Preview 50% of the Answer Below
Answer Preview
1. Walmart’s company strategies and supporting activities
Walmart is a major multinational American retail chain and supermarket which, at the time of the case, was planning a rapid phase of expansion by creating strategies to expand domestically and internationally, consisting of new store formats, new store franchises and new product ranges.
Walmart’s company strategy is to dominate the retail market, expand domestically in North America and into international markets, create positive brand recognition, and to expand into new sectors of retail. Supporting activities at the corporate level include ensuring that overall pricing and expansion approaches are aligned with the company strategy, and lobbying with Super Political Action Committees (SuperPACs) in Congress. Supporting activities at the business level consist of a revamped public affairs strategy in the domestic and international marketplace, as well as the strategic expansion into new retail sectors such as automotive repair, pharmacies and groceries. Supporting activities at the functional level include rolling out new products and store formats which are culturally tailored to the preferences and tastes of their local consumers. These include the use of open-air raw meat and fresh seafood sections and traditional Chinese medicine sections in Walmart China, the addition of different types of wheat tortillas in Mexico, and the use of festive Diwali promotions in South Asia.
Walmart’s corporate level actions are connected to its business level actions because the corporate level actions create an XXXXXXXXXXX for business level actions XX XXXXXXX. XXXX XXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXX in the following XXXX. For example, Walmart’s XXXX for greater internationalization gives middle level XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX the mandate to pursue XXXXXXX specific XXXXXXXX, XXX allows XXXXXXX XX pursue XXXXXXX mergers and acquisitions XX XXXXXX effectively. Walmart’s lobbying and XXX of XXXXXXXXX XX the corporate level, XX create a XXXX business XXXXXXXX regulatory XXXXXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXXXXX am XXXXXXXXXXX XXX Walmart’s XXXXXXXX operations XX XXXXXX.
X. XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX of XXX XXXX: XXXXXX and application
The stakeholder XXXXXX XX XXX XXXX proposes that a XXXX’s XXXX XXXX are XX XXX internal and XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX, such XX its XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX personnel, government, shareholders, customers, clients, XXXXXXXXX and creditors. This XXXXXX stands in XXXXX XXXXXXXX to the XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX of XXX firm, which suggests that a XXXXXXX’s XXXXX XXXX XX owed to XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX (XX. the XXXXXXXXX who XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XX the company), and XXXX XXX chief XXX XXXXXX XX to XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX shareholder wealth.
X ready-XX-XXX breakfast XXXXXX XXXX’s main internal stakeholders are XXXXXXXXXXXX that exist XXXXXX XXX organisational structure XX the firm. These XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX cereal XXXX’s XXXXXXXXX, managers XXX XXXXXXXXXX personnel. XXX XXXXXXXXX cereal XXXX’s XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX comprise XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX outside of the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX of XXX firm. These XXXXXXX the government, XXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, suppliers, debtors and creditors. In XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX’s case, these could include XXX Department XX XXXXXX XXX Human XXXXXXXX (which XXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XX XXX cereal products), families with XXXXX XXXXXXXX (XXX frequently XXXXXXX such products), XXX wheat suppliers.
As the CEO XX a XXXXX-XX-XXX XXXXXXXXX cereal XXXXXXX such XX General XXXXX, I XXXXX XXXXXX whether to continue with XXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXX sweetener or seek alternative costly replacements by XXXXXXXXXX the impact and response XX my XXXXXXXXXXXX XX continuing to XXX XXXX sweetener. The response XX each of the XXXXX stakeholders is XX XXXXXXX: internal XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX be XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX the financial performance, reputation XXX XXXXXXXXX culture of the XXXXXXX, which may XX negatively affected by the continued use XX XXX XXXXXXXXX. XX terms of XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX, the XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX prefer the XXX be XXXXXXXXXXXX in order to XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX health, while XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXX certainly XXXXXX a switch XX a healthier option. Shareholders, XXXXXXX and suppliers would XXXX XXXXXXXX be concerned about XXX reputational XXXXXXXX from XXX continued use XX the sweetener. XXXXX, it XXXXX be wise, XXXXX XXX impact on XXXXXXXXXXXX, XX seek alternative and XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX.
XXXXXXX Five XXXXXX XXXXX
Porter’s XXXX Forces XXXXX allows businesses XX XXXXXXX the competitive XXXXXXXXX of an industry XXXXX on the XXXXX of XXXXXXXXX, the XXXXX of buyers, substitutes, barriers to XXXXX, XXX price XXXXXXX. Porter’s XXXX Forces XXXXX XXX been XXXXXXX XX a variety of XXXXXXXXXX to XXXXXXX XXX competition level XX an industry, and determine XXXXXXX an XXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXX an unsustainable level XX XXXXXXXXXXX, or whether a XXX entrant has a XXXXXX XX succeed XXXX XXX competitive XXXXXXXXXXX of XXX industry.
XXX overall XXXXXXXXXX for the strength of XXXX of Porter’s Five Forces XX as follows. Power of XXXXXXXXX is XXX, power of buyers is moderate, XXXXXXXXXXX XXX high, XXXXXXXX XX entry is high, and XXXXX rivalry XX high. XX XXX whole, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXX soda XXXXXX dominated XX Coca XXXX XXX XXXXX XX a XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX market XXXXXXXX XXX entry by XXX XXXXXXXX.
