The major reason behind the merger of these two wine companies was due to the consistent financial losses suffered by both the companies. In such circumstances, merger between these two wine companies was considered as to be best alternative for compensating the regular losses that they suffered. Hardy was well known and respected in the Australian wine market for its quality of wines. On the other hand, BRL was specialized in producing high volume of wines and was known as ‘oil refinery of the wine industry’ in Australia. Nonetheless, both the companies prior to their merger used to have different views and operated as market rivals for each other. Moreover, both the companies possessed diverse organisational structures as well as managerial approaches. However, as considerable profit was emerging from the home market in Australia, owing to which, both the companies merged to form BRL Hardy and concentrated in Australian Wine market in order to earn substantial profits and stabilise their financial elements. Later, when BRL Hardy started emphasising on foreign markets to expand its business, Europe became one of its most preferred destinations as a promising export market for BRL Hardy (Bartlett & Beamish, 2011). Based on this case scenario, the essay intends to identify various strategies initiated by the company during its post merger operations and analyse the pros and cons of these strategies to evaluate its overall managerial effectiveness. Furthermore, the essay also intends to render rational recommendations that could have been effective for the company’s expansion in overseas.
Steve Miller, the CEO of the newly merged company BRL Hardy, during the mid 1990s, began to view the organisation not just as a ‘quality exporter’, but also to be the ‘world’s first global wine company’.