INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9335

www.rsisinternational.org

When Giants Fall: Managerial Myopia, Financialization, and the

Collapse of Global Retail

Olusegun A. Obasun

Consultant, Segunobasun Consult, FCT Abuja, Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0708

Received: 19 November 2025; Accepted: 25 November 2025; Published: 02 December 2025

ABSTRACT

The global retail sector has undergone one of the most dramatic periods of corporate failure in modern business

history. Once-dominant giants such as Sears, JCPenney, Debenhams, Edcon, and Toys "R" Us collapsed not

simply because of the disruptive rise of e-commerce, but because their internal systems—strategic judgment,

cultural adaptability, governance discipline, and investment priorities—failed to evolve on time. This paper

challenges the conventional narrative that retail decline was technologically predetermined. Instead, it shows

that the decisive breakdowns were internal: managerial myopia, financialization-driven resource erosion, and

cultural rigidity that hindered organizations' ability to sense, seize, and transform in response to strategic

inflection points.

Drawing on eight cross-country case studies and integrating insights from the Structure–Conduct–Performance

framework, Porter’s competitive strategy, the Resource-Based View, and Dynamic Capabilities Theory, the study

identifies consistent patterns across diverse markets. Retail giants that collapsed did not lack resources; they

lacked the ability to renew them. By contrast, resilient incumbents such as Walmart, Target, and Inditex

demonstrate that reinvestment, cultural coherence, and organizational agility—not scale or history—determine

survival. The study contributes a unified model explaining how strategic, cultural, and governance failures

interact to erode adaptive capacity. It concludes with practical implications for executives and boards seeking to

rebuild resilience in a digital, financially volatile era.

Keywords: retail decline, strategic misalignment, managerial incompetence, e-commerce disruption, corporate

culture, globalization,

INTRODUCTION

For more than two decades, the global retail landscape has witnessed the dramatic decline of once-dominant

firms—including Sears, JCPenney, Toys “R” Us, Debenhams, and Edcon—whose market power once appeared

unassailable. Their collapse is frequently attributed to the disruptive rise of e-commerce and the competitive

dominance of platform-based retailers such as Amazon, Alibaba, and JD.com. Undoubtedly, the sector has

undergone an epochal transformation: technological disruption, shifts in consumer expectations, and the

ascendancy of data-driven platform ecosystems have fundamentally reconfigured the rules of competition.

Between 2010 and 2022, global e-commerce penetration rose from 4.6% to over 19% (Statista, 2023), marking

one of the most profound structural realignments in the history of modern retail. Yet this popular narrative, while

convenient, is incomplete.

If technological disruption alone were sufficient to topple retail incumbents, then firms exposed to the same

pressures—such as Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and Inditex—should have suffered similar outcomes. Instead,

these organizations adapted, repositioned, and reinvented their business models. Their divergent trajectories raise

a pivotal question: Why did some incumbents navigate disruption successfully, while others collapsed under

identical environmental conditions?

This paper argues that the decisive differentiator was not external turbulence but internal capability erosion. The

firms that failed were not defeated by digital competitors—they were defeated by their own inability to respond.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9336

www.rsisinternational.org

Strategic inertia, cultural rigidity, and governance short-termism converged with financial models that prioritized

extraction over reinvestment. These organizations became structurally incapable of learning, innovating, or

transforming in line with market realities.

While academic research has extensively examined retail transformation and the rise of e-commerce, far less

attention has been paid to the internal managerial and organizational failures that mediated these pressures. This

study addresses that gap. By integrating established strategic and organizational theories—SCP, Porter’s Five

Forces, RBV, and Dynamic Capabilities—with detailed cross-country case evidence, it offers a multi-level

explanation of retail collapse that bridges external market dynamics with internal managerial cognition, resource

allocation, and cultural alignment.

Three premises guide this analysis:

1. External disruption is not determinative; internal response is. Digital disruption acted as a catalyst,

but the root causes of collapse were endogenous.

2. Strategic decline is cumulative, not sudden. Retail failures unfolded through years of incremental

misjudgment, underinvestment, and cultural misalignment.

3. Resilience depends on renewal systems. The retailers that survived invested continually in

capabilities—technology, people, culture, and infrastructure—that enabled adaptation.

Accordingly, this paper examines two central research questions:

RQ1: What recurring strategic, cultural, and governance failures precipitated the decline of major retail firms

across diverse contexts?

RQ2: How does an integrated theoretical lens—combining SCP, Porter, RBV, and Dynamic Capabilities—offer

a more complete explanation of retail collapse than technological disruption alone?

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the comparative methodology and data

sources. Section 3 analyzes U.S. retail collapses, while Section 4 broadens the view to international cases.

Section 5 synthesizes findings into a unified model of strategic decline. Section 6 offers practical implications

for executives, boards, and policymakers. Section 7 concludes with broader lessons about organizational

resilience and strategic renewal in an era of relentless transformation.

METHODOLOGY

This study employs a comparative, multi-case qualitative research design to examine why incumbent retailers

across different markets, facing similar technological disruptions, experienced drastically divergent outcomes.

The approach is theory-informed, integrative, and deliberately cross-contextual, enabling a deeper exploration

of how strategic decisions, cultural dynamics, governance structures, and financial models interact to influence

long-term competitive resilience.

Research Design

A comparative case study design was selected because it allows for rich, contextualized analysis of complex

organizational phenomena that cannot be captured through quantitative methods alone. Retail collapse is a

multicausal process shaped by leadership decisions, internal capabilities, and environmental turbulence. As Yin

(2018) emphasizes, qualitative case studies are particularly effective for examining how and why such processes

unfold over time. This study synthesizes externally observable data—such as financial filings, strategic

decisions, and leadership transitions—with theory-driven interpretation. The objective is not merely to document

events, but to uncover patterns and mechanisms that connect managerial behavior, organizational structures, and

competitive decline. The author acknowledges the use of AI for drafting assistance and language refinement to

enhance the clarity of the manuscript. All substantive content, analyses, and conclusions were independently

developed by the author.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9337

www.rsisinternational.org

Case Selection

Eight major retailers were selected based on three criteria:

1. Historical Market Leadership – Each firm was once a dominant national or international player, ruling

out resource poverty or obscurity as explanations for decline.

2. Clear Decline or Bankruptcy Event – Each experienced severe deterioration post-2000, culminating in

collapse, administration, or strategic retrenchment.

3. Documented Strategic or Governance Failures – Each provides rich evidence—across filings,

journalism, and industry analyses—of internal decision-making failures.

The final sample includes:

1. United States: Sears, JCPenney, Toys "R" Us, Bed Bath & Beyond

2. International: Debenhams (UK), Edcon (South Africa), Metro AG (Germany), Carrefour (Asia

operations)

This selection offers both longitudinal depth and geographic diversity, enabling the study to investigate whether

similar patterns persist across heterogeneous market and regulatory environments.

Data Collection and Triangulation

Data were drawn from four independent streams to ensure analytic reliability:

1. Corporate Filings: SEC and equivalent regulatory filings, annual reports, restructuring documents

2. Academic Literature: Peer-reviewed work in strategic management, retail economics, and

organizational behavior

3. Industry and Market Reports: Matuson & Associates, Euromonitor International, Harvard Business

Review

4. Business Journalism and Trade Publications: Bloomberg, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, The

Guardian, retail sector magazines

Triangulation followed Jick's (1979) guidance, which involves cross-verifying insights across independent

sources to reduce bias and enhance validity. Particular attention was paid to aligning financial data with narrative

accounts of leadership decisions and cultural dynamics.

Analytical Framework and Procedure

The analysis integrates four complementary theoretical lenses—each illuminating a different dimension of

decline:

1. Structure–Conduct–Performance (SCP): Identifies how market structure shifts (digital entrants,

platform competition) altered competitive conditions.

2. Porter’s Five Forces: Assesses how competitive pressure eroded incumbents’ moats over time.

3. Resource-Based View (RBV): Examines how firms mismanaged or depleted strategic assets—brand

equity, culture, knowledge, supply chain capabilities.

4. Dynamic Capabilities: Evaluates firms’ ability to sense, seize, and transform in response to disruption.

Analytical Steps:

1. Within-Case Analysis: Each firm was analyzed across four dimensions—(a) strategy, (b) leadership

cognition, (c) cultural adaptability, and (d) governance/financial model.

2. Cross-Case Pattern Matching: Identification of recurring causal mechanisms (e.g., debt overhang

effects; cultural rigidity; failure to invest in digital infrastructure).

