How technology is helping us fight fires before they start

It’s fire season in the US. If previous years are anything to go by, it could be one of the worst on record. According to a recent study by Stanford University, the occurrence of extreme fire weather has more than doubled in California since the 1980s.

This same trend can be seen all over the world. Even the Arctic Circle has witnessed unprecedented wildfires in recent summers, with flames sweeping across Siberia, Alaska and Greenland.

The economic cost of these fires can be staggering. The 2019-2020 bushfires in Australia caused as much as $100bn in damages. Given the shocking speed at which fires can spread – sometimes up to 14 miles per hour – an early response by fire services is critical to stop a blaze from growing out of control. With new technology, we are better placed to do this than ever before.

 

Fighting fire with fire
Traditionally, the tools used by fire services are relatively low-tech. From above, helicopters will drop water and foam on the flames, while firefighters on the ground deploy a range of techniques – such as burning out or backburning – to try and stop the fire from spreading any further.

But the problem with these strategies is they are reactive; by the time they’re deployed, a lot of damage may have already been done. “Right now, most resources are going to fire suppression, but it is clearly shown that investing more before the fire happens is much more efficient,” said Cristina Santin Nuno, Associate Professor of Biosciences at Swansea University.

For instance, one tool, a class of fire suppressants called “water-enhancing gels” – which keeps water on structures for longer – is only ever used to protect infrastructure from fast-approaching fires. However, these retardants don’t work for long. They can be easily washed off even in mild precipitation. This means the best they can do is buy the firefighters some time.

Eric Appel, Assistant Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University, was developing creams to carry drugs through the skin and into the human body when he realised the same techniques could be used to apply fire retardants onto trees. “We developed our materials […] so that a single application at the beginning of the fire season could prevent ignitions throughout the entire fire season,” he said. “So we weren’t so much aiming to slow down fires that are already raging, but we rather sought to stop fires before they even start at the source of their ignition.”

 

Prevention over treatment
Preventing some of the worst fires from starting in the first place would greatly reduce their impact. But when most people think about preventing wildfires, their mind jumps to one of the major causes behind recent wildfires’ frequency and intensity: climate change.

Santin Nuno thinks that fixating on climate change can actually stop people from taking the right steps towards fire mitigation. “I believe it is very dangerous to think it is only climate change making fires worse,” she said, “as that can lead to people thinking ‘there is nothing we can do’.”

Santin Nuno’s research has helped her identify which areas are more at-risk of a wildfire breaking out. She explains that these areas usually have higher levels of interaction between humans and flammable vegetation. “For example, in North America, we are seeing over the last couple of decades a huge growth of the Wildland-Urban Interface – where houses are close to or within vegetated areas, such as forest,” she said. “Of course, living by or in a forest sounds great but, obviously, when a fire comes that is the worst place you can have your house in.”

Using technology, fire services can monitor these more at-risk areas and respond before a fire has even started. Today, firefighters can create in several minutes a map predicting the development of a fire – something that previously would have taken twenty-four hours to construct.

“Prevention specialist use a program called Wildfire Prevention Spatial Assessment and Planning Strategies (WPSASPS),” said Sean Triplett, Branch Leader for Tools and Technology, NIFC US Forest Service, “which is a web-based application that analyses various factors for fire starts with a focus on human-caused fires in a geographic area. The program uses a model to determine which types of prevention activities should be focused on the area along with developing a budget and a program that outlines ways to reduces the risk of human caused wildfires. These can include public outreach through prevention messages, increasing prevention patrols or suggesting fire restrictions based on human activities and fuel conditions.”

Understanding where wildfires start means fire services can apply preventative treatment with greater efficiency. For example, Appel’s water-enhancing gel, the Phos-Chek FORTIFY, doesn’t have to be distributed across a huge area in order to be effective. “We have found that over 80 percent of wildfires in California over the past 10 years are strongly localised adjacent to roadsides and utilities infrastructure,” said Appel, “meaning that a prophylactic treatment of a small amount of land, such as a 20-foot-wide treatment adjacent to the roadside, could potentially prevent a majority of wildfires by averting them at their source.”

 

Investing for the future
Research and development is vital for the creation of products like Phos-Chek FORTIFY. But commercialising the technology represents the next big step.

“We launched a start-up company in late 2018 called LaderaTech to commercialize the product, which we called FORTIFY at the time,” said Appel. “LaderaTech received the 2020 Best Venture Award from the US DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and was acquired in May by Perimeter Solutions, the world leader in wildland fire retardants.”

Even once the technology is available, there are barriers that can stop fire services adopting them. A big one is cost. As it is, many fire services’ budgets are stretched to their limit. The US Forest Service spends $3.4bn a year — 57 percent of its budget — on preventing and suppressing fires. When the fires are bigger and more costly, it is forced to move funds from other critical natural resource management programmes. As the Forest Service explains in its Fire Budget Report, this takes funding away from the “upkeep of programmes and infrastructure that support thousands of recreation jobs and billions of dollars of economic growth in rural communities”.

The coronavirus has only made fire mitigation harder. In April, the US Forest Service suspended a wildfire prevention method called controlled burns, due to concerns over social distancing and respiratory problems caused by smoke. Meanwhile, California halted plans to spend billions on wildfire mitigations due to budget cuts caused by the coronavirus crisis.

But investing more in prevention is the best way forward, if we’re to reduce the risk of catastrophic damage caused by wildfires. While true prevention would mean mitigating the effects of climate change, technology can give us a vital head start. After all, it’s a problem that isn’t going away. “Fire has been on the Earth surface for millions and millions of years, and it will still be here whatever efforts we make. Just as we cannot stop torrential rains and floods, we can also not stop fire fully,” said Santin Nuno. “We need to adapt to fire and be ready to face it.”

TikTok CEO resigns after three months

Kevin Mayer, TikTok’s CEO, announced his resignation on 26 August, just days after the company sued the US government over its forthcoming ban. The popular Chinese-owned video app has become embroiled in tensions between Beijing and Washington, ever since the Trump administration accused the company of threatening national security.

Mayer, who had held the role for just over 100 days, reportedly made the decision to leave after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to ban the app. TikTok must now sell its US assets if it’s to avoid being shut down. Sources told the Financial Times that Mayer wanted to escape the “sensitive political zone” he had found himself in.

