Comments for http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/evandavis/2010/01/davos_for_beginners.html http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/evandavis/2010/01/davos_for_beginners.html en-gb 30 Mon 22 Dec 2014 14:32:47 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/evandavis/2010/01/davos_for_beginners.html mesmerizing commenter http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/evandavis/2010/01/davos_for_beginners.html?page=66#comment2 The Bottom Line and PR:Interesting programme. The thing you didnt cover that seems to have hit Toyota and Mclaran (the childs buggy manufacturer) is the strange idea company PR firms have that they can manage the PR impact in one country without touching another.When they recall all buggies in the USA and not the same ones in the UK what does that say out the company. Its clear, its says that the company only recalls at the last possible legal moment, and its the legal aspect that worries them not safety. It says that they worry about being sued in the USA so do something about it, but not so worried in the UK so leave the dangerous product out there.At least toyota (after a measured but rather too long investigation and suggesting at one point it was only US cars being recalled when they must have known different) recalled in every country. They didnt ultimately leave the public to form the impression that they care more about being sued (in the USA) than customer safety. You also have to question why a company like toyota having identified an accelerator unit fault started by saying RAV4 2005 on was at risk in the UK then took it completely off the list. You would think their tracking would be better than that.Though most organisations get a paralysis of say nothing in a crisis due to the huge impact of saying something, nobody wants to stick their neck out until everybody realises its inevitable. The more people you need in the decision (larger companies but in particular japanese style concensus management) the poorer the response is going to be. Sun 14 Feb 2010 16:08:01 GMT+1 farmideas http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/evandavis/2010/01/davos_for_beginners.html?page=33#comment1 The world food situation is inching up the agenda, and I notice a growing enthusiasm for GM technology. And why not, if it increases food supply. Two major GM issues, however, remain unanswered. What is the business model of the major player - the mind-set of its directors? We've seen the results of ambition and excess in the financial world - is it not conceivable the same might happen to the world of food supply? GM provides a handful of companies the opportunity to control the supply of seed across the world, turning over the millenia old system of keeping some of this year's crop to plant next year. The second is risk assessment. Are we happy to rely on the companies to largely regulate themselves in the vital business of food supply? Okay, GM cuts spray costs and increases production for farmers today - but are there longer term consequences that companies would rather not think about too hard?? Is there not an argument for greater multi-national controls, as in weaponry and other major global issues?www.farmideas.co.uk 01994 240978 Wed 10 Feb 2010 12:47:43 GMT+1 Tim Coldwell http://wwwsearch.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/evandavis/2010/01/davos_for_beginners.html?page=0#comment0 Excerpt from Felix Salmon's blog on Reuters.Is anybody here seriously examining the idea that Davos was institutionally responsible, at least in part, for the economic and financial catastrophe which befell the world in 2008? I’ll be on the lookout for that over the next few days. But I suspect that the preening potentates will be far too busy giving themselves the job of rebuilding the world to stop and ask where they went wrong in building the last one, and whether they might actually owe the rest of us a large collective apology.Felix Salmon, Reuters http://reuters.com/felixFellow cynic? http://twitter.com/felixsalmon Wed 27 Jan 2010 10:26:42 GMT+1