Prem Sikka writes:
Another
week, another merger and another stock market frenzy. This time the news that
Asda and Sainsbury’s might merge has excited the speculators and they are busy
buying shares to make quick profits.
At one point, Sainsbury’s share
price rose by 20% as speculators scented gains for the merger.
And the owners of these shares will decide the future of the companies –
without any concern about the implications for employees, suppliers, customers
and local communities.
Currently Tesco dominates the supermarket
business, with around 28% of the market share. The combined Asda/Sainsbury’s
business will have around 2,800 stores, 330,000 employees – and around 31% of
the market.
To get
the public onside the companies are promising 10% cut in the price of popular
foods, which is probably undeliverable. And while they make some token
gestures, they certainly won’t be cutting their own profit margins. Instead,
their huge market power is likely to be used to squeeze farmers, food
manufactures and other suppliers.
Remember the headlines about Tesco when
it delayed payments to its suppliers to boost its cash flow and profits? Some
suppliers had to wait two years for millions of pounds owed by Tesco. The
company was criticised for unilaterally making deductions from invoice
payments.
And Tesco was accused of seriously breaching
the legally binding code governing the grocery market. The same can happen
again as executives chase performance related pay and shareholders press for
higher short-term returns.
All mergers produce job losses, and this one
is unlikely to prove an exception: the ultimate driving force behind mergers
and acquisition is private profits. Sainsbury’s/Asda say that the combined
entity will not close any stores. They might keep to this promise in the
short-term, but store closures seem inevitable.
In many localities
Sainsbury’s and Asda compete within a stone throw of each other: it is hard to
see how that would continue for long. The closure of stores will be devastating
news for some neighbourhoods.
And even if stores are not closed there will
be job losses: the merged entity will hardly need two purchasing departments,
two accounting teams, two Human Resource (Personnel) departments, two staff
training facilities and so on.
With
huge concentration of market power in the merged entity, there will inevitably
be a reference to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). This
concentration is not just in terms of the bricks and mortar shops in the high
street, but also on the internet as the same concerns dominate the online
grocery trade.
However, the CMA has been very ambivalent
about the grocery business, and has been content to see the big four
supermarkets (Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s, Morrison’s) dominate the market.
In December 2017, the CMA approved Tesco’s
£3.7bn takeover of Booker,
the largest food wholesale supplier. In 2015, the CMA cleared the merger of Poundland and
99p Stores. And in 2010, CMA’s predecessor the Office of Fair Trading (OFT)
approved Asda’s acquisition of Netto,
while the 2004 acquisition of Safeway by Morrison’s was accompanied by the
requirement to divest some stores to rivals.
Might
the CMA require Asda/Sainsbury’s to sell some of their stores to rivals as a
condition of approving the merger? Even if it does so, the new mammoth will
still dominate the market and all the dangers to suppliers and prices will
remain.
The proposed Asda/Sainsbury’s will turn the
‘big four’ into the ‘giant three’ – though some commentators believe that
following its US acquisition of Wholefoods, Amazon may eventually enter the UK
fray with the acquisition of smaller supermarkets.
Either way, the merger is
likely to be referred to the Business Secretary – a department which tamely
approved the recent hostile takeover of GKN by Melrose, and is unlikely to
upset big business by exercising a veto.
Whist a lot of public discussion has focused
on competition and consumer choice, employees have not been consulted. They
should be. Employees have legitimate concerns about jobs and pensions. What
will happen to the pension schemes of the respective companies?
Asda operates a defined contribution scheme,
while Sainsbury’s (which also controls Argos) operates a defined benefit
scheme. Will Sainsbury’s employees be forced to join the inferior Asda scheme?
Secondly, the most recent financial
information from Sainsbury’s states that “Our pension deficit
has reduced by £589 million from £850 million last year to £261 million at the
year end”. So what will happen to the deficit?
The
brain, brawn of workers has built these companies: and unlike speculators they
have a long-term interest in the well-being of the companies. They should not
be traded in mergers and takeover bazaars without any say.
That would not happen in most other EU
countries, where workers have statutory rights of information and consultation,
and also employee elected directors on company boards. At the very least, the
same should happen in the UK.
No comments:
Post a Comment