PepsiCo In this text, I select PepsiCo as my company of choice for the analysis. Amongst other things, I will determine the impact PepsiCo's primary stakeholders, vision, and mission have on the company's overall success. I will also carry out an analysis of the five forces of competition and how they impact on PepsiCo. Further, in addition to conducting a SWOT analysis of the company, I will also discuss a wide range of other strategic management issues in relation to PepsiCo.

PepsiCo: Overview

PepsiCo describes itself as "a world leader in convenient snacks, foods and beverages" (PepsiCo, 2012). Some of the most popular brands on PepsiCo's stable include but they are not limited to Pepsi Cola, 7UP, Lay's potato chips, Tropicana Juices, etc. Headquartered in New York, the company's main competitor remains the Coca-Cola Company. PepsiCo's current chief executive officer is Indra Krishnamurthy Nooyi.

Impact of PepsiCo's Primary Stakeholders, Vision, and Mission on its Overall Success

PepsiCo (2012) outlines its mission as:

Our mission is to be the world's premier consumer products company focused on convenient foods and beverages. We seek to produce financial rewards to investors as we provide opportunities for growth and enrichment to our employees, our business partners, and the communities in which we operate. And in everything we do, we strive for honesty, fairness and integrity.

In basic terms, a closer look at PepsiCo's mission statement clearly indicates that it has its focus on all the key stakeholders of the company, i.e. investors, employees, business partners (e.g. suppliers), communities in which it operates, as well as consumers. This unifying approach in my opinion acts as a lighthouse of sorts for the company as far as its purpose and direction is concerned. In that regard, it is unlikely that PepsiCo could veer off the path as it seeks to attain its purpose and/or fulfill its commitment to stakeholders. The relevance of the said mission statement cannot hence be overstated when it comes to the enhancement of the PepsiCo's overall success.

When it comes to the PepsiCo's vision, the same is outlined as: "PepsiCo's responsibility is to continually improve all aspects of the world in which we operate -- environment, social, economic -- creating a better tomorrow than today" (PepsiCo 2013). Essentially, a vision statement captures a given company's aspirations. PepsiCo's vision statement tells us what the company wants to become. In that regard, it is largely motivational and inspirational to PepsiCo's employees, shareholders, customers, and other partners. Thus in addition to serving as a roadmap for the company's future, PepsiCo's vision statement acts as an adhesive that bonds together all the relevant stakeholders of the company. The vision statement thus remains critical as far as the overall success of PepsiCo is concerned.

PepsiCo's key stakeholders also have an important role to play in the overall success of the firm. The company's key stakeholders include but they are not limited to customers, employees, shareholders, suppliers, and the government. Customers purchase the products offered for sale by the company. Their purchase decisions affect PepsiCo's bottom-line and hence its overall success. Employees on the other hand affect PepsiCo's overall performance through the level of commitment that they exhibit in their work. When it comes to shareholders, it is important to note that their decisions (via the board of directors) have a significantly impact on the success of the firm going forward. To ensure that its operations run smoothly, PepsiCo needs the cooperation of suppliers. This is more so the case given that the overall success of the firm on this front, especially as far as production is concerned is largely hinged on the timely, efficient, and cost effective delivery of the required raw materials. Lastly, government regulation could force PepsiCo to modify, review, or even disrupt some aspects of its operations. This could have an impact on the overall success of the firm.

The Five Forces of Competition and their Impact on PepsiCo

Designed by Henry Porter, the five forces of competition according to Henry (2008) include "(1) threat of new entrants, (2) bargaining power of buyers, (3) bargaining power of suppliers, (4) threat of substitute products or services, and (5) intensity of rivalry among firms in an industry." As the author further points out, it is by examining these forces that an organization enhances its ability to assess how effectively it can compete in a given industry (Henry, 2008).

When it comes to the threat of new entrants, Henry (2008) points out...

The entry of new firms in an industry effectively intensifies competition in the said industry leading to decreased profits. New firms could also be attracted into a specific industry by the relative ease of setting up a business. As Henry (2008) notes, "the threat of entry will depend on the existence of barriers to entry and the reaction of existing competitors." It is important to note that in the industry PepsiCo does business in, i.e. beverages - soft drinks industry, there are significant barriers to entry including but not limited to intense capital requirements. There are also a wide range of regulatory standards companies wishing to establish operations in this particular market have to satisfy. In that regard, there is no immediate threat of new entrants in the beverages - soft drinks industry. For this reason, it is highly unlikely that PepsiCo could lose its market share to new entrants.
Next, in regard to the bargaining power of buyers, Henry (2008) is of the opinion that "buyers can affect an industry through their ability to force down prices, bargain for higher-quality or more services, and to play competitors off against each other." In PepsiCo's context, buyers could be the individuals who purchase and consume the various products offered for sale by companies in the industry. Buyers could also be the firms, i.e. wholesalers, who distribute the brands of various companies in the industry to individual customers. In seeking to chart the bargaining power of buyers, it would be prudent to analyze the nature of the beverages - soft drinks industry. To begin with, the beverages - soft drinks industry is made up of only a few big companies. Products in this case are also significantly differentiated, that is; the products offered for sale by the Coca-Cola Company significantly differ from those offered for sale by PepsiCo. In such a case, it would be hard for buyers, i.e. supermarket chains, to force down prices by threatening to play individual companies against each other. Thus in the final analysis, buyers in the beverages - soft drinks industry do not possess sufficient power to force down the prices of products individual companies like PepsiCo offer for sale.

When it comes to the bargaining power of suppliers, Henry (2008) indicates that "suppliers can exert bargaining power over participants in an industry by raising prices or reducing the quality of purchased goods and services." In regard to the beverages - soft drinks industry, suppliers include all the firms that provide players in the industry with the relevant inputs including services, materials, or even labor. Given the many products offered for sale by PepsiCo, it would be appropriate to take into consideration only its beverages segments in this particular case. Some of the materials used in the manufacture of most of PepsiCo's beverages include but they are not limited to sugar, natural flavors, and citric acid. Essentially, although the products listed in this case do not have substitutes, they are sold by many suppliers who also happen to be small in size. Companies in the beverages - soft drinks industry could therefore choose to purchase a product from any of the many sellers available. Further, the sheer size of companies like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo means that their purchase volumes are rather high. For this reason, they can exert significant pressure on the margins of their suppliers. Suppliers in this industry cannot therefore be said to be in a powerful position and for this reason, they do not have the ability to significantly influence PepsiCo's bottom-line.

Fourth, we have the threat of substitute products or services which according to Henry (2008) "is not competition from new entrants, but from products and services which can meet similar needs." As the author further points out, substitutes can effectively limit a given industry's returns by imposing the maximum price players in a given industry can charge. Substitutes to the various soft drink brands offered for sale by companies in the beverages - soft drinks industry include bottled water, coffee, energy drinks, etc. The existence of substitutes according to Henry (2008) effectively means that an increase in price could motivate customers to switch to substitutes. In that regard, it would be hard for PepsiCo to revise the price of its products upwards.

Lastly, the intensity of rivalry among firms in a specific industry according to Henry (2008) can be regarded "a determinant of the competitive state of most industries and their overall profitability." A high degree of rivalry according to the author leads to decreased profitability. The…