FIND A SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay

Your Future Today
Phoenix Mobiles, headquartered in the Netherlands, is a smartphone business primarily
serving the European market’s customer focus segment. Over the past six years, Phoenix has
lived by its vision to bring the ‘future today’, while committing to its mission, ‘to enrich the
lives of customers by providing exceptional products and service, while striving to gain the
trust of stakeholders by behaving ethically, to ensure a sustainable future’. Business at
Phoenix is guided by three core values: sustainable future, affordable phones for everyone
and secure privacy.
Above aspirations, along with the farsighted strategies, and ethics and corporate social
responsibility (CSR) followed at Phoenix, enabled the company to leapfrog from 07th to 03rd
in the yellow market by 2024. Moreover, Phoenix achieved 63% in the customer focus
segment in European market; thereby, becoming the market leader (Appendix 01).
Consecutive achievement of 100% in education and strong commitment to a sustainable
future facilitated this remarkable change.
In this backdrop, through this report, embedding theoretical underpinning with decisions
made during simulation; International Strategic Management, and Business Ethics and CSR
initiatives of Phoenix are critically analysed. The first section outlines strategic management
principles: strategic position, focused choice and prudent control, and the second section
outlines sustainability commitments residing in three pillars: creating shared value,
empowering people and protecting the planet.
Started in Netherlands
and Belgium
Expanding to UK,
Germany, France and
Expanding to Brazil
and Divesting Monaco
Divesting Brazil and
concentrating on the
Figure 1: Phoenix’s Timeline
1.0 Strategic Position
When devising Phoenix’s competitive advantage, understanding the strategic position was
pivotal. Since Phoenix was operating in a highly competitive environment, market-based
view provided a better explanation about the strategic position (Makhija, 2003).
Consequently, Porter’s five forces model was employed as follows.
1.1 Porter’s Five Forces Model
Porter’s five forces model facilitates an organisation to articulate strategy considering the
attractiveness of the industry by evaluating five forces, which drives the industry competition
(Johnson et al., 2005; Lynch, 2018). As recommended by Johnson et al. (2005), in this report,
five forces model is utilised at the strategic business unit level—i.e. to evaluate customer
focus segment in Netherlands vs. in Belgium—to provide a better explanation.
High power
Moderate power
Low power
Threat of New Entrants Competitive Rivalry
Bargaining power of buyers Bargaining power of suppliers
Threat of substitutes
Threat of New Entrants Competitive Rivalry
Bargaining power of buyers Bargaining power of suppliers
Threat of substitutes
Figure 3: Five forces in Belgium’s customer focus segment
Figure 2: Five forces in the Netherland’s customer focus segment
Bargaining power of buyers
Focus segment encompassed ‘powerful customers’ who simultaneously demanded price
reduction and quality improvement. Consequently, as indicated in Figure 2 and 3, buyer’s
bargaining power was high; hence, their switching cost was low. This was triggered by the
weakly differentiated smartphones offered by all competitors (Porter, 2008). Especially, in
Belgium’s focus segment, since six competitors were present, a slight change in competitor’s
price and/or quality, increased buyer’s bargaining power. To manage, several initiatives were
Firstly, as suggested by Porter (2008), to lock-in the buyer, Phoenix concurrently invested in
R&D to reduce purchasing cost and increase quality. Consequently, purchasing cost of a 5*
smartphone was reduced by 75% and a new model was introduced in 2024. This ensured an
attractive price and the ideal quality for price-sensitive buyers. Secondly, marketing was
devised directly targeting focus segment. Consecutively for 04 years to ‘satisfy’ focus
customers, Phoenix invested €2.6 million for Worlds Cups. Direct marketing reduced the
channel clout; thereby, lock-in the buyer (Porter, 2008). Altogether, as indicated in Figure 4,
Phoenix successfully managed buyer’s bargaining in the Netherlands, and significantly
influenced Belgium buyers; thereby, becoming the market leader.
