Cadbury & Kraft M& A analysis

Cadbury & Kraft M& A analysis

1. Why did this deal take place, explain the business logic behind it and describe and explain the strategy adopted in pursuit of the business logic

Mergers and acquisition have been identified as some of the most effective means of gaining control of specific markets and industries across the globe. Considering the intense competition presented by globalization and technological innovation and invention witnessed in the contemporary world, business organizations have to formulate effective strategies that can allow them to have significant control of their environment (Chan, Ikenberry and Lee, 2007, 12). Kraft’s acquisition of Cadbury was meant to ensure the company effectively competes in the world’s food and beverage industry (Greer, 2018, 3). Though the move presented several challenges for these two firms before its ratification, some of such challenges were as a result of the nature of the prevailing factors within the food and beverage industry.

PESTEL analysis of the food and beverage industry

Political

Though there exist several political ideologies across different nations and continents around the globe. There seem to be standardized ideologies when it comes to how they impact the food and beverage industry.  The primary goal for every ideology in this regards is to ensure consumers are not exposed to poor quality nutrition (Masih, Rajkumar, Matharu and Sharma, 2019, 202). Through this, the regulatory framework relating to the cleanliness of commercial kitchens and the recommended standards for storing and transporting products and services within this specific industry are standardized in most cases. In 2007 Cadbury chose to outsource a significant share of its businesses to an Indian firm due to increased expenses, which signalled that the company was undergoing some sort of distress within its systems and procedures (Ribeiro, 2013, 4). This also presented the strategic operation used by the company in gaining control of emerging markets like India (Luna, 2019, 6).

Economic

Several economies around the world are concerned with strengthening the income levels among their populations (Symeonidis, 2008, 135). Through this, there are diverse economic measures put in place by different economies to help increase the level of disposable income available to the citizens, which in turn increases the consumption and market levels in the food and beverage industry (Zagelmeyer and Gollan 2012, 3289). Considering the impact that the 2008 financial crisis left on the stability of several economies, there were increased unemployment rates witnessed across different economies (Foster,  Haltiwanger and Syverson, 2008, 396). Consequently, different markets experience a drop in consumption levels. Luna (2019, 6), observes that the European market experienced a reduction of 5% in consumption levels after the financial crisis compared to before the financial crisis occurred.

Similarly, the reigning labour cost within individual economies also affects the nature and scope of operations of firms within the food and beverage industry. Jacob (2012, 7), observes that 14 of the G20 countries were experiencing negative growth rate by the start of the first quarter of 2009, which enlisted swift response from individual governments. Some of these responses were inclined to give employers more incentives that can help them absorb more staff members. In the United Kingdom, the zero hour contracts ensured that employees signed contracts to be available as and when required for them to receive unemployment insurance (Jacob, 2012, 7). This ensured the majority of firms including Cadbury obtained relatively cheap labour.

Socio-culture

The surging numbers of chronic diseases across different countries in the contemporary world have placed the food and beverage industry in the spotlight given its significant influence on the lifestyle maintained by individual consumers (Yelkikalan and Köse, 2012, 3). The confectionery products stalked by Cadbury are considered to be contributing to individuals developing a number of chronic diseases. These products are also considered as quite effective in dealing with some conditions. On the other hand, the grocery sector maintained by Kraft foods is considered to be quite effective in preventing and managing several chronic conditions. Through this, Cadbury’s operations in the future were threatened by health concerns. On the same note, the generation Z and generation Y who were to form the majority of consumers in future heavily utilized the confectionary products offered by Cadbury (Luna, 2019, 5). Combining the two lines of businesses ensured Kraft foods would control a significant market share in the future.

Technology

The constant technological innovations and inventions witnessed in the contemporary world also impact the nature and scope of firms in the food and beverage industry. Technology is heavily utilized in different stages of an individual firm’s supply chain to enhance (Jun, Kee, Wen, Chen, Qi and Aldeehani, 2019, 30). In most cases, these are aimed at enhancing the quality of goods and products among these two organizations. The two firms heavily utilized technology within their supply chain framework; hence were better placed to effectively compete in the food and beverage industry.

Legal

There are several legal regulations that apply to the expected standards of operations among firms within the industry. For instance, the food safety modernization act in the United States ensured firms like Kraft foods adopted a proactive approach in food safety (Dressler and Paunović, 2019, 4). This guaranteed the safety of all their products and services making the organization to be one of the revolutionary figures in the food and beverage industry in the future by informing the future about the required standards. Similarly, the country of origin requirement in the United States is also another regulation that might have impacted the merger between Cadbury and Kraft foods (Yelkikalan and Köse, 2012, 5). These are just a few legal regulations that affected the nature and scope of participants in the food and beverage industry. By acquiring Cadbury, Kraft food was to penetrate in tightly regulated markets like India and Brazil. However, the regulatory framework involved in the M&A process differs among different nations and can be a huge stumbling block for foreign companies interested in acquiring domestic companies.

Environment

The sustainability issues relating to the provision of goods and services in the contemporary world has resulted in the call for individual firms to ensure their systems and procedures are channelled to conserve the environment (Bahadir, Bharadwaj and Parzen, 2009 265). Through this, the packaging materials utilized by Cadbury were non-biodegradable, which resulted in environmental pollution.  There was a need for the adoption of biodegradable packaging materials, which was largely applied by Kraft food.

Porters five force model analysis of the food and beverage industry

Bargaining power of suppliers

Supplies can affect the profit margins of an individual business by adjusting the prices involved in acquiring raw materials necessary for production. The number and concentration of suppliers always affect their bargaining power (Dressler and Paunović, 2019, 8). By acquiring Cadbury, Kraft would be exposed to several suppliers which will give the company leverage while negotiating with suppliers and ensure they only work with individual suppliers offering high-quality raw materials in a cost-effective manner (Oraman, Azabagaoglu and Inan, 2011, 8).

Bargaining power of buyers

Factors like the switching cost associated with switching from one brand to the next and the profit margins associated with a product significantly affect the level of utility derived by buyers from a product especially if the buyer is a re-seller (Bahadir et al., 2009 269). By gaining a considerably larger share of the market Kraft food would ensure quality products with relatively low prices, which would consequently eliminate any unnecessary arrest that would result from the buyers.

Barrier to entry

It is always imperative for individual organizations to go an extra mile in preventing threats of new entrants without relying on government regulations. Some of the strategies used in relation to this include creation of economies of scale, which can generate a hostile environment for new entrants. This explains why Kraft food wanted to acquire Cadbury (Dressler and Paunović, 2019, 8). The acquisition would increase its capacity and enjoy economies of scale in the food and beverage industry, which would deter new entrants.

Threat of substitution

Threats of substitutes always emerge as a result of a lapse in quality, or when the switching cost involved is relatively low or when the prices are friendly (Dulčić, Gnjidić and Alfirević, 2012, p 3). However, the confectionery products do not have many substitutes and children who form the majority consumers of these products are driven by impulse buying in most of their purchases. This would also place Kraft foods in a better position in regards to the global market for the products and services within the confectionery line.

Industry rivalry

Intense competition exists among firms with relatively equal size interns of operations. However, by one acquiring the other competing firm, they get to cool down the level of competition and emerge as the dominant force in the industry. This also forms the reason as to why Kraft food was interested in the acquisition of Cadbury. The acquisition of Cadbury enabled Kraft to become the largest confectionary company around the globe (Dressler and Paunović, 2019, 4). The confectionery sector had been witnessing a 15% growth on annual basis with a total worth of $113 billion, which Kraft foods wanted to exploit by controlling a significant market share as a result of combining its human resource capacity and that of Cadbury (Dulčić et al., 2012, p 3).

Options available for growth for both companies

Cost-benefit analysis for the two organizations

Kraft foods

In 2009 Kraft foods controlled 2.5% of the total revenue from the food and beverage industry, which translated to $40.38 billion (Ribeiro, 2013, 12). This was relatively low compared to the $41.93 Billion from the previous year. The decline in the company’s revenue was as a result of a decrease in the majority of its market segments. The primary reason for such a decline was a diminishing level of consumption of the company’s products primarily from developed nations (Trichterborn, Zu Knyphausen‐Aufseß, and Schweizer, 2016, 764). This presented the need for acquiring enough strength to operate in continents like Europe with a considerable number of developed nations.

Similarly, net revenues trends in relation to consumer segments revealed that the snacks segment generated 37% of the total revenues followed by beverages, cheese, convenient meals and groceries with 20%, 18%, 16% and 10% respectively (Ribeiro, 2013, 13). North America formed the company’s largest market with a total consumption of 58.6% followed by Europe with a consumption of 21.7% and emerging markets with 19.7%. The CAGR of these markets was 1.4%, 6.9% and 24.1% respectively (Hsia, Coyle, Brummett, and O’Rourke, 2010, 16). This further highlighted the need for venturing into the European market and emerging markets. Considering the need for acquisition of emerging technologies for effective competition, the company a total of $1.3 billion, which is $0.1 higher than the previous year (Stowell and Kawar, 2017, 24). This trend exhibited an annual increase in relation to capital expenditures (Ribeiro, 2013, 14). There was also a need to reduce such expenditures by acquiring well-established firms with emerging technologies that could enhance the quality of goods and services within the company.

All these presented the need for expanding out of North America and exploit emerging markets in the form of products like gum and candy (Chowdhry, 2017, 97). In 2012, less than two years after acquiring Cadbury the company recorded a significant increase of 54% in its total revenue. Emerging markets generated 30% of the company’s total revenue. In relation to product segment chocolate, candy and gum generated more than 26% of the company’s revenues (Abrahams, 2019, 2145). Snacks generated 22.6% while grocery, beverage, cheese and convenient foods generated 13.9%, 13.4% and 7.4% respectively. The acquisition has enabled the company to enjoy economies of scale, which has helped it reduce the prices of its products to attract consumers (Ribeiro, 2013, 43). An example is the bigger pack of Oreo cookies which was initially sold at $1 now sells at 40 cents. These justify the $18.9 billion investment in Cadbury (Wan, Jin and Sui, 2019, 2147). The company is also enjoying an enhanced distribution network and easy accessibility of its products through the use of a well-established supply chain framework that exists at Cadbury.

Cadbury Company

By 2009 Cadbury had established itself as one of the dominating forces in the food and beverage industry given its well-recognized brand across the globe. It controlled a significant portion of emerging markets like Argentina, South Africa, India, Brazil and Turkey among other markets. The company also controlled 11% of the total food and beverage market across the globe (Ahammad, Tarba, Frynas and Scola, 2017, 633). In 2009 Cadbury generated revenue of more than £5.98 Billion, which was an increase of 11% compared to the previous year (Ribeiro, 2013, 53). The growth was as a result of the Vision in Action (VIA) program initiated within the company which required an annual growth of 6% in the company’s organic revenues (Ribeiro, 2013, 15).

Europe forms one of the company’s largest market segments and generated 19% of its revenue. The emerging markets of gum and candy perform relatively well within Europe with France forming the largest market for these emerging products claiming 43% of the total revenues generated from these products. Similarly, the company generated 23% of its total revenue from North America in the same year (Ahammad, Tarba, Frynas and Scola, 2017, 639). This was efficient considering that North America forms the world largest market for confectionery products. Asia being one of the emerging geographical markets generated £ 425 million with India generating 40% of the total revenues from the company’s operations in Asia (Ribeiro, 2013, 54).

