potential and the real threats to Unilever UK

The following is an analysis of the potential and the real threats to Unilever UK in terms of their many brands and their reach across the globe. Important to note about the organizations herein is that all of them are multinational companies because as Unilever is structured, its competition can only be scaled on a global weight because of the global reach that Unilever has. The brands must be operating in the many regions that Unilever has based its products. Additionally, there is another peculiarity to determining the companies that present competition to Unilever based on the types of products and brands. Unilever has over 400 brands and therefore, a company that presents competition to the company must be able to compete with various brands that are owned by Unilever. By virtue of the significant brand reach and numerous brands, it is impossible for a company that does not have several products and a range of competitive brands to compete with the massive reach of Unilever products. Therefore, this guides the choice of the organizations that present the right characteristics for comparison and contrast with the significant market share and the amount of investment made by each of these companies. Additionally, the company sizes and the reach they have had in their market capital are an essential aspect of the comparison because again, the point of comparison, that is Unilever demands that the competitors share the same scope as the competitors or something close to what Unilever has achieved over the years.

One of the most prominent competition that Unilever faces in all its markets is the Coalgate Palmolive company that presents numerous threats to the market share of the household products. In essence, the brand, Colgate, is also a household name in many of the regions that it has established including Europe, Asia, Africa and both Americas. Similarly, these are the central regions in which Unilever has established its brands. Consequently, Unilever and Colgate have been rivals since their inception and growth into global household companies over the past century. Colgate, which started as a small soap and candle business grew from an American based company to a global brand for hygiene products with over 85% of its revenue being the proceeds of its three main products oral, personal, and home care products which then are the main products (Colgatepalmolive.com, 2020). Colgate, unlike Unilever, does not issue the separate products different brands, but Unilever brands each of the products it has as a separate brand and a separate account for which the company assesses the growth. The Colgate company operates in over 80 countries, and its products are sold in over 200 countries which are slightly higher than the market share that Unilever controls. The large market share has seen the company return about 15 billion dollars in revenue in a year’s thus competing immensely with Unilever which makes about 7 billion dollars’ total revenue turnover (Colgatepalmolive.com, 2020). These two companies share a lot in common; however, Unilever is keen on the welfare of its employees and has a richer human resource department than Colgate, and this is because in size the two companies are incomparable. Whereas Colgate has about 35,000 employees globally, Unilever has over 167,000 employees, and therefore the management of the two taskforces is different. These are some of the aspects that one might look at the comparative analysis between Unilever and Colgate. Competition from the Colgate company is mainly because of similar products that are in the two spheres of the market the two companies share, but one can compare so many aspects of the businesses based on their approach to strategic planning, cost of operation, the human resources departments as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the two companies.

Another major company and a leading producer of household effects is proctor and Gamble. The company that has been in existence for 181 years in the year ending 2019 is a global phenomenon and a global competitor in the sale of such products. Compared to Unilever, the companies compare in size, with Unilever being valued at about 148 billion dollars in 2018 compared to Proctor and Gambles 228 billion dollars (Us.pg.com, 2020). However, one can understand the growth of the two companies in different sizes because Proctor and Gamble have been in the industry of homecare products for longer than Unilever and more than all other companies that present competition to these two companies. Therefore, the global size of Proctor and Gamble is because it has had a head start in the market share, although other business insights will reveal how well the two companies compare in terms of conducting business. The company Proctor and Gamble has similar products to Unilever’s, and therefore their shared market is large, thus forcing the two companies to compete for market share. The Proctor and Gamble company is largely based in the US as the parent company was incepted and developed in the US local market (Us.pg.com, 2020).

However, the brand has expanded to several regions in Europe, mainly in Central Europe. Additionally, the company has a sizeable amount of markets in the Sub-Saharan African markets and also East Asia and the Pacific region. These regions are the only regions Proctor and Gamble has made entry into and therefore, the global share of the US giant is not as large as that of Unilever. One stark difference that exists between the two companies is the difference in market share tactics as the Unilever approach is more globally set while Proctor and Gamble is a local company, keen on the US-based clients and working to diversify over time. The two companies have a different approach to business, and mainly, the different approaches help them coexist in the different markets they mutually share. However, these approaches have different outcomes in the proliferation of growth with Unilever having the upper hand in the growth and development of its infrastructure globally and consequently, the global market share for both companies. However, there is a considerable similarity that exists between Proctor and Gamble and Unilever in their marketing strategies. Both companies have select multibillion-dollar brands which exist as independent brands but are under the umbrella of Proctor and Gamble or Unilever and have become brands that have their independent competitive advantage over time.

