Introduction to Management Studies

Exam 2015 – December 2nd 2015

Georg Wernicke & Henrich Dahlgren

BSc in Business Administration and Service Management

Copenhagen Business School, 2015

Group 1

Angelique Navarro –

Anton Moritz

Christian Doest –

Laura Violina Dragan –

Page count

54,917 STU

23 pages

2 of 32

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3

2. Foundation of the firm ........................................................................................................................... 4

2.1. Mintzberg’s Configuration Theory .................................................................................................. 5

2.2. Greiner’s Life Cycle model ............................................................................................................... 7

3. Horizontal and vertical boundaries ...................................................................................................... 10

3.1. Horizontal boundaries ................................................................................................................... 10

3.2. Vertical boundaries ....................................................................................................................... 11

3.3. Transaction Cost Economics ......................................................................................................... 12

3.4. Diversification ................................................................................................................................ 14

4. Corporate governance .......................................................................................................................... 15

4.1. Agency theory ................................................................................................................................ 15

5. Firm strategy and competitive environment ....................................................................................... 16

5.1. Industry analysis ............................................................................................................................ 16

5.2. Industry Life Cycle ......................................................................................................................... 17

5.3. Herfindahl Index ............................................................................................................................ 18

5.4. Porter’s Five Forces ....................................................................................................................... 18

5.5. Resource based view ..................................................................................................................... 20

5.6. SWOT Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 22

6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 24

7. References ............................................................................................................................................ 26

3 of 32

1. Introduction

Over the past couple of years, McDonald’s has experienced challenges resulting in a decrease in

revenue and profits. Reports show that the industry McDonald’s operates in, including its competitors,

are seeing a change of demand, shifting toward a healthier segment of fast food. This report aims at

analyzing and accounting for why McDonald’s is declining in revenue, both in their internal and

external environment. It will account for McDonald’s on a global scale, where in specific sections,

such as regarding corporate governance and when discussing the Herfindahl Index (pp. 18), it will

instead focus on the U.S. market for a more precise analysis.

This paper starts by presenting the initial foundation of McDonald’s, as well as the liability of newness

and application of Boeker’s imprinting and traditionalizing forces. From there, Mintzberg’s

Configuration Theory and Greiner’s Life Cycle Model, with accounts of Penrose’ release of managerial

resources, are discussed to show the structural change and the leadership crises McDonald’s has

encountered. Also how there is a clear correlation between Mintzberg and Greiner. Furthermore, the

horizontal and vertical boundaries are reviewed, together with Williamson’s Transaction Cost

Economics. The last analysis section will focus on the industry lifecycle and Porter’s Five Forces,

where also the resource-based view is explored, including the VRIN and SWOT models. Lastly, a

discussion about the concluding findings will be provided.

4 of 32

2. Foundation of the firm

The liability of newness was not a factor for Ray Kroc in the same way as for many other new

companies (Boeker, 1989; Stinchcombe, 2000). When Kroc joined McDonald’s, the brothers had

already created the initial structure, with the kitchen fitted for mass production, and lower prices than

their competitors (Wilson, n.d.). Furthermore, he had personal experience within marketing and sales

from his time in the restaurant machine supply industry (“The Ray Kroc Story”, n.d.). From the

beginning, Kroc had a vision and strategy for McDonald’s, including high quality food, outstanding

service, cleanliness and value (“The Ray Kroc Story”, n.d.). This vision is still intact today and is

considered as one of the core pillars of McDonald’s strategies and vision (“Hamburger University”,

n.d.).

According to Boeker, three strategic types exist (Boeker, 1989). Arguably, McDonald’s started as the

first mover in the fast-food industry, due to their development of new techniques not previously seen in

the restaurant business, providing McDonald’s with a competitive advantage. Boeker argues that the

companies using the first mover strategy rarely change their initial strategy. However, this is not the

case with McDonald’s, as competitors were quick to utilize the new mass production approach in the

fast food industry, not letting McDonald’s achieve the same advantage of their technology as earlier.

McDonald’s can today be identified as the low cost producer, as they achieve a relative cost advantage

over competitors through economies of scale in both manufacturing and other aspects of their business

which is elaborated in the Horizontal Boundaries section (pp. x).

Other than the strategy types, Boeker mentions that history plays an important role in shaping

company strategy, along with political and cultural conditions at the time of the founding, (Boeker,

1989). Looking at these factors at the time of founding, the U.S. economy experienced high

productivity and high employment rate due to many newly opened factories (Douglas & Nowak,

1977). This increased the amount of people eating out and also the growth of McDonald’s.

Furthermore, the technological environment saw several advancements during the time where

McDonald’s was founded, especially concerning the television. Kroc utilized this to promote and

market through TV commercials, focusing his campaigns toward the youth, and families (Douglas, &

Nowak, 1977, pp. 344-355).

Regarding imprinting forces, several aspects affect the chance of success, including their personal

experience, network, goals and visions (Boeker, 1989). Kroc and the McDonalds brothers all had

5 of 32

resources within these factors, where for example, as mentioned earlier, the founding brothers had

personal experience with the new technology adopted to their food production. Kroc had prior

experience with sales and marketing, and together they all had a strong vision and goal.

When looking at McDonald’s today we can see that their vision and goal serve as a traditionalizing

force, due to it being sustained through time. Furthermore, the technology of McDonald’s and their

food preparation still revolves around mass production, but doesn’t give the same competitive

advantage as it used to. This led McDonald’s to a change of their initial first mover strategy to the low

cost strategy. As mentioned before, quality food, outstanding service, cleanliness, and values were

early McDonald’s values which remain the same today. McDonald’s still seek to optimize their

customer focus and satisfaction, also supported by their upcoming business restructuring which is

elaborated in coming sections of this paper.

2.1. Mintzberg’s Configuration Theory

Mintzberg’s Configuration Theory, also referred to as Structures in Fives, is a cross-sectional and

revolutionary theory (Mintzberg, 1983). According to Mintzberg, the company will throughout its

lifetime and growth adapt to these configurations, because efficient organizations require a close fit

between contingency factors such as the firm’s size, age, technical system, strategy, environment,

and the congruence hypothesis such as organizational structure (Mintzberg, 1983, pp. 110, & pp.

122). Furthermore, Mintzberg’s configuration hypothesis also states that “[…] effective structuring

requires an internal consistency among the design parameters.”, such as the coordination mechanism

(Mintzberg, 1983, pp. 122). With these hypothesizes in mind, Mintzberg has then combined the

congruence and configuration hypothesizes into a single extended hypothesis; “[…] effective

structuring requires a consistency among the design parameters and contingency factors.”

(Mintzberg, 1983, pp. 122).

Analyzing McDonald’s to find the pure configurations present in their structure throughout time, have

proved difficult. It can be argued that McDonald’s always has had a strong machine bureaucracy with

focus on the company’s ‘technostructure’, with standardized work processes, specialized and

formalized behavior, and functions with a clear level of hierarchy. Furthermore, McDonald’s have

grown into a global business and therefore adapted to the divisionalized structure, with the global

market divided into different divisions, formerly determined by geographical measures. In 2015, these

divisions were restructured into four new ones which, rather than being determined by geographical

6 of 32

measures, combines the markets of McDonald’s with similar needs, challenges, and opportunities for

growth (McDonald’s Press Office, 2015).

