CASE ANALYSIS

Panmore Institute ©2017 All rights reserved

Unilever: Mission Statement & Vision Statement,
Analysis & Recommendations
UPDATED ON FEBRUARY 21, 2017 BY JUSTIN YOUNG

A Unilever building in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey in

2010 (Photo: Public Domain)
Unilever’s vision statement and mission statement guide
business growth in the consumer goods industry, although
some changes can enhance these corporate statements.

Unilever’s mission statement and vision statement are a basic foundation for the success of
the company’s consumer goods business. The corporate mission statement indicates the
strategic approaches of the company. In Unilever’s case, the mission statement determines
how the business addresses the needs of its target consumers. On the other hand, the
corporate vision statement provides the development direction of the organization.
Unilever’s vision statement broadly presents what the company needs to do to succeed in
the long term. Considering the company’s position as one of the biggest consumer goods
firms in the world, Unilever’s mission statement and vision statement remain relevant and
appropriate to global market conditions.

Unilever’s vision statement reflects how the company grows and maintains its success in
the global consumer goods market. The mission statement shows the value of Unilever’s
products and how these products benefit customers.

Unilever’s Vision Statement

Unilever’s corporate vision is “to make sustainable living commonplace. We believe
this is the best long-term way for our business to grow.” This vision statement puts
emphasis on sustainability, especially among consumers. The following components are
notable in Unilever’s vision statement:
1. Commonplace sustainable living
2. Best long-term way
3. Business growth

Commonplace sustainable living is a core component in Unilever’s corporate vision

statement. This component shows the company’s efforts in changing its products to suit
current market conditions. For example, through sustainable design for home care and
personal care products, Unilever helps consumers reach their goals to integrate
sustainability in their lives. The corporate vision also states that commonplace sustainability
is the best long-term way for the business. Unilever understands the importance of
sustainability and other market trends shaping the industry. Moreover, the vision statement
reflects the company’s view of sustainability as a way to maintain business growth. This
vision statement aligns with Unilever’s corporate social responsibility strategy to address
business stakeholders in the consumer goods industry.

Unilever’s Mission Statement

Unilever’s corporate mission is “to add vitality to life. We meet everyday needs for
nutrition, hygiene and personal care with brands that help people feel good, look
good and get more out of life.” This mission statement underscores how the company
satisfies customers in various aspects of their lives. The following are the significant
components in Unilever’s mission statement:
1. Adding vitality to life
2. Meeting everyday needs for nutrition, hygiene, and personal care
3. Helping people feel good, look good, and get more out of life

Adding vitality to life is a general indicator of business strategy in Unilever’s corporate

mission statement. Such vitality is the value that consumers can expect from the company’s
products. The corporate mission also specifies the aspects of life where such vitality is
added. For example, Unilever’s food products address consumers’ vitality needs in terms of
nutrition. Furthermore, through these products, the company attracts customers who want
to feel good, look good, and get more out of life. The mission statement’s specification of
the types of products provides a foundation for the product mix in Unilever’s marketing mix.

Unilever’s Vision & Mission – Recommendations

Unilever’s vision statement implies the desired condition of being a leader in bringing
sustainable living to customers through consumer goods. However, the statement does not
specify the desired condition of the company as a business organization. A sound corporate
vision statement contains details on the desired future situation of the organization. For
example, it is necessary to specify the company’s market position in the future, to guide
organizational development. Thus, a recommendation for Unilever’s vision statement is to
improve it by including additional information about market position or a leadership role in
the consumer goods industry.

Unilever’s mission statement includes detailed information of what the business does and
must do. For example, the company adds vitality to life through products that address
consumers’ needs in nutrition, hygiene, and personal care. In this regard, the corporate
mission statement satisfies standards that require specificity on general strategic
approaches. However, a recommendation is to enhance Unilever’s mission statement by
adding more information on how the company strategically achieves its aims in adding
vitality to consumers’ lives.

References

• Unilever – Investor Relations – Annual Reports and Accounts Overview.

• Ekpe, E. O., Eneh, S. I., & Inyang, B. J. (2015). Leveraging Organizational Performance through
Effective Mission Statement. International Business Research, 8(9), 135.
• King, D. L., Case, C. J., & Premo, K. M. (2014). Does Company Size Affect Mission Statement
Content? Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 13(1), 21.
• Kirkpatrick, S. (2016). Build a Better Vision Statement: Extending Research with Practical
Advice. Rowman & Littlefield.
Unilever: PESTEL Analysis & Recommendations
UPDATED ON FEBRUARY 21, 2017 BY NATHANIEL SMITHSON

Unilever’s bath salts sold as Radox (Photo: Public Domain)

A PESTEL analysis of Unilever shows growth opportunities
based on external factors in the consumer goods
remote/macro-environment.

Unilever’s ability to address external factors in its remote or macro-environment contributes

to business prominence in the global consumer goods market. This PESTEL analysis
identifies such external factors. The PESTEL Analysis model is a tool for managers to
understand the influence of the external environment on businesses. In the case of
Unilever, these external factors vary significantly, considering the international scope of the
business. Nonetheless, the company must focus on maximizing business performance.
Unilever can achieve higher business performance through strategies that overcome the
most significant threats and exploit the biggest opportunities shown in this PESTEL
analysis.

This PESTEL analysis of Unilever outlines growth opportunities in the international

consumer goods market. While the company faces threats in its remote or macro-
environment, growth is achievable by focusing on product innovation, among other
approaches.

Political Factors Affecting Unilever’s Business

The political landscape affects Unilever’s performance. This section of the PESTEL
analysis identifies the impact of governments on firms’ remote or macro-environment. The
following political external factors are significant in Unilever’s consumer goods business:
1. Political stability of most countries (opportunity)
2. Political issues in the European Union (threat)
3. Growing free trade relations (opportunity)
The political stability of most countries presents opportunity for Unilever to grow in these
markets. For example, the political stability of the United States helps minimize challenges
in the company’s strategic implementations in the country. On the other hand, the political
issues in the European Union are a potential threat against Unilever’s operations in the
region’s consumer goods market. Nonetheless, the company has opportunity for global
growth based on the expanding free trade relations, especially those involving developing
countries. Based on the political external factors in this section of the PESTEL analysis,
there are opportunities generally available in the market, although Unilever must address
the challenges linked to the political condition of the European Union.

