INTRODUCTION
Perhaps, every organization wants to initiate a management system and strategy that could maintain the organization’s capability, strength and competitiveness. It is important that the organization is always open for changes that it might encounter in order to cope and adapt to the latest development that are happening within and outside their environment. The possibility to bestow a competitive advantage is not intrinsic in all resources (Wernerfelt 1989), yet, to a certain extent, in simply those that satisfy a thorough collection of situations (Barney 1991; Peteraf 1993). Meanwhile, the volatility of the economy today precipitated two recurring issues: the intense competition between inter-company market war and the unstable financial market. For most companies, the decision is simple: to participate in a merger and acquisition process. This pursuit proves to be one of the potent solutions in keeping a company in a competitive shape.
Markets are shifting, today's competitor is tomorrow's collaborator, and products and services are developed and sold in time. Managers and even the entire management are now spending too much time in forecasting, analyzing, and measuring strategies for a fuzzy guess at what would be the enough strategy to apply. Among the commonly used business strategy to improve the competitive advantage as well as the survival of an organization is merger and takeover. Due to the highly competitive atmosphere of globalization and skillful maneuvering of corporations to remain ahead or just stay afloat in the fierce battle in the economic market, mergers have become a trend that has been happening all over the world as seen on news, business reports and business magazines. Instead of locking into a too small structure of strategy approach, companies now compete on the edge to create a constant flow of large strategic direction through the said means. For instance, many companies such as Unilever, Kellogg, and Sara Lee considered merging as solution in the widening competition in the food and beverage industry (Market Research 2000).
THE CONCEPT OF MERGERS AND TAKEOVERS
Merger and takeover is the process that happens when a company with greater resources acquires the rights and properties of another company in an effort to save the latter from further financial handicap (Baxter 2002). Also, it is considered as the consolidation of two organizations into a single organization, while acquisition means the purchase of one organization from another where the buyer or acquirer maintains control. It is said that both partners pursue a “strategic fit” or the similarity between organizational strategies or complementary organizational strategies setting the stage for potential strategic synergy. More often than not, merger is closely associated with acquisition.
Merger and acquisition is considered a strategic action of firms to obtain several advantages from integration of activities and resources. Such could promote cost-efficiencies and even give the newly-formed firm value-adding capabilities (synergies) that would not be attained individually. It is a formal strategic agreement between two business organizations to pursue a set of private and common interests through the sharing of resources in contexts involving uncertainty over outcomes (Arino et al. 2001).
Historically, Jensen (1993, p. 842) proposed that most merger activity since the mid-1970s has been caused by technological and supply shocks, which resulted in excess productive capacity in many industries. He argued that mergers are the principal way of removing this excess capacity, as faulty internal governance mechanisms prevent firms from shrinking themselves. Merger, as a corporate strategy of companies, can be examined in two aspects: the financial considerations and the profitability and gains of the company in merging, and the employment issues it generates, specifically, the existing employees of the company before the merger. According to Singh (1999), worldwide mergers have increased by five folds from 1994-1998 and have fully gained their momentum by 1999. Reports from the International Labour Review (2001) states that mergers and acquisitions (M&As) is a global phenomenon with an estimated 4,000 deals according to the taking place every year. It is an accepted strategic option in a competitively aggressive post-industrial economy. The new wave of M&A activity concerns some of the acquiring companies and their financial intermediaries (Harvey, Lusch and Price 1998). Holtzman (1994) noted that a merger happens when two firms combine their practices in order that each gains a new area of expertise. The end result is a broader range of services and talents for the combined firm's clients. Their primary concerns are legal and financial - how much a company is worth, what terms to negotiate, how to structure the transaction, and how to get regulators to go along with it. Balance sheets are scrutinized, projections of demand and capacity are studied, and cost-cutting requirements are at the forefront of consideration. Most of the analysis concerns valuation and the financial contours of the deal. Also, Urban and Vendimini (1992) stated that alliances involve co-operative agreements between enterprises in which the parties co-operate on an equal footing. Such collaboration requires a pooling of human, technological, productive, informational, or financial resources leading to a mutual commitment. Yoshino and Rangan (1995) also stated that a strategic alliance through mergers is providing a “trading partnership that enhances the effectiveness of the competitive strategies of the participating firms by providing a mutually beneficial trade in technology, skills and/ or products”.
This trend according to Singh (1999) is attributed to synergy – greater productivity and efficiency gained by the companies through combined operations. It is like two competing companies joining forces to become bigger and more powerful companies and probably, to dominate the present market. Though Singh (1999) added that corporate merger has its downside since it creates monopoly among the consolidating firms. This leads to reduced competitions and the eventual demise of weaker and smaller corporations.
The M&A strategy are largely believed to be an advantageous strategic option for organizations (McEntire and Bentley 1996). Basically the motive of mergers is to achieve a global presence, growth, diversification, and achieving economies of scale (Cartwright and Cooper 1993; Marks and Mirvis 1992). Conversely, it is unfortunate that there is no clear evidence supporting the value of strategic fit in mergers (Chatterje et al. 1992). Furthermore, research shows that there is a relatively high risk in merger and acquisition as between 55-70 per cent of mergers and acquisitions fail to meet the anticipated purpose (Carleton, 1997).
THE CASE
A. Morrison
Morrison Supermarkets is one the biggest chain of supermarkets located in the United Kingdom. As of November 2005, Morrison owns 363 superstores in England, including those it has acquired following its acquisition of Safeway. Until 2004, Morrison superstores were commonly located in the north of England, but had started its expansion towards the south. Most Morrison stores function from large superstore formats selling a wide variety of goods including the major groceries.
Morrison is a supermarket chain that rules in the superstore market industry in England. Its strategy is based on performing the fundamentals to perfection, selling food at very cheap prices, and doing so only from large stores. The format of most Morrison superstores is termed as Market Street. The general theme is based on an ancient 20th century street setting (www.morrison.co.uk)
B. Safeway
Safeway used to be a chain of 479 supermarkets and convenience stores in England but has now been taken over by Morrison Supermarkets. After experiencing some financially handicapped years in the late 1990s it recovered through a strategy of store refurbishments. In 2002 it had the fourth biggest supermarket sales in England. However after observations that it cannot compete anymore with other big English supermarkets, several takeover rumors arose during the same year (www.morrison.co.uk).
C. The Bidding Companies
On January 9, 2003, Morrison Supermarkets, at that time owning 119 branches, made a bid to buy Safeway. This convinced other big name companies to make offers. J Sainsbury plc, ASDA / Wal-Mart, KKR, Track dean Investments Limited and Tesco all made offers to purchase Safeway.
D. Safeway Takeover
On 8 March 2004 Morrison Supermarkets won the bidding and the takeover was accomplished. Morrison went on to change the name of the Safeway supermarkets to its own name and the convenience stores were renamed as "Safeway Compact". Morrison had accomplished its goal of the takeover, purchasing the entire Safeway, and selling off other branches that were not fit with Morrison’s theme (www.orrison.ko.uk).
BENEFITS
Practically, the combining efforts of two companies were expected to reap many benefits. In this case, merger and takeover includes several benefits particularly in addressing common yet challenging issues on the business operations. Some of these benefits include the importance the said process in terms of competition, financial management, innovation, and other related factors.
The recent burst of takeover activity has been viewed as a distinctly new wave that is driven by strategic, synergistic factors. Merger and takeover is an effective solution and way to combat the widening competition any specific business or industry (Market Research 2000). The merger boosts any company by providing the needs to attain tremendous growth and positioned its products and services as dominating forces in the particular area of operation. It is all in cost-saving expectations that create important expenditure and selling synergies. According to Beckenstein, (1979, p. 118) there are reasons for mergers including different kinds of efficiency improvement such as replacement of inefficient management product, financial, and tax synergies. Other possible reasons are gain of monopoly power, valuation discrepancies caused by information asymmetry as well as a number of agency motives such as growth maximization, free cash flow, and employment risk reduction. Accordingly, most companies executing acquisitions have done a reasonably good job sizing up the economic and financial characteristics of the takeover. More specifically, merger allow newly merged companies to enter new product and geographical markets this will show acquiring the sources of revenue, as well as new customers; it will also acquire new technologies in support of the prior objective; will reduce costs through economies of scale and scope; increase in the operational efficiency; avoid becoming a target for acquisition or unwelcome merger; and will extend local exchange carriers or embrace for long distance carriers the temporary economic power of major regional or national local exchange carriers to finance expansion.
