Most people in modern society, I guess, think the interests of consumers, investors and employees are a zero-sum game; any gain by one would result in an equivalent loss by the other two. It seems so obvious.
A company increases its profit by charging more for its products; that profit is handed over to investors. The result is that investors are happy; consumers less so. Or the company hands over the profit increase to its employees or more likely its managers with the same result. Put the other way around, it needs to “exploit” its employees, and the more it does so, the more profit it makes. It's logical, right?
Because this notion is so entrenched in politics around the world, it’s refreshing to meet people such as outgoing Unilever CEO Paul Polman whose root philosophy was and it remains the precise opposite.
Of course, profit increases do mean more dividends for investors. But the point is that all the inherent levers of action pull not against each other but towards each other. They are zero-plus, not zero-minus. Greater profits come from providing better products for customers, which increases the company's ability to attract talent, which in turn increases its ability to create better products, which in turn creates greater profits, and so on.
If you buy into this long-term value-creation model, which is equitable, which is shared, which is sustainable, then come and invest with us. If you don’t buy into this, I respect you as a human being, but don’t put your money in our company.
— Paul Polman
Consequently, in this world, the enemy is not “exploitation”, but short-term horizons. Anything that limits a company’s ability to do good for its customers, society or the environment, is the real enemy. As a result, Polman was constantly at odds with money managers seeking a short-term boost, and from their point of view, his approach is dangerously political, freakishly left-wing and verging on irresponsible. He didn’t seem to care.
One of his first acts as CEO was to stop publishing quarterly profit updates. Financial Times writer Michael Skapinker was present when Polman made the announcement and he recorded Polman saying: “If you buy into this long-term value-creation model, which is equitable, which is shared, which is sustainable, then come and invest with us. If you don’t buy into this, I respect you as a human being, but don’t put your money in our company.”
Later, he put it more clearly, saying: “I don’t think our fiduciary duty is to put shareholders first. I say the opposite. What we firmly believe is that if we focus our company on improving the lives of the world’s citizens and come up with genuinely sustainable solutions, we are more in synch with consumers and society and ultimately this will result in good shareholder returns.”
I met Polman at a school in Alexandra where he was putting into practice a demonstration of his ideas. Unilever produces a whole range of personal products, one of which is Lifebuoy soap. The company was sponsoring a hand-washing exercise, using (surprise!) Lifebuoy Soap. The intention was to demonstrate the cyclical link between product, health and hygiene, sustainability and ultimately shareholder value. His general knowledge was just enormous and his philosophy was, as far as I could see, absolutely genuine.
That was eight years ago and Polman has recently retired after being CEO for 10 years in December. The big question is, did it work?
The answer is tricky, but I think it more or less did. At the very least, Polman did not hurt shareholder returns.
In absolute terms, turnover increased from €40.5bn to €52.3bn and profit at all levels, earnings per share and all the other measures increased roughly in line with that under his watch. That doesn’t seem great shakes, but it is such a huge international company moving the needle in any meaningful way would probably have involved taking on huge levels of risk.
By comparative measures, its performance has been in the frame, but no better. On a diluted earnings per share basis, it's performing a bit worse than Proctor and Gamble but better than Mondelez. On an enterprise value over earnings before tax, interest, depreciation and amortisation (Ebitda) basis —essentially the full value of the company as a proportion of its earnings before the accounting funnies kick in — it is performing a bit worse than its big aforementioned competitors and substantially worse than Kraft-Heinz, but on the same level as Pepsi and better than even smaller, theoretically more adept competitors like Henkel.
But on a pure share price basis, the performance has been stellar; when Polman began his campaign the share was valued at £15 and it's now trading at €43. Compared to the FTSE100’s rise of 56% over that time, Unilever is up almost 200%. This is much better than Proctor and Gamble (up 56%) and Nestlé (up 100%) over the same period. It’s also better than Coke and Pepsi, neither of which have been laggards.
The share price measure is a however a bit suspect because the price got a huge boost from the aborted bid by Kraft-Heinz, but it turns out Polman was right to resist the bid since Kraft-Heinz share price has dwindled recently.
Polman set all kinds of other targets for the company, some of which it hit, and some it did not. Skapinker records that Unilever had promised to halve the environmental impact of its products by 2020. It has had to push that back to 2030. It said it would halve the water associated with consumers’ use of its product by 2020. By 2017,water use had dropped only 2% since 2010. On the other hand, Unilever has reduced the amount of manufacturing waste per ton of production by 98% since 2008.
But more importantly, other CEOs are taking up Polman’s themes. One is enormously impressive Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi, not surprisingly in the same sort of industry, who is also standing down after a hugely successful run. Famously BlackRock CEO Larry Fink is also thinking along the same line.
Polman and Nooyi might be leaving, but their ideas are gaining ground.
• Cohen is Business Day senior editor.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.