Business Strategy

The latest reporting from the Financial Times highlights a point that energy analysts have been making for years: geopolitical shocks consistently strengthen the case for renewables, electrification and storage. Microsoft’s global vice-president for energy notes that oil and gas price spikes linked to the Middle East conflict reinforce the value of wind, solar and batteries in providing price stability. Once installed, renewables offer predictable cost profiles and reduce exposure to volatile global fuel markets. We saw this dynamic after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Europe accelerated solar deployment, heat pump uptake increased in several countries, and governments revisited questions of energy security through the lens of diversification and electrification. The underlying issue remains unchanged. Fossil fuels must continuously flow through complex global supply chains. When those flows are disrupted, prices spike and economies are exposed. Renewables, by contrast, are capital intensive upfront but deliver long term domestic supply and insulation from commodity shocks. There are short term risks. Inflation, higher interest rates and supply chain constraints can slow clean energy investment. Some governments may also respond by doubling down on gas infrastructure. The policy challenge is to avoid locking in further structural vulnerability. Energy security and climate policy are not competing objectives. In a world of recurrent geopolitical instability, they are increasingly aligned.

This is the most underrated way to use Claude: (and it has nothing to do with writing or coding) It's competitive intelligence. Using data that's free, public, and updated every single week. Here's my extract step by step guide: Step 1. Go to claude .ai. Step 2. Select the new Claude "Opus 4.6." Step 3. Turn on "Extended Thinking." Step 4. Pick a competitor. Go to their careers page. Step 5. Copy every open job listing into one doc. (Title. Team name. Location. Full description) Step 6. Save it as one .txt or .docx file. Step 7. Search the company at EDGAR (sec .gov) Step 8. Download its recent 10-K or 10-Q filing. (Official strategy, risks, and financials - all public.) Step 9. Upload both files to Claude Opus 4.6. Step 10. Paste this exact prompt: "You are a competitive intelligence analyst at a rival company. I've uploaded [Company]'s complete current job listings and their most recent SEC filing. Perform a strategic intelligence analysis: → Cluster these roles by what they suggest is being built. Don't use the team names they've listed. Infer the actual product initiatives from the skills, tools, and responsibilities described. → Identify capabilities or teams that appear entirely new — not mentioned anywhere in the SEC filing. These are unreleased bets. → Find roles where seniority is disproportionately high for a new team. This signals executive-level priority. → Cross-reference the SEC filing's Risk Factors and Strategy sections with hiring patterns. Where are they investing against a stated risk? Where did they flag a risk but have zero hiring to address it? → Predict 3 product launches or strategic moves this company will make in the next 6-12 months. State your confidence level and cite specific job titles and filing sections as evidence. Format this as a 1-page competitive intelligence briefing for a CMO." What you'll find: → Products that don't exist yet but will in 6 months. → Priorities that contradict what the CEO said. → Risks they told the SEC but aren't addressing. This is what consulting firms charge $200K for. It took me 10 minutes. I used the new Claude 'Opus 4.6' for a reason: ✦ It read 60 job listing & a 200-page filing together.  ✦ And connects dots across both. ✦ It is superior in thinking and context retrieval. That's why I didn't use ChatGPT for this.

