Did you know that 60% of the U.S. supply of IV fluids were manufactured by one company in North Carolina? I certainly did not until Hurricane Helene shut down that factory for the foreseeable future and then threw the healthcare system into a bit of a crisis. While some hospitals, like the one my husband works at, have sent out notifications to employees that they have enough IV fluids to continue as normal for a little bit more time, there are hospitals that have already canceled elective surgeries because of the shortage.Â
While we don’t know what is to come with this IV shortage, one clear lesson is how very fragile our supply chain system is. Apparently one giant storm can affect the entire U.S. healthcare system because the marketplace has yet to think about climate resilience when it comes to manufacturing.Â
We already saw the fragility of the global supply chain during the COVID-19 pandemic. We even saw a similar crisis with the shortage of baby formula supplies in 2022 due to a bacterial contamination of the baby formula supply from one of the major manufacturers in the U.S. UC Davis found that 80% of families had to switch baby formulas during this period of time which can cause adverse effects for babies.
But examples like the IV fluid shortage make me wonder how much manufacturers have learned. Did we not learn anything from the pandemic era? Were they not thinking about climate change? Or does it just take a long time to make these changes?
I imagine the answers are probably yes, yes, and yes. I feel like corporations are like capitalism writ-large where they do what they can to get through one crisis and once that’s done, go back to business as usual. And maybe some are trying to make changes, but moving manufacturing is, for sure, not a quick and easy thing to do. At what point, though, do manufacturers think and act seriously on climate resilience? While of course they should be doing this for the greater good, wouldn’t they also be doing their businesses a disservice by not thinking long-term?
Listen, I believe capitalism along with colonialism are at the root of the climate crisis, so I’m not apt to think that preserving capitalist interests such as manufacturing is going to lead to solutions. However, if we can do things like preserve the IV fluid supply or make sure that a bacterial contamination doesn’t affect the majority of baby formula in the U.S., we’d at least lessen the blow and maintain some semblance of controlled transition in places that might not be directly experiencing a disaster at a certain moment.Â
As such, I’m surprised I don’t hear much about corporate climate resilience. Admittedly, the most I’ve done is conducted a few Google searches trying to find specific examples of companies that are taking action such as, you know, having more than just one location that supplies critical products like IV fluid. What I found, though, were consulting companies that work with companies to make these changes. So it seems something is happening.Â
I’m curious if any of you might have come across examples of private sector corporations actively building resilience into their business models outside of donating to nonprofits. I’d love to hear more. In fact, I’d just like to see more of it in the news. I just want some examples that show that we aren’t going to run out of all the critical supplies with another inevitable disaster.
I think you're conflating the interests of manufacturers and consumers? It's clearly in the interest of the hospitals to diversify their supply chains, but it's not clear to me that manufacturers (or their investors) are at the point where prioritizing resiliency over efficiency (in the capitalist concept of efficiency) makes economic sense. The fact that capitalism necessitates a certain form of efficiency to remain competitive/expand, and that form of efficiency inherently involves eliminating the redundancy, unoptimized system components, and "waste" that provide resilience, is probably a bigger problem than you think. And the actual capitalists who own the company have diversified their investments and glorify risk, so having one manufacturer fail in a crisis isn't a problem for them—obviously as a class they actually profited from the pandemic. Having each of the companies they're invested in become less profitable/competitive in their daily practices because they're investing in climate resiliency would be a problem though. So it isn't just about corporate executives not having learned lessons, it's about them existing in a system where they'll get fired if they opt for resiliency.
And the people responsible for purchasing/supply chain at the hospital do exist under the same pressures to cut costs vs diversifying the supply chain, and hospital admin is about profit not ensuring the hospital can function in a crisis, so while I think it's probably easier to fix on that side, the problem of efficiency does cascade through the chain.