“In recent weeks, as the political environment has sharply changed, I have done significant reflection on what the corporate structural changes will require, and what it means for the global role I signed up for,” Mayer said in a letter to employees. “Against this backdrop, and as we expect to reach a resolution very soon, it is with a heavy heart that I wanted to let you all know that I have decided to leave the company.”

Before joining TikTok, Mayer was a top streaming executive at Disney. US General Manager Vanessa Pappas will replace him as interim CEO, TikTok said.

According to the Trump administration, TikTok poses a national security threat because it could pass US citizens’ data to the Chinese government. On 24 August, the company filed a legal challenge opposing the US President’s executive order, arguing it was politically motivated and made without due diligence.

The company is now in talks with potential suitors to buy TikTok’s US operations. Microsoft, and reportedly Oracle, are among those who have expressed interest.

The circular economy: Enabling the transformation to circular business

Today, the world faces an unprecedented resource crisis. Due to rapid population growth and an ‘onwards and upwards’ economic model, we are consuming resources at almost twice the speed that the planet can replenish them. Every year, more than 100 billion tonnes of raw materials enter the global economy.

We’re not just over-consuming resources; we’re also wasting them. Far from improving, our wasteful processes seem to be getting worse. Two years ago, 9.1 percent of waste generated across business was reused. Today it is just 8.6 percent. The remaining waste leaks into our environment, with 8 million metric tonnes of it entering our oceans every year. In fact, it’s estimated that the level of plastics in the ocean may be a million times higher than previously thought.

But COVID-19 presents us with a unique opportunity to start again. As we rebuild from the damage of the pandemic, we can instate an economic model focused on sustainability and equality. We must now move away from traditional economic paradigms based on endless, upwards growth and towards a circular model based on creating value for everyone on the planet.

Going full circle

To some, the circular economy may sound like a utopian concept or an unachievable alternative economic model. But it’s actually much more feasible than one might think.

In the past, the foundation for a healthy economy has been growth and profitability. However, this model has created huge inequality around the world. A circular economy would help us address this. When processes are circular, everything has value and nothing is wasted. Products are designed and made to last. Producers promote reuse, repair and remanufacture – enabling materials to remain in use at their highest value for as long as possible.

This model would bring huge benefits. According to Accenture, a circular economy has the potential to unlock $4.5trn in economic growth. It could also play a crucial role in mitigating climate change, the biggest threat we face today.

To achieve this huge transformation, businesses must start small. Circularity needs to be embedded in every part of production, from design through to execution.

COVID-19 presents us with a unique opportunity to start again

The only successful circular approaches seem to rely on clear resource ownership – in many cases within one company – throughout the entire value chain. Crucially, moving classical linear value chains toward circularity also requires trustworthy collaboration between participating industries. Trust is based on transparency around resources, but also around financial flows. This therefore requires accurate data that can be delivered by innovative technologies like blockchain or artificial intelligence.

Nevertheless, two major obstacles stand in the way of achieving full circularity. Firstly, businesses need to look beyond their individualistic measurements of value and consider more broadly the holistic impact of a resource or product along the entire lifecycle. Secondly, we need to incorporate this thinking around resource ownership into the education of the next generation of business leaders. Both of these changes require a huge shift in mind-set around what it means to create value in business.

 

Building circular businesses

SAP is focused on five key areas that together are key to the transformation to circular business. These are responsible design, responsible sourcing and marketplace, responsible production, responsible consumption and, lastly, resource recovery and reuse.

The first of these – responsible design – focuses on designing out waste and pollution. Through model-based systems engineering, designers can challenge the standards of packaging and material use so they can unlock the value of secondary materials and ultimately reduce waste.

The second – responsible sourcing and marketplace is all about creating value around secondary materials. With sustainable sourcing solutions, producers can identify new sources of recycled materials to use in their processes. This will help increase the value of residual waste and enable the growth and viability of waste-picker communities.

When processes are circular, everything has value and nothing is wasted

Next is responsible production. This means we can keep products and materials in use at their highest value, by harnessing real-time tracking technologies to trace their progression through the value chain.

Meanwhile, responsible consumption requires creating greater transparency around products and processes. For the circular economy to work, individuals need to make more informed purchasing decisions. But they can only do this if brands trace and share product lineage. Traceability apps can help companies achieve this. At the same time, experience management solutions can provide producers with deep insights into consumer sentiment around the value of circularity.

Finallyresource recovery and reuse helps us track waste flows, supply and valuation. Recyclers need granular, high-quality data on sources of recyclable materials to support investment decisions around new collection and processing capacity.

Looking at these five areas, we can see how the core principle behind the circular economy – zero waste – can minimise costs, increase customer satisfaction, mitigate risk, grow profits and enable resilience. This new model will help companies become smarter and more responsible, while also balancing the Earth’s finite resources.

 

The power of collaboration

A full transition to a circular economic model requires participation from all sectors. SAP is enabling this transformation by leveraging nearly 50 years of supply chain and industry expertise and collaborating with our global purpose network, including start-ups working on sustainability solutions.

One of our key partnerships is with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Here, we work with businesses, innovators, governments, universities and thought leaders to accelerate the adoption of circular economy practices and processes that maximise the use of resources.

In addition, through the Climate 21 programme, SAP supports and enables organisations globally — upstream, downstream and across sectors — to run as intelligent enterprises, providing insights to assemble, assess and act on their CO2 footprint. We create new customer value by providing solutions that are predictive, intelligent and agile, as well as analytics for holistic steering and reporting.

The pandemic has revealed that no one person or entity can tackle the world’s challenges alone. Now is the time for a collective vision around our future and focused action in order to achieve it. Powering the circular economy will be, by nature, a collaborative and inclusive global ‘project’ that we all need to subscribe to and deliver. It will have to go hand-in-hand with action on climate and creating a more inclusive society. It will take collaboration, trust, innovation and unity. The circular economy is well within our grasp. But it requires all of us to reach out and take it.

 

 

Facebook removed seven million posts for coronavirus misinformation

Facebook revealed on 11th August that it had removed seven million posts in the second quarter for sharing false information about the coronavirus. The deleted posts included fake preventative measures and exaggerated cures for the disease. An additional 98 million posts were labelled false by fact-checkers, although the content didn’t qualify for outright removal.

