STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
KRAFT FOOD INC.
– 2009
Case Analysis Prepared by: Viviana
Case Analysis Prepared by: Viviana
1.0
CASE
ABSTRACT
Kraft Foods Incorporated is the largest
food company and brand beverages in North America and the second largest in the
world to operate in over 150 countries, from Mexico to Singapore. Kraft
operates two main sectors; Kraft Foods North America (KFNA) and Kraft Foods
International (KFI).
Kraft, the support of certain brands of
food and favorite beverages in the world, markets in five sectors mentioned
products are drinks, snacks, cheese, grocery and convenient meals. It was
launched by James L. Kraft in 1903, with a horse drawn carriage to deliver the
cheese made it wholesale Chicago, Illinois. Through the years the company has
been built on a strong sense of innovation and quality. You can find the Kraft
brands in a Parisian market in France, a vending machine in Japan and a grocery
store in America. Kraft Foods is the number one distributor of food products in
the US and second only to Nestlé worldwide.
Kraft Foods Inc.
(www.Kraftfoodscompany.com) is an event of global strategic management that
includes the company's calendar on December 31, 2008 financial statements,
information on competitors and more. Setting the event time is 2009. Sufficient
internal and external data are provided to allow students to evaluate current
strategies. Based in Northfield, IL, Kraft Foods Inc. is listed on the New York
Stock Exchange under the symbol KFT.
2.0 VISION STATEMENT (Actual)
One company
growing by nourishing lives and finding better way today one bite at a time.
3.0 MISSION STATEMENT (Actual)
Make Today
Delicious.
4.0 MISSION
STATEMENT (Proposed)
As a global
company (c), we pride ourselves in producing superior products and services (b)
to our customer. With superior technology (d) and dedicated employees (i), we
are constantly working on introducing new and innovative products, meeting our
customer’s expectation (f) and ensuring to achieve higher than expected return
to our shareholders (e). Our desire is to be the number one choice for our
loyal customers (g, h).
a)
Customer
b)
Products or services
c)
Markets
d)
Technology
e)
Concern for survival, profitability, growth
f)
Philosophy
g)
Self-concept
h)
Concern for public image
i)
Concern for employees
5.0 COMPETITIVE
PROFILE MATRIX (CPM)
Critical Success Factor
|
Weight
|
 |
 |
||||
Rating
|
Score
|
Rating
|
Score
|
||||
1. Advertising
|
0.12
|
3
|
0.36
|
2
|
0.24
|
||
2. Financial Position
|
0.10
|
3
|
0.30
|
2
|
0.20
|
||
3. Global Expansion
|
0.09
|
3
|
0.27
|
2
|
0.18
|
||
4. Market Share
|
0.10
|
3
|
0.30
|
2
|
0.20
|
||
5. Product Diversity
|
0.16
|
4
|
0.64
|
3
|
0.48
|
||
6. Consumer Demands
|
0.14
|
4
|
0.56
|
3
|
0.42
|
||
7. Customer Loyalty
|
0.13
|
3
|
0.39
|
2
|
0.26
|
||
8. Product Safety
|
0.16
|
2
|
0.32
|
3
|
0.48
|
||
Total
|
1
|
3.14
|
2.46
|
||||
The Competitive Profile Matrix is a vital
strategic management tool to compare the firm
with the major competitors of the
industry. The competitive profile matrix displays a well-defined
picture to the firm about their strengths
and weaknesses relative to their competitors. The
primary competitors to Kraft are Nestlé
and ConAgra, so we used those two companies in this
matrix. After an in depth analysis of the
external and internal environment we came up with
these critical success factors:
Advertising, Financial Position, Global Expansion, Market Share,
Product Diversity, Consumer Demands,
Customer Loyalty, and Product Safety. After we came
up with each factor, we must weight and
rate each factor for each company. The
rating in the
CPM represents the response that the firm
has towards the critical success factors. The
response scale is from 1 to 4. A poor
response is represented by 1, the response is average if
it's represented by 2, the response is
above average if it's represented by 3, and the response is
superior if it's represented by 4.
