Restaurant Brands: Evaluation of the strategic management

Restaurant Brands: Evaluation of the strategic management approach

Vision Mission & Core Values
The core values of “Restaurant Brands” can be explained with the help of the concept of
“sustainability.” This concept of sustainability applies to all their activities ranging from
corporate governance, financial management, CSR activities, operational management, and
profits. The top-line growth of the company in recent years is a testimony of success related to
their sustenance policy in all departments (Our People ).
Vision and the core values of the company are intertwined and connect the elements of people,
food, planet and the progress of the business and economy with the values of environmental and
social concerns. IN the terms of the core values, this integrated approach signifies mission for the
company which follows the international norms set by the Triple bottom line of People, Planet,
and profit. To cover the aspect of profit, the company is committed to abiding by operational
plans that follow the governmental and social ethos about the rules and concerns of the country
(Powell, 2014).
The policies and practices of the company can be specified under the realms of “Sustainability
and Vitality.” The mission statement of the company commits ensuring sustainable growth for all
its stakeholders and a healthy vitality in the balance sheets of the company while maintaining the
standards set by the triple bottom line and other regulatory authorities taking care of the greater
interests of the industrial sector where it is operating (Knudsen, 2017).
Analysis of the Stakeholders and the formation of the groups

The stakeholder matrix associated with the Restaurant brands can be seen from multiple “points
of views”. The name “Restaurants Brands” signifies the presence of an umbrella which is
handling the active Franchise right of many international restaurant chains in New Zealand, the
promoters and investors of the company are the primary stakeholders of the business endeavor
which holds a commanding presence in the “fast food” and “takeaway” industry segment of New
Zealand. Currently, this company is holding commanding stakes in the franchise of international
brands like “Pizza Hut,” “Starbucks” and “KFC.” The management of the company applies the
“Core Competence” driven strategic management approach to maximize profits while abiding by
the recommendations of the triple bottom line. To develop a command line for its direct and
indirect stakeholders, the company follows a structure that allows them to capitalize on their core
competence while designing strategy-driven interventions to handle the contingency and
dynamic nature of the industry which produces consumer goods and demands standardization of
the services with stringent measures (Merier, 2016).

Image 1: The stakeholder chart for Restaurant Brands defining the Corporate structure of the
institution. Image retrieved from https://www.comunicaffe.com/new-zealand-restaurant-brands-
raises-annual-profit-forecast/
The strategic management matrix can be explained with the help of the relations described in
image 1. Broadly this image gives us an idea of the correlations between various segments of the
stakeholders and the need for strategic management which is required. The yellow wheels in the
matrix depict the instrumental part of the organization which deals with the operational needs.
The blue wheels in the matrix are dormant stakeholders. The right portion of the image shows
the policymakers taking care of the operations. Dormant stakeholders are dependent on the
actions of the active participants in the chain (Gibbson, 2015).
This stakeholder chart defines the needs for a classical approach towards strategic management
while keeping an eye on the contingency driven approaches to manage the operations during the
crux hours. This structure further explains about the nature of the groups that are operating
under the umbrella of the Restaurant brands, the company has four franchise, each franchise
operates with a separate supply chain and follows the culture defined by the hosts. For instance,
KFC in New Zealand is a subsidiary of Restaurant Brands, but it follows the culture, norms, and
standardization set by the Headquarters of the USA (Heiukinnere, 2018).
To add an easiness in the command lines, the company has divided its operations into four
different units, each unit taking care of the operations of any given franchise. This division of the
units allows the core team of the company to have a closer and objective look at the operations
from an advantage point. It is a strategic move made by the company to ensure a barrier-free

growth of an independent culture of service standards promised by international brands operating
under the umbrella of the company.
One of the noted writers in the field of Strategic management K.C. Prahlad promoted a modern
version of Classical theories where he emphasized on consistent innovation to meet out the
dynamism forced by the market forces. In the case of the restaurant brands, we can decipher it as
a strategic approach catering to the physical and financial needs of the stakeholders while
meeting out the dynamism or the changes that are taking place in the market space. The strategic
planning of the asset management for a company like “Restaurant brands” is dependent on the
volatile nature of the market where the competition is perfect and the demand curves are volatile
(Shrivastva, 2013).
Under the present arrangement, the centralized leadership governed by the central body under the
flagship of “Restaurant Brand Company” manages the operations of the four brands with the
help of a fleet of approximately nine thousand employees taking care of the services at various
levels. The core team of the company deals mainly in the supply chain management for the
multiple brands intending to bring down the costs of the operations and maximization of the
profit. To maintain harmony between its brands, the core team of the company strikes some
collective internal agreements to balance the flow of the customers to create a synergy and
sustainability between the fragments of the organization. This creation of harmony among the
competitors and their accumulation in a framework of sustainability holds the key to success for
this organization (Almeida, 2019).
Analysis of the Restaurant Brands from the lens view of “Porter’s Five Force Analysis”

Image 2: Five Force Analysis of Restaurant Brands in New Zealand.
Image 2 depicts the diagram of the five force analysis belonging to Restaurant brands. The
bargaining power of the buyers is high because the market is flooded with local as well as
international competitors. The indirect competition in the field is another area that is very
sensitive and environmental factors from the PESTLE chart can play a crucial role. For instance,
under the present outbreak of the Corona threat, individuals may shift towards Vegan options
and it can bring down the business for the KFC subsidiary of restaurant brands. The bargaining
power of the suppliers is low because, under its present strategic management regimes, the
company is following the principle of enhancing core competence (Tran, 2017). The term core
competence can also be derived as the key strategy for the company. It has a direct bearing on
two areas. First, the company has a presence in all the key localities of the countries and this fact
restricts the entry of other organized sector players caused by the operational cost-related factors.

