Tag Archives: President Trump

Is the era of the fence-sitting corporation over?

Corporate CEOs have historically remained silent on politically divisive issues to avoid a potential backlash from consumers and their own employees. Last week, this rule was turned on its head.

Three high-profile advisory councils were disbanded by U.S. President Donald Trump last week after a cascade of CEO resignations over his response to the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally.

Mr Trump dissolved the American Manufacturing Council and the Strategic and Policy Forum after it was leaked that the remaining members of the two councils were planning a press announcement on Wednesday 16th August about disbanding the groups. High-profile resignations up to that point included Kenneth Frazier (Merck CEO), Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank, Intel Chief Executive Brian Krzanich, ADL-CIO’s Richard Trumka and Thea Lee, the Alliance for American Manufacturing president Scott Paul, Campbell Soup’s Denise Morrison and 3M’s Inge Thulin.

A similar revolt in the President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities took place two days later, with 16 out of the 17 members quitting, leading to the White House stating that the committee’s executive order would not be renewed.

Is the line between politics and business dissolving?

Michael Maslansky, the head of a language strategy firm that advises major companies, told the BBC last week that “the era of the fence-sitting corporation is over”.

In an unprecedented situation, the moral compass has now been placed in the hands of business leaders, who are coming under increasing pressure to comment on political events. Donald Trump’s tweet about “pressure on the businesspeople of the [councils]” gets this absolutely correct.

Many of the CEOs who resigned from the advisory councils made statements along the lines of having “no choice” about the matter. In other words, Trump’s response to Charlottesville put them in a situation where their connection with the president contradicted their company’s corporate positions on race, diversity and equality.

Even CEOs without a formal position on an advisory board, including Apple’s Tim Cook, spoke out in condemnation last week. In the past, it was seen as safer to remain silent, or risk the wrath of customers (and employees) from the other side of the political spectrum.

Why is this happening? “If you’re silent about an issue, then each side will assume you’re on the wrong side. You end up really having to choose”, says Maslansky. Another sentiment that was frequently expressed after Charlottesville was the idea that silence in the face of injustice (including racism) is tantamount to complicity.

Ideally, every company would have a Values Statement which would dictate the CEO’s response to any relevant issue. This means the “choice” doesn’t come down to the personal whim or leaning of any individual business leader.

Where will this end? With political divisions only increasing, will we see consumers do business only with companies that reflect their political views? This is already happening on the fringes, with regular calls going out from both sides to boycott various companies (think #DeleteUber, or #AnywherebutTarget). Terms for this include “dollar voting”, “ethical consumerism” and “moral boycotting”.

For procurement and supply managers, daily buying decisions could become so fraught with larger implications that it will become hard to keep track. But if the end customer expects organisations to make purchasing decisions that are in line with their own values, this is certainly a space to watch.

As for CEOs, the era of carefully-worded, politically-neutral statements may be over. When a new CEO steps into a role, their customers, their employees and the Board will want to know where they stand politically and how this will influence the corporate culture.

To quote a meme that’s currently doing the rounds on social media: sitting on the fence only gets you one thing: splinters.

The vanishing line between business and politics will be one of the topics under discussion at the Chicago Big Ideas Summit on Thursday 28th September. If you’re a CPO and located in or near the Chicago area, there are still some seats available (limited to 50 attendees). If you’re not quite CPO-level (yet) or based on the other side of the globe, don’t worry – we’ve got you covered. Simply register for free as a digital delegate on Procurious, and we’ll bring all the Big Ideas from Chicago to you! Click here to find out more.


 In other news this week:

Australia to develop anti-slavery legislation

  • Australia’s Turnbull government will soon require companies with an annual turnover of at least $100 million to publish “Modern Slavery Statements” on a publicly accessible central repository.
  • The statements will include measures companies are taking in their supply chains to combat modern slavery, including human trafficking, debt bondage and forced labour.
  • The government is also considering drafting a Modern Slavery Act and an independent anti-slavery watchdog to investigate complaints and educate businesses.

Read more in The Age.

 The City of Los Angeles is looking for a CPO

  • The city of LA is seeking a CPO to fill a newly-created position created as part of a wider local government remodelling.
  • The new CPO “will be responsible for the development of a plan to strategically leverage the city’s spend, identify cost savings, employ long-range operational policies and procedures that align with industry best practices, increase transparency, and reduce time to contract with the city”.

Read more at Supply Chain Digital.

There’s One Key Reason To Buy American In 2017

With the Trump administration’s “Made in America” campaign in full swing, attention has turned to the Pentagon’s global supply chain. The reasons to Buy American might be a little more compelling than you expected….

In 1933 Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the 1933 Buy American Act which required the Pentagon to purchase US-manufactured products for anything over a $3,500 threshold. The military supply chain looked very different to today’s, over 80 years later.

The law required that the U.S. military’s entire supply chain be sourced domestically, from the textiles that go into uniforms to the raw materials that are used to create tanks and other weaponry. Roosevelt’s intention was clear: firstly, the law was a patriotic one, with the ‘buy American’ message resonating as strongly in the 1930s as it does among voters today. More importantly, the Act was designed to ensure a strong manufacturing base, critical to the country’s recovery from the Great Depression.

Roosevelt said in 1940: “Guns, planes, ships and many other things have to be built in the factories and the arsenals of America. They have to be produced by workers and managers and engineers with the aid of machines which, in turn, have to be built by hundreds of thousands of workers throughout the land.”

Is Buy American realistic in 2017?

While the 1933 law is ostensibly still in effect, the military supply chain draws heavily on foreign materials and components. In 2013, for example, nearly $20 billion (6.4 per cent of all U.S. military spending) went to overseas entities. This is achieved through the use of exemptions or waivers, which guarantee flexibility and security of supply.

After the White House published a “Buy American” executive order in April, the Office of Management and Budget provided new guidance to federal agencies on enforcing the existing laws, limiting exemptions and maximising the procurement of U.S. products. The Pentagon’s acquisitions office has reportedly instructed its contractors to put in place a training program on how to comply with the 1933 law.

However, there are also a number of materials that simply can’t be found or manufactured domestically, such as the rare earth element needed for flame-resistant rayon fibres used in uniforms (sourced solely from Austria), night vision goggles (91 per cent of which are from China), or lithium ion batteries, semiconductors, microchips and even missile propellant.

Is cybersecurity a reason to Buy American?

Two of the reasons for the 1933 Buy American Act – building patriotism and manufacturing jobs – still remain valid and are a key focus on Trump’s administration, but in today’s world of hi-tech military hardware, there’s a third, critical factor – cybersecurity.

Commentators are alarmed by the presence of Chinese-made microchips in America’s most advanced fighter jets, while components from other foreign entities can be found in American communication satellites, unmanned drones, bomb disposal robots and other gear. Futurist and author Peter Singer, predicted that these microchips could be used to “blow American fighter jets from the sky” if the two countries were ever to go to war.

While very little can be done about the rare-earth materials and metals found only outside of the U.S., it remains to be seen whether the Made in America push will lead to supply chains for vital components including microchips and semiconductors re-shored to the U.S.

In other news this week…

Supply Chain Management software market booming

  • Analyst firm Gartner has announced that the supply chain management (SCM) software market will reach $13 billion by the end of this year, up 11% from 2016.
  • Gartner has also predicted the market will exceed $19 billion by 2021.
  • Growth is being driven by a demand for agility, as vendors move to cloud-first or could-only deployment models, while end-users are becoming more comfortable about cloud security and recognise the benefits of software-as-a-service solutions.

Read more on MH&L news 

When does an SME need a procurement function?

  • New research from Wax Digital has found that having a procurement function is just as vital for SMEs as it is for large corporates.
  • The UK-based survey found that 75% of respondents said procurement was needed once a company reaches a £50M turnover, 77% claim to need procurement by the time it has 100 supplier contracts, and 72% said that procurement was necessary once 500 invoices per month were being processed.
  • Rising costs was the most common reason for introducing procurement, followed closely by inefficient processes and increasing business risk.

For more information visit www.waxdigital.com

Elon Musk’s Hyperloop hits the news again

  • Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk made headlines on Friday when he announced via Twitter that he had “verbal approval” to build a hyperloop – an ultra-high-speed underground transport system – linking New York and Washington DC.
  • If it goes ahead, passengers and cargo would be packed into pods and shot through a system of giant vacuum tubes on magnetic cushions, cutting the current travel time from nearly three hours (high speed train) to 29 minutes for the 355km journey.
  • Musk has also been in conversation with Chicago and Los Angeles officials about hyperloops.

Read more at Financial Review

 

24 Series 9: India Plants 66 Million Trees

The following events occur in real time: India takes on the monumental challenge of planting 66 million trees in just 24 hours. And they didn’t even need Jack Bauer’s help…

The world reeled when, last month, President Trump made the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Many regarded this as the most devastating decision of his presidency so far and he has faced critisicm for his short-termism, isolationism and rejection of science.

Todd Stern, writing for The Atlantic shortly before Trump made the announcment expressed the concern of many that “the Paris regime cannot work in the long run if the world’s indispensable power has left the table.”

“The Trump administration is about to throw down the gauntlet.” He continued. “If it does, we’ll need to take up the challenge.”

If this week’s evidence is anything to go by…the challenge is very much accepted!

There are 66 million new trees in India…

An astonishing 1.5 million volunteers pledged to “Make India Green Again” as they planted 66 million trees in less than 24 hours.

Volunteers of all ages assembled along the Narmada River in Madhya Pradesh, Central India,  to plant 20 varieties of tree as part of a new Guiness World Record attempt. India holds the previous world record for planting 49.3 million trees in 24 hours last year in Uttar Pradesh. This year, they’ve gone several steps (16.7 million trees!) further and done it in just 12 hours.

India has  promised to increase forest coverage to 95 million hectares by 2030 as part of it’s role in the Paris Agreement. The Indian governement has forecasted a spend of $6.2 billion for creating new forests.

Madhya Pradesh’s government spearheaded this particualr campaign and were understandably thrilled with its success.

Shivraj Singh Chouhan, state chief minister for the region, tweeted after the event: “Thank people of Jabalpur for making tree plantation a huge success. You are not only saving Narmada, but also [the] planet.”

“We cannot be too selfish. We have to spare something for upcoming generations,” he continued.

Is planting with drones the future of sustainability?

Australia’s answer to deforestation is a little more technical than the enlisting of 1.5 million volunteers!

Dr. Susan Graham, an Australian engineer, is developing a drone that could eventually result in the planting of an additional 1 bilion trees per year, and there’s no time to waste! NASA predicts that if current deforestation levels proceed, the world’s rainforests may be completely in as little as 100 years.

The world has lost nearly half its forests for agriculture, development or resource extraction. An estimated 18 million acres are lost each year and deforestation and forest degradation are responsible for 17 per cent of all carbon emissions. The value of the benefits that standing forests provide is immense.

The planet loses 15 billion trees every year so “although we plant about 9 billion trees every year, that leaves a net loss of 6 billion trees,” Dr Graham said. “The rate of replanting is just too slow.”

The drones that Dr Graham is developing could not only plant at ten times the rate of hand planting and at 20 per cent of the cost; they can also access, and plant, in previously inacessible areas , such as mountainsides or steep hills.

The drone technology is currently being tested around the world so watch this space!

What are your views on sustainability and deforestation? What can, and should,  organisations be doing to help? Let us know in the comments section below. 

In other procurement news this week….

