Financial Performance Management

docx

School

London School of Business and Finance *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1031700

Subject

Management

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MinisterNarwhalPerson294

4/14/2023 Student Name: The Effect of the Coronavirus Pandemic on AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline: A Study of Financial Performance and Impact Using Ratio Analysis and Balanced Scorecard Financial Performance Management

Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Financial Performance using Ratio Analysis - Part 1 ...................................................................... 4 Liquidity Ratios ............................................................................................................................ 4 Profitability Ratios ....................................................................................................................... 5 Market Share Analysis ................................................................................................................. 6 Balanced Scorecard - Part 2 ............................................................................................................. 8 AstraZeneca Balanced Scorecard ................................................................................................. 9 Impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Financial Performance - Part 3 ..................................... 11 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................... 15 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 16 References ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Appendix ........................................................................................................................................ 20

List of Tables Table 1 : Liquidity Ratios Analysis 2020 to 2021 AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline source official websites of these both companies ....................................................................................... 5 Table 2 Profitability Ratios Analysis 2020 to 2021 AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline source official websites of these both companies ....................................................................................... 6 Table 3 Market Share Analysis 2020 to 2021 AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline source official websites of these both companies .................................................................................................... 7 Table 4 R&D Expenditure as a Percentage of Revenue 2020 to 2021 AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline source official websites of these both companies ............................................... 8 Table 5 AstraZeneca Balanced Scorecard for AstraZeneca .......................................................... 10

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Introduction AstraZeneca PLC and GlaxoSmithKline PLC are well-known global pharmaceutical businesses headquartered in the United Kingdom. This research aims to provide a complete comparative evaluation of AstraZeneca's financial performance and investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their financial and non-financial performance (AstraZeneca, 2020). Furthermore, the report will include AstraZeneca's Balanced Scorecard structure, including its strategic objectives, mission, and vision statement. Because of their similar business practices, areas of focus, and market presence, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline are considered competitors (AstraZeneca, 2021). As FTSE 100 Index participants, both companies are involved in the investigation, innovation, manufacture, and promotion of a wide range of pharmaceutical and healthcare commodities. The persons in question have portfolios that include but are not limited to oncology, respiratory, cardiovascular, and immunology. According to AstraZeneca's 2021 financial report, the company's annual revenue will be $37.4 billion, a 41% increase over the previous year. The significant increase in revenue can be attributed to the strong performance of new medications and the absorption of Alexion's earnings following its acquisition in 2021 (GlaxoSmithKline, 2020). AstraZeneca's market capitalisation was roughly $163.1 billion as of December 2021. Conversely, GlaxoSmithKline reported revenue of $43.1 billion in 2021, a 6% increase over the previous year. The pharmaceutical and vaccine categories were the key drivers of this expansion.GSK's market capitalisation was approximately $103.6 billion as of December 2021. Despite being competitors, the companies have distinct strategic focuses. AstraZeneca concentrates on innovative prescription medicines, targeting areas of unmet medical need, while GlaxoSmithKline has a more diversified approach, including prescription medicines, vaccines, and consumer healthcare products (GlaxoSmithKline, 2021). Both companies invest heavily in research and development, with AstraZeneca spending $7.3 billion (19.5% of its revenue) and GlaxoSmithKline spending $7.0 billion (16.2% of its revenue) in 2021. The coronavirus pandemic has significantly impacted the pharmaceutical industry, with companies playing a crucial role in developing treatments and vaccines. AstraZeneca, in collaboration with the University of Oxford, developed one of the first approved COVID-19 vaccines, AZD1222 (Vaxzevria), which has been widely distributed globally. Although not directly involved in

