DOCSLIB.ORG

FTSE Factsheet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FTSE Factsheet FTSE COMPANY REPORT Share price analysis relative to sector and index performance Data as at: 27 March 2020 Brand Architekts Group BAR Personal Goods — GBP 1.2 at close 27 March 2020 Absolute Relative to FTSE UK All-Share Sector Relative to FTSE UK All-Share Index PERFORMANCE 21-Apr-2015 1D WTD MTD YTD Absolute - - - - Rel.Sector - - - - Rel.Market - - - - VALUATION Data unavailable Trailing PE 8.1 EV/EBITDA 7.5 PB 1.1 PCF 3.8 Div Yield 3.9 Price/Sales 1.5 Net Debt/Equity 0.1 Div Payout 31.4 ROE 13.5 DESCRIPTION Data unavailable The principal activities of the is a market leader in the development, formulation, and supply of personal care and beauty products. See final page and http://www.londonstockexchange.com/prices-and-markets/stocks/services-stock/ftse-note.htm for further details. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please see the final page for important legal disclosures. 1 of 4 FTSE COMPANY REPORT: Brand Architekts Group 27 March 2020 Valuation Metrics Price to Earnings (PE) EV to EBITDA Price to Book (PB) 28-Feb-2020 28-Feb-2020 28-Feb-2020 80 25 6 70 5 20 60 4 50 15 +1SD +1SD +1SD 40 3 10 Avg 30 Avg Avg 2 20 5 -1SD 1 -1SD 10 -1SD 0 0 0 Mar-2015 Mar-2016 Mar-2017 Mar-2018 Mar-2019 Mar-2015 Mar-2016 Mar-2017 Mar-2018 Mar-2019 Mar-2015 Mar-2016 Mar-2017 Mar-2018 Mar-2019 PZ Cussons 29.7 Watches of Switzerland Group 14.6 Watches of Switzerland Group 10.3 Burberry Group 20.0 Unilever 11.2 Unilever 8.7 Personal Goods 19.5 Personal Goods 11.1 Personal Goods 7.9 Unilever 19.1 Burberry Group 10.7 Burberry Group 4.7 Brand Architekts Group 8.1 Brand Architekts Group 7.5 Brand Architekts Group 1.1 Ted Baker 3.2 Superdry -2.9 Ted Baker 2.8 Superdry 1.0 Watches of Switzerland Group -120.0 Superdry 2.7 Ted Baker 0.5 -140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Price to Cash Flow (PCF) Dividend Yield % Price to Sales (PS) 28-Feb-2020 28-Feb-2020 28-Feb-2020 30 5 1.6 25 1.4 4 1.2 20 +1SD 3 +1SD 1 +1SD 15 Avg 2 0.8 10 Avg Avg 0.6 -1SD 1 5 0.4 -1SD -1SD 0 ‖ ‖ 0 0.2 Mar-2015 Mar-2016 Mar-2017 Mar-2018 Mar-2019 Mar-2015 Mar-2016 Mar-2017 Mar-2018 Mar-2019 Mar-2015 Mar-2016 Mar-2017 Mar-2018 Mar-2019 Watches of Switzerland Group 16.8 Ted Baker 20.2 Burberry Group 2.5 Burberry Group 16.5 PZ Cussons 4.6 Unilever 2.1 Unilever 14.7 Brand Architekts Group 3.9 Personal Goods 2.1 Personal Goods 14.7 Personal Goods 3.8 Brand Architekts Group 1.5 Superdry 6.7 Superdry 3.7 Watches of Switzerland Group 1.0 Brand Architekts Group 3.8 Burberry Group 2.6 Superdry 0.3 Ted Baker 2.0 Watches of Switzerland Group 0.0 Ted Baker 0.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Note: bar chart reflects the top and bottom five current values for the valuation ratio in question for FTSE All Shares stocks in the same sector as the stock concerned. All valuation metrics are trailing. 2 of 4 FTSE COMPANY REPORT: Brand Architekts Group 27 March 2020 Valuation Metrics Net Debt to Equity Dividend Payout (DP) Return on Equity (RoE) 28-Feb-2020 28-Feb-2020 28-Feb-2020 0.2 35 20 30 +1SD 0.15 15 25 +1SD Avg 20 Avg 0.1 10 Avg 15 -1SD -1SD 10 0.05 5 -1SD 5 0 0 0 Mar-2015 Mar-2016 Mar-2017 Mar-2018 Mar-2019 Mar-2015 Mar-2016 Mar-2017 Mar-2018 Mar-2019 Mar-2015 Mar-2016 Mar-2017 Mar-2018 Mar-2019 Watches of Switzerland Group 3.5 PZ Cussons 100.0 Unilever 47.2 Unilever 2.1 Personal Goods 69.8 Personal Goods 41.6 Burberry Group 23.6 Personal Goods 1.8 Ted Baker 64.1 Ted Baker 17.4 Ted Baker 0.6 Burberry Group 51.1 Brand Architekts Group 13.5 Brand Architekts Group 0.1 Brand Architekts Group 31.4 PZ Cussons 5.9 Burberry Group 0.0 Watches of Switzerland Group 0.0 Watches of Switzerland Group -2.2 Superdry 0.0 Superdry 0.0 Superdry -25.9 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 ROE vs. PB — sector Du Pont Analysis 12 3 18 16 WOSG 2.5 10 14 ULVR 2 12 8 Personal Goods 10 1.5 PB 6 8 BRBY 1 6 4 4 0.5 2 2 PZC SDRY BAR 0 0 TED 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Net Margin Asset Turnover Gearing ROE (rhs) ‖ ROE Note: bar chart reflects the top and bottom five current values for the valuation ratio in question for FTSE All Shares stocks in the same sector as the stock concerned. All valuation metrics are trailing. 3 of 4 FTSE COMPANY REPORT: Brand Architekts Group 27 March 2020 Brief description Brief description Price to Earnings Price to Earnings (PE) is price over earnings per share. Earnings are based on the latest Gearing Gearing is Total Assets divided by Common Equity. Total Assets and Common Equity are (PE) available fiscal year earnings. each averaged over two years, that is, t and (t-1). Price to Sales (PS) Price to Sales (PS) is price divided by sales per share. It is based on sales from continuing Asset Turnover Asset turnover is Sales divided by Total Assets. Total Assets is averaged over two years, operations for the fiscal year. that is, t and (t-1). Price to Book (PB) Price to Book (PB) is price at the indicated date divided by common equity per share. Dupont Breakdown Return on Equity (RoE) = Net Margin * Gearing * Asset Turnover Common/ordinary equity is generally as reported at the most recent fiscal year-end but is Analysis adjusted to exclude minority interest, preferred stock and selected items as appropriate. RoE vs PB Plot of RoE versus PB at last month end for all FTSE UK All Share stocks in the sector Price to Cash Flow Price to Cash Flow (PCF) is price at the indicated date divided by cash flow per share. relative to the stock in question. Data may be limited to the stock in question if there are (PCF) currently no stocks in the corresponding FTSE UK All Share sector. Net Debt Equity Net Debt Equity is Net Debt as a percentage of common equity. Not calculated if Absolute Absolute graphs reflect performance for the stock in question for up to 366 days adjusted denominator (common equity) is negative for intervening corporate actions. EV to EBITDA EV to EBITDA is Enterprise Value divided by EBITDA (Earnings before Interest and Taxes, Relative Relative charts reflect the performance for the stock in question relative to the depreciation and amortisation). EV is full company Market Capitalisation at the data date corresponding sector of the FTSE All Share Index for up to 366 days, rebased to the start plus last annual net debt and Preferred Stock. Net Debt is total financial debt less cash date. Note that the stock itself may not be a FTSE All share constituent. Relative Chart and short-term investments. EBITDA is operating income plus depreciation and may be null if there are no stocks in the corresponding FTSE UK All Share sector. amortisation. RSI Relative Strength Index. Calculated as 100 minus (100 divided by (1+ratio of positive Dividend Yield % Dividend Yield reflects the dividend declared per share and/or paid for the security in versus negative time weighted returns)). Reflects 14 day average gains/losses question for the most recent fiscal year, divided by the share price. Valuation History Outlier valuation data is not shown to scale as these would distort the chart. Instead, ∥ Return on Equity Return on Equity is net income over average common equity. Not calculated if Charts denotes valuation data which falls outside display truncation limits. (RoE) denominator (average common equity) is negative Top/Bottom Reflect data for up to five top and five bottom performers for the valuation metric in Dividend Payout Total dividends divided by Net Income expressed as a percentage. Valuation Bar question. Note data may be limited to the stock in question if there are currently no Charts stocks in the corresponding FTSE UK All Share sector. Net Margin Net Margin is Net Income divided by sales. A guide to the report is available at