Republic of the Philippines

THE UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO

PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS
Matina, Davao City

CASE STUDY
on
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
of

________________________________

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements in DBA 408

(Research Issues in Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility)
________________________________
Submitted to
Dr. Delia Ayano
________________________________
Submitted by
Alex T. Ajoc, MBA

Charmie A. Lagdamen, MBA

Mary Jennifer L. Odias, MBA

Rubylene A. Masinadiong, MBA

________________________________
 I. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Typically, when people think about sustainability in the realm of Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR), they think about the specific activities of companies, such as
conservation of natural resources and the integration of alternative energy in buildings
and factories. Some companies, however, take sustainability a step further in their CSR
efforts. Unilever, a British-Dutch multinational consumer goods company, focuses not
only on the specific activities of their company, but also the supply chain that supports it,
as well as the activities of its customers and consumers. This effort to go above and
beyond the norm by making sustainable living commonplace is why Unilever is widely
regarded as one of the few truly sustainable businesses in the world.
As one of the world's leading suppliers of fast-moving consumer goods with
operations in over 100 countries and sales in 190, Unilever's sheer size enables it to
make an enormous positive impact on both society and the environment. The
company's groundbreaking, 10-year Sustainable Living Plan is perhaps its greatest
CSR success so far and exemplifies how businesses can reduce environmental impact
for the long-term and on a large-scale, while also maintaining sales growth.
The Sustainable Living Plan, which launched in 2010, includes three overarching
goals which Unilever has pledged to achieve by the year 2020: (1) improving the health
and well-being of the company's customers and consumers, (2) reducing the company's
overall environmental impact, and (3) enhancing the livelihoods of millions of people
around the globe. In addition to these three goals, the company hopes to double the
size of its business.
Five years into the ambitious plan, Unilever is on track to meet most of its green
goals and has made admirable progress in improving the livelihood, health, and well-
being of others. More than 55% of Unilever's agricultural raw materials are now
sustainably sourced, which is more than halfway to the 2020 target of 100%. The
company is also making significant reductions in CO2 from energy and water in
manufacturing, reducing them by 37% and 32% per ton of production respectively since
2008. Unilever has even achieved one its green goals ahead of schedule: zero non-
hazardous waste to landfill. It has also managed to reach over 397 million people with
programs on hand washing, safe drinking water, sanitation, oral health, and self-
esteem.
In addition, the business case for Unilever's progress could not be clearer: the plan
accounted for half of the company's growth in 2014 and grew at twice the rate of the
rest of the business, according to the company's chief executive, Paul Polman.
In a world of growing rising population, and increasing environmental challenges,
the need for businesses to go above and beyond in CSR is evident, as are the benefits
and opportunities. This calls for a transformational approach, like that of Unilever, to the
way corporations think about sustainability.

II.
 III. PROBLEM

In a world of growing population, and increasing environmental challenges, the

need for businesses to go above and beyond in CSR is evident, as are the benefits and

opportunities. This calls for a transformational approach for Unilever on sustainability

due to the increase of social and environmental issues such as:

1. Failure in Reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Impact and Water Footprint.

Despite of every possible effort, the company could not reach to its defined target

regarding GHG emission and water usage. The analysis had shown that Unilever’s

footprint per consumer use had increased by some extent. Unilever’s GHG impact per

consumer use had increased by 4% since 2010, and consumer water use impact had

been reduced by only 2%. The CEO acknowledged that because both of the “off-track”

USLP pillars were linked to consumers’ use of its products, they would be hard to fix. In

contrast to a goal of halving its environmental footprint, in part due to its merger and

acquisition activity.

2. Changing People’s Behaviors is the Hardest Challenge. It will not be possible to

meet its goals without changing customers’ behavior, which is an extremely difficult job.

Three years ago, the company measured the carbon footprint of 2,000 products and

found that on average 68% of greenhouse-gas emissions in their life cycles occurred

only after they got into the hands of consumers, mostly through the energy intensive

process of heating water (eg, for tea bags or washing powder).

 III. CASE FACTS

III.1. Business Functional Areas/Connection to theoretical & empirical research

Three levels of corporate social responsibility

Theoretical Interpretation of Strategic Management in Unilever

To analyze the strategic management process of the company, three different
theories can be considered and related on the business process strategies. These three
theories are the theory of profit maximization, the theory of contingency and the
survival- based theory (Barney & Hesterly, 2015).
1. Theory of Profit Maximization. The theory of profit maximization is related to the
concept of economic advantage of the firms. Generally, the theory constitutes the
difference between the marginal cost and the marginal revenue o the firms. More the
difference extends, more the profit margin increases. This theory is associated with
the neoclassical theory of the firms. Maximum profits also refer to pure profits. That
is the surplus above the production cost. The remaining amount is enjoyed by the
entrepreneur after having paid all the required production factors. In one word this is
the residual income of the entrepreneurs over the normal profits. To gain profit
maximization, the business firms create different strategies. Profit maximization is
nothing but a driving force to the business organizations that are involved in specific
consumer product disbursement.
There are different assumptions regarding the theory of profit maximization. The first
and the foremost effective assumption is the strategy of advertisements and cost
reduction. So far, the cost reduction strategy is concerned, Unilever has been one of
the most well-turned-out organizations that have been using the effectiveness of
advertisements to interact with the customers. However, the company does not go
beyond the limit of ad- expenditure while promoting the products.
Moreover, strong brand image of the company reduces the possibility of regular
advertisement. Thus, the company checks the cost of promotion. Moreover, strict check
on the suppliers while procuring the required materials in the store house, Unilever
makes sure that the conveyance is does not reach to unexpected hike. Thus, the cost
margin is lessened than the profit margin. At times, the company checks whether the
entire production and operations cost is balanced with the total revenue. In recent years
Unilever has implemented different advertisement strategic policies in different
branches. Small scale but regular promotion of the helps the products reach to the
greater number of people as well as reduce the cost of heavy promotion thus ensuring
the extension of profit margin.
2. Theory of Contingency. The theory of contingency is associated with the
foundation of the leadership and strategy making process in a business firm. One of
the most effective theories to gain profits through different expected ways is
contingency theory (Eden & Ackermann, 2013). According to the contingency theory,
the leadership psychology impacts upon the growth of the firm in its business. While
making a strategic framework, the future insight of the business leaders needs to be
advanced through the understanding of current business situation. All these factors
need to be amalgamated through expertise of strategy designers. The factor, leader-
member relation decides the ongoing strength and bondage within the organization.
It ensures the creation of a common link between the manager and the employees.
To convey the manager’s perception of company’s new adoption of strategies, there
must be a solid platform that is to be concretized in due course of strategic
interventions. In case of Unilever, the linkage between the managers and the
subordinates is well defined and constructed so that messages can be rightly
conveyed within the organization. The policy set by the headquarter is also followed
by the branches and franchises as well as the subsidiaries. In order ensure the
future of the market, Unilever and its managing heads fix a time for regular
employee meeting and convention that helps to create a strong bondage among all
the internal stakeholders of the firm. The next factor, task structure is extremely
important in creating a working standard and to gain customer attention. The desired
work culture of a company is always the prevalence of the employee competency
that entails better production level resulting in the increase in market supply and
sales. Structuring the task is one of the core strategies of the company that is
performed within the head branches and their franchises. Unilever also involves in
structuring and assessing certain tasks that are subject to strict implementation in
different operations- supply, production, marketing, and sales.
3. Survival Based Theory. Like the theory of profit maximization, survival- based
theory is also related to economics. Survival -based theory is also known as Neo-
Darwinism. This theory is associated with the fact that the best and the fittest
company remain undefeated in the market. The theory was motivated by social-
Darwinism. However, rapid growth of industrialization in the 19th century Europe
created the concept of market competition. Thus, the concept of social Darwinism
changed into Neo- Darwinism (Khalil & Economics, 2016). According to this theory,
the evolution of the firms takes them to utter success. After profound analysis of the
product variation of Unilever, it can be stated that the company has not changed its
mode of product design. However, the change in the market strategy has resulted in
constant growth of marketespecially in the developing countries. In order to recreate
the essence of market in the developed countries, Unilever needs to bring some
certain changes thus ensuring strategic evolution (Theories of strategic
management, 2017).

