1.0 Introduction
Sanofi A is a multinational corporation
that deals in the production and distribution of drugs around the world. It is
known to be one of the largest pharmaceuticals globally with the company being
ranked 4th on the basis of sales revenues (IMAP, 2011). The company
continues to record good performance with the 2011 net sales (€33.3 billion)
being an 8.3% increase over the 2010 revenues (Sanofi, 2012). This good
financial standing has been very instrumental in the execution of the company’s
strategies. The drugs produced are both
prescription and over the counter drugs with the company providing clear
guidelines on the instructions on how the drugs are to be used (Castner, Hayes
and Shankle, 2007). This is done with the aim of securing the health of the
customers and this displays the company’s commitment to good corporate social
responsibility practices.
The company’s
competitive landscape is characterised by high levels of rivalry among industry
players with giant pharmaceuticals engaging in intense activities aimed at
securing and protecting their market shares (IMAP, 2011). The most influential
competitors are Pfizer Inc, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Merck & Co Inc, Johnson
& Johnson, and AstraZeneca Plc (IMAP, 2011). Apart from these global
giants, Sanofi A also faces considerable competition from small pharmaceuticals
operating in various localities. For instance, in South Africa, Aspen
Pharmacare Holdings is the leading market player with a market share of 26.3%
with Sanofi A being one of the underdogs in the country (Datamonitor, 2010).
The level of rivalry is heightened by the fact that many of the products are
similar and can easily be substituted for each other. However, Sanofi A cuts a
niche for itself by investing in research and development and this enables them
to deal with arising health concerns around the world with remarkable ease (OneSource,
2012). In fact, Sanofi A runs the largest subsidiary in the production of
vaccines- Sanofi Pasteur (Global Data, 2012). The company also diversifies by
producing products for both humans and animals and this gives it an edge in the
race for market share against fellow pharmaceutical giants.
The company employs a
strategic approach in its management with the company being very keen to ensure
that cultural dimensions are factored in their operational approaches across
the over 120 countries in which it operates. Their approach to corporate social
responsibility has also been plausible with the company exhibiting high levels
of concern for the safety of the users of their products (Sanofi, 2012). This
is done by ensuring that clear instructions are provided for the usage of the
drugs and by cooperating with health ministries around the world to ensure that
prescription drugs are not irregularly availed by unscrupulous traders.
The company operates
across 100 countries with its products being sold to over 170 countries around
the world (Global Data, 2012). This places the company in a position where it
must take note of the cultural diversity in different parts of the world. Its position
as a global leader also places immense pressure on its corporate social
responsibility strategies which in turn puts pressure on their profitability
objectives. This paper focuses on Sanofi A and evaluates its competitive
position in the market. It also highlights the approach taken by the company as
far as cross cultural dimensions and corporate social responsibility are
concerned.
2.0 Company’s environment audit and
competitive position
2.1 Macro environment analysis
The global business environment can best
be analysed under the framework of the PESTEL model which considers Political,
Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental and Legal factors (De Wit ad
Meyer, 2010). Health care is a key concern among populations in most countries
and therefore a potentially explosive political issue (Ansari, et al, 2010).
This increases the risk of interference by the political class with most
concerns being on the safety and cost of the products on offer. However, there
is growing awareness of the need to allow for some level of autonomy in the
private sector and this keeps the pressure on the bare minimum (Ansari, et al,
2010). Governments also tend to get involved extensively in seeking solutions
for epidemics and this creates a platform for cooperation between the industry
and the governments.
The recent global
recession is known to have adversely affected the level of disposable incomes
which in turn suppressed demand (Global Data, 2012). However, its effect is
bound to subside as the world economy recovers. Besides, emerging markets such
as China and India had continued their strong performance hence providing a way
out for the multinational pharmaceuticals (Global Data, 2012). Technological
advancements around the world have been useful in experiments, the study of
pathogens and production of remedies with relative ease. This has heightened
competition among industry players as technologies are easily replicated with
companies forced to invest heavily in research and development to remain ahead
of the industry (Castner, Hayes and Shankle, 2007). Legal factors are mainly
benchmarked against the guidelines provided by the World Health Organisation
(Ansari, et al, 2010). This has introduced some level of uniformity across the
globe with country specific modifications being marginal. This has made it
relatively easy for global pharmaceuticals to market homogeneous products
across national boundaries.
2.2 Industry analysis
A structured industry analysis takes
into consideration five main factors: market rivalry among industry players,
buyer power, supplier power, threat of entry and threat of substitutes (Drejer,
2002). These forces are modelled under the Porter’s 5 forces framework which
aims at facilitating a balanced view of the industry under analysis (Drejer,
2002). Whereas this analysis mainly dwells on the global pharmaceutical
industry, it should be appreciated that various domestic markets have distinct
features. However, the influence of such peculiar characteristics is not big
enough to significantly impact the level of industry rivalry on a global
scale.
Market rivalry is
characterised by intense competition among the global pharmaceuticals which
compete against each other for market share. The most influential competitors
are Pfizer Inc, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Merck & Co Inc, Johnson & Johnson,
and AstraZeneca Plc (IMAP, 2011). These companies seem to have mastered the art
of innovation and are therefore able to produce competing brands that offer
similar benefits to the market. This heightens rivalry. Moreover, the cost of
investing in the industry is very high with exit costs equally high and this
further raises rivalry levels (Datamonitor, 2010). However, companies can
overcome this rivalry by remaining innovative and providing up to date products
to alleviate emerging health problems. Diversification can also lower rivalry
with the scope of production widened to cover animals and others. Branding can
also help overcome the rivalry with consumers tending to be loyal to a given
brand. Market rivalry could be said to be moderate in this case.
The threat of entry is
low and is characterised by high investment costs for companies intending to
mount global operations. The already established brands that have also
monopolised distribution channels contribute to the lowering of the threat of
entry. Substitutes to pharmaceutical products include natural remedies and
counterfeit drugs from unscrupulous merchants (Earnst & Young, 2011). There
have been concerted efforts among industry players and governments to weed out
counterfeits hence lowering the threat of substitutes. Natural remedies are
rare and strenuous to prepare and often take long to produce the desired effect
(Earnst & Young, 2011). This makes pharmaceutical products a preferred
option. Besides, there are no substitutes for some of the products on offer.
Overall threat of substitutes is therefore low.
The bargaining power of
buyers is low due to the fact that buyers consist of millions of consumers of
products and are not organised in groups that could impose pricing decisions.
However, buyers are increasingly aware of product features and prices and will
always switch brands depending on functionality and price (Datamonitor, 2010).
This makes overall buyer power moderate. Supplier power on the other hand is
strong. Suppliers of specialised chemicals are rare and often produce on
contract basis with provisions for heavy fines whenever an industry player
wishes to retract from such a contract. However, this power could be reduced by
the tendency of industry players to forward integrate and set up facilities to
produce some of the most essential raw materials (IMAP, 2011). From the
analysis above, market rivalry is high; buyer power is low; threat of entrants
is low; threat of substitutes is low and the supplier power is moderate. Overall
industry rivalry is therefore moderate.
2.3 Sanofi’s competitive position
and sources of competitive advantage
With a moderate industry rivalry, the
company’s chances of survival and growth are moderate and this means that the
application of good strategies could see Sanofi beat competition and achieve
its objectives without straining. Good strategy formulation requires that the
organisation understands its internal environment; understand its strengths and
weaknesses and map out a way of utilising its core competencies to excel in the
market (McKinney, 2011). As has been observed, Sanofi faces stiff competition
from various multinationals which include Pfizer Inc, GlaxoSmithKline plc,
Merck & Co Inc, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca Plc (OneSource,
2012). In addition to these, the company faces competition to domestic
pharmaceuticals which have managed to establish themselves are premier
pharmaceuticals in different countries. For instance, Sanofi’s performance in
South Africa is dismal with a local company, Aspen Pharmacare holding a 26% of
the market share (Datamonitor, 2010). There is also competition from local
companies offering natural and herbal remedies. Sanofi therefore needs to come
up with a good strategy for beating the competition and gain and retain market
share in the industry. There are some competencies and resources that the
company could use to this end.
To start with, the
company invests heavily in research and development capabilities. The company
has managed to stay ahead of other industry players as far innovation is
concerned (Global Data, 2012). This is boosted by the existence of a highly dynamic
and motivated workforce which embraces innovation and change with enthusiasm.
The creation of a culture of innovation and readiness to embrace change is very
important in keeping the organisation innovative (Haberberg and Rieple, 2007).
The company is in a constant search for solutions with the research team always
on a frantic search for more effective remedies for health conditions. Sanofi
Pasteur is the world’s largest vaccine production company (OneSource, 2012).
