Unilever
Unilever is in an interesting position in the sustainability and ethics arena. In many ways it is at the forefront of the industry, committed to quantifying and reducing harmful impacts on society and the environment, working to source high-risk ingredients from sustainable or certified sources and partnering with charities and NGOs to improve health and hygiene.
The drive for sustainability has full backing from the company’s leadership, weathering the recent changes in both CEO and the global economy, with the sustainability agenda seen as holding “the potential for the long-term and sustainable success of our business and our brands”.
Two programmes have been seen as especially pioneering in this area, demonstrating real commitment to making the business a positive force: Brand Imprint and studies into Unilever’s economic impacts. Unilever’s Brand Imprint maps brands’ social, economic and environmental impacts on the world, using this as a starting point to make commitments to address relevant social and environmental issues. The economic investigations started with an Oxfam study, conducted in 1996, which looked into the impact that Unilever’s Indonesian operations had on poverty reduction. This is now being followed by a study into the company’s economic footprint in South Africa. Opening Unilever up to scrutiny of this level was seen as a ground-breaking step, and one which augured deep-seated commitment to the idea that business has a social responsibility.
However, there is some inconsistency in Unilever’s position. While its social, economic and environmental credentials are widely proclaimed, a number of its day to day activities undermine this agenda. For every ‘good’ brand or activity, there seems to be a counterpart which contradicts the stated ethical position.
On the marketing side, these challenges are numerous. The Dove brand, for example, promotes ‘real beauty’ and self esteem and actively stands against narrow beauty stereotypes. Its recent advert ‘Onslaught’ decried the advertising and slimming industries for promoting sexualised images of women, narrow ideals of beauty, and product-centred dieting. From a company that also produces Lynx, Fair and Lovely and Slimfast, the integrity of this stance has to be questioned. The food side of the business runs into similar difficulties, with Flora’s ‘Heart Healthy’ position sitting uncomfortably next to multiple icecream brands and processed foods such as Peperami and Pot Noodle.
The company’s environmental credentials have challenges too. Palm oil is the obvious and an ongoing debate, but at least here the company’s heavy dependency would be hard to substitute. Where there is a clear environmental argument, however, Unilever does not always take the ‘responsible’ route. For example, there are concerns among the scientific community that antibacterial agents in cleaning products may lead to an increase in microbial resistance, while having no demonstrable benefit in healthy homes. Despite this, Unilever maintains antibacterials in a number of its products because they have marketing value.
There is no doubt that in some ways Unilever has made significant investment and progress towards integrating ethics into its operations, particularly in pockets of the business. However, it has a long way to go before this permeates across the organisation. It has made a positive start, with some significant moves in the areas where high risk or clear ethical marketing opportunities produced a priority. In the process, however, it increased the discord between its ‘Good Business’ messages and some of its products and activities. The challenge now is to resolve that clash.