Economic Factors Important to Unilever

Unilever’s business performance depends on the situation of economies around the world.
This section of the PESTEL analysis outlines the influence of economic conditions on firms
and their remote or macro-environment. The following economic external factors are
determinants of Unilever’s performance in the consumer goods industry:
1. Increasing wages in developing countries (opportunity & threat)
2. High growth of developing countries (opportunity)
3. Economic stability of developed countries (opportunity)

The increasing wages in developing countries present the opportunity for Unilever to profit
more from higher potential sales, as consumers gain higher disposable incomes. However,
the same external factor is a threat in terms of increasing costs, considering that the
company has many manufacturing facilities located in developing regions. Nonetheless,
Unilever can expect business growth, as these countries grow in terms of consumer goods
market size and value. For example, China presents major growth opportunity for the
company. Moreover, the economic stability of developed countries cushions the business
from risks in other markets, while facilitating gradual but steady growth. Thus, this section of
the PESTEL analysis of Unilever highlights opportunities for global growth.

Social/Sociocultural Factors Influencing Unilever’s Business

Environment
Sociocultural trends and issues affect Unilever’s business performance and the remote or
macro-environment. The socially driven behavioral aspect of markets is considered in this
section of the PESTEL analysis. The sociocultural external factors significant in Unilever’s
consumer goods business are as follows:
1. Rising health consciousness (opportunity)
2. Rising environmentalist behaviors (opportunity)
3. Gradual dismantling of the gender divide (opportunity)

Unilever can grow through products that directly address consumers’ increasing interest in
healthful products. In addition, rising environmentalist behaviors present an opportunity for
the company to attract more consumers by improving its environmental impact. For
example, Unilever can minimize its energy consumption by adopting new and more energy-
efficient technologies. Also, the company can grow through higher sales based on
improving incomes among female consumers worldwide. The external factors in this section
of Unilever’s PESTEL analysis show the importance of product innovation in growing the
consumer goods business.

Technological Factors in Unilever’s Business

Unilever depends on available technologies to support its consumer goods business. This
section of the PESTEL analysis identifies the impact of technological trends on firms and
their remote or macro-environment. In Unilever’s case, the following technological external
factors are significant:
1. Rising business automation (opportunity & threat)
2. Rising R&D investments (threat)
3. Decreasing cost of transportation based on technological efficiencies (opportunity &
threat)

Rising business automation is an opportunity for Unilever to increase operational efficiency.

For example, new business processing equipment can enhance inventory monitoring to
support supply chain and distribution efficiencies (Read: Unilever’s Operations
Management). However, the same technological external factor is a threat because it
increases the competitiveness of other firms, including small ones in local markets. On the
other hand, rising research and development (R&D) investments threaten Unilever because
it also increases the competitive advantage of other firms in the consumer goods industry.
Nonetheless, the decreasing cost of transportation leads to lower operating costs, which
contribute to business growth. Still, the decreasing cost of transportation is a threat
because it contributes to the competitiveness of other firms. This section of the PESTEL
analysis of Unilever highlights growth opportunities and competitive threats based on
technological trends in the remote or macro-environment.

Ecological/Environmental Factors Affecting Unilever

Ecological trends and conditions influence Unilever’s remote or macro-environment. The
effects of the natural environment and related issues are considered in this section of the
PESTEL analysis. The following ecological external factors significantly affect Unilever’s
consumer goods business:
1. Rising interest in business environmentalism (opportunity)
2. Increasing business efforts on sustainability (opportunity)
3. Increasing complexity of environmental programs (opportunity)

The rising interest in business environmentalism is an opportunity for Unilever to improve its
environmental programs to attract consumers concerned about the environment. In relation,
the company can enhance its sustainability programs to strengthen its competitiveness
against other firms in the consumer goods industry. Unilever’s corporate social
responsibility strategy must effectively implement these programs throughout the
organization. For example, the strategy must consider product innovation and internal
business processes to further reduce business environmental impact. These efforts should
also support Unilever’s ability to satisfy increasingly complex environmental programs.
Such external factor is an opportunity for the company to improve its competitive advantage
through corporate responsibility. Based on the condition of the remote or macro-
environment shown in this section of Unilever’s PESTEL analysis, there are opportunities to
improve business performance by making the organization more environmentally
sustainable.

Legal Factors Facing Unilever

Unilever must satisfy regulations to minimize barriers to its consumer goods business. This
section of the PESTEL analysis determines the impact of legal systems on firms’ remote or
macro-environment. Unilever must satisfy the issues based on the following legal external
factors:
1. Increasing complexity of environmental regulations (opportunity)
2. Strengthening international patent laws (opportunity)
3. Strengthening consumer rights laws (opportunity)

Unilever has an opportunity to enhance its corporate image by matching the organization’s
corporate social responsibility strategy with environmental regulations. In addition,
strengthening international patent laws can facilitate the company’s growth. For example,
new patent laws in developing countries help reduce patent-related issues Unilever
experiences in its remote or macro-environment. Furthermore, stronger consumer rights
laws create an opportunity for the company to improve its customer-service quality, along
with product quality standards. These efforts can increase the attractiveness of Unilever’s
brands in the consumer goods market. The external factors in this section of the PESTEL
analysis of Unilever indicate the benefits of improving legal systems worldwide.

Unilever’s PESTEL Analysis – Recommendations

This PESTEL analysis reflects a number of opportunities and threats that Unilever must
prioritize in its strategies for growth and global expansion in the consumer goods market. A
recommendation is that the company’s strategies must include the external factor of rising
health consciousness among consumers. Unilever can take this factor as an opportunity to
improve its food products. It is also recommended that the company must improve its
sustainability programs to address opportunities regarding business sustainability. Another
recommendation is to take rising business automation as a significant threat that empowers
Unilever’s competitors, especially smaller ones in local markets. For example, local
companies can increase their competitive advantage by automating their production
processes. Given such issues based on this PESTEL analysis of Unilever, global growth
with innovation and business sustainability require strategic focus.

