KRAFT FOOD STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

KRAFT FOOD INC. – 2009
Case Note Prepared by: Fikri

1.0 CASE ABSTRACT

Kraft Foods Incorporated is the largest brand food and beverage company in North America and the second largest in the world with operating in more than 150 countries from Mexico to Singapore. Kraft operates in two main segments; Kraft Foods North America (KFNA) and Kraft Foods International (KFI).

Kraft, the holder of some of the world’s favorite food and beverage brands, markets in five product sectors named beverages, snacks, cheese, grocery and convenient meals. It was started by James L. Kraft in 1903 with a horse drawn wagon delivering wholesale cheese he manufactured in Chicago, Illinois. Through the years the company has been built on a strong sense of innovation and quality. You will find Kraft’s brands in a Parisian market in France, a vending machine in Japan and a grocery store in America. Kraft Foods is the number one food distributor in the United States and second only to Nestlé worldwide.

Kraft Food Inc. (www.Kraftfoodscompany.com) is a comprehensive strategic management case that include the company’s calendar December 31, 2008 financial statements, competitors information and more. The case time setting is the year 2009. Sufficient internal and external data are provided to enable students to evaluate current strategies. Headquartered in Northfield, IL, Kraft Food Inc. is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under ticker 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 (3), we pride ourselves in producing superior products and services (2) to our customer. With superior technology (4) and dedicated employees (9), we are constantly working on introducing new and innovative products, meeting our customer’s expectation (6) and ensuring to achieve higher than expected return to our shareholders (5). Our desire is to be the number one choice for our loyal customers (7, 8).

Customer
Products or services
Markets
Technology
Concern for survival, profitability, growth
Philosophy
Self-concept
Concern for public image
Concern for employees

5.0 COMPETITIVE PROFILE MATRIX (CPM)

Critical Success Factor	Weight
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.

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 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.

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 Factor Evaluation Matrix in order to evaluate the opportunities and threats affecting Kraft and the food processing industry. We gathered economic, social, cultural, demographic, environmental, political, governmental, legal, technological, and competitive information to develop our key external factors. These factors include 7 key external opportunities and 8 key external threats, all of which were assigned a weight and rating in order to develop a weighted score which are accumulated to determine Kraft’s external position in the industry. A weight is given to indicate the relative importance of each factor to being successful in the food processing industry. A rate is assigned to each factor to indicate how effectively Kraft’s current strategies respond to the factor. The rates are evaluated on scale of 1 through 4, where 4 indicates their response is superior, 3 shows their response is above average, 2 means their response is average, 1 indicates their response is poor. The rates are based by the company whereas the weights are based on the industry.

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 in order to evaluate the major strengths and weaknesses in Kraft’s functional areas of business. We used our intuitive judgments to determine the factors and assign each with a weight and a rating. A weight is given to each factor to indicate the relative importance of it being successful in Kraft’s industry, then a rating is provided to indicate whether the factor is a major strength, minor strength, major weakness, or minor weakness. Then we calculated a weighted score for each factor and summed them together to determine Kraft’s internal position.

Each factor under strengths received a rating of 3 or 4; 3 being a minor strength and 4 being a major strength. Kraft has shown positive sales growth and has been operating effectively in all five of its operating segments, which we considered to be a major strength of the company, so it received a rating of 4. We weighted this strength as a 0.06; we felt that this was of average importance to Kraft’s success. The same weight was given to the next factor under strengths; Kraft’s high priority and standards on food safety. It would be expected of any large company in the food industry to have a high priority and standards on food safety, so we determined this factor to be minor strength that is of average importance to the company’s success 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%	Debt ratio for the both years shows that Kraft Food Inc. financial analysis is within industry average. However Kraft Food Inc. needs to consider and settle all their short and long term debts and also other liabilities in order to portray a promising opportunity to 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 level is good. For every dollar of current liability, Kraft Food Inc. has USD 2.70 and 1.25 cash and assets that can be converted into cash to pay their 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 shows that Kraft Food Inc. has managed its assets well to generate profit.
6.	Return on Equity	Profit After Tax x 100 Shareholders’ Equity = 2901 x 100 22,200 = 13.06%	Kraft Food Inc. has higher ratio for their return on equity for both the years. This shows that Apple is able to generate high profit 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 Food Inc. has high return on capital for both the years. It obtained above 50% and this shows that Kraft Food Inc. has efficient system for transforming their investor’s capital into profit.
8	Net Profit Margin	Profit After Tax x 100 Sales = 2901 x 100 42,201 = 6.87%	Net profit margin for 2008 show improvement of the returns. In 2008 Kraft Food Inc. managed to generate 21.48 cent of every USD 1 dollar compared to 19.19% cent of every USD 1 dollar in 2009. This reflects that the purchasing team has managed their purchasing cost efficiently.

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. enjoys the position of world’s second largest food company after Nestle (Trevis, 2011). The company masters the manufacturing and marketing of confectionary, food items and beverages. It has more than 11 brands in the markets of America, Europe and Asia. The company has strong brand image and offers innovative products to its customer base. More than 40 of its brands has 100 years heritage (Kraft Foods, 2011). Kraft Foods provides an interesting portrait of a company that employs traditional distribution network as well as 2 tier direct store delivery distribution network (MWPL, 2011). With its continuous Research and development units the company is continuously in a process of offering safe, healthy and innovative products to its customers. The effective R&D is a key to sustain its market position and competition in the industry.