The statistics were released alongside the company’s sixth Community Standards Enforcement Report, a quarterly study that details content takedowns on the platform. This report was introduced in 2018 in response to accusations that Facebook was failing to police content on its platform.

When the virus outbreak began, Facebook promised to boost efforts to control the spread of misinformation. The company took steps to promote credible health information and also debunk common myths about the coronavirus.

Despite these steps, the pandemic has seriously tested Facebook’s ability to monitor content on its platform. In May, a video claiming that masks make people sick and that coronavirus was created in a lab racked up millions of views before Facebook removed it.

Part of the problem is Facebook’s reduced workforce. Due to COVID-19, the company has been relying less heavily on content reviewers and more heavily on automation to monitor content on the platform.

In some respects, the use of technology has proven successful. For example, the company has been able to improve its detection of hate speech on its platform. Facebook reported that it removed about 22.5 million posts containing hate speech in the second quarter, compared to 9.6 million in the first quarter. The company also deleted 8.7 million posts connected to “terrorist” organisations, up from 6.3 million.

However, many posts relating to abuse and self-harm have gone undetected by the technology. For example, child sexual abuse images surged during the pandemic due to Facebook’s limited capacity to find and remove them.

Top 5 most important takeaways from the US antitrust probe into big tech

On 29 July, the CEOs of Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple testified in front of the US House of Representatives’ Antitrust Subcommittee. It was a highly anticipated event, and with good reason: the appearance of one tech leader in front of the US Congressional committee is newsworthy enough, but this was the first time that all four CEOs had attended a hearing together.

The committee’s investigation was launched to determine whether the companies have engaged in anticompetitive practices. Ultimately, it could help inform new laws to regulate tech companies and protect consumers.

Because of social distancing measures, the four CEOs appeared in front of lawmakers over videoconferencing. According to Reuters, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos seemed “the least fazed”, despite it being his first congressional hearing, whereas Zuckerberg stumbled over his words when presented with compromising internal emails.

The CEOs gave patriotic defences of their companies, arguing they had created new ecosystems for start-ups and ultimately boosted, not harmed, competition. “Just like the world needs small companies,” said Bezos, “it also needs large ones.” But lawmakers had a different perspective, accusing the firms of abusing their market dominance to steamroll the competition. The New Economy takes a look at the most significant moments from the hearing.

 

Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg came under fire for the company’s purchasing of social media platform Instagram. The committee used internal documents to argue that this was a deliberate attempt to crush a rival company. In an email exchange from March 2012, a senior employee at Facebook described how the founders of Chinese company RenRen found success because they were “copying other people”; the employee went on to suggest that Facebook should use the same strategy. An internal document also showed that Zuckerberg, before Instagram’s acquisition, said Facebook “could just buy any competitive start-ups”. However, he insisted that the company did not view Instagram as a competitor at the time.

 

Amazon stealing data
US Representative Pamila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat, asked whether Amazon took data from vendors on the platform and used it to create its own products. In April 2020, a Wall Street Journal investigation found that Amazon had indeed used data about independent sellers to develop private-label merchandise.

Responding to repeated questions about the investigation’s findings, Bezos said that while there is a policy against this practice, he “couldn’t guarantee” it hadn’t been violated before. He also confirmed lawmakers’ suspicions that the practices remained unaddressed when he said, “I’m not satisfied that we have gotten to the bottom of it, and we’ll keep looking at it.”

 

Apple discriminating against apps
Unlike the other companies in the hearing, Apple was not accused of stifling the competition. Instead, it came under fire for allegedly discriminating against apps on its platform. Documents showed that Apple had made exceptions to its own rules regarding commission structure, striking a special deal over the Amazon Prime Video app for iOS and Apple TV. Other documents revealed that Apple had considered raising commissions to 40 percent for the first year for subscription apps. Although this never materialised, the email exchange raises questions over whether Apple was adhering to its own rules.

 

Amazon crushing the competition
Amazon was accused of using monopolistic tactics to squeeze smaller players out of the retail market. For example, internal documents suggested that Amazon had used aggressive price-cutting to force Diapers.com out of business. Another document showed that Amazon also took on losses of $200m during this period, possibly because it knew the smaller business wouldn’t be able to compete at this scale. Email exchanges seemed to confirm that this was a commonly used strategy by the company. Of Amazon’s purchase of smart home company Ring, Bezos himself said in an email, “we’re buying market position – not technology. And that market position and momentum is very valuable.”

 

Google manipulating search results
Google CEO Sundar Pichai was questioned over the company’s 2007 acquisition of adtech platform DoubleClick. Despite having promised lawmakers that it would not merge DoubleClick data with Google account data, the company did exactly that in June 2016, giving itself the power to more precisely profile and target users. Lawmakers accused Google of “effectively destroying anonymity on the internet” with this decision.

At the same time, the antitrust committee accused Google of using its “surveillance over web traffic” to identify competitors and delist them from its search results. However, Pichai said that its search engine only blocks out websites to “comply with law”.

Advancing diversity, inclusion and equality: Evolving a moment into a movement

This year, we have seen during the COVID-19 crisis that, although we are all in the same storm, we are all in different boats. We can see what happens when we don’t have diversity, equality and inclusion at the foundation of our society. We see different outcomes in healthcare, in terms of which communities are hit the hardest, who is even able to work from home, who is determined an essential worker and so on. The inequities that are present in our society around race and ethnicity are exacerbated in the current moment.

When I think back to the early 2000s, when I was a young person thinking about my career, I remember learning that Kenneth Chenault had become the CEO of American Express. In that moment, I saw an example of an American leader who looked like me and had ascended to the highest heights of one of the world’s best-known brands. It occurred to me then that perhaps this was a pathway that could lead me to a career in business – maybe even a career at SAP.

Throughout the 2000s, we saw some progress for African Americans in the C-Suite, with about six leaders in the Fortune 500. But today we are down to just three. This means that people in roles like mine need to think carefully about how much progress we have really made.

As part of this, we need to look at our talent pipeline and ask ourselves whether it’s stopping us from creating diverse and inclusive workforces. But this seems unlikely, since we have more diversity in college graduates than ever before. Women now outnumber men on campus and, according to the Current Population Survey, educational attainment among people of colour has continued to grow in recent years. Our pipeline is constantly improving.


