Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Unilever CEO Hein Schumacher will have his pay frozen until 2026.</li><li>Shareholders voted against his base salary of $1.96 million at the AGM in May.</li></ul>The CEO of <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/unilever-reorganization-layoffs-might-not-be-enough-2022-3">Unilever</a> won't be able to get a pay rise until 2026 amid shareholder frustration, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-30/unilever-freezes-ceo-pay-for-two-years-after-investor-meetings">Bloomberg</a> reported.The board's proposed pay package was rejected by shareholders at Unilever's annual general meeting in May, per Bloomberg.Hein Schumacher will take home a base salary of 1.85 million euros ($1.96 million), but it won't be reviewed again for two years.That's a nearly 20% increase on the fixed pay of the previous CEO, Alan Jope, from whom Schumacher took over in July. Jope was <a target="_blank" href="https://www.unilever.com/files/deb60070-b400-466b-b2f2-2a567e4c28fc/unilever-2022-ara-directors--remuneration-report.pdf">paid</a> 1.56 million euros ($1.65 million) in 2022.But nearly 60% of shareholders voted against the deal put forward by the Unilever board, which includes the activist investor <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/billionaire-nelson-peltz-children-family-nicola-brooklyn-beckham-brad-trian-2023-2">Nelson Peltz</a>, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.reuters.com/business/unilever-freeze-ceo-schumachers-fixed-pay-two-years-2023-10-30/">Reuters</a> reported."Whilst the majority of shareholders agreed that the fixed pay level for the new CEO appropriately reflected the size and complexity of the role, there was a preference that alignment with the market could have been achieved gradually, rather than in one step on appointment," the company said in a statement seen by the news agency.Unilever said it held 37 meetings with 24 of its top shareholders to discuss that vote, and their feedback led it to decide on the pay freeze, per Reuters.It means Schumacher won't be eligible for a pay increase in 2024 or 2025, and his fixed pay level will be reviewed by a compensation committee in 2026.The decision comes days after Schumacher changed the company's tact on promoting brands with a social purpose, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/30/unilever-freeze-chief-executives-pay-shareholder-backlash/">The Telegraph</a> reported.Under Jope, the company said it would sell off brands that "are not able to stand for something more important than just making your hair shiny, your skin soft, your clothes whiter or your food tastier," per The Telegraph.That had prompted a backlash from shareholders like Terry Smith, who said in a 2022 letter to his fund's investors that Unilever had "clearly lost the plot."Unilever declined to comment when contacted by Insider.

The CEO of Unilever won't get a pay increase for 2 years after a backlash from shareholders

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image">Thomson ReutersA woman stands behind a machine that is part of a toothpaste manufacturing line at the Unilever factory in Lagos</div></div></div><ul class="summary-list"><li>Withdrawal means that for now, Britain gets to keep one of its most valuable companies as it moves closer to Brexit.</li><li>Scrapped plan seen as victory for shareholders, who had opposed the move.</li><li>Unilever decided to collapse its Anglo-Dutch structure after a business review sparked by last year's failed $143 billion takeover approach by Kraft-Heinz.</li></ul> Unilever - the maker of Dove soap and Ben &amp; Jerry's ice cream - has abandoned plans to move its corporate headquarters from London to Rotterdam in the face of growing opposition from UK investors, <a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-unilever-structure/unilever-withdraws-proposal-to-move-to-netherlands-idUKKCN1MF0HD">Reuters reported</a>. The withdrawal means that for now, Britain gets to keep one of its most valuable companies as it moves closer to Brexit. It's also seen as a victory for UK shareholders, who had spoken out against the move, which would have kicked the company out of the benchmark FTSE 100 index. Shareholders representing about 12% of the shares had publicly opposed the move. "The board will now consider its next steps and will continue to engage with our shareholders," Chairman Marijn Dekkers said, according to Reuters. He added that the company will proceed with the plan to cancel its Dutch preference shares. London Mayor Sadiq Khan tweeted that he supported the move. "It's great news that Unilever has chosen to keep its HQ in London &amp; abandoned plans to move it to Rotterdam. Despite the Govt's appalling mishandling of the Brexit negotiations, the capital will always be one of the best cities in the world to do business," he said.Their main practical concerns were around the forced selling of their shares with no premium, uncertainty around the future tax treatment of Dutch dividends and a perception that the move was in part aimed at securing the greater takeover protections under Dutch law.Unilever decided to collapse its Anglo-Dutch structure after a business review sparked by last year's failed $143 billion takeover approach by Kraft-Heinz. But Unilever said it recognised that the proposal had not received support from a significant group of shareholders and therefore it considers it appropriate to withdraw.Earlier this week, influential proxy advisory firm PIRC recommended shareholders vote against the move. <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/what-caffeine-does-body-brain-2017-3">Here's what caffeine does to your body and brain</a></h3> <div> </div> </div>

Unilever - maker of Dove soap and Ben & Jerry's ice cream - scraps plan to move HQ to Netherlands after UK shareholder revolt

