DOCSLIB.ORG

P&G and Unilever

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
P&G and Unilever Global Strategy Advisors. Challenging boundaries and beyond February 19, 2006 Unilever Unilever House, Blackfriars London EC4P 4BQ, United Kingdom Sent Via Electronic Mail RE: Strategy Analysis Ladies and Gentlemen: At the request of the Board of Directors of Unilever, we provide herein our analysis of the Personal Products Industry and a strategy analysis of both Unilever and its biggest competitor, Procter & Gamble. The enclosed analysis also provides recommendations for Unilever to improve its competitive advantage. Respectfully submitted, GSA Procter & Gamble, Unilever and the Personal Products Industry Global Strategy Advisors Lee Ann Graul, Sherry Henricks, Steve Olp and Charlene Strohecker University of Maryland, University College AMBA 607 February 19, 2006 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary i 2. Industry Analysis-Personal Products Industry 1 a. Introduction 1 b. Industry Defined 1 c. Historical Data Analysis 2 d. Major Competitors 3 e. Trends and Industry Outlook 3 f. Strategic Challenges and Opportunities 5 g. Industry Conclusions 5 3. Procter & Gamble and Unilever 6 a. Competitor Analysis: P&G 6 b. Competitor Analysis: Unilever 8 c. Strategy P&G 10 i. Business Level 10 ii. Global 11 iii. E-Business 13 iv. Corporate 14 d. Strategy: Unilever 15 i. Business Level 15 ii. Global 16 iii. E-business 17 iv. Corporate 19 e. Conclusions and Recommendations 20 4. Appendices 22 A. SIC Code 2844 and Industry Description 22 B. Global Personal Products Industry, Market Segmentation 24 C. Personal Products Industry, Five Force Analysis 25 D. Global Personal Products Industry, Market Share 30 E. Market Growth 31 F. Producer Price Index (PPI) for SIC 2844 32 G. Industry Growth Rate-Sales 33 H. Average Revenue Growth: Industry 34 I. Historical Data-Personal and Household Products 36 J. Household and Personal Prod. Industry, Ranking by Revenues, Profits 38 K. Company Ranking by Personal Care Revenues 39 L. Trend Line, Exports, SIC 2844 40 M. Trend Line, Imports, SIC 2844 41 N. Fastest Growing Markets 42 O. Value Chain Analysis, P&G and Unilever 43 P. P&G, RBV Analysis 51 Q. Unilever, RBV Analysis 53 R. P&G Financial Analysis 55 S. Unilever Financial Analysis 61 T. P&G SWOT Summary 66 U. Unilever SWOT Summary 67 V. History of P&G Global Expansion 68 W. History of Unilever’s Global Expansion 69 X. Dynamic Resource-Based Model of Competitive Advantage 71 Y. Unilever’s Early Use of the Internet, 2000 72 Z. Global Data Synchronization Network 73 AA. Safeway, Unilever Complete Global Data Synchronization Project 74 BB. Unilever Initiatives in Information Technology 75 CC. P&G Portfolio: Product Groups & Businesses 76 DD. Unilever Portfolio: Product Groups & Businesses 79 EE. P&G e-Business Network 84 5. Endnotes 85 P&G and Unilever i Executive Summary This paper provides an examination of the personal products industry as a whole, including a review of the historical market share, financial performance, competition, and industry trends. Additionally, a discussion of industry opportunities and challenges is conducted, presenting issues such as increases in the cost of raw materials and operations, a slow recovery of growth due to the economy, changes in government regulations, and the ever changing wants and needs of the consumer. These conditions create the need for companies to respond quickly, develop innovative new products, and find ways to become more efficient while reducing costs. The industry itself is an attractive one, having steady growth, emerging global markets, and repeat purchases (consumables products), but also requires achieving economies of scale, significant investing in R&D, and developing brand loyalty. An examination of two major competitors in this industry, Procter & Gamble (P&G) and Unilever reveals a very competitive industry that is not yet highly consolidated. P&G is an industry leader focused on innovation, knowledge sharing, improved efficiencies, cost reduction, and first mover advantage – i.e. quickly getting new ideas from