• Alumni

Activity Feed

Great article. I think that beyond protectionism and offshoring, the industry may inevitably lead the rise of competitors all over the world, mainly in emerging markets. Technology diffusion in the global world is happening every time faster, enabling new players to easily use Airbus’ and Boeing’s ‘intellectual property’; moreover, labor will continue being cheaper for the new players in emerging markets (with the strong drawback of lack of infrastructure). Additionally, and most important, as you mentioned, 60% of the demand will come outside the US and EU…

On November 30, 2017, AFM commented on Did you just buy snake oil made by slaves? :

Benefits from digitizing the pharma’s supply chain look pretty good for pharma companies. However, my question here is what proportion of this benefits will be transfered to the customers. Responsible and ethical companies, besides the pressure from their competitors, should be able to do this. Given the importance of this industry to the overall development of the communities, I really hope this will be the case.

I somewhat agree that certain companies should carry the bulk of the burden for climate change initiatives; those companies being the ones which is ‘easier’ to attribute the effect (i.e. tons of greenhouse gas emissions). However, I do not agree that these companies are the only that are fighting this fight. Many startups and big companies have surfaced the context with innovative actions to try to contribute in any way they can – try HBS for example, with their compost initiatives.

My optimistic view in this topic is that Trump’s and other contrarian’s position will fade away very rapidly in the coming years. Inevitably, contrarians will hit a wall with climate change and I hope that it will be in the near future. In the meanwhile I also hope that companies with high greenhouse emissions not become conformists and relax their processes and standards, otherwise they will be also hitting a bigger wall on new regulations to try to overcome the damage they would have been created instead.

The questions posed by this article are intrinsically the same for every emerging country trying to find a (economic) place in this world. Infrastructure and Education are in fact the logical levers to attack in the mid- and long-term, which could indirectly affect other conditions in the country (e.g. access to health). However, what to do now, the short-term? Some countries in LatAm and Africa have benefited from tactical ‘alliances’ with countries in their vecinity, building stonger and complementary supply chains. I’m not really sure what’s the environment in SEA, but this could be a potential idea to tackle immediately.

On November 30, 2017, AFM commented on An End to the Walmart Era? :

Before reading this article, I thought that the brick & mortar Walmart, and other retail stores, were doomed in the upcoming digital era. Without acquiring ecommerce platforms (like Walmart bought, it would be really difficult to compete against them. I however may see a bright future for them, or at least for Walmart. I hadn’t though about the use of their footprint as fullfilment centers, an advantage that if levereged correctly would overturn Amazon’s reign. By having 90% of the US population in a 10 mile radius, Walmart should be able to create “instant” deliveries products and threaten Amazon’s Prime & Now products.