Sainsbury’s-Asda merger: failed big bet has serious strategic consequences

Sainsbury’s may alternatively look to transform itself rather than trying to preserve its current way of competing.
File 20190425 121245 1ufxku2.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
The two supermarkets will not become one. John David Photography /

Duncan Angwin , Lancaster University

The problem with big bets is that sometimes they don’t pay off. While a lot of attention is often paid to successful mergers and acquisitions (M&A) deals, little attention is paid to the dark side of M&A – what happens to a company’s strategy when a deal fails. The UK competition watchdog’s decision to block Sainsbury and Asda from merging will have big consequences for both supermarkets.

The proposed £10 billion merger was designed to solve a pressing strategic problem in the UK: an increasingly competitive industry where the winners are aggressive discounters (Aldi and Lidl) and, to some extent, the premium niche competitors like Waitrose and M&S. For the giant supermarkets, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Morrisons, Asda, the recent past has been marked by heroic struggles to achieve some profitability and find growth in a slow market.

With the centre ground under constant performance pressure, Sainsbury’s and Asda’s decision to merge made perfect sense. It might also have provided some protection against current threats presented by new entrant Amazon. Through the merger they would be able to significantly reduce their costs, allowing them, in theory, to pass on price reductions to consumers. But the regulator took the view that the combined group, with around 30% of the market, might wield monopolistic power that could lead to an increase in prices and reduced customer choice.

What next?

Following the regulator’s decision, Sainsbury’s share price fell 7%. But when the merger was originally announced, Sainsbury’s share price soared to 314p . This means that the share price fall to 212p is a 38% reduction. The market is clearly judging the deal a failure. And, as the share price is below Sainsbury’s pre-deal share price of 266p, the market is also judging Sainsbury’s to be in a worse strategic position than it was before merger talks.

The first strategic problem is that Mike Coupe, Sainsbury’s CEO, has spent a lot of time and effort convincing the markets that the merger was the best way forwards for the company. Now this strategy is in ruins, there is a problem that arguing for another strategy will most likely seem second best, so garnering investor support could be difficult.

Big deals need big commitment from CEOs. Unfortunately, Coupe will have suffered reputational damage by failing to achieve the deal, and an unfortunate media slip following news of the merger (he was caught singing “We’re in the money”), now seems like hubris.

Nonetheless, from a strategic point of view, Sainsbury’s could look for other M&A deal opportunities in the supermarket sector, using the same logic of efficiency gains and market power benefits. The main problem though is that there are no large targets available. And, even if they might become available in some shape or form, Sainsbury’s would most likely run into regulatory constraints again and also face significant restructuring costs.

Sainsbury’s could make small acquisitions, but due to its size, these deals would make next to no difference to the group’s overall performance. Even if the small acquisitions are innovative players, it would still take a long time before they really could make a significant impression.

Another strategic option is to grow overseas through a major cross-border M&A. But the supermarkets have generally had rather poor experiences with international expansion, with many destroying value . Other alliances might help reduce the basic problem of reducing costs, but it is difficult to see how they can consistently close the gap with discounters. It might also consider buying outside of the industry as a defensive hedge to change, but this is risky territory indeed.

Sainsbury’s big size means it needs to do something bold. But, having had its deal rejected, there is a risk that it will revert to incrementalism. This may be too little too late and would not really address the pressures of a squeezed supply chain, consumers requiring even lower prices and major new entrants forcing the pace of change. Plus, there’s also a risk that Asda might be acquired by another competitor (it is owned by Walmart so its future will depend on the US giant’s plans). This would further weaken Sainsbury’s strategic position.

While there are always opportunities for further cost reductions, Sainsbury is already well run so these gains will be marginal, hard to achieve and, if pursued too aggressively, run the risk of changing the nature of the business as it is. Rather than being whittled away by a thousand cuts, Sainsbury’s may alternatively look to transform itself rather than trying to preserve its current way of competing.

The industry as a whole fears Amazon taking over. Just the announcement of Amazon entering the industry, when it bought Whole Foods in 2017 , caused share prices to fall. Maybe in the face of the revolution in digital strategy, where the largest operators in traditional industries such as accommodation (Airbnb), taxis (Uber), retail (Amazon), don’t own large amounts of assets, Sainsbury’s should rethink the supermarket business. Perhaps its largest assets – the megastores and car parks – are also its biggest source of rigidity. Responding more rapidly to a changing environment and staying in tune with changing customer demands may require a different sort of business model.

Duncan Angwin , Sir Roland Smith Professor in Strategic Management, Lancaster University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Why don't we make this official? 🥰

Sign up to receive awesome content in your inbox.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Why don't we make this official? 🥰

Sign up to receive awesome content in your inbox.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

No ads, no tracking.
At Sovereign Magazine, we prioritize your privacy and are dedicated to protecting your personal data. The internet is increasingly only benefiting a select a few at the expense of all other users and we believe this system is fundamentally unfair.

As an independent publisher, we firmly reject participation in these practices and we have chosen to stand against it.

We do not collect, store, or share any user data. We have eliminated all third-party services that do, including advertising and traditional analytics platforms. Our decision to forgo ad revenue reflects our commitment to safeguarding your privacy and maintaining a secure online environment for our users.
Your privacy is important to us, and we appreciate your support in maintaining an ad-free and data-protected environment.

Ways to support

You can help by sharing stories you read on our site or by buying us a coffee. Your support enables us to continue providing quality content without compromising on privacy.

Support with a donation

Find out why
Share This Article!
Dr Marina Nani
Dr Marina Nani


Dr Nani is the Founder of Sovereign Magazine. She is also Editor-in-Chief of Sovereign's sister publication, Rich Woman Magazine. Passionately advocating for Social Edification, Dr Marina Nani is coining a new industry, MAKE THE NEWS ( MTN) with the aim to diagnose and close the achievement gap globally. Founder of RICH WOMAN SOCIETY™ Marina believes that there is a genius ( Stardust) in each individual, regardless past and present circumstances; "not recognising the talent in each individual, leaves our society at loss. Sharing the good news makes a significant difference on your perception about yourself, your industry and your community."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *