Discuss about the Report on Compare And Contrast Two Companies.
This report will try to look at the aspects of goals and strategy, both long term and short term comparing two companies. This report will try to highlight with examples as to what is working for the companies and what isn’t working.
Comparison: Vision or Mission statement
Since CST operates in the field of pharmacy and medicine, customer protection is paramount for them. Their vision is related to safety, quality of the medicines and customers that they cater to. Their mission is related to developing an extensive focus on research and development. This will lead to their focus on a range of support activities that will result in productive efforts for a product launch. They have five core company values which will be discussed later, these values indicate commitment of the company on finest possible treatments and amenities.
H1N1 Medicine. Source: Company Website
In case of Macquarie, since it is a financial advisory and fund management company. Their main purpose is to look for opportunities for their clients to have increased finances. Their focus is also on their shareholders and human resource manpower since most of their work is driven by financial experts. They talk about not just the business but also the way they accomplish their business acumen.
When we look at both these companies we can see that both of them have specific goals though Macquarie being a financial giant is much more profits oriented. Their company financials clearly define their targets in terms of numbers. CST had seen a rough patch during the 'Bundaberg tragedy' in the late 1920s, hence they have tried to align their vision and mission towards customer service. CST is much more time oriented since R&D is a major cost centre for Pharma companies and they cannot do away with the same. The company has looked at a large number of process changes and optimization of deliver medicines in the stipulated timeframe.
Believability and Value Test
Both companies have believable vision and mission statements, how far they are aligned with their goals and strategy is yet to be witnessed in the subsequent sections. Both companies have endeavoured to add value to their customer and shareholder base. Their focus is consumer driven
Comparison: Values of the organisation
CSL has brought up the well-defined value set in the year 2001, after they saw that the entire CSL Group needs to be aligned in a common thread. There are five core values that bind the organization these are customer focus, innovation, integrity, collaboration and superior performance. Customer focus stems from the care of patients and the penchant for saving lives. Innovation is in the heart of their profit making ability since research is the backbone for revenue generation. Integrity is related to their portrayal of proper compliance for drug production and testing. Collaboration reflects the co-ordination amongst the entire group of companies. All this will culminate into superior performance (Park, Patent, Mark, Diagnostics and Pty 2015).
Macquarie has considered three core principles as their founding value system. These are opportunity, accountability and integrity (Larder and Lawrence 2015). Opportunity reflects their financial system being inclined towards profit generation then comes understanding the world markets in a better manner so that the right investments can be made. After the financial crisis of 2008 and the role of investment firms being questioned has led to greater emphasis of these companies on accountability and integrity.
”The mark of Macquarie”.
Source: Company Website
The goals for CSL are aligned to specific targets which are yearly modified based on the focus of the company. The company financial statements clearly state their focus, this is highlighted in their company report in the year FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16 (McManus and Yoo 2014). The director’s message also points out these details. The goals for Macquarie as we can see are far more specific and measurable with respect to their financial statements. The two companies are focussed to achievable targets that are set every year in their financial statements.
Believability and Value Test
Both the companies have value system that is aligned with their operating model. The value test also reflects the company’s reflection of their yearly strategy. Since CSL is trying to establish a foothold outside Australia with their approved drug for Swine Flu i.e. H1N1 hence their focus has changed, this is well reflected in their additional values like integrity.