For XXXX-Cola and Pepsi, the power of suppliers XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX as XXX XXX companies XXX easily XXXXXXXXX XXXXX production to XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX in XXX XXXXXX XXXXX, such XX Vietnam or China, if its XXXXXXX production XXXX in XXX North Americas XXXXX. Furthermore, given XXXX Coca-XXXX and Pepsi have strong XXXXXX XXXXXX chains, XXX XXXXXXX of XXX XXXXXXXX to XXXXXXX XXXXX can be XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXX another supplier elsewhere. The power of XXXXXX in this XXXXXXXX is XXXX not XXXXXX, given XXXX XXXX-Cola and XXXXX have a XXXXXXX monopoly (or duopoly) on XXX soft-drinks XXXXXX, and XXX dominant XXXXXX in this segment. However, consumers are XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX and will switch out their drink XXXXXXX XX prices XXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXX. In terms XX XXXXXXXXXXX, the soft-drinks XXXXXX is XXXXXXXXX with substitutes, XX XXX XXXX-XXXX and XXXXX XXXXXX XXX XXX only easily replicable by XXXXX label XXXXXX, but also face XXXXXXXXXXX from XXXXX types XX XXXXXX drinks XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX drinks. XXXXXXXX XX entry XXX XXXX Cola and XXXXX are XXXX, XXXXX XXXX highly sophisticated supply chains XXX required XX maintain the XXXXXXX XX scale needed XX XXXXXX off such XXX profit margin items. XXXXXXX, XXXXX rivalry in XXXX industry is high, XXXXX that XXXX XXX Pepsi are XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXX engage in XXXXX wars XX XXXXXXX their prices XXXX low. XXXX is also a XXX margin item XXXX XXXX substitutability, so price XXXXXXX is also XXXXXX XX.
Internal Analysis: XXXXXX list what resources and capabilities XXXXXXX XX VRIO XXX XXX XXXX XX XXX-mart2005?(20 XXXXXX)
XXX VRIO analysis XX a XXXXXXX XXX evaluating XXX worth XX a XXXXXXX’s XXXXXXXXX, XXXXX XX how XXXXX XXX expensive a XXXXXXXX is, how XXXX or limited it tends to be, how XXXXXXXXXXX it is XX imitate XXX XXXXXXXX, XXX whether XXX resource is XXXXXXXXX XXX adequately XXXX by the organization. XXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Walmart’s reputation, value XXXXXXXXXXX , XXXXXX-to-XXXXXXXXXXXX deals, XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX, network XX XXXXXX, workforce, XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX culture of XXXXXXXX service.
XXXXXXXX, Walmart’s XXXXXXXXXX is valuable, XXXX, inimitable and organisationally XXXXXXXXX. Walmart’s XXXXXXXXXX for XXXX quality, XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XX XXX lowest prices is XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXX retail XXXXXXXX. Walmart’s reputation XX difficult to replicate XXXXXXXXXXX, XXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX XX XXXXX XX in a XXX that cannot be easily imitated by a XXX entrant.
Secondly, XXXXXXX’s XXXXX proposition XX high XXXXXXX, brand name XXXXXXXX at the XXXXXX price XX valuable, common, XXXXXXXX XXX organisationally XXXXXXXXX. XXXXX an XXXXXXXXX XXXXX proposition, XX sense XXXX this XXXXX proposition is XXX altogether unique.
XXXX, Walmart’s XXXXXX-to-manufacturer deals, XXXXXX website, culture XX customer service and sophisticated XXXXXX XXXXXX chain is XXXXXXXX, rare, inimitable XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX in a way that few of XXXXX competitors, such as Lidl, Audi, Carrefour XXX XXXXXX are able to do.
XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX’s stores and workforce XXX XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXX, imitable and organisationally XXXXXXXXX. Typically, XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX of XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XX land XXX XXXXX are not XX XXXXXXXX XX reputation XXX supply chain in the retail XXXXXXXX. This is XXXXXXX Walmart’s XXXXX-XXX-mortar XXXXXX XXX XXX-skilled XXXXXXXXX XXX be easily XXXXXXXXXX.
Coca XXXX’s value chain consists XX its research XXX development, commodity procurement, XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX, distribution, XXXXXXXXX, XXXXX, XXXXXXXX XXX resource XXXXXXXX. XXXX Cola’s XXXXXXXX and development, marketing, XXX XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, as XXXX XXX XXXXXX value XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX of XXX XXXXX of XXX supply XXXXX XX captured. Coca Cola’s commodity procurement (XXXX as the sourcing of its XXXXXXXXXXX and XXX materials), XXXXXXXXXX, packaging, distribution, XXXXX XXX resource XXXXXXXX (XXXX as XXX recycling XXXXXXXXXXX) XXX outsourced. XXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX for a number of reasons. XXXXXXXX, the outsourced XXXXXXXXXX can be XXXX XXXX affordably than at XXXX XXXX’s XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX in the United States. XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXX also closer to captive XXXX XXXXXXX, which XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX.
XXXXX XXXXXXXX:XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX - Value Chain and Economic Value Creation(10 XXXXXX)
XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX , or XXXXXXXX value add, XX a XXXXXXX XX the company’s fiscal XXXXXXXXXXX based on deducting XXX XXXX of capital XXXX XXX operating or XXXXXXXX XXXXXX.
Economic XXXXX Creation = Economic Value Add = XXXXX of XXXXXXX - costs = Product XXXXX - raw XXXXXXXX price - manufacturing XXXX - XXXXXXXXX cost - XXXXXXXXXXXX cost - sales and marketing XXXX - XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX - production XXXXXXXX rent - XXXXXXXX XXX = 20 - XX - 1 - X - 1 - X - X - X - X = 0
References
Yoffie, David B., XXX Barbara Mack."Wal-Mart, XXXX."Harvard XXXXXXXX School Case XXX-460, January XXXX. (Revised April 2005.)
">