Professor Emeritus's Profile

Compelling post, John! I wonder if they should also commit to communicating their findings on population level research to their customers and to the wider public. It seems to me that there is a massive dearth of information on this in the wider public sphere. Whilst it is useful for researchers to communicate their findings to readers of the Lancet, the big problem I see is that the general public is largely unaware of this research. Awareness is growing but not as quickly as it should [1]. If the public do not understand the risks, it will never be a a priority for their public representatives. Clear, simple communication of the health risks of climate change from reputable sources such as health insurers could educate the public and potentially have more impact than Aetna lobbying the US government alone.

I agree with your assessment that investors will not want Aetna to shoulder the burden of climate change alone. Changing public opinion and pressuring government to make changes may be the most efficient uses of their efforts and money. I also think that once they have figured out a means of effective communication with the public and the government, they could use their platform to influence the public and the government on education, employment and the other social determinants of heath.

[1] http://news.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx

Great post! Your first question, if the academic elite is so convinced of the benefits of international cooperation, why is more than half of the UK population tempted by isolationism, is surely the big question of the last two years. The first thing I would say is that referenda are not a great way to make complex decisions [1]. Indeed, the treaty of Lisbon which gave EU states the right to leave the EU in the first place was at first held up by a no vote in a referendum on the issue held in Ireland. It was clear after this referendum that the public were not well informed of the issues. Extremist views had grabbed the headlines and clogged the airwaves with confusing, baseless rhetoric. So, Ireland went to the polls again and the referendum was passed [2]. Neither of these referenda represent a good democratic process. Even wilder untruths were spread during the Brexit campaign. In the UK, even the Telegraph, which supported the vote leave campaign, has fact checked the claims that were most influential in the Brexit vote and have found that many were false [3]. Perhaps Oxford University has a responsibility to connect with the public and try to bridge the divide between academic elites and the public. Public opinion will still be one determining factor in what kind of Brexit deal will be struck.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/world/americas/colombia-brexit-referendum-farc-cameron-santos.html
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/5579684/Ireland-to-hold-second-referendum-on-Lisbon-Treaty.html
[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/eu-referendum-claims-won-brexit-fact-checked/

Great post! It’s certainly true that climate change is a political hot button for some. Just last week, the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance asked that the US delegation be excluded from the UN climate change talks, since the US decided to leave the Paris Agreement. They have accused the US of trying to sabotage the agreement from inside the talks [1]. With Syria signing the Agreement this week, the US is now the only nation not committed to the Agreement. Interestingly, a second unofficial delegation of politicians and activists from the US attended the talks to reassure other nations that they are committed to lowering emissions. Michael Bloomberg (MBA 1966) who traveled to the talks with the unofficial delegation remarked of the official US delegation “The Trump administration did send a delegation to Bonn – it might be the first climate conference where coal is being promoted as an example of sustainability. It will also likely be the last. The world is moving on and so is the United States” [2]. The FAO needs to continue their efforts to provide unbiased scientific data and solutions to climate change issues. The politicians will have to follow.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/us-un-climate-change-talks-donald-trump-africa-paris-agreement-cop23-a8044396.html
[2] https://www.politico.eu/article/top-democrats-stage-anti-trump-revolt-at-bonn-climate-summit/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication

Great post! As you alluded to above, it is unclear if they are becoming a retailer – and unclear if they should. To me, there is still a lot of complexity for the consumer in ordering direct from CPG companies and convenience is the key to winning online. It seems that Amazon is giving CPG companies the hard sell on direct to consumer through their marketplace platform [1]. To me, this seems to be a better value proposition to the customer and will be far easier than trying to set up their own distribution network. There is the obvious fear of becoming increasingly dependent on Amazon but, as long as people want P&G goods, they should be able to negotiate favorable terms with Amazon.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/retailwire/2017/04/07/why-amazon-is-trying-to-convince-cpg-giants-to-go-consumer-direct/#47636c2b4607

Great post! Your point about Cerner improving statistical software in order for providers to actually use data to the benefit of patients and to identify cost savings. It looks like they are teaming up with Amazon Web Services to work on predicting patient outcomes based on previous patient data [1]. I agree that interoperability may not deliver as much value to providers as expected in the short term. However, longitudinal data collection and analysis of patient outcomes, if done well, represents a huge opportunity to create value in the health care system by understanding which procedures and products work and which patients they work for. At the moment, we rely on very small (mostly industry sponsored) studies to determine the suitability of devices and procedures for use in huge and diverse patient populations. I think it’s a matter of when we start using EMR data, not if. Cerner is in a great position to capitalize on this opportunity.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/22/aws-is-partnering-with-cerner-on-cloud-deal-for-healtheintent.html

Great post! As you alluded to the key to success for this company will be finding a competitive edge before other flower companies simply start to copy their model. There are already some other players disrupting the flower delivery industry (such as BloomThat, BloomNation etc). It will be really important for Bouqs to grow quickly and dominate the market – they seem to be doing that, with a lot of venture money already pumped into the company. If they achieve that, they could use the data they are collecting on customer preference to galvanize their position. I think the idea of allowing customization is a good one as long as relatively few people use it so that they don’t run into inventory issues. They could also use the customized bouquet data to optimize their own offerings.

Interesting post! There is no doubt that Barclays will need to move their EU operations into the EU. With the European Banking Authority now moving to Paris (with Dublin very narrowly missing out), I wonder if Barclays should be building their presence there, too [1]. It should also be noted that the EU and the UK will have a land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The UK government has not laid out a plan for border control, although they have given verbal assurances that there will not be a physical land border [2]. Recently, an explosive leaked document suggested that Northern Ireland will need to remain in the customs union in order to prevent a physical land border [3]. However, Northern Ireland needs to remain part of the UK, not least due to the Good Friday Agreement which has kept Northern Ireland at peace since 1998. It is clear that there will need to be a hard border between the UK and the EU, it is a matter of where. If the borders between Northern Ireland and Ireland or the UK cannot be hard borders, there could potentially be consequences for the Ireland-EU border. Barclays and other banks should consider this as they choose where to locate in the EU.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/20/london-loses-european-medicines-agency-amsterdam-brexit-relocation
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/17/irish-pm-brexit-backing-politicians-did-not-think-things-through
[3] https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1117/920981-long-read-brexit/

Interesting post! There is no doubt that Barclays will need to move their EU operations into the EU. With the European Banking Authority now moving to Paris (with Dublin very narrowly missing out), I wonder if Barclays should be building their presence there, too [1]. It should also be noted that the EU and the UK will have a land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The UK government has not laid out a plan for border control, although they have given verbal assurances that there will not be a physical land border [2]. Recently, an explosive leaked document suggested that Northern Ireland will need to remain in the customs union in order to prevent a physical land border [3]. However, Northern Ireland needs to remain part of the UK, not least due to the Good Friday Agreement which has kept Northern Ireland at peace since 1998. It is clear that there will need to be a hard border between the UK and the EU, it is a matter of where. Hence, there could potentially be consequences for the Ireland-EU border. Barclays and other banks should consider this as they choose where to locate in the EU.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/20/london-loses-european-medicines-agency-amsterdam-brexit-relocation
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/17/irish-pm-brexit-backing-politicians-did-not-think-things-through
[3] https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/1117/920981-long-read-brexit/