Similarly, merger and takeover permits the sharing of sale warehousing, distributing, and other logistical services. It reinforces ongoing sales and profit growth rates, thus, maximizing the resources of both companies involved. Strategic alliances like M&A has helped pressure some firms to link with others. It has also meant many new players looking for ways to follow their customers. Further, it helps to mitigate external environmental uncertainties and potentially avert price wars (Pasternack and Viscio 1998, p. 21). The degree of strategic alliances may range from a simple licensing agreement, to joint marketing effort, to establishing consortium, to combining resources for joint ventures, to the ultimate form of mergers and acquisitions. Companies may be interested in alliances to capitalize on different expertise, build strategic synergies, mitigate risks, speed up a venture with combined resources, and develop scope economies (Chan-Olmsted 1998, p. 38). Mergers or acquisition enables the surviving entity to combine assets and activities, substantially lower costs, and become a strong competitor; increase scale economies, and spread the cost of R&D over volume; and integration of physical assets is vital in achieving the economic objectives of the combination (Freidheim 1998, p. 29). Additionally, M&A redefine corporate boundaries, corporate growth, capabilities, and consolidation.
Meanwhile, Parkhe (1991) said that in order to keep up with the rapidly changing technologies; gain access to specific foreign markets and distribution channels; create new products; and ease problems of worldwide excess productivity capacity, strategic alliances are being used with increasing frequency. In this case, the main motivation behind merger or acquisition activity implemented by Morrison is to improve the profitability of the company by acquiring another company's products, markets, customer base, manufacturing efficiencies, assets, and R&D facilities, or by simply eliminating some of the competition. The hope is that the combination of the firms will improve the operating efficiency and profitability of the companies involved. Another factor that can be considered why Morrison uses merger and acquisition is to be able to establish a competitive position or advantage in the market environment. Through mergers and acquisition, the company may expand its business portfolio to be offered to a vast number of consumers.
In merging two companies, there are many consequences that should be looked upon to. It is up to the companies if the merging will create a new response from the market. They’ll be the one to make their new company a success of a failure. There are so many ways for two companies to merge, and one of which is takeover. Takeover of one company to another is one business gets ownership without cooperation from the other (Anonymous 2005). Often the corporation that continues to function makes an outright purchase of the property and stock of the others; exchange of bonds, options, and other agreements are also employed by the corporations involved (Anonymous 2005).
Other benefits of M&A are establishment of a niche because of the expansion of products offered and increased productivity and profitability through increase output with unchanged fixed costs, yielding higher profit. Merging offers the above advantages and additional ones, such as succession planning, which is a way to secure retirement through new ownership; reduced work level - a way to share responsibility among more people; and security of a larger organization. Through this, Morrison can be able to cope with larger competitors. According to Morrison and Floyd (2000), it can be easily said that corporate takeover is a means of survival for companies. They continued that in this new environment, ownership matters, and managerial control stems from equity position rather than relational ties. Rhodes (2002) affirmed that M&A will immediately impact the company with changes in ownership, in ideology, and eventually in practice. In order to have a more successful expansion, the company should provide some marketing strategy for the company in which Safeway has been able to consider. Hence, one of the strengths of this merger is the diversification strategy imposed by Morrison right after the merger has been done.
Furthermore, there are three criteria of core competencies which can also be considered as the strength of the merger. These core competencies include superior customer value, business similar in way related to core competency and difficult to imitate or find substitutes for. It seems that the creation of Morrison through merger has achieved to a certain extend the above criteria in a way that it did provide something different. Corporations can also achieve synergy by sharing tangible and value-creating activities across their business units. The merger between Morrison and Safeway has already created satisfactory result by corporate restructuring and portfolio management. In particular, result of the merger ranges in finance, human resource, project management, and procurement. The company estimates that this effort saved significant amount of corporate financial resources.
In addition, one of the strengths of the merger is its ability to strengthen the competitiveness of the merged company. Strategic alliances through mergers present an especially attractive avenue for the financial industry since the multinationals will be able to integrate different communications segments quickly, capture a developed customer base, consolidate smaller niches, remove a rival and prevent competition from doing so, and accelerate the implementation of new technologies with combined resources. Merger became the dominant methods of consolidation and the primary objective was to control assets (assets during those days were the newly invented machinery and equipment, and plants and productive capacity since the economic driver was scale and efficiency of production), and the best way to control assets was to own them (Freidheim 1998). Merger can create or enhance strategic assets as well as distinctive capabilities. Furthermore, Kay (1993) stated that merging with other businesses can sustain exclusivity, or maintain the value of a competitive advantage, if they inhibit entry.