Within this divisionalized form, machine bureaucracy is still present within each division, and

therefore also supports Mintzberg’s statement that a pure configuration is rarely found within a

company. It is because of simplified configurations and theories of such, where real companies are of a

far more complex nature (Mintzberg, 1983, pp. 283-297).

When applying Mintzberg’s configuration theory to McDonald’s, it can be argued that McDonald’s

started out with the “simple structure” configuration, where the founders were managing, controlling

and directing their single Californian restaurant employees through direct supervision and a clear set of

values (“McDonald’s History”, n.d.; Mintzberg, 1983, pp. 157). As they developed their barbecue

restaurant and engineered the first McDonald’s restaurant in 1948, the brothers transitioned into a

partial “machine bureaucracy”, including standardization of work processes and division of labor,

combined with a restaurant engineered for the purpose of efficiency and mass production. They did

however still perform direct supervision of the employees as they only had a single restaurant

(Mintzberg, 1983, pp. 163; Wilson, n.d.).

Ray Kroc joined in 1954 where they afterwards experienced significant growth, and opened their

100th restaurant just five years later (“McDonald’s History”, n.d.). In order to remain efficient, they had

to adapt the “machine bureaucracy” structure due to no longer being able to perform the same control

of quality, or directing all of their restaurants through direct supervision themselves. They had

developed a strong set of standardized work processes, division of labor, formalized behavior and

technology, which supported the mass production vision and would secure the efficiency and quality of

their restaurants through the continuous growth. The changes and growth resulted in need for vertical

centralization of power in order for the restaurant managers to take charge and perform direct

supervision in each respective restaurant. In order to secure the quality of not only their services and

products, but also their managers during this growth, they introduced “Hamburger University” in 1961.

This university focused on developing consistent restaurant procedures with

goals of educating managers through a shared vision of quality, service, cleanliness and value

(Hamburger University, n.d.).

7 of 32

McDonald’s has later grown into a divisionalized form, with a global market divided into different

divisions, as mentioned in the beginning (Mintzberg, 1983, pp. 215). This is further explored with

Greiner’s Life Cycle, where an analysis of McDonald’s and their current structure is presented.

2.2. Greiner’s Life Cycle model

While it is possible to refer to Mintzberg’s configuration theory to explain the different structures

adopted through McDonald’s growth, it is also possible to refer to Greiner’s life cycle model to explain

the different leadership crisis’s that McDonald’s experienced during the growth of the company and

which factors made their structure no longer efficient to the company. In this section Greiner’s

Lifecycle model will be applied in correlation to Mintzberg’s configuration model (Greiner, 1972;

Mintzberg, 1983).

As stated earlier, Richard and Maurice McDonald started with only one restaurant. This stage exists in

close correlation to Greiner’s first phase, easily compared to the simple structure of Mintzberg’s

configuration (Mintzberg, 1983, pp. 157). During the first phase, the founders experienced growth

through their creative and innovative idea of implementing mass production, known from

manufacturing companies, into the restaurant concept (Wilson, n.d.). During the natural growth of their

restaurant and the addition of franchising with Ray Kroc, it was decided to open up new restaurants in

order to expand the company. This point in time is in correlation to Greiner’s first crisis; the

“Leadership Crisis” (Greiner, 1972, pp. 42). Operations could no longer be managed by the three alone.

They needed staff in not only the food preparation area but also amongst the middle line managers.

In order for this transition to work, a need for vertical power decentralization to the line managers

arose. Also a need for a formal communication system. This is because they no longer could rely on

direct supervision from themselves, or mutual adjustment as the coordinating mechanism. When this

was successfully implemented, the brothers once again experienced a steady growth in the restaurants’

revenue.

As Ray Kroc joined in the 50’s, the growth and expanding of McDonald’s evolved at high speed.

Kroc created franchises throughout the entire U.S. where the second phase of Greiner can be found;

growth through direction with a close resemblance to Mintzberg’s machine bureaucracy (Greiner,

1972, pp. 42; Mintzberg, 1983, pp. 163). The leadership crisis emerging at this phase is called the

“Autonomy Crisis” (Greiner, 1972, pp. 42). The growth of McDonald’s happened with such a speed

that it was necessary for a more formalized and specialized structure of the company to avoid

8 of 32

information overload of the middle management. Standardized work procedures and a clear division

of labor were created together with the Hamburger University (Hamburger University, n.d.). It was a

school created to centralize and unify management training. It also gave the managers the feeling of

appreciation and control as they were instructed in how to operate the outlets. With these changes to

the structure, McDonald’s was prepared for the next growth period.

Greiner’s third phase talks about growth through delegation, and resembles the divisionalized form of

Mintzberg (Mintzberg, 1983, pp. 215). The divisionalized form is also the current configuration of

McDonald’s operating structure. As McDonald’s grew into a company with a vast global presence, it

was divided into several divisions of diversified markets. In each division they had the same structure,

functions, division of labor and positions which would make it easier for further growth. In this phase

the growth would be determined by delegation of decentralized power to the division managers, which

in return would run each respective market while the top managers of McDonald’s started to focus on

long-term corporate strategy (Greiner, 1972, pp. 43). These released managerial resources

of McDonald’s, allowed them to focus on other investments and growth opportunities (Penrose,

1995).

The growth of McDonald’s with released managerial resources can be exemplified by McDonald’s

investments in several companies such as Chipotle, Donatos Pizza and Boston Market (Capitalcube,

2012). The crisis of this third phase is the “Control Crisis”, which can be argued to be the crisis that

McDonald’s currently is positioned in (Greiner, 1972, pp. 43). The past years of McDonald’s have

shown a negative progression in revenues and profits but in 2015 the newly elected CEO Steve

Easterbrook presented a turnover strategy for McDonald’s where the restructuring of the entire market

divisions plays a major role and the changes implemented by Easterbrook should increase the payout to

shareholders and increase the net G&A savings to $300 million annually. (McDonald’s Press Office,

2015). Easterbrook states in a global press release;

“[…] We will restructure our business into four new segments that combine markets with similar

needs, challenges, and opportunities for growth.” (McDonald’s Press Office, 2015)

It can be argued that McDonald’s currently are trying to partially vertically centralize the power as

Easterbrook is restructuring their business for a more customer based focus (McDonald’s Press Office,

2015). Looking at Greiner’s Life Cycle model and his definition of the control crisis, companies

might seek to control the entire company to overcome this crisis of control, but in the end they must

still decentralize decision power; those who do this will be able to progress into the next growth

phase

9 of 32

(Greiner, 1972, pp. 43). Patterns following Greiner’s model and how to overcome the control crisis,

can be seen in McDonald’s behavior. During the newly customer focused restructure of the divisions,

Easterbrook has formulated a plan to decentralize power to each division, increase the accountability

of management and hopefully including faster decision making.