conception to the shelf. Unilever is primarily focused on strong brand recognition, expansion of its product lines through R&D, and development of alliances. Both P&G and Unilever take advantage of economies of scale and global expansion into emerging markets. P&G’s strategy is flexibility for quick response to market demands and opportunities, development of strong product branding, and new product innovation. To achieve speed and flexibility, P&G has been a leader in e-business implementation, obtaining real-time information and utilizing global knowledge sharing externally from its users, suppliers and buyers, and internally for management and product development. P&G also maximizes its value by investing in global markets through acquisition, joint ventures, alliances, direct investment and direct marketing. P&G understands the importance of local market insights and successful management of people in foreign markets and subsidiaries and has achieved competence in these key aspects of globalization. From a portfolio perspective, P&G’s investments and business developments have remained in or related to the consumer products industry, maintaining its focus. P&G Chemicals and Health Sciences lab reflect the vertical integration of its current product line. While Unilever trails slightly behind P&G in most product segments, its similar focus on branding, product development and quality advertising has helped it hold its position. Unilever’s biggest challenges are in improving efficiencies to reduce costs, especially in its use of people and its time to market. Unilever’s costs and number of employees is much higher than P&G’s. As P&G takes a proactive roll in e-business and innovation, Unilever’s stance is a reactive one. Although Unilever seems to have expanded globally with some success, it seems to be lacking an overall global strategy. Learning and sharing information on a global scale is one of P&G’s strengths, but a weakness for Unilever. Unilever has improved its focus and resource allocations, as it divested itself of non-performers, allowing it to concentrate on performing products. Unilever needs to establish a focused strategy, and ensure activities drive toward strategy achievement. The recent corporate restructuring should continue, with ongoing efforts to achieve a corporate structure, which will maximize strategy achievement. The improvements in overall communications, processes, and market introductions and management will enable Unilever to remain competitive and grow as an industry leader. Additionally, recommendations provided herein include an alignment of strategies, a strengthening of brand differentiation, and continued investments in R&D, global expansion, advertising, and strategic alliances. P&G and Unilever 1 INDUSTRY ANALYSIS – PERSONAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY Introduction The objective of this report is to provide an overview and examination of the Personal Products Industry – covering industry structure, competitors, past and future performance trends, and conclusions about attractiveness for incumbents. Additional objectives include a competitor analysis, comparing Procter & Gamble and Unilever, an examination of their strategies, and recommendations for future growth and sustainability. Our analysis includes global operations, financial results, market share and current initiatives. Information for these analyses was derived from library databases, internet searches and company websites. Industry Defined The industry segment chosen for this analysis has been assigned the SIC code 2844 entitled Perfumes, Cosmetics and other Toilet Preparations. Companies within this industry have referred to this market segment as the Personal Products Industry. A complete list of the products included in this industry has been provided in Appendix A. The SIC 2844 category, when converted to the new North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) was further divided into 2 categories, 325620 (Toilet Preparation Manufacturing) and 325611 (Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing). The global personal products market encompasses fragrances, hair care, make-up, oral hygiene, personal hygiene, and skincare products. This highly competitive industry will “derive its future performance relative to global consumer spending patterns and raw material prices.”1 In 2005, the leading revenue source in this market was hair care, accounting for 25.5 percent of the global value (See Appendix B).2 This industry has recently been affected by rising commodity costs which, coupled with increased marketing spending, put significant pressure on operating margins and earnings in 2005. Earnings per share (EPS) were expected to improve by 2006, as commodity costs began to stabilize.3 For an analysis of the Industry Structure, Porter's 5 Forces Model4 has been used and provided in Appendix C. The result of this analysis reveals strong barriers to entry, moderate bargaining power of P&G and Unilever 2 buyers and suppliers, considerable threat of substitutes, and substantial rivalry among existing companies. This industry favors incumbents. Historical Data Analysis The CR4 analysis provided in Appendix D shows a total of only 28.7 percent of the market being satisfied by the top four producers in the industry. Therefore this industry as a whole is not considered highly consolidated. The market volume has shown an average growth of 2.2 percent for the four year period, 2000 – 2004. (Actual rates are provided in Appendix E.) This reflects a slow recovery from the downturn in the economy in the early 2000s, which followed an average 5 percent per year growth between 1996 and 2000.5 Market growth is expected to continue to grow steadily over the next five years, with a projected average of 2.7% between 2006 and 2009.6 The Producer Price Index also shows a slow but steady growth over the past ten years (see Appendix F). The total value of industry shipments has steadily increased from $19.7 billion in 1994, $22.8 billion in 1997 to $28.8 billion in 2001.7 The market’s weighted average growth in sales for the past 5 years was 9.95% and for the past three years increased to 11.29%8 (See Appendix G for details). Over the past 3 years, the industry average EPS grew by 19.1% 9 (See Appendix H).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • No. 86 LAGOS- 3Rd November, 1965 ~ Vol. 52
    Extraordinary No. 86 LAGOS- 3rd November, 1965 ~ Vol. 52 CONTENTS ea Page Applications for Registration of Trade Marks we - .e .- .- .. 1756-95 Registration Renewed and Restored .. %. 1796 Unpaid Renewal Fees .. we . .. .. .- 1796-98 Trade Marks Removed from the Register through non-payment of Renewal Fees .. .. «L798 Cancellation on applications of the Proprietors _ .. .. ot .. - .. -. 1798 Applications amendedafter Advertisement .. oe . oe oe 1» ae «1798 Trade Marks altered under Section 41 .. .. .. o. .- .- ee fae -. 1799 cSrsections .- -. .- - oe. a . .- oe . -- 1799 ahs 1756 OFFICIAL GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY No. 86, Vol. 52 Government Notice No. 2035 VICOLL Trade Marks Act (Chapter 199) 15036—Wood-glue and other goods included in APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION OF the class. FARBWERKE HOECHST AKTIEN- ; TRADE MARKS GESELLSCHAFT, vormals Meister Lucius and Bruning, Frankfurt/Main; Manu- Pursuait to section 17 of the Trade Marks Act facturers/Merchants. notice is hereby given that applications have been - 11th July, 1963. received for registration of the following Trade Marks. Y person who has grounds of opposition to the registration of any of the marks advertised herein may within three months from the date hereof give notice to the Registrar of such opposition. Such notice must be in writing and in duplicate and set out grounds of opposition. NAFTIL 15078—Chemical products for industry and science. PECHINEY-PROGIL (S.A.) a French Com- pany duly organized and existing under Crass f the laws of France, No. 7, Rue Lamennais, Paris 8, France. MELONIA 28th January, 1964. 13883—-Industrial fragrance chemicals. ROCHE PRODUCTS LIMITED, 40 Broadwater Road, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, Crass 2 England ; Manufacturers and Merchants.
