ReportWire

Tag: Manufacturing

  • Indonesia’s Danantara bets a new $6B SOE can save a textile industry from Trump tariffs and foreign competition | Fortune

    Indonesia plans to establish a new state-owned enterprise (SOE) to rejuvenate its struggling textile and garment industry and shield it from fallout from U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

    The decision, announced on Jan. 14 by Airlangga Hartato, Indonesia’s coordinating minister for economic affairs, places the SOE under the control of Danantara, Indonesia’s sovereign wealth fund, which will pump up to $6 billion into the firm to produce new technology and expand exports. 

    Indonesia’s textile industry was already challenged by growing regional competition from places like China and Bangladesh, and a proposed 19% U.S. tariff on Indonesian textile exports threatened to make matters worse. The new SOE was meant to protect the industry against the recent surge in cheap imports from China, as well as other external geopolitical pressures.

    Yet not all Indonesians are cheering the new government venture, with some experts worrying that it may instead weaken private investment and suppress job creation. 

    “The SOE could end up acting as a dominant rival, rather than as a market anchor,” Siwage Dharma Negara, co-coordinator for the Indonesia studies program at Singapore’s ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, tells Fortune. Some firms may “find themselves competing with a well-capitalized, state-backed player.”

    Danantara was first established in February 2025 by Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto, in hopes of fulfilling a lofty campaign promise—achieving 8% annual economic growth by the tail end of his term in 2029. Instead of being a more passive investor, Danantara is meant to directly manage SOEs.

    Indonesia’s textile sector

    Indonesia has a rich cultural heritage of traditional fabrics like batik, ikat and songket, which feature intricate patterns typically imprinted with natural dyes derived from plants and minerals. 

    Textiles are also a cornerstone of Indonesia’s economy. Just a third of Indonesia’s garments are sold domestically, with the rest exported to the U.S., Middle East, Europe and China. National textile and garment exports hit $11.9 billion in 2024, according to the Indonesian Garment and Textile Association.

    Indonesia’s textile industry was in slow decline even before the U.S. slapped tariffs on the country’s garment exports. Rising labor and energy costs have eroded Indonesia’s competitiveness versus regional competitors like Bangladesh, Vietnam and India. In the textile industry, Indonesian wages are around double that of Bangladesh, according to the International Labor Organization.

    In February 2025, Indonesian textile giant Stritex collapsed after racking up over $1.6 billion in debt. Over 10,000 workers lost their jobs. “Stritex during its heyday was a producer of military uniforms for more than 30 countries, including the U.S. and members of NATO,” explains Rita Padawangi, an Associate Professor of Sociology at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), and calls its importance to Indonesia’s textile manufacturing sector movement “undeniable.”

    New horizons or a missed opportunity?

    Given its slumping textile industry, some experts say Indonesia’s plan for a new SOE has its upsides. 

    “This decision reflects the government’s belief that the problem is structural and cannot be fixed by the private sector alone,” says Negara of the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, adding that the SOE’s key advantage is the financial and institutional capacity afforded by its government sponsor. “Subsidies and tax incentives may offer short-term relief, but they do little to address deep-seated issues such as low productivity, outdated technology, and weak upstream integration.”

    Rather than simply being absorbed into the yearly budget, Danantara allows fiscal surpluses to be strategically and dynamically reinvested in fast-growing sectors. “Danantara can mobilize large pools of capital, take a longer-term view, and operate with investment-style oversight that is more flexible than the annual state budget process,” he adds.

    But without careful management, the SOE could further exacerbate competition in an already overstuffed industry, driving down prices and potentially hurting workers. Cost-cutting could put workers at risk of exploitation, warns Padawangi of SUSS. Additionally, it may weaken the competitiveness of local SMEs—which drive innovation and form the backbone of economies—that can’t tap economies of scale which SOEs and larger private enterprises can.

    “Indonesia has lots of potential in the textile sector, particularly artisanal producers that integrate tradition with modernity,” says Padawangi. “It would be a missed opportunity to talk about the textile industry only from the perspective of big companies, without paying attention to the work of traditional weavers and smaller enterprises that work with them.”

    Angelica Ang

    Source link

  • Fact-checking Trump’s economic speech in Detroit

    President Donald Trump traveled to Michigan on Jan. 13 to address the Detroit Economic Club.

    Earlier in the day, the federal government announced that inflation — a major preoccupation for voters, and one of Trump’s key 2024 campaign issues — held steady at a 2.7% year-over-year rate. That’s slightly lower than the 2.9% in December 2024, the last full month under President Joe Biden, or the 3% in January 2025, a month shared by both presidents.

    But consumer sentiment has fallen on Trump’s watch, showing people feel increasingly negative about their economic position. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment index has fallen from 71.7 in January 2025 to 51 in November 2025. That’s just slightly above its lowest level ever, in June 2022, when year-over-year inflation peaked at about 9%.

    The nation is still adding jobs, but at a slower pace than usual. Counting December’s preliminary numbers, the economy added 584,000 jobs in 2025, the lowest annual figure since 2003, not counting recession years.

    Trump’s long-running confrontation with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell reached a new high, as Powell announced Jan. 11 that he was under Justice Department criminal investigation related to testimony about a Federal Reserve building renovation. Trump has been saying for the past year that he wants to see Powell gone because he has not lowered interest rates enough.

    This morning, before leaving Washington, D.C., for Michigan, Trump told reporters, “Well, he’s billions of dollars over budget. So, he either is incompetent, or he is crooked. I don’t know what he is, but he certainly doesn’t do a very good job.”

    Read PolitiFact’s fact-checks of his statements below.

    Source link

  • A Fort Collins family is trying to raise millions to test gene therapy that could help kids trapped in bodies they can’t move

    At first, Everly Green’s parents didn’t understand why her doctors wanted genetic testing. Their daughter was behind on her milestones at 18 months, but was gradually making progress, and they expected that to continue.

    Then, when she turned 2, the seizures started. She suddenly began to lose skills. Three months later, Everly needed a feeding tube. Now, at 8, she can only move her eyes, allowing her to communicate via a screen.

    Everly, whose family lives in Fort Collins, has a rare mutation in a gene called FRRS1L, pronounced “frizzle,” which affects how cells in her brain communicate. Her parents, and other members of the tiny community of children with the condition, have worked with researchers and small-scale manufacturers to develop a treatment that could restore some of her ability to move — but only if they can raise $4 million to develop and test it.

    Everly clearly understands what happens around her and loves school, where she learns in a mainstream classroom with support and has several best friends, said Chrissy Green, Everly’s mother. Still, she wants to do things she can’t, such as holding toys on her own or going on the occasional family trip with her brothers, Green said.

    “These kids are in there, they want to play like other kids, they just can’t move,” she said.

    Green is co-president of the foundation Finding Hope for FRRS1L, which is collecting funds for the next stage of drug development. Children with FRRS1L gene disorder, the foundation’s website says, “are trapped in a body they can’t move, however still retain high cognitive function, understanding, communication and awareness.”

    Worldwide, only a few dozen children currently have a diagnosis of the same mutation in FRRS1L, meaning there’s little interest from drug companies. Families are on their own to fund research and, if all goes well, convince the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that the treatment is safe and effective enough to go on the market.

    And, even if they succeed with the FDA, they’ll still face a battle with insurance companies that may not want to pay the steep price for a drug to correct a faulty gene. (Even though the families aren’t looking to make a profit, these types of treatments are expensive, and the company under contract to do the manufacturing isn’t doing it for free.)

    Chrissy Green sits with her daughter Everly, 8, as her two boys Colton, 9, left, and Ryle, 4, play at their home in Fort Collins on Dec. 18, 2025. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post)

    Gene therapy involves replacing a faulty gene with a healthy one, usually via a harmless virus engineered to insert a specific snippet of genetic code. It has offered a new way to treat infants born without functioning immune systems, who previously relied on bone marrow transplants. Trials have also shown good results with a liver problem causing ammonia to build up in the body, and one form of inherited deafness.

