I agree with you and Chris a with regards to the definition of “made in America”, a definition that is open for interoperation will leave room for companies to operate more openly and globally, however, given the litigious culture of the US I think this would lead to significant losses to the companies and deter focus from business to lawsuits.
ArcelorMittal should maintain its relationship with its main clients given that its at the bottom of the supply chain and fight against isolationism. it was not clear to me that ArcelorMittal would gain any market share on the contrary I believe the company might lose its customers if they elect to continue to produce internationally and pass on taxes to consumers.
while I agree that Adidas needs to train employees to use the new automated supply chain, I wonder how much of its staff will be let go due to their digitization efforts.
it would’ve been interesting to know what is the percent reduction in time to market compared to the 12- 18 month average indicate in the website below. however, to answer your question I think the fact that the product is customized for the consumer makes it worthwhile and used for longer periods. unlike fast fashion where products are replaced every few weeks.
interesting article! I absolutely agree.
I also think that the DTC would provide them with a feedback loop to continue or stop producing certain products that are not in high demand during the season. I would also recommend that they use digitization to forecast demand more accurately by starting to allow people to pre-order, which have seen on many retailers websites especially amazon, as it will create more visibility.
this article reminds me of the Li & Fung case. would it be possible that through those strict laws and the renegotiation of NAFTA that employees that end up losing their jobs establish their own brewery that competes with corona and the the likes? other measure that breweries could consider , especially if 64% of earnings is on the line, is to build a plant and ask the government for subsidies or tax cuts for doing so.
I think there are additional measure that Starbucks could take to reduce its carbon foot print, one is promoting CO2 reduction by favoring coffee bean suppliers that are most innovative in their approach of farming (less carbon footprint) secondly, forming partnerships with microbial technology companies to increase the cropland.
As a non-U.S citizen myself I do agree that increasing the number of international based cases would benefit the entire HBS population. However, I think the isolationism has affected U.S citizens more than international students. firstly, the curriculum is indeed focused on US companies but international students already have a non-US experience, or at least by the time they graduate from HBS they have the US and their own countries perspective. secondly, as a citizen of an emerging country I realize the potential of my country and therefore would rather be going home than staying in the US, which is something that HBS does not indicate in its CPD programs, the potential in emerging countries, and the better paying job, which US citizens lose out on. I think other ways to reduce isolationism is to increase the number of treks that are sponsored by HBS and to host international alums who have made it in other countries and write cases about them and finally highlight the payment potential in other countries in CPD programs.
Although I try to be optimistic about companies efforts with regards to social projects, but for so long the main focus and objective of companies has been to maximize shareholder’s value, which makes me wonder if it is at all possible to maximize shareholders value or be sustainable if the supply chain was not sustainable due to climate change. therefore, while I applaud their climate change effort, I do not think nike has done this to benefit the general public but a mere obligation to maximize shareholders value over the long term.
while I agree that isolationism would affect H&M negatively especially with Brexit and potential import taxes within the European union. this gives the potential for startups in the fast-fashion to compete with major fast-fashion, it will allow small and medium enterprises to have a competitive advantage to produce in country rather than outsource.
While I agree that if Halliburton does not implement digitization as a service it will miss the its chance, and most importantly, will lose on the first movers advantage and market share. as mention above, operators in the oil industry are slow moving, but given the low margins that they are witnessing today, having additional information before going into a well can save a lot of money, and inform the operator and service company on the best way to drill and extract oil rather than incurring cost experimenting. If Halliburton was successful in its transformation it will also reduce the inherited risk of operations given the deep analysis on previous blowouts due to certain formations.
As you mentioned, shell is an operating company that has no experience in constructing oil rigs. coming from oil&gas myself, I can say that this industry, especially when it comes to the operations side of it, is extremely risky and people’s lives are on the line every day. hence, while I admire the digitization initiative, cost cutting had previously led to disastrous outcomes, most notably the Deepwater horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and that did not include any innovation or creative initiatives. in terms of the product itself my concern would be that the initial production was performed under lab conditions and not real-life conditions, secondly, even if it was taken out on the field, there are so many drilling conditions that the buoy can face which the 3D printed part did not take into consideration, or at least it was not clear to me, such as the depth, speed, and pressure of the well or field. I think when peoples lives are on the line digitization should be slowly implemented with rigorous testing.
I absolutely agree with this article. I do believe though that there are additional measures that Starbucks can take to fight climate change. firstly, Starbucks could impose rules and regulations on suppliers, rather than buying lands, of coffee beans in terms of how these beans are planted and harvested. secondly, a joint effort between Starbucks and microbial technology companies (such as Indigo and Monsanto) can help increase the footprint of cropland.