    [Show full text]
  • Unilever Annual Report 1994
    Annual Review 1994 And Summary Financial Statement English Version in Childers Unilever Contents Directors’ Report Summary Financial Statement 1 Financial Highlights 33 Introduction 2 Chairmen’s Statement 33 Dividends 4 Business Overview 33 Statement from the Auditors 12 Review of Operations 34 Summary Consolidated Accounts 26 Financial Review 29 Organisation 36 Additional Information 30 Directors & Advisory Directors Financial Highlights 1994 1993 % Change % Change at constant atwrrent a* cOnSt.3nf exchange rates exchange rates exchange rates Results (Fl. million) Turnover 82 590 83 641 77 626 6 8 Operating profit 7 012 7 107 5 397 30 32 Operating profit before excepttonal items 7 294 6 763 6 8 Exceptional items (187) (1 366) Profit on ordinary activities before taxation 6 634 6 700 5 367 24 25 Net profit 4 339 4 362 3 612 20 21 Net profit before exceptional items 4 372 4 406 4 271 -~mpy~21 E Key ratios Operating margin before exceptional items (%) 8.7 8.7 Net profit margin before exceptional items (%) 5.3 5.5 Return on capital employed (%) 16.7 15.7 Net gearing (%) 22.7 24.8 Net interest cover (times) 12.2 12.8 Combined earnings per share Guilders per Fl. 4 of ordinary capital 15.52 12.90 20 Pence per 5p of ordinary capital 83.59 69.45 20 Ordinary dividends Guilders per Fl. 4 of ordinary capital 6.19 5.88 5 Pence per 5p of ordinary capital 26.81 25.03 7 Fluctuations in exchange rates can have a significant effect on Unilever’s reported results.
    [Show full text]
  • HUL Announces Key Appointments 26­07­2013
    HUL announces key appointments 26­07­2013 26­07­2013 : Mr Nitin Paranjpe, currently the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of HUL will be joining the Unilever Leadership Executive (ULE), taking on the role of President, Home Care. Mr. Sanjiv Mehta, currently Chairman, North Africa & Middle East (NAME), Unilever, has been appointed as the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Company in place of Mr. Nitin Paranjpe with effect from October 1, 2013. The appointment has been approved by the Board of Directors of HUL and will be subject to approval of the company’s shareholders. He will also be responsible for South Asia cluster which includes India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Mr Harish Manwani, Chairman, HUL, said, “The changes reflect our strong commitment towards leadership development and our tradition of leveraging experiences and synergies of talent across markets. I wish to take the opportunity to express my deep appreciation for the significant contribution that Nitin made to the business in India and his leadership in driving the growth agenda. I would like to congratulate him on his richly deserved elevation to the ULE.” “I am pleased to welcome Sanjiv to his new role. Sanjiv brings with him rich experience of successfully leading businesses across developing and emerging markets. I am confident that he will further build on the growth momentum and drive the company’s agenda of competitive, consistent, profitable and responsible growth.” About Hindustan Unilever Limited Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) is India's largest Fast Moving Consumer Goods company touching the lives of two out of three Indians.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2011-12
    ANNUAL REPORT 2011-12 Creating a better future every day HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED Registered Office: Unilever House, B D Sawant Marg, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai 400099 Hindustan www.hul.co.in U nilever nilever L imited Annual Report 2011-12 AwARDS AND FELICITATIONS WINNING WITH BRANDS AND WINNING THROUGH CONTINUOUS SUSTAINABILITY OUR MISSION INNOVATION IMPROVEMENT HUL has won the Asian Centre for Six of our brands (Lux, Lifebuoy, Closeup, HUL was awarded the FMCG Supply Corporate Governance and Sustainability Fair & Lovely, Clinic Plus and Sunsilk) Chain Excellence Award at the 5th Awards in the category ‘Company with the featured in Top 15 list in Brand Equity’s Express, Logistics & Supply Chain Awards Best CSR and Sustainability Practices.’ WE WORK TO CREATE A BETTER FUTURE Most Trusted Brands Survey. endorsed by The Economic Times along Our instant Tea Factory, Etah bagged the with the Business India Group. EVERY DAY. Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) was second prize in tea category for Energy awarded the CNBC AWAAZ Storyboard Doomdooma factory won the Gold Award Conservation from Ministry of Power, We help people feel good, look good and get more out Consumer Awards 2011 in three in the Process Sector, Large Business Govt. of India. categories. category at The Economic Times India HUL won the prestigious ‘Golden Peacock Manufacturing Excellence Awards 2011. of life with brands and services that are good for them • FMCG Company of the Year Global Award for Corporate Social and good for others. • The Most Consumer Conscious Responsibility’ for the year 2011. Company of the Year WINNING WITH PEOPLE HUL’s Andheri campus received • The Digital Marketer of the Year We will inspire people to take small, everyday actions HUL was ranked the No.1 Employer of certification of LEED India Gold in ‘New HUL won the ‘Golden Peacock Innovative Choice for students in the annual Nielsen Construction’ category, by Indian Green that can add up to a big difference for the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Internationalism and African and Caribbean
