New Unilever CEO has a chance to revisit mega-M&A
LONDON, Feb 25 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Unilever's (ULVR.L), opens new tab new CEO may want to awaken animal spirits at the seller of Dove soap and Axe deodorant. On Tuesday, opens new tab, the $139 billion London-listed group announced that CEO Hein Schumacher is leaving the business after less than two years in charge. His replacement, finance boss Fernando Fernandez, is tasked with revitalising a company with a so-so portfolio of brands. One option may be to revisit a megadeal in the mould of Unilever's attempted Haleon (HLN.L), opens new tab purchase in 2022, opens new tab.
Schumacher's departure looks both abrupt and messy. The Dutch executive is the company's third CEO in roughly six years. Unilever has whipsawed between championing environmental, social and governance goals under previous bosses Paul Polman and Alan Jope, to doing the opposite under Schumacher, who said the company should no longer be 'force fitting' purpose on all the group's brands.
For now, it looks like Fernandez will carry on with Schumacher's plan to cut costs and focus the company's marketing spend on 30 so-called 'power brands', referring to relatively well-known products like Comfort fabric softener, Hellmann's mayonnaise, and Knorr stock cubes. However, he may need some fresh thinking before long. Unilever is struggling to boost the volume of goods it sells. Schumacher warned earlier this month, opens new tab that there was a slowdown of market growth in 2024 that would continue in the near term.
The consumer-goods group's valuation reflects investors' worries. Unilever trades at 17 times forward earnings - a discount to both Danone (DANO.PA), opens new tab and Nestlé (NESN.S), opens new tab, compared with a premium for much of 2024.
Closing that gap will mean turbocharging sales and the operating margin. Doing so will be hard with many of the group's staler current brands. Fernandez may therefore need to be bold. He could look at buying a fast-growing, high-margin business like $30 billion Galderma (GALD.S), opens new tab. Another option would be to revisit Advil painkiller-maker Haleon, which Unilever attempted to buy for 50 billion pounds ($63 billion) in 2022. The now-listed business is currently worth 36 billion pounds. Either of these possible deals would help to accelerate Unilever's shift away from lower-valued food and towards the more prized beauty and healthcare businesses.
If Fernandez focuses just on the company's existing brands, there is a danger that sales will flounder. Dove, Sunsilk shampoo, Knorr and many others are vulnerable to competition from grocers' cheaper products, making it tough to generate the kind of improvements that investors are seeking. Mega-M&A is always risky, but for Unilever so is doing nothing.
Follow @aimeedonnellan, opens new tab on X
CONTEXT NEWS
Unilever said on February 25 that CEO Hein Schumacher would step down after less than two years in the job. Finance chief Fernando Fernandez will take over on March 1.
Unilever, which owns Hellmann's mayonnaise and Dove soap, said there was no change to its 2025 outlook or medium-term forecast and that the board was committed to "further accelerating" Schumacher's growth plan.
Shares in Unilever were down 1.9% as of 0958 GMT on February 25.
Breakingviews
Reuters Breakingviews is the world's leading source of agenda-setting financial insight. As the Reuters brand for financial commentary, we dissect the big business and economic stories as they break around the world every day. A global team of about 30 correspondents in New York, London, Hong Kong and other major cities provides expert analysis in real time.
Sign up for a free trial of our full service at https://www.breakingviews.com/trial and follow us on Twitter @Breakingviews and at www.breakingviews.com. All opinions expressed are those of the authors.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
MPs ask ministers whether they will recoup Thames Water executive bonuses
The environment secretary has been asked if he will claw back controversial bonus payments to Thames Water senior executives after it emerged some bonuses had already been paid out. Last month, Steve Reed vowed to block bonuses that Thames Water proposed to pay to managers at the beleaguered company. The firm's chair has been forced to admit that bonuses have already been paid to executives out of a £3bn emergency loan paid by creditors for the purpose of rescuing Thames from financial collapse. In a letter to MPs on the environment, food and rural affairs committee, the chair of Thames Water, Sir Adrian Montague, admitted 21 members of the firm's senior management team received a first payment at 50% of base salary on 30 April 2025. He said 'the board does not intend to recover this money'. The letter says that the 21 individuals who received payments did not include Sir Adrian himself, the CEO Chris Weston, or the CFO Steve Buck. However, he added that Buck would be eligible for a later payment under the plan, which he confirmed is 'paused' pending a review. He added that the bonuses are worth £18.5m in total, spread across three payments over two years – '50% of base salary on 30 April 2025; 50% on completion of [Thames Water's] second restructuring plan or, if earlier, December 2025; and a final payment of 200% of base salary in June 2026'. The parliamentary committee has written to Reed asking 'whether you expect Ofwat to recoup the payments made on 30th April to all 21 of Thames management team?' Alistair Carmichael, the chair of the committee, said: 'We have now learned that 21 members of Thames Water's senior management team, not including their CEO and CFO, received payments additional to their salary, in April 2025, at the not inconsiderable rate of 50% of their base rate of pay. Thames Water have stated in a letter to us that they do not intend to recover this money. They also say that the retention payments scheme has been 'paused'. 'As a committee, we are trying to seek clarity as to whether these payments fall within the remit of the government's ban and will be recouped, given that they were not paid to the company's CEO or CFO and are termed by Thames Water as 'retention payments' rather than bonuses. We are also asking whether Defra and Ofwat were aware of these payments and what undertakings they have received from Thames Water about the pausing or withdrawal of the retention plan. 