Britvic Plc and the UK Soft Drink Sector - Case Study Example

Analysis of Britvic plc strategies in the UK. Table of Contents 1. Executive summary 4 2. Strategic Analysis 5 2.1 Profile of the company 5 2.2 Organizational purpose 11 2.3 External & internal environment 11 2.4 Competition & key success factors 13 3. Strategic Development 21 3.1 Existing strategies 21 3.2 Generation of strategic option 23 3.3 Evaluation and ranking of option 24 3.4 Choice of strategies 26 4. Implementation 29 4.1 Timing 29 4.2 Major issues 29 4.3 How to address risks 29 4.4 How to implement those strategies 30 5. Conclusion 31 Appendices 32 Appendix A 32 Appendix B 35 References 36 TABLES AND FIGURES Tables Table 1 - Britvic plc Brands in Ireland, France and Internationally 6 Table 2 - UK Soft Drinks Sector Definitions 7 Table 3 - SWOT Analysis of the UK Soft Drinks Sector 12 Table 4 - Changing Face of the UK Food Retailing Sector 15 Table 5 - Porter’s 5 Forces 17 Table 6 - PESTLE Analysis 18 Table 7 - SWOT, Porter’s Five Forces and PESTLE Analysis 20 Table 8 - Britvic plc Corporate-Level Strategies 21 Table 9 - Britvic Business Stream Strategies 22 Table 10 - Britvic Potential Business Stream Strategies 23 Table 11 - Britvic Suggested Strategies 27 Figures Figure 1 - Britvic plc Global Operations 6 Figure 2 - UK Soft Drinks Sector Consumption 8 Figure 3 - Carbonated Soft Drink Brand Shares in the UK: 2009-2011 9 Figure 4 - Carbonated Soft Drink Brand Value Shares in the UK: 2009-2011 10 Figure 5 - UK Food Retailing Outlets 15 Figure 6 - UK Food and Soft Drinks Turnover Compared with other Sectors 16 Figure 7 - Ansoff Matrix 25 Figure 8 - BCG Matrix 26 Figure 9 - Britvic Brands 32 Figure 10 - Schweppes Brands 35 1. Executive summary The UK soft drink sector is highly competitive as it is fraught with a broad variety of products that have similarities. The most notable are Coca-Cola and Pepsi which dominate the soft drink segment in terms of volume. Despite this situation this document has uncovered that there are new trends and potential changes looming in the sector represented by health concerns (sugar and additives), the aging of the population that lessens the appeal of carbonated soft drinks in the over 55 age group, along with new packaging concerns to reduce the use of cans. These are aspects that will at some point change the environment within the industry that Britvic plc will need to address. The company is well positioned to adapt to changes as it has 82 products representing every segment of the market. This is more than four times that of its biggest competitor Coca-Cola / Schweppes. Despite this advantage, there are opportunities in the soft drink sector the company is not exploiting. It was uncovered that the energy/sports drink segment has the highest price point and margins, yet Britvic’s products in this area (AMP, Red Devil, Mountain Dew Energy, and Gatorade) do not have the sales volume or market recognition of Red Bull or Coca-Cola’s Monster. The low margins in the carbonated soft drink sector combined with its reduced appeal among consumers over 55, along with health concerns is another area the company is not exploiting. As developed in this examination, Nicholas plc has shifted its product emphasis away from the low prices and margins of carbonated soft drinks to the more rewarding fruit drink sector (Agnihotri, 2014). This change in strategy has boosted its revenues and profits as well as positioned the company to address the indicated health and aging trends. This study delves into the highlighted areas and provides background information to support the recommendation that Britvic plc is equipped to handle these new developments at minimal risk and financial outlay. 2. Strategic Analysis 2.1 Profile of the company Headquartered in the United Kingdom, Britvic plc (2014a) is the second largest soft drink company in terms of retail sales and volume as well as being positioned as number one in Ireland. The company has a diverse portfolio of soft drinks that range from its exclusive bottling agreement with the United States PepsiCo for the UK and Ireland (Pepsi and 7UP) along with other brands (Britvic plc, 2014b). In total, Britvic plc markets over 82 drink profiles in the UK for 21 brands (Britvic plc, 2014c, p. 1): In terms of Ireland, France and internationally, the following provides a list of the brands and drinks offered by the company: Table 1 - Britvic plc Brands in Ireland, France and