Unilever’s Sustainability and CSR Self-Study Progress

The figure presents the logic and flow of the sustainability and CSR self-study
and its conclusion in a transformational commitment at Unilever. Following Cescau’s
decision to go for transformation and the Unilever Board’s concurrence, Gunning,
and the study team members, in consultation again throughout Unilever, began to
detail potential action strategies for brands and the company’s value chain, including
its community outreach and communications. In turn, Cescau and the other
members of Unilever’s executive board fanned out across the globe to meet with
national operating company executives and marketers as well as global and local
customers.
3.1 Marketing Environment

Porter’s Five Forces of Competition in Context to Unilever

Porter’s five forces model is considered to investigate the competitive factor

sustaining within a business environment and the occupational process of
advancement.

Suppliers bargaining power: The force of supplier in business displays the way
authority and power would grip them. Unilever has its business across the world. The
bargaining power of supplier is significant but has limited effect on the company.
Unilever focuses on its policy of local buying and manufacturing. It helps the
organization in providing itself with an edge in putting a brake on the power of suppliers,
making them weaker to parley at the terms of the company. This strategy does not allow
the suppliers from swapping to Unilever’s rivals and charge rates higher than that of
Unilever.
Competitive Rivalry: Strong business relevance of the other market giants in the world
has been creating a realm of threat for the Unilever (Ehrenberg & Smith, 2016).
Abundance of large number of competitors in the vast market has been proven quite
strong. Not only the large companies, but the local business enterprises have been
creating a cope of tight competition for Unilever. The range of competitions starts from
the small corner shop to the heavy weight organizations like P& G, Nestle and Kraft.
Since these competitors furnish and offer uniformly striking products and services to the
customers, they have been creating a tough challenge for the company to stay
undefeated in the market. These competitors have the ability and strength t attract the
existing customers of Unilever towards them by providing better facilities in terms of
product and services (Banks et al., 2016). Another form of competition is based on the
product price. Since the consumer market is highly bargain- oriented, the best product
in cheapest price is always given priority by the customers. P&G often offers business
discounts to the customers to attract greater number of heads towards them. Moreover,
the local shops and the stores have greater hold and understanding of the customers,
hence providing better opportunities for them in customer attraction (Ehrenberg &
Smith, 2016).
Threat of Substitution: The twenty first century has brought new dimension in the
realm of market ad customer demand. Since the age of consumerism has been strictly
dependent on the variability of the consumer demands, sudden change in the mode of
products and services has created a lacuna between the company and the customers
(Mathooko & Ogutu, 2015). Hence, the monotonous range of the product varieties has
pointed out to the faults and setback of the company. On the other hand, companies like
P&G, Kraft and Nestle have introduced new range of products and services to the
customers thus creating an obvious shift of the customers from Unilever. The
consumers reportedly do not experience varieties of products from Unilever, apart from
the household ones (Morschett, Schramm-Klein & Zentes, 2015). Therefore, Unilever
ought to be adoptive new procedure and strategies in reaching to the demand of the
customers. Fair and strategic understanding of the customer psychology leads to long
term success of a company (Dobbs, 2014).
Buyer Power: Since Unilever is an international company, the buyers are speckled all
around the world. The number also crosses billions. Moreover, the buyers are so
diversified in different countries and regions, the mindset to the payment of the product
and consumption method differs accordingly. However, the long range of varieties of the
customers is not able to affect the pricing process of the company. Yet, they can shift to
the consumption of products from other companies. Therefore, Unilever has a greater
chance to lose the customers in a huge extent. To satisfy the customers Unilever has to
take precautionary action in terms of price determination of the products and service
provision to the customers (Banker, Mashruwala & Tripathy, 2014).
Threat of New Entry: Unilever has vast geographical market where the company has
been operating for years. The strongest market segment in terms of geographical
arena, are the developed countries where the company has been doing business from
the beginning of its franchise establishment. However, the market in the less developed
and the developed country for Unilever is not at puny. The brand image of the company
has been kept intact with constant product supply and service provision in the
developing markets like India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have created a well-
structured market opportunity in the aforesaid countries. However, new entries in the
developed countries require a lot of legal procedures whereas the less developed or the
developing countries provide the multinational business organizations with investment
facilities in lieu of better employment and trade opportunities. The advantage of Unilever
lies in the fact that the company has constructed its business plinth in almost every
market in the world in the form of franchises, branches, or subsidiaries. Its brand image
is the greatest and strongest barrier for the other new entries. On the other hand,
weakening of brand image might allow the new entries to introduce and expand
business thus capturing the existing market of Unilever.