3. Theory Integration: The multi-framework approach enabled the development of a unified model

capturing how internal failures transformed external disruption into collapse.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9338

www.rsisinternational.org

Limitations

This study relies on secondary data, which limits direct insight into executive motivations or internal cultural

dynamics. However, triangulation and the use of multiple theoretical frameworks mitigate this limitation by

grounding interpretations in converging evidence. Additionally, although the cases span diverse geographies, the

sample size is not designed for statistical generalization; rather, the contribution lies in its conceptual richness

and theoretical development.

Building on the methodological foundation outlined above, the following section operationalizes this framework

through detailed case analyses. Each case—beginning with the U.S. retail collapses and extending to

international counterparts— examines how leadership cognition, cultural rigidity, and governance blind spots

combined to erode adaptive capacity in the face of digital disruption and financial pressure. By tracing these

dynamics within and across contexts, the analysis reveals recurring managerial pathologies and strategic

missteps that transformed once-dominant retailers into cautionary lessons in organizational failure.

Case Studies and Comparative Analysis

U.S. Retail Case Studies: A Diagnostic Analysis of Strategic Failure

The decline of major U.S. retail giants provides a compelling lens for understanding how managerial

misjudgment, financial engineering, and cultural deterioration combine to undermine organizational resilience.

Although each company faced unique challenges, their trajectories reveal a shared anatomy of failure: chronic

underinvestment, strategic confusion, leadership instability, and an erosion of the adaptive capabilities required

to navigate digital disruption. This section analyzes four emblematic U.S. cases—Sears, JCPenney, Toys “R”

Us, and Bed Bath & Beyond—to illuminate the internal dynamics that transformed environmental pressure into

strategic collapse.

Sears Holdings Corporation: When Financial Engineering Replaces Strategy

Sears’ collapse is one of the most scrutinized cases of retail failure—not because its competitive environment

was uniquely hostile, but because internal decisions systematically dismantled the firm’s ability to adapt. Once

the world’s largest retailer, Sears commanded formidable advantages: national distribution scale, extensive real

estate assets, strong private-label brands, and decades of consumer trust. Yet from the mid-2000s onward, these

strengths eroded as leadership embraced an ideology of financialization over strategic renewal.

Following the 2005 merger with Kmart under hedge fund manager Edward Lampert, Sears increasingly operated

less as a retailer and more as a portfolio of monetizable assets. Rather than reinvesting in stores, logistics, or

digital transformation, leadership prioritized share buybacks, real estate spinoffs, and asset sales—moves widely

criticized as a form of “asset stripping” (Business Insider, 2018). This financial engineering strategy was

compounded by a dysfunctional organizational redesign. Lampert’s imposition of a “Darwinian internal market”

split the company into roughly 30 autonomous business units that were forced to compete for resources. The

result was a toxic environment of silos, rivalry, mistrust, and short-termism that destroyed collaboration and

crippled cross-functional innovation (Corkery, 2017).

The consequences were predictable and severe. With minimal reinvestment, stores deteriorated, talent exited,

and the company missed critical windows to develop digital capabilities. Revenue collapsed from $53.01 billion

in fiscal year 2006 to $16.70 billion in fiscal year 2017, a decrease of over 68% (U.S. SEC Filings, 2017).

Applying Kotter’s (1996) model of organizational transformation, Sears’ failure can be understood as a

breakdown in the foundational stages of change management. Leadership failed to cultivate a shared sense of

urgency or articulate a coherent strategic vision for the digital era, leaving the company strategically disoriented

in the face of disruptive competitors such as Amazon. This absence of visionary leadership, coupled with

deepseated cultural inertia and managerial misalignment, eroded the firm’s adaptive capacity. In essence, the

misalignment between organizational culture and corporate strategy neutralized Sears’ ability to evolve,

culminating in its bankruptcy filing in October 2018.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9339

www.rsisinternational.org

JCPenney: Strategic Overreach and Cultural Disconnect

JCPenney's decline, culminating in its May 2020 Chapter 11 bankruptcy offers a different but equally instructive

lesson: bold strategic change can be catastrophic when it disregards customer psychology and organizational

culture. The pivotal failure occurred during the 2011–2013 tenure of CEO Ron Johnson—celebrated for building

Apple’s retail stores—whose radical attempt to reinvent the brand overnight proved catastrophic. Johnson

eliminated JCPenney's hallmark discount-driven pricing and promotions, replacing them with an "everyday low

price" strategy and boutique-style stores. The problem was not ambition; it was misalignment. JCPenney’s

customers relied on coupons and promotions as emotional anchors of value perception. Johnson eliminated both

without testing, piloting, or engaging frontline employees. The new pricing model alienated loyal shoppers,

while the boutique redesign stripped the stores of their familiar identity.

The financial consequences were immediate and severe. Revenue plunged by 25% in the first full year of

Johnson’s strategy, falling from $17.3 billion in 2011 to $12.9 billion in 2012 (Farrell, 2013). Same-store sales

collapsed by 32% in the fourth quarter of 2012 alone, one of the sharpest declines in modern U.S. retail history.

The episode has since become a canonical case of strategic miscalculation in retail transformation.

The failure was as much cultural as strategic. Johnson's autocratic, top-down leadership clashed with the

company's consensus-driven culture, creating organizational dissonance and plummeting morale. His approach,

described as "cultural arrogance"—a disregard for institutional memory and organizational learning—involved

dismissing long-term employees and hiring executives from Apple and Target who lacked experience in

department stores, thereby fostering internal alienation.

JCPenney illustrates that strategy cannot be transplanted without regard for institutional memory, customer

expectations, or cultural dynamics. CEO Ron Johnson imposed identity transformation without internal

consensus or customer readiness, violating core principles of change management. This misalignment between

strategy and culture—highlighted in Kotter (1996) and Schein (2010)—proved fatal. From an RBV lens,

JCPenney abandoned key intangible assets such as customer trust and employee know-how. Weak board

oversight compounded the failure, contributing to the company’s eventual bankruptcy.

Toys “R” Us: Leverage as a Strategic Straightjacket

Toys “R” Us exemplifies how extreme financial leverage can suffocate innovation and operational agility. After

its 2005 leveraged buyout by KKR, Bain Capital, and Vornado Realty Trust, the company was saddled with more

than $5 billion in debt. Annual interest payments exceeding $400 million diverted capital away from ecommerce,

supply chain modernization, and in-store innovation. Despite generating $11.5 billion in revenue in 2016, the

firm lacked strategic flexibility; its underinvestment left digital market share below 5% even as online toy sales

surged (Casey & Gotberg, 2018).

Strategically, the firm was paralyzed by organizational inertia and a nostalgic culture that believed experiential

in-store retailing for children was immune to digital disruption. This cognitive rigidity—an entrenched adherence

to legacy assumptions about consumer behavior—reinforced by a complacent board, created a

profoundmisalignment with the modern market. The combination of an unsustainable financial structure and an

inability to adapt culminated in the 2018 liquidation of all 800 U.S. stores, resulting in the loss of over 30,000

jobs.

The lesson is clear: heavy debt can freeze strategic options, turning environmental challenges into existential

crises. Toys “R” Us did not fail because toys went out of favor; it failed because debt made adaptation impossible.

Bed Bath & Beyond: Strategic Incoherence and Governance Drift

Bed Bath & Beyond's 2023 collapse offers one of the most recent examples of retail decline driven by

inconsistent strategy, leadership turnover, and a catastrophic misreading of supply chain requirements. Despite

decades of growth and strong brand equity, the firm failed to anticipate or respond effectively to the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9340

www.rsisinternational.org

postpandemic shift in consumer preferences toward omnichannel and digitally integrated retail ecosystems,

falling behind competitors such as Amazon, Target, and Walmart.

Leadership instability proved fatal. Over a few years, the company cycled through CEOs—Steven Temares,

Mark Tritton, and Sue Gove—with competing visions, creating strategic incoherence and eroding organizational

morale. Mark Tritton’s tenure (2019–2022) stands out: borrowed from Target’s playbook, he aggressively

expanded private-label products while reducing national brands and curtailing the popular 20% coupons. The

shift was prematurely executed and poorly supported. Private-label strategies require robust sourcing,

forecasting, and quality control systems—all of which Bed Bath & Beyond lacked. The result was chronic

inventory shortages, inferior product offerings, reduced foot traffic, supplier frustration, and eroded customer

trust.

This strategic drift resulted in a catastrophic financial decline. Annual revenue plunged from $12.3 billion in

2018 to $5.3 billion in 2023 (Repko & Rizzo, 2023). Suppliers tightened credit terms, accelerating the company’s

liquidity crisis. The board's failure to ensure strategic continuity or anticipate the liquidity crisis underscores a

profound governance breakdown. Analysts widely attribute the firm’s April 2023 bankruptcy, which followed

the closure of over 400 stores, to chronic leadership indecision, eroded supplier trust, and cultural stagnation

(Biswas & Gladstone, 2023).