Japan & EU Trade Deal Snubs Trump

  • Japan took on the mantle of the global rules-based trading system, as it sidestepped a failing trade agreement with the United States to forge a historic new pact with the European Union
  • The trade deal that will cover nearly 30 percent of the global economy, 10 percent of the world’s population and 40 percent of global trade
  • The deal would lower trade barriers for a sweeping array of products, including pork, wine, cheese and automobiles. The pact would be a heavy blow to American producers of these goods/

Read more on The Washington Post

How Will Northern Ireland’s ££ Be Spent?

  • Northern Ireland is set to receive an extra £1bn over the next two years as part of a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to keep Theresa May’s minority government in power
  • Arlene Foster, leader of the DUP, said the deal would boost the economy and allow investment in new infrastructure, health and education
  • There are around 1.8m people in Northern Island and the headline deal equates to an extra £550 per head

Read more on Supply Management

Amazon’s latest venture is wine!

  • Amazon’s continuing quest to make and sell everything in the world has led to it branching out into a new area: overseeing the production of a new range of wines
  • Unusually for Amazon, this new brand isn’t aimed at undercutting the competition with bargain-basement prices, as with its Amazon Basics line
  • Amazon Wine’s Nick Loeffler added: “We’re thrilled to connect wineries, like King Estate, with millions of customers and give them an innovative format to launch new brands”

Read more on The Guardian 

China’s TIP Demotion: Productive ot Provocative?

2017’s Trafficking in Persons report highlights China as one of the worst global offenders of human trafficking. How does this impact your supply chain decisions? 

The U.S.  government revealed details of its annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report last week. The report is the government’s principal diplomatic tool to engage foreign governments on human trafficking.  Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary of State said this year’s report “highlights the successes achieved and the remaining challenges before us on this important global issue.”

The U.S department of state assigns each country to one of three tiers (Tier 1 being the best and Tier 3, the worst) based on their government’s efforts to acknowledge, combat and prosecute instances of human trafficking. Countries must consistently demonstrate improvement in these areas to maintain the highest ranking and avoid demotion.

Myanmar, for example, was one of the countries to be upgraded to Tier 2, following its efforts to reduce child recruitment for the military.

But the most controversial decision this year was China’s demotion to Tier 3, where it will join the likes of Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela.

“China was downgraded to Tier 3 status in this year’s report in part because it has not taken serious steps to end its own complicity in trafficking, including forced laborers from North Korea that are located in China,” Tillerson said as he presented the report.

The demotion marks the first time that  the Trump administration has publicly criticised Beijing’s human rights record, and it prompted an unsurpringly frosty response from the Chinese, “The government’s determination in fighting human trafficking is unwavering and outcomes are there for all to see,” spokesman Lu Kang said. “China firmly opposes the US’ irresponsible remarks on other countries’ fight against human trafficking, based on its domestic laws.”

How Will This Impact China And Global Supply Chains?

There are a number of things to consider if your global supply chain extends to China or other countries ranked in Tier 3.

  • The U.S may consider imposing sanctions that limit access to US and international aid. Congressman Chris Smith said  “Hopefully, the new tier ranking coupled with robust diplomacy—including the imposition of sanctions authorised under Tier 3—will lead to systemic reforms that will save women and children’s lives and ensure that Chinese exports are not made with slave labor.”  Whilst such sanctions have often been waived in the past, it would come as no surprise if Trump decided to break with tradition. Indeed, given his vocal criticism of Chinese trade, he will be under some pressure to impose consequences.  It has been reported this week that Trump is considering trade actions against Beijing including tariffs on steel imports.
  • Suppliers operating in newly placed tier 3 countries will, appropriately, be under increased preasure to audit their supply chains. If you’re sourcing in China, it’s entirely plausible that you’re complicit in trafficking or forced labour.  With supply chains facing extra scruntiny, it would be prudent for organisations sourcing in China to have accurate information at their fingertips. Make sure you know who you are sourcing from, what’s going on behind the scenes of your product and make detailed lists of every farm, vessel or facility to which you are connected.
  • China’s demotion might prompt organisations to stop sourcing in China altogether. Will  “Made in China” labels deter consumers who want to avoid supporting slave labour and traffcking? Changing suppliers, particularly when it’s to a new country,  is time-consuming and expensive. This will be the greatest concern for procurement and supply chain pros.

You can download the TIP Report in full here

What do you think about China’s demotion in this year’s Trafficking in Persons Report? Productive or provocative? Should President Trump impose sanctions on China? Let us know what you think in the comments below. 

In other procurement news this week….

Will Supermarkets Go Uber On Us?

  • Britain’s major supermarkets are testing ‘peak time’ pricing allowing grocers to raise or cut items based on demand
  • Tesco, Morrisons and Mark & Spencer are running trials of electronic labels which allow them to change prices at the click of a button
  • Retail experts say this could spell the end of fixed prices for consumer goods and services within five years, to be replaced by an Uber-style pricing revolution
  • Morrisons said its trial was in the “early stages” and it had not yet decided whether to roll it out across the country

Read more on International Business Times.

Apple Is Moving Its Supply Chain Towards Green Energy

  • Two years ago, Apple embarked on an ambitious plan to help its biggest suppliers switch to clean power sources. As of early June, the tech giant has managed to get eight partners on board
  • According to the tech giant’s latest update on its progress toward environmental goals, integrated circuit packaging maker Ibiden will be the first partner in Japan to power its Apple-related operations completely with renewable energy
  • Apple’s $1.5 billion green bond issued in February 2016 is still the largest issued by any U.S. technology company

Read more on Green Biz.

AI that can read minds 

  • CMU scientists have been working on is a system that can apparently read complex thoughts based on brain scans, possibly even interpreting complete sentences
  • Using a smart algorithm, the team could discern what was being thought about at any given time — and even the order of a particular sentence
  • After training the algorithm on 239 of the 240 sentences and their corresponding brain scans, the researchers were able to predict the final sentence based only on the brain data

Read more on Digital Trends 

 

Trump Has Exposed Corporate America to a Carbon Tariff

Putting aside the issue of catastrophic global warming for a minute, let’s look at a very possible consequence of the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement – retaliatory measures from other nations in the form of a carbon tariff on American products.

