Supermarket

My current position is that of a Human Resources Advisor for the Supermarket chain J Sainsbury’s Ltd. I work within the supply chain network and am based at the Haydock depot, which is situated in St Helens. Sainbury’s has been established since 1869 when John James and Mary Ann Sainsbury’s opened a small dairy shop at 173 Drury Lane, London. From these humble beginnings Sainsbury’s grew to become the longest standing supermarket chain operating 583 stores nationwide. The business currently has a product line of 34,000 different goods.

The Haydock depot measures 500,000 Sq ft, employees 720 warehouse Colleagues and 200 HGV drivers. The hours of business are 24 hours 7 days per week; Christmas day is the only time operations come to a halt. The main holding stock includes all fresh and ambient goods to be found within a Sainsbury’s store. 170 Stores are serviced from this depot, which stretch the width of the country and from Glasgow to Stoke. Electrical goods are transhipped via this depot from Stoke to stores.

Deliveries from English based suppliers are transported to Langlands in Glasgow, which are distributed to Scottish based stores. Colleagues employed within the warehouse are assigned to one of three shifts, earlies, afternoons or nights and are expected to work 40 hours per week over any 5 days from 7. Stores receive up to 3 deliveries per day dependent on how busy they are and because of the nature it is vital that products arrive as fresh as they were when they left the depot.

This is amongst one of the main reasons that it is vital that all employees attend work on a regular basis. Earlier this year the Haydock site saw industrial action with two 24-hour strikes by employees. As part of the settlement to resolve this matter all Colleagues were obliged to commit to a new, strict absence procedure. Absence management has become very much a part of modern day industrial relations. There are very few occasions when the media, in one for or another, are not reporting on how much absence is costing businesses.

As the new absence management procedure was implemented on 1st February 2004 an Absence Manager was appointed to monitor the issues caused by absence and where possible educate people as to the long term effects this may have on their own position and that of the company. Procedure As part of my role as a Human Resources Advisor it is my responsibility to complete an absence record card for each of the warehouse Colleagues on the afternoon shift. If a Colleague is absent from work they are expected to telephone a designated absence line and leave a message, or to submit a medical certificate from their Doctor.

This information is then transferred onto their Absence Record card (Appendix A). When they return to work their Supervisor will conduct a brief interview with them to ascertain why they were absent from work. An example of the form used at this Return To Work interview can be seen at the back of this report (Appendix B). This form is a primary source of data as it is captured initially from the individual, the warehouse Colleague and recorded by a supervisor. The first page of the Return to Work form commences with the Colleagues detail and employee number.

This is requested to avoid the information being recorded on the wrong Absence record card. The employee number is unique to that individual, this is very helpful in cases where there are two people with the same or similar name employed. The first and last date of absence is record so that days can be verified with Human Resources. It is also essential that Human Resources have this information so that they can verify that these dates correspond with any medical certification received from the Colleagues doctor.

Such information is also essential for insurance purposes because, if a Colleague is still covered by a current medical certificate signed by their doctor they are not fit for work. If they were allowed to remain in work the business would be liable for any undue consequences or accident incurred by them. The next section of the form details the symptoms and whether a visit to the doctors was felt necessary, for this information we can gather if the Colleague is in fact fit for work and, more importantly, if they are on any medication which may affect or restrict the duties they can complete.

The Supervisor in the presence of the Colleague completes the second page of the Return to Work document. Its purpose is to clarify information provided and verify its accuracy. This interview may also be the initial step towards a disciplinary investigation, which may ultimately transpire, into a disciplinary hearing, which will consequently result in potential disciplinary action. For this reason it is vital that the Supervisor explains to the Colleague the consequences of providing inaccurate or insufficient data.

As with any form of data or information it is only as accurate as the source or method of collection allows it to be, however, in this case because of potential outcome it is hoped that the Colleague has been completely truthful. Once this form has been completed it is passed to Human Resources where the information on it is crossed checked with the Absence Record of that individual.

Outline the argument supermarket power is a zero -sum game BY bluebell Outline the argument that supermarket power Is a “zero-sum”game Before we discuss the argument let us understand first what the terms “power” and “zero-sum” mean. Power is a complex term used denote influence, control and domination, (Taylor, et al. 2009,p. 59). The power used by supermarkets includes buying and market power. The big four supermarkets in the U. K. Account for approximately 75% of the food and groceries market therefore giving them significant market power.

Their buying power Is the ability they have to negotiate prices with suppliers and the rage chains thus being able to demand discounts when buying In such large quantities. This gives them the ability to influence things such as pricing, for example offering goods at below cost prices. The term zero-sum game is used when one party’s gain will be another’s loss therefore equaling a zero sum. A good example of this is slicing a pie, if one person takes a large slice there is less for everyone else.