Additionally, in the same year (2009) the company witnessed an increase in its operation cost. Labor, ingredients and depreciation costs amounted to £2.78 million, which was 12% more than the cost incurred the previous year (Ribeiro, 2013, 67). Administrative expenses amounted to £1.117 million, which was an increment of 1% from the previous year. The company increased its research and development capacity in 2009 by £10 million from £59 million to £69 million (Ribeiro, 2013, 67). Similarly, the company utilized £629 million in the same year, which was 8% more than the previous year. The company also incurred £267 as distribution cost (Ribeiro, 2013, 67). This was 6% more than the cost incurred the previous year. Through all these, Cadbury was relatively performing well in the market, which was essential for Kraft foods expansion strategy into all emerging markets based on product and geographical locations.

Stakeholder analysis for the two firms

High

Low                                                     Influence                                             High

Form the diagram there are four major types of stakeholders in an organization based on their importance and influence. Clockwise the first category of stakeholders is those with high importance but low influence in an organization. This type of stakeholders needs special initiatives to be satisfied with an organization’s operations (Currie, Seaton and Wesley, 2009, 52). They include the general community from which an organization operates. In this case, the British community never liked the idea of Cadbury being owned by a foreign company in which they protested for the deal to be cancelled. However, the still went through. The second category of stakeholders are those individuals with significance importance and influence of an organization’s operations. These include employees, consumers, and suppliers (Brugha and Varvasovszky, 2000, 14). The merger and acquisition significantly affected this category of stakeholders. Some employees lost their employment while some were transferred to other branches. Consumers experienced either a reduction in price or an increase on the same. Similarly, some suppliers lost their contracts as a result of the phasing activities that took place after the acquisition.

The next category of stakeholders are those with high influence but low importance. It is primarily composed of competitors and in the case of Cadbury, its primary competitors in the European market include Nestle and Mars. Though the company was performing very well it needed to enhance its capacity to ensure effective competition (Brugha and Varvasovszky, 2000, 14).  The last category of stakeholders is those with low importance and influence, primarily dominated by government authorities. In a liberal economy, the government has less influence on an organization’s activities as long as they are legal. However, in this case, there was the need for an increased government involvement considering the acquisition involved a foreign company with the general British community against the move (Currie, Seaton and Wesley, 2009, 52).

Theoretical application of synergies between the two firms

The cultural metaphor of spider web

Culture has a significant influence in a M&A process. The spider web metaphor asserts that human being is an animal that operates in webs of importance acquired over time primarily shaped by culture. The term web refers to culture. Krieger (1994, 890), Observes that the web is created by different stakeholders like an individual, company or the society. Through this, the web cannot be determined genetically and it is the society or individuals and organizations ho shape these cultures (Hayward, 2002, 6). Similarly, each strand of the web represents a specific aspect of an organization or the society (Geertz, 1973, 170. In light of this, the different departments within an organization are intricately designed with clear cut differences. As represented in figure 1 there are different webs involved in every merger and acquisition specifically designed to ensure success.

There is a need to fit the different cultures possessed by both Cadbury and Kraft Foods as well as integrate different systems and procedures utilized by the two firms. There is also the need to ensure the strategies used by Cadbury like a vision in action (VIA) program are seamlessly integrated into the systems and procedures of Kraft foods to enhance efficiency. The strategic fit element also requires Kraft food to it fully maximize on emerging markets created by new products like candy and gum. Effective consideration of each strand involved in the web to generate success in the acquisition process.

Other theoretical framework involved in M&A synergies

Loughran&Vijh (1997), identified three factors involved in mergers and acquisition synergies relating to the level of profit. These include target shareholders experiencing abnormal returns from an acquisition, acquiring shareholders earning minimal or no returns from tender offers and the acquiring shareholders can also earn negative abnormal returns from M&A. However, in all these the target shareholders who cling on the acquirer’s stock, they received as payment realize a decrease in their wealth over time. Loughran&Vijh (1997), proposes that there exists a relationship between the mode of acquisition and the post-acquisition gains from the acquirer’s stock as well as the mode of payment used in which:

• Averagely, the acquirers earn less excess returns from mergers than from tender offers;
• Averagely, stock acquirers generate less excess returns than cash acquirers;
• Averagely, stock mergers generate high negative returns;
• Averagely, Cash tender offers generate high positive returns

In containing part of the scepticism involved in these synergies Sirower & Sahni (2006) developed a simple measure to assess the associated to each synergy as represented below.

