Business Sustainability - Strategic Approaches towards Emergent Environment - Case Study Example

Sustainabiltiy in Business Name Class Unit Executive summary This report is based on a new position that has been advertised at Uniliver. As a manager at P&G with long term career prospects, working with Uniliver in the new position would help in achieving them due to the firm success in sustainable business. Uniliver has a competitive advantage due to the strides they have made in sustainable business. The report explains the reason for application on the basis of Uniliver attainment of integrated goals (economic, environmental, people and social), identification and management of capital based on the business model and strategic approaches towards the emergent environment. Working for sustainable business helps in attaining career growth prospects. Also, a sustainable firm such as Uniliver are ethical and has a better relationship with all stakeholders. As the report proves, the firm is able to do good for the community while at the same time making profits an area which P&G has not succeeded. The report concludes that application to Uniliver from P&G is a great move based on Uniliver sustainability record which will help in attaining long term career prospects. Table of Contents Executive summary 2 Table of Contents 3 Introduction 4 Applying to Uniliver 5 Integrated goals (economic, environmental, people and social) supporting sustainable 5 Identification and management of capitals in the business model 8 Strategic approaches towards emergent environments 10 Labour relations 11 Ethical supply chain, governance and culture 12 Conclusion 14 References 15 Introduction Uniliver and Procter and Gamble (P&G) have been putting a lot of efforts to attain a competitive advantage in the industry. The global largest Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) firms have been engaging in business rivalry as well as being friends for a long time. One of the areas of competition is attainment of sustainable competition and growth. About 40% of the employees at P&G have joined the firm through acquisitions. Of late, it has been possible for P&G to deliver above the expectations. Since the radical changes have been carried out at Uniliver, it has been possible for the firm to improve its market shares. These changes were brought about by Polman who was seen as a radical CEO. P&G sustainability has been based on its innovative strengths and has embraced open innovation (Leavy, 2013). The firm has been dropped from the Dow Jones sustainability index due to its less achievement in sustainability. Despite this, Uniliver is ahead in their sustainability strategy. They have been able to respond better to the society needs by addressing the multiple stakeholders, consumers, value chain, employees and shareholder needs (DiVito, 2015). As a manager at P&G thinking about long term career prospects, this report will look at the new advertised position at Uniliver which I have the relevant experience and competencies. The report will give reasons for my choice to apply based on comparative analysis of Uniliver and P&G on integrated goals, identification and management of capitals in the business model and finally strategic approaches towards emergent environment. Applying to Uniliver Uniliver offers the best work environment to meet the long term career prospects. To ensure that one is in a firm that will fulfil their future prospects, the firm must have a workable sustainability plan. P&G have been left behind by Uniliver on implementation of sustainable business in the FMCG sector. I would apply to work at Uniliver based on their ability to attain their integrated goals, sustainability, management of capitals and their strategic approaches towards emergent environment issues. Uniliver from the case study appears to have the ability to offer agile workplace compared to P&G. The organisation has the capability to offer the best work life balance compared to P&G. Uniliver has earned a good reputation due to their integrity in business operations and diverse working environment. The “no trade-off” approach by P&G makes them unattractive employer due to low support for sustainability in favour of profits (DiVito, 2015). Integrated goals (economic, environmental, people and social) supporting sustainable Uniliver is an outspoken advocate for sustainable business. This is coupled with their success in making sustainability an integral part of their business model (Laszlo & Zhexembayeva, 2011). The firm has proved that they work for the interests of the society not shareholders alone. Based on the analysis, it is clear that Uniliver is more sustainable. It has been able to embrace the three pillars of sustainability in a better way than P&G. This is environmental protection, social responsibility and economic development. According to P&G, they had to reset their sustainability goals since they proved to be too costly and complex in a global scale. In fact, technologically sustainable alternative have become costly since the drop of price of petroleum in USA which was associated with fracking. The firm claim that they want to pursue sustainability without trade-off is not applicable. This is due to fact that innovation strengths and collaboration alone cannot solve the current issues on sustainability. P&G is no longer in the Dow jones sustainability index and has been identified by Bloomberg as the second largest producer of the green gas emissions in the category of the consumer products. Despite innovation, it is clear that P&G is attaining less in sustainability compared to Uniliver. This makes it less favourable to work with compared to Uniliver which is highly sustainable (DiVito, 2015). The Uniliver ambitious and bold sustainability strategy Sustainable Living Plan (SLP) has the ability to push the firm as one of the most sustainable compared to P&G. In adopting, this is a plan that will ensure the firm is able to double their sales and have positive impact on the environment. This is through reduction of environment footprint, improving health and enhancing livelihoods (Lehtonen, 2004). Uniliver has been selected as the third best firm to work for due to their integrated sustainability model which fits into their business model. The firm has the ability to expand and grow while at the same time having a positive impact on the society. This is a model that has a positive impact on the business, stakeholders and the employees working at Uniliver (DiVito, 2015). On the other hand, P&G has been left behind by Uniliver in their sustainability strategy. The firm is not held in high regard in the sustainability circles. The firm sustainability plan is seen to lack ambition and its plan to achieve sustainability objectives is unclear. Shareholders have low commitment to sustainability as compared to their profits. For example, the shareholders have been against recycling. The firm believes that they can solve all sustainability issues through innovation (DiVito, 2015). In a developing society, working in a sustainable workplace is highly encouraged. This is due to fact that a sustainable workplace ensures that the society is led in to the right direction (Laszlo & Zhexembayeva, 2011). A sustainable workplace such as the one offered by Uniliver ensures that the employees are trained towards greater social responsibility. The employees have a greater ethical responsibility than workers at P&G who are more concerned with the firm profits. Thus, human rights and fundamental values are highly respected at Uniliver than P&G based on the sustainability records (DiVito, 2015). Uniliver protects the natural environment ensuring that they have a low carbon footprint. Thus, they are able to have efficiency use of power and resources. The firm has a better utilisation of environmental friendly materials and ensures that they are easier to recycle. Sustainability is only met if consideration is put on finances, employees’ participation and skills (Nidumolu, Prahalad & Rangaswami, 2009). For a firm such as Uniliver or P&G to meet their goals in sustainability, they have to be carrying out initiatives which are financially risk free. This has not been the case with P&G who had to abandon some of their sustainability goals due to costs. For Uniliver, they have proved that they can carry out sustainable projects at a financial risk free to enable a sustainable workplace. Also, the level of employees’ involvement must be high (Porter & Kramer, 2011). For Uniliver, the success of their sustainable goals may have been influenced by their employees’ participation. The success of sustainability goals is also based on the ability of the organisation to offer skills. It is thus expected that joining the workforce at Uniliver will make it possible to acquire skills required to attain sustainability (DiVito, 2015). Uniliver has the ability of integrating sustainability into the employees’ jobs and enhancing sustainability. Another reason to join Uniliver is the fact that sustainability has a lot of benefits which includes financial, employee retention, production and engagement. Uniliver has been able to link their employees’ value with the sustainability. This implies that one will be working in a firm where every decision is based on sustainability lens (Laszlo & Zhexembayeva, 2011). It will make it possible as a manager to have sustainability embedded in daily jobs. It also implies that there exists a relationship between the employees and management based on mutual obligation on sustainability. It is also possible for Uniliver to have sustainability integrated to the job description and employees compensation. This is where sustainability is rewarded. Based on the Uniliver sustainable living plan, the firm success is tied up to the society success. This plan has been able to make the employees to yearn for purpose through the company commitment to sustainability. This would be hard for affirm such as P&G. Uniliver offers training to employees and managers which helps a lot in meeting the sustainability challenges (DiVito, 2015). Working for Uniliver would make one feel a sustainability champion. Working in a sustainable firm is highly important as it helps in serving one’s personal purpose (Stacey, 2007). One is able to contribute to the sustainability agenda. At the moment, 76% of the employees at Uniliver feel that they are able to contribute to delivering sustainability at Uniliver due to their job roles. Also, most of the workers entering Uniliver cite ethical and sustainability practices as a major reason to joining the firm. This gives it possible to work in a firm that values all stakeholders and has a competitive advantage in the industry (DiVito, 2015). Identification and management of capitals in the business model It is clear that Uniliver has a better identification