Resource Based View and Porter’s Five Forces Analysis on Unilever
Resource Based View and Porter’s Five Forces Analysis on Unilever
Content
1. Introduction 3 1.1. Concepts of Resource Based View and Porter’s Five Forces 3 1.2. Brief Introduction of Unilever 3
2. Resource Based View Analysis of Unilever 4 2.1. Value System 4 2.2. Objectives and vision 5 2.3. Management structure 5 2.4. Human resources 6 2.5. Image of the company and brand share equity 6 2.6. Physical assets and facilities 7 2.7. Research & development and technological capabilities 7 2.8. Financial factors 7
3. Porter’s Five Forces Analysis of Unilever 8 3.1. Bargaining Power of Customers 8 3.2. Rivalry among Existing Companies in the Industry 8 3.3. Substitue and Complementary Products 8 3.4. Potential Entrants and Barriers to Entry 9 3.5. Bargaining Power of Suppliers 9
4. Conclusion 9
Resource Based View and Porter’s Five Forces Analysis on Unilever
1. Introduction
1.1. Concepts of Resource Based View and Porter’s Five Forces
There are various analyzing methods on strategy management. Resource based view and Porter’s five forces are two of them that represent different areas: the analysis of internal environment and external environment. The resource based view is a kind of economic tool that is used to decide what strategic resources are available to a company. The basic principle of this theory is that the fundamental for the competitive advantage of a company lies primarily in the application of the bundle of valuable resources at the company’s disposal. (Thomas, 2007) The organizational resources consist of the tangible resources (financial resources, physical resources, and structural resources) and intangible resources (technological resources, reputation resources, and innovation resources).
However, the Porter’s five forces is a simple while powerful tool for understanding where the power lies in a business situation. It
Content
1. Introduction 3 1.1. Concepts of Resource Based View and Porter’s Five Forces 3 1.2. Brief Introduction of Unilever 3
2. Resource Based View Analysis of Unilever 4 2.1. Value System 4 2.2. Objectives and vision 5 2.3. Management structure 5 2.4. Human resources 6 2.5. Image of the company and brand share equity 6 2.6. Physical assets and facilities 7 2.7. Research & development and technological capabilities 7 2.8. Financial factors 7
3. Porter’s Five Forces Analysis of Unilever 8 3.1. Bargaining Power of Customers 8 3.2. Rivalry among Existing Companies in the Industry 8 3.3. Substitue and Complementary Products 8 3.4. Potential Entrants and Barriers to Entry 9 3.5. Bargaining Power of Suppliers 9
4. Conclusion 9
Resource Based View and Porter’s Five Forces Analysis on Unilever
1. Introduction
1.1. Concepts of Resource Based View and Porter’s Five Forces
There are various analyzing methods on strategy management. Resource based view and Porter’s five forces are two of them that represent different areas: the analysis of internal environment and external environment. The resource based view is a kind of economic tool that is used to decide what strategic resources are available to a company. The basic principle of this theory is that the fundamental for the competitive advantage of a company lies primarily in the application of the bundle of valuable resources at the company’s disposal. (Thomas, 2007) The organizational resources consist of the tangible resources (financial resources, physical resources, and structural resources) and intangible resources (technological resources, reputation resources, and innovation resources).
However, the Porter’s five forces is a simple while powerful tool for understanding where the power lies in a business situation. It
References: 1. Porter, M.E. , 1990, 1998. "The Competitive Advantage of Nations", Free Press, New York, 1990. 2. Porter, M.E. , 1985. “Competitive Advantage”, Free Press, New York, 1985. 3. Porter, M.E. , 2008. “The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy”, Harvard business Review, January 2008. 4. Rumelt, R.P. , 1984. “Toward a strategic theory of the firm”, in Robert B. Lamb, (ed.) Competitive Strategic Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984, pp. 557-570. 5. McGee, John and Howard Thomas, 1986. “Strategic groups: Theory, research and taxonomy”, Strategic Management Journal, 7, March-April 1986, pp. 141-160. 6. Coyne, K.P. and Sujit Balakrishnan, 1996. Bringing discipline to strategy, The McKinsey Quarterly, No.4. 7. Geiger, 2005. EU lobbying handbook, A guide to modern participation in Brussels, Helios Media GmbH, 2006. 8. Wood D., 1991. Corporate Social Performance Revisited. The Academy of Management Review, Oct., 1991 9 10. C.K.Prahalad and G.Hamel, 1990. The core competence of the corporation, Harvard Business Review, 1990. 11. Johnson, G., Scholes, K. and Whittington, R. (2007) Exploring Corporate Strategy, 8th Edition, Prentice-Hall. London, pp.54-87, pp.694-707 12 13. McGee, Thomas and Wilson, (2005), Strategy: Analysis and Practice, Maidenhead, McGraw-Hill. 14. Palmer and Hartley, (2008), the Business Environment, 6th Edition, Maidenhead, McGraw-Hill. 15. Robert, G., (2008), Contemporary Strategy Analysis, 6th Edition, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing 16 17. Valentin, E. (2001) SWOT analysis from a resource-based view, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(2), PP.54-69 18 20. Goffin, K, Lemke, F, Lohmuller, B, Pfeiffer & Szwejcaewski, M, 2001, “Supplier management in German manufacturing companies”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 31, no.5, pp354-373 21 22. Zeng, A. Z, 2000, “A synthetic study of sourcing strategies”, Industrial Management & Data System, vol. 100, no. 5, pp219-226 23 24. Ballou, R. H. (2004): Business Logistics/Supply Chain Management. Planning, Organizing, and Controlling the Supply Chain. 5th Ed., Upper Saddle River. ISBN 0-13-149286-1. 25. Simchi-Levi, D.; Kaminsky, P.; Simchi-Levi, E. (2008): Designing and Managing the Supply Chain: Concepts, Strategies and Case Studies. 3rd Ed. Boston. ISBN 0-07-128714-0 -----------------------