Q Case: Unilever's New Global Strategy: Competing through Sustainability by Christopher A. Bartlett (available thru the Harvard Coursebook that you have to purchase) (Links to an external site.) Citation: Bartlett, C.A. (2016). Unilever's New Global Strategy: Competing through Sustainability. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. 22 Pages. 916414-PDF-ENG. In January 2009, when Paul Polman was appointed CEO of Unilever, he inherited a company in long-term decline at the beginning of a major global financial crisis. As the first outsider ever recruited to lead the company, Polman lost little time in challenging the existing strategy and organization. But the biggest change he made was to introduce the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan (USLP), a commitment that placed three "sustainability" goals at the core of the company's strategy: to help 1 billion people improve their health, to halve the environmental footprint of making and using Unilever products, and to enhance the livlihood of those in its value chain. The case describes how the new CEO then had to convince skeptical internal and external stakeholders why a struggling company in a tough competitive environment should embrace such bold nonfinancial goals. It then follows how he translated his radically different vision into strategies and priorities that could be implemented by a global company with 170,000 employees. In the process, the case explores how Unilever's top team had to adapt and adjust is structures, systems, processes, people and culture in order to implement USLP. The case concludes as Polman and and his top team face some key decisions in 2015. Should they double down on their original 2020 US LP objectives? Should they scale back in the face of some strong economic headwinds? Or should they pivot to a new transformational strategic agenda? Learning Objective To analyze the appropriateness of a radically different transformational global corporate strategy; To review the requirements for effective organization transformational change; To explore the nature of corporate social responsibility (CSR), including the power, challenges and feasibility of integrating it at the core of corporate strategy; To evaluate the effectiveness of a CEO and a corporate leadership team; To evaluate future options, decide on action, and translate broad strategic proposals and a specific action steps. Prompt: Assignment description: Each student will answer the following four questions. Students should limit their responses to information they ‘gleen’ from the readings as well as any relevant current events (don’t spend a lot of time finding current events – 99% of the ‘details’ / information will be in the readings. If you do additional research – which is always encouraged (in every course) - seek out research sources through the Steely librarians (online) as well as consider performing extensive research online with regard to the questions. In addition, a number of universities have information sources which may be helpful (and free). Students are not expected to pay for information. If you are having difficulty seeking information, contact the instructor for assistance. Once again, all the relevant information is available in the Harvard Coursebook collection that you purchased. You should not need to seek outside (of the Harvard Coursebook) information. Students should plan on writing at least 1000 words (250 per question; approx. 15 lines of text) This assignment is due no later than 23:59 EST on Sunday of Week 2 and must be submitted via Canvas. Questions to answer: (use questions #’s or headings to separate your answers) 1. How would evaluate Paul Polman's 2010 decision to implement a new strategy based on the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan? What benefits did it offer? What risks did it present? 2. How effective has the implementation of the new strategy been to date? What has it done most effectively? What problems or concerns do you have with the implementation? 3. What actions should the company take now? Which of the three options identified at the end of the case would you recommend management to take? 4. How would you go about implementing your recommendation? Instructions: 1. All posts should be done by 23:59 EST Sunday of Week 2. 2. References and 'proper' academic style citing of the references are required. Points will be lost by a lack of references or the improper citation of references. Points will not be gained by proper use of references or citations. They are expected to be utilized. The references most likely will be from one of the articles in the Harvard 1. Remember: Interactions are in writing – business style or essay style are acceptable. 2. A majority of your text in bullets is not acceptable. Grading Rubric Your assignment will be graded according to the grading rubric. Rubric Assignment Rubric Assignment Rubric Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCommand of Learning Materials 55 to >49.0 pts Excellent • Shows thoughtful, analytical interpretation of module materials and/or case content. • Demonstrates significant original thought that goes beyond the obvious. • Explicitly references module or case materials relevant to analysis. 49 to >42.0 pts Acceptable • Relies primarily on summarizing module materials and/or case content. • Demonstrates some original thought. • Does not explicitly reference module or case materials relevant to analysis. 42 to >0 pts Not So Good • Little or no connection to relevant module learning materials or case content. • Demonstrates no original thinking. 55 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResponse to Assigned Task 55 to >49.0 pts Excellent • Addresses all aspects of the assignment prompt or case question(s) fully, in appropriate depth and detail. 49 to >42.0 pts Acceptable • Addresses most aspects of the assignment prompt or case question(s) but misses a small part. OR • Addresses all aspects of the assignment prompt or case question(s) but lacks appropriate depth or detail. 42 to >0 pts Not So Good • Non-responsive to significant aspects of the assignment prompt or case question(s). OR • Content not relevant to the assignment prompt or case question(s). 55 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Quality 40 to >36.0 pts Excellent • Clear, concise, and compelling. • Well organized thoughts. • Appropriate paragraph format. • No grammatical or mechanical errors. • Follows all assignment format instructions (e.g., document length). 36 to >30.0 pts Acceptable • Very minor difficulty in understanding content. • Somewhat disorganized thoughts. • Lack of appropriate paragraphing. • Minor grammatical or mechanical errors. • Some assignment format instructions not followed. 30 to >0 pts Not So Good • Significant difficulty in understanding content. • Extremely disorganized thoughts. • No paragraphing. • Multiple grammatical or mechanical errors. • No assignment format instructions followed. 40 pts Total Points: 150 PreviousNext