and management of capital compared to P&G. The firm is able to look at the value to investors and value to society as two connected issues (Birch, 2003). Thus, it is possible to integrate social responsibility and environmental sustainability. The organisation ability to create value financially can be linked to its ability to create value to the stakeholders (Porter & van der Linde, 1995). Uniliver has an efficient balance sheet and capital management that has proved they can create value for the shareholders as well as the stakeholders (DiVito, 2015). This is a major point of success which also contributes to the firm being a great employer. Uniliver has better management of capital in their business system. This is through use of generic business models to meet the integrated sustainability objectives. This involves the manner in which their financial and human social capital (Ustailieva et al., 2012). The firm has been able to portray relevant leadership which is required in the emergent environments. Based on the case study, it is clear that Uniliver has been able to attain sustainable business. They have been able to identify risks and come up with means to manage them. The leadership of Polman in 2010, the firm was able to obtain ambitious strategy in sustainability. The goal aims to double the firm sales in a period of 10 years while at the same time attaining social and environmental footprint (DiVito, 2015). This makes the firm a great place to work in. At the moment, Uniliver employees are expected to live in a continuous restructuring. The firm has also streamlined their workers with majority of job sheds in Europe. Unlike P&G, Uniliver have extensive operations in the developing economies. P&G has mostly focused on expanding their operations in the developed economies such as USA. Thus, Uniliver has been able to have higher sales in the developing economies. Expanding to growing economies has given Uniliver an upper hand in business hence increasing sales (DiVito, 2015). The developing economies have higher opportunities for growth. Uniliver has made sustainability central to their business model. This has made it possible to manage capital with respect to sustainability. Through their management of capital based on the business model, Uniliver has been able to see growth in all categories. Unlike P&G, the firm has been able to reduce environment impact while at the same time increasing sales. This is a model that makes it possible to have long term view of the business (Fowler & Hope, 2007). This is management of capital in a manner that it leads to sustainable growth. Unlike P&G, the firm have been able to utilise their resources for the benefits of all. It is possible to enhance sustainable consumption while at the same time ensuring business growth (Coase, 1960). Uniliver is a firm that is managing its capital in such a manner that they have sustainability to survive and grow in future in comparison to P&G. This is through managing the entire supply chain from the growers to the users. This shows that the firm will be able to survive in future. It also provides a more stable working environment where capital management ensures that it survives in the future (DiVito, 2015). It is a business that is highly committed to future survival compared to P&G. Strategic approaches towards emergent environments As indicated by the case study, FMCG faces commodification where the consumer wants to buy the goods as cheap as possible. This has led to rock bottom profits while innovation and marketing have not been able to solve the problem. While P&G tried to solve this problem through sustainability, they failed hence coming up with a solution of “no trade-offs”. The approach used in dealing with the emerging issues by Uniliver is better compared to P&G. This is seen in dealing with the issues of sustainability. With the fracking, the alternative technologies were made less efficient leading to P&G discontinuing some of their sustainability initiatives. The firm had to move away from sustainability unlike Uniliver who faced the issue and come up with a way to enhance sustainability. This shows that Uniliver has a great way of handling emerging issues compared to P&G (DiVito, 2015). The ability to handle emerging issues in a great way makes Uniliver a great employer in the industry. Labour relations Another emerging issue is the employees’ relations. The firm labour practices determine its ability to attract and retain talented employees (Griseri & Seppala, 2010). Uniliver are a global leader in the corporate social responsibility. Despite the firm previous records in Vietnam where they were accused of poor labour practices, the firm has improved its employee’s relations. The firm has enhanced their wages and also ensured that their supply chains are ethical. The firm has been able to commercialise their supply chain through sustainability (DiVito, 2015). Working conditions in most of the multinationals supply chain are poor. This is based on low wages, lack of job security and lack of industrial relations. It is clear that Uniliver has improved their working conditions across the supply chain making them a great employer to work with. The firm has been able to incorporate measures in their sustainable living plan that ensures there are labour rights. Another area that makes Uniliver a great employer is their employee engagement, CSR and citizenship. To engage the