Well, there goes the planet.

Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement has dominated the headlines all weekend, and rightly so – it’s regarded by many as the most devastating decision of his presidency so far.

Rather than dwelling on what has already been covered – the diminishment of U.S. moral leadership, short-termism, isolationism and the rejection of science – let’s examine the very real threat of economic countermeasures from other nations.

The idea of a carbon tariff was first suggested by former French President Nicholas Sarkozy in November last year. “[If Trump] won’t respect the conclusions of the Paris climate agreement … I will demand that Europe put in place a carbon tax at its border, a tax of 1-3 per cent, for all products coming from the United States, if the United States doesn’t apply environmental rules that we are imposing on our companies.”

Writing for Forbes last week, London Business School’s Ioannis Ioannou suggested a similar course of action:

“Countries and transnational institutions should seriously consider and carefully evaluate potential sanctions or economic countermeasures. A tax or import tariff on U.S. made products and services would account for carbon emissions used in the manufacturing process or, more ambitiously, incentivise leading companies to move parts of their business out of the U.S.”

Leading U.S. CEOs alarmed

As part of a last-ditch plea from Corporate America to dissuade Trump from his decision, an open letter was published last week in Washington, D.C. newspapers and signed by companies including Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Unilever. Amongst the warnings listed in the one-pager, the risk of retaliation was called out:

Withdrawing from the agreement will limit our access to [clean technology markets] and could expose us to retaliatory measures.”

It’s not just the dot coms who have come out in support of the Paris Agreement. Oil giants ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips made the case that the U.S. would be much better served by having a seat at the table to “safeguard its economic and environmental best interests” – i.e. retain a veto – in future climate negotiations.

The fairness argument

Trump used the word “fair” and “unfair” multiple times in his speech:

“The bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States.”

“…Negotiate our way back into Paris under the terms that are fair to the United States and its workers.”

“…Under a framework that is fair and where the burdens and responsibilities are equally shared …

“We want fair treatment for its citizens and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers.”

The decision to withdraw, however, means the U.S. will have the fairness argument thrown back at it. As trade partners including Canada, Mexico, China and the EU implement carbon trading systems and caps, resentment is likely to grow towards the world’s second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide. For countries looking to address this disadvantage, a carbon tariff would serve to level the playing field.

Dirk Forrister, International Emissions Trading Organisation president and CEO, made the point that the Paris Agreement was designed to avoid this situation from occurring:

“The notion of a trade battle over climate change is something everyone’s tried to avoid for two or three decades. That’s why we have an international agreement to put everyone in the same frame.”

Here’s the good news

Trump wants to renegotiate his way back in. While Trump’s apparent willingness to re-enter the Paris Agreement on American terms shows some promise, it may not be possible. Christiana Figueres, the former UN official who led the negotiations, said this isn’t how international agreements work. “You cannot renegotiate individually,” she said. “It’s a multilateral agreement. No one country can unilaterally change the conditions.”

Other nations are rallying: There has been some commentary after Trump’s announcement that the Paris Agreement is actually stronger without U.S. participation. While many of the arguments inevitably read like sour grapes, two points ring true: firstly, the announcement appears to have strengthened the resolve of other nations to meet their targets. International leaders are lining up to not only condemn Trump’s decision, but to reaffirm their commitment to the Agreement.

Secondly, the Trump Administration’s rollback of domestic climate policies, including gutting the Green Climate Fund and hobbling the EPA, means that the U.S. was highly unlikely to meet its climate targets anyway. Australian International Relations and Environmental Policy export Luke Kemp argues that this would have set a poor example: “Other countries [would have been] more likely to delay or free-ride on their pledges if they [saw] the US miss its target.”

U.S. states, cities and corporate leaders are embracing a low-carbon economy, despite (or to spite) Trump. Examples include Californian leadership in reducing emissions, and the Mayors of 61 cities across the U.S. pledging on Thursday to meet commitments agreed to under the international accord.

The transition to the renewable economy is gathering pace. The economics of higher energy efficiency, falling renewable energy prices, abundant natural gas, and the rise of electric vehicles and smart grids will continue to displace coal and oil.

November 3rd, 2020: The rollback of the Paris Agreement and other climate initiatives will take years, as will any retaliatory measures (such as tariffs) put in place by other nations. Could the 2020 election become a referendum on the Paris Agreement?

Image: Shutterstock

Tender Of The Year? Bidding Opens For US-Mexican Border Wall

Tuesday 4th April marks the deadline for companies to submit papers detailing their proposals to build the Trump Administration’s “big, beautiful, powerful” Mexican border wall. But will the massive construction project ever win the funding it needs?

US Customs and Border Protection has issued two 130-page RFPs, offering a glimpse into the Trump Administration’s vision for the 2,000km barrier designed to stop illegal immigration and cut off drug-smuggling routes. More than 1,100 kilometres of the border has already been fenced, but the existing walls are nowhere near as imposing as those detailed in the RFPs.

The RFPs indicate a massive construction project, with specifications including:

  • A 9-meter-high reinforced concrete barrier, extending 2 meters underground to prevent tunnelling.
  • A similar barrier made from durable, see-through material.
  • The wall must be “cost-effective to build and repair”.
  • The barrier must be “physically imposing” and capable of resisting almost any attack by “sledgehammer, car jack, pickaxe, chisel, battery-operated impact tools, battery-operated cutting tools [or] oxy/acetylene torch for a minimum of one hour.”
  • At the same time, the wall must be “aesthetically pleasing”, reflecting Trump’s campaign promise of a “beautiful wall”. Reports note that this requirement only applies to the North-facing side of the wall.
  • Features to prevent anyone from scaling the barrier or attaching grappling hooks to its summit.
  • Incorporation of electronically controlled gates for vehicles and pedestrians.