Internationally (Britvic plc, 2014c) The following shows the activity of Britvic plc for the UK, Ireland, France, and international operations: Figure 1 - Britvic plc Global Operations (Britvic plc, 2013, p. 4) A report by the British Soft Drink Association (2014a) analysed the UK and stated that there is a huge variety of soft drinks to fit every occasion with the trend leaning toward sugar-free alternatives. The sector is complex in terms of its makeup and classifications as it is composed of carbonates (6,500m litres), dilutables (3,150m litres), bottled water (2,360m litres), still and juice drinks (1,465m litres), fruit juice (1,050m litres), and sports / energy drinks (150m litres) (British Soft Drink Association, 2014a). The following clarifies the individual sectors in terms of definitions. Table 2 - UK Soft Drinks Sector Definitions (British Soft Drink Association, 2014a) Visually, the consumption of soft drinks in the UK is as follows: Figure 2 - UK Soft Drinks Sector Consumption (British Soft Drink Association, 2014a, p. 8) The number of categories in the soft drink sector meant that accessing specifics concerning the overall market regarding the market shares attributable to specific brands and companies could not be obtained without purchasing extremely expensive reports from Mintel and other sources. As a result, the analysis of UK soft drinks was confined to the carbonated sector. Coca-Cola dominates this sector that had overall sales exceeding £4.5bn in 2013 (BrandRepublic, 2013). In terms of the market shares of the carbonated drinks in the UK Britvic plc’s Pepsi is second, with its 7Up and Tango brands in eighth and ninth position (BrandRepublic, 2013). Figure 3 - Carbonated Soft Drink Brand Shares in the UK: 2009-2011 (BrandRepublic, 2013, p. 1) However, in terms of brand value shares in the UK market Britvic’s Pepsi actually scores higher: Figure 4 - Carbonated Soft Drink Brand Value Shares in the UK: 2009-2011 (BrandRepublic, 2013, p. 1) The above is explained by the fact that despite Coco-Cola dominating the carbonated segment of the market, Pepsi’s partnership with Britvic has seen its name and brand recognition increase by 21.5% in the take-home segment between 2009 through 2011 (BrandRepublic, 2013, p. 1). In terms of understanding the carbonated soft drinks sector, the report by BrandRepublic (2013) identified six key trends. The first represented ‘penetration’ where carbonated soft drinks are consumed by over 90 percent of the population. The second area (older consumers) is a problematic segment as the age group over 55 is less likely to purchase carbonated soft drinks (BrandRepublic, 2013). The challenge for companies marketing carbonated soft drinks is that this segment (over 55) is growing and is expected to increase by 8.6% or 20m more consumers by 2017 (BrandRepublic, 2013). The third trend identified by BrandRepublic (2013) is that the low price point for carbonated soft drinks has aided in staving off competition from other soft drink segments such as energy and sports drinks, fruit juices, and still/juice drink sectors, but this is changing. Advertising was identified as the fourth trend as the large spending in this area keeps the carbonated soft drink sector constantly in front of the public (BrandRepublic, 2013). The health trend is causing issues for the carbonated soft drink sector as a recent survey found that two out of five consumers state they seek to avoid these types of drinks. The sixth trend represents ’growth’ as it was identified that the carbonated soft drink sector has increased by 17% in value since 2007. 2.2 Organizational purpose A search for the mission statement for Britvic plc was not located in a review of its company website and annual report for 2013. The company did have a vision-mission statement that indicated it seeks “to become one of the most admired soft drinks businesses in the world (Britvic plc, 2013, p. 4). The company is utilising this as the foundation for its strategy that represents four parts (Britvic plc, 2014d). The first of these is described as “Becoming the benchmark branded soft drinks business for both PepsiCo and our own brands in GB & Ireland” (Britvic plc, 2014d, p. 1). The second part of the strategic plan represents “Fully exploiting global category opportunities in the kids, family and adult categories” (Britvic plc, 2014d, p. 1). The third strategy represents “Creating a simple focused operating model, empowering our people and matching resource and capability to the growth opportunities” through a more streamlined organisational structure (Britvic plc, 2014d, p. 1). The fourth and last strategy entails the company “Being a trusted and respected member of the communities in which we operate”, which is self-explanatory (Britvic plc, 2014d, p. 1). 