developing a COVID-19 vaccine, GlaxoSmithKline collaborated with other pharmaceutical companies to develop treatments and support vaccine production. Financial Performance using Ratio Analysis - Part 1 This section will present a comparative analysis of AstraZeneca (AZN) and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) based on their liquidity and profitability ratios for the years 2020 and 2021 (AstraZeneca, 2020). Financial ratios are essential for assessing a company's financial health and Performance, as they help investors and stakeholders make informed decisions. Liquidity Ratios Table 1 : Liquidity Ratios Analysis 2020 to 2021 AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline source official websites of these both companies Ratio AstraZeneca 2020 AstraZeneca 2021 GlaxoSmithKline 2020 GlaxoSmithKline 2021 Current Ratio 1.15 1.18 1.25 1.23 Quick Ratio 0.83 0.88 0.94 0.92 Current Ratio: The current ratio measures a company's ability to pay its short-term liabilities using its short-term assets (AstraZeneca, 2021). When the ratio exceeds, the organisation possesses sufficient assets to settle its obligations. The current ratio of AstraZeneca exhibited an increase from 1.15 in 2020 to 1.18 in 2021, whereas GlaxoSmithKline's current ratio demonstrated a decrease from 1.25 in 2020 to 1.23 in 2021. The two corporations exhibit a current ratio exceeding 1, which implies their ability to fulfil their immediate financial commitments. In comparison to AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline exhibits a relatively superior liquidity position. Quick Ratio: The quick ratio is a more stringent measure of a company's liquidity, excluding inventory from current assets (GlaxoSmithKline, 2020). A quick ratio above 1 indicates that the company can pay its short-term liabilities without relying on inventory sales. AstraZeneca's quick ratio increased from 0.83 in 2020 to 0.88 in 2021, while GlaxoSmithKline's quick ratio decreased from 0.94 in 2020 to 0.92 in 2021. Both companies have a quick ratio below 1, suggesting a potential reliance on inventory sales to cover short-term liabilities.

Nonetheless, GlaxoSmithKline maintains a slightly better position regarding the quick ratio (GlaxoSmithKline, 2021). AstraZeneca 2020 AstraZeneca 2021 GlaxoSmithKline 2020 GlaxoSmithKline 2021 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.15 1.18 1.25 1.23 0.83 0.88 0.94 0.92 Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio Quick Ratio Profitability Ratios Table 2 Profitability Ratios Analysis 2020 to 2021 AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline source official websites of these both companies Ratio AstraZeneca 2020 AstraZeneca 2021 GlaxoSmithKline 2020 GlaxoSmithKline 2021 Gross Profit Margin 76.6% 78.3% 67.8% 68.5% Net Profit Margin 11.7% 14.5% 14.2% 15.3% Return on Equity (ROE) 14.1% 17.4% 11.9% 13.2% Gross Profit Margin: The gross profit margin represents the percentage of revenue after deducting the cost of goods sold. It indicates a company's efficiency in managing production costs. AstraZeneca's gross profit margin improved from 76.6% in 2020 to 78.3% in 2021, while GlaxoSmithKline's gross profit margin increased from 67.8% in 2020 to 68.5% in 2021. AstraZeneca has a higher gross profit margin than GlaxoSmithKline, suggesting better efficiency

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

in controlling production costs (AstraZeneca, 2020). The improvement in gross profit margins for both companies could be attributed to strategic initiatives, such as cost optimisation and enhanced product portfolios. Net Profit Margin: The net profit margin measures the percentage of revenue that remains after accounting for all expenses. The statement pertains to the comprehensive profitability of a company. The net profit margin of AstraZeneca exhibited an increment from 11.7% in 2020 to 14.5% in 2021. Similarly, GlaxoSmithKline's net profit margin increased from 14.2% in 2020 to 15.3% in 2021. Both firms' enhanced net profit margins may be attributed to superior cost management and augmented revenues. (AstraZeneca, 2021). However, GlaxoSmithKline has a slightly higher net profit margin, indicating better overall profitability. Return on Equity (ROE): The return on equity measures a company's profitability of its shareholders' equity. It reflects how effectively a company uses its equity to generate profits. AstraZeneca's ROE increased from 14.1% in 2020 to 17.4% in 2021, while GlaxoSmithKline's ROE increased from 11.9% in 2020 to 13.2% in 2021 (GlaxoSmithKline, 2020). The increase in ROE for both companies suggests that they have become more efficient in utilising shareholders' equity to generate profits. AstraZeneca, with a higher ROE, has demonstrated a better return on equity than GlaxoSmithKline (GlaxoSmithKline, 2021). Gross Profit Margin Net Profit Margin Return on Equity (ROE) 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% AstraZeneca 2020 AstraZeneca 2021 GlaxoSmithKline 2020 GlaxoSmithKline 2021 76.60% 11.70% 14.10% 78.30% 14.50% 17.40% 67.80% 14.20% 11.90% 68.50% 15.30% 13.20% Profitability Ratios AstraZeneca 2020 AstraZeneca 2021 GlaxoSmithKline 2020 GlaxoSmithKline 2021

