the network during the preceding year, whether by termination or non-renewal, and
- The conditions for renewal, assignment, termination and the scope of exclusivity.
Initially, there was some uncertainty whether any breach of the provisions of the Doubin Law would enable the franchisee to walk away from the contract. However, the French supreme court (Cour de cassation) eventually ruled that agreements should only be annulled where missing or incorrect information affected the decision of the franchisee to enter into the agreement. The burden of proof is on the franchisee.[47]
Dispute settlement features are only incorporated in some European countries. By not being rigorous, franchising is encouraged.
Italy
[edit]Under Italian law franchise[48] is defined as an arrangement between two financially independent parties where a franchisee is granted, in exchange for a consideration, the right to market goods and services under particular trademarks. In addition, articles dictate the form and content of the franchise agreement and define the documents that must be made available 30 days prior to execution. The franchisor must disclose:
- a) A summary of the franchise activities and operations,
- b) A list of franchisees currently operating in the franchise system in Italy,
- c) Year-by-year details of the changes in the number of franchisees for the previous three years in Italy,
- d) A summary of any court or arbitral proceedings in Italy related to the franchise system, and
- e) If requested by the franchisee, copies of franchisor's balance sheets for the previous three years, or since start-up if that period is shorter.
Norway
[edit]There are no specific laws regulating franchising in Norway. However, the Norwegian Competition Act section 10 prohibits cooperation which may prevent, limit or diminish the competition. This may also apply to vertical cooperation such as franchising.[49]
Russia
[edit]In Russia, under chapter 54 of the Civil Code (passed 1996), franchise agreements are invalid unless written and registered, and franchisors cannot set standards or limits on the prices of the franchisee's goods. Enforcement of laws and resolution of contractual disputes is a problem:[citation needed] Dunkin' Donuts chose to terminate its contract with Russian franchisees who were selling vodka and meat patties contrary to their contracts, rather than pursue legal remedies.[50]
Spain
[edit]The legal definition of franchising in Spain is an activity in which an undertaking, the franchisor, grants to another party, the franchisee, for a specific market and in exchange for financial compensation (either direct, indirect or both), the right to exploit an owned system to commercialize products or services already exploited by the franchisor with enough success and experience.
The Spanish Retail Trading Act regulates franchising.[51] The contents of the franchise must include, at least:
- The use of a common name or brand or any other intellectual property right and a uniform presentation of the premises or the transport means included in the agreement.
- The communication by the franchisor to the franchise of certain technical knowledge or substantial and singular know-how that has to be owned by the franchisor, and
- Technical or commercial assistance or both, provided by the franchisor to the franchisee during the agreement, without prejudice to any supervision faculty to which the parties could freely agree in the contract.
In Spain, the franchisor submits the disclosure information 20 days prior to signing the agreement or prior to any payment made by the franchisee to the franchisor. Franchisors are to disclose to the potential franchisee specific information in writing. This information has to be true and not misleading and include:
- Identification of the franchisor;
- Justification of ownership or license for use of any trademark or similar sign and judicial claims affecting them as well as the duration of the license;
- General description of the sector in which the franchise operates;
- Experience of the franchisor;
- Contents and characteristics of the franchise and its exploitation;
- Structure and extension of the network in Spain;
- Essential elements of the franchise agreement.
Franchisors (with some exceptions) should be registered in the Franchisors' Register and provide the requested information. According to the regulation in force in 2010 this obligation has to be met within three months after the start of its activities in Spain.[52]
Turkey
[edit]Franchising is a sui generis contract which bears the characteristics of several explicitly regulated contracts such as; agency, sales contract and so forth. The regulations concerning these kinds of contracts in Turkish Commercial Code and in Turkish Code of Obligations are applied to franchising. Franchising is described in doctrine and has several essential components such as; the independence of the franchisee from the franchisor, the use of know-how and the uniformity of product and services, standard use of the brand and logo, payment of a royalty fee, increase of sales by the franchisee and continuity. Franchising may be for a determined or undetermined period of time. The undetermined one can only be annulled either by a notice before a reasonable amount of time or by a just cause. The franchising agreement with a determined time period ends within the end of the time period if not specified otherwise in the agreement. However, termination based on just cause is also foreseen for franchising agreement with a determined time period.
United Kingdom
[edit]In the United Kingdom there are no franchise-specific laws, and franchises are subject to the same laws that govern other businesses.[53] Even without direct legislation, judicial decisions indicate that a franchisor is expected to provide a clear disclosure of relevant facts before the franchisee enters into a franchise, and that franchisors have a duty of good faith.[54] The Trading Schemes Act, which governs arrangements in which participants may receive a benefit or reward for introducing other participants to a scheme or sell goods or services provided by the person who is promoting the scheme, may apply to multi-tiered franchises.[55] The industry engages in some self-regulation through the British Franchise Association (BFA) and the Quality Franchise Association (QFA).
There are a number of franchise businesses which are not members of the BFA and many which do not meet the BFA membership criteria. Part of the BFA's role in self-regulation is to work with franchisors through the application process and recommend changes which will lead to the franchise business meeting BFA standards. A number of businesses that refer to themselves as franchises do not conform to the BFA Code of Ethics are therefore excluded from membership.
On 22 May 2007, hearings were held in the UK Parliament concerning citizen-initiated petitions for special regulation of franchising by the government of the UK due to losses incurred by citizens who had invested in franchises. The Minister for Industry and the Regions, Margaret Hodge, conducted hearings but saw no need for any government regulation of franchising with the advice that government regulation of franchising might lull the public into a false sense of security. Mr Mark Prisk MP suggested that the costs of such regulation to the franchisee and franchisor could be prohibitive and would in any case provide a system which mirrored the work already being completed by the BFA. The Minister for Industry and the Regions indicated that if due diligence were performed by the investors and the banks, the current laws governing business contracts in the UK offered sufficient protection for the public and the banks. The debate also made reference to the self-regulatory function performed by the BFA recognizing that the association "punched above its weight".[56]
In the 2010 case of MGB Printing v Kall Kwik UK Ltd., the High Court established that a franchisor may assume a duty of care to a franchisee in certain circumstances. Kall Kwik, a design and print franchisor, had incorrectly advised MGB, who was purchasing a franchise, of the costs of undertaking refit work needed to meet Kall Kwik's franchising requirements. In this particular case, Kall Kwik had stated that they would provide professional advice to potential franchisees, and because they had not provided details of the fitting standards which must be met, they had encouraged MGB to rely on the advice offered by themselves.[57]
On 3 June 2021, it was announced that the Approved Franchise Association (AFA) would merge with the British Franchise Association (BFA) and that both franchise associations would operate under the BFA umbrella.[58]
United States
[edit]Isaac Singer, who made improvements to an existing model of a sewing machine in the 1850s, began one of the first franchising efforts in the United States, followed later by Coca-Cola, Western Union,[59][60] and by agreements between automobile manufacturers and dealers.[61]
Modern franchising came to prominence with the rise of franchise-based food service establishments. In 1932, Howard Deering Johnson established the first modern restaurant franchise based on his successful Quincy, Massachusetts Howard Johnson's restaurant founded in the late 1920s.[62][63] The idea was to let independent operators use the same name, food, supplies, logo and even building design in exchange for a fee. The growth in franchising accelerated in the 1930s when such chains as Howard Johnson's started to franchise motels.[64] The 1950s saw a boom in franchise chains in conjunction with the development of the U.S. Interstate Highway System and the growing popularity of fast food.[65]
The Federal Trade Commission has oversight of franchising via the FTC Franchise Rule.[66]
The FTC requires that the franchisee be furnished with a Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) by the franchisor at least fourteen days before money changes hands or a franchise agreement is signed.[67] Whereas elements of the disclosure may be available from third parties, only that provided by the franchisor can be depended upon. The U.S. Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) is lengthy (300–700 pp +) and detailed (see Franchise Disclosure Document, above), and generally requires audited financial statements from the franchisor in a particular format, except in some circumstances, such as where a franchisor is new. It must include such data as the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the franchisees in the licensed territory (who may be contacted and consulted before negotiations), estimate of total franchise revenues and franchisor profitability.
Individual states may require the FDD to contain their own specific requirements, but the requirements in state disclosure documents must be in compliance with the federal rule that governs federal regulatory policy. There is no private right of action of action under the FTC rule for franchisor violation of the rule, but fifteen or more of the states have passed statutes that provide this right of action to franchisees when fraud can be proven under these special statutes. The majority of franchisors have inserted mandatory arbitration clauses into their agreements with their franchisees, some of which the U.S. Supreme Court has dealt with.
In response to the implementation of California Assembly Bill 5 (2019) which limits the use of classifying workers as independent contractors rather than employees in California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated its decision in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro [68] which impacts California franchise law and California independent contractor law[69] by making it unclear that if a franchisor licenses its trademark to a franchisee, whether the franchisor incurs the liabilities of an employer for a franchisee's employees.
There is no federal registry of franchises or any federal filing requirements for information. States are the primary collectors of data on franchising companies and enforce laws and regulations regarding their presence and their spread in their jurisdictions.
Where the franchisor has many partners, the agreement may take the shape of a business format franchise – an agreement that is identical for all franchisees.
Social franchises
[edit]In recent years, the idea of franchising has been picked up by the social enterprise sector, which hopes to simplify and expedite the process of setting up new businesses. A number of business ideas, such as soap making, wholefood retailing, aquarium maintenance, and hotel operation have been identified as suitable for adoption by social firms employing disabled and disadvantaged people.
The most successful examples are probably the Kringwinkel second-hand shops employing 5,000 people in Flanders, franchised by KOMOSIE,[70] the CAP Markets, a steadily growing chain of 100 neighbourhood supermarkets in Germany.[71] and the Hotel Tritone in Trieste, which inspired the Le Mat social franchise, now active in Italy and Sweden.[72]
Social franchising also refers to a technique used by governments and aid donors to provide essential clinical health services in the developing world.
Social Franchise Enterprises objective is to achieve development goals by creating self sustainable activities by providing services and goods in un-served areas. They use the Franchise Model characteristics to deliver Capacity Building, Access to Market and Access to Credit/Finance.[73]
Third-party logistics franchising
[edit]Third-party logistics has become an increasingly more popular franchise opportunity due to the quickly growing transportation industry [74] and low cost franchising. In 2012, Inc. Magazine ranked three logistics and transportation companies in the top 100 fastest growing companies in the annual Inc. 5000 rankings.[75]
Event franchising
[edit]Event franchising is the duplication of public events in other geographical areas, retaining the original brand (logo), mission, concept and format of the event.[76] As in classic franchising, event franchising is built on precisely copying successful events. An example of event franchising is the World Economic Forum, also known as the Davos forum, which has regional event franchisees in China, Latin America, etc. Likewise, the alter-globalist World Social Forum has launched many national events. When The Music Stops is an example of an events franchise in the UK, in this case, running speed dating and singles events.
Home-based franchises
[edit]The franchising or duplication of another firm's successful home-based business model is referred to as a home-based franchise. Home-based franchises are becoming popular as they are considered to be an easy way to start a business as they may provide a low barrier for entry into entrepreneurship. It may cost little to start a home-based franchise, but experts say that "the work is no less hard."[77]
See also
[edit]- American Association of Franchisees and Dealers
- Franchise termination
- Franchise agreement
- Franchise consulting
- Franchise Disclosure Document
- Franchise fraud
- List of franchises
- The Franchise Rule
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
- Martha Matilda Harper, another female franchising pioneer
- Leslie Joseph Hooker, Australian pioneer of franchising of LJ Hooker real estate
Further reading
[edit]- Callaci, B. (2021). "Control Without Responsibility: The Legal Creation of Franchising, 1960–1980." Enterprise & Society, 22(1), 156–182.
References
[edit]- ^ "Franchising Definition & Meaning | Franchise Business Format". www.franchise.org. Retrieved 2024-04-12.
- ^ "franchise | Etymology, origin and meaning of franchise by etymonline". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 5 November 2022.
- ^ "International Franchise and Distribution". DLA Piper. 2012. Archived from the original on 2012-04-02. Retrieved 2012-02-02.
- ^ "History of Franchising" (PDF). Franchoice.com. Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 April 2022. Retrieved 30 December 2017.
- ^ Seid, Michael H. "Where it all began. The evolution of franchising". Franchise-chat.com. Archived from the original on 21 May 2022. Retrieved 6 June 2017.
- ^ Schroth, Stephen T. (2014). "Vacation". In Coleman, Marilyn J.; Ganong, Lawrence H. (eds.). The Social History of the American Family: An Encyclopedia. NY: Sage. pp. 1411–14. ISBN 9781452286150. For a parallel discussion of Canada, see Gordon, Alan (2016). Time Travel: Tourism and the Rise of the Living History Museum in Mid-Twentieth-Century Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press. pp. 85–87. ISBN 9780774831567.
- ^ Kallianiotis, I. (18 December 2013). International Financial Transactions and Exchange Rates: Trade, Investment, and Parities. Springer. ISBN 9781137356932.
- ^ "The Economic Impact of Franchised Businesses In the United States" (PDF). Price Waterhouse Coopers. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-06-17. Retrieved 2012-02-02.
- ^ Krueger, Alan B.; Ashenfelter, Orley (2021). "Theory and Evidence on Employer Collusion in the Franchise Sector". Journal of Human Resources. 57: S324 – S348. doi:10.3368/jhr.monopsony.1019-10483. hdl:10419/185132. ISSN 0022-166X. S2CID 240643326.
- ^ "The Profile of Franchising Report Series III – Royalty and Advertising Fees". International Franchise Association. 2006. Archived from the original on 2013-05-12. Retrieved 2013-04-16.
- ^ Libava, Joel (5 January 2012). "What is a Franchise Broker". Small Business Administration. Archived from the original on 7 June 2017. Retrieved 22 July 2017.
- ^ "Appendix I; Some stories behind the statistics" (PDF). The Rosen Electronics Letter. 1983-02-22. pp. 11–21. Retrieved 2025-06-05.
- ^ a b Martin, Robert E. (1988). "Franchising and Risk Management". The American Economic Review. 78 (5): 954–968. ISSN 0002-8282. JSTOR 1807159.
- ^ a b c d e f Hill, Charles W. L. (2015). International Business. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. p. 457. ISBN 978-0-07-811277-5.
- ^ Hollenbeck, Brett (2017). "The Economic Advantages of Chain Organization". RAND Journal of Economics. 48 (4): 1103–1135. doi:10.1111/1756-2171.12214. SSRN 2621840.
- ^ Maslyn, Patrick J.; Scott, W. Andrew (2007). "Contractual and Business Aspects of Structuring Supplier Agreements" (PDF). Maslynlaw.com. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2012. Retrieved 30 December 2017.
- ^ Manual on Technology Transfer Negotiation (A reference for policy-makers and practitioners on Technology Transfer). Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization. 1996. ISBN 9789211063028.
- ^ a b "Franchising Australia 2016". Franchise Council Of Australia. Archived from the original on 2 April 2018. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
- ^ "Franchising: An Introduction". Franchise Council Of Australia. Archived from the original on 2 April 2018. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
- ^ "L J Hooker, the man behind the brand". ABC. 17 March 2011. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
- ^ "LJ Hooker's Heritage, History and Brand". LJ Hooker. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
- ^ "Federal Register of Legislation – Australian Government". Legislation.gov.au. Retrieved 11 August 2017.
- ^ "Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Franchising) Regulation 2014". Australian Government: ComLaw. Archived from the original on 2015-06-07. Retrieved 2015-08-17.
- ^ "Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Franchising) Regulation 2014". www.legislation.gov.au. Retrieved 2022-11-05.
- ^ Commission, Australian Competition and Consumer (11 September 2012). "Franchising Code of Conduct". Accc.gov.au. Retrieved 11 August 2017.
- ^ Lord, Simon (1 July 2011). "survey finds franchise sector RESILIENT & GROWING". Franchise New Zealand. Archived from the original on 24 March 2015. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ Lord, Simon; Munn, David (1 August 2011). "Legislation: Help Or Hindrance?". Franchise New Zealand. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ Lord, Simon (25 January 2022). "An introduction to franchising in New Zealand". Franchise New Zealand. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ Lord, Simon (23 July 2009). "Green Acres master charged with fraud". Franchise New Zealand. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ Lord, Simon (23 July 2009). "Regulation Off the Agenda?". Franchise New Zealand. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ Lord, Simon (23 July 2009). "Government Decides AGAINST Franchise Regulation". Franchise New Zealand. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ "National's failure to act on franchise regulation 'disappointing'". Franchise New Zealand. 23 July 2009. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ Gunasekara, Gehan; Lee, Tiffany (13 May 2011). "franchise regulation REVIEWING THE REVIEW". Franchise New Zealand. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ Lord, Simon (13 February 2008). "Franchise Association Calls For Positive Regulation". Franchise New Zealand. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ Lord, Simon (29 July 2009). "Ministry receives submissions on regulation". Franchise New Zealand. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ Geromel, Ricardo (27 July 2012). "Franchising: The Best Way of Investing in Brazil". Forbes. Retrieved 22 July 2017.
- ^ Milner, Brian (21 November 2017). "Pity the franchisees". Report on Business. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 22 November 2017.
- ^ a b "Franchising in China" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-12-14. Retrieved 2010-03-06. Franchise.org
- ^ [1][permanent dead link]
- ^ "Franchise laws in India". Franchising Association of India. Archived from the original on 2015-04-02. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ Patterns of Internationalization for Developing Country Enterprises (Alliances and Joint Ventures). Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization. 2008. ISBN 978-92-1-106443-8.
- ^ Kissikov, B. "Franchising in Kazakhstan". Kazakhstan Franchise Association. Archived from the original on 2018-10-26.
- ^ Commission Regulation (EEC) No 4087/88 of 30 November 1988 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to categories of franchise agreements, 1988-12-28, retrieved 2022-11-05
- ^ Perala, Jon K. (2007). "Franchise Disclosure Laws in the European Union". Perala Law Office. Archived from the original on 2020-07-31. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ Faria, Rose Marie. "France Serves as a Gateway to Europe – International Franchise Association". International Franchise Association. Archived from the original on 10 April 2014. Retrieved 30 December 2017.
- ^ Perala, Jon K. (2007). "EU Franchise Disclosure". Perala Law Office. Archived from the original on 2011-07-15.
- ^ "Franchise disclosure items in Europe" (PDF). Field Fisher Waterhouse. October 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 July 2011. Retrieved 30 December 2017.
- ^ "Franchising in Europe: comparative survey" (PDF). Eurofranchise Lawyers. 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-10. Retrieved 2010-02-28.
- ^ "Ulovlig samarbeid - § 10 - Konkurransetilsynet" (in Norwegian Bokmål). 2018-09-03. Retrieved 2023-02-16.
- ^ Anttonen, Noora; Tuunanen, Mika; Alon, Ilan (2005). "The International Business Environments of Franchising in Russia". Academy of Marketing Science Review. 5: 1–18.
- ^ The offer and sale of franchises are governed in Spain by the Retail Trade Act 7/1996 of January 15 as amended by Act 1/2010 of March 1. Particularly Article 62 is applicable to franchise agreements. The Act is completed by the Royal Decree 210/2010 of February 26 on Franchise Agreements.
- ^ Alonso, Ignacio (2011). "Franquicia. España". Getting the Deal Through.
- ^ Adams, John (December 1981). "Franchising and antitrust in the United Kingdom and European Community". The Antitrust Bulletin. 26 (4): 815–837. doi:10.1177/0003603X8102600408. S2CID 240424713.
- ^ Gusarov, Kostyantin; Diadiuk, Anastasiia (1 August 2019). "Economic and Legal Aspects of the Franchise Agreement in the United Kingdom". Baltic Journal of Economic Studies. 5 (3): 44. doi:10.30525/2256-0742/2019-5-3-44-49. S2CID 201436368.
- ^ Pratt, Jojn (Fall 2012). "Franchising in the United Kingdom". Franchise Law Journal. 32: 95.
- ^ "Franchise Industry". Daily Hansard: 363WH, part 1, part 2, part 3. 22 May 2007.
- ^ England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division), MGB Printing and Design Ltd v Kall Kwik UK Ltd. (2010), EWHC 624 (QB), published 31 March 2010, accessed 25 January 2021
- ^ Corness, Terence (2021-06-03). "British Franchise Association (bfa) and Approved Franchise Association (AFA) join forces to strengthen the UK franchise sector". British Franchise Association. Archived from the original on 2022-12-13. Retrieved 2022-12-13.
- ^ Dant, Rajiv P.; Grünhagen, Marko; Windsperger, Josef (September 2011). "Franchising Research Frontiers for the Twenty-First Century". Journal of Retailing. 87 (3): 253–268. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2011.08.002.
- ^ Lewandowska, Lucyna (3 October 2014). "Franchising as a Way of Creating Entrepreneurship and Innovation". Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe. 17 (3): 163–181. doi:10.2478/cer-2014-0028. hdl:10419/184326. S2CID 153901249.
- ^ Marx, Thomas G. (1985). "The Development of the Franchise Distribution System in the U.S. Automobile Industry". Business History Review. 59 (3): 465–474. doi:10.2307/3114007. JSTOR 3114007. S2CID 153565786.
- ^ Allen, Robin Lee (January 1998). "Foodservice's theory of evolution: Survival of the fittest". Nation's Restaurant News. Vol. 32, no. 4. pp. 14–17. Archived from the original on 2012-07-15. Retrieved 2021-11-07.
{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) - ^ Howard, T. (1996). "Howard Johnson: Initiator of franchised restaurants". Nation's Restaurant News. 30 (2): 85–86. Archived from the original on 2012-07-11.
- ^ "Franchising: A Brief History". State of Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions. Archived from the original on 2017-07-30. Retrieved 22 July 2017.
- ^ "A Brief History of Franchising – American Franchise Attorney | Washington D.C., U.S. | Franchise Law". Franchise-law.com. Retrieved 2017-06-06.
- ^ "Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising & Disclosure Requirements Concerning Business Opportunities – 16 CFR Parts 436 and 437" (PDF). Ftc.gov. 5 July 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2008-09-22. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ "Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR)". Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR). Retrieved 2019-12-05.
- ^ "Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., No. 17-16096 (9th Cir. 2019)". Justia.com. Retrieved 27 September 2019.
- ^ Solish, Jonathan. "A Dark Day for Franchising: Ninth Circuit Reinstates its Misguided Vazquez Decision, Undermining the Franchise Business Model". The National Law Review. Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP. Retrieved 27 September 2019.
- ^ "Home – Komosie". Komosie.be. Archived from the original on 5 July 2011. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ "CAP-Markt: CAP Märkte". Cap-markt.de. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ "Le Mat Europe – Pagine Statiche – Le Mat Europe". Lemat.it. Archived from the original on 2015-04-02. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ Hidalgo, Alvaro (December 2012). "The Franchise as a Development tool" (PDF). wattjet.com. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-05-13. Retrieved 2022-11-05.
- ^ "Trucking Industry Infographic – Business Insider". Business Insider. 9 April 2013. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ "Top Logistics & Transportation Companies on the Inc. 5000". Inc.com. Retrieved 22 March 2015.
- ^ Kissikov Beknur. Franchising.
- ^ Issie Lapowsky (May 13, 2010). "How to Start a Home-Based Franchise". Inc. Mansueto Ventures. Retrieved August 13, 2012.
External links
[edit]Franchising
View on GrokipediaFranchising is a business method in which a franchisor grants a license to a franchisee to operate a business using the franchisor's trademarks, proprietary knowledge, and standardized operating systems, typically in exchange for an initial franchise fee and ongoing royalties based on revenue.[1][2] This model originated in the mid-19th century with Isaac Singer's licensing of sewing machine sales territories and gained prominence after World War II through rapid expansion of retail and fast-food chains, enabling franchisors to scale without direct capital investment while providing franchisees access to established brands and support.[3] In the United States, franchised businesses numbered approximately 821,000 establishments in 2024, employing nearly 8.9 million workers and generating an economic output of about $897 billion, representing roughly 3% of GDP.[4][5] Key advantages for franchisors include accelerated geographic growth funded primarily by franchisees and reduced operational risk, as franchisees bear most local management costs and liabilities; for franchisees, benefits encompass a tested business blueprint, national advertising, and supplier networks that lower entry barriers compared to independent startups.[6] However, drawbacks persist, including franchisees' limited autonomy due to strict compliance mandates, substantial upfront and recurring fees that can strain cash flow, and vulnerability to franchisor decisions like territory encroachment or abrupt policy shifts, which have fueled numerous disputes.[7] Defining characteristics involve enforced uniformity to maintain brand integrity, ongoing training, and performance metrics, though empirical evidence indicates franchise failure rates often mirror or exceed those of independent ventures when accounting for leveraged investments.[8] Controversies frequently center on allegations of inadequate financial disclosures, misrepresentation of earnings potential, and joint-employer liabilities in labor disputes, prompting regulatory scrutiny under the FTC Franchise Rule and state laws to mandate pre-sale transparency.[1][9]
Overview and Definition
Core Principles of Franchising
Franchising operates on a licensing model where the franchisor grants the franchisee rights to utilize its trademarks, proprietary business methods, and operational systems in exchange for initial fees and ongoing payments, enabling rapid expansion with distributed capital investment.[10] This structure shifts direct operational and financial risks to franchisees while allowing franchisors to scale through others' local entrepreneurship, often yielding higher profit margins for franchisees compared to independent startups due to the pre-validated model.[10] The U.S. Federal Trade Commission's Franchise Rule underscores this by mandating disclosures of material facts, such as fees and litigation history, to inform franchisees of investment risks prior to commitment.[1] A core principle is the enforcement of uniformity across locations to protect brand value, achieved via franchise agreements that require adherence to detailed operations manuals covering everything from site selection to employee training and supplier sourcing.[11] Franchisees must follow these standards to maintain consistency in customer experience, which causal analysis attributes to sustained competitive advantage; deviations risk termination, as seen in cases where non-compliance erodes system-wide trust.[12] Ongoing royalties, typically 4-12% of gross sales depending on the system, fund franchisor-provided support like national marketing and supply chain efficiencies, creating a symbiotic revenue stream tied directly to franchisee performance.[12] The model emphasizes business format franchising, predominant in sectors like quick-service restaurants, where the franchisor supplies not just products but a complete operational blueprint, including marketing strategies and technology integrations, proven through empirical success in outlets numbering over 800,000 globally as of recent estimates.[11] Territory protections, often exclusive within defined areas, prevent intra-brand competition and incentivize franchisee investment, though empirical data from government reports indicate variability in enforcement, with some systems allowing multi-unit ownership to accelerate growth.[13] This principle of controlled replication contrasts with mere distribution deals, prioritizing intellectual property transfer over commodity sales to drive long-term value.[10]Distinctions from Related Business Models
Franchising differs from licensing primarily in scope and involvement. Licensing grants rights to use specific intellectual property, such as trademarks or patents, with minimal oversight from the licensor, allowing the licensee substantial autonomy in operations and often involving one-time fees without ongoing royalties.[14] In contrast, franchising encompasses a comprehensive business format, including operational systems, training, marketing strategies, and continuous support from the franchisor, enforced through royalties and adherence to standardized procedures to maintain brand uniformity.[15] This structure imposes greater control on the franchisee to replicate the franchisor's proven model, reducing independent decision-making compared to licensing's focus on isolated IP exploitation.[16] Relative to distributorships, franchising extends beyond product resale to mandate a full business methodology. Distributorship agreements emphasize purchasing and distributing goods from a supplier, granting the distributor flexibility to handle multiple brands and operate with limited guidance on non-product aspects like store layout or customer service protocols.[17] Franchising, however, requires exclusive use of the franchisor's brand and systems, with prescribed operational standards, supply chain specifications, and performance metrics to ensure consistency across locations.[18] This results in higher franchisor involvement, including site selection assistance and ongoing compliance audits, versus the transactional nature of distributorships where the distributor bears primary responsibility for market adaptation without systemic replication.[19] Dealerships, often akin to distributorships in sectors like automobiles, provide further differentiation through operational latitude. Dealership models typically authorize sales of specific products or lines with performance incentives but permit dealers to customize pricing, inventory management, and ancillary services, sometimes across competing brands.[20] Franchising restricts such flexibility by dictating uniform branding, pricing guidelines, and service protocols to protect the network's reputation, often coupled with territorial exclusivity and mandatory training programs absent in standard dealership arrangements.[21] In comparison to joint ventures, franchising maintains separate legal entities with the franchisee as an independent owner-operator, paying fees for access to the system while assuming full operational risks and rewards.[22] Joint ventures involve co-ownership between parties, sharing equity, decision-making, profits, and liabilities through a collaborative entity, which demands mutual governance rather than the unilateral standards enforcement characteristic of franchising.[23] This separation in franchising facilitates scalable expansion with lower capital outlay for the franchisor, as opposed to joint ventures' integrated risk-sharing suited for bespoke partnerships.[24]Historical Development
Origins in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries
The earliest documented use of a franchising-like model in the United States emerged in the mid-19th century with the Singer Sewing Machine Company, founded by Isaac Merritt Singer. In 1851, Singer established a network of independent agents granted exclusive territorial rights to sell, demonstrate, and service its sewing machines, enabling rapid national distribution amid high production volumes and limited company capital for direct sales operations.[25] This approach addressed scalability challenges during the Industrial Revolution by leveraging local entrepreneurs' knowledge of regional markets while standardizing product promotion and after-sales support.[26] Concurrently, the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company adopted a similar system in the 1850s and 1860s, franchising sales and service of its reaper machinery through exclusive dealers who handled inventory, repairs, and customer training.[27] These early models emphasized product distribution via territorial exclusivity rather than full business replication, driven by the need to penetrate agrarian markets efficiently without vertical integration. By the late 19th century, variations appeared in service sectors, such as Martha Matilda Harper's 1891 launch of the Harper Method Shops, which franchised standardized hair salons with proprietary treatments and salon designs to trained operators.[28] Into the early 20th century, franchising extended to automobiles and retail. General Motors issued its first dealer franchise in 1898 to William E. Metzger in Detroit, granting rights to sell Buick vehicles under brand guidelines.[29] Henry Ford similarly franchised Model T sales through independent dealers starting around 1908, enforcing pricing and service standards to build volume.[29] In pharmaceuticals, the Rexall Drug chain began franchising independent drugstores in 1902, providing branded merchandise, cooperative advertising, and operational blueprints.[25] Western Auto established a franchise network for automotive parts in 1909, followed by Ben Franklin Stores' franchising of dime store merchandise in 1920, marking a shift toward broader retail applications.[29] These developments reflected causal incentives for franchisors: capital-efficient expansion amid regulatory and infrastructural limits, with franchisees bearing local risks and operational costs.[30]Post-World War II Expansion
The post-World War II era marked the explosive expansion of franchising in the United States, fueled by economic prosperity and demographic shifts that created demand for scalable, standardized business models. From fewer than 100 franchising companies in 1950, the sector grew to over 900 by 1960, as businesses leveraged franchising to rapidly scale without heavy capital investment.[25][31] Key drivers included the post-war economic boom, which boosted consumer spending and entrepreneurship among returning veterans supported by the GI Bill, alongside suburbanization and rising automobile ownership that favored roadside outlets. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 expanded the interstate system, enabling franchises to target high-traffic locations for convenience goods and services.[32][33] The baby boom further amplified demand for family-oriented products, aligning with franchisors' ability to enforce uniform quality through operational systems.[33] Pioneering examples in fast food illustrated this growth: Colonel Harland Sanders began franchising Kentucky Fried Chicken in 1952, while Ray Kroc acquired and franchised McDonald's starting in 1955, emphasizing assembly-line efficiency and brand consistency to achieve nationwide penetration. Franchising extended to motels, auto services, and retail, generating wealth for participants but also prompting concerns over aggressive sales tactics and uneven oversight in this unregulated "wild west" phase.[27][29] By the mid-1960s, the model had solidified as a primary vehicle for economic mobility, though it later faced federal regulations to curb abuses.[25]Globalization and Digital Era Advancements
The globalization of franchising accelerated in the 1960s as U.S. brands sought opportunities beyond domestic markets, leveraging the model to minimize capital outlay while tapping local expertise for adaptation. McDonald's established its first international outpost in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada, in 1967, marking the onset of widespread cross-border expansion for fast-food chains.[34] This approach enabled rapid scaling, with franchisors granting rights to foreign operators who handled local regulations, supply chains, and consumer preferences, often yielding higher returns than company-owned outlets in nascent markets.[10] By the 1980s and 1990s, sectors like quick-service restaurants, hotels, and retail adopted similar strategies, propelling the global franchise sector's value to exceed $890 billion by 2024, with projections for $936.4 billion in output by 2025.[35][36] International franchising's growth hinged on master franchise agreements, where regional developers sub-franchised units, facilitating entry into diverse economies from Europe to Asia. For example, brands like Subway and Starbucks extended operations to over 100 countries each by the early 21st century, contributing to franchising's role in U.S. exports and foreign direct investment.[37] Empirical data indicate that franchised units often outperform independents in international settings due to enforced brand standards and shared marketing resources, though success varied by market maturity and legal frameworks.[10] In the digital era, commencing broadly from the 1990s, information and communications technologies revolutionized franchising by enabling centralized oversight and real-time data exchange across global networks. Franchise management software, emerging pre-internet but proliferating with web adoption, standardized operations like inventory tracking and compliance reporting, reducing administrative burdens for multi-unit operators.[38] The integration of cloud-based platforms and AI tools in the 2010s onward enhanced predictive analytics for site selection and demand forecasting, with studies showing 10-15% gains in operational efficiency for adopting franchises.[39][40] Digital advancements also facilitated virtual training and e-commerce integration, allowing brands to maintain uniformity amid geographic dispersion while adapting to local digital consumer behaviors, such as mobile ordering systems that boosted revenue in emerging markets.[41]Business Mechanics
Franchise Agreements, Fees, and Contracts
A franchise agreement is a binding legal contract between a franchisor and a prospective franchisee that grants the right to operate a business under the franchisor's trademarks, business methods, and brand standards in exchange for specified fees and adherence to operational protocols.[42] Prospective franchisees typically initiate the process by contacting the franchisor, submitting an application, and obtaining site approval if applicable, prior to signing the agreement. The signed franchise agreement then serves as essential documentation for applying for financing, such as SBA loans or entrepreneurial guarantee loans, demonstrating project feasibility and franchisor approval.[43] In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission's Franchise Rule mandates that franchisors furnish a Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) containing 23 items of material information, including details on fees, obligations, and litigation history, at least 14 days prior to any contract signing or payment.[1] [44] This disclosure ensures prospective franchisees can evaluate risks, though it does not guarantee success, as empirical outcomes depend on execution and market conditions. Key provisions in franchise agreements typically encompass the grant of rights (specifying the location and scope of operations), initial training and ongoing support from the franchisor, use of proprietary marks and manuals, advertising contributions, territory protections (if any), and compliance with standardized operating procedures.[45] Contracts often prohibit unauthorized modifications, requiring mutual written consent for changes, to maintain uniformity across the system.[46] Renewal options may extend the initial term upon meeting performance criteria, but franchisors retain discretion to withhold renewal if standards lapse. Franchise fees form a core financial obligation, starting with an initial franchise fee—typically ranging from $10,000 to $100,000, though varying widely by industry and scale—to secure the license and initial support.[47] Ongoing royalty fees, calculated as a percentage of gross sales, average 6% across sectors as of 2023 surveys, with ranges from 4% to 12% depending on factors like revenue thresholds and business type; these compensate the franchisor for continuous brand value and expertise.[48] [49] Advertising or marketing fees, often 1-2% of sales, fund national or regional campaigns, though franchisees bear local marketing costs unless specified otherwise.[50] Additional charges may include transfer fees (10-20% of the sale price for reselling the franchise) and audit fees if discrepancies arise in reporting.[51] Contract duration generally spans an initial term of 5 to 20 years, calibrated to allow amortization of investments while aligning incentives for long-term adherence.[52] Termination clauses favor franchisors, permitting unilateral ending for cause—such as material breaches like non-payment or brand non-compliance—after a cure period of 30 days, with evidence required.[53] Franchisees face stringent limits on self-termination, often confined to mutual agreement or expiration without renewal; some jurisdictions mandate 60 days' notice for non-renewal.[54] Post-termination, agreements enforce non-compete covenants (typically 1-2 years within defined radii) and require asset return or repurchase to safeguard proprietary elements.[55] These structures reflect causal incentives where franchisors prioritize system integrity to mitigate risks from underperforming units, though they can constrain franchisee flexibility.Operational Support and Brand Standards