References

• Dockalikova, I., & Klozikova, J. (2014, November). MCDM Methods in Practice: Determining the
Significance of PESTEL Analysis Criteria. In European Conference on Management, Leadership
& Governance (p. 418). Academic Conferences International Limited.
• Gillespie, A. (2007). PESTEL analysis of the macro-environment. Foundations of Economics,
Oxford University Press, USA.
• Housing Industry Association (2011). An Introduction to PESTLE Analysis. HIA Ltd.
• Murphey, M., & Gause, R. (1974). UCF Research Guides. Industry Analysis. PESTLE Analysis.
Business Horizons, 17(5), 27-38.
• Roper, K. (2012, November). BIM Implementation: PESTEL Drivers & Barriers (Cross-national
Analysis). In World Workplace 2012. IFMA.
• U.S. Department of Commerce – The Consumer Goods Industry in the United States – Select
USA.
• Unilever – Investor Relations – Annual Reports and Accounts Overview.
• Yüksel, I. (2012). Developing a multi-criteria decision-making model for PESTEL analysis.
International Journal of Business and Management, 7(24), 52.
Unilever: Five Forces Analysis (Porter’s Model) &
Recommendations
UPDATED ON FEBRUARY 21, 2017 BY DANIEL KISSINGER

A Unilever factory in Poland. (Photo: Public Domain)

A Five Forces analysis of Unilever shows competition and
consumers have the biggest impact on the firm, based on
external factors in the consumer goods industry environment.

Unilever effectively competes in the global consumer goods market. A Five Forces Analysis
(Porter’s model) of the company shows the need to strategically prioritize competition and
the bargaining power of customers in the industry environment. Michael Porter’s Five
Forces Analysis model is a management tool for understanding the impacts of external
factors in a firm’s environment. In Unilever’s Five Forces Analysis, competitive rivalry is
viewed as one of the strongest external forces, along with the bargaining power of buyers.
To ensure long-term success, the company must address the issues related to these
forces. Unilever’s market position and organizational strengths are adequate to address
such forces.

A Porter’s Five Forces analysis of Unilever identifies competition and consumers as the
most important forces in the company’s industry environment. The external factors related
to these forces have a direct impact on Unilever’s financial performance in the consumer
goods market.

Competitive Rivalry or Competition with Unilever (Strong Force)

Competition is a major force in Unilever’s industry environment. This section of the Five
Forces analysis identifies the external factors that present the impact of firms on each
other. The strong force of competitive rivalry against Unilever is based on the following
external factors and their intensities:
• High number of firms (strong force)
• High aggressiveness of firms (strong force)
• Low switching costs (strong force)

There are many firms operating in the consumer goods industry. This external factor
imposes a strong force on Unilever. In addition, these firms are generally aggressive,
further adding to the intensity of competition. Unilever also experiences tough competition
because of low switching costs. For example, it is easy for consumers to switch from one
firm to another. Thus, a high level of competition is shown in this section of Unilever’s Five
Forces analysis, highlighting the need to consider competitive rivalry as a high-priority force
in the company’s industry environment.

Bargaining Power of Unilever’s Customers/Buyers (Strong

Force)
Unilever’s business and industry environment depend on the response of consumers to its
products. The influence of buyers on business performance is considered in this section of
the Five Forces analysis. Unilever must address the following external factors that lead to
the strong force of the bargaining power of customers:
• Low switching costs (strong force)
• High quality of information (strong force)
• Small size of individual buyers (weak force)
The low switching costs make it easy for consumers to transfer from Unilever’s products to
other companies’ products. This external factor contributes to the strong intensity of the
bargaining power of buyers. In addition, consumers have access to high quality of
information about consumer goods, making it even easier for them to decide when
transferring from Unilever to other providers. For example, buyers can compare products
based on online information. The small size of an individual consumer’s purchases has
minimal impact on Unilever’s profits. However, the low switching costs and high quality of
information outweigh this third external factor in the industry environment. Based on this
section of the Five Forces analysis, the bargaining power of customers is one of the
strongest forces affecting Unilever’s consumer goods business.

Bargaining Power of Unilever’s Suppliers (Moderate Force)

Suppliers impact Unilever’s industry environment by affecting the level of supply available
to firms. This section of the Five Forces analysis presents the influence of suppliers on
companies. The following are the external factors that contribute to the moderate force of
the bargaining power of suppliers on Unilever:
• Moderate size of individual suppliers (moderate force)
• Moderate population of suppliers (moderate force)
• Moderate overall supply (moderate force)

While Unilever has large suppliers like foreign firms that supply paper and oil, the average
supplier is moderate in size. This external factor imposes a moderate intensity force on the
consumer goods industry environment. In addition, the moderate population of suppliers
enables them to impose significant but limited influence on firms like Unilever. Similarly, the
moderate level of the overall supply adds to such significant but limited influence of
suppliers. For example, any supplier’s change in production level leads to significant but
limited change in the availability of raw materials used in Unilever’s business. Other firms in
the industry are similarly affected. As shown in this section of the Five Forces analysis of
Unilever, the bargaining power of suppliers is a significant but moderate consideration in
the consumer goods industry environment.
Threat of Substitutes or Substitution (Weak Force)
Substitutes can reduce Unilever’s revenues and the strength of firms in the consumer
goods industry environment. The impact of substitution is determined in this section of the
Five Forces analysis. In Unilever’s case, the following external factors are responsible for
the weak force of the threat of substitution:
• Low switching costs (strong force)
• Low substitute availability (weak force)
• Low performance to price ratio of substitutes (weak force)

The low switching costs enable consumers to easily use substitutes to Unilever’s products.
This external factor imposes a strong force on the company and the consumer goods
industry environment. However, the overall impact of substitution is weakened because of
the low availability of substitutes. For example, it is easier to access Unilever’s Close-Up
toothpaste from grocery stores than to obtain substitutes like homemade organic dentifrice.
In relation, most substitutes have low performance with minimal or insignificant cost
difference when compared to consumer goods readily available in the market. This
condition makes Unilever’s products more attractive than substitutes, thereby further
weakening the intensity of the threat of substitution. This section of Unilever’s Five Forces
analysis shows that the threat of substitutes is a minor issue in the business.

Threat of New Entrants or New Entry (Weak Force)

Unilever competes with established firms as well as new firms in the consumer goods
market. This section of the Five Forces analysis considers the influence of new firms on the
industry environment. The following external factors create the weak force of the threat of
new entrants against Unilever:
• Low switching costs (strong force)
• High cost of brand development (weak force)
• High economies of scale (weak force)

The low switching costs enable new entrants to impose a strong force against Unilever. For
example, consumers can easily decide to try new products from new firms. However, it is
costly to build strong brands like Unilever’s. This external factor weakens the intensity of the
threat of new entrants against the company. Also, Unilever takes advantage of high
economies of scale, which support competitive pricing and high organizational efficiencies
that new firms typically lack. As a result, the company remains strong despite new entrants.
Based on this section of the Five Forces analysis, the threat of new entry is a minor
concern in Unilever’s industry environment.

