As it redevelops its Boston campus, Gillette launches big expansion in Andover
About 200 people work in Andover now, at the company's roughly 600,000-square-foot complex on the 150-acre property off Interstate 93; the Andover workforce will more than double once Gillette moves its manufacturing out of Boston. The corporate, design, and engineering functions will remain in South Boston, though. The transition to Andover is expected to begin in the next year or two, though it will take a decade or more to redevelop the South Boston campus. (A spokeswoman says P&G is not looking for state or local subsidies for the Andover project.)
Gary Coombe, chief executive of P&G's grooming division, said the Andover project proves that the company is investing not just in its blades and razor business but in the future of US manufacturing and in the future of Greater Boston.
Advertisement
For Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll, the Andover expansion shows the importance of ensuring Massachusetts remains competitive for advanced manufacturing. With the 250th anniversary of the battles against the British troops in Lexington and Concord getting celebrated in both towns this week, Driscoll made sure to drop a few Revolution references in her speech, along with a joking apology to Coombe, for going to war against his home country. (Coombe is a U.K. native.)
Advertisement
'We want to make sure that revolutionary spirit that guided us 250 years ago continues,' Driscoll said. 'Guess what? It will, on this site.'
Senator Barry Finegold of Andover also joked with Coombe, thanking him for making his favorite razor.
'I've got to take a point of personal privilege, as we say: I want to personally thank you,' the clean-shaven Finegold said. 'I'm a Fusion5 guy. Every morning, I get the blades, and also the shaving cream. So thank you for keeping me clean for all these years. I appreciate that.'
This is an installment of our weekly Bold Types column about the movers and shakers on Boston's business scene.
Jon Chesto can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Shop to close for six weeks for major refurbishment
A Totton convenience store is to close for six weeks for a refurbishment before reopening with a new hot food range, fresh new look and layout, and extended opening hours. The Co-op store in Salisbury Road is to undergo a major programme of works and improvements following its closure on Friday (June 6) at 5pm. Its 14 members of staff will welcome customers back into the store in mid-July with opening hours extended to 6am to 10pm daily. READ MORE: Son of Michelin star chef opens another restaurant in Southampton The store will also benefit from an increased back-of-shop area, enhancing availability and choice to further improve the shopping experience for customers. Colin Haywood, Co-op's Area Operation Manager, said: "The whole team is delighted to invest in Co-op's Salisbury Road store. It will have a fresh and more spacious new-look and feel, and a range of added services including parcel collections, online home delivery and, payment services. "Improvements back of shop will also enhance availability, range and choice. We pride ourselves on being able to deliver the quality and value which can be enjoyed by everyone, and we look forward to welcoming our members and customers back into their local Co-op following the works. "We're here to contribute to local life and conveniently serve and support the community.' Salisbury Road Co-op includes an in-store bakery and a focus on fresh, healthy and chilled produce, alongside food-to-go and meal deals; Fairtrade products, pizzas, flowers; ready meals, award winning wines and every day essentials. Soft plastic recycling is available, enabling shoppers to return and recycle materials such as crisp packets and bread bags, lids from ready meals, biscuit wrappers and, pet food pouches. Convenient parcel collection and returns are offered in partnership with DPD. An ATM provides access to cash in the community, and payment services are available via PayPoint. The store is also a fulfilment hub for Co-op's leading quick commerce operation. Products are picked fresh in the store and delivered locally in as little as 60 minutes. Member price savings create additional value for Co-op's member-owners, with personalised offers for members and lower prices on the products shoppers buy most. Supporting UK farmers, all of Co-op's fresh meat – including in its ready meals, pies and sandwiches - is 100 per cent British.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Woman Whose Husband and Son Died in 'Titan' Sub Implosion Speaks Out: ‘I Will Never Be the Same'