http://www.londonstockexchange.com/prices-and-markets/stocks/services-stock/ftse-note.htm. Brand Architekts Group 27 March 2020 For further information visit www.ftse.com, email [email protected] or call your local FTSE office: Beijing +86 10 5833 2202 London +44 (0) 20 7866 1810 Rio de Janeiro +55 (21) 3736 3726 Tokyo +81 (3) 3581 2811 Boston +1 888 747 FTSE (3873) Milan +39 02 3604 6953 San Francisco +1 888 747 FTSE (3873) Toronto +1 416 572 7979 Chicago +1 888 747 FTSE (3873) Mumbai +91 22 6649 4180 Seattle +1 888 747 FTSE (3873) Dubai +971 4 375 1868 New York +1 888 747 FTSE (3873) Shanghai +86 21 6058 9131 Hong Kong +852 2164 3333 Paris +33 (0)1 53 76 82 89 Sydney +61 (0)2 9293 2864 © 2020 London Stock Exchange Group companies.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Limits of Arbitrage: Evidence from Dual-Listed Companies
    The Limits of Arbitrage: Evidence from Dual-Listed Companies Abe de Jong Erasmus University Rotterdam [email protected] Leonard Rosenthal Bentley College [email protected] Mathijs A. van Dijk Erasmus University Rotterdam [email protected] May 2003 Correspondence Mathijs A. van Dijk Department of Financial Management (Room F4-21) Erasmus University Rotterdam PO Box 1738 3000 DR Rotterdam THE NETHERLANDS Phone: +31 10 408 2748 Fax : +31 10 408 9017 The Limits of Arbitrage: Evidence from Dual-Listed Companies Abstract We study the limits of arbitrage in international equity markets by examining a sample of dual-listed companies (DLCs). DLCs are the result of a merger in which both companies remain incorporated independently. DLCs have structured corporate agreements that allocate current and future equity cash flows to the shareholders of the parent companies according to a fixed ratio. This implies that in integrated and efficient financial markets, the stock prices of the parent companies will move together perfectly. Therefore, DLCs offer a unique opportunity to study market efficiency and the roles of noise traders and arbitrageurs in equity markets. We examine all 13 known DLCs that currently exist or have existed. We show that for all DLCs large deviations from the theoretical price ratio occur. The difference between the relative price of a DLC and the theoretical ratio is often larger than 10 percent in absolute value and occasionally reaches levels of 20 to 50 percent. Moreover, deviations from parity vary considerably over time for all DLCs. We find that return differentials between the DLC parent companies can to a large extent be attributed to co-movement with domestic stock market indices, consistent with Froot and Dabora (1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Parker Review
    Ethnic Diversity Enriching Business Leadership An update report from The Parker Review Sir John Parker The Parker Review Committee 5 February 2020 Principal Sponsor Members of the Steering Committee Chair: Sir John Parker GBE, FREng Co-Chair: David Tyler Contents Members: Dr Doyin Atewologun Sanjay Bhandari Helen Mahy CBE Foreword by Sir John Parker 2 Sir Kenneth Olisa OBE Foreword by the Secretary of State 6 Trevor Phillips OBE Message from EY 8 Tom Shropshire Vision and Mission Statement 10 Yvonne Thompson CBE Professor Susan Vinnicombe CBE Current Profile of FTSE 350 Boards 14 Matthew Percival FRC/Cranfield Research on Ethnic Diversity Reporting 36 Arun Batra OBE Parker Review Recommendations 58 Bilal Raja Kirstie Wright Company Success Stories 62 Closing Word from Sir Jon Thompson 65 Observers Biographies 66 Sanu de Lima, Itiola Durojaiye, Katie Leinweber Appendix — The Directors’ Resource Toolkit 72 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy Thanks to our contributors during the year and to this report Oliver Cover Alex Diggins Neil Golborne Orla Pettigrew Sonam Patel Zaheer Ahmad MBE Rachel Sadka Simon Feeke Key advisors and contributors to this report: Simon Manterfield Dr Manjari Prashar Dr Fatima Tresh Latika Shah ® At the heart of our success lies the performance 2. Recognising the changes and growing talent of our many great companies, many of them listed pool of ethnically diverse candidates in our in the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250. There is no doubt home and overseas markets which will influence that one reason we have been able to punch recruitment patterns for years to come above our weight as a medium-sized country is the talent and inventiveness of our business leaders Whilst we have made great strides in bringing and our skilled people.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex 1: Parker Review Survey Results As at 2 November 2020
    Annex 1: Parker Review survey results as at 2 November 2020 The data included in this table is a representation of the survey results as at 2 November 2020, which were self-declared by the FTSE 100 companies. As at March 2021, a further seven FTSE 100 companies have appointed directors from a minority ethnic group, effective in the early months of this year. These companies have been identified through an * in the table below. 3 3 4 4 2 2 Company Company 1 1 (source: BoardEx) Met Not Met Did Not Submit Data Respond Not Did Met Not Met Did Not Submit Data Respond Not Did 1 Admiral Group PLC a 27 Hargreaves Lansdown PLC a 2 Anglo American PLC a 28 Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC a 3 Antofagasta PLC a 29 HSBC Holdings PLC a InterContinental Hotels 30 a 4 AstraZeneca PLC a Group PLC 5 Avast PLC a 31 Intermediate Capital Group PLC a 6 Aveva PLC a 32 Intertek Group PLC a 7 B&M European Value Retail S.A. a 33 J Sainsbury PLC a 8 Barclays PLC a 34 Johnson Matthey PLC a 9 Barratt Developments PLC a 35 Kingfisher PLC a 10 Berkeley Group Holdings PLC a 36 Legal & General Group PLC a 11 BHP Group PLC a 37 Lloyds Banking Group PLC a 12 BP PLC a 38 Melrose Industries PLC a 13 British American Tobacco PLC a 39 Mondi PLC a 14 British Land Company PLC a 40 National Grid PLC a 15 BT Group PLC a 41 NatWest Group PLC a 16 Bunzl PLC a 42 Ocado Group PLC a 17 Burberry Group PLC a 43 Pearson PLC a 18 Coca-Cola HBC AG a 44 Pennon Group PLC a 19 Compass Group PLC a 45 Phoenix Group Holdings PLC a 20 Diageo PLC a 46 Polymetal International PLC a 21 Experian PLC a 47
    [Show full text]
  • Ftse4good UK 50
    2 FTSE Russell Publications 19 August 2021 FTSE4Good UK 50 Indicative Index Weight Data as at Closing on 30 June 2021 Index weight Index weight Index weight Constituent Country Constituent Country Constituent Country (%) (%) (%) 3i Group 0.81 UNITED GlaxoSmithKline 5.08 UNITED Rentokil Initial 0.67 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Anglo American 2.56 UNITED Halma 0.74 UNITED Rio Tinto 4.68 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Antofagasta 0.36 UNITED HSBC Hldgs 6.17 UNITED Royal Dutch Shell A 4.3 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Associated British Foods 0.56 UNITED InterContinental Hotels Group 0.64 UNITED Royal Dutch Shell B 3.75 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM AstraZeneca 8.25 UNITED International Consolidated Airlines 0.47 UNITED Schroders 0.28 UNITED KINGDOM Group KINGDOM KINGDOM Aviva 1.15 UNITED Intertek Group 0.65 UNITED Segro 0.95 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Barclays 2.1 UNITED Legal & General Group 1.1 UNITED Smith & Nephew 0.99 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM BHP Group Plc 3.2 UNITED Lloyds Banking Group 2.39 UNITED Smurfit Kappa Group 0.74 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM BT Group 1.23 UNITED London Stock Exchange Group 2.09 UNITED Spirax-Sarco Engineering 0.72 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Burberry Group 0.6 UNITED Mondi 0.67 UNITED SSE 1.13 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Coca-Cola HBC AG 0.37 UNITED National Grid 2.37 UNITED Standard Chartered 0.85 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Compass Group 1.96 UNITED Natwest Group 0.77 UNITED Tesco 1.23 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM CRH 2.08 UNITED Next 0.72 UNITED Unilever 7.99 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainability Overview Oddo BHF – Environment Forum Paris June 8, 2017 Step Change in Growth and Long-Term Value Creation