Last week, China barred its major tech companies from buying Nvidia chips. This move received only modest attention in the media, but has implications beyond what’s widely appreciated. Specifically, it signals that China has progressed sufficiently in semiconductors to break away from dependence on advanced chips designed in the U.S., the vast majority of which are manufactured in Taiwan. It also highlights the U.S. vulnerability to possible disruptions in Taiwan at a moment when China is becoming less vulnerable. After the U.S. started restricting AI chip sales to China, China dramatically ramped up its semiconductor research and investment to move toward self-sufficiency. These efforts are starting to bear fruit, and China’s willingness to cut off Nvidia is a strong sign of its faith in its domestic capabilities. For example, the new DeepSeek-R1-Safe model was trained on 1000 Huawei Ascend chips. While individual Ascend chips are significantly less powerful than individual Nvidia or AMD chips, Huawei’s system-level design to orchestrate how a much larger number of chips work together seems to be paying off. For example, Huawei’s CloudMatrix 384 system of 384 chips aims to compete with Nvidia’s GB200, which uses 72 higher-capability chips. Today, U.S. access to advanced semiconductors is heavily dependent on Taiwan’s TSMC, which manufactures the vast majority of advanced chips. Unfortunately, U.S. efforts to ramp up domestic semiconductor manufacturing have been slow. I am encouraged that one fab at the TSMC Arizona facility is operating, but issues of workforce training, culture, licensing and permitting, and the supply chain are still being addressed, and there is still a long road ahead for the U.S. facility to be a viable substitute for Taiwan manufacturing. If China gains independence from Taiwan manufacturing significantly faster than the U.S., this would leave the U.S. much more vulnerable to possible disruptions in Taiwan, whether through natural disasters or man-made events. If manufacturing in Taiwan is disrupted for any reason and Chinese companies end up accounting for a large fraction of global semiconductor manufacturing capabilities, that would also help China gain tremendous geopolitical influence. Despite occasional moments of heightened tensions and large-scale military exercises, Taiwan has been mostly peaceful since the 1960s. This peace has helped the people of Taiwan to prosper and allowed AI to make tremendous advances, built on top of chips made by TSMC. I hope we will find a path to maintaining peace for many decades more. But hope is not a plan. In addition to working to ensure peace, practical work lies ahead to multi-source, build more fabs in more nations, and enhance the resilience of the semiconductor supply chain. Dependence on any single manufacturer invites shortages, price spikes, and stalled innovation the moment something goes sideways. [Original text: https://lnkd.in/gxR48TK8 ]

The European Parliament has officially passed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation that fundamentally shifts the responsibility for textile waste management to fashion brands and retailers – with far-reaching global implications. This new law requires all producers, including e-commerce platforms, to cover the full cost of collecting, sorting, and recycling textiles, regardless of whether they are based within or outside the EU. The financial burden of Europe's textile waste now falls squarely on the brands that create it. What are the critical business implications? UNIVERSAL SCOPE: The legislation applies to all producers selling in the EU market, including those of clothing, accessories, footwear, home textiles, and curtains. No company is exempt based on location. FAST FASHION PENALTY: Member states must specifically address ultra-fast and fast fashion practices when determining EPR financial contributions, creating cost penalties for unsustainable business models. GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN DISRUPTION: As the world's largest textile importer, the EU's new rules will ripple across global supply chains, particularly impacting exporters from Bangladesh, Vietnam, China, and India who supply much of Europe's fast fashion. TIMELINE PRESSURE: Officially adopted September 2025, this creates immediate operational and financial planning requirements. COMPETITIVE RESHAPING: Brands and retailers will inevitably pass increased costs down their supply chains, fundamentally altering supplier relationships and pricing structures globally. What are the implications for various stakeholders? For CEOs and board members: This represents more than regulatory compliance – it's a complete business model transformation. Companies must now integrate end-of-life costs into product pricing, rethink supplier partnerships, and accelerate circular design strategies. For sustainability and decarbonisation executives: This creates unprecedented opportunities for circular economy solutions, sustainable material innovation, and traceability system development across global supply chains. Link: https://lnkd.in/dTyHtHuD #sustainablefashion #circulareconomy #textilwaste #epr #fashionindustry #sustainability #supplychainmanagement #fastfashion #environmentalregulation #businessstrategy #decarbonisation #textilerecycling #fashionceos #boardgovernance #climateaction #wastemanagement #producerresponsibility #fashionsustainability #textileindustry #greenbusiness

