The Factors Affecting E-Business Companies

The Factors Affecting E-Business Companies
 
 
Introduction
The business and commerce transactions have been transformed by the advances of the information and communication technology (ICT) and more specifically by the Internet. As the Internet presents a broad spectrum of information and payment mechanisms to the users, it could also increase the level of product and service purchases. Globally reaching trillions of USD, e-commerce has enabled businesses to operate beyond the geographical boundaries, to reach more customers and to compete with other companies not only at national level, but also international level. Developed countries could adopt e-commerce more easily than the other countries as they have sound economic and technological infrastructure. However, even today in some regions of developed and developing countries the level of Internet penetration which affects e-commerce transactions directly is lower. Moreover, there are several inequalities between some groups in terms of Internet usage. Culturally beliefs and attitudes of the consumers are also affect e-businesses. Today even in developed states there is lack of trust to online transactions. As e-commerce is not in a vacuum, it is also affected by politic factors. Politic decisions embody in laws and laws follow social, cultural and technological developments. Since advances in the Information and Communication Technology are the driver of e-commerce, legal environment have been adjusting itself to new digital era. Thus e­businesses are also affected by the new understanding of legislation. This paper will try to evaluate the several factors (economic, demographical, cultural and politic) affecting e­businesses success.
 
 
Economic Factors
 
The economic sustainability and competitiveness of a country determines its e-commerce potential. The countries which have a sound economic infrastructure and improved technological environment could easily adopt online trade. Therefore, key macro-economic
 
indicators, such as per capita GDP; the improvement in ICT infrastructure, such as computer and the Internet penetration and the speed of online transactions; and the advanced payment methods, such as the level of credit card use, affect e-commerce adoption of a country at macro level (Hariharaputhiran, 2012). The development level of a country’s economic structure and its economic stability have also played a crucial role in the adoption of new technologies. Therefore economically developed countries seem to have higher Internet penetration and online trade transactions (Wunnava & Leiter, 2009). For example, income level which is one of the key indicators of a developed economy, affects expansion of the e­commerce because it is directly related to the purchasing power of people (Karimov, 2011).
Globalisation which leads elimination of trade barriers, decline in the costs of the transportation and communication, increased investment opportunities in new markets and more competitive trade environment, is another factor affecting and forming e-commerce transactions. In the globalising world, thanks to the advances in telecommunication and transportation, e-commerce is regarded as a new and easy way to access markets. Today only the businesses which adopt and implement global communication and transportation links, utilize the benefits from the competitive trade environment (Aydin and Savrul, 2014). In addition, the local firms which face foreign competitors in the domestic market, prefers adoption of e-commerce to compete them. However, it is also argued that e-commerce has not changed the actors which have the advantages from the competitive international trade. Global firms still dominant actors of international trade and it is claimed that limited resources of local and small sized firms[1] might put them at a competitive advantage in their domestic markets (Totonchi and Kakamanshadi, 2011).
 
Demographic factors
 
In order to enjoy benefits from the Internet in terms of commercial transactions, the users should have the opportunity and the skills of using the Internet. Thus, skilled users would make the right choice consciously to use the Internet for their purposes. With this perspective demographic factors such as gender, age, education and income become the crucial element of any e-commerce company’s success. If there is an inequality between social groups to access and use the Internet, the level of online transactions will be limited and this will affect e-commerce companies negatively.
In this context, the digital divide has been a critical issue in ICT since the massive usage of the computer. The digital divide has two dimensions. First, the divide addresses the availability of groups to access computers, and other ICT products and services. Moreover, digital divide could be a matter of disparities between countries and the regions in a country. As a political, cultural and socio-economic reality, some groups have better opportunity to access computers and the Internet. For example, this inequality could arise between female and male, young and old, rich and poor and educated and uneducated. Although digital divide exists, due to the increasing usability of Information Technologies (IT), it is argued that the gap is closing between male and female, young and old, and rich and poor due to the governmental actions and socioeconomic improvement (Lee, 2010). Accordingly, a recent survey by OxIS[2] reveals that as the use of internet is increasing in the UK, the digital divide for low-income households, lower educated groups, older, and disabled people is getting narrower (Dutton and Blank, 2013). However, in underdeveloped and some developing
 
countries, even in some regions of the developed countries the digital divide still exists. For example, across Africa in 2014 only 9.8% of the inhabitants can access the Internet (IWS, 2015). Empirical studies show that in developing countries, there have been a digital divide between regions as well. For example even in Croatia, the newest member of EU, between urban and rural areas the digital divide exists in terms of broadband[3] adoption (Krizanovic, 2013). Moreover even between EU countries, with regard to fixed and mobile broadband penetration, it is argued that there has been a significant digital divide and the efforts could not close the gap successfully (Polykalas, 2014 ).
 
Cultural factors
 
The intention of shopping online is affected both technological and socio-cultural factors. Although the level of economic and technological development of a country or a region is directly determines the degree of online consumption, even in developed countries some people still tend to do face-to-face shopping rather than online shopping. Those people still want to touch or test the products or they do not trust in online transactions especially payment systems.
Especially the countries which have lower levels of e-commerce transactions, online payments, credit cards and e-money are regarded as risky. Actually, in some countries the majority of the population could not be familiar with these concepts. In such countries to overcome general belief and increase e-commerce transactions some mixed (traditional and electronic) methods are applied. For example, in Jordan many online traders implement cash on delivery option in their transactions (Abu-Shamaa and Abu-Shanab, 2015). Interestingly, a
 
recent survey reveals that even in the UK, 14% of the Internet users, termed as Adigitals, overwhelmingly negative beliefs and attitudes about the Internet (Dutton and Blank, 2014)
Trust is regarded as one of the prominent factors that affect the success of the e-commerce companies (Zhu et al., 2011). In online shopping trust means ‘having confidence that the store will offer fair prices, insert the right product information, reserve consumer’s privacy, and handle credit card and transaction information securely.’ (Abu-Shamaa and Abu-Shanab, 2015, p.2).
Another significant issue that affects online shopping attitudes of the individuals is trust in online payment system. Due to the fraud concerns some people might not want to pay online in their transactions. Moreover online payment is regarded as a complex method for some people. However, implementing safer and simpler online payment methods will encourage the potential e-customers to shop online (Bahaddad et al., 2013)
 
Political Factors
 
E-businesses are also affected by the governmental policies and regulations. Actually, all businesses must comply with the governmental regulations especially with the laws. Moreover, they must aware of the effects of any forthcoming legislation on their operations. Political factors affecting e-businesses include any legislation, initiative or funding to support the adoption and improvement of e-commerce and information technology.
Politically, the governments encourage and regulate online trading in several ways. Firstly, amendment of the laws and the regulations help to the functioning of e-commerce. Moreover, the existence of governmental incentives and programmes which encourage the development new technologies and improve technological infrastructure also have an impact on the success of e-commerce implementations (Permwanichagun, 2015).
 
With regard to legislation, Chaffey (2011) categorize the laws governing e-commerce into six groups: (1) Data protection and privacy law, (2) Disability and discrimination law, (3) Brand and trademark protection, (4) Intellectual property rights, (5) Contract law and (6) Online advertising law. In this paper data protection, contracting and jurisdiction issues will be discussed.
 
