The And A Small Snack Company

Senior Management of PepsiCo is evaluating the potential acquisition of two companies – Carts of Colorado and California Pizza Kitchen – in order to expand the company’s restaurant business. If indeed PepsiCo decides to pursue the acquisition of one or both, they must decide how to align each of these business units in its historically decentralized management approach and how to forge relationships between the acquired business units and existing business units. In their evaluation, Senior Management is faced with the question of whether the necessary capital investment in order to purchase one or both of the businesses can be profitable for each of the acquired business units, but must

The major issues in this case include how hot the coffee should be, when to draw the line on making a case outrageous and how corporations are supposed to please customers without worrying about being sued. I believe that the lawsuit was frivolous because of the amount of money that was being asked for. It is common sense that when you order coffee or any other hot beverage that contents will be hot. I feel that it was the fault of Liebeck and although this is the case, McDonald’s should have paid the medical bills and settled out of court before it was blown out of proportion.

This lawsuit had impact on both the business world and the rules of the law. McDonald's was forced to reexamine its policy. McDonald's was aware of the risk and hazard, but undertook nothing to mitigate or reduce the risk of injury. The company knew about burn hazards and continued to serve coffee hot to save money and get away with cheaper grade coffee. After reexamining their policy, McDonald's has been serving coffee at a temperature low enough not to cause immediate third-degree burns. This

The Hershey Company and Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. have weathered the ”Great Depression” with a history of more than one hundred years in the confectionary candy making industry. Their vision and longevity have pushed them into the twenty first century to meet the needs of the community, consumer, affordability, environment and healthy control portions. Both companies have made available, reduced sugar, sugar free, nut free, peanut free and gluten free products that is reflected in their candies, gum and mints. The two companies are worth investing in, but may be better than the other.

Since Starbucks entered the coffee retail business, the company has made many trade-off business decisions. The first major trade-off was made when Howard Schultz wanted to acquire present day Starbucks from three entrepreneurs Baldwin, Siegel and Bowker. Therefore, Schultz prior to the acquisition made the trade-off to open his own coffee bar in 1986 instead of staying at Starbucks as the manager of retail sales and marketing. A bold feat, Schultz was able to replicate success and was offered to buy Starbucks for $4 million. At the time of the acquisition, many investors, including the former Starbucks owners, would not expect that the American consumer would pay a premium for coffee products. Schultz, after calculating the opportunity cost, was convinced that Starbucks would become a large coffee chain not only in the United States but internationally too. Reflecting this approach, Schultz’s trade-off worked. Starbucks, according to our book has revenue exceeding $13 billion and nearly 200,000 employees. The company has also expanded to 40 countries with 17,000 stores (Hill et al., 2015).

It was discovered that there were many reports of serious burns from McDonald’s coffee and thus McDonalds was guilty of negligence and punitive damages. Leibeck went to court to get her medical expenses covered and to get McDonalds to lower their coffee to a reasonable temperature and although in addition to medical compensation she was awarded 2.8 million it was reduced to $640000 by the trial judge. The common misconception of what Leibeck was after and what she was awarded gave those supporting tort reform, which is largely organizations like the chamber of commerce acting in the interests of large corporations, a new way to convince people of the benefits of tort reform and caps on damages. In addition to spending copious amounts of money and time on tort reform, large businesses are using other forms of legal restriction such as mandatory arbitration clauses. These are fine print contracts, which most people agree to without reading when buying products, designed to force the consumer to give up rights to fight negligence and tort cases in a civil court, which is the only area of the law where individuals can have an equal chance of

The owner of Hansson Private Label (HPL) must determine whether or not to accept an aggressive expansion project that would preclude the company from pursuing any alternative investment opportunities for several years. The investment, if successful, would offer numerous benefits to the company, capturing greater market share, strengthening relationships with major customers, crowding out competition and increasing firm value. Nonetheless, the decision carries significant risks and could lead to a substantial decline in firm value, if not bankruptcy, should any number of variables prove unfavorable to HPL. Moreover, the project relies heavily on a contract with a single large

Before the start of the agreement, a lot of planning needs to take place. Kraft and Starbucks did perform an in-depth of their process structure. Both companies should have figured out the process structure of their agreement. For example, which company is going to be held accountable for what? Talk about what tools are going to be used to measure operating performance and be willing on both sides to have open communication and willingness to show each other their performance metrics. Having an open communication relationship and information sharing will help build trust among the companies, neither company was openly communicating. Having open communication would have helped them work towards a common goal. They should have shared the

Starbucks Corporation is a multinational coffee conglomerate that opened their first store in Seattle’s Pike Place Market in Seattle, Washington in 1971. Over the course of the next 40 years, Starbucks has grown in leaps and bounds in not only opening more stores domestically and internationally but also in selling a variety of some of the world’s best coffee and tea blends available. The selling of Starbucks products does not only happen in their stores, it also happens in grocery, convenient, and specialty stores across the world. With the growth of the Starbucks Corporation came the responsibility of ethical and financial compliance to their organization, their shareholders, and the multitude of government agencies they deal with

I've chosen the Starbucks Corporation on which to do my case assignment for the session. I first became interested in Starbucks while working on a paper for a previous marketing class. I became intrigued at the entrepreneurial spirit that such a large corporation had managed to maintain throughout its massive expansion. Starbucks corporation, unlike many of its now-defunct rivals, has done an outstanding job since its meager beginnings in 1970 with the execution of its strategic process; resulting in it currently owning 40% of the specialty coffee market and boosting annual sales exceeding $7 billion according to Burt Helm. Historic successes and recent turmoil within the company, including a near 40% decline in 2007 in profits (Sullivan

According to Gulati, Huffman, and Neilson (2002), Starbucks proves relationships is an important asset for growth. Starbucks is a relationship-centric organization which relationship is act as a core asset of the firm. This asset is called “relational capital”, which indicates the value of a firm’s network of relationship with stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, alliance partners, and employees. Alliances Starbucks had made with its partners are one of the main cause Starbucks has become well-known brand and coffee leading company in the world.

Please answer all the following questions as they relate to the case. Please utilize as much outside resources as you deem necessary to reinforce your answers—especially the last question. Remember that this case is over 10 years old and Starbucks has changed since then.

This paper will explore the science of Managerial Economics, the cost effective management of scarce resources, through an exploration of the Starbucks Company. This will include an assessment of relevant market forces, market structure and the economic theories that guide business decisions for this company.

As Starbucks continues to expand, more profits and more risks are in store. The corporation’s brand and reputation may be put at risk as the quality of the products supplied by third parties is outside of the company’s control (―Starbucks Corporation Fiscal 2009 Annual Report‖, 20). Partnering with farmers and suppliers meant letting go of control over the quality of certain products. In order to retain customers and protect their brand, Starbucks must establish and maintain effective working relationships with reputable farmers and suppliers, which could increase costs.

Starbuck has entered into these other categories through partnerships and joint ventures. These relationships make sense, because every partnership is with a company in an industry related to Starbuck’s industry (e.g. Pepsi, Kraft, Unilever, Green Mountain etc.). Starbucks does not enter into partnerships with only one company; but collaborates with many companies, that are the respective leaders in their industry. The coffee company uses many of their partners as guides to learn from, and build relationships in a particular industry. Strategically this makes sense because Starbucks is gaining knowledge and not spending a major amount of money. Therefore, when the