between E-Mart and Carrefour in China.
E-Mart Carrefour
Joint ratio 98:2
(aggressive investment) 55:45
(Focus on reducing investment)
Store size 3,820 Pyung
(display stand’s number of product in entrance) 1800 Pyung
Store location Subcenter of a metropolis (10M away from each other),
deficit of same facility in same area
∴ Focus on enlarging pies rather than simple competitio
formation Technologies to compete among its competitors. This report is to examine the organization structure, value chain and UNIQLO’s competitor analysis. This report will discuss the history of UNIQLO, the characteristics of the Asia markets and the western countries retail industry. In addition, this report will also analyze the different types of management systems that UNIQUE had make use
between Globalization and Localization
Society contribution
Uncontrollable external environment
Different culture, but the same policy
Low competitive location
Most of them are in local area
Failure to notice Korean customers’ Needs
Low cost product ->Against Value
(Premium / clean shopping environment)
Display, high selling, Warehouse style
Less store no. makes less
with H&M’s lower PPE/sales and higher working capital/sales ratios, Inditex’s high PPE/sales ratio of 37.8% is offset by low working capital/sales ratio of 0.6%, thereby generating slightly higher but comparable capital turnover ratio and ROIC. In other words, Inditex and H&M possess similar level of capital efficiency measured by capital turnover, yet with different competitive advantages.
It is very interesting case that the dinosaur of retail chain stores is showing lowest performance in South Korea which is only 1/100 size of U.S.
What prevents Wal-Mart Korea from transferring their business model in Korea? How serious is the problem? Do these problems have solutions? We can find the reasons of performance difference from the viewpoint of Standardization and Localization.