Unilever’s Five Forces Analysis – Summary &

Recommendations
Summary. Unilever deals with a wide variety of external factors, considering the extent of
its operations in the global consumer goods market. However, as shown in this Five Forces
analysis, such external factors lead to variations in the intensities of the five forces
impacting the business. The following are the intensities of the five forces in affecting
Unilever:
1. Competitive rivalry or competition (strong force)
2. Bargaining power of buyers or customers (strong force)
3. Bargaining power of suppliers (moderate force)
4. Threat of substitutes or substitution (weak force)
5. Threat of new entrants or new entry (weak force)

Recommendations. This Porter’s Five Forces analysis highlights competitive rivalry and
the bargaining power of buyers as the issues with the highest intensity in affecting
Unilever’s business. The bargaining power of suppliers is also important but has limited
impact on the company. The threats of substitutes and new entry have minimal effect on
Unilever and the consumer goods industry environment. In this regard, strategic action
must prioritize competition and the bargaining power of customers. A recommendation is for
Unilever to further build its competitive advantage through product innovation. For example,
the company can increase its investment to produce better and more competitive variants
of its current personal care and home care products. This effort should reflect Unilever’s
generic strategy and intensive growth strategies, which emphasize product uniqueness as a
strategic approach. It is also recommended that the company must enhance its customer
relations to attract and retain more consumers. For example, in applying Unilever’s
organizational culture of performance on customer relations processes, higher quality
request and complaint processing can improve consumers’ perception on the company and
its brands. The company has the strengths needed to strategically address these issues
(Read: Unilever’s SWOT Analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats).

References

• Dobbs, M. (2014). Guidelines for applying Porter’s five forces framework: a set of industry
analysis templates. Competitiveness Review, 24(1), 32-45.
• Grundy, T. (2006). Rethinking and reinventing Michael Porter’s five forces model. Strategic
Change, 15(5), 213-229.
• Roy, D. (2011). Strategic Foresight and Porter’s Five Forces. GRIN Verlag.
• U.S. Department of Commerce – The Consumer Goods Industry in the United States – Select
USA.
• Unilever – Investor Relations – Annual Reports and Accounts Overview.
Unilever: SWOT Analysis & Recommendations
UPDATED ON FEBRUARY 21, 2017 BY DANIEL KISSINGER

A shelf in Kaufland supermarket in Ceska Lipa, the Czech

Republic displays products sold as Axe, one of Unilever’s
brands. (Photo: Public Domain)
A SWOT analysis of Unilever indicates diversification as a way
to grow the consumer goods business.

Unilever is a leading consumer goods business in the global market. A SWOT analysis of
the company highlights business strengths that ensure long-term success. The SWOT
Analysis model identifies the relevant strengths and weaknesses (internal strategic factors)
and the opportunities and threats (external strategic factors). Unilever’s SWOT analysis
shows significant opportunities that the company can use for further international growth
and expansion. The business is in a strong position to withstand the threats in its external
environment. However, Unilever must consider all of the factors outlined in this SWOT
analysis to guide strategic formulation for global operations.

A SWOT analysis of Unilever depicts the conditions of the business, as well as its external
environment. Strategies based on business strengths and market opportunities can boost
Unilever’s performance in the long term.

Unilever’s Strengths (Internal Strategic Factors)

Unilever’s organizational and business strengths are identified in this section of the SWOT
analysis. Strengths are internal strategic factors based on the company’s conditions, such
as human resources, production processes, organizational structure and investments. The
following strengths are significant in Unilever’s consumer goods business:
1. Strong brands
2. Broad product mix
3. Economies of scale
4. Strong global market presence

Unilever has some of the strongest brands in the consumer goods industry. This strength
enables the company to penetrate markets and effectively compete against other firms. The
broad product mix shows the extent of Unilever’s business growth. For example, the
company has increased its product portfolio through years of mergers and acquisitions,
leading to organizational growth and corresponding increases in revenues. On the other
hand, economies of scale support production efficiency necessary for competitive pricing
strategies, as shown in Unilever’s marketing mix. Through years of international expansion,
the company has also increased its market presence, which is a strength that reinforces
brand popularity. The internal strategic factors in this section of Unilever’s SWOT analysis
show strengths that the company can use to sustain global growth and success in the
consumer goods market.

Unilever’s Weaknesses (Internal Strategic Factors)

Despite its strong market position, Unilever has weaknesses that limit its potential growth.
This section of the SWOT analysis presents the internal strategic factors that impose
barriers to organizational and business development. Unilever must address the following
weaknesses:
1. Imitable products
2. Limited business diversification
3. Dependence on retailers

One of Unilever’s weaknesses is the imitable nature of its products. For example, even
though the company heavily invests in its product development processes, other firms can
imitate Dove and Rexona products. Also, in spite of its broad product mix, Unilever is weak
because of limited diversification in businesses outside the consumer goods industry.
Moreover, the company lacks direct strong influence on consumers, considering that
retailers are the ones who directly affect buyers. Thus, based on the internal strategic
factors in this section of the SWOT analysis of Unilever, the weaknesses emphasize the
importance of diversification, innovation, and enhanced marketing efforts.

Opportunities for Unilever (External Strategic Factors)

Unilever must take advantage of growth opportunities in consumer goods markets around
the world. This section of the SWOT analysis determines such opportunities or external
strategic factors that can facilitate business development. The following opportunities are
significant in Unilever’s external environment:
1. Business diversification
2. Product innovation for health
3. Business enhancement for environmental conservation
4. Market development

Unilever has opportunities to diversify by entering businesses outside the consumer goods
industry. Diversification reduces market-based risks and improves business resilience. On
the other hand, product innovation can increase Unilever’s product attractiveness by
addressing the needs of increasingly health-conscious consumers. Similarly, the company
has an opportunity to make its business more sustainable and environmentally friendly to
attract and retain environmentally conscious consumers. In addition, market development
can grow Unilever’s business by increasing revenues from the sale of its current products in
new market segments. For example, the company can market its Lipton products as health
drinks for consumers with special diets. The external strategic factors in this section of
Unilever’s SWOT analysis point to major opportunities to grow the business despite its
weaknesses.
Threats Facing Unilever (External Strategic Factors)
A variety of external factors can limit or reduce Unilever’s business performance. The
SWOT Analysis model considers these external factors as threats that the company must
strategically tackle. The following are the threats relevant to Unilever’s consumer goods
business:
1. Tough competitive rivalry
2. Product imitation
3. Increasing popularity of retailers’ house brands

Unilever faces tough competition, which is a threat based on the strengths of other firms in
the industry. Competitors threaten to reduce the company’s market share and
corresponding financial performance. Product imitation is also a major threat against
Unilever. For example, local firms can develop products highly similar to Unilever’s. Also,
retailers impose a threat by selling their own brands. These brands are known as house
brands, store brands or generic brands. For example, Costco uses Kirkland Signature as a
house brand, and Walmart has its own house brands that directly compete against
Unilever’s products. Based on the external strategic factors in this section of the SWOT
analysis of Unilever, strategies must focus on improving the company’s competitive
advantage.