Ultimately, Bed Bath & Beyond’s collapse underscores that transformation requires consistency, operational

readiness, and governance discipline. Leadership churn, strategic volatility, and weak board oversight created a

downward spiral that no short-term initiative could correct.

Table 1. Summary of U.S. Retail Failures

Company

Peak

Revenue

(US$ bn)

Revenue Before

Bankruptcy

(US$ bn)

Decline

(%)

Key Managerial/Strategic Failures

Year of

Bankruptcy

Sears

53.0 (2006 )

16.7 (2017)

-68

Financialization, toxic internal culture,

underinvestment

2018

JCPenney

17.7 (2011)

10.7 (2019)

-40

Brand mispositioning, leadership turnover,

catastrophic strategy execution, high debt

2020

Toys “R”

13.7 (2006)

11.1 (( 2017)

-19

Debt overhang from LBO, digital

innovation deficit

2017

Company

Peak

Revenue

(US$ bn)

Revenue Before

Bankruptcy

(US$ bn)

Decline

(%)

Key Managerial/Strategic Failures

Year of

Bankruptcy

Bed Bath

& Beyond

12.3 (2018)

5.3 (2023)

-57

Strategic drift, e-commerce lag, leadership

churn, failed private-label strategy

2023

Sources: SEC Filings, Bloomberg, Forbes, CNBC (2018–2023)

Together, these U.S. cases reveal a shared lesson: external disruption is rarely fatal on its own. The decisive

failures were internal—rooted in flawed leadership cognition, cultural misalignment, and governance models

that suppressed reinvestment and learning. These themes will be further contrasted against international cases in

the next section.

International Case Studies: Global Patterns of Decline

The patterns of strategic collapse observed in the United States are not isolated phenomena. This section

examines three international cases—Debenhams (United Kingdom), Edcon (South Africa), and Metro AG

(Germany)—along with Carrefour’s failed expansion in East and Southeast Asia. Despite their geographic

diversity, these cases reveal a consistent architecture of decline: misjudged competitive context, capital

misallocation, cultural fragmentation, and failure to renew core capabilities.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9341

www.rsisinternational.org

Debenhams (United Kingdom): Legacy Complexity Meets Platform Competition

Debenhams' demise illustrates how financialization through leveraged buyouts (LBOs), combined with strategic

inertia, can erode even the most established legacy brands. The UK retailer's collapse closely parallels the US

cases of Sears and Toys “R” Us. revealing a similar interplay of debt-induced fragility, underinvestment in

innovation, and managerial drift. In 2003, Debenhams was acquired in a private equity takeover. Its debt

ballooned from approximately £100 million to over £1 billion by its 2006 stock market re-flotation. This debt

burden—£720 million by 2018—became a structural constraint, diverting cash flow from modernization to loan

servicing (BBC, 2020).

Starved of capital, Debenhams neglected its store refurbishment programs and failed to keep pace with the digital

transition that reshaped British retail. Internally, a cultural schism emerged between executives advocating for

digital transformation and those clinging to the legacy high-street model. This division produced strategic drift—

an incremental, cumulative loss of alignment between corporate capabilities and the evolving retail environment.

By 2018, online sales represented less than 20% of total revenue, compared to a UK sector average of

approximately 35% (BBC, 2020). This left it acutely vulnerable to online competitors like ASOS and Boohoo

(Chaudhuri & Butler, 2020).

The company recorded six consecutive years of losses between 2014 and 2020. It entered administration (a UK

insolvency procedure) in April 2020, and its operations were wound down in early 2021, ending 242 years of

trading. The brand name was subsequently acquired by Boohoo—a symbolic absorption of a legacy retailer by

a digital-native firm. Debenhams' failure highlights how leveraged financial structures hollow out strategic

capacity and how an inability to reconcile a legacy identity with digital transformation can lead to competitive

extinction. In essence, the company became a victim of financial engineering over strategic engineering—a

recurrent theme across global retail failures in the era of digital disruption.

Edcon (South Africa): The Intersection of Debt, Macroeconomic Fragility, and Managerial Myopia

Edcon's collapse illustrates how financial over-leverage, weak governance, and macroeconomic vulnerability

can converge to undermine large retailers in emerging markets. As South Africa's largest non-food retailer, its

downfall reveals how postcolonial structural weaknesses—volatile exchange rates, import dependency, and

constrained consumer demand—can magnify the effects of managerial and strategic missteps.

In 2007, Bain Capital acquired Edcon through a R25 billion (approx. US$3.5 billion) leveraged buyout, mainly

financed with foreign-denominated debt. By the early 2010s, annual debt-servicing costs had exceeded R2.7

billion, consuming most of the operating cash flow (BusinessTech, 2019). This left minimal capacity for capital

reinvestment in store modernization, supply chain upgrades, or digital transformation.

This financial fragility was compounded by external shocks. A weakening rand inflated import costs, while South

Africa's sluggish GDP growth and high unemployment suppressed consumer discretionary spending. These

macroeconomic headwinds exposed the firm's overreliance on imported merchandise and its reliance on urban

middle-class consumers. Between 2014 and 2019, Edcon’s revenue declined from R27 billion to R21 billion,

while its debt burden remained effectively unchanged (Edcon, 2020).

Strategically, Edcon failed to adapt to shifting consumer and technological trends. Leadership remained anchored

to legacy models, slow to adopt omnichannel retailing and mobile payment systems—despite the rapid adoption

of fintech in African markets. The company's inward-looking culture discouraged innovation and risktaking,

while the board's failure to bring in turnaround specialists perpetuated operational stagnation. This combination

of hierarchical rigidity, financial constraints, and strategic inertia eroded the firm's ability to adapt.

By 2020, Edcon entered business rescue proceedings (a South African equivalent of reorganization bankruptcy)

and was dismantled, with its core assets sold to Retailability and The Foschini Group. The case underscores that

in emerging markets, corporate failures reflect not only internal mismanagement but also the amplification of

vulnerabilities through external shocks, like currency depreciation, capital flight, and sluggish consumer

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9342

www.rsisinternational.org

markets. Edcon’s demise exemplifies the intersection of financialization and macroeconomic fragility, where

high leverage can turn cyclical downturns into existential crises.

Metro AG (Germany): Strategic Drift in a Consolidating Market

Metro AG's decline highlights the risks associated with strategic overextension and organizational rigidity in

mature markets. Once a leading European retail conglomerate, its sprawling, multi-segment model—spanning

wholesale (Cash & Carry), electronics (MediaMarkt/Saturn), and hypermarkets (Real)—generated complexity

that eroded agility and strategic coherence.

At its peak, Metro Group was hailed as a continental leader in scale and innovation. The company, however,

struggled with weak integration across its divisions, which operated with separate leadership, cultures, and IT

systems. This structure prevented synergy extraction and blurred corporate identity, leaving it vulnerable to

focused discount and digital competitors like Aldi, Lidl, and Zalando. Analysts attributed Metro's stagnation to

governance complexity, bureaucratic inertia, and an overreliance on short-term financial engineering over

longterm strategic renewal (Edgecliffe-Johnson, 2022).

Frequent leadership turnover between 2014 and 2019, with multiple CEO changes, further destabilized its

transformation agenda. Internal turf wars and risk aversion hindered efforts to modernize logistics and pursue

digital integration, as divisions competed for capital rather than collaborating.. Financially, this strategic drift

was evident as consolidated revenue declined from €67 billion in 2010 to €59 billion in 2020 (EdgecliffeJohnson,

2022). A protracted restructuring process led to the divestment of major assets, including Galeria Kaufhof

(department stores), Real (hypermarkets), and ultimately, MediaMarkt/Saturn, which was spun off into

Ceconomy AG in 2017. These moves simplified the corporate structure but came too late to restore

competitiveness.

Culturally, Metro AG was encumbered by what internal analysts termed a "matrix of inertia"—characterized by

decision-making bottlenecks, excessive hierarchies, and a lack of cross-divisional trust—which stifled

innovation initiatives and adaptation to digital commerce and supply-chain automation. In contrast, Aldi and Lidl

thrived through leaner operations, clear brand positioning, and data-driven logistics optimization. Metro's case

demonstrates that conglomerate structures—once viewed as a strength—can become liabilities in an era of rapid

technological and consumer change, transforming a formidable retail network into a fragmented entity.

Ultimately, Metro’s story is not one of sudden collapse but of gradual strategic decay: a long erosion of

coherence, vision, and adaptability.