For an organization to be in a situation to make use of an important and rare resource, there have got to be a resource position obstruction averting replication by other companies (Wernerfelt 1989). But in the case of merger and takeover, there is a potent increase of company resources. Resources are believed to be important when they allow an organization to conjure up of or put into practice strategies that perk up the organization's competence or efficiency (Barney 1991). Chai (2004) stated that the deal is beneficial because not only is there a lower cost base, but also stapled securities provide a better alignment of management and investor objectives with no conflict of interests from related third parties. In addition, benefits also include reduced borrowings and lower taxes. Additionally, resources have to have the features of exceptionality. A number of authors interpret importance in the context of satisfying a key consumer requirement (Aaker 1989; Coyne 1985). If important resources are owned by a great number of competitors or possible competitors, they no longer correspond to a source of competitive advantage. This is the key subject of heterogeneity fundamental to the resource-based view. In this context, organizations owning exceptional and inimitable collections of capacities and resources can accomplish a sustainable competitive advantage.
Merger and takeover increases the feasibility of innovation. Innovation is the introduction of new ideas, goods, services, and practices which are mainly intended to be useful (Edquist 1997). Economic planners now advertise innovation as the route to technological fixes to the crises of capitalism and it is a central element of many policies to increase competitiveness at corporate and national levels. Innovation in business is achieved in many ways, with much attention having been given to formal research and development. But innovations may be developed by less formal on-the-job modifications of practice, through exchange and combination of professional experience and by many other routes. The more radical and revolutionary innovations tend to stem from R&D, while more incremental innovations may emerge from practice - but there are many exceptions to each of these trends (Lundvall 1985). Similarly, merger and takeover increases the core competencies of companies. Core competence were defined by Prahalad and Hamel (1990) as the collective learning in the organization, especially how to coordinate diverse production skills and integrate multiple streams of technologies. Interactions between innovation of knowledge, marketing and management are increasingly being recognized as essential elements in the evolution of economic order and the emergence of new social structures (Kogut 2003). The management is no longer serving the singular role of producing products; this role is complemented by other critical functions.
CHALLENGES
Mergers and acquisitions pose several problems in terms of the organizational structure, the financial arrangements and human resources particularly, the emotional and psychological adjustments among the employees before and after a merger. The above discussion provides the advantages or strengths of merger. However, these strategies also have its weaknesses or disadvantages.
A merger can sufficiently transform the structures, cultures, and employment prospects of one or both of the firms such that they cause organizational members to feel stressed, angry, disoriented, frustrated, confused, and even frightened. For the individuals involved, these feelings can lead to a sense of loss, psychosomatic difficulties, and marital as well as personal discord. Yet, what is often overlooked is that M/A’s not only disrupt the lives of individuals but inevitably destabilize the organizations involved as well.
Inter-firm consolidations often precipitate lowered employee commitment and productivity, increased dissatisfaction, high turnover, leadership and power struggles, and a general rise in dysfunctional behaviours such as sabotage. In addition, another disadvantage that merger and acquisition may bring within the company is the tendency for the company to not give enough focus to its products because of many products that it offers in the market. In this manner, the company may not have that assurance of sustaining the competitiveness of other products.
Another weakness can be attributed to the cultural context. The consequences of culture become particularly apparent in cross national operations, mergers, and acquisitions, where not only different organizational cultures but also organizational cultures rooted in different national cultures meet (Very, Lubatkin & Calori 1996; Schneider and DeMeyer 1991). When organizational members from diverse cultures interact and, especially, when one culture is required to adopt the methods and practices of the other culture, disruptive tensions emerge. These have been described in terms of the concepts of “acculturative stress” or “culture clash” (Very, et. al. 1996). The conflicts mostly result from the introduction of new management methods that are incongruent with the values underlying existing practices (Wilkins and Ouchi 1983; Schwartz and Davis 1981). An organization’s culture determines the ability of out-group members to perform within the organization. According to Wall (2000) national differences can magnify the cultural differences inherent in any acquisition, heighten employee resistance, and make the integration even more difficult. Hence, the risk of failure of a merger is even greater than with a domestic acquisition. With several factors demanding consideration of a newly merged company, the work force with different work ethics and priorities in dealing with their jobs will lead to a disaster.
Singh (1999) asserted that mergers are not necessarily job cutters. He suggested that it does not necessarily follow that when companies merge, the result shall be lay off of employees. Though, this assumption had been prevalent among employees. Downsizing arises from the need of the consolidating firms to reduce costs by streamlining their workforce of redundant positions, departments or even entire factories. Mass lay off however, had been proven in some of the world's biggest mergers in history. A paper published by the Center for Research on Globalization and Labor Markets in the UK claimed that the impact of merger on employment in terms of job cuts depends on the merger type being considered. If the type of merger is a hostile one such as those in the cases of job loss cited earlier – wherein which the market for corporate control operates so as to redirect assets into the hands of more diligent or talented managers--cost economics and labor savings may realistically follow (Gonyon et al. 2000).