I’ve been in growth for over a decade. Here are 11 hard truths I’ve learned: 1. You will never “arrive.” Growth targets always reset higher. The treadmill doesn’t stop. 2. Your biggest growth blocker is usually your own org structure. 3. The best growth strategy is still… a great product. 4.Most people (still) can't explain why marketing is different from growth. 5. Growth loops saturate, get pricier, or collapse with time. Product *has* to carry the load. (re)Inventing growth loops is required, but rarely prioritized. 6. Most growth teams are set up for failure - spun up too early, starved of resources, buried in the wrong org, or treated like a side quest. 7. Acquisition/Conversion work is easier to work on, but retention work > acquisition all day, any day. Otherwise math never works. 8. Growth features fail more often than core features. 9. If the org thinks “growth will handle it,” you’re doomed. 10. Attribution is a lie. Data is directional at best. 11. At scale, growth gets boring - it’s optimization, plumbing, and systems. #growth

£322M in revenue. £120M cash in the bank. And still family-owned after 130 years. That’s Barbour. Most fashion brands chase growth at all costs. Barbour never has. A century-old and quietly spinning out £30m+ profit every year. The antithesis of the modern fashion playbook. → Revenue: £322m last year – compounding at 7% a year over 5 years → Gross margin: ~50%, among the strongest in fashion → Profit after tax of : £34m last year → Cash: £120m in the bank, balance sheet strength unrivalled They call themselves a Premium Niche. Jackets built to last decades, not seasons. So what’s the playbook? 1️⃣ Brand without dilution → Barbour does not discount — not online, not abroad → Instead they push sales via story-led branding 2️⃣ Heritage with a future → Same CEO for 25 years. Dame Margaret Barbour as Chair for 50. Jackets still made in South Shields since 1894 → Paired with reinvention: collabs with Erdem, Alexa Chung, Ganni. → Wax for Life, repairs and eco-materials - before Patagonia made it cool. 3️⃣ Global appeal → 130th anniversary campaign hit 1B impressions in 10 days across Asia → Early into China, Japan and the US - leveraging British heritage abroad → But adapted for local climates (eg. a 52-week summer range in the Gulf) Fashion loves disruption. Barbour proves discipline disrupts harder. If “boring” means £30M+ profit and £120M in cash… Maybe more brands should try being boring. -- I’m John - a CFO who loves brand and co-owner of Traction. Follow for insights on how - and why - brand building belongs on the balance sheet.

I often come across resumes and LinkedIn headlines that use the word “seasoned”, such as: “Seasoned executive with over 20 years of experience in the manufacturing space.” On the surface, it might sound strong. In reality, it raises several concerns. First, this statement is not a clear differentiator. Experience alone does not make someone unique. What matters most is how that experience has been applied, what has been learned, and the results achieved. Next, the term seasoned is vague. It does not communicate specific skills, achievements, or expertise. It has also become an overused cliché in resumes, which makes it less impactful. Finally, trust me when I say that employers and recruiters are not searching for the word seasoned when evaluating candidates. They are scanning for evidence of capability, examples of impact, and quantifiable results. Instead of describing yourself as seasoned, show the details that prove your value. For example: Rather than “seasoned operations director,” consider: “Director of operations who drives operational excellence across global manufacturing organizations, overseeing multi-site production valued at $500M+. Generated over $75M in efficiency gains." That paints a far stronger picture of what you bring to the table. Lastly, there is a risk that the word seasoned can invite age bias. Whether intentional or not, highlighting age or lengthy years of experience can trigger assumptions. Eliminating terms that are vague or loaded can help reduce this risk. In your career materials, focus on what sets you apart. Share the skills, insights, and measurable outcomes that showcase why you are the right fit. Food can be seasoned. Careers should be defined by value.