Furthermore, Easterbrook talks about the restructure and how it will be supported by streamlined

teams. These will consist of fewer layers, less bureaucracy, and focus on positioning their

management talent within the new structure, in a way that capitalizes their skill sets. It will again

strengthen the autonomy of each division (McDonald’s Press Office, 2015).

Greiner’s Lifecycle model includes two additional phases which McDonald’s not yet has reached.

Overcoming the control crisis will, according to Greiner, allow McDonald’s to grow through

coordination. The leadership crisis of the fourth phase is the “Redtape Crisis” (Greiner, 1972, pp. 43).

Even though McDonald’s has not reached this phase, it is still possible to identify certain elements of

this crisis within the corporation. Some franchise owners have expressed trust issues and frustration

toward McDonald’s leadership, including complaints about the new menu upgrades and how they are

bankrupting them, and that they will further complicate an already oversized menu (Peterson, 2015).

Richard Adams, a franchise consultant who have worked for McDonald’s more than two decades

stated;

"They are going in a bunch of different directions and trying to be all things to all people. That's been

their problem for the last five or six years." (Lutz, 2015)

The final phase of Greiner is “Growth Through Collaboration” (Greiner, 1972, pp. 43). As stated

earlier, McDonald’s has not yet evolved through phase four and thus cannot be recognized with this

phase either. Although some main characteristics of this phase consist of; combined teams across

functions, the headquarter staff experts are reduced in numbers and then reassigned into teams to

begin consulting with the field units rather then directing them (Greiner, 1972, pp. 43 – 44).

What have become very evident while analyzing the development and growth of McDonald’s, which

is also formulated by Mintzberg, is that a pure configuration and the appliance of the Life Cycle model

can not be applied with a perfect match to a given company. Hybrids will emerge and different patterns

will be analyzed depending on the company and its history.

10 of 32

3. Horizontal and vertical boundaries

3.1. Horizontal boundaries

Economies of scale

Through more than their 36,000 worldwide restaurant outlets, McDonald’s achieve economies of scale

on several aspects of business. McDonald’s achieve economies of scale at the firm level through high

production capacity and bulk purchases as mentioned under the second key benefit; higher profit

margins. This will result in lower per unit costs as the fixed costs will be divided through a large

production as mention in the first key benefit; increased market share.

Furthermore, they achieve economies of scale at the restaurant level. This is achieved through the

division of labor, improving their effectiveness, and through the more products and services can be

processed in the same time span (McEachen, 1997).

They also achieve economies of scale on areas such as their advertising and their R&D, but these two

will be elaborated further in the resource based view section, under the VRIN-model (pp. 20). The

accumulated experience and knowledge gathered by McDonald’s from decades of hamburger sales

and service development is shared with their centralized and standardized training programs.

Economies of scope

It has two key benefits to firms;

1. Lower average costs: where McDonald’s has diversified its product line into a range of

multiple offerings, such as burgers, fries, shakes and salads. This allows them to achieve a

lower average cost per unit by spreading their overall bulk costs across their product lines.

Lower average unit costs also allow companies to enjoy higher profit margins on each

product sold, and also lower the price charged to customers to increase market share

(“Economies of Scope”, n.d.). In order to maintain their brand value and global market share

of >50%, McDonald’s has achieved economies of scope, succeeding in higher profit margins

and lower retail prices (Euromonitor International, 2013).

2. Diversified revenue streams: often achieved by acquiring other firms in order to extend a

firm’s current business and market portfolio. McDonald’s major revenue stream is divided

onto their products, franchising real estate and through their external McCafé outlets.

11 of 32

A clear example of economies of scope is the example of McDonald’s breakfast. Until the 1970’s

McDonald’s did not fully utilize their real estate capacity. This was because McDonald’s did not serve

breakfast at this point in time and therefore would not open for service until later in the day, resulting in

many hours of zero productivity.

Because of McDonald’s global reach, it is of utmost importance for them to take cultural differences

into consideration (McEachern, 1997, pp. 162-163). In certain areas of the world, regular hamburger

and fries do not appeal to the public, and the need for product development is needed (Table 1.1.,

Appendix A). Corporate McDonald’s is in charge of developing and marketing these new products on

a global scale. Taking advantage of the same technology and knowledge to create new menus support

McDonald’s achievement of economies of scope (“Franchising at McDonald’s”, 2008).

3.2. Vertical boundaries

Supply chain management

McDonald’s use a vast supply network all over the world, with different suppliers in each region.

There are possibilities for them to use global suppliers, with many of their current local suppliers

acting global as well, except McDonald’s is a huge promoter of locally grown produce and

sustainability. From the start there have been strict rules, and sort of the supply mantra of

McDonald’s, which the suppliers have to live up to; quality, service and cleanliness (QSC). They

have again and again been honored as being one of the highest and best kept standards of the fast-

food industry (“Meet our Suppliers”, n.d.).

In areas where they have troubles finding an adequate enough supplier, they build their own network.

When McDonald’s were planning on extending their global franchises to the Indian market as well,

they worked for seven years to build a supply network and engineer a cold chain from scratch

(Euromonitor International, 2013, pp. 11). They trained local farmers to live up to the expected

standards in correlation to QSC, pioneered farming methods for the Indian climate and worked with

distributors to develop new storage facility techniques. This mindset and vision gave McDonald’s

access to markets that previously were unreachable to competitors (Euromonitor International, 2013,

pp. 10).

For two years in a row, McDonald’s has been chosen as the world’s second best supply chain, just

after Amazon (Gartner, 2015). Their largest distributor, Martin-Bower LLC, has the challenge of

12 of 32

delivering supplies for McDonald’s 15,000 outlets in North America. Martin-Bower LLC together with

McDonald’s other suppliers face and must live up to McDonald’s three E’s of supply; ethical-,

environmental- and economic responsibility. Factors for them being one of the world leaders are mainly

because of their chain transparency which were further achieved with the 2013 UK horse meat scandal

including Burger King, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. The UK government performed a review of the whole

industry, where it showed that McDonald’s was one of the few major fast-food chains whose tests were

negative for horse meat (Elliot, 2014, pp.110; Posel, 2013; University Alliance, n.d.).

Vertical Integration

Traces of both forward and backward vertical integration can be seen when looking through

McDonald’s vertical integration. As mentioned in the supply chain, McDonald’s has a very close

partnership with their suppliers. This partnership is based on trust, in which McDonald’s entrust their

raw materials being handled according to their demands (“Meet our Suppliers”, n.d.). McDonald’s has

very strict guidelines and demands that in order to fulfill these requirements, the suppliers and

McDonalds need to work in close collaboration. Which means that McDonald’s has a great power

over the suppliers, however since they are not fully integrated into McDonald’s company, they still act

as an independent company (McDonald’s Supplier Code of Conduct, 2012). Since McDonald’s have a

close relationship with their suppliers the transactions have a high frequency, this reduces that chances

of the supplier acting opportunistic for the reason of them handling with big amounts of quantities. It

can therefore truly be argued that there is to some extend traces of partially backward integration. Such

partnership could in such case be considered as a hybrid of backward vertical integration

3.3. Transaction Cost Economics

Transaction cost economics seeks to explain the governance of transactions. The theory consists of

three C’s; contact, contract, control and some dimensions such as the asset specificity associated with

the production such as technical specificity, the complexity of the task and the frequency of the

transaction. The combined cost of these three factors and the dimensions mentioned will help

McDonald’s decide what is the optimal transaction. The assumption of human behavior within this

theory, is that people are bounded rational and opportunistic (Williamson, 1979).

