Church And Dwight Case

811 Words4 Pages
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Time to Rethink the Portfolio? I. INTRODUCTION A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Summary statement of the problem: Church & Dwight Co. Inc. is a 160 year old company that is a well-known, unknown household brand. It has built a firm market share on the name, “Arm & Hammer” (Wheelen & Hunger, 2012, p. 35-1). The company’s strategy for growth was to find new ways to bring sodium bicarbonate into consumer households. Due to the company emphasizing more profitability growth, management has had to rethink its strategy. Because of the expansion of 80 more consumer brands since 2004, Church & Dwight seen a tremendous growth. With this growth, the challenge is for the smaller sized company to have the ability to compete for market share…show more content…
35-1). 2. Summary statement of the recommended solution: Being that Church & Dwight is a smaller company than its competitors, the challenge is to grow sales through acquisitions. In order to compete, they needed to expand its products into a variety of “personal care, deodorizing and cleaning, and laundry products” as well as “specialty chemicals, animal nutrition, and specialty cleaners” (Wheelen & Hunger, 2012, p. 35-6). Church & Dwight has reached international markets and gained market share internationally. Finding more ways to enter international markets and cutting down on transportation cost will gain a competitive edge over the competition in the market (Wheelen & Hunger, 2012, p. 35-11). B. THE SITUATION For 160 years, Church & Dwight has worked diligently to become a household name. The company is best known for its domestic products with the brand name “Arm & Hammer." ARM &…show more content…
Inc., who was a direct descendant of Austin Church, from 1969 to 1995, was Dwight C. Minton. He also remained on the board as Chairman Emeritus (Wheelen & Hunger, 2012, p. 35-2). He passed on his duties to Robert A. Davies III. Davies was the first non-family member to be CEO. On July 6th, 2004, James R. Craige, was named CEO and director or Church and Dwight (Watson, 2004). The unbreakable focus of the company’s leadership is mainly because 25 percent of outstanding common stock is owned by descendants of the company’s original cofounders (Wheelen & Hunger, 2012, p. 35-2). Because of this style of leadership, Church & Dwight has been able to avoid hostile takeovers and buy-outs. There was several actions taken by management to keep this from happening. One of the most discernable actions was the amending of the company’s charter and allowing shareholders four votes per share after they hold their stock for four years. Management also created a severance package just in case there was a buy-out or hostile takeover. Because of these packages for senior leadership, continuity in leadership styles was able to remain constant. Because management has been able to continue steady growth over the years Church & Dwight can be labeled as a “Cash Cow” using the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) Growth Share Matrix (Wheelen & Hunger, 2012, p. 221-222). However, since the focus has shifted to international markets which allows for even more

More about Church And Dwight Case

Open Document