Franchisors deliver operational support to franchisees through structured assistance outlined in Item 11 of the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD), as required by the Federal Trade Commission's Franchise Rule, which mandates disclosure of obligations for training, advertising, computer systems, and other aid.[56] Initial training typically spans operations, customer service, and brand-specific procedures, often lasting from weeks to months at the franchisor's headquarters or designated sites, with costs sometimes shared or covered by franchisees.[57] Ongoing support includes field visits by representatives for guidance on inventory, staffing, and efficiency improvements, alongside marketing resources such as national campaigns and digital tools to drive local sales.[58] These elements enable franchisees to implement proven systems, though the extent of support depends on the specific agreement and may involve additional fees for updates or specialized advice. While franchisors provide training, marketing, and systems, franchisees sometimes report variability in support quality post-sale, with disputes arising over adequacy of promised assistance.[59][60] Brand standards form the core of quality control in franchising, enforced via franchise agreements that require uniform adherence to operational protocols, supplier approvals, and visual identity to safeguard trademark integrity and customer expectations.[61] Franchisors maintain these through comprehensive manuals detailing recipes, service standards, store design, and advertising guidelines, with major systems like McDonald's mandating precise architectural layouts, color schemes, and menu consistency across outlets.[62] Regular audits—operational, financial, and compliance-based—monitor compliance, allowing franchisors to issue warnings, impose fines, or terminate non-compliant franchisees under contract terms.[63] Enforcement relies on trademark law, which permits franchisors to litigate deviations that risk brand dilution, ensuring that localized variations do not undermine system-wide reputation.[64] While designed to promote reliability, uneven application of standards has prompted franchisee claims of selective penalties, highlighting tensions between centralized control and operational autonomy.[65] Empirical adherence to these standards correlates with higher franchise success rates, as uniformity fosters consumer trust and repeatable performance metrics.[66]Territory Rights and Supply Chain Dynamics
Territory rights in franchising refer to the geographic areas granted to franchisees for operating their businesses, typically outlined in the franchise disclosure document (FDD) under Item 12. Exclusive territories provide franchisees with the sole right to sell the franchisor's products or services within a defined boundary, prohibiting the franchisor from authorizing competing outlets of the same brand in that area. This arrangement mitigates intra-brand competition, encouraging franchisee investment by reducing the risk of market saturation from identical operations nearby.[67][68] Protected territories offer a lesser degree of exclusivity, where franchisors agree not to open additional franchised units but may establish company-owned locations or permit limited encroachment through non-traditional channels, such as online sales or delivery services. The enforceability of these rights depends on the specific language in the franchise agreement; ambiguous terms have led to litigation, as seen in the 2018 El Pollo Loco case, where franchisees Michael and Janice Bryman secured an $8.8 million jury verdict against the franchisor for territorial encroachment that diminished their sales. Courts generally uphold contract terms unless state franchise laws impose additional protections against unreasonable encroachment.[69][70] Supply chain dynamics in franchising involve franchisor mandates on sourcing products and services to ensure uniformity and quality control, disclosed in FDD Item 8. Franchisees are often required to purchase from designated suppliers, which enables bulk procurement efficiencies and standardized inputs but can impose higher costs due to markups that generate revenue for the franchisor—sometimes comprising 5-10% of system-wide supply expenditures. The Federal Trade Commission's Franchise Rule mandates disclosure of these restrictions, including any rebates or incentives received by the franchisor from suppliers, to inform prospective franchisees of potential financial implications.[71][1][72] These mandates foster causal links between supply consistency and brand reputation, as deviations could undermine customer expectations; however, they have sparked disputes when regional mandates override local efficiencies or when undisclosed fees emerge, prompting FTC scrutiny on transparency. In practice, systems like McDonald's exemplify tight vertical integration, where approved suppliers handle everything from beef to packaging, minimizing variance but exposing franchisees to supply disruptions, as evidenced by global shortages in 2020-2021 that affected operations. Legal challenges arise if controls extend beyond disclosure, potentially violating antitrust principles under vertical restraints, though most arrangements are viewed as pro-competitive for promoting efficient distribution.[73][74][72]Economic Analysis
Advantages for Franchisors, Franchisees, and Economy
Franchisors achieve accelerated geographic and market expansion by leveraging franchisees' capital investments for new units, thereby minimizing their own direct financial risk and outlay compared to company-owned operations. This approach enables rapid growth using investor funds while retaining control over key resources, including staff recruitment and training, supply chain management, standard operating procedures, and brand image; it serves as a low-risk strategy by avoiding direct investment in fixed assets and limiting liability through contractual arrangements. This model generates steady income through initial franchise fees—often ranging from $20,000 to $50,000 per unit—and continuing royalties averaging 6% of franchisee gross sales, along with revenue from management fees, supply chain margins, which have remained stable across industries from 2012 to 2018.[75] Additionally, the networked structure facilitates economies of scale in procurement, marketing, and technology, reducing per-unit costs and enhancing competitive positioning without proportional increases in franchisor overhead.[76] Franchisees gain access to proven operational blueprints, comprehensive training (averaging 33.4 hours per employee annually), and ongoing support, which mitigate common startup pitfalls and yield modestly higher survival rates than independent ventures—such as a 6.3 percentage point advantage in one-year survival for single-establishment businesses.[77] Brand recognition from the franchisor accelerates customer acquisition and trust, while collective bargaining power lowers input costs; empirical analyses confirm franchisees earn 2.2-3.4% higher wages (0.37 per hour) than comparable non-franchise employees, partly due to structured benefits like health insurance offered by 65% of franchisors.[76] For many, franchising lowers entry barriers to entrepreneurship, with 32% of franchisees reporting they would not have pursued business ownership absent this model, including disproportionate participation by women (39% of first-time owners).[76] On a macroeconomic scale, franchising bolsters output and employment, accounting for 3% of U.S. GDP ($787.5 billion) and 8.4 million jobs in 2019, with projections for 2025 showing franchise GDP growth at 5% to $578 billion and total output rising 4.4% to $936.4 billion—outpacing the broader economy's 1.9% expansion.[76][36] It fosters job creation at rates exceeding non-franchise sectors (2.3 times faster historically), adding over 210,000 positions in 2025 for a total exceeding 9 million, while stimulating local economies through 21% of inputs sourced domestically and supporting entrepreneurship via reduced risk for self-employment transitions.[36][76] These dynamics arise from franchising's principal-agent efficiencies, where aligned incentives drive scalable innovation diffusion without the full capital intensity of organic growth.[76]Empirical Success Rates and Performance Metrics
Empirical analyses of U.S. business data reveal that franchised establishments generally outperform independent startups in short-term survival and initial growth metrics, with advantages attributable to established brand recognition, operational protocols, and franchisor-provided training that mitigate early-stage risks. A study using Census Bureau Longitudinal Business Database cohorts from 2002 and 2007 found one-year survival rates of 98.3% for franchised single-establishment businesses versus 92.3% for independents, two-year rates of 90.4% versus 81.7%, and three-year rates of 81% versus 72%.[78] These gaps, averaging 6-9 percentage points, primarily emerge in the first year and largely dissipate conditionally thereafter, implying a one-time boost from franchisor selection and support rather than sustained superiority.[77]| Survival Period | Franchised (%) | Independent (%) | Difference (pp) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Year | 98.3 | 92.3 | +6.0 |
| 2 Years | 90.4 | 81.7 | +8.7 |
| 3 Years | 81.0 | 72.0 | +9.0 |
Risk Allocation and Incentive Structures
In franchising, risk allocation primarily shifts unit-specific operational and financial risks to franchisees, who bear the costs of initial investments—typically ranging from $100,000 to over $1 million depending on the brand—and ongoing liabilities such as local market fluctuations, labor management, and compliance failures. Franchisors, by contrast, mitigate direct exposure through non-refundable franchise fees and royalties (often 4-8% of gross sales), which provide revenue streams insulated from individual unit underperformance, though they retain systemic risks like brand dilution from widespread franchisee failures or legal disputes.[81] This structure reflects agency theory principles, where franchisees, as local agents with superior information on site-specific conditions, assume idiosyncratic risks better suited to their control, reducing the franchisor's monitoring burden.[82] Empirical analyses challenge pure risk-sharing explanations for this allocation, finding limited evidence that franchising proliferates in high-variance industries to disperse risk between diversified franchisors and risk-averse franchisees. Instead, studies indicate franchisors allocate more risk to franchisees in contexts of elevated monitoring costs, such as geographically dispersed or complex operations, to leverage franchisees' incentives for diligent effort rather than to equalize risk exposure.[83] For instance, plural-form systems—combining company-owned and franchised outlets—show franchisors retaining ownership in low-risk, high-control urban cores while franchising peripheral, riskier territories, prioritizing incentive alignment over balanced sharing.[84] Lafontaine's examination of agency models rejects strong risk-sharing motives, attributing franchising's prevalence to mechanisms that counteract moral hazard by tying franchisee compensation to performance outcomes.[82] Incentive structures reinforce this risk allocation by positioning franchisees as residual claimants, who retain profits after fixed fees and variable royalties, thereby motivating investments in efficiency, customer service, and sales growth to maximize net returns.[85] Franchisors, dependent on scalable royalty income, counterbalance with performance-based incentives such as royalty rebates, reduced advertising fees, or territory expansions for top performers, fostering alignment without assuming operational risks.[81] This dynamic addresses principal-agent tensions: franchisees' "skin in the game" curbs shirking, while franchisors' contractual controls—enforced via audits and standards—prevent opportunism, as evidenced by higher effort levels in franchised units compared to company-managed ones in incentive-focused models.[86] However, misalignments arise if royalties excessively burden low-margin units, potentially demotivating franchisees, though empirical data links well-calibrated incentives to sustained system growth.[87]Criticisms and Challenges
