Post COVID19: Do we really want to change the way we do business?

It’s been a disruptive few years for both the public and business. No industry has escaped COVID’s impact. However, not all disruption has had negative consequences. Disruption in this instance is not a stand-alone event; one industry shutdown knocks onto the next causing widespread disruption. Key industries, and businesses that adapted to fill the resulting gaps, were positively disrupted and saw unprecedented increases in trade and profits. 

Forced changes to lifestyles and business operations necessitated a need to find suitable alternatives. After all, people still had to make money to pay bills, eat, socialise, and clothe themselves. Key businesses, such as those producing commodities, who updated their health and safety protocols could remain operational. Businesses not considered key whose target markets had shutdown, then had to try to adapt their production to keep themselves running – for example 58 Gin, who swapped gin for hand sanitizer. The swings in demand also affected OEMs; governments’ stay-home advice caused the automotive and aerospace industries to come to a halter, however utilising existing facilities for other purposes proved useful. For example, Dyson swapped vacuums for ventilators and Ford lent their assembly skills to manufacturing ventilators, supplying vehicles to emergency services and began producing face shields. 

Manufacturing shutdowns in China have continued to significantly disrupt global supply chains, an effect still being felt around the globe 2 years later. Further lockdowns in Shanghai continue to impact the market and impede recoveries. A clear reminder that, while the UK public is largely back to living life like it’s pre-March 2020 (aside from cost of living hikes and inflation), the pandemic is not yet over everywhere. 

Repeated shutdowns in China (and around the world) since 2020 have demonstrated just how interconnected and vulnerable global supply chains are. 

Covid19 has shown that much of the world’s demand is reliant on fully operating factories in China. Moving forward, breaking up global supply chains and re-establishing supply from national/regional sources could remove this problem; However, the upfront cost of building local infrastructure, or developing alternative technologies to materials that cannot be sourced locally, is immeasurable. Again, whether local or global, if one part of the chain experiences a problem then the same effect will occur, albeit on a much smaller scale.

As well as this, many businesses have become more cautious when it comes to considering risk: 

• The importance of alternatives post-Covid19 also includes having a choice of potential suppliers and distributors should one encounter problems; companies that demonstrate agility limit delays down the chain.
• Increasing stock buffers to hedge against changing consumer demands, to prevent shortage in the case of a jump in demand or a shortage of supply. 

In terms of starting again, Covid19 has certainly provided a unique opportunity to do so. Somewhere down the line, completely overhauling supply chains is going to be costly in the short term, however in the long term, squandering the opportunity will leave supply chains in their existing vulnerable and environmentally devastating states. 

The environmental damage caused by a single supply chain for a consumer company amounts to over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions and over 90% of the impact on air, land, biodiversity and geological resources. 

During global industry shutdowns, the stark reduction in air pollution became blatantly apparent. Reducing the environmental damage from supply chains will go a long way towards helping countries meet their climate targets, as well as lessening the heavy haze hanging around industrial areas and cities. Much of this can be done through modernisation; incorporating digital technology and cleaner processes into manufacturing, shorter supply chains and scrutinising source materials, to name a few.

According to pre-pandemic research, consumers were willing to shoulder the cost of going green, however the reduction in purchasing power post-pandemic may considerably limit consumers’ “go-green” budgets. Despite tighter budgets, consumers (particularly within younger generations) have become more aware about where their goods are coming from and are beginning to hold businesses accountable for the choices they make, forcing businesses to seriously consider making eco-changes. 

While Covid19 has presented an opportunity, the reality is much more complex. Forgetting costs and practicalities, where should we start? Logically, it would probably be best to start at the start – the top of the chain. 

Where do manufacturers get their raw, source materials? How are they sourced and who sources them? 

Quite rightly, source materials should be scrutinised, after all, goods cannot be made without materials. Cleaning up source materials by switching to recyclables, particularly on a more localised model, reducing virgin mining of fossil fuels and ores, and developing suitable alternatives will not only reduce emissions, deforestation, and the impact on biodiversity, but will also reduce Scope 2 emissions further down the chain. 

This is a change that even the most sceptical of Covid analysers would embrace. There’s certainly a strong argument for the windfall proceeds of increased oil, gas, and commodities prices, due in part from the pandemic, to be invested in renewable ventures. A true circular economy, what once was considered a pipedream now has people scratching their heads thinking “actually…” With many non-green industries suffering GDP losses, what’s there to lose? Taking control of social and environmental responsibilities is a key factor for investors and consumers alike. If the future of money is green (literally, welcome to the contactless era!), then investing in greener resources is a financial benefit in the long run.

To learn more about sustainable partnerships and future business potential for circular economics, subscribe to our news at https://romcometals.com/news-insight/, or visit romcometals.com

It’s been a disruptive few years for both the public and business. No industry has escaped COVID’s impact. However, not all disruption has had negative consequences. Disruption in this instance is not a stand-alone event; one industry shutdown knocks onto the next causing widespread disruption. Key industries, and businesses that adapted to fill the resulting gaps, were positively disrupted and saw unprecedented increases in trade and profits. 

Forced changes to lifestyles and business operations necessitated a need to find suitable alternatives. After all, people still had to make money to pay bills, eat, socialise, and clothe themselves. Key businesses, such as those producing commodities, who updated their health and safety protocols could remain operational. Businesses not considered key whose target markets had shutdown, then had to try to adapt their production to keep themselves running – for example 58 Gin, who swapped gin for hand sanitizer. The swings in demand also affected OEMs; governments’ stay-home advice caused the automotive and aerospace industries to come to a halter, however utilising existing facilities for other purposes proved useful. For example, Dyson swapped vacuums for ventilators and Ford lent their assembly skills to manufacturing ventilators, supplying vehicles to emergency services and began producing face shields. 

Manufacturing shutdowns in China have continued to significantly disrupt global supply chains, an effect still being felt around the globe 2 years later. Further lockdowns in Shanghai continue to impact the market and impede recoveries. A clear reminder that, while the UK public is largely back to living life like it’s pre-March 2020 (aside from cost of living hikes and inflation [link to The pandemic’s lasting impact is huge… How can the little idea of recycling help?), the pandemic is not yet over everywhere. 

Repeated shutdowns in China (and around the world) since 2020 have demonstrated just how interconnected and vulnerable global supply chains are. 

Covid19 has shown that much of the world’s demand is reliant on fully operating factories in China. Moving forward, breaking up global supply chains and re-establishing supply from national/regional sources could remove this problem; However, the upfront cost of building local infrastructure, or developing alternative technologies to materials that cannot be sourced locally, is immeasurable. Again, whether local or global, if one part of the chain experiences a problem then the same effect will occur, albeit on a much smaller scale.

As well as this, many businesses have become more cautious when it comes to considering risk: 

• The importance of alternatives post-Covid19 also includes having a choice of potential suppliers and distributors should one encounter problems; companies that demonstrate agility limit delays down the chain.
• Increasing stock buffers to hedge against changing consumer demands, to prevent shortage in the case of a jump in demand or a shortage of supply. 

In terms of starting again, Covid19 has certainly provided a unique opportunity to do so. Somewhere down the line, completely overhauling supply chains is going to be costly in the short term, however in the long term, squandering the opportunity will leave supply chains in their existing vulnerable and environmentally devastating states. 

The environmental damage caused by a single supply chain for a consumer company amounts to over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions and over 90% of the impact on air, land, biodiversity and geological resources. 

During global industry shutdowns, the stark reduction in air pollution became blatantly apparent. Reducing the environmental damage from supply chains will go a long way towards helping countries meet their climate targets, as well as lessening the heavy haze hanging around industrial areas and cities. Much of this can be done through modernisation; incorporating digital technology and cleaner processes into manufacturing, shorter supply chains and scrutinising source materials, to name a few.

According to pre-pandemic research, consumers were willing to shoulder the cost of going green, however the reduction in purchasing power post-pandemic may considerably limit consumers’ “go-green” budgets. Despite tighter budgets, consumers (particularly within younger generations) have become more aware about where their goods are coming from and are beginning to hold businesses accountable for the choices they make, forcing businesses to seriously consider making eco-changes. 

While Covid19 has presented an opportunity, the reality is much more complex. Forgetting costs and practicalities, where should we start? Logically, it would probably be best to start at the start – the top of the chain. 

Where do manufacturers get their raw, source materials? How are they sourced and who sources them? 

Quite rightly, source materials should be scrutinised (Link to We’re gonna need A LOT of aluminium. That’s where we [recycling / secondary] come in.), after all, goods cannot be made without materials. Cleaning up source materials by switching to recyclables, particularly on a more localised model, reducing virgin mining of fossil fuels and ores, and developing suitable alternatives will not only reduce emissions, deforestation, and the impact on biodiversity, but will also reduce Scope 2 emissions further down the chain. 

This is a change that even the most sceptical of Covid analysers would embrace. There’s certainly a strong argument for the windfall proceeds of increased oil, gas, and commodities prices, due in part from the pandemic, to be invested in renewable ventures. A true circular economy, what once was considered a pipedream now has people scratching their heads thinking “actually…” With many non-green industries suffering GDP losses, what’s there to lose? Taking control of social and environmental responsibilities is a key factor for investors and consumers alike. If the future of money is green (literally, welcome to the contactless era!), then investing in greener resources is a financial benefit in the long run.

To learn more about sustainable partnerships and future business potential for circular economics, subscribe to our news at https://romcometals.com/news-insight/, or visit romcometals.com