Makroekonomia Archive

0

BCG’s Center for Climate Action: Climate Should Not Be the Virus’s Next Victim

The COVID-19 pandemic swept the world in just a few months, with immediate and catastrophic consequences: hundreds of thousands of deaths and a global economic standstill. The climsate problem has unfolded over decades but, if left unchecked, will likewise have profound and permanent consequences for lives and economies on the planet.

As countries globally are feeling the strain on their economies, climate is at risk of becoming the pandemic’s next victim. This must not happen. As they  mobilize massive resources to tackle COVID-19 governments, businesses, and investors have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rebuild in ways that support a carbon-neutral future and usher in a new economy. By focusing on the climate agenda, even in the midst of this pandemic, leaders can direct investments toward sustainable infrastructure, green jobs, and environmental resilience. This isn’t just a moral imperative—it’s also an economic one.

The COVID-19 Crisis Is a Threat to the Climate

In the wake of the pandemic, global carbon emissions are expected to decline by 5% to 10% in 2020. This is the largest drop since World War II. (See Exhibit 1.) But instead of offering relief for the climate, it actually veils a significant threat.

In theory, this year’s projected drop in greenhouse gas emissions puts the world on a trajectory to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C by 2050. (According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world requires a 5% reduction of global net emissions every year to reach the 1.5°C goal by 2050.) But a crippling economic shutdown cannot be a first step toward this path. Instead, preventing the climate crisis will require fundamental economic transformation.

On the one hand, COVID-19 will almost certainly trigger a few helpful structural shifts—including more remote working, less frequent and shorter-distance business travel, and abbreviated supply chains—as companies seek to derisk their operations. On the other hand, the risk of a significant rebound in emissions—and worse, a delay in the needed transformation of global economies—currently seem much more likely, for several reasons:

  • The asset base is carbon dependent. In many sectors, dependence on fossil fuels is hardwired into production and business models. Without active moves by governments and businesses, countries will gradually revert to combusting high levels of coal, oil, and gas as the economy rebounds.
  • Fossil fuels are cheap. Much of the energy transition so far has been driven by the growth of wind and solar, with electric mobility gaining momentum. Now a perfect storm of COVID-19-induced demand shock and oil-producer-induced oversupply has hit the oil market—briefly turning US prices negative for the first time in history. As gas and coal prices fall, the economic case for lower-carbon energy sources diminishes.
  • Funding capacity has eroded. The pandemic has eroded trillions of dollars of global GDP, and while many decarbonization levers can benefit GDP, delivering on the Paris agreement will require a total of $75 trillion in investments. Funding these investments will become more challenging, especially in emerging economies that are already struggling to pay off their existing foreign-currency debt as a result of capital flight.
  • Focus may shift. With jobs, health, and economic well-being on the line, governments and the public are more focused on addressing this urgent and very visible crisis than on longer-term challenges such as climate. As a result, the needed economic transformation could well be put on hold.

Despite the decline in this year’s emissions, we will still be adding more than 47 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent into the atmosphere (down from approximately 53 gigatonnes last year). The next few years are decisive for bringing this figure down further, and our actions will shape the planet for generations to come. Unless we manage to fundamentally transform global energy systems and lay the foundation for a green economy now, the pandemic-induced drop in global emissions will not be the beginning of a turnaround, but a one-off effect for climate.

By Patrick HerholdVeronica ChauMichel FrédeauEsben HegnsholtJoerg HildebrandtCornelius Pieper, and Jens Burchardt

More: BCG

0

Reimagining stores for retail’s next normal

As the COVID-19 pandemic erupted, hundreds of thousands of stores across the United States shut their doors, unsure as to when they would reopen. Retail workers have been furloughed or laid off en masse, causing widespread economic pain and deepening the devastation of an unprecedented public-health crisis.

At some point, stores will reopen and people will return to work, as evidenced in countries like China where the pandemic has passed its peak. The timing is uncertain and will differ across US markets, but what’s certain is that stores can’t simply pick up where they left off. COVID-19 has changed consumer behavior, perhaps permanently, and retail stores will need to take these new behaviors into account.