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Market Share
Netherland Belgium
Figure 4: Market leadership in customer focus segments in the
Netherlands and Belgium
Competitive Rivalry
As evident in Figure 2, the competitive rivalry in Netherlands was low, subjected to limited
competition. Besides, the three competitors were focused on different strategies—viz. TIC on
cost-leadership, NorviTech and Hurricane on quality—thereby, allowing Phoenix to be the
focus segment’s market leader. However, the competitive rivalry in Belgium was very high;
since 5/6 competitors were closely equal in size and market share (Figure 5). Besides, the
very low market growth (Figure 6) and weakly differentiated smartphones, resulted an
intense price-competition (Porter, 2008). Consequently, defensive strategies were required to
manage price-competition. Following Yannopolous’s (2011) recommended defensive
strategies—viz. continuous improvement by upgrading stars, product proliferation through a
new model and intense marketing to persuade buyers—Phoenix’s successfully defended
market share; hence, reducing rival’s power. Moreover, the defence strategies later
commended to offensive strategies, allowing 86% in Belgium’s market; thus, becoming the
leader in 2024 (Figure 4).
Bargaining power of suppliers
As evident in Figure 2 and 3, the supplier’s bargaining power was low. Since Phoenix owned
the smartphone license and R&D team, the dependence on supplier for high-value adding
activities was low. Moreover, by investing in R&D, Phoenix influenced the cost of
manufacturing; thereby, hampering supplier’s ability to charge a high price. Consequently,
supplier’s value was restricted; thereby, reducing their bargaining power (Porter, 2008).
Peach Phoenix
Hurricane Black Knight
Zaarc Local
Figure 5: Equal size competitors in Belgium

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Figure 6: Low market growth in Belgium
Threat of new entrants
Despite the low entry barriers, Phoenix’s market leadership, economies of scale and
differentiated smartphones ensured a moderate threat from newcomers in the Netherlands.
However, in Belgium, the existing rivalry structure and low entry barriers, intensified the
newcomer’s threat because a newcomer was able to squeeze the profitability of existing
competitors due to their equal market size.
Threat of substitutes
Substitutes for smartphones may include tablets, wearable devices etc. However, in the
simulation context, since the substitutes were not evident, the threat of substitutes was low.
2.0 Focused Choice
2.1 Bases of competitive advantage
Findings from Porter’s five forces led strategic choice. Consequently, Bowman’s strategy
clock was instrumental to devise competitive strategies and their evolution over the time.
Strategic clock extends Porter’s three generic strategies—viz. cost-leadership, differentiation
and focus—and recognises market-facing strategies (Spanos et al., 2004; Johnsons et al.,
2005). Hence, strategic clock facilitated to explain Phoenix’s incrementally adjustments to
price, to match the changes in the perceived value of focus segment’s buyers (Figure 7).
Low High
Figure 7: Incremental evolution of Phoenix’s strategies
From inception, Phoenix followed a ‘hybrid strategy’ for focus segment. Consequently, price
and quality were simultaneously increased; thereby, shifting from low-price to differentiation
zone (Johnson et al., 2005). During the first two years, to gain market share, Phoenix targeted
price-sensitive customers by offering 3* and 4* products (Figure 8). The smartphone was
basic; therefore, customers looking for a low price and low perceived benefits purchased the
product. This allowed Phoenix to generate sales from both price and focus segment (Figure
9). For example, in Netherlands, during 2019 and 2020, Phoenix generated sales from price
sensitive customers in both focus and price segments.
By 2021, to sustain in focus segment, improving quality was vital. Competing at the lowprice
zone was unsustainable, due to declining sales in price segment (Figure 9). Moreover,
Phoenix experienced a drastic drop in net profit in 2020 (Figure 10) and started losing the
low-cost base due to increasing operational costs. Besides, competitive pressures signalled
for an adaptation change by incrementally improving quality (Balogun et al., 2008).

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
3* 4*
5* 5*
Figure 8: Price (€) and Quality change Netherlands
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Gross Profit Margin Net Profit Margin
Figure 10: Changes in Gross Profit and Net Profit Margin
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Price Customer Focus Quality
Figure 9: Composition of sales Netherlands
Consequently, strategic response was threefold: upgrading research machine, allocating 60
staff for R&D and upgrading quality to 5*. This facilitated Phoenix to reduce net loss and
increase market share in focus segment (Figure 9 and 10). However, the danger of ‘stuck in
the middle’ emerged due to increasing height of price and blurring boundaries in price and
quality segments (Porter, 1980). Moreover, to increase profitability, it was pivotal to realign
to differentiation zone to generate sales from both focus and quality segments (Johnson et al.,
2012). Therefore, investments to improve quality were further increased. Consequently,
purchasing cost of 5* was reduced by 75%, reliability was improved to 90% and a new model
was launched in 2024.
