IB Business Management SL Extended Essay Example

The title is too generic to communicate the actual investigation. A more specific title should preview the merger, company, and analytical focus so the reader immediately knows what is being studied.

The research question is clearly stated and gives the investigation a workable scope by naming the merger, company, industry, and time frame. This helps keep the essay anchored to a specific business context and makes the line of inquiry easy to follow.

The background section is relevant, but it is not consistently aligned with the stated 2018–2023 US focus. The student should trim older merger context unless it directly supports the evaluation of later performance.

How does this international emphasis answer a question that is explicitly about performance in the U.S. Food & Beverage industry? The student should reflect on whether every contextual point is helping the stated research question.

The methodology reads more like a list of tools than a justified plan. The student should explain why each framework is necessary, how the sources were selected, and how validity and comparability of the evidence will be checked.

The methodology would be stronger if each tool were tied to a specific sub-question. For example, the student could state exactly what Ansoff will show, what VRIO will test, and what financial ratios will measure, so the analysis is more systematic.

The student uses a concrete merger objective and financial evidence to establish a measurable basis for later evaluation. This is effective because it gives the reader a benchmark against which the merger’s outcomes can be judged.

This claim is not well supported and the causal link is weak. The student should either provide direct evidence for supplier behavior or qualify the statement, because supply-chain issues alone do not automatically explain sales changes.

The application of source material would be stronger if the student briefly explained how this example affects the U.S. performance measure being discussed. A short link to revenue, market share, or margin would make the evidence more purposeful.

The VRIO explanation is too broad and does not fully test each element of the framework. The student should show separately whether each resource is valuable, rare, inimitable, and organized, rather than only asserting competitive advantage.

The ratio formula is inaccurate as written. The student should define net profit margin using net profit, not profit before interest and tax, and should present the expression clearly so the calculation and interpretation are valid.

This is a strong use of source material because the student combines company data with a calculated ratio and then compares it to pre-merger firms. That makes the evidence more analytical than descriptive.

The interpretation is oversimplified. The student should explain that a high P/E can reflect growth expectations, but it does not automatically mean overvaluation; the conclusion depends on industry context and comparison with peers.

What evidence shows that the workforce reduction caused the drop in sales, rather than both being effects of broader market conditions? The student should test this relationship more carefully before presenting it as a conclusion.

The analysis goes beyond description by linking a financial change to a strategic explanation. This is effective because it begins to connect observed outcomes with the merger’s intended cost-synergy logic.

This argument is difficult to follow and only partially evaluated. The student should separate the different ideas, explain how each one affects performance, and support the comparison with competitors using evidence rather than assertion.

The force-field weighting is asserted, but the reasoning for why these totals matter is not fully explained. The student should justify the assigned values and show how the balance of forces leads to a specific evaluative judgment about merger success.

The argument would be stronger if the student compared this trend with an external baseline, such as a competitor or industry average. That would help show whether the profit pattern is merger-specific or part of wider market movement.

The student attempts explanation rather than simple reporting, which is a useful analytical step. The comment also shows awareness that early losses may reflect transition costs rather than a purely negative merger effect.

The comparison is not analytically secure because the source basis and time frame are unclear. The student should explain whether the averages are directly comparable and how they help answer the research question about merger impact.

If the conclusion says more years are needed for a definitive judgment, what criterion should determine the current extent judgment? The student should think about how to weigh the evidence already available instead of leaving the answer open-ended.

The opening does not immediately communicate the specific case study or line of analysis. A more informative title would strengthen the report’s academic presentation and make the topic clearer at first glance.

The report has a clear sectioned structure, with an introduction, methodology, analysis, conclusion, and references. This helps the reader navigate the argument and shows an appropriate overall organization for an extended essay.

The inclusion of a contents page helps signpost the report’s sections and supports reader navigation. This is a good presentation choice because it makes the sequence of analysis easier to follow.

The contents page would be stronger if the section titles mirrored the analytical logic of the research question more closely. For example, grouping financial performance, strategic performance, and employee/culture evaluation could make the argument easier to track.

The structure is not as tightly focused as it could be because the analysis sections are organized around several tools rather than around the research question itself. The student should consider reorganizing the body so each section clearly answers part of the inquiry.

The table title is useful, but the data presentation is hard to follow because the year labels and values are not clearly aligned in the transcription. The student should make sure tables are structured so the reader can quickly identify which values belong to which years.

This figure is difficult to interpret because the surrounding discussion and labels do not clearly show the key trend being claimed. The student should simplify the presentation and ensure the graph communicates one clear message.