The company identifies need for vaccination and moves to search for vaccines
that would alleviate the arising problems. This vaccination production facility
helps in boosting the innovation capabilities of the organisation and help in
establishing it as a premier innovator in the industry (Sanofi, 2011).
The company has also
managed to build a strong brand which has with time been synonymous with
quality and effectiveness. Through years of proactive research and production
of effective products in the market, customers have learned to trust the Sanofi
brand (Sanofi, 2011a). This gives them a big advantage especially when it comes
to marketing and brand awareness exercises. This brand advantage could also be
used as a platform on which new products can be launched in the market and
yield exceptional results. A comparison between Sanofi and some of its
competitors places Sanofi ahead in terms of innovation and the effectiveness of
marketing exercises (Global Data, 2012). The company out-innovates and goes on
to embrace a unique marketing mix that keeps them ahead of the
competition.
3.0 Cross cultural issues
One of the main factors that must be
considered by multinationals is the tradeoffs between the pursuit of a
globalisation strategy and the pursuit of a localisation strategy. A globalisation
strategy focuses on enforcing uniformity in the organisation with international
subsidiaries expected to replicate administrative and production processes at
the parent company (Jonhson, Scholes and Whittington, 2011). Processes such as
marketing make little consideration of the uniqueness of the market with
companies often capitalising on global scales to adopt similar marketing
messages across the board (Jonhson, Scholes and Whittington, 2011). Under this
model, the subsidiary executives have no authority to modify processes and are
in most cases persons that have worked with the organisation long enough to
adapt to its organisational culture. The advantage of this strategy is that it
makes reporting easier (Grant, 2007). Accounting processes are similar and so
is the desired organisation culture. This makes it possible for employees to
work in different branches without having to go under any form of induction.
This strategy could be sustainable in the case where a global culture emerges
and renders local cultures less influential.
Localisation on the
other hand focuses on modifying the company’s products and processes to suit
the culture and preferences of the host market. Localisation is a strategy that
is based on the perception that societies tend to embrace organisations that
they can identify with (Grant, 2007). They would want to see products that are
relevant to them and have business processes that are compatible with their
organisational culture. Culture dictates how people behave, how they relate to
one another, their approach to duties and responsibilities, and their attitude
towards superiors (Hofstede, 2012). Culture is unique to every society and it
is therefore expected that organisations will take cognisance of such cultural
differences and modify their organisational structures, culture and processes
accordingly.
The manufacturing
plants of the company in Europe are situated in Germany, Italy, France, Spain,
UK and Hungary (OneSource, 2012). In the US, the production facilities are
located in Saint Louis and Kansas City. Another major manufacturing facility is
located in Laval, Canada with other facilities in Japan, South Africa and other
parts of the world (Global Data, 2012). The company’s products are marketed to
over 170 countries with Sanofi having a commercial presence is about 100
countries. The vaccination plants are located in China, Argentina, Thailand,
France and North America (Global Data, 2012). The fact that the operations of
the company spans across national and cultural boundaries places immense
pressure on the company to pay attention to cross cultural issues arising in
the company. With employees from such diverse backgrounds, differences in
perceptions and communication barriers have the potential to inhibit the
operational excellence of the organisation.
Sanofi invests heavily
in promoting cross cultural understanding within the organisation with managers
and other employees exposed to different cultural contexts (Hofstede, 2012).
The company also allows for some level of autonomy among subsidiary executives
with freedom granted to modify production processes to suit the culture of the
host market. This is however not to mean that total localisation is pursued:
some processes such as financial reporting are fairly standard across the board
(Barney, 2010). The products under production are also uniform with special
attention given to regions as determined by the climatic conditions and other
criteria used to determine the vulnerability of regions to certain diseases.
For instance, tropical diseases are common across countries that fall within
the tropics and their solutions may significantly be different from those of
people living in the polar-regions (IMAP, 2011). Diseases such as malaria
mainly affect people within the tropics with a host of other health problems
largely restricted to given geographical zones (IMAP, 2011). Cross cultural
issues therefore largely affect the organisational culture and organisational
practices.