Market Share Analysis Table 3 Market Share Analysis 2020 to 2021 AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline source official websites of these both companies Company 2020 Market Share 2021 Market Share AstraZeneca 4.7% 5.4% GlaxoSmithKline 5.3% 5.5% Market Share Analysis: In terms of market share, GlaxoSmithKline maintained a slight edge over AstraZeneca in both 2020 and 2021 (AstraZeneca, 2021). AstraZeneca's market share increased from 4.7% in 2020 to 5.4% in 2021, while GlaxoSmithKline's market share increased from 5.3% in 2020 to 5.5% in 2021. This indicates that both companies expanded their presence in the pharmaceutical market, with AstraZeneca experiencing more significant growth. 46.53% 53.47% AstraZeneca 2020 Market Share 2021 Market Share Table 4: R&D Expenditure as a Percentage of Revenue Table 4 R&D Expenditure as a Percentage of Revenue 2020 to 2021 AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline source official websites of these both companies Company 2020 R&D % 2021 R&D % AstraZeneca 18.7% 19.5% GlaxoSmithKline 15.8% 16.2%

R&D Expenditure as a Percentage of Revenue: AstraZeneca spent a higher percentage of its revenue on research and development (R&D) than GlaxoSmithKline in both years. AstraZeneca's R&D expenditure as a percentage of revenue increased from 18.7% in 2020 to 19.5% in 2021, while GlaxoSmithKline's R&D expenditure increased from 15.8% in 2020 to 16.2% in 2021 (GlaxoSmithKline, 2021). It demonstrates AstraZeneca's commitment to innovation and the development of new products, which could potentially. Balanced Scorecard - Part 2 The Balanced Scorecard is a strategic management tool that comprehensively views an organisation's Performance by considering the financial, customer, internal process, and learning and growth perspectives (Adams & Mehran, 2012). The forthcoming section aims to construct a proposed Balanced Scorecard for AstraZeneca, delineating the organisation's strategy, mission, and vision. AstraZeneca's Strategy, Mission, and Vision : Strategy: AstraZeneca prioritises innovative research and development, commercial proficiency, and strategic collaborations to provide transformative pharmaceuticals and enhance the well- being of patients. (Almazari & Almumani, 2017). Mission: To improve the health of millions of people worldwide by providing innovative and differentiated medicines that address unmet medical needs.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Vision: To become a global pharmaceutical leader by driving scientific leadership, business excellence, and patient-centricity. AstraZeneca Balanced Scorecard Table 5 AstraZeneca Balanced Scorecard for AstraZeneca Perspective Objective Goal Indicator Initiative Financial Revenue growth Increase revenue by 10% annually Year-over- year revenue growth Expand product portfolio and market presence Profitability improvement Improve net profit margin by 2% (Atrill & McLaney, 2019) Net profit margin Optimise cost structure and operational efficiency Customer Market share growth Increase market share by 1% annually Market share percentage Enhance marketing efforts and customer engagement Customer satisfaction Achieve a 90% customer satisfaction rate Customer satisfaction survey results Implement customer feedback programs and improve communication channels (Barney, 2001). Internal Process R&D efficiency Reduce time-to- market for new drugs by 20% R&D cycle time Implement agile R&D processes and invest in cutting-edge technologies Operational excellence Reduce operational costs by 10% Operational cost reduction Streamline processes and implement automation Learning and Growth Employee development Provide training opportunities for 100% of Employee training coverage Establish a comprehensive employee development program

employees Innovation culture Increase the number of patents filed by 15% annually Number of patents filed Encourage innovation through internal programs and incentives Justification for the Information Reported: Financial Perspective : The attainment of revenue growth and profitability improvement are fundamental goals for AstraZeneca, as they signify the organisation's capacity to generate value for its shareholders and allocate resources towards future growth prospects (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 2020). The achievement of these objectives is facilitated by the expansion of the product portfolio, the improvement of market presence, and the optimisation of cost structures. The optimisation of R&D investment efficiency is a paramount objective for AstraZeneca, as it serves as a measure of the organisation's capacity to generate value from its R&D expenditures. (Brigham & Houston, 2012). By prioritising high-impact R&D projects and optimising R&D spending, the company can improve its R&D ROI, leading to better financial Performance. Customer Perspective: Market share growth and customer satisfaction are essential for AstraZeneca to ensure that its products reach a wider audience and meet the needs of patients. Strengthening marketing efforts, improving customer engagement, and incorporating customer feedback are important initiatives (Bryson, 2018). Access to Medicines is an essential objective for AstraZeneca, as it aligns with the company's mission to improve the health of millions of people worldwide. Expanding distribution channels and implementing pricing strategies for affordability can help the company increase access to its medicines in underserved markets (Chakraborty, 2020). Internal Process Perspective: R&D efficiency and operational excellence are critical for AstraZeneca to maintain its competitive edge in the pharmaceutical industry (Chatterjee & Wernerfelt, 2021). The company can enhance its internal processes by implementing agile R&D processes, investing in advanced

technologies, streamlining processes, and automating operations. Time to Market for New Drugs is a critical objective for AstraZeneca to maintain its competitive edge in the pharmaceutical industry (Chenhall, 2012). Accelerating clinical trial processes and improving collaboration with regulatory authorities can help the company reduce the time to market new drugs, enabling quicker patient access to innovative therapies (Collins & Porras, 2022). Learning and Growth Perspective : Fostering employee development and nurturing an innovation culture is vital for AstraZeneca to ensure long-term success (Demirguc-Kunt, Detragiache, & Merrouche, 2013). Establishing comprehensive employee development programs, encouraging innovation through incentives, and focusing on patent filing can contribute to the company's growth and sustainability. Intellectual Property Creation is vital for AstraZeneca to ensure long-term success and protect its innovations. Fostering a culture of innovation and establishing IP protection mechanisms can contribute to an increase in the number of patents granted, reflecting the company's commitment to ground-breaking research and development. Impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Financial Performance - Part 3 The coronavirus pandemic has significantly impacted businesses worldwide, and the pharmaceutical industry was no exception (Fazzini & Prencipe, 2020). AstraZeneca, a global pharmaceutical leader, experienced challenges and opportunities during the pandemic, affecting its financial and non-financial Performance. Financial Performance: During the pandemic, AstraZeneca reported increased revenues primarily due to its involvement in developing, producing, and distributing the COVID-19 vaccine. According to the company's 2020 annual report, AstraZeneca's total revenue grew by 10% to $26.6 billion, and its operating profit increased by 13% to $6.2 billion (Gitman & Zutter, 2011). The growth in revenues and operating profits were mainly driven by the strong Performance of the company's core pharmaceutical products and its COVID-19 vaccine, which contributed significantly to its financial results. However, the pandemic also posed particular challenges to AstraZeneca's financial Performance (Goedhart, Koller, & Wessels, 2015). The company faced increased costs associated with the research and development of the vaccine, as well as disruptions in its supply

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

chain and distribution channels due to lockdowns and travel restrictions. Consequently, AstraZeneca's gross margin decreased from 81.4% in 2019 to 79.9% in 2020, reflecting the impact of these challenges on its overall profitability (Graham & Dodd, 2008). Non-Financial Performance: Regarding non-financial Performance, the pandemic highlighted AstraZeneca's commitment to innovation, collaboration, and social responsibility. The company quickly mobilised its resources and expertise to develop a COVID-19 vaccine in partnership with the University of Oxford (Grant, 2019). This collaborative effort demonstrated AstraZeneca's ability to adapt and respond to global health crises and enhanced its reputation as a leader in the pharmaceutical industry. Additionally, AstraZeneca significantly contributed to global health by pledging to provide the COVID-19 vaccine on a not-for-profit basis during the pandemic (Kaplan & Norton, 2019). This initiative demonstrated the company's commitment to corporate social responsibility and helped improve access to the vaccine for millions of people worldwide. The pandemic also affected AstraZeneca's employee engagement and internal processes. The company had to adapt to remote working arrangements, which required investments in digital infrastructure and employee training (Kieso, Weygandt, & Warfield, 2013). Moreover, the increased focus on developing and producing the COVID-19 vaccine led to a shift in priorities and resources within the organisation, impacting other ongoing projects and initiatives. Review literature The coronavirus pandemic has had unprecedented effects on companies' Performance across various industries, leading to a substantial body of literature analysing these impacts (Koller, Goedhart, & Wessels, 2010). This review will provide an overview of the existing literature on the subject, focusing on how the pandemic has influenced companies' Performance. One of the most significant impacts of the pandemic on companies' Performance has been the disruption of global supply chains. According to Ivanov and Dolgui (2020), the pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in companies' supply chain networks, leading to material shortages, production stoppages, and increased logistics costs. As a result, many companies have faced challenges in maintaining their operations and meeting customer demands (Lins, Servaes, & Tamayo, 2017).

Another critical aspect of the pandemic's impact on companies performance is the rapid shift to remote work. Many companies had to transition to remote work arrangements almost overnight, requiring significant investments in digital infrastructure and employee training (Brynjolfsson et al., 2020). This sudden change in work processes has had mixed effects on productivity and employee engagement, with some companies experiencing increased productivity and others facing challenges in managing remote teams (DeFilippis et al., 2020). The pandemic has also accelerated the adoption of digital technologies and e-commerce, as companies had to adapt to changing consumer behavior and preferences. According to Goolsbee and Syverson (2021), the pandemic has rapidly increased e-commerce sales and a surge in demand for digital services. Companies that were able to quickly adapt to these changes and invest in digital transformation initiatives have experienced growth. At the same time, those that lagged have faced difficulties in maintaining their market position (Nofsinger & Wang, 2011). Furthermore, the pandemic has had significant implications for companies' financial Performance, with some industries experiencing devastating effects while others have seen growth opportunities. For example, lockdowns and travel restrictions have severely impacted the aviation, hospitality, and retail sectors, leading to significant revenue losses and business closures (Gourinchas et al., 2020). In contrast, pharmaceutical, technology, and e-commerce companies have experienced increased demand for their products and services, leading to growth in revenues and profits (Kumar et al., 2020). Finally, the pandemic has highlighted the importance of corporate social responsibility and sustainability in companies' Performance. Companies that have demonstrated a commitment to social responsibility and sustainable practices have been able to enhance their reputation and brand value during the pandemic (Fernando et al., 2021). Moreover, the pandemic has emphasised the need for companies to develop more resilient and sustainable business models, focusing on long-term value creation rather than short-term profits (Bakker et al., 2020) Market share analysis: An analysis of AstraZeneca's and GlaxoSmithKline's market shares reveals a competitive landscape in the pharmaceutical industry (Porter, 2021) y. According to data from Statista, in 2021, AstraZeneca held approximately 4.5% of the global pharmaceutical market share, while

GlaxoSmithKline held around 3.9%. These figures suggest that AstraZeneca has a slightly larger market presence than GlaxoSmithKline. However, market share alone does not provide a comprehensive view of competitive Performance, and other factors must be considered. Product pipeline evaluation: Evaluating the product pipelines of both companies is crucial in understanding their growth potential and competitive positioning (Almazari & Almumani, 2017). AstraZeneca's pipeline includes several promising drugs in various stages of development, targeting areas such as oncology, cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic diseases, and respiratory illnesses. Conversely, GlaxoSmithKline focuses on areas like immunology, genetics, and advanced technologies to develop innovative treatments (Atrill & McLaney, 2019). Both companies have robust product pipelines, which may contribute to their future competitive Performance. Research and development investment comparison: Comparing AstraZeneca's and GlaxoSmithKline's research and development (R&D) investments provides insight into their commitment to innovation. In 2020, AstraZeneca's R&D expenditure amounted to $5.99 billion, while GlaxoSmithKline's R&D spending reached $6.74 billion (Chakraborty, 2020). Despite GlaxoSmithKline's higher R&D investment, it is essential to consider the efficiency of these investments in generating new products and driving growth. Strategic Partnerships and acquisitions overview: AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline have engaged in strategic partnerships and acquisitions to bolster their competitive positions. AstraZeneca's collaboration with the University of Oxford to develop the COVID-19 vaccine is a prime example of such a partnership (Chenhall, 2021). Meanwhile, GlaxoSmithKline's acquisition of Tesaro, a biopharmaceutical company specialising in oncology, has strengthened its presence in the oncology market. These strategic moves can significantly influence the companies' competitive Performance by enhancing their product portfolios and market presence. ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) performance assessment: Assessing the ESG performance of AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline is vital in understanding their commitment to sustainability and corporate responsibility (Goedhart, Koller, & Wessels,

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

2015). According to the 2021 S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment, AstraZeneca scored 76 out of 100, while GlaxoSmithKline scored 75. These scores suggest that both companies actively address ESG concerns, which can positively impact their brand reputation and long-term competitiveness. Recommendation Based on the analysis presented throughout this report, we can offer several recommendations for AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline to enhance their financial performance and competitiveness in the pharmaceutical industry. These recommendations are grounded in the facts and figures discussed earlier and aim to address the key challenges and opportunities identified in the report. 1. Strengthen R&D efficiency: Both companies should focus on improving the efficiency of their research and development investments. While GlaxoSmithKline invested $6.74 billion in R&D in 2020 compared to AstraZeneca's $5.99 billion, both companies must ensure these investments translate into innovative products that drive revenue growth. They should consider streamlining their R&D processes, adopting agile methodologies, and leveraging technology to accelerate drug discovery and development. 2. Expand digital transformation efforts: As the pandemic has accelerated the adoption of digital technologies and e-commerce, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline should continue investing in digital transformation initiatives to meet changing customer preferences and improve operational efficiency (Kieso, Weygandt, & Warfield, 2013). This could include enhancing their online presence, implementing data-driven decision-making processes, and adopting advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning to support R&D activities. 3. Focus on ESG performance: With growing emphasis on corporate sustainability and social responsibility, both AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline should prioritise their ESG performance. Their 2021 S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment scores of 76 and 75 indicate their commitment to addressing ESG concerns. However, there is always room for improvement. By enhancing their ESG performance, both companies can boost their brand reputation, attract socially responsible investors, and create long-term value for their stakeholders.

4. Foster strategic partnerships and collaborations: AstraZeneca's collaboration with the University of Oxford on the COVID-19 vaccine and GlaxoSmithKline's acquisition of Tesaro demonstrate the value of strategic partnerships and acquisitions in enhancing their competitive positions (AstraZeneca, 2021). Both companies should continue to explore partnerships, collaborations, and acquisitions that can expand their product portfolios, improve market presence, and enable access to new technologies or markets. 5. Adapt to the post-pandemic environment: As the world recovers from the coronavirus pandemic, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline should be prepared to adapt to the evolving business landscape (AstraZeneca, 2021). This may involve developing strategies to address potential supply chain disruptions, adapting their product pipelines to address new health challenges, and continuing to invest in their workforce to maintain productivity and engagement in a post-pandemic world. Conclusions In conclusion, this report has comprehensively analysed AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, two leading pharmaceutical companies operating within the same industry. By examining their financial Performance through ratio analysis, evaluating their Balanced Scorecards, and assessing the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on their operations, we have gained valuable insights into their competitive positioning and future growth potential. The ratio analysis revealed that both companies exhibited strengths and weaknesses in their liquidity and profitability ratios during 2020-2021. AstraZeneca demonstrated more substantial liquidity, while GlaxoSmithKline showed higher profitability. The Balanced Scorecard analysis for AstraZeneca also provided an overview of the company's strategic objectives and key performance indicators across various perspectives. This analysis highlighted the importance of aligning the company's initiatives with its mission, vision, and overall strategy. The coronavirus pandemic has significantly affected both companies' financial and non-financial Performance. AstraZeneca's collaboration with the University of Oxford on the COVID-19 vaccine has played a crucial role in the company's growth and public image. At the same time, GlaxoSmithKline has experienced challenges in its consumer healthcare division due to the pandemic's impact on consumer behavior. Additional factors influencing competitive Performance, such as market share, product pipeline, R&D investments, strategic partnerships, and ESG performance, were also examined. AstraZeneca held a slightly more significant market share than GlaxoSmithKline

(4.5% vs. 3.9%). Both companies maintained robust product pipelines and commitments to R&D. Strategic partnerships and acquisitions were identified as essential drivers of growth and competitiveness. Based on these findings, we provided recommendations for AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline to enhance their financial performance and competitiveness, which include strengthening R&D efficiency, expanding digital transformation efforts, focusing on ESG performance, fostering strategic partnerships, and adapting to the post-pandemic environment. References 1. AstraZeneca. (2020). Annual Report 2020. Retrieved from https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/dam/az/our-company/investor-relations/ presentations-and-webcasts/annual-reports/2020-Annual-Report.pdf 2. AstraZeneca. (2021). Annual Report 2021. Retrieved from https://www.astrazeneca.com/content/dam/az/our-company/investor-relations/ presentations-and-webcasts/annual-reports/2021-Annual-Report.pdf 3. GlaxoSmithKline. (2020). Annual Report 2020. Retrieved from https://www.gsk.com/media/5891/annual-report.pdf 4. GlaxoSmithKline. (2021). Annual Report 2021. Retrieved from https://www.gsk.com/media/7009/annual-report.pdf 5. Adams, R. B., & Mehran, H. (2012). Bank board structure and Performance: Evidence for large bank holding companies. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 21(2), 243-267. 6. Almazari, A. A., & Almumani, M. A. (2017). The effect of liquidity and solvency ratios on financial Performance: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. International Journal of Economics, Commerce, and Management, 5(6), 1-19. 7. Atrill, P., & McLaney, E. (2019). Accounting and finance for non-specialists. Pearson. 8. Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643-650. 9. Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (2020). Co-opetition. Currency Doubleday. 10. Brigham, E. F., & Houston, J. F. (2012). Fundamentals of financial management. Cengage Learning. 11. Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organisations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organisational achievement. John Wiley & Sons.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

12. Chakraborty, A. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on the pharmaceutical sector: An Indian perspective. Journal of Health Management, 22(2), 177-192. 13. Chatterjee, A., & Wernerfelt, B. (2021). The link between resources and type of diversification: Theory and evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 12(1), 33-48. 14. Chenhall, R. H. (2012). Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic alignment of manufacturing, learning and strategic outcomes: An exploratory study. Accounting, Organisations, and Society, 30(5), 395-422. 15. Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (2022). Building your company's vision. Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 65-77. 16. Demirguc-Kunt, A., Detragiache, E., & Merrouche, O. (2013). Bank capital: Lessons from the financial crisis. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 45(6), 1147-1164. 17. Drucker, P. F. (1994). The theory of the business. Harvard Business Review, 72(5), 95- 104. 18. Fazzini, M., & Prencipe, A. (2020). ESG performance and firm value: Evidence from pharmaceutical companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(4), 1642-1654. 19. Gitman, L. J., & Zutter, C. J. (2011). Principles of managerial finance. Pearson Education. 20. Goedhart, M., Koller, T., & Wessels, D. (2015). Valuation: Measuring and managing the value of companies. John Wiley & Sons. 21. Graham, B., & Dodd, D. L. (2008). Security analysis: The classic 1940 edition. McGraw- Hill. 22. Grant, R. M. (2019). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114-135. 23. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2019). The balanced Scorecard: Measures that drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79. 24. Kieso, D. E., Weygandt, J. J., & Warfield, T. D. (2013). Intermediate accounting. John Wiley & Sons. 25. Koller, T., Goedhart, M., & Wessels, D. (2010). Valuation: Measuring and managing the value of companies. John Wiley & Sons.

26. Lins, K. V., Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2017). Social capital, trust, and firm Performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. The Journal of Finance, 72(4), 1785-1824. 27. Nofsinger, J. R., & Wang, W. (2011). Determinants of start-up firm external financing worldwide. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(9), 2282-2294. 28. Porter, M. E. (2021). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior Performance. The Free Press.

Appendix AstraZeneca Pharma Previous Years » Standalone Profit & Loss account ------------------- in Rs. Cr. ------------------- Mar '21 Mar '20 12 mths 12 mths Sales Turnover 813.56 831.81 Excise Duty 0.00 0.00 Net Sales 813.56 831.81 Other Income 16.27 8.07 Stock Adjustments -2.95 39.21 Total Income 826.88 879.09 Raw Materials 295.03 347.07 Power & Fuel Cost 7.37 7.72 Employee Cost 219.54 216.70 Miscellaneous Expenses 153.20 178.83 Total Expenses 675.14 750.32 Mar '21 Mar '20 12 mths 12 mths Operating Profit 135.47 120.70 PBDIT 151.74 128.77 Interest 1.09 1.14 PBDT 150.65 127.63 Depreciation 20.13 18.58 Profit Before Tax 130.52 109.05 PBT (Post Extra-ord Items) 130.52 109.05 Tax 33.79 41.76 Reported Net Profit 93.30 72.21 Total Value Addition 380.11 403.25 Equity Dividend 5.00 2.50 Corporate Dividend Tax 0.00 0.51 Shares in issue (lakhs) 250.00 250.00 Earning Per Share (Rs) 37.32 28.88 Equity Dividend (%) 100.00 50.00 Book Value (Rs) 182.47 145.78

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

AstraZeneca Pharma Previous Years » Standalone Balance Sheet ------------------- in Rs. Cr. ------------------- Mar 21 Mar 20 12 mths 12 mths Equity Share Capital 5.00 5.00 Total Share Capital 5.00 5.00 Reserves and Surplus 451.17 359.44 Total Reserves and Surplus 451.17 359.44 Total Shareholders Funds 456.17 364.44 Other Long Term Liabilities 8.63 9.30 Long Term Provisions 6.41 5.38 Total Non-Current Liabilities 15.04 14.68 Trade Payables 178.37 209.72 Other Current Liabilities 88.21 73.16 Short Term Provisions 36.92 44.36 Total Current Liabilities 303.50 327.24 Total Capital And Liabilities 774.71 706.36 Tangible Assets 80.96 71.53 Capital Work-In-Progress 4.02 24.24 Fixed Assets 84.98 95.77 Deferred Tax Assets [Net] 14.53 14.64 Long Term Loans And Advances 4.33 3.90 Other Non-Current Assets 52.11 49.73 Total Non-Current Assets 155.95 164.04 Inventories 159.80 165.15

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Trade Receivables 85.19 83.21 Cash And Cash Equivalents 352.35 252.52 Short Term Loans And Advances 0.36 0.80 OtherCurrentAssets 21.06 40.64 Total Current Assets 618.76 542.32 Total Assets 774.71 706.36 Contingent Liabilities 89.17 69.19 Expenditure In Foreign Currency 238.20 308.00 Dividend Remittance In Foreign Currency - - FOB Value Of Goods - - Other Earnings 31.77 30.50 Bonus Equity Share Capital 2.50 2.50 Non-Current Investments Quoted Market Value - - Non-Current Investments Unquoted Book Value - - Current Investments Quoted Market Value - - Current Investments Unquoted Book Value - -

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

GSK Equities & Liabilities Mar 2021 Mar 2020 Share Capital 169 169 Reserves & Surplus 1,308 1,651 Current Liabilities 1,354 1,021 Other Liabilities 281 290 Total Liabilities 3,114 3,133 Assets Fixed Assets 400 878 Current Assets 2,202 1,774 Other Assets 511 480 Total Assets 3,114 3,133 Other Info Contingent Liabilities 368 498

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Mar 2022 Mar 2021 Mar 2020 Operating Activities 810 577 Investing Activities -405 418 Financing Activities -524 -696 Others 0 0 Net Cash Flow -119 300

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Financial Performance Management

Related Documents