    The technology also carries risks. Patients have died after receiving gene therapies, with liver problems emerging as a potential risk.

    Normally, drug companies take on the financial risk of turning basic research that’s often publicly funded into treatments, with the hope of eventually making a profit. For gene therapies, that model can break down because of the small number of patients. Green’s FRRS1L foundation knows of about three dozen patients worldwide, though other children with unexplained seizures could have the mutation.

    A drug that treats so few patients will never be profitable, so parents are largely on their own in trying to fund research and development, said Neil Hackett, a researcher who has worked with families on gene therapies and advised the FRRS1L foundation. Usually, they can’t do it unless they happen to have one or more business-savvy parents with the time and resources to run a foundation while caring for a child with complex needs, he said.

    “They need specific expertise, which is not easy to find, and they need massive amounts of money,” he said.

    Steve Green supports his daughter Everly's head as the family plays with toys together at their home in Fort Collins on Dec. 18, 2025. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post)
    Steve Green supports his daughter Everly’s head as the family plays with toys together at their home in Fort Collins on Dec. 18, 2025. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post)

    When they first received Everly’s diagnosis, her doctor told the family to make the most of the time they had left, because medicine couldn’t offer anything to extend her life or reduce her symptoms, Green said. She didn’t initially question that, but focused on loving her daughter and trading tips for daily life with other families via Facebook.

    Green connected with a mother in London who had a child the same age as Everly. Viviana Rodriguez was exploring whether researchers had found any evidence to suggest they could repurpose existing drugs to reduce FRRS1L symptoms.

    Everly Green, 8, lies next to her mother, Chrissy Green, as she reads to her at their home in Fort Collins on Dec. 18, 2025. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post)
    Everly Green, 8, lies next to her mother, Chrissy Green, as she reads to her at their home in Fort Collins on Dec. 18, 2025. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post)

    Through a “providential” series of events, one of Rodriguez’s contacts knew a doctor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center who worked on gene therapies. That doctor had read a paper from a German researcher who bred mice with the FRSS1L mutation so he could study it. The German scientist had given the mice a gene therapy as part of his experiments, but his work wasn’t focused on the clinical applications, Green said.

    Green and Rodriguez, along with a small group of other parents, formed the foundation to raise $400,000 for the UT Southwestern researchers to breed their own group of FRSS1L mice and give them a gene therapy in a study that was set up to show results. The mice that received the gene therapy had near-normal movement after it took effect, she said.

    “We saw major recovery in the animals, so we’re really hopeful for our kids,” she said.

    The next step was testing for toxic side effects, then finding a manufacturer who could do the complicated work of inserting the corrected gene into a harmless virus, Green said. If they can raise the necessary money and all goes as expected, children could receive their doses through a clinical trial starting in September, she said.

    Colton Green, 9, pushes his sister Everly, 8, into the family's living room at their home in Fort Collins on Dec. 18, 2025. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post)
    Colton Green, 9, pushes his sister Everly, 8, into the family’s living room at their home in Fort Collins on Dec. 18, 2025. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post)

    Meg Wingerter

    Source link

  • How reality crushed Ÿnsect, the French startup that had raised over $600M for insect farming | TechCrunch

    French startup Ÿnsect shot into the spotlight when “Iron Man” star Robert Downey Jr. touted its merits on the “Late Show” during Super Bowl weekend 2021. Now, nearly four years later, the insect farming company has been placed into judicial liquidation — essentially bankruptcy — for insolvency. 

    The company’s demise is hardly a surprise, as Ÿnsect had been embattled for months. Still, there is plenty to unpack about how a startup can go bankrupt despite raising over $600 million, including from Downey Jr.’s FootPrint Coalition, taxpayers, and many others.

    Ultimately, Ÿnsect failed to fulfill its ambition to “revolutionize the food chain” with insect-based protein. But don’t be too quick to attribute its failure to the “ick” factor that many Westerners feel about bugs. Human food was never its core focus. 

    Instead, Ÿnsect focused on producing insect protein for animal feed and pet food, two markets with very different economics and margins that the company never quite chose between.

    That indecision extended to its M&A strategy. In 2021, Ÿnsect acquired Protifarm, a Dutch company raising mealworms for human food applications, adding a third market to the mix. Even as the company announced the deal, then-CEO Antoine Hubert admitted it would take a couple of years for human food to represent just 10% to 15% of Ÿnsect’s revenue. 

    “We still see pet food and fish feed being the largest contributor to our revenues in the coming years,” Hubert declared at the time. In other words, Ÿnsect was acquiring a company in a market segment that would remain marginal for years — at a time when the startup desperately needed revenue growth.

    And revenue was the problem. According to publicly available data, Ÿnsect’s revenue from its main entity peaked at €17.8 million in 2021 (approximately $21 million) — a figure reportedly inflated by internal transfers between subsidiaries. By 2023, the company had racked up a net loss of €79.7 million ($94 million).

    Techcrunch event

    San Francisco
    |
    October 13-15, 2026

    So how did a company with such meager revenue raise over $600 million? The answer wasn’t hype-driven crossover funds paying ambitious multiples during the 2021 funding frenzy. Instead, Ÿnsect attracted impact-focused investors like Astanor Ventures and public investment bank Bpifrance that bought into a compelling sustainability vision.

    Its pitch to them was simple — offering an alternative to resource-intensive proteins like fishmeal and soy. That same thesis also attracted significant capital to competitors like Better Origin and Innovafeed, and it seemed promising.

    But the vision collided with market reality. Animal feed is a commodity market driven by price, not sustainability premiums. In a perfect world, insect protein would be fully circular, with insects fed on food waste that would otherwise go to landfill. But in practice, factory-scale insect production typically ends up relying on cereal by-products that are already usable as animal feed — meaning insect protein just adds an expensive extra step. For animal feed, the math simply wasn’t working.

    Ÿnsect eventually recognized this. Pet food proved to be a different equation: It is less price-driven than animal feed and a far better market for insect protein, even with competition from other alternative proteins such as lab-grown meat. By 2023, the company refocused its strategy on pet food and other higher-margin segments, with Hubert citing broader economic pressures. 

    “In an environment where there is inflation on energy and raw materials but also on the cost of capital and debt, we cannot afford to invest loads of resources in markets which are the least remunerative (animal feed), while you have other markets where there is a lot of demand, good returns and higher margins,” Hubert said at the time.

    The 2023 pivot to pet food came too late. By then, Ÿnsect had already committed to a massive, capital-intensive bet that would ultimately doom the company. That bet was Ÿnfarm, a “giga-factory” in Northern France that the company billed “the world’s most expensive bug farm.” Built for insect production at scale, the facility consumed hundreds of millions in funding — money spent before Ÿnsect had proven its business model or figured out its unit economics.

    To oversee Ÿnfarm’s launch, Ÿnsect brought in Shankar Krishnamoorthy, a former executive at French energy giant Engie. When that move to pet food failed to save the company, Krishnamoorthy replaced Hubert as CEO.

    Ÿnsect then shut down the production plant it had acquired from Protifarm and cut jobs. But shuttering one facility while operating a giga-factory built for the wrong market couldn’t solve the fundamental problem.

    For Professor Joe Haslam, who teaches a course on Scaling Up in the MBA Program at IE Business School, “Ÿnsect’s struggles are not a mystery and not mainly about insects. They are the result of a mismatch between industrial ambition, capital markets, and timing, compounded by some execution and strategy choices.”

    The fact that Ÿnsect failed doesn’t mean the entire insect farming sector is doomed. Competitor Innovafeed is reportedly holding up better, in part because it started with a smaller production site and is ramping up incrementally.

    For Prof. Haslam, Ÿnsect exemplifies a broader European problem. “Ÿnsect is a case study in Europe’s scaling gap. We fund moonshots. We underfund factories. We celebrate pilots. We abandon industrialization. See Northvolt [a struggling Swedish battery maker], Volocopter [a German air taxi startup], and Lilium [a failed German flying taxi company],” he said.