    BLACK INTERNATIONALISM AND AFRICAN AND CARIBBEAN INTELLECTUALS IN LONDON, 1919-1950 By MARC MATERA A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in History Written under the direction of Professor Bonnie G. Smith And approved by _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey May 2008 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Black Internationalism and African and Caribbean Intellectuals in London, 1919-1950 By MARC MATERA Dissertation Director: Bonnie G. Smith During the three decades between the end of World War I and 1950, African and West Indian scholars, professionals, university students, artists, and political activists in London forged new conceptions of community, reshaped public debates about the nature and goals of British colonialism, and prepared the way for a revolutionary and self-consciously modern African culture. Black intellectuals formed organizations that became homes away from home and centers of cultural mixture and intellectual debate, and launched publications that served as new means of voicing social commentary and political dissent. These black associations developed within an atmosphere characterized by a variety of internationalisms, including pan-ethnic movements, feminism, communism, and the socialist internationalism ascendant within the British Left after World War I. The intellectual and political context of London and the types of sociability that these groups fostered gave rise to a range of black internationalist activity and new regional imaginaries in the form of a West Indian Federation and a United West Africa that shaped the goals of anticolonialism before 1950.
    [Show full text]
  • Article Review
    AN ANALYSIS OF UNILEVER THROUGH IVO ZANDER’S INNOVATION NETWORK TAXONOMY - BASED ON ARTICLE: HOW DO YOU MEAN ‘GLOBAL’? AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF INNOVATION NETWORKS IN THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION By: Laura Cerri and Virpi Nieminen On April 18th, 2008 Solvay Business School – Université Libre de Bruxelles Course Assignment for R&D in Multinational Enterprises Professor Michele Cincera Table of Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3 Article Summary .................................................................................................................. 3 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 5 Results .......................................................................................................................... 7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 8 The case of Unilever ............................................................................................................ 9 History and Key Facts ...................................................................................................... 9 R&D Spending and Patents ............................................................................................. 9 Analysis of Unilever’s R&D according to Ivo Zander’s article .................................... 10 Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Business Groups Exist in Developed Markets Also: Britain Since 1850
    Business Groups Exist in Developed Markets Also: Britain since 1850 Geoffrey Jones Working Paper 16-066 Business Groups Exist in Developed Markets Also: Britain Since 1850 Geoffrey Jones Harvard Business School Working Paper 16-066 Copyright © 2015 by Geoffrey Jones Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. Business groups exist in developed markets also: Britain since 1850 Geoffrey Jones Harvard Business School November 2015 Abstract Diversified business groups are well-known phenomenon in emerging markets, both today and historically. This is often explained by the prevalence of institutional voids or the nature of government-business relations. It is typically assumed that such groups were much less common in developed economies, and largely disappeared during the twentieth century. This working paper contests this assumption with evidence from Britain between 1850 and the present day. During the nineteenth century merchant houses established business groups with diversified portfolio and pyramidal structures overseas, primarily in developing countries, both colonial and independent. In the domestic economy, large single product firms became the norm, which over time merged into large combines with significant market power. This reflected a business system in which a close relationship between finance and industry was discouraged, but were there few restrictions on the transfer of corporate ownership. Yet large diversified business groups did emerge, which had private or closely held shareholding and substantial international businesses. The working paper argues that diversified business groups added value in mature markets such as Britain.