Consequently, the decision to shift towards differentiation zone increased the gross profit and
reduce net loss by 2024 (Figure 10). Overall, the choice of hybrid strategy in focus segment
yielded multiple benefits; it facilitated successful entrance to focus segment, gain experience
curve efficiencies, simultaneously operate in price or quality segment; thereby, increase
overall market share and profitability (Johnson et al., 2012).
2.2 Strategic Direction
Phoenix followed an organic development strategy by investing in organisation’s capabilities
(Johnson et al., 2012). Consequently, as evident from Ansoff’s product/market matrix (Figure
11), two basic product and market options emerged for corporate growth (Ansoff, 1988).
Simply put, since, Phoenix was only focusing on smartphone industry, penetration and
market development strategies were followed; excluding diversification and new product
development strategies.
Figure 11: Ansoff product/market matrix
Source: Adapted from Ansoff, 1988
Market Penetration
Market penetration strategies were predominantly used to increase focus segment’s market
share, in the existing European markets using existing smartphone. Consequently, threefold
promotional strategies were employed. Firstly, promotion budget was gradually
improved/maintained (Figure 12). For example, in the UK, among the competitors, Phoenix
had the largest promotion budget. Secondly, from 2022, Phoenix invested €2.6 million to
sponsor World Cups with ‘satisfaction’ as the intended campaign effect to increase
penetration. Thirdly, social media budget—viz. Search Engine Optimisation and Facebook—
was increased (Figure 13).
0 2 4 6 8
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Price per click
Figure 13: Increasing price per click (€)
0 2 4 6 8
2021 2022 2023 2024
Netherland Belgium
United Kingdom France
Figure 12: Promotion Budget (€ million)
Figure 14: UK’s increasing demand multiplier due to promotion budget

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Above promotion driven penetration strategies facilitated Phoenix to become the leader, by
lock-in customers. The increasing demand multiplier proved the success of penetration
strategies. For example, Figure 14 indicates, the contribution of promotions in the UK to
increase demand gradually. Additionally, R&D efforts to launch a new model in 2024, further
ensured market penetration. For example, in 2024, the new model facilitated to increase the
demand multiplier by 1.50 times in focus segments of Belgium, United Kingdom, France and
Germany. However, penetration strategy had costs (Johnson et al., 2012). The intense rivalry
resulted an expensive marketing battel, where at least 30% of operational expenses were
incurred to ensure penetration.
Market Development
As a market development strategy, Phoenix internationalised by entering to new markets
through wholly-owned subsidiaries (Figure 15). To reduce the liability foreignness, as
recommended in Uppsala and networking models, Phoenix acquired market knowledge using
‘local-partner search’ and assessed psychic distance using Hofstede’s model (Johanson and
Vahlne, 1977). As such, Phoenix internationalised in European markets by stretching
corporate parenting capabilities (Johnson et al., 2012). Later, Monaco and Brazil were
selected to expand due to the success of emergent strategies in Europe. This overestimated
success, unconsciously led to a comfort trap (Martin, 2014). The investment in Monaco failed
to pay-off due to high cost of operations, and in Brazil, the local competition was intense
since customers were extremely price-sensitive. Despite the efforts taken to ‘reconstruct’ for
strategic fit by reducing price, the losses were increasing (Balogun et al., 2008).
Consequently, it was decided to divest from the two markets since they were neither suitable,
acceptable nor feasible to operate (Johnson et al., 2012).
Figure 15: Internationalisation
3.0 Prudent Control
To ensure prudent control, a balance scorecard was developed. Therefore, KPIs were set
under financial, customer, internal, and innovation and learning perspectives to evaluate the
success of strategy implementation (Kaplan and Norton, 1993). In addition to the selected
five KPIs during simulation, other related KPIs were also monitored (Table 1).
Table 1: Balance Scorecard
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Status
Financial Perspective
Gross Profit Margin 40% 26% 29% 35% 41% 42%
Net Profit Margin 19% -50% -38% -28% -21% -10%
Customer Perspective
Lowest Price 3 2.67 2.83 2.83 2.5 2.4
Price Segment Market Leader 3 2.67 2.83 2.83 2.5 2.4
Highest Quality 5.5 5 4 3.67 4.17 4.4
Quality Segment Market Leader 5.5 5 4 3.67 4.17 4.4
Internal Perspective
Purchasing cost/per unit 225 299.37 344.91 344.91 314.22 314.22
Innovation and Learning Perspective
Reliability 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 90%
New Product Development 4% 13% 19% 83% 100%
Education Level 66% 77% 88% 98% 100% 100%
Employee Satisfaction 66% 66% 68% 71% 74% 78%
Overall, balance scorecard exemplifies, Phoenix’s ability to create a learning organisation by
investing in high value and non-substitutable human and technology capabilities (Pesic et al.,
2013). Moreover, low-cost manufacturing facilitated achievement of price-related customer
KPIs. However, the strategic void in quality KPIs, demanded further investments in R&D.