Christine Dawood lost her husband, Shahzada Dawood, 48, and her son, Suleman, 19, in the Titan submersible implosion Now, she's speaking out in a new documentary, Implosion: The Titan Sub Disaster Later this year, the U.S. Coast Guard is expected to release its final report detailing the results of the investigationOn June 18, 2023, the Titan submersible imploded during a dive to visit the Titanic wreckage, killing all five passengers inside. Christine Dawood lost her husband, Shahzada Dawood, 48, and her son, Suleman, 19, in an instant. Christine is now speaking out in a new documentary, Implosion: The Titan Sub Disaster, as the second anniversary of the tragedy approaches. Later this year, the U.S. Coast Guard is expected to release its final report detailing the results of the investigation. But Dawood said nothing can return her loved ones. 'They're never going to come back. Their voices are still in the house, their memories are in the house,' Dawood said in the documentary, which was released on May 28. 'No matter what the investigation is, the rooms are still empty.' In addition to the Dawoods, the disaster also claimed the lives of Oceangate CEO Stockton Rush, British billionaire Hamish Harding, and French diver and Titanic expert Paul-Henri Nargeolet. In late June 2023, investigators recovered Titan wreckage debris from the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. Dawood told the BBC she was initially supposed to go on the excursion with her husband, but allowed her son to go in her place, 'because he really wanted to go.' She and her daughter Alina, then 17, were on a support vessel when it lost the ability to communicate with the Titan, per the BBC. Reflecting on the fatal excursion, she's struck by the attitude of those responsible for executing the trip. 'This arrogance of the people in charge – when they think they're above everything, that really gets to me,' Dawood said. 'Like why is ego and arrogance more important than safety? The irony is not lost on me that the Titanic sunk for exactly the same reason. History repeats itself.' Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. In the aftermath, Dawood said she's been reshaped by the loss of her husband and son. 'I think I will never be the same. I don't think that anybody who goes through loss and such a trauma can ever be the same,' she said. Dawood added that one particular message from officials comforted her in the wake of the tragedy. 'One of the most important things that came out for me was when the Coast Guard also assured us as a family that we couldn't have known. For me that was – yeah, I guess the most important reassurance they could have given me,' she said. Now, she's hoping to move on knowing that no results from the investigation will change her new reality. Dawood suggested that the person responsible for the deadly tragedy can no longer be held accountable, seemingly alluding to CEO Stockton Rush without naming him. 'We're not looking for blaming,' Dawood said. 'We all know who the culprit is. [But] it's not changing anything, does it? The culprit died with them, right? So who am I to blame?' Read the original article on People
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Face the reality Trump: Negotiating with the likes of Putin is essentially making a deal with the devil
There's realpolitik. And then there's reality TV politik. There's foreign policy realism, of the kind associated with Henry Kissinger. And then there's Donald Trump's twist: real estate-ism. Anyone trying to assess the foreign policy of this White House needs to appreciate these distinctions. The various individuals responsible for national security in the Trump administration are united in their rejection of both the liberal idealism that informed the speeches (if not the actions) of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and the neoconservative version of idealism that inspired George W. Bush's Global War on Terror. Yet there is much more to Trump 2.0 than the hard-nosed realism of Richard Nixon — a key influence on Trump. No previous president has livestreamed his Oval Office meetings with foreign leaders. That week in February when Trump hosted — and, to varying degrees, humiliated — the French president, the British prime minister, and the Ukrainian president introduced to great-power politics the unmistakable style of 'The Apprentice,' the TV show that made Trump a household name. As Trump acknowledged, his and Vice President JD Vance's shouting match with Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian leader, was 'great television.' Real-estate politics At the same time, the negotiations that he and his golfing friend Steve Witkoff are conducting in both Eastern Europe and the Middle East draw on an earlier chapter in Trump's career. As Witkoff explained to The Atlantic, he and Trump see diplomacy as functionally indistinguishable from doing real-estate deals. 'Diplomacy is negotiation,' Witkoff told Isaac Stanley-Becker. 'I've been doing it my whole life.' It is not difficult to ridicule the way Trump and Witkoff have approached the task of ending Russia's war against Ukraine, a task Trump insisted on the campaign trail that he could achieve within 24 hours. Witkoff's sycophantic interactions with President Vladimir Putin, a cold-blooded practitioner of realpolitik, have been painful to watch. His account of these interactions in an interview with Tucker Carlson was risible. The fact that the war has significantly escalated since Trump's peace initiative began — with Russian airstrikes reaching new peaks and Ukraine countering Sunday with an audacious drone attack on Russian strategic bomber bases — speaks for itself. 