Good File On Game Theory Application ASDA and UK's Market But 2015

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/282249718
ASDA's ﬁght for market share in the UK's supermarket industry
Research · September 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.5180.9761
CITATIONS READS
0 11,536
1 author:
Rodrigo Héctor de Luis García

Universidad Pontificia Comillas
5 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Rodrigo Héctor de Luis García on 28 September 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ASDA’s fight for market share
In the UK’s supermarket industry
Dimosthenis Michalakeas (4414659)

Evan Clearesta (4416252)
Filipe Gomes (4407547)
Rodrigo de Luiz-Garcia (4420616)
Wouter Schoof (1336894)
January, 23rd, 2015

ASDA’s fight for market share
This report is written as if it was for ASDA, the UK supermarket. Because this report is part of the course
work for the MSc. course EPA1143 Actors and Strategy Models the report is written a bit more academic
then a true advisory report would’ve been.
The information in this report is based on internet sources and some course books. It was beyond the scope
of this report to interview employees, etc.
We would like to thank our supervisor Mr. Hermans for his help and involvement during our project. Also
we would like to thank Mr. de Reuver for his help concerning the issues and questions we encountered with
respect to the Social Network Analysis and Mr. Cunningham for his help regarding the application of the
Game Theory method.
Evan, Dimosthenis, Felipe, Rodrigo, Wouter
2
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ 3
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 ASDA’S STAGNATING MARKET SHARE ................................................................................................... 5
1.2 GOAL OF REPORT ............................................................................................................................. 5
1.3 METHODOLOGY AND STRUCTURE ......................................................................................................... 6
2. IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................... 7
3. SELECTION OF COST-CUTTING STRATEGY........................................................................................ 8

3.1 IDENTIFYING COST-CUTTING STRATEGIES ................................................................................................ 8
3.2 EXPLORING THE STRATEGIES ............................................................................................................... 8
3.3 CONFLICT ANALYSIS METHOD .............................................................................................................. 9
3.4 APPLICATION OF CONFLICT ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 10
3.4.1 IDENTIFYING THE RELEVANT ISSUES AND STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................... 10
3.4.2 UNDERSTANDING STAKEHOLDERS’ ACTIONS ................................................................................................ 10
3.4.3 BUILDING A FEASIBLE SET OF SCENARIOS .................................................................................................... 12
3.4.4 CLARIFYING STAKEHOLDERS’ PREFERENCES’ OVER ACTIONS............................................................................ 14
3.5 FINAL RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION .................................................................................................. 14
3.5.1 INTERPRETATION: REDUCING SUPPLIERS’ MARGINS ...................................................................................... 16
3.5.2 INTERPRETATION: REDUCING WAGES COSTS ................................................................................................ 16
3.6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 17
4. ASSESSING BUSINESS STRATEGIES OF GROWTH............................................................................ 18

4.1 IDENTIFYING SUITABLE STRATEGIES ..................................................................................................... 18
4.2 EVALUATING SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIES BY THEIR ESTIMATED PAYOFFS .......................................................... 18
4.3 GAME THEORY METHOD .................................................................................................................. 19
4.4 APPLICATION OF GAME THEORY ........................................................................................................ 19
4.4.1 PLAYERS OF THE GAME ............................................................................................................................ 19
4.4.2 POSSIBLE COUNTER STRATEGIES................................................................................................................ 20
4.4.3 PAYOFFS ............................................................................................................................................... 21
4.4.4 RULES AND BOUNDARIES OF THE GAME MODEL ........................................................................................... 21
4.4.5 GAME THEORY MODEL............................................................................................................................ 21
4.5 FINAL RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION .................................................................................................. 22
5. EFFECTS OF STRATEGY ON ASDA’S SOCIAL NETWORK ................................................................... 24

5.1 EFFECTS OF STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................... 24
5.2 SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS METHOD ................................................................................................. 24
5.3 APPLICATION OF SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 25
5.4 RESULTING SOCIAL NETWORKS AND INTERPRETATIONS ............................................................................ 25
5.4.1 THE GENERAL SOCIAL NETWORK ............................................................................................................... 25
5.4.2 EFFECTS OF PUTTING PRESSURE ON SUPPLIERS ............................................................................................ 27
5.4.3 EFFECTS OF INCREASING PRODUCT DIVERSITY .............................................................................................. 27
6. REFLECTION ON METHODOLOGY: METHODS AND OUTCOMES...................................................... 30

6.1 REFLECTION ON GAME THEORY AND CONFLICT ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 30
6.1.1 CONFLICT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 30
6.1.2 GAME THEORY ...................................................................................................................................... 30
6.1.3 COMPARISON OF GAME THEORY AND CONFLICT ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 31
6.2 REFLECTION ON SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 31
6.3 COMPARISON OF OUTCOMES ............................................................................................................ 32
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 33

7.1 CONCLUSIONS OF METHODS ............................................................................................................. 33
7.1.1 CONFLICT ANALYSIS – IDENTIFYING CUTTING STRATEGIES .............................................................................. 33
7.1.2 GAME THEORY – ASSESSING BUSINESS EXPANSION STRATEGIES ..................................................................... 33
7.1.3 SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS – EFFECTS ON SOCIAL NETWORKS ...................................................................... 33
7.2 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 33
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................... 35
APPENDIX A. RETAIL SALES GROWTH ............................................................................................... 37
APPENDIX B. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 38
APPENDIX B.1 FORMAL CHART ........................................................................................................ 38
APPENDIX C. NON-QUALIFIED WORKERS AVERAGE SALARIES ........................................................... 45
APPENDIX D. THE INCREASING TREND OF E-BUSINESS ...................................................................... 46
APPENDIX E. REMOVING THE INFEASIBLE SCENARIOS FROM ALL THE POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS....... 47
APPENDIX F. SCENARIOS TO BE MAINTAINED................................................................................... 49
APPENDIX G. ACTORS’ PREFERENCES OVER THE ACTIONS ................................................................. 50
APPENDIX H. PAYOFFS OF THE GAME MODEL .................................................................................. 53
APPENDIX I. PAYOFFS AND SCENARIOS OF THE GAME MODEL .......................................................... 55
APPENDIX J. COMPLETE GAME THEORY MODEL ............................................................................... 59
4
1. Introduction
In this section ASDA’s problem of a stagnating market share is made explicit and the goal of this report is
elucidated together with the methodology used.
1.1 ASDA’s stagnating market share

Despite being one of the four biggest supermarkets in the UK, the market share of ASDA has stagnated over
the last twelve years (Erickson, 2014). While the volumes of sales in UK’s supermarket industry increased
by 3,9% in August 2014 compared to the previous year, and the amount spent increased by 2,7% (Appendix
A), the market share of ASDA increased by only 0,2% (Figure 1). The size of the market share is important
for supermarkets in general because it forms an important source of competitive advantages. A big market
share allows a supermarket to benefit from economies of scale through i.a. a buying advantage (source
products more cheaply), volume advantage (selling high volumes allows for smaller profit margins) and
advertising scaling. Because these competitive advantages can be translated into increased profits all
supermarkets focus on having an increasing market share.
ASDA’s problem of a stagnating market share is very much a multi-actor problem and the conflict is evident.
An increasing market share for one supermarket by definition means a decreasing market share for another.
Any strategies that ASDA implements will thus evoke reactions from its competitors, which are mainly
composed of three other big market shareholders and several smaller supermarkets. The price wars
between super markets are as well-known as they
are numerous. Because supermarkets take on an
important role in society this fight between giants
(the four biggest supermarkets have a combined
revenue of well over £100 billion (Irish Examiner,
2014) is closely watched by governmental bodies
that aim to protect the consumers and fair
competition. Several governmental bodies are in
charge of enforcing strict rules for i.a. the pricing,
advertising and the quality of the products.
Besides the supermarkets and the governmental
bodies also the consumers, with their buying
power, and the suppliers, holding important
resources, have an important role in this problem
arena and can respond too on supermarkets’
strategies.
During the last twelve years ASDA has tried to
adopt several strategies to regain their increasing
market share. The last four years ASDA has tried
to increase their market share in foreign countries but this was no success. Currently ASDA is again focussing
on the domestic market but it is still looking for strategic/policy advice that could revive their golden years
of the period between 1994 and 2004 when they rallied to become the second biggest UK supermarket.
1.2 Goal of report

The goal of this report is to help ASDA by providing an answer to the following problem statement: “What
strategies can ASDA adopt to regain an increasing market share, while taking into account the potential
actions of the other actors and the corresponding consequences?”. This report makes use of actor and
strategy models to produce the required knowledge and insights into the potential strategies and policies
that can be used to reach ASDA´s goal.
5
“If a firm is able to concentrate its expense over the capabilities that make a real
difference in terms of winning the market, it is not only able to cut costs but also to invest
in areas of business that will cause them to thrive and to grow”
- Cesare Mainardi, Strategy& CEO (Cut Costs, Grow Stronger, 2009)
A successful strategy or policy for ASDA to gain their desired market share will be composed of two parts.
First of all, an area or business aspect has to be identified where ASDA can target a strategy on to develop
or improve itself and become more attractive to consumers in order to increase its revenue (and thus its
market share). Secondly, the financials have to be made available to implement these strategies
successfully. For ASDA, a strategy can thus be viewed as the relocation of financial resources.
1.3 Methodology and structure

In order to determine a well-founded strategy for ASDA the following systematic method was followed:
1. Performing literature research.
2. Establishing the problem formulation and boundaries.
3. Identifying and exploring potential strategies.
4. Formulating conclusion and recommendation.
The methodology used to identify and explore potential strategies and related outcomes was composed of
two steps and three methods, all of which make use of a stakeholder analysis.
This analysis will first study the conflicts among stakeholders triggered by possible strategies of cost cutting
in certain business aspects. For this the Conflict Analysis method is best suited and used in this report. The
strategies that ASDA can adopt to gain more market share in certain business aspects will be explored using
the Game Theory method.
In the second step of the methodology a third method is used to explore and visualize the effects and the
consequences on ASDA’s social network on the results from the game theory and the conflict analysis. The
effects of the outcomes of the first two methods are project on ASDA´s social network using a Social
Network Analysis.
The underlying stakeholder analysis is presented first in section 2. Then in section 3 and 4 the different
strategies for cost cutting and business opportunities are presented respectively. Section 5 will then show
the results using a social network analysis. Subsequently, in section 6, the three methods will be compared.
The characteristics and differences among the methods are compared with each other. Section 7 concludes
the report and will summarize the results obtained and provides recommendations for ASDA.
6
2. Identification of stakeholders
As with most multi-actor problems a stakeholder analysis provides a good overview of the stakeholders in
the problem arena and forms a good first approach to understanding the multi-actor network a problem is
occurring in. A stakeholder analysis is thus also part of this report and can be found in Appendix B. The main
findings are summarized in Table 1.
The conflict and dilemma in ASDA’s problem are evident again: all supermarkets aim to increase their
market shares, which is impossible. Note that the stakeholder analysis provides no information about
possible interactions between the actors and consequences thereof, the stakeholder analysis provides a
snapshot of the situation. For the dynamic interactions so-called actor analyses and strategy models
described in the methodology
can be used.
In Figure 3 a power/interest
grid of the stakeholders in the
problem arena is displayed. It
displays what actors ASDA
should be more aware of than
others because they have more
power and are more likely to
act when disadvantaged. The
critical actors usually hold
important resources and are
likely to act when their
interests are harmed (further
elucidated in Appendix B).
7
3. Selection of cost-cutting strategy
A successful business strategy for ASDA is about cutting costs in one place and relocating the new available
resources to business aspects where they can be leveraged better, as explained in the introduction. This
section is about identifying and exploring cost cutting strategies ASDA can adopt.
3.1 Identifying cost-cutting strategies

