Thank you for the interesting read. For the aviation industry and its role in the climate change, I believe the ultimate question is who has the bigger responsibility to drive a true change in the industry? Aircraft manufacturers or the operators? I would imagine that the main driver for manufacturers, such as Boeing and Airbus, to develop more efficient aircraft models is to present a more compelling product to the operators to purchase, considering the lower associated fuel costs and also to meet the regulations. However, airlines are still looking at aircrafts from an economic perspective rather than a true environmental one. For instance, although the Airbus A380 model has a lower carbon footprint per passenger flown (due to its higher seating count), airlines were very reluctant to place orders for the same model earlier this month in Dubai Airshow (https://goo.gl/Ri2uYo), and instead opted for smaller Boeing variants. Ultimately, the deciding factor for airlines was the total operating cost of the plane especially in instances when it’s difficult to have enough passenger count to fill an Airbus A380.
Although the current re-negotiations are meant to protect and safeguard the American manufacturers first and foremost, I find it a bit puzzling because these discussion are the same reason why other manufacturers, such as Samsung, are taking additional steps to strengthen their presence in the US. The question remains whether the American manufacturers, such as Whirlpool, are ultimately better served this way or not.
I totally agree with Mike’s point of view. Apple, as all big corporations, do have to accept the social responsibility, but the question is whether that responsibility is merely to the US or to the entire world. For the last several years, Apple revenues from the US market is actually shrinking relative to other regions – as a matter of fact, China is the one market which was key to Apple’s ever increasing sales and revenues.
The second question is whether Apple can actually sustain the existing count of US-based jobs and all the salaries associated with those if it wasn’t for the high profits generated by the existing ‘low cost’ Asian supply chain. Because otherwise, Apple has to accept lower margins, and I am confident that the consumers are not willing to absorb the higher price tags for the same products if Apple were to change its supply chain. That’s another question which I do not have the answer for either.
From a ‘Marketing’ lens, your questions at the end are valid. Considering the fact that the original business model of Starbucks is based on the coffee experience, I would actually take it a step further and question the risk Starbucks may face if their drinks become eventually a commodity. I imagine such a scenario may ultimately benefit the competitors who failed to provide the experience element.
It is a fact that companies can always rely on technological advancements to improve their operations and time to market, but I guess the question is whether companies are able to pass the additional cost to the customers or they would have to absorb it, impacting their margins. Until the use of robots and 3D-printing in the shoe-making industry is streamlined, I imagine the manual labor option is still more cost effective in mass markets.
I was really stunned to the fact that personal care products currently contribute to one third landfill waste. Although eliminating some of the packaging might reduce the waste, I think it requires the entire beauty industry to draw an action plan and solve the root cause of the issue. It seems that the major sustainable action that Sephora has taken so far is reducing their total stores energy consumption to reduce emissions, which does not necessarily solve the landfill problem. Ultimately, I do agree, it is a challenge especially when there are multiple partners in the chain.