Carrefour (Asia): Global Scale Without Local Insight

Carrefour's systematic retreat from Asia between 2006 and 2020 highlights the strategic limitations of global

standardization and a critical failure to localize effectively within highly diverse and rapidly evolving markets.

Despite being Europe's largest retailer and one of the early pioneers of international retail expansion, Carrefour

struggled to adapt its Western hypermarket model to diverse Asian markets, resulting in exits from South Korea

(2006), Thailand (2010), Malaysia (2012), and ultimately, China (2019). Each exit reflected an enduring pattern

of cultural misalignment, bureaucratic rigidity, and under-adaptation to local consumer behavior.

The core failure was a rigid, centralized governance model. Reliance on expatriate-heavy management and

decision-making from its Paris headquarters created a significant organizational distance from local markets,

stifling responsiveness and innovation. In China—the centerpiece of its ambitions—Carrefour's model of large,

out-of-town hypermarkets and bulk purchasing, which mirrored European consumer habits, clashed with local

consumer habits that favored frequent, small purchases of fresh goods, often made through local markets or

digital platforms. Carrefour was slow to integrate e-commerce and mobile payments, leaving it vulnerable to

agile domestic competitors like Alibaba’s Hema Fresh, Sun Art Retail, and JD.com, which seamlessly blended

digital convenience with localized supply chains (Euromonitor, 2019).

The financial consequences were severe. Carrefour’s market share in China plummeted from 7.8% in 2010 to

just 1.7% by 2018, with losses exceeding €1.2 billion. This culminated in the 2019 sale of an 80% stake to

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9343

www.rsisinternational.org

Suning.com (Reuters, 2019). Similar struggles played out in other Asian markets, where Carrefour failed to

balance global economies of scale with local responsiveness. Its inability to empower local managers, adapt store

formats, and tailor product assortments to regional tastes led to a decline in brand relevance.

Theoretically, Carrefour’s decline in Asia demonstrates a misapplication of Porter’s (1980) generic strategies; its

pursuit of cost leadership through a standardized model was ill-suited to markets where differentiation via

localization was paramount. From a Resource-Based View (Barney, 1991), it failed to develop or leverage locally

embedded, inimitable resources and market knowledge, relying instead on generic corporate capabilities that

proved neither rare nor inimitable in Asia’s hyper-competitive retail landscape. Carrefour’s Asian demise is a

cautionary tale of cultural myopia and strategic rigidity, completing a global arc of retail failure where centralized

governance and an inability to achieve local relevance proved as destructive as the financialization that felled

U.S. retailers.

Carrefour’s experience demonstrates that in fast-moving consumer markets, misalignment between corporate

strategy, culture, and market context can be as fatal as technological disruption. Its retreat from Asia thus

completes the global comparative arc of this study. While U.S. firms like Sears and JCPenney succumbed to

digital inertia and financialization, Carrefour’s failure represents the global dimension of strategic rigidity, where

cultural myopia and centralized governance proved equally destructive to competitiveness and survival.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Global Retail Failures and Strategic Retrenchment

Company

Peak

Revenue

Final Reported Revenue

Decline

(%)

Major Failure Type

Year of

Exit/Collapse

Debenhams

(UK)

£2.9bn

(2014)

£1.5bn (2020)

-48

Digital underinvestment, crippling

LBO debt, cultural divide

2020

Edcon (SA)

R27bn

(2014)

R21bn (2019)

-22

Crippling debt burden,

macroeconomic fragility, poor

leadership

2020

Metro AG

(Germany)

€67bn

(2010)

€59bn (2020)

-12

Strategic overreach, governance

complexity, focus erosion

—

Company

Peak

Revenue

Final Reported Revenue

Decline

(%)

Major Failure Type

Year of

Exit/Collapse

Carrefour

(Asia)

€5.3bn

(2010)

€2.8bn (2019)

-47

Localization failure, ethnocentric

management, bureaucracy

2019

Sources: BBC, Financial Times, BusinessTech, Euromonitor (2019–2022)

Across these international cases, a consistent theme emerges: competitive disruption becomes strategically fatal

only when internal inertia, financial strain, and cultural incoherence prevent organizations from adapting. The

following section synthesizes these global patterns into an integrated framework explaining how internal systems

amplify—or neutralize—external shocks.

DISCUSSION: THE CONVERGENT ANATOMY OF GLOBAL RETAIL COLLAPSE

The parallel decline of retail giants across the United States and international markets reveals a shared,

multidimensional architecture of failure. Although external disruptions—technological shifts, changing

consumer behavior, and macroeconomic volatility—played significant roles, this analysis underscores that the

decisive weaknesses were endogenous. Strategic myopia, the erosion of dynamic capabilities, cultural

misalignment, and governance breakdowns consistently emerged as the core internal drivers of collapse.

Ultimately, the fatal flaw was not disruption itself, but the persistent failure of leadership to realign strategy,

culture, and organizational capabilities with the demands of a globalized, digitized economy. The global retail

implosion from the 2000s through the 2020s thus reflects a convergence of strategic misjudgment, managerial

inertia, and structural rigidity. Across all examined cases, decline was rarely precipitated by a single misstep;

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9344

www.rsisinternational.org

rather, it was the cumulative consequence of systemic weaknesses—where short-termism, complacent

governance, and resistance to transformation neutralized firms’ adaptive capacity.

Strategic Missteps and Industry Structure: The SCP Perspective

The Structure–Conduct–Performance (SCP) framework offers a powerful analytical lens for understanding how

changes in market structure influence firm behavior and outcomes. It posits that market structure (S)—defined

by concentration, entry barriers, and technological conditions—determines firm conduct (C), which in turn

influences market performance (P). Applied to the retail sector, the SCP model reveals how technological

disruption and digital concentration fundamentally restructured the industry’s competitive dynamics. In the early

2000s, U.S. department stores such as Sears and JCPenney operated within a moderately concentrated oligopoly,

protected by high barriers to entry rooted in real estate control, logistics infrastructure, and brand capital. These

structural conditions sustained stable margins and limited rivalry among a few dominant chains.

However, the emergence of digital platforms like Amazon and Alibaba irreversibly altered this equilibrium.

These new entrants leveraged network effects, data-driven logistics, and economies of scale in digital

infrastructure, dismantling traditional barriers and transforming retail into a “winner-take-most” environment.

As the structural context evolved toward platform-based competition, incumbent retailers failed to adjust their

strategic conduct accordingly. Sears continued to prioritize real estate monetization over digital transformation,

while JCPenney's post-2011 pricing missteps reflected a misreading of consumer behavior in a data-driven

market. These firms clung to legacy operational models—large physical footprints, frequent discount cycles, and

siloed supply chains—that were misaligned with the new structural realities emphasizing logistics efficiency,

omnichannel integration, and personalized analytics. By contrast, adaptive incumbents such as Walmart and

Target demonstrated that alignment between conduct and structure was possible through timely investment in

digital logistics, analytics, and supply chain reconfiguration.

Under the SCP paradigm, therefore, the declining performance of traditional retailers was not merely coincidental

but a logical consequence of strategic inertia amid structural transformation. The fatal error lay in misaligning

firm conduct with an irreversibly altered market structure, revealing a deeper managerial blindness to structural

inflection points and the long-term implications of technological disruption.

Systemic Erosion of Competitive Moats: A Porterian Analysis

The SCP framework established how structural transformation in the retail industry—driven by digital disruption

and the collapse of entry barriers—rendered traditional conduct patterns obsolete. Yet, to fully understand the

mechanics of competitive decline, it is necessary to move from the macro-structural view of SCP to a

microanalytical perspective. Porter’s Five Forces framework deepens this analysis by examining how these

shifting structural dynamics translated into the systematic erosion of firm-level competitive advantages—the

very “moats” that once protected legacy retailers from market volatility and new entrants.

Michael Porter’s Five Forces framework offers a granular lens for understanding how the competitive moats of

legacy retailers were systematically eroded, exposing structural and managerial vulnerabilities that rendered

traditional models obsolete. Across the examined cases, the five forces collectively intensified, dismantling

longheld advantages and compressing profitability throughout the sector.

Threat of Substitutes.

The most decisive force was the rise of digital marketplaces—Amazon, Alibaba, and regional platforms—that

offered superior convenience, breadth of assortment, and search functionality, fulfilling the same consumer need

without the fixed costs of physical retail. The migration of consumer spending to online channels constituted a

structural shift that rendered the traditional department store model economically unsustainable.

Buyer Power.

