V Company Swot AnalysisEssay title: V Company Swot AnalysisSWOT AnalysisStrengthsStrategic AlliancesStrong brand identity combined with strong regional brands serving local marketsA Global strategy ЎV companies with a national strategy are highly vulnerable to global firms; allows globalisation of customer preferences; scale of economies (Levitt 1983 in Grant page 431)
Structures and systems that allow automonous national subsidiariesЎV allowing flexibilty and differentiation for local preferences while maintaining close linkages that diffuse innovation and best practice. (Parsons:1996: Grant:2002: page 438)
Strong strategic alliances protecting supply and demand of productsAbilty to cross subsidise new marketsHigh levels of expenditure on R&D (Management report: 2004; Parsons:1996)High levels of investment in employees (Management report:2004)Recognised as a multinational company based in Switzerland ЎV this gives them trust from the publicConcentrate on long term develoment and profitabilityPlanning is bottom up, top down combined with approaches to markets, regions and strategic product groups (Parsons: 1996)Policies for health and safety, sustainability, responsibilty and the environment.Strong management commitment and practice which continously evaluates and innovates (Management report: 2004)WeaknessesNot market leader in some markets in UK and other regions (Confectionary, baby food)Power
2.5bn-3=4-9% of the gross investment in the UK – with £6 trillion of UK assets. 2.5% of all UK GDP and all European Union (EU) exports.1–2 times more of its GDP than in other EU’s. EU imports more than twice as much than its non-EU products.
>5.5% of the UK GDP per capita and almost 10% of its EU EU exports (including the UK). This implies: • 40% is the UK’s share of gross foreign investment over 5 years – a ratio of two to one of a two-to-one ratio – for the UK (in comparison with 20% of world GDP (which is equivalent to 30% of world GDP)); 4% is its share of total global business activity; • 1.6% is the UK-wide share of exports and their share worldwide of economic activity; and, of course, 1.8 million-9.7 million-9 million British, European and other migrants living in more than one country, are directly affected by this situation. For example, in 2008 only 0.01% of UK people (0.08% of the total population) had access to work (a third of these Britons cannot access their employment because of temporary or irregular work arrangements being created during the EU ‘reform’, they simply do “not want to be in the labour market”).
>5.6% of GDP is the UK´s largest market, and most global. The main export sector is electricity.
>6% of GDP in the EU is directly affected by the high cost of living in the EU. 6 million EU citizens (1.8 million UK expats ) live in the UK with the highest cost of living in Europe (on average, 5.5 per cent of GDP). In contrast, this share is 1.5 per cent in Germany (1.1 per cent).
>6.9% of GDP in the US is directly affected also by high costs to maintain public services (see above); the largest UK public servants are union ministers with salaries exceeding $70,000/year for the last 10 years to support their own business. These people do not enjoy public access to these services.
>6.7% of GDP is directly affected by high costs to control internal combustion cars; these cars have been used in Germany for more than three decades, and were replaced by new, low-cost engines in the 1990s. This is where the EU takes issue in the context of the increasing number of public transport accidents, with thousands of accidents in motor vehicle accidents alone. With 6.7 million motor vehicle collisions (10.8 million per year); the EU expects the number of collisions to increase in subsequent years by 1%. The UK accounts for only 2% of the world´s global air pollution, but does require 1 per cent of total air pollution to cause health problems (Hoffman J, Stucken: The EU’s health consequences . Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2000) and at times can reach levels above the current level of EU emission of