Another critical competitor to Unilever is Johnson & Johnson, which is a global manufacturer of an array of products, and it operates or sells its products in virtually all countries around the world. The competitive advantage of Johnson and Johnson products is largely attributed to the diversity of products that it produces and sells around the world. Key to the comparison to Unilever is the personal home care products such as baby products and skincare products which compete with those produced by the Unilever company and the share that each of these companies controls around the world. In the regions where the two companies sell products, the two companies have to conduct vigorous marketing strategies that help each position itself for the competition that exists in the industry (Team, Directors and Governance, 2020). Financially, the Johnson and Johnson company does not attribute its revenue to the homecare products alone, but it has a line of pharmaceuticals that are part of the company’s products that make it one of the leading global multinational company that also employs around 110,000 employees around the globe. The company compares favourably with other multinationals around the globe because it has adopted a globalization strategy to harness its profitability and to ensure that the brand is a competitive force in the industries it has invested. The scope of Johnson & Johnson exceeds that of Unilever in terms of diversity because it goes beyond the home to produce health products and other products which the Unilever company does not produce. However, it remains one of the top competitors because of its financial might and its control of markets in all parts of the world, especially where Unilever has also invested in production and supplies of its products.

By virtue of its size and financial might, the company in 2018 reported a global turnover of around $80 billion, and it is valued at around $360 billion compared to the 148-billion-dollar value on Unilever. The financial difference between these two global organizations is primarily attributed to the diverse product line that JNJ has compared to Unilever (Team, Directors and Governance, 2020). However, Unilever boasts a more significant human resource department despite being the smaller company compared to Johnson and Johnson, which has been in existence for the same period as Unilever. Initially, when it was inaugurated in 1886, the Johnson & Johnson company was purely a health product line company which also produced and continues to produce healthcare devices and products. However, with globalization and expansion over the years, it has become a global producer of household products especially baby products that ride on the virtue of the company being a health line company thus becoming rapidly popular among consumers at home. However, Unilever has continued to maintain a balanced competitive advantage because with the reliability it offers to clients, it has remained a reputable company in the household items and products it manufactures.

Interrelationship of the Various Functions within an Organisation and How They Link to Organisational Structure

The three companies, Colgate Palmolive, Proctor and Gamble and Johnson and Johnson, are companies that have been in existence for over 100 years and have competed with Unilever as a brand in many of the regions where they operate. However, each of the competitors controls certain products that have marked the company as influential in their respective industries. However, each of these companies has a range of products that compete with Unilever’s products because they are either similar or substitutable with the other company’s product. Therefore, they have had to make the best marketing strategies in order to acquire market share in the highly competitive industries around the world. Proctor and Gamble, for instance, has had to move out of the US because globalization has necessitated the four companies to look for overseas companies to acquire or franchise in order to make their brands known in different regions. Colgate Palmolive is not necessarily a company that started off as a local brand, it had a globalization aspect since its inception, but it has remained highly conservative due to the nature of the management approaches it has made.

One of the stark differences that the company share is their approaches to management and the types of leaders they choose to promote each brand. According to the comparison between Unilever and Proctor and gamble, it is clear that these two companies do not share the same leadership ideals because while Proctor and Gamble has a leader who is highly transactional and leads the company in terms of profit-making, the Unilever leader is a transformational leader who seeks to empower the managers and other employees within the company to enhance the human resource department that is the largest department in the company. However, this difference in management is also seen in the comparison between Colgate Palmolive and Unilever, seeing that the scope of the two companies in terms of products is similar. The Unilever products are supported by talented and innovative over 150,000 employees while the Colgate brands, successful as it has been over the years, only employs 35,000 employees globally (Colgatepalmolive.com, 2020). The difference is stark here because these two companies are enormous and they control markets in the different areas in the globe which are highly competitive, but Colgate has maintained a smaller human resource department and has been a successful brand. To assess the impacts of such management decisions, one ought to look at the financial departments in these three companies.

