To your questions, I don’t think that consumers will be willing to pay more for products created using sustainable supply chains. This is because Kellogg’s products can be easily substituted with their competitors. With increase competition there is also competition in lowest prices. Furthermore, sustainability is now considered a “given” criteria for many companies and not something which consumers feel they will need to pay for. I do believe that some measures towards tackling climate change will lead to lower costs such as reducing transportation and packaging materials mentioned in your article.
However, I question Kellogg’s procurement efforts and enforcement of sustainable practices. Yes they should vet the suppliers and implement sustainable criteria however they should not abuse their leverage power to the extent that it directly impacts the farmer’s level of income. Kellogg has started educating farmers and suppliers on sustainable practices but who absorbs the costs? Do they enforce these regulations and still pressure the suppliers to supply very low cost raw material goods which substantially impact their financials?
Thank you for such an interesting read! GM should continue to lobby government officials and NAFTA however I would be worry of GM investing too much into trying to mediate Trump’s legislation. As mentioned in the other comments I think that Trump’s administration may not last long and the legislation may not take effect. Instead, I would look at options which is best for the company’s business as a whole. First, I would look at how much of GM’s revenue is made up of sales in the US market so evaluate whether it would be profitable. Secondly, from Figure 2 we see that compared to other motor companies, GM has the greatest proportion of manufacturing plants in North America. As competition increases I would expect increase in competition of prices. In order to remain competitive GM should maybe consider Asia where the cost of production is mentioned in the article to be cheaper. GM should only implement measures which will improve the company’s financials as a whole and grow the business rather than just implementing measures to mediate the threat of the legislation.
Such an interesting read! I think Body Shop should first explore how much they can reduce the ingredients in their products to be at as minimal levels as possible whilst still giving the same benefit / scent. They can also explore cheaper substitutes to their ingredients. This will lead to new FDA registration and a slight change in the supply chain process but in the long term will help to reduce the amount of resource inputs and overall costs. In addition to educating local producers as mentioned by previous comments – I think they should also consider acquiring their own plantations to ensure constant supply of products and correct implementation of environmentally friendly approaches. They can also explore other global landscapes in which to invest and partner with local plantations.
In terms of their packaging, it is great that they are using recyclable materials. They can also explore reducing the thickness of their plastics and the variability in color on their packaging design as to reduce inputs and waste.
Thank you for an interesting article! The Hema supermarket highlights the transition of online retailers to offline brick and mortar stores. These new offline supermarkets serves as physical ecommerce distribution centers for the online retailers. I think that this is a very essential move and allows Alibaba to capture both the online and offline market especially in groceries which are highly perishable.
To you question about whether Hema should sell everything? I think this will play out as more information is collected regarding customer behavior. However I think that groceries and households good serves as great start to the platform. In terms of data collection and integrated advance technology, they can introduce mobile payments which allows the company to track customer behaviour and preferences. This will also allow for customized experiences for each customer.
To your first question, I think Tesco should definitely start investing in measure to protect them against potential Brexit scenarios. As Tesco has a global footprint, they should work with their global supplier to strike contracts which allows for lower costs globally. They should send in Tesco team exports to help their suppliers to improve their supply chain and efficiency. They should also share information with their local suppliers in order to see where costs can be further cut. These measures will help Tesco to be competitive in the long term in both the Uk market and globally.
Brexit will definitely have impact on the food industry in both positives and negatives way. It will reduce competition for domestic players especially for Tesco which is in the best position to innovate in comparison to their competitors. Negatively it may lead to strained relationships with suppliers as they demand higher prices and margins. Tesco will need to implement measures to best capitalize on the Brexit scenarios and address the risks.
Thank you for such an interesting article! I think 3D printing will definitely play a big role in the retail industry in the future. However, with the current costs and capabilities of 3D printing I think that it is not yet suited for all of Zara’s product lines. Zara’s proposition is “fast fashion” where it follows customer’s trends and more importantly copies/ adapt slightly from other high fashion brands. Customers are not looking for personalization but are looking for just “fashionable” casual every day apparel. However, I do see potential in the accessories line where customers may want to tweak the design (eg stone color, necklace color) or the sizes (ie ring sizes and bracelet sizes). Accessories is more timeless and require more specification in terms of fitting to the customers.