    Sustainability overview Oddo BHF – Environment Forum Paris June 8, 2017 Step change in growth and long-term value creation AkzoNobel Bullets Only use the List Level buttons to apply the AkzoNobel Branded Bullets Sustainability overview June 2017 2 Step change in growth Title area max over 2 lines and long-term value creation Accelerating growth momentum and enhanced profitability Creating two focused businesses as a logical next step Clear separation within 12 months Increasing returns to shareholders Committed to investing in sustainability, innovation and society Best placed to unlock value ourselves Insert Topic Icons Click on the picture icon and browse to the location of the Topic Icons Sustainability overview June 2017 3 Accelerating growth momentum Title area max over 2 lines and enhanced profitability Paints and Coatings Specialty Chemicals 2016-2018 2016-2018 guidance* 2020 guidance* guidance* 2020 guidance* ROS 10-12% ROS 15% ROS 11.5-13% ROS 16% ROI >18% ROI >25% ROI >16% ROI >20% Clear aim to grow faster than relevant markets 2020 guidance for AkzoNobel (current portfolio) ROS 14% and ROI >20% Insert Topic Icons Click on the picture icon * Excluding unallocated corporate center costs and invested capital; assumes no significant market disruption and browse to the location of the Topic Icons Sustainability overview June 2017 4 Strong culture to support a step change Title area max over 2 lines in growth and value creation Top quartile safety performance Our Code of Conduct: Engagement increasing for six years running Insert
    [Show full text]
  • Study on Deferred Shares Progress Review
    The Purposeful Company Study on Deferred Shares Progress Review The Purposeful Company Steering Group September 2020 1 About The Purposeful Company This study was overseen by the Steering Committee of The Purposeful Company. The Purposeful Company was established in 2015 with the support of the Bank of England to identify changes to policy and practice to help transform British business with purposeful companies committed to creating long-term value through serving the needs of society. The Purposeful Company has published extensively on Executive Pay, Corporate Governance, and Investor Stewardship, liaising closely with all main policy-making bodies during the governance reforms of recent years. The Steering Committee comprises: • Clare Chapman: Co-Chair of The Purposeful Company; Non-executive Director of the Weir Group, G4S plc and Heidrick & Struggles Inc; Chair of Acas • Will Hutton: London School of Economics and Co-Chair of The Purposeful Company; former Principal of Hertford College, Oxford • Professor Alex Edmans: London Business School and Gresham College • Dr Tom Gosling: London Business School and formerly Partner at PwC • Professor Colin Mayer MBE: Saïd Business School and The British Academy Primary accountability for oversight of the report is held by Clare Chapman and Tom Gosling. All Steering Group members are acting in their personal capacity, not representing the organisations listed. Any views expressed are those of the Steering Committee and cannot be attributed to any other organisation with which a Steering Committee member has affiliation. The research and report authorship have been led by Jean-Pierre Noël. Jean- Pierre was formerly the Group Reward Director inside two FTSE-50 multinationals, and now runs his own reward consulting and talent development business as part of a portfolio career.