    [Show full text]
  • 1971 Annual Report and Account
    Unilever NV Report and Accounts 1976 The Unilever group of companies provides a wide range of products and services in some 75 countries, employing over 300 000 people. It has existed for nearly 50 years as a group, but can trace its roots much further back than that. There are two parent companies: Unilever N.V., Rotterdam, and Unilever Limited, London. Equal partners, they have identical Boards of Directors and are linked by agreements, one of which equalises the dividends payable on the ordinary capital of N.V. and of Limited, according to a formula set out elsewhere in this Report. Unilever operates as one group. The combined affairs of N.V. and Limited are, therefore, more important to shareholders than those of the two separate companies and the Report and Accounts deals, as usual, with the operations and results of Unilever as a whole: except where stated otherwise, all the figures are for N.V. and Limited combined. The larger part of Unilever is in branded and packaged consumer goods: mainly foods, detergents and toilet preparations. The foods include margarine, other fats and oils, ice cream, frozen and other convenience products, meat, fish, tea and other drinks. Unilever has other important activities, such as chemicals, paper, plastics and packaging, animal feeds, transport and tropical plantations. UAC International, a major Unilever company, has substantial interests in Africa and other parts of the world in diverse industrial ventures, and as merchants and specialist distributors. Unilever is one of the dozen largest businesses in the world by turnover- and the largest in consumer goods.
    [Show full text]
  • The Formation of Unilever 16944-Unilever 20Pp A5:Layout 1 15/11/11 14:35 Page 2
    16944-Unilever 20pp A5:Layout 1 15/11/11 14:35 Page 1 The Formation of Unilever 16944-Unilever 20pp A5:Layout 1 15/11/11 14:35 Page 2 Unilever House, London, c1930 16944-Unilever 20pp A5:Layout 1 15/11/11 14:36 Page 03 In September 1929 an agreement was signed which created what The Economist described as "one of the biggest industrial amalgamations in European history". It provided for the merger in the following year of the Margarine Union and Lever Brothers Limited. The Margarine Union had been formed in 1927 by the Van den Bergh and Jurgens companies based in the Netherlands, and was later joined by a number of other Dutch and central European companies. Its main strength lay in Europe, especially Germany and the UK and its interests, whilst mostly in margarine and other edible fats, were also oil milling and animal feeds, retail companies and some soap production. Lever Brothers Limited was based in the UK but owned companies throughout the world, especially in Europe, the United States and the British Dominions. Its interests were in soap, toilet preparations, food (including some margarine), oil milling and animal feeds, plantations and African trading. One of the main reasons for the merger was competition for raw materials - animal and vegetable oils - used in both the manufacture of margarine and soap. However, the two businesses were very similar, so it made sense to merge as Unilever rather than continue to compete for the same raw materials and in the same markets. To understand how Unilever came into being you have to go back to the family companies that were instrumental in its formation.
    [Show full text]
  • 1967 Annual Report and Accounts
    T AND AC OUNTS I967 Directors H. S. A. HARTOG, Cha'imn J. J. H. NAGEL THE LORD COLE, We-Chairman D. A. ORR RUDOLF G. JURGENS, Vice-Chairman F. J. PEDLER A. F. H. BLAAUW R. H. SIDDONS A. W. J. CARON E. SMIT J. G. COLLINGWOOD SIR ARTHUR SMITH J. M. GOUDSWAARD J. P. STUBBS 6. D. A. KLIJNSTRA S. G. SWEETMAN J. F. KNIGHT THE VISCOUNT TRENCHARD P. KUIN E. G. WOODROOFE D. J. MA" Advisory Directors J. M. HONIG F. J. M. A. H. HOUBEN A. E. J. NYSINGH F. J. TEMPEL G. E. VAN WALSUM Secretaries A. A. HAAK P. A. MACRORY 'Auditors PRICE WATERHOUSE & Co. COOPER BROTHERS & Co. This is a translation of the origillal Dutch report. The Report and Accounts as usual combine the results and operations of UNILEVER N.V. (‘N.v.’) and UNILEVER LIMITED (‘LIMITED’) with the figures expressed in guilders. The basis on which the devaluation of sterling in November, 1967, has been dealt with is explained on page 31. Contents