WEAKNESSES

The company is weak on its market performance. Kraft foods acquired Cadbury which no doubt increased its profit ratio to many folds but it also added lot of debt pressure on the company. Along with the debt requirements the company faces cut throat competition with Nestle and Harshey in the markets. Despite of its operations in various markets and presence in US and other markets, the company is weak on geographic concentration. Kraft foods has low market share but it enjoys high margins in grocery business. Kraft has about 9% market share in the $40 billion global grocery market. Although the grocery division's contribution to Kraft's revenues is lower compared to other divisions, it has EBITDA margins of 33% which are higher than the 14-15% margins in Kraft's other businesses. The high profit margins make grocery a lucrative business line for Kraft (Trevis, 2011).

OPPORTUNITIES

Kraft Foods has long way to go. It can utilize number of options available currently to get rid of debt requirements and other frills that are causing low market share to the company. Firstly, Kraft Foods can engage itself in the 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 business. Although Kraft Foods have acquired Cadbury but lots of its resources of revenue are still untapped to the company. Cadbury is a major player in the developing countries and earns billions of revenues from its customers in India, China and other Asian countries. Kraft foods can use Cadbury’s brand equity to offer new products in these markets to explore these markets and opportunities present there further. Secondly, Kraft Foods can reposition itself in the existing markets with more unique and health centered products. There is an increasing trend among the customers that they like to buy fresh, original and organic products. The company can reposition itself in the market as a provider of farm fresh products to gain the customer attention.

THREATS

The main issue currently faced by Kraft Foods Inc. is the Cadbury purchase related issues. After the purchase of Cadbury, there was lot of protest among the British nationals against this acquisition. The profit margins of the company dropped subsequently during this. The customers stopped purchasing the products offered by Kraft Foods, thus, hurting the market position of the company badly (YouGove SixthsSense, 2011). The acquisition brought no changes to the company as they failed to properly utilize the resources of Cadbury and failed to implement the proper positioning structure in the markets. There are chances that this acquisition can lead to the customer walk outs from Kraft products as a reaction to the purchase of Cadbury. This does not end here, the company faces fierce competition with Nestle and Harshey, the two giants that Kraft is competing 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

AGGRESSIVE

CONSERVATIVE

DEFENSIVE

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 axis. With the two axis intersecting in the middle then creating a four quadrant matrix which are labeled going top-right to bottom-right is aggressive, conservative, defensive and competitive. The Y-axis includes two dimensions; one internal which is the financial position (FP) and one is external, which is the stability position (SP). The X-axis includes the other two dimensions the competitive position (CP) which is internal and the industry position (IP) which is external. These factors are possibly the most important determinants of an organization’s strategic position.

11.0 GRAND STRATEGY MATRIX

The Grand Strategy Matrix is based on two evaluative measures, 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 domestically and internationally. There are new technologies coming around that the industry needs to look into so that they can continue to expand and keep their products at the top of their potential. When we were making the Grand Strategy Matrix we found that because of the market growth and Kraft’s strong competitive position they belong in quadrant one. The strategies that suggest they use from being in that quadrant are market development, market penetration, product development, forward integration, backward integration, horizontal integration, and related diversification. As a result of this matrix we can conclude that the company is in great strategic position and can even take on some aggressive risks if necessary. Kraft can continue to concentrate their efforts within the food processing industry by working on their market or on their products. They are in excellent strategic position and because of that they have a great chance to continue being 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 selected two strategies taken directly from the SWOT Matrix that we felt Kraft should consider implementing and listed the key external and internal factors taken directly from the EFE and IFE that related to both of those strategies. The strategies that we selected were to create new organic products to add to the product line, and to use customer loyalty to increase market share in the restaurant industry. After examining each factor, we were able to determine which ones would affect the choice of the strategies being made, and from there we determined the Attractiveness Score to indicate the relative attractiveness of each strategy in the set of alternatives. Scores ranged from 1 through 4; 1 meaning not attractive, 2 showing there were somewhat attractive, 3 meaning reasonably attractive, and 4 indicating there were highly attractive. Each factor’s weight was multiplied by the Attractiveness Score to come up with the Total Attractiveness Scores. By summing the Total Attractiveness Scores in each strategy column of the QSPM, we were able to determine which alternative strategy would be best for Kraft to implement.

13.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Kraft just reported strong second quarter 2009 result although revenues declined 5.9 percent year-over-year to $10.2 billion, primarily due to the unfavorable negative 8.1 percent impact of foreign currency and a negative 0.7 percent impact from divestitures. Kraft’s organic revenues increased 2.9 percent. For that quarter, Kraft’s North American segment (KNAC) sales were flat year-over-year as gains in U.S. Convenient Meals (7.1 percent), U.S. Grocery (6.7 percent), U.S. Beverages (6.0 percent), and U.S. Snacks (1.3 percent) were offset by the declines in U.S. Cheese (8.7 percent) and Canada & North American Foodservice (10.0 percent). In the International segment, net revenues in the European Union decreased 17.4 percent. Based on the strong year-to-date performance, CEO Rosenfeld has raised guidance for 2009. She now expects earnings of at least $1.93 per share compared to $1.88 guided earlier.

As indicated earlier in the evaluation matrix of external factors, one possibility was US sales of organic food and beverages rose by 1 billion (1990) to 26.7 billion (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 sales of their company 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. Prior to this case, we are not as well informed for how brands were actually owned by Kraft, so a recommendation would be to introduce organic food line actually under the name Kraft. Another recommendation would be to decrease the levels of salt 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 sodium in our diets "(Kraft.com). Sodium is essential for good health and life itself. We need to eat a small amount of sodium because the body cannot manufacture 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

29 Jun 2019

KRAFT FOOD STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

6.0 EFE Matrix of Kraft Foods

Sampel Popular

Biar Kami Bantu Anda

Hubungi Kami