Transaction cost applied to McDonald’s consist of the fact that they must calculate and estimate

transaction cost’s in every action they make in order to maximize their profits. If the cost of buying

from suppliers is higher then the costs of producing the materials themselves, then they will choose

13 of 32

to vertically integrate this function in their supply chain. If it is not, then they will buy from the market

instead. This means that McDonald’s needs to make several “make or buy” decisions. So looking at

the fact that McDonald’s use suppliers, they have estimated that the cost of using suppliers is lower

then vertically integrating the function (Williamson, 1979).

An example showing that companies can choose sub-optimal transaction costs over a period of time

as an investment, can be found when McDonald’s were planning their Indian market venture. As

earlier stated, it took them seven years to train Indian farms and farmers, and develop new techniques

appropriate to the culture and market landscape (Euromonitor International, 2013, pp.

10-11). The question arises on whether or not McDonald’s made the right decision considering they

did not choose the optimal transaction costs. McDonald’s could have penetrated the Indian market

using company-owned and company-staffed farmers instead of training locals to do the same.

McDonald’s have an overall focus on sustainability and locally grown products which is why they

chose not to use company owned and company staffed farmers. Even if McDonald’s transaction costs

might have been bigger when assisting in developing India and the agriculture, it has still benefitted

McDonalds’ overall brand. Furthermore, this involvement in India allowed McDonald’s to be the first-

mover in an untapped market which therefore made it possible to achieve the market leader position

early on.

India is a market where McDonald’s has gained more than 12% market share, making them the

country’s market leader, against well-known competitors such as Yum! Brands and Domino’s Pizza

(Euromonitor International, 2013, pp. 32). With half of the country’s population being under 25 years

old, McDonald’s has positioned themselves as a popular youth chain toward the usual culture of

independent restaurants. With a CAGR of 16%, a large youth population, the current brand image

positioning and the massive market size, combined with low foodservice spending, India has become a

major focus for McDonald’s (Euromonitor International, 2013, pp. 33). Some investments, such as

making all-vegetarian outlets and continuously ensuring that the agricultural industry lives up to

McDonald’s QSC values, can inflict higher transaction costs. However, viewing McDonald’s

otherwise globally high revenue and profit margins together with their large financial assets, allows

them to support these sub-optimal transaction costs, and see them as an investment in India, in order to

retain their brand image and attraction in the country.

14 of 32

3.4. Diversification

Diversification pattern

In order to diversify its portfolio and extend their successful franchise development, McDonald’s

bought a major share in the Mexican “fresh-food” firm, Chipotle, in 1998. By 2005 McDonald’s

controlled a 90% share in Chipotle and had helped them grow from 14 locations to 500 (Peterson,

2015). One year later the companies parted ways, due to multiple disagreements from Chipotle’s

side.

Other than this, McDonald’s diversification is no longer focused on acquiring other businesses or

ventures, but more specifically on geographical and product diversification. Besides their own fast-

food (or as McDonald’s calls it, ‘informal eating out’), McCafé, their in-house or separate coffee shops

focused on beverages and pastries, plays a major role in McDonald’s diversification (Jones, 2014).

High-margin specialty coffee- and espresso-based drinks are a major part of McDonald’s’ continuing

growth strategy. Through its McCafé outlets, the company competes in specialist coffee shops in

many markets, either through dedicated outlets or defined areas in existing stores (Jones, 2014). Jones

also argues that the McCafé format has played an integral role in helping McDonald’s compete for

specialist coffee shop demand; the fastest-growing global category.

With the launch of McCafé back in the 90’s, McDonald’s was able to tap into the $17B specialist

coffee shops market, with Starbucks as one of the major competitors, and the $1.3B market of

juice/smoothie bars. Now accessing two pools of demand that were non-existent and previously

unsupplied by the major fast-food vendors (Euromonitor International, 2013; Magee, 2011). Since

then, many other fast-food chains have taken after McDonald’s initiative in this matter, and are now

competing for the coffee, smoothie and juice shares in the market.

Even though McDonald’s overall sales has been in decline the past couple of years, McCafé’s global

share has been increasing immensely throughout 2007-2012 and is now well-placed in the market to

take on the top two category leaders, Starbucks and Costa Coffee (Euromonitor International, 2013).

While McDonald’s definitely is taking on Starbucks on the US market through their McCafé beverages,

they do not operate any stand-alone outlets. Outside the US however, McCafé has successfully grown

to a genuine global competitor. They claim a 10% value share in western Europe, and a 20% share in

15 of 32

Australasia, where it actually outranks Starbucks nine times over. Globally seen, McCafé has a chain

value of 3.2% (Euromonitor International, 2013).

Diversification analysis

By using the Ansoff Matrix model (figure 1.2, Appendix A), we can identify McDonald’s

diversification development over time. When it came to their products, McDonald’s used to be rather

persistent, focusing on their core product lines. At the same time, they kept to their existing markets,

meaning they pursued the strategy of market penetration.

When reviewing McDonald’s today, it shows that they are continuously trying to change their

products through their immense achievement in economies of scope. Their menu is no longer

persistent. Most importantly, they are still operating in the same industry as they always had, but

with some product line variations. When identifying their current strategy, we can conclude that they

pursue product development.

However, when assessing their future strategy there are signs of diversification. Especially with their

McCafé success and their healthy food alternatives. In theory this leads McDonald’s to a new market,

taking them away from their inherited cheap fast-food. Yet if they changed their product focus in such

way, this might affect their strategy from product development to diversification. Particularly to

concentric diversification where new products are introduced to new target groups, but still share

technological similarities to current products. This also have coherence with the fact that the fast

food industry is experiencing a shift in demand from the customers. The demand is shifting to a

broader focus on healthier fast food, which have also been the theme of several of McDonald’s new

product developments.

4. Corporate governance

4.1. Agency theory

Within corporate governance, agency theory is based on the concept of the principal-agent

relationship to understand the links between agents and principals (Grossman, & Hart, 1983).

McDonald’s is listed on the New York stock exchange, including a corporate structure with various

stakeholders (New York Stock Exchange, n.d.), primarily the shareholders who act as the

principals, the CEO as the agent, and the board of directors as the body.

16 of 32

When different interests arise between the principal and agents, it can eventually cause

miscommunication and disagreements, which in turn may be a source of internal conflict. In

McDonald’s case, the former CEO, Don Thompson, presented in 2014 a restructure agreement for the

U.S outlets, as a solution to the declining sales. This inflicted badly with the shareholders who argued

for it being a sub-optimal plan, and argued that Thompson was acting opportunistically and not taking

the shareholders’ interests into consideration (Jargon, 2014). This drove a wedge between the

stakeholders, caused inefficiency, and if not solved could have turned into even more financial loss. It

had evolved into a classic principal-agent problem; which companies should seek to minimize through

solid corporate policy (Grossman, & Hart, 1983). It is also why the shareholders demanded a

replacement of Thompson as CEO, letting the board of directors elect a new one (Baertlein, 2015).

This is where corporate governance plays a major role where it is used to change the rules under

which the agent operates in, and to realign the principal’s and agent’s interests. Incentives are often

created, with the ones encouraging wrong behavior must be removed, and rules discouraging moral

hazard have to be in place (Grossman, & Hart, 1983).

Doeringer and Piore argues for the market being divided into a primary and secondary market in their

paper “Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis” (1970). Those in the primary market are

usually compensated in correlation to their performance, while the ones in the secondary market are

compensated according to market standards. When applying agency theory onto McDonald’s restaurant

outlets instead of corporate McDonald’s, and especially the 57% of outlets that are global franchises

(“Company Profile”, n.d.), the principals can now be seen as the franchise managers and the franchise

employees as the agents. Additionally, the compensation in the divided markets, which Doeringer and

Piore talks about (1970), now exists in close correlation to where the managers are compensated on a

level with the franchise performance, while the employees are compensated in order with, for example,

the U.S. minimum wage.

5. Firm strategy and competitive environment

5.1. Industry analysis

In McDonald’s case the industry they operate in is defined as the “fast-food industry.” The industry is

also known as quick service restaurants which is defined as delivering food in a short period of time.

The main competitors in this industry are on the same global scale, containing companies like Yum

Brands, who owns the well-known restaurants such as Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC. In a lower scale,

17 of 32

McDonald’s competes against local food service companies, even including local hotdog stands or

pizzerias.

The industry is experiencing a change in demand. People are more health-oriented today and are

conscious about what they consume (Beck, & Schatz, 2014). This trend is triggered by the millennials,

who prefer cheap and convenient food but are willing to pay extra in order to get fresh and healthier

food (Hoffman, 2012). This trend has influenced the fast food industry that serves unhealthy food for

inexpensive prices. Looking through the fast food industry McDonald’s are one of the companies who

have been significantly influenced by this change in preference (Choi, 2015).

This change in preference in the industry was the ending of a 30-year streak of continuous growth for

McDonald’s, as they had their first decrease in system wide sales from 2013 to 2014 (“Regional

revenue”, Appendix B; Euromonitor International, 2015). In correlation to this McDonald’s has tried to

adapt to the new preferences, which has resulted to the identity crisis of McDonald’s.

5.2. Industry Life Cycle

McGahan explained that an industry goes through a lifecycle of four phases (McGahan, 2004). The

fast-food industry’s current position in the lifecycle model is the third phase, the maturity phase. The

industry is undergoing a change where consumers are demanding less unhealthy food and healthier

alternatives (Olinga, 2014). The industry has been positioned in this phase for some time and even

though the industry is experiencing changes, it still grew by 3% in 2014 (Euromonitor International,

2015). The companies in this industry are no longer differentiated from each other regarding neither

technology nor product lines of burgers and fries. Customers can easily navigate between various

fast-food restaurant brands based on their price and quality. Brands focus on differentiating

themselves through process innovation and product diversification, which helps identifying the

maturity phase.

A limitation of the lifecycle mode is when the environment is of a more complex nature. Meaning that

when applying the life cycle model, McDonald’s industry needs to simplified. Thus, the lifecycle

model shall be used on the fast food industry with focus on only the companies that are franchising.

18 of 32

5.3. Herfindahl Index

In Appendix A (Figure 1.3), the Herfindahl Index has been calculated and compared between 2011

and 2014. In 2011, McDonald’s’ U.S market share peaked, while the most recent number found was

from 2014. What this calculation shows is how McDonald’s has experienced a decrease in market

share. This can be related to many factors, including an increase of number of competitors in the

industry. It is supported by the HHI decrease from 3.244,95 to 2.777,07 furthermore when an index

exceeds 2.500 points the market is considered highly concentrated. From 2014, the lower HHI and

market share is due to that McDonald’s experienced their first annual decrease of domestic system-

wide sales. This was the first time in 30 years of business (reference found in conclusion section).

What can be concluded after analyzing the findings, the industry of fast food is developing into a

more competitive environment with an increase of smaller competitors competing for shares of the

market.

5.4. Porter’s Five Forces

Threat of new entrants

The first force discussed in Porter’s model is the threat of new entrants (Porter, 2008). When looking at

this force, one of the factors which needs to be assessed are the entry barriers. The most common

element to consider is the capital requirement when entering this specific industry. One could argue

that in order to open a restaurant you will need various types of resources, such as knowledge, skills

capital etc. However, compared to other industries, opening up a place where you can prepare and sell

food does not require large financial resources (Marketline, 2015), hence the low entry barriers of this

industry. The barriers are therefore not that substantial for new players, making it relatively easy to

enter the industry. In this case the threat of new entrants is therefore set to be high.

Buyer bargaining power

Following the threat of new entrants is Porter’s second force; the power of the buyers. Porter argues

that if the industry’s product or service is standardized or undifferentiated, then buyers could always

find equivalent products other places (Porter, 2008).

McDonald’s operates in an industry where there are numerous players who offer more or less the same

service and products, meaning customers have several other alternatives and can therefore afford to be

price sensitive. The customers can easily be reluctant to spend their money other places if they are not

satisfied. This grants the buyers a certain power to demand “more for less” because of

19 of 32

the low switching costs that they now have. Thus, the power of the buyers in this industry is very high,

because of the saturated market with many players.

Supplier bargaining power

Another force discussed in Porters five forces is the power of suppliers (Porter, 2008). McDonald’s

operates in an industry where there are countless suppliers competing against each other. The

switching costs in such industry tend to be lower because of the voluminous suppliers. As mentioned

earlier, under the vertical boundaries (pp. 11), McDonald’s is very big promoter of locally grown

products and although there are numerous suppliers, there are still local guidelines and corporate

policies, which needs to be fulfilled in order to be a supplier of McDonald’s (“Meet our Suppliers,

n.d.). This factor increases the power of the supplier, as they need to meet certain requirements.

The products supplied are very similar, however as mentioned above, the suppliers need the meet

certain requirements which not all can fulfil which results in the bargaining power of suppliers being

moderate.

Threats of substitution

The threat of substitution is the fourth force in the model (Porter, 2008). As mentioned earlier, the

fast food industry consists of many players, increasing the threat of substitutions. Therefore,

customers can easily find other alternatives to meet their demands, making it important for firms to

consider the substitutable products of their industry. Where some fast food guests eat out for the

experience’s sake, others might do it because of lack of cooking skills. In such case, other methods

could easily be substituting the need of eating out. When discussing substitution, it is therefore not

only other restaurants in the fast food industry that can act as a substitution, but also home cooking

and other entertainments such as going to the movies or a bar (Marketline, 2015). Based on these

arguments, the threat level of substitution is rather high.