Competitive
Profile Matrix is a vital strategic management tool for comparing the firm
with the major competitors in the industry. The competitive profile matrix
displays a clear image to the company about their strengths and weaknesses
compared to competitors. The main competitors of Kraft is ConAgra, so we used
these two companies in this matrix. After a thorough analysis of the external
and internal environment we came up with these critical success factors:
advertising, financial situation, global expansion, market share, product
diversity, consumer demand, loyalty Customer and product safety. After we
arrived with each factor, we have to weigh and evaluate each item for each
company. The note in the CPM represents the response that the company has
towards the critical success factors. The response scale is 1 to 4. A poor
response is represented by 1, the answer is average if represented by two, the
answer is above average if it is represented by three, and the answer is
greater if it is represented by four.
In this industry we felt that Kraft has an
above average effort in their advertising field, but
felt that Nestlé does a little more in
their efforts. We see more diverse
advertising by Nestlé,
whether its newspaper ads or commercials.
Also their advertising is more eye catching and
appealing to the public. ConAgra received
a 2 because they aren’t really on the same page
6.0 EFE Matrix of Kraft Foods
Opportunities
|
Weight
|
Rating
|
Weighted
Score
|
Operates in fast growing
industry
|
0.08 (8%)
|
4
|
0.32
|
Increase in demand of healthy products
|
0.05 (5%)
|
3
|
0.15
|
Cost competition
|
0.10 (10%)
|
3
|
0.30
|
Merger and acquisition
|
0.08(10%)
|
3
|
0.24
|
Online existence on Internet
for shopping
|
0.07 (7%)
|
3
|
0.21
|
Change in people lifestyle
|
0.07 (7%)
|
2
|
0.14
|
New product development
|
0.08 (8%)
|
3
|
0.24
|
Threats
|
|||
Strong competition
|
0.10 (10%)
|
3
|
0.30
|
New entrants in retail industry
|
0.05 (5%)
|
3
|
0.15
|
Online sales increasing which
will results in increasing competition
|
0.10 (10%)
|
3
|
0.30
|
Economics recession
|
0.05 (5%)
|
1
|
0.05
|
Political issues
|
0.05 (5%)
|
1
|
0.05
|
Increase in obesity rate
|
0.10 (10%)
|
2
|
0.20
|
Total
Weighted Score
|
1.0(100%)
|
2.65
|
The
score of 2.65 is above average which means that the company is performing well
but there is still enough of improvement.
External
Evaluation Matrix to assess the food processing industry opportunities and
threats affecting Kraft. We met economic, social, cultural, demographic,
environmental, political, governmental, legal, technological, competitive and
information to develop our key external factors. These factors include 7 key
external opportunities and external threats 8 keys, all of which were assigned
a weight and stars, to develop a weighted score that are accumulated to
determine the external position of Kraft in the industry. A weight is given to
indicate the relative importance of each factor for success in the food
processing industry. A rate is assigned to each factor to indicate the
effectiveness of current strategies Kraft react to the factor. Rates are
assessed on a scale of 1 to 4, where 4 indicates response is greater, Figure 3
shows the response is greater than the average, their response means 2 is
average, 1 indicates their response is poor. The rates are calculated by the
company while the weights are based on the sector.
7.0 INTERNAL FACTOR EVALUATION (IFE) MATRIX
Weighted
Key internal factors Weight Rating Score
Strengths
1. Positive
sales in all 5 operating segments; Snacks,
Beverages, Cheese, Grocery, Convenient
Meals. 0.06
4 0.24
2. High priority
and standards on food safety. 0.06 3 0.18
3. Diverse
range of brands and products. 0.08 4 0.32
4. Strong
focus on R&D. 0.08 4 0.32
5. Sales
increased by 2.9% in North American markets. 0.04 3 0.12
6. Strong
reputation and perceived value among customers. 0.12 4 0.48
7. Organic
food revenue increased by 2.3% in first quarter
2009 0.07 4 0.28
Weakness
1. Possibility of perceived
weakness from female CEO in certain
foreign markets. 0.02 2 0.04
2. Risk of
contamination in agricultural products 0.12 1 0.12
3. Sales
drop 5.9% in second quarter 2009. 0.08 2 0.16
4. High
amount of goodwill - over $27.5 billion. 0.07 1 0.07
5. $18.5 billion in
long-term debt - increased 50% in 2008 from
2007. 0.07 1 0.07
6. Difficulty launching new brands. 0.09 1 0.09
7. Margins depend on commodity prices. 0.04 2 0.08
TOTAL 1.00 2.57
Major Weakness (rating =1)
Minor Weakness (rating =2)
Minor Strength (rating =3)
Major Strength (rating =4)
Internal Factor
Evaluation Matrix to evaluate the main strengths and weaknesses in functional
areas of the company Kraft. We used our intuitive judgments to determine
factors and assign each with a weight and a rating. A weight is given to each
factor to indicate the relative importance of the latter being successful in
the industry Kraft, then a reminder is provided to indicate whether the factor
is a major asset, minor strength, weakness, or minor weakness. Then we
calculated a weighted score for each factor and summed to determine the
internal position of Kraft.
Each factor
under force received a rating of 3 or 4; 3 being a minor force and 4 being a
major asset. Kraft posted a positive sales growth and was operating effectively
in all five of its operating segments, which we considered to be a major asset
of the company, received a score of 4. We weighted the force as a 0, 06; we
felt that it was of average importance to the success of Kraft. The same weight
was given to the next factor under strength; High priority and standards on
food safety Kraft. It would be expected of a large company in the food industry
to have a high priority and standards on food safety, so we determined this
factor to be minor force that is of moderate importance to the success the
company in this industry.
8.0 FINANCIAL RATIO ANALYSIS FOR 2008
No.
|
Title
|
Calculation for Sept 2008
(million)
|
Description
|
|
1.
|
Debt Ratio
|
Total
liabilities x 100
Total
Assets
= USD 40,878 x 100
USD 63,078
= 64.80%
|
The debt ratio for two years shows that financial analysis Kraft
Food Inc. is the industry average. However Kraft Food Inc. must review and
settle all their short- and long-term debt and other liabilities also to
represent a promising opportunity for potential creditors for loan purposes.
|
|
2.
|
Current Ratio
|
Current Assets
Current Liabilities
= 11,366
11,044
= 1.02
|
Current ratios for 2008 show that every dollar of current
liability, Kraft Food Inc. has 1.02 current assets for its payment.
|
No.
|
Title
|
Calculation for Sept 2008
(million)
|
Description
|
|
3
|
Quick Ratio
|
Current Assets – (Inventory + Prepayments)
Current Liabilities
= 11,366 – (3,729 + 56)
11,044
= 0.68
Note: No Prepayments
|
The quick ratio for both years shows 0.68. This shows that Kraft
Food Inc. liquidity position is good. For each current liabilities dollar,
Kraft Food Inc. USD 2.70 and 1.25 in cash and assets that can be converted
into cash to pay short-term debts immediately.
|
|
4.
|
Debt Equity Ratio
|
Long-Term
Liabilities x 100
Shareholders’ Equity
= 18,589 x 100
22,200
= 83.73%
|
Debt
ratio for 2008 are high at 83.73%. Kraft Food Inc. should
maintain their Debt Equity Ratio to attract potential creditors.
|
No.
|
Title
|
Calculation for Sept 2008
(million)
|
Description
|
|
5
|
Return on Assets
|
Profit After Tax x
100
Total Asset
=
2901 x 100
63,078
= 4.59%
|
Return on assets for both years are high and show that Kraft
Food Inc. has managed its assets to generate profits.
|
|
6.
|
Return on Equity
|
Profit After Tax x
100
Shareholders’ Equity
=
2901 x 100
22,200
= 13.06%
|
Kraft Foods Inc. has a higher ratio for their return on equity
for the two years. This shows that Apple is able to generate high profits for
their owners.
|
No.
|
Title
|
Calculation for Sept 2008
(million)
|
Description
|
|
7
|
Return on Capital Only
|
Net Income - Dividend x 100
Equity + Long Term Debt
= 2901 – 1.12 x 100
22,200 + 18,589
= 71.09%
|
Kraft Foods Inc. has a high return on capital for the two years.
He received more than 50%, which shows that Kraft Foods Inc. has an effective
system to transform the capital of their investor profit.
|
|
8
|
Net Profit Margin
|
Profit After Tax x
100
Sales
= 2901 x 100
42,201
= 6.87%
|
The net profit margin for 2008 show an improvement in yields. In
2008, Kraft Foods Inc. has succeeded in generating 21.48 percent of every $ 1
USD compared to 19.19% percent of every $ 1 USD in 2009. This reflects that
the bid team managed their purchase effectively.
|
9.0 SWOT STRATEGIES (Strenght, weaknesses, oppurtunities and
threats)
The SWOT analysis of Kraft Foods Inc. is as follows:
Strengths
·
World’s second
largest food company
·
Strong brand equity
·
Innovation
·
Distribution network
·
Ad Hoc R&D
|
Weaknesses
·
Market share
·
Competition
·
Debt requirements
·
Geographic concentration
|
Opportunities
·
Expansion in
developing markets
·
Explore Cadbury
markets
·
Repositioning
·
Offer Organic
Products
|
Threats
·
Cadbury purchase
issues
·
Fierce competition
·
Poor implementations
on Cadbury division
·
Unhappy customers
|
STRENGHTS
Kraft Foods Inc. has the second largest food company's
position in the world after Nestlé (Trevis, 2011). The company controls the
manufacturing and marketing of confectionery, food and drinks. He has more than
11 brands in the markets of America, Europe and Asia. The company has a strong
brand and offers innovative products to its customer base. More than 40 of its
brands has 100 years heritage (Kraft, 2011). Kraft Foods provides an
interesting portrait of a society that uses the traditional distribution
network and 2 levels direct store distribution network for the delivery (MWPL,
2011). With its research units and continuous development of the company is
constantly in a process of providing safe, healthy and innovative customers. R
& D effectively is a key to maintain its market position and competition in
the industry.
WEAKNESSES
The company is weak on its market performance. Kraft Foods
acquired Cadbury which undoubtedly increased its profit ratio for many folds,
but also added a lot of debt pressure on the company. With the requirements of
the debt of the company to compete throat cut with Nestlé and Harshey in the
markets. In spite of its operations in various markets and the presence in the
US and other markets, the company is low on geographical concentration. Kraft Foods
has a small market share, but it has strong margins in the grocery business.
Kraft has about 9% of market share in the overall grocery market 40 billion.
Although the contribution of the Grocery Division of income from Kraft is lower
compared to other divisions, it has EBITDA margins of 33% which are higher than
the 14-15% margin in d Other Kraft companies. High profit margins are grocery
store, a lucrative industry for Kraft (Trevis, 2011).
OPPORTUNITIES
Kraft Foods has long way to go. It can use number of
options available for the moment to get rid of debt requirements and other
frills that are causing small share of corporate market. First, Kraft Foods
itself may engage in market expansion process. This can be achieved in the
developing markets of Asia like India, China and Japan, etc. these markets show
great potential for the company. Although Kraft Foods acquired Cadbury, but
much of its revenue from untapped resources for society. Cadbury is a major
player in developing countries and makes billions in sales to its customers in
India, China and other Asian countries. Kraft foods can use the capital Cadbury
brands to deliver new products in these markets to explore these markets and
the current opportunities it further. Second, Kraft Foods can reposition
existing markets with more unique products and focused health. There is a
growing trend among customers that they love to buy fresh, original and
organic. The company may reposition itself in the market as a supplier of fresh
produce to attract customer's attention.
THREATS
The main problem currently faced by Kraft Foods Inc. is the
purchase of Cadbury issues. After buying Cadbury, there was a lot of protest
from British nationals against the acquisition. The margins of the non-profit
company fell later in this. Customers have stopped buying the products offered
by Kraft Foods, thus harming the market position of the company badly (You Gove
SixthsSense, 2011). The acquisition has made no changes to the company as they
failed to properly use the Cadbury resources and failed to implement proper
positioning structure on the markets. Chances are that this acquisition can
lead to walking out of the Kraft product customer as a reaction to the purchase
of Cadbury. It does not end here, the company faces fierce competition with
Nestlé and Harshey, the two giants as Kraft competes with.