    The failure has prompted some soul-searching. Hubert himself co-founded Start Industrie, an association advocating for policies to support French industrial startups — a recognition that Europe needs more than just funding to build the next generation of deep tech companies.

    Anna Heim

    Source link

  • The Skilled Worker Shortage May Hit Hard in 2026

    The U.S. workforce is in serious trouble, with a growing mismatch between the talents that young workers joining the workforce have to offer and the talents that employers need. The problems go far beyond a potential worker shortage, warns a new report from investment banking giant JPMorganChase, and the situation may even pose a national security risk. The implication for your company is clear: if your business is in one of the most affected industries, you may find it harder than before to find and recruit new talent. 

    The new report says that three in four U.S. companies are struggling to find qualified workers. Worse, four in 10 adults lack basic digital skills needed for the typical workplace. Given how our society is increasingly digital, that the PC revolution began back in the 1980s and looking at the growing adoption rates of automation and tech like AI, this latter statistic is pretty startling. Gen-Z is considered to be the first “digitally native” generation, so at least they can reverse-mentor their older colleagues, but the fact that nearly half of workers don’t even have basic computer skills should be concerning for employers large and small. 

    The qualifications gap isn’t evenly spread, JPMorgan’s report shows. The most affected sectors are semiconductor manufacturing, the defense industry, energy and AI. Reporting on the study, Newsweek notes that the bank highlights the long-term implications of these shortages, as other allies invest more heavily into STEM and technical training initiatives and rivals like China inject vast sums into training their population. JPMorgan estimated that the U.S. technology workforce is expected to grow at twice the rate of the overall workforce over the next 10 years, which makes the skills gap a growing problem: if workers aren’t leaving education with the appropriate skills, and existing workers don’t reskill or upskill, then many of these jobs may go unfilled, threatening expansion and innovation in this critical sector. 

    The fact that AI skills is present in the list is unsurprising: the sector is growing fast. The AI talent wars that played out this summer as top U.S. names tried to poach superstar researchers from each other for vast sums of money showed exactly how competitive the AI skills market is. But there’s also evidence that there’s a gap between the expectations CEOs have of AI and the skills and experiences their workers have—a gap that could be closed by education and retraining, even though many companies are proving slow at investing in this kind of schooling. 

    JPMorgan’s list of the most affected industries is notably science-heavy. This may be a problem in the current political climate where some commentators note that the value of scientific expertise is under siege, with increasing anti-science rhetoric in the workplace and disinformation and misinformation are on the rise—potentially shaping the thinking of young people entering the education systems. To counter this issue, the bank calls for an expansion in federal and state policies to modernize the education pipeline and encourage training programs and apprenticeships.

    This may be a tricky problem, though, as many young people are thought to be turning toward job sectors where AI can’t threaten their long-term employability, including hands-on work like plumbing, being an electrician and other trade jobs.

    Newsweek also notes the report came not long after President Trump upset part of his political base by suggesting that talented foreign workers may be needed to fill the skills gap, particularly in manufacturing facilities set up by foreign firms on U.S. soil. But other reports note that Trump’s pro-U.S. policies to try to promote manufacturing of semiconductors and his anti-immigration thinking and tariff policies form a political Gordian knot.

    Kit Eaton

    Source link

  • Ford CEO Jim Farley said Trump would halve the EV market by ending subsidies. Now he’s writing down $19.5 billion amid a ‘customer-driven’ shift | Fortune

    Several months ago, Ford CEO Jim Farley said ending the nearly two-decade-long EV tax credit would halve America’s electric-vehicle market. Now his company is facing its own reality check.

    Ford said this week it would cease production for the original electric F-150 Lightning, which was once touted as a breakthrough for the industry, and shift some of its existing workforce to producing a hybrid version of the pickup with a gas-powered generator called an EREV‚ or an extended range electric vehicle. The automaker said it would be taking a $19.5 billion charge in 2026 as a result of this “customer-driven shift.” 

    With that in mind, it’s worth reviewing what Farley said at the Ford Pro Accelerate summit in Detroit in September. EVs will remain a “vibrant industry” going forward, he said, but also “smaller, way smaller than we thought.” The end of the $7,500 consumer incentive would be a game-changer, Farley added, before predicting that EV sales in the U.S. could plummet from to 5% from a previous 10% to 12%.

    Speaking to CNBC on Monday about Ford’s electric pivot, Farley claimed the EV market had, in fact, already shrunk to around 5% of the U.S. vehicle market. The automaker’s EV lineup was simply out of sync with consumer demand, he said.

    “More importantly, the very high end EVs, the 50, 60, 70, $80,000 vehicles, they just weren’t selling,” Farley told CNBC.

    Farley had established Ford’s Model E division in 2022 to innovate on electric vehicles and operate as a startup within the more-than-100-year-old automaker. At the same time, Farley told CNBC that he knew when he established Model E, it would be “brutal business-wise.” That may have been an understatement. In under three years, the Model E division has lost $13 billion, more than double Ford’s net income for 2024. 

    As part of its pivot, Farley said the company is listening to consumers.

    “We’re following customers to where the market is, not where people thought it was going to be, but to where it is today,” he said. 

    This means prioritizing hybrid and semi-gas-powered EREVs over pure-play EVs. These categories are what customers are still interested in, Farley said. 

    To be sure, the company says its Model E division will still be profitable, but in 2029, three years after the 2026 date it had previously targeted. By 2030, the company is also predicting that hybrids, semi-gas-powered EREVs, and pure-play EVs will make up half of Ford’s global sales, a stark increase from about 17% now. And most of that, Farley told CNBC, will be “hybrid and EREV.”

    This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

    Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez

    Source link

  • Video: Howard Lutnick’s Family Business Is Cashing In on Data Center Deals

    new video loaded: Howard Lutnick’s Family Business Is Cashing In on Data Center Deals

    The commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, is involved in A.I. data center deals that overlap with work his family is doing. Our investigative reporter Eric Lipton describes what we know about these deals for massive data center projects, one of which includes a planned nuclear power plant to be named after President Trump.

    By Eric Lipton, Christina Shaman, June Kim, Zach Wood and Leila Medina

    November 20, 2025

    Eric Lipton, Christina Shaman, June Kim, Zach Wood and Leila Medina

    Source link

  • How Chemical Transparency Builds Consumer Trust 

    The chemical industry is at a turning point. What used to be casual consumer curiosity about ingredients has become a non-negotiable demand for complete transparency. This shift is fundamentally changing how every business that deals with chemicals operates, and companies that don’t adapt are getting left behind. 

    After serving over 90,000 customers through Lab Alley, I can tell you this isn’t a trend that will reverse itself. It’s the new baseline for doing business. But here’s what most companies miss: Transparency isn’t just about avoiding problems anymore. It’s become a growth driver. 

    Why transparency is reshaping consumer expectations 

    The transparency revolution stems from several converging forces, though digital connectivity might be the biggest game-changer. According to research from Commport, 62 percent of online shoppers will not buy from companies with incorrect product data, and consumers now have unprecedented access to product information. 

    Regulatory changes have also accelerated these demands. The FDA’s recent Chemical Contaminants Transparency Tool signals government commitment to what HHS Secretary Kennedy calls “radical transparency” that extends beyond traditional disclosure requirements. 

    Then there’s the generational shift. The Commport research also shows that 94 percent of consumers are more likely to remain loyal to brands offering complete transparency, with 56 percent saying that such transparency would make them “loyal for life.” This impact is stronger among specific demographics: 90 percent of millennial respondents would buy from a company they see as purposeful, while 45 percent of Gen Z shoppers are more interested in brands they think are trustworthy. These statistics represent the future of purchasing power in both consumer and business markets. 

    What transparency looks like in chemicals 

    Chemical transparency goes beyond disclosing ingredient lists. It means giving access to comprehensive documentation, robust verification systems, and clear communication about how products are developed, manufactured, and distributed.  