Page 6 Salient figures 7 Report for the year 1967 7 The year in brief 8 Sales to third parties, profit and capital employed by geographical areas 1958 and 1967 (chart) 9 Return on capital employed and on turnover 1958-1967 (chart) 10 Summary of combined figures 1958-1967 11 The background 12 Indonesia 13 Taxation 13 Analysis of turnover 14 Margarine, other edible fats and oils 15 Other foods 17 Detergents and toilet preparations 19 Animal feeds 20 Paper, printing, packaging and plastics 20 Chemicals 21 The United Africa Group 22 Plantations 23 Exports 24 Finance 25 Capital projects 26 Research 27 Personnel 28 Capital and membership 28 Dividends 29 Directors 30 Retirement of Directors 30 Auditors 31 Accounts 1967 31 Treatment of devaluation of Sterling 32 Consolidated profit and loss accounts (Statement A) 34 Consolidated balance sheets (Statement B) 38 Balance sheet-N.V.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement on the Implementation of Unilever's Remuneration Policy For
    Unilever PLC Unilever N.V. Unilever House PO Box 760 100 Victoria Embankment 3000 DK Rotterdam London EC4Y 0DY The Netherlands T: +44 (0)20 7822 5252 Weena 455 F: +44 (0)20 7822 5951/5898 3013 AL Rotterdam www.unilever.com T: +31 (0)10 217 4000 F: +31 (0)10 217 4798 www.unilever.com 11 February 2020 Dear Investor, I am writing to you as Chair of Unilever’s Compensation Committee to set out our approach for implementing our Directors’ Remuneration Policy in 2020, following engagement with shareholders and proxy voting agencies in the last few months. I would like to thank those investors who have given their time and input during this consultation process as it is important for us to hear your views on our proposals before the AGMs. At our AGMs last year I was pleased to see the high levels of support we received from investors for the Compensation Committee’s implementation of our remuneration policy (PLC 95.62% and NV 96.92%). We have the objective to maintain strong levels of support at our 2020 AGMs as well, so I encourage you to get in touch if you would like to meet or speak with me to discuss our Executive Directors’ pay ahead of the AGM. At the bottom of this letter I indicate the key contacts for this purpose. Following my meetings with shareholders and proxy agencies, the Compensation Committee has met to review our shareholders and proxy agencies’ feedback and resolve on our proposals for 2020. As a reminder, the guiding principles for Unilever’s Directors’ Remuneration Policy are to ensure it is simple, transparent and aligned
    [Show full text]
  • Unilever PLC Prospectus
    This document comprises a prospectus (the “Prospectus”) relating to Unilever PLC (the “Company”) prepared in accordance with the Prospectus Regulation Rules of the Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) made under section 73A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended) (the “FSMA”). The Prospectus has been filed with, and approved by, the FCA and has been made available to the public in accordance with Rule 3.2 of the Prospectus Regulation Rules. Certain terms used in this Prospectus, including all capitalised terms and certain technical and other terms, are defined and explained in Part XIII: “Definitions”. This Prospectus has been approved by the FCA, as competent authority under Regulation (EU) 2017/1129. The FCA only approves this Prospectus as meeting the standards of completeness, comprehensibility and consistency imposed by Regulation (EU) 2017/1129; such approval should not be considered as an endorsement of the Company that is, or the quality of the securities that are, the subject of this Prospectus. Investors should make their own assessment as to the suitability of investing in the securities. Unilever PLC has requested the FCA to notify its approval in accordance with article 25 of the Prospectus Regulation to the competent authority in the Netherlands, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten, “the AFM”), with a certificate of approval attesting that this Prospectus has been prepared in accordance with the Prospectus Regulation. This Prospectus has been prepared in order to provide details of the PLC Shares, including the New PLC Shares to be issued and allotted, pursuant to Unification, on the assumption that Unification will become effective as proposed.
    [Show full text]