'Given that the plan includes two further retention payments, including 200% of base salary due to be paid to these 21 individuals in June 2026, it is vital that Thames Water, Defra and Ofwat are clear with us all about what exactly is going on.' In his letter, Montague also apologised for misleading the committee after the Guardian revealed he had wrongly told MPs the large bonuses were 'insisted' upon by creditors. He told the select committee that the lenders said that 'very substantial' bonuses of up to 50% of salary should be paid to company executives from the controversial loan in order to retain key staff. The Guardian revealed that sources with knowledge of the details of the agreement, the term sheet for the loan and court documents suggested that while the bonuses were agreed to by the creditors they were not necessarily proposed by them. He said: 'For complete clarity, I did misspeak. However, I certainly did not intend to mislead. I deeply regret having caused confusion through my appearance.' A Thames Water spokesperson said: 'We wrote to the Efra select committee to apologise for the confusion caused following the recent evidence session and to provide further clarity. 'The company's CEO is not party to the MRP [management retention plan] and has received no payments to date. None of the retention payments have been funded by customers. Full details of the plan have been shared with our economic regulator. We will review the requests from the select committee chair and will respond in due course.' Defra has been contacted for comment.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Nottingham Forest ‘write to Uefa over Crystal Palace Europa League decision' as they stand to benefit from Eagles ban
NOTTINGHAM FOREST have reportedly written to Uefa over concerns about Crystal Palace taking part in the Europa League. Palace's historic FA Cup final win over Manchester City booked their place in Europe for the first time. 2 2 But complications around John Textor's stake in both Palace and French club Lyon have resulted in the South Londoners' spot being in doubt. Uefa rules on multi-club ownership prevent any two clubs controlled by the same person or group from competing in the same competition. Both Palace and Lyon have qualified for next year's Europa League, but the Ligue 1 side would have precedence as they finished higher in their domestic league. And now The Times state Forest made contact with European football's governing body to highlight the potential breach. Should Palace be kicked out of the Europa League, it is understood Nottingham Forest would be promoted from the Conference League and take the Eagles' Europa League place. Forest themselves made the necessary changes to their ownership structure when it became apparent both they and owner Evangelos Marinakis' other team Olympiacos could both qualify for the Champions League.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
North missed £140bn of transport investment during last government
The North of England would have received an extra £140 billion in transport investment under the previous government if funding levels had been the same as in London, research has claimed. Independent analysis by think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) looked at Treasury figures between 2009/10 and 2022/23, during which time the Conservatives were in power. It reached the figure, which it said was enough to build seven Elizabeth Lines, by considering the amount of spending per person across the different English regions over that period. While England as a whole saw £592 spent per person each year, London received double that amount with £1,183 spent per person, the IPPR said. The entire North region saw £486 spent per person, with the North East and North West seeing £430 and £540 spent per person respectively. This amounted to £140 billion of missed investment for the North, more than the entire £83 billion estimate of capital spending on transport in the region since 1999/2000, according to the analysis. The region with the lowest amount of investment over the period was the East Midlands with just £355 spent per person. Among the most divisive transport investment projects for the previous government was the HS2 rail project, which was axed north of Birmingham in October 2023. Then-prime minister Rishi Sunak pledged to 'reinvest every single penny, £36 billion, in hundreds of new transport projects in the North and the Midlands', including improvements to road, rail and bus schemes. Earlier this week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a £15.6 billion package for mayoral authorities to use on public transport projects across the North and Midlands ahead of the spending review. It is expected to include funding to extend the metros in Tyne and Wear, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, along with a renewed tram network in South Yorkshire and a new mass transit system in West Yorkshire. Marcus Johns, senior research fellow at IPPR North, said: 'Today's figures are concrete proof that promises made to the North over the last decade were hollow. It was a decade of deceit. 'We are 124 years on from the end of Queen Victoria's reign, yet the North is still running on infrastructure built during her rein – while our transport chasm widens. 'This isn't London bashing – Londoners absolutely deserve investment. But £1,182 per person for London and £486 for northerners? The numbers don't lie – this isn't right. 'This Government have begun to restore fairness with their big bet on transport cash for city leaders. 'They should continue on this journey to close this investment gap in the upcoming spending review and decades ahead.' Former Treasury minister Lord Jim O'Neill said: 'Good governance requires the guts to take a long-term approach, not just quick fixes. So the Chancellor is right in her focus on the UK's long-standing supply-side weaknesses – namely our woeful productivity and weak private and public investment. 'Backing major infrastructure is the right call, and this spending review is the right time for the Chancellor to place a big bet on northern growth and begin to close this investment chasm. 'But it's going to take more than commitments alone – she'll need to set out a transparent framework for delivery.' Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, said: 'For too long, the North of England has been treated as a poor relation to the South when it comes to government spending on transport infrastructure, and this analysis makes stark reading – exposing the vast scale of underfunding over many years. 'The Chancellor's announcement of £2.5 billion funding for transport in Greater Manchester will be a game-changer for our city-region, enabling us to expand the Bee Network, and deliver the UK's first, zero emission, integrated, public transport system by 2030. 'We have also made the case for a new Liverpool-Manchester railway, which would further rebalance infrastructure investment, and could boost the UK economy by £90 billion by 2040.'