Digitalization amplified buyer power by introducing real-time price transparency. Consumers could instantly

compare prices across retailers, eroding the information asymmetry that had historically sustained promotional

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9345

www.rsisinternational.org

retailing strategies (e.g., JCPenney’s coupon model). The result was a permanent shift toward price competition,

forcing legacy firms to compress margins and undermining brand-based differentiation.

Supplier Power.

The post-pandemic period further exposed retailers to supplier dominance, as global supply chain consolidation

concentrated leverage among producers and distributors. Bed Bath & Beyond’s collapse vividly illustrates this

shift: as its financial condition deteriorated, suppliers tightened credit terms, demanded cash prepayment, and

reduced shipments—effectively exercising their power and accelerating the company’s inventory crisis and

eventual bankruptcy.

Threat of New Entrants.

Historically, the retail sector was protected by high entry barriers—capital-intensive real estate networks,

logistics infrastructure, and brand loyalty. The digital transition dismantled these barriers. Asset-light, digitalfirst

firms such as Wayfair, Shein, and Zalando leveraged outsourced logistics, data analytics, and direct-toconsumer

models to compete without the burden of fixed assets. This structural transformation exposed the incumbents’

dependency on physical scale, which had once been a moat but had now become a liability.

Industry Rivalry.

As incumbents failed to innovate, rivalry degenerated into destructive price wars and undifferentiated

costcutting. Firms like Sears, JCPenney, and Debenhams competed on discounts rather than value creation,

further commoditizing their offerings. In mature, low-growth markets characterized by high fixed costs, such

rivalry inevitably eroded margins and shareholder confidence.

Collectively, these dynamics demonstrate that traditional retailers failed to construct new, defensible moats in an

environment defined by platform-based competition, empowered consumers, and fluid global supply chains.

The Porterian analysis thus underscores that the ultimate cause of collapse lay not merely in environmental

change, but in leadership’s inability to anticipate and strategically reconfigure competitive advantage within a

transformed industry structure.

The Internal Core Rot: Resource Erosion and Atrophied Dynamic Capabilities

While the Porterian framework clarifies how external forces eroded the structural and competitive defenses of

traditional retailers, it does not fully explain why some firms proved incapable of adapting to these pressures. To

uncover this deeper vulnerability, the analytical focus must shift from the external market environment to the

internal architecture of firms—their resources, capabilities, and organizational cultures. The persistence of

decline, even in the presence of clear strategic alternatives, suggests that the ultimate failure lay not in market

disruption itself but in the atrophy of internal competences and learning systems.

The Resource-Based View (RBV) offers a lens for understanding this internal decay. According to Barney

(1991), sustainable competitive advantage derives from resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and

organizationally unique (VRIO). Across the examined cases, these attributes were progressively eroded through

managerial short-sightedness and cultural rigidity. JCPenney’s brand equity deteriorated as inconsistent strategic

messaging alienated its core mid-market customers, dissolving decades of trust and value creation. Sears, once

an exemplar of retail logistics and human capital, transformed its internal market into a toxic, competitive

bureaucracy that fragmented collaboration and nullified collective learning. Bed Bath & Beyond’s aggressive

financial engineering—through stock buybacks and delayed supplier payments—undermined its relational

capital and operational resilience. Similarly, Carrefour’s expatriate-heavy management structure weakened its

ability to harness valuable local market knowledge, undermining its adaptive potential in diverse regions such

as Asia.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9346

www.rsisinternational.org

Yet, resource depletion alone does not capture the full scale of organizational decline. The deeper failure lay in

the erosion of dynamic capabilities—the institutionalized capacity to sense, seize, and transform in response to

environmental change (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). These firms possessed tangible and intangible assets that

could have been redeployed but lacked the adaptive systems and leadership foresight necessary to do so. Toys

“R” Us and Sears failed to sense the magnitude of digital transformation, clinging to legacy models even as

online retail surpassed 20% of total sales. Bed Bath & Beyond’s leadership failed to seize emerging opportunities

in omnichannel integration, lagging behind competitors such as Walmart and Target. Debenhams and Edcon,

burdened by debt and bureaucratic inertia, were unable to transform their operating models or organizational

structures in a manner consistent with the demands of the digital era.

This trilogy of failure—inattention, inertia, and incapacity—captures the internal rot at the heart of retail

collapse. Hierarchical decision-making systems slowed responsiveness, and C-suite executives often lacked the

digital literacy and foresight to reconfigure assets effectively. Consequently, even firms with substantial tangible

resources were unable to renew or repurpose them into sources of sustained advantage.

Ultimately, these failures validate Teece et al.'s (1997) and Teece's (2018) central insight: in turbulent

environments, competitive survival depends less on possessing resources than on the capacity to regenerate and

reconfigure them continually. The examined firms did not merely lose market share—they lost the organizational

capability to learn, evolve, and lead. The erosion of both RBV foundations and dynamic capabilities thus

represents a dual-layered implosion of internal competitiveness, transforming external disruption into

irreversible decline.

The Human Catalyst: Cultural Misalignment and Governance Breakdown

A recurrent thread across the examined cases is the misalignment between organizational culture and strategic

intent. Firms that once thrived on stability, hierarchy, and predictable consumer behavior failed to pivot toward

agile, customer-centric, and digitally adaptive cultures. This cultural inertia proved to be a decisive barrier to

transformation. Strategic plans—no matter how well-articulated—were consistently undermined by deep-rooted

cultural and governance dysfunctions that contributed to organizational decline.

At Sears, CEO Eddie Lampert’s experiment with “marketized internal competition” shattered decades of

collaborative culture, pitting departments against each other and destroying synergies essential for integrated

retailing. At JCPenney, CEO Ron Johnson’s top-down imposition of an “Apple-style” minimalist aesthetic and

coupon-free pricing model alienated the firm’s core customers and demoralized long-serving employees. This

clash exemplifies what Schein (2010) describes as cultural misalignment between artifacts, espoused values, and

underlying assumptions—a misfit that generates cognitive dissonance and obstructs genuine transformation.

Similarly, Edcon’s autocratic management culture suppressed innovation and discouraged experimentation,

while Carrefour’s ethnocentric leadership model hindered the cultivation of local knowledge essential for market

responsiveness. According to Kotter (2012), cultural transformation fails when leaders attempt to impose

strategic change without embedding it through shared vision, communication, and collective norms. Across these

cases, boards and executives overestimated their authority to drive rapid transformation without internal buy-in.

Employees perceived change as externally imposed rather than internally owned, eroding morale and

undermining implementation.

Compounding these cultural fractures was a chronic competence gap at the top. Leadership teams often lacked

digital literacy, strategic agility, and customer empathy. Many boards overemphasized short-term financial

metrics while neglecting technological reinvention and market sensing. At Toys “R” Us, private equity owners

extracted value through leveraged dividends, starving the company of capital required for innovation. Bed Bath

& Beyond, cycling through six CEOs in four years, exemplified governance instability and strategic

inconsistency. Metro AG’s repeated board reshuffles and divisional spin-offs reflected similar drift, as leadership

vacillated between conflicting priorities without a coherent long-term vision. These patterns align with Upper

Echelons Theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Finkelstein, 2003), which posits that organizational outcomes

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9347

www.rsisinternational.org

mirror the cognitive and experiential characteristics of senior executives. Where boards lacked diversity of

thought or digital competence, strategic myopia intensified. The homogeneity of top management teams—

dominated by finance-oriented or legacy retail executives—narrowed cognitive frames, blinding firms to

emerging digital and consumer trends. Thus, incompetence and rigidity at the top both accelerated decline and

obstructed recovery.

Cultural failures were reinforced by systemic governance breakdowns. Boards exhibited complacency, weak

oversight, and a pervasive bias toward financialization. Instead of prioritizing strategic reinvestment, many firms

channeled capital into share buybacks and leveraged dividends—ostensibly to appease shareholders but

ultimately at the expense of innovation and resilience. Toys “R” Us owners extracted value through debt-funded

dividends while operations deteriorated; Sears and Bed Bath & Beyond diverted billions into buybacks even as

their market share collapsed. These actions reflect governance capture by short-term financial interests and the

abdication of stewardship responsibility. Leadership instability amplified this dysfunction. At Bed Bath &

Beyond, CEO churn prevented strategic continuity; each new leader reversed or diluted the prior turnaround

agenda, compounding drift. Metro AG’s constant leadership reshuffling similarly eroded accountability and

strategic coherence. Across cases, weak governance, financial short-termism, and leadership incompetence

combined to paralyze organizational renewal.

In sum, cultural misalignment and governance decay served as the human catalysts of corporate implosion.