To maximize their potential when they emerge from the crisis, retailers must factor in the realities of the post-coronavirus world. In this article, we share a perspective on the trends that will affect US apparel and specialty retail stores postcrisis and the strategic imperatives that will enable them to thrive in the “next normal.”

How the crisis has changed consumer behavior

Consumers have altered their shopping and buying behavior during the pandemic. For one, loss of income and declining consumer confidence have driven decreases in discretionary spending. In an April 6–12 survey of US consumers, 67 percent of respondents said they expect to spend less on apparel in the near future than they typically do.

A potentially longer-lasting behavioral change is the accelerated adoption of e-commerce. Even before the pandemic, consumers were increasingly browsing and buying online. In the recovery period, retailers could see spikes in online shopping even in categories that in the past were primarily store-based (such as makeup). It’s also possible that e-commerce will attract consumer segments that previously preferred to shop offline, such as baby boomers and Gen Zers. Post-pandemic, apparel executives expect up to a 13 percent increase in online penetration, according to a survey we conducted in early April. Indeed, retailers in Asia—where precrisis online penetration was much higher than in the United States—are expecting a “sticky” increase in online penetration of three to six percentage points as they reopen stores.

These trends will shape the industry’s next normal and could have profound implications on a retailer’s P&L. Store sales could plummet, fiercer competition and increased operational complexity due to workforce disruptions could contribute to margin compression, and the migration of sales from stores to e-commerce (typically a lower-margin channel for retailers) could further hurt profitability. To illustrate: if online penetration increases by ten percentage points and gross margin falls by one percentage point, driven by increased pricing pressure, retailers could expect store profitability to decline by up to five percentage points (exhibit). A hit to profitability of this magnitude could push a significant number of brick-and-mortar stores into loss-making territory.

About the authors: Praveen Adhi and Andrew Davis are both partners in McKinsey’s Chicago office, where Jai Jayakumar is a consultant; Sarah Touse is an associate partner in the Atlanta office. The authors wish to thank Colleen Baum and Althea Peng for their contributions to this article.

More: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/

0

A leader’s guide: Communicating with teams, stakeholders, and communities during COVID-19

COVID-19’s speed and scale breed uncertainty and emotional disruption. How organizations communicate about it can create clarity, build resilience, and catalyze positive change.

Crises come in different intensities. As a “landscape scale” event, 1 the coronavirus has created great uncertainty, elevated stress and anxiety, and prompted tunnel vision, in which people focus only on the present rather than toward the future. During such a crisis, when information is unavailable or inconsistent, and when people feel unsure about what they know (or anyone knows), behavioral science points to an increased human desire for transparency, guidance, and making sense out of what has happened.

At such times, a leader’s words and actions can help keep people safe, help them adjust and cope emotionally, and finally, help them put their experience into context—and draw meaning from it. But as this crisis leaps from life-and-death direction on public health and workplace safety to existential matters of business continuity, job loss, and radically different ways of working, an end point may not be apparent. While some may already be seeking meaning from the crisis and moving into the “next normal,” others, feeling rising uncertainty and worried about the future, may not yet be ready for hope.

COVID-19’s parallel unfolding crises present leaders with infinitely complicated challenges and no easy answers. Tough trade-offs abound, and with them, tough decisions about communicating complex issues to diverse audiences. Never have executives been put under such an intense spotlight by a skeptical public gauging the care, authenticity, and purpose that companies demonstrate. Leaders lack a clear playbook to quickly connect with rattled employees and communities about immediate matters of great importance, much less reassure them as they ponder the future.

Against this frenzied backdrop, it would be easy for leaders to reflexively plunge into the maelstrom of social-media misinformation, copy what others are doing, or seek big, one-off, bold gestures. It is also true that crises can produce great leaders and communicators, those whose words and actions comfort in the present, restore faith in the long term, and are remembered long after the crisis has been quelled.

