Introduction
In the world of business nothing limits the quest of stakeholders in venturing into satellite businesses which are either related or not. The extent of diversification is unlimited hence; some businesses are broadly diversified while others are not. The degree of diversification apart, the worthwhile of the venture is what matters.
Companies branch out with an aim of increasing revenues to enable them to grow. However, at times, like the case of Sara Lee Corporation, may eventuate in low revenues and as such, stakeholders need to strategize and come up with a blueprint of rejuvenating a business. With that respect, Thompson, in his six steps of evaluation of the performance of a company sheds light on how one can evaluate and strategize thus reversing the downward trend of a company.
In order to comprehend the case of Sara Lee Corporation and hence evaluate the successfulness of its retrenchment initiatives, a synopsis through the company’s history briefly highlights the major talking points. Sara Lee Corporation is a multifaceted business venture that incorporates diverse businesses that range from foodstuffs to non foodstuff products.
Over the years though, the company has been grappling with the idea of increasing its revenues through acquisition and, to a lesser extent through divestiture realizing insignificant change.
However, the year 2005 which saw the appointment of one Brenda Barnes as the CEO marked the turning point of the company. With his ambitious plan to further curtail the broad business venture such that they concentrate on household, beverage and food did transform the company big time.
Even though this would initially decrease the revenue by $7.2 billion, it was projected that the long term benefits will see this translate to revenue gains. As such, to be specific, it was projected that by the year 2010 the revenue would grow by $14 billion. This would translate to a profit margin of 12% relative to an 8.1% prior to the retrenchment strategy in the year 2004.
However, by the end of 2010 fiscal year the company fell short of meeting its projected target hence remained blurred with respect to the degree of shareholders benefits. The company had realized a revenue growth of $10.5 billion and a profit margin of 8%.
If not sufficiently enough, CEO Barnes further engaged her divestiture strategy with the ‘International Household and Body Care business’ receiving the brunt in the very year. Concurrently, the company continued with its ‘Project Accelerate’ which was launched in the year 2008 with an aim of enhancing supply chain effectiveness as well as overhead cost reduction.
This one made significance changes realizing $180 million savings in the fiscal year-end 2010 and, even projected to save a further $170-$220 million in the year 2012. As at the end of the year 2010 CEO Barnes reign was unexpectedly brought to a halt due to illness.
This paved way for Smits who buttressed Barnes strategies by focusing mainly on the company’s strongholds to increase its revenues. As such, while reaping on the anticipated benefits of ‘Project Accelerate,’ Smits focused on venturing heavily on the company’s most powerful brands as well as hunting growth in the most attractive geographical market segments.
Diversification is a vital venture in any business since it enhances the spread of risk across the industries. A company that invests in one business stands risks of collapsing economically courtesy of economic crunch or technological innovations more than a diversified business. Apart from risk protection diversification enhances growth in shareholder value.
Therefore the diversification strategy lies squarely on the top managerial brass who determines the route to venture-either related or unrelated businesses. Corporate managers in the helm of diversification strategy have responsibilities that eventually determine the success of a business.
As such; they need to evaluate and decide on which new path of industries to enter, they need to do a self assessment of the company in order to measure its capability in terms of capital, and gauge the influence of the company’s brand on the new industry. Clear answers to these questions will definitely enable the management whether to engage in acquisition, mergers, or divest.
Moreover, the management has the responsibilities of evaluating and identifying opportunities that will enhance the performance of the single business units as well as the whole business at large. The corporate managers should acknowledge that these ventures should be such that they gain from the resources accrued from the larger company hence building competitive advantage.
Finally, the corporate managers should be in a position “to build sustainable competitive advantage by leveraging cross-business value chain relationships and strategic fits. Diversification into related businesses allows companies to gain economies of scope in value chain activities” (Ansoff, 1965).