More often than not, the newly merged or acquired business entities don't really have an easy time adjusting to the changes brought about by the acquisition or take-over. As a result, these entities engage in activities that are somehow resisting to changes. Therefore, the major activities of the company such as the manufacturing of products, product development, production and distribution become severely hampered (Banks 2001). A typical personnel problem that occurs during mergers involves the difficulty in getting people in the acquired company to work comfortably with new management.
Usually, the organization is encouraged on settling on change management due to external influences, usually termed as the environment (Nickols 2004). Thus, M&A result to resistance to change (McNamara 1999) People are afraid of the unknown. The situation that normally happens among the workforce and management of newly merged companies or organizations. Hardy and Clegg (1996) believe that as organizations grew larger, skills become increasingly fragmented and specialized and positions become more functionally differentiated. Organizational change is part of and a result of struggles between contradictory forces, also change management practice is related with endeavoring to manage their competing demands. To understand why and how to change organizations, it is necessary to identify with their structures, management and behaviour. It can be said that organizational change is one of the critical determinants in organizational success and failure (Appelbaum et al. 1998). Of course, resistance is inevitable in any planned organizational change. That is why the proponents of the change should have the capability to make all the members of the organization understand the benefits of the new organizational strategy. Their leadership potential is expected to be tested from the initial planning until the execution and monitoring of the strategy. Research and critical analysis of the situation that the organization is in should be examined to reduce and if possible avoid errors. The drawbacks of the plan should be given justice by clearly explaining that such drawbacks could be avoided and made into opportunities worthy of examination from which the group may take advantage for the organization to benefit.
However, change management deals with all operations done within companies and organizations. Activities such as the management of purchases, the control of inventories, logistics and evaluations are often the focus of change management. A great deal of emphasis lies on the efficiency and effectiveness of processes. Therefore, change management includes the analysis and management of internal processes. Change management can be defined as the efficient and effective implementation of the policies and tasks necessary after takeover or merging of one or more companies or organizations. Change management focuses on the careful management of the processes involved in the gradual adjustment of the “new” management and its workforce (Chase 1998).
People are adaptive to change; however, certain skills must be present from the initiators of change so as to successfully implement their project. Thus, managers need to have the necessary abilities not only on detecting what needs to be changed but also how to introduce the change effectively. There are approaches that are more focused on what is needed to be changed, still others emphasize on how change can be accomplished. According to Kotter and Schlesinger (cited in Stoner, 1995) there are several methods in dealing resistance to organizational change. These may include participation and involvement approach, which normally asks members of organization to help design the change. This is use when the initiators do not have all the sets of information they need to design the change and that others have considerable power to resist. The advantage lies on people who participate will be committed to implementing change, and any relevant information they have will be integrated into the change plan. But its disadvantage is that it can be very time-consuming if participators design an inappropriate change.
In merging companies, another challenge is evident in the financial management aspect. The challenge now for the financial mangers is to explore the options and take advantage of the opportunities while taking caution in managing the risks. Financial management is the determination, acquisition, allocation and utilization of financial resources with the aim of achieving a particular goal (Macmenamin 1999). It consist of analyzing the financial situations, making financial decisions, setting financial objectives, formulating financial plans and providing a system of effective financial control to ensure the progress of the plans towards the attainment of the company aims and objectives. The organization, in order to effectively execute any business strategy or plan, should be able to determine first and identify the resources that are available. Studying and examining the opportunities of the available resources will help in constructing a business plan which will be profitable. The characteristics of the business should be clearly laid out and the ideas that will be made available should be thoroughly researched. This will provide relevant information that the general management can utilize so as to be able to allocate the funds of the group in the most effective way. All the changes that will be made aim to achieve the goals and objectives of the business organization or company. That is why it is highly important that the firm knows the direction it intends to take. Making a financial decision and taking a stand to support the possibility of exploring the strength and advantages of a particular resource of the organization will be handy if the financial personnel is decisive and practical enough with a daring character to challenge and the social and economic conditions in the organization.
CONCLUSION
Nowadays, the trend is for businesses to enter the world market in which larger target market is available and growth is assured given that the general management has the capacity to launch such plan and come up with strategic business procedures and tactics in dealing and transacting with other business individuals. Big business industries compete painstakingly with other brands in order to increase the value of the products or service they offer to the prospect consumers and clients by challenging the strong brands and joining in the international competition that will generate high margins and substantial cash flows. All this will be possible if the product manufacturer or the service provider has the capacity to grow the volume and market share of the product or service, its presentation and packaging and the market routes and distribution through inventive and creative innovation.
