Great topic Angela, this is a huge concern for most countries in the world. The problem with protectionist governments is that they are effectively making the industries less efficient by imposing ridiculous barriers in order to boost some local industries. The issue lies in that these industries are no longer efficient in that specific country due to several reasons (e.g. higher purchasing power) and the government is punishing the entire population in order to protect a group. The result of completely isolating an industry is to either increase the prices of products or hire a cheaper labor force, turning the problem to immigration issues and making it a lose-lose situation.
Although it is difficult to prevent governments from isolating some industries, in order to mitigate such retrograde but inherent risks, companies such as SunPower can improve or redesign their processes and products so that they rely less on raw material procurement from other countries.
Very good topic mainly because this can be taken to many other countries, both developed and emerging. I would definitely vote for Freeport to hold its investment until 2019 and putting its current mines in “care-and-maintenance” mode in order to pressure the government. The idea of isolationism is detrimental to any industry or country because it goes against improving supply chains, resulting in a more efficient world. At the end of the day, wolrdwide market trends and country specific decisions and capabilities are the ones that should dictate where commodities are processed, not the governments. Some countries will be more efficient in one area, product, or industry, and the rest in other areas, products or industries.
Amazing article Alexia, I really enjoyed reading it. Although I know little about the mechanics of Telehealth, I wonder how can this technology be introduced in other countries where not only the skepticism exists in a stronger way, but also the technology is not there. For example, one way to deliver Telemedicine would be through computers or mobile phones, however how can this technology be levered to the people that need it the most in rural, isolated regions of poor countries? The amount of capital expenditures required is massive. I guess one way to do it is having your profitable, large scale operations in developed countries subsidize these actions.
Great article Thiago. Although I agree that companies are continuously improving their processes and strategies in order to have a lower impact on the climate and the population, I wonder if this is their end goal or a simple consequence of more efficient technology.
I think that as long as there is demand for the products or commodities that Vale produces, they will have to supply it or else someone else will. This is why the negative effects on the planet at a local or regional level will continue to occur unless the end product is modified to require less or no raw materials that need harsh harvesting. This, however, plays against Vale since it would theoretically go out of business. This is a nice article to look at conflict of interest from a broader point of view.
I really enjoyed reading this article because it brings up a larger, more broad problem: what to do as a company when the demand is there? Although I agree that companies, including Bunge as a perfect example, should push for more actions to reduce their impact on climate change, I struggle to understand how the majority of shareholders are going to put global consciousness before their short-term greed.
One way, of course, is when this impact actually will affect the company in the future, as it is mentioned in your article; nonetheless, the demand for the products will always be there and increase as the global population increases exponentially.
The thought of supply substitution is interesting here because as long as the demand is there, someone will be there to supply it, regardless of what Bunge or other companies do.
Great article Alejandro. I definitely think that the world is shifting towards more technology-driven and that is fine; it is evolution. In my view, the truck industry will be the first industry to successfully include autonomous vehicles, given the several reasons you mention in your post, and in the next 5 years. However, this will not be the end. I imagine a world where there will not be any drivers at all for any type of services (e.g. taxi, ride share, rentals, package delivery). The issue will be how and where to shift all those lost jobs efficiently and fast. In the past the market and the industry have made this shift quite smoothly, nonetheless with today’s rapide improvements in technology, that shift will be tricky and more complex.