Interestingly enough, it appears Adidas is fighting one megratrend, isolationism, with another megatrend, increased digitalization in their supply chain. I agree with you that the CEO may be saying he is not worried about BAT because he is already proactively putting mechanisms in place to combat the possible repercussions. That said, I’m curious as to what Adidas’s competitors are doing. In many industries, competition is somewhat welcome, as long as there is a “level playing field”. In saying that BAT will impact competitors equally, I believe this level playing field is exactly what Rorsted is referring to. However, what you’ve pointed out is Adidas’s attempt to create a new competitive edge which will diminish the level playing field enacted by trade regulations. If other organizations are also exploring digitalization to create their own competitive advantages, Rorsted may not feel quite as confident considering Adidas’s large exposure to BAT.
I had no idea chicken feet was such a popular snack and portion of the US poultry market’s revenue! It appears that Georgia is on the right track by trying to work with China and maintain a political relationship while combatting the growing isolationism of the US. However, I agree that it is not enough. In order to truly resolve the growing poultry concerns you outlined, Georgia must do more to influence US national politics. That said, how much influence do you think Georgia really has compared to some of the other 49 states? It seems in today’s political state, individual state and market concerns do not seem to be as much of a priority as many less critical topics that have come up on Capitol Hill. This is further shown by your example involving Rosa DeLaura. How can Georgia and other states with high stakes in other countries influence the highly volatile US political landscape?
It seems impossible for pharmaceutical companies to avoid digitization at this point in time. As you listed, the benefits of digitization are endless – not only for Pfizer and other pharmaceutical organizations, but also for consumers. That said, many consumers do not believe that the reduced costs and increased convenience outweighs the invasion of privacy. You mentioned the biggest issue at hand are the regulatory barriers, however, I would argue that consumer perception is an even bigger barrier. Even if regulations were passed to allow the highly effective supply chain you described, do you believe consumers would be on board to send details regarding their consumption behavior to companies notoriously known for ripping patients off? Personally, I believe organizations such as Pfizer should focus on convincing consumers to buy into digitization – using this tactic, consumers can also act as influencers and put pressure on regulatory bodies as well.
As a titan in the media and entertainment world, Disney appears to be an organization that can influence the evolution of streaming services. However, based on your essay, it appears they are struggling to stay ahead of the curve and are instead playing catch up with the current OTT giants – namely, Netflix. How has Netflix responded to Disney’s attempts to bring their streaming services in house despite their exclusive partnership? Also, I’m curious as to how Disney’s media sales have dropped as more users switch to streaming. Although $325 million may come off as a success in the first year of their partnership, I would hesitate and assume they lost much more than this in revenue as many customers avoided their traditional selling platforms. Generally, I believe it is better to bring services such as this in house, to decrease reliability on others (in this case, Netflix), but it appears Disney has yet determine a way to do this successfully.
Immediately, your essay reminds me of a recent case where we discussed how responsible an organization is for influencing and monitoring their suppliers. As we discussed in that class, companies are being pushed to exert more authority over suppliers to ensure they have proper labor conditions, do not employ child labor, and – in Nestle’s case – are prepared for and helping to combat climate change. Greenwashing presents an interesting problem that has arisen as a result of their green efforts. I think it is very common to confuse consumers by associating physical and environmental health, and in many situations the consumers who care about these two factors are one in the same. Do you think it is possible for Nestle to promote their environmental friendly products in a way that does not make them appear “healthier” overall? I would be nervous that this approach would only further confuse consumers.
Worried Sommelier, you have definitely worried this wine lover! Hybrid grape varieties are an interesting solution to this dire situation. Are the hybrids you mentioned selling as well as the wines Nederburg traditionally sells? Although they may be able to replace some of their crops with these varieties, I would be nervous about the success of these new wines. Particularly considering the smaller batch size and the slow evolution of the carefully curated wine tastes that you mentioned. That said, I’m not wineries can afford to keep investing in resources to produce regional classics as it seems those resources will not be able to keep up with the pace and long term repercussions of climate change.