You know how I feel about corporations and their commitment to shareholders, employees, and communities. Well, this is a warning how one company that’s been trying to do all the right things may be subject to a plundering.

What company am I discussing? Unilever. The $ 170 billion dollar international conglomerate. The company that brought us bar soap and margarine. Offering items from Ben & Jerry’s to Axe to Dove to Hellman’s (among a treasure trove of other items), it touches some 2.5 billion people every day- while it works to make its products in environmentally friendly and sustainable ways.

No, it’s not a “B” company.   But, Unilever focuses its actions on the consumer and not the shareholder, according to their documents. (More on this later.) And, since Paul Polman was marginalized at Nestle (and, therefore, jumped ship to Unilever), he stopped providing “expected next quarter figures” to stock analysts- because he wants to stay focused on the long-term profitability and returns for this behemoth. He also eschews the term “corporate social responsibility” because it is often empty words. Instead, he expects folks to watch the firms’ actions and recognize the value of its efforts.

Raw material choices have been shifted to environmentally sustainable materials, aiming for emerging markets. Energy use (per ton of products) has dropped 25% since 2008. (Hello, stock analysts? That means $ 472 million lowered costs.) Water usage has dropped more- with similar cost reductions. Unilever cut its solid waste disposal to almost zero at some 600 factories and offices- and that saves some $ 200 billion. In the meantime, share prices have about doubled in the last five years, and dividends have been respectable (about $ 1.25 a share a year).

Of course, the hedge funds are not fans of this type of corporate governance. And, Polman swears that’s his goal. Don’t forget, most consumer products companies are selling the exact same thing- just with different labels. Almost every detergent, for example, is the same- it’s marketing that makes the difference in their sales.

All of which is why 3G Capital , the conglomerate working in concert with Berkshire Hathaway  in their ownership of Kraft Heinz, that has been rustling up support to take over Unilever. Of course, the takeover will require the accumulation of significant debt. Which also means the slash and burn tactics for which 3G is known would be applied to Unilever. (The purchase price offered was $ 143 billion- less than annual turnover, but a significant multiple of net profits of the firm.)

And, Polman said no. He lined up significant allies to ensure that the shareholders would not become enamored with their promise of short term lucre, which would leave Unilever in somewhat of an economic pickle.

Let us not forget that the takeover of Kraft and Heinz by 3G involved lower budgets, austerity, an abrogation of corporate culture, and widespread layoffs. Like the termination of 11 of 12 of the execs at Heinz- all replaced with much younger (and cheaper) folks. (Age discrimination, anyone?)

I, for one, hope that Polman wins this battle. Leading the way for a return to corporate social responsibility, good employee relations, and reasonable compensation for all.

Share this: