Key Sustainability Challenges Of Colep

Once they have the route in which they will take they will need to further define if they will be performing their activities and processes differently or perform different activities from their competitors. With making this distinction they will be able to hopefully out perform their challenger, this is an important part of the business-level strategy. It will help define them as a company. They will want to be able to create exceptional value for the customers and vendors alike. This strategy will help them stand out among the others.

In response to the request of the Director of Corporate Sustainability Consulting Group, this memo provides analysis and recommendations regarding Unilever’s transition to sustainably sourced tea. With dominant shares in the tea market, the transition to sustainably sourced tea will have first-mover advantage. By adopting the Rainforest Alliance certification, Lipton Tea can expect to certify all farms and plantations. To counteract low market response, contingency plans need to be developed including price adjustments and targeted marketing. This transition is also an opportunity to implement sustainability internally at Unilever and expand across other products.

Many companies are now transitioning to the sustainability model because this model provides different business opportunities but also helps in possibly reducing the operational cost by introducing LEAN processes as well as may protect business from market and consumer backlash. This is an important reason for sustainability gaining popularity and is the reason for us picking this topic for our research [2].

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a technique used to quantify environmental outcomes- energy, materials used, and released wastes- assignable to a product. It assesses the environmental impacts of their supply chain activities as a whole. By looking at the full picture of the activities, a firm such as Procter and Gamble (P&G) could view the environmental tradeoffs of product innovation. In efforts to sustain competitive advantage with their popular-selling item, disposable diapers, the use of LCA aides in making decisions for producing greener products for its customers, and to reduce environmental footprint. The public is becoming widely concerned with the products effects on resources and the environment. “These effects occur at every stage in a product’s life cycle-from the extraction of the raw materials from the ground through the processing, manufacturing, and transportation phases, ending with use and disposal or recycling” (Le-van,1995, p.7,). The present study aims to evaluate the life cycle system of disposable diapers in efforts to assign understanding of the sustainability benefits of Life Cycle Assessment.

With the rapid development of modern life which is promoted by science and technology, and the improvement of living standards nowadays, people have become more conscious of the necessity of environmental protection and are currently taking a preferred concentration on it. Under this circumstance, companies can no longer only focus on themselves, instead, they are supposed to take on considerable responsibilities related to environment, especially for those multinational companies since their massive scale of production may have a prodigious impact on environment. Nike and Unilever are both multinational companies which do great CSR and come from quite different commercial realm. Nike is an outstanding brand worldwide which produces varieties of sneakers, athletic apparel and accessories (Nike, 2012). And Unilever is the world’s well-known manufacturer of cleaning products and foodstuff, moreover, it has plenty of famous sub-brands such as Lux, Dove, Lipton, Wall’s and so on. This

In order for a business to achieve their goals, it is important for them to respond to internal and/or external influences. A business goal is an outcome in which a business hopes to accomplish within a specific time frame. External and internal influences both play a role in helping a business achieve their goals. External influences such as social and competitive situations are outside influences that impact a business and internal influences such as product and resources are factors that affect a business from within. In order for businesses to achieve their goals they, therefore, must respond to theses influences by enforcing strategies. This is clearly demonstrated in both Coke and Samsung’s journey to achieve their goals.

When analyzing Unilever and Procter and Gamble’s corporate social responsibility stances, many similarities can be seen. The first main similarity in each company’s corporate social responsibility stance relates to common goals. Both company’s share the common goals relating to deforestation, commitment to small farmers and sustainable agriculture practices, and clean water. In Procter and Gamble’s sustainability report, they implement a no-deforestation plan for suppliers, small-farmers program to improve practices and livelihoods, and their Children’s Safe Drinking Water program to provide clean water for families. (“2015 Sustainability”, 2015). Similarly, Unilever wishes to eliminate deforestation by 2020 to combat climate change, encourage sustainable agriculture techniques to increase yields for small farmers, and make progress towards worldwide access to safe drinking water (Bartlett, 2016). The second similarity found between these two companies relates to the joining of various organizations in order to advance their cause. Unilever partners with organizations such as the Tropical Rainforest Alliance, Consumer Goods Forum, and Save the Children. These organizations do not belong to any part of the companies value chain (Bartlett, 2016). Proctor and Gamble also joined organizations outside their value chain. They have joined programs such as Climate Savers, Corporate Renewable Energy Buyers’, and RE100 (“2015 Sustainability”, 2015). Both companies commit to

A company 's relative position within its industry determines if their profitability is higher or lower than the industry average. The fundamental primary of above average profitability in the long run is the sustainable competitive advantage (Powers & Hahn, 2004), which is about how a Strategic Business Units (SBUs) makes esteem for its customers both more noteworthy than the cost of providing them and better than that of competitor SBUs (Johnson et al., 2014). According to theory of Porter (1980), there are three generic strategies for reaching above-average performance in an industry which are differentiation, cost leadership and focus. Cost leadership includes most minimal operational and least costs in the target

For example, forestry projects are one of the important outcomes of joint implementation in agriculture industry. Planting trees in reforestation or afforestation projects enhances the absorptive capacity of the biosphere and leads to carbon dioxide reductions in the atmosphere(Robert and Sally, 1995). Besides, Tesco, a European supermarket chain, is beginning a program to provide a global warming rating for everything it sells (Scot, 2007). The chain is creating an index to measure the “carbon footprint” required to produce, package, and transport each product in its stores. Consumers can then include the carbon footprint along with price and product quality when making purchasing decisions.

Sustainability is increasingly drawing the attention of scholars, policy makers, and companies, as the latter are recognizing the necessity and opportunities of implementing sustainable practices in their operations. Marketing plays a substantial role in both applying such initiatives and promoting them, which can be greatly supported through brands. (Kumar 2014)3

“The future depends on what we do in the present ~Mahatma Ghandi”, states Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever. In 2010 Unilever unveiled its very ambitious Unilever Sustainable Living Plan in an effort to “create a blueprint for sustainable growth” (Unilever.com). Looking forward to an achievable long range plan for growth, Unilever is approaching the plan with hopes of doubling sales through the increased efforts in sustainability. Paul Polman has been quoted stating in 2014, that in three years the company will experience a simultaneous increase in sustainability and profit growth. Profiting off of sustainability could be seen as a controversial issue. Unilever has been accused of profiting off of those less fortunate in an effort to improve the bottom line. Can Unilever’s approach to environmental improvements be seen as a strategic plan for increased sales, corporate social responsibility or both?

The most crucial part of doing business in today’s world is to understand how to make a positive contributions to the quality of life while earning a profit. This can be achieved by considering the new values and concepts of thinking while running a business organisation. (Halal, 1968; Handy 1989; Maslow 1962; Schumacher, 1973.1977; Senge 1990; Senge et al. 2008). According to these authors, the organisations should have a clearer goal in considering the contribution to the quality of life in a larger community and innovate more structures, processes and outputs designed to attain the social, ecological and economic needs of the consumers, employees etc. Edward (2005) has named this development as the ‘sustainable organisation management’. The transition from the Industrial Revolution to the Sustainable Revolution is presently more on ideas and thoughts but less on the solutions.

As awareness increases for these environmental concerns, media and consumer trends follow in support of the eco-friendly movement. Armed with information on the environmental issues at hand, the conscious consumer has come to the realization that their collective purchases have incredible power. Many individuals are making every-day choices to support companies whose ethics align with their own environmental conscience. In response to these trends, businesses find that not only must they appeal to consumers with competitive quality, performance, and value, but also with environmental sustainability. However, in order to attain a “green” brand status, they must invest time and money into re-evaluating their business models and supply chains. While some companies may choose to make this investment, other competitors opt to invest in deceptive marketing strategies which greenwash their products to mislead

L.G, Samsung and Panasonic are global electronic companies largely known for their innovative, technologically advanced products. These companies are involved in the production of home entertainment appliances, mobile communication devices and home appliances such as washing machines and fridges. They operate on a global scale and as a result, they have access to a several ranges of markets. Due to their advancements in the business world, they have a wider corporate responsibility. Moreover, with the increasing environmental issues affecting humanity and the nature of their product, these companies have an obligation to the communities they affect, in ensuring that the negative impacts accrued to the production of their commodities are either eliminated or mitigated. The basis behind this comparison report is to identify the strides each of these companies have taken and their future plans in terms of sustainability.

It is no coincidence that during the same period European consumers have become increasingly conscious of the impact of their consumption habits on global deforestation. European companies such as Unilever, Nestle and Kingfisher have led the way in transforming their business models to respond to consumer demand for higher standards of environmental protection.