Customs and Border Protection intends to award multiple contracts based on responses to its request statement. The selection process begins with an initial elimination round, after which the contestants will submit more detailed technical proposals. After a second round of eliminations, finalists will gather in San Diego, California to construct a small-scale “mock-up” of their wall design. Sledgehammer-wielding government representatives will then “test and evaluate the anti-destruct characteristics” of the designs before awarding contracts.

What will the wall cost?

During his presidential campaign, Trump estimated that construction would cost $12 billion, citing his personal involvement as a factor in driving costs down. Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan has estimated $15 billion, while a US Department of Homeland Security internal report indicated the wall would cost as much as $21.6 billion and take over three years to build. A preliminary version of the president’s budget for fiscal 2018, beginning in October, includes $2.6 billion for the first phase of construction.

While the RFPs appear to require a highly-visible and physically imposing barrier, some companies have proposed hi-tech solutions to border security that could provide a 90% saving to the government. Examples include having two chain-link fences with a “no man’s land” in between and intrusion detection systems in place. Other invisible or “virtual” wall proposals would use AI software to analyse satellite and surveillance imagery and alert border guards to area where activity is detected.

An alternative idea for a physical barrier put forward by a Florida architecture firm is to use shipping containers as the building blocks for the wall. This could be a cost-effective and sustainable solution, particularly as the U.S. has a surplus of shipping containers due to the slowdown in global commerce.

Will the Mexican border wall ever be funded?

While Donald Trump famously promised his voters that “Mexico will pay” for the border wall, the Mexican Government has repeatedly stated that it would not do so. The Trump administration is yet to reveal how it would compel Mexico to pay. The budget request for $2.6 billion to begin construction was seized upon last week by Graco Ramirez, the leader of Mexico’s national governors’ association, who claimed this proves that U.S. taxpayers will foot the entire bill.

The proposal is likely to face fierce opposition in Congress, where Democrats and fiscally-conservative Republicans are expected to block expenditure on this scale, particularly if estimates blow out to $21.6 billion.

Who will build it?

Ironically, although Trump may be unable to make Mexico pay for the wall, he could end up paying Mexican businesses to do the work. A report by Quartz found that “of the roughly 700 firms that have expressed interest in building prototypes for the wall, about 10% are Hispanic-owned” or based in Mexico. However, the Mexican government has warned Mexican businesses that it would “not be in their best interests” to participate in the construction of the wall, while the Catholic archdiocese of Mexico issued an opinion that participating would be “immoral” and those involved “should be considered traitors to the homeland”. The considerable political pressure notably caused Mexico’s largest cement firm, Cemex, to announce that it would not be providing quotes for the vast amount of cement the project would require.

As far as U.S. construction firms go, few of the large, multinational corporations that would actually have the capacity to carry out the $21 billion project have indicated interest, presumably due to public opposition to the wall and the difficult path through Congress to funding it. Meanwhile, state representatives and lawmakers are putting in place boycott measures such as California’s “Resist the Wall Act”, essentially a divestment campaign to ensure no Californian money goes towards building the wall.

In other news procurement news this week…

Shocking lack of digital transformation strategies in procurement organisations

  • The Hackett Group’s 2017 Procurement Key Issues research has discovered that nearly 85% of procurement organisations believe digital transformation will fundamentally change the way they deliver services over the next 3-5 years.
  • Despite this, only 32% currently have a formal digital strategy in place, and only 25% have the resources and competencies in place to meet the digital transformation challenge.
  • The research gathered data from executives across 180+ large companies globally, with an annual revenue of $1 billion or greater. Areas expected to grow most dramatically are the use of cloud-based applications, advanced analytics, cognitive computing and robotic process automation.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says robot job displacement “50 to 100” years away

  • In an interview with Axios last week, Mnuchin said the concern about artificial intelligence taking over human jobs is “not even on our radar screen”. When pressed, Mnuchin estimated that concern might be warranted in “50 to 100 more years”.
  • This estimate is significantly out of touch with machine learning experts, who are increasingly vocal about the imminent “national emergency” that will see up to 50% of jobs at risk due to advances in automation.
  • Mnuchin’s apparent disinterest in the AI jobs crisis could be due to an inability to “think the unthinkable” – a phenomenon introduced by Professor Nik Gowing at Procurious’ Big Ideas Summit. It may also reflect Mnuchin’s falling into line with politicised assertions that foreign workers and cheap pay, rather than automation, are responsible for job losses in former factory towns over the past decade.

Read more at Business Insider.

U.K.’s Crown Commercial Service slammed by Public Accounts Committee

  • The U.K.’s Crown Commercial Service (CSS) was set up in 2014 to centralise all purchasing, eliminate duplicate and act as a single entity for central government procurement. It replaced the Government Procurement Service and was expected to manage £13 billion spend across 17 departments.
  • However, a recent report by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) found that the CCS has only managed £2.5 billion spend across 7 departments, with PAC Chair Meg Hillier calling the results “a dismal showing that calls into questions exactly how willing government departments are to accept the authority of the Cabinet Office in this area”.
  • A CCS spokesperson has responded to the report, saying: “”With an experienced senior leadership team now in place, we are confident in our ability to deliver even greater value for the taxpayer moving forwards through the centralised procurement of common goods and services.”

Read more at Computer Weekly.

Negotiation, Trump-Style – The Winner Takes It All

Negotiation with suppliers can be done using hardball tactics, so long as there is no genuine need for an ongoing relationship.

In the New Yorker last year, Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter for Donald J Trump’s The Art of the Deal said:

‘He lied strategically’.

‘I put lipstick on a pig’.

Rather than inviting more in-fighting than a Taiwanese parliament, let’s focus on the negotiation trap inherent in Trump’s behaviour.