Unilever’s SWOT Analysis – Summary & Recommendations

This SWOT analysis of Unilever highlights a number of internal and external strategic
factors that managers must include in strategy development. For example, the weaknesses
of limited business diversification and imitable nature of products are significant because
they influence business stability and performance. In this regard, a recommendation is to
diversify Unilever’s business through acquisition of related firms not in the consumer goods
industry. Also, Unilever needs to consider product innovation as an opportunity to boost
business performance. It is recommended that the company must use its strengths, such as
economies of scale, for product innovation to address competition and the threat of
imitation.

References

• Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational
diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29(6), 801-830.
• Leigh, D., & Pershing, A. J. (2006). SWOT analysis. The Handbook of Human Performance
Technology, 1089-1108.
• Nikolaou, E. I., Ierapetritis, D., & Tsagarakis, K. P. (2011). An evaluation of the prospects of
green entrepreneurship development using a SWOT analysis. International Journal of
Sustainable Development & World Ecology,18(1), 1-16.
• U.S. Department of Commerce – The Consumer Goods Industry in the United States. Select
USA.
• Unilever – Investor Relations – Annual Reports and Accounts Overview.
• Valentin, E. K. (2001). SWOT analysis from a resource-based view. Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, 54-69.
Unilever: Generic Competitive Strategy & Intensive
Growth Strategies
UPDATED ON FEBRUARY 21, 2017 BY JUSTIN YOUNG

Products sold as Rexona, one of Unilever’s brands.

(Photo: Public Domain)
Unilever’s generic strategy (Porter’s model) and intensive
growth strategies maintain the company’s competitive
advantage in the consumer goods industry.

Unilever’s generic strategy (based on Michael Porter’s model) builds competitive advantage
by satisfying consumers’ specific needs and preferences. In Porter’s model, generic
strategies are used to ensure organizational competitiveness necessary for business
growth and resilience. In the case of Unilever, competitive advantage is based on product
development approaches that integrate research to address market needs. In addition, the
company maintains growth through a suitable combination of intensive strategies. Unilever
shifts the prioritization of its intensive growth strategies based on the condition of the
consumer goods market. The overall combination of such generic competitive strategy and
intensive growth strategies ensure Unilever’s continuing success in its global operations.

Using a generic strategy (Porter’s model) that directly addresses market needs, Unilever
maintains competitive advantage in the global consumer goods industry. Such competitive
advantage also enables Unilever to apply intensive growth strategies that match business
needs, thereby supporting growth.

Unilever’s Generic Strategy (Porter’s Model)

Unilever uses broad differentiation as its generic strategy for competitive advantage. The
main focus of this generic strategy is its emphasis on features or characteristics that make
the company’s products stand out against competitors. For example, Unilever produces
personal care products like Dove Cream Bars to satisfy consumers’ need for soaps that are
not harsh or drying. Despite their relatively high selling prices, such Unilever products are
competitive because they stand out from a majority of soaps that focus more on cleaning
than moisturizing. In this strategy, the company attracts customers to specially designed
products. Thus, such a generic strategy aligns with Unilever’s vision statement and mission
statement, which aim to support global sustainability and to increase vitality in consumers’
lives, respectively.
A strategic objective based on the differentiation generic competitive strategy is to grow
Unilever through intensive efforts in product development. This objective focuses on
developing products that stand out from the competition and attract customers. On the
other hand, a financial objective linked to the generic strategy is to grow Unilever’s
revenues in developing countries, which offer high growth opportunities. These
opportunities are identified in the PESTEL Analysis of Unilever. The combination of these
strategic objectives leads to competitive advantage reflected through products and a strong
financial performance in the consumer goods market.

Unilever’s Intensive Strategies (Intensive Growth Strategies)

Market Penetration (Primary Strategy). Unilever applies market penetration as its primary
intensive growth strategy. In this intensive strategy, the company increases its sales volume
to improve revenues and corresponding business growth. For example, in the home care
market, Unilever aggressively sells its products in current markets, such as the United
States and Canada. Such aggressive efforts increase the company’s ability to capture
customers away from competing home care firms. Unilever successfully applies this
intensive strategy by using the generic strategy of differentiation to make its products more
competitive and attractive than others. A strategic objective linked to this intensive strategy
is to grow the business through aggressively marketing Unilever products in the global
consumer goods market.

Product Development (Secondary Strategy). Product development functions as a

secondary intensive strategy that Unilever uses for business growth. The company applies
this intensive growth strategy by introducing new products that address consumers’ needs.
For example, entirely new or new versions of Unilever’s personal care products are
released over time to maintain or increase the company’s market share. This intensive
growth strategy is in line with the company’s differentiation generic strategy for competitive
advantage in the consumer goods industry. For instance, differentiation requires product
uniqueness, which is applied in Unilever’s product development processes. This intensive
strategy leads to the strategic objective of growing the company through continuous product
innovation. Such innovation improves the product mix in Unilever’s marketing mix.

Diversification (Supporting Strategy). Unilever uses diversification as a supporting

intensive growth strategy. This intensive strategy focuses on establishing new businesses
to grow the company. For example, to achieve diversification, Unilever acquires other
businesses over time, such as the acquisition of the personal care business of Sara Lee
Corporation in 2009-2010. The generic competitive strategy of differentiation supports this
intensive growth strategy by ensuring that Unilever’s acquired brands offer unique features
that attract target consumers. A strategic objective connected to this intensive strategy is to
achieve growth by continuing the company’s trend of mergers and acquisitions. Such trend
strengthens Unilever’s reach in the global consumer goods industry.

Market Development (Supporting Strategy). Market development is used as a supporting

intensive growth strategy in Unilever’s business. In this intensive strategy, the company
grows by entering new markets or market segments. For example, Unilever can grow by
marketing its current products as a new solution to unaddressed needs in certain market
segments, such as infant care needs. However, the company already has significant
presence in practically every consumer goods market segment worldwide. Thus, this
intensive growth strategy takes only a supporting role in Unilever’s business. The generic
strategy of differentiation supports this intensive strategy by creating competitive
advantage, based on product uniqueness necessary to successfully enter new market
segments. A strategic objective based on market development is to grow Unilever by
implementing marketing campaigns that highlight other potential benefits of its current
products.

References

• Dess, G. G., & Davis, P. S. (1984). Porter’s (1980) generic strategies as determinants of
strategic group membership and organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal,
27(3), 467-488.
• Glazer, R. (1999). Competitive Advantage Through Information-Intensive Strategies. Handbook
of Services Marketing and Management, 409.
• Merchant, H. (2014). Configurations of governance structure, generic strategy, and firm size.
Global Strategy Journal, 4(4), 292-309.
• Parnell, J. A. (1997). New evidence in the generic strategy and business performance debate: A
research note. British Journal of Management, 8(2), 175-181.
• Spry, A., & Lukas, B. A. (2016). Brand Portfolio Architecture and Firm Performance: The
Moderating Impact of Generic Strategy. In Looking Forward, Looking Back: Drawing on the Past
to Shape the Future of Marketing (pp. 866-867). Springer International Publishing.
• Unilever – Investor Relations – Annual Reports and Accounts Overview.
• Varadarajan, P., & Dillon, W. R. (1982). Intensive growth strategies: A closer examination.
Journal of Business Research, 10(4), 503-522.
Unilever: Organizational Culture Characteristics,
Analysis & Recommendations
UPDATED ON MARCH 25, 2017 BY LAWRENCE GREGORY

Headquarters of Unilever Holland. (Photo: Public Domain)

Unilever’s organizational culture of performance is supported
through leadership and HR practices for optimal integrity of the
consumer goods business.

Unilever is one of the largest consumer goods firms in the global economy. The progress of
this company is linked to its organizational culture and the kinds of activities and policies
leaders have implemented over time. Organizational culture, leadership and the human
resources of a firm are all interrelated. Unilever is an integrated global firm. Any change in
one area leads to changes or developments in other areas. The characteristics of these
components also affect each other and the rest of the organization of Unilever. The
company is successful because of the overall effectiveness of its leaders in supporting
improvements in the organizational culture. Unilever’s corporate culture contributes to
improvements in other areas, such as production and human resources.

Unilever’s organizational culture supports high performance of human resources. The

effects of this corporate culture are reflected on the company’s stable performance in the
consumer goods industry.

Unilever’s Organizational Culture Type & Features

Unilever has an organizational culture of performance, which emphasizes the significance
of employee output. This corporate culture also points to the importance of criteria or
measures used to determine required output and adequacy of output. Unilever’s
organizational culture of performance has the following characteristics:
1. Focus on performance – individual performance and organizational performance
2. Focus on quality – quality of output in all areas
3. Efficiency – efficient work through technology and other tools

Unilever’s organizational culture is focused on performance and quality. This corporate

culture is observable in the long history of the company. The business has grown from a
small firm to a global powerhouse. Such success is significantly based on the ability of
Unilever’s organizational culture to instill high performance and quality in employees’ work
ethic to maximize business output. For example, because of high quality, the company’s
consumer goods remain competitive in the global market despite tough competition. This
emphasis on quality is also a reflection of the emphasis on product effectiveness in the
firm’s mission statement (Read: Unilever’s Vision Statement and Mission Statement).
Unilever has also mastered efficiency through technology and innovation in its internal
business processes, including human resource development.

Leadership’s Role in Unilever’s Organizational Culture

Unilever’s success is partly based on the ability of leaders to support a culture of
performance and quality. For example, the firm’s leaders use market-based and results-
based approaches to manage the business and drive performance higher. Market-based
management uses market data to make changes in management tactics. On the other
hand, results-based management focuses on the achievement of desired outcomes. These
tactics facilitate human resource productivity and organizational performance in the
consumer goods business. Thus, Unilever’s leadership and managerial approaches are a
factor that maintains the company’s organizational culture.

Unilever’s leadership-based approaches support the integrity of corporate culture

implementation, especially in mergers and acquisitions. Integrity is important in mergers
and acquisitions, where human resource integration is needed for successful organizational
merging. For example, Unilever applies results-based management to implement its
organizational culture throughout the newly merged organization. In this way, the
company’s leadership supports integrity for the continuity of the organizational culture of
performance and quality even after mergers and acquisitions.

Organizational Culture, Leadership, & Human Resource

Structures & Practices
Leadership reinforces the development of the organizational culture of Unilever. This
organizational culture affects human resource structures and practices. Unilever reinforces
the corporate culture of performance and quality through leaders’ regular monitoring and
evaluations, as well as commitment and support. For example, the results of evaluations
are used for guiding HR practices that reinforce Unilever’s organizational culture of
performance and quality. Employees’ needs are identified and integrated in HR program
enhancements. Through this cultural reinforcement, the company instills quality as a
defining factor in employees’ performance and productivity.

Unilever’s Organizational Culture – Evaluation &

Recommendations
Unilever’s culture is a culture of performance. The different components of the business are
focused on improving financial performance and quality of products. Through effective
leadership, individual performance is supported. Through collaborative efforts of leaders
from different departments, the firm also ensures an organizational culture of performance.
Thus, this culture of performance is manifested at the individual and organizational levels in
Unilever’s consumer goods business.

Unilever’s organizational culture has room for further improvement. A recommendation is to

improve policies to accommodate diversity. Higher diversity is inevitable in global business,
and the company must take advantage of it. Also, Unilever can implement improvements in
information technologies. For example, these technologies can support workers in all areas
through advanced tools for market research, customer relations and internal
communications. These improvements can help strengthen the firm’s organizational culture
of performance.

References

• Chow, I. H. S. (2012). The roles of implementation and organizational culture in the HR-
performance link. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(15), 3114-
3132.
• Jackson, T. A., Meyer, J. P., & Wang, X. H. F. (2013). Leadership, Commitment, and Culture A
Meta-Analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(1), 84-106.
• Jones, G. (2005, Nov. 28). Unilever: Transformation and Tradition. Harvard Business School.
• Ou, A. Y., Hartnell, C. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Karam, E. P. (2013, January). A Meta-Analytic Path
Analysis of Leadership, Organizational Culture, and Unit Performance. In Academy of
Management Proceedings (Vol. 2013, No. 1, p. 10037). Academy of Management.
• Ulrich, D. (2014). The future targets or outcomes of HR work: individuals, organizations and
leadership. Human Resource Development International, 17(1), 1-9.
• Unilever – Our leadership.
• U.S. Department of Commerce – The Consumer Goods Industry in the United States. Select
USA.
Unilever: Organizational Structure Characteristics,
Analysis & Recommendations
UPDATED ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2018 BY JUSTIN YOUNG

The Unilever building and Marco Polo tower in HafenCity,

Hamburg, Germany in 2011. (Photo: Public Domain)
Unilever’s organizational structure facilitates product innovation
for competitiveness in the consumer goods industry..

Unilever’s corporate structure is responsible for ensuring adequate support for product
innovation in the firm’s global business. A company’s organizational structure or corporate
structure is the design that defines the arrangement and systems used to build and
interconnect various organizational components, such as offices and teams. Unilever’s
organizational structure adapts to changes in the consumer goods industry and global
market. At present, the company maintains a structure that addresses corporate needs in
terms of managing product types across the world. As a leading consumer goods firm,
Unilever has an organizational structure that suitably supports diversified global operations.

With an organizational structure that enables effective product development, Unilever

continues its position as one of the biggest consumer goods companies in the world. Such
organizational structural design ensures Unilever’s continuing success despite the
complexity of its global operations.

Unilever’s Organizational Structure Type & Features

Unilever has a product type divisional organizational structure. The organization is
divided into components based on their product focus. For example, the company has a
division for personal care products and another division for home care products. The
following are the main characteristics of Unilever’s organizational structure:
1. Product type divisions (most significant feature)
2. Corporate executive teams
3. Geographic divisions (least significant feature)

Product Type Divisions. A product type division functions as a unit that enables Unilever
to manage the development, manufacturing, distribution and sale of its consumer goods.
For example, corporate managers use this feature of the organizational structure to match
markets needs with appropriate products. An advantage of this structural characteristic is its
facilitation of the company’s efforts to apply product differentiation, which is Unilever’s
generic strategy for competitive advantage. This corporate structure is beneficial, especially
because the company already has a diverse portfolio of products. Unilever maintains the
following product type divisions in its organizational structure:
1. Personal Care
2. Foods
3. Home Care
4. Refreshment

Corporate Executive Teams. Corporate teams are a secondary characteristic of Unilever’s

organizational structure. This structural feature is based on business functions. For
example, Unilever has a team for finance and another team for marketing communications.
These teams make up the Unilever Leadership Executive (ULE) group. The following are
the corporate executive teams in Unilever’s organizational structure:
1. Chief Executive
2. Human Resources
3. Research & Development
4. Supply Chain
5. Refreshment
6. Personal Care
7. North America
8. Home Care
9. Finance
10. Legal
11. Foods
12. Marketing & Communications
13. Europe

Geographic Divisions. Geographic divisions are a minor feature of Unilever’s

organizational structure. The company uses this structural characteristic to support regional
strategies. For example, Unilever’s marketing strategies for Europe are different from
strategies applied for Asian consumer goods markets. Also, this corporate structure feature
is used to analyze the company’s financial performance. The following geographic divisions
are maintained in Unilever’s organizational structure:
1. Asia/AMET/RUB (Africa, Middle East, Turkey; Russia, Ukraine, Belarus)
2. The Americas
3. Europe

Unilever’s Organizational Structure – Advantages &

Disadvantages, Recommendations
An advantage of Unilever’s organizational structure is its support for product development
and innovation. For example, each product type division has its semi-autonomous
capabilities to develop products that directly suit the needs in consumer goods market
segments. This corporate structure is also advantageous because it enables Unilever to
differentiate its products despite the large size of its global operations.

A disadvantage of Unilever’s organizational structure is its minimal support for regional

strategic implementation. Even though geographic divisions are one of its structural
features, the company focuses more on product type divisions. As a result, there is limited
support for market-specific or regional strategic reforms. Thus, to improve this
organizational structure, a recommendation is that Unilever must increase its emphasis on
geographic divisions to empower regional managerial teams. Such structural change
improves strategic effectiveness in regional consumer goods markets.

References

• Gaba, V., & Joseph, J. (2013). Corporate structure and performance feedback: Aspirations and
adaptation in M-form firms. Organization Science, 24(4), 1102-1119.
• Liao, C., Chuang, S. H., & To, P. L. (2011). How knowledge management mediates the
relationship between environment and organizational structure. Journal of Business Research,
64(7), 728-736.
• Markides, C. C., & Williamson, P. J. (1996). Corporate diversification and organizational
structure: A resource-based view. Academy of Management journal, 39(2), 340-367.
• Martin, R., Muuls, M., de Preux, L. B., & Wagner, U. J. (2012). Anatomy of a paradox:
Management practices, organizational structure and energy efficiency. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management, 63(2), 208-223.
• Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2010). Development and return on execution of product innovation
capabilities: The role of organizational structure. Industrial marketing management, 39(5), 820-
831.
• Tang, F., Mu, J., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2010). Disseminative capacity, organizational structure
and knowledge transfer. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(2), 1586-1593.
• Unilever – Investor Relations – Annual Reports and Accounts Overview.
Unilever: Operations Management, 10 Decisions,
Productivity
UPDATED ON FEBRUARY 21, 2017 BY ANDREW THOMPSON

Unilever produces Magnum ice cream under the

Heartbrand product line. (Photo: Public Domain)
Unilever’s operations management considers the 10 strategic
decisions for optimal productivity in all areas of the consumer
goods business.

Unilever’s operations management (OM) is responsible for keeping high productivity

throughout the global organization of the consumer goods business. Operations managers
develop procedures and processes to support the organization in achieving higher
performance in the 10 strategic decisions pertaining to operations and productivity.
Unilever’s operational performance directly supports financial performance. Thus, it is
essential for the company’s operations management to address concerns in these strategic
decision areas to maintain high productivity. As a leading consumer goods firm, Unilever
has evolving operations management approaches to keep the business highly productive.

In the 10 strategic decision areas of operations management, Unilever focuses on high

productivity through effectiveness and efficiency in business processes. The resulting high
performance ensures Unilever’s long-term success in the global consumer goods market.

Unilever’s Operations Management, 10 Decision Areas

1. Design of Goods and Services. The objective in this strategic decision area is to
develop products that suit the organization. Unilever’s operations management attends to
product development issues and challenges. Success is achieved through continuous
innovation to address consumer expectations. In Unilever’s marketing mix, the high variety
of consumer goods creates a complex set of needs for this decision area. For example, the
company must maintain high productivity in developing new variants of soaps and lotions,
while keeping beverage development highly productive. Operational requirements are
based on these productivity and process needs to support the development and production
of Unilever’s consumer goods. Operations managers at Unilever ensure design for effective
output levels. These output levels correspond to market demand and organizational
capacity.