Data protection and privacy regulations
 
Although e-commerce presents many benefits to the economies and the people, the open structure of the Internet also brings some problems. Misuse of personal data might be one of the most important problems in online trading. E-commerce firms generally collect and use personal information of online shoppers in order to form their marketing strategies by meeting the personal needs of the individuals (Boritz and No, 2011). In order to complete e­commerce transactions, crucial personal data is required to be shared which has raised privacy and specifically fraud concerns. Hence, online shoppers’ trust in the e-commerce transactions would be decreased and this would affect the performance of online traders negatively.
While completing online shopping the customers are required to share personal information such as name, address and credit card number. In some cases, some additional information such as, preferences, income, and consumption behaviours are required to be shared. These are the simplest methods of collecting data. Another method is gathering the Internet Protocol (IP) number during visiting the Website. By this way, it could be possible to track visitors’ future web surfing. Another important approach to collect personal information of Website visitors is ‘cookies’, which are small text files that are set on an Internet user’s computer when one browses the Internet (Luzak, 2013, p.547). Cookies are beneficial because they ease the verification of identity. However, they are generally used to collect individual’s long
 
term browsing histories including payment information. Cookies are also an appropriate tool for online behavioural advertising (OBA) which could be defined as ‘[a]djusting advertisements to previous online surfing behaviour’ (Smit et al., 2014, p.15). Today almost all advertisement platforms are used this mechanism in their online advertising strategies (eMarketer, 16 May 2013). Although the advertisers are eager to implement OBA by using cookies, without informed consent, the cookies could violate the privacy of the individuals. Due to these privacy concerns, policy makers in US and Europe focussed on implementing opt-in regime which requires explicit consent of users (Bennet, 2011). Recently, the information which is shared in social networking Websites such as Facebook and Twitter, could be also collected and used (Jaafor et al., 2014). More recently, since the launch of the GPS (Global Positioning Systems) integrated mobile phones, it is possible to track users’ movements without any permission (Maekawa, 2014). Furthermore, it is possible to gather and transfer personal data during cloud computing processes (Sahin, 2013). Aforementioned procedures which enable customer tracking, could assist the firms to individualise customer transactions. However, the gathered data could also be transferred to third party organisations without the permission of the consumer. This would increase the concerns about confidentiality of data.
In order to respond to the privacy concerns, some legislations and procedures are entered into force by the governments. Moreover, there are also self-regulation efforts to overcome the privacy concerns. Data protection and protection efforts could be categorised into two groups: the market-driven, as used in the US and the government-driven, as used in the United Kingdom. In the self-regulation or market-driven approach, data protection procedures are determined by the private norms of the industry. The companies release the degree of information to be collected and used in their privacy policy statement according to industrial guidelines. In the US, no legal regulation is applied on the data collection procedures of the
 
companies. However, in order to assure customers’ trust, web seals such as TRUSTe and WebTrust are used. The Websites which conform to privacy organisations’ procedures display a sign (Adelola, 2014).
In the government regulation approach, data protection procedures are set by the laws which include regulations in terms of collection, use, and transfer of personal data to different countries which have not privacy regulations (Boritz and No, 2011). Several data protection and privacy laws in term of online transactions are put into effect by several countries, such as the United Kingdom, Germany and Canada. One of the outstanding legislations is Directive 95/46/EC of the European Council which was enacted by European Union in 1995.[4] The Directive focuses on ‘the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.’ One of the prominent features of the Directive is prohibition of transferring personal data to the jurisdictions which have not satisfactory protection mechanisms. The Directive also aimed to constitute a single data protection regulation among the member states (Kshetri and Murugesan, 2013).
After the promulgation of the Directive of 1995, due to the significant technological developments, the mechanisms of accessing, collecting, storing, transmitting, processing, sharing, and using personal data in online transactions has transformed. In order to respond to these developments, new regulations and amendments were entered into force. In 2002, the Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council which dealt with the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector was entered into force (EU, 2015). In 2006 and in 2009, the Directive of 2002 was
 
amended by the Directive (2006/24/EC) and the Directive (2009/136/EC) (as known as ‘cookie’ directive) respectively. The EU’s Data Protection Directives are regarded as the major legislative mechanism to protecting consumer data in online transactions (Kshetri and Murugesan, 2013).
The 2009 amendment which was put into force in all member states[5] in 2011, is so crucial, as it regulates one of the biggest challenges of confidentiality data, ‘cookies’. According to this directive, ‘explicit consent’ is required to launch cookies on the devices of Website visitors. Therefore, the personal data of visitors could not be collected unless they explicitly accept it (opt-in). Hence, the e-commerce companies based in the EU should design their data collection procedures from opt-out to opt-in according to this regulation (Smit et al., 2014). A research from ‘QuBIT’, customer data platform company, suggests that 60% of Internet users polled refuse to accept cookies if asked to opt in, but 99.9% give ‘implied consent’ if they are simply notified that a visited site uses cookies, but take no further action (Heyes, 2012, p.68). The results of this research reveal that implementing explicit consent is so crucial in order to ensure Web users’ privacy.
 
Contracting
 
E-commerce transactions are completed via contracts, just like the traditional commerce transactions. However, e-commerce needs electronic contracts as the way of agreement on the contracts have transformed due to the technological developments. In traditional commerce, the way of forming contracts vary. Contracts could be formed in written or be
 
negotiated orally. The contract law generally ignores the way of forming contracts; instead intention is regarded as the main issue of the cases. Intention is generally embodied in the offer and acceptance tools. As the e-commerce transactions are fulfilled through online network, the transforming offer and acceptance approach could be viewed as an obstacle to the sound contracts (Mik, 2013). Another controversial issue about contracting is signature. In the traditional contracting regime, signature is a mark that states the agreement to the terms of a contract. However, in online commercial transactions as there is no paper-based contract, completing transactions could not be possible with traditional signature. In order to overcome this obstacle, digital signature is started to be used in e-commerce transactions (Gu and Zhu,
 
2014).
 
Besides traditional contracting procedures, there have been also new methods. These are Shrink-wrap, Click-wrap and Browse-wrap. Shrink-wrap licence had been used especially by the software manufacturers, before widely use of the Internet. Terms and conditions are generally attached to the software package. In this type of contract, by using the software, the customers agree to be bound by the terms of the licence (Garcia, 2013). After the rise of the Internet, a new type of contract emerged called Click-wrap (or Web-wrap). In this type, the user is required to scroll through the terms and conditions of the contract and click an on­screen button such as I agree or I accept to complete transaction. More recently, a new contracting mechanism, similar to the Shrink-wrap, has arisen: Browse-wrap. In Browse-wrap type of contracts, it is not necessary to take a specific action, such as clicking or ticking, to state agreement. By merely browsing or using a Website, the user agrees to be bound by the Terms of Service located elsewhere (Palanissamy, 2013). Browse-wrap is built on the success of Click-wrap. However, the user might be bound to a EULA (End-User License Agreements) merely by browsing the Website. Hence, the concerns arose with regard to
 
enforcement of browse-wrap contracts. Browse-wraps sometimes could be subject to an appeal.[6]
 
Jurisdiction
 
Today, offer and acceptance, more specifically click-wrap and even browse-wrap[7] is regarded as essential elements of an enforceable of electronic contracts (Palanissamy, 2013). However, some issues such as choice of law and jurisdiction are still problematic. To address these issues is very complicated as the Internet has a borderless nature and it transforms the pace and the manner of business communications. In traditional commerce, geographical borders generally identify the commercial relations. Moreover, territorial borders usually overlap with the legal and cultural borders (Davidson, 2009). Today, due to the borderless nature of e­commerce, in terms of legal disputes some controversial questions have arisen: ‘Which country’s court will hear the disputes? or ‘Which country’s law will be applied to resolve disputes?
Jurisdictional issues became complex, due to the global context of the Internet. Legal theorists evaluate jurisdiction mainly in two groups (Ward and Sipior, 2010a): Personal jurisdiction and long arm statute. Personal jurisdiction refers the power of the courts over resident individuals or businesses within a country or a state. However, in some cases, the courts could have an authority over non-resident individuals and businesses which refer long arm statute. In the US, the widely use of the Internet and more specifically e-commerce transactions leads the courts to apply long arm statute on the Internet and the e-commerce disputes (Ward and Sipior, 2010b)
 
As e-businesses could easily operate beyond borders, their operations might face different or multiple jurisdictions which creates an uncertainty. Therefore, they should be aware of jurisdictional risk ad try to reduce it. To do so, legal analysis and evaluation should be done in their operations (Ward and Sipior, 2010b)
 
Conclusion
 
ICT and more specifically the Internet affected all aspects of our lives. The way of conducting businesses has also changed in the new digital era and the phenomenon of e­business emerged. Today, commercial transactions occurred through online channels and the Internet. Therefore even small sized businesses could operate beyond borders, regardless of time. In developed and developing countries the level of e-commerce adoption is very high. However rest of the world could not even meet the Internet. Also there are disparities even in developed countries in terms of the Internet and e-commerce adoption. In addition belief of the individuals to the online transactions is another prominent factor. Even in developed countries there is a lack of trust in online shopping. Politic decisions also affect e-commerce with legislations. Confidentiality of data, contracting and jurisdiction are the prominent issues that legal environment dealt with. These factors bring both advantages and disadvantages to the e-businesses. In this context, e-businesses should utilize the opportunities and try to overcome threats.
 
Reference List
 
Abu-Shamaa, R., & Abu-Shanab, E. (2015, February). Factors influencing the intention to buy from online stores: An empirical study in Jordan. In GCC Conference and Exhibition (GCCCE), 2015 IEEE 8th (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Adelola, T., Dawson, R., & Batmaz, F. (2014, December). Privacy and data protection in E­commerce: The effectiveness of a government regulation approach in developing nations, using Nigeria as a case. In Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST), 2014 9th International Conference for (pp. 234-239). IEEE.
Aydin, E., & Savrul, B. K. (2014). The Relationship between Globalization and E-commerce: Turkish Case. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,, 150, 1267-1276.
Bahaddad, A. A., Houghton, L., & Drew, S. (2013). Attracting customer in Saudi Arabia to buy from your business online. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(7),
p65.
Boritz, J. E., & No, W. G. (2011). E-commerce and privacy: Exploring what we know and opportunities for future discovery. Journal of Information Systems,25(2), 11-45.
Chaffey, D. (2011) E-Business and E-Commerce Management: Strategy, Implementation and Practice. 5th edn. Harlow, England: Pearson/Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Council Directive (EC) 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data [1995] OJ L281
Council Directive (EC) 2006/24/EC of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC [2006] OJ L105/54
Council Directive (EC) 2009/136/EC of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws [2009] OJ L337/11
 
Davidson A. (2009). The Law Of Electronic Commerce [e-book]. Port Melbourne, Vic:
Cambridge                     University                     Press;                     Available at:
<https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SS_Zy7f6ds8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+L aw+Of+Electronic+Commerce&hl=tr&sa=X&ei=Dqc-
VZ38MMbvUsaMgdAM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The%20Law%20Of%20Electron ic%20Commerce&f=false> Accessed 26/04/2015
Dutton, W. H., Blank, G.,(2013). Cultures of the internet: The internet in Britain. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. Retrieved September 2013.
Dutton, W. H. and Blank, G. (2014). Cultures of the Internet:Five Clusters of Attitudes and Beliefs among Users in Britain. OII Working Paper, Oxford Internet Surveys (OxIS) Project, 9 February 2014
Emarketer (16 May 2013). Available at: <http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Third-Party-Data-Guides-Campaign-Targeting/1009894> Accessed:25/04/2015
 
EU                                       (2015)                                       Available at:
<http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/information_society/legislative_framework/l241 20_en.htm> Accessed 25/04/2015
Garcia, M. (2013). Browsewrap: A Unique Solution to the Slippery Slope of the Clickwrap Conundrum. CampbellL. Rev., 36, 31-175.
Gu, J., & Zhu, X. (2014). Designing and Implementation of an Online System for Electronic Contract Negotiation Based on Electronic Signature. Journal of Software, 9(12), 3020­3027.
 
Hariharaputhiran, S. (2012). Challenges and Opportunities of E-Commerce.International
Journal of Marketing, Financial, Services & Management Research, 1(3), 98-108
 
Hayes, J. (2012). ‘Cookie law’: a hostage to fortune?. Engineering & Technology, 7(8), 66-69.
IWS (2015), Available at:<http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats1.htm> Accessed:24/04/2015
Jaafor, O., Birregah, B., Perez, C., & Lemercier, M. (2014, November). Privacy Threats from Social Networking Service Aggregators. In Cybercrime and Trustworthy Computing Conference (CTC), 2014 Fifth (pp. 30-37). IEEE.
 
Karimov, F. P. (2011). Factors Influencing E-Commerce Growth: A Comparative Study of Central Asian Transition Economies. International Journal of E-Adoption (IJEA), 3(4), 29-43.
Krizanovic, V., Zagar, D., & Grgic, K. (2013, June). Econometric analysis of demographic and socio-economic factors influencing broadband adoption in Croatian rural counties. In Telecommunications (ConTEL), 2013 12th International Conference on (pp. 283-288).
IEEE.
Kshetri, N., & Murugesan, S. (2013). Cloud Computing and EU Data Privacy Regulations. Computer, 46(3), 86-89.
Lee, J. W. (2010). The roles of demographics on the perceptions of electronic commerce adoption. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 14(1), 71-89.
Luzak, J. A. (2014). Privacy Notice for Dummies? Towards European Guidelines on How to Give “Clear and Comprehensive Information” on the Cookies’ Use in Order to Protect the Internet Users’ Right to Online Privacy. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(4), 547-559.
Maekawa, T., Yamashita, N., & Sakurai, Y. (2014). How Well Can a User’s Location Privacy Preferences be Determined Without Using GPS Location Data? Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing DOI 10.1109/TETC.2014.2335537, IEEE Available at: http://0-ieeexplore.ieee.org.serlib0.essex.ac.uk/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6850005 Accessed:26/04/2015
Mik, E. K. (2013). Certainty at Last? A’New’Framework for Electronic Contracting in Singapore. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, 8(3). 160-178
Oni, O., & Papazafeiropoulou, A. (2014). Diverse views on IT innovation diffusion among SMEs: Influencing factors of broadband adoption. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(4),
729-747.
Palanissamy, Ayyappan. (2013) Legal Issues in e-Commerce and e-Contracting-An Overview of Initiatives in Malaysia. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 3 (2), 173-177.IEEE
Pattarawadee Permwanichagun, Sumeth Kaenmanee and Aree Naipinit, (2015). The External Environments Factors Affecting Success for Implementation: In Context of Sole Proprietorship   E-Commerce   Entrepreneurs   in   Thailand.   International Business
Management, 9(1) 122-127.
 