Although we are all in the same storm, we are all in different boats

If our pipeline is not the problem, then perhaps our processes are. We must look closely at these to determine what is preventing diverse talent from getting into our organisations and identifying pathways to leadership. I bring this up because technology can help us overcome one of the major hurdles to change: unconscious bias.

I had the opportunity to lead the unconscious bias programme at a large tech company in 2013. When we launched it, we thought that increasing awareness of unconscious bias would change behaviour and radically impact our outcomes for diversity and inclusion. But we were wrong. Although we raised awareness, this did not change behaviour. That’s when I got really bullish on technology because, for every potential decision we make, bias can play a role. If we can build the right type of artificial intelligence and algorithms, trained using data sets that correct for bias, we can change those outcomes. AI can help us make better decisions.

The first key lever we have for driving diversity and inclusion is attracting talent. We all think we are good at selecting talent, when in fact most humans are not. For example, bias can creep into our job descriptions and deter applicants from certain backgrounds. But AI can help us source talent we may otherwise have missed, by coaching us to use language in job descriptions that will make them more attractive to a wide range of candidates. It can also improve our interviews by giving people problems they can solve and evaluating them in a blind manner to help us identify the right candidates for the job.

We must ask ourselves: where are the gaps are in the entire employee lifecycle? Where are we not being as inclusive as we can be? And where are we not seeing the diversity we want to see? With data, we can answer these questions and make strategic interventions. AI can help us analyse the data about talent and diagnose exactly where the problem is in our process. We might think we have a bias problem when we really have a sourcing problem. We might think the bias in our process happens at the interview stage, when it actually happens at the resume review stage. With this knowledge, we can deploy our resources in the right way.

We also know that when we develop our talent, we can build the kind of culture where different people will flourish. A lot of managers have “go-to” people on their team. This is only natural since we need to rely on people we trust to get the work done. But this means we overdevelop some talent and under-develop other talent. Intelligent algorithms can alert us to those we haven’t given opportunities to and help us nurture all the talent on our team. In addition, we can use technology to provide just-in-time nudges that can help make inclusive behavior the default behavior. Of course, technology isn’t the only answer. Most change happens when people work together. It’s just that technology can help us work together better.

The business case for diversity and inclusion is clear. According to Deloitte, organisations with inclusive cultures are twice as likely to meet or exceed financial targets. To thrive as an intelligent enterprise, we need an inclusive culture that empowers people to run at their best.

Turning our attention back to COVID-19 and other events of the year, we’ve seen and experienced significant racial injustices and unrest around the world. Many of us have employees and customers in communities that have been directly impacted by social unrest. This means that when we ask our employees to bring their best selves to work, we must acknowledge that many of them are dealing with the fear, grief and anger that this environment brings. We must provide them with the resources that they need to address these emotions.

Now is the time for us to act within our organisations and devise a plan and strategy for increasing diversity within our ranks and ensuring that women, people of colour and other underrepresented groups have access to development opportunities. It’s also time to come together to address systematic racism and understand the role each of us plays, as well as what we can do to drive lasting change.

We must not lose this sense of clarity and opportunity to move forward. It’s time for us to evolve a moment – with the world focused on racial injustice – into a global movement for equality and inclusion. This will not only be good for business, but it will allow us to build a more diverse, more equitable, more inclusive and better future for all.

 

Learn more at www.sap.com/corporate/en/company/diversity.html  and www.sap.com/equality

Stuck on repeat: at Nokia, is history doomed to repeat itself?

When most people hear the name Nokia, they think of a specific mobile phone handset: the Nokia 3310. It became so renowned for its durability that TechRepublic called it “a big tough cockroach of a phone”. Ironically, its indestructability is not a bad metaphor for the company itself. After everything it’s been through, Nokia is still standing.

The Finnish telecoms firm experienced serious hardship during the late 2000s and early 2010s, when it went from the global smartphone leader to a diminishing player with only a 3 percent share of the market. “We are standing on a burning platform,” then-CEO Stephen Elop said in a memo to staff in 2011, only a few years before the company – once worth $200bn – sold its mobile phones division for just $7.2bn.

The rise and fall of Nokia is now an infamous business school case study; a cautionary tale about missing the signs of the market and ignoring the threat posed by a competitor (in this case, Apple, which released the iPhone in 2007). However, for all the turmoil the company has experienced, it remains a major player in the telecoms industry. Currently, it’s competing with the likes of Ericsson and Huawei to become a global leader in 5G. But there are fears the company could repeat the same mistakes that led to its downfall almost ten years ago.

 

The art of self-reinvention 
Most people know Nokia only for producing mobile phones. But it was first founded in 1865 as a pulp mill. Over the coming decades, the company expanded into a myriad of different sectors, producing everything from rubber boots to toilet paper.

Nokia’s first major restructuring came in the 1990s, when CEO Simo Vuorilehto divested industrial units such as Nokian Tyres and Finnish Rubber Works. Then his successor Jorma Ollila decided to make telecoms the company’s sole focus. After the sale of its mobile phones division in 2013, Nokia was left with its network business alone. If there’s one thing that can be said about the corporation, it’s that it has an impressive capacity for self-reinvention.

“What’s unusual about Nokia is they have had the courage to disengage from businesses,” said Rita Gunther McGrath, Professor at Columbia Business School. “Getting rid of the handset business, I mean, that was just emotionally wrenching for them. But they were willing to do that. And I think that’s something that does set them apart from many other firms – how they’ve managed to get in and out of so many different categories of business.”

Even today, academics disagree over exactly what caused Nokia’s fall from grace. Some – like Michael Schrage, Research Fellow with MIT Sloan School’s Initiative on the Digital Economy – argue that Nokia never succeeded in positioning itself as a global player. “My view is that the company’s leadership lacked the confidence, clarity and capital to aggressively compete in the US,” he said. “I directly communicated my surprise to many Nokia leaders whom I met in London, Madrid, New York and MIT. It made no sense to me, especially when both Android and iPhone were [rapidly] gaining traction […] They kidded themselves that Asia and Europe would make up for their chosen default in America. They were wrong.”

Another commonly held position is that Nokia had stopped prioritising innovation. But McGrath thinks this is unfair on the company. “Innovation wasn’t the problem in Nokia. They spent billions on research and development,” she said. “I was at one of their branches in Finland, where they have manufacturing facilities. And I was literally, in 2004, holding in my hands, a tablet. It had a stylus, it could connect to the internet – it was an early version of what we would recognise today as a tablet. And that was years before Apple got seriously into that business.”