The first step in identifying potential strategies to cut costs is to determine what ASDA’s costs are comprised
of. Figure 1 shows a breakdown of the total costs of ASDA in 2013. Many strategies can be identified that
focus on the different types of costs ASDA has.
ASDA's cost breakdown
Wages and
operational
19%
6% Other
75%
Purchase
The main supermarket chains in the UK act as a link between more than 7000 suppliers and around 25
million consumers, as we can see in Figure 4. The four biggest supermarkets combined control more that
88% of the food market share. This power means that also ASDA has a strong control over the supply chain
of consumable and non-consumable products in the country. This power is the basis for the first identified
strategy to cut-costs. ASDA should use this power to push suppliers’ margins (Nicholson, 2012).
Wages also form a significant part of ASDA’s costs. Given the fact that ASDA has relatively high wages at the
moment (Appendix C), cutting these wages would be another evident strategy to cut the costs.
This report thus focusses on one strategy to cut the selling, operating and administrative expenses; the
cutting of costs on wages, and on one strategy to cut the costs of the goods sold; reducing the prices ASDA
pays to the suppliers by putting more pressure on them.
3.2 Exploring the strategies

Any strategy involving ASDA’s employees will most likely trigger a response from them and their workers´
union GMB (Shaw, 2005) because they will resent their lower wages. ASDA’s competitors will also act,
because they will try to compensate for the competitive advantage ASDA is gaining over them, possibly
through also cutting costs. By the second strategy, of trying to reduce the cost of goods sold (changing
suppliers’ margins), ASDA will most likely trigger reactions from its suppliers, the competition and markets
authority (Seely, 2014) and from its competitors also which might tend to copy any successful strategy.
It is important for ASDA to be aware of the consequences of the possible strategies of the other stakeholders
as these consequences could impact the expected benefits from ASDA’s strategies. The goal of this section
is to advice ASDA on which of the strategies it could adopt best to reduce its costs while taking in
consideration the conflicts that may arise from the actions of the other stakeholders. This is summarized in
the following research question: “How can ASDA reduce its main costs (in order to invest in strategies of
8
growth), taking into consideration the different interests that stakeholders have over this issue, and the
conflicts that might arise with its actions?”.
To answer this question and study the conflicts among stakeholders triggered with possible strategies of
cost cutting, the Conflict Analysis Method will be applied. It helps to structure the key actors in this conflict,
their main interests and preferences, and the actions they have to exert control over the problem and
situation (Hermans & Thissen, 2009).
3.3 Conflict Analysis method

Conflict analysis is a non-quantitative method that makes the game theory more practical and intuitive
without the necessity of measuring each and every payoff. It was presented by Howard in the 1960s and
the analysis shows which scenarios are likely to exist and which actors are going to control the sequence of
events (Howard, 1971). First the relevant issues for the case have to be determined and then the actors
that control them, either directly or indirectly have to be identified before understanding how they achieve
that. The dependency between actions also has to be identified in order to have a realistic set of scenarios,
i.e. a combination of individual strategies that together form one of the possible outcomes of the game. In
its turn, these individual strategies are the options that stakeholders choose to implement (Hermans and
Bots, 2002). Then it is necessary to clarify the stakeholders’ preferences over the actions before analysing
the final results and drawing conclusions. In Figure 6 the methodology of Conflict Analysis can be seen.
9
3.4 Application of Conflict Analysis
In this section the Conflict Analysis method is applied to the case.
3.4.1 Identifying the relevant issues and stakeholders

As explained in section 3.1, the cost of goods sold and the cost of wages are the biggest costs of ASDA.
Moreover, the increasing e-business trend (for more information about this topic, look at Appendix D), and
the strong position of ASDA in the supply chain of consumable products open a window of opportunity for
possible strategies to act upon them. Two issues will be analysed in parallel:
 The conflicts that arise with the reduction of suppliers’ margins (the chosen way to reduce ASDA’s
cost of goods sold, motivated by the strong position of ASDA in its supply chain);
 The conflicts that arise with the reduction of the wages cost (by reducing employees’ salaries or by
firing them, motivated by the increasing trend of e-business).
The stakeholders that control these issues, either directly or indirectly, where grouped, as it can be seen in
Figure 6. This number of stakeholders is thought to be good for the method applied, is it big enough to
capture the overlapping perceptions between them. Regarding the main competitors, the three
supermarket chains (Tesco, Morrisons, and Sainsbury’s) are grouped since they have the same interest,
increase their own market share. This group will act as an important stakeholder in both issues, as well as
ASDA, the problem owner of the analysis. In the issue “reducing suppliers’ margins” the Competition and
Markets Authority and ASDA’s suppliers will be the other stakeholders to take into consideration. In the
issue “reducing wages cost” the employees’ coalition is taken into consideration. The coalition joins ASDA’s
employees with Britain’s General Union (GMB). The first wants high salaries and job security, while the
second works for ensuring it to its affiliates (see Appendix B). The union is the “vessel” used by the workers
to assure their interest.
3.4.2 Understanding stakeholders’ actions

Now it is important to understand how the stakeholders can exert their control, which options they have as
well as the relations of dependency between them. The answer to these questions can be seen in Table 2,
as well as a short description of the stakeholders.
10
11
The assumptions made to select a proper set of actions and the relations of dependency between them for
the issue “Reducing suppliers’ margins” can be seen below:
ASDA
It is assumed that ASDA only has one option to meet its objective, which is reducing its suppliers’ margins.
Otherwise it does nothing. Since the objective is only to study the impact of reducing its suppliers’ margins,
the simplicity of the analysis is a guideline.
Main Competitors
Again, having the simplicity of the analysis as a guideline, it is chosen that the main competitors can only
copy/take initiative of a reducing suppliers’ margins strategy. Otherwise they do nothing.
Competition and Markets Authority
The aim of the Competition and Markets Authority is to assure that markets work well for the consumers,
businesses and economy (Gov.uk, 2014), and so, if both ASDA and Main Competitors choose to reduce their
suppliers’ margins at the same time, it will appear as if both had cooperated to not give suppliers any
chance. It can then act and suppress supermarkets’ activates since this is considered unfair competition,
and it is illegal. Otherwise, if it is not able to prove the unfair competition, or only ASDA or its main
competitors reduce their suppliers’ margins, it does nothing.
ASDA’s Suppliers
When forced to reduce their margins over the products sold, it is assumed that ASDA’s suppliers can react
in two ways. They can accept the new directives and do whatever they can to maintain a good relation with
ASDA, or they can end the contract and try to change their business partner, not fulfilling the new directives
and starting a new business relationship with one of ASDA’s main competitors. However, they only change
their business partner if the profits they can have with them are bigger than with ASDA, that is, if the main
competitors don’t reduce their suppliers’ margins. If ASDA does nothing or the Competition and Markets
Authority suppresses supermarkets actions, then ASDA’s suppliers don’t have to do anything too.
The assumptions made to select a proper set of actions and the relations of dependency between them for
the issue “Reducing wages cost” can be seen below:
ASDA
ASDA’s aim is to reduce costs with its employees. It can achieve that by reducing their salaries or by
dismissing a determined amount of workers. Otherwise, it does nothing. These are the only three actions
considered possible for ASDA, in order to simplify the analysis.
Main Competitors
Again, having the simplicity of the analysis as a guideline, it is chosen that the main competitors can only
copy/take initiative of a reducing wages cost strategy. Otherwise they do nothing.
Employees’ Coalition
Employees can protest against the reduction of their salaries and against the dismission of their fellow co-
workers by reducing their productivity or by engaging in a strike. These are the actions assumed to be in
employees’ power to protest. Otherwise, if ASDA does nothing, employees do nothing too.
The simplicity of the analysis is a guideline, and so the set of actions for these issues is kept simple.
Nevertheless, these actions are the critical ones to fully comprehend the consequences of ASDA’s
behaviours.
3.4.3 Building a feasible set of scenarios

The next step is to clarify all the feasible scenarios in order to get a complete set of results. In Tables 3 and
4 the set of feasible scenarios for each of the issues can be visualized. To see the process of removing all
the infeasible scenarios from all the possible combinations of actions, taking into consideration the relations
of dependency between them, look at Appendix E. However, some scenarios should be maintained in order
to draw the most appropriate conclusions. These scenarios are defined in Appendix F.
12
13
In these tables, the number “1” means that the action is taken and the number “2” means that the action
is not taken. Do nothing is also an option. It is also very important to take into consideration that each
stakeholders’ action excludes the rest of its choices. The tables are also divided in groups, each group
representing one of ADAS’s possible actions.
3.4.4 Clarifying stakeholders’ preferences’ over actions

It is also important to state the preferences of each stakeholder over the actions that all stakeholders may
take. This is done by attributing a nominal scale to the options available for each stakeholder, which will
lead to quantifiable results that are easier to interpret. These preferences can be seen in Tables 5 and 6.
For the first issue “Reducing suppliers’ margins”, ASDA prefers that its competitors do nothing, so it can gain
some competitive advantage over them. It also prefers that their suppliers accept the new terms without
protesting. For the issue “Reducing wages cost”, ASDA prefers that its competitors do nothing, so it can
have a momentary advantage over them, in terms of available resources. It also prefers that its employees
understand its position and do not engage in any type of protest. For a more complete overview over all
preferences, look at Appendix G.
3.5 Final results and interpretation

Now that all the possible scenarios are defined as well as the stakeholders’ preferences for each option, the
results can be summed up in two final tables that give the outcomes for each scenario. Look at Tables 7 and
8.
14
From the analysis of these tables it is
possible to see that the aggregated
preference of the system is highest in S1
for the issue “Reducing Suppliers’
Margins” and in S5 for the issue
“Reducing Wages Cost”, while for ASDA
it is highest in S3 for the issue “Reducing
Suppliers’ Margins” and in S3 and S9 for
the issue “Reducing Wages Cost”.
Based on the preferences of each
stakeholder and on the unilateral
improvements that they can do to
improve their position without the
cooperation of other stakeholders, it is
possible to depict a strategic map for
each issue, as you can see in Figures 8
and 9.
15
From the analysis of these maps it is possible to identify quicker the stable scenarios, that is, the scenarios
that can occur more easily without any cooperation between the actors. For the Issue “Reducing Suppliers’
Margins” it is S4 and for the issue “Reducing Wages Cost” it is S2. Next, there are the interpretations for
both issues.
3.5.1 Interpretation: reducing suppliers’ margins

ASDA is the first to play and can choose reducing its suppliers margins or not. If it chooses to do nothing, its
main competitors will take the initiative and go for a strategy of reducing their suppliers’ margins
themselves, which will end in S5, one of the worst possible scenarios for ASDA (with an outcome of 5).
On the other hand, if ASDA is the first to reduce its suppliers’ margins, its main competitors will not do the
same, because if they do, the maximum outcome they get is 5 (since the Competition and Markets Authority
will act). However, if they do nothing, ASDA’s suppliers will likely change their business partner, ending up
in scenario 6, with a final outcome of 6 for the competitors. There’s an increase in the outcome of the
competitors because the suppliers will probably start doing business with them instead of ASDA.
Nevertheless, the outcome in S4 for ASDA is also 6, higher than in S2, if it does nothing, but lower than if S3
and S5. Though, is not possible for ASDA to achieve these scenarios without cooperation.
3.5.2 Interpretation: reducing wages costs