employees, Uniliver uses three discrete dimensions. The dimensions are trait engagement, psychological state engagement, and behavioural engagement (Svensson, Wood & Callaghan, 2010). Through trait engagement, the employees have proactive personality where they set their own goals and come with ways to attain them. Psychological state engagement includes building traits for the employee to create affection to the organisation. Lastly, behavioural engagement involves individuals being able to take directions without much direction (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Uniliver employees are linked with the company ability to deliver on the CSR objectives. This is through having workers who are committed to the CSR outcomes. This is an organisation that allows their employees to directly engage in matters that concern the society (DiVito, 2015). Working with Uniliver is an opportunity to leverage the positive aspects of employee engagement in sustainability aspects. With high level of employee engagement there is high investment in employees. This also leads to an organisation that bestows high trust to the employee (Pfeffer, 2005). Uniliver has a resilient culture that is able to support high level of sustainable employee engagement. This makes it possible for the employees to utilise themselves and enhance competencies (Woolcock, 2001). In the complex changing environment, the level of employee engagement is vital to ensure that they support CSR programs (Fowler & Hope, 2007). To attain ecological sustainability, there is need to have new human capabilities. This helps to come up with a fully sustainable corporation (Fowler & Hope, 2007). The top bottom approach used by the new leadership at Uniliver is a major way to enforce sustainability. Social capital in the company has the ability to help in collaboration between the organisations, individuals and stakeholders (Benn & Bolton, 2011). Social capital helps in gaining a competitive advantage and this can be seen in Uniliver. For Uniliver, they have been able to create a human capital than can ensure business continuance in the highly competitive FMCG environment (DiVito, 2015). Joining Uniliver social capital is a great opportunity to help in collaboration across sectors and ensure there is viable business in future. This is an opportunity to be part of a social capital that will help in creating a viable society business interface in the future. Ethical supply chain, governance and culture With the complexity of supply chain, it seems that Uniliver has the ability to handle it compared to P&G. The management is one of the main challenges in the multinational firms (Hopkins et al., 2011). The firm has a corporate culture that makes it possible to have long term relationship with the suppliers. This has contributed highly to the ethics in the supply chain. The have also carried out necessary changes that enables them to respect human rights in their entire supply chain (Epstein & Buhovac, 2014). Looking at the supply chain management, it seems that Uniliver is well placed to deal with unknown compared to P&G (DiVito, 2015). This is due to their ability to maintain sustainability in the industry. Uniliver has a governance body that is committed to sustainable business practices. There are major differences between the manners in which P&G handles sustainability compared to Uniliver. While P&G main focus is shareholder value maximisation, Uniliver also addresses the stakeholders’ value creation. When the corporate governance process is dominated by the shareholders’ interests, it becomes hard to implement sustainability goals as seen in the case of P&G (Svensson, Wood & Callaghan, 2010). There is high shareholders interference at P&G in the matters of management. When the firm tries to implement measures that may enhance sustainability, the shareholders looks at the cost perspective leading to failure (DiVito, 2015). It is thus important to work for a firm where there is low interference to management by the shareholders (Weber, 2008). The case study shows that Uniliver has a change ready culture. This is a culture that can easily facilitate change to all stakeholders. Working in such organisation ensures that there is job security since the organisation has a long term value. The organisation has a business approach that ensures value is created through incorporating economic environmental and social dimensions into business decisions. It is an organisation that has the mindset of supporting building of social capital (Boudreau, Chen & Huber, 2008). The future of FMCG is based on business that is more sustainable and which evokes trust and credibility among the consumers. This will ensure that the industry remains profitable in the future (DiVito, 2015). Uniliver has been able to understand that sustainable development has to be integrated into business planning and measurements. This is through carrying out business strategies that are able to cater for today stakeholders while catering for future resource needs (Boudreau, Chen & Huber, 2008). The business must meet the needs for varying stakeholders. The firm has been able to face the trade off on what they want and what is required of them for financial survival (Hillson & Murray-Webster, 2007). Trade-offs also comes in form of suffering loss as firm moves to sustainable business as seen in the case of P&G. Despite this Uniliver has been able to come