Marketing Mix (4Ps+3Ps)

Unilever’s SWOT Analysis

Evaluation of Internal Resources

Internal analysis is a comparative examination of a company's capabilities in terms
of its strengths and shortcomings in comparison to its competitors. This aids businesses
in determining whether their resources and capabilities are likely sources of competitive
advantage. A corporation or a brand might build plans to maximize any sources of
competitive advantage by conducting internal review.
 Strengths
1. The country's and the world's most well-known brand. Unilever has a
presence in over 190 countries, and it is difficult to find a consumer who
hasn't purchased one of their products. It is also one of the largest
corporations to date, and all this experience has helped it maintain its market
dominance. (Unilever, 2020).
2. Financial stability and budget management
3. Unilever has a close relationship with some of the country's top retailers, as
well as retailers from other countries and distribution networks all over the
world.
4. It is one of the top marketers in the world, with considerable experience in
several divisions of marketing.
5. Leader in the field of innovation
6. Unilever is known for its wide range of brands.
7. Great diversity hedges against the COVID-19 crisis. Given the wide range of
consumer products that include more than 400 brands, Unilever has both
product and regional diversity that minimizes its exposure to the pandemic
considerably (Wood, 2020). 

 Weaknesses
1. Unilever can be directly competed with by larger retailers.
2. Highly dependent on retailers. Given that retailers have direct control over
customers, the corporation lacks a direct significant influence on consumers.
The performance of retailers has a direct impact on Unilever's performance
and brand reputation.
Evaluation of External Environment

External evaluation does not try to create an entire list of possible elements that
could influence a company's performance; rather, it aims to identify critical variables that
can be addressed with practical solutions.
 
Opportunities
1. Expansion. Because Unilever is one of the world's largest corporations, it
has the potential to expand its operations outside consumer goods. The
corporation can use its financial resources to implement diversification
initiatives that reduce the risk of substitution.
2. Reaching out to emerging markets. On the one hand, the globalization
process and global media have promoted the Western way of life in Asia.
Unilever might take advantage of this edge to present itself as a successful
brand that assists locals in joining the Westerners. On the other hand, India
and China now have the so-called “newly affluent trillion-dollar consumers”,
providing a golden chance for the company to leverage this consumer base
who is well-known for trying to mimic consumerism in the West. 
3. There is a huge movement toward sustainable and healthful products.
Unilever can use this chance to develop new goods that cater to the needs
of the millennial population, allowing them to expand even further globally.
 
Threats
1. Numerous global competitors. Companies like Nestle, Proctor & Gamble,
Mondelez International, and Colgate Palmolive put the corporation under
competitive pressure. While this is unlikely to unsettle the corporation, it is
worth noting that intense rivalry has a significant detrimental impact on
pricing methods and, ultimately, profitability. 
2. The global economic downturn
3. Increased scrutiny.
4. Substitution is a significant risk. Many of Unilever's products can be simply
replicated or swapped. This can be a big problem, especially in places like
Asia and Africa, where labor and raw materials are cheap.
5. A move away from synthetic items and toward natural ones. The majority
of individuals substitute natural and/or traditional alternatives for Unilever's
products. The threat persists in the Western world, as well as in cheaper
countries, due to consumer shifts toward home-made, hand-made, or all-
natural items.