10.0 STRATEGIC POSITION AND ACTION EVALUATION
SPACE MATRIX
FINANCIAL
POSITION (FP)
|
|
Factors
|
Rating
|
Revenues
increased 16.8% to $42.2 billion
|
4
|
Earnings
increased 12% to 2.9 billion
|
3
|
Total L+SE+ Assets decreased 7.5%
to $6.3 billion
|
3
|
Gross profit margin of 34.1
compared to the industry average of 31.1
|
4
|
Current ratio
of 1.1
|
2
|
TOTALS
|
16
|
INDUSTRY
POSITION (IP)
|
|
Factors
|
Rating
|
Growth
potential
|
5
|
Ease of
market entry
|
4
|
Profit
potential
|
4
|
Financial
stability
|
3
|
Resource
utilization
|
3
|
TOTALS
|
19
|
STABILITY POSITION (SP)
|
|
Factors
|
Rating
|
Competitive
pressure
|
-4
|
Barriers to
entry
|
-4
|
Unemployment
|
-5
|
Technology
changes
|
-2
|
Price range of
competitors products
|
-4
|
TOTALS
|
-19
|
COMPETETIVE
POSITION (CP)
|
|
Factors
|
Rating
|
Customer
loyalty
|
-3
|
Product
quality
|
-3
|
Market share
|
-2
|
Technological
knowledge
|
-4
|
Competition
|
-5
|
TOTALS
|
-17
|
Conclusions
SP
Average: -19/5= -3.8 IP
Average: 19/5= 3.8
CP
Average: -17/5= -3.4 FP
Average: 16/5= 3.2
Directional
Vector Coordinates:
X-axis: -3.4 + (3.8) = .4 Y-axis: -3.8 + (3.2) = -.6
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
The strategic
position and Action Evaluation Matrix, also known as the space matrix is an
important matching stage tool used to match different variables along two axes.
With the two intersecting axes in the middle and then creating a matrix with
four quadrants that are labeled will top right bottom right is aggressive,
conservative, defensive and competitive. The Y axis comprises two dimensions;
one which is internal financial position (FP) and is external, which is the
position stability (SP). The X axis includes the other two dimensions of the
competitive position (CP) which is internal and the position of the industry
(IP) that is external. These factors are perhaps the most important
determinants of the strategic position of the organization.
11.0 GRAND
STRATEGY MATRIX
|
|||||||
 |
|||||||
|
|||||||
 |
|||||||
The Grand Strategy Matrix is based on
two measures of evaluation, the competitive position and market growth. Kraft
Foods is the leader in North America when it comes to the food industry and the
food processing industry is growing both nationally and internationally. There
are new technologies coming around what the industry needs to address so that
they can continue to grow and keep their products on top of their potential.
When we did the Grand Strategy Matrix, we found that due to market growth and a
solid competitive position Kraft belong in a quadrant. The strategies that
suggest they use to be in this quadrant are market development, market penetration,
product development, integration forward, backward integration, horizontal
integration, and related diversification. Following this matrix, we can
conclude that the company is in an excellent strategic position and can even
take some aggressive risks if necessary. Kraft may continue to focus their
efforts within the industry of food processing working on their market or their
products. They are in an excellent strategic position and because of that they
have a great chance to continue to be successful in the future.
12.0 QUALITATIVE STRATEGIC PLANNING (QSPM
MATRIX)
STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES
|
|||||
1
|
2
|
||||
Market Penetration
|
Product Development
|
||||
Use customer
loyalty and diverse range of products to increase sales to restaurants.
|
Create new organic
products to add to existing product lines.
|
||||
Key Factors
|
Weight
|
AS
|
TAS
|
AS
|
TAS
|
Opportunities
|
|||||
1. U.S.
sales of organic food and beverage have increased from $1 billion
(1990) to $26.7 billion (2009).
|
0.08
|
1
|
0.08
|
4
|
0.32
|
2. Food
manufactures have experienced an increase in sales due to a
higher number of people dining out.
|
0.10
|
4
|
0.4
|
2
|
0.2
|
3.