SVAR = target premium paid / acquiring’s market value

2. Why was there so much acrimony during and after the bid

Negotiation

The takeover process involved a lengthy negotiation. It started in august 2009 in which Kraft’s CEO offered 717 pence per share (Janouskova, 2017, 51). Cadbury board members rejected the offer. The second bid was $16.7 billion with an offer of 745 pence per share which was also rejected by the board members of Cadbury (Janouskova, 2017, 51). The primary reason for the rejection was that Kraft’s valuation of Cadbury’s share was way down below the existing price at which they were traded at the stock exchange. Cadbury’s shares were trading at 819 pence per share in the stock mark yet the first bid valued the shares at 717 pence per share and the second valued the company at 745 pence per share (Janouskova, 2017, 52). There were several factors that resulted in the valuation of confusion. One of this was that if Cadbury’s shareholders would accept shares as their only mode of payment Kraft would not be exposed to any exchange rate fluctuations. Secondly, if the shareholders would have not been interested in shares and prefer cash as the mode of payment Kraft would be exposed to exchange rate fluctuations.

On the same note, there were evident differences between the two companies systems and procedures. While Cadbury was only interested in operating in the confectionary sector, Kraft foods was interested in forming a portfolio with several products and services (Glendening, Inder and Wei,  2016, 4). Additionally, Cadbury had a unique market position and brand combination with a considerably long heritage that made the company look unique in the confectionery industry (Glendening, Inder and Wei,  2016, 5). All these needed to be resolved before facilitating the acquisition.

Political factors

There were also political factors that hampered the smooth execution of the acquisition process. In this regard, the element of foreign ownership of a British company resulted in protest among the British population. The company has been in existence for over 180 years in which it is considered as part of the British culture (Cox, 2013, 12). Over different periods the company has influenced and shaped the British culture and its leadership has been passed down from one generation to another. Through this, the British population viewed the acquisition as some sort of erosion of the country’s heritage (Dobos, 2012, 224). In light of this, Lord Mandelson who was the British business secretary publicly stated that the government could not condone any buyer who was disrespecting precious company (Glendening, Inder and Wei,  2016, 2). The weight of this statement illustrates the significance of the company to the country as well as the lengths that the government was willing to protect the dignity of its heritage (Davis, David, Richard and Nick 2013, 7). Another concern from the British population was that Cadbury would lose its signature taste as a result of the alteration of the formula used to fit an American version (Fenton and Andrew, 2010, 24).

Secondly, the government was also considering the number of unemployment rates that were to be associated with the shaping up process of the newly acquired company (Ferreira, Emanuel and John, 2015, 17). The closure of the Somerdale facility after the acquisition resulted in a number of the company’s employees losing their jobs, which resulted in much criticism being directed to Kraft since the company had promised to keep the facility running (Ghauri and Peter, 2015, 209).

3. Evaluate the success or otherwise of the acquisition

The acquisition enabled Kraft food to enhance its supply chain framework and was also able to utilize Cadbury’s market share to access the emerging markets, which were largely controlled by Cadbury.  Through Kraft food was already a global leader considering that by 2008 it was controlling 2.5% of the 15% market share in food and beverage industry available to top ten performers (Janouskova, 2017, 21). In light of this, the company was second after Nestle. However, Cadbury only controlled 1% of this market share. The underlying interest in Kraft’s acquisition of Cadbury was to gain access to emerging markets based on new products like candy and gum and based on geographical locations in the form of India, Turkey and South Africa. The acquisition enabled Kraft to penetrate into these markets seamlessly and strengthen its capacities into other markets while maximizing profits.

