Thank you, Charlie, for addressing a very important topic facing us today.
I find it quite impressive that Tesco, as you mentioned, was able to still pressure suppliers in a post-Brexit scenario. Reflecting on their argument, domestic production doesn’t fully justify price stability – in fact, now it’s significantly more attractive for local producers to sell domestic products elsewhere.
Another point that comes to mind is the flip side of the negative Brexit effects – what industries / products will benefit from a lower GBP? Related to that, should Tesco absorb the price hike by investing more in these industries / products?
Furthermore, what is the role that the government is playing to dampen the negative effects of Brexit? With so many industries affected, is the UK providing incentives and/or penalties to smoothen the effects of Brexit on the local economy?
Finally, are the effects of Brexit pushing for more local efficiency in supply chain management? The argument here being that thinner margins and higher prices put more pressure on local organization to optimize their operations.
Thank you, Amanda, for this great article – a prime example of the trade-offs between globalization and isolationism that many countries are facing today.
With regards to Ford, how do you see these isolationist approaches affecting other parts of their supply chain? Apart from manufacturing and factory-related decisions, what is the effect as you move up and down the supply chain?
While reading your analysis, a broad (maybe a bit philosophical) question came to mind: If one takes a utilitarian view, would globalization or isolationism prove more effective for the overall industry? Arguably, providing incentives for giants like Ford to build factories in the US pushes them for more innovation and effectiveness in their operations. This can have significant positive effects on the industry as a whole, since production processes become more optimized.
Thank you for this essay – interesting to see how climate change is affecting the fast-moving fashion industry.
While I appreciate the actions that H&M is taking towards more sustainable cotton sourcing, I wonder what the motives are. In particular, how do prices of organic cotton compare to those of non-organic cotton when long-term yield is taken into consideration? Drawing on your earlier point that non-organic cotton destroys farming soil rather quickly, will a long-term view (assuming same farming plot) yield different results?
Also, I would like to build on your point of changing consumer behavior – it seems that the effects of this shifting mindset towards a faster-moving apparel industry are significantly larger than the benefits of H&M’s actions. Are these effects being measured? Does H&M provide any information on the effectiveness of its actions?
Furthermore, should H&M do more to encourage consumers to recycle H&M products?
Finally, what are the implications of using more synthetic fibers or different fibers than cotton in this industry? Would that be a more sustainable practice?
In short, it appears to me that H&M is tackling ‘peripheries’ or ‘symptoms’ of the issue rather than the root cause itself. I wonder whose responsibility it is to hold them (and others in the industry) accountable and/or guide their immediate actions.
Great essay, Matt, and great analysis of Disney’s moves. I completely agree with you on the rapid growth of OTT platforms in the distribution of media, and how these platforms revolutionized the way consumers interacts with media. This also unlocked huge opportunities with more robust data and the ability to add interactive components to traditional movies. Having said that, I struggle to see how this will significantly negatively affect Disney’s business model. In fact, one can argue that Disney’s production business shouldn’t be very affected, since this only constitutes a shift in distribution platforms. Further, Disney can even leverage some of the new opportunities that Netflix and other OTT providers unlocked, especially when it comes to data and consumer behavior. Regarding Disney’s distribution business (e.g., Disney’s own TV channels), aren’t Disney viewers fundamentally different from OTT consumers? In essence, are you implying that OTTs will replace Cable TVs in the near future? Otherwise, if OTT and traditional cable co-exist, Disney should probably investigate more closely consumer demographics prior to making any operating shifts.
Finally, I have two additional questions based on the above points:
1) Why should Disney enter the OTT space now? Why not wait until the market stabilizes and enter into partnerships with the winning platforms?
2) In a world where the whole movie industry is heavily favoring sequels, and Disney owning IPs of most successful blockbusters, is there really a threat to Disney? (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/hollywood-has-a-huge-millennial-problem/486209/)
Thank you, Mo, for the great paper – indeed, many are hopeful that Blockchain will finally accelerate the digitization of healthcare.
I agree with most of the points you raised, especially regarding the benefits that this will bring to the industry. On the flip side, I can also see many open points / disadvantages with adopting Blockchain for verification:
1) How can Blockchain address the issue of having different verification requirements for different institutions? (both locally, and later on globally)
2) What advantages does the decentralization of this data bring? Since reading the data will never be malicious (one can argue that physician certification should become public), aren’t the risks of a traditional centralized database limited to editing/removing the data? Are there solutions other than Blockchain for this problem?
3) What happens when a significant part of the network is down? Is there a minimum percentage of participating institutions that need to be ‘online’ for this to work?
4) Who owns the Blockchain clients? Which entity(ies) is(are) responsible for maintain the network data on its hard drives? How do the associated risks differ from those of using a traditional, centralized, online database?
Thank you, Samson, for the great post – it’s fascinating to see how large the effect of Climate Change is on entire nations. I agree with the points you outlined and it seems that Aramco is indeed on the right track towards navigating a world favoring renewables. Taking a set back, however, I notice that most of the major actions that Aramco plans to take are external to it – IPO, investments in renewable energy infrastructure, and investments in renewable energy acquisitions/partnerships. As such, what actions is Aramco currently taking to improve its current oil drilling/lifting operations and reduce their carbon footprint? Moreover, how sizable is this opportunity?
In other words, if Aramco improves its operational efficiency, will the reduced carbon footprint of its operations be comparable to the reduced carbon footprint through its planned investments?