So we counsel this: pause, take a breath. The good news is that the fundamental tools of effective communication still work. Define and point to long-term goals, listen to and understand your stakeholders, and create openings for dialogue. Be proactive. But don’t stop there. In this crisis leaders can draw on a wealth of research, precedent, and experience to build organizational resilience through an extended period of uncertainty, and even turn a crisis into a catalyst for positive change. Superior crisis communicators tend to do five things well:

  1. Give people what they need, when they need it. People’s information needs evolve in a crisis. So should a good communicator’s messaging. Different forms of information can help listeners to stay safe, cope mentally, and connect to a deeper sense of purpose and stability.
  2. Communicate clearly, simply, frequently. A crisis limits people’s capacity to absorb information in the early days. Focus on keeping listeners safe and healthy. Then repeat, repeat, repeat.
  3. Choose candor over charisma. Trust is never more important than in a crisis. Be honest about where things stand, don’t be afraid to show vulnerability, and maintain transparency to build loyalty and lead more effectively.
  4. Revitalize resilience. As the health crisis metastasizes into an economic crisis, accentuate the positive and strengthen communal bonds to restore confidence.
  5. Distill meaning from chaos. The crisis will end. Help people make sense of all that has happened. Establish a clear vision, or mantra, for how the organization and its people will emerge.

Give people what they need, when they need it

Every crisis has a life cycle, and emotional states and needs vary with the cycle’s stages. In a recent article, our colleagues framed the COVID-19 crisis in five stages: resolve, resilience, return, reimagination, and reform. These stages span the crisis of today to the next normal that will emerge after COVID-19 has been controlled. The duration of each stage may vary based on geographic and industry context, and organizations may find themselves operating in more than one stage simultaneously (exhibit).

MORE: https://www.mckinsey.com/Business%20Functions

About the authors: Ana Mendy is a partner in McKinsey’s Southern California office, Mary Lass Stewart is an expert in the Chicago office, and Kate VanAkin is an expert in the London office.

0

COVID-19: Win the Fight, Win the Future

The unfolding, global COVID-19 pandemic is a human crisis of historic scale and complexity. It is straining health care systems, government fiscal capacity, and the ability of many organizations to cope with the changes wrought by the virus and the response to it. The level of uncertainty for most leaders is unprecedented, and most of our frameworks for planning and problem solving are unable to manage the geographic variability, uncertainty, and the exponential change brought by the COVID-19 crisis.

In our work to confront this challenge with public and private sector clients worldwide, we have found that many leaders are asking the same set of questions: How should I forecast my revenues? How should I adjust my budget? When will this be over, and when will we return to “normal”? These are good questions, but the reality is, we shouldn’t be asking them at this point. In the wake of so much uncertainty, we should instead focus on framing potential scenarios and use them to develop a robust plan of action.

Three months into the COVID-19 crisis, we are starting to see patterns in its impact on countries and cities, as well as in these areas’ responses. We see three distinct phases. First, there is the “Flatten” phase, in which countries or cities lock down to flatten the virus’s exponential growth curve. Second comes the “Fight” phase, during which a geography “Restarts” its economy while maintaining a low rate of infection, while still running the risk of having to implement further lockdowns. Finally, we are anticipating a “Future” phase, which begins only after a vaccine or highly effective treatment has been developed and deployed.

We have applied this framework on a localized and sector basis and have created different scenarios for each phase to account for the shifting dynamics and complex elements that are part of the COVID-19 landscape.

Three critical insights have emerged from our scenario work:

  • Get ready to Restart. The transition from Flatten to Fight, or what we refer to as a “Restart,” is an intentional policy decision that is made when a set of necessary pre-conditions are met in a given geography. Business leaders cannot control that decision or timing, but they can make sure they are ready to Restart.
  • The Fight will be protracted. The Fight phase is going to be longer than most leaders we have talked to anticipate. We expect that it will be between 12 to 36 months before a vaccine or highly effective treatment can be developed and deployed.
  • The Fight will be expensive. The Fight phase will be more economically challenging than most leaders seem to expect. Because the situation is volatile, consumer and worker confidence has been shaken, and because of the risk of further outbreaks and localized lockdowns, or perhaps even national ones, we envision an ongoing impact to the global economy. Our US-focused scenarios show a potential range of a relatively severe 5% to 20% impact on microeconomic outcomes such as revenues or employment, before accounting for policy interventions and responses, which will strongly influence the end result. 