2.3 External & internal environment In terms of assessing the external environment, a SWOT analysis represented a way to look at the factors acting on Britvic plc. Table 3 - SWOT Analysis of the UK Soft Drinks Sector (Ahmed, 2013: Vrontis and Thrassou, 2006) The factors gleaned from the above are important aspects to be considered in assessing the resources and capabilities of Britvic plc. By understanding the SWOT aspects, the challenges and issues faced by the company become a basis for looking into how its resources and capabilities are beneficial in addressing these areas. The company has four factories in the UK located in Beckton, Leeds, Norwich, and Rugby (Britvic plc, 2014e). These are resources that provide Britvic with the capability to respond to changes in market demands, along with changing production volumes for its broad array of soft drink lines (Britvic plc, 2014e). For clarification, Lockett and Wright (2005) advise that the capabilities of a company represent the skills available to aid it in the performance of certain actions. They add that resources are those aspects a company has (such as knowledge, equipment, plants and like elements) that are used to obtain results. The company has two distribution centres for Great Britain (Britvic plc, 2014f). One is located in Leicestershire (Britvic plc, 2014e) and the other is in Dublin (Britvic plc, 2014f). These two centres are resources that provide the company with the ability to quickly fill and deliver orders to supermarket chains, small businesses and vending operators (Britvic plc, 2014f). In keeping with the explanation provided by Lockett and Wright (2005), another resource of the company is its management that recognises that its employees are the foundation of the company’s success (Britvic plc, 2013, p. 2): “Our people are critical to Britvic’s success … with our vision to be a top 5 Great Place to Work. Our emphasis is increasingly on developing our own talent, combined with proactive external recruitment when we need to introduce new skills or create positions that support our growth plans. To maximise the potential of our employees we continue to strengthen our focus on performance management, talent management and providing learning and development programmes across all our geographies. We have embarked on inspiring all our employees across our entire business in our new Britvic plc purpose, vision, and values and we expect this to further drive engagement and motivation.” 2.4 Competition & key success factors The number of firms in the soft drink sector is large with Coca-Cola as the largest and strongest competitor with a UK market share of 22% (Euromonitor International, 2014). The Coca-Cola brand benefits from its global name recognition, iconic packaging, and advertising that include considerable visibility at sporting events (Euromonitor International, 2014). Schweppes has the distribution rights to Coca-Cola in the UK that includes Diet Coke, Fanta and the Schweppes brands (Coca-Cola Great Britain, 2014a). As shown in Appendix B, the combination of Coca-Cola and Schweppes soft drinks provides serious competition to Britvic plc. Despite this, the product lineup of Cadbury Schweppes totals just 20 soft drinks to Britvic’s 82 (Appendix A). The above direct comparison of Britvic plc to its largest competitor (Cadbury Schweppes (that includes Coca-Cola) reveals it has a significant product advantage in terms of diversity. It is the broad market appeal and volume, in terms of sales that result in Schweppes leading the soft drink sector in the UK (Coca-Cola Great Britain, 2014b). Despite the above, Britvic plc has a stronger overall soft drink profile as it is not dominated by one brand (Coca-Cola) as is the case with Schweppes. The 82 products offered by Britvic plc (Appendix A) spans a broader overall product category in terms of appeal and diversity. One of the aspects concerning the UK soft drink segment is that it is the largest manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom (Arthur D. Little, 2013). The economic contribution of the soft drink sector to the UK