Competitive rivalry

Assessing the findings of the other forces, will confirm whether the competitive rivalry is high or low.

The low entry barriers will attract new entrants to the industry, thus increasing the numbers of

competitors. This leads to buyers having many alternatives, giving them an advantage when

discussing bargaining power. The suppliers have a moderate bargaining power. The suppliers offer

undifferentiated products with low asset specificity, but the strict requirements of McDonald’s has

lead to an increase in their power, as only a limited amount of suppliers can meet these

20 of 32

requirements. It can therefore be concluded that McDonald’s operates in an industry where there are

numerous competitors, where the homogeneity of the products is rather high.

According to Porter, price competition is more likely to occur when products or services of rivals are

close to identical and there is few switching cost for buyers (Porter, 2008). It can be concluded that the

fast food industry, in which McDonald’s operate, is very price competitive. The difficulty in such

industry is that rivals compete on the same attributes, hence turning the competition into a zero-sum

competition (Porter, 2008).

Throughout the analysis and appliance of porters five forces on the fast food industry, It can be

concluded that the competitive rivalry is very high, not only within the industry where they are

competing against incumbents but they also compete against companies from other industries.

5.5. Resource based view

Within the resource-based view a company is seen as resourceful and each firm has different kinds of

resources and capabilities, which can be used differently due to various perspectives., also called

resource immobility. The theory can be used to assess the competitive advantage of a given firm by

analyzing a resource through the VRIN-model (table 1.5., Appendix A).

Brand

The brand of McDonald’s is the biggest strength, which they possess. The arguments for it being an

advantage for McDonald’s is further explained in the SWOT-analysis.

“The hamburger assembly line”

The VRIN – model have, on this specific resource, been used to compare the competitive advantage of

the resource from back when the company was founded and the resource in the present. This is

presented in order to show that while earlier it was a competitive advantage, whereas it might not be an

advantage today.

Back in the day when Richard and Maurice opened their first McDonald’s restaurant they wanted to

introduce the concept of mass production, like it was known from the manufacturing industry

(Wilson, n.d.). This was an unseen feature in the restaurant business, and the implementation of a

small menu of 9 items from an earlier 25 items and a kitchen specially designed for division of labor,

allowed the brothers to reduce the price for a hamburger to ¢15 from ¢30.

21 of 32

They were the first to introduce this concept and it gave them a huge competitive advantage, not only

could they lower the prices, but it also improved their efficiency allowing them to serve their customers

faster.

Today this “hamburger assembly line” or more known as division of labor is widely copied throughout

the competitors, and it might prove hard to find anyone not utilizing this way of production. Therefore,

what was earlier a huge competitive advantage for McDonald’s through knowledge and know-how,

have now been learned and implemented throughout the industry and can no longer be seen as a

competitive advantage.

Economies of scale

McDonald’s have successfully achieved economies of scale in many aspects of business, as mentioned

in the vertical boundaries section in this report. McDonald’s economies of scale can be considered a

competitive advantage, and maybe even sustainable competitive advantage; McDonald’s have

economies of scale advantages compared to other economies of scale companies regarding both

advertising and R&D (McEachern, 2012, p. 162). McDonald’s have more then 36.000 locations world

wide, and are the second largest franchise globally only beaten in size by Subway (McDonald's

Franchise Cost & Fees, n.d.).

When McDonald’s choose to advertise at e.g. the Olympic games, all of the costs associated to this

advertisement would be split throughout the 36000 locations and therefore minimize the costs for

each of the restaurants. Besides Subway, the closest competitor in size is KFC with close to 19.000

franchises, not only is the cost divided through almost double the amount of locations, furthermore,

McDonald’s have a bigger chance of have having a restaurant close to the people seeing the

advertisement.

The same thoughts apply to the R&D part of McDonald’s which is exemplified in the economies of

scale section of the report (McEachern, 2012, p. 162). They use a huge amount of money on research

& development and the improvements of processes and production techniques etc. The costs of this

R&D department is also shared throughout the entire company and franchises. This allows

McDonald’s to develop new and improved techniques and processes. Afterwards McDonald’s are able

to share the knowledge with all of their franchises, resulting in increased efficiency at a lower cost

compared to what minor franchises can manage.

22 of 32

5.6. SWOT Analysis

Strength: Strong value brand

The McDonald’s brand is considered valuable and also one of their greatest strengths; it is well

established and recognized globally. It is one of the world’s most valuable brands and the only

restaurant in the top ten brands worldwide (Badenhausen, 2015). It has a brand value of more than

$81 million, making it the highest valued one in the fast food industry (Statista, 2015). Their strong

brand value has made them the market leader with a market share of 17% in the US (Jones, 2015).

According to this paper’s VRIN model (pp. 20), the McDonald’s brand can be considered rare, as

everyone knows what it is and what they stand for. More specifically their ‘golden arches’ logo and

standardized products, where customers can expect the same products and price levels offered

regardless where they are in the world. These qualities have sustained throughout the years, leading to

building an even stronger brand for McDonald’s.

Weakness: Brand name associated with negative and cheap food

Even though the brand name is one of McDonald’s greatest strengths, it is also one of the main

weaknesses. This is caused by the associations that the McDonald’s brand may have. Many consider

the products of McDonald’s being unhealthy and of poor quality (Sutton, 2015). This can further

restrict McDonald’s possibilities regarding diversification towards healthier food as an initial

impression can be hard to change.

Widespread documentaries and books such as “Super Size Me” and “Fast Food Nation,” show

consumers the effects caused by McDonald’s unhealthy food, as well as reveal previously uncovered

parts of their marketing strategies and manufacturing process. Due to McDonald’s vast size and

impact, they are often the fast-food chain to take the blame, regardless of whether or not the industry

competitors act and operate similarly. Because of this, there is undeniably a perception that

McDonald’s food is bad for you (James, 2014).

Opportunity: McCafé

The product diversification of McDonald’s has allowed them to explore other markets, where McCafé

was the result of McDonald’s initial diversification growth strategy. This successful action has not

helped McDonald’s with their declining fast-food sales, but rather their rising in-house or external

specialist coffee and pastry sales (Euromonitor International, 2013, pp. 21). Furthermore, McCafé’s

23 of 32

continuous growth can also be linked to the large groups of youths that now see it as a popular place

to go (FlorCruz, 2014).

Threat: Intense competition

Out of Porter’s five forces it was concluded that the overall competitive rivalry was high. The intensity

of competition between other fast-food restaurants and other substitutes are increasing significantly.

New markets are emerging and threatening McDonald’s which can be seen in their decreasing revenue.

Furthermore, it correlates with the declining Herfindahl Index between 2011 and 2014, indicating that

the fast food industry is getting more competitive (“Total Revenue”, Appendix B;

Figure 1.4., Appendix A; Kasperkevic, 2015).