The pro supermarket campaigners argue that the supermarkets use their power for good and all parties Involved benefit to some extent creating a positive sum gain but he the following argues to the contrary__ As shoppers they offer us a wide variety of products at affordable prices, in accessible locations. Additionally they offer employment, boosting local skills and helping to draw in other businesses such as restaurants and retailers to sometimes failing local economies but at what cost to others?

Do the low prices mean that somewhere down the supply chain someone else’s profits are being squeezed? Has the out of town retail park been a catalyst In the decline of Britain’s high streets? In 2006 retail commentator Judi Bean reported hat the big four operated around 3900 stores with Tests alone taking one pound at the tills for every three we spend. Since then they have continued to grow branching out into the corner shop concept and opening an additional 1500 stores in a bid to capture even more trade.

In years gone by our towns would have a variety of independent shops made up of butchers, bakers and fishmongers, but these are in decline and we are now dominated by by big chain stores offering us practically Identical goods at very similar prices. If this Is the case are they really offering us any hospice at all? Across the country they monopolies towns and areas where small local businesses are unable to compete on pricing being forced to shut down.

Food writer Joann Blackman, (2005) uses Dundee as an example and recalls that in the sass the town had ten bakers; now there are two left, five fishmongers with one remaining and eight or nine butchers only one of which has survived and six grocers where again only one has survived.. In their place are four Testes, two Sad, a Morrison and a Kingsbury. In her pollen there Is a distinct correlation between the arrival of the gig chains and the demise of the small independents, thus implying a zero-sum game.

The supermarkets have an immense buying power and their supply chain stretches across the globe. When dealing with the large conglomerates like Proctor and Gamble, Milliner and Nestle the balance of power is pretty much even, as their global muscle puts them in a strong position to negotiate. However the farmers, such a fortunate position. Small suppliers claim that the supermarkets are continually putting pressure on them, coercing them into prices cuts that push them to the point that there economic livelihood is in doubt.

This relationship between the suppliers and supermarkets can be depicted as a David and Goliath affair, with the small independents up against the big multiples Just as the small independent stores on the high street are up against the big chain stores as previously mentioned. With this pressure being applied to suppliers to keep costs down they in turn pass this on to their employees. Here in the I-J we have low paid often migrant workers cutting, sorting and packing vegetables and salads for the big stores.

Felicity Lawrence has written about the exploitation of these workers in her book Not on the Label (2004) and in newspaper investigations. She highlights how agency workers, often from eastern European countries such as Romania, Poland and Bulgaria, are employed by “gang masters” to work on farms and in processing and packing plants and are frequently paid hourly rates below the minimum wage, are subjected to illegal deductions and are bussed from Job to Job at their employers will.

These people are not directly employed by the supermarkets but, she claims, that they are aware of the practices and turn a blind eye to it so they can continue to benefit from he situation. Additionally she points out that you will not see any such evidence of this on labels of the packets of salad or bags of chicken pieces which line their shelves. Lawrence implies that we as consumers can indulge in cheap products at the expense of those exploited and often vulnerable workers.

You could therefore infer that the supermarkets are using their power or dominance to control the labor market. For us to gain from the low prices at the checkout someone else must lose out in the case it is the suppliers and their workforce. With this in mind let us look rather field at the workers in such places as Bangladesh. In 2006 and 2007 The War on Want, a U. K. Based non-governmental organization, made accusations against Sad and Tests that they were boosting profits and the expense of the workers in the sweatshops of Bangladesh.

They carried out a survey in six large facilities in Dacha, each employing between 500-1200 workers. The results of the survey showed that the worker, of which the majority are female, had been subjected to overcrowding and unhygienic work conditions along with forced overtime and verbal intimidation, tit access to trade unions being refused. All the factories surveyed were known to be supplying cheap clothing to the I-J market, specifically Tests and Sad and all were paying wages below that needed to provide for themselves and their family.

The pressure applied by the stores on the factory owners to keep costs down means that they have no room to maneuver. The war on want claim that it the absence of a living wage in such places that keep our Jeans, shoes and other clothing at such low prices. Taking all of the above into account we can conclude that although we as nonusers benefit from low pricing and abundance of choice and the supermarkets continue to increase their profits, there are many within the chain that don’t benefit so greatly.

We can therefore say that supermarket power is definitely a zero sum game. Word count – 1134 Bean, J. (2006) Trolley Wars: The Battle of the Supermarkets, London, Profile Books Blackman, J (2005): Shopped: The shocking Power of British Supermarkets, London, Profile Books Lawrence, F (2004) Not on the Label, London, Penguin War on Want (2006), fashion Victims: The true cost of cheap clothes at Primary. Sad and Tests, London,

This essay will introduce analysis of the UK supermarket sector and its impacts on a wide range of stakeholders . The responsibility for buying and selling is rapidly shifting. In today’s rising global community, supermarkets have embraced corporate social responsibility as an important element of their original role in contributing to shared goals, however in addition it enhances their capacity to the base line. In addition, trade seeks to establish their own values of corporate individuality while at the same time maintain public and ecological values and increase their market growth.

Corporate social responsibility of supermarkets can mean different things to different groups and sectors. However there is universal agreement that in a global market system, supermarkets must play great role by creating jobs. By acting in responsible manner corporation must facilitate sustainable growth. (Deal, 1999) As a result, corporate performance must not just guarantee returns to shareholders, wages to employees, plus goods and services to shoppers, thus must also accommodate the ecological concerns and values of consumers.

An explanation of food provenance chart as an example of the influence of CSR, is provided below showing the difference in consumer choice in different ranks in UK supermarkets. In order to demonstrate importance of the CSR: % Factors in food and drink purchases, by rank, December 2007 Food provenance-UK- March 2008- What do Shoppers Consider Most important? The findings of this line graph, shows the consumer interest in home grown British food rather than foreign origin product.

The supermarket structured business procedures and the environmental campaigns, to support British produce are the key reasons for this. This report also demonstrates the market repose to a consumer demand for particular products by offering quality food and drinks. UK leading supermarkets as well as corporations require to supervise corporate social responsibility as any other part of their food sales. Supermarkets are faced by means of a triple bottom line, to advance inexpensively, as well as being environmentally plus equally accountable.

The growth of sales in social and financial growth is likely to continue. (Freedman, 2000) Why must supermarket be socially responsible? The initial part of the Roundtable focused on the query of how to describe what a socially responsible corporation is, and what a supermarkets does to be measured socially responsible. Even before to answer that question, a few people may ask, why a corporation have to be considering this subject? The reply is tied to globalisation. Globalisation is not just regarding the world nations, it is the consequence on appearance of a global civil society. Giddens, 1998) The world has been transformed due to globalisation, plus by the prosperity of this the environment in supermarkets. Solutions to consumer problems were to be established inside the free market structure and trade. The shopper’s influence on UK supermarkets in food factors at the different societies measured by ranks in 2007, can be seen in the chart below: % Factors in food and drink purchases, by rank, December 2007 The UK survey in 2007 sought to address what is important to customers when they choose foods. To make very clear customer preference, all food ranks has been used for this column table.

Regards consumer perceptions of food, most of shoppers are willing to pay 10% more for British origin, organic or any other quality food, compare to conventional food (Wealtherel, 2003) The food industry faces many significant risks from public criticism of corporate social responsibility issues in the supply chain. Private standards initiative abound in food chains as retailers and brands seek to minimise the risks and also respond to new demands from society. The representation of a new form of regulation, which raises questions regarding domination in the UK supermarkets.

Supermarkets have a tendency to maximise profits and concentrate on all concerns of consumer benefit, the interests of all consumers required to be considered in today’s UK supermarket systems. Globalisation has changed the inner power relations border by and inside supermarkets, and in the community as a whole. At the same time, in the late 1980s, the disagreement on corporate governance assembled power in the United States and in the United Kingdom, mainly in reply to corporate crush, corporate invaders and destabilised along, with aining as well as trade deception and dishonesty. Globalisation and the souk were placed an influence in the hands of the classified sector, however public disbelieve in the consistency and honesty of corporations was well-known and widespread. Concerns of responsibility, standard setting, plus globalism were core to the debate.

It became obvious that supermarkets might no longer supervise the consequences of their trade, just by paying taxes and comply with national rules. They are likely to take on better responsibilities for supervising their contact on community. Joseph, 2000) Trade itself in a course of development, practices and performance to convene the original anticipations of communities and community on it. At the same time as technological forces will carry on to force supermarkets to be internationally incorporated, law-making and shopper demand requires to be much further in the consumer field, and behave as a socially responsible company, therefore is becoming ever more challenging for supermarkets. A difficulty and the challenge for remaining markets with the regulations of CSR, in UK and abroad.

Augmented public interest affects the method in which companies endorse their proposals. Policies that insist on corporation positive and politically right standards, such as hiring a public minorities or buying goods as of a precise basis, at times be undermining to its productivity and advantage of products. Usually profit-seeking supermarkets through demanding presentation should in addition to confront the shoppers. Deciding on which advance to take, is exclusive to each supermarket and depends on the trade distribution in which the business is situated.

Redefining administration roles in the supermarket itself is not an option, however a need. Businesses will require to adjust and create a novel organisational representation for the 21st century. They require to develop efficiency in management, and apparent domination processes all through their organisation. (OECD, 2000) Socially liable supermarkets have to employ their workers worldwide in a business dream and mission declaration that promotes sustainable and enhanced excellence of life for all countries, for all workers, despite of their location.

Becoming a global consistency is publicly reasonable and not just a public relations matter. Supermarkets are taking on the challenge by engaging as much as a possible with shopper, in addition to be able to have a positive impact on public relations and support by other sectors of community. Therefore, even though corporate social responsibility adjustments made by government in both the UK and Europe, supermarket trades still have to be concerned. Governments require to produce a strategy to structure whatever the trade and labour can negotiate situations in supermarkets.

This requires a variety of legislative methods to be implemented in the country. It is obvious that there cannot be a, one measurement fits all, advance and assurance in trade behaviour, however there is a universal accord that there is a requirement for clarity of strategy and principles. In addition to the codes of conduct that an approved method is definitely wishes to be recognized in this region, so that social achievement plans can be developed plus social action have to become the standard.

Developing finest practices for corporate behaviour will not ensue straight away, however by sticking to essential values, as a minimum move in the similar course in the direction of becoming a liable social related. (Oecd, 2000) The food industry faces many significant risks from public criticism of corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues in the supply chain. This paper draws upon previous research and emerging industry trends to develop a comprehensive framework of supply chain CSR in the industry.

The framework details unique CSR applications in the food supply chain including animal welfare, biotechnology, environment, fair trade, health and safety, and labour and human rights. General supply chain CSR issues such as community and procurement are also considered. Ultimately, the framework serves as a comprehensive tool to support food industry practitioners and researchers in the assessment of strategic and operational supply chain CSR practices.

I am investigating the merging of the two companies Safeway PLC and Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC, and looking at the problems and successes that have arisen from it. From this, a balance of situations can be clearly seen and concluded whether the take over of Safeway’s by Morrisons was overall a success. Merging is a form of in-organic growth and integration of two companies into one larger company. This action is often voluntary and involves either stock swap or cash payment.

Usually mergers occur in a friendly setting where executives from the respective companies participate in a due diligence process (where one company wants harm to be avoided to another) to ensure a successful combination of all parts. This is the common factor of difference between merging and acquisitions: acquisitions happen through a hostile takeover by the majority of outstanding shares of the company being bought on the stock market and therefore are involuntary.

Safeway was founded in 1962 and owned by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts Company, later sold to Argyll Stores in 1986. It specialized in Fresh readily available food and boasted its high quality of customer service with the slogan “the friendliest store in town”. After it managed to recover from its unprofitable years in the early 1990’s it became the fourth largest retail supermarket. However in 2000 it was not growing as fast as its competitors and had a i?? 91. 4 million profit less down from 1999.

Morrisons was founded in 1899 by William Morrison and has always stayed in his family. It has a total of 355 stores in the U. K. (including those of Safeway). It is the fourth supermarket retailer in the U. K. , behind Asda, Tesco and Sainsbury’s. Morrison’s main strategies are based on doing the basics efficiently, selling predominantly food at low prices, putting all their concentration into the food sector and not expanding into non-food services like Tesco and Sainsbury’s have (e. g. loans, insurance, clothes etc).

Secondly unlike any other supermarket they do not contract out any of their work: they are completely dependent upon themselves and all their packaging and producing is entirely in house. Thirdly they are environmentally and socially conscious: they strongly support all recycling, making it their objective to increase the amount of recycled products collected by 7% each year. Additionally, they adopt a charity every year and help them raise money. In January 2003, Safeway made its concerns public and announced that it needed a buyer.

Only a few bidders seemed appropriate including Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury, Philip Green (owner of Trackdean Investments Limited) and Morrisons. Tesco, Asda and Sainsbury’s bids were refused by the competition commission as to prevent a strong monopoly position happening. This is where a company owns 25% or more of the market share which can be very domineering and cause damage to other competitors and prevent a healthy economy of that industry. Philip Green backed out which left Morrisons to lead the bidding. On the 15th of December, Morrisons bid of 3bn was considered and accepted 4 months later.

However, on order of the Competition Commission, Morrisons had to sell off (originally 52) 50 Safeway stores. These were bought by John Lewis, Sainsbury’s and Tesco. This increased Morrison’s market share to 13. 4% and stores to 355 (with Safeway Compact disposal). Out of these options, I think the main reason Morrisons decided to merge was to gain new geographical markets. Morrisons was largely concentrated in the English Midlands and the north of England with no stores being much further south than this.

Safeway stores were largely based south of this extending from Cornwall to Kent so seemed like a perfect match to widen Morrisons target market. (See below) Secondly, buying Safeway’s will have protected Morrisons against competition. Safeway’s were a much bigger company than Morrisons and always prevented them from taking fourth place in the market share of supermarket retail. Not only this, but increasing their size so much has made a larger size gap between them and Waitrose (fifth), Iceland (sixth) reducing chances that they can overtake them.