Case [6] Unilever's Lifebuoy in India:

Implementing the Sustainability Plan (HBS 914417)

1. How would you evaluate Samir Singh’s first three years as Global Brand VP for
Lifebuoy soap? How difficult was the situation he inherited? How effective has he been in
dealing with those challenges? Where has he fallen short?

Samir Singh was named Global Brand VP for Lifebuoy soap in early 2010. The first 3 years of
his nomination can be evaluated as a period of bold initiatives and transformation as Samir Singh
made significant efforts to revitalize the brand and to fit Unilever's sustainability goals.

The situation he inherited was challenging because the brand was declining. Lifebuoy’s market
share was plummeting in several developing countries such as India, its largest market. Because
of the brand's continuous reinvention and repositioning, the brand added value and image were
too confusing and difficult to identify for the consumers.

Another challenge was that Singh had to abide by Unilever Sustainable Living Program and its
ambitious sustainability goals of improving the health and hygiene of a billion people by 2015.

Singh managed to turn the tide and deal with many of these challenges. He implemented a
strategy in order to return the brand to its roots, focusing marketing campaigns on protection
from diseases spread by germs, especially during times of high infection risk. He bet on
innovation and adaptation to consumer needs by introducing new products like Clinicare 10 and
Lifebuoy Color Changing Handwash. Singh also showed strong leadership skills: he was willing
to embrace innovation and involve the Indian team in the decision-making process.

Nevertheless, Samir Singh has fallen short in multiple areas. For example, despite his significant
progress, Singh faced several challenges concerning the brand’s sustainability targets, especially
when reaching rural areas because his strategies were mostly focused on urban markets and
liquid handwash. He also had trouble balancing profitability of the brand with these behavior-
change goals, which usually have longer payback periods than traditional marketing campaigns.

2. As Sitapati, what decision would you make regarding the three handwashing behavior
change program that has been proposed? What risks and benefits are associated with
each?

For Sitapati to decide which of the 3 proposed handwashing behavior change programs to
implement, he needs to carefully evaluate the pros and cons of each, as they all offer their own
set of risks and benefits, which are listed below. The decision will likely involve balancing these
factors with the company's overall goals, priorities, and investments. In addition, he needs to
think about which choice will best contribute to achieving the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan's
target of 450 million behavior changes and at the same time, align with HUL's financial goals to
ensure that the handwashing programs are profitable enough to sustain themselves. It's also
important for him to consider the payback period, as the brand's profitability is crucial for
supporting the handwashing programs over time.

After evaluating the benefits and risks of the three program options and their unique
considerations, the Urban Schools Liquids Initiative seems to be the most favorable choice due
to its potential to bring about behavior-changing potential, profitability through higher usage rate
and margins, and brand focus. However, careful consideration and mitigation strategies should
be in place to address the identified risks, especially in terms of affordability and reaching the
intended rural audience.

1st Option: KKD Rural Outreach Initiative

Benefits:

● Collaboration of several product brands, which pool resources together.

● Support material (videos, games, prizes) were well-received in target villages.
● Villages account for 40% of India's population, indicating significant growth potential.

Risks:

● Previous similar programs failed to recoup marketing expenses within the 3-year norm.
● Target audience (housewives) didn't show sustainable behavior change.
● Unreachable target audience through traditional media.
● Uncertain cost-effectiveness of village visits.
● Break-even period over 8 years, compared to faster returns in other marketing
investments.

2nd Option: MP Partnership Initiative

Benefits:

● Clinically proven program.

● Will receive support from the Madhya Pradesh government & UNICEF.
● Government support will provide access to schools.
● Potential to leverage teachers for extended impact.
● Training children as change agents with the potential to influence family behavior
(estimate of 4.5 million people).
● Huge potential impact if successful, with possible adoption in all 47 MP districts and
other Indian states.

Risks:

● Inability to brand training and materials with Lifebuoy's name; no brand recognition
could hinder subsequent profits.
● Limited reach (900,000 children) may not contribute significantly to the 450 million
target.
● Time-consuming with a long payback period (13.5 years).
● Reliance on external funding.
3rd Option: Urban Schools Liquids Initiative

Benefits:

● Liquid handwash has behavior-changing potential.

● Liquid soap has higher usage rate and margins; potential to lead to steeper revenue &
profits.
● Payback period around 3.5 years.
● Focused solely on Lifebuoy handwash; can build brand preference for Lifebuoy in a
growing market (up to 40% annually).
● Targets urban markets with higher purchasing power and better education.
● Potential for the target audience (children) to influence the entire household.

Risks:

● Liquid soap may be too expensive for the poor rural mass market (behavior change
program target). Implementation in urban schools may deviate focus from the real target
audience.
● Program expected to reach only 1.5 million people.

3. As Singh, what action, if any, would you take to influence Sitapati’s decision? What
would you do if he chooses not to implement either of your preferred Jakarta models?

In engaging with Sitapati's concerns, I'd present a robust proposal backed by comprehensive data
outlining the long-term impact and cost-efficiency of the preferred Jakarta models. I'd emphasize
successful case studies, illustrating how these models align with our financial objectives over
time. Additionally, I'd suggest optimizing costs through streamlined operations or potential
partnerships for funding while ensuring the program's essence remains intact. Proposing smaller-
scale pilot programs could also help demonstrate viability without substantial financial
commitments and establish performance metrics directly linked to financial goals.

If Sitapati remains hesitant about implementing the preferred models, I'd pivot to alternative
approaches that address his concerns while still working towards similar objectives. These
alternatives might involve modified cost structures, partnerships, or other behavior-change
initiatives aligned with his vision. Furthermore, I'd explore integrating successful components
from the preferred models into existing strategies, ensuring a partial implementation that doesn't
disrupt established processes. Continuous dialogue and an open exchange of ideas with Sitapati
would remain crucial, allowing us to refine proposals and find middle ground to address his
reservations while aiming for the desired impact.