Structural and market disruptions were not inherently fatal; rather, it was the inability of leadership to align

culture, governance, and strategic vision that rendered adaptation impossible. The erosion of cultural cohesion

and the collapse of effective oversight transformed environmental turbulence into an existential crisis, illustrating

that the final failure of legacy retailers was as much a result of human and institutional factors as it was structural

and strategic.

Contrasting Failure with Strategic Resilience

While the preceding analysis dissected the anatomy of failure, a fuller understanding emerges when these cases

are contrasted with resilient incumbents that successfully navigated identical disruptions. This comparative lens

moves beyond diagnosing what went wrong to illuminate the strategic choices and organizational capabilities

that constituted a viable path to survival. Examining firms such as Target and Walmart in the U.S., and Inditex

(Zara) globally, through the same theoretical frameworks reveals the mirror image of failure—how strategic

reinvestment, cultural alignment, and dynamic capabilities enabled continuity and renewal.

I. Strategic Pathways: Financialization vs. Reinvestment (RBV & Dynamic Capabilities)

The divergent trajectories of Sears and Target exemplify how differing resource allocation philosophies produced

opposite outcomes under the same market pressures. Both were legacy big-box retailers confronting Amazon’s

digital dominance. However, Sears, under Lampert, pursued a strategy of resource extraction through

financialization, while Target engaged in resource renewal through strategic reinvestment.

1. Sears (Failure): From a Resource-Based View (RBV) perspective, Sears treated its core assets—real

estate and brand equity—as disposable financial commodities, systematically eroding the very resources

that constituted its competitive advantage. Aggressive asset stripping and buybacks eroded its strategic

resources, while heavy debt curtailed its dynamic capabilities. It failed to sense the online shift, could not

seize new opportunities due to capital constraints from debt and buybacks, and never transformed its

model to integrate digital and physical retail.

2. Target (Success): In contrast, Target recognized its brand and extensive store network as strategic assets

to be leveraged and modernized. It made massive, sustained investments in its dynamic capabilities.

Through early recognition of the omnichannel transition, it sensed consumer shifts, seized opportunities

via acquisitions like Shipt for last-mile delivery, and transformed its stores into hybrid fulfillment hubs.

Its disciplined reinvestment fortified the value, rarity, and adaptability of its core resources—

demonstrating dynamic capabilities in action.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9348

www.rsisinternational.org

II. Strategic Conduct: Inertia vs. Ambidexterity (Porter’s Five Forces & SCP)

Porter’s Five Forces and the Structure-Conduct-Performance (SCP) paradigm clarify how differing strategic

conduct shaped competitive outcomes. The retail industry's structure underwent significant changes for all

incumbents, but their response to this change ultimately determined their performance.

1. JCPenney & Debenhams (Failure): Both clung to obsolete business models amid intensifying rivalry.

JCPenney’s ill-fated attempt to change its conduct (everyday low pricing) was so misaligned with its

brand identity that it alienated its customer base, while Debenhams’ promotional dependency eroded

margins. Neither developed new defenses against the five forces -emerging substitutes or buyer power-

seeing their moats erode; inertia replaced innovation.

2. Walmart (Success): Walmart exhibited strategic ambidexterity. It leveraged its existing SCP

advantages—unmatched scale and supply chain efficiency—to compete aggressively on price (defending

against the threat of substitutes and buyer power) while simultaneously transforming its business model.

By investing heavily in e-commerce, acquiring digital-native brands like Bonobos and Moosejaw, and

developing a world-class online grocery platform, Walmart adapted its conduct to the evolving

structure—preserving dominance through renewal.

III. Cultural Alignment: Rigidity vs. Coherence (Kotter & Schein)

Culture mediates strategic success or failure. Comparing Bed Bath & Beyond’s decline with Inditex’s sustained

success highlights the pivotal role of cultural coherence in transformation.

1. Bed Bath & Beyond (Failure): The firm’s insular, slow-moving culture proved incapable of internal

alignment. It lacked urgency, cohesion, and leadership vision—failing to embed change within shared

values, as Kotter (2012) prescribes. Strategic initiatives remained superficial, unsupported by cultural

reinforcement.

2. Inditex (Success): Inditex institutionalized agility as cultural DNA. Its espoused value—speed—

permeates its structure, processes, and identity. According to Schein’s model, its artifacts (rapid store

refreshes), values (“fast fashion”), and assumptions (customer primacy and immediacy) form a coherent

ecosystem that continuously senses, seizes, and transforms. It can sense trends instantly through store

data, seize them by designing and manufacturing in a matter of weeks, and continuously transform its

product lines. Culture, in Inditex's case, is strategy and the engine of its adaptability.

Synthesis: Lessons from Strategic Contrasts:

These contrasts reveal that the failures of collapsed retailers were not inevitable. Resilient firms faced the same

structural and technological pressures but differed in three decisive dimensions:

1. Leadership cognition that fostered learning rather than denial.

2. Financial governance that reinvests rather than extracts value; and

3. Cultural coherence that aligned people and purpose with strategy.

The key differentiator was the presence of functioning dynamic capabilities—the ability to integrate, build, and

reconfigure resources to meet environmental change- guided by leadership that viewed the organization’s

resources as foundations for future growth rather than piggy banks for present extraction. The evidence supports

this study's central thesis: internal managerial and strategic deficiencies, rather than market disruption alone,

determine survival or collapse.

Theorizing Financialization and Governance Failure

The recurring patterns of value extraction and strategic myopia observed across failing retailers are not isolated

incidents but reflect broader, systemic shifts in corporate philosophy. The systematic prioritization of shareholder

payouts over productive reinvestment aligns directly with the concept of financialization, as defined by Lazonick

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9349

www.rsisinternational.org

(2014) as an economic paradigm in which corporate resources are increasingly channeled into financial markets

rather than being reinvested in innovation and human capital. This framework elevates the analysis from

describing individual firm failures to connecting them to a dominant, and often destructive, managerial ideology.

I. Financialization as Strategic Pathology

The cases of Sears, Toys "R" Us, and Edcon are not merely stories of poor management, but exemplars of the

corrosive impact of financialization on industrial resilience.

1. From Value Creation to Value Extraction: Sears under Lampert epitomizes what Lazonick (2014)

terms "value extraction." The company’s massive share buybacks and real estate spinoffs were classic

financialization tactics, designed to boost short-term stock prices and enrich the dominant shareholder at

the expense of the company's long-term operational health. This aligns with Davis's (2016) critique of

the "shareholder value" ideology, which incentivizes executives to prioritize market perceptions over

organizational durability.

2. The Leveraged Buyout as an Engine of Extraction: The collapses of Toys “R” Us and Edcon following

their LBOs illustrate the specific mechanism by which financialization can hollow out firms. As

Appelbaum and Batt (2014) document in their study of private equity, the high debt loads characteristic

of LBOs force an "extractive redistribution" from stakeholders (employees, suppliers, and future

innovation) to financial sponsors. The ~$400 million in annual interest payments at Toys “R” Us was not

an operational cost but a direct transfer of value to creditors and owners, systematically starving the firm

of the capital needed for adaptation.

II. Governance Failure and Strategic Stewardship

The persistence of these financialized strategies points to a fundamental breakdown in corporate governance.

The board's role, as defined by governance scholars, is to provide oversight and ensure the long-term health of

the corporation (Tricker, 2019). Yet, in these cases, boards either actively enabled or failed to prevent

valuedestructive strategies.

1. Board Complicity in Short-Termism: The boards of Sears and Bed Bath & Beyond, which authorized

billions in share buybacks while core operations decayed, failed in their fiduciary duty of care. This

reflects a systemic problem where, as Stout (2012) argues, a pathological interpretation of fiduciary duty

has led directors to prioritize immediate shareholder returns over the health of the corporate entity itself—

the very "commons" on which long-term value depends.

2. Cognitive Homogeneity and Digital Illiteracy: The failure to challenge Lampert's destructive internal

market at Sears or to correct the strategic trajectory at JCPenney suggests that boards lack cognitive

diversity and relevant expertise. Boards dominated by financiers and legacy retail executives, as

Finkelstein (2003) would argue, were cognitively ill-equipped to perceive the threat of digital disruption

or to evaluate complex technological investments, leading to strategic inertia.