Polykalas, S. E. (2014, November). Assessing the evolution of the Digital Divide across European Union. In Web and Open Access to Learning (ICWOAL), 2014 International Conference on (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Sahin, S. (2013) On Current Trends in Security and Privacy of Cloud Computing. In Application of Information and Communication Technologies (AICT 2013), 7th International Conference, 23-25 Oct. 2013 pp. 1- 5. IEEE
Savrul, M., Incekara, A., & Sener, S. (2014). The Potential of E-commerce for SMEs in a Globalizing Business Environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 35­45.
Smit, E. G., Van Noort, G., & Voorveld, H. A. (2014). Understanding online behavioural advertising: User knowledge, privacy concerns and online coping behaviour in Europe. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 15-22.
Totonchi, J., & Kakamanshadi, G. (2011). Globalization and e-commerce. IPCSIT: 2nd International Conference on Networking and Information Technology. IPCSIT: IACSIT Press. Available at: http://www.ipcsit.com/vol17/39-ICNIT%202011-T889.pdf Accessed: 25/04/2014
Ward, B. T., & Sipior, J. C. (2010a). Where in the World is Internet Jurisdiction: A US Perspective. International Journal of Value Chain Management: ICT adoption and Social-Technical Aspects of ICT, 4 (1/2), 5-17.
Ward, BT, Sipior, JC (2010b) The Internet jurisdiction risk of cloud computing. Information Systems Management 27(4) pp. 334-339.
 
Wunnava, P. V., & Leiter, D. B. (2009). Determinants of intercountry Internet diffusion rates.
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 68(2), 413-426.
Zhu, D. S., Lee, Z. C. R., & O’Neal, G. S. (2011). Mr. Risk! Please Trust Me: Trust
Antecedents that Increase Online Consumer Purchase Intention. Journal of Internet
Banking                 &                Commerce,                 16(3).                Available at:
http://www.arraydev.com/Commerce/Jibc/2011-12/Zhu_acceptedv02.pdf Accessed:25/04/2015
[1] E-commerce is also a crucial issue for small sized firms, especially SMEs, to operate in a competitive environment. Although e-commerce presents valuable opportunities to SMEs, there are several limitations which affect successful adoption and implementation of online trading. Primarily, as their products and the services are not generally suitable for online trading, SMEs could not adopt e-commerce easily. Secondly,
SMEs have problems in terms of logistics and payments. Lastly, security issues and the legal framework affect adoption of e-commerce. Some of these problems could be solved by adapting new strategies to the small sized businesses. However, the structural obstacles, such as legal framework, poor technological infrastructure could only be eliminated by the efforts of the governments (Savrul et al., 2014).
[2] Oxford Internet Surveys, Oxford Internet Institute of University of Oxford
[3] ‘Broadband can be defined as anything with a bandwidth larger than 4 Hz (…) Broadband technology is an umbrella term which covers varying high-speed access technologies including ADSL, cable modems, satellite and Wi-Fi’ (Oni and Papazafeiropoulou, 2014: 729)
[4] After this regulation, there were several attempts to improve data protection procedures in line with the new technological developments were made by the EU. For example, in 2012, the Commission proposed a major reform of the EU legal framework on the protection of personal data. The new proposals will strengthen individual rights and tackle the challenges of globalisation and new technologies. (see, Available at: <http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/120125 en.htm> Accessed:26/04/2015). Another significant development is a landmark ruling of 2014 which dealt with the ‘right to be forgotten’, in relation to online search engines. (see, Available at: <http ://ec.europa. eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet data protection en.pdf> Accessed:26/04/2015)
[5] As other member countries, in the UK, e-privacy legislation developed in line with the EU norms. In order to align with the EU Directive of 1995, the United Kingdom put into force Data Protection Act of 1998. Although in the Act, the concept of ‘privacy’ is not mentioned, as a fundamental right, processing of citizens’ personal data is regulated. In practice the Act provides opportunity to the citizens to control their personal data processing. In the UK, the privacy law is enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), a governmental institution. If a Website based in the UK collects personal data, it should inform ICO in line with the principles of the Act which regulates the procedures of collecting and using personal information and privacy policies which inform online visitors how the personal information will be processed and removed (Adelola et al., 2014).
[6] For example, the court in Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc. stated ‘[i]t cannot be said that merely putting the terms and conditions in this fashion [listed on the website] necessarily creates a contract with anyone using the web site’ (see. Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc. (Ticketmaster I), No. CV99-7654 HLH, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4553, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2000))
[7] As Garcia (2013, p.31) indicates; ‘ Browsewrap now stands poised to build upon the legal success of online licensing and become as accepted as Clickwrap in American courts.’

 
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"

BE161-7-AU: CORPORATE REPORTING AND ANALYSIS

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       BE161-7-AU: CORPORATE REPORTING AND ANALYSIS
COURSEWORK
 
Financial Comparison and Analysis:
AstraZeneca PLC and GlaxoSmithKline PLC
 
 
 
 
Umit KURNAZ
Registration No: 1405507
 
 
 
Colchester, 2015
Word Count: 3953

1.                  Introduction

This report will analyse and compare the two pharmaceutical companies GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) and AstraZeneca in terms of their financial performance. These companies will be evaluated with regard to their financial ratios. Financial ratios give a clear picture of the financial health of a business and are very useful for comparing different companies.

1.1.            Pharmaceutical industry

A single company does not operate apart from its environment. Economic structure and the actions of other competitors affect any company’s success. Therefore in order to analyse and compare companies in terms of financial performance, the industry in which they conduct business should be evaluated. Pharmaceutical industry can be defined as an industry which develops, produces, and markets licensed drugs or biologicals for human and veterinary use. The pharmaceutical industry has doubled in value since 2000. According to IMS Health (2014) world pharmaceutical market sales reached US$874 billion in 2013.  The 10 largest drugs companies control over one-third of this market, several with sales of more than US$10 billion a year and profit margins of about 30% (WHO, 2014). The industry has a very competitive structure. While large-scale and research based companies develop medicines and vaccines, smaller companies produce generic medicines. As world population is rising and diseases which require long term management is increasing the pharmaceutical industry is going to grow. Spending on medicines globally is expected exceed US$1.17Tn by 2017(IMS Health, 2014a) On the other hand, there are some challenges, such as maintaining R&D productivity, pricing pressure, patent expiries  have impact on pharmaceutical sector as well.

1.2.            AstraZeneca PLC

AstraZeneca was established in 1999 through the merger of Astra AB of Sweden and Zeneca Group PLC of the UK. AstraZeneca specialized in the discovery, development, manufacturing and marketing of prescription medicines. Its product pipeline is focused on six important areas of healthcare: cancer, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, infection, neuroscience, and respiratory and inflammation. Currently employing around 50,000 people worldwide AstraZeneca is among the top ten healthcare companies in the world (IMS Health, 2014b). Geographically, U.S. is the largest market of AstraZeneca during 2013, accounting for 38%. On the other hand, Europe and emerging markets were responsible for 26% and 21% of sales, respectively (AstraZeneca, 2013).