In this issue, whatever ASDA do, their main competitors will try to go for a reduce wages cost strategy.
Moreover, if ASDA reduces their suppliers’ salaries or dismisses a determined number of them, its
employees will likely engage in strikes and protests, backed up by Britain’s’ General Union, which can be
seen in the moves from S6 to S8 and S12 to S14. This is especially bad for ASDA since it will lead to a drop
in sales and will act as bad publicity for the company. The outcomes for ASDA if it reduces its suppliers’
salaries or dismisses them are 3. On the other hand, if ASDA does not take these measures, knowing that
its competitors somehow will, its final outcome will be 4, in S2. These reflects to things: that public image
is very important for ASDA and that this market is extremely competitive. This outcome is far from the
16
optimum outcome ASDA could get in this issue (6), but again, achieving it without cooperation will be
extremely difficult for ASDA.
3.6 Conclusion and recommendations

Regarding the issue “Reducing suppliers’ margins”, without any cooperation, ASDA should try to be the first
to reduce its suppliers’ margins. This will repel its competitors from doing the same since they will be afraid
of the high fines that the Competition and Markets Authority could give. If it misses the window of
opportunity for being the first to apply this measure then it should not go for this strategy of cutting costs.
A negative aspect of this strategy is that its suppliers might change their business partner, that is, they will
stop doing business with ASDA to start doing business with one of its competitors. Products that once were
in ASDA’s shelters will be now in their competitors’ shelters, and this can lead to its customers to change
supermarkets too. To avoid this, ASDA should cooperate with its suppliers and improve the relation with
them. This could improve the contracts it has with its suppliers like improving the quantity of products
bought at each time or the number of years bound legally to suppliers by the contracts, giving them
confidence and security in the business relation.
Regarding the issue “Reducing Wages Cost”, without any cooperation, ASDA should not engage in any sort
of wages cost reduction strategy. If it does the consequences of its action will be worse than the benefits.
Since ASDA uses its brand image as a central part of its selling strategy, suffering public strikes will have a
serious impact on their sales. Nevertheless, the way to improve its position in this issue is actually reduce
their suppliers’ salaries, since this action will be less likely to lead to public strikes than firing workers. Doing
this without cooperating with its employees is impossible though, ASDA has to improve its attitude towards
them. For achieving this it can improve employees’ working conditions and establish professional
development plans as well as improving its position and dialog near Britain’s General Union. An advantage
for ASDA is that it actually already pays a higher average salary than its main competitors, as can be seen in
Appendix C. Another advantage of this improvement is that its competitors are already taking measures
regarding costs cutting with employees’, engaging in several dismissals since the beginning of the year
(BBC.com, 2015 and Thetimes.co.uk, 2015), which will take the focus out of ASDA if it engages in similar
actions.
For now, without any sort of cooperation, ASDA should only go for reducing its suppliers’ margins in order
to reduce its main costs. Reducing wages cost still needs to be equated, especially the regarding the relation
that ASDA has with its employees.
17
4. Assessing business strategies of growth
A successful business strategy for ASDA is about cutting costs in one place and relocating the newly available
resources to business aspects where they can be leveraged better. This section is about identifying and
assessing those potential strategies so that it allows ASDA to increase their market share.
4.1 Identifying suitable strategies

Identifying a successful business strategy is difficult as many factors play a significant role in its success and
it is unfeasible to take all of these into account. Factors that influence business strategies can range from
how well the national economy is doing to how well the labour market is doing, to the prices of fossil fuels
and even to the outcomes of wars. Most, if not all, of these factors are highly uncertain and nearly
impossible to predict. Choosing a successful business strategy is therefore usually about identifying the
most robust strategy; the one that performs best overall under all different possible scenarios.
For ASDA, there are many different strategies it could adopt to potentially increasing the market share. It
could e.g. increase or decrease the price of certain goods, focus more on e-shopping, increase the quality
of specific goods or increase the diversity of the products offered. Considering all of these strategies in this
report would be impossible due to time constraints. Therefore a selection among these strategies is made,
presented in Table 9. These three strategies were chosen based on the literature study performed and were
considered most plausible.
4.2 Evaluating successful strategies by their estimated payoffs

Assessing strategies for ASDA to increase its market share will be done using payoffs. This value represents
a score for the estimated feasibility, profitability and risk of the strategy. Although many of these
influencing factors are uncertain, one thing can usually be assumed: if it is possible for other actors to react
on ASDA’s strategies to either achieve their own goals or improve their own situation then they will do so;
they act rationally. These counter strategies don’t necessarily have to impact ASDA negatively, but
sometimes they do. They therefore form a factor in the possible success of ASDA’s strategy and influence
the payoffs. ASDA should thus take these possible reactions and counter strategies into account.
It is thus necessary to investigate the three different strategies considered for ASDA under the different
scenarios possible, i.e. combinations of the strategies. The goal of this section is to advice ASDA on which
of the strategies it could adopt best to increase its market share while taking into consideration the counter
strategies that other stakeholders may adopt. This is summarized in the following research question: “How
can ASDA increase its market share, taking into account the different interests that other stakeholders
have over this issue, and the conflicts that might arise with its actions?”.
To answer this questions and identify the most robust business strategy for ASDA the Game Theory method
was be applied. This method studies the strategic decision-making and helps evaluating the different
possible scenarios and corresponding payoffs for ASDA.
18
4.3 Game Theory method
Game theory makes use of mathematical models of conflict between rational decision makers (Myerson,
1991). This implies that each player involved in the `game` will try to determine the optimum action that it
can take whatever the rest of the other players chooses to implement.
Game theory is available for different situations, categorised as
cooperative or non-cooperative (referring to the cooperation
between the actors) and simultaneous or sequential (referring to
decision-making).
A game theory model makes use of several elements, of which
the most important are considered: players, actions, payoffs and
rules or information. All these elements together are referred to
as the “rules of the game”. Players will attempt to find the best
way that will help them maximize their payoffs, which is known
as a strategy. The combination of strategies chosen by each actor
that is known as the equilibrium scenario helps the modeller to
find the optimum outcome of the game (Myerson, 1991).
The final outcome is based on two concepts: the dominant
strategy, which is the optimum solution and the “Nash
equilibrium”. The latter concept is a solution concept, which
implies that no player involved in the game has incentive to deviate from his strategy given that the other
players will not deviate too. The methodology used can be seen in Figure 11.
4.4 Application of Game Theory

This subsection is about the application of the game theory. In the subsections the four different main
elements of the Game Theory are elucidated: players, rules, consequences and payoffs.
4.4.1 Players of the game

Five different actors have been selected for the game due to its relevance and stake in the possible
strategies that ASDA could adopt: Tesco, ASDA, Sainsbury’s & Morrison’s, Low Cost Supermarkets and the
UK Government. To facilitate the process of the game theory analysis Sainsbury’s & Morrison’s were
grouped together because it is assumed that their interests are similar. The same holds for low cost
supermarkets. On the other hand, consumers have been deliberately excluded from the analysis since these
19
are very unpredictable and this study was more interested in the reactions the other stakeholders could
adopt in reaction to ASDA’s strategies (also seem Appendix B).
4.4.2 Possible counter strategies

This section explains the different strategies that ASDA could implement to gain market share and the
possible reactions of the other actors involved in the game.
The described strategies are very general but are not worked out in more detail because it does not add to
the usefullnes of the analysis. In 10, Table 11, Table 12 and Table 13 the possible type of actions that every
actor of the game could implement are described.
Action Description
This action intends to represent a set of strategies in which ASDA targets new
Increase diversity
retailing markets (electronics, consumer products, …)
Increasing the quality of their edible products might attract more consumers to
Increase quality
their retailing stores.
Reducing the price of their products might improve their public image and
Reduce price
attract more consumers.
20
4.4.3 Payoffs
The payoffs in the game theory model refer to the utility that each player would receive in a specific
outcome of the game (Schelling, 2010). In the developed game model the calculations regarding the market
share or benefits that each of the food retailers could earn for every scenario have been avoided; given the
uncertainty and complexity of these factors it would not contribute to the usefulness of the analysis. It is
still possible to quantify numeric outcomes for every player in every scenario of the game model though.
To do so, five different fields of interest for the players have been considered in the computation of the
payoffs. These are: resources, benefits, public image, risk and completeness. These factors have been
evaluated on an ordinal scale (-3 to 3). For more information about the quantification of the payoffs please
be referred to Appendix H. The payoffs and their computations assigned to every scenario are elucidated in
Appendix I were also the possible scenarios of the game are shown.
4.4.4 Rules and boundaries of the game model

Several rules and boundaries were established or assumed for the use of the model:
1. The behavior of consumers was considered out of the scope of the game. The reaction of the
consumers is very difficult to determine and this report focussed on the strategies that the other
supermarkets could adopt in reaction to ASDA’s actions.
2. It is assumed that the provided game tree in Figure 13 is a deterministic game. Given that it is difficult
to estimate the probability that a set of strategies produces a specific outcome in the benefits or
public image categories of the estimated payoffs, the chance hasn’t been considered in this game. As
it was stated before, the model is more interested in the reaction of the other supermarkets to
ASDA’s strategies.
3. Taking into account that supermarkets advertise their strategies publicly, it was assumed that every
supermarket knows what the competition is doing at every moment. The game was thus modelled
with perfect information.
4.4.5 Game Theory model

Figure 13 shows the developed game model in its extensive form (a larger version of the game model is
presented in Appendix J).
21
Figure 13 - Overview of the game model in its extensive form. ASDA (blue), Tesco (red), Sainbury's & Morrisons coalition
(orange), Low cost supermarkets coalition (green) and Government (black).
4.5 Final results and interpretation

Looking at Figure J1 in Appendix J, it is possible to distinguish three possible scenarios concerning the
strategies that ASDA could take. These three possible scenarios are shown in Appendix J in Figure J2, Figure
J4 and Figure J6. In order to determine which reactions the actors of the game are more likely to adopt the
game models without dominated strategies are shown in Appendix J in Figure J3, Figure J5 and Figure J7.
Dominated strategies are defined as the actions that a player might make, that are strictly inferior to other
strategy, no matter what the other actions the rest of players take (Rasmusen, 2007).
Figure J3 in Appendix J shows that if ASDA increases the quality of their products it is very likely that both
Sainsbury’s and Morrisons will react to ASDA’s strategy by increasing the quality of their products also. It is
not very likely though that the coalition of low cost supermarkets will react by increasing their quality too.
The second set of possible scenarios in which ASDA increases the diversity of their retail stores (Figure J4 in
Appendix J) shows how other actors of the game might react. As Figure J5 reflects it is very unlikely that
neither Sainsbury’s nor Morrison’s would try to increase the diversity of their products too. Both food
retailers have been considered as risk avoiding actors and the fact that they have been traditionally
targeting a different kind of market explains why it is very unlikely that any of these will try to implement a
counter strategy related to the diversity of their products. The reaction of the low cost supermarkets is
more uncertain though. Depending on Tesco’s actions (increasing or maintaining the diversity of their
products) they might be interested in implementing a counter strategy.
The last set of possible scenarios concerns a strategy in which ASDA could try to reduce the prices of its
products (Figure J7 in Appendix J). This set of scenarios is more uncertain than the other two, given that the
government might interfere when prices get too low (reducing prices would probably be associated with
lower margins for the suppliers and unfair competition between food retailers). In the scenario where ASDA
could try to decrease its prices it is very likely that the coalition of low cost supermarkets would decrease
their prices too. Because low cost supermarkets normally have contracts with suppliers from all around the
world, it is reasonable to think that these wouldn’t experience too much trouble in finding new suppliers
with lower prices and lower quality. On the other hand, it is very unlikely that neither Morrison’s nor
22
Sainsbury’s would try to reduce their prices, given that they target a different kind of costumer. Regarding
to Tesco’s reaction, it is not likely that it will try to reduce its prices (targeting a new kind of costumer) while
it is expanding the brand abroad. Regarding to the regulations that the government could make, it is
expected that if all the main supermarkets reduced their prices, the government would probably regulate
the low prices, resulting in huge losses for all the supermarkets.
Finally, a very interesting outcome offered by the game model was related to the fact that even if Tesco
tried in the beginning to implement a counter strategy to ASDA’s possible actions, it is very unlikely that
Tesco would try to hold their fight for the market share with ASDA in the UK, rather than keep focusing its
resources in the expansion their currently facing.