    This begins with precise specifications disclosures. Rather than broad categorizations like “industrial grade,” both consumer brands and B2B customers now expect detailed purity percentages, moisture content specifications, and comprehensive impurity profiles. Take our USP-grade glycerin. We provide detailed certificates of analysis showing exact purity levels, specific gravity measurements, and chloride content specifications. 

    Geographic sourcing has become just as important. With the U.S. imported approximately $320 billion in chemical products annually (as of 2019), customers increasingly request complete country-of-origin documentation and alternative sourcing options. B2B buyers need this information for risk assessment and compliance with their own transparency commitments. 

    Certifications as trust signals 

    Third-party certifications used to be nice extras that companies could add if they wanted to stand out. Not anymore. Today, they’re essential for building trust between what suppliers claim and what customers actually believe. The certifications that really matter for transparency include: 

    Kosher and Halal certifications signal stricter manufacturing processes and appeal to both religious and secular markets. USP verification ensures you meet pharmaceutical-grade standards for purity and consistency. RSPO certification addresses the sustainability concerns around palm oil derivatives that customers increasingly demand. Organic certification meets the growing push for naturally-derived ingredients, while ISO certifications demonstrate you have comprehensive quality management systems in place. 

    Each certification requires rigorous third-party auditing and ongoing compliance, but provides customers with verified assurance that products meet specific standards without requiring independent verification. 

    Industries driving the demand 

    As of 2025, three industries are driving transparency standards across the entire supply chain, and their requirements are quickly becoming benchmarks for other sectors. 

    Food and beverage manufacturing: This has become a demanding sector, reformulating products for cleaner labels and creating pressure for ingredients with consumer-friendly names like “cultured wheat extract” instead of “potassium sorbate.” They need batch-level tracking, shelf-life documentation, and comprehensive allergen information because one contamination incident can trigger widespread recalls.  

    Cosmetics and personal care: These companies are responding to the clean beauty movement by seeking natural alternatives to synthetic ingredients. The EU’s cosmetics regulations have established global transparency standards that affect suppliers worldwide. 

    Pharmaceutical manufacturing: This sector has expanded transparency demands beyond regulatory compliance to include comprehensive risk management and supply chain security, requiring detailed supplier qualifications and facility inspection information. 

    Risks versus benefits 

    The contrast between companies that embrace transparency and those that resist it has become stark, with measurable business consequences. 

    Risks of opacity: Companies resisting transparency face escalating risks. According to the Commport research, businesses that cannot provide comprehensive product documentation are being eliminated from procurement processes before price discussions even begin. 

    Regulatory agencies are implementing increasingly stringent disclosure requirements, and supply chain vulnerabilities without detailed supplier information can cause production delays and permanent customer relationship damage. 

    Benefits of openness: That 94 percent consumer loyalty statistic translates directly to business performance. Our customer retention exceeds 95 percent among accounts receiving comprehensive transparency documentation, with these customers consistently expanding their purchase volumes over time.  

    Beyond loyalty, transparent companies command premium pricing through documented value propositions while gaining access to new markets through verified certifications. The operational benefits are equally compelling; transparency systems dramatically reduce customer service inquiries and shorten sales cycles by giving buyers immediate access to the information they need. 

    Build your transparency strategy 

    Start with comprehensive documentation systems, including complete records of sourcing, manufacturing processes, and quality control procedures. If you can’t document it, you can’t be transparent about it.  

    Then, focus certification programs on credentials that provide the greatest market access for your target markets. Finally, ensure organizational commitment through training programs that help employees understand how their roles contribute to transparency objectives. 

    The path forward 

    Chemical transparency has evolved from consumer preference to business imperative. At Lab Alley, our transparency commitment has enabled rapid growth while building deep customer relationships based on trust and verified performance. This approach requires ongoing investment, but the returns through customer loyalty, market access, and operational efficiency continue to exceed our expectations. 

    The chemical industry’s transparency revolution is accelerating. Companies that embrace this change will thrive in the evolving marketplace; those that resist will find themselves competing on price alone in a market that increasingly values verified quality and comprehensive documentation.  

    The opportunity is clear. Will your company lead this transformation or follow others who recognized transparency as the competitive advantage it has become? 

    The final deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, December 12, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    Fred Elabed

    Source link

  • AI is reimagining work. CEOs must rethink how we prepare future workers | Fortune

    Years ago, in a conversation about the responsibilities of leadership, one of my mentors offered advice I’ve never forgotten: CEOs are central to creating jobs. 

    At the time I was far from the C-suite, but the idea stuck with me. Over time, I came to understand that job creation has two tracks. First, it’s about building the conditions for growth inside your organization – expanding your business in ways that create opportunity for employees, particularly those at the start of their careers. If your revenue is not growing rapidly, you are likely not creating many new jobs. Second, it’s about looking outward – investing in and engaging with the communities you serve to cultivate the next generation of talent, molding the future workforce so that it is job ready. 

    At Honeywell, our commitment to preparing the next generation for this technology-driven economy is enabled by a new model of public–private partnership, one in which industry, government, and educators collaborate to scale access, relevance and opportunity, bridging the gap between academic theory and real-world application. 

    These are strategic investments in national competitiveness. They reflect our understanding that talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not, and the future of STEM careers depends on meeting students where they are at multiple points in their journey—in middle school, high school, college and with internship opportunities.  It’s essential to offer flexible, skill-based pathways to prepare the next generation for the realities of a rapidly changing workforce.

    What does this mean in practice?

    For government, it is a matter of realigning policy priorities with economic reality. Tax incentives, workforce grants, credentialing reform – the list of policy prescriptions is long. The short answer is that we must approach workforce education specifically which encourages how to build things as a national priority. Our global competitiveness demands it.

    At the same time, our nation’s educational institutions must be open to collaborate with business. Just recently, Honeywell and the University of North Carolina Charlotte announced a unique partnership in which we will invest $10 million to help turn a dated campus facility into a modern innovation hub that will train the workforce of the future for the jobs of the future. While the approach may not follow the traditional philanthropic nature of the corporate/college relationship, it will drive the development of a collaborative vision of what that future is. I expect to be surprised more than once at the ideas that emerge.

    Finally, companies must invest in future workers and leaders. At Honeywell, we’ve expanded our internship program – doubling participation to 2,500 students in 2025 – to give young graduates from all disciplines hands-on experience that aligns with industry needs. We’ve also deepened our support for FIRST Robotics, a global nonprofit that inspires students to pursue STEM education and now reaches 40,000 students worldwide. And through a partnership with Discovery Education, we’re helping scale a global environmental science curriculum aimed at reaching 10 million students by 2030. All our efforts are targeted to enable students to become employable.

    In short, we recognize that our responsibility goes beyond hiring the best student engineers from the top ranks of our major institutions. It requires us to engage directly to excite, mold, and support this workforce of the future in full partnership with trade schools, colleges, and universities.  

    The disruption we face is real – but the opportunity to tear down the walls that keep policymakers, educators, and CEOs from engaging collectively is equally real. To my colleagues in industry, I urge you to continue expanding from academic philanthropists to co-designers of the talent pipeline. To educational leaders, look to what UNC Charlotte has done – and bring industry to the table as an active partner, not just a funder. And, policymakers, we need your collaboration prioritizing the needs of America’s future workers, so they have access to the tools they need to thrive. 

    AI and automation are already reshaping the future of work, but our collective choices will determine whether the disruption leads to decline or renewal. Deeper partnerships across government, academia, and industry will build a talent pipeline that is more innovative than ever before. 

    These actions are even more important, as the 2025 job market has proven to be particularly challenging for college graduates, with many facing longer job searches, underemployment, or the need to pivot into alternative career paths.  Shared action and shared accountability will drive our initiatives, as well as the next era of American competitiveness.

    The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

    Grace Maliska

    Source link

  • Meet the Chinese Startup Using AI—and a Team of Human Workers—to Train Robots

    The real question is how effectively AgiBot’s algorithms can teach its robots new tricks. Using reinforcement learning to teach a robot tasks that require improvisation generally requires a lot of training data, and studies show it cannot be perfected entirely inside a simulation.