Comparison: Corporate Social Responsibility/Sustainability
CSL has a separate code of corporate business ethics mandate for the entire group of companies. This code is called Code of Responsible Business Practice (the Code). There are several ethical principles that are laid out under it, they try to keep commitment towards business integrity as a priority. The company is operational in more than 40 geographies now and they work in compliance with local and national laws, apart from conforming to international mandate as shared by the WHO. There are clear rules that state their role and serve as guiding principle in case of conflict involving bribery, financial inducements or else some political conflict of interest. Internally they follow a strong anti-discrimination policy and complete freedom of association. They have provisions for safe workplace for employees in hazardous chemical operations. They also have an environment sustainability framework and a compliance to adhere to the best manufacturing practices as guided by the international community. Over and above they look to collaborate within the group of companies to deliver better results (Park, Patent, Mark and Diagnostics 2016)
Apart from these the company also has certain priority areas they look at better research and to develop new medicines for improving the overall portfolio. The other focus areas as ensuring safer therapeutic care and highest quality compliance in terms of product life cycle. The other areas of focus for them are higher responsibility in the marketplace where the company looks at how the product reaches customer and consumer (Gardner, Schmidt, Walter and Gallagher 2014). As already discussed the company caters to the internal employee base by ensuring safety standards for them and rewarding their contributions. The company has also initiated several safety and quality norms to ensure minimum damage to the environment. They also want to support the local community through contributions directly and by collaborating with the NGOs.
Looking at the CSR initiated by Macquarie they are mostly not related to actively relate to their line of work. They have some support programs with that are in collaboration with other NGOs. They follow an ESG approach and there are some focus areas that relate to the same. There are salient risks and opportunities that have been identified by their business and are placed in the interest of their stakeholders. The six pillars of sustainability are, managing the surroundings and related community risk. Then they look at the business conduct and ethical framework, then comes the related inclusion of the people and their workplace surroundings, then they look at the investments and market orientation of their current products. They also look at sustainability in the relevant direct operation with clients. Lastly they look at long term engagement with key stakeholders. This is the priority and step by step approach at achieving greater sustainability.
The two companies have had relevant contributions to the community but the contributions of CSL are far superior since they are directly associated with the consumer.
Then when we look at the aspects of timeliness we can see that CSL scored better than Macquarie. We can also see that CSL is much better placed in the initiatives taken by it. The strategy is also better structured.
Believability and Value Test
Both the strategies are high on the believability quotient and value test. However CSL scores better due to increased awareness amongst its employees reflected by several awards of the organization.
Comparison: Stakeholders Mentioned in their Corporate Statements
The major stakeholders of both these companies are the investors, government agencies and other regulators, customers and client base for CSL and Macquarie respectively. Both companies have has effective models of engagement with the key stakeholders (Tasker 2016)
The stakeholders for CSL are aligned to specific targets which are yearly modified based on the focus of the company. The company financial statements clearly state their focus, this is highlighted in their company report in the year FY 2014-15, FY 2015-16. The chairman’s message also points out these details. The stakeholders for Macquarie as we can see are far more specific and measurable with respect to their financial statements. The two companies are focussed to achievable targets that are set every year in their financial statements.
Believability and Value Test
The two companies have been keeping stakeholders engaged this can be seen as their business operation has been growing over last few years. They have also expanded in a large number of geographies.
Both CSL and Macquarie are companies that have believable vision and mission statements, how far they are aligned with their goals and strategy is clearly witnessed in the last few sections of this report. Both companies have endeavoured to add value to their customer and shareholder base. Their focus is consumer driven and looks are engaging with stakeholders as a key strategy.
Then we also see how each of these companies fare with respect of each of the categories discussed above
Park, A.J., Patent, L.A., Mark, T and Diagnostics, A., 2016. Corporate, institute and associate members of AusBiotech.Australasian BioTechnology, 26(1).
Park, A.J., Patent, L.A., Mark, T., Diagnostics, A. and Pty, A.B., 2015. Admedus Limited Advanced Manufacturing CRC Ltd Agriculture Victoria Services Pty Ltd. Australasian BioTechnology, 25(2).
Tasker, S. J. 2016. "Blood, sweat and tears of the CSL century". The Australian.
McManus, P and Yoo, D., 2014. Equity and climate change: Local adaptation issues and responses in the City of Lake Macquarie, Australia. Urban Climate, 10, pp.1-18.
Larder, N and Lawrence, G., 2015. Finance capital, food security narratives and Australian agricultural land. Journal of Agrarian Change, 15(4), pp.592-603.
Gardner, P., Schmidt, C., Walter, T.S. and Gallagher, D.R., 2014. Quality Investing in an Australian Context. Australian Journal of Management, 39(4).