IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/epw/ejbmr0/v10y2025i4id52727.html

Why Walmart’s Diversification into Healthcare Failed: A Case Study Applying Michael Porter’s Three Essential Tests of Corporate Strategy

Author

Listed:
  • Mario Krenn

Abstract

This case study evaluates Walmart’s effort to diversify into the U.S. healthcare sector using Porter’s three essential tests for corporate diversification: the attractiveness test, the cost-of-entry test, and the better-off test. Drawing upon recent data and strategic management theory, the paper investigates the misalignment between Walmart’s core competencies and the operational demands of healthcare delivery. While the healthcare sector offered growth potential, Walmart’s approach failed to pass Porter’s Three Essential Tests of corporate strategy and was unsustainable. The case study contributes to corporate strategy discussions by illustrating the risks of unrelated diversification by large conglomerates and the importance of Porter’s three essential tests in analysis corporate diversification strategy.

Suggested Citation

  • Mario Krenn, 2025. "Why Walmart’s Diversification into Healthcare Failed: A Case Study Applying Michael Porter’s Three Essential Tests of Corporate Strategy," European Journal of Business and Management Research, European Open Science, vol. 10(4), pages 173-176, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:epw:ejbmr0:v:10:y:2025:i:4:id:52727
    DOI: 10.24018/ejbmr.2025.10.4.2727
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://eu-opensci.org/index.php/ejbmr/article/view/52727
    File Function: Abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://eu-opensci.org/index.php/ejbmr/article/download/52727/8628
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.24018/ejbmr.2025.10.4.2727?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:epw:ejbmr0:v:10:y:2025:i:4:id:52727. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Support Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://eu-opensci.org/index.php/ejbmr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.