100%(13)13 out of 13 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 2 - 3 out of 4 pages.
1.In early 2015, four years into the program, how effective do you think the implementation of the USLP strategy has been? What has it done most effectively and ineffectively? The USLP strategy was implemented in the most effective way. There was a lot of thinking that went behind the execution of the strategy. The goal for 2020 had three subheadings: Improve the health and well -being of close to 1 billion people, reducing environmental impact by half , and enhancing livelihood for millions. The three core goals were expanded into seven commitments (“pillars” in Unilever terminology) and further broken into more than 50 specific, measurable targets . For driving home the point, Mr.Polman made USLP thecore strategy at the firm. Mr. Polman also introduced new roles of Unilever Leader Executive and Chief Sustainability Officer to drill down the core strategy of USLP into the DNA of the organisation.Partnership with established organisations such as Consumer Goods Forum, the Tropical Rainforest Alliance, and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. ,Oxfam, Unicef, Save the Children, WWF, and Rainforest Alliance lend credibility to the USLP strategy.Unilver championed the problem of deforestation , championed sustainable agriculture and the development of smallholder farmers , and worked to improve health and hygiene , bringing the firm a lot of fanfare and goodwill. The core strategy of USLP was effective in what it was sent out to do. The company reported “on-track” performance on seven of its nine USLP pillars, with detailed results showing that 12 of 67 specific metrics had already been achieved, 48 were tracking to plan, and only 7 were off plan From a financial point of view, the efficacy of the program was captured in its stock price. The stock price grew from 33.07 in the year 2010 to 44.28 in the year 2014, an increase of around 5% per annum.Having said that, the total revenues have not increased, showing that the strategy may not have yielded results from a financial perspective. The revenue growth was negative -1.21% ,with revenue falling from 59352 in 2010 to 58628.6 in 2014. The net income between the period 2010 to 2014 grew at the rate of 2.04% per annum. In the emerging