Women are becoming more common in upper management (11.2% in
1995 to 16.4% in 2005).
|
0.06
|
―
|
―
|
||
4. Baked
goods prices increased 10.7% compared to 2008.
|
0.03
|
―
|
―
|
||
5. Increased
trends of flavor enhancer for bottled
water .
|
0.13
|
―
|
―
|
||
6. Growing
environmental consensus.
|
0.06
|
1
|
0.06
|
4
|
0.24
|
7.
Increased demand for packaged and processed foods around the world
due to change in lifestyles .
|
0.07
|
1
|
0.07
|
4
|
0.28
|
Threats
|
|||||
1. Increasing obesity rates in North America.
|
0.03
|
1
|
0.03
|
4
|
0.12
|
2. Due
to a weak economy and increased competition, the food
processing industry saw a work force
reduction on average of 7.5% in
2009.
|
0.04
|
―
|
―
|
||
3. Rising costs of petroleum cause an increase in
cost for food companies.
|
0.05
|
2
|
0.1
|
1
|
0.05
|
4.
Difficult to differentiate product pricing between competitors in the
food processing industry.
|
0.04
|
―
|
―
|
||
5. Customers switching to generic brands.
|
0.09
|
2
|
0.18
|
1
|
0.09
|
6.
Increased intensity between competitors in European as well as other
Markets.
|
0.07
|
―
|
―
|
||
7.
North American competition is now primarily focused on the food
Industry.
|
0.13
|
3
|
0.39
|
4
|
0.52
|
8. Declining value of the dollar with an increasing value of the Euro.
|
0.02
|
―
|
―
|
||
Strengths
|
|||||
1.
Positive sales growth and operating effectively in all 5 operating segments;
Snacks, Beverages, Cheese, Grocery, Convenient Meals.
|
0.06
|
2
|
0.12
|
3
|
0.18
|
2. High priority and standards on food safety.
|
0.06
|
―
|
―
|
||
3. Diverse range of brands and products.
|
0.08
|
2
|
0.16
|
4
|
0.32
|
4. Strong focus on R&D.
|
0.08
|
―
|
―
|
||
5. Sales increased by 2.9% in North American
markets.
|
0.04
|
2
|
0.08
|
4
|
0.16
|
6. Strong reputation and perceived value among
customers.
|
0.12
|
2
|
0.24
|
3
|
0.36
|
7. Organic revenue increased by 2.3% in first
quarter 2009.
|
0.07
|
1
|
0.07
|
4
|
0.28
|
Weaknesses
|
|||||
1.
Possibility of perceived weakness from female CEO in certain foreign markets.
|
0.02
|
―
|
―
|
||
2. Risk of contamination in source products.
|
0.12
|
―
|
―
|
||
3. Sales drop 5.9% in second quarter 2009.
|
0.08
|
2
|
0.16
|
3
|
0.24
|
4. High amount of goodwill - over $27.5 billion.
|
0.07
|
―
|
―
|
||
5. $18.5 billion in long-term debt - increased about
50% in 2008 from
2007.
|
0.07
|
―
|
―
|
||
6. Difficulty launching new brands.
|
0.09
|
1
|
0.09
|
4
|
0.36
|
7. Margins depend on commodity prices.
|
0.04
|
―
|
―
|
||
Total
|
2.23
|
3.72
|
|||
Quantitative
Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM) to determine the most effective alternative
strategy for Kraft Foods. To develop this matrix, we chose two strategies taken
directly from the SWOT matrix that we felt Kraft should consider implementing
and listed the key internal and external factors taken directly from EFE and
IFE which relate to these two strategies. The strategies that we were chosen to
create new organic products to add to the product line, and use customer
loyalty to increase their market share in the catering sector. After
considering each factor, we were able to determine those that would influence
the choice of strategies being made, and from there, we determined the
attractiveness score to indicate the relative attractiveness of each strategy
in all alternatives. Scores ranged from 1 to 4; 1 is not attractive, 2 showing
that there was little attractive, 3 means reasonably attractive, and 4
indicating that there was very attractive. The weight of each factor has
increased the attractiveness score coming with totals of attractiveness scores.