2. Quality Management. In this strategic decision area, operations managers deal with
satisfying consumers’ expectations on product quality. Unilever’s approach involves
implementing quality standards in operational processes to satisfy product quality
requirements. For example, the company applies a threshold for defects and related issues
in production operations. These operations management standards are derived from
Unilever’s market research data, as well as conventions in the consumer goods industry. To
maintain high productivity in quality management, corporate standards and local standards
are applied for certain product lines to support the company’s generic and product
development strategies (Read: Unilever’s Generic Strategies & Intensive Growth
Strategies).

3. Process and Capacity Design. The objective of operations management in this

strategic decision area is to ensure adequate resources and develop processes to support
production. Unilever applies robotics and automation in most of the production processes
under its control. This approach maximizes operational efficiency and productivity. For
example, Unilever’s automation of the production of its home care products prevents
inconsistency in quality. Operations managers can also adjust production capacity to
address fluctuations in demand based on seasons and special occasions. Moreover,
Unilever conducts regular evaluations of processes and capacity requirements to keep the
business productive, while minimizing issues in operations.

4. Location Strategy. Efficiency and cost-effectiveness of locations of operations are the

objectives in this strategic decision area of operations management. Unilever aims to
minimize production costs and transport costs of its consumer goods to reach target
markets. The company’s operations managers maintain facility locations that optimize
proximity to labor markets, suppliers, and target consumers. For example, Unilever’s
production hubs are typically proximal to the largest consumer goods markets. The
company also avoids locations that have political and cultural issues that adversely affect
operational productivity. This approach contributes to keeping Unilever’s business
processes productive.

5. Layout Design and Strategy. Efficient movement of information and resources is the
operations management objective in this strategic decision area. Efficient flow of
information is achieved through computing technologies and networks in Unilever’s
facilities. For example, operations managers easily access pertinent data through mobile
and online consoles. Such data is applied to decide on business process adjustments to
ensure productivity in Unilever’s facilities. Also, the company’s operational requirements are
the direct basis for layout designs. For instance, Unilever maintains productive inventory
operations through aisle layouts that minimize the travel distance of consumer goods
across distribution facilities.

6. Job Design and Human Resources. This strategic decision area of operations
management considers the sufficiency of human resources to support business operations.
Operational efforts in this area support Unilever’s organizational culture of performance. For
example, operations managers ensure job design and corporate culture alignment to
support productivity and business performance. In this organizational aspect, Unilever’s
operations management directly influences human resource capacity and the financial
performance of the consumer goods business.

7. Supply Chain Management. In this strategic decision area, operations managers must
ensure that the supply chain supports business strategies. Unilever’s consumer goods
supply chain is extensively automated. The company’s operations management approach
leads to high productivity. For example, managers focus on decisions based on supply and
demand variations in Unilever’s target markets. Minimal managerial time is consumed in
addressing information flow for parties involved in the supply chain because online
databases enable easy access to pertinent supply chain operations data. Also, operational
efficiency of Unilever’s supply chain is maintained through regular monitoring and proactive
problem solving. The resulting productive supply chain supports business performance and
adds to the company’s strengths (Read: Unilever’s SWOT Analysis: Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats).

8. Inventory Management. Optimal inventory ordering and holding are the objectives in
this strategic decision area of operations management. Unilever is concerned with
maintaining an adequate inventory of consumer goods to enable the business to respond to
changes in the market. For example, the company’s inventory size is sufficient to address
sharp increases in demand. Thus, operations managers must accurately determine how
much materials and consumer goods are needed in Unilever’s inventory. These amounts
must sufficiently support the company’s productivity goals in its operations. To do so,
Unilever applies the perpetual method and periodic method of inventory management. In
addition, operational goals for the inventory are met through just-in-time (JIT) inventory
management. JIT minimizes holding time and corresponding costs in Unilever’s inventory
operations.

9. Scheduling. This strategic decision area focuses on short-term and intermediate

schedules for resource utilization. For human resources, Unilever relies on localized
operations management to address needs in local or regional consumer goods markets.
For example, regional operations managers implement and adjust schedules based on
regional market conditions. This approach makes Unilever’s operations flexible in satisfying
target consumers. The flexibility also contributes to high operational productivity.

10. Maintenance. Operations managers aim at high reliability and stability of business
processes in this strategic decision area. Unilever maintains redundancy measures to
ensure process capacity when demand suddenly peaks. Also, the company’s operations
management involves a flexible scheme that allows some degree of organizational
movement of personnel within facilities. For example, Unilever assigns designated
personnel to other areas for sufficient capacity and productivity when demand fluctuates in
the consumer goods market. In addition, operational issues are proactively addressed
through regular monitoring, evaluation and problem solving. For instance, Unilever has
dedicated teams that analyze business processes to preventively implement solutions that
keep operations highly productive.

Productivity at Unilever
The productivity of Unilever’s operations is evaluated using a number of criteria or
measures. With a global consumer goods organization and a diversified product mix, a wide
variety of these measures are used to support operations management decisions. The
following are some notable productivity criteria used at Unilever:
1. Batches shipped (Distribution facility productivity)
2. Units produced (Manufacturing productivity)
3. Inquiries addressed (Unilever’s consumer advisory service productivity)
References

• Liu, S., & Jiang, M. (2011). Providing Efficient Decision Support for Green Operations
Management: An Integrated Perspective. INTECH.
• Najdawi, M. K., Chung, Q. B., & Salaheldin, S. I. (2008). Expert systems for strategic planning in
operations management: a framework for executive decisions. International Journal of
Management and Decision Making, 9(3), 310-327.
• Schrunder, C. P., Galletly, J. E., & Bicheno, J. R. (1994). A fuzzy, knowledge‐based decision
support tool for production operations management. Expert Systems, 11(1), 3-11.
• Unilever – Investor Relations – Annual Reports and Accounts Overview.
• Verdaasdonk, P., & Wouters, M. (2001). A generic accounting model to support operations
management decisions. Production Planning & Control, 12(6), 605-620.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

This article may not be reproduced, distributed, or mirrored without written permission from
Panmore Institute and its author/s. Copyright by Panmore Institute - All rights reserved.
Small parts of this article may be quoted or paraphrased for research purposes, as long as
the article is properly cited and referenced together with its URL/link.