Business Strategy

🚨𝘽𝙍𝙀𝘼𝙆𝙄𝙉𝙂: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen unveiled EU–INC, a new framework that lets you launch a company in 48 hours for under €100: Starting a company across the EU today = 27 legal systems, 60+ company structures 🤯 That might be about to change… The European Commission just introduced 𝗘𝗨 𝗜𝗻𝗰., a new optional corporate framework designed to make Europe actually function like one market. Here’s what stands out: → Set up a company in 48 hours → Cost: < €100 → Fully online, no minimum capital → One single framework across all EU countries → Easier share transfers & fundraising → EU-wide employee stock options (huge for talent) Especially the EU-wide stock option plans, taxed only when employees actually sell (instead of when granted) is huge. This makes it far easier for startups to attract and retain top talent, finally putting Europe closer to the US playbook. Source/More info: https://lnkd.in/dF8HpGsa In short: This is Europe trying to compete with the simplicity of a Delaware C-Corp 🇺🇸 And honestly… it’s long overdue. For years, European founders had 2 choices: 1. Stay local and deal with fragmentation 2. Move to the US to scale 𝗘𝗨 𝗜𝗻𝗰. is trying to remove that trade-off. If executed well, this could be one of the most important structural changes for European startups in decades. What do you think?

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

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

For those legislators who are working on healthcare legislation right now , here are some suggestions : 1. For intercompany medical charges, require them to be priced at Medicare rates. Ends gaming of MLRs 2. Require all insurance plans to apply any cash purchase against your deductible. Let plan holders shop. 3. Require all pharmacy purchases by a plan holder to be charged at net price after rebates. Right now YOU pay full retail price for branded meds in your deductible phase. You can thank your insurance company PBM for lying to you when they say they negotiate better prices. They obviously suck at their jobs if the best they can do is get you retail price ! 4. Require wholesale pharmacy pricing to be at net. This may seem like price controls. It’s not. The wholesaler buys at retail, gets a prompt pay/data discount of 5 pct from the manufacturer , then has the pharmacy buy from them at retail price minus a small discount. Which reimburses the wholesaler. Wholesalers complain then don’t make money on brands. Indie pharmacies get crushed on brands. Manufactures don’t make more money this way either. Why ? Because they write HUGE rebate checks to the PBM! Require pricing to be at net, and you improve cash flow and reduce reimbursement risk for indie pharmacies. Patients can naturally pay lower cash prices for brands because pharmacies will pay much less. Wholesalers can mark up their cost and make the same amount as they did before. The only loser in this ? The PBMs, every one else gains 5. Create a moratorium on all acquisitions by ins carriers 6. If a medical provider of any kind, hospital , clinic , whatever , acquires another provider , they must retain the pricing ( pre any price increases meant to game this rule ) , for a period of 5 or 10 yrs, allowing only for cpi increases 7. Investigate the acquisitions of providers by pharmacy wholesalers. 8. Allow doctors to own hospitals 9. Standardize contracts by insurance carriers, by provider type. Every contract, with every hospital, should have the same fill in the blanks with minimal variance. This will cut administration costs dramatically I can go on for days. This is a start Forgot the most important item. If brand pricing went to net via wholesalers, @costplusdrugs could buy brands from them , mark them up only 15 pct, and cut the price of EVERY SINGLE BRAND MEDICATION

