Thursday, September 19, 2019

Strategic analysis: Sanofi A


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

The Slaughtered and the Survivors: Collaboration Between Social Economy Organizations as a Key to Success in Times of Financial Crisis

CITATION López-Arceiz, F., Bellostas, A., & Rivera-Torres, M. (2017). The Slaughtered and the Survivors: Collaboration Between Social ...