Red Lobster’s business model is certainly at risk with the effects that climate change are having on its supply of fresh seafood. I’d argue that the proposed initiatives to combat this issue don’t go far enough, however.
Putting pressure on suppliers, ‘changing’ consumer behaviour and increasing information about these issues might alter these trends to a small extent, but if Red Lobster is serious about its mission to combat climate change and protect its business, it can ultimately be taking these issues into its own hands.
Red Lobster could flat out refuse to accept seafood from suppliers who do not meet their environmental standards, rather than putting pressure on them. And rather than changing consumer behaviour, it can easily dictate what it puts on its menu.
So pull your finger out, Red Lobster, and practise what you preach!
Exploring new markets such as Europe and Asia is certainly an appropriate solution to the challenge that Mexico is about to face.
There is, of course, much more complexity in transporting avocados to Asia than to the United States. Exporters will have to follow best practices in keeping avocados fresh whilst transporting them across the globe, an operation that will no doubt incur additional expenses.
I guess the question to the exporters is whether this additional cost (combined with the markets’ willingness to pay) will be less than the extra 20% that US importers will have to pay. And if the US relies heavily on Mexico for the import of its avocados, it may ultimately be willing to pay a higher price for them, so it may be worth Mexico’s while holding tight to see if they can ride this wave!
I agree that working closer with other corporations is the key to taking on the challenge of reducing climate change’s effects on Danone’s business.
Vertically integrating with farmers presents a whole range of new challenges, however. First, there are anti-trust issues to take into account, that may prevent this integration from being simple to implement. And second, integrating with farmers will inevitably lead to squeezing them even further, in search for more value across the value chain, and could ultimately take away their livelihoods.
I’ll be very interested to see how this plays out!
One of the key value propositions of consultants, from what I have seen, is their ability to offer clients a fresh perspective on their business decisions, based on the company’s data, whilst keeping this data private and secure. In this day and age companies’ data is often their source of competitive advantage, and keeping this data private and secure is central to the companies’ ability to be successful.
I don’t see how crowd sourcing will ever take off if there isn’t a way of keeping companies’ data confined to only those who want to see these companies succeed.
If somebody innovates a solution to this challenge, it will be a game changer, though, and the industry stands to be shaken up for all the reasons stated above!
It’s interesting that governments are focused on implementing policies to regulate their space industries, but aren’t focused too heavily on how to plug the gaps created by their policies.
This seems to be leaving private companies to capitalise on the opportunities that these policies are creating, which will eventually accelerate the privatisation of the space industry. But will this actually be counter-productive to the world’s governments’ agendas? Given the space industry’s strategic importance from a security perspective, will losing control of this industry lead to a loosening of security in the long term?
I guess time will tell!