Strategic planning could be only successful if the circumstances of the investment that will be made are well examined and researched. This will prepare the whole business in the problems and issues that the company may confront during the execution of the project or plan. However, this does not assure that there will be no problems that will exist and confront the business venture. The above discussion provides the advantages and disadvantages of merger and acquisitions.
The current global trends are driving the need for change with the critical purpose of gaining competitive advantage. Proactive management and leaders think change by recognizing that "change" challenges people to adapt and grow, or be swept away aside as complacent and obsolete. To compete in the world today, companies must strive to be different and must expand their knowledge base, sharpen skills, and finally, manage time and resources more efficiently. In merger and takeover, change is not something to fear or resist, it is the essence of business operation itself. By embracing and promoting positive change, companies learn more about their capabilities. With merger and takeover, companies are given the chance and power to turn today's pain into tomorrow's gains.
APPENDICES
I. SWOT ANALYSIS
STRENGHTS
- Morrisons highly considered the company’s focus to its niche market emphasizing the values of quality and economical purchasing behavior.
- Sales promotion is the core competence of Morrisons.
- Morrisons offers promotional solutions, which are as innovative and creative.
- People working in Morrisons are result oriented.
- Morrison maintains a culture of transparency.
- People are generalist and have in-depth knowledge of sales promotion.
- People are brand-literate.
- Morrison gives emphasis on staff development.
- It has a flat organizational structure.
WEAKNESSES
- The operational discipline is bureaucratic.
- Human resources conflicts and inadequate reward system are evident.
OPPORTUNITIES
- Various global business trends (e.g. competition and varying consumer demands) require Morrisons to be as creative and innovative in marketing clients’ products.
- Availability of high-value added products, which are less likely subject to competitive bidding.
- Companies continuously seeking to develop new products, which are required to be marketing.
- It would also be beneficial for the company to find new ways to differentiate their products that have value to the customer.
- Morrisons is able to competitively stay in business catering specifically to low-budgeted sector of the population.
- Integrated marketing communications must emphasize agility and speed in the delivery of service.
- The combined aspects of Morrisons and Safeway have created a new segment of growth for the target industry.
THREATS
- The risk in management conflict is high and probable.
- There is perceived resistance to change.
- The hazard on consumer spending has strengthened considerably.
- Acquisition and merger to other industries will likely result in productivity.
II. PEST ANALYSIS
POLITICAL
- Morrisons compliance to legal and regulatory policies is blatant. The company’s management adheres to the requirements specified by State authorities.
- There is a need to review the existing company policies in order to meet the demands of the competitive business environment.
ECONOMIC
- The possibility of the occurrence global recessions brought about by companies closing down and the loss of jobs may have a direct impact on Morrisons strategy.
- Also, the company’s acquisition of Safeway will affect the financial conditions. Thus, there is a need for increase financial management strategies.
- Production levels are diversified taking particular attention to the competitive products and services.
- This store format provides for affordable and immediate food supply needs of purchasers emphasizing the wide variety of products and services (http://www.morrisons.co.uk/42.asp).
SOCIAL
- The Morrisons stores do not only offer the services described in the supermarket section of the establishments. They also provide for the grocery needs of the customers supported by their It system and store personnel and staff.
- The store provides for shoppers with disabilities by offering significant welfare special customer services through allotted parking spaces, wide automatic doors and wide revolving doors, trolleys, wheelchairs, toilets, cutlery and crockery for customers who have difficulty gripping, induction loops, checkout services, and customer seating provisions (http://www.morrisons.co.uk/42.asp).
- The Morrisons outlets operate under the corporate logos of “More reasons to shop at Morrisons” and “the very best for less” as each store provide large range of special offers targeting the lower end of the mainstream supermarket population through products and services value and quality.
- Morrisons “The Best” offers meals which are freshly processed, “Eat Smart” offers calorie, fat, sugar, and salt controlled products, “Bettabuy” offers economical products, “Organic” are composed of products that are grown and harvested without the use of fertilizers and other synthetic pesticides and insecticides, “Free From” are branded products that cater to customers with dietary requirements and allergies, “At Home” composes furniture and home accessories collection while “First Home” assists purchasers with less expensive and economical home collections, and finally, “Complexions” offers beauty and fashion products to Morrisons consumers (http://www.morrisons.co.uk/42.asp). Again, the company made it a point to be consistent with its slogan in quality products and services offerings through economic considerations of that the customers adhere to who belong to the lower end of the consumer population.
- As industry leader, Morrisons management trend moves toward more reliable delivery services across their customers for efficient product and service distribution.