Whether you’re for or against him, Trump’s negotiation tactics are more obvious than a bogey hanging out of your left nostril on a video conference call. Let’s look at his top five tactics:

  1. Huge ambit opening positions – if he wants $2.50, he asks for $1 Billion.
  2.  Flattery – ‘You’re a good guy, a great guy, the best’!
  3.  Bluster – ‘This is going to happen my way, it always does … believe me’.
  4.  Anger (feigned or real) – ‘This deal is so bad, so wrong, you’re making me really mad’.
  5.  Insult and intimidation  – ‘You’re a loser, you’re crooked, you are going down big time’.

These tactics may or may not have worked, but it’s fair to say that at best, they are transactional.

The Winner Takes It All

A deal can be done using these tactics as long as there is no genuine need for an ongoing relationship. The winner takes it all, the loser’s standing small. (Sorry, too much ABBA in adolescence).

Interestingly, a lot of people have asked me if I think Trump’s tactics could be useful for them.

My short response is ‘If you plan on renewing that client, want referrals or would like to be treated as a trusted adviser for a while, then probably not’.

However, when I ask them if they’ve been subjected to these, and other, tactics from clients including senior managers and Procurement, most say ‘All the bloody time’.

Many sales managers and sales people are aware of these tactics being used against them, yet are so keen to get the deal that they succumb, subjecting their company to poor margins, ridiculous stress to meet deliverables and a culture of subservience.

How to address the key tactics in Trump’s playlist

  • Huge ambit opening positions: Plan your own positions, especially your walk away. Politely refuse to discuss offers outside that range. Get back to discussing what the client is trying to achieve
  • Flattery: If you’re desperate for approval, ring your best friend, your mum or ask your dog if he loves you mid-lick. You don’t need approval and validation from clients.
  • Bluster: Ignore or say ‘thanks for sharing that, so let’s look more closely at the issues on the table’.
  • Anger: Keep asking questions like “Why is this so bad? Why do you want to still pursue this then? What would you like to do from here? (my personal favourite).
  • Insult and intimidation: See Anger, or coolly refuse to continue until the behaviour stops.

Unless you don’t care whether your client gets a great result or not, transactional negotiation styles won’t work very well.

Equally, whether they are the President of the United States or the Chief Procurement Officer, you should build a skilful, tactical wall and get them to pay for it.

Elliot Epstein is a leading Pitch Consultant, Keynote Speaker, Corporate Sales, Negotiation and Presentation trainer who gets sales results rapidly. He has coached and trained high profile corporates globally in presenting, selling, negotiating and pitching. Visit Salient Communication for more information.  

This article was first published on LinkedIn.

World Trade and Procurement in the Trump Era

Trump’s trade  policies will greatly affect our global supply chains. How will increased protectionism and bilateral deals impact the procurement function?

Frantically attempting to understand the new modern world, commentators and experts are struggling to digest the political earthquakes of 2016. It remains wholly unclear what binds together the widespread nationalism, populism and division in countries around the world.

The threat to global supply chains

Trump has a clear dislike of international trade, preferring to shield the USA’s economy from competition. He has a disdain for businesses moving operations to other countries.

Whether or not organisations source much directly from non-domestic sources, they are dependent on global supply chains and networks. These networks are responsible for sourcing the goods and services to meet the needs of stakeholders. Threats to free trade pose challenges to procurement professionals and their ability to source goods and services efficiently and cost-effectively.

For many years, there has been a trend for opening up procurement markets. This trend has entailed removing tariffs on imports, opening up non-discriminatory bidding on public contracts to non-domestic businesses and harmonising regulatory regimes to make cross-border trade less bureaucratic and more efficient. This has allowed procurement teams to drive down costs and increase competition and product choice.

Trump’s abolition of free trade agreements

Since inauguration, Trump has honoured his commitments to abolish pending free trade agreements (FTAs) with the European Union and eleven Pacific Rim countries. Both contained provisions which would have opened up the procurement markets to non-discriminatory bidding for businesses across participating countries. This eases importing processes.

Trump also vowed to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, which has been critical in creating and sustaining supply chains in North America.

With this move away from free trade, what are the prospects for continued integration of procurement markets in the Trump era? There are two points to cover – new bilateral FTAs including the USA and the movement towards free trade driven by powers beyond the USA.

The prospect of new bilateral deals

Firstly, whilst Trump has expressed a strong distaste for multilateral FTAs such as TTIP, TPP and NAFTA, he has sung the praises of bilateral deals. This has been strongly signalled with the UK in particular.  Trump has made some ambitious comments that there is a  deal ready to sign once the UK departs the EU.

If this were to happen, tariffs and perhaps other barriers would be removed, with the intention of easing cross-border trade.

The prospects for this are not great, however. With Trump’s “America first” agenda, it is not clear how easily any deals could come to fruition. FTAs are based on compromise, whereby countries grant reciprocal access to each others’ economies. For American companies to gain the ability to win public contracts as part of a deal with another country, access to American government contracts would need to be provided to businesses from the other country.

It is far from clear whether the new administration would accept the American government awarding contracts to more foreign companies, effectively moving the jobs associated with that contract to other countries.

China could be the driving force behind liberalising trade

The second topic is perhaps more pertinent then; this is the possibility that other countries or systems will emerge as the force behind liberalising procurement markets to replace a more protectionist and isolationist USA.

China’s global economic influence is steadily increasing. The TPP’s death presents China with the opportunity to be the leader in free trade. It is the lead behind the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Pact (RCEP), which includes sixteen countries, such as Australia, Japan, India and South Korea. In total, RCEP covers 30 per cent of global GDP and around half of the global population.

The agreement focuses on tariff removal, with some harmonisation of standards and intellectual property rights. RCEP is not equivalent to TPP in integrating procurement markets in different countries, however. Whilst procurement teams would benefit greatly from cheaper imports from elimination of tariffs, RCEP does not include detailed provisions of government procurement – non-discrimination does not look likely to be included. The eventual, and lofty, ambition of RCEP is to create a free trade area across the Asia Pacific.

