| Course | BUSI 400 Strategic Planning/Business Policy (BUSI400) |
|---|---|
| Module/Week | 3 |
| Assignment | Group Assurance of Learning Exercise 2 |
| Paper type | Group external assessment exercise |
| Length | about 532 words, 2 double-spaced pages plus title page and references. Course guide: a group written exercise applying the module/week's chapter on the external assessment to a real organization |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| Points | 62.5 |
| School | Liberty University Online |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Where it sits | Module/Week 3 in Liberty's published BUSI 400 course guide; current sections can differ |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUSI 400 Week 3
Cocoa Shocks and Snack Rivals: An External Factor Evaluation of Hershey
[Student Name]
School of Business, Liberty University
BUSI 400: Strategic Planning/Business Policy
Group Assurance of Learning Exercise 2
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The textbook's exercise and cohesion case are not public, so a group external assessment of a public company, The Hershey Company, stands in for them; financial figures come from the companies' filings, and the weights and ratings are the group's judgments.
Cocoa Shocks and Snack Rivals: An External Factor Evaluation of Hershey
Industry Analysis
Porter (2008) argued that five forces set an industry's profit potential: competitive rivalry, possible new entrants, supplier bargaining power, buyer bargaining power and substitute products. In confectionery, rivalry among a few large firms is intense but disciplined; new entrants struggle against established brands and retail shelf space; buyers such as large retailers hold significant power; and substitutes include every other snack. Supplier power has recently become the decisive force: cocoa prices rose to record levels, and both major public chocolate companies saw gross margins fall sharply. Even with sales growing, Hershey's gross profit dropped by roughly $1.4 billion between 2024 and 2025, to about $3.92 billion (The Hershey Company, 2026), and Mondelez's gross profit fell from about $14.26 billion to about $10.94 billion over the same period (Mondelez International, 2026).
External Factor Evaluation Matrix
| Key external factor | Weight | Rating | Weighted score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opportunity: growth of salty and better-for-you snacks | 0.10 | 3 | 0.30 |
| Opportunity: consumer demand for premium and seasonal items | 0.08 | 4 | 0.32 |
| Opportunity: international markets with low chocolate consumption | 0.08 | 2 | 0.16 |
| Opportunity: e-commerce and convenience channels | 0.08 | 3 | 0.24 |
| Opportunity: pricing power of iconic brands | 0.09 | 3 | 0.27 |
| Threat: record cocoa and sugar costs | 0.20 | 2 | 0.40 |
| Threat: weight-loss medications reducing snack consumption | 0.12 | 2 | 0.24 |
| Threat: retailer bargaining power and private labels | 0.08 | 3 | 0.24 |
| Threat: child labor and sustainability scrutiny in cocoa | 0.09 | 2 | 0.18 |
| Threat: tariffs and trade policy affecting inputs | 0.08 | 2 | 0.16 |
| Total | 1.00 | 2.51 |
The total of 2.51 sits almost exactly at the average of 2.5. Hershey responds well to opportunities rooted in its brands, such as seasonal and premium products, but the largest weighted threat, cocoa costs, received a rating of 2 because the company's results show it could not fully offset the increase in 2025. The external assessment says less about Hershey's brands than about its exposure to a single crop.
How the Weights and Ratings Were Set
The group weighted each factor by its importance to success for any confectionery and snack company, not by how well Hershey handles it, as David and David (2017) instruct. Cocoa and sugar costs received the largest weight, 0.20, because no other factor moved the industry's profits as much in 2025. The threat from weight-loss medications received 0.12 because, if use keeps spreading, it could reduce how much people snack over many years, though the size of the effect is still uncertain. Ratings describe Hershey's response: a 4 for seasonal and premium products, where the company's brands and holiday assortments give it a strong position, but only a 2 for cocoa costs, since the company's margin fell sharply despite price increases, and a 2 for international markets, where most of its sales are still in North America. Members first rated each factor separately and then discussed any rating that differed by more than one point before agreeing on the final number.
Competitive Profile Matrix
| Critical success factor | Weight | Hershey | Mondelez | Mars |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brand strength in North America | 0.25 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Global reach | 0.15 | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Cost and input management | 0.20 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Product innovation | 0.15 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Salty snack portfolio | 0.10 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Financial strength | 0.15 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Total | 1.00 | 2.90 | 3.10 | 3.30 |
Mars is privately held, so its ratings rest on the group's judgment of public information about its global brands and diversified businesses rather than on filings. Mondelez's far larger sales, about $38.5 billion in 2025, give it global reach Hershey lacks (Mondelez International, 2026). Hershey's highest rating comes from its North American brand strength, the most heavily weighted factor, while its lowest come from global reach and cost management. Both rivals faced the same cocoa shock, so the matrix shows that cost management is a weakness shared across the industry; the difference lies in how much scale and geographic spread each company has to absorb it. Mars's breadth across pet care and food gives it the most cushion, which is why the group rated it highest overall despite having less public information to work with.
