Skip to main content

Cup Hands: there goes Cadbury

The long saga of Kraft's bid for Cadbury is now over. The board of the British chocolate company has now agreed that the bid from the American food giant should now go ahead. Personally I think it is the wrong decision at several levels. Firstly Kraft has a poor record in confectionery: their takeover of the Swiss Jacob Suchard thirty years ago was not a demonstrable success. and the once premium Suchard brands like Milka are now mostly also-rans in their markets. It is not clear to me that the Illinois-based company will be a particularly good steward of these businesses which have acquired a massive brand equity since the foundation of the Cadbury firm in 1824. After all the repeated takeover deals that Kraft has been involved with, from Phillip Morris to Nabisco are classic examples of value destroying M&A activity. There are also clearly going to be substantial job losses- with Cadbury's UK headquarters likely to be closed, and jobs transferred to Kraft's European headquarters in Zurich.

More than that though, I feel very uncomfortable with the way in which this deal has been concluded. The large pay-off to the Cadbury board: a reported £12 million to the managing director alone makes may question whether or not the British company's board simply put their own interests ahead of those not just of their workforce but also their shareholders.

The workforce at Cadbury have every right to feel somewhat betrayed- and the history of Cadbury makes the role of the workforce important. Cadbury was founded by a Quaker family upon Quaker principles. The huge pay-off that the board is now said to be in line for is an amount of money that would have shocked the founders as an example of naked greed. That it comes at the expense of the workforce whose interests Cadbury's founders always sought to protect and promote is -at best- a very unhappy situation, at worst it is a scandal.

If Cadbury was a French company, the job losses alone would make the French government at the least investigate the takeover. Unfortunately the real interests of the UK: maintain Britain as the headquarters of world class businesses are being drowned in the short term interests of the board of Cadbury.

This is a deal that Peter Mandelson should call in and at least investigate.

Yet he probably won't, and another part of Britain's business heritage is going to leave the UK. As we have seen with Nestle's takeover of Rowntree Mackintosh, being a branch of a global business diminishes British economic power and loses British jobs. Cadbury represents another step down for the UK and indeed for British companies on the London stock exchange.

A sad day indeed.


Josh Rimer said…
And did you see how upset everyone on Twitter in the UK was about it being an American company? I talk about it in my video and show some of their tweets at - they're convinced an American company is going to ruin the chocolate!
Anonymous said…
Great post Cicero.

It's also very disturbing how much Kraft are borrowing to pay for it. If there is trouble in the dollar and the pound over the next 18 months, with interest rate hikes, will they be able to service the loans? And if not, what then? Will they be a takeover target or will they simply collapse?

A very stupid decision all round.
Newmania said…
I`m in two minds here . It has been obvious to me for years that Cadbury`s were losing the plot . The products were poor quality and never seemed to hit the spot ..( well ok there are cream eggs but thats it )
Who would buy Cadbury`s when there was a Galaxy sitting next door ? No-one obviously , so the first fault here is with the Company.It could not have just gone on as it was

Having said that I am also horrified to learn of the amount of borrowing involved and this when credit is supposedly not flowing.
Anonymous said…
We still have time to persuade the shareholders that this is not a good idea.They have until February 2nd before they vote.If enough of them vote no then it cant go ahead.There is a petition you can add your name to at:
Wonderful article, very well explained. I glad to see this blog, such an informative article, Thanks for share th

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo