Vertical and Horizonntal
Vertical and Horizonntal
Vertical and Horizonntal
Vertical integration is a competitive strategy by which a company takes complete control over
one or more stages in the production or distribution of a product.
A company opts for vertical integration to ensure full control over the supply of the raw
materials to manufacture its products. It may also employ vertical integration to take over the
reins of distribution of its products.
A classic example is that of the Carnegie Steel Company, which not only bought iron mines to
ensure the supply of the raw material but also took over railroads to strengthen the distribution
of the final product. The strategy helped Carnegie produce cheaper steel, and empowered it in
the marketplace.
As we have seen, vertical integration integrates a company with the units supplying raw
materials to it (backward integration), or with the distribution channels that carry its products
to the end-consumers (forward integration).
For example, a supermarket may acquire control of farms to ensure supply of fresh vegetables
(backward integration) or may buy vehicles to smoothen the distribution of its products
(forward integration).
A car manufacturer may acquire tyre and electrical-component factories (backward integration)
or open its own showrooms to sell its vehicle models or provide after-sales service (forward
integration).
There is a third type of vertical integration, called balanced integration, which is a judicious
mix of backward and forward integration strategies.
Credit: strategicmanagementinsight.com
Several factors affect the decision-making that goes into backward and forward integration. A
company may go in for these strategies in the following scenarios:
The current suppliers of the company’s raw materials or components, or the distributors
of its end products, are unreliable
The prices of raw materials are unstable or the distributors charge high fees
The company has the resources to manage the new business that is currently being taken
care of by the suppliers or distributors
What are the benefits of vertical integration? Let us take the example of a car manufacturer
implementing this strategy. This company can
smoothen its supply chain (by ensuring ready supply of tyres and electrical components
in the exact specifications that it requires)
make its distribution and after-sales service more efficient (by opening its own
showrooms)
absorb for itself upstream and downstream profits (profits that would have gone to the
tyre and electrical companies and showrooms owned by others)
increase entry barriers for new entrants (by being able to reduce costs through its own
suppliers and distributors)
invest in specific functions such as tyre-making and develop its core competencies
But what is the downside? What are the drawbacks of vertical integration? Let us see the main
disadvantages.
The quality of goods supplied earlier by external sources may fall because of a lack of
competition.
It may be difficult for the company to sustain core competencies as it focuses on the
integration of the new units.
However, there are alternatives to vertical integration, such as purchases from the market (of
tyres, for example) and short- and long-term contracts (for showrooms and with service
stations, for example).
Quick examples of horizontal expansion are Standard Oil’s acquisition of about 40 other
refineries and the acquisition of Arcelor by Mittal Steel and that of Compaq by HP.
Credit: aventalearning.com
A company can think of acquisitions and mergers for horizontal integration in the following
situations:
When rivals lack the expertise that the company has already achieved
When the company can manage the operations of the bigger organisation efficiently,
after the integration
Economies of scale: The bigger, horizontally integrated company can achieve a higher
production than the companies merged, at a lower cost.
Increased differentiation: The company will be able to offer more product features to
customers.
Increased market power: The new company, because of the merger of companies, will
become a bigger customer for its old suppliers. It will command a bigger end-product
market and will have greater power over distributors.
Ability to enter new markets: If the merger is with an organisation abroad, the new
company will have an additional foreign market.
As touched upon earlier, the management of a company should be able to handle the bigger
organisation efficiently if the advantages of horizontal integration are to be realised.
The legal ramifications will have to be studied as there are strict anti-monopoly laws in many
countries: if the merged entity threatens to oust competitors from the market, these laws will
be used against it.
Standard Oil, which was seen as a powerful conglomerate brooking no competition, was split
up into over 30 competing companies in an anti-trust case.
As a company grows bigger with horizontal integration, it might become too rigid, and its
procedures and practices may become unfriendly to change. This could prove dangerous to it.
Moreover, synergies between companies that may have been predicted may prove elusive or
non-existent (for example, the failed horizontal integration of hardware and software
companies merged in the expectation of “synergies” between their products).
The decision whether to employ vertical or horizontal integration has a long-term influence on
the business strategy of a company.
Each company will have to choose the option more suitable to it, based on its unique place in
the market and its customer value propositions. A deep analysis of its strengths and resources
will help it make the right choice.