Case Discussion and Internet Exploration Questions

Closing Case Organizational Change at Unilever

Website — http://www.unilever.com

Case Discussion Questions

What strategy was Unilever pursuing before its early 1990s reorganization? What kind of structure did the company have? Were Unilever's strategy and structure consistent with each other? What were the benefits of this strategy and structure? What were the drawbacks?
By the 1990s, was there still a fit between Unilever's strategy and structure and the operating environment in which it competed? If not, why not?
What kind of strategy and structure did Unilever adopt in the 1990s? Is this appropriate given the environment in which Unilever now competes? What are the benefits of this organizational and strategic shift? What are the costs?

Internet Exploration Question

This article focuses on organizational change at Unilever, a multinational food and company. Until recently, Unilever managed its worldwide activities in an arm's length manner. A subsidiary was set up in each major national market and allowed to operate autonomously, with each subsidiary carrying out the full range of value creating activities, including manufacturing, marketing, and R&D. As a result, the company had 17 autonomous national operations in Europe alone by the mid-1980s. In the 1990s, Unilever began to transform its worldwide operations into more of a global structure. In the interest of cost savings and decreasing the time it took to bring a new product to market, the company established product divisions to coordinate regional operations. The 17 European companies were aligned and all instructed to report directly to Lever Europe. The company also attempted to develop and execute a unified pan-European strategy.

For the most part, Unilever's change efforts have been successful. One area that the company has been resistant to change, however, is in the names of its products. Procter & Gamble's products carry the same brand name across its European markets to build a global brand identity. In contrast, Unilever has a "local" brand name for its products in most of its markets. According to the case, the company argues that it has spent 100 years building these localized brand names has no plans to change in the interest of a pan-European strategy.

Visit the websites of both Unilever {http://www.unilever.com/} and Procter & Gamble {http://www.pg.com/} and then answer the following questions. What can you tell about the way that each company manages its international operations by looking at its website? It what ways are the companies international operations the same and in what ways are they different? Which company do you believe does the better job of explaining its international operations through its website? Why?

Begin a search: Catalog | Site | Campus Rep

Copyright ©1998 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
McGraw-Hill Higher Education is one of the many fine businesses of The McGraw-Hill Companies.
For further information about this site contact mhhe_webmaster@mcgraw-hill.com.