Really interesting article; thank you for sharing! It is so ironic that something so universal as human health, in which disease can flow from one individual to another across countries and continents, now has people attempting to impose boundaries on it through isolationist measures. It is especially sad that advancement in a field in which more minds and collaboration are perhaps most important is being limited by intangible, man-made obstacles such as government policies. The article also reminded me of the role of bioethics in healthcare and research. Statements such as “the US has done more than its fair share” raise the question of whether nationalistic policies targeted at healthcare suggest that certain lives are valued more than others, when they should be valued equally. The key decision makers in this field and in government need to step back and think about what the true incentives are behind a nationalistic policy limiting knowledge sharing. In the end, everyone stands to lose from limited knowledge sharing because of the fluid nature of disease.
Interesting read! One important action that I believe Nike needs to take in this effort is addressing the other side of the argument (e.g. pro-nationalism), as I believe it would strengthen their argument. I do agree that Nike educate consumers about nationalism and its potential drawbacks, because it can also mobilize these consumers as a powerful way to spread its message. After educating consumers, media campaigns featuring real consumers presenting how the issue affects them could also be powerful. If Nike does decide to take precautions and begins to move manufacturing to the U.S., however, I would recommend that they do so very quietly. If it becomes known that they are doing so, it could be seen as a sign of them giving up their efforts.
Very interesting article! I agree that this is a very pressing issue in the fashion industry. There are several ways that the industry can encourage more awareness of environmental issues. For example, companies can partner with fashion-forward celebrities who have significant followings on social media (e.g. Gigi Hadid on Instagram) to promote climate change awareness campaigns. Prominent celebrities are often paid to place ads on their social media accounts because they have millions of followers. Ads can also be placed in prominent fashion magazines such as Vogue. Efforts such as these aimed at making climate change awareness in the fashion industry more fashionable could garner significant support.
Looking forward, two key questions remain: can this disruptive and entrepreneurial strategy be implemented in a sustainable way at a large corporation like UnitedHealth? And if so, are management and shareholders incentivized to commit to this undertaking given the current broken healthcare system and political turmoil?
Great read, Faraz! I think it is possible for large organizations to implement disruptive changes, though I do think it will be more difficult. After witnessing a hospital in the midst of implementing Epic software, I realized the large amount of orchestration it takes to implement such a change. There needs to be a clear timeline, regular town hall meetings, and outlining of goals and expectations. There also needs to be adequate support in the early phases of the transition to work out any issues as people get up to speed. However, it is certainly possible with the right amount of planning and motivation.
Unilever can make climate change an opportunity to generate value by using more recycled materials and providing cash back or discounts to those retailers who return recycled goods to Unilever. Retailers could in turn provide a discount to consumers who return used Unilever product packaging to stores for distribution back to Unilever and eventual recycling. This creates value for retailers and consumers via discounts, and it also creates value for Unilever in potentially reduced costs of materials.
Unilever has a large platform by which it can motivate organizations and governments to act against climate change. One way in which it might more effectively do so is by hiring celebrity spokespeople who have good relationships with the countries in which Unilever is negotiating.
Digitalization of patient data certainly poses risks to patient privacy, however, it also presents more opportunities to protect patient information. Physical records, for example, can be lost or transmitted insecurely (e.g. imagine medical records sitting on a fax or printer machine for several minutes before they are picked up by the respective medical professional). In this regard and others, digital records, if the proper controls are put in place, have the potential to better protect patient privacy. Kaiser Permanente is an example of an organization that has largely moved to EHRs. Patients can access information about past visits and email their doctor through one simple online interface. Similarly, physicians, log in to a computer in the patient room to see the latest data on their patient, record notes from the visit, and send prescriptions to the pharmacy for pick-up.
As for replacing physician judgement with AI, I believe this is still far off. Medicine is much an art as it is a science, and the human component of medicine should not be underestimated. AI may be able to provide a highly accurate diagnosis, however, a robot will always lack the empathy and bedside manner which gives even the sickest patients hope in their darkest hours.