Synthesis

By framing these failures through the lenses of financialization and governance theory, retail collapse transcends

firm-specific mismanagement. It reflects a systemic erosion of strategic stewardship—where managerial

cognition, board oversight, and capital allocation became misaligned with long-term value creation. The

collapses were not just about a failure to adapt to Amazon, but about a prior failure of governance systems that

allowed, and even encouraged, a financialized model of management that systematically dismantled the

innovative capacity necessary for adaptation. This situates the global retail collapse within a larger critique of

contemporary capitalism, where the pressures of financial markets can fundamentally undermine industrial

competitiveness.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9350

www.rsisinternational.org

Figure 1- Integrated Framework of Strategic Collapse in Global Retail

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

The cross-case analysis of failed retail giants—across the U.S. and global markets—reveals that strategic

collapse is not a mystery of market forces but a predictable consequence of managerial failure. The fatal flaw

was not disruption itself, but the lethal convergence of internal deficiencies: strategic arrogance, financial

shorttermism, cultural rigidity, and governance myopia. These failures were not historical accidents; they were

embedded in organizational DNA through complacency, neglect, and misaligned priorities. The insights derived

from this synthesis are both cautionary and instructive, offering a roadmap for corporate leaders, boards, and

policymakers navigating the turbulence of the digital retail revolution.

Overarching Lessons from the Frontlines of Failure

The decline of once-dominant retailers yields six interlocking lessons for executives managing structural

transformation. Together, they form a blueprint for strategic renewal and organizational resilience in volatile and

digitally mediated markets.

1. Combat Strategic Arrogance

Historical dominance can breed complacency, but past success is not a renewable competitive advantage. As

Hambrick and Mason’s Upper Echelons Theory posits, organizational outcomes reflect the cognitive base and

values of dominant top managers. Strategic arrogance arises when leaders interpret past success as an

entitlement, leading to managerial myopia and an inability to sense emerging threats. Sears’ dismissal of

Amazon’s digital trajectory epitomizes this failure. Resilient firms institutionalize humility by embedding

learning systems and dissent mechanisms that challenge strategic orthodoxy.

Actionable Guidance:

1. Institutionalize strategic humility through structured market-sensing and “red team” reviews to test

assumptions.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9351

www.rsisinternational.org

2. Encourage dissent and scenario-based planning at the board level to avoid cognitive lock-in.

3. Reward adaptive experimentation and early pivot signals from within the organization.

2. Balance Financial and Strategic Health

The prioritization of short-term shareholder returns through mechanisms such as leveraged buyouts, share

buybacks, debt-funded dividends, and asset stripping erodes the innovative capacity essential for long-term

survival. Agency Theory underscores this as a symptom of the principal–agent problem and shareholder primacy.

The financialization of corporate governance, exemplified by Toys “R” Us and Sears, accelerated their decline.

Sustainable competitiveness requires disciplined reinvestment in technology, human capital, and operational

agility.

Actionable Guidance:

1. Link executive incentives to multi-year value creation metrics (innovation, digital capability,

employee engagement).

2. Prioritize reinvestment over extraction by funding renewal in R&D, supply chain modernization,

and workforce capabilities.

3. Institute governance safeguards that flag underinvestment relative to depreciation and digital

benchmarks.

3. Align Culture with Strategic Intent

Transformation fails when culture and strategy move in opposite directions. As Kotter (2012) and Schein’s

Cultural Model emphasize, most change efforts fail because leaders neglect to embed transformation into cultural

norms and shared values. JCPenney’s imposition of “Apple-style minimalism” on a discount-driven culture and

Sears’ internal “Darwinian” competition illustrate how cultural misalignment destroys cohesion and agility.

Sustainable change requires cultural design— embedding adaptive norms and psychological safety into daily

practice.

Actionable Guidance:

1. Apply Kotter’s principle of anchoring change in a shared vision and urgency across all levels.

2. Conduct periodic cultural audits using Schein’s framework (artifacts, values, and underlying

assumptions) to identify areas of resistance.

3. Build psychological safety environments that empower questioning, adaptation, and crossfunctional

collaboration.

4. Institutionalize Dynamic Capabilities

Survival in high-velocity markets depends not on static assets but on the ability to sense, seize, and transform

ahead of market shifts—core pillars of Dynamic Capabilities Theory (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). The

collapse of Toys “R” Us (failure to sense), Bed Bath & Beyond (failure to seize), and Debenhams/Edcon (failure

to transform) illustrates how strategic paralysis accelerates decline. Firms must move beyond static planning

toward systems that continuously reconfigure assets, technologies, and competencies in response to

environmental shifts.

Actionable Guidance:

1. Develop formal sensing systems utilizing data analytics and AI to monitor consumer and

technological trends.

2. Enable seizing capacity by allocating “innovation reserves” to scale promising experiments.

3. Institutionalize transformation routines—rotating leaders through new ventures to sustain renewal.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9352

www.rsisinternational.org

5. Reform Governance for the Digital Age

Boards dominated by financial or legacy industry veterans are often ill-equipped to address 21st-century

challenges. Finkelstein’s (2003) Upper Echelons perspective stresses that governance effectiveness depends on

the cognitive diversity and digital literacy of directors. Effective boards must integrate strategic independence,

capable of challenging management assumptions, technological fluency, and long-term stewardship over short-

term profit focus.

Actionable Guidance:

1. Diversify boards with expertise in digital, operational, and innovation areas.

2. Establish technology and innovation subcommittees to monitor strategic capability gaps and identify

opportunities for improvement.

3. Redefine fiduciary duty to include strategic sustainability and stakeholder value creation.

6. Localize Global Strategies

Global scale does not guarantee relevance. The failure of Carrefour in Asia highlights that efficiency without

cultural fit leads to strategic dissonance. Effective internationalization requires glocalization— balancing global

integration with deep local responsiveness. A “one-size-fits-all” model is inherently flawed in culturally

heterogeneous markets. Multinationals must empower localized decision-making and adapt their value

propositions to contextual realities to achieve sustainable growth.

Actionable Guidance:

1. Adopt glocalization frameworks balancing global efficiencies with local autonomy.

2. Embed local managers in strategic planning and supply chain governance.

3. Co-create value with local partners and consumers to ensure cultural legitimacy and responsiveness.

Managerial and Strategic Recommendations

For corporate leaders and boards, the implications are clear and actionable:

Reinvent Value Creation Around Ecosystems

Retailers must reconceptualize value creation around customer experience ecosystems, rather than focusing on

transactional exchanges. Physical stores should serve as strategic assets—fulfillment nodes in an omnichannel

model—mirroring the adaptive strategies of Walmart, Target, and Nike, which integrate physical and digital

assets to deliver seamless, data-driven consumer engagement.

Treat Cultural Transformation as Core Strategy

Cultural evolution should be architected, not imposed. Leaders must design systems that reward adaptability,

learning, and collaboration while modeling desired behaviors. By cultivating a culture of agility and trust,

organizations can prevent the internal resistance that derailed Sears and JCPenney.

Prioritize Digital Capabilities as Existential Investments

Data analytics, AI, and digital supply chain systems are no longer support functions—they are the foundation of

competitive strategy. Continuous investment in digital capabilities builds the dynamic capacity to anticipate

change and sustain strategic relevance.

Adopt Long-Term, Stakeholder-Oriented Governance

Moving beyond shareholder primacy toward a stakeholder capitalism model enhances resilience and legitimacy.

Balancing profitability with employee welfare, customer trust, and community impact fosters brand loyalty and

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education

Page 9353

www.rsisinternational.org

long-term viability—attributes evident in firms that weathered the 2020–2023 market shocks through

empathetic, transparent leadership.

Policy Considerations

The structural patterns of retail collapse also demand systemic interventions from policymakers and regulators:

Mitigate the Risks of Financialization

The destructive impact of leveraged buyouts and debt-driven private equity models—such as in the Toys “R” Us

case—underscores the need for policy mechanisms that incentivize productive investment over speculative

extraction. Regulatory reforms in the U.S. and the UK, post-2018, have increasingly focused on rebalancing

corporate finance toward long-term value creation.

Promote Competitive Innovation Ecosystems

Particularly in emerging markets, policy frameworks should foster localized innovation, entrepreneurship, and

ownership structures. Encouraging indigenous retail ecosystems reduces dependence on ethnocentric global

models and enhances resilience against the rigidities that doomed Carrefour and Edcon.

CONCLUSION: FROM DECLINE TO RENEWAL — REBUILDING STRATEGIC

RESILIENCE

The cross-case analysis presented in this study yields a clear conclusion: the collapse of major retail giants was

a preventable tragedy resulting from strategic and managerial failures. The downfall of firms such as Sears,

JCPenney, and Debenhams reveals a toxic blend of financial short-termism, cultural rigidity, and eroded dynamic

capabilities that left them unable to respond to disruption. Framed through strategic management theory, the

evidence shows these organizations did not simply misread the market—they built organization structures and

cultures that were inherently resistant to perceiving or adapting to change. Their collapse stemmed not from a

lack of resources, but from a profound lack of strategic reflexivity—the institutional ability to question legacy

assumptions, experiment with new models, and reconfigure resources before crisis struck.

