Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
For the past four years, A.T. Kearney has pub- So when we report that India has overtaken
lished the Global Retail Development Index Russia to take the lead spot this year, and that
(GRDI), a survey to help retailers prioritize six of the top 10 most promising regions are in
their global development strategies (see appendix: Eastern Europe, what does it mean? If Russia is
The GRDI Methodology). The index ranks 30 the clear choice at number two this year, where
emerging countries based on more than 25 macro- was it five years ago? How important are coun-
economic and retail-specific variables (see figure 1 try advances and declines on the index? Ukraine
on page 2). moved from number 11 to the number three spot
Every year, the retail landscape looks in just one year. Surely there’s more than one
a little different. In 2005, consumer electronics, reason for such a jump.
apparel and home-improvement companies are Thus, to gain a better understanding
awakening to the global growth imperative. DIY of what the research means, we looked back
retailer Kingfisher just opened in Russia, and The at the GRDI findings from 1995 to 2000 (see
Home Depot set up shop in China. Next year, sidebar: The Timing Message Holds on pages
what format will appeal to what market? 4 and 5). We found that top-tier countries
The index not only provides an annual outperformed the other two tiers on several
snapshot of how the opportunities in emerging dimensions. For example, the top tier experi-
markets stack up, but also offers insights into enced a retail sales compound annual growth rate
changing trends. A slight change in position from (CAGR) of 5.8 percent, while the bottom tier
one year to the next may not seem significant, but grew by just 1.5 percent. From 1995 to 2004, top-
over the course of a few years, we see just how tier countries posted an 8.9 percent CAGR, while
important these subtle indicators can be. the bottom tier grew at just 4.5 percent. Retailers
priority
To consider 100 = low 100 = high attrac- 100 = not 100 = urgency
risk tiveness saturated to enter
Sources: Euromoney database, World Bank reports and A.T. Kearney analysis
Figure 2
GRDI 2005 country attractiveness
70 Lithuania
Malaysia
Tunisia Croatia
India
60 Mexico Thailand
Latvia
Saudi Arabia
Bulgaria
Romania
Morocco
Brazil Russia
Egypt Turkey
50
Vietnam
Pakistan Ukraine
40 Indonesia Philippines
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Macedonia
30
30 40 50
Market potential*
(0 = low potential; 100 = high potential)
* Based on weighted score of market attractiveness, market saturation and time pressure scores. Source: A.T. Kearney
Figure A
Modern retail
The 1995 GRDI predicts future performance in retail development sales have grown
at a faster pace
for the top 10
Country Market Market Time markets than
Region risk attractiveness saturation pressure the bottom
1995
Rank Country Weight 25% 25% 30% 20% Score 10 markets
1 South Korea Asia 82 77 60 69 100
2 Poland Eastern Europe 58 61 72 90 99
3 Brazil Americas 55 78 78 61 93 The top 10
4 Chile Americas 76 68 65 65 93 markets had
5 Taiwan Asia 93 72 62 40 91 a compound
6 Indonesia Asia 59 36 94 73 88 annual growth
rate (CAGR)
7 Malaysia Asia 67 48 75 75 87
of 6% between
8 Argentina Americas 56 78 69 59 86 1995 and 2000,
9 Thailand Asia 77 39 79 64 84 and 9% between
10 Czech Republic Eastern Europe 74 56 65 66 84 1995 and 2004
11 Turkey Mediterranean 55 60 87 49 83
12 Vietnam Asia 47 18 100 83 79
13 Philippines Asia 53 39 90 64 79
14 China Asia 33 32 97 85 77
15 Saudi Arabia Asia 60 75 80 21 77
16 India Asia 58 26 99 57 77
17 Mexico Americas 59 65 60 64 76
18 Uruguay Americas 52 71 76 37 75
19 Russia Eastern Europe 28 58 92 58 74
20 Romania Eastern Europe 49 29 92 69 74
21 Colombia Americas 61 48 74 52 72
22 Israel Mediteranean 78 72 36 55 70
The bottom 10
23 Slovakia Eastern Europe 58 40 71 64 69
markets had a
24 Egypt Mediteranean 47 32 91 56 69 CAGR of 1%
25 South Africa Africa 63 55 66 42 66 between 1995
26 Hong Kong Asia 66 70 44 52 66 and 2000, and
27 Slovenia Eastern Europe 61 58 71 28 64 4% between
28 Venezuela Americas 49 61 78 20 60 1995 and 2004
29 Bulgaria Eastern Europe 41 34 87 45 57
30 Hungary Eastern Europe 60 43 59 38 51
10
Figure B illustrates the shift in 15
opportunity over time based on a 20 Egypt
country’s GRDI ranking. Today, 25 Hungary
India and Ukraine are at the peak of Slovakia
30
their attractiveness, while Russia and
Source: A.T. Kearney
China are beginning to level off.