    AgiBot speeds up the learning process by having a human worker guide the robot through a task, which provides a foundation for it to then learn by itself. Before cofounding AgiBot, chief scientist Jianlan Luo did cutting-edge research at UC Berkeley, including a project that involved robots acquiring skills through reinforcement learning with a human in the loop. That system was shown doing tasks including placing components on a motherboard.

    Feng says that AgiBot’s learning software, called Real-World Reinforcement Learning, only needs about ten minutes to train a robot to do a new task. Rapid learning is important because production lines often change from one week to the next, or even during the same production run, and robots that can master a new step quickly can adapt alongside human workers.

    Training robots this way requires a lot of human effort. AgiBot has a robotic learning center where it pays people to teleoperate robots to help AI models learn new skills. Demand for this kind of robot training data is growing, with some US companies paying workers in places like India to do manual work that serves as training data.

    Jeff Schneider, a roboticist at Carnegie Mellon University who works on reinforcement learning, says that AgiBot is using cutting-edge techniques, and should be able to automate tasks with high reliability. Schneider adds that other robotics companies are likely dabbling with using reinforcement learning for manufacturing tasks.

    AgiBot is something of a rising star within China, where interest in combining AI and robotics is soaring. The company is developing AI models for various kinds of robots, including humanoids that walk around and robot arms that stay rooted in one place.

    Will Knight

    Source link

  • Trump immigration policies would slash workforce estimate by 15.7 million and slow GDP growth by a third over the next decade, study says | Fortune

    The U.S. immigration crackdown will cause net job losses in the millions and will lower the annual rate of economic growth by almost one-third over the next decade, a new study estimates.

    The Trump administration’s policies aimed at legal and illegal immigration would reduce the projected number of workers by 6.8 million by 2028 and 15.7 million by 2035, the National Foundation for American Policy’s study released Friday found. People entering the workforce won’t fully make up for the job losses, leading to a net reduction in the labor force by a projected 4 million workers by 2028 and 11 million in 2035. 

    “With the U.S.-born population aging and growing at a slower rate, immigrants have become an essential part of American labor force growth,” the think tank, which focuses on trade and immigration, said.

    In fact, immigrant workers were responsible for 84.7% of the labor force growth in America between 2019 and 2024, according to the report. 

    The study takes into account many of Trump’s far-reaching immigration policies for those eligible to work in the country, including reducing and suspending refugee admissions, a travel ban on 19 countries, ending Temporary Protected Status, and prohibiting international students from working on Optional Practical Training and STEM OPT after completing their coursework. The analysis does not account for a new policy that requires U.S. companies to shell out $100,000 in one-time fees for new H-1B visas.

    Labor reduction

    Trump’s immigration crackdown is already having an impact on the labor force.

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics household survey shows a decline of 1.1 million foreign-born workers since the start of the Trump administration in January through August, according to the report.

    And of the 6.8 million fewer projected workers in the U.S. labor force by 2028, 2.8 million would be due to changes in legal immigration policies, while 4 million would result from policies on illegal immigration, the study said

    At the same time, it doesn’t look as though U.S.-born workers are entering the workforce en masse as foreign-born workers exit, the report said. Instead, the labor force participation rate for U.S.-born workers aged 16 and older has ticked lower to 61.6% in August from 61.7% last year, according to the report.

    Labor economist and senior fellow at NFAP Mark Regets, said in the report it’s “wrong” to assume a decline in immigration helps U.S. workers when job growth slows.

    “Immigrants both create demand for the goods and services produced by U.S.-born workers and work alongside them in ways that increase productivity for both groups,” Regrets said. “While it is just one factor, we shouldn’t be surprised that opportunities for U.S.-born workers are falling at the same time an estimated one million fewer immigrants may be in the labor force.”

    But the White House says there’s a large pool of available U.S.-born workers.

    “Over one in ten young adults in America are neither employed, in higher education, nor pursuing some sort of vocational training.” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fortune in a statement, referencing a July 2024 CNBC article. “There is no shortage of American minds and hands to grow our labor force, and President Trump’s agenda to create jobs for American workers represents this Administration’s commitment to capitalizing on that untapped potential while delivering on our mandate to enforce our immigration laws.”

    Economic fallout

    Previous reports have warned Trumps’ immigration policies also threaten negative economic consequences.

    In September, the Congressional Budget Office projected 290,000 immigrants will be removed from the country between 2026 and 2029, which may create a labor shortage and drive up inflation.

    And according to the NFAP study, Trump’s immigration policies will lower the projected average annual economic growth rate to 1.3% from 1.8% between fiscal year 2025 to fiscal year 2035. 

    There are also ramifications for the agriculture industry and food production. The Labor Department admitted earlier this month in a filing in the Federal Register that Trump’s immigration crackdown risked a “labor shortage exacerbated by the near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens.”

    That’s not the only sector feeling the talent squeeze.

    The $100,000 one-time fee for workers applying for new H-1B visas is expected to disrupt companies including Amazon, Microsoft and Meta, since they heavily recruit workers under this status. 

    And the policies are projected to have far-ranging effects on most areas of business, including a potential loss of hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers in sectors like information and educational and health services.

    In addition, individuals affected by Trump’s travel ban on 19 different countries represent a significant part of the economy, the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit research organization and advocacy group, has estimated.

    Households led by the recent arrivals from the countries earned $3.2 billion in household income, paid $715.6 million in federal, state and local taxes and held $2.5 billion in spending power, according to AIC.

    “These nationals made important contributions in U.S. industries that are facing labor shortages and rely on foreign-born workers,” like hospitality, construction, retail trade and manufacturing, the report said.

    But the White House said Trump will continue “growing our economy, creating opportunity for American workers, and ensuring all sectors have the workforce they need to be successful.”

    Nan Wu, research director at AIC told Fortune the recent NFAP study may not even fully capture the broader impact of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. 

    “Given the unprecedented scale of these actions, it’s difficult to quantify the chilling effect they may have on immigrants who might otherwise choose to move to or remain in the United States,” Wu said. “For instance, international students—who are a critical source of high-skilled talent—may increasingly opt to pursue education or career opportunities in other countries. This shift could significantly disrupt the U.S. talent pipeline, particularly in sectors that rely heavily on STEM expertise and innovation.”

    Nino Paoli

    Source link

  • FIREBULL AB and Enforcer AIR 3 Achieve NTA 8133 Lithium Battery Fire Standard

    Testing Performed at Chippewa Valley Technical College Fire Safety Center under Director Chris Turner


    PEACHTREE CITY, Ga., October 20, 2025 (Newswire.com)
    –
    Enforcer One, LLC proudly announces that its FIREBULL AB fluorine-free and PFAS-free firefighting foam concentrate and Enforcer AIR 3 compressed air foam system (CAFS) have successfully met the fire performance requirements of NTA 8133:2021, the internationally recognized Dutch Technical Agreement establishing standards for extinguishing lithium-ion battery fires.

    Testing was performed at the Chippewa Valley Technical College (CVTC) Fire Safety Center (FSC) under the direction of Chris Turner, confirming that FIREBULL AB and Enforcer AIR 3 deliver the cooling power and fire control performance required to suppress lithium battery fires safely and effectively.

    About the NTA 8133 Test

    NTA 8133:2021 defines the performance, testing, and marking requirements for extinguishing agents and portable extinguishers suitable for lithium battery fires. The standard replicates a thermal runaway event using six Lithium-Ion 4S pouch cells, assessing an agent’s ability to:

    • Rapidly extinguish active battery fires within three minutes of ignition. FIREBULL AB extinguished flames within the first 16-20 seconds on each test. The Enforcer AIR 3 provided an additional 40 seconds of spray time to cool and prevent rekindle.

    • Prevent re-ignition during a 20-minute monitoring period, and

    • Preserve at least one set of cells with at least one of the cells in the set maintaining 3.7 volts post-extinguishment. FIREBULL AB preserved two sets of batteries in one test and preserved three sets of batteries in the second test.