The spill-over impact of above three perspectives was evident at financial KPIs (Appendix
02). Gradually improved gross and net profit margins quantified the effectiveness of the
strategic management process at Phoenix. The secret to leapfrog from last to 3rd lies on the
prudent control of the balance scorecard.
Target was chosen as KPI
Not achieved/Declined
Section 2: Debates and Controversies in International Business
Series of suicides at Foxconn, was an eye-opener against sweatshops of smartphone
manufacturers (Ngai et al., 2016). Moreover, increasing allegations, such as health risks,
privacy risks and environmental pollution, have demanded embedding ethics and CSR into
business decisions. Recognising consensus, sustainable future—viz. Phoenix’s fundamental
business value—was selected to manifest Phoenix’s ethical and CSR orientation. Sustainable
future can be defined as the progress towards human development ensuring the
environment’s sustainability (Klarin, 2018). At Phoenix, sustainable future resided in three
1.0 Creating Shared Value
As detailed in the mission statement, Phoenix coexists with multiple stakeholders.
Consequently, creating value extended to stakeholders, beyond shareholders (Appendix 03).
Freeman (1984:46) defines stakeholders as “groups or individuals who can affect [and]/or is
affected by organisation’s objectives”. Moreover, rights theory elucidates, influential and
affected stakeholders possess reciprocity rights and right to consideration (Fryer, 2015).
Consequently, creating shared value while ensuring stakeholder’s rights was vital. Here,
Phoenix’s efforts towards community and customers are critically analysed.
1.1 Shared Value for Community
Generally, the community is an affected stakeholder. However, businesses devalue
community and their right for consideration (Fryer, 2015). As social contract theory proposes
through amour-propre, it’s essential to provide value to community as it provides license to
operate (Rousseau and Parks, 1993). Consequently, ‘hiring troubled youth’ initiative was
Local employees were hired when Phoenix was operating in Brazil. Brazil, an emerging
economy, is deprived of unemployment and poverty. During 2017, due to the economic
contraction, Brazil’s unemployment (Figure 16) and poverty was high at 12.64% and 19.4%
respectively (World Bank, 2019). In this backdrop, albeit incurring €75,000, it was decided to
implement the initiative, due to Phoenix’s moral committed towards the Brazilian society. As
probed by social contract theory, Phoenix was utilising Brazil’s resources, facilities and
infrastructure to conduct the business. Consequently, this interdependency creates a moral
commitment to provide employment opportunities to community. Subsequently, Phoenix was
able to create shared value for both parties: community was able to uplift their income and
Phoenix was able to conduct business smoothly (Rousseau and Parks, 1993).
1.2 Shared Value for Customers
Customers as influential stakeholders possess reciprocity rights. Consequently, an
instrumental and normative relationship is essential to ensure profitability (Fryer, 2015).
Moreover, since Phoenix was targeting focus segment—viz. customers intending to maintain
a long-term relationship—it was essential to create value for them. Hence, threefold decisions
were taken.
Customers are often exploited by monopolistic pricing (Kaufmann et al., 1994). Evidence
suggests smartphone businesses adopt monopolist pricing to skim profits (Leswing, 2017).
However, Phoenix’s decided to sell a 5* smartphone at an average price of €579 to ensure
affordability and ethical pricing. Next, among Phoenix’s core values, securing privacy was
significant. Today, privacy is vulnerable due to Location-based tracking systems (Figure 17)
(Wang and Loui, 2009; InfoWatch, 2017). Consequently, respecting the customer’s right to
privacy, employees were trained for compliance and data privacy. Finally, promotions were
directed for customer focus groups emphasising the environmental responsibility and
sponsorships given to marginalised tech-schools.
As exemplified above, it’s evident that decisions were made to ensure rights of customers.
However, an ethical dilemma emerged when deciding promotions. Debates indicates that
businesses utilise promotions to manipulate customers with lies and misleading information.
0 2 4 6 8
Figure 16: Increasing Unemployment in Brazil 1997-2017 (World Bank, 2019)
Especially, green marketing is criticised for manipulation, using greenwashing despite
genuine commitment (Alves, 2009). A dilemma emerged if Phoenix’s efforts to uplift the
community and protecting the environment is adequate to engage in green marketing.
Consequently, it was decided to prioritise sustainable future in every decision, to avoid
greenwashing; consquently, green logistics and production investments were increased (see
Protecting the Plant).
2.0 Empowering People
Phoenix considered employees as salient stakeholders who provided critical capabilities for
success. Therefore, a reciprocal relationship with employees ensured shared value for both
parties (Fryer, 2015). At a compliance level to ensure human rights, Phoenix was committed
to United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Labour
Organisation’s (ILOs) fundamental labour standards and Electronic Industry Citizenship
Coalition’s (EICC) Code of Conduct. Human rights ensure fulfilment of social and economic
needs with dignity and freedom of life (United Nations, n.d.(a)). Phoenix’s ethical practices
towards employees extended beyond minimum legal requirements as exemplified below.
2.1 Talent Attraction
As prescribed by UDHR’s Article 23, everyone has the right to work and freedom of choice
of employment (UN, n.d). Furthermore, ILO’s Discrimination (Employment and Occupation)
Convention prescribes to avoid unfair discrimination in all aspects of work (ILO, 2019).
Unfair discrimination—viz. hiring based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation—is
Personal Data Billing Information Trade Secrets State Secrets
Figure 17: Types and percentages of data leakage for 2017 (InfoWatch, 2017)
unethical in recruitment. Consequently, since inception, Phoenix utilised the global
recruitment programme—either basic or extended—to attract employees. Annually, Phoenix
invested €25,000 or €75,000 for basic or extended programmes. Furthermore, since inception,
it was also decided to comply with the National Equality Standard (NES), despite the annual
investment of €15,000 and setup fee of €15,000.
Drawing insights from social contract theory, the initiatives can be analysed as follows. Due
to the voluntary social contract between Phoenix and society, there is an obligation to
Phoenix to ensure equality in recruitment without discrimination. Moreover, as suggested by
the theory of justice, it’s ‘the justice’ to invest in such programmes as the society had
invested in education and nurturing employees. Ultimately, the investments of both parties
ensure social justice, since the efforts allows Phoenix to recruit talented employees and
society to ensure equality (Fryer, 2015).
2.2 Talent Management
Investments in human capital is a critical success factor since well-trained employees ensure
higher productivity and loyalty. However, greedy organisations, operate sweatshops with low
wages, poor working conditions and exploitation, to generate profits. Goldberg (2011),
following hedonistic utilitarianism argued, sweatshops are ethical as they create a surplus for
shareholders, living for communities, development in developing economies; thereby,
bringing greatest pleasure for greatest number. In contradiction, Kantian’s ethics, based on
universal law, specify employees should not be considered as means to achieve profits but as
ends with their dignity (Fryer, 2015). Following Kantian stance and recommendations of ILO
(2019) for human resource development, Phoenix devised remuneration and training,
respecting employee’s dignity.
Firstly, remuneration was increased 0.5% annually and employees were given 1% of profits;
thereby, making them Phoenix’s shareholders. Secondly, €1,000 training budget per
employee were allocated for compliance and privacy training. Thirdly, consecutively for six
years, a high potential programme was implemented. Finally, to facilitate personal
development, management focus was given to ‘inter-cultural coaching’. Consequently, to
implement the training and development programmes, from 2021, annually educational
expenses was gradually increased (Figure 18).
Utilitarian ethics explains Phoenix’s investments in training. According to objective-good
utilitarianism, acquisition of knowledge is considered as an intrinsic good for all the people
(Fryer, 2015). Therefore, training ensured intrinsic merits to employees: by enhancing
knowledge and skills, career development, satisfaction and reducing workload. For Phoenix,
training ensured intrinsic merits, such as increased loyalty, productivity and motivation
(Figure 19). Consequently, the utility of both parties was maximised; thereby, creating a
learning organisation. Moreover, Mill’s utilitarianism proposes, investment in training will
create a higher pleasure of intellectual refinement which sustains for a long-term (Fryer,
2015). It was clear when education level at Phoenix was 100% in 2023 and 2024 which
resulted in a higher pleasure for both parties.

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Workload Motivation Education
Figure 19: Increasing education and motivation % and declining workload %

2021 2022 2023 2024
Figure 18: Investments in Training and Development (€)
3.0 Protecting the Planet
Evidence suggest, approximately smartphones contain 40% of metals and conflict-minerals
which are harmful to the environment (Turner, 2016). Moreover, debates on global climate
change, depletion of resources, greenhouse gases and environmental pollution (Figure 20) has
probed the significance of environmental ethics (Zsolnai, 2011). As a responsible corporate
citizen, Phoenix devised strategies recognising the environment’s intrinsic value.
3.1 Guiding philosophy
Anthropocentric perspective was followed by businesses several years ago, where
environment was exploited as a mean to serve human interests. Phoenix follows ‘biocentric’
perspective for environmental ethics, recognising environment’s intrinsic value;
consequently, treating with ‘respect’, but not merely exploiting to serve human needs
(Zsolnai, 2011). Green logistics and production depict this.
Green Logistics
Among the recent developments in the supply chain, green logistics is vital. Green logistics
encompass, planning and implementing of transportation and storage, from the point of origin
to point of consumption by minimizing the negative environmental impact ensuring
efficiency and effectiveness (Arslan and Sar, 2018). Here, selecting the Logistics Service
Provider (LSP) was significant for Phoenix.
Figure 20: Increasing global fossil fuel emissions (United Nations, n.d. (b))
Worldwide Shipping Ltd. was LSP for Phoenix since 2021. Initially, Phoenix partnered with
IDC and Express Service. An ethical dilemma emerged with the decision to select Worldwide
Shipping. On the one hand, inventory management must be accurate to avoid out-of-stocks
due to four-week delivery policy (Table 2). Any delay in LSP could result in a significant
sales loss, customer dissatisfaction, product substitution and ultimately, shrinking Phoenix’s
bottom-line. On the other hand, partnering with Worldwide Shipping will facilitate to reduce
cost/per unit, adherence to Phoenix’s biocentric philosophy while enhancing corporate image.
Therefore, evaluating the facts of the dilemma, a firm decision was taken to partner with
Worldwide Shipping, albeit costs of inventory due to the firm commitment to biocentric
Table 2: Evaluation of LSP
Responsible Production
Since Phoenix is based on Netherlands, OECD’s environmental strategic principles are
applicable in doing business. Moreover, Netherland government has imposed Environment
Management Act, National Climate Policy Implementation Plan and policy instruments, such
as European Union Emissions Trading System (ETS), energy taxation, Sustainable Energy
Incentive (SDE+) and Green Deals to ensure compliance to Environment Law (SGI, 2017).
As a responsible corporate in Netherlands, while ensuring commitment to biocentrism, the
decisions relating to production were taken complying to standards, conventions and
protocols. As such, production was redesigned in 2020. It was decided to replace the old
machines with new hi-tech machines. Despite initial investment of € 12.5 million, the
decision was justified by two reasons. Firstly, machines had the capability to increase
effectiveness of R&D department by 50% and reduce energy consumption by 30%; thereby,
LSP Cost/per unit (€) Delivery Time (weeks) Reliability Carbon footprint
International Trade 20.00 3 4* Relatively small
Worldwide Shipping 16.00 4 5* Small
SpeedNet 10.50 6 1* Neutral
Express Service 24.50 2 3* Large
SBP 29.00 1 2* Relatively large
IDC 32.50 Direct 4* Very large
ensure economic benefits. Secondly, the decision ensured commitment to Paris Agreement
where the Netherlands government expected manufacturers to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Therefore, by upgrading the machines, biocentrism was reinforced since Phoenix
took efforts to protect the environment and avoid exploitation by emitting carbon; thereby,
ensuring triple bottom line of Phoenix and the sustainable future of the ecosystem.
The report elucidates Phoenix’s successful journey from 07th to 03rd in yellow market. The
success was derived from industry foresight on competitive forces; consequently, positioning
in focus segment and experimenting around hybrid strategy, to increase market share and
profitability. When hybrid strategy yielded expected benefits, concurrently penetration and
market development strategies were employed. Strategically, Phoenix was able to achieve
KPIs; thereby, demonstrating the success in strategy implementation.
When devising strategies, ethics and CSR were intertwined. As exemplified, the decisions
were not free from ethical dilemmas. However, the underlying core values, mission and
vision, guided ethical decision making. The dilemmas were disentangled reflecting ethical
theories and principles. As such, Phoenix was able to articulate three strong pillars in ethics
to achieve a sustainable future. Overall, Phoenix’s success is a clear depiction of hands-on
hands management of strategy and ethics.

READ ALSO...   The Role of Fire Service Administration - No Plagiarism
Order from Academic Writers Bay
Best Custom Essay Writing Services