Both the Nash equilibrium and the dominant strategy of the game model were identified as the strategy in
which ASDA increases the diversity of their products and the other actors maintain its diversity. These
concepts shouldn’t be understood as absolute solutions for the problem owner though; it is more likely that
ASDA finds less opposition from the other food retailers when increasing the diversity of their products.
Yet, it should be taken into account that even if ASDA wouldn’t find much opposition from the other food
retailers when increasing the diversity of their products, it should be expected that Sainsbury’s and
Morrison’s increased their product quality, or that the low cost supermarkets of the UK reduced their prices.
Both counter strategies (which are out of the scope of the game model) could reduce ASDA’s market share.
The most valuable information that the game model could bring to ASDA is linked to the fact that Tesco is
not expected to implement aggressive strategies against ASDA’s. Even if in reality Tesco tried to fight back
ASDA’s strategies, it is not expected that ASDA could find a great opposition from Tesco, since the last one
is currently immersed in its expansion abroad.
Taking into account both the game model and the critic thinking of the analysts of the project. It is concluded
that it is more likely that ASDA could succeed when increasing the diversity of their retail stores. Still, ASDA
should be prepared for strategies regarding the quality of the products or a reduction in the prices from low
cost supermarkets.
23
5. Effects of strategy on ASDA’s social network
This section provides insight into the effects of the strategy of cutting costs and increasing product diversity.
5.1 Effects of strategies

ASDA’s market share is very dependent on the relation the supermarket has with its customers, as it is for
any supermarket. The customers form the sources of revenue after all. The suppliers might also be just as
important because they hold another critical resource in the value chain, the actual products. The set of all
relations ASDA has with other actors is referred to as ASDA’s social network. Because some relations are
critical to ASDA’s business success, ASDA should be aware of the status of these relationships over time so
that they can safeguard the desired strengths and if possible anticipate on problems.
It is thus also important to be aware of the consequences of the proposed strategy for ASDA of putting
pressure on suppliers to decrease costs and investing in product diversity on ASDA’s social network. Insight
has to be obtained in what connections between actors would become under pressure or even break if a
certain strategy is adopted. This can be formulated in the following research question: "What pitfalls should
ASDA be aware of if they want to adopt the proposed strategy of putting pressure on suppliers to
decrease costs and investing in product diversity, while preventing significant and unrecoverable damage
to ASDA’s social network?”.
To answer this question ASDA’s social network was mapped and visualized using a Social Network Analysis.
The resulting network was then be used to see in what way the proposed strategy would affect ASDA’s
social network. Overall, the purpose of this triangulation of methods is thus to gain a more robust insight
and understanding of the potential strategies presented in the previous two sections. Additionally, this
method was also used to find additional consequences of the strategy that might have been overlooked in
the previous sections by looking through a different lens at the strategy.
5.2 Social Network Analysis method

Social Network Analysis (abbreviated SNA) is mostly used to perform descriptive analyses of problems. It
offers a way to visualize an actor’s social network and highlight important characteristics of this network. It
can provide insight in how the actors are connected or not connected to other others, which actors have
the most important role and power and which actors hold key connections to other actors. The focus of
SNA is on how the actors interact in a system with certain boundaries, corresponding to the issue. The core
concepts of an SNA are (1) the network, a set of ties among actors (2) the actors, discrete social units and
(3) the ties between the actors, referring to connections of interests such as formal relation and business
relation (Wasserman & Faust, 2008). In order to map and visualize the SNA, a computer program to model
the social network is used in this study. The methodology used can be seen in Figure 13.
Figure 13 - Social network analysis methodology.
24
5.3 Application of Social Network Analysis
First a decision has to be made for the definition of the links in the social network. Because ASDA is looking
for a business strategy the links were chosen to represent business-to-business (B2B) relations between the
actors, all interactions involving the exchange of money or goods. In the data file that was used to construct
the social network different strengths of the links were specified. A relatively strong link between ASDA and
an actor indicates that ASDA does relatively much business with the actor.
Subsequently the selection of the actors to be included in the social network has to be determined. Including
all the actors in the UK supermarket industry with links to ASDA would probably make the resulting web of
connections too big and lack clarity. Gathering reliable information about all these actors was difficult
though. As interviews were beyond the scope of this report the identification of the actors was mostly based
on newspaper articles and official documents from ASDA. Despite of the limited number of good quality
sources over 30 suppliers could be identified. Fortunately it is not necessary to include all actors and
relations for the purpose of this report. A smaller network can be used, with only the most relevant actors
and some grouped actors. The included actors are summarized in table 14.
Type of actors Description

The consumers are split in 12 categories, corresponding to different
Consumers classes and types of consumers (low, middle and high class and
electronic, household and food type).
ASDA has many suppliers, of which three of the biggest ones have been
identified as Unilever, Dageo and Mondelez International. These
suppliers are included individually, all the other suppliers are grouped as
“Aggregated wholesaler”.
Suppliers Note: most of the suppliers produce their own products, and thus are
not officially wholesalers, but also act as a retailer of smaller brands.
Unilever for example produces a wide variety of own products but is also
the only seller (and partial shareholder) of brands like Dove, Sunsilk and
Lipton.
Both the consumer and supplier Union are included as they have quite
Unions some power in the supermarket industry and have strong ties to many
actors.
Both the environmentalists and the competition commission have no
real business link to any of the other actors. They act passively as
Environmentalists and
watchmen. The competition commission regulate how the supermarkets
competition commission
compete with each other and the environmentalists track the
supermarket's waste and carbon footprints.
Table 14 - Groups of actors to be included in the social network.
5.4 Resulting social networks and interpretations

With the definition of the links and the actors determined the social network can be created. The purpose
of this section is to analyse the effects of the complete business strategy of putting pressure on suppliers
to decrease costs and investing in product diversity. The results of the two partial strategies are presented
in different figures.
5.4.1 The general social network

The resulting main network is presented in figure 14.
25
Figure 14 – Social network of ASDA.
The circle sizes in the model represent the actors' degree of centrality. The bigger the circle means the actor
is connected to more other actors. It is clear that ASDA has the most connections, represented by its circle
size, which is the biggest.
Some interesting characteristics of the network are presented in table 15.
Actors Degree Betweennes Density

ASDA 52 1250 23
Consumer Union 11 66 13
Supplier Union 6 121 10
Aggregated Wholesaler 23 619 11
Diageo 25 442 9
Unilever 31 524 10
Red Star Grower 16 233.5 7
Mondelez 18 358 8
Customers 4 .154 3
Table 15 - Network characteristics.
The following observations and corresponding interpretations can be made from the general social
network:
 ASDA has the greatest degree, betweennes and density compared with the other actor. It is because
ASDA is connected to most actors and also play important role connecting several groups of actor.
For example, it connects the suppliers to the customers. Therefore, ASDA is the most influential actor
in the network.
 ASDA is directly connected to three big wholesalers and on aggregated wholesaler. Via these
wholesalers ASDA is connected to the product brands under the wholesalers’ management. It can
e.g. be seen that the wholesalers have a crucial position in the indirect connection of ASDA to these
smaller brands. ASDA is thus very vulnerable to losing a connection to one of the wholesalers as it
26
would imply the loss of the indirect connection to the smaller brands. Obviously specific brands will
attract certain customers, so ‘losing’ these brands will probably have implications for ASDA.
 There are two unions in the model, the consumer and supplier union that are both acting as a broker
between the interests of the consumer and suppliers respectively and ASDA. Through i.a. collective
labour agreements and trade deals ASDA is linked to these unions.
5.4.2 Effects of putting pressure on suppliers

The effects of the strategy of putting pressure on suppliers (to decrease costs), as explained in section 3, on
the general social network are presented in figure 15.
Figure 15 – Social network of ASDA
The following observations and corresponding interpretations can be made from the general social
network:
 If ASDA were to put more pressure the Social Network in Figure 5 shows that ASDA has to be careful
not to break the ties to certain actors (i.e. Diageo, Unilever, Mondelez International, and the
Aggregated wholesaler), as they are the brokers to several suppliers under the big company's
management. This might lead to ASDA losing some group of customers that interested in some
specific brand of products.
5.4.3 Effects of increasing product diversity

The effects of increasing product diversity, as explained in section 4, on the general network of ASDA are
presented in figure 16.
27
Figure 16 - The resulting Social Network if ASDA would implement the “Increase product diversity”.
The following observations and corresponding interpretations can be made from the social network:
 The “Increasing product diversity” strategy can be visualized in figure 16 by determining the new
strengths of the ties connecting ASDA to the consumers and suppliers. The green lines indicate that
the strength of connections will increase and the red lines indicate that the strengths of the
connections will decrease. ASDA will thus gain a stronger connection with lower and middle class
customer but the connection with upper class customer will be weaker. This is based on the
assumption that the lower and middle class people react positively to a bigger offer of products
whereas for upper class people it might have the opposite effect (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000).
 Though not visible from the graph, research into the effects of the strategy on the links with the
customers showed that if the range of products offered gets too big this will deter all types of
customers (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000). ASDA thus has to be aware of this needed balance and keep this
pitfall into mind when potentially applying this strategy.