Threat: Changing preferences

In developed markets such as the U.S. and Europe, a changing trend of consumer preferences towards

healthier and better quality meals can be identified. The youth who once saw McDonald’s as a popular

place to go, are now replaced by the millennials, who instead prioritize the quality and healthiness of

the food higher than the price and convenience. Reports surveyed by the Consumer Reports National

Research Center show that restaurants are a major part of the social structure, where people prefer to

spend more money on quality meals than spending less on worse quality (Consumer Reports National

Research Center, 2011; 2014).

This trend correlates to the U.S. personal disposable income which has increased with more than

$1,500 billion from Q1 2013 to Q3 2015 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2015). Overall, people have

more money to spend, making lesser quality fast-food chains such as McDonald’s less appealing,

whereas food chains featuring healthy and high-quality food, including Chipotle and Chick-fil-A,

become more popular according with the trends (Consumer Reports National Research Center, 2014).

This is where the weakness of having one of the world’s strongest brand images shows. While

McDonald’s tries to product diversify in order to keep up with the changing trend, they are restricted

by the inherited values and brand that consumers associate with low quality fast-food (Euromonitor

International, 2015, pp. 6).

24 of 32

6. Conclusion

Referring to the problem formulation, it can be verified that the overall demand of the industry is

shifting from unhealthy fast food towards a healthier segment. Due to McDonald’s being the second

largest fast-food chain in the industry, this consumer preference change has significantly influenced

McDonald’s and their revenue. McDonald’s had their first decrease in system wide sales from 2013 to

2014 (“Regional revenue”, Appendix B; Euromonitor International, 2015), ending a 30-year streak of

continuous value growth.

Together with the findings of the report, it can be concluded that the fast-food industry is experiencing

a change of preference towards a healthier fast food alternative. As seen in the industry analysis, it is

positioned in the maturity phase, with a 3% industry growth in 2014, but at the same time,

McDonald’s is one of the companies experiencing a decline in revenues.

From the report, several factors can be identified as contributing to this decline; one being that

McDonald’s is experiencing an identity crisis. They announced simplification to their product line,

even though they keep increasing customization possibilities. They seek to offer cheap and affordable

products, yet they still offer menus with more expensive gourmet foods to meet the shifting

demands.

What can be seen is McDonald’s failing attempt to diversify themselves from their classic standardized

menus, introducing healthier gourmet food. As discussed in the SWOT analysis, the McDonald’s brand

image is a huge factor to this, where the brand serves as both one of their greatest strengths, but also as

their greatest weakness in the shifting industry. Their brand is associated with cheap, affordable meals

of unhealthy context. This has been the case ever since the first McDonald’s opened in 1948, and

therefore the change of preference in the industry is hard to accommodate by McDonald’s. People’s

impression of McDonald’s is something they have inherited, and is proving very hard to shift the

thoughts of McDonald’s to healthier associations.

As an answer to the declining revenues, Steve Easterbrook was picked as McDonald’s new CEO in

early 2015. One of his first acts as CEO was to announce a transformation of the business model in an

attempt to regain lost revenue and profits. Easterbrook’s restructuring plan will focus on consumers

and lower the amount of corporate owned outlets to 10% by 2018, while increasing the number of

franchises, which provide a more stable and predictable income. Furthermore, the changes should

increase the payout to shareholders and increase the net G&A savings to $300 million annually.

25 of 32

Finally, the reasons to McDonald’s decline in revenue is of both internal and external factors. The

industry’s demand is shifting to healthier alternatives, and McDonald’s has unsuccessfully tried to

shift their products in correlation with it. The severe attempts to accommodate market demands

have furthermore frustrated the franchises who have shown trust issues toward McDonald’s

management, stating that the constant product changes which deviate from the original standardized

are ruining them. Easterbrook’s job is now to reunite the franchises, regain their trust and share

McDonald’s mission, vision and goals once again.

26 of 32

7. References

Badenhausen, K. (2015, May, 13). The World’s Most Valuable Brand. Forbes. Retrieved from

http://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/#tab:rank.

Baertlein, L. (2015, May, 3). McDonald's faces 'show me' moment with new CEO strategy. Reuters.

Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/03/us-mcdonalds-turnaround-investors-

idUSKBN0NO0FS20150503.

Beck, M., & Schatz, A. (2014, January, 16). Americans' Eating Habits Take a Healthier Turn,

Study Finds. The Wallstreet Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304149404579323092916490748.

Boeker, W. (1989). Strategic Change: The effects of founding and history. Academy of Management

Journal, 32(3), 489-515.

Capitalcube. (2012, September, 18). McMergers & Acquisitions: Corporate Actions assessment for

McDonald’s Corp. Retrieved from http://www.capitalcube.com/blog/index.php/mcmergers-

acquisitions-corporate-actions-assessment-for-mcdonalds-corp-mcd/.

Choi, C. (2015, May, 5). McDonald’s to simplify corporate structure, focus on customers. Los

Angeles Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.dailynews.com/business/20150504/mcdonalds-to-

simplify- corporate-structure-focus-on-customers.

Company Profile. (n.d.). About McDonald’s. Retrieved from

http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/investors/company_profile.html.

Consumer Reports National Research Center. (2011, August). Fast Food Chains: Consumer Reports

Survey. Consumer Reports Magazine. Retrieved from

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2011/august/food/fast-

food/overview/index.htm.

27 of 32

Consumer Reports National Research Center. (2014, July). Best and worst fast-food restaurants in

America. Consumer Reports Magazine. Retrieved from

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2014/08/best-and-worst-fast-food-restaurants-in-

america/index.htm.

Doeringer, P. B., & Piore, M. J. (1970, May). Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis. Industrial

and Labor Relations Review, 25(2), 273-.

Douglas, M., & Nowak, M. (1977). The Fifities: The Way We Really Were. New York, NY:

Doubleday. Douma, S. and Schreuder, H. (2013). Economic Approaches to Organizations. Harlow,

UK: Pearson Education Limited.

Economies of Scope. (n.d.). Inc Magazine. Retrieved from

http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/economies-of-scope.html.

Elliot, C. (2014, July). Elliott Review into the Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks –

Final Report. United Kingdom Government. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/350726/elliot- review-

final-report-july2014.pdf.

Euromonitor International. (2013, October). McDonald’s Corp in Consumer Foodservice

(World). Retrieved from Euromonitor Passport database. Accessed on November 22, 2015.

Euromonitor International. (2015, October). Fast Food in the US. Retrieved from Euromonitor

Passport database. Accessed on December 1, 2015.

FlorCruz, M. (2014, January, 15). McDonald's Corporation (MCD) Earnings Preview: Flat Q4 Results

As Europeans Warm To McCafe But US Millennials Ignore New Menu Items. International Business

Time. Retrieved from http://www.ibtimes.com/mcdonalds-corporation-mcd-earnings-preview-flat-q4-

results-europeans-warm-mccafe-us-millennials.