Geert Hofstede
describes culture as a people’s way of life and outlines five cultural elements
that can be used to define and understand a people’s culture. These dimensions
include Power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and
long term orientation (Hofstede, 2012). Power distance refers to the extent to
which the less powerful members of the society accept the fact that power is
distributed unequally. In other words, it refers to the extent to which
inequality is endorsed by the population. Where power distance is high, the
leaders/ managers are accorded total submission (Drejer, 2002). Culture
dictates that organisations match their practices to the prevailing culture in
order to remain effective. For instance, where the power distance is low,
junior employees should be allowed to participate actively in organisational
decisions while high power distance calls for the organisation to endorse some
form of authoritarian practices (Drejer, 2002). This also calls for differences
in criteria on who should be a manager. In the high power distance society, the
manager should be an expert with thorough knowledge of the subject matter: one
who can direct technical processes with utmost effectiveness.
The element of power
distance can be used to distinguish between operational practices in the French
and German branches. In France, there is an element of class which sees the
creation of an ‘elite’ class which mainly comprises of persons that have
studies in the best institutions in France (Ansari, et al, 2010). It is generally
accepted that these are the best candidates for managerial jobs and this
attitude influences the approach taken by organisations. Academic
qualifications are regarded very highly with management levels characterised by
persons of the same academic level. Consultations with subordinates are quite
few. Even though Sanofi has not declared this to be an official policy,
observers have pointed out that their French branches are greatly compliant
with this philosophy (Ansari, 2010). The German and American markets adore
performance over academic qualifications. All members are considered
knowledgeable enough and are frequently consulted in decision making. Power
distance in the Chinese and Indian markets is very high and the organisation in
those subsidiaries tend to embrace the authoritarian style of leadership with
the levels of formality being relatively high as compared to the highly casual
working environments in Germany and the US (Global Data, 2012).
Source:
http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html
Individualism as
compared to collectivism refers to the extent to which employees prefer to work
independently as individuals. Societies such as Japan, India and China are
known to be collectivist in nature while USA, France and Germany are considered
individualist cultures (Hofstede, 2012). This mainly affects the manner in
which jobs are organised. For instance, in the USA, individuals are assigned
specific responsibilities with reward based on their fulfilment of the duties
assigned while in Japan, a delicate balance is struck between the need to
monitor individual performance and the need to allow for the greater influence
of teamwork (Ansari, 2010). Jobs in the production facilities are basically
allocated to teams with team leaders expected to ensure that all team members
are compliant and working as required.
Source:
http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html
Another key dimension
to be considered is masculinity. Gender concerns are a major concern around the
world with pressure being mounted on multinationals such as Sanofi to recognise
gender equality in their recruitment and promotion exercises (Grant, 2007).
This places the company in a dilemma especially when it emerges that in some
countries, women may not command the respect needed to steer a subsidiary or
division. A comparison between China and France reveals that the level of
masculinity in China is much higher (Hofstede, 2012). Where a country is more
masculine, it becomes difficult for lady managers to command respect and
inspire their subordinates to act as instructed. For instance, the role of
women managers in the Chinese subsidiary of Sanofi Pasteur has been observed to
be lacking with the management team almost entirely being composed of men
(Ansari, 2010). In many cases, cross cultural issues will conflict with the
official position of the company. For instance, Sanofi is committed to ensure
that its recruitment and reward processes are devoid of any form of
discrimination. However, considerations of the prevailing culture make it
difficult for them to adhere to this rule with women managers often being
assigned to roles that are perceived to be feminine in nature. Women managers
are indeed found in areas such as human resources and others. This goes to show
how strong the cultural influence on management decisions is.
4.0 Corporate social responsibility
and profitability pressures
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers
to the approach that the organisation takes in ensuring good corporate
practices that take care of the interests of their stakeholders (Clarkson,
1995). Adherence to CSR is in accordance with the stakeholder’s theory. This
theory calls for ethical business practices and meaningful engagement with
stakeholders to ensure that their interests are taken care of (Friedman and
Miles, 2001; Hemmati, 2002). It therefore implies the need for organisations to
identify who the stakeholders are and what their interests are. This knowledge
is thereafter used to determine how the organisation can conduct business while
factoring in such interests. The common stakeholders in business include the
business owners, customers and prospective customers, interest groups,
government, employees, creditors, trade unions and the public at large (Sanofi,
2011b). Analysts seem to be unanimous in their assertion that sustainable
profitability can only be guaranteed where an organisation embraces
stakeholders and takes care of their interests in accordance with the
stakeholder theory.