represents direct employment of over 20,000 with additional 115,000 jobs created among vendors and suppliers (British Soft Drinks Association, 2014b). It has an economic value added impact that slightly exceeds £7.7bn along with encouraging innovation (British Soft Drinks Association, 2014b). The competitive and strategic issues that have helped to shape the soft drink sector in the UK are a result of a number of dynamics that have changed in the food retailing sector (Gehlhar and Regmi, 2005). The major shift in the UK retailing sector that lead to a change in the soft drinks sector is the development of the modern format of hypermarkets, supermarkets and since 2002 convenience stores (Ilbery and Maye, 2006). The new food retailing format has been the biggest boon and influence on the soft drink sector, especially with the expansion of smaller local supermarkets and Tesco’s that brought convenience and small format stores to city areas (Wood and Browne, 2007). The competition in the food retailing sector between Tesco, Wart-Mart / ASDA, Morrison’s, Sainsbury’s has increased the convenience factor for consumers and provided new retailing layouts that have heightened in-store display (Hollingsworth, 2004: Beckeman and Skjoldebrand, 2007). A report by Vasquez-Nicholson (2010) on the UK retail food sector provides additional details concerning the competitive and strategic issues that have lead to the current market structure for soft drink retailing in the UK. Table 4 - Changing Face of the UK Food Retailing Sector (Vasquez-Nicholson, 2010, p. 1) The following illustration provides a deeper look into the UK food retailing sector to reveal how its growth and change has benefited the sale of soft drinks by providing more locations: Figure 5 - UK Food Retailing Outlets (Vasquez-Nicholson, 2010, p. 1) The Schweppes association with Coca-Cola is an example of the sector’s competitiveness where bigger is better (Coca-Cola Great Britain, 2014b). Despite the volume advantage of that association which is attributable to Coca-Cola, Britvic plc is actually well situated in the UK market due to its broader lineup of products (82 to 20) (Appendix A and B). In an assessment of the growth drivers for the UK soft drink sector, a report by Grant Thornton (2012) found that the UK soft drink sector has reached a saturation point in terms of the volume of products consumers are able to buy that has been basically static since 2007. Figure 6 - UK Food and Soft Drinks Turnover Compared with other Sectors (Grant Thornton, 2012, p. 21) The above aspects provide an understanding of the varied competitive and strategic issues that helped to shape the current market structure. In order to conduct an assessment of the strengths, capabilities, access to resources and experience that will aid Britvic, the following analysis using Porter’s 5 Forces framework, and PESTLE analysis will be added to the SWOT analysis that has been already completed. Table 5 - Porter’s 5 Forces (Grant Thornton, 2012: Ahmed, 2013: Vrontis and Thrassou, 2006) Table 6 - PESTLE Analysis (Defra, 2014: Competition & Markets Authority, 2014; Gibson and Neale, 2007: Marsh and Bugusu, 2007; Ashurst, 2008: Eglene, 2009: Burgess, 2012: Moodie et al, 2013: Amienyo et al, 2013: Johnson, 2008) The above Porter’s Five Forces Analysis along with the PESTLE and SWOT analysis provides a picture of the environment Britvic plc operates in. The company’s strengths and capabilities represent its four factories that provide it with the manufacturing capability to adjust production in keeping with shifting product demands and its diverse line of 82 items. This corresponds to the Opportunities and Threats identified under the SWOT Analysis (Ahmed, 2013: Vrontis and Thrassou, 2006): The above manufacturing capabilities also provide the company with the potential edge to combat areas brought forth in Porter’s Five Forces assessment (Grant Thornton, 2012: Ahmed, 2013: Vrontis and Thrassou, 2006): The resources of the company, as previously identified, represent its employees and management as the company places a high priority on the creation and maintenance of an environment that is conducive to the internal development of talent (Britvic plc, 2013, p. 5). Britvic’s two distribution centres are also resources that will aid it in responding to future changes and developments in the soft drinks sector. Based on the areas under the SWOT, Porter’s Five Forces and PESTLE analysis, the market structure for the next three to five years has the potential for some of the following items to become developments impacting the UK soft drink sector: Table 7 - SWOT, Porter’s Five Forces and PESTLE Analysis (Grant Thornton, 2012: Ahmed, 2013: Vrontis and Thrassou, 2006) 3. Strategic Development 3.1 Existing strategies The following are the corporate level strategies of Britvic plc (2014d): Table 8 - Britvic plc Corporate-Level Strategies (Britvic plc, 2014d, p. 1) These are broad-ranging strategies where the aspects revolve around the development of the company’s core markets (the UK, Ireland, and France) along with strengthening its own brands to “leverage them internationally” (Britvic plc, 2014d, p. 1). In terms of clarification Ingram (2013) states that business stream level strategies consist of a number of categories. In order to review these areas and comment on the focused strategy along with which strategies might work and why the following table has been developed. Table 9 - Britvic Business Stream Strategies (Ingram, 2013, p. 1) 3.2 Generation of strategic option In terms of possible recommendations for the business stream strategies to augment those presented in the prior table, the following seems to offer possibilities based on the research that has been conducted. Table 10 - Britvic Potential Business Stream Strategies (Part 1 of 2) (Bouckley, 2013: Euromonitor, 2013, Caffeine Informer, 2013, p.1) Table 10 - Britvic Potential Business Stream Strategies (Part 2 of 2) (United Marketing, 2013: Agnihotri, 2014, p. 1: Reuters, 2014) 3.3 Evaluation and ranking of option In terms of the previous recommendations, both strategies have benefits as they are based on improving the unit sale margins of the company by increasing emphasis on energy/sports and fruit drinks. As Britvic is already producing these items the added cost would entail marketing in order to increase advertising activity. The basis for the above uses both the Ansoff matrix and BCG matrix as support for these approaches. Figure 7 - Ansoff Matrix Energy/Sports Drinks Fruit Drinks (Curry et al, 2006, p. 34) The areas selected are based on the fact that both categories (energy/sports and fruit drinks) are already a part of the Britvic product portfolio. The suggestion indicates that more emphasis is placed on penetrating and developing the market using advertising and promotions. With regard to the BCG matrix, energy/sports drinks fit the stars classification. The stars destination means a product has an optimum situation where high share and growth are distinct potentials (Spee and Jrzabklowski, 2009). Cash cow refers to a cycle representing high share and low growth, the latter defines the fruit drink segment. Figure 8 - BCG Matrix Energy/Sports Drinks Fruit Drinks (Spee and Jrzabklowski, 2009, p. 6) 3.4 Choice of strategies As there are two are equally engaging strategies (energy/sports and fruit drinks) that have been recommended, the following provides insight concerning the relative strengths of each. Table 11 - Britvic Suggested Strategies (Part 1 of 2) (United Marketing, 2013: Euromonitor, 2013: Reuters, 2014) Table 11 - Britvic Suggested Strategies (Part 2 of 2) (United Marketing, 2013: Euromonitor, 2013: Reuters, 2014) 4. Implementation 4.1 Timing In terms of timing, Britvic is already manufacturing the necessary products to carry out the indicated strategies in both areas. The major benefit is that both approaches could be implemented almost immediately as Britvic already produces the products. The delay in putting the strategies into motion entails the planning of marketing and advertising programs to generate the increased interest, and awareness to put Amp, Red Devil, Mountain Dew Energy, and Gatorade in situations to compete with Red Bull and Monster. The other aspect of the strategy represented by fruit drinks would need to study the approaches being used by Nicholas plc in order to craft a marketing and advertising strategy that matches its effectiveness. As such, it is estimated that the time frame in both instances would be six months due to the advertising and marketing strategy aspects. 4.2 Major issues The risks represent Britvic not paying attention to the marketing and advertising strategies that allow it to position its energy/sports and fruit drinks effectively. These are monetary expenditures in the marketing and advertising arena as opposed to manufacturing/inventory costs. This means the risk quotient is minimal. 