Part of the strategic challenge is that the effects of COVID-19 will vary significantly by geography and sector. Individual companies will see even greater variation amongst their outcomes during each of the Flatten, Fight, and Future phases. Such variation has been observed in every prior economic crisis, and the uncertainty and multi-phase nature of this crisis may lead to greater disparity than usual, creating even more winners and losers than is typical. Accordingly, we think it is imperative for business leaders to use scenarios with a range of outcomes to develop a plan for their companies to: a) Be ready to Restart; b) Win the Fight; and c) Win the Future. Particularly, we think that winning the Fight phase is crucial because it creates the opportunity to win the Future.

To help companies and societies respond to COVID-19, and recover from it, we offer an approach for framing and developing scenarios, and suggest what they can expect in trying to accomplish these goals.

The Complexity of COVID-19 Demands Systematic Scenario Planning

We cannot predict the future. But we can seek to understand what the future might hold, and what that means for nations, industry sectors, and individual companies. We need scenarios to bound the uncertainty, to help us understand the underlying drivers of outcomes, and for some understanding of how we can shape those outcomes.

The data clearly suggests that very different COVID-19 trajectories have played out around the world. (See Exhibit 1.)

AUTHORS: Marin Gjaja , Lars Fæste , Gerry Hansell , and Doug Hohner

MORE: https://www.bcg.com/en-us/publications/2020

0

BCC: Konieczne jest wprowadzenie przepisów specjalnych

Konieczne jest wprowadzenie w Prawie zamówień publicznych przepisów specjalnych na czas trwania kryzysu w związku z pandemią

Nowa ustawa Prawo zamówień publicznych ma wejść w życie dopiero w 2021 r. W związku z kryzysem epidemicznym, konieczne są działania w zakresie zamówień publicznych na poziomie Tarczy Antykryzysowej. Tymczasem reguluje ona w zasadzie tylko kilka istotnych kwestii związanych z tą sferą gospodarki mówi dr Łukasz Bernatowicz, minister infrastruktury w Gospodarczym Gabinecie Cieni BCC. – Przewiduje się zwolnienia zamawiającego z odpowiedzialności za odstąpienie od nałożenia kar finansowych na wykonawcę, który nie dotrzyma terminu realizacji kontraktu w związku z COVID-19. Przewidziano również możliwość zmiany umowy w sprawie zamówienia publicznego, niemniej jest to rozwiązanie niewystarczające. W praktyce bowiem, w oparciu o przedstawione przepisy, doprowadzenie do zmiany kontraktu może być trudne do zrealizowania i w rzeczywistości uzależnione od decyzji zamawiającego. Jednocześnie wciąż brakuje możliwości waloryzacji kontraktów realizowanych w ramach Pzp. Trzeba też pamiętać, że decyzje w obu powyżej wspomnianych kwestiach leżą po stronie zamawiającego. Zatem jedynie od jego dobrej woli zależy, czy z nich skorzysta. To zdecydowanie za mało w obecnej sytuacji. Przepisy te powinny znaleźć obligatoryjne zastosowanie przy spełnieniu przesłanek związanych z nadzwyczajnymi okolicznościami –  uważa Łukasz Bernatowicz.

Dr Łukasz BERNATOWICZ, minister infrastruktury w Gabinecie Cieni BCC

Komentarz na YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw1CaAm_Zpo

Gospodarczy Gabinet Cieni Business Centre Club to think tank powołany w kwietniu 2012 r., aby wspierać działania prorozwojowe władz publicznych, monitorować prace resortów kluczowych dla przedsiębiorczości, rekomendować zmiany sprzyjające rozwojowi kraju, wzrostowi gospodarczemu i konkurencyjności polskich firm.

W skład gabinetu wchodzą wybitni, gospodarczy fachowcy, z których wielu piastowało w przeszłości funkcje publiczne. Więcej informacji:https://www.bcc.org.pl/strefa_eksperta/gospodarczy-gabinet-cieni/

BCC będzie codziennie przedstawiać poglądy poszczególnych ministrów Gabinetu Cieni BCC związane z obecną sytuacją.