4 President Donald Trump meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 Summit in Hamburg, July 7, 2017. AP Yes, Trump inherited a truly terrible strategic position from Joe Biden and his foreign policy team, who substituted 'de-escalation' for deterrence and watched as America's enemies inflicted harm on its friends in Afghanistan, Ukraine, and Israel. A formidable Axis of Authoritarians emerged under the Biden presidency, uniting China, Iran, and North Korea in support of Russia's war. Even if the Original Sin of Biden's mental decline and its concealment did not impact foreign policy as much as domestic policy, he certainly was not equal to the task that confronted him. As Walter Russell Mead has rightly said: 'In 2023 and 2024 America needed a president who could explain . . . what we needed to do to stop the drift toward a new era of international confrontation. This is something Mr. Biden would have struggled with even if he were in full possession of his capacities; it was utterly beyond him in his diminished state.' Yet the failures of the recent past do not absolve us from asking if reality TV plus real estate adds up to a strategy. Liberals on both sides of the Atlantic lament that Trump is an imperialist who wants to carve up the world between the United States, Russia, and China. But it is hard to detect a coherent imperial project in the combination of territorial claims (on Canada, Greenland, and Panama), tariffs imposed as much on allies as on adversaries, and peace initiatives in Eastern Europe and the Middle East that are sometimes hard to distinguish from business deals. Distrust of top brass Trump is sometimes called an isolationist. I have never found this convincing. But I think it is true that, compared with almost every other president in the past century, he is deeply reluctant to use military force. This is partly out of a genuine horror of getting embroiled in one of those 'forever wars' that have haunted Americans from Vietnam to Afghanistan. But it is also because Trump learned in his first term not to trust the top brass of the US armed forces. He will never forgive Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for his communications with his Chinese counterpart in the run-up to the 2020 election and his condemnation of the subsequent Jan. 6 invasion of the Capitol. The odd thing is that Trump's preference for peace over war does not truly reflect the sentiment of the electorate. Gallup polling shows that Americans today are quite strongly hostile to China and Russia (more so than to Iran or North Korea). According to a March 2025 poll, 46% of voters think the United States is not doing enough to help Ukraine in its war with Russia, up from 30% in December. While Democrats have soured on Israel, as a new Chicago Council survey reveals, around three-quarters of Republicans favor US military support for Israel not only 'until the hostages are returned' but also 'until Hamas is dismantled or destroyed.' And more than two-fifths (42%) of Republicans said last year that, in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan, they would support 'using the US Navy to break a Chinese blockade of Taiwan, even if this might trigger a direct conflict between the United States and China.' 4 In this photo provided by Ukraine's 127th Separate Brigade of the Territorial Defense press service, soldiers fire toward Russian army positions near Kharkiv, Ukraine, on Monday, June 2, 2025. AP A reluctant prez On all these issues, Trump is much less belligerent than his own base. He is strongly disinclined to continue US aid to Ukraine. He is so keen to resuscitate the Iran nuclear deal that he now seems willing to allow Iran to carry on with low-level uranium enrichment. And we know from John Bolton's memoir, 'The Room Where It Happened,' that Trump would be very reluctant indeed to risk a war with China over Taiwan. This pacifism is one of the things that Trump's liberal critics seem unable to acknowledge. The notion that he is an imperialist or even a fascist flies in the face of the evidence that the man is a peacenik at heart. Put it this way: Fantasizing about wearing papal vestments is not the usual behavior of a bellicose autocrat. But making peace is historically harder than launching wars — or, for that matter, buying skyscrapers. Trump is learning this the painful way in both the Middle East and Eastern Europe. What kind of 'peace' does he envision in Ukraine? First, Ukraine will relinquish its claim to Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, along with all or most of Luhansk and Donetsk. Second, Ukraine will renounce the possibility of membership in NATO. Third, in place of a US military guarantee, Washington and Kyiv have signed an agreement that commits the United States to invest in Ukrainian natural resources. This might seem like a very sweet deal from Moscow's vantage point. It has certainly required major concessions by President Zelensky. And yet we seem no nearer to a cease-fire, much less a lasting peace, than we were on Inauguration Day more than four months ago. The reason is clear: Putin shows no sign of modifying his demands not only for territory but also to limit Ukraine's ability to arm and govern itself. Russia's goal is not just land; it is to render Ukraine defunct as an independent state. 4 President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky listen to Vice President JD Vance as they meet in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, February 28, 2025. AFP via Getty Images Despite his strong preference to blame Zelensky for the war and to woo Putin with the carrot of sanctions relief (and deals, deals, deals), Trump is being forced to admit that Putin is, in fact, the principal obstacle to peace. 