 

Faulty connection
But clearly, something went wrong, for the company to so catastrophically miss out on the opportunities in the smartphone market. One problem was Symbian, the now-discontinued operating system which Nokia’s clung to even as the technological superiority of Apple’s iOS became clear.

Fundamentally, the business lacked the agility to address problems like this. “The organisation was basically designed to prevent these very fast reactions to situation’s like the iPhone’s release,” said Juha-Antti Lamberg, professor in strategy at the Jyväskylä School of Business and Economics. “There was so much inertia in the company.”

Even though Nokia was spending huge amounts on research and development – it coughed up €5.6bn in 2007 – it wasn’t leveraging this effectively. Internal competition between business units and poor communication were partly to blame. “Among the CEO and executive team, there was no clear vision about the technological future of the corporation,” said Lamberg. “No one was basically saying ‘we should focus only on this product or this product line’. It wasn’t happening.”

As a business grows, it becomes harder for top management to keep abreast of the changes and problems that are glaringly obvious to workers on the frontline. It’s a pattern McGrath has seen again and again. “When I look at companies that have missed a big inflection point, there were always people deep down in the organisation that knew,” she said. “I remember getting an email from someone in Nokia in 2006. So this is years before Nokia’s problems were obvious to everybody. He said, ‘they’re not really supporting their creative people. It’s all backwards-looking.’ In 2006, he laid it all out in a memo to me. So somebody always knows. And the question I think for leaders is: are you tapping into that wisdom?”

Now that Nokia has committed itself to 5G, it risks making the same mistakes again. Together, Ericsson and Nokia have a similar share of the global 5G market to Huawei. Therefore, the US ban on Huawei should have given them both a significant business advantage. However, Nokia has missed out on a number of huge 5G deals over the past year. In April, it lost billion-dollar contracts with China Unicom and China Telecom to Huawei, ZTE and Ericsson.

Some analysts pinned these lost tenures on Nokia’s inability – or unwillingness – to meet China’s technical requirements. Others believe that Nokia also misjudged the start of the 5G investment cycle and that its acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent lost the company precious time. Once again, Nokia seems to have found itself one step behind the rest.

McGrath has a theory that may explain this. “Once you’ve created something, you fall into this trap of thinking it’s going to just continue the way that it is,” she said, “and you forget that what you need to be doing is continuously working on the next wave. That’s a pattern I would say we’ve seen many times at Nokia.”

The question now is: can Nokia put the past behind it? Some think not. “Nokia’s ‘ecosystem’ vision, aspiration and trajectory shrivelled into an unappealing desert compared to Apple’s and Google’s and Huawei’s and even Samsung’s,” said Schrage.

But others believe Nokia still has the potential to turn it around. In May 2020, Shari Baldauf, one of the most high-profile female executives in the telecoms industry and the last remaining executive from Jorma Ollila’s team, took over as chairwoman of the company. McGrath believes Baldauf could be a boon to Nokia’s internal communication. “Based on my past understanding of how she operates, I think it’s a really good sign she’s on board,” she said. Lamberg has similar optimism around the new chairwoman and also new CEO Pekka Lundmark. “After all these changes in the top management team,” he said, “I think there’s still reason to be positive about Nokia’s future.”

TransferWise hits $5bn valuation

TransferWise, the London-based money transfer service, is now valued at $5bn, the company revealed on 28 July 2020, after its shareholders sold $319m worth of shares. This represents a 43 percent increase in the company’s valuation since a similar secondary share sale in May 2019.

The new valuation comes as TransferWise experiences an increase in new sign-ups during the pandemic. Matt Briers, TransferWise chief financial officer, attributed this to a “heightened awareness of digital products” during lockdown.

TransferWise offers cheap cross-border money transfers for individuals. Since it was founded in 2011, it has become one of the world’s best-known fintech start-ups. It now serves 8 million customers worldwide and processes around $5.2bn in cross-border payments per month. The new $5bn valuation makes it one of the most valuable fintechs in Europe, behind companies such as Klarna and Revolut.

However, Klarna and Revolut both reached their valuations through new primary funding. By comparison, TransferWise has hit the $5bn mark through secondary private markets alone.

“We’ve been funded exclusively by our customers for the last few years and we didn’t need to raise external funding for the company,” said co-founder and current CEO Kristo Käärmann in a statement. “This secondary round provides an opportunity for new investors to come in, alongside rewarding the investors and employees who’ve helped us succeed so far.”

In recent years, the company has expanded its offering of banking products. In 2018, the company launched a “borderless” multi-currency account attached to a debit card and, in June of this year, it secured a license from the Financial Conduct Authority to offer investment products, as a way of encouraging customers to store more money on the platform. However, Käärmann has said that the company has “no plans” to become a bank.

Intelligent Enterprises: Putting purpose and sustainability at the core of business

The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare some of the most serious issues we face today. The prevalence of racial injustice has been brought to the world’s attention and, at the same time, economic hardship looks likely to widen inequality in countries around the globe. Meanwhile, with governments focused on stemming the spread of COVID-19, one of the biggest challenges of our times – climate change – has faded into the background.

No single entity can solve these issues alone. Businesses, consumers and governments, as well as local and international non-government organisations, must all work together to create solutions. But this will only succeed if businesses play their part by putting sustainability and purpose at the heart of what they do.

This article is the first in a series by SAP exploring opportunities for today’s business executives, technology leaders, entrepreneurs, policymakers, researchers, non-profits and activists to accelerate solutions for a sustainable economy, environment and society. To start, we will examine why tomorrow’s leading organisations must become a generation of intelligent enterprises, whose purpose is not just to be resilient and profitable, but also to be sustainable.

 

A seismic shift

In August 2019, the Business Roundtable, a public policy group composed of 181 US CEOs, took a major step to redefine business purpose. It announced that a company’s purpose should no longer mean delivering profits for shareholders; rather, an organisation’s purpose should bring value to all its stakeholders – from customers to employees to communities – by improving society and promoting economic benefits for all.

This is evidence that we are living through a fundamental shift in consumers’ perception of what businesses can and should do for the world. With over 440,000 customers across more than 180 countries, SAP has a unique insight into that shifting perception. Because of this, we’ve been able to identify two key areas where our customers want to see businesses driving change.

Firstly, customers and other stakeholders want companies to address the immediate needs of the current crisis. This requires not just taking responsibility for their workforce’s safety and wellbeing, but also building resilience across the business and supply chains.

Secondly, stakeholders expect businesses to commit to sustainability. To achieve this, businesses must minimise their environmental impact, enabling responsible production and consumption and helping to create a circular economy. But sustainability isn’t just about climate action. As well as this, businesses must increase diversity and inclusion across their organisation and communities and equip the next generation of workers with the skills needed to take on a more technologically advanced world. These sustainable business practices will help foster an open and fair society with equal opportunities for everyone.

In this new world, profitability and resilience will continue to be core drivers of business growth, but social purpose will come to play an equally important role. The best-run companies of the future will be those that can embody all three principles.

 

Leading by example

At SAP, we see the current crisis as an opportunity to drive meaningful action. This requires tackling the myriad issues that the coronavirus crisis and Black Lives Matter movement have made clear.

For example, in response to the Black Lives Matter, we are increasing our investments in social justice reform. As part of this, we have launched a new programme, “Spotlight Black Businesses,” which provides support to small, Black-owned businesses whose operations have been negatively affected by the pandemic. We have also joined the “Stop Hate for Profit” effort, suspending all paid advertisements across Facebook and Instagram until the company takes sufficient action to confront hate speech on its platforms.

Those are some of the ways we’re helping communities. Driving change inside SAP requires a separate approach, and establishing targets is critical. That’s why we have set a new goal to double our representation of African-American talent in the US over the next three years. We are also determined to advance opportunities for women in management, with the goal of increasing the number of women in leadership roles to 28 percent in 2020 and 30 percent in 2022. As the sponsor for both our Business Women’s Network at SAP and for the Women in Tech initiative, I’m excited for us to involve more women in tech, since it is still – unfortunately – too much a man’s world.

On top of this, we’re boosting our efforts to mitigate climate change. We aim to make all of our operations carbon-neutral by 2025 and are part of the CEO Carbon Neutral Challenge. We have also joined the World Economic Forum’s Global Plastic Action Partnership, which is determined to create a cleaner ocean by 2030, and in 2020 we joined the Ellen MacArthur Foundation network to accelerate the adoption of circular economy practices and processes.

 

Enabling change

With 77 percent of all business transactions revenue worldwide touching an SAP system, we have the scale to make a difference. We must strive, therefore, to become enablers of change across the business ecosystem. We are uniquely positioned to help companies improve industry-specific and supply chain processes, connect through a global network and embed sustainability as a critical measure of business success.

That’s why we’re working across borders and industries to help the world respond to and heal from the consequences of the pandemic. Early in the crisis, SAP offered several of its products to customers for free, enabling companies to empower teams, build a resilient business and transform customer experiences.

To help make our economy more inclusive and regenerative, we have also introduced SAP Product Carbon Footprint Analytics. This tracks the carbon emissions of a product across the entire value chain, including production, raw materials, energy use and transport. In addition, to drive towards a circular economy, we have launched the SAP Plastics Cloud, creating a new global marketplace for suppliers of recycled plastics and plastic alternatives.

By nurturing a network of intelligent enterprises, SAP can help companies digitise multi-enterprise processes for better transparency, traceability and collaboration across the supply chain ecosystem. In this way, we see an opportunity for a fundamental reimagining of enterprise software applications. Ethical principles must guide digital transformation, innovation with purpose and adoption of sustainable business practices.

In future articles in this series, we will explore what companies of the future need to succeed: advancing diversity and inclusion, transforming to circular processes, addressing climate action and promoting social and inclusive entrepreneurship.

These topics are all united under one core theme: the need for global cooperation to tackle today’s most pressing issues. Only when we come together can we create solutions to these multi-faceted and interconnected challenges.

 

Learn more at www.sap.com/purpose

Corporate Citizen Awards 2012

Best Corporate Citizen, Slovenia
Siemens

Best Corporate Citizen, Czech Republic
IBM

Best Corporate Citizen, Russia
Rusan

Best Corporate Citizen, Turkey
Global Investment Holdings

Best Corporate Citizen, Serbia
EPS

Best Corporate Citizen, Croatia
Agrokor

Best Corporate Citizen, Brazil
Rede Energia

Best Corporate Citizen, South Africa
British American Tobacco South Africa

Best Corporate Citizen, Nigeria
Total Nigeria

Best Corporate Citizen, Kenya
Total Kenya

Best Corporate Citizen, Saudi Arabia
Dallah Albaraka

Best Corporate Citizen, Mexico
Villacero

Best Corporate Citizen, Portugal
REN

Best Corporate Citizen, Angola
Sonangol

Best Corporate Citizen, Thailand
Bangchak Petroleum

Best Corporate Citizen, China
CNOOC

Best Corporate Citizen, Malaysia
MMC Corporation

Best Corporate Citizen, Canada
Talisman Energy

Best Corporate Citizen, Indonesia
PT Indika Energy TBK

Best Corporate Citizen, USA
Novelis

Best Corporate Citizen, UK
Sodexo

Best Corporate Citizen, Spain
Acciona

Best Corporate Citizen, Colombia
Isagen

Best Corporate Citizen, Argentina
Acindar Grupo ArcelorMittal

Best Corporate Citizen, Peru
ConocoPhillips

Best Corporate Citizen, Chile
Sigdo Koppers

Best Corporate Citizen, Bolivia
Empresa Petrolera YPFB Chaco

Silicon Valley: The new contenders

   

Silicon Valley – the world famous bastion for technological innovation – might have passed its glory days. Facing increasing competition from emerging markets such as China and India, the tech haven is suffering a ‘brain drain’ at an extremely worrying rate.
   
Any ‘brain drain’ experienced, however, would simply rectify the large influx of immigrant entrepreneurs that have flooded the sun-drenched region for generations. Reports indicate that as much as 52 percent of Silicon Valley’s start-up companies were founded by immigrants, and that non-natives contribute almost 25 percent of WIPO PCT applications filed.

The immigrants that have flooded Silicon Valley form an inherent part of the very essence of the world-famous institution. However, a shift has occurred. Turning their back on the spot they once considered the world base for technological developments, these brainy individuals don’t necessarily rate Silicon Valley number∞one anymore.» Many entrepreneurs have decided to take their practises back to their native countries, or relocate to other attractive tech havens – be it in China, India, Germany, France or elsewhere. According to a study carried out by researchers at Duke University, UC Berkeley and Harvard universities, many immigrant students are now planning to return to domestic shores, rather than settle in Silicon Valley, as per the norm until only a few years ago. Hence, the brain drain that has hit Silicon Valley is only set to worsen.

So where will the world find its new technological nexus? Countries such as China and South Korea have a definite head-start through the vast amounts of capital being pumped into their respective technology sectors. Experts however agree that it’s difficult to determine if these destinations really have what it takes to develop environments to rival the expertise and infrastructure already situated at Silicon Valley.

Boasting practical benefits that China and India might be lacking, European countries such as the UK could well pose a threat to Silicon Valley. Russia too, is rising in tech circles. 

Not one to give up without a fight, Silicon Valley spokespeople claim that the allure of the original tech hub won’t subside anytime soon. After all, there’s no escaping the fact that about $10bn is invested in budding entrepreneurial companies every year.

Where it all began 
Despite the increasing competition, Silicon Valley is still highly regarded in the tech universe and its heritage alone adds to the credibility of the region. Located in the southern part of the San Francisco Bay Area in northern California, the ‘valley’ is in fact a vast area, encompassing all of the Santa Clara Valley including the city of San Jose, the southern Peninsula and the southern East Bay. This area has served as the base for the electronic industry since its conception in the early twentieth century and has been behind practically every technological revolution since that time.

The area coined its famous moniker in the early 1970s by the entrepreneur Ralph Vaerst, who came up with the name in reference to the high number of silicon chip ventures that were based in the area at the time. These days, with the production of semi-conductors gradually moving overseas, the name has become associated with the high-tech businesses and software companies that swamp the area. So effective is the business culture that Silicon Valley has generated that it accounts for as much as a third of venture capital investment in the US, to the extent that the area has become the byword for the US’ entire technology industry. As such, this perennially sundrenched locale, the home to so many of the world’s largest technology corporations, has held the crown as the undisputed ruler of the tech world through the culture of high-tech innovation and development the area has nurtured. Now however, it is far from unique.

In a roundabout way
Silicon Valley is far from having the technological innovation field to itself. East London is rising as a tech location in its own right and could soon to morph into a bona fide silicon valley ≥ at least if Prime Minister David Cameron has his way.

The ongoing plan to transform the  area, which is also home to the Olympic Park for the 2012 games, into one of the world’s greatest technology centres, was unveiled by Cameron early last year. Speaking at a glitzy gathering targeting entrepreneurs and investors, the PM’s enthusiasm over London’s status as a ‘Valley in the making’ was palpable. “Right now, Silicon Valley is the leading place in the world for high-tech growth and innovation. But there’s no reason why it has to be so predominant. Our ambition is to bring together the creativity and energy of Shoreditch and the incredible possibilities of the Olympic Park to help make East London one of the world’s great technology centres. I want to show you how we can get there,” said  an enthusiastic Cameron.

Cameron is not alone in his faith in the area as a new tech Mecca, as he reflected in his speech: “For the past few weeks and months, we have had dozens of meetings with technology companies and venture capital investors from across the world. We said to them: ‘Here’s our » vision for East London Tech City – a hub that stretches from Shoreditch and Old Street to the Olympic Park. This is what local businesses are saying they need. What part can you play in making it happen?’ I have to say: the response has been overwhelming.”

That response has come from the right people as well. Firms including Google, Facebook, Cisco, Intel and British Telecom are all lending their expertise to the East London Tech City, along with a crucial host of start-ups and SMEs who will help contribute fresh thinking and innovation into the area.

East London’s rising status as the UK’s tech centre has been assisted by some key developments. The area has been subject to a remarkable makeover in preparation for the Olympic Games, most notably in terms of transport links. Now one of the best connected areas in the country, by 2012 east London will boast a fully operational terminal providing high-speed rail travel to the Continent as well as trans-continental air travel courtesy of City Airport.

On the back of the Olympic developments, an influx of new businesses and retail outlets have also helped improve the status of Stratford city. The colossal Westfield shopping centre is one of a number of high-profile ventures in the area that have already immeasurably improved the status of a once undesirable area. This is only likely to improve as all the features of the area become fully operational as the Olympics draws near.

The final draw for the area is the benefits of East London’s peripheral. Tech City is sandwiched between the heartland of London’s creative industries and the City of London, one of the world’s great financial centres. Factor in the close proximity of several widely respected universities as well, and the area has every amenity and stimulus it could possibly need to succeed.

Crucially, in addition to the conception of Tech City, the government is actively attempting to try to improve the climate and culture for technology and entrepreneurialism, much as Silicon Valley has done par excellence. “We are already doing a lot to support this new economy, from making reams of city data freely available to London’s technical talent for transformation into apps, websites or mobile products, to piloting public Wi-Fi on London Underground,” enthused Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London.

Much like Silicon Valley, Tech City is also targeting overseas investors and developers. The launch of an Entrepreneur Visa was brought about to encourage individuals with good business ideas to set up companies with ease in the country. Another scheme, the Entrepreneur First programme, was unveiled earlier this year targeting elite graduates.

Based on the Teach First programme designed to assist young budding teachers, the format is a two year programme headed by McKinsey & Company, through which graduates with promising business ideas will receive mentoring, business training and networking opportunities. When the two year scheme is up, the participating candidates will be given the option to either continue building their own business, or to apply to graduate recruitment schemes within some of the companies that are associated with the scheme. The glittering array of companies that form part of the graduate boosting system are a whose who of successful business, including Microsoft, Tesco, BNP Paribas, BT, Cisco, Qualcomm, Intel, Civil Service Faststream, L’Oreal, Allen & Overy, Diageo, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Shell and RBS.

The UK is pulling out all the stops, it seems. But does it have a fighting chance to become the new Silicon Valley? Considering the UK set in motion the first industrial revolution about two centuries ago, a tech renaissance would simply reinstate its past glory as a leader in the field. Add in the strong educational framework and a forward-thinking and cosmopolitan population, and Tech City has a great deal going in its favour.

Rising in the east
In a bid to flaunt an innovation-based economy by 2020, China is advancing swiftly into the realm of technology, and is now considered one of the strongest contenders to seriously challenge Silicon Valley. Recognising the potential, foreign and native investors alike have raced to inject funds into the tech sector.

Although the Chinese tech environment is very much under development, its progress has passed the mere budding stage. Recognising the potential of the region, an increasing number of top-notch entrepreneurs and major technology companies descend on the country from across the globe, turning their back on the sun-drenched destination that previously held their attention. Indeed, if there is a country in the world revelling in brain gain, it’s China.  

Generous funding is not the only element that tempts the best in foreign minds to settle in China; the country’s culture of tech innovations is becoming a draw in its own right. China might be known as the copy cat above all others ≥ be it in the field of hand bag design, technology or otherwise – but there’s no doubt that the country has started to impress its surroundings with an environment that supports original ideas.

Already some native companies are rising to position themselves as world leaders in innovation. The Chinese internet conglomerate Tencent boasts a stock market value that hovers just below the names of leading lights such as Google and Amazon. Two other strong contenders are the leading e-commerce portal, Alibaba, and Huawei Technology, which has made its name pioneering next-generation mobile communication infrastructure. In the field of computer engineering as well, one of the fastest computers ever to be produced is the brainchild of Chinese engineers. Collectively, these forward-thinking companies and products have helped to boost China’s status to become viable forces in the tech sector.

As a way to flex its tech muscles to the world, China plays host to one of the world’s most important conferences on tech innovation and entrepreneurship. CHINICT is an annual event that has now been running for eight years and next set to take place in Beijing in May 2012. The conference attracts delegates from all over the world and the interest it generates is highly indicative of China’s growing status in the tech universe. As a result, the event has grown increasingly grandiose as the years have gone on.

However, what may ultimately hold China back in the zealous race to become the new Silicon Valley is its current indigenous lack of technical expertise, making it tough to rival the established culture of tech geniuses present in Silicon Valley, which has taken years to develop. Another disadvantage is presented by the somewhat rigid governmental regulations related to new business, coupled with the nation’s tricky and convoluted intellectual property rights. Furthermore, the country’s educational system is nowhere near as sophisticated and flexible as that of the US and Europe, although it’s under improvement. As an indication that China’s workforce is set to become more skilful, about four million pupils graduate every year in the country, and around 600,000 leave universities with a degree in engineering. Given time, China might well become a valley in its own right.

Russia reborn
Another country eyeing Silicon Valley’s throne is Russia. The country has significantly improved its credentials for business and intends to prove this with the completion of an awe-inspiring new technology park by 2014. Set to allow space for over 500 firms and costing in excess of $2bn, it’s hoped the investment will pay off in a new generation of entrepreneurs.

Serving as the inspiration behind the concept, the Zurich Technopark will provide the upcoming Skolkovo project with vital know-how. The two entities are said to be forming a collaborative alliance, with the CEO of the Zurich Technopark, Henning Grossmann, planning to conduct regular quality controls of the Russian site and assist in its business promotion. 

The park will be based in the Moscow suburb of Skolkovo, a sleepy and rural area about 20km west of central Moscow, where affluent Russians keep holiday homes. The man behind the initiative is the Russian billionaire Viktor Vekselberg, who will take charge of the project backed by the support of billions of dollars in government investment. To lure quality players ≥ individual entrepreneur and companies alike ≥ the Russian government will offer tax breaks as well as funding schemes for selected companies. Setting the bar high, the hope is that the tech park in Skolkovo will attract companies such as the international software firm Kaspersky Lab, along with other major names, both domestic and international.

Positive aspects that will help to boost the credibility of the project is that it will be largely autonomous, boasting its own water and power supplies to avoid problems companies can otherwise face when securing these types of amenities. 

It all sounds promising. Insiders fear though that with such large sums surrounding the tech park it may attract corruption, hiking up prices. Even if measures are taken to prevent this happening, the very perception of Russia as a less reputable location to do business will create hurdles for those trying to promote the Skolkovo park. As such whether Russia can create the next Silicon Valley remain’s to be seen.

Silicon Valley hasn’t lost its crown just yet. But neither is it still the definitive location for technology companies that it once was. As the world fully embraces the possibilities provided by the internet age, it’s conceivable that new developments could come from any corner of the globe. And any one of them could cause the sun to set on the illustrious valley.

Top 10 sovereign borrowers

Even the United States suffered a downgrade although it still ranks second on the least-risky list. The troubles of the eurozone pushed European nations such as Italy and Hungary into the high-risk zone for the first time, which means that EU nations now make up exactly half of the top ten riskiest sovereign borrowers. Latin America accounts for two places with Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East occupying the other spots.

The price countries pay to borrow money basically comes down to debt-worthiness. Some countries have low debt because they have difficulty in borrowing while others have high debt because they are good repayers, like the UK. Generally, the financial markets look closely at the ratio of total public debt to gross domestic product. But one main reason for the rising cost of sovereign debt is that nations’ debt levels have been on the rise for 60 years or more.

There are other factors in the cost of debt such as a country’s history of meeting its obligations. Spain cancelled its debt no less than six times in the 16th and 17th centuries. Argentina was either in default or nearly so for a quarter of the years between 1899 and 2001, the year of its last default. In 1917 Russia’s new revolutionaries repudiated all debt incurred under the czars.

No surprise, at year’s end the dubious honour of heading the league table of highest-risk sovereigns belonged to Greece. Rated by the five-year benchmark of cumulative probability of default among other factors, the latest CMA global sovereign debt credit risk report listed the ten riskiest sovereign bonds in the following order: Greece, Portugal, Venezuela, Argentina, Pakistan, Ukraine, Ireland, Italy, Hungary and Dubai.
At year’s end the most indebted countries relative to their GDP included:

1. Zimbabwe – 234.1% of GDP, pariah of debt markets
2. Japan – 197.5%, hard-hit by the tsunami
3. Greece – 142.8%, possibly heading for default
4. Lebanon – 133.8%, deceptively, has a strong banking sector
5. Iceland – 126%, hopelessly indebted banks
6. Italy – 119% of GDP, economy in need of reform, now paying over 7% for its debt
7. Singapore – 106%, a great borrower and repayer
8. Belgium – 101%, no government for most of 2011 didn’t help
9. Egypt – 90%, high but it’s recovering from a revolution
10. European Union – 82%, stronger countries like Germany are contaminated by the weakest