A Comparative Analysis of Kmart and Walmart’s Business Models: Strategic Divergence in American Retail

Martin Munyao Muinde

Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

 

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of Kmart and Walmart’s business models, examining the strategic decisions that led to their divergent trajectories in the American retail landscape. Through meticulous examination of their operational strategies, supply chain management approaches, market positioning, and adaptability to changing consumer preferences, this research illuminates why Walmart achieved remarkable market dominance while Kmart experienced significant decline. The analysis reveals that Walmart’s success stemmed from its revolutionary supply chain innovations, aggressive expansion strategy, and ability to adapt to the digital retail environment, while Kmart’s inability to establish a clear value proposition and modernize its operations contributed to its eventual marginalization. This study contributes to the scholarly understanding of retail business model evolution and offers valuable insights into the strategic imperatives for contemporary retail enterprises navigating increasingly competitive markets.

Keywords: retail business models, supply chain management, competitive strategy, market positioning, digital transformation, organizational decline, strategic adaptation, discount retail

Introduction

The American retail landscape has witnessed dramatic transformations over the past several decades, with the divergent fortunes of once-comparable discount retailers Kmart and Walmart representing one of the most instructive case studies in business model efficacy and strategic adaptation. Both organizations emerged during the post-war retail boom with similar value propositions centered on discount merchandising, yet their trajectories could not have been more different. Walmart ascended to become the world’s largest retailer and a paradigm of operational excellence, while Kmart experienced a precipitous decline culminating in bankruptcy and store closures (Basker, 2007). This stark contrast presents a compelling opportunity to examine how seemingly subtle differences in business model conceptualization and execution can produce dramatically different outcomes in highly competitive markets.

This article undertakes a systematic comparison of the business models employed by these two retail giants, focusing on the critical dimensions that define their approaches to value creation, delivery, and capture. By deconstructing their respective strategies for supply chain management, location selection, technological integration, organizational culture, and adaptation to market dynamics, this analysis aims to identify the fundamental factors that determined their divergent paths. The significance of this investigation extends beyond historical curiosity; it provides actionable insights for contemporary retailers navigating disruption in an increasingly digital marketplace where traditional competitive advantages are rapidly eroding (Christensen et al., 2015).

The following sections will examine the historical context of both retailers, analyze the key components of their business models, evaluate their responses to critical market inflection points, and synthesize the lessons their comparative experiences offer for business strategy and retail management theory. Through this comprehensive analysis, the research contributes to our understanding of how business model design and execution influence long-term organizational performance and adaptability in dynamic competitive environments.

Historical Context and Evolution

Origins and Initial Growth Trajectories

Kmart originated from the S.S. Kresge Company, founded in 1899, which operated traditional five-and-dime stores. The first Kmart discount department store opened in 1962 in Garden City, Michigan, marking the company’s strategic pivot toward the discount retail model (Vance & Scott, 1994). This transition occurred during a transformative period in American retail when rising consumer affluence and suburban expansion created fertile ground for new retail formats. Kmart’s early growth was remarkable—by 1976, it had opened 1,206 stores and achieved annual sales of $8.9 billion, making it the dominant discount retailer in America during this period (Graff, 2006).

Walmart, founded by Sam Walton in 1962 with its first store in Rogers, Arkansas, pursued a distinctly different initial growth strategy. While Kmart aggressively expanded nationwide, Walmart methodically established a dense network of stores in rural and small-town markets in the South and Midwest—areas often overlooked by competitors. This deliberate “rural saturation” approach allowed Walmart to develop efficient distribution networks and build brand loyalty in underserved markets before challenging established retailers in more competitive urban environments (Fishman, 2006). By 1980, Walmart had expanded to only 276 stores but had laid the groundwork for its subsequent explosive growth through this carefully orchestrated regional strategy.

Divergent Paths in the 1980s and 1990s

The 1980s marked a critical inflection point when the trajectories of the two retailers began to diverge significantly. Walmart invested heavily in technology and logistics infrastructure, becoming an early adopter of computerized inventory management systems and launching its satellite network in 1987. This technological foundation enabled the implementation of the cross-docking distribution system and vendor-managed inventory practices that dramatically reduced costs and improved merchandise availability (Lecavalier, 2016). Concurrently, Walmart expanded its merchandise selection through the introduction of the Supercenter format in 1988, which integrated full-line grocery operations with general merchandise, increasing customer visit frequency and average transaction value.

In contrast, Kmart struggled with inconsistent strategic direction during this period. The company pursued diversification through acquisitions of specialty retailers like Builders Square, Sports Authority, and Borders Books, which diverted management attention and capital from its core discount operations (Raff & Temin, 1999). More critically, Kmart failed to make comparable investments in information technology and logistics infrastructure, resulting in persistent inventory management problems, inconsistent in-stock positions, and higher operating costs relative to Walmart (McGee, 1989). These operational deficiencies became increasingly problematic as Walmart’s superior systems enabled it to consistently deliver on its “everyday low prices” promise while maintaining profitability.

The 1990s accelerated this divergence, with Walmart surpassing Kmart in sales in 1990 and continuing its aggressive expansion nationally and internationally. By 1995, Walmart had established itself as the dominant discount retailer in the United States, while Kmart struggled with declining market share, deteriorating store conditions, and mounting financial pressures (Ortega, 1998). These challenges ultimately culminated in Kmart’s bankruptcy filing in 2002, marking a definitive shift in the competitive landscape of American discount retail.

Core Business Model Components

Supply Chain Management and Distribution Systems

The profound difference between Kmart and Walmart’s approaches to supply chain management represents perhaps the most consequential divergence in their business models. Walmart revolutionized retail logistics through its early and substantial investments in distribution infrastructure and technology integration. The company’s strategic decision to build its distribution centers before expanding stores in new regions created a logistical foundation that enabled efficient inventory replenishment and cost control (Walton & Huey, 1992). This network of strategically positioned distribution facilities, coupled with sophisticated inventory tracking and transportation management systems, allowed Walmart to achieve superior inventory turnover rates—7.2 times annually compared to Kmart’s 4.3 by the mid-1990s (Johnson, 2006).

Walmart’s pioneering implementation of cross-docking techniques—where products are transferred directly from inbound to outbound trucks with minimal warehousing—significantly reduced handling costs and accelerated inventory velocity throughout its system. This operational innovation was enhanced by the company’s early adoption of electronic data interchange (EDI) with suppliers, establishing unprecedented visibility across the supply chain and enabling more precise inventory management (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2012). By the early 1990s, Walmart had developed Retail Link, a proprietary system that shared point-of-sale data with suppliers to facilitate collaborative planning, forecasting, and replenishment processes, further enhancing operational efficiency.

Kmart, conversely, maintained a more traditional wholesale-retail relationship model with its suppliers and was slower to modernize its distribution infrastructure. The company operated with a more decentralized purchasing system that inhibited economies of scale and reduced bargaining leverage with vendors (Dicker, 2003). Kmart’s “stockroom to floor” inventory management approach—where significant merchandise quantities were stored in individual store backrooms—increased carrying costs and reduced selling space productivity. The company’s belated attempt to modernize its supply chain through the $1.1 billion Retail Modernization Initiative in the late 1990s was poorly executed and failed to close the widening operational gap with Walmart (Saporito, 2003).

Pricing Strategies and Value Propositions

Walmart’s business model centered on a clear and consistent value proposition articulated through its “Everyday Low Prices” (EDLP) strategy. This approach eliminated the traditional high-low pricing tactics common in retail, instead offering consistently competitive pricing across the merchandise assortment. This strategy reduced marketing costs associated with frequent promotional advertising and created customer confidence in Walmart’s value proposition (Lal & Rao, 1997). The company’s rigorous cost management throughout its operations enabled it to sustain this pricing approach while maintaining acceptable profit margins—a capability directly linked to its superior supply chain efficiency.

Kmart, in contrast, employed a “promotional pricing” strategy characterized by frequent sales, limited-time discounts, and loss leaders advertised through weekly circulars and the company’s iconic “Blue Light Specials.” This approach required higher initial markups to accommodate promotional discounts, creating perceived rather than actual value for consumers (Ellickson & Misra, 2008). As consumer sophistication increased and price comparison became easier, particularly with the advent of internet shopping, the limitations of this approach became increasingly apparent. Kmart struggled to establish a coherent value proposition that differentiated it from Walmart’s price leadership or Target’s “cheap chic” positioning, leaving it vulnerable in an increasingly polarized retail market (Kumar, 2006).

Real Estate Strategy and Store Format Evolution

Walmart’s deliberate approach to real estate selection and development constituted another foundational element of its business model. The company’s initial focus on rural and small-town markets with limited competition allowed it to secure prime locations at favorable costs while developing operational expertise before challenging established retailers in more competitive markets (Holmes, 2011). As the company expanded, it maintained disciplined site selection criteria focused on transportation accessibility, population density metrics, and competitor positioning. This methodical approach supported Walmart’s hub-and-spoke distribution model, maximizing logistical efficiency while capturing significant market share in each region before progressing to adjacent territories.

Additionally, Walmart demonstrated remarkable format innovation, evolving from its original discount store concept to introduce the Supercenter format in 1988, Sam’s Club warehouse stores, Neighborhood Markets, and eventually smaller format Walmart Express locations. This format diversification strategy enabled the company to penetrate markets with different demographic characteristics and shopping preferences while leveraging its core operational capabilities (Matsa, 2011).

Kmart’s real estate strategy lacked comparable discipline and forward planning. The company’s early expansion prioritized rapid store count growth over strategic market development, resulting in a more dispersed network that complicated distribution efficiency. Many Kmart locations were selected opportunistically rather than strategically, leading to suboptimal store placements that became increasingly problematic as retail competition intensified (Steidtmann, 2003). Furthermore, Kmart was slower to renovate and update its stores, resulting in deteriorating shopping environments that diminished brand perception and customer experience. The company’s delayed and inconsistent implementation of the Super Kmart concept (its answer to Walmart’s Supercenter format) represented a missed opportunity to capture the growing consumer preference for one-stop shopping destinations (Dicker, 2003).

Organizational Culture and Human Resource Management

Leadership Philosophy and Management Practices

The contrasting leadership philosophies at Kmart and Walmart profoundly influenced their organizational trajectories. Walmart’s culture was deeply shaped by founder Sam Walton’s management approach, which emphasized frugality, operational excellence, and continuous improvement (Soderquist, 2005). Walton instituted practices like the Saturday morning meeting, where executives reviewed weekly performance metrics and discussed operational challenges, creating a culture of accountability and data-driven decision-making. His famous “Sundown Rule”—addressing requests and problems by the end of each day—established responsiveness as a core organizational value (Walton & Huey, 1992).

Walmart maintained remarkable leadership continuity, with executive succession primarily occurring through internal promotion of leaders steeped in the company’s culture and operational practices. This continuity enabled consistent strategic execution and preserved institutional knowledge through growth phases (Bradley & Ghemawat, 2002). Even after Walton’s death in 1992, the company’s leadership remained committed to his founding principles while adapting to changing market conditions.

In contrast, Kmart experienced frequent leadership transitions and strategic redirections that created organizational instability. Between 1980 and 2000, the company had six different CEOs, each introducing new initiatives that often disrupted or abandoned their predecessors’ programs (Dicker, 2003). This leadership turnover impeded the development of a coherent organizational identity and consistent operational focus. Many of Kmart’s executives came from outside the discount retail sector, bringing strategies from department stores or specialty retail that were not always appropriate for the discount format (McGee, 1989). This leadership discontinuity contributed to Kmart’s inability to develop and execute a sustainable competitive strategy in response to Walmart’s growing dominance.

Employee Relations and Workforce Development

Walmart’s approach to human resource management combined stringent cost control with innovative employee engagement practices. The company pioneered profit-sharing programs for retail employees, introduced in 1971, which created alignment between workforce and organizational performance (Soderquist, 2005). Walmart’s practice of referring to employees as “associates” and emphasizing their role in the company’s success fostered a sense of ownership that enhanced productivity and reduced turnover in an industry notorious for high employee churn. The company also invested in comprehensive training programs, particularly for management positions, with approximately 70% of its store managers rising through internal promotion channels (Bergdahl, 2004).

Nevertheless, Walmart’s labor practices have generated significant controversy, particularly regarding compensation levels, healthcare benefits, and allegations of gender discrimination. These practices reflected the company’s prioritization of cost efficiency in its business model, but also created vulnerabilities in terms of public perception and employee relations (Lichtenstein, 2006). The tension between cost control and employee investment represents an ongoing challenge in Walmart’s business model.

Kmart struggled to develop a similarly distinctive approach to workforce management. The company experienced higher employee turnover rates and lower productivity metrics compared to Walmart, particularly in inventory management and customer service functions (Dicker, 2003). Training programs were less comprehensive and consistently implemented, contributing to execution problems at the store level. Kmart’s frequent strategic shifts and financial pressures further complicated employee relations, with cost-cutting measures often targeting labor expenses through reduced hours and staffing levels rather than improved operational efficiency (Raff & Temin, 1999).

Technology Integration and Digital Adaptation

Information Systems and Data Analytics

Walmart established early leadership in retail technology adoption, investing approximately $700 million in its satellite communication network and inventory management systems during the 1980s when most retailers viewed technology primarily as a cost center rather than a strategic asset (Fishman, 2006). This infrastructure enabled unprecedented visibility into store-level sales patterns and inventory positions, facilitating more precise merchandise planning and allocation decisions. By the early 1990s, Walmart had developed sophisticated data warehousing capabilities that supported advanced analytics for assortment optimization, pricing decisions, and promotional planning (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2012).

The company’s proprietary Retail Link system transformed supplier relationships by providing vendors with direct access to point-of-sale data relevant to their products, enabling collaborative planning and more responsive inventory replenishment. This technology-enabled collaboration reduced carrying costs throughout the supply chain while improving in-stock positions on store shelves, creating mutual benefits for Walmart and its supplier partners (Bradley & Ghemawat, 2002). The company’s early recognition of information technology as a source of competitive advantage, rather than merely an administrative support function, represented a fundamental distinction in its business model compared to traditional retailers.

Kmart’s approach to technology investment was more cautious and fragmented. The company underinvested in core operational systems during the critical 1980s period when retail technology capabilities were rapidly evolving, creating an efficiency gap that proved increasingly difficult to overcome (Dicker, 2003). When Kmart finally launched its $1.1 billion modernization initiative in the late 1990s, implementation problems and integration challenges limited the program’s effectiveness. The company struggled with basic inventory tracking capabilities, often experiencing significant discrepancies between system records and actual stock levels that undermined both operational efficiency and customer experience (Saporito, 2003).

Response to E-commerce and Omni-channel Retail

The emergence of e-commerce represented another critical inflection point in the comparative evolution of these retailers’ business models. Walmart initially approached digital retail cautiously, launching its first e-commerce site in 2000 with a limited assortment focused on items with favorable shipping economics (Rigby, 2011). However, as online shopping gained mainstream adoption, the company accelerated its digital investments, acquiring e-commerce startups like Jet.com and establishing dedicated innovation centers to develop its omni-channel capabilities. By 2017, Walmart had successfully integrated its physical and digital operations, offering services like grocery pickup and leveraging its store network as fulfillment nodes for online orders (Galloway, 2017).