4.3 How to address risks The risks associated with implementing marketing and advertising programmes that are less than successful represents the major concern regarding the indicated strategies. Both areas are suggested as Britvic produces the necessary products, thus it makes sense to go in both directions at the same time to maximise results. As indicated, the risks can be minimised by carefully researching the strategies being employed by Red Bull and Monster for their energy drinks as well as Nicholas plc concerning its fruit drinks. In both cases, these products or companies have been successful in their approaches. approaches. 4.4 How to implement those strategies The prior three segments in this section along with tables 9, 10 and 11 set forth the strategies for the suggested energy/sports and fruit drinks could be implemented. The task, as mentioned, is simplified due to the fact the major risk expense (manufacturing) is not a factor. Britvic simply needs to study the approaches of its competitors as a guide to devising marketing and advertising strategies needed to implement the suggestions. 5. Conclusion This exploration of Britvic plc and the UK soft drink sector has uncovered that the market is undergoing shifts in consumer attitudes represented by an increased emphasis on health (meaning sugars and additives in soft drinks). Other aspects include an aging population that has different soft drink preferences and market segments (energy/sports along with fruit drinks) that offer high margins and in the case of the latter responds to health concerns. The typical drivers in the soft drink segment have been characterised by the low prices and a wide array of choices in the carbonated and sweet drink sector. As brought forth in this study, these dynamics are undergoing change. In terms of the major factor that needs consideration concerning the soft drink sector in the UK is the future direction of the market and profits. The energy/sports and fruit drink sectors are the new profit generation areas. As brought forth by Agnihotri (2014, p. 1) "The soft drink industry is notorious for very heavy promotions and discounts” and is marked by heavy competition. Whilst Britvic plc has an extensive array of products (82) the examination of its business strategy revealed that the company has not been exploiting its product lines based on trends and developments in the marketplace. The first area is the premium price of the high margin energy/sports drinks sector. Britvic’s AMP, Red Devil, Dew Energy, and Gatorade are not thought of in the same manner as Red Bull and Coca-Cola’s Monster (Caffeine Informer, 2013). To a lesser degree, this is also true for the company’s fruit drink line that is comprised of Drench, Tango, and JO2 along with Robinson’s fruit line representing 32 products (Britvic plc, 2014c). These are two key areas the company can effectively address today at minimal risk as it is already manufacturing and distributing these products. The shortcoming is marketing strategy emphasis. By addressing this Britvic will position itself for consumer trends that are currently active and in the making. Appendices Appendix A Figure 9 - Britvic Brands (Part 1 of 3) (Britvic plc, 2014c, p. 1) Figure 9 - Britvic Brands (Part 2 of 3) (Britvic plc, 2014c, p. 1) Figure 9 - Britvic Brands (Part 3 of 3) (Britvic plc, 2014c, p. 1) Appendix B Figure 10 - Schweppes Brands (Coca-Cola Great Britain, 2014, p. 1) References Agnihotri, A. (2014) Focus on high-margin soft drinks lifts Nichols' profit. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Ahmed, Z. (2013) Reference group influence on purchase decision making of soft drinks: a demographic study based on Clemon. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Amienyo, D., Gujba, H., Stichnothe, H., Azapagic, A. (2013) Life cycle environmental impacts of carbonated soft drinks. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 18(1). pp. 79-81. Arthur D. Little (2013) Mapping current innovation and emerging R&D needs in the food and drink industry required for sustainable economic growth. London: Arthur D. Little Ashurst, P. (2008) Chemistry and Technology of Soft Drinks and Fruit Juices. London: John H. Wiley & Sons. Beckeman, M., Skjoldebrand, C. (2007) Clusters/networks promote food innovations. Journal of Food Engineering. 79(4). pp. 1121-1123. Bouckley, B. (2013) Coca-Cola loses 2012 UK soft drinks share to Pepsi. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) BrandRepublic (2013) Sector Insight: carbonated soft drinks. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) British Soft Drink Association (2014a) Creating New Choices. London: British Soft Drink Association British Soft Drinks Association (2014b) Economic contribution of the soft drinks industry. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Britvic plc (2013) Annual Report 2013. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Britvic plc (2014a) About Us. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Britvic plc (2014b) Key Figures. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Britvic plc (2014c) Our Brands. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Britvic plc (2014c) Our Brands. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Britvic plc (2014d) Strategy. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Britvic plc (2014e) Factories. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Britvic plc (2014f) Distribution Centres. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Burgess, A. (2012) Nudging Healthy Lifestyles: The UK Experiments with the Behavioral Alternative to Regulation and the Market. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Caffeine Informer (2013) Top Selling Energy Drink Brands. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Coca-Cola Great Britain (2014a) Schweppes. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Coca-Cola Great Britain (2014b) About Us. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Competition & Markets Authority (2014) Home Page. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Curry, A., Ringland, G., Young, L. (2006) Using scenarios to improve marketing. Strategy & Leadership. 34(6). p. 34 Defra (2014) Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Eglene, O. (2009) Business Interests and the Exchange Rate: Preferences Over Adoption of the Euro in Britain. Toronto: American Political Science Association 2009 Annual Meeting Euromonitor (2013) Red Bull GMBH in Soft Drinks (World). (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Euromonitor International (2014) Soft Drinks in the United Kingdom. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Gehlhar, M., Regmi, A. (2005) Factors Shaping Global Food Markets. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Gibson, S., Neale, D. (2007) Sugar intake, soft drink consumption and body weight among British children: Further analysis of National Diet and Nutrition Survey data with adjustment for under-reporting and physical activity. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition. 58(6). pp. 450-452. Grant Thornton (2012) Sustainable Growth in the Food and Drink Manufacturing Industry. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Hollingsworth, A. (2004) Increasing retail concentration: Evidence from the UK food retail sector. British Food Journal. 106(8). pp.631 – 633. Ilbery, B., Maye, D. (2006) Retailing local food in the Scottish–English borders: A supply chain perspective. Geoforum. 37(3). pp. 355-357. Ingram, D. (2013) Generic Business-Level Strategies. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Johnson, E. (2008) Disagreement over carbon footprints: A comparison of electric and LPG forklifts. Energy Policy. 36(4). pp. 1591-1593. Lockett, A., Wright, M. (2005) Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy. 34(7). pp. 1045-1048. Marsh, K., Bugusu, B. (2007) Food Packaging—Roles, Materials, and Environmental Issues. Journal of Food Science. 72(3). pp. R 43-R45. Moodie, R., Stuckler, D., Monteiro, C., Sheron, N., Neal, B. (2013) Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. The Lancet. 381(9867). pp. 673-675 Reuters (2014) Focus on high-margin soft drinks lifts Nichols' profit. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Spee, A., Jrzabklowski, P. (2009) Strategy tools as boundary objects. Strategic Organization. 7(2).p. 6 United Marketing (2013) Incredible Profit Margin. (online) Available at (Accessed on 10 November 2014) Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A. (2006) Situation analysis and strategic planning: An empirical case study of the UK beverage industry. Innovative Marketing. 2(2) pp. 136-139 Wood, S., Browne, S. (2007) Convenience store location planning and forecasting – a practical research agenda. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. 35(4). pp. 243 - 245 Read More