There's a lot of reading in it, for sure, and to be honest from some of the synopses I've read I'm not sure I like what I see.
For example, Paragraph 57 reads "In order not to produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way, if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in practice."
This statement does not acknowledge that no electorate has ever been asked whether they wish their government to pursue a globalist economic policy, the Global North having had globalisation imposed upon them by elites, the South by a World Bank and an IMF in thrall to The Washington Consensus; and accordingly it does not and indeed cannot address the fundamental question of whether globalisation, whatever it actually is, can be considered to be legitimate.
Globalisation is a policy, not a process, a statement I'll probably die with on my lips. Subsidiarity is well and good; but addressing why subsidiarity is now required when we have never been asked whether we agree with this policy would have been better.
Of course, these and other issues may be addressed in the rest of the encyclical. We'll see.