Though the acquisition is largely considered a success to some extent it can be regarded as a failure. According to Janouskova (2017 43), the sum of Kraft and Cadbury value should have been £43.9 billion for the deal to create value to all stakeholders involved in the two firms. However, the 840 pence offered per share resulted in a loss of $4.729 million hence the deal can be viewed as value-destroying. Given the value difference in Kraft’s valuation of Cadbury, the three most influential people at Cadbury exited the company with more than £20 million in shares and cash (Janouskova, 2017, 53). These three included Roger Carr, who was the chairman of the company, Todd Stitzel who was the chief executive and Andrew Bonfield, the chief financial officer (Janouskova, 2017, 53). Losing competent and experienced human resource is always tragic since such people are in demand and can be hired by competing companies (Klimek, 2011, 13). Such influential figures also possess a deep understanding of the different strategies utilized by the company in controlling several emerging markets; hence can help competing firms to gain control of these markets and reduce Cadbury’s market share, which will significantly hamper Kraft foods operations in those markets. As a result of the failure of the acquisition, Kraft witnessed a significant decrease in its net profit by 24% (Kandilarov, 2012).

Valuation differences sources: (Janouskova, 2017 43).

4. What changes if any should be made to better regulate hostile takeover bid? Explain and justify your reasoning

The M&A involving Kraft and Cadbury was a cross-border acquisition process. The foreign company element presented several challenges during the takeover process. There is the need for reforming the level of shareholder’s domination in such takeovers to ensure less challenging acquisition processes involving foreign companies in the future. The 50% borderline shareholders descent for gaining full control of the bid has become a simple task for the acquirers in which they end up acquiring these firms cheaply (Alexandridis, Petmezas and  Travlos, 2010, 1672). Through this, there is a need to adjust the percentage of shareholders required to gain control of a bid. There is also the need to extend the level of consultation accorded to all stakeholders. This is in consideration of the protests witnessed among the British population who were worried about the erosion of their culture considering that the company was a cultural symbol in the country (Elemary, 2013, 110. The British community was also worried about interference with the signature taste associated with Cadbury products and services. If there would have been comprehensive consultation and dialogue with the country’s population there would have not been the protests witnessed across the country (Rothaermel, 2016, 32).

Additionally, before the acquisition, Kraft foods promised to keep the Somerdale facility. However, after the acquisition, the company shut down the facility and sighted that there was a new plant in Poland that had been built to replace Somerdale facility (Alexandridis et al., 2010, 1674). This resulted in the massive lay-off of Cadbury employees from the Somerdale plant. This presents the need for official ratification of an inquirer’s intention. By officially ratifying such as the employees and other stakeholders like the general community are to be well versed with what they are to expect after the takeover.

The financial market also plays a significant role in shaping a merger and acquisition process. Specifically, the arbitrageurs who are interested in generating short-term windfalls from long-term financial investments were heavily involved in pushing the shares of Cadbury to rise and causing a reduction in the share price of Kraft foods (Klimek, 2011, 17). This presented an ambiguity in an effective valuation of Cadbury’s share prices. This presents the need for banning participation of shares from companies under sale in the financial market though they might appear just for formality (Janouskova, 2017, 89). This will ensure the financial market does not influence the valuation process of such companies.

References

Ribeiro, S.I.D.P., 2013. Mergers and acquisitions: the case of Kraft Foods and Cadbury (Doctoral dissertation).

Klimek, A., 2011. Greenfield foreign direct investment versus cross-border mergers and acquisitions: the evidence of multinational firms from emerging countries. Eastern European Economics, 49(6), pp.60-73.

Kandilarov, G.P., 2012 Government Intervention in Mergers and Acquisitions.

Rothaermel, F.T., 2016. Strategic management: concepts (Vol. 2). McGraw-Hill Education.