    FIREBULL AB and Enforcer AIR 3 achieved these results on tests up to 600 Wh, demonstrating exceptional performance under the strict test conditions outlined in Annex A of NTA 8133.

    Superior Cooling Performance for Total Extinguishment

    Unlike traditional foams or water-based agents, FIREBULL AB delivers advanced heat absorption and cooling capabilities that directly address the extreme temperatures generated during lithium battery thermal runaway. The unique formulation cools the cells and surrounding materials rapidly, reducing the chance of re-ignition and achieving true extinguishment rather than temporary suppression.

    This superior cooling action makes FIREBULL AB especially effective in applications where sustained fire suppression and temperature control are critical-such as battery manufacturing plants, EV facilities, and storage areas.

    PFAS-Free, Non-Hazardous, and Non-Toxic

    FIREBULL AB represents a new generation of environmentally responsible firefighting technology. It is 100% fluorine-free (PFAS-free), non-hazardous, and non-toxic, ensuring the highest level of safety for responders, workers, and the environment.

    Unlike AFFF foams, FIREBULL AB leaves no persistent chemical residue and requires no special cleanup or containment, supporting compliance with emerging PFAS restrictions across the United States and internationally.

    Implications Across Key Industries

    The successful completion of NTA 8133 testing provides new assurance and capability for several critical sectors:

    • Firefighting: Supplies departments with a verified, high-performance, PFAS-free solution for emerging battery and EV fire risks.

    • Battery & EV Manufacturing: Protects production lines, testing facilities, and charging stations from potentially catastrophic lithium-ion events.

    • Warehousing & Logistics: Ensures rapid suppression and cooling of battery-powered tools, equipment, and e-mobility products in storage and transit.

    • Transportation: Provides an efficient and portable suppression option for fleet operators and service teams managing battery-powered vehicles.

    “This achievement reinforces Enforcer One’s leadership in advancing the next generation of clean firefighting technologies,” said Ron Thames, President and CEO of Enforcer One, LLC. “With FIREBULL AB and Enforcer AIR 3, we’re not only meeting international performance standards but also delivering safer, sustainable tools for the industries facing tomorrow’s toughest fire challenges.”

    About Enforcer One, LLC

    Enforcer One, LLC is a U.S.-based manufacturer of advanced Compressed Air Foam Systems (CAFS) and fluorine-free firefighting agents. Its leading products-Enforcer CAFS, Enforcer AIR 3, and FIREBULL foam concentrates-combine proven performance with environmental responsibility. Enforcer One’s solutions are trusted worldwide by fire departments, industrial facilities, airports, and defense organizations for their efficiency, reliability, and safety. See more at www.enforcerone.com

    Contact Information

    Source: Enforcer One, LLC.

    Related Media

    Source link

  • Video: What to Know About the ICE Raid at a Hyundai Plant

    new video loaded: What to Know About the ICE Raid at a Hyundai Plant

    ICE and other law enforcement agencies detained nearly 500 workers in Georgia in September. Farah Stockman, who covers manufacturing for The New York Times, describes the fallout from the incident and what could be next for foreign factory investments in the U.S.

    By Farah Stockman, Gabriel Blanco, June Kim and Claire Hogan

    October 20, 2025

    Farah Stockman, Gabriel Blanco, June Kim and Claire Hogan

    Source link

  • The Zipper Is Getting Its First Major Upgrade in 100 Years

    The teeth were redesigned, the manufacturing process rewritten, and new machinery developed to attach the closure to garments. “The absence of the tape posed various production challenges,” Nishizaki says. “We had to develop new manufacturing equipment and a dedicated sewing machine for integration.” The result: a lighter, more flexible system that reduces material use and environmental impact compared with a standard Vislon zipper.

    Early adopters are already experimenting. Descente Japan, known for technical sportswear, was among the first to prototype AiryString in 2022. The North Face has selected the system for use in its new Summit Series Advanced Mountain Kit. Smaller brands like Earthletica, an eco-conscious swim and performance label, have also tested it, describing the zipper as “soft, flexible, and almost silent.”

    The effect is apparently tactile. Garments move more naturally, lie flatter against the body, and feel less mechanical. “We repeatedly conduct durability and strength tests by sewing AiryString and conventional zippers into various fabrics,” Nishizaki says. “In terms of usability, AiryString offers much smoother operability.” That translates to a softer, slicker glide—the satisfying pull that separates a well-made jacket from a cheap one.

    Little Parts, Big Change

    On the factory floor, the benefits add up, too. Traditional zippers consume extra fabric and dye and require multiple sewing passes. By removing the tape, YKK says it trims both material and labor. “It contributes to reducing work in customers’ sewing processes,” Nishizaki says. “It also reduces fiber use and water consumption in the dyeing process, lowering CO₂ emissions.”

    The math adds up fast. YKK offers a 100 percent recycled-material version of AiryString and claims measurable cuts to greenhouse gas emissions and water usage. The impact is magnified by scale: The company operates in 71 countries and regions, and its trademark is registered in 177. When you make billions of zippers a year, these small efficiencies ripple globally.

    Amy Francombe

    Source link

  • Furniture Tariffs? Why Business Owners in North Carolina Are Bracing for a Rough Ride

    President Trump wants to make U.S. furniture great again with a series of tariffs that took effect Tuesday. Trump announced these tariffs partially to revitalize North Carolina’s home furnishing industry, he said on Truth Social. There is now a 10 percent tariff on softwood lumber, and a 25 percent tariff on kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities, and upholstered furniture. On January 1, 2026, the tariffs will increase to 50 percent on cabinets and 30 percent on upholstered furniture. 

    North Carolina’s High Point Market, the largest home furniture trade show in the world, brings together U.S. and global furniture designers twice a year. Many businesses in the state now focus on high-end, customizable furniture, while lower to middle-end upholstered furniture is largely produced in Mississippi.

    While the long-term economic impact of the tariffs is hard to predict, the short-term effects are already being felt by manufacturers. Typically, U.S. furniture plants receive component parts from different countries. Those components are subject to the tariff duties, even if the final product is made in America. 

    For example, a recliner might have a powered motor, which wouldn’t be made in the U.S. Tools also cost more. Michael Rozell, a furniture designer and owner of Granville, Ohio-based Wooden Objex, says prices on essential materials are rising rapidly, sometimes by thousands of dollars.

    “It’s a very scary, weird time, and people who are just bouncing around, smiling all happy are not paying attention,” says Rozell, adding that an order he placed for tools from Canada more than six weeks ago still hasn’t arrived. “It made it to the Customs depot, and Customs would not release it to the United States because the tariffs were so confusing.”

    Alex Shuford, CEO of North Carolina-based manufacturer Rock House Farm, says his company’s tariff bill in 2024 was $300,000, but that this year’s will be well over $3 million. “Next year, if this continues, we’ll be pushing $6 or $7 million,” he says.

    John Hart, who runs Lewisville, Texas-based design company Arteriors and imports 97 percent of the furniture he sells, has been looking to move his operations out of Southeast Asia. The region has been hit hard by Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, and he says he’s looked at other regions that have more favorable trade relationships with the U.S. But navigating that switch to other countries means dealing with a new set of rules and regulations, depending on where he sources his products. 

    There was a furniture boom during the pandemic, as American consumers stuck at home decided to get new couches, tables, and other items, but in recent years, demand has dried up. U.S. furniture manufacturing has a common historical cycle, according to John Joe Schlichtmann, a professor of urban sociology at DePaul University, whose 2022 book “Showroom City” focuses on High Point’s deindustrialization and reinvention.

    What tariffs won’t solve, Schlichtmann notes, is a lack of skilled labor. Young people in the area aren’t interested in furniture manufacturing, likely because the industry follows cheaper labor and is known for its historical volatility. 

    “You have community colleges in the region that are teaching furniture skills, but they’re going to have to really be injected with investment,” Schlictmann says. “It’s going to require a scalpel, and not a mallet, to make that happen.”