Overall, poor timing is often
the source of many retailers’ deci-
sions to leave emerging markets. Figure C
Over the past five years, the number Food retailers: market entries and exits, 2002–2005*
of companies exiting markets has
risen steadily (see figure C). For Number of retailers exiting and entering Number of retailers exiting
example, Tesco entered the Slova- (by region) (by year)
Expected
kian market at the end of the 1990s, 40 15
Exits
35 14
an optimal time for market entry. Entries 13
30
Today it holds a 13 percent share of Ratio of 12
exits/entries
25 11
the market. Other retailers, such as
20 10
Ahold, Carrefour and Tengelmann, 9
15 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.5
entered in late 2001, but have been 10
8
7
unable to cross the 5 percent market- 5 6
share mark. Edeka entered the Czech 0 5
Asia Easter Mediter- Africa 2002 2003 2004 2005
Republic too late in 2000 and exited Europe ranean
in early 2004. PriceSmart entered
* Years are from July through June following the GRDI index timing, rather than calendar years; 2005 is up to February
Mexico in 2002 and exited in 2005. Sources: Planet Retail, Euromonitor and A.T. Kearney
Figure 3
Most attractive developing regions for retail
Percent of countries “on the radar screen” and “to consider” by region
55%
2002
45% 2003
40% 2004
35% 2005
15%
10%
5% 5% 5% 5%
0% 0% 0%
Eastern Europe Asia Mediterranean Americas Africa
Figure 4
Changes in ranking for Eastern European countries, 2005 versus 2004
8
8
4
Changes in ranking, 2004–2005
2
2
New New
0 0 0 entrant entrant
0
–1 –1 –1
–2
–2 –2
–3
–4
–4
–6
–8
*
y*
tia
ia
ia
ia
ia
ia
ia
ia
ia
in -
bl h
ov ia
nd
in
pu ec
ss
en
ak
tv
ar
an
an
on
ar
oa
eg sn
a
ra
ic
la
La
lg
Ru
Re Cz
ov
ng
ov
hu
ed
rz Bo
Cr
Uk
Po
Bu
Ro
Sl
Sl
Hu
Lit
ac
M
He
Figure 5
Changes in ranking for Asian countries, 2005 versus 2004
4
Changes in ranking, 2004–2005
2
1 1
New
0 0 0 entrant
0
–1 –1 –1
–2
–2
–4
–4 –4
–6
–6
–8
AR g
nd
n*
sia
sia
n
am
an
ne
(S Kon
in
re
bi
di
ta
Ira
la
w
)*
ne
ay
Ch
ra
In
tn
kis
Ko
pi
ai
i
e
Ta
iA
al
ilip
do
ng
Pa
Th
Vi
M
ut
ud
In
Ho
Ph
So
Sa
The higher the rating, the lower the risk of failure. This year, the calculation includes
the business cost of terrorism threats.
Data and analysis are based on the United Nations Population Division Database,
the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2003-2004, national
statistics, Euromoney and World Bank reports, and Euromonitor and Planet Retail
databases.
AFRICA Johannesburg
Copyright 2005, A.T. Kearney, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form
without written permission from the copyright holder. A.T. Kearney® is a registered mark of A.T. Kearney, Inc.
A.T. Kearney, Inc., an EDS company, is an equal opportunity employer.
1M ATK705905