Organizational decline, as the cases demonstrate, rarely results from environmental shocks alone. It is the

cumulative manifestation of internal fragility—strategic arrogance, cultural inertia, and governance failure—

interacting lethally with external turbulence. Competitive advantage is no longer a static possession but a

dynamic process, sustained only through continuous learning, alignment, and reinvestment. The corporate

graveyard of once-dominant stands as a sobering testament to a universal paradox: firms that master one era

often fail to anticipate the next. Their decline was neither inevitable nor purely the result of external technological

disruption, but rather the predictable consequence of a systemic erosion of organizational foresight, cultural

coherence, and adaptive learning.

The central managerial insight is unmistakable: resilience is designed, not improvised. Firms such as Target,

Walmart, and Inditex (Zara) adapted by embedding flexibility and experimentation into their operating models.

They institutionalized dynamic capabilities—sensing shifts in consumer behavior early, seizing opportunities

through digital integration, and transforming processes to sustain agility. By contrast, failed incumbents clung to

familiar playbooks, mistaking past dominance for enduring advantage.

From an organizational design standpoint, renewal in culture, governance, and leadership cognition emerges as

the decisive factor separating adaptation from decline. Culture must evolve from hierarchical control and

compliance toward curiosity and collaborative learning. Governance must move beyond financial oversight to

act as a strategic partner in transformation. Furthermore, leadership must balance the exploitation of existing

strengths with the exploration of emerging opportunities—a form of ambidexterity that defines resilient

enterprises in volatile markets.

For executives and boards, the implications are urgent and actionable. Governance systems must be reformed to

prioritize long-term capability building over short-term shareholder extraction, supported by cognitively diverse

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS) 
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education 
Page 9354 
www.rsisinternational.org 
 
 
boards with digital fluency and strategic independence. Culture must be treated not as a static inheritance but as 
a renewable strategic asset, consciously shaped to foster agility,  cross-functional collaboration, and customer 
responsiveness. The experience of Target and Walmart demonstrates that survival is possible—but only through 
proactive, sustained reinvestment in digital, analytical, and logistical capabilities.  
The managerial challenge lies in embedding foresight and flexibility into decision-making systems. This involves 
realigning incentives to reward long-term value creation, establishing data-driven feedback loops for continuous 
learning, and empowering cross-functional teams to serve as internal change agents. The evidence across cases 
confirms  that  strategic  renewal  cannot  occur  without  structural  and  behavioral  alignment  between  top 
management intent and organizational execution.  
Beyond retail, the lessons are universal. Failure to align strategy, culture, and governance is a universal recipe 
for  obsolescence.  In  the  twenty-first  century,  competitive  advantage  derives  from adaptive intelligence—the 
capacity  to  learn,  unlearn,  and  reconfigure  faster  than  the  environment  evolves.  In  an  age  of  technological 
disruption, shifting consumer behavior, and financial volatility, strategy is no longer a linear exercise in planning 
but a dynamic process of continuous renewal. The failures of Sears, Toys “R” Us, JCPenney, and Carrefour thus 
represent  not  isolated  misfortunes,  but  systemic  indicators  of  a  broader  crisis  in  strategic  governance  and 
corporate adaptation.  
The insights converge on one enduring truth: survival depends less on what firms own, and more on how quickly 
they can evolve. The most resilient organizations of the digital era will not be those with the largest footprints or 
deepest balance sheets, but those capable of institutionalizing curiosity, humility, and adaptability as strategic 
norms.  In  this  volatile  landscape,  the  actual  risk  is  not  disruption  itself—but  the  inability  to  evolve  in  its 
aftermath. The fallen retailers studied here provide a costly but invaluable curriculum in what happens when that 
truth is ignored, while the survivors chart the path forward.  
Ultimately, sustainable competitiveness will belong to firms that architect change rather than react to it. The next 
generation  of  winners  will  be  culturally  coherent,  strategically  imaginative,  and  governed  with  dynamic 
humility—leaders who prioritize long-term resilience over short-term extraction. The road to survival, therefore, 
is paved not with predictions of the future, but with the building of organizations capable of creating it.  
REFERENCES  
1.  Appelbaum, E., & Batt, R. (2014). Private equity at work: When Wall Street manages Main Street. Russell 
Sage Foundation.  
2.  Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 
99–120.  
3.  BBC News. (2020, December  1).  Debenhams: The end  of  242 years  on  the  high  street.  BBC News. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55144922  
4.  Biswas, S., & Gladstone, A. (2023, April 19). Bed Bath & Beyond is preparing for a bankruptcy filing. 
The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bed-bath-beyond-preparing-for-bankruptcyfiling-
within-days-7d5840a7  
5.  Bloomberg News. (2018, March 8). Toys “R” Us is prepping to liquidate its U.S. operations. Bloomberg. 
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-08/toys-r-us-said-to-be-prepping-liquidation-of-u-
soperations  
6.  BusinessTech.  (2019,  March  4).  Edcon  secures  R2.7  billion  for  its  restructuring  plan.  BusinessTech. 
https://businesstech.co.za/news/business/302870/edcon-secures-r2-7-billion-for-its-restructuring-plan/  
7.  Casey, A. J., & Gotberg, B. E. (2018, April 23). Toys ‘R’  Us and bankruptcy: Death by disruption, not 
debt.  CLS  Blue  Sky  Blog.  https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2018/04/23/toys-r-us-and-
bankruptcydeath-by-disruption-not-debt/  
8.  Chaudhuri, S., & Butler, S. (2020, December 2). Debenhams  collapse: A symptom of the high street’s 
long  decline.  The  Guardian.  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/02/debenhams-
collapsesymptom-of-high-streets-long-decline  
9.  Corkery, M. (2017, December 26). The long, slow death of Sears. The New York Times.  

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS) 
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS |Volume IX Issue XXVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Education 
Page 9355 
www.rsisinternational.org 
 
 
10. Davis, G. F. (2016). The vanishing American corporation: The business and politics of corporate America. 
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.  
11. Edcon  Limited.  (2020,  June  8).  Business  rescue  plan.  Matuson  &  Associates. 
https://matusonassociates.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Business-Rescue-Plan-Edcon-
Limited1.pdf  
12. Edgecliffe-Johnson, A. (2022, November 8). Retail’s high street graveyard: How department stores went 
into decline. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/88b8989a-0e62-4217-91a7-f57f49516641  
13. Euromonitor International. (2019). Hypermarkets in China.  
https://www.euromonitor.com/hypermarkets-in-china/report  
14. Farrell, M. (2013, April 9). Why Ron Johnson was fired from J.C. Penney. Forbes.  
15. Finkelstein, S. (2003). Why smart executives fail: And what you can learn from their mistakes. Portfolio.  
16. Hambrick, D. C.,  &  Mason,  P. A.  (1984). Upper  echelons: The  organization as a  reflection  of its  top 
managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.  
17. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative 
Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611.  
18. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.  
19. Lazonick, W. (2014). Profits without prosperity: Stock buybacks manipulate the market and leave most 
Americans worse off. Harvard Business Review, 92(9), 46–55.  
20. Porter,  M. E. (1980). Competitive  strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free 
Press.  
21. Repko, M., & Rizzo, L. (2023, January 5). Bed Bath & Beyond shares plummet after company warns of 
potential  bankruptcy.  CNBC.  https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/05/bed-bath-beyond-shares-plummet-
ascompany-warns-of-deeper-financial-troubles.html  
22. Reuters.  (2019,  June  23).  Suning.com  to  buy  Carrefour’s  China  business  for  $698  million.  Reuters. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/carrefour-ma-suningcom-idUSL8N23U0B6/  
23. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.  
24. Statista. (n.d.). Retail e-commerce sales worldwide from 2014 to 2027. Retrieved October 31, 2025, from 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/379046/worldwide-retail-e-commerce-sales/  
25. Stout,  L.  A.  (2012).  The  shareholder  value  myth:  How  putting  shareholders  first  harms  investors, 
corporations, and the public. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.  
26. Teece, D. J. (2018). Business models and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 40–49.  
27. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic 
Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.  
28. Tricker, B. (2019). Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices. Oxford University Press.  
29. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2017). Sears Holdings Corporation Form 10-K for the fiscal 
year ended January 28, 2017.  
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1310067/000104746917001125/a2230892z10-k.htm  
30. Yin,  R.  K.  (2018).  Case  study  research  and  applications:  Design  and  methods  (6th  ed.).  SAGE 
Publications.  