    Trump isn’t new to High Point Market. Back in 2007, he visited the market for his Trump Homes brand, an imprint of Lexington Home Brands that manufactures 20 miles outside of High Point. But Trump Homes’ factories were not always U.S. based. In 2010, his crystal bearing line was made in Slovenia. After Lexington chose to discontinue its partnership with Trump in 2011, he teamed up with Dorya, a Turkish luxury furniture company, whose production process was based in Izmir, Turkey.

    Though these tariffs might intend to encourage American furniture manufacturing, Rozell says buyers at High Point Market were hesitant when he was there in April, asking for 20 percent discounts on his wholesale prices. He says if the administration wanted to help, they would invest the tariff revenue back into the industry, to bring back infrastructure and labor.

    “Most people would love to have their products say ‘made in America,’” Rozell said. “Everyone loves this country. It’s the greatest place on earth, but the reality is, it’s so expensive here.”

    Ben Butler

    Source link

  • New Rules Could Force Tesla to Redesign Its Door Handles. That’s Harder Than It Sounds

    The issues could cascade beyond the design. The auto manufacturing industry operates on strict production schedules. Though it builds in time to validate and test whatever new features come in each new model, the sudden intro of a design change late in the process could throw off the delicate timetable.

    In this decade, China’s auto industry has shocked the world by racing ahead of legacy automakers, quickly developing, with government support, ever newer, cheaper, and more technologically advanced vehicles on shorter production schedules. The country is the world’s largest automotive market; it’s expected to manufacture a full third of the world’s cars by 2030. Still, quickly complying with new design regulations won’t be easy for domestic Chinese automakers either, says Broglin-Peterson. “Mechncial release requires a mechanical assembly,” she says. “It’s not just, you write some code.”

    Automaker’s door handle trouble likely won’t end in China. The new rules could lead to cascading responses from other global regulators. It’s a now-familiar pattern: China, once a place with lax protections, has forged ahead of the rest of the world in setting guidelines for electric vehicle battery safety and recycling, and autonomous vehicle tech. “This is a classic example of China setting the guardrails early: protecting consumers while quietly shaping global design standards,” Bill Russo, the CEO of Automobility, a Shanghai-based advisory firm, wrote in an email.

    A Handle on Design

    For many years, says Raphael Zammit, the chair of the transportation design department at the College for Creative Studies in Detroit, flush electronic door handles were the stuff of futuristic concept cars. “The fact that Elon Musk and Tesla put it into production was, frankly, pretty amazing,” he says. Their rise was linked with the increasing popularity of electric vehicles; tucking door handles into the doors of cars was meant to reduce their drag coefficient, leading to increased battery efficiency. Or so the theory went: Back-of-the-envelope math suggests the tweak maybe adds a mile of range. Maybe. Either way, the handles became a “demarcation of luxury,” Zammit says.

    Indeed, electronic door handles can be found on many luxury vehicles, including some made by Volkswagen, General Motors, Ford, and Mercedes-Benz. Jake Fisher, the senior director of the Consumer Reports’ Auto Test Center, tested several of those vehicles’ electronic handles. While all had emergency mechanical releases, as the Chinese regulations mandate, some were in places that could be difficult to find in an emergency—on the floor, in shadow, or, as in the rear seats of the 2021 Model Y under investigation by NHTSA, under a slot at the bottom of the rear door pocket. The best emergency mechanical releases, Consumer Reports found, were those that simply needed to be pulled a bit harder than usual to open, an intuitive reaction in an emergency.

    Aarian Marshall

    Source link

  • McGraw Hill, Inc. (NYSE:MH) Receives Consensus Recommendation of “Moderate Buy” from Analysts

    Shares of McGraw Hill, Inc. (NYSE:MH – Get Free Report) have received an average recommendation of “Moderate Buy” from the fifteen analysts that are presently covering the stock, MarketBeat reports. Two research analysts have rated the stock with a hold recommendation, twelve have issued a buy recommendation and one has assigned a strong buy recommendation to the company. The average 1-year target price among brokers that have updated their coverage on the stock in the last year is $20.9667.

    Several research analysts recently commented on the stock. Robert W. Baird assumed coverage on shares of McGraw Hill in a research note on Monday, August 18th. They issued an “outperform” rating and a $21.00 target price on the stock. Rothschild & Co Redburn assumed coverage on shares of McGraw Hill in a research note on Monday, August 18th. They issued a “buy” rating and a $28.60 target price on the stock. BTIG Research assumed coverage on shares of McGraw Hill in a research note on Monday, August 18th. They issued a “buy” rating and a $19.00 target price on the stock. Stifel Nicolaus assumed coverage on shares of McGraw Hill in a report on Monday, August 18th. They issued a “buy” rating and a $19.00 price target on the stock. Finally, Morgan Stanley assumed coverage on shares of McGraw Hill in a report on Monday, August 18th. They issued an “overweight” rating and a $20.00 price target on the stock.

    Read Our Latest Analysis on McGraw Hill

    McGraw Hill Trading Down 2.6%

    Shares of NYSE MH opened at $12.14 on Tuesday. McGraw Hill has a 52 week low of $11.17 and a 52 week high of $17.25. The business has a fifty day moving average price of $13.86.

    McGraw Hill Company Profile

    (Get Free Report)

    At McGraw Hill, our purpose is to unlock the potential of each learner at every stage of life. Our mission is to support educators, learners and professionals around the world with trusted, high-quality content and digital solutions that use data and learning science to adapt to each student as they progress towards their goals.

    See Also

    Analyst Recommendations for McGraw Hill (NYSE:MH)



    Receive News & Ratings for McGraw Hill Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts’ ratings for McGraw Hill and related companies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE daily email newsletter.

    ABMN Staff

    Source link

  • Manufacturing Companies Are Helping Employees With Child Care. Should Your Company Join Them?

    Manufacturing Companies Are Helping Employees With Child Care. Should Your Company Join Them?

    Child care remains a constant concern for American workers, as costs soar and some companies insist on return-to-office mandates, backing away from some of the more childcare-friendly remote and hybrid working models that were adopted almost universally during the Covid pandemic. Now a new report says that, in response to changing child care demands from employees, some big manufacturers are directly investing in child care support for employees. It’s a shift that might prompt you to reconsider some of the workplace perks your company offers, in the hope of helping your staff and also attracting talented job applicants. 

    The report, at industry news site HRDive, includes a story about a human resources worker at Iowa-based agricultural equipment maker Sukup Manufacturing Co. struggling to juggle work, commuting and child care — because the care facility was 45 miles away from her workplace. Emily Schmitt, chief administrative officer and general counsel at Sukup told HRDive that the struggle eventually became too much for her and she left. Schmitt also said that at the time the company was “having issues of people not being able to stay employed in our Sheffield location because there wasn’t child care availability” nearby, or at all — the report says about 23 percent of state residents live in “child care deserts.”

    So Sukup formed an alliance with the local school district and bank, sought and won a matching grant from the state to complement the $1.25 million the group was injecting into creating a new child care center, and built their own facility, with space for 112 children.

    The report notes that this small manufacturer is just one example of a slow-developing trend, with major companies like Toyota and Intel in the lead. These big name manufacturers are said to be “expanding their partnerships with child care providers,” partly to boost workplace culture (working parents are likely to be less stressed if they know their children are being looked after nearby during the working day) and also to retain workers. The report quotes a study from the Manufacturing Institute where almost half the respondents said working hours flexibility (friendly to ever-changing childcare needs) was an “important” reason for them to remain with their particular employer.

    But it’s not just in the manufacturing industry that leaders are thinking about better support for working parents. In March this year, Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser landed her financial services company in the spotlight for good reasons: Fraser had made a deliberate choice to shun the industry’s RTO trend and instead retain some flexible working rules that had been in place during the pandemic. It wasn’t merely a phase, Fraser said, and it was instead a “new way of working.” Fraser also said that she was using the policy as a way of attracting working parents to her company — it offers Citi a “competitive advantage” in the job market, Fraser says, because it’s appealing to talented working mothers who may not be keen to return to work under rival banks’ stricter in-office working rules.

    In May an Associated Press report also noted numerous U.S. companies were offering on-site child care due to the “fraught” child care landscape.

    All of this may prompt savvy company leaders to ponder if they’re supporting their staff with children properly. Because there are numerous benefits to be had. In April last year, a report from Small Business Majority, a small business advocacy group in Washington D.C., found that 59 percent of small business owners said that barriers to child care access were impacting their business, blunting growth opportunities.

    A quarter of founders admitted they’d had to shut down their companies and return to working in more traditional employee roles because they couldn’t juggle child care and work. And in July an expert reported that some companies are seeing an effective return on investment of $4 for every $1 spent on supporting their working parent employees. 

    In a tumultuous working world, rocked by stresses like layoffs, ever-encroaching AI and other social and political upheavals, supporting your working parent staff may be a very sound business policy—those workers are stressed enough without having to worry about who’s looking after their kids.

    Kit Eaton

    Source link

  • Co-Manufacturing Helps Reshape the CPG Landscape

    For large consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies considering commercializing an innovation, the instinct is to look inward first. You have your own plants where you want to utilize capacity, long-standing supplier relationships, and decades of experience producing at scale.

    When a new product idea surfaces, it feels natural to route it through the existing system.

    While most CPG companies have built their facilities for efficiency and volume, they may not be as optimal for innovation and experimentation. And your network, while strong, is usually deep in certain categories and thin or nonexistent in others.

    You may know every large player in extrusion and co-extrusion, but no one who knows how to make a horizontal multi-layered product. That’s where co-manufacturing (co-man) searches come in.

    A co-man is a third-party partner that produces products on behalf of a brand—offering specialized expertise, flexible capacity, and speed that internal plants often can’t provide.

    They fill the gaps your network simply can’t solve.

    Why it matters to big CPGs

    Most global players already work with co-mans—but usually only the biggest ones built for massive runs. That creates a bottleneck. The pool of new viable partners is small, and those plants aren’t designed for the kind of flexibility or agility that innovation demands.

    That’s where smaller co-mans shine. They may never produce your national launch, but they’re the flexible, adaptable partners who help validate new ideas and opportunities. Their ability to handle small runs of unique and differentiated innovations gives R&D and innovation teams the space to test, optimize, and validate before scaling.

    Smaller co-mans also tend to be early adopters of new production technologies. They work with emerging brands to prove novel approaches, from packaging to processing. Once those methods are validated with an exciting, high-growth startup, the larger manufacturers begin to adopt them.

    By overlooking smaller partners, big CPGs risk missing out on the very innovations that could unlock future growth.

    The hidden challenges

    Hurdles for large companies with billion-dollar brands look different than for smaller emerging manufacturers. One of the most common pain points is volume. Big CPGs’ internal plants are designed for quality and efficiency at scale, which makes them poorly suited for micro-runs.

    Network limitations also create barriers. Big CPG supply chain teams know their category cold. They may have relationships that run deep in bars, baking, or breakfast food, but when the business wants to branch into a new space—say plant-based protein or functional drinks—those core embedded contacts may not have the right expertise.

    Building new networks from scratch takes time that innovation pipelines don’t have.

    Sourcing adds another layer of complexity. Specialty ingredients, unique packaging formats, or sustainable materials take time, money, and energy to find, especially without existing supplier ties. Even with strong procurement teams, big companies often discover that their infrastructure isn’t designed to move quickly in unfamiliar territory.

    Finally, there’s the inertia challenge. Large organizations have the budgets and people to pursue innovation, but carefully honed internal processes can slow the work. Layers of approvals, risk assessments, and capital planning designed to protect the organization can make it difficult to move at the pace that retailers and consumers expect.

    Smaller co-mans are built to flex into the spaces where internal systems aren’t optimal, while also providing agility and connections.

    How to approach the search

    When large CPGs look outside, three practices separate the successful partnerships from the costly detours:

    • Design an “innovation testing” criteria that smaller co-mans can meet—something that doesn’t require all the standards of a national launch. Keep it flexible and adaptable.
    • Think short-term experiments, not forever relationships. Smaller co-mans don’t want to work through 100-page legal contracts for a one-time run. The same goes for quality assurance needs. Scale back expectations to what’s truly required for them—and you—to be successful.
    • Pay for effort, not just throughput. Rethink the scaled production requirement of high volume and efficiency, and instead value the time and effort invested—regardless of total output.

    Just like your plants are built for scale, chances are your supply chain teams are also running at full capacity. Searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack co-man is often not the best use of their time.

    Final thoughts

    The largest CPG companies in the world have built systems that are the envy of the rest of the industry. Their scale, efficiency, and reach keep products on shelves across continents at higher margins.

    But those same systems aren’t optimized for everything.

    When it comes to testing new ideas, entering unfamiliar categories, or producing in small volumes, the machinery of big plants works against you.

    Co-man searches provide a release valve. They give innovation teams options when the corporate engine has too much forward momentum in core categories to explore a quick pivot. They connect companies to specialized expertise, flexible capacity, and networks that don’t exist inside the organization. And they turn test-market ambitions into something real, fast.

    In a market that rewards speed and precision, the companies that thrive are the ones that know how to supplement their strengths. They don’t rely on infrastructure alone. They look outward, find the right partners, and use those relationships to keep their pipelines moving and their edge sharp.

    Jonathan Tofel

    Source link

  • Inside Intel’s Hail Mary to Reclaim Chip Dominance

    Everyone who enters the fabs has to wear a bunny suit, and get dressed—or be dressed—in a clean room. Makeup, hair products, perfumes, colognes, and any aerosol products are prohibited. Workers are separated by a metallurgical hierarchy: There are those who work with copper, and those who do not. The copper people wear orange suits, not white, and have to suit up and strip down in their own clean room.

    The Intel fab worker who helped me suit up proudly told me that he has done the same for two US presidents: Obama, who visited Fab 42, and Biden, who visited Fab 52 while it was under construction. As of late September, Trump still hadn’t visited, though Intel spokesperson Cory Pforzheimer said, “We’d eagerly welcome President Trump to see the most advanced R&D and leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing in the US.”

    The workers shuffling around are not pulling levers and grinding away at the gears of manufacturing as much as quietly managing robots. They stand at (sterilized) computer stations while containers called front-opening unified pods, or FOUPs, whoosh by overhead through a labyrinth of robotic tracks. The rows of equipment appear endless. The floor below has been reinforced, then reinforced again, because the tiniest of shakes can ruin a whole batch of chips.

    The lithography section of the facility is awash in a strange glow, which turned our white suits neon green and the copper-suited people pink. Intel demanded that the fab tourists not share the names of its suppliers, with the exception of one: ASML, the Dutch manufacturer of the world’s most cutting-edge lithography machines. WIRED witnessed two massive ASML Twinscan machines that appeared to be operational. The floor next to them was tape-marked with space for two more.

    Intel has not yet publicly said how many semiconductors it expects to successfully yield, or manufacture, at Fab 52 annually. For now, the chips produced there will be used in consumer devices like laptops. But what Intel really needs is the same thing the entire industry is chasing: A hyperscaler customer, a giant data center deal, someone looking to spend billions to get an edge in AI. A whale.

    Design Overhaul

    Intel’s Panther Lake and Clearwater Forest chips will be made using a manufacturing process that tosses aside decades of proven design techniques in favor of two new technologies the company calls RibbonFET and PowerVia. RibbonFet is an architecture for transistors, stacking them in a way that allows for more density, while PowerVia moves the power interconnects from above the silicon stacks in the chip to below them.

    Intel began working on the new design approach in 2021, and early tests have shown that RibbonFet and PowerVia led to performance gains. Reports suggest these new chips also use 30 percent less energy than the prior generation.

    Lauren Goode

    Source link