The research question relating to the analysis of ASDA´s social network was: “What pitfalls should ASDA be
aware of, if they want to adopt the proposed strategy of putting pressure on suppliers to decrease costs
and investing in product diversity while preventing significant and unrecoverable damage to ASDA’s social
network?”.
The SNA indicated that ASDA should be aware of several potential risks of the strategies. Because if ASDA
breaks an important link, the impact could be bigger if that actor is a broker. With SNA, two strategies from
the previous to methods (i.e. conflict analysis and game theory) were analysed.
By putting pressure on the suppliers ASDA risks the relation with these suppliers. In case the suppliers decide
to stop working with ASDA, ASDA would lose the connection to certain products through the supplier. The
customers who are looking for those products would then go to another supermarket. Only if ASDA can
make a good deal with the supplier, and the connection will survive, the strategy can thus be applied.
28
With the product diversity increase strategy, the relation with upper-class customers could be weakened.
It is because they only go for some specific products. If the choice becomes broader they would find another
supermarket. However, ASDA can gain stronger relations with lower and middle class customers and some
supplier of the specified products since they prefer to go to supermarket with broader product choices and
prices. Overall, this strategy would be beneficial if ASDA were to apply it.
Some other interesting characteristics of ASDA’s Network also have been explored. It was found that the
ASDA has the most power in its social network. However, it is still dependent to certain actors in the
network. And if ASDA broke one link in the network, the effect will be multiplied, since ASDA also plays a
role as broker between customers and the products. If actors on the other side cannot find what they want,
they would go away from this network and ASDA might suffer a loss in market share.
29
6. Reflection on methodology: methods and outcomes
Three actor and strategy models were used in this report; conflict analysis, non-cooperative game theory,
and social network analysis. This section will reflect on and compare these methods.
6.1 Reflection on Game Theory and Conflict Analysis

As the non-cooperative game theory and the conflict analysis were both used to explore the potential
benefits for ASDA for certain strategies it is interesting to compare these two methods and their outputs.
The game theory was used to explore the best strategy for ASDA to leverage their resources for a bigger
market share and conflict analysis was used to determine what strategy ASDA could adopt best to cut costs.
6.1.1 Conflict Analysis

Purpose: Conflict Analysis (CA) is used by actors to analyze and gain insight into their relationships with
other actors which can be used to determine most-likely outcomes of certain decision-making situations. In
this report CA was focussed on exploring the possible cost cutting strategies.
Assumptions and structure: CA is a non-quantitative method. It assumes that the preferences of the actors
for certain situations and scenarios are known and uses the ranking of these preferences to determine what
the equilibrium will be. CA does thus not require the computation of a potentially difficult and uncertain
payoff function, a ranking is adequate. In ASDA’s case the CA was very suited for the analysis of the conflicts
regarding the costs because approximating the preferences of e.g. the employees was more reliable than
establishing a payoff function.
Outcome and contribution: CA combines the preferences of all the actors and uses this to determine an
equilibrium or most likely scenario/outcome. Some insight can be obtained as how to this equilibrium is
determined but the visualization (i.a. strategic maps) might not be that easy to understand.
Ease of use: CA is not very capable of dealing with many actors because too many outcomes will have to be
evaluated. In ASDA’s case the CA was performed for three and four actors which was manageable.
6.1.2 Game Theory

Purpose: Non-cooperative Game Theory (GT) was used to explore sequential decision-making and strategic
behavior of all actors in the UK supermarket industry. The method was in particularly used to explore the
best strategy for ASDA to leverage their resources for a bigger market share.
Assumptions and structure: GT always assumes a rational behavior for all the actors involved, implying that
they will always take the action that results in the most utility for them. This assumption could be made for
the UK supermarket industry as companies and persons can be considered rational entities.
The utility is expressed as a quantitative value resulting from a payoff function, which incorporates several
factors like risk, profitability and resources and differs per actor as they usually have different interests and
give different weights to the factors in the function. In ASDA’s case e.g. a different weigth was given to the
factor of public image in the payoff functions of the supermarkets. Because some of the factors in a payoff
function are very uncertain, like risk, the payoff function can be hard to determine at times and is usually
based on assumptions, as was the case in this report. As a consequence this limitation has to be kept in
mind while assessing the outcomes.
Outcome and contribution: Making use of the payoff function GT allowes to combine all the actors’
strategic behaviors and identify the dominant strategy; the strategy that would result in most benefit
despite of any of the other actors’ actions. For ASDA the equlibrium strategy was the increase in product
diversity, while other supermarkets maintain their current diversity. Another contribution from GT is that it
allowes to see how the equilibrium is determined through the goal tree. This provides insight for ASDA into
how the competitors will react to certain scenarios.
30
Ease of use: GT can relatively easily handle many actors. In ASDA’s case five actors were used which was
manageable although the game tree already got quite large which makes it more difficult to visualize the
method. Computer programs can fortunately be used to determine the equilibria of the process so a large
amount of actors is not of influence.
6.1.3 Comparison of game Theory and Conflict Analysis

A summary of the comparison of some main characteristics of CA and GT is provided in table 16.
Required
Method Purpose Structure Assumptions
information
Assess stability of Policy game to identify Actors with different Actors’ options
outcomes based stable outcomes of options to exert and ordinal
Conflict
on preference strategies, based on the control over and preference.
Analysis
ranking. ranking of preferences preference to certain
of the actors. outcomes.
Determine Quantitatvely evaluating Actors with rational Actors’ options
equilibrium strategic decision- behavior for which and the
Game
outcomes making of all actors to the interests can be corresponding
Theory
mathematically. identify potential approximated. payoffs.
outcomes/scenarios.
Table 16 - Comparison of GT and CA. CA based on Hermans and Thissen (2009).
6.2 Reflection on Social Network Analysis

The Social Network Analysis (SNA) was the method used to design and analyze ASDA’s social network.
Because SNA is mostly a descriptive approach, modelling relations between actors and their respective
strengths, the method was used in this report to map ASDA’s network and gain insight into the
characteristics of it.
One of the insights was i.a. which actors in the network were connecting ASDA to actors ASDA couldn’t
connect to directly. These crucial actors thus form a brokering role for ASDA which gives them a certain
amount of power of which ASDA should be aware and can make use. This report reversely made use of this
insight. The impact to the network of the strategies obtained from the two other methods were analyzed
so that they could be assessed more appropriately. The main difficulty of the SNA method was the gathering
of information. Detailed information about the dispersed network was difficult to obtain, especially for
ASDA’s network of suppliers. Interviews or surveys among the actors could have formed a solution but this
was beyond the scope of this project.
Method Purpose Structure Assumptions Required information

Represent network Relational Actors and Relation data.
structure using graph characteristic the relations
SNA
models and statistical of actor between
analysis of relations. networks. them.
Table 17 - Based on Hermans and Thissen (2009).
31
6.3 Comparison of outcomes
The three actor and strategy methods used all have different outcomes. Between CA and GT the outcomes
were both equilibrium strategies and scenarios for the cost-reduction problem and resource allocation
problem respectively. Both methods also provided insight into the process of reaching this equilibrium
which can also be very useful to ASDA in future situations.
The results from the SNA were mainly insights in ASDA’s network. This insight can be used in the decision-
making to determine whether or not to apply the strategies and what precaution ASDA take.
Method Basis of analysis Key outcomes/conclusions

Rationality of actors to maximize their
Game Theory Equilibrium strategies/scenario.
payoff.
Conflict Rank of preference of actors for possible
Most feasible scenario.
Analysis scenarios.
Social
Network Relations between actors. Insight into network characteristics.
Analysis
Table 18 - Comparison of key outcomes and conclusions.
32
7. Conclusion and recommendations
This chapter evaluates the contributions and conclusions that could be drawn from this report. Also the
final recommendations for ASDA are presented.
7.1 Conclusions of methods

The conclusions of and insights gained through the three actor and strategy methods used throughout this
report are summarized now.
7.1.1 Conflict Analysis – Identifying cutting strategies

Research question: “How can ASDA reduce its main costs (in order to invest in strategies of growth), taking
into consideration the different interests that stakeholders have over this issue and the conflicts that might
arise with these actions?”
Conclusions: For now ASDA should only aim for reducing its suppliers’ margins in order to reduce its costs.
Reducing wages cost needs to be researched further, especially with respect to the effects on the
relationships that ASDA has with its employees.
7.1.2 Game Theory – Assessing business expansion strategies

Research question: ‘How can ASDA increase its market share while taking into account the different
interests that other stakeholders have over this issue, and the conflicts that might arise with these actions?’
Conclusions: Both the Nash equilibrium and the dominant strategy of the game model were identified as
the scenario in which ASDA increases the diversity of its products and the other supermarkets maintain
their product diversity. These outcomes indicate that it is most likely that ASDA will experience least
opposition from its competitors when it would increase the diversity of their products and this strategy
would thus be most successful. It should be noted that this is not the absolute solution for ASDA though.
ASDA should still be prepared for strategies regarding the quality of the products from Sainsbury’s and
Morrisons, or a reduction in the prices from low cost supermarkets, like LIDL or ALDI.
7.1.3 Social Network Analysis – Effects on social networks

Research question: “What pitfalls should ASDA be aware of, if they want to adopt the proposed strategy of
putting pressure on suppliers to decrease costs and investing in product diversity while preventing significant
and unrecoverable damage to ASDA’s social network?”
Conclusion: ASDA should mostly be aware of the risk that it takes when they put pressure on the suppliers.
The breaking of a business link with some of the suppliers can have a big impact on the product diversity
that ASDA can offer as the suppliers hold a critical position in connecting ASDA with several brands.
7.2 Overall conclusions and recommendations

The research question formulated in the introduction was: What strategies can ASDA adopt to regain an
increasing market share, while taking into account the actions of the other actors and their
consequences?”. In the introduction it was explained that a succesful strategy is comprised of two
substrategies: the first strategy to cut costs and the second strategy to lever the available resources in
business aspects where they render more growth.
With respect to the cost-cutting strategy two possible strategies were analyzed, as preliminary research
identified these strategies to have most potential of success. These strategies were about reducing wages
of employees and cutting suppliers’ margins. It can be concluded that ASDA could best adopt the strategy
of reducing its suppliers’ margins if a decision was to be made at this moment. Reducing the cost of wages
33
is not a viable strategy yet as it needs to be explored further, especially regarding the effects the strategy
can have on the relation that ASDA has with its employees. The uncertainty about this conclusion is mostly
in the preference ranking as this formed the basis for identifying this conclusion (through the conflict
analysis method). Further research into the preference ranking is thus recommended.
ASDA’s social network did show that putting pressure on the suppliers could have potentially big
consequences if pushed too far as important connections to bridging actors could get broken. It is therefore
recommended to ASDA to keep monitoring the relations with the suppliers to determine how far they can
be pushed.
With respect to the strategy of growth it can be concluded that the dominant strategy is the scenario in
which ASDA increases its product diversity and its competitors do not. Taking into account the actions of all
other actors, this would thus be the best strategy for ASDA if a decision was to be made now. The
uncertainty in this conclusion is in the payoff function (used in the game theory) and further investigating
thereof is recommended.
The social network visualized the shift of customer base that an increased product diversity would result in,
which is mostly towards the middle class customers.
34
References
Banerji, S. et al., 2009, Cut Costs, Grow Stronger. Retrieved from http://www.strategy-
business.com/article/00001?pg=all
Blinston, A., 2014, October 7, Why Was Buffet Wrong on TESCO? Retrieved from
https://investingsidekick.com/buffett-wrong-tesco/
Erickson, J., 2014, September 24, The Middle-Class Squeeze: A picture of Stagnnt Incomes, Rising Costs and
What we can do to Strangthen America’s Middle Class. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2014/09/24/96903/the-middle-class-
squeeze/
Gye, H., 2013, February 4, Supermarkets can sell mince which is less than 50% meat after Government asks
to opt out from new EU rules, Dailymail. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
2273141/Supermarkets-sell-mince-50-meat-Government-asks-opt-new-EU-rules.html
Hermans, L. and Bots, P., 2002, Metagames: Exploring Participatory Stakeholder Analysis for Water
Management in Egypt, Simulation-games for research learning and intervention, Eburon Academic
Publishers, Delft, p. 205-224.
Hermans, L. M. and Thissen, W. A. H., 2009, Actor analysis methods and their use for public policy analysts,
European Journal of Operational Research, p. 808-817.
Hipwell, D. and Knowles, T., 2015, January 10, Tesco’s supermarket cost-cutting threatens thousands of
new jobs, The Times. Retrieved from
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/retailing/article4319273.ece
Howard, N., 1971, Paradoxes of Rationality: Theory of Metagames and Political Behaviour, The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Iyengar, S. S. and Lepper, M. R., 2000, Personality Processes and Individual Differences. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, p. 995-1006.
Myerson, R. B., 1991, Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict, Harvard University Press, p. 1-2, Chapter 1.
Nicholson, C., 2012, The relationship between supermarkets and suppliers: What are the implications for
consumers?, Consumers International.
Office Of National Statistics, 2014, Retail Sales. Retrieved from