    [Show full text]
  • Constituents & Weights
    2 FTSE Russell Publications 19 August 2021 FTSE 100 Indicative Index Weight Data as at Closing on 30 June 2021 Index weight Index weight Index weight Constituent Country Constituent Country Constituent Country (%) (%) (%) 3i Group 0.59 UNITED GlaxoSmithKline 3.7 UNITED RELX 1.88 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Admiral Group 0.35 UNITED Glencore 1.97 UNITED Rentokil Initial 0.49 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Anglo American 1.86 UNITED Halma 0.54 UNITED Rightmove 0.29 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Antofagasta 0.26 UNITED Hargreaves Lansdown 0.32 UNITED Rio Tinto 3.41 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Ashtead Group 1.26 UNITED Hikma Pharmaceuticals 0.22 UNITED Rolls-Royce Holdings 0.39 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Associated British Foods 0.41 UNITED HSBC Hldgs 4.5 UNITED Royal Dutch Shell A 3.13 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM AstraZeneca 6.02 UNITED Imperial Brands 0.77 UNITED Royal Dutch Shell B 2.74 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Auto Trader Group 0.32 UNITED Informa 0.4 UNITED Royal Mail 0.28 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Avast 0.14 UNITED InterContinental Hotels Group 0.46 UNITED Sage Group 0.39 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Aveva Group 0.23 UNITED Intermediate Capital Group 0.31 UNITED Sainsbury (J) 0.24 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Aviva 0.84 UNITED International Consolidated Airlines 0.34 UNITED Schroders 0.21 UNITED KINGDOM Group KINGDOM KINGDOM B&M European Value Retail 0.27 UNITED Intertek Group 0.47 UNITED Scottish Mortgage Inv Tst 1 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM BAE Systems 0.89 UNITED ITV 0.25 UNITED Segro 0.69 UNITED KINGDOM
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study: Unilever1
    CASE STUDY: UNILEVER1 1. Introduction Unilever is a British-Dutch company that operates in the market of consumer goods and sells its products in around 190 countries. Another remarkable fact is that they own more than 400 brands, what means an important diversification in both risk and the products they sell, among which there is food, personal care products and cleaning agents. In fact, twelve of these brands have sales of more than a billion euros. The importance of this multinational is reflected too in the fact 2.5 billion people use Unilever products every day, being part of their daily life. They also are responsible for the employment of 161,000 people in the different countries they operate. Finally, they believe in a sustainable business plan in which they reduce the environmental footprint and increase their positive social impact at the time they keep growing. 2. History Unilever was officially formed in 1929 by the merger of a margarine Dutch company and a British soapmaker. The margarine company of Netherlands was also a merger between the first margarine factory called in the world and another factory of the same product and from the same city, Oss, in the Netherlands. The soapmaker company revolutionized the market because it helped to a more hygienic society and the manufacturing of the product was wrapped. The name of the company is a fusion between the Dutch firm called Margarine Unie and the British firm called Lever Brothers. What Unilever did, was to expand its market locations to the American Latin and Africa. Moreover they widened the product areas to new sectors such as particular food and chemical products.
    [Show full text]
  • Hindustan Unilever Limited Unilever House, B. D. Sawant Marg Chakala
    Hindustan Unilever Limited Unilever House, B. D. Sawant Marg Chakala, Andheri East Mumbai 400 099 CIN : L15140MH1933PLC002030 Tel : +91 (22) 3983 0000 Web : www.hul.co.in [DATE] Name Dear ___, We are pleased to inform you that upon the recommendation of Nomination and Remuneration Committee, approval of the Board of Directors of Hindustan Unilever Limited (hereinafter referred to as HUL or the Company) and approval of Shareholders of the Company at the Annual General Meeting held on ___, you are being appointed as an Independant Director on the Board of the Company. The terms of your appointment shall be as follows: 1. Appointment 1.1 You have been appointed as a Non-Executive Independent Director on the Board of Directors of HUL with effect from ________ for a period of upto five years. The appointment shall be governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Listing Regulations, 2015. The appointment is also subject to the maximum permissible Directorships that one can hold as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Listing Regulations, 2015. 1.2 The term ‘Independent Director’ should be construed as defined under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Listing Regulations, 2015. 1.3 The Company has adopted the provisions with respect to the appointment and tenure of Independent Directors which is consistent with the Companies Act, 2013 and the Listing Regulations, 2015. Accordingly, the Independent Directors will serve for not more than two terms of five years each on the Board of the Company. The disengagement earlier than five years will be in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 or on mutually agreed terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Hindustan Unilever Limited
    Hindustan Unilever Limited Shift to Biomass Fired Burners CASE STUDY Figure 1: Nashik Biomass Boiler Figure 2: Orai Burner for incorporation of Vegetable Oil Residue Summary Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) has more than 20 manufacturing sites, where fossil fuel is being used to generate steam and hot air for process heating. To minimize our dependence on conventional fossil fuels and reduce CO2 emissions, the company started focusing on renewable energy opportunities since 2009. Prior to this, only 5 of our sites had biogenic fuel firing. A long-term road map for conversion of major fuel consuming sites was drawn-up. Since then, the company has commissioned 10 biomass fired Boilers and Hot Air Generators in India. Presently, more than 60,000 T of biogenic fuel is utilized annually for our process heating. Objective of Intervention The objective of the case study is to demonstrate the impact of biomass-based fuel usage on CO2 reduction along deliverance of cost savings. Type of Intervention and Location The intervention is to increase the share of renewable energy in HUL’s overall energy consumption portfolio by maximizing utilization of biomass fired fuels and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. The Reinforcing India’s Commitment Page 1 sites of intervention are the following locations where biomass-fired burners have been installed post-2010. These include biomass fuel-based Hot Air Generators (HAG) and Boilers (BMB): Chiplun (HAG), Goa (BMB), Haldia (HAG), Haridwar (BMB), Hosur (BMB), Mysore (BMB), Nashik (BMB), Orai (BMB), and Rajpura (HAG and BMB). Description of Intervention Since 2009, we have invested more than INR 60 crores in installation of Biomass Fired Steam Boilers and Hot Air Generators.
