Zara, that darling of the fashion world with the most innovative speed-to-market business model, invented the concept of “fast fashion.” The company has received heaps of praise for its innovations that have allowed it to reach more than $20 billion in revenue (see here, here, and here). And, let’s face it, the clothing chain has a lot to offer, particularly if one craves the latest looks. I have shopped there many times. But I can’t say that I will again because of a recent “blunder.”
今天Spend Matters PRO speaks with MetalMiner about the recent aluminum warehouse scheme that’s been capturing front-page headlines in the New York Times, prompting some drastic changes by some of the market participants. We’ll explain how much companies pay for aluminum, and what components of total cost have recently changed. We’ll also explain the “$3 billion” in hidden cost (and profit) in the supply chain, as well as who is profiting from it. Then we’ll delve into why the outrage isn’t aimed at the producers, such as Alcoa, rather than the investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. And finally, due to all this, should companies change their sourcing strategy for aluminum??
As the old adage goes, “the devil lies in the details” – and that aptly describes the challenge many diversified US manufacturers find in meeting the new conflict-free minerals compliance requirements under the Dodd-Frank legislation. What seems straightforward enough – avoiding the 3Ts (tin, tungsten and tantalum) – actually becomes more challenging when one considers the wide array of semi-finished materials companies purchase.
Yesterday, the SEC promulgated rules associated with section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act, or the Conflict Minerals Law as we informally call it. We intimated […]
The folks over at our sister site, MetalMiner, have been eagerly awaiting the verdict of the SEC's conflict mineral ruling this morning. See initial coverage […]