1.3.            GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK)

GSK was established in 2000 by the merger of Glaxo Wellcome PLC and SmithKline Beecham PLC. It is currently world fifth largest pharmaceutical company and the largest healthcare company in the U.K. (IMS Health, 2014b) employing around 100,000 people worldwide. The company has three primary business areas: Pharmaceuticals, Vaccines, and Consumer Healthcare. Geographically, GSK’s revenues outside the U.S. and Europe account for about 40% of its total sales during 2013, being therefore very well exposed to developing markets (GSK, 2013), contrary to AstraZeneca.

1.4.            Overview of report

This report evaluates and compares the two UK-based pharmaceutical companies in terms of their financial performance by analysing their financial ratios during the period of 2009-2013. Financial ratios will be analysed with regard to following categories: Profitability, liquidity, efficiency, gearing and investment. All financial ratios are calculated by using Financial Statements of both companies and exist in the Appendix. In the end, by evaluating all outcomes of financial statements and ratios, the question of ‘which company is a good option to invest?’ will be answered for potential investors.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

2.                  Ratio Analysis

2.1.            Profitability Ratios

2.1.1.      Return on Capital Employed (ROCE)

 
First of all, profitability of the two companies will be compared through the key profitability ratios. To begin with ROCE of two companies, we can see from the Figure 1, ROCE in GSK and AstraZeneca fluctuated from 2009 until 2011. After the year 2011, AZ saw a sharp decline in ROCE while GSK’s ratio decreased slightly.
Looking at AstraZeneca’s figures, obviously, main reason behind decline in ROCE is deterioration of operating profit. As it is stated in the Annual Report, the sharp decrease in ROCE in 2012 and 2013 is stemmed from the reported operating profit which was down 24% and 51% respectively. In order to analyse this downward pattern, structure of operating profit for the final three year should be evaluated in more detail from the Table 1.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Table 1. Horizontal Analysis of some figures from AstraZeneca’s Income Statements
2011 2012 2013
Actual figures Base figure Actual figures Comparison with 2011 (%) Actual figures Comparison with 2012 (%)
Revenue 33,591 100 27,973 83 25,711 92
Cost of sales -6,026 100 -5,393 89 -5,261 98
Gross profit 27,565 100 22,580 82 20,450 91
Administrative expenses -17,030 100 -15,402 90 -17,333 113
Profit on disposal of subsidiary 1,483 100
Other operating income & expense 777 100 970 125 595 61
Operating profit 12,795 100 8,148 66 3,712 49

 
Chairman of AstraZeneca defined 2012 financial performance as a ‘significant revenue decline associated with the loss of exclusivity for several products.’ Looking at the revenue figure of AstraZeneca of 2012, it was down 17% to $27,973 million compared with 2011. According to Annual Report of 2012 loss of exclusivity on several brands, most notably Seroquel IR, and the disposals of Astra Tech and Aptium were the key drivers of the revenue decline. Furthermore, decline in operating profit was much more significant than revenue. In 2012, operating profit was down 34% (almost twice as the decline in revenue) compared with the 2011. In 2013 loss of exclusivity continued to have negative effect on AstraZeneca. According to Annual Report of 2013, loss of exclusivity on brands accounted for a revenue decline of some $2.2 billion. In 2013, operating profit was down 51% compared with the 2012. Over the coming years, it is forecasted that this trend will continue as some medicines continue to lose exclusivity in US and Europe markets. Another significant development which had impact on operating profit in 2013 is $1,758 million impairment due to disappointing sales of diabetes drug Bydureon, according to WSJ (6 February 2014).
All in all, it can be claimed that GlaxoSmithKline has been more profitable company in terms of return on capital employed than AstraZeneca after 2011.

2.1.2.      Return on Total Assets (ROTA)

As it can be seen from the Figure 2 AstraZeneca’s ROTA figures prevailed over the GSK’s figures between 2009 and 2011. However, AstraZeneca had a sharp decline in ROTA in 2012 and 2013 due to above-mentioned decrease in operating profit meanwhile GSK saw a slightly decrease.
Table 2 shows the components of ROTA for both companies during 2009-2013. It is obvious from the table; the deterioration of ROTA is stemmed not only from decrease in operating profit but also increase in total assets for both companies. The decline in operating profit for AstraZeneca was much more significant than GSK after 2011. The main reason behind the decrease in operating profit for AstraZeneca is decline in revenue due to loss of exclusivity for several products which was mentioned in Section 2.1.1.

Table 2. Return on Total Assets (ROTA) of AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (2009-2013)
AZ GSK
YEAR OPERATING PROFIT TOTAL ASSETS OPERATING PROFIT TOTAL ASSETS
2009 11,543 54,920 8,425 42,862
2010 11,494 56,127 3,783 42,230
2011 12,795 52,830 7,807 41,080
2012 8,148 53,534 7,392 41,475
2013 3,712 55,899 7,028 42,086

 

2.1.3.      Return on Equity (ROE)

Return on equity (ROE) is another important profitability ratio. This ratio measures the profitability of a company with regard to the capital provided by the ordinary shareholders. Figure 3 demonstrates that the ROE trends of both companies during the period. As can be seen from the graph, after having seen a sharp decline in 2010 GSK’s ratio increased year by year. On the other hand, AstraZeneca’s figure grew erratically between 2009 and 2011, and decreased dramatically for the last two years. In order to understand these patterns, the components of the ratio should be evaluated also.
Looking at GSK, main reason behind the decline in annual profit of 2010 is the expansion of the Operational Excellence programme which was announced in February 2009, according to Financial Review of 2010. With an estimated total cost of approximately £4.5 billion, 75% of the costs of this programme were incurred by the end of 2010. One of the outstanding restructuring costs which were incurred in 2010 is acquisition of Stiefel Laboratories Inc., which was about a $2.9 billion deal, according to WSJ (20 April 2009).
 

2.1.4.      Operating Profit Margin

Another important ratio for analysing both of the company is operating profit margin which measures the two companies’ operating performance. Operating profit margin for GSK was almost constant at about 30% during the period except the year 2010. As it is stated in the Annual Report of 2010, due to restructuring costs related to the Operational Excellence programme and the acquisitions of Reliant and Stiefel, there was a decrease of 59% in operational profit which is about £2,438, compared with the 2009. On the other hand, after reaching its peak at 38.09% in 2012, AstraZeneca saw a sharp decline in operating profit margin for the last two years. Figure 4 shows that there is something wrong for AstraZeneca in 2012 and 2013 with regard to operating profit margin ratio.
 
In order to understand sharp decline in operating profit margin, we need to analyse the components of the ratio in more detail. Figure 5 demonstrates structure of operating profit margin for AstraZeneca for the period of analysis. Although revenue, denominator of the ratio, was decreasing year by year after 2011, downward trend in operating profit was much more significant. As it is stated in the Annual Report of 2013, the decline in operating profit was greater than the decline in revenue primarily due to expenditure associated with the AstraZeneca’s key growth platforms and strengthened pipeline. On the other hand, Chairman stated that the decline in revenue was, in part, offset by the key growth platforms: Brilinta, diabetes franchise, respiratory, Emerging Markets and Japan, which delivered an incremental $1.2 billion of revenue in 2013.
 