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_377638.pdf
Rankin, J., 2013, December 4, What’s Gone Wrong with Tesco, The Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/04/tesco-whats-gone-wrong-uk-largest-supermarket
Rasmusen, E., 2007, Games and Information: An Introduction to Game Theory, Blackwell Publishers.
Seely, A., 2014, The UK Competition Regime, House of Commons Library, Business & Transport Section.
Shaw, K., 2005, ASDA WAL-MART: The Alternative Report, War on Want.
Schelling, T., 2010, Game Theory: a Practitioner’s Approach, Economics and Philosophy, p 27-46.
35
Simms, A., 2014, September 22, Tesco: Why did it go so wrong?, The Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/22/tesco-pursuit-of-profit-britains-biggest-
supermarket
Smithers, R., 2013, October 16, Tesco to give surplus fresh food to FareShare to help charities, The
Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/16/tesco-surplus-food-
banks-fareshare-charities
Smithers, R., 2013, October 21, UK supermarkets face mounting pressure to cut food waste, The Guardian.
Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/21/uk-supermarkets-pressure-cut-food-
waste
Wal-Mart Stores, 2013, Walmart Annual Report. Retrieved from

http://cdn.corporate.walmart.com/66/e5/9ff9a87445949173fde56316ac5f/2014-annual-report.pdf
2014, August 15, UK economic growth revised up to 3.2%, BBC. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28800141
2014, November 11, UK Supermarkets (Market Share 2013-2014), Grocery News. Retrieved from
http://grocerynews.org/2012-06-16-08-27-26/supermarkets-market-share/grocery-stores
2015, January 13, Sainsbury's to cut 500 support jobs in cost cut push, BBC. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30799099
36
Appendix A. Retail sales growth
This appendix presents the past rend for the retail sales in the UK.
Figure A1 - All retailing seasonally adjusted sales volume and values. Source: Office for National Statistics, 2014.
Elucidations on and conclusion from this figure (Office for National Statistics, 2014):
 In the period between 2007 and 2012 the sales volume stayed about even while the volume
significantly increased;
 In August 2014, the quantity bought in the retail industry (volume) increased by 3,9% compared to
August 2013;
 The revenue increased by 2,7%;
 In August 2014, non-seasonally adjusted data shows that the prices of goods sold in the retail industry
(as measured by the implied price deflator) decreased by 1.2%.
37
Appendix B. Stakeholder analysis
Appendix B.1 Formal Chart

This appendix presents the formal chart of the stakeholders.
Figure B1 - Stakeholder analysis: formal chart.
38
Appendix B.2 Determining the interests, objectives and problem perceptions of actors
The table below shows the list of actors that are involved in the UK market share competition issue. The table consists of:
• Actors: consists of actors' name;
• Interest: actors' general interest;
• Desired situation/objectives: objectives they want to achieve in the issue;
• Existing or expected gaps: what condition is preventing them from achieving their objectives;
• Causes: what is causing the gaps;
• Possible solutions: what can the actors do to overcome the gaps.
Desired situation/
Actors Interests Existing or expected gaps Causes Possible solutions
objectives
Food, clothing High stock value, increase With 17.2% of market share it is Families’ budgets are under Expand the excellence of its
and general of profits, increase of the 2nd leading supermarket in pressure, lower pricing strategy leading lines (fish, meat and
ASDA merchandise market share, become the UK1, has been experiencing a didn’t work, increase of confectionery) to other groups
retail. market leader stagnated growth in the last years competition and regulation of products, expansion activities
which is feared to continue to catch more customers
Food, clothing High stock value, increase With 30 % of market share it is Big focus of resources and Give more attention to its main
and general of profits, increase the the market leader, declining efforts in international market (UK market), reduce the
Tesco merchandise market share gap to its profits and stock value, expansion, offers a wide set of range of products offered,
retail competitors decreasing market share products2, investment in invest in its online segment
physical shops3
Food, clothing High stock value, increase With 16.2% of market share it is Big enough to compete with the Focus on having clear offers to
and general of profits, increase of the 3rd leading supermarket in other players in price but not its customers, offer a more
Sainsbury’s merchandise market share, become the UKError! Bookmark not defined., big enough to surpass them, articulated value proposition
retail market leader has been experiencing a increased the variety of
stagnated growth in the last years products sold too late
Food, clothing High stock value, increase With 12,1% of market share it is Recently lost a price war with its Compete in product quality
Morrisons and general of profits, increase of the 4th leading supermarket in direct competitors for the basic instead of price, target a market
needs products, slow entry to
1 Nicholson (2011), p.4.

2 Theguardian.com (2014a).
3 Theguardian.com (2014b).
39
merchandise market share, become the UK, has been experiencing a the online segment (only this segment accordingly, develop
retail market leader stagnated growth in the last years year) the online service
Food, clothing High stock value for They have a market share of Are winning the price war by Intensive marketing focus on
and general shareholders, increase of 5.2%, 4.8% and 3.5% respectively, far, do not buy from top brand the low and middle classes in
Waitrose, Aldi merchandise profits, increase of market their market share is increasing suppliers, are targeting the low order to grow even more
& Lidl retail share significantly more than the and middle classes, high
market share of the main employees’ productivity
supermarkets
Food and Increase profits in order to The existence of big Bigger supermarkets have Improve product quality,
Small
general expand their business, supermarkets prevents the access to economies of scale improve customer service
supermarkets
merchandise become more competitive expansion of the smaller ones, and scope (lower costs and performance, maintain loyal
& grocery
many can go out of business more diversity of products) customers, associate with other
stores
small establishments
Maximize their High product quality, cheap Diversified offer from many Cheap supermarkets have worst Support local independent
utility products, good service, supermarkets can make the locations (outskirts of cities and retailers and keep an eye on
(dependent on convenient shop location decision making more difficult, towns), big competition for local planning proposals to
Consumers product quality, not easy to find the “cheaper people’s loyalty ensure retail developments,
cost, time and product” make a full environmental,
experience) economic and social impact
assessment
Salary, career High salary, security of The dimension of the Supermarkets efficiency in Improve labour conditions,
development, employment, good working supermarkets is not proportional terms of employees (employ appeal to the workers' union,
Employees job fulfilment conditions, good career to the amount of created jobs, only 50% more people than applications for professional
development programs resistance to career development local stores) development programs
(big companies), low salaries
Production and Increase product margins, Pressure to decrease product Retailer competition forces Propose more added values,
distribution of expand their business, margins, the average collection them to reduce their margins, improve the rule in the contract
goods increase profits period is much bigger than the the winner is the one with the with retailers, appeal to a
Suppliers
average payment period, cheapest price and the loser strong regulation
retailer's house brand suffers with unsold items
competition
40
Environmentalists Environmental Decrease the amount of Every year millions of tons of People tend to buy more than Help supermarkets to spread
protection, pollution, development of food is wasted4, animals continue what they need, (i.a. caused by their soon to be expired food to
animal animal rights, increase the to be badly treated in the food supermarkets’ multi-buy deals charities5, appeal for more
protection, bio- amount of bio-products in industry, bio-products are still a and other marketing tools), bio- animal protection laws,
products supermarkets minimal percentage of the products high prices, advertise bio-products
products sold minimization of costs
Department Environment, Development of a Now and then some animal To lower costs the Regulations have to be
for food production sustainable food sector related disease appears in the supermarkets cut on animal implemented to guarantee
environment, including animal health and food sector, animal health is not health and welfare as well as animal welfare and the quality
food and rural welfare always guaranteed the quality of the food6 of food
affairs
Competition Regulation, Prevent and reduce anti- This market is a clear oligopoly Retailers tend to win the Have more watchdogs and
and markets market competitive activities, and so needs strong regulation market, application of a win- apply stricter rules and
authority competition prevent the occurrence of activities lose strategy that is not punishments
(government) cartels beneficial for other parties
Efficient and Increase UK economic UK has a strong economy, has Big supermarkets are opening Boost local stores, give
Department sustainable growth, increase the been experiencing a positive new stores in rural areas, small subsidies to increase the small
of economic national country’s GDP, economic growth since 2009, its supermarkets and grocery businesses development,
affairs economy increase the buying power actual value is above 3% per year7 stores cannot compete with differential taxes policies
of people them
Labour's right Higher salary for Sometimes the working Companies have their own Dialog with companies to
Britain's employees, better working environment or their salary is not policies regarding money improve employees’ working
General environment, safety, good for employees' safety or for spending, which can lead them conditions. Report situations of
Union8 facility and benefits for a good productivity to pay only the minimum wage bad working conditions
employees
Table B1 - Stakeholder analysis: determining the interests, objectives and problem perceptions of actors.
4 Theguardian.com (2014c) http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/21/uk-supermarkets-pressure-cut-food-waste

5 Theguardian.com (2014d) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/16/tesco-surplus-food-banks-fareshare-charities
6 Dailymail.co.uk (2014) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273141/Supermarkets-sell-mince-50-meat-Government-asks-opt-new-EU-rules.html
7 BBC.com (2014) http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28800141
8 Gmb.org.uk (2014)
41
Appendix B.3 Interdependencies table
Interdependency Table
Dedicated actors Non-dedicated actors
Critical actors Non-critical actors Critical actors Non-critical actors
Similar/ Employees (conflicting Department of
supportive objectives regarding Economic Affairs
interest and wages, but supportive
objectives interests with respect
to job security)
Conflicting Consumers, suppliers Waitrose, Aldi, Lidl, Competition and Department for
interest and Tesco, Sainsbury’s, small supermarkets Markets Authority Environment, Food
objectives Morrisons and grocery stores, (government) and Rural Affairs
environmentalists,
Britain's General
Union (GMB)
Table B2 - Stakeholders analysis: interdependencies table.
Elucidations on this table:

 TESCO - Forms a critical actor due to its leading market share. They have conflicting interests with
respect to ASDA because they both compete for a higher market share.
 Sainsburry, Morrison - Critical actors because they also have big market shares. They would compete
with ASDA to get more market share.
 Waitrose, Aldi, Lidl, small supermarkets and grocery stores - Not critical actors because their market
shares are relatively low compared to ASDA´s. Even if they would want to compete, their powers are
not really significant.
 Consumers - are considered as critical actors because they facilitate ASDA’s goal of an increase in
market share. If the consumers decide to block ASDA it will prevent ASDA from increasing its market
share. The interests of the two actors conflict because ASDA desires high prices and the consumers
desire low prices.
 Employees - are considered as critical actors because they are assumed to be non-replaceable by
other actors (or e.g. machinery) and have blocking power through i.a. strikes. Note that this actor
represents all employees in one group (e.g. a labour/employee union) and not individual employees.
 Suppliers - are considered as critical actors because they are assumed to be non-replaceable by other
actors very easily (ASDA cannot create its own supply chain within a reasonable period of time) and
they have blocking power through i.a. strikes. Note that this actor represents all suppliers in one
group (e.g. a labour union) and not individual suppliers.
 Environmentalists - are considered as non-critical actors as they are not assumed to have blocking
power. Potential media campaigns and other actions can influence the consumers their opinion, but
even if this is considered a blocking power it is based on the blocking power of the consumers (and
not the environmentalists). The interests of the environmentalists clash with those of ASDA, because
ASDA places (in general) economic values over animal welfare (to a certain threshold).
 Department for environment, food and rural affairs, Competition and markets authority - is
considered as a critical actor because they are assumed to have blocking power through their formal
power position of creating regulations and laws. The department is considered to be non-dedicated
because they will only use their powers when they feel it is necessary, hence when certain values are
42
affected or damaged too a certain extend. They don’t seek to play an active role, but will only when
needed.
 Department of economic affairs - is considered as a non-critical actor because they are not
considered to have direct regulatory power (only indirect through i.a. the Competition and markets
authority). The ministry is considered to be non-dedicated because they will only use their powers
when they feel it is necessary, hence when certain values are affected.
43
Appendix B.4 Important resources, resource dependency and replaceability
The table consists of:
 Important resources: formal and informal means that are available to the actors to realize their
objectives;
 Replaceablity: if one actor’s resource can be replaced by another actor;
 Resource dependency: to what degree are the actors dependant on this actor’s resources;
 Critical actor: is this actor important based on its “power of realization” or “blocking power”?
Resource Critical
Actors Important resources Replaceability
dependency actor?
Know-how (they were e.g. first to Yes Limited Yes
use electronic checkouts),
Tesco
reputation, money, biggest
market share.
Reputation, money, market Yes Limited Yes
Sainsbury’s
share.
Reputation, money and market Yes Limited Yes
Morrisons
share.
Waitrose, Aldi & Lidl Low price products, reputation. Yes Limited No
Easy access for locals. No (if we see them as Limited No
Small
individual shops, one
supermarkets/
can be replaced but
grocery stores
never all of them).
Money, buying power. No (if we see them as High Yes
a whole, individual
Consumers
consumers can be
replaced)
Manpower, experience, regarding No (if we see them as High Yes
working in a supermarket. a whole, individual
Employees
employees can be
replaced).
Supply stock, price control. No (if we see them as High Yes
a whole, individual
Suppliers
employees can be
replaced)
Influence to government Yes Limited No
Environmentalists
regarding environmental issues.
Department for Authority and formal power in No High Yes
environment, food food sector.
and rural affairs
Competition and Authority on regulating market No High Yes
markets authority competition.
Department of Authority on regulating market No High No
economic affairs competition.
Britain's General Labour rights. Connection with No Limited No
Union (GMB) the government.
Table B3 - important resources, resource dependency and replaceability.
44
Appendix C. Non-qualified workers average salaries
This appendix presents non-qualified workers' average salaries of the UK’s supermarkets.
Actors Shop Floor Assistant (€/hr) Cashier (€/hr) Average (€/hr)

ASDA 8,52 9,23 8.88 (3º)
Tesco 8,85 8,59 8.72 (5º)
Sainsbury’s 8,52 8,24 8.38 (7º)
Morrison’s 8,32 8,59 8.46 (6º)
Waitrose 8,76 8,98 8.87(4º)
Aldi 8,90 9,71 9.31 (1º)
Lidl 8,89 9,64 9.27 (2º)
Table C1 – Non-qualified workers’ average salaries of the UK’s supermarkets. Source: Glassdoor.com, 2014.

 The average salary for shop floor assistants is 8.68 € per hour. On the other side the average salary
for cashiers is 9 € per hour. The higher salaries for cashiers are due to the higher responsibility they
have for dealing with big quantities of money. ASDA is the company from the main four supermarkets
that has been paying the higher salaries, closely followed by Tesco. Waitrose’s average salaries are
very similar to ASDA’s. Aldi and Lidl are the actors that have been paying the bigger salaries by far,
which can be translated in a bigger employee happiness and therefore an improved productivity. The
focus is on non-qualified workers that have a significant impact near the customers. Changes in their
productivity will directly affect the customer service performance.
 The minimum wage in UK is approximately 8,24 € per hour (Gov.uk, 2014). As it can be seen in Table
C1 the salaries do not go much higher than this threshold.
 The companies that have been experiencing a bigger growth in the last years are also the ones that
have been offering bigger salaries (e.g. Aldi and Lidl).
45
Appendix D. The increasing trend of e-business
The supermarket industry is undoubtedly changing, and one of the main causes is the growth of the e-
business sector, as it can be seen in Figure D1.
Table D1 – UK internet sales as a % of total retail sales, monthly data, not seasonally adjusted. Source: Rhodes, 2014.
It is expected that by 2020 the e-commerce will capture 34% off the total retail sales. This increase will lead,
on the other hand, to a decrease of 21% in retail space, and to a decrease of 31% in the number of shops
(Rhodes, 2014). Logically, these numbers are a big motivation to reduce personnel costs, since less shops
mean less jobs.
46
Appendix E. Removing the infeasible scenarios from all the possible combinations of actions
In this appendix, the infeasible scenarios will be removed from all the possible combinations of actions.
Table E1 - Removing the infeasible scenarios from all possible combinations of actions for the issue “Reducing Suppliers’ Margins”.

 All the scenarios inside the red boxes are considered infeasible.
 Scenario S2 is considered infeasible because ASDA’s Suppliers cannot accept new terms when ASDA does nothing, they only can accept new terms when
ASDA effectively changes the terms.
 Scenario S3 is considered infeasible because it is assumed that ASDA’s Suppliers only change their business partner when ASDA reduces their margins over
the products sold. In this case that does not happen, so it is infeasible for ASDA’s Suppliers to change their business partner to other than ASDA.
 Scenarios S4, S5 and S6 are considered infeasible because it is assumed that the Competition and Markets Authority only can supress the supermarkets
actions when both ASDA and Main Competitors reduce their suppliers’ margins at the same time. In none of these scenarios this happens.
 The scenarios from S8 to S12 are infeasible for the same reasons that the scenarios from S2 to S6, respectively.
47
 Scenario S13 is infeasible for the same reason that scenarios S4, S5 and S6, as well as scenarios S16, S17 and S18.
 Scenario S19 is infeasible because ASDA’s Suppliers do nothing when ASDA reduces their margins. Here, since the Competition and Markets Authority does
not suppress supermarkets actions, ASDA’s Suppliers cannot do nothing, at least they have to accept the new terms.
 Scenario S21 is considered infeasible because it is assumed that ASDA’s Suppliers only change their business partners when ASDA reduces its suppliers’
margins and Main Competitors do not. In this case both ASDA and Main Competitors reduce their suppliers’ margins, and so ASDA’s Suppliers cannot change
their business partners.
 Scenarios S23 and S24 are considered infeasible because it is assumed that ASDA’s Suppliers only accept new terms or change their business partners when
the Competition and Markets Authority does not suppress supermarket’s actions (when both ASDA and Main Competitors reduce their supplier’s margins).
In this case it does, and so ASDA’s suppliers should do nothing because the supermarkets actions have no effect on them.
Table E2 - Removing the infeasible scenarios from all possible combinations of actions for the issue “Reducing Wages Cost”.

 The scenarios inside the red boxes are considered infeasible because it is assumed that ASDA’s employees only reduce their productivity or engage in a strike
when ASDA reduces their salaries or dismisses a number of workers. Since ASDA does not do any of these actions in those scenarios, it is not feasible for the
workers to reduce their productivity or to engage in a strike.
48
Appendix F. Scenarios to be maintained
Some scenarios should be maintained in order to draw the most appropriate conclusions: the status quo
represents the situation as it was if nothing was done to change it, and so it is always the same during the
analysis; the present scenario incorporates the actors’ moves in order to achieve their objectives; the
positions of different stakeholders are the scenarios that comprise actors preferences, to which they would
like others to agree to; compromises are scenarios in which two or more stakeholders give away their
position in order to achieve a scenario that is better suitable to all; conflict points are scenarios that cause
clash, good to force other actors to accept a determined position (Hermans and Bots, 2002).
49
Appendix G. Actors’ preferences over the actions
Actors’ preferences over the actions for the issue “Reducing suppliers’ margins”:
ASDA
 ASDA prefers reducing its suppliers’ margins rather than doing nothing because this way it can save
costs. If it is manageable, ASDA will increase its profits and free money to invest into another areas,
release resources that before were blocked to apply into other areas of business;
 ASDA prefers that its main competitors do nothing instead of reducing their suppliers’ margins too.
This way ASDA can gain a competitive advantage over them. It will have extra money to invest
whereas its competitors will not;
 ASDA logically prefers that the Competition and Markets Authority does nothing, that is, that it does
not block its activities by considering them unfair competition. If it does, ASDA will have to pay huge
fines for “bullying” the supermarkets;
 ASDA prefers that its suppliers accept the new terms when these are changed. The least preferable
action, for ASDA, that its suppliers can do, is to change the supermarket with which they do business.
This implies that some products will be out of ASDA’s shelters to be in some other supermarket. This
can lead customers loyal to those products to stop buying in ASDA, to change supermarket too.
Main Competitors
 ASDA’s main competitors prefer that ASDA does nothing instead of reducing its suppliers’ margins.
This way the main competitors can gain a competitive advantage over ASDA. They will have extra
money to invest whereas ASDA will not;
 ASDA’s main competitors prefer reducing their suppliers’ margins rather than doing nothing because
this way they can save costs. If it is manageable, they will increase their profits and free money to
invest into another areas, release resources that before were blocked to apply into other areas of
business;
 ASDA’s main competitors logically prefer that the Competition and Markets Authority does nothing,
that is, that it does not block their activities by considering them unfair competition. If it does, they
will have to pay huge fines for “bullying” the supermarkets;
 ASDA’s main competitors prefer that ASDA’s suppliers change their business partner. This way ASDA
may lose some customers for not having all the products they were looking for. By changing their
business partner, ASDA’s suppliers will probably start doing business with its main competitors, which
is good for them. Overall, a decrease in ASDA’s market share will probably mean an increase in theirs.
After this, they would prefer that ASDA’s suppliers do nothing instead of accepting the new terms
proposed by ASDA, since this will mean that ASDA was successful in reducing their costs over the
products sold.
Competition and Markets Authority

 The Competition and Markets Authority prefers that ASDA does not reduce its suppliers’ margins
since this leads to a more competitive market;
 The Competition and Markets Authority prefers that ASDA’s main competitors do not reduce their
suppliers’ margins since this leads to a more competitive market;
 The Competition and Markets Authority prefers to supress supermarket whenever possible, since this
contributes to a more competitive market;
50
 The Competition and Markets Authority prefers that ASDA’s suppliers do nothing because that means
that ASDA also did nothing. After this, it prefers that ASDA’s suppliers change business partner
because this way they are fighting off a “bullying” activity and working towards a better competitive
market. If ASDA’s Suppliers accept the new terms, it will mean a lost for the Competition and Markets
Authority.
ASDA’s Suppliers
 ASDA’s suppliers logically prefer that ASDA does not reduce their margins;
 ASDA’s suppliers prefer that ASDA’s main competitors do nothing too. If they do, ASDA can feel
pushed to do the same and that will lead to lower margins for them;
 ASDA’s suppliers logically prefer that the Competition and Markets Authority block whatever
suppliers’ margins reduction strategies supermarkets may engage in;
 ASDA’s suppliers prefer that everything stays the same, that they do not need to do anything. After
this, they prefer to change the supermarket with which they do business instead of having to accept
the lower margins they are faced with. They will have some bureaucratic work to change their
business partner, but their margins will stay the same.
Actors’ preferences over the actions for the issue “Reducing Wages Cost”:
ASDA
 ASDA wants to save costs with its workers. It can do that by reducing their salaries or by dismissing a
determined number of workers. For ASDA both this actions have the same weight since what matters
is their purpose;
 ASDA prefers that its main competitors do nothing instead of reducing their wages costs too. This
way ASDA can gain a competitive advantage over them. It will have extra money to invest whereas
its competitors will not;
 ASDA prefers that the employees’ coalition does nothing and understands its position. Moreover,
ASDA prefers that they protest by reducing their productivity rather than by engaging in a strike, since
this last measure will lead to a reduction in sales and to bad publicity.
Main Competitors
 ASDA’s main competitors prefer that ASDA does nothing instead of reducing its wages cost. This way
they can gain a competitive advantage over ASDA. They will have extra money to invest whereas
ASDA will not;
 ASDA’s main competitors prefer reducing their wages cost rather than doing nothing because this
way they can save costs. If it is manageable, they will increase their profits and free money to invest
into another areas, release resources that before were blocked to apply into other areas of business;
 ASDA’s main competitors prefer that the employees’ coalition engages in a strike against ASDA. After
this, they prefer that they reduce productivity. As fierce competitors, they always prefer the actions
that can “hurt” their opponents more, that is, that can “hurt” ASDA more.
Employees’ Coalition
 The employees’ coalition logically prefers that ASDA does not reduce its employees’ salaries or
dismisses any workers since it affects them directly;
 The employees’ coalition prefers that ASDA’s main competitors do nothing too. If they do, ASDA can
feel pushed to do the same and that will lead to negative consequences for the employees;
51
 If ASDA reduces employees’ salaries or dismisses them, the employees’ coalition will prefer to engage
in a strike because they know that that action will have a bigger impact on ASDA than reducing
productivity. Since these two actions only happen when ASDA reduces employees’ salaries or
dismisses workers, the actions have a bigger preference than the action “do nothing”, to serve as a
mean of comparison for the cases where ASDA acts against them. When ASDA does nothing, the
employees’ coalition also does nothing, which in reality is the action that they prefer more.
52
Appendix H. Payoffs of the game model
Resources
This category intends to represent the “facilities” that every actors could have when taking up a specific
strategy in the game. It comprises if the actors have or not any “past knowledge” about the nature of the
strategy or if they have enough monetary resources in order to implement this action.
Benefits
This category represents the potential benefits that an actor could expect in a given scenario.
Public Image
Since the actors involved in the game are mainly supermarkets, the Public Image that an actors shows to
their costumers is very important. The model estimates that when an actor like LIDL (which normally sells
low quality and cheap products) increases the quality of their offer, then it should increase the popularity
of the brand.
Risk
This category intends to represent the risk that the implementation of a specific strategy might have.
Completeness
Actors are sometimes irrational, and despise the benefits or risk that the implementation of a strategy might
result in, they still have their preferences of what they think is better for the company. This category intends
to represent the irrationality of the actors.
To quantify the outcomes in each of the presented fields of interest in the game, an ordinal scale from -3 to
3 has been considered. This ordinal scale in Table H1 intends to represent “how good” an outcome in one
of the interests might be for an actor.
Numerical outcome Meaning

-3 Extremely Bad
-2 Very Bad
-1 Bad
0 Neutral
1 Good
2 Very Good
3 Extremely Good
Table H1 - Meaning of the numerical ordinal scale used for estimating the payoffs of the game.
Weights of the payoffs

Even though the five actors of the game share the same interests (except for the Government), in reality it
shouldn’t be expected that the actors involved in the game give the same importance to the five interest
categories. To overcome the loss of reliability in the results of the game, different weights are used for every
actor. To find the numerical outcome in every scenario of the game, multiplying the outcomes in each
interest field with their respective weight and summing the results. In Error! Reference source not found.
the weights of each interest are presented.
53
Actors Resources Benefits Public Image Risk Completeness
Tesco 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.25 0.10
ASDA 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.25 0.10
LCSM 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.35 0.05
S&M 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.10
Government 0,00 0.00 0.50 0.30 0.20
Table H2 - Weights of the interests.
54
Appendix I. Payoffs and scenarios of the game model
In order to estimate the payoffs of the game, it is needed to give a numerical value to every interest category
(Resources, Benefits, Public Image, Risk and Completeness) for every scenario that could occur in the game.
In Figure I2, Figure I3 and Figure I4 the estimation of each interest category is presented for every scenario
of the game model.
In Figure I1 it is indicated how to interpret the indicated values for every scenario:
Table I1 – Interpretation of the scenarios of the game.
Please take into consideration that in Figure I4 the scenarios presented are only contemplating a situation
in which the government wouldn’t get involved. The analysts of the project consider that an intromission
of the government would only be justified to the public opinion, if four or three of the main supermarkets
of the country decrease the their prices. It is expected that if all the main supermarkets cut their prices, a
situation of unfair competition for the suppliers of the supermarkets might occur. In the last case the public
opinion would be favourable to accept the regulation of low prices.
In order to model the involvement of the government through regulations of low prices, the model gives a
negative payoff to the government if it decides to regulate low prices in an unjustified situation and a
positive one if the regulation might be justified (more than three supermarkets reduce their prices). Of
course if the government regulates low prices the supermarkets that decided to decrease their prices get a
negative payoff based on the risk that the strategy had for them.
55
Possible scenarios of the game if ASDA increases quality
Table I2 - Payoffs of the possible scenarios that could ocurr if ASDA increases the quality of their products.
56
Possible scenarios of the game if ASDA increases diversity
Table I3 - Payoffs of the possible scenarios that could ocurr if ASDA increases the diversity of their products.
57
Possible scenarios of the game if ASDA reduces the product prices
Table I4 - Payoffs of the possible scenarios that could ocurr if ASDA reduces the price of their products.
58
Appendix J. Complete game theory model
Complete game theory model in its extensive form
Figure J1 - Game model shown in its extensive form. ASDA actions (blue), Tesco actions (red), Sainbury's and Morrisons coalition actions (orange), low cost supermarkets
coalition actions (green) and government actions (black).
59
Submodel: ASDA increases the quality of its products
Figure J2 - Game model shown in its extensive form. ASDA increases product quality scenarios. ASDA actions (blue), Tesco actions (red), Sainsbury’s and Morrisons coalition
actions (orange), low cost supermarkets coalition actions (green) and government actions (black).
60
Submodel without dominated strategies: ASDA increases the quality of its products
Figure J3 - Submodel without dominated strategies. ASDA increases product quality scenarios. ASDA actions (blue), Tesco actions (red), Sainsbury’s and Morrisons coalition
61
Submodel: ASDA increases the diversity of its products
Figure J4 - Game model shown in its extensive form. ASDA increases product diversity scenarios. ASDA actions (blue), Tesco actions (red), Sainsbury’s and Morrisons coalition
62
Submodel without dominated strategies: ASDA increases the diversity of its products
Figure J5 - Submodel without dominated strategies. ASDA increases product diversity scenarios. ASDA actions (blue), Tesco actions (red), Sainsbury’s and Morrisons
coalition actions (orange), low cost supermarkets coalition actions (green) and government actions (black).
63
Submodel: ASDA reduces the price of its products
Figure J6 - Game model shown in its extensive form. ASDA decreases the price of its products scenarios. ASDA actions (blue), Tesco actions (red), Sainsbury’s and Morrisons
64
Submodel without dominated strategies: ASDA decreases the price of its products
Figure J7 - Submodel without dominated strategies. ASDA decreases the price of its products scenarios. ASDA actions (blue), Tesco actions (red), Sainsbury’s and Morrisons
65
View publication stats

Good File On Game Theory Application ASDA and UK's Market But 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Good File On Game Theory Application ASDA and UK's Market But 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

ASDA's ﬁght for market share in the UK's supermarket industry

Research · September 2015

Rodrigo Héctor de Luis García

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Dimosthenis Michalakeas (4414659)

January, 23rd, 2015

Evan, Dimosthenis, Felipe, Rodrigo, Wouter

2. IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................... 7

3. SELECTION OF COST-CUTTING STRATEGY........................................................................................ 8

4. ASSESSING BUSINESS STRATEGIES OF GROWTH............................................................................ 18

5. EFFECTS OF STRATEGY ON ASDA’S SOCIAL NETWORK ................................................................... 24

6. REFLECTION ON METHODOLOGY: METHODS AND OUTCOMES...................................................... 30

7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 33

APPENDIX A. RETAIL SALES GROWTH ............................................................................................... 37

APPENDIX B. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 38

APPENDIX B.1 FORMAL CHART ........................................................................................................ 38

APPENDIX C. NON-QUALIFIED WORKERS AVERAGE SALARIES ........................................................... 45

APPENDIX D. THE INCREASING TREND OF E-BUSINESS ...................................................................... 46

APPENDIX F. SCENARIOS TO BE MAINTAINED................................................................................... 49

APPENDIX G. ACTORS’ PREFERENCES OVER THE ACTIONS ................................................................. 50

APPENDIX H. PAYOFFS OF THE GAME MODEL .................................................................................. 53

APPENDIX I. PAYOFFS AND SCENARIOS OF THE GAME MODEL .......................................................... 55

APPENDIX J. COMPLETE GAME THEORY MODEL ............................................................................... 59

1.1 ASDA’s stagnating market share

1.2 Goal of report

- Cesare Mainardi, Strategy& CEO (Cut Costs, Grow Stronger, 2009)

1.3 Methodology and structure

3.1 Identifying cost-cutting strategies

ASDA's cost breakdown

3.2 Exploring the strategies

3.3 Conflict Analysis method

3.4.1 Identifying the relevant issues and stakeholders

3.4.2 Understanding stakeholders’ actions

3.4.3 Building a feasible set of scenarios

3.4.4 Clarifying stakeholders’ preferences’ over actions

3.5 Final results and interpretation

3.5.1 Interpretation: reducing suppliers’ margins

3.5.2 Interpretation: reducing wages costs

3.6 Conclusion and recommendations

4.1 Identifying suitable strategies

4.2 Evaluating successful strategies by their estimated payoffs

4.4 Application of Game Theory

4.4.1 Players of the game

4.4.2 Possible counter strategies

4.4.4 Rules and boundaries of the game model

4.4.5 Game Theory model

4.5 Final results and interpretation

4.6 Conclusion and recommendations

5.1 Effects of strategies

5.2 Social Network Analysis method

Figure 13 - Social network analysis methodology.

Type of actors Description

Table 14 - Groups of actors to be included in the social network.

5.4 Resulting social networks and interpretations

5.4.1 The general social network

Actors Degree Betweennes Density

Table 15 - Network characteristics.

5.4.2 Effects of putting pressure on suppliers

Figure 15 – Social network of ASDA

5.4.3 Effects of increasing product diversity

5.5 Conclusion and recommendations

6.1 Reflection on Game Theory and Conflict Analysis