- Using strategic retailing plans and packages, through special offers like freebies and affordable price lists in its products and services, Morrisons is able to competitively stay in business catering specifically to low-budgeted sector of the population.
- The retailing systems of the company allow different people in the lower end market population to choose freely from the stores wide range of products without the need to spend too much of their resources.
TECHNOLOGICAL
- The company operates through in-house plant for food processing to serve its promise of high quality and increased value of its products and services. Efficient deliveries of supplies and effective demand forecasts of products and services needs which the company accounts for make it possible for effective business operations in every locale it serves.
- Cost-effective and time-efficient routing and product placements, deliveries, stocking and warehousing have been the keys to the company’s achievements as one of the most competitive firms in the UK retail industry. The company’s high consideration to their products and services’ perishability and tangibility, trends in demands and strategic supplier contracts made it possible for the business organization to continue its operation and initiate expansion plans to other locales.
- There is a need Morrisons business strategy to be aligned to any revolutionary technological changes impacting the retail industry.
- Morrisons environmental commitment is clear through its sustainable development strategy.
III. STOCK MARKET INFORMATION (Adapted from Yahoo! Finance (UK-Ireland)
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Wm Morrison Supermarkets: quality and variety before anything else. The Wm Morrison Supermarkets Group specializes in supermarket distribution, offering only quality products and increasing diversity. Food products, music and video, beauty and health, you can get anything there. And most sites have gas stations. It has eight departments/products in all: Market Street sells a whole range of fresh products: Fish Monger sells fish, directly from fishing ports. Oven Fresh offers a range of fresh ready-made dishes and Fresh Pizzas a wide variety of take-out pizzas. Salads and Sandwiches is a sort of self-service, for an off-the-cuff lunch. Then there is Family Butcher for meats, savory and sweet tarts from The Pie Shop and cakes, breads and Danish pastries from Family Bake. A quality offer increased even more, following the purchase of its colleague Safeway, owner of more than 500 supermarkets in Great-Britain. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| EXECUTIVE TEAM |
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
| SHAREHOLDERS |
|
|
|
|
| KEY FIGURES |
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| EARNINGS PER SHARE |
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||
| SALES PER ACTIVITY |
|
|
|
| ||||
| SALES PER GEOGRAPHIC AREA |
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
| ||||||||
REFERENCE
Aaker, DA 1989, ‘Managing Assets and Skills: A Key to Sustainable Competitive Advantage’, California Management Review, vol. 31, no. 1; pp. 91-106.
Anonymous 2005, Merger. Retrieved November 17, 2006, from http://amosweb.com
Appelbaum, SH, St. Pierre, N & Glavas, W 1998, ‘Strategic organizational change: the role of leadership, learning, motivation and productivity’, Management Decision, vol. 36, no. 5; pp. 289–301.
Arino A, de la Torre, J & Ring, PS 2001, ‘Relational quality: managing trust in corporate alliances’, California Management Review, vol. 44, no. 1; pp. 109-131.
Banks, E 2001, E-Finance: The Electronic Revolution, John Wiley & Sons, London.
Barney, JB 1991, ‘Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage’, Journal of Management, vol. 17, no. 1’; pp. 99-120.
Baxter, WF 2002, ‘Bank Interchange of Transactional Paper: Legal and Economic Perspectives’, Journal of Law & Economics, vol. 24 (October); pp. 541-88.
Beckenstein, AR 1979, ‘Merger Activity and Merger Theories: An Empirical Investigation’, Antitrust Bulletin, vol. 24; pp. 105-128.
Carleton, RJ 1997, ‘Cultural due diligence’, Training, vol. 34; pp. 67-80.
Cartwright, S & Cooper, CL 1993, ‘The roleof culture compatibility in successful organization’, The Academy of Management Executive, vol. 7, no. 2; pp. 57-69.
Chai, D 2004, Changes in the Listed Property Trust Sector, State Street Global Advisor, State Street Corporation, Australia.
Chan-Olmsted, SM 1998, ‘Mergers, acquisitions, and convergence: The strategic alliances of broadcasting, cable television, and telephone services’, Journal of Media Economics, vol. 11; pp. 33-46.
Chase, R 1998, Production and Operations Management, Manufacturing and Services, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., USA.
Chatterje, S, Lubatkin, MH, Schweiger, DM & Weber, Y 1992, ‘Cultural differences and shareholder value in related mergers: linking equity and human capital’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 13; pp. 319-34.
Coyne, K 1985, ‘Sustainable Competitive Advantage: What It Is, What It Isn't’, Business Horizons, vol. 29, no. 1; pp. 54-61.