Kmart’s digital transformation efforts were hampered by financial constraints and shifting strategic priorities during its periods of restructuring. The company’s early internet venture, BlueLight.com, was launched as a separate business unit in 1999 but struggled to achieve integration with Kmart’s physical retail operations (Dicker, 2003). Following its acquisition by Sears in 2005, the combined organization’s digital strategy focused primarily on the Shop Your Way loyalty program rather than developing competitive e-commerce capabilities. This fragmented approach left the company poorly positioned to compete in the increasingly digital retail landscape, particularly as Amazon expanded beyond its original book category into general merchandise (Sorescu et al., 2011).

Strategic Responses to Competitive Challenges

Product Assortment and Category Management

Walmart’s approach to merchandise selection evolved significantly over time, expanding from its initial general merchandise focus to include comprehensive grocery offerings, pharmacy services, financial services, and digital products. The company employed a sophisticated category management process that balanced data-driven analysis with merchant expertise to optimize assortments for different store formats and market conditions (Bradley & Ghemawat, 2002). Walmart strategically used private label programs like Great Value to strengthen price perception and improve margins in key categories while maintaining strong national brand representation to ensure traffic generation.

The company’s merchandise strategy emphasized the “opening price point” position across categories—offering the lowest-priced acceptable quality option in each product segment to reinforce its value leadership positioning (Fishman, 2006). Simultaneously, Walmart gradually expanded its presence in higher-margin discretionary categories like electronics, apparel, and home furnishings, broadening its appeal beyond its traditional price-sensitive customer base. This balanced approach to category development supported both traffic generation and profitability objectives.

Kmart struggled to establish a similarly coherent merchandise strategy. The company attempted to differentiate through exclusive brand partnerships, most notably with Martha Stewart, Jaclyn Smith, and Joe Boxer, which initially generated positive results but proved insufficient to overcome its broader operational deficiencies (Dicker, 2003). Kmart’s inconsistent execution of category management practices resulted in confusing assortments that often failed to meet core customer expectations while simultaneously falling short in attracting new customer segments. The company’s frequent strategic pivots—alternating between emphasizing national brands and private labels, fashion and basics, breadth and depth—created merchandise confusion that undermined its market positioning (Raff & Temin, 1999).

Brand Positioning and Marketing Effectiveness

Walmart maintained remarkable consistency in its brand positioning centered on price leadership and operational excellence. The company’s “Everyday Low Prices” promise was systematically reinforced through all customer touchpoints, from advertising to in-store signage to the shopping experience itself (Lal & Rao, 1997). This consistent positioning created a clear value proposition that resonated with price-conscious consumers while setting realistic service expectations. Walmart’s marketing emphasized concrete savings rather than aspirational imagery, aligning with its pragmatic, value-oriented customer base.

The company’s famous “price rollback” campaign effectively communicated both immediate savings and Walmart’s commitment to continuous cost reduction, reinforcing its core brand promise. Even as Walmart expanded into higher-margin categories and services, it maintained this fundamental value positioning while gradually evolving its communication to emphasize quality and selection dimensions as secondary messages (Ortega, 1998).

Kmart’s brand positioning suffered from inconsistency and strategic vacillation. The company’s marketing alternated between emphasizing fashion and trend elements (exemplified by its “Kmart. Expect More.” campaign) and reinforcing value messages (through “Blue Light Specials” and promotional pricing), creating consumer confusion about its core identity (Dicker, 2003). While individual campaigns sometimes generated short-term traffic improvements, the lack of a coherent and sustained positioning strategy undermined long-term brand equity development. Kmart’s Celebrity product lines created some differentiation but remained isolated bright spots rather than foundations for comprehensive repositioning.