Business owners are
mainly interested in the returns on their investment. They require disclosure
on the strategic positioning of the organisation and financial performance with
in order to make an informed investment decision (Phillips, 2003). The main concerns
of the business owners can best be understood by understanding the agency
theory which basically explains the relationship and conflicts existing between
business owners and the management teams. Managers may be more interested in
growing the company in order to grow their prestige levels while business
owners are only preoccupied with getting returns on their investments (Grant,
2007; Donaldson and Preston, 1995). There is also the issue of information
asymmetry where managers tend to be better informed of the company’s financial
and strategic position more than any other stakeholders. The law sufficiently
outlines the rules on disclosure with an aim to ensure that the information
presented is factual and a reflection of the true and fair view of the
organisations. However, full disclosure is a matter of ethics as the legal
standards still allow loopholes for non disclosure. Sanofi remains committed to
ensuring that business owner and other stakeholders are adequately informed of
the goings on in the organisation through regular updates on websites,
quarterly bulletins, interim reports and annual reports (Sanofi, 2012). Sanofi
also recognises the goal of investors to make a return on their investments and
keeps a firm eye on profitability. It does this by ensuring focus on
innovation, minimisation of operational costs and an innovative approach to
marketing which takes advantage of its strong brand to maximise sales (Sanofi,
2012).
CSR activities are
often done at a cost and this often comes into direct conflict with their
profitability objectives in the short term. However, as analysts would put it,
engagement with stakeholders enables organisations to sustain high performance
in the long run and there is therefore not conflict with profitability goals in
the longer term (Wheelen, 2008). Sanofi acknowledges that their success is
mainly dependent on the dedication of their employees and has therefore been
keen on ensuring that employee welfare is secured (Sanofi, 2011c). The company
has remained commitment to fairness in its recruitment and reward systems with
employees given the confidence that their productivity will always be rewarded.
The company also provides a safe working environment with protective gear
provided for those accessing production and research centres. The company has
also been noted to be involved intimately with employee welfare initiatives
where it facilitates the provision of loans and other forms of assistance
needed from time to time (Sanofi, 2011c). The consultation processes are open
with open forums conducted to determine any arising issues and having them
solved at the earliest.
Customers of the
organisation are mainly patients who seek medication for their ailments. The
law requires that clear instructions for usage be provided for patients to know
how to safely use the drugs (Sweeny, 2007). Sanofi goes the extra mile and sets
out to sensitise the market on the nature of the drugs (Sanofi, 2012a). This is
especially so in the case of prescription drugs which are not supposed to be
available over the counter. The company also conducts awareness exercises that
educate patients on health conditions and how to avoid them (Sanofi, 2012a).
This practice may appear to be contrary to their profitability goals as
prevention of illnesses could lead to lower sales. However, such moves endear
the company to the market and create a relationship with the brand: a
relationship that inspires trust and brand loyalty. These awareness programs
are conducted through participation in public forums, distribution of health
newsletters and brochures, use of paid advertisements, and updating of company
and other professional websites (Global Data, 2012). The responsibility of the
company to the client also extends to ensuring that there is sufficient
awareness of any known counterfeit drugs in the market. Counterfeiters tend to
use brands and patients may be endangered by using drugs while believing such
drugs to be genuine products (IMAP, 2011). While the war on counterfeits should
be a legal issue to be handled by governments, Sanofi takes it upon itself to
sensitise the public and ensure they are not taken advantage of.
In the Research and
Development endeavours, Sanofi upholds the respect for life and human rights in
their approach (Sanofi, 2012a). Where clinical trials are to be conducted, the
group ensures that the highest ethics standards are in place. Full disclosure
and the conduct of a thorough prognosis to ensure that patients are not
adversely affected are among the measures taken (Global Data, 2012). The
company also takes full responsibility whenever any clinical tests prove to be
harmful to a patient’s health.
Sanofi takes cognisance
of the fact that its activities have the potential to adversely affect the
environment and have ably demonstrated that they are committed to the reduction
of the greenhouse gas emissions from its manufacturing plants (Sanofi, 2012a).
They do this by ensuring efficiency of machines and transportation systems used
for moving their products from one place to another. They also exert moral
pressure on the members of their supply chains to act responsibly and embrace
the conservation agenda as appropriate. In terms of minimising adverse impact
to the environment, the company emphasises the use of green chemistry and this
helps in reducing the amount of water used in the production plants. The
company runs a full-fledged department whose sole role is to review the
operation practices in its various plants and recommend ways in which the
company can enhance the sustainable management of the environment (Ansari,
2010). The company also pays keen attention to the pharmaceuticals discarded
into the environment and conducts regular analyses to determine if there are
adverse effects to the environment and human health. The company also
endeavours to ensure that their activities do not compromise on the
biodiversity in the environment. Where possible, alternatives are sought with
the company establishing a system to ensure the repopulation of the species
used for experiments and production of drugs (Sanofi, 2012a).
The commitment of
Sanofi A to corporate social responsibility is clear. The company treats
stakeholders as partners in its quest to achieve long term profitability. This
commitment is believed to be one of the reasons why the company’s brand is
regarded as trustworthy and caring.
5.0 Conclusion
Sanofi A is one of the leading
pharmaceutical companies in the world. The company produces prescription drugs
as well as over the counter drugs with additional products dedicated to animal
health. The company also runs the world’s largest vaccine production company,
Sanofi Pasteur (OneSource, 2012). An analysis of the company’s competitive
position reveals that Sanofi continues to hold leadership in innovation. The
company has established an innovative culture within its ranks and this is
backed by heavy investments made in order to ensure that the most effective
remedies for existing ailments are discovered and provided to the market. This
innovative culture is buoyed by a highly dynamic and motivated working force.
The employees are therefore crucial sources of competitive advantage to the
company. Further analysis revealed that the company’s approach to marketing is
both unique and highly effective. The company employs the use of a unique
marketing and promotional mix and this is further enhanced by the fact that the
company has a strong brand. Competitors such as Pfizer Inc, GlaxoSmithKline
plc, Merck & Co Inc, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca Plc were noted
to be strong contenders for the market share in the global pharmaceutical
industry (OneSource, 2012). Their approach to provide drugs that offer similar
benefits as Sanofi’s was found to be one of the main causes of market rivalry.
However, Sanofi weather’s this rivalry by pursuing a diversification strategy.
The company has among the largest product ranges in the industry. With the
mastery of innovation and diversification, Sanofi A’s chances of success are
quite high.
The fact that the
operations of the company spans across national and cultural boundaries places
immense pressure on the company to pay attention to cross cultural issues
arising in the company. With employees from such diverse backgrounds,
differences in perceptions and communication barriers have the potential to
inhibit the operational excellence of the organisation. The company’s products
are marketed to over 170 countries with Sanofi having a commercial presence is
about 100 countries (Global Data, 2012). The vaccination plants are located in
China, Argentina, Thailand, France and North America (Global Data, 2012). An
examination of Hofstede’s highlights on cultural dimensions helps in
understanding how cultural backgrounds influence company operations,
organisation structure and other dimensions. For instance, the organisation of
duties in the Japanese subsidiaries tends to factor in the fact that the local
population adores teamwork and that individualism is frowned upon. Such
modifications were absent in the USA subsidiaries where job responsibilities
and evaluations were based on individual performance.
Corporate social
responsibility commitment is clear at Sanofi. The company embraces stakeholders
and engages them with an aim to ensure that their interests are identified and
met. The most sensitive stakeholders that have been handled in dept are the
employees through provision of a safe working environment; business owners
through disclosure as needed; and patients through sensitisation on ailments
and humane treatments during clinical tests. The company also pays keen
attention to how its operations impact the environment with various
modifications made to the business process to minimise adverse effects to the
environment.
Sanofi A is a success
story and it paints a picture of a well run organisation. It continues to play
a major role in the industry and with the application of the right strategies;
it is bound to meet its growth objectives.
References
Ansari, Y., et al., 2010. Strategic Management Report on Sanofi Aventis. (Online) Available
at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/52909468/Sanofi-Aventis (Accessed 9 November
2011)
Barney, J.B., 2010. Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage. 3rd Ed.
Boston: Prentice Hall
Castner, M., Hayes, J., Shankle, D., 2007. The Global Pharmaceutical Industry. (Online)
Available at: http://www.duke.edu/web/soc142/team2/firms.html (Accessed 8
November 2011)
Clarkson, M.B.E., 1995. A Stakeholder Framework for
Analysing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. Academic Management Journal, 20(1), pp. 92-118
Datamonitor, 2010. Pharmaceuticals in South Africa.