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

🗞️ A must-have for anyone teaching Russian disinformation tactics. A comprehensive yet highly pedagogical and illustrated catalogue of tactics with concrete examples. 👏🏼Well done @center for countering disinformation with the support of The European Union Advisory Mission Ukraine (#EUAM Ukraine) 🇪🇺 1️⃣ The first part is dedicated to the Mechanisms of destructive information influence: • Bots 🤖 • Fake accounts 🤳🏻 • Anonymous authority 👁️ • Appeal to authority 🔨 • Deepfakes 👾 • Potemkin villages 🤡 • Duplicating websites or accounts 👨🏻💻 • Framing 🖼️ • Information overload 🌧️ • Agenda-setting 📆 • Demonisation • Polarisation 🤯 • Confirmation bias 🧠 • Primacy effect 🪢 • Deceptive sources 🎭 • Information alibi 🥸 2️⃣ The second part offers an overview of the Tactics of destructive information influence. Particularly useful to identifies the perverse rhetorical tricks at play and counter them with the right arguments: • Clickbaiting • Rating • Information sandwich • Lost in translation • Presence effects • Contextomy • Gish gallop • Whataboutism • Conspiracy theories • Talking away • Mundanisation • Doublespeak • Sleeper effect • “Check it if you can” • False analogy • Trolling • False dilemma • Using jokes or memes • Stereotyping 3️⃣ The last part describes the various soft power tools weaponized to leverage influence : Soft power tools: Russia’s influence through… • films 🎦 • e-sports 🎮 • literature 📕 • music 🎶 • sports ⚽️ • churches ⛪️ • cultural centre networks 🤝🏻 • educational programmes and grants 🎓 • historical revisionism 🖊️ • loyal political structures🏰 👐🏻Many thanks to the authors for a reference document which deserves to be widely shared As someone who srudied humanities, I always longed for the ancient “class of rhetorics” which was, until the late 19th century, the penultimate year of secondary education in France before philosophy: students learned the full art of persuasion—finding ideas, structuring them, refining style, memorizing, and delivering speeches—through constant practice and study of classical models. The purpose was to train them in the art of eloquence—to speak and write clearly, elegantly, and persuasively. And to prepare future orators -lawyers, priests, politicians- as well as any educated citizen. Were this classical knowledge more widely shared today, we might be better equipped to resist the tactics outlined in part 2️⃣ as we would more spontaneously recognize the persuasion strategies used against us -even if they come in alluring video forms these days! - and be able to counter them with the tools of logic and structured argument.

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

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

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.

Great Board conversations don’t sell—they stretch your thinking. Having spent time both as a member of the management team working with the Boards and as a Board member myself, I’ve seen a few common pitfalls that even seasoned leaders fall into. Here are three that stand out: 1. Trying too hard to “sell” the strategy. Your job with the Board isn’t to pitch—it’s to inform. The goal is to create a regular rhythm of updates around the business, strategy, and execution. One of the fastest ways to lose credibility is to act like everything’s perfect. Every company—no matter how successful—has real challenges. Board members know this. Being candid about those challenges doesn’t make you look weak. It makes you trustworthy. Transparency matters. Your numbers already tell part of the truth. Bring the rest. 2. Keeping the strategic aperture too narrow. Executives often focus on operational detail and forget that Boards can be most helpful in widening the lens. Leverage their distance from the day-to-day as a feature, not a flaw. I cringe when I hear, “I need to dumb it down for the Board.” In reality, the best Boards raise the level of strategic thinking. Bring them into big questions: “What does our industry look like in five years? Where should we be positioned?” Boards are at their best when they help you challenge your assumptions and stretch your thinking. 3. Not asking for guidance. Some of the best advice I’ve ever received in my career has come from Board members. Don’t just report—ask. Tap into their experience. Invite their perspective. The Board appreciates humility, especially when you say, “I haven’t figured this out yet—I don’t have the answer. But what are the strategic issues you would consider if you were in my shoes?” Because here’s the truth: The smartest executives don’t try to impress the Board—they learn from it. And here are 3 things I’ve learned to always get from a great Board conversation: 1. Start with the commercial “why.” Boards aren’t there for a product roadmap walkthrough—they want to understand business impact. Always lead with the commercial dimension. Why does this matter for revenue, margin, competitive advantage, or long-term growth? When you start there, everything else has context. Your Board isn’t a stage—it’s your secret weapon. 2. Define what good looks like. One of the most helpful things you can do is to show what “great” would look like—clearly and with metrics. It gives the Board a benchmark to assess against, and it keeps the conversation focused on outcomes, not just activity. 3. Ask what you’re not seeing. The question I’ve found most consistently valuable: “What do you think we’re not thinking about as a management team?” You’ll be amazed at the insight that comes back. This invites perspective without defensiveness—and you’ll often uncover blind spots or strategic angles that weren’t even on your radar. Because Boards aren’t there to be dazzled—they’re there to help you see what you can’t.