WSKAZANIA DLA RZĄDU
  1.     Wprowadzić przepisy specjalne w Prawie zamówień publicznych na czas trwania kryzysu związanego z pandemią.   2.     Wprowadzić przepisy ułatwiające kontynuowanie lub powrót do pracy cudzoziemcom.   3.     Przygotowanie puli środków budżetowych na inwestycje publiczne, w celu pobudzenia gospodarki po ustąpieniu kryzysu.  
PODSUMOWANIE dotychczasowych działań rządu
  Pozytywy:   1.     Zniesienie odpowiedzialności zamawiającego w przypadku odstąpienia od ukarania wykonawcy, mającego problemy z dochowaniem terminu realizacji zamówienia.    2.     Zniesienie wymogu stosowania Pzp w niektórych branżach, na czas trwania pandemii.   Zagrożenia:   1.     Zbiurokratyzowanie procesu zamówień publicznych w sytuacji praktycznej niemożności uzyskania dokumentów i zaświadczeń z urzędów.   2.     Brak rozwiązań kryzysowych w zamówieniach publicznych w związku z nadzwyczajną sytuacją w gospodarce.   3.     Niewykorzystanie środków z kończącej się perspektywy unijnej.   Nowa ustawa Pzp ma wejść w życie dopiero w 2021 r. W związku z kryzysem epidemicznym, konieczne są działania w zakresie zamówień publicznych na poziomie Tarczy Antykryzysowej. Tymczasem reguluje ona w zasadzie tylko kilka istotnych kwestii związanych z tą sferą gospodarki. Przewiduje się zwolnienia zamawiającego z odpowiedzialności za odstąpienie od nałożenia kar finansowych na wykonawcę, który nie dotrzyma terminu realizacji kontraktu w związku z COVID-19.   Przewidziano też możliwość zmiany umowy w sprawie zamówienia publicznego niemniej jest to rozwiązanie niewystarczające. W praktyce bowiem w oparciu o przedstawione przepisy doprowadzenie do zmiany kontraktu może być trudne do zrealizowania i w rzeczywistości uzależnione od decyzji zamawiającego. Jednocześnie wciąż brak jest możliwości waloryzacji kontraktów realizowanych  w ramach Pzp.   Trzeba też pamiętać, że decyzje w obu powyżej wspomnianych kwestiach leżą po stronie zamawiającego. Zatem jedynie od jego dobrej woli zależy, czy z nich skorzysta. To zdecydowanie za mało w obecnej sytuacji. Przepisy te powinny znaleźć obligatoryjne zastosowanie przy spełnieniu się przesłanek związanych z nadzwyczajnymi okolicznościami.   Według ostatnich danych prawie 2 mld zł zamierzał pożyczyć rząd, aby opłacić dodatkowe wydatki na dokończenie zerwanych w tym roku kontraktów na nowe autostrady i drogi ekspresowe. W obecnej sytuacji kwota ta jest absolutnie niewystraczająca. Do tego dochodzi fakt, że miliardy złotych z bieżącej perspektywy unijnych środków nie zostałyby wykorzystane o czym dowiedzieliśmy się  niejako przy okazji przekierowania tych środków przez Komisję Europejską na walkę z koronawirusem.   Rząd musi przeznaczyć znacznie większe niż dotychczas środki na inwestycje infrastrukturalne zarówno rządowe jak i samorządowe, w celu pobudzenia gospodarki po ustaniu stanu epidemii.   W branży budowlanej niedobór pracowników może wciąż być bardzo mocno odczuwalny mimo wzrostu bezrobocia spowodowanego nadchodzącą recesją, ze względu na fakt, że wielu obcokrajowców opuściło Polskę i nie będą mogli w najbliższym czasie powrócić. Grozi nam fala bankructw przedsiębiorców związanych z tą gałęzią gospodarki, zwolnienia grupowe pracowników i  odstąpienia od realizacji kontraktów. Jeśli do tego dojdzie, błyskawicznie odczuje to cała gospodarka – budownictwo uznawane jest za barometr  wzrostu gospodarczego. Od jednego miejsca pracy w sektorze budowlanym zależy kilka miejsc pracy w transporcie, produkcji przemysłowej czy w handlu. Dlatego niezbędne jest przygotowanie planu stymulacyjnego na czas po ustąpieniu zagrożenia koronawirusem.  

Kontakt dla mediów

Emil Muciński