Unilever’s Strategy
Any organization, whether profit-oriented or charitable, must proactively define, design and develop its strategy or model of operation for current and future needs. A working strategy assists organizations to make credible decisions on the way they apportion their resources, pursue their objectives, and relate with the outside environment (Blazey, 2008, p. 8).
Unilever’s strategy revolves around producing products that people will identify with for profitability reasons, while working with communities on the ground to promote good health and better life under the banner of Corporate Social Responsibility (Crawford & Smith, 2008, p. 3)
One of the principle tenets of Unilever’s business strategy is the capacity to localize its operations while still remaining internationally recognized. Whereas other MNC’s have been deceived by the desire to make more profits, Unilever business model appear to be designed along three interrelated axis – performance, community concerns, and employees.
It is the duty of any company, however small, to plough back some profits to its shareholders, and Unilever does well on that front judging by the estimates given. It also scores highly on CSR activities in line with the philosophy of its founder, William Hesketh, that the company must assist individuals using their products to live a decent, rewarding life (Crawford & Smith, 2008, p. 3-4). Many other MNC’s are unable to plough back some of their gains to society in an attempt to reduce poverty.
Unilever also caries the welfare of its employees at heart by offering them good working conditions and rewarding their hard work. Through the sale of products that are tailored to meet the needs of local populations, Unilever actively knows that “its success depends on the economic health of countries in which it operates” (Crawford & Smith, 2008, p. 3). That is its business model.
Unilever’s Relationship with Oxfam
In the case, it is evidently clear there exist a stormy relationship between NGO’s and MNC’s, with the humanitarian organizations accusing multinationals of exploiting the poor thorough offering low wages and predatory pricing of their products, and the multinationals hitting back accusing the NGO’s of being stooges out to gain international recognition, and hence more funding (Crawford & Smith, 2008, p. 5).
However, Oxfam, an international NGO, is categorical that some TNC’s that exercise best practices in dealing with the local populations and environmental concerns could actually be exploited to spur socioeconomic growth and stability. Unilever happens to be one of such organizations judging from its philosophy, missions and values.
It therefore follows that although Unilever and Oxfam are ideologically divergent in terms of their missions and purposes of operations, both are involved in safeguarding the interests of the poor – Unilever through CSR programs and Oxfam through advocacy and training programs. The convergence arises from the fact that both organizations are passionately engaged in community activities aimed at reducing poverty, the major bottleneck towards individual development and wellbeing.
What are the Key Learning’s?
The case presents major lessons for professionals and organizations interested in CSR and advocacy work at the community level. From the case, it is clear that most MNC’s conduct their businesses in Least Developed Countries (LCDs) with no regard to the communities and environmental concerns of their areas of operations.
However, “in theory, TNC’s have the potential to offer valuable assets that developing countries need: capital; technology; a skills and knowledge base; managerial experience and access to markets” (Crawford & Smith, 2008, p. 5). Another key learning is that the urgency and prevalence of poverty and inequality in many third world countries must be tackled through a radical shift in the policies and practices of institutions that are viewed to exacerbate poverty in the communities.
Instead of giving the poor relief food and other handouts in the hope that the problem will soon be over, they should be taught how to fish by first doing away with provisions of policies and practices that exploits the most vulnerable in society. The poor should then be given the resources required to sustain their own livelihoods (Crawford & Smith, 2008, p. 8).
Forth, the case enlightens readers on how the NGO’s could partner with the private sector to further their agenda of catering for the needs of the poor and the marginalized in society (Crawford & Smith, 2008, p. 10). Indeed, this is a viable prerequisite if duplication of projects and activities aimed at helping the poor at the community level is to be avoided.
Such an alignment and pulling together of resources is what Unilever’s calls “proactive Stakeholder engagement strategy” (p.11). Individuals and organizations need to work together if they share the same values for purposes of realizing shared dreams.
Reference List
Blazey, M.L. (2008). Insights to performance excellence 2008: An inside look at the 2008 Baldridge Award Criteria. American society for quality. ISBN: 9780873897280
Crawford, R.J., & Smith, N.C. (2008). Unilever and Oxfam: Understanding the Needs of business on poverty. INSEAD-EABIS