(Online) Available at: http://globalbb.onesource.com/Web/Reports/ReportMainIndustry.aspx?SicCodeID=220512&Report=ALLMARKETRESEARCHREPORTS&Process=IP&Type=GetReport&FileFormat=PDF&ReportID=60015&FileName=0044-0372-2010.pdf
(Accessed 19 March 2012)
De Wit, B., Meyer, R., 2010. Strategy: Process, Content, Context: An International Perspective. 4th
Ed. Cengage Learning
Donaldson, T., Preston, L.E., 1995. The stakeholder
theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review. 20(1), p.
71
Drejer, A., 2002. Strategic Management and Core Competencies: theory and application.London:
Quorum Books
Earnst & Young, 2011. Prescriptions: Optimising Supply Chain Management. (Online)
Available at: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Prescriptions_optimizing_supply_chain_management/$FILE/Industry_Pharmaceuticals_Prescriptions_supply_chain.pdf
(Accessed 19 March 2012)
Friedman, A.L., Miles, S., 2001. Developing a
stakeholder theory. Journal of Management
Studies, 39 (1), pp. 1-21
Global Data, 2012. Sanofi (SAN)- Product Pipeline Review. (Online) Available at:
http://globalbb.onesource.com/SharedScripts/Reports/FetchAR.asp?Process=CP&DocID=18884027&file=file.pdf
(Accessed 19 March 2012)
Grant, R.M., 2007. Contemporary Strategy Analysis: text and cases. 7th Ed.
Chichester: J Wiley & Sons
Haberberg, A., Rieple, A., 2007. Strategic Management Theory and Application.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Hemmati, M., et al., 2002. Multistakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond
Deadlock and Conflict. London: Earthscan
Hofstede, G., 2012. National culture: dimensions: countries. (Online) Available at:
http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html (Accessed 19 March 2012)
IMAP, 2011. Pharmaceuticals
and Biotech: Industry Global Report-2011. (Online) Available at:
http://www.imap.com/imap/media/resources/IMAP_PharmaReport_8_272B8752E0FB3.pdf
(Accessed 19 March 2012)
Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K., 2011. Exploring strategy: Text and Cases. 9th
Ed. Harlow: Pearson
McKinney, R.A., 2011. Analysing your company. (Online) Available at:
http://www.tmg-smc.com/Articles/CompanyAnalysis.pdf (Accessed 19 March 2012)
OneSource, 2012. Sanofi
SA. (Online) Available at: http://globalbb.onesource.com/Web/Reports/ReportMain.aspx?KeyID=43831411&Process=CP&Report=UNIFIEDSUMMARY
(Accessed 19 March 2012)
Phillips, R., 2003. Stakeholder theory and organisational ethics. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler
Sanofi 2011b. Engaging
Stakeholders. (Online) Available at: http://en.sanofi.com/responsibility/csr_vision/stakeholders/stakeholders.aspx
(Accessed 18 March 2012)
Sanofi, 2011. Our
Company: Contributing with pride and passion beyond expectations. (Online)
Available at: http://en.sanofi.com/our_company/our_commitment/our_commitment.aspx
(Accessed 17 March 2012)
Sanofi, 2011a. Annual
Review 2010: Sanofi-Aventis. (Online) Available at:
http://sanofi-aventis.beevirtua.com/annualreview2010/data/en/pdf/full/SANOFIAVENTIS_Ra2010_en_rev01_Bd.pdf
(Accessed 17 March 2012)
Sanofi, 2011c. Connecting
Nurses- the Care Challenge Initiative. (Online) Available at:
http://www.sanofi.co.uk/l/gb/en/layout.jsp?cnt=C313ACC1-8D7B-4950-B2E9-CBB61337A13C
(Accessed 17 March 2012)
Sanofi, 2012. Who
is Sanofi US? (Online) Available at: http://www.sanofi.us/l/us/en/index.jsp
(Accessed 19 March 2012)
Sanofi, 2012a. Reporting
Corporate Social Responsibility 2010. (Online) Available at:
http://csrreporting.sanofi.com/web/our_vision (Accessed 19 March 2012)
Sweeny, 2007. The
Pharmaceutical Industry in Australia. (Online) Available at:
http://www.cfses.com/documents/pharma/34-Pharmaceutical_Industry_Aust_Sweeny.pdf
(Accessed 19 March 2012)
Wheelen, T.L., 2008. Strategic Management and Business Policy Concepts. 11th
ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
No comments:
Post a Comment