Janouskova, M., 2017. Cross-border Takeover Regulation and Control–The effect of short-terminism in the UK market: The Cadbury experience. Aalborg University. URL: http://projekter. aau. dk/projekter/files/261766823/IBE_thesis_Janouskova_Martina. pdf.

Elemary, Y.A., 2013. The Impact of Organisational Culture on Facilitating Cross-border Acquisition: An Empirical Study on Kraft-Cadbury Acquisition in Egypt (Doctoral dissertation, The British University in Egypt).

Trichterborn, A., Zu Knyphausen‐Aufseß, D. and Schweizer, L., 2016. How to improve acquisition performance: The role of a dedicated M&A function, M&A learning process, and M&A capability. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4), pp.763-773.

Hsia, S., Coyle, A., Brummett, D. and O’Rourke, J.S., 2010. Kraft foods: Krafting the case for cadbury. The Eugene D. Fanning Center for Business Communication, Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame.

Stowell, D.P. and Kawar, N., 2017. HJ heinz m&a. Kellogg School of Management Cases.

Chowdhry, s., 2017. The rise of economic patriotism and its impact on cross-border mergers and acquisitions: re-defining the horizons of government intervention. In oxford conference series| october 2017 (p. 97).

Abrahams, D.A., 2019. Online Journal Online Journal. Journal: Vol, 2(2).

Wan, W., Jin, Y. and Sui, Y., 2019. Negotiation Strategy to Achieve a Win-Win Result within Oligopolies. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 9(12), pp.2144-2155.

Ahammad, M.F., Tarba, S.Y., Frynas, J.G. and Scola, A., 2017. Integration of non‐market and market activities in cross‐border mergers and acquisitions. British Journal of Management, 28(4), pp.629-648.

Greer, G., 2018. Win in India: An Analysis of Market Entry Strategy Into India’s Food and Beverage Industry.

Masih, J., Rajkumar, R., Matharu, P.S. and Sharma, A., 2019. Market Capturing and Business Expansion Strategy for Gluten-Free Foods in India and USA Using PESTEL Model. Agricultural Sciences, 10(02), p.202.

Luna Hernandez, A.Y., 2019. Business opportunities for Finnish companies in the label industry in emerging Mexican market.

Jun, O.E., Kee, D.M.H., Wen, T.X., Chen, K.X., Qi, M.J. and AlDeehani, F., 2019. Issues of Entering New Market and Ways to Overcome the Issues Company: F&N Holdings Berhad. Asia Pacific Journal of Management and Education, 2(3), pp.29-36.

Yelkikalan, N. and Köse, C., 2012. The effects of the financial crisis on corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(3).

Zagelmeyer, S. and Gollan, P.J., 2012. Exploring terra incognita: preliminary reflections on the impact of the global financial crisis upon human resource management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(16), pp.3287-3294.

Jacob, C.K., 2012. The impact of financial crisis on corporate social responsibility and its implications for reputation risk management. J. Mgmt. & Sustainability, 2, p.259.

Foster, L., Haltiwanger, J. and Syverson, C., 2008. Reallocation, firm turnover, and efficiency: selection on productivity or profitability?. American Economic Review, 98(1), pp.394-425.

Symeonidis, G., 2008. The effect of competition on wages and productivity: evidence from the United Kingdom. The review of Economics and Statistics, 90(1), pp.134-146.

Dressler, M. and Paunović, I., 2019. Towards a conceptual framework for sustainable business models in the food and beverage industry. British Food Journal.

Dulčić, Ž., Gnjidić, V. and Alfirević, N., 2012. From five competitive forces to five collaborative forces: revised view on industry structure-firm interrelationship. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, pp.1077-1084.

Oraman, Y., Azabagaoglu, M.O. and Inan, I.H., 2011. The firms’ survival and competition through global expansion: A case study from food industry in FMCG sector. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, pp.188-197.

Bahadir, S.C., Bharadwaj, S. and Parzen, M., 2009. A meta-analysis of the determinants of organic sales growth. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4), pp.263-275.