Thompson evaluates a company’s diversification strategy stepwise through six outlines that include: “industry attractiveness, business-unit competitive strength, competitive advantage potential of cross-business strategic fits, resource fit, performance prospects for business units and assigning priority for resources allocation, and formulating new strategic moves to improve corporate performance” (Andrews, 1987). A thorough analysis of each step will gauge the successfulness of Sara Lee Corporation.
Industry attractiveness
Industry attractiveness centers on a very wider picture of a company’s diversification. To begin with, managers should take the initiative to evaluate the attractiveness of their industries in order to gauge if they stand at a potentially attractive industry marketwise. As such, the managers should be in a position to evaluate the progress of their respective industries thus; they should tell whether the industry is developing, stagnating, or waning.
Vitally, knowledge of the competitive forces within the industry will enable one to weigh the degree of success (Ansoff, 1965). With regards to Sara Lee Corporation, CEO Barnes realizes that she can increase the company’s revenues by concentrating more on the market segments which are most promising.
As such, she chooses to shelve satellite business which faced stiff competition. She goes ahead with her retrenchment strategy that finds ‘Direct selling, U.S retail coffee, European apparel, European nuts and snacks, European rice, U.S meat snacks, European meats and Sara Lee branded apparel’ on the wrong side of her strategies.
Even though Barnes acknowledges that her strategies would shrink revenues initially, her projected long term benefits were her source of motivation. Hence, by the fiscal year-end 2010, though short of her target, Barnes financial analysis reflects a significant growth. She falls short of her target by $ 3.5 billion and 3.5% for revenues and profit margins respectively.
Barnes prioritizes Sara Lee Corporation’s business ventures according to the order of their attractiveness marketwise. As such, she concentrates majorly on baked products, meat and beverage products. As at that juncture she concentrates more on increasing their market shares thereby increasing the profit margin. Seemingly, she realizes that engaging more in food related industry is a worthy undertaking.
In particular, baking industry registered increased sales from $91 million to $2.1 billion in a span of 5 years from the year 2003. This elevated its market share astronomically to 8.2% of the US market for packaged bread. This is exhibited by the graph below of the trends of the growth in income from continuing operations for both unrelated and related businesses respectively.
Graph 1
The first year (2004) represents the year prior to Barnes reign. As illustrated by the graph above, the unrelated businesses were actually operating at losses-$350 million and $190 million dollars respectively for the first two years. However, in the fiscal year-end 2006, these companies realized a profit of $246 million dollars before taxes. As predicted before by Barnes after her optimistic plans, she realized declined profits initially as portrayed by the graph above (year 2008).
The profit margin reduces by $161 million dollars initially but peaks later to $1.093 billion in the year 2010 pending taxes. Cumulatively for the three years the unrelated businesses realized losses before taxes amounting to $294 million. In the contrary, the related businesses registered cumulative profit for the last three years amounting to $1.792 billion.
This in comparison with the unrelated businesses is a clear indicator of the positive impact of Barnes retrenchment strategies. Thus, in order to harness the maximum benefit from her biased strategy in reference to related businesses, she ought to work on streamlining the value chains and marketing strategies.
Business unit competitive strength
After a successful evaluation of the attractiveness of a business venture it is vital for managers to comprehend the competitive strength of the same. Basically this means getting to know where you position your business relative to other competitors in the same industry.
As such, one will be in a better position to tell the strengths and flaws of a business diversification portfolio. This comes in handy when focusing on resource allocation as well as in decision making which determines whether to diversify or to divest (Watts, Copes & Hulme, 1998).
Sara Lee Corporation ranked high in food stuffs specifically in baked products in the year 2010. As such, the company channeled some more resources to these products. Most notably is the ‘North American Fresh Bakery division’ which for a very long time held the top rank in hotdogs and hamburger buns. This, prompted the company to negotiate with retail supermarkets to increase their display spaces to accommodate more products.
Consequently this saw to it an increase in shelve spaces that propelled its weekly sales to triple its initial in supermarkets where more spaces were allocated. Concurrently, as she tussles with strengthening her strongholds Barnes divested other businesses that are seemingly less lucrative. On the receiving end were among others ‘Direct selling.’ This increased focus that would later translate to the growth of the company’s revenues and profit margin in the year 2010 though short of its projections.
Checking for cross-business strategic fits
A business is considered attractive strategically and stands to score high in terms of market share when its value chains are related with a firm’s other satellite businesses that offer opportunities to: realize economies of scale thereby enhancing cost-saving efficiencies, enhance the transfer of technology from one enterprise to the other, leverage use of a company’s assets to enhance differentiation and, take advantage of cross-business association to come up with novel resources and competitive competence.
Cross-business strategic fits “represents a significant avenue for producing competitive advantage beyond what any one business can achieve on its own” (Barney, 1991).
As a CEO, Barnes acknowledges the need to cut on the operational costs hence she launches ‘Project Accelerate’ in the year 2008. Overhead reduction apart, Project Accelerate was launched with an aim of enhancing supply chain efficiencies in order to benefit from the creation of a competitive advantage.
This project made significance changes realizing $180 million savings in the fiscal year 2010 and, it was even projected to save a further $170-$220 million in the year-end 2012. Although initially the company had taken the advantage of the reputation of its established name to venture into other businesses that rendered it diverse, their costs of operations further outweighed their revenues. As such, Barnes opted to engage in divestiture rather than acquisition to remain focused in the industries where she could reap huge revenues.
Analyzing resource fit
One of the advantages that diversification adds to a company is that it strengthens the resources of the company. As such it can be deduced that there is a correlation between these resources and the key success factors under which the industry operates (Barney, 1991). However, even with this advantage, caution should be taken such that the available resources suffice all the facets of the businesses lest it “spreads itself too thin” (Li et al. 1999).
Companies with related diversification approach boast resource fit when its satellite businesses boost its resource position and when their resource requirements match “at the value chain level” (Thompson & Gamble, 2011). On the other hand, companies pursuing otherwise (unrelated diversification approach) boast the same when they have the capacity to suffice their unrelated businesses without straining its resources.
Initially, Sara Lee Corporation had spread its diversification strategies from related to unrelated businesses. Barnes opted to proceed with her retrenchment initiative strategy so that she can shelve some businesses both related and unrelated that were nonstrategic. As such, on top of her priority list of retrenchment is ‘Direct selling’ which she sold in the year 2005 at a profit margin of $ 97 million. This company dealt in cosmetics, fragrances, toiletries, apparel and other household products to consumers.
Between the year 2005 and late September 2006 she manages to divest 8 businesses that sees her discard entirely all her unrelated businesses to render her focused on lucrative ventures-food, beverages and households. Barnes believes that Sara Lee Corporation would be successful when it focused its finances and management resources on a few businesses showing promising market prospects.
Consequently as at the fiscal year-end 2010 she realizes a revenue increment of $ 10.8 billion and a profit margin increment of 8.5%. This though falls below the projection and as such she further engages in her retrenchment strategy with ‘International Household and Body Care’ receiving the matching orders.
This company-an affiliate and unrelated, dealt with among other products shoe care products (Kiwi). Concurrently, she directs resources to initiate Project Accelerate on the remaining businesses to boost its output by reducing operational costs.
Grading the prospects and assigning resources to Sara Lee Corporation affiliate businesses.
From the synopsis of the history of Sara Lee Corporation, a venture into a food-related industry would definitely increase its revenues and profit margins. She invests majorly in “five food-related businesses that include: North American Retail, North American Fresh Bakery, North American Foodservice, International Beverage and International Bakery” (Thompson & Gamble, 2011).
From the analysis of the financial report during the stint of CEO Barnes, her initiative realized growth in the company’s operating income pending taxation. During her reign, from the years 2008 to 2010 she realized operating income growth from continuing operations of almost 12 folds before income taxes. From the financial report, taking 2008 as the base year, North American Foodservice recorded a massive growth from incurring a loss ($324 million) in the year 2008 to recording an income of $125 million pending income tax.
As such more resources should be awarded to this company since it has the potential of amassing huge profit margin. Next in the priority list in resource allocation is North American retail which recorded a 132% growth in operating income prior to tax reduction. This should be followed by International Bakery which even though was still operating at a loss; it showed potential of amassing huge profits in the long run. It recorded a 96% growth.
Fourth in the list of preference should be International Beverage which registered insignificant growth of 7.4% over the last three years from the year 2008. Finally, North American Fresh Bakery should come last since it recorded a loss of 20% during the same period. The graph below gives the trends of different businesses during the three year period.
Graph 2
Considering the trend of North American Foodservices from the best line of fit, the steepness of the trend is so pronounced than the other trends. This portrays a business with a greater potential to grow. Following the same criteria, it is evident that the rate of steepness increases positively in the following order: International Beverage, International Bakery, North American Retail, and North American Foodservices.
However, the North American Fresh Bakery had a negative slope. Consequently, it can be concluded that the potentiality of the businesses increases with the order of steepness. The negative slope as exhibited by North American Fresh Bakery represents a loss hence, this shouldn’t be allocated much resources.
Crafting novel strategic approach to improve performance
With the status quo the company is bound to increase its income revenues though in the long run this would be negligible, or stagnate. It is therefore, if need be, prudent for the stakeholders to diversify into food-related industry since this is the industry where the company has the prospects of growth.
More resources should be channeled to the remaining businesses to ensure that the company has a lion’s share of the market. To achieve this then the top managerial brass should consider developing competitive abilities. As such, they should consider: innovating novel products, brand-building capabilities, and competitive pricing. Also, the company needs to work on acquiring new accounts with already established/new discount store customers and supermarkets.
To achieve this then the company ought to improve on category management and influence. With regards to specific businesses particularly the North American Foodservice, Sara Lee Corporation should strive at taking the advantage of its goodwill with respect to meat and baked products coupled with the changing trend of the American eating habit to win the market share for its novel and established products.
On the other hand, North American Retail needs to channel more resources on branded products which showed greater preferences with respect to customers in order to reap the benefits of economies of scale. As such there is need for increased production of Hillshire Farm smoked sausage, Ball Park franks, Jimmy Dean smoked sausage, Sara Lee Frozen desserts, State Fair corn dog and, Senseo single-service coffee makers and coffee pods. This should be replicated to the other businesses in their respective strongholds to steer the company to greater heights above other companies.
Conclusion
In a synopsis, it can be concluded that CEO Barnes retrenchment strategy was a success since the company was able to register positive results in terms of growth later. She was able to concentrate resources in the businesses with greater prospects of growth to realize the positive results. This can be strengthened more by working on the ways to boost its market share further in order to reap the benefits of economies of scale.
Venturing into related businesses comes with it benefits that accrue from synergies in that the integrated businesses sum up strongly as one. Furthermore, it enhances a company to grow and exploit the benefits accruing from core competencies. However, with her strategy to invest in related businesses Barnes stands more risks than when she would have invested otherwise. This could be due to fluctuations in preferences and costs of the products in the industry ventured.
References
Andrews, K. (1987). The Concept of Corporate Strategy, New York City: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
Ansoff, I. (1965), Corporate Strategy, New York City: McGraw-Hill New York
Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, (1), 99-120.
Li, S. et al. (1999). A framework for a hybrid intelligent system in support of marketing strategy development, Marketing Intelligence & Planning. Journal of marketing strategy, 17, (4), 10-15.
Thompson, A., & Gamble, J. (2011). Case 2011: Sara Lee Corporation- Has his Retrenchment Strategy been successful? Birmingham City, UK: University of Alabama.
Watts, G., Cope, J., & Hulme, M. (1998). Ansoff’s Matrix, pain and gain: Growth strategies and adaptive learning among small food producers. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 4, (2), 9-18.