本文主要讲述的是权力与收益，波特的五力理论认为权力是一件好事。权力必须由不同的实体，如买方和供应商，在某种程度上帮助他们受益，但它也应该是公平的，因为它不应该导致剥削他人(波特，2011)。在波特的战略概念的背景下，购买力和定价是带来底线利益的概念。然而，公司必须了解与它相关的不同利益相关者，并相应地使用他们的权力(Crook & Combs, 2007)。例如，一些公司撒谎科尔可能会利用他们的权力敲诈或威胁他们的供应商。然而，从长远来看，这将损害他们在供应商中的声誉，没有供应商有兴趣与他们合作，因此他们在技术上失去了战略力量。本篇曼彻斯特论文代写文章由英国论文通AssignmentPass辅导网整理，供大家参考阅读。
Porter’s five forces theory presents power as a good thing. Power must be usable by different entities such as the buyer and the supplier in a way that helps them benefit, but it should also be fair in that it should not lead to exploitation of other (Porter, 2011). In the context of the Porter’s strategic concepts, purchasing power and pricing are concepts that bring the bottom line benefits. However, a company must understand different stakeholders associated with it and use their power accordingly (Crook & Combs, 2007). For instance, some companies lie Cole might use their power to extort or threaten their suppliers. However, in the long run, it would damage their reputation with their suppliers and no suppliers would be interested in working with them, so they technically lose their strategic power.
In assessing decision making as a manager in a group when endowed with power, one should act in a way that is true to their duty, but at the same time, consider pros and cons to others who would be impacted by the managerial decision making. Using power as a strategy would be a suitable benefit only if pros and cons to all stakeholders in the long run are considered. Power cannot be used in an arbitrary sense as a standalone entity.
Delaying payments as seen in the case of Tesco and others is a creative accounting practice or negotiation. Tesco was seen to have delayed payments to suppliers for improving its financial position, and some retailed in the United Kingdom and Australia are seen to stop payment to suppliers when they want to improve volume purchases to show better cash flow. Now this is unethical under accounting practices guidelines as well as the good faith position under the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct.
While flexible negotiations are certainly allowed in accounting practices, creating negotiations where even one of the suppliers would suffer because of non-payment or deliberate delayed payment, is unethical (Reeve, 2013). Basing the response on using the theory of principle of maximum beneficence, it could be said that at all times a manager should work such that all stakeholders are benefited as much as possible, no more and no less. Like the company, and its shareholders, the suppliers are also stakeholders, so delaying money to them to benefit others would not be proper. Based on their ethical principles and understanding, I would deny delaying the payments to the suppliers.