Meer, D., 2005. Enter the “chief growth officer”: searching for organic growth. Journal of Business Strategy.

Bartlett, C.A., 2006. GE’s growth strategy: The Immelt initiative. Harvard Business School.

Currie, R.R., Seaton, S. and Wesley, F., 2009. Determining stakeholders for feasibility analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(1), pp.41-63.

Brugha, R. and Varvasovszky, Z., 2000. Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health policy and planning, 15(3), pp.239-246.

Krieger, N., 1994. Epidemiology and the web of causation: has anyone seen the spider?. Social science & medicine, 39(7), pp.887-903.

Geertz, C., 1973. The interpretation of cultures (Vol. 5019). Basic books.

Hayward, M.L., 2002. When do firms learn from their acquisition experience? Evidence from 1990 to 1995. Strategic management journal, 23(1), pp.21-39.

Chan, K., Ikenberry, D.L. and Lee, I., 2007. Do managers time the market? Evidence from open-market share repurchases. Journal of Banking & Finance, 31(9), pp.2673-2694.

Pinto, R. and Rodrigues e Melo, F., 2011. Consumer Behaviour Towards The Chocolate Products Of Cadbury India Ltd.-A Study. Journal of Commerce & Management Thought, 2(2).

Bansal, B. and Bansal, A., 2014. Approaches of Cadbury Schweppes Company to manage its human resources and business strategies. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, p.36.

Alexandridis, G. Petmezas and .G. Travlos. 2010. Gains from Mergers and Acquisitions Around the World: New Evidence. Financial Management. (No. 12), pp. 1671 – 1695.

Angwin, Duncan.2007.  Motive Archetypes in Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A): The Implications of a Configurational approach to performance. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions., 6, pp. 77105.

Cox, George. 2013. Overcoming Short-termism within British Business: The key to sustained economic growth. An independent review: Labour Party [online]. UK, 2013, pp. 1-68 [cit. 2017-07-23]. Viewed from: https://www.policyforum.labour.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/Overcoming_Short-termism.pdf

Davis, Aeron, David Offenbach, Richard Stevens and Nick Grant 2013. Takeovers and the Public Interest. Policy network paper [online]. UK, 2013, 2013(1), pp. 1-22 [cit. 2017-07-11]. Viewed from: http://www.policy-network.net/publications_detail.aspx?ID=4435

Dobos, István. 2012. Mergers and Acquisitions in the Law of the European Union and Their Economical Background. Acta Juridica Hungarica. Budapest, 2012, Iss. 53(No. 3), pp. 218–235. DOI: 10.1556/AJur.53.2012.3.4

Fenton, Ben; Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson. 2010. News Corp investors back BSkyB bid. Financial Times [online]. 2010 [cit. 2017-05-25]. Viewed from: https://www.ft.com/content/539672ba-78b7-11dfa312-00144feabdc0

Ferreira, Daniel, Emanuel Ornelas and John L. Turner.  2015. Unbundling Ownership and Control. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy. 2015, 24(No. 1), pp. 1 – 21.

Ghauri, Pervez N. and Peter J. BUCKLEY.  2015.International mergers and acquisitions: Past, present and future. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions., 2, pp. 207-229.

Glendening, Matt, Inder K. Khurana and Wei Wang.  2016. The market for corporate control and dividend policies: Cross-country evidence from M&A laws. Journal of International Business Studies. 2016, 47, pp. 1106–1134. ISBN 10.1093/jiel/jgs030. Viewed from: https://academic.oup.com/jiel/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jiel/jgs030

Goergen, Marc and Luc Renneboog. 2004. Shareholder Wealth Effects of European Domestic and Crossborder Takeover Bids. European Financial Management., 10(No. 1), pp. 9-45. ISBN 10.1093/jiel/jgs030. Viewed from: https://academic.oup.com/jiel/articlelookup/doi/10.1093/jiel/jgs030