The cost of operation for any organization is an important aspect when determining which of the companies remains sustainable in the future of its expansion. However, globalization and expansion is an expensive undertaking and therefore, management of these multinational companies is expected to grow proportionally to their sales to match the costs of operation in the countries they operate as well as in the parent companies. For Unilever, it has had to deal with high costs of operations because it is set up in many countries around the world where it has companies with manufacturing and distribution points. The other factor that has drastically changed the cost of operations for Unilever it is the number of employees it has across the globe. Amongst the three competitors, the Unilever company has the most prominent human resource department, and it remains one of the reasons why the company is loved by the people because it has branded itself as one of the home brands that are indispensable. The employees also cite a very high level of confidence in the company and its management, which has led to the glorification of the brand across homes in the entire world.

Compared to Johnson and Johnson, the Unilever products have to rely on the company’s HR and marketing ability. For JNJ, the products ride on the wave of reliability that was shaped by the initial health line product that was created at the company’s inception. On the other hand, Colgate products ride on the consistency of the brand and the support it has had from the local US market. These subtle differences are key to the differences in the marketing abilities and tactics that have been employed by each brand over the years.

Colgate Palmolive Company Profile

The Colgate Palmolive Company deals in two categories of products, counting oral, personal, and home care products and pet nutrition. Most of the products that are profitable for the company are the oral, personal and home care products which are the initial products that have been supplied since 1923 the year the company was incepted. These products are supplied in different regions namely; North America, Latin America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and Africa/Eurasia which are close regions to what Unilever company has invested in and has had to run marketing campaigns vigorously. It produces a range of toothpaste brands with different variants as well as homecare products which are covered by the Palmolive brand products, including soaps (Colgatepalmolive.com, 2020).

The company has a unique system of operations that positions it as a global company and a competitive force amongst the companies producing a similar range of products. The analysis of a close case of operations management and how the company overcame challenges in management in 2006 may help to explain the process of management used by the company from a global level. Before 2006, the company had faced operations problems, especially in the affiliate companies located in the regions it had set up and sought expansion. The improvement had tackled using several instituted changes in the past, but these changes had lacked consistency due to poor leadership. The company first rolled out the Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) to try to merge the company’s machines, staff, and technology to upsurge the value of the company. The company then sought to implement the High Work Performance System (HWPS) that was a failure too owing to the neglect of the human resource department and the eventual collapse of the people’s systems. This problem led to a strategic change in the supply chain to increase the quality of its products, maximize profits and improve the welfare of its employees. One of the most significant inputs that saved the company is the innovation of a process the would save the face of management in the coming years. They came up with a method which worked to improve the supply chain called the Factory Performance and Reliability Program (FP&R) with a keen interest in auditing and piloting operations improvement (Colgatepalmolive.com, 2020). However, the company continued to experience challenges due to the incapability to keep up with the growing need for customer-driven customization of their products. As a result of markets that have different needs, a company that seeks expansion must make products that are customized for the specific markets. The diversity resulting from the expansion in regions demanded that the company tailors its products to fit the different needs by the market or else face the threat of companies that are keen on the client’s needs taking over the market. Since the innovation of the Factory Performance and Reliability Program, the company has used the various aspects learned from this innovative management aspect to keep up with competition and to better the brand that was facing years of tribulations due to mismanagement.

The aspects of the management used at Colgate, and the solution that was initiated through the Factory Performance and Reliability Program follow eight distinctive aspects of management that help to manage the growth of the brand. The first step is the adoption of global management systems that ensures that all managers and leaders respond and work within the confines of similar proceedings globally. Second, the company used an improved visual outlook and reshaping to ensure the clients had a better and improved visualization of all the managers to rebuild the trust. The third aspect is planned maintenance which is mainly a consistent audit of the entire company uniformly across the globe. Forth, the company has an autonomous maintenance program which helped to improve the region-specific collection of feedback to enhance the customization of products according to each region. Sixth, the company then schedules daily meeting to report on the developments that are received from the autonomous feedback received by managers across the globe. Seventh, the company acts on the feedback to customize production in the company and to increase the production based on the region-specific demands. Lastly, the program had to improve on the way it had treated its people, which means the company’s human resource department had to change. Its people’s capability program aimed at improving the terms for employees and continued investment in the welfare of its employees which helped the company regain its market share and raise its competitive advantage (Colgatepalmolive.com, 2020).