BEM1083DA IKEA Case Study Report Sample (Assessment 1) – University of Exeter

For information and reference only – not to be submitted as your own work.

This extract shows how a strong Assessment 1 case study report can be structured for BEM1083DA Business Environment and Organisational Strategy at the University of Exeter Business School (degree apprenticeship route). It follows the four questions in the IKEA case brief: market analysis, macro-environment, internal resources and culture, and strategic recommendations. The extract is condensed, so each section shows the analytical approach and the level of critique expected rather than the full 3,000 words. The original brief is available on the BEM1083DA Assessment 1 question page, and a companion guide on marking priorities is available in the blog how to approach the BEM1083DA IKEA case study.

Note on evidence: public figures below come from IKEA and Ingka Group publications for the 2025 financial year. The case document supplied by the module should always be treated as the primary source, and any figure marked illustrative is an example only.

1. Market analysis

IKEA competes in the home furnishings market across more than one segment: flat-pack furniture, home accessories, food and, increasingly, services and online delivery. Market definition matters because it changes the rivals identified. Defining the market as “affordable home furnishing for the many” places IKEA against both mass retailers and online platforms, whereas a narrow “furniture retail” definition understates digital competition.

Porter’s (2008) five forces provides a structured view. The ratings below are analytical judgements, not measured values, and should be tested against the case data.

A limitation of five forces is that it is static and treats the industry boundary as fixed. IKEA’s own pre-owned platform and buy-back services blur the line between substitute and complement, which is why the analysis should be paired with a view of how the market is changing rather than a snapshot (Whittington et al., 2020).

2. Macro-environment and the nature of the problems

A PESTLE structure is useful for coverage, but the question asks for critical appraisal by extent of impact. The factors below are grouped by relevance to IKEA and its competitors rather than listed evenly.

• Economic: household cost-of-living pressure affects discretionary spending on furniture. Ingka Group reported revenue of EUR 41.5 billion for the 2025 financial year, down 0.9% on the prior year, alongside a continued focus on keeping prices low (Ingka Group, 2025). This is a tractable problem for pricing and range decisions, although the underlying demand cycle is outside company control.
• Technological: online sales represented 28% of all IKEA sales in the 2025 financial year (Inter IKEA Group, 2025). Digital capability is therefore central, and competitors face the same shift.
• Environmental and social: climate expectations and circular-economy pressure shape sourcing, product life and returns. These are better treated as wicked problems in the sense of Rittel and Webber (1973): causes are interlinked, stakeholders disagree on solutions, and there is no single correct answer.
• Political and legal: trade policy, import duties and product regulation affect cost and supply chains. Their impact is uncertain, so scenario thinking is more suitable than a single forecast.

A critical appraisal ranks these factors. Economic pressure and digital change have the highest and most immediate impact; environmental expectations have the largest long-term strategic consequence. The report should state the data limitations, for example that macro-economic forecasts change quickly and that a case document dated September 2026 may already be overtaken by events.

Business management assignment help is available where a student needs guidance on structuring a macro-environment analysis of this kind.

3. Internal resources, capabilities and culture

The resource-based view asks whether resources are valuable, rare, costly to imitate and organised to capture value (Barney, 1991). Applying this to IKEA, the following assessment is proposed.

Ingka Group’s annual summary describes a very large co-worker base and a portfolio of shopping centres alongside its stores (Ingka Group, 2025), which indicates scale but also a large fixed asset base that must adapt to online buying. Resources alone are not enough in a changing market. Dynamic capabilities, meaning the ability to sense, seize and reconfigure resources, explain why some firms adapt faster than others (Teece et al., 1997). The expansion of smaller formats, pick-up points and the app suggests such reconfiguration is under way, but the evidence on its success is limited and should be flagged as such.

Culture can be analysed through Schein’s (2010) three levels: artefacts, espoused values and basic assumptions. IKEA’s emphasis on affordability, simplicity and co-worker involvement is visible in artefacts such as flat-pack products and self-service store layouts. The critical question is whether the same assumptions remain helpful when services, delivery and circular offers require different behaviours.

4. Strategic recommendations

Recommendations must follow from the analysis and be justified against risk. Three options are proposed and evaluated.

The recommended strategy positions IKEA as a convenient and affordable home furnishing provider that competes on omnichannel access and circular services rather than on price alone. Implementation should be phased across short, medium and long terms, with measures such as online conversion, repeat purchase and returns handling cost tracked against targets. Any financial targets quoted in an actual submission must be labelled illustrative unless taken from the case.

The main uncertainty is consumer demand, which cannot be forecast with confidence. The report should therefore present its recommendation as robust across two or three scenarios, rather than optimal for a single one. This directly addresses the module expectation that missing or ambiguous information is acknowledged and managed.

The Assessment 2 presentation for the same module is covered in the BEM1083DA Assessment 2 sample.

Students who need support with a PowerPoint submission can also review the PowerPoint presentation service.

References

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108

Inter IKEA Group. (2025). Year in review FY25. https://www.ikea.com/global/en/our-business/how-we-work/year-in-review-fy25

Ingka Group. (2025). Ingka Group annual report summary FY25. https://assets.site.ingka.com/ingka-com/reports/ingka-group-annual-report-summary-fy25.pdf

Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 78–93.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

Whittington, R., Regnér, P., Angwin, D., Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. (2020). Exploring strategy (12th ed.). Pearson.

Prepared by

Students Assignment Help UK Editorial Team

This model answer was prepared by our editorial team in response to a real assignment brief we received. It shows one way to approach the task and is meant as a study guide, not for submission.