Shruti's Profile

Very interesting article on the effect of protectionism on brands that are identified as imported. Other commenters have already pointed out the likelihood that minimum conditions for maintaining geographical indicators or a shift in consumer preferences for imported goods may lessen the risk on the marketing side. The issues of re-establishing a supply chain and production facility remains key to the discussion. It is unlikely that building such a presence can be achieved painlessly.

Thanks for bringing up this topic Austin. This is an important question for suppliers that are attempting to differentiate themselves in a commodity goods market. As other commentators have noted, there is some uncertainty on the likelihood of large companies making procurement decisions based on values. At the same time, HPE itself does not seem to face any specific challenges from climate change. There is no operating model challenge it needs to address through this strategy. In the event that suppliers are able to offer this service to HPE and HPE is able to sell this onwards as a feature to customers, there is again a lack of defensibility in this differentiation. Given these factors, there seem to be very minimal reasons for HPE to continue to offer this service, if desired customer traction is not observed.

Thanks to TK and the commentators for a very interesting article and subsequent comments discussion!

I agree with JJFG and EE on the fact that Nike’s strong brand and emotional connection to customers provides very strong buffers against possible poaching attempts. However, this does force them on to a path of creating premium and recognizable products. To Fred’s point, basic and low-cost products are unlikely to survive a customer’s price sensitivity, especially if they are displayed on such a price comparable site such as Amazon. This may lead them down the path of over-engineering their products. Eventually all brands may be fighting a closely contested war for market share amongst premium customers.

Secondly, this sort of out-sourced digitalization does not give Nike any data or learning on the coming future of retail and customer behaviours. It would be great to understand in greater detail how Nike expects digitalization to improve its speed and innovation offerings.

Great article Nick! The question of how incumbents are working to avoid being disrupted by new services is a fascinating one. Kunal, Fred and you have already discussed the impact on customers of treating stores as last mile warehouses. Beyond the in-store logistics, one question that arises is that are the existing set of stores optimized to serve as last mile destinations? Current stores have been located for a different set of considerations and merely treating them as warehouses (integrated or separated) may not serve the purpose of building an efficient density of supply centers.

Secondly, last mile delivery and logistics services in the US have not demonstrated a sound and sustainable business model. Multiple companies have struggled to win this segment and many startups operating in the sector are struggling [1]. This is a sector with its own specific challenges. Walmart may be best served by not trying to develop this capability (by either acquisition or delivery), but rather by independently contracting with existing players to utilize them to service demand.

[1] http://www.retailwire.com/discussion/are-delivery-start-ups-in-trouble/

This was an enjoyable read Anmol! Two of the major questions your article raised for me are: 1. the amount of greenhouse emissions actually caused by hospitals and, 2. the effectiveness of asking hospitals to make sustainability and green-technology related decisions. I found @Yin’s comment on the actual scale of pollution created by hospitals to be very illuminating. The next aspect is also alluded to by the other commentators, when they suggest that hospitals should work towards maximizing direct health returns, as they may not be placed or expected to address these challenges.
The suggestion to treat hospitals (and perhaps all public institutions) on par with for-profit organizations would allow for efficient allocation of capital towards addressing climate change. If hospitals had to make regular payments towards their pollution costs, it would incentivize management and the public towards mitigating and ultimately eliminating this risk.
A cynical question on the link between increased need for care (Eg: due to increased incidences of Asthma) and increasing emissions: At present healthcare’s business model is based on treating and alleviating patient suffering. It is not based on improving quality of life. As such, is its operating model likely to shift to accommodate greater environmental stewardship and reducing the number of patients requiring care?

This was an enjoyable read Anmol! Two of the major questions your article raised for me are: 1. the amount of greenhouse emissions actually caused by hospitals and, 2. the effectiveness of asking hospitals to make sustainability and green-technology related decisions. I found @Yin’s comment on the actual scale of pollution created by hospitals to be very illuminating. The next aspect is also alluded to by the other commentators, when they suggest that hospitals should work towards maximizing direct health returns, as they may not be placed or expected to address these challenges.
The suggestion to treat hospitals (and perhaps all public institutions) on par with for-profit organizations would allow for efficient allocation of capital towards addressing climate change. If hospitals had to make regular payments towards their pollution costs, it would incentivize management and the public towards mitigating and ultimately mitigating this risk.
A cynical question on the link between increased need for care (Eg: due to increased incidences of Asthma) and increasing emissions: At present healthcare’s business model is based on treating and alleviating patient suffering. It is not based on improving quality of life. As such, is its operating model likely to shift to accommodate greater environmental stewardship and reducing the number of patients requiring care?

Thanks for an engaging read Jason! The article touches on a very important and relevant topic, given the current climate of protectionism. The above two comments also bring in diverse perspectives and interesting leads for further probing the true nature of SunPower’s problems.

I wanted to add that the imposition of internal tariffs by the USA government is especially strange given their opposition in the WTO to other countries adopting protectionist policies [1] and the fact that a USA based company is equally impacted by this move. In the above case, India lost its case to exert domestic content requirements in the WTO. The interesting aspect is that India has now sued the USA in the WTO against protectionism in their domestic (state) markets [2].

Both these cases highlight the importance of global agreements and institutions as protectors of long-term thinking and stability on issues of public policy. These institutions allow for a measure of protection against populist positioning and short-termism by localized political actors.

[1] http://www.worldwatch.org/another-solar-trade-dispute-united-states-files-wto-complaint-against-india
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-usa-trade/india-takes-u-s-renewable-energy-dispute-to-the-wto-idUSKCN11I165