What it means
The mechanism behind economies of scope is a shared input that serves multiple outputs at little or no extra cost: a factory's equipment that can be retooled to make several related products, a delivery fleet that can carry multiple product lines to the same retail customers, a brand name that can be extended to new products without building brand awareness from scratch, a research capability that generates spillover knowledge useful across several product areas, or a sales force that can sell a broader range to the same accounts. The standard test for identifying economies of scope compares the cost of one firm producing both product A and product B together against the combined cost of two separate, specialised firms each producing one product alone.
If the combined firm's cost is lower than the sum of the two dedicated firms' costs, economies of scope exist, and the size of the gap between the two figures measures how large the advantage is. Common real-world sources include shared distribution and logistics networks, a consumer goods company adding a new product category that rides the same trucks and retail relationships as its existing lines; shared brand and marketing, a hotel group extending its brand to a new tier of properties without rebuilding awareness from scratch; shared research or technology platforms, a pharmaceutical company's drug discovery capability generating candidates across multiple therapeutic areas; and shared customer relationships, a bank cross-selling insurance or investment products to its existing deposit customers.
Economies of scope are the standard economic justification for related diversification, moving into adjacent product categories that share capabilities with the core business, and for many mergers, where the synergy being sought is precisely this kind of shared-resource cost saving rather than pure scale. A caution applies throughout: claimed economies of scope in mergers are notoriously easier to promise than to realise, since sharing resources across previously separate organisations involves real integration costs and cultural or coordination friction that can offset or exceed the theoretical saving.
Economies of scope only exist where the shared resource genuinely has spare capacity or transferable value across the products involved. Forcing unrelated products to share a resource that does not naturally fit can create costs rather than savings, a classic diversification mistake, moving into an unrelated business with no genuine resource overlap and adding complexity without the promised cost benefit.
The concept should always be tested with the direct cost comparison described above rather than assumed from general size or diversification alone.
In practice
Real-world examples.
Example
A courier company that already delivers parcels to every address in a region adds a same-day grocery delivery service using the same drivers, vehicles and routing technology, at a fraction of what a dedicated grocery delivery start-up would need to spend building its own network.
Example
A university with an existing campus, library and administrative staff adds a new degree programme that shares those facilities rather than requiring an entirely new campus, illustrating economies of scope in a non-commercial setting.
Example
A conglomerate's proposed merger promises significant economies of scope from combining two companies' sales forces to cross-sell each other's products to overlapping customers, but eighteen months after completion the promised cross-selling has not materialised because the two sales teams use incompatible customer databases and compensation structures.
Think of it
“Economies of scope means doing more things together is cheaper than doing them separately.
Formula
Calculation
Economies of scope exist when: Cost of producing A and B together is less than Cost of producing A alone plus Cost of producing B alone
Degree of economies of scope = (Cost of A alone + Cost of B alone minus Cost of A and B together) / Cost of A and B together
Worked example. A dairy processing company already produces milk, using a plant, a refrigerated distribution fleet and existing retail relationships, at an annual cost of $18,000,000. A stand-alone company producing only yogurt, with its own dedicated plant, cold-chain distribution and retail relationships, would cost an estimated $9,000,000 a year.
The dairy company instead adds yogurt production to its existing operation, sharing the refrigerated distribution fleet, the retail buyer relationships, and a shared quality control and procurement function, at a combined annual cost of $23,000,000 for both products together.
Combined cost of two separate operations = 18,000,000 + 9,000,000 = $27,000,000
Actual combined cost = $23,000,000
Saving from economies of scope = 27,000,000 minus 23,000,000 = $4,000,000 a year
Degree of economies of scope = 4,000,000 / 23,000,000 = 17.4%
Sharing the distribution fleet and retail relationships, rather than building separate ones for yogurt, saves the company about $4,000,000 a year, roughly 17% below what running the two product lines as entirely separate operations would cost.Case study
Seen in the real world.
A regional airline operating passenger flights between a hub city and a dozen smaller regional airports considered whether to add a dedicated air cargo operation using its existing aircraft on their return legs, which typically flew back to the hub with unsold cargo capacity going empty. A stand-alone regional cargo carrier serving the same routes, with its own aircraft, ground handling and route authorities, would cost an estimated $14,000,000 a year to operate, based on a competitor's public filings and industry benchmarks.
The airline's existing passenger operation, before adding cargo, cost $85,000,000 a year. Adding cargo using the same aircraft, the same pilots with additional cargo-handling training, the same ground staff and the same route authorities, but requiring a new cargo sales team, loading equipment and a small cargo-specific operations function, raised the combined annual cost to $92,000,000, rather than the 85,000,000 plus 14,000,000, or $99,000,000, that running the two as entirely separate operations would have cost.
Saving from economies of scope = 99,000,000 minus 92,000,000 = $7,000,000 a year, a degree of economies of scope of 7,000,000 / 92,000,000, about 7.6%. The airline's finance team noted that almost all of the saving came from the aircraft themselves, since the marginal cost of carrying cargo in space that was flying anyway, empty, was close to zero, while the standalone cargo carrier's estimate had to include the full cost of aircraft dedicated only to cargo.
The airline launched the cargo service using the excess capacity on its existing routes, priced competitively against the standalone carriers precisely because its true incremental cost was so much lower than a dedicated operator's, and captured a meaningful share of regional cargo volume within two years, a result the chief executive later described in an investor presentation as capturing value that had been flying empty for years before anyone thought to price it.
Watch out
Common mistakes.
- Assuming economies of scope automatically follow from combining two businesses, without testing whether the shared resource genuinely has spare capacity or transferable value across both product lines.
- Underestimating the integration and coordination costs of actually sharing resources across previously separate operations, which can offset or exceed the theoretical saving promised in a merger business case.
- Confusing economies of scope with economies of scale, when the two describe different sources of cost advantage that happen to often occur together in larger, diversified businesses.
Questions
People also ask.
How is a claimed economy of scope actually tested?
By comparing the cost of one firm producing both products together against the combined cost of two separate, dedicated firms each producing one product; if the combined firm's cost is genuinely lower, economies of scope exist, and the size of the gap measures how large the advantage is.
Are economies of scope the same as synergies in a merger?
They are one common source of merger synergies, specifically the kind that comes from sharing resources, distribution, brand, technology or customer relationships, across the combined businesses' different products, though synergies is a broader term that can also include economies of scale and other benefits.
Why do so many diversification strategies built on promised economies of scope disappoint?
Because the shared resource often has less genuine spare capacity or transferability than assumed at the outset, and because integrating operations, systems and cultures across different product lines carries real costs that are easy to underestimate when the merger or expansion is first proposed.
From the founder's library
Take it further with the book.
Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.
25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.
View the book and save 25%