Business Strategy

Explore top LinkedIn content from expert professionals.

  • View profile for Jan Rosenow
    Jan Rosenow Jan Rosenow is an Influencer

    Professor of Energy and Climate Policy at Oxford University │ Senior Associate at Cambridge University │ World Bank Consultant │ Board Member │ LinkedIn Top Voice │ FEI │ FRSA

    119,570 followers

    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.

  • View profile for Ruben Hassid

    Master AI before it masters you.

    858,039 followers

    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.

  • View profile for Marie-Doha Besancenot

    Senior advisor for Strategic Communications, Cabinet of 🇫🇷 Foreign Minister; #IHEDN, 78e PolDef

    41,378 followers

    🇷🇺 Deep dive into the components of hybrid threats: the criminality +fear mix at the heart of the hybrid warfare waged against Europe 🇪🇺 By GLOBSEC & International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (2025). The report identifies a crime–terror–information nexus, where illicit networks, coercive tactics, and influence ops are deliberately intertwined. It highlights how important info ops are to bring in the “denial” element. Take aways : 🔹Russia’s hybrid operations increasingly rely on criminal structures to project power, generate instability & maintain deniability. 🔹 Integrated hybrid architecture The nexus is reflects a deliberate state design combining: – Organised crime (smuggling, money laundering, trafficking, contract killings); – Terrorist or paramilitary methods (sabotage, targeted violence, coercion); – Information operations (disinformation, intimidation, perception management). These vectors operate in parallel to overwhelm institutional defences and blur the boundary between internal security, intelligence, and defence domains. 🔹 Use of criminal intermediaries Criminal groups and illicit facilitators serve as proxies for covert action. They provide logistics, financing, or access, while enabling plausible deniability for the Russian state. This networked approach decentralises risk while preserving strategic control through Russian intelligence services. 🔹 Information and cognitive effects The information dimension functions as an amplifier for physical or financial disruption. Each operation is supported by a narrative layer — false attribution, manipulated leaks, coordinated online amplification — intended to create confusion and distrust in European publics and institutions. These techniques belong to the domain of cognitive warfare, seeking to degrade perception, cohesion, and decision-making rather than infrastructure. 🔹 Institutional stress and legal asymmetry European states face cross-domain operations that sit at the intersection of criminal law, counter-terrorism, and national security. Legal and institutional silos hinder coherent responses. Existing mechanisms for attribution, evidence collection, and prosecution are poorly adapted to state-directed hybrid criminality. ➡️ Soviet active measures tactics multiplied by 1️⃣ Tech acceleration – cybercrime, digital finance, social platforms amplifying reach and speed. 2️⃣ Systemic integration – criminal, informational& coercive tools coordinated under a single strategic logic. 3️⃣ Expanded targeting – Europe is engaged across multiple vectors simultaneously: financial, informational, and cognitive. Russia’s crime–terror nexus is not a parallel phenomenon but a core component of state strategy, designed to exploit Europe’s openness, legal fragmentation, and trust-based institutions. ➡️persistent, low-visibility confrontation below the threshold of war.

  • View profile for Andrew Ng
    Andrew Ng Andrew Ng is an Influencer

    DeepLearning.AI, AI Fund and AI Aspire

    2,498,123 followers

    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 ]

  • View profile for Lubomila J.
    Lubomila J. Lubomila J. is an Influencer

    Group CEO Diginex │ Plan A │ Greentech Alliance │ MIT Under 35 Innovator │ Capital 40 under 40 │ BMW Responsible Leader │ LinkedIn Top Voice

    168,572 followers

    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

  • View profile for Eric Partaker

    The CEO Coach | CEO of the Year | McKinsey & Skype | Transforming founders & CEOs into world-class leaders | DM about CEO Coaching

    1,218,332 followers

    I've coached 400+ CEOs. The best ones don't communicate better. They communicate differently. While average leaders wing it, great ones use proven methods that turn conversations into opportunities. After 20+ years studying top performers, I've identified 7 communication systems that separate good from great. (Save this. You'll need it for your next big meeting.) 1. The 3 Levels of Listening Stop listening to reply. Start listening to understand. Level 1: You're thinking about your response Level 2: You're focused on their words Level 3: You're reading the room—energy, tone, silence One CEO used this to uncover why his top performer was really leaving. Saved a $10M account. 2. What? So What? Now What? Transform rambling updates into decisive action. What = The facts (30 seconds max) So What = Why it matters to the business Now What = The specific decision needed Cut meeting time by 40%. 3. PREP Method Never fumble another investor question. Point: Your answer in one sentence Reason: Why you believe it Example: Proof from your business Point: Reinforce your answer Practice this for 5 minutes daily. Sound prepared always. 4. RACI Matrix Kill confusion before it starts. Responsible: Who does the work Accountable: Who owns success/failure (only ONE person) Consulted: Who gives input Informed: Who needs updates Projects with clear RACI are 3x more likely to succeed. 5. Story of Self/Us/Now Move hearts, not just minds. Story of Self: Why YOU care (personal conviction) Story of Us: Our shared challenge Story of Now: The urgent choice we face This framework has helped politicians win. It'll help you raise capital or inspire your team to meet a big goal. 6. The Pyramid Principle Get board approval in half the time. Start with your recommendation Give 3 supporting arguments (max) Order by impact (strongest first) Data goes last, not first McKinsey consultants swear by this. So should you. 7. COIN Feedback Model Make tough conversations productive. Context: When and where it happened Observation: What you saw (facts only) Impact: The business consequence Next: Agreed action steps No more avoided conversations. No more resentment. Your next funding round, key hire, or major deal doesn't depend on working harder. It depends on communicating better. Because in the end, leadership isn't about having all the answers. It's about asking better questions, listening deeper, and communicating with precision. Your team is waiting for you to lead like this. P.S. Want a PDF of my Leadership Communication Cheat Sheet? Get it free: https://lnkd.in/dbaSN9fJ ♻️ Repost to help a founder level up their communication. Follow Eric Partaker for more leadership tools.

  • View profile for Antonio Vizcaya Abdo

    Turning Sustainability from Compliance into Business Value | ESG Strategy & Governance Advisor | TEDx Speaker | LinkedIn Creator | UNAM Professor | +126K Followers

    127,378 followers

    The Sustainability Framework 🌍 This framework by Preferred by Nature provides a comprehensive snapshot of the key themes and operational areas that organizations must address to implement robust sustainability practices across sectors. It structures sustainability into four interconnected principles: responsible business conduct, human rights and well-being, environmental protection, and climate impact mitigation. The first principle emphasizes sound governance and responsible management practices. It includes secure land tenure, compliance with legal obligations, anti-corruption measures, responsible procurement, and infrastructure development that minimizes harm. These elements form the foundation for credibility and resilience in sustainability efforts. The second principle focuses on human rights, labor conditions, and community engagement. It outlines clear criteria to prevent forced labor, child labor, and discrimination, while promoting fair wages, occupational safety, and gender equality. It also recognizes the rights of Indigenous Peoples and calls for respect for cultural heritage and community wellbeing. Environmental protection is at the core of the third principle, with a strong focus on avoiding deforestation, preventing ecosystem degradation, and conserving biodiversity. The framework mandates the responsible use of chemicals, improved waste and pollution management, and efficient water and soil stewardship, aligning with international conservation standards. Animal welfare is also addressed within the environmental domain, establishing safeguards for animal health, nutrition, and natural behaviors. This criterion reinforces the framework’s integrated view of environmental and ethical performance in land-based production systems. Climate action is treated as a distinct principle, recognizing the urgency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The framework calls for best practices in land use, material sourcing, and energy efficiency, while encouraging companies to align with sectoral emission targets and national climate policies. Adaptation to climate risks is also prioritized. Organizations are expected to assess climate vulnerabilities and implement proportional adaptation measures, particularly in high-risk contexts where social, economic, and environmental impacts are significant. The final climate-related criterion encourages ecosystem restoration and carbon removal where feasible. These actions are framed not only as mitigation strategies but as opportunities to enhance long-term ecological function and community resilience. Overall, the Preferred by Nature Sustainability Framework offers a technically sound and adaptable structure that integrates legal compliance, ethical standards, and environmental integrity. It serves as a practical reference for certification, due diligence, and investment alignment in sustainability-driven supply chains. #sustainability #sustainable #business #climatechange