up with ways in which it can operate in a healthy environment and economy. The firm has been able to address both decision making and governance (DiVito, 2015). The leadership has been part of the sustainable development at Uniliver. Uniliver offers the best working environment to meet long term career prospects compared to P&G. Conclusion To sum up, as a manager with long term career prospects, I would apply to leave P&G for Uniliver. This is due to fact that Uniliver offers a better working environment based on their commitment to sustainability. Working in a sustainable organisation makes it easy for one to achieve their long term career prospects. Uniliver has all it takes to enhance sustainability hence long term growth. The organisation has been implementing sustainability program which has made it possible to attain their integrated goals (economic, environmental, people and social) hence supporting the program. Uniliver has been able to identify and manage capital based on their business model. This has led to high profits for the firm hence maintaining shareholders and stakeholders’ value. In fact, the firm has proved that it is possible to be sustainable while at the same time be profitable. This is unlike P&G who had to drop some of their sustainability goals to remain profitable. Unlike P&G, Uniliver has better employee engagement in the matters of sustainability. Through sustainability, Uniliver is well placed for emergent issues in the FMCG environment. The firm takes care of its supply chain to ensure that it is ethical especially on the labour practices. This is a firm that has a change culture to ensure that change is fast embraced. It is clear that the organisation has the ability to meet the sustainability goals. The firm offers the best working environment to meet long term career prospects compared to P&G. References Benn, S & Bolton, D 2011, Key Concepts in Corporate Social Responsibility, Sage, London. Birch, D 2003, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Some Key Theoretical Issues and Concepts for New Ways of Doing Business’, Journal of New Business Ideas and Trends, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-19. Boudreau, M. C., Chen, A., & Huber, M. 2008, ‘Green IS: Building sustainable business practices’, Information Systems: A Global Text, 1-17. Coase, RH 1960, ‘The Problem of Social Cost’, Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 3, pp. 1- 44. DiVito, L. 2015. Aiming to win through sustainable competitive advantage Uniliver and Procter and Gamble (Case Study), International Business School, Amsterdam (CAREM). Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. 2014. Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Fowler, S. J., & Hope, C. 2007, ‘Incorporating sustainable business practices into company strategy,’ Business strategy and the Environment, Vol.16, no.1, pp.26-38. Griseri, P & Seppala, N 2010, Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility, South Western Cengage Learning, Australia. Hillson, D & Murray-Webster, R 2007, Understanding and Managing Risk Attitude, 2nd Edition, Gower, England. Hopkins, M. S., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., Kong, M. T., Arthur, D., & Reeves, M. 2011, ‘Sustainability: The 'embracers' seize advantage’, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol.52, no.3, pp. 3-5. Laszlo, C., & Zhexembayeva, N. 2011, Embedded sustainability: The next big competitive advantage, Greenleaf publishing, Sheffield, UK. Leavy, B. 2013, ‘Where to play and how to win–strategy fundamentals the Procter & Gamble way,’ Strategy & Leadership, Vol.41, no.5, pp.7-16. Lehtonen, M 2004, ‘The environmental-social interface of sustainable development: capabilities, social capital, institutions’, Ecological Economics, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 199- 214. Macey, WH & Schneider, B 2008, ‘The Meaning Of Employee Engagement’, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 1, pp. 3-30. Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. 2009, ‘Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation,’ Harvard business review, Vol.87, no.9, pp.56-64. Pfeffer, J. 2005, ‘Producing sustainable competitive advantage through the effective management of people’, commentary by Hatano, T, Academy of Management Review, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 95-106. Porter, ME & Kramer, MR 2011, ‘Creating Shared Value’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 89, no. 1-2 pp. 72-77. Porter, ME & van der Linde, C 1995, ‘Green and Competitive: Ending the stalemate’, Harvard Business Review, September-October. Stacey, RD 2007, Strategic Management and organisational dynamics: the challenge of complexity. 5th ed. Pearson Education, England. Svensson, G., Wood, G., & Callaghan, M. 2010, ‘A corporate model of sustainable business practices: An ethical perspective,’ Journal of World Business, Vol.45, no.4, pp.336- 345. Ustailieva, E., Hollander, A., Clignett, L., & Sofra, C. 2012, Sustainability management beyond corporate boundaries, Hoofddorp: TNO. Weber, M 2008, ‘The business case for corporate social responsibility: A company- level measurement approach for CSR’, European Management Journal, vol. 26, pp. 247- 261. Woolcock, M 2001, The Place of Social Capital in Understanding Social and Economic Outcomes. Development Research Group, The World Bank and Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Read More