"Is $20/month too much for our product?" Instead of guessing, we used the Van Westendorp method to find our pricing sweet spot. 4 questions revealed exactly what users would pay (and we haven't touched our pricing since). Here's the framework any founder can steal: 1. Send a survey to actual users, not prospects We surveyed people already using Gamma. They understood the real value of our product, not hypothetical value. Too many founders survey their waitlist or randomly select people who have never used their product. That's like asking someone who's never driven about car prices. 2. Ask these 4 specific questions - At what price would this be too expensive for you to consider it? - At what price is it expensive but still delivering value? - At what price does it feel like a bargain? - At what price is it so cheap you'd question if it's reliable? These create bookends for perceived value. You're mapping the entire spectrum of price psychology, not just asking "what would you pay?" 3. Plot the responses and find where the lines intersect Graph responses from lots of users. Where "too expensive" and "too cheap" lines cross: that's your acceptable range. Where "expensive but fair" meets "bargain": this is your optimal price point. 4. Test within the range, don't just pick the middle The intersection gives you a range, not a number. We ran pricing experiments within that range to see actual conversion rates. A survey shows willingness to pay; testing reveals actual behavior. 5. Lean towards generous (especially for product-led growth) We chose to be more generous with AI usage than our "optimal" price suggested. Word-of-mouth growth matters more than maximizing initial revenue. Not everything shows up in the numbers. 6. Lock it in and stop tinkering Once you find the sweet spot through data, stick with it. We haven't changed pricing in 2 years. Every month debating pricing is a month not improving product. Remember: pricing is a signal, not just a number (Image: First Principles)

A promising Indian health-tech startup I invested in just shut down. Hard lessons inside… I invested in Onco back in 2020. It was basically an aggregator for cancer hospitals. Patients could visit their website or app, see all the hospitals and treatment options, get online consultations with doctors, and then choose where they wanted to get treated. They raised over $7 million from top investors like Accel, Chiratae, and others. They also built a strong brand. At their peak, they had 25,000+ visitors and over 1000 unique leads (cancer patients) every month - all organic, across their website, app, and social channels. We really thought hospitals would see the value in owning or partnering with a brand like this. But it didn’t work out that way. I’m sharing some lessons I learned watching this journey. Might be useful for founders (and investors) trying to crack India’s healthcare market: 1. Hospitals in India hold all the power. If you’re trying to aggregate them, you’re basically at their mercy. They will delay payments, ignore contracts, and squeeze every bit of margin out of you. They don’t really need you. Your margins get eaten alive by collections and compliance costs. 2. Digital only healthcare sounds great in pitch decks, but it doesn’t work here yet. People don’t pay enough for online-only services. Digital is great for leads, but it can’t be your whole business. Unit economics just don’t work with digital-only solutions because of low ARPU. 3. Offline is necessary. And brutally capital-intensive. Healthcare in India is still very much offline. Patients want to see a real centre and talk to doctors in person. Building those offline centres isn’t cheap. Each one takes at least 12–24 months to break even. You need serious money upfront. If you can’t fund that, you’re stuck. So, if you are building an aggregator only business in Indian healthcare, think twice. If you don’t have strong answers for these challenges, you’re just setting yourself up to be a middleman with no leverage, no margins, and no way out. That’s business suicide. #HarshRealities

"Why are you building from Kolkata?" - Wrong question. The right question is: "Why isn't everyone?" Last week, I sat with Vikram Gupta (Ex-Army Major, Founder of Flexi) and 12+ founders who chose Kolkata as their base. Not by accident. By design. Here's what the "smart money" in Bangalore doesn't want you to know: - While they burn ₹2L/month on office rent, Kolkata founders get premium space for ₹50K. - While they fight for overpriced talent, Kolkata has hungry, skilled professionals waiting. - While they chase the same 100 VCs, Kolkata founders bootstrap to profitability. The 3 insights that blew my mind: → Quality trumps location: Customers don't care about your office pin code when you deliver consistently. They care about results. → AI levels the playing field: These founders are using AI to leapfrog - customer support, hiring, product intelligence. Geography becomes irrelevant when your operations are smarter. → Strategic expansion wins: Half these founders are opening Bangalore offices next. Not to relocate - to dominate markets they're already winning from Kolkata. That building from Tier 2 cities is settling for less. Lower costs = longer runway = better decisions = sustainable growth. While Bangalore founders are on their 3rd funding round, Kolkata founders are hitting profitability. Geography isn't destiny. Capital efficiency is. Maybe we should stop asking founders to justify their location. And start asking why everyone's crowding into the same expensive cities. Which Tier 2 city will surprise us next?