I agree there’s great economic benefit for BMW to continue operation in Mexico. However, if the U.S. government impose a large import tax on BMW, the operation may not be sustainable anymore. I also agree with you that BMW need to have the flexibility to operate factories in different countries. BMW has to consider the cost and efficiency in choosing where to operate though.
The government should not force the manufacturing companies to create jobs in the U.S. This may only hurt the business and may create only inefficient job positions. The government should give more incentives to the manufacturing companies, like the tax benefits that Mexican government offered to BMW. If operating in the U.S. is truly beneficial for manufacturing companies’ profit, (if there’s lower raw material costs, high yield, etc.) and the facilities can operate efficiently, then companies like BMW will simultaneously focus on operation in the U.S. and create more jobs for American people.
American companies outsourced labor work to other countries not only because labor costs are cheaper there but also because many American people do not want to work at a low wage. Protectionism is not a sustainable way to bring jobs back to America.
Forcing Nike to move production to onshore will incur large increase in labor cost and production cost for Nike. There is no guarantee that the output and efficiency level in onshore facility can match that of facilities in other countries.
Nike can increase automation work, which requires some capital investment, so that it will require less labor and thus lower labor costs. However, if automation work goes up and labor work goes down, this defeats the purpose of bringing jobs back to the U.S.
Maybe the facilities in emerging countries and in the U.S. can serve different customers. I think there is no need to shut down the factories overseas as the consumer buying power in emerging markets is increasing.
I agree with you that Nespresso should join force with other large coffee roasters to mitigate the current situations for coffee. Starbucks’ business also relies heavily on the sustainability of coffee. I would suggest Nespresso to partner up with big players such as Starbucks. Deforestation is a universal problem, not just for coffee. Nespresso can also partner up with government, who will be concerned if the countries coffee growers are running out of jobs. To your last question, I believe technology can help the coffee production system and supply chain become more efficient. I’m not sure to what extend can technology help mitigate the effect of climate change though. Again, it is not enough impact if only Nespresso is adapting to the green technology. Moreover, I even think it would be possible that soon there will be some man-made ingredients that can replicate the taste and the function of coffee beans.
I like your suggestion that Maple should consolidate and simplify the menu to reduce food waste and leverage economies of scales. I feel that variation is one of the least import aspects that you mentioned about food delivery in urban area during workweek. Food delivery services in urban area, especially in NYC, will have inevitably high labor costs. Labor costs is hard to reduce, so using less varied food ingredients and less expensive packaging materials seem to be viable ways to reduce cost. Maple’s current business model needs investment in both the food making process and the delivery system. It may be better for Maple to focus on just one business in order to reach profitability. Maple can either outsource the delivery part to third party or become a pure food delivery company. For a start-up to run two capital intensive businesses at the same time, it is very risky.
I’m not confident that Alaska Airline alone can help mitigate the effect of climate change. Maybe Alaska airline can leverage economies of scale through more efficient supply chain management and develop alternate fuel by partnering up with other major airlines. For airlines to consider to invest in new technologies to lessen the negative externality to climate change, the gains in new technologies need to be able to cover the cost of investment. This is a highly competitive industry, I’m worried that airline companies will be more focused on short-term bottom line growth rather than the potential super long-term positive impact to environment and the business. I feel that strict government regulation on green fuel and pollution may be more effective in the medium term.
It doesn’t really matter if Blue Apron adjust it’s business model from subscription base to individual orders. As you mentioned, there are many competitors in the field, with Amazon being the biggest competitor, who has a lot of money to burn to push out other players. This business model can also be easily copied by any food delivery company who is willing to invest in the ingredients procurement system or the delivery system. Blue Apron is already losing money every year. I’m not sure how long this business can last without burning cash.
Digital platform helps expand the audience base and allows viewers to watch content on demand. My question is that if CJ E&M is building it’s own digital platform, how should it monetize it? To whom should it distribute its content? A digital distribution is more likely to be a one time, fixed cost for the company. Whereas the distribution on Televisions is more likely to be a variable cost. The company may negotiate how much it will charge the TV stations or sponsors based on how many times the content will be played. Also, will there be other regulations that may impact the broadcast of Korean dramas in other countries? I agree that digital platform will help the company to reach a global market, but there’s also some customization need to be made to adjust to the local markets and the digitization.