Analysis of issue questions

The protection of the worlds energy resources for future generations is a critical issue of
nowadays. Theres a clear consensus that international leadership and worldwide
cooperation are essential to achieve long-term goals in terms of energy preservation. This
essay will discuss that it is this approach to this critical issue, rather than individual
nations efforts and sacrifices, what can lead to a better future.
Nations throughout the world should focus on cooperation rather than individual action.
Cooperation is clearly necessary, because in todays globalized world, equal play rules
are required for every nation. Assuming that this play rules are not clearly settled, a
nation will pass laws and sacrifice short term growth for the sake of preserving energy
resources. But in doing so, this nation will be exposed to a great disadvantage against
other nations that dont play along, risking its short term economic health.
After all, energy resources are the main required supply for economic growth, so the
issue of protecting these resources, quickly becomes an issue of setting equal ground
rules for growth in nations worldwide.
An example of why an international leadership is required comes from the exponential
growth that some rapid-developing-economies are witnessing, such as China, Russia and
Brazil. These countries economies are rapidly growing fueled mostly by the
indiscriminate use of the worlds resources in the short term, placing in danger the future
of others nations future generations in the process. Furthermore, as their economies
grow, these countries are able to buy more energy non-renewable resources such as fuel
or uranium, that trade worldwide as commodities, increasing the rate of depletion for this
resources.
All in all, energy resources are required for growth and every nation wants to keep
growing. Since the resources that fuel growth are limited in the world, international rules
must be settled so that every nation creates the proper balance between growth and
preservation of the future. If this cannot be achieved, short-term minded nations might
overpower long-term minded (Individual nations that independently make the sacrifices
necessary to conserve energy) nations, placing in danger the future of mankind.

Analysis of an arguement
The argument in the business memo issued by the Apogee Company wrongfully assumes
that prior centralization of the companies operations was the main driver for its
profitability. In the following, evidence will be presented to argue in favor of
descentralization possing examples of succesfull companies that achieved not only
cutting costs and profitability but also the basis for massive growth and global presence.
Centralization does not necessarily drive cost reduction and better supervision. There are
at least two strong reasons that, opposite to the statement in Apogees memo, justifies the
descentralization of operations: closeness to the consumer markets and taking advantage
of sources of global advantage, such as low cost countries.
First, a strong trend in companies operations over the last decade has led companies to
establish companies as close as they can to their main consumer market. This does not
only enables the companies to reduce logistic costs, but also helps them to keep closer to
the consumer, being able to reduce lead times and provide better service. Ternium, a
renowned latin-american plane sheet steel producer had one of its main operations
outside of Buenos Aires, its main consumer market. But recently the have established
semi-finished processing facilities, strategically placed closer to the consumer market,
descentralizing their main operation while reducing lead times and logistics costs.
Second, another trend has characterized the descentralization of operations in recent
years, in seek of global advantage. By moving part of their operations to low-cost
countries, such as India and China, renowned multinational companies, such as P&G,
Reebook and Shell have achieved large cost reductions. For example, Shell performs all
of its accounting operations in India, while P&G has moved a large share of its factories
in Europe to China.
In conclusion, descentralization is a business practice that has proven its value. It is
therefore necessary that Apogee reviews the cirmcunstances (omitted in the memo) under
which they had more profitability than today when they were centralized. It is possible
that Apogee have mistankingly selected the proper location for its descentralized
facilities, placing them in high-cost countries. Moreover, nothing is mentioned in the
memo regarding the competitive situation before and after the descentralization. It is
possible that leveraging low-cost countries, competitors have been able to lower their
prices, waging a price war that might have worsen Apogees profitability. Whichever of
these reasons, a more thorough analysis of locations is required, specially since recent
trends point towards a different direction than the one Apogee is about to take.