'I've always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia,' the president declared on Truth Social on May 25, 'but something has happened to him. He has gone absolutely CRAZY!' Unfortunately, the Russians must have read in the Financial Times about the TACO ('Trump Always Chickens Out') trade. The Russian response to Trump's threats was sarcastic. 'Trump's message leaves little room for misinterpretation,' Russian state media tweeted last Tuesday. 'Until he posts the opposite tomorrow morning.' When both FT and RT are laughing at you, something is wrong with your dealpolitik. South Korea or Vietnam The lesson of history is entirely clear: Wars are hard to stop — unless one side wins a decisive victory. With sustained Western support, Ukraine has a shot at being a version of South Korea. If America settles for an unsustainable peace, it will share the grim fate of South Vietnam. Neither outcome gets done quickly. It has often been argued that backing Ukraine was an extraordinary bargain for the United States. For a commitment of roughly $175 billion in assistance and Ukraine-related spending since the war began, Hal Brands has argued, the United States cleaned out stocks of aging weaponry, stimulated US production of 155 mm artillery shells, gave contracts worth $120 billion to US companies, and helped the Ukrainians kill around 200,000 Russian soldiers and destroy thousands of Russian tanks. Brands is right that, if the US had not acted when Putin invaded and the Ukrainians fought back, then eventually 'Ukraine would have fallen, allowing Moscow to create pervasive insecurity in Europe. Russia and China . . . would have had all the global momentum.' But the Biden administration at no point had a credible endgame. They failed to grasp that the longer the war dragged on, the more likely Russia was to grind down Ukraine — unless the West could somehow increase its military and financial support. Yet that was never politically plausible. On the contrary, it was predictable from the outset that Americans and Europeans would become 'fatigued' by the war — or perhaps just bored — if it dragged on for much more than a year. 4 Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a meeting of board of trustees of Talent and Success foundation at the Sirius Park of Science and Art after his phone talks with President Donald Trump on Monday, May 19, 2025. AP No incentive to stop The Trump solution seemed simple: End the war. But the reality is that unless the US and EU apply serious pressure to Russia, Putin has no incentive to end the war. Up until this point, the much-vaunted sanctions imposed on Russia by the West since February 2022 have been a case study in the limits of economic coercion. Russia has made more from selling energy to Europe in the last three years than Ukraine has received in aid from the EU. At the same time, European countries continue to export large quantities of goods to Russia via third countries, most of them in Central Asia. Four steps could be taken immediately to toughen the sanctions regime — and incentivize Putin to end the war. First, the US could follow Europe's lead in expanding sanctions on Russia's tanker fleet and the companies that provide services to these tankers. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Second, the US could impose tighter restrictions on Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. Third, the US could place additional large Russian firms on the Specially Designated Nationals blacklist, as the Biden administration did with Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas in January. (An obvious target could be Gazprom, though the European states that continue to buy Russian gas would strongly oppose such a move.) Fourth, the Trump administration could make good on its threats to impose 'secondary tariffs' on Russian oil imported by other countries. That could easily form part of the current US trade talks with India. David vs. Goliath These and other measures would inflict pain on a Russian war economy that is already showing clear signs of overextension. I hope the Trump administration is seriously considering at least some of these steps. But I see little sign that it is. Diplomacy turns out to be quite different from reality TV and real estate. The best diplomacy is conducted secretly, not on live TV. And when a national security strategy goes awry, bankruptcy is not an option. There is no Chapter 11 for a failed foreign policy. The fall of Kyiv is not an event anyone in Washington — or in Brussels — wants to contemplate. Those sympathetic to Ukraine want to believe that, with a combination of Western aid and Ukrainian ingenuity, David can get the better of Goliath. Those — not least Trump — who would rather do deals with Goliath want to believe that, with a little help from Steve Witkoff, Goliath can be persuaded to shake hands with David and call it quits. Neither of these views is realistic. If anything, the Trump view is the less realistic of the two. I could be wrong. Perhaps the administration will surprise me by belatedly applying serious economic pressure to Russia. But if Ukraine ultimately goes the way of South Vietnam, I doubt future historians will be flattering. Reprinted with permission from The Free Press.