Driving integration in procurement markets

Aside from China, multilateral institutions are perhaps the most likely to drive integration and liberalisation of procurement markets over the coming years. The European Union has long been a driver of liberalisation of procurement markets.

In 2016, the EU signed a detailed FTA with Canada,   including detailed provision for procurement.  It has pending agreements with countries such as Singapore and Vietnam and is in long-term discussions with an array of countries and trading blocs.

The World Trade Organization’s (WTO), Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA), consisting of 47 members (including the EU28), reciprocally opens procurement markets. It is looking likely that Australia will accede to the GPA in 2017 and discussions of China becoming a full member, further opening up procurement markets.

Also within the WTO, the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) is a proposed agreement to ease trade in services. This would include 50 countries, including the EU countries and the USA. With this, trade in services between the countries would become  frictionless and there would be elimination of preference for domestic suppliers, which might apply without a minimum value threshold for all government agencies.

Access to global markets is core for procurement

Globalisation continues to be much maligned by electorates and the media. But for procurement teams who rely on sourcing goods and services from around the world, either directly or indirectly, access to global markets is core to maximising value for money and ensuring public services are as effective and cost-efficient as possible. Without engaging in the broader political debates, it is clear that one industry needs access to suppliers of goods and services, without unnecessary barriers – the procurement industry.

The Flaw At The Heart Of Trump’s America First policy

5.6 million U.S. manufacturing jobs didn’t move to China and Mexico – they simply disappeared with the march of technology. And that’s the flaw in America First! 

Trump’s stunning election win has been linked to his successful portrayal as both a friend of Corporate America and a champion of the working class. His business-friendly policies include large-scale deregulation, slashing tax rates and a huge infrastructure spend, which (in theory) are designed to boost jobs through trickle-down economics.

But the support of Corporate America isn’t enough to remain in power. In order to retain the presidency for another four years after the 2020 election, Trump will have to deliver on the key promise that won the support of the disillusioned working class – bringing industry home and reviving jobs in America’s once-thriving industrial rust belt.

However, there’s a miscalculation at the heart of the rhetoric around bringing jobs back from overseas factories.

Robots, not overseas workers, have taken 85% of manufacturing jobs

A recent study from the Centre for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University found that:

  • Employment in the manufacturing sector fell by 5.6 million between 2000 and 2010.
  • Productivity growth (automation) accounted for more than 85% of jobs lost in manufacturing in this period.
  • Only 13% of the overall job loss resulted from trade (including Chinese imports).
  • Meanwhile, U.S. manufacturing output has risen steadily, growing 17.6% between 2006 and 2013.

Simply put, American factories – and factories worldwide – are producing more goods with fewer people. Automation is rendering millions of low-skilled jobs redundant, yet Trump’s key policy aim to “bring back jobs” seems to be mistakenly focused on increasing trade protectionism.

Protectionism could backfire by further accelerating automation

ABC’s business editor Ian Verrender writes that even if Trump “slaps massive import duties on Chinese goods and forces his country to start producing everything at home via the magic of ‘America First’”, it risks leading to a domino effect where business will be forced to find efficiencies in order to survive.

  1. The loss of access to low-cost labour would drive up the cost of consumer goods, meaning Americans would find themselves unable to afford the goods to which they’ve become accustomed.
  2. This lack of affordability would spark demands for wage rises.
  3. Firms would respond by pushing even further into automation, using robotics and AI to cut costs.

Verrender comments: “Where once corporations scoured the globe for low-cost labour, and duly shifted their operations, they [would] now seek ways to eliminate labour altogether, particularly in manufacturing.”

Accelerating automation is inevitable

The loss of jobs to robots is only expected to broaden and accelerate. A report from two Oxford researchers found that an incredible 45% of U.S. jobs, across all sectors and professionals, are vulnerable to being automated within the next 20 years.

For example, self-driving technology alone could lead to the unemployment of 1,000,000 truck drivers in the U.S., along with approximately 160,000 Uber drivers, 230,000 taxi drivers and over 600,000 bus drivers.

Some of the big names to comment on the coming social disruption include Stephen Hawking, who wrote last year: “The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining.”

In February, Elon Musk asked the audience at the World Government Summit in Dubai: “What to do about mass unemployment? This is going to be a massive social challenge. There will be fewer and fewer jobs that a robot cannot do better [than a human]. These are not things that I wish will happen. These are simply things that I think probably will happen.”

Bill Gates commented: “You cross the threshold of job-replacement of certain activities all at once. Warehouse work, driving, room clean-up – there’s quite a few things that are meaningful job categories that, certainly in the next 20 years, [will go away].”

What’s the answer?

Marc Benioff, chief executive of Salesforce.com, warned the World Economic Forum in Davos of the “digital refugees” that would be created by AI. “This is the moment … when we have the highest level of anxiety because we can see advances in AI that are beyond what we had expected,” he said. “It’s happening at a rate and a capability that we are worrying about how it will impact the everyman, the broad range of workers around the world . . . There is no clear path forward”.

One hopeful sign is that a public discourse on the disruptive effects of automation has begun. Thought-leaders have already put forward some solutions, although they may seem politically unpalatable at present. Elon Musk recommends that the U.S. adopts a universal basic income (such as that being trialled in Finland) to keep the economy going and guarantee a standard of living for the millions of workers expected to be displaced by automation. Bill Gates has suggested taxing robotic workers to recapture some of the money displaced workers would have paid as income tax. Education, too, will need to transform to equip future generations with the skills needed to find work in a highly-automated future.

Although Trump appears to be currently focused on the wrong job-stealing “villain” (China), there is hope that leaders will listen to the likes of Bill Gates and Elon Musk and start planning ahead for the social upheaval of what has been dubbed the fourth industrial revolution.