Financial Performance and Capital Allocation

Profitability Metrics and Operational Efficiency

The divergence in financial performance between Walmart and Kmart became increasingly pronounced during the 1990s and early 2000s. By 2000, Walmart had achieved an operating margin of 5.5% compared to Kmart’s 2.2%, reflecting its superior operational efficiency and economies of scale (Dicker, 2003). More tellingly, Walmart’s return on invested capital averaged 14.5% between 1995 and 2000, while Kmart struggled to achieve returns exceeding its cost of capital during this period (Bradley & Ghemawat, 2002). This profitability gap reflected fundamental differences in their business models’ effectiveness rather than merely scale disparity.

Walmart’s superior inventory management translated directly to financial performance advantages. The company’s inventory turnover rate—approximately 7-8 times annually by the late 1990s—significantly exceeded Kmart’s 3-4 turns, reducing carrying costs and improving cash flow dynamics (Johnson, 2006). Similarly, Walmart’s sales per square foot metrics consistently outperformed Kmart’s by 25-40%, indicating more productive use of retail space. These operational efficiency advantages allowed Walmart to deliver on its low-price promise while maintaining acceptable profitability levels, creating a sustainable competitive position.

Capital Investment Priorities and Financial Strategy

The companies’ contrasting approaches to capital allocation further illuminated their divergent business philosophies. Walmart maintained disciplined investment prioritization focused on capabilities that supported its core business model—distribution infrastructure, information systems, and store development in strategically targeted markets (Fishman, 2006). The company generally avoided diversification through acquisition, instead focusing on organic growth within compatible retail formats. This disciplined approach to capital allocation enhanced returns on invested capital and supported the company’s self-funded growth model.

Kmart’s capital allocation strategy proved less focused and effective. The company diverted substantial resources to non-core business acquisitions during the 1980s and early 1990s, including specialty retailers like Builders Square, Sports Authority, Borders Books, and OfficeMax (Raff & Temin, 1999). These diversification efforts distracted management attention and diverted capital from essential investments in core discount store operations, particularly in supply chain modernization and information systems. By the time Kmart attempted to address these critical infrastructure needs through its $1.1 billion modernization initiative in the late 1990s, the company’s financial flexibility had deteriorated, and execution challenges limited the program’s effectiveness (Dicker, 2003).

Conclusion: Strategic Lessons and Theoretical Implications

The comparative analysis of Kmart and Walmart’s business models yields several significant conclusions relevant to both management practice and business strategy theory. First, operational excellence and supply chain efficiency represented fundamental rather than peripheral differentiators in discount retail competition. Walmart’s systematic investments in distribution infrastructure, information technology, and process optimization created structural cost advantages that enabled consistent price leadership while maintaining profitability—a combination that proved extraordinarily difficult for competitors to replicate (Lecavalier, 2016).

Second, strategic consistency and organizational alignment emerged as critical success factors in this industry context. Walmart maintained remarkable fidelity to its founding principles and core business model while continuously refining its execution capabilities, creating organizational coherence that supported effective strategy implementation. In contrast, Kmart’s frequent strategic pivots and leadership changes created institutional instability that undermined execution and prevented the development of distinctive organizational capabilities (McGee, 1989).

Third, the timing of strategic investments proved crucial, particularly regarding technology infrastructure and format innovation. Walmart’s early adoption of advanced information systems in the 1980s established competitive advantages that compounded over time, while Kmart’s delayed modernization efforts proved inadequate to close the resulting capability gap. Similarly, Walmart’s proactive development of the Supercenter format capitalized on changing consumer shopping preferences, while Kmart’s reactive approach to format evolution limited its market relevance (Matsa, 2011).

Finally, this comparative analysis highlights the challenges of organizational renewal and business model transformation in established retail enterprises. Kmart’s attempts to revitalize its competitive position through various strategic initiatives consistently faltered due to execution deficiencies, financial constraints, and the company’s inability to address fundamental structural disadvantages in its business model. This pattern illustrates the extraordinary difficulty of strategic rejuvenation once operational disadvantages become entrenched and competitive dynamics shift unfavorably (Christensen et al., 2015).

The contrasting trajectories of these once-comparable retailers offer valuable insights for contemporary retail strategists navigating industry disruption. As digital commerce and changing consumer expectations continue to reshape retail competition, the fundamental importance of clear strategic positioning, operational excellence, technological adaptation, and organizational alignment remains undiminished. The Kmart-Walmart case demonstrates that seemingly technical or operational aspects of retail management—inventory systems, distribution methods, data analytics—can ultimately determine strategic outcomes when they fundamentally affect the organization’s ability to deliver on its customer value proposition and adapt to evolving market conditions.

References

Basker, E. (2007). The causes and consequences of Wal-Mart’s growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3), 177-198.

Bergdahl, M. (2004). What I learned from Sam Walton: How to compete and thrive in a Wal-Mart world. John Wiley & Sons.

Bradley, S. P., & Ghemawat, P. (2002). Wal-Mart stores, Inc. Harvard Business School Case, 9-794-024.

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2012). Race against the machine: How the digital revolution is accelerating innovation, driving productivity, and irreversibly transforming employment and the economy. Digital Frontier Press.

Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation? Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44-53.

Dicker, J. (2003). The United States of Wal-Mart. Penguin.

Ellickson, P. B., & Misra, S. (2008). Supermarket pricing strategies. Marketing Science, 27(5), 811-828.

Fishman, C. (2006). The Wal-Mart effect: How the world’s most powerful company really works—and how it’s transforming the American economy. Penguin.

Galloway, S. (2017). The four: The hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. Portfolio.

Graff, T. O. (2006). Unequal competition among chains of supercenters: Kmart, Target, and Wal-Mart. The Professional Geographer, 58(1), 54-64.

Holmes, T. J. (2011). The diffusion of Wal-Mart and economies of density. Econometrica, 79(1), 253-302.

Johnson, B. C. (2006). Retail: The Wal-Mart effect. McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 40-43.

Kumar, N. (2006). Strategies to fight low-cost rivals. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 104-112.

Lal, R., & Rao, R. (1997). Supermarket competition: The case of every day low pricing. Marketing Science, 16(1), 60-80.

Lecavalier, J. (2016). The rule of logistics: Walmart and the architecture of fulfillment. University of Minnesota Press.

Lichtenstein, N. (2006). Wal-Mart: Template for 21st century capitalism? New Labor Forum, 15(1), 21-30.

Matsa, D. A. (2011). Competition and product quality in the supermarket industry. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(3), 1539-1591.

McGee, J. E. (1989). Barriers to growth: A study of the evolution of barriers to growth in the Kmart corporation. Journal of Retailing, 65(3), 317-342.

Ortega, B. (1998). In Sam we trust: The untold story of Sam Walton and how Wal-Mart is devouring America. Times Business.

Raff, D. M., & Temin, P. (1999). Sears Roebuck in the twentieth century: Competition, complementarities, and the problem of wasting assets. In N. R. Lamoreaux, D. M. G. Raff, & P. Temin (Eds.), Learning by doing in markets, firms, and countries (pp. 219-252). University of Chicago Press.

Rigby, D. (2011). The future of shopping. Harvard Business Review, 89(12), 65-76.

Saporito, B. (2003, April 14). Can Kmart come back? Time, 161(15), 46-52.

Soderquist, D. (2005). The Wal-Mart way: The inside story of the success of the world’s largest company. Thomas Nelson.

Sorescu, A., Frambach, R. T., Singh, J., Rangaswamy, A., & Bridges, C. (2011). Innovations in retail business models. Journal of Retailing, 87, S3-S16.

Steidtmann, C. (2003). A retail tsunami: Wal-Mart comes to Japan. Deloitte Research.

Vance, S. S., & Scott, R. V. (1994). Wal-Mart: A history of Sam Walton’s retail phenomenon. Twayne Publishers.

Walton, S., & Huey, J. (1992). Made in America: My story. Doubleday.