The second most important strategic factor is related to the mass operations of Restaurant
Brands. By the virtue of bulk orders and strong physical presence, they are capable of competing
with the new entrants by bringing down the prices of their goods. Their existing model allows
them this luxury where they can cut down the price.
The logistics behind an operation gives a cutting edge to the formation of the strategic policies.
For a better understanding of this statement, we can have a look at the “Resource-based model
Diagram” of the Company.
Image 3: Resource-based Model Diagram, the areas marked under the black boxes emphasizes
on the core competencies that can be utilized for value creation and strategic judgment
Image 3 describes a resource-based model where three factors can be considered as the core
competence of the company. These three factors are a strong physical presence at the strategic

locations, strong technological support by the virtue of Franchise ownership and policy-driven
support of the government for covering factors like taxation and others.
This resource model presents a situation under which the company can develop strategic
judgments based on its core strengths to outsmart the competitors. The clubbing together of four
major international brands under a single umbrella becomes a strategic strength in itself. The
cumulative impact of this strong portfolio allows the company to maintain its strong presence
against the suppliers. As a final output, the company can modulate price which is a tangible
feature and redefine the standards of the services because of its strong human resource platforms.
In the recent past, the company has developed a versatile workforce with multiple talents, the
scale of the operations allows the employees to explore various other areas of the working
culture and this exposure is now allowing the company to branch out its subsidiaries across the
country because of the presence of a tangible workforce taking care of the operations.
Innovation forms the connection between the theoretical model and the resource-based
model
A collective study of all the three diagrams mentioned in this study presents connectivity
between the theories and the existing resources. At present this organization is following a
structure under which they are following a classical model of strategic management, it is evident
in the fact that they are accommodating the culture and technologies of international brands and
creating a nurturing ground wherein the local ambiance, this nurturing ground is designed to
promote innovation in the business model. Since the cultural influences are strong enough, the
company is introducing innovations in its supply chain to maximize profits and strengthening its
tangible base in the market where the point of purchase holds the utmost importance.

The validity of this innovation is very high in a dense market and the scope for new players is
very low because of a limited population sample. The current theories of strategic management
are promoting a culture of “blockchains” where players from the distinctive industry sectors are
clubbing together their offerings to enhance the value of their goods for the customers. The
strategic model of the “restaurant brands” is also promoting the same culture on a micro-level by
covering small geographical segments in New Zealand.
The core competencies and the strategic judgments of the company are well synchronized; this is
evident with the fact that the yearly revenue growth of the company is static at 36 percent from
the last five years. During the previous year, this company increased its sales revenue by 48.6
percent which is a staggering number when we compare it with corresponding numbers of the
other players. The credit of this staggering success can be attributed to the strategically placed
resources and well-managed supplier chain adding to the goal of the profit maximization of the
company.

References
Our People. (2020). Official Website of Restaurant Brands,
http://www.restaurantbrands.co.nz/our-people/.
Almeida, A. (2019). A Systems Thinking Approach to Corporate Strategy Development. MDPI,
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/7/1/16/htm.
Gibbson, P. (2015). Strategic management: A perspective on the development of the field of
strategic management and the contribution of the Irish Journal of Management. Sciendo ,
https://content.sciendo.com/configurable/contentpage/journals$002fijm$002f34$002f1$0
02farticle-p22.xml.
Heiukinnere, P. (2018). Strategic corporate responsibility: a theory review and synthesis. Journal
of Global Responsibility, https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JGR-06-
2018-0020/full/html.
Knudsen, C. (2017). Theories of the Firm, Strategic Management, and Leadership. Resource-
Based and Evolutionary theories of the firm,
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-2201-0_8.
Merier, K. (2016). Strategic Management and the Performance of Public Organizations: Testing
Venerable Ideas against Recent Theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/17/3/357/945322.

Powell, T. (2014). Strategic management and the person. Strategic Organization,
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127014544093.
Shrivastva, P. (2013). A Theory of Strategy – Learning From China From walking to sailing.
Cairn Info, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://www.cairn.info/
load_pdf.php%3FID_ARTICLE%3DMANA_171_0038%26download
%3D1&hl=en&sa=T&oi=ucasa&ct=ufr&ei=dSh3XvLtNs-
ZywSJ5anADA&scisig=AAGBfm1MIc1FtEaRyWM1LRYlfKF5aTBu8Q.
Tran, S. (2017). GOOGLE: a reflection of culture, leader, and management. International
Journal of Corporate social responsibility,
https://jcsr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40991-017-0021-0.