Franchisee Failure Rates and Contributing Factors
Franchisee failure rates, defined as business closures or bankruptcies within specified periods, are typically lower than those of independent startups, though comparisons must account for selection effects where franchisors pre-screen candidates and established brands provide initial advantages. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicate that 20.4% of all small businesses fail in the first year and 49.4% within five years as of 2024.[88] Industry analyses report franchise failure rates of approximately 10% in the first year and 20-30% over five years, contrasting sharply with independent ventures, but these estimates often rely on self-reported data from surviving units, potentially understating risks.[80][89] Empirical studies reveal inconsistencies, with early research such as Bates (1995) demonstrating that franchised retail units had lower four-year survival rates (around 40%) compared to independent startups (over 50%), linked to franchisees' higher debt loads and less entrepreneurial experience.[90] Later Census-based analyses, including a 2017 study of 2002-2008 cohorts, found franchised establishments with one-year survival rates of 98.3% versus 92.3% for independents, though differences narrowed over time and varied by industry, suggesting brand leverage aids short-term stability but does not eliminate long-term vulnerabilities.[78] Sector-specific data highlight variability: fast-food franchises like Subway experienced over 4,000 closures in under three years by 2023, while pharmacy chains like Health Mart saw 2,000 failures in the same timeframe.[91] Certain brands report elevated risks, such as Smoothie King's 28% default rate on SBA-backed loans as of 2025.[92] Key contributing factors to franchisee failures stem from both internal mismanagement and systemic issues within the franchising model. Primary causes include:- Inadequate capitalization and financial planning: Many franchisees underestimate ongoing royalty fees, marketing contributions, and unforeseen costs, leading to cash flow crises; undercapitalization accounts for up to 30% of failures per legal analyses.[93]
- Mismatch between franchisee skills and business requirements: Selecting an ill-suited concept, often due to insufficient due diligence, results in operational errors; this is cited as the leading error in franchise consulting reviews.[94]
- Non-adherence to franchisor systems: Deviating from proven protocols, such as inventory or customer service standards, erodes brand consistency and profitability, with compliance lapses contributing to 20-25% of exits.[95]
- Franchisor-related deficiencies: Inadequate training, support, or territorial protection fosters dissatisfaction and failure, including reports of promised marketing assistance and operational systems failing to meet expectations, requiring franchisees to manage aspects independently while paying royalties; empirical reviews identify franchisor dissatisfaction as a direct predictor, exacerbated by oversaturated markets or unfulfilled earnings projections.[96][97][98]
- External pressures: Economic downturns, local competition, or regulatory changes amplify risks, as seen in heightened closures during the 2020-2022 period across retail franchises.[99]
Labor Practices and Ethical Concerns
Franchised businesses exhibit higher rates of employment standards violations compared to independent operations, particularly in low-wage sectors like fast food. A study of Ontario, Canada, data from 2012 to 2018 found that businesses under franchised brands violated 10 out of 13 employment standards more frequently than non-franchised counterparts, including failures to provide minimum wage, overtime pay, and vacation entitlements.[100] In the United States, research indicates pervasive noncompliance with labor standards in franchised low-wage industries, driven by underenforcement and structural incentives to minimize costs.[101] These patterns stem from franchise agreements that impose fixed fees, supply requirements, and operational standards, pressuring franchisees to constrain labor expenses to maintain profitability.[96] Child labor violations have surged in franchised fast-food outlets, with U.S. Department of Labor investigations revealing systemic issues. For instance, five McDonald's franchise operators accounted for 44% of the chain's child labor violations detected since 2020, including minors operating hazardous equipment late at night.[102] Specific cases include three Kentucky McDonald's franchisees fined $212,000 in 2023 for employing children as young as 10, and five Pennsylvania locations penalized $26,000 that same year for similar infractions involving minors cleaning grills and using fryers.[103] [104] A Popeyes franchisee in California paid $212,000 in 2024 for child labor violations affecting 15 employees, alongside back wages and penalties.[105] Wage and hour lawsuits against McDonald's franchises have alleged failures to provide meal breaks, overtime, and uniform reimbursements, though courts have often shielded franchisors from joint liability absent direct control over daily operations.[106] [107] The joint employer doctrine remains contentious, with regulatory shifts influencing franchisor accountability for franchisee labor practices. Under the National Labor Relations Board's 2024 rule, entities exercising indirect control—such as through brand standards—may qualify as joint employers, potentially exposing franchisors to liability for unfair labor practices.[108] However, a federal appeals court in 2019 ruled McDonald's not liable in a wage suit due to insufficient day-to-day oversight of franchisee employees, and the NLRB dropped its rule appeal in September 2024.[107] [109] Critics argue this separation enables evasion of responsibility in models where franchisors dictate efficiency metrics that incentivize labor cost-cutting, while proponents maintain it preserves entrepreneurial independence.[110] Ethically, the franchise model raises concerns over worker exploitation amid power imbalances, as franchisees under financial strain from royalties and mandated efficiencies may prioritize compliance with franchisor benchmarks over fair labor treatment.[96] Guidelines urge franchisors to enforce zero tolerance for exploitation and ensure franchisee adherence to laws, yet empirical evidence of elevated violations suggests gaps in oversight.[111] This dynamic can foster moral conflicts, where profit imperatives in standardized operations undermine ethical commitments to fair wages and conditions, particularly in vulnerable sectors.[112] While some franchisors promote responsible practices, the model's reliance on decentralized enforcement has been linked to suppressed wages and degraded working conditions in under-resourced outlets.[113]Market Power and Antitrust Considerations
Franchisors derive market power primarily through their trademarks, operational systems, and contractual leverage over franchisees, enabling control over pricing, territories, and inputs without necessarily possessing monopoly power in consumer end-markets. This vertical structure often promotes efficiencies like uniform quality and brand protection, but it raises antitrust concerns under Section 1 of the Sherman Act when restraints facilitate collusion or exclude rivals. Courts apply the rule of reason to most vertical restraints in franchising, assessing net pro-competitive effects rather than per se illegality, as established in Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. (1977), which upheld territorial restrictions by manufacturers to prevent free-riding on services.[114] [115] Territorial exclusivity and supply tying arrangements exemplify common restraints, where franchisors mandate exclusive geographic rights or require purchases from approved suppliers to maintain standards. These are typically lawful under the rule of reason if they enhance interbrand competition, though tying claims demand proof of market power in the tying product—often the franchise trademark—which courts rarely find sufficient absent broader dominance, as in Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc. (1971).[116] Resale price maintenance (RPM), however, remains per se unlawful if franchisors coerce adherence to suggested prices, though monitoring without enforcement may not violate the Act.[117] Recent scrutiny has targeted labor-related restraints, such as "no-hire" clauses preventing franchisees from recruiting each other's employees, potentially violating Sherman Act Section 1 as horizontal agreements if franchisees are deemed independent actors. The Eleventh Circuit in 2022 ruled that such pacts between a franchisor and franchisees constitute concerted action, rejecting single-entity defenses where affiliates operate autonomously.[118] Empirical analyses indicate franchisors seldom wield unilateral monopoly power under Section 2, given low barriers to new franchise systems and competitive end-markets like fast food, where top firms hold significant shares but face ongoing entry and innovation.[119] Antitrust enforcement agencies, including the FTC and DOJ, emphasize that vertical restraints in franchising are presumptively efficient absent evidence of foreclosure or consumer harm, prioritizing interbrand rivalry over intrabrand competition.[120] Opportunistic franchisor conduct, like arbitrary terminations to extract rents, may invite rule of reason challenges if tied to market power, but successful claims require demonstrating anticompetitive effects outweighing quality-control benefits.[121] Overall, franchising's structure fosters economic output—contributing nearly 3% of U.S. GDP in 2024—while antitrust doctrine accommodates its vertical nature to avoid chilling efficient distribution.[122]Variations and Innovations
Traditional Product and Service Franchises