Franchising at McDonald’s. (2008). McDonald’s. Retrieved from

http://www2.mcdonalds.com/static/pdf/aboutus/education/mcd_franchising.pdf.

28 of 32

Gartner. (2015). Gartner Supply Chain Top 25. Retrieved from

http://www.gartner.com/technology/supply-chain/top25.jsp.

Greiner, L. E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Publishing.

Grossman, S. J., & Hart, O. D. (1983). An Analysis of the Principal-Agent Problem. Econometrica, 51(1),

7-46.

Hamburger University (n.d.). About McDonald’s. Retrieved from

http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/corporate_careers/training_and_development/hamburger_u

niversity.html.

Hoffman, B. (2012, September 4). How 'Millennials' Are Changing Food as We Know It. Forbes.

Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2012/09/04/how-millenials-are-changing-

food-as-we-know-it/.

James, G. (2014, November, 13). Is McDonald's the World's Most Endangered Brand?. Inc. Retrieved

from http://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/mcdonald-s-world-s-most-endangered-brand.html.

Jargon, J. (2014, October, 30). McDonald’s Plans to Change U.S. Structure. The Wall Street

Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/mcdonalds-to-change-u-s-structure-

1414695278.

Jones, A. (2014, July, 18). Why McDonald’s is diversifying its portfolio. Market Realist. Retrieved from

http://marketrealist.com/2014/07/why-mcdonalds-diversifying-portfolio/.

Jones, A. (2015, July, 20). Why McDonalds earning 2Q15 will likely be disappointing. Market

realist. Retrieved from http://marketrealist.com/2015/07/mcdonalds-set-release-2q15-earnings/.

Kasperkevic, J. (2015, July, 23). Still not lovin' it: McDonald's sales in US drop for seventh

straight quarter. The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/23/mcdonalds-sales-us-drop-seventh-straight-

quarter.

29 of 32

Lutz, A. (2015, September, 21). McDonald’s is making one mistake that is killing business.

Business Insider UK. Retrieved from http://uk.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-identity-crisis-2015-

9?r=US&IR=T.

McEachern, W. A. (1997). Economics: A Contemporary Introduction. Cincinatti, OH: South-

Western College Publishing.

McEachern, W. A. (2012). Economics: A Contemporary Introduction, 9th edition. Cincinatti, OH:

South- Western College Publishing.

Magee, D. (2011, July, 23). McDonald's McChallenge: Keeping Up With the McCafe, Enhanced

Menu. International Business Times. Retrieved from http://www.ibtimes.com/mcdonalds-

mcchallenge- keeping-mccafe-enhanced-menu-301117.

Marketline (2015, April). Global Restaurants. Retrieved from Marketline database. Accessed on

November 23, 2015.

Marketline. (2015, October, 9). Company profile: McDonald’s Corporation. Retrieved from Marketline

database. Accessed on October 25, 2015.

McDonald's Franchise Cost & Fees (n.d.). Franchaise Direct. Retrieved from

http://www.franchisedirect.com/foodfranchises/mcdonalds-franchise-07030/ufoc/.

McDonald’s History. (n.d.). McDonald’s. Retrieved from

http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/our_company/mcdonalds-history.html.

McDonald’s Press Office (2015, May, 4). McDonald's Announces Initial Steps In Turnaround Plan

Including Worldwide Business Restructuring And Financial Updates. Retrieved from

http://news.mcdonalds.com/Corporate/news-stories/2013/McDonald-s-Announces-Initial-Steps-In-

Turnaround-P.

McDonald’s Supplier Code of Conduct. (2012, November). McDonald’s. Retrieved from

http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/content/dam/AboutMcDonalds/Sustainability/Library/Supplier_Co

de_of_Conduct.pdf.

30 of 32

McGahan, A. (2004). Context, Technology and Strategy: Forging new perspectives on the industry life

cycle. Advances in Strategic Management, 21, 1-21.

Meet our Suppliers. (n.d.). McDonald’s. Retrieved from

http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/food_quality/see_what_we_are_made_of/meet_our_suppli

ers.html.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations (3rd ed.). Harlow,

UK: Pearson Education Limited.

New York Stock Exchange. (n.d.). McDonald’s Corporation. Retrieved from

https://www.nyse.com/quote/XNYS:MCD.

Olinga, L. (2014, November, 9). Fast food is on the decline in America. UK Business Insider. Retrieved

from http://uk.businessinsider.com/afp-the-slow-decline-of-fast-food-in-america-2014-

11?r=US&IR=T.

Penrose, E. (1995). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Peterson, H. (2015, April, 15). Furious McDonald's franchisees say the company is doomed. Business

Insider. Retrieved from http://uk.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-franchisees-are-furious-2015-4.

Peterson, H. (2015, May, 22). The ridiculous reason McDonald's sold Chipotle and missed out on

billions of dollars. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-ridiculous-

reason-mcdonalds-sold-chipotle-2015-5.

Peterson, H. (2015, September, 20). McDonald’s turnaround strategy is in overdrive. Business Insider

UK. Retrieved from http://uk.businessinsider.com/changes-mcdonalds-made-this-year-2015-

9?r=US&IR=T.

Porter, M. (2008, January). The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy. Harvard

Business Review, pp. 79-93. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

31 of 32

Posel, S. (2013, May, 10). Taco Bell, Burger King & Other Brands Using Horse Meat in Products.

Occupy Corporatism. Retrieved from https://occupycorporatism.com/taco-bell-burger-king-other-

brands-using-horse-meat-in-products/.

Ray Kroc Biography (n.d.). Biography. Retrieved from http://www.biography.com/people/ray-kroc-

9369349.

Statista. (2015). Brand value of the 10 most valuable fast food brands worldwide in 2015. Retrieved

from http://www.statista.com/statistics/273057/value-of-the-most-valuable-fast-food-brands-

worldwide/.

Stinchcombe, A. L. (2000). Social Structure and Organizations. Economics Meets Sociology in

Strategic Management, 17, 229-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17019-6.

Sutton, D. (2015, May, 16). McDonald’s unhealthy business and why it can’t shake it. National Deseret

News. Retrieved from http://national.deseretnews.com/article/4486/mcdonalds-unhealthy-image-

and-why-it-cant-shake-it.html.

The Ray Kroc Story. (n.d.). McDonald’s. Retrieved from

http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/our_story/our_history/the_ray_kroc_story.html.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (2015). Table 2.1. Personal Income and its Disposition. Bureau of

Income Analysis. Retrieved from

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=58.

Accessed on December 1, 2015.

University Alliance. (n.d.). What are the Ingredients in a McDonald’s Supply Chain?. University of

San Francisco. Retrieved from http://www.usanfranonline.com/resources/supply-chain-

management/what-are-the-ingredients-in-a-mcdonalds-supply-chain/.

Williamson, O. E.. (1979). Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations.

Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–261.

32 of 32

Wilson, V, Tracy (n.d). How Fast Food Works. How Stuff Works – Science. Retrieved from

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovations/fast-food.htm.