  • View profile for Jay Parsons
    Jay Parsons Jay Parsons is an Influencer

    Rental Housing Economist (Apartments, SFR), Speaker and Author

    123,134 followers

    Apartment operators are nervous. You can see it in the latest rent data. After six straight months of increased rent momentum nationally, year-over-year rent growth has backtracked a bit in each of the past two months -- coinciding with prime leasing season. Nationally, YoY effective rent growth eased from 1.05% in March to 0.74% in May. The modest backtracking comes DESPITE strong absorption, steady occupancy rates, and improved affordability (declining rent-to-income ratios). We talk a lot about weak consumer sentiment. But it's not just consumers. Sentiment is a powerful variable -- even if one hard to measure -- among operators setting rents. When operators are nervous, they'll likely sacrifice on rents (or ramp up concessions) to protect occupancy. It's happening most clearly in the high-supplied markets across the Sun Belt and Mountain regions, BUT we're also seeing stalled momentum in the lower-supplied Midwest and Coastal markets. So while it was the 40+ year high in supply that pushed rents down in the last two years (even amidst strong demand), it's not just about supply anymore. Washington, D.C., is a prime example of this trend. There's been a lot of nervousness about the D.C. market due to DOGE cuts and federal layoffs. And yet apartment occupancy rates have held strong, improving 50 bps since January and now topping 96%. Rent-to-income ratios among new lease signers (in professionally managed, market-rate apartments) have fallen to 23.1%, according to RealPage data. The REITs with D.C. exposure have all reported solid demand and healthy collections there, too. And yet: Rent growth in D.C. is backtracking more than most of the country. Year-over-year effective rent growth eased from 3.45% in March to 2.35% in May. In most lower-supplied Coastal and Midwest markets, we're seeing operators just hold steady on rents rather than continue the steady upward push we saw previously. And remember: This is the time of year we typically see rents accelerate. In the higher-supplied Mountain and Sun Belt markets, reduced effective rent momentum is primarily driven by increased concessions. Among stabilized apartments (non lease-ups) here utilizing concessions, the average discount increased from 8.9% of asking rent in March to 10.1% in May. That's more than one month "free" on a 12-month lease. Markets with the most deceleration in effective rent change over the past two months include a mix of lower-supply and higher-supply markets: Las Vegas, Riverside, Baltimore, Austin, Memphis, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Washington DC, Denver and Orlando. Markets immune to the trend (with continued momentum) include San Francisco, where sentiment was previously so low it could only go up. There's no other reasonable explanation for slowing rent momentum than nervous operators worried about weak consumer confidence and the parade of headlines warning of a potential recession. Where do rents go from here? Thoughts? #apartments #rents

  • View profile for Joseph Cass

    How Elite Investors Think

    37,438 followers

    Amazon kept getting complaints – but the executive team didn’t know why, so Jeff Bezos called customer services on speaker in front of everyone… In the late 1990’s, Amazon was growing fast. Every week, Jeff Bezos gathered his leadership team for their most important ritual: the Weekly Business Review. One day, the head of customer service proudly presented a slide: “Average phone wait times: 59 seconds.” Tick - move on to the next item. Jeff paused. A number of Amazon’s customers were not happy. He knew this because he maintained and read a public email account. Customers would email him directly, Jeff would forward on to the appropriate executive with a simple “?” for follow up. But his customer service leader was saying everything was rosy. Something didn’t add up… So right there, in the middle of the meeting, Jeff did something radical: Placing the call on speaker, with the entire executive team watching, he picked up the phone and called Amazon’s customer support line… The room went silent. 60 seconds passed. Then 2 minutes. Then 5 minutes. Still no answer. After 10 minutes of hold music - still nothing. “It was a really long time,” Jeff recalled. “More than 10 minutes.” In a flash, the metric they’d been using to reassure investors and guide operations collapsed. The problem? The data wasn’t wrong – but it was measuring the wrong thing. The metric measured average wait time for answered calls, ignoring the calls that never got picked up. That one moment rewired Amazon’s entire approach to measurement, feedback, and truth. Jeff didn’t just want favorable data, he wanted reality. The result? Amazon rebuilt its customer service from the ground up - and made customer service a core part of its moat. Reflecting on that meeting, Jeff said: “When the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right.” 👉 Enjoyed this story? Subscribe for one great real life finance story a week: BizStory.co

  • View profile for Tan Su Shan
    Tan Su Shan Tan Su Shan is an Influencer

    CEO

    98,073 followers

    Amid rising tariffs and shifting geopolitics, the foundations of the rules-based global economy are being redefined. With the US policy shifts, the uncertainty is real. In fact, I just got back from New York, where I met with a number of CEOs – and for the first time, all of them said the same three words: “I don’t know.” It’s clear we’re not going back to “business as usual”. That’s why we felt it was crucial to bring our clients together today to hear from Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry Gan Kim Yong at a closed-door conversation. He’s just been appointed Chairman of the new Singapore Economic Resilience Taskforce, and his perspectives were insightful, as he also listened to the concerns and questions our clients brought to the table. Looking ahead, I believe we’re in for more short-term volatility and uncertainty. My advice to clients: lock in good rates, manage your FX exposure, and address any supply chain constraints. Longer term, we need to think about the new world order more strategically. There are four key areas businesses need to focus on: • Supply Chain – Diversify sources and build in resilience • Logistics – Plan for the possibility of longer routes and ensure continuity • Financial and Payments – Prepare for alternatives beyond USD • Technology – Be ready for dual tech ecosystems and interoperability costs The silver lining is that we are in Singapore. While Asia does bear the brunt of tariffs, it is also home to 18 of the 20 fastest-growing trade corridors. Also, even though we have had slowdowns in our neighbourhood, we are still surrounded by big economies – China, India and Indonesia. Over the years, we’ve walked alongside our clients through many turning points, and we’ll keep showing up, especially when things get tough. Whether it’s navigating treasury decisions, managing volatility, or adapting supply chains. Storms may come, but like Singapore, we’ll stay steady – anchored, open, and here for the long haul.

Explore categories