Traditional product and service franchises represent the foundational models of franchising, where franchisors grant rights to distribute specific products or operate standardized service-oriented businesses using proprietary systems. Product distribution franchises involve licensing a trademark and logo to franchisees who primarily purchase and resell goods supplied by the franchisor, with limited operational guidance beyond supply chain requirements.[123] In contrast, service-oriented business format franchises provide comprehensive operational blueprints, including training, marketing, and site selection, enabling franchisees to deliver consistent customer experiences through replicated processes.[124] These models emerged in the 19th century, with product distribution preceding service formats, and together they account for the majority of established franchise networks today.[125] Product distribution franchises originated in the mid-1800s, exemplified by Isaac Singer's 1851 agreement allowing agents to sell sewing machines under his brand while buying supplies from the company, marking the first documented U.S. franchise.[126] Key examples include Coca-Cola's 1901 bottling franchises, which granted exclusive territorial rights for syrup production and distribution, and automobile dealerships like Ford Motor Company, where franchisees handle sales and service of vehicles sourced from the manufacturer. Other prominent cases encompass gasoline stations under brands like Exxon and beer distributors for Anheuser-Busch, where revenue derives mainly from markups on franchisor-supplied inventory rather than service fees.[127] Franchisees in these arrangements typically pay royalties tied to product purchases, facing less stringent operational controls but relying heavily on the franchisor's brand equity and supply reliability for success.[128] Service franchises, often structured as business format agreements, gained prominence in the early 20th century with the rise of quick-service restaurants, prioritizing standardized procedures to ensure uniformity across locations. A&W Root Beer's 1922 franchising of stands for root beer sales represented an early service model, evolving into full operations by 1924.[126] Iconic examples include McDonald's, which began franchising in 1955 under Ray Kroc, implementing the Speedee Service System for efficient burger preparation and expanding to over 39,000 locations worldwide by emphasizing operational rigor and supply chain integration.[129] Similarly, KFC franchised from 1952, focusing on Colonel Sanders' fried chicken recipe and pressure-frying method, while Pizza Hut started franchising in 1959, standardizing pizza preparation and delivery services.[130] These franchises generate revenue through initial fees, ongoing royalties (typically 4-8% of sales), and advertising contributions, with franchisors exerting tight control over menus, layouts, and quality to mitigate variability risks inherent in service delivery.[131] Empirical distinctions show product models often require higher inventory investments but lower training needs, whereas service formats demand greater upfront capital for equipment and real estate, yet benefit from replicable systems that enhance scalability.[132]Home-Based, Digital, and Low-Cost Models
Home-based franchises enable operators to conduct business primarily from a residence, eliminating the need for commercial real estate and associated leasing costs, which typically lowers initial investments to ranges of $2,000 to $50,000.[133] Examples include Dream Vacations, a travel agency model requiring a minimum cash investment of $3,500 and total investment of $2,295 to $23,465, and Cruise Planners, similarly focused on home-operated travel booking with investments under $25,000.[134] These models leverage personal networks, remote tools, and franchisor-provided training to achieve scalability without physical storefronts, with cleaning services like Anago Cleaning Systems offering entry under $50,000 for commercial janitorial contracts serviced from home.[134] Low-cost franchising extends beyond home-based operations to include mobile or minimal-infrastructure formats, often capping total startup investments at $50,000 or less to attract entrepreneurs with limited capital.[134] In 2025 rankings, opportunities such as WIN Home Inspection (home inspection services, investment $40,000–$90,000 but qualifying under low-cost thresholds with financing) and Stratus Building Solutions (commercial cleaning, under $50,000) exemplify this category, emphasizing service-based delivery over inventory-heavy models.[134] Empirical data from franchise directories indicate that these models comprised a significant portion of under-$50,000 opportunities in 2024–2025, driven by sectors like senior care (e.g., Home Helpers, investment $90,000 but low-end variants under $50,000) and education (Kumon tutoring, adaptable to low-overhead setups).[134] Such structures allocate risk downward by minimizing fixed assets, allowing franchisees to prioritize variable costs like marketing and labor.[135] Digital franchising models integrate online platforms, e-commerce, and software-as-a-service elements to facilitate remote management and customer acquisition, often overlapping with home-based formats for investments as low as $5,000.[133] Trends since 2020 show accelerated adoption, with franchisors incorporating AI-driven tools for operations and virtual training, as seen in digitally native brands that use shared digital infrastructure for scalable e-commerce without territorial limits.[136] For instance, food and beverage sectors have piloted digital-only franchises emphasizing app-based ordering and delivery partnerships, reducing physical footprint costs by up to 70% compared to traditional outlets.[137] This evolution supports growth through data analytics for personalized services, though empirical studies on long-term performance remain limited, with projections for 2025 highlighting AI integration as a key driver for efficiency in low-cost models.[138]Social and Non-Profit Franchising Applications
Social franchising adapts the commercial franchising model to social enterprises and non-profit organizations, enabling the replication of proven interventions to address issues such as healthcare access, poverty alleviation, and environmental sustainability by licensing operational systems, branding, and support to independent affiliates.[139] This approach leverages standardized processes to scale impact without direct ownership expansion, often in low-resource settings where traditional NGO growth is constrained by funding and management challenges.[140] Unlike profit-driven models, social franchising prioritizes measurable social outcomes over financial returns, though it incorporates revenue-generating elements to ensure sustainability.[141] In healthcare, social franchising has been applied to deliver services like maternal care and family planning in developing regions. For instance, Population Services International's Sun Quality Health franchise in Myanmar, launched in 2005, networks private providers to offer subsidized contraceptives and counseling, reaching over 1.5 million clients annually by 2010 through quality assurance and marketing support.[142] Systematic reviews of such models indicate improvements in client volumes, satisfaction rates, and contraceptive continuation, with one analysis of programs in Uganda, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh finding higher antenatal care uptake among franchise users compared to non-franchised providers, though equity gaps persist for the poorest populations.[143] [144] Beyond health, applications extend to agriculture, as seen in Farm Shop's model in India, which franchises affordable retail outlets to small farmers, creating over 1,000 jobs and boosting rural profitability by 2021 through supply chain efficiencies.[145] Non-profit franchising facilitates mission-driven expansion in areas like education and employment services. Goodwill Industries employs a franchise-like structure for its retail operations, licensing thrift store models to affiliates that generated $6.2 billion in revenue across 150+ organizations in 2022, funding job training for over 240,000 individuals annually.[146] Impact Hub, a network of co-working spaces for social entrepreneurs, adopted franchising in 2005 to scale globally, operating 100+ hubs by 2015 that supported thousands of impact ventures through shared resources and local adaptation.[147] These models demonstrate potential for rapid geographic coverage, with franchisees handling local execution while central bodies provide training and oversight.[148] Empirical evidence on success remains largely case-specific, with healthcare franchises showing positive outcomes in access metrics but limited broad-scale data outside that sector.[139] Challenges include franchisee selection, where social missions demand aligned operators amid resource constraints, and sustainability, as affiliates often struggle with funding volatility and adaptation to local contexts without diluting impact.[149] [150] Reports highlight scalability hurdles, such as balancing affordability for beneficiaries with operational costs, underscoring that while social franchising can enhance efficiency, it requires rigorous monitoring to avoid mission drift or inequitable service delivery.[151] [143]Regulatory Environment
United States Legal Framework
The legal framework governing franchising in the United States centers on federal disclosure requirements enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), supplemented by varying state-level regulations. The FTC's Franchise Rule, codified at 16 CFR Part 436 and originally promulgated in 1978 with significant amendments effective December 8, 2007, defines a franchise as a continuing commercial relationship involving a trademark license, significant control or assistance by the franchisor, and a fee exceeding $615 (adjusted periodically for inflation).[152] This rule mandates that franchisors provide prospective franchisees with a Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) containing 23 specific items of information, including the franchisor's business experience, litigation history, initial and ongoing fees, estimated initial investment, territorial rights, training obligations, and financial performance representations (if any).[1] The FDD must be delivered at least 14 calendar days before the prospective franchisee signs any binding agreement or makes any payment to the franchisor, ensuring informed decision-making without prohibiting or requiring state registration.[56] Unlike securities offerings, franchising at the federal level does not require pre-sale registration with the FTC or any agency; the rule focuses solely on pre-sale disclosure to prevent deceptive practices, with enforcement through civil penalties for violations rather than merit review of offerings.[153] Franchisors must also maintain records substantiating FDD claims for three years and update the document annually or upon material changes, such as within 120 days of fiscal year-end.[1] Federal antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act and Federal Trade Commission Act, apply to franchising arrangements to address potential restraints on trade, such as territorial restrictions or resale price maintenance, though courts evaluate these under rule-of-reason analysis unless per se illegal. General contract principles, including implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, govern franchise agreements, but no comprehensive federal franchise relationship law exists to regulate post-sale terminations or renewals.[154] At the state level, franchising laws diverge significantly, with approximately 14 states classified as "registration states" requiring franchisors to register their FDD and obtain approval from state regulators before offering or selling franchises.[155] These include California, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, where franchisors must submit the FDD, pay fees (often $250–$750 initially, plus annual renewals), and demonstrate no unconscionable provisions or misleading claims.[156] An additional 10–12 states, such as Florida and Texas, impose "notice filing" or non-registration disclosure requirements, mandating submission of the FDD and fees without substantive review.[157] The remaining states rely solely on FTC compliance, though some enforce "business opportunity" laws that overlap with franchising for low-fee or non-trademark arrangements.[158] Several states, including Minnesota and New Jersey, have enacted franchise relationship laws prohibiting arbitrary termination without good cause and requiring notice periods (e.g., 90 days in some cases), providing franchisees greater protections than federal baselines.[154] These state variations necessitate franchisors tailoring compliance strategies, often registering in multiple jurisdictions to facilitate national expansion.[159]| Category | States | Key Requirements |