Edquist, C 1985, Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, Pinter, London.
Freidheim, C 1998, The Trillion-Dollar Enterprise: How the Alliance Revolution Will Transform Global Business, Perseus Books, Reading, MA.
Gonyon, M, Girma, S, Thompson, S, & Wright, P 2000, The Impact of Mergers, in Wall, SJ 2000, The Morning After: Making Corporate Mergers Work after the Deal is Sealed, Perseus Books, Reading, MA.
Hardy, C & Clegg S 1996, Handbook of organization studies, Sage, London.
Harvey, M, Lusch, R & Price, M 1998, ‘Beyond traditional due diligence for mergers an acquisitions in the 21st century’, Review of Business, vol. 19.
Holtzman, E 1994, ‘There is No Such Thing as a Perfect Merger or Acquisition’, The CPA Journal, vol. 64, no. 12; p. 78.
Jensen, M 1993, ‘The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and Control Systems’,
Journal of Finance, July, pp. 831-880.
Kay, JA 1993, Foundations of Corporate Success: How Business Strategies Add Value, Oxford University, Oxford, England.
Kogut, B 2003, ‘The Globalizing Learning Economy’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48.
Lundvall, BA 1985, Product Innovation and User-Producer Interaction, Aalborg University Press, Aalborg, Denmark.
Market Research no date. Retrieved November 17, 2006, from www.marketresearch.com
Marks, ML & Mirvis, PH 1992, ‘Rebuilding after the merger: dealing with survivor sickness’, Organizational Dynamics, vol. 21, no. 2; pp. 18-35.
McEntire, MH & Bentley, JC 1996, ‘When rivals become partners: acculturation in a newly-merged organization’, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, vol. 4, no. 2; pp. 154-74.
Mcmenamin, J 1999, Financial Management: An Introduction, Routledge, London, p. 9.
McNamara, C 1999, Basic Context for Organizational Change. Retrieved November 17, 2006, from http://www.managementhelp.org/mgmnt/orgchnge.htm
Mirvis, PH & Marks, ML 1992, Managing the Merger: Making it Work, Beard Books, London.
Morrison, J & Floyd, D 2000, ‘Merger activity: solutions to Japan's economic downturn?’ Management Decision, vol. 38, no. 4; pp. 263-271.
Nickols, F 2004, Change Management 101: A Primer. Retrieved November 17, 2006, from http://home.att.net/~nickols/change.htm
Parkhe, A 1991, ‘Interfirm Diversity, Organizational Learning and Longevity in Global Strategic Alliances’, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 22, no. 4; pp. 579+.
Peteraf, MA 1993, ‘The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View’, Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 14, no. 3; pp. 179-191.
Prahalad, CK & Hamel, G 1990, ‘The Core Competence of the Corporation’, Harvard Business Review, May/June, pp. 79-91.
Rhodes, K 2002, ‘Making Mergers a Growth Strategy’, Root Strategic Assets, Spring.
Schneider, SC & De Meyer, A 1991, ‘Interpreting and Responding to Strategic Issues: The Impact of National Culture’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 12, no. 4; pp. 307-320.
Schwartz, R & Davis, S 1981, ‘Matching Corporate Culture and Business Strategy’, Organizational Dynamics, vol. 10, vol. 1; pp. 30-48.
Singh, A 1999, ‘The Global Merger Wave: Consequences for Developing Countries’, Global Policy Forum, November.
Stoner, J, Freeman, E & Gilbert, Daniel, DJ 1995, Management, Prentice Hall, New York.
Urban, S & Vendimini, S 1992, European Strategic Alliances, Blackwell, New York.
Very, P, Lubatkin, M & Calori, R 1996, ‘A Cross-National Assessment of Acculturative Stress in Recent European Mergers’, International Studies of Management and Organization, vol. 26, no. 1; pp. 59-86.
Wall, SJ 2000, The Morning After: Making Corporate Mergers Work after the Deal is Sealed, Perseus Books, Reading, MA.
Wernerfelt, B 1989, ‘From Critical Resources to Corporate Strategy’, Journal of General Management, vol. 14, no. 3; pp. 4-12.
Wilkins, A & Ouchi, W 1983, ‘Efficient Cultures: Exploring the Relationship Between Culture and Organizational Performance’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 28; pp. 468-481.
Yoshino MY & Rangan, US 1995, Strategic Alliances: An Entrepreneurial approach to Globalisation, H.B.S Press, Boston, Mass.
No comments:
Post a Comment