2.2.            Liquidity Ratios

2.2.1.      Quick Ratio

In order to compare the ability of covering short term obligations, Figure 6 demonstrates quick ratios for GSK and AstraZeneca for the period of 2009-2013. While AstraZeneca’s quick ratios were above 1 for the period, GSK’s quick ratios were under 1, meaning current assets (except inventory) are not big enough to cover current liabilities. Though AstraZeneca’s ratios are better with regard to liquidity than GSK’s ratios, it is useful to analyse the companies’ profitability ratios also. As analysed earlier, profitability figures for GSK were better than AstraZeneca. Therefore, despite the fact that GSK’s quick ratios are below 1, ‘pharmaceutical giant’ is not in trouble with regard to liquidity because of good profitability performance.
 

2.3.            Efficiency Ratios

2.3.1.      Day sales of inventory

‘Day sales of inventory’ ratio measures a company’s performance that how long it takes a company to turn its inventory into sales. Averaged inventory turnover for AstraZeneca is 118 days while for GSK is 185 days during the five-year period. Figure 7 compares how fast AstraZeneca and GSK turn over their inventory within a year. While GSK’s stock of inventory lasted in 166-201 days, it took 96-139 days for AstraZeneca to sell its entire inventory in the recent years. In this view, AstraZeneca has been more efficient company than its competitor as shorter day sales of inventory means the inventory can be converted into cash sooner.
 

2.3.2.      Asset turnover

Figure 8 shows asset turnover ratio of two pharmaceutical giants between 2009 and 2013. It is obvious that GlaxoSmithKline’s asset turnover figures prevailed over AstraZeneca’s figures during the period. As can be seen from Table 3, although AstraZeneca’s assets are more than GSK during five-year period, the latter had better asset turnover performance over the period. This means, GSK has used its assets more efficiently to generate revenue than AstraZeneca between 2009 and 2013.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Table 3. Asset Turnover of AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline 
(2009-2013)
  2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
AstraZeneca Sales 32,804 33,269 33,591 27,973 25,711
Net assets 20,660 23,213 23,246 23,737 23,224
Asset Turnover (times) 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.1
GSK Sales 28,368 28,392 27,387 26,431 26,505
Net assets 10,742   9,745   8,827   6,747   6,737
Asset Turnover (times) 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.9 3.9

 
AstraZeneca’s asset turnover ratio decreased during 2012 and 2013. In order to understand this downward trend, the components of the asset turnover ratio should be evaluated. As it can be understood from the Figure 9, asset turnover of AstraZeneca decreased in 2012 and 2013 due to significant deterioration of sales revenue. AstraZeneca’s sales in 2012 were down 15% to $27,973 million and in 2013 were down 6% to $25,711 million. According to Chairman, most of the revenue decline was related to loss of exclusivity on several
brands, such as Arimidex, Atacand, Crestor, Nexium and Seroquel IR, in the portfolio. Although the decline in revenue was, in part, offset by key growth platforms in 2013, over the coming years, it is forecasted that this trend will continue as medicines such as Crestor, Nexium and Seroquel XR continue to lose exclusivity in some markets. Therefore this trend is likely affect sales revenue negatively over the coming years.
 

2.3.3.      Sales Revenue to Capital Employed

Figure 10 shows that sales revenue to capital employed figure for GSK and AstraZeneca between 2009 and 2013. The sales revenue to capital employed for AstraZeneca averaged 0.8 times while GlaxoSmithKline averaged 0.96 times during the period.  As can be seen from the Figure 10, while GSK’s ratios are almost constant and prevailed over its competitor’s figures, AstraZeneca saw a decline trend after 2011. AstraZeneca’s figure stood at 0.91 times in 2011 and slightly decreased year by year reaching 0.65 times in 2013.
 
 
In order to understand the downward trend of AstraZeneca in terms of sales revenue to capital employed, the components of the ratio should be evaluated during the period. Figure 11 demonstrates the structure of sales revenue to capital employed figure between 2009 and 2013.
As can be seen from the Figure 11, deterioration of sales revenue to capital employed ratio was caused from the above-mentioned decrease of sales revenue in 2012 and 2013. Although capital employed has an upward trend, extra capital employed was not properly reflected in revenue.

2.4.            Gearing Ratios

2.4.1.      Gearing (Debt to Equity) Ratio

Figure 12 shows that gearing (debt to equity) figure for GSK and AstraZeneca between 2009 and 2013. The debt to equity ratio for AstraZeneca averaged 27.64% while GSK averaged 64.58% during the period. AstraZeneca’s figures have been below 50% during five years meaning AstraZeneca has been mostly funded by shareholders’ capital rather than borrowing. On the other hand, as GSK’s figures fluctuated between approximately 60% and 71% during the five year period, it is in a risky situation. A high debt to equity ratio generally means that a company has an aggressive strategy in financing its operations with debt. This situation may affect a company negatively due to additional interest expense.
According to Annual Report of 2013, GSK’s policy is described as “to borrow centrally in order to meet anticipated funding requirements.” Moreover it is stated that company’s long-term credit ratings have remained unchanged since February 2008 and current ratings are A+ (stable outlook) by Standard and Poor’s and A1 (negative outlook) by Moody’s. However, in August 2014, Moody’s (2014) downgraded GSK’s credit rating to A2 from A1(Telegraph, 5 August 2014).
 
 
While GlaxoSmithKline’s debt to equity ratio currently stands at an extremely high level of 220%, meaning that for every £1 of equity, GlaxoSmithKline currently has £2.20 of debt, the company’s relatively high level of profitability means that debt levels are seems to be well-serviced. However, in order to have a judgement, GSK’s interest coverage ratio should be analysed as well.
 

2.4.2.      Interest Coverage Ratio

Figure 13 shows that interest cover ratio for GSK and AstraZeneca between 2009 and 2013. The interest cover ratio for AstraZeneca averaged almost 11 while GSK averaged 9 during the period. This means AstraZeneca and GSK have ability to pay their interest payments on debt 11 times and 9 times respectively, by their operating profit. Although GSK has a high level of debt to equity ratio, mentioned in section 2.4.1, it is likely to have opportunity to make its interest payments on debt.
 
 
Looking at AstraZeneca’s interest coverage trend from Figure 13, it climbed rapidly from 2009, stood at its peak of 14.9 by 2012 and was down 50% in 2013. Therefore there is something wrong for AstraZeneca in 2013 in terms of interest coverage. In order to understand sharp decline, the components of interest coverage ratio should be evaluated. Figure 14 shows the components of interest coverage ratio for AstraZeneca. Although interest payable, denominator of the ratio, decreased in 2013, above-mentioned downward trend in operating profit was much more significant. All in all, it can be said that both GSK and AstraZeneca is safe with regard to interest cover.
 