Strategic Implications
The matrices point to two priorities: reducing exposure to cocoa costs through hedging, recipe innovation and portfolio diversification, and building international reach where Hershey trails both rivals. These conclusions will carry into the SWOT and strategy choice exercises.
References
David, F. R., & David, F. R. (2017). Strategic management: A competitive advantage approach, concepts and cases (16th ed.). Pearson.
Mondelez International. (2026). Annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001103982&type=10-K
Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 78-93.
The Hershey Company. (2026). Annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000047111&type=10-K
What the BUSI 400 Week 3 instructions ask
Module/Week 3 pairs chapter 3 of David and David, on the external assessment, with a recorded presentation, and the second Group Assurance of Learning Exercise applies the chapter to the cohesion case for 62.5 points, with each member's grade adjusted by peer evaluation. The chapter's tools include the External Factor Evaluation matrix, which weights and rates a firm's key opportunities and threats, and the Competitive Profile Matrix, which compares the firm with rivals on critical success factors. Because the textbook's case is not public, this sample applies those tools to a public company, using figures that can be checked in the companies' annual filings.
How this BUSI 400 Week 3 example is built
The exercise has three parts. A short industry analysis applies Porter's five forces to the confectionery and snack industry. An External Factor Evaluation matrix lists ten opportunities and threats, each weighted by its importance to success in the industry and rated by how well Hershey responds, with the weighted total explained against the average of 2.5. A Competitive Profile Matrix then rates Hershey, Mondelez and Mars on six critical success factors, using filings where data exist and labeled judgments where they do not. A closing section draws the strategic implications, which will feed the SWOT and strategy matrices in later exercises. Rivals' figures are drawn from their own filings, and Mars, as a private company, is rated on public information only.
BUSI 400 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go
Group exercises are graded on correct application of chapter 3's tools to the case, the quality and specificity of the factors chosen, justified weights and ratings, sound conclusions and clear writing with properly cited sources, and each member's score is then raised or lowered by the peer evaluations. Instructors look for factors that are specific and sourced, such as a percentage change in costs, rather than vague items like "economy." Weights must sum to 1.0 and ratings must follow the chapter's scale. A matrix without explanation earns less than one whose numbers are interpreted. The best exercises connect the external assessment to choices the company must make.
BUSI 400 Week 3 help: mistakes that cost points
Gather facts before filling in a matrix: annual reports, industry data and news on costs, regulation and consumer trends. Choose ten to twenty factors that are specific and, where possible, measurable. Assign weights by importance to success in the industry, not by how well the firm handles them, and check that they sum to 1.0. Rate the firm's response on the chapter's 1 to 4 scale and explain the ratings that drive the total. For the Competitive Profile Matrix, use public filings for rivals and label any judgment. Interpret the totals in a paragraph that tells management what to do. Explain at least the three heaviest weights in a sentence each, since they drive the total and invite questions.
Related BUSI 400 sample papers
Other BUSI 400 weeks
- BUSI 400 Week 1: Individual AOL Exercise 1
- BUSI 400 Week 2: Group AOL Exercise 1
- BUSI 400 Week 4: Individual Case Analysis 1
- BUSI 400 Week 5: Individual AOL Exercise 2
- BUSI 400 Week 6: Group Case Analysis 1
- BUSI 400 Week 7: Individual Case Analysis 2
- BUSI 400 Week 8: Group Case Analysis 2
More BS in Business Administration sample papers
- BUSI 370 Week 3: Written Report 1
- BUSI 372 Week 3: Written Assignment 2
- BUSI 405 Week 3: Forum 3 Thread and Replies
- BUSI 409 Week 3: Forum 2 Thread
BUSI 400 Week 3 questions, answered
What is BUSI 400 Group Assurance of Learning Exercise 2?
Group Exercise 2, for 62.5 points, applies the external assessment chapter of David and David, with its EFE matrix and Competitive Profile Matrix, to the cohesion case company.
Where can I find a free BUSI 400 Week 3 sample paper?
Scroll down for a complete BUSI 400 Week 3 group exercise with an External Factor Evaluation matrix and Competitive Profile Matrix for Hershey, Mondelez and Mars.
How do you build an EFE matrix?
List key opportunities and threats, weight each from 0.0 to 1.0 by importance to industry success with weights summing to 1.0, rate the firm's response from 1 to 4, multiply and add the products.
What does an EFE total score mean?
Totals range from 1.0 to 4.0 with an average of 2.5; a score above 2.5 means the firm responds better than average to the opportunities and threats in its environment.
What else is due in BUSI 400 Module/Week 3?
Each member also submits a peer evaluation, and the week's reading is the third chapter of David and David, on the external assessment, with a presentation. This second group exercise is worth 62.5 points.
Use it as a model, or ask for your own
This paper is an original model written by our desk for study. It is not a submitted student paper and not an official Liberty University document. Read it for structure and reasoning, then write your own to the instructions in your Canvas course. If you want a version built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Ask for a custom BUSI 400 Week 3 sample · All BUSI 400 weeks · All courses