By adding up the totals of attractiveness scores in each column of the strategy
QSPM we were able to determine what alternative strategy would be best for
Kraft to implement.
13.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Kraft announced
strong second quarter 2009 is much revenues declined 5.9 percent year-over-year
to $ 10.2 billion, mainly due to the negative impact of 8.1 percent unfavorable
currencies and a negative impact of 0.7 percent from disposals. Sales of Kraft
rose 2.9 percent. For this quarter, the North American segment Kraft (KNAC)
sales were flat year-over-year as gains in US food practices (7.1 percent), US
Grocery (6.7 percent) , US beverages (6.0 percent) and US Snacks (1.3 percent)
was offset by declines in US Cheese (8.7 percent) and Canada and North American
Foodservice ( 10.0 percent). In the International segment, net revenues in the
European Union fell by 17.4 percent. Based on the strong performance for the
year to date, CEO Rosenfeld has raised guidance for 2009. It now expects
earnings of $ 1.93 per share at least compared to $ 1.88 guided earlier.
As indicated earlier in the evaluation
matrix of external factors, a possibility was US sales of organic food and
beverages rose by 1 billion (1990) to 26.7 billion euros (2009). We believe
that Kraft should focus on this part of the industry and develop products that
meet the organic market. Taking all conservative, take down the high levels of
salt and saturated fat would be ideal for the sale of their business and their
hearts consumers. Another recommendation that we felt treated the same, but
felt the way the organic line is introduced is key. Kraft has a lot of brands
that stand alone. Before this case, we are not as well informed of how the
marks were actually owned by Kraft, then a recommendation would be to introduce
organic food line actually under the name Kraft. Another recommendation would
be to reduce salt levels in food. "Salt and sodium are not the same. We
often use the terms interchangeably, but only 40% salt is composed of sodium.
The other 60% is chloride. Salt (sodium chloride) is the main contributor of
sodium in our diet "(Kraft. com). Sodium is essential for good health and
life itself. We need to eat a small amount of sodium because the body cannot create
this mineral.
ATTACHMENT
REFERENCES
Food Business Review (FBR), 2008. Kraft
foods deploys SAP Netweaver technology, Retrieved on June 21, 2011 from
http://www.food-business- review.com/news/kraft_foods_deploys_sap_netweaver_technology_platfor m
Kraft Foods, 2011. Financial News
Release, Retrieved on June 30, 2015 from http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129070&p=irol- newsArticle&ID=1374445
Kraft Foods, 2011. Political
Involvement, Retrieved on June 30, 2015 from http://www.kraftfoodscompany.com/investor/corporate- governance/politicalcontributions.aspx
Kraft Foods Brands, 2011.
Retrieved on June 30, 2015 from http://www.kraftfoodscompany.com/Brands/largest-brands/index.aspx
Kraft Foods Company, 2011. Trevis
Website. Retrieved on June 30, 2015 from https://www.trefis.com/company?hm=KFT.trefis#
Kraft replaces AIG in Dow Jones
Industrial Average. USA TODAY, Associated Press, Retrieved on June 21, 2011
from http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/2008- 09-18-dow- adds-kraft_N.htm
MWPL, 2011. DSD vs Centralized
Distribution Network, Retrieved on June 30, 2015 from http://www.mwpvl.com/html/dsd__vs_central_distribution.html
Steven Goers, 2008. Fostering
Innovation at Kraft Foods, Retrieved on June 30, 2015 from http://www.ideaconnection.com/interviews/00058-Fostering-Innovation-at-Kraft- Foods.html
YouGov SixthSense, 2011. Kraft
Foods Inc. Retrieved on June 30, 2015 from http://sixthsense.yougov.com/food--drink-reports/snacking-.aspx