 

2.5.            Investment Ratios

2.5.1.      Earnings per share (EPS)

EPS, as a measurement of a company’s profitability per unit of shareholder ownership, is one of the most important ratios for an investor. Table 4 demonstrates EPS figures for both companies. EPS of AstraZeneca experienced an upward trend from 2009 and reached a peak of 464 p in 2011 and saw a sharp decline by 2013. In 2012 reported EPS was down 29% which was lower than the decline in core operating profit. According to Annual Report of 2012 this was the result of the benefits from net share repurchases and a lower tax rate. Furthermore reported EPS for the year 2013 was down 55% to 124.4 p. Annual Report of 2013 reveals that one of the most significant reasons for this decline is the impairment of Bydureon in the fourth quarter of 2013 which reduced reported EPS by $1.10
On the other hand, GSK’s EPS, beginning from 109 p in 2009, demonstrated a sharp decline by 2010 and increased and reached its peak of 110.5 p in 2013. According to Annual Report of 2010 the reason of this decline was impact of legal cost of £4,001 million.  Both companies’ EPS trends are broadly in line with their profit after interest and tax figures.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Table 4. Diluted EPS for AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline  (2009-2013)
AstraZeneca GSK
Years  Diluted EPS (p) Issued shares (m) Diluted EPS (p) Issued shares (m)
2009 321.8 1,448 108.2 5,069
2010 362.1 1,438   31.9 5,085
2011 464.0 1,361 102.1 5,028
2012 306.3 1,261   90.2 4,912
2013 124.4 1,252 110.5 4,831

Figure 15 shows profit after tax interest and tax figures for each company during five-year period. As can be seen from the Figure 15, beginning from the year 2009, AstraZeneca demonstrated an upward trend and reached its top in 2011 and decreased dramatically over the final two years. In 2012 reported profit after interest and tax was down 37% to $6,297 million compared with the 2011. This decline was mostly related to loss of exclusivity on several brands in the portfolio, combined with the higher Core R&D and SG&A expenses, according to Press Release dated 31 January 2013 (AstraZeneca, 2013). Bloomberg (4 February 2013) wrote that AstraZeneca faced increasing competition from lower-priced generic medicines which decreased its profit. In 2013 reported profit after interest and tax was down 60% to $2,556 million compared with the 2012 figures. According to Telegraph (6 February 2014) AstraZeneca was under increasing pressure as cheaper competitors to its best-sellers come onto the market which affected its sales. Moreover it was forecasted that new generic competitors would erode its sales further.
 

2.5.2.      Price Earnings Ratio (P/E)

PE is an important ratio which shows a company’s current share price compared to its per-share earnings. This ratio is closely followed by investors as it is likely to affect investment decisions directly. Table 5 demonstrates PE ratio for both companies. As can be seen from the table, GSK’s ratio was higher than AstraZeneca’s in 2011 and 2012. However in 2013 AstraZeneca’s P/E ratio increased significantly and was almost twice as GSK’s. It’s obvious that sharp increase in P/E ratio stemmed from decrease in EPS accompanied with increase in market prices. 2013. Nevertheless, comparing with the GSK, high P/E ratio of AstraZeneca means investors are expecting higher earnings growth in the future. With regard to GSK, its EPS and market share price are relatively stable during the period.
 

Table 5. P/E ratio for AstraZeneca and GSK (2011-2013)
  AZ GSK
Years PE ratio Market price share EPS PE ratio Market price share EPS
2011 6.4 2,975.0 464.0 12.6 1289 102.1
2012 9.5 2,909.5 306.3 15.8 1422   90.2
2013 28.7 3,574.5 124.4 14.6 1618 110.5

 

2.5.3.      Dividend cover

Figure 16 shows that dividend cover figure for GSK and AstraZeneca between 2009 and 2013. The dividend cover ratio for AstraZeneca averaged 2.01% while GSK averaged 1.31% during the period. Normally a dividend cover ratio below 1.5 is regarded as risky and a ratio below 1 indicates a company is paying the current year’s dividend with retained earnings from a previous year. As can be seen from the Figure 16, dividend cover ratio for GSK in 2010 and AstraZeneca in 2013 were below 1. GSK’s low dividend cover trend was not stable as it increased in 2011. However, with regard to AstraZeneca, as its dividend cover ratio is 0.74 in 2013, the company needs something more than earnings to pay its dividend. AstraZeneca could borrow from their reserves of retained earnings from the year 2012 to pay a dividend. Only for one year this is fine but if this situation acquires continuity it will not sustainable in the long term and generally regarded as a warning sign for a company.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

3.      Conclusion and recommendations

All in all, ratio analysis of the two pharmaceutical companies shows that GSK’s financial performance over the past five years has been relatively stable. This is good for investors which presents a high level of predictability in terms of GSK’s future performance. Moreover, GSK has been absolutely more profitable company than AstraZeneca. Despite the fact that it has lower ability to cover its short-term obligations than its competitor, its high level of profitability is likely to compensate this deficit.
On the other hand, as GSK has higher gearing ratio compared with its competitor. GSK followed an aggressive strategy to finance its operations with borrowing. This situation may affect a company negatively due to additional interest expense. Looking at its interest coverage, GSK have ability to pay their interest payments on debt 9 times by its operating profit in 2013.
In 2014, GSK has been found guilty of bribery by a Chinese court and has agreed to pay a fine of £297m to the government (Guardian, 19 September 2014). Contrary to expectations, this problem did not affect its share price negatively.
With regard to AstraZeneca, it’s obvious that patent expiries had a significant negative impact on its financial performance. In 2013, AstraZeneca’s sales and operating profit were down %8 and 51% respectively. Furthermore it’s expected that new generic competitors will erode its sales further and 2017 revenues will be broadly in line with those of 2013. Therefore the patent cliff seems to affect the company’s financial structure negatively over the next few years.
On the other hand, AstraZeneca had better price earnings ratio, compared to GSK in 2013.This means investors are expecting higher earnings growth in the future. US giant Pfizer attempted to takeover AstraZeneca 70 billion pounds ($118 billion) but the offer was rejected in May 2014 (Reuters, 26 May 2014). In November 2014 Astra Zeneca said that another takeover approach from Pfizer has become less likely after a US clampdown on tax inversions, as the AstraZeneca  increased its  sales and profit forecasts for the second time in 2014 (Guardian, 6 November 2014).
In conclusion, as it has growth expectations, AstraZeneca could be a better opportunity to invest. On the other hand, as its financial performance relatively stable over the past few years, GSK could be a better investment opportunity for investors who seeks predictability.
 
 
 

References:

Annual Reports
AstraZeneca, 2009, Annual Report
AstraZeneca, 2010, Annual Report
AstraZeneca, 2011, Annual Report
AstraZeneca, 2012, Annual Report
AstraZeneca, 2013, Annual Report
GlaxoSmithKline, 2009, Annual Report
GlaxoSmithKline, 2010, Annual Report
GlaxoSmithKline, 2011, Annual Report
GlaxoSmithKline, 2012, Annual Report
GlaxoSmithKline, 2013, Annual Report
 
Websites and Newspapers
 
AstraZeneca (31 January 2013), Available at:<  http://www.astrazeneca.com/Media/Press-releases/Article/20130131–astrazeneca-2012-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-results > (Accessed 29 December 2014)
 
Bloomberg (4 February 2013),  Available at: < http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-31/astrazeneca-fourth-quarter-profit-falls-on-generic-competition.html > (Accessed 28 December 2014)
 
Guardian (19 September 2014), Available at: <http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/ sep/19/glaxosmithkline-pays-297m-fine-china-bribery > (Accessed 30 December 2014)
 
Guardian (6 November 2014), Available at:< http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014
/nov/06/pfizer-unlikely-astrazeneca-takeover-tax-inversion-clampdown> (Accessed 30 December 2014)
 
IMS Health, 2014a, Available at< http://www.imshealth.com/portal/site/imshealth/ menuitem. 762a961826aad98f53c753c71ad8c22a/?vgnextoid=9f819e464e832410VgnVCM10000076192ca2RCRD&vgnextchannel=a64de5fda6370410VgnVCM10000076192ca2RCRD&vgnextfmt=default> (Accessed 24 December 2014)
 
IMS Health, 2014b, Available at <http://www.imshealth.com/deployedfiles/imshealth/Global /Content/Corporate/Press%20Room/ Global_2013/ Top_20_Global_Corporations_2013.pdf > (Accessed 24 December 2014).
 
 
Moody’s, 1 August 2014, Available at: < https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-GlaxoSmithKline-to-A2-outlook-stable–PR_305316 > (Accessed 26 December 2014)
 
Reuters (26 May 2014), Available at:< http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/26/us-astrazeneca-pfizer-idUSBREA3R0H520140526 >(Accessed 30 December 2014)
 
The Telegraph (6 February 2014), Available at:< http://telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector /pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/10620977/AstraZeneca-profits-slump-57pc- as-it-battles
-patent-cliff.html, >  (Accessed 28 December 2014)
 
The Telegraph (5 August 2014), Available at:<  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsby
sector/Pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/11013056/Neil-Woodford-GlaxoSmithKlines-troubles-
are-only-temporary.html > (Accessed 27 December 2014)
 
World Health Organization, 2014, Available at: <http://www.who.int/trade/glossary /story073/en/> (Accessed 24 December 2014)
 
WSJ (6 February 2014), Available at: <http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023
04680904579366053554393432> (Accessed 25 December 2014)
WSJ (20 April 2009), Available at: <http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124017856765232773 > (Accessed 25 December 2014)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Appendix

  1. Profitability Ratios
    • Return on Capital Employed (ROCE)

ROCE=((Profit Before Interest and Tax) / (Capital Employed)) X 100
Profit Before Interest and Tax :Operating Profit
Capital Employed:Total Equity-Non-controlling interests+Noncurrent liabilities

  • Return on Total Assets (ROTA)

ROCE=((Profit Before Interest and Tax) / (Total Assets)) X 100
Profit Before Interest and Tax = Operating Profit

  • Operating Profit Margin

Operating Profit Margin=(Operating Profit/Revenues) X 100

  1. Liquidity Ratios
    • Quick Ratio

Quick Ratio=(Current Assets-Inventory)/Current Liabilities

  1. Efficiency Ratios
    • Day Sales of Inventory

Day Sales of Inventory=(Inventory/Cost of Goods Sold) X 365

  • Asset Turnover

Asset Turnover=Sales Revenue/Net Assets
Net Assets:Total Equity-Non-controlling interests

  • Sales Revenue to Capital Employed

Sales Revenue to Capital Employed=Sales Revenue/Capital Employed
Capital Employed:Total Equity-Non-controlling interests+Noncurrent liabilities

  1. Gearing Ratios
    • Gearing (Debt to Equity) Ratio

Debt to equity=((Long Term Barrowings/(Long Term Barrowings+Equity))X100
Equity:Total Equity- Non-controlling interests

  • Interest Coverage Ratio

Interest Coverage Ratio=Operating Profit/Interest Payable

  1. Invesment Ratios
    • Earnings per share (EPS)

Exist in Annual Reports.
AstraZeneca’s EPS figures were converted to pound with the exchange rate at end of December each year which are 0.61, 0.62, 0.64, 0.65, and 0.62 in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 respectively. Rates were available at:
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=1Y(Accessed 1 January 2015)
 

  • Price Earnings Ratio (P/E)

Price Earnings Ratio=Market price share/EPS
Market price shares exist in Annual Reports.

  • Dividend Cover Ratio

Dividend Cover Ratio=Profit After Interest and Tax/Ordinary Dividends
Profit After Interest and Tax:Profit attrituble to shareholders
Dividends paid figures were found from Cash Flow Statements.
 
 

 
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"

Competitive Advantage

Competitive Advantage

Question Description

 

Competitive advantage means that one organization has something better than another does. Organizations strive to have an advantage over another. How this occurs can be traced to the strategic decision-making processes and to some extent, the social, cultural, and political conditions, or trends within the organization. In this assignment you will look at how the social, cultural, and political conditions or trends within the organization along with strategic decision-making methods work to assure competitive advantage.

General Requirements:

  • Use APA style for their writing assignments.
  • This assignment requires that at least 14 fourteen academic journals references.

Directions:

Write a 1,000–1,250-word paper discussing prevailing social, cultural and political conditions or trends within organizations and strategic decision making methods to assure competitive advantage. Include the following:

  1. Identify and analyze one prevailing social, cultural, and political condition or trend within organizations. (Note: Identify one of each.)
  2. Evaluate different organizational structures that you have discovered in your reading and research and the feasibility of the structure in keeping a competitive advantage.
  3. Recommend decision-making methods that assure competitive advantage.
 
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"

competitive market

Question Description

 

Stand-Alone Project: Competitive Market Analysis

Scenario: A manufacturer who is thinking seriously about marketing a new product in an industry with which you are familiar has approached your advertising agency and asked that you prepare a competitive analysis of the market for this product. The client will pay for this work on a project basis then decide whether to launch the product and hire your agency to design and execute the campaign.

While this situation is a hypothetical one with respect to your role and the new product, your competitive analysis should be based on reality. Use an outline format with brief descriptive explanations. The product may be for either the consumer or business-to-business markets. The following sections should guide your composition of the competitive market analysis.

This project is much more involved than the writing project in Lesson 4, which is a plan for gathering information that will be analyzed to support a marketing plan and effort. The Stand-Alone Project may be viewed as an extension of the earlier project, “drilling down” and using the methods described there and expanding on them to construct a competitive analysis in detail. In other words, you may use the product from Lesson 4 or create an entirely new one.

Your Stand-Alone Project responses should be both grammatically and mechanically correct, and formatted in the same fashion as the project itself. If there is a Part A, your response should identify a Part A, etc. (A 20-page response is required.)

Part A Research and Analysis: Begin by researching the product about which you will write an analysis.

 

1.Describe the product and its associated industry.

2.Identify this product’s direct competitors.

3.Specify how these competitors’ offerings differ from each other in terms of strengths, weaknesses, and other characteristics.

4.Detail how they differ from the proposed product.

5.Detail how the proposed product is superior and/or inferior to the competitive products.

6.Identify the target clientele of the competing products.

7.Identify the segments in the target market.

8.Describe the market share each competitor has.

9.Outline the market strategies used by competitors.

Part B Competitive Environment: In this section you will research and compose a summary of the competitive environment. Compare four (4) competitors in this section. Depending upon the product you have chosen, in this section you may want to describe the areas in which the proposed product is superior and/or inferior to the competitive products, determine the target consumer group of each competitor, and characterize how those target markets are divided. You may also wish to summarize competitive market shares, analyze the competitor’s marketing strategies, and determine who provides products that satisfy the same or similar customer needs. Tables and graphics in support of the text are encouraged.

Part C Opinion and Recommendations: The final part of your report should be your own personal opinion of the proposed product’s prospects for success and an explanation of the reasoning behind your conclusions. This is the “bottom line” for your client as you see it. Include three (3) recommendations for steps that will improve the product’s chances to succeed.

NOTE: For an industry you are familiar with your own observations can be valuable. Specific supporting information is also available from many secondary research sources, including the following:

1.Company Web Sites and Literature

2.Industry Trade Show Observations and Contacts

3.Online Databases, including ProQuest, DIALOG, Lexis-Nexis, EBSCO, First Source, PROMPT, Trade & Industry, and Investext

4.TV Networks

5.Hoover

6.Investment Houses and Brokers

7.Dow Jones/Factiva

 
Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"