This is a very interesting and challenging topic. You addressed really well the challenges for the UK, which are undeniable. It is very hard to predict or forecast how the UK will adapt to post-Brexit in the coming years if they go for a hard one. In fact, Tesco cannot predict the future reaction of its consumers: should they negotiate a mid-point price with their suppliers or invest in more products of their own, which might also represent a great opportunity. But there is another part of the problem rarely debated: what is the impact for the EU of having the UK leaving the single market? I agree with you that the outcome (soft vs hard) of the Brexit is still unpredictable, but we can expect reactions from the EU side given the significance of trades with the UK.
Another thing I would consider for Tesco is the expansion in discount stores under a Tesco sub-brand. Studies forecast that the biggest increase (12%) in discount stores over the 2013-2018 period will occur in the UK . Brexit or not, it is certainly an opportunity to catch for Tesco.
This is a very interesting essay about the uncertainty and unpredictability of NAFTA talks isolationism in general. In fact, I learn two things from your essay: the first one is that it is not clear who from the two countries would benefit from the renegotiation of NAFTA but that the outcome for ETP is hard to predict. The most important takeaway I find in your essay and in your questions is that the inability to have a clear visibility of the outcome of isolationism movement leading in particular to trade renegotiations pushes companies to be more reactive and adaptable. I take two lessons from that situation:
1) The first is the need to diversify your risk and not be dependent on a major trade that no longer offers long-term stability nor visibility.
2) The second one is to seek more in-countries opportunity as relation gets weakened with isolationism movement, be it between US, Canada and Mexico for example, or between the EU and the UK.
Finally, as we see in your essay that no matter how close the relationships are between a company and members of the current administration, companies should perhaps consider subscribing to additional insurances, that could raise the price of projects, but protect them from political uncertainty.
During your essay, I was wondering: “Do NB really need to address climate change issues further?” In fact, one answer to your question might be that 1. people will go after bigger beverages company to address these challenges before they ask you, 2. a strategy for NB is to wait that initiatives from bigger competitors with deeper pockets deliver results to then follow on the same initiatives. Also, another key element would be to understand what NB is chasing: for example, could they be interested in maximizing the value of their company to be acquired by Coca-Cola, in which case let would let Coca-Cola address the issue and not invest funds that would lower their valuation. Do they have the means to conduct initiatives like the reusable water one Coca-Cola is conducting  (noting also that Coca-Cola is almost 40 times their market cap)?
You raised two very interesting questions, Jack. The first one is to understand what motivates companies to address climate change challenges. Mars, which is not public, ranked very badly on the ratings you mentioned for water and land issues among other industry leaders. Therefore, are companies incentivized, or not, to address climate change challenges for share price reasons, customers concerns, or because of their own and spontaneous will to address it. To answer your question, I am sure that Mars would be proud and even advertise their ability to lead these initiatives in an economically viable way, but would probably not if results are not satisfying. Also, I wonder to what extent Mars is committing to really addressing the problem: they promised to invest a $1 billion over “the next few years” , which given their annual $33 billion revenue will represent a very little fraction invested to solve a quite pressing issue.
Great essay Eugene, really captures a challenge which is both ethical and economical. You are raising two important questions: who owns the AI technology? How much should patients pay for a technology that would not exist without the data they provided? I believe that the power of this technology combined with its intended use for health care purposes will eventually make a version of it operated by governments to ensure both economic accessibility and data protection for the patients. This directly answers your second question: the natural path to AI in healthcare would be a virtuous circle of patients giving their data to receive effective treatments in return.
This is a very interesting Cenk, as many other companies making products will face a similar challenge in the coming years. First, as customization is trend becoming more trendy every day, I do believe that Adidas will have a competitive advantage by being the first to address this issue. In fact, not only Adidas will be able to offer a customized product faster, but they will also reduce costs, from inventory up to labour costs. To answer the question you’re asking, there are 2 things to consider: the first one is to really understand where Adidas finds today a competitive advantage: is it by reducing the labour cost in its factories? not having to ship products worldwide? or delivering faster the product to the customer? I believe their biggest advantage is the responsiveness they are able to provide for any given product: if a product is not well received by the market, they are able more quickly to adjust it and deliver the products its customers want. Regarding the expansion of the technology in the future, Adidas will have to come up with more exclusive and limited edition product that Speedfactories will make profitable to produce.