In other news this week:

France passes “duty of vigilance” supply chain law

  • Last week, France passed a law that pushes for accountability for multinational companies sourcing from global supply chains.
  • The “duty of vigilance” law requires companies to establish safeguards designed to ensure that labour rights and other human rights are respected in the production sites they source from.
  • The law requires large companies based in France to create a document that sets out their procedures for evaluating suppliers and mitigate human rights abuses. Violating the “duty of vigilance” law can lead to a penalty of up to €10 million.

Read more at Supply Chain Dive

Trump seeks historic increase in military spending

  • President Trump’s first budget seeks to boost military spending by $US54 billion. The US currently spends about $US584 billion annually on defence.
  • If passed by Congress, the 9% increase will be funded by cuts to non-defence spending, including environmental programs, diplomacy and foreign aid.
  • Last year, the rest of the world combined spent a total of $US317 billion on defence. The highest-spending countries under the US were China ($US146 billion), Saudi Arabia ($US82 billion), Russia ($US66 billion) and the UK ($US56 billion).

Read more at ABC News

Should Procurement Pros Be Concerned About Global Trade?

Renowned economist and Big Ideas Speaker Dr Linda Yueh explains why CPOs needn’t panic about the President Trump administration but there are causes of concern. 

Register as an online delegate for the London Big Ideas Summit 2017 here.

Donald Trump made good on a campaign promise on the first day of his presidency by signing an executive order indicating the United States won’t ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal.

Though expected, the move caused a media storm and a flurry of responses from politicians and businesses all around the globe. But what does this mean for supply managers?

Many CPOs are understandably nervous about the Trump administration’s policies with regards to global trade. The resurgence of protectionism in the U.S., coupled with the continuing fallout and trade effects of Brexit, has left many procurement professionals wondering which region of the world they should plan to source from in the future.

The TPP was a massive free-trade agreement advocated by the Obama administration, aimed at deepening economic ties between the U.S. and 11 other Pacific Rim nations, cutting taxes, and fostering trade to boost economic growth in the process. Trump argued on the campaign trail that the agreement would be harmful to the U.S. manufacturing sector. As he signed the withdrawal order, he called it “a great thing for the American worker”.

Economist, broadcaster, author and Big Ideas Summit guest speaker Dr. Linda Yueh’s message to CPOs is one of caution but it’s not time to panic.

Don’t panic

According to Linda, there are three reasons not to panic about what Trump’s protectionist tendencies will mean for procurement, trade, and global supply chains.

  • We need to keep in mind that trade takes place under WTO rules. China is the U.S.’s biggest trading partner, despite no free trade agreement being in place. Of course, if Trump were to pull out of the WTO, then that would be a game changer. But, globalisation, especially e-commerce and the Internet linking markets and people, will mean that trade is likely to continue across borders as it’s hard to see a significant roll-back Costs of trade, of course, are another issue to be focused on.
  • Luckily, the Trump administration hasn’t honed in on e-commerce, which is good news for procurement and supply chains. Currently, one in ten transactions are already undertaken via e-commerce, and this figure will continue to grow.
  • Trump may have moved quickly to sign the TPP withdrawal order on his first day in office, but that wasn’t a formal agreement. Extricating the United States from NAFTA for instance will require renegotiation time and then a period of notice before that free trade agreement would end. Even then, most trade agreements include implementation periods, so a “cliff edge” is unlikely which gives businesses time to plan. Therefore, there’s no need to panic or overhaul your supply chain immediately. But, of course, forward planning and following economic policies would be wise. Also, take Brexit as an example – if Britain succeeds in triggering Article 50 in March 2017, then the UK is scheduled to leave the EU by the end of March 2019 – almost three full years after the people’s vote. And even there, the Prime Minister has indicated that there may be an implementation period to allow more time for businesses to adjust to leaving the Single Market.

Things to watch

So, Linda warns that supply managers should keep an eye on certain factors as global trade adjusts to these seismic political shifts.

1) U.S. border taxes – recently, Trump threatened BMW with a 35 per cent border tax on foreign-built cars imported to the U.S. market. This isn’t an isolated incident and American companies are under even more pressure to produce in the U.S.. Congress is also considering a similar tax, so that is worth bearing in mind as that would have the force of legislation.

2) U.K. Tariffs – one of the consequences of a “hard” Brexit where the UK leaves the EU without any preferential trade deal, which would include no agreement on the Single Market, Customs Union, is the re-emergence of customs for EU trade. Right now, significant customs procedures only apply to non-EU shipments. But, with around half of UK exports going to the EU, taking leave of Britain’s membership in the EU with no deal would means the end of free movement of goods. More customs declarations and duties would raise costs, slow down supply chains and certainly add time at border checks. A potential ‘hard border’ would be a particular issue for Ireland.

3) Resourcing Brexit – the UK Government also needs to think about the resourcing challenges involved in ramping up staff as well as IT systems to cope with the doubling of customs checks on the UK border.

4) NAFTA – As mentioned earlier, Trump has also flagged that the North American Free Trade Agreement (between Canada, Mexico and the U.S.) is up for renegotiation. If you’re a U.S. company, you need to start making plans now about how these changes will affect you. The same applies to any other of America’s free trade deals with 20 countries that Trump would have the authority to re-examine.

What about China?

Globalisation has helped China become a manufacturing powerhouse, but with numerous closed markets.

However, there are very good reasons to continue to do business with China. Wages may be rising but that helps businesses to think about China as a market as well as one production locale in a supply chain. Plus, with growing protectionism in America, China’s President has signalled that China may take more of a lead in globalisation. There’s a lot to watch for.

In short, Linda’s advice to CPOs around the world is keep calm, but keep an eye on the details as the globalisation landscape is shifting significantly. Global trade won’t end tomorrow but it will likely look rather different in the coming years.

Join the conversation and register as a digital delegate for Big Ideas 2017 in London.