|---|---|---|
| Registration States | CA, HI, IL, IN, MD, MI, MN, NY, ND, RI, SD, VA, WA, WI | FDD approval, fees, merit review before sales |
| Notice Filing States | e.g., FL, GA, TX, VA (hybrid) | FDD submission and fees; no approval needed |
| No Specific Requirements | Majority (e.g., AL, AZ, CO) | FTC Rule only, plus general business laws |
Key International Regulations
Franchising lacks a centralized international regulatory authority or uniform treaty specifically governing franchise agreements, with compliance determined primarily by national laws in host countries. Over 50 jurisdictions worldwide impose franchise-specific requirements, often centered on pre-contractual disclosure to protect prospective franchisees from incomplete information about risks, fees, and performance.[160] These disclosures typically include details on the franchisor's financial status, litigation history, and projected earnings, mirroring elements of U.S. Federal Trade Commission rules but varying in scope and enforcement.[161] More than 30 countries, predominantly in Europe and Asia, mandate such formal disclosure laws, while civil law systems in regions like Latin America often recognize general pre-contractual good faith obligations under contract codes.[161][162] Intellectual property protections under multilateral treaties form the backbone for international franchising, as franchises depend on enforceable trademarks, trade secrets, and know-how licensing. The WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), in force since January 1, 1995, requires its 164 member states to provide minimum standards for trademark protection, including exclusive rights to prevent confusingly similar marks and remedies against infringement, facilitating brand licensing across borders.[163] Complementary frameworks like the Paris Convention (1883), administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), grant priority rights for trademark filings in member states, while the Madrid Protocol (1989, with 130+ members as of 2025) streamlines international trademark registration through a single application designating multiple countries. These mechanisms mitigate risks of IP dilution in expansion, though franchisors must still adapt to local enforcement variances, such as weaker trade secret laws in some emerging markets.[164] Registration requirements add layers of oversight in select markets, particularly in Asia and Latin America, where foreign franchisors face barriers to entry. China's Regulations on the Administration of Commercial Franchises (effective May 1, 2007) compel franchisors to register franchise agreements with the Ministry of Commerce, stipulating a minimum of two pilot outlets operated by the franchisor in China prior to expansion.[162] Similarly, Mexico's Industrial Property Law (amended 2020) and related franchise provisions require disclosure documents and, in practice, economic solvency certification for franchisors.[165] In the European Union, absent a harmonized franchise directive, the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (EU) 2022/720 exempts qualifying franchise agreements from antitrust scrutiny if the franchisor's market share stays below 30%, but national laws in France (Loi Doubin, 1989) and Italy enforce mandatory 20-day pre-signature information notices.[160] These rules aim to balance franchisor expansion with local economic safeguards, though critics note they can deter investment by increasing compliance costs without commensurate benefits.[166]Recent Developments and Policy Trends
In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has escalated oversight of franchise agreements through targeted guidance and rulemaking initiatives. In July 2024, the FTC released a policy statement and staff guidance prohibiting contract provisions that deter franchisees from reporting illegal activities, including gag clauses, non-disparagement requirements, and arbitration mandates shielding franchisor misconduct.[167] This addresses empirical patterns of suppressed complaints, with the FTC citing over 100 consumer reports of retaliation risks in franchising.[168] In October 2024, the agency extended public comments on its Request for Information regarding franchise business practices until October 24, 2024, focusing on unilateral changes to operating manuals, supply restrictions, and fee escalations that could violate the FTC Franchise Rule.[169] Potential 2025 amendments aim to mandate clearer disclosures on these issues, driven by data showing franchisee disputes rising 15% annually since 2020.[170] [171] The Small Business Administration (SBA) reintroduced its Franchise Directory on June 1, 2025, requiring franchisors to submit certifications of nondiscriminatory practices for inclusion, with eligibility for SBA loans tied to directory listing starting August 1, 2025.[172] The directory includes franchises across various industries, with emphasis on service-based models such as in-home senior care (e.g., Visiting Angels, Home Instead), cleaning and maintenance services (e.g., Molly Maid, Jan-Pro), fitness and wellness (e.g., Anytime Fitness), education and child services (e.g., Kumon), home services, and automotive services, which often feature lower startup costs, recurring revenue, and favorable SBA loan performance due to low default rates.[173] This policy, informed by prior suspensions that delayed 20,000+ franchisee loans, seeks to verify compliance with SBA's affiliation rules but imposes annual recertification burdens, potentially excluding non-compliant systems and reducing financing access for 10-15% of applicants.[174] [175] State-level reforms have emphasized franchisee protections amid joint employer debates. California's AB 676, effective 2023, amended the Franchise Investment Law to require franchisors to disclose litigation histories more granularly and prohibit certain noncompete clauses, responding to franchise failure rates exceeding 20% in high-fee models.[176] Nationally, the American Association of Franchisees and Dealers tracked over 50 bills in 2025 targeting supply chain transparency and exit fees, with enacted measures in states like New York mandating audits of franchisor revenue-sharing.[177] Internationally, the European Union's Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER), revised in 2022 and applied through 2025, exempts franchise agreements from antitrust scrutiny if market shares remain below 30%, but tightens rules on resale price maintenance and online parity clauses, with guidelines citing causal links between restrictive terms and reduced competition in 40% of reviewed cases.[178] [179] Absent EU-wide franchise-specific laws, national jurisdictions enforce via competition rules; for instance, a April 2025 French appellate ruling upheld termination of franchise contracts for supply breaches, prioritizing causal evidence of non-performance over relational equity.[180] In emerging markets, policies trend toward mandatory pre-contractual disclosures, as seen in India's 2024 amendments requiring fee breakdowns, aimed at curbing disputes that affect 25% of franchises.[181] Overarching trends include heightened antitrust focus on vertical integration, with regulators attributing 12-18% of franchise conflicts to supply monopolies, and adaptations for digital models mandating cybersecurity disclosures in 30% of new agreements.[170] [182] These shifts prioritize empirical risk mitigation over deference to franchisor models, though critics from industry groups argue they overlook data showing franchising's 93% five-year survival rate versus independent startups.[4]Global Impact
Expansion into Emerging Markets
Franchising has experienced substantial growth in emerging markets, fueled by urbanization, rising middle-class incomes, and demand for standardized consumer services in regions like Asia, Latin America, and Africa. In China, the sector expanded to nearly 4,500 franchise brands and 330,000 units by 2016, reflecting rapid adoption amid economic liberalization.[183] India followed with approximately 1,800 brands and 100,000 units, while Brazil reported 3,039 brands, positioning these nations among the largest franchise markets outside North America and Europe.[183] [184] This expansion aligns with broader global trends, where the franchise industry surpassed $890 billion in output in 2024, with projections for nearly 10% annual growth driven partly by developing economies.[35] Prominent international brands have localized operations to penetrate these markets, adapting products to cultural preferences and navigating regulatory environments. For instance, fast-food chains like KFC and Pizza Hut have thrived in China and India by incorporating regional staples such as rice congee or spicy paneer variants, leading to thousands of outlets in urban centers.[185] In Brazil, franchising surged from 26 brands in 1985 to over 2,000 by the mid-1990s, with continued momentum into the 21st century through sectors like food services and retail.[186] Such entries often involve joint ventures or master franchise agreements to mitigate entry barriers, enabling brands to leverage local partners' knowledge of distribution and consumer behavior.[187] Benefits include substantial job creation—franchises in emerging markets generate employment and foster entrepreneurship by providing proven business models with training and supply chain support.[183] Economic modernization follows, as franchising introduces efficient operations, inventory management, and quality standards, contributing to GDP growth in host countries.[183] However, challenges persist, including weak intellectual property enforcement, bureaucratic hurdles, and supply chain vulnerabilities in infrastructure-limited areas.[188] [189] Cultural mismatches and inconsistent quality control can erode brand integrity, necessitating robust adaptation strategies and legal safeguards.[190] Despite these risks, successful adaptations have yielded high returns, with franchisors reporting accelerated market penetration compared to organic expansion.[191]