Sud's Profile

The opportunities that digitalization of the pharmaceutical supply chain provides are theoretically clear. However, I take issue with the notion that patients will be comfortable giving pharmaceutical companies their data; this will be an onerous task, and will need to be tackled sensitively and differently by geography and customer segment. For example, in the UK, the National Health Service (NHS) stores a vast amount of patient data. The majority of patients are comfortable with this as the NHS provides free care at the point of service. Nevertheless, earlier this year the NHS’s information technology systems suffered a system-wide cyber-security attack [1], hugely undermining patient confidence in the robustness of these integrated information technology systems. In environments such as the US where individuals pay directly for their healthcare, and therefore the costs of such a data breach are much higher, pharmaceutical companies will undoubtedly have a tough time convincing patients that the benefits of sharing their data outweigh the risks. A potential solution is for pharmaceutical companies to gather patient data indirectly – piecing together implied patient healthcare information from other public sources such as spending patterns and geolocation data.

[1] NHS seeks to recover from global cyber-attack as security concerns resurface: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/12/hospitals-across-england-hit-by-large-scale-cyber-attack

Thank you Heejin – this is a great read. It is clear that consumers will continue to demand more customization going forward, and as you mention, competitors are all creating similar programs to answer this customer need [1]. Accordingly, the customer promise for sporting apparel manufacturers is changing – consumers will increasingly demand ‘unique’ sporting apparel. Adidas has no choice other than to respond by creating its SPEEDFACTORY program. The key to outcompeting other apparel retailers will be in how Adidas manages to translate its investment in this program into a value-added service for its end consumer. My concern is that Nike has historically been better at managing its marketing campaigns around new products [2]; Adidas will need to improve its ability in this area so as to ensure it does not end up losing market share to Nike and other competitors.

[1] Athletic Footwear Market in the US 2016-2020: https://www.technavio.com/report/usa-general-retail-goods-and-services-athletic-footwear-market-us-2016-2020?utm_source=T2&utm_medium=BW&utm_campaign=Media
[2] Nike Football: World Cup 2010 South Africa: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=40531

A great example of a supply chain that will be directly affected by the current ongoing Brexit negotiations concerning the Northern Ireland/ Ireland border. However, the potential EUR1.3M annual extra cost that would result from a short delay on the Northern Ireland/ Ireland border is relatively insignificant in relation to Diageo’s annual net profit (GBP2.7B [1]). On the other side of the argument, Diageo could potentially implement a range of cost savings as a result of moving the Guinness packaging plant close to its Dublin brewery. A cost-benefit analysis of the pros and cons of this decision could potentially result in the company creating a packaging plant close to the brewery.

[1] Diageo Annual Report 2017: https://www.diageo.com/pr1346/aws/media/3960/diageo-2017-annual-report.pdf

Thanks for the article Nick, very interesting. Scope 3 emissions account for 92% of the firm’s entire carbon footprint. It strikes me that Pepsico’s action plan in this area is lacking and vague (1. Improving vendor and cooler efficiencies, 2. Developing alternative packaging materials, 3. Increasing recycled content in packaging materials, 4. Incorporating environmentally-conscious design into product development process). Pepsico should use its position on the Climate Leadership Council [1] following through with its proposed new carbon tax [2] and implementing a systematic outreach plan with each of part of its external supply chain in order to push best practices so as to reduce those firms’ carbon footprints.

[1] Climate Leadership Council: https://www.clcouncil.org/mission/
[2] The Energy 202: Exxon, GM and Pepsi plan to back carbon tax floated by ex-GOP officials: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2017/06/20/the-energy-202-exxon-gm-and-pepsi-plan-to-back-carbon-tax-floated-by-ex-gop-officials/5947e0eae9b69b2fb981dd82/?utm_term=.68ee5a1e6c3e

Thank you for bringing up this important topic JDW. As you state, the government of theMaldives needs to be action oriented in its approach, outlining a range of measures to solve this issue. It is, however, apparent that the country is not adequately prepared for the worst case situation, whereby the entire population will need to be relocated. I would urge the government to reconsider the relocation fund, raising money from tourists. For example, the government could increase airport taxes, marginally increasing flight prices.In 2016 there were just under 4 million international passengers travelling into the Maldives [1]. A $10 excess ‘relocation fund tax’ charge per flight with 8 million international flights per year (assuming each tourist travels in and out of the country within the year) would build up an extra $80m per year for the relocation fund. By the time that national population relocation is required (c.80 years time as per your essay), this will have built up an extra $6.4B. This and other forms of marginal increases to tourist taxes (e.g. hotel bookings) would rapidly help the country build up the relocation fund.

[1] Statistical Pocket Book of Maldives: http://statisticsmaldives.gov.mv/nbs/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Statistical-Pocketbook-of-Maldives-2017.pdf

Maud, very interesting, thank you for sharing your views. The challenge that Brexit poses for businesses in the UK stems from the uncertainty created by the current political brinkmanship being played out by the UK and the EU. Whilst most outcomes look negative for fully UK based businesses, companies such as Airbus do have the potential to take advantage of the situation. As you mention, the split of European production across Germany, France, and the UK, and China provides management with the opportunity to lobby governments on both sides of the Brexit divide to potentially make special dispensations for the airline industry. So far management has issued hard demands on the UK government (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-41278970) – perhaps by working in concert with governments across Europe, companies such as Airbus could more positively contribute to the Brexit dialogue and outcome.