Carroll’s CSR Pyramid

 According to Archie Carroll’s theory, companies have social duties to
stakeholders, to have a successful business environment. Stakeholders, on the other
hand, have a huge impact on corporate performance. Consumers, employees,
investors, suppliers, and communities are among the stakeholders at Unilever. These
stakeholders are prioritized in the company's corporate citizenship and social
responsibility plan based on their relevance to the business. Unilever's corporate
responsibility plan serves as a supportive method to sustain industry position and
business sustainability as a leading player in the global consumer products market.
Unilever's efforts for a sustainable business in the consumer products market are aided
by an effective corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy. The interests of
stakeholders are met through appropriate techniques that promote holistic corporate
citizenship and responsibility.
Unilever follows a methodical approach to meet its corporate social responsibility.
This strategy is in line with the company's corporate citizenship objectives, particularly in
terms of meeting the expectations and interests of customers as stakeholders. Unilever,
for example, prioritizes CSR with consumers at the forefront. The approach also
ensures the long-term viability of the company. Consumers (Highest Priority),
employees, investors, suppliers, and communities are among the stakeholder groups
addressed by such a corporate responsibility plan, which is arranged according to their
importance in Unilever's consumer goods industry.
The idea of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been a topic of discussion
since the 1950s. However, it was not until much later that people started understanding
its meaning, significance, and impact. CSR, in the form that we see today, became
popular after it was defined by Archie Carroll’s “Pyramid of Corporate Social
Responsibility” in 1991. Its simplicity, yet ability to describe the idea of CSR with four
areas, has made the pyramid one of the most accepted corporate theories of CSR.
Carroll’s pyramid suggests that corporate must fulfil responsibility at four levels –
Economic, Legal, Ethical and Philanthropic.
 Economic Responsibility. The lowest level of the pyramid represents a
business’s first responsibility, which is to be profitable. Without profit, the company
would not be able to pay their workers, employees will lose their jobs even before
the company starts CSR activities. Being profitable is the only way for a company
to be able to survive long term, and benefit society. Additionally, this also means
that it is a company’s duty to produce goods and services that are needed/wanted
by the customers, at a reasonable price.
 Legal Responsibility. The second level of the pyramid is the business’s legal
obligation to obey the law. This is the most important responsibility out of the four
 levels as this will show how companies conduct their business in the marketplace.
Employment laws, competition with other companies, tax regulations and health
and safety of employees are some examples of the legal responsibilities a
company should adhere to. Failing to be legally responsible can be very bad for
businesses.
 Ethical Responsibility. The ethical layer of the pyramid is described as doing the
right thing, being fair in all situations and avoiding harm. A company should not
only be obeying the law, but it should also do their business ethically. Unlike the
first two levels, this is something that a company is not obligated to do. However,
it is best for a company to be ethical as this not only shows their stakeholders that
they are moral and just, but people will feel more comfortable purchasing
goods/services from the company as well. Being environmentally friendly, treating
suppliers/employees properly are a few examples of being ethically responsible.
 Philanthropic Responsibility. At the top of the pyramid, occupying the smallest
space is philanthropy. Businesses have long been criticized for their carbon
footprint, their part in pollution, using natural resources and more. To
counterbalance these negatives, they should “give back” to the community they
take from. Even though this is the highest level of CSR, it should not be taken
lightly as many people would want to do business with companies that are giving
back to society. Philanthropic Responsibility is more than just doing what is right,
but it is something that holds true to the company’s values, to give back to society.

According to Carroll’s pyramid, responsible business is one which qualifies all the levels
of responsibilities before taking up philanthropy. Without fulfilling the other
responsibilities, a business cannot sustain.
 IV. Alternative Course of Action

1. Unilever should develop a model of the “stages” of corporate social

responsibility (CSR) encompassing both social and environmental

sustainability.  This model treats the development of sustainability and CSR in

companies as a stage-by-stage process whereby a combination of internal

capabilities applied to social and environmental challenges propels development

forward in a more or less normative path. These challenges initially center on a

firm’s credibility as a responsible company, then on its capacities to meet

stakeholder expectations, followed by efforts to create coherence among its many

activities, and finally, on the extent of its commitment to operate as a global

corporate citizen. In developmental logic, companies have to ‘‘work through’’ these

matters to progress on CSR and sustainability.

2. Unilever should continue its Sustainable Living Plan. Unilever Sustainable

Living Plan (USLP), which aims to develop industry while decreasing its

environmental footprint and increasing its social impact, is putting this ambition

into action. Unilever's mission is to make life more vibrant. They meet everyday

demands for exercise, grooming, and personal care with goods that make people

feel healthy, look beautiful, and get more out of life.  (Lieu, P. T. H., Arunjit, N.,

Buapradabkul, S., & Nathaniel, D, 2021).  The Sustainable Living Plan, which

launched in 2010, includes three overarching goals which Unilever has pledged

to achieve by the year 2020: (1) improving the health and well-being of the

company's customers and consumers, (2) reducing the company's overall

environmental impact, and (3) enhancing the livelihoods of millions of people

around the globe. In addition to these three goals, the company hopes to double

the size of its business.

 V. RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

V.1. Recommendation

Unilever should continue its Sustainable Living Plan. This case study
in the CSR of Unilever has been committed to corporate social responsibility
(CSR), with the purpose of promoting the economic, social, and environmental
values of the nations in which it operates. Since for the five years into the
ambitious plan, Unilever is on track to meet most of its green goals and has made
admirable progress in improving the livelihood, health, and wellbeing of others.
More than 55% of Unilever's agricultural raw materials are now sustainably
sourced, which is more than halfway to the 2020 target of 100%. The company is
also making significant reductions in CO2 from energy and water in
manufacturing, reducing them by 37% and 32% per ton of production respectively
since 2008. Unilever has even achieved one its green goals ahead of schedule:
zero non-hazardous waste to landfill. It has also managed to reach over 397
million people with programs on hand washing, safe drinking water, sanitation,
oral health, and self-esteem.

Unilever Sustainable Living Plan: Summary of 10 years’ progress

Action Plan and Evaluation of consequence

Despite the many highlights which are outlined in this report, USLP journey has
also presented with many hurdles. Unilever did not achieve all its targets but learnt that
they must focus on systems change as well as individual programs to ensure long term,
sustained impact. With the satisfactory performance of the implemented strategy, we
will recommend that Unilever should launched another 10-year Sustainable Living Plan.
To implement this recommendation Unilever should focus its programs on the areas
needing improvement based on the summary of 10 years’ sustainable living plan
progress. The following Key learnings on the implementation should be considered:
 Make sustainable living effortless. Important as sustainability is for many
consumers, it is often just one deciding factor among many. Which is why the
way that Unilever design and deliver their products to make sustainable living as
easy and enjoyable as possible. The company underestimated how challenging it
would be to help most consumers change their behaviors to embrace more
sustainable ways of living. Unilever learnt many lessons about making
environmental behaviors easier and more attractive to consumers – all of which
help inform their brands’ ongoing efforts to ‘nudge’ people to use their products
more sustainably.
 Be clear and consistent in why behavior change is important and what
changes we are asking consumers to make.
 Demonstrate that sustainable living can be good for consumers as well as
good for the planet.
 Increase our work through cross-sector collaborations and advocacy to
transform the systems in which our products are used.

2. Business must drive systems change. An individual company can change how
it operates but it cannot change the system. We have seen this play out in our
efforts to push forward renewable energy. Unilever is not a power generation
company. But we can – and do – produce our own renewable energy on our
manufacturing sites. We have also come to realize that we have to play a role in
advocating for even more systems change in other industries – such as power
generation. Our approach to advocacy rests on showing market demand for
sustainable solutions so that policymakers have the confidence to act.
Lessons for the future
 Maximize the potential of emerging technologies, alternative production
methods and new business models to reduce the direct impact of our
operations.
 Strengthen market signals for renewable power and other sustainability
solutions by working with others to increase private sector demand.
 Continue to push for the transformation of sustainability-critical systems
through our involvement in progressive policy advocacy groups and
initiatives.

3. New ways of measuring social impact. When we set our Unilever Sustainable
Living Plan targets ten years ago, we did not realize how hard it would be to
measure our progress. Finding an impact indicator that works across all our
initiatives has proved especially difficult. As the data we have on our social
programs improves, so will our ability to enhance the areas where our impact is
high and to modify those areas where they are less so. Having an impact is our
primary goal, not measuring it. But to achieve the former, we need to get better at
the latter.
Lessons for the future
 Consider additional or alternative metrics to ‘people reached’.
 Examine bespoke social indicators for specific interventions.
 Encourage the standardization of measurement tools, indicators, and
benchmarks.
 4. Be ready to move fast. In 2010, things looked very different. The targets we set
ourselves were based on our best assessment of existing information and trends
at the time. Even so, some issues have accelerated faster than anyone could
have imagined, while others have come to the fore in ways no one anticipated.
We have had to adapt quickly, listen and in some cases break from the status
quo – even if it felt uncomfortable. We have seen this with our commitment to
reduce virgin plastic – one of the first to do so in our sector at the time, but now
fast becoming an industry norm.

Lessons for the future

 Listen to those outside our circles to spot the early signs of rapid change.
 Respond quickly and decisively in the face of fast-moving trends.
 Ask ourselves the hard ‘what if’ questions more often and more rigorously.

V.2. Conclusion

Unilever’s CEO Paul Polman has shown great potentials in making perfect
decisions to achieve the goal and to lead the company towards its ultimate destination.
Polman and his ULE team has mainly focused on influencing people through
innovations in business strategies as they started recognizing people as individuals,
instead of consumers. Unilever’s CEO has also shown great initiatives in an intensive
communication campaign to make people aware about their new innovative strategies.
Polman and his ULE team have successfully led the company towards its goal to be
achieved gradually. Finally, we can say that zero-waste policies, reducing energy and
water consumption, improving the health of workers – all these things promote the
wellbeing of the environment and society, and they also improve efficiency, reduce
costs, and ensure viability in business. While Polman has extremely moral intentions, he
is also a businessman, and as Young noted, ‘Unilever’s attempt to cut resources, while
still growing, is the holy grail of industry.’ Polman certainly is an ambitious leader, even
a radical some may say, yet the world needs radicals like him – radicals who never stop
striving for the Holy Grail.
The Unilever’s engagement in Corporate Social Responsible (CSR) is
commendable. Its CSR program dubbed as Unilever Sustainable Living Plan (USLP)
was a first-of-its-kind in terms of its objectives, goals, and scope. In fact, USLP became
a model and benchmarked for corporate sustainability of other companies.
 References

 
Banker, R. D., Mashruwala, R., & Tripathy, A. (2014). Does a differentiation strategy
lead to more sustainable financial performance than a cost leadership
strategy?. Management Decision.
Barney, J. B., & Hesterly, W. S. (2019). Strategic management and competitive
advantage: Concepts and cases. New York, NY: Pearson.
Carroll, A. (2016). Taking another look at Carroll's CSR pyramid. 1–8 in the International
Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility.
Dobbs, M. E. (2014). Guidelines for applying Porter's five forces framework: a set of
industry analysis templates. Competitiveness Review.
Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2013). Making strategy: The journey of strategic
management. Sage.
Ehrenberg, R. G., Smith, R. S., & Hallock, K. F. (2003). Modern labor economics:
Theory and public policy. Routledge.
Fahad Bin Siddique & Iffat Sultana (2018), Unilever Sustainable Living Plan: A Critical
Analysis. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18106.29126
Khalil, E. L., & Economics, N. (2016). Neo-Darwinism: Clearing the Way for Historical
Thinking.'. Economics as Worldly Philosophy: Essays on Political and Historical
Economics in Honor of Robert Heilbroner, 22-72.
Lieu, P. T. H., Arunjit, N., Buapradabkul, S., & Nathaniel, D. Unilever Company
Strategic Business Analysis.
Mathooko, F. M., & Ogutu, M. (2015). Porter’s five competitive forces framework and
other factors that influence the choice of response strategies adopted by public
universities in Kenya. International Journal of Educational Management.
Morschett, D., Schramm-Klein, H., & Zentes, J. (2015). Strategic international
management. Springer.
Wood, L. (2020). Unilever (COVID-19) Company Impact - ResearchAndMarkets.com
https://www.unilever.co.uk/planet-and-society/the-unilever-sustainable-living-plan/