    [Show full text]
  • Unilever Project Sunlight White Paper
    HOW CHILDREN INSPIRE SUSTAINABLE LIVING RESEARCH AMONG PARENTS AND THEIR CHILDREN IN THE US, UK, INDIA AND INDONESIA AUGUST 2013 Commissioned by Unilever White Paper published to coincide with the launch of Unilever Project Sunlight, an initiative to encourage more people to adopt sustainable lifestyles Prepared by Edelman Berland CONTENTS Page Number 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3 2. Foreword by Tim Gill ............................................................................................ 4 3. Research Objectives and Methodology ............................................................... 6 4. Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 7 5. Detailed Findings ................................................................................................. 9 6.1 Having children inspires adults to want to make a better future ........................... 10 6.2 Children’s optimism about future possibilities (in spite of knowing about the world’s environmental problems) inspires adults to see things differently ............ 13 6.3 Parents and children learn from each other with parents being inspired to act on their children’s suggestions ...................................................................... 17 6.4 Families already understand that many small ‘green’ actions make a difference, although there is scope for more.......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Language of Corporate Code of Ethics: an Industry-Related Perspective
    LEGALISTIC AND COMMITMENT- ORIENTED CORPORATE CODES OF ETHICS A CORPUS BASED ANALYSIS WH-QUESTIONS • WHAT? • WHO? • WHERE? • WHEN? • WHY? WHO: CODE ADOPTERS • first corporate codes appeared more then a century ago • 70% of the codes in the US were created after the year 1990 (Guillén et al. 2002) • Europe lagged behind the U.S. in 80s /‘90s (Kaptein/Wempe 1998) • Today 100% code adopters in US, UK and Europe, not in Asia (Cho-Kwai 2015) WHERE: WEBSITE SECTIONS • Corporate Governance • CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) • Other (“Who we are” / “About us”) formalizing behavioural standards (Weaver, 1993) WHEN 2018 8/17 2017 1/17 2016 2/17 2015 2/17 No date 3/17 WHY: REASONS FOR CODE ADOPTION Morally driven reasons ManagerialManagerial strategystrategy Morally driven reasons (ex. Stevens 2009) (es. Stevens 2009) linguistic analysis to unveil authors’ intentions RELEVANT LITERATURE -1 Codes investigated mostly by researchers of non-linguistic disciplines: - business ethics (ex.Stevens 2007, Scott 2002) - socio-psychology (ex. Fairfax 2007) - organizational studies (ex. Brown/Ainsworth/Grant 2012) - management studies (ex. Gillespie et al., 2012) RELEVANT LITERATURE -2 • Content analysis (ex. Krippendorff 2013) Other approaches: • perception of code users (Schwarts 2004) • physical appearance: length, visuals, format • code quality (Erwin 2011) led the way for language-focused research… PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY • CDA to help explain the role of managerial discourse in the construction of one of companies’ intangible asset corporate identity + automatic computer query to confirm HYPs RESEARCH QUESTIONS RQ ❶ Can we identify distinctive traits of legalistic approach and commitment-oriented approach at macro-textual level? RQ ❷ Are the two approaches industry-related? CORPUS • 17 codes from FTSE 100 constituents • 9 non-financial sectors (mining, media, food, tobacco, beverages, pharmaceuticals, aerospace & defense, oil & gas, personal goods) • 150,000 word tokens • 8,481 word types LEGALISTIC VS.
    [Show full text]