Q 1 Analyze Mission and Vision statements of any five companies

and compare them?

Parle Company VISION To ensure benefit to society and to the
corporation for sustainable development by imparting measurable
values to all stakeholders in every aspect of our operations. Ensuring
Corporate Social Responsibility is adopted through principles
implementations that contribute to our country’s social, cultural, and
environmental development and help in developing the awareness on
these issues. MISSION To work on the popularity, adoption, and
implementation of the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility
while adding measurable values to the community and to our
company along with managing related processes to the advantage of
all concerned in a way that becomes model for other corporations for
replication. The Company’s CSR mission is to contribute to the social
and economic development of the community. Through a series of
interventions the Company seeks to mainstream economically,
physically and socially challenged groups and to draw them into the
cycle of growth, development and empowerment. At the core of this
is its commitment to reach out to marginalized communities through
its LEAP – “Livelihood Empowering Action Plans“ that ensures multi-
stakeholders approach in creating a sustainable impact through
various social-economic projects listed in “Annexure A”. The
Company’s strategy Is to integrate its activities in community
development, social responsibility and environmental responsibility
and encourage each business unit or function to include these
considerations into its operations. Britannia Company VISION To
dominate the food and beverage market in India with a distinctive
range of “Tasty Yet Healthy” Britannia brands. MISSION To dominate
the food and beverage market in India through a profitable range of
“Tasty yet Healthy” products by making every Indian a Britannia
consumer. “We want to be part of our consumer- at home, out of
home, a natural part of his life”. Bikaji Company Mission The brand
aims to implement such best technologies in research and
development to produce one of the finest raw materials. The company
aspires to be among the top global leaders in the food and snacks
sector. Vision Bikaji’s vision is to sustain globally by maintaining all
customers’ and stakeholders’ satisfaction. They wish to gain customer
loyalty by giving them high-quality products and fulfilling their ever-
changing demands. Nestle Company VISION “Nestlé’s aim is to meet
the various needs of the consumer everyday by marketing and selling
foods of a consistently high quality.” MISSION “We strive to bring
consumers foods that are safe, of high quality and provide optimal
nutrient to meet physiological needs. Nestle helps provide selections
for all individual taste and lifestyle preferences.” Amul Company Vision
Amul’s vision is to provide more and moresatisfaction to thefarmers,
employees and Distributers”. Mission We at GCMMF Gujarat Co-
operative milkMarketing Federation endeavour tosatisfy the taste and
nutritionalrequirements of the customers of theworld, through
excellence in marketing byour committed team. Through co-
operativenetworking, we are committed to offeringquality products
that provide best value For Money.”
Q2. Describe the concept of Michael Porter’s five forces model and its
application toany one industry (Retail/Infrastructure/FMCG/Insurance
etc).
ANS Michael Porter's five-force strategic analysis model, introduced
in a 1979 article published in the Harvard Business Review, remains a
fundamental tool for strategic analysts plotting the competitive
landscape of an industry.1
In a bid to mirror the complexity real strategists would face while
keeping their strategic analysis manageable, Porter set out five forces
at play in a given industry: internal competition, the potential for new
entrants, the negotiating power of suppliers, the negotiating power of
customers, and the ability of customers to find substitutes. Below, we
take you through each of Porter's five forces, detail the significant
critiques of his approach, and show how to apply the model to specific
markets.
Key Takeaways
• Porter's five forces are used to identify and analyse an industry's
competitive forces.
• The five forces are competition, the threat of new entrants to the
industry, supplier bargaining power, customer bargaining power,
and the ability of customers to find substitutes for the sector's
products.
• The model guides businesses in determining the intensity of
competition and potential profitability within their market,
helping them better understand where power lies in their sector.
• Porter's model was meant to critique "perfectly competitive"
business models, unlike real-world markets where competitors
aren't just rivals and firms in specific industries tend to rise and
fall together.
• Criticisms mounted against the model include that it's too static,
doesn't speak to the advantages or problems of specific
companies, doesn't account enough for collaborative business
models, and doesn't apply as well to quick-changing markets.

Understanding Porter's Five Forces

Strategic analysis at the time of Porter's article tended not only to love
acronyms (SWOT, PEST, PESTEL, BCG Matrix, ETPS, etc.) but also
models focused on the internal dynamics of individual companies.2
While it would be unfair to suggest they ignored the competitive
environment companies face, they were typically vague while doing
so; e.g., the "opportunities" and "threats" of SWOT analysis were too
"macro" for many dealing with the challenges of specific industries.
Porter's 1979 article was also a broadside against the theoretical
models found in the curriculums of the major business schools, where
future strategists dealt with a "perfectly competitive" market
characterized by equilibrium and no specific firm influencing prices—
a model they were unlikely to find in the real world.
The first sentence of Porter's 1979 article could hardly be less
controversial: "The essence of strategy formulation is coping with
competition."1
It's the following sentence that, in its understated way, would prove
far more consequential: "Yet it is easy to view competition too
narrowly and too pessimistically."1
Rather than viewing competition narrowly as rivalry among existing
competitors, which is his first force, Porter expanded the concept to
include four others: the bargaining power of suppliers and buyers, the
threat of new entrants, and the threat of substitute products or
services. Let's take these in turn.

Q3. Prepare Environmental Profile of any two companies of choice?

ANS
1 Apple
Apple has a reputation for being cutting edge, a reputation that holds
when it comes to going green. Apple’s $848 million energy deal with a
solar farm in California enabled the company to power all its
operations with renewable energy. A few months later it committed to
getting 100% of its paper packaging from sustainable sources to
protect the world’s remaining virgin forests.
Like Panasonic, it too has invested in ways to help employees reduce
their commute emissions, with 10,000 employees using the
company’s transit subsidy and 2,700 carpooling in commuter buses.
Apple’s rejection of climate denialism can’t go unmentioned. In 2009,
the company loudly and publicly quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
over its stance on climate change. Its 2015 Environmental
Responsibility Report opens with the line: “We don’t want to debate
climate change. We want to stop it.” This bold stance from a globally
renowned company helps bolster support for climate action and
sustainable business practices.
2 Walmart
At first blush, you may balk at the inclusion of Walmart on this list
about environmentally friendly companies. But the mega-retailer has
made some key sustainable choices that, thanks to its large market
share, can have huge ripple effects.
Walmart’s 2014 decision to stock products from organic supplier Wild
Oats garnered attention and praise for expanding access to organic
foods at more affordable prices. That followed a 2013 update to its
chemicals policy, which focused on both improving ingredient
disclosure and replacing 10 hazardous chemicals with safer
alternatives. Even earlier, Walmart committed to exclusively selling
sustainable seafood.
In addition to the direct impact of increasing sales
of organic foods and reducing sales of products with dangerous
chemicals, these policies all directly impact Walmart’s suppliers.
Walmart’s support of organic food buoys the industry and creates
more demand and sales opportunities for organic farmers. The
company’s chemical policy provides a strong incentive for suppliers to
adhere to stricter standards or risk losing access to Walmart
customers.