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><a href="http://pictures.reuters.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&amp;VBID=2C0FCIX9C9JBL&amp;SMLS=1&amp;RW=1549&amp;RH=958#/SearchResult&amp;VBID=2C0FCIX9C9JBL&amp;SMLS=1&amp;RW=1549&amp;RH=958&amp;POPUPPN=28&amp;POPUPIID=2C0BF1G8S1H2">REUTERS/Toby Melville</a></div></div></div><ul><li>Unilever has announced a likely exit from London's FTSE 100 index, following its HQ consolidation in the Netherlands</li><li>The Dutch consumer goods giant announced plans to relocate its headquarters entirely to the city of Rotterdam earlier in the year.</li></ul>Consumer goods company, Unilever, has said it is "extremely" unlikely that its shares will still be listed on London's FTSE 100 index following the relocation of its headquarters from London to the Netherlands, the Financial Times has <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/0dd446aa-6fb5-11e8-852d-d8b934ff5ffa">reported</a>.The announcement comes as a setback for investors benchmarked to the index and could be seen as undermining Prime Minister Theresa May's promise that Brexit will not damage UK commercial interests.Some major shareholders have expressed their unhappiness at the move."We understand and appreciate that a departure from the FTSE index has negative implications for some investors that are benchmarked to it, however simplification is the right thing for the company and our shareholders as a whole," Graeme Pitkethly, Unilever's CFO said at a conference.The company announced its intention to move its headquarters entirely to the Dutch city of Rotterdam in March. Designed to simplify the firm's operations, the move would end a dual operating structure that has seen the firm have a joint HQ in both the UK and the Netherlands for nearly a century.Unilever said it shares are likely to have a stronger weighting in European market indices compared with the FTSE 100, but the move is subject to a shareholder vote in Rotterdam before September."We would hope that those investors who are impacted have got sufficient flexibility in their portfolios to continue to hold Unilever," Pitkethly said.Rotterdam was chosen over London because the firm mainly deals in Dutch shares so consolidation in the Netherlands made sense, the company said. Unilever made clear that the deal had nothing to do with Britain's vote to leave the EU.At the same conference, Unilever discussed a $150 million hit to its profit in the second quarter, which the firm said was the result of 200,000 truck drivers striking in Brazil, a key market for the company, over a hike in fuel prices. <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/sallie-krawcheck-impact-investing-diversity-benefits-of-investing-in-women-2018-6">Former Wall Street CEO reveals how most financial products designed for women completely miss the point</a></h3> <div> </div> </div>

Consumer goods giant Unilever to leave FTSE 100 after relocating to the Netherlands

<ul class="summary-list"><li><keyword id="102110" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="WEF">WEF</keyword> founder <keyword id="75498" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Klaus-Schwab">Klaus Schwab</keyword> said corporate leaders today have a "new mindset" around <keyword id="6361617" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="climate-change">climate change</keyword>.</li><li>He said more corporate leaders will likely embrace the ESG movement.</li><li>The comments were made during <a href="https://youtu.be/mpE3HfL4IU8">Insider's "Act to Impact" event</a>, presented by Deloitte, on April 20.</li></ul>When Klaus Schwab thinks of climate change, he thinks of his grandchildren and their future. Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the <keyword id="69007" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="World-Economic-Forum">World Economic Forum</keyword>, is worried - but hopeful."Many people have a tendency to see our fight against climate change as a cost, as something that is negative," Schwab said. "Yes, it may be to a certain extent, but it's also a great opportunity."For the economic leader, tackling climate change means <keyword id="34454" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="leadership">leadership</keyword> innovation. Company executives, investors, consumers, and political leaders will have to find ways to work together to enact change, he said.And that means new economic opportunities: new infrastructure projects such as the one Congress is <a href="https://www.erienewsnow.com/story/43712566/white-house-lawmakers-debate-details-of-proposed-dollar2-trillion-infrastructure-package">debating</a>, new developments in technologies such as carbon sequestration, and new products such as expanded options for electric cars.Schwab credits a good portion of his philosophy on climate change to <keyword id="45830" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Bill-Gates">Bill Gates</keyword>, who he said is a leader in the green movement."Gates talks about how, in order to decarbonize the world or to make it carbon-neutral by 2050, a lot of new technological progress has to be achieved," Schwab said. "I see here a great opportunity because we can move into an age of green innovation."Signs of this age of green innovation have increased in the past year. ESG investments, or investments that apply environmental, social, and governance principles to a company's performance, have seen record growth and are projected to increase in the future, <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/03/02/top-10-esg-trends-for-the-new-decade/">reports showed</a>.US assets under management that used ESG criteria increased 42% over the past two years to $17 trillion in 2020, up from $12 trillion in 2018, showed a <a href="https://www.ussif.org/trends">2020 report</a> from the US Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment.A growing number of companies have pledged large green initiatives. GM, America's largest car manufacturer, said it would go carbon-neutral in its global products and operations by 2040. Apple committed to being 100% carbon-neutral for its supply chain and products by 2030.Schwab is energized by these changes and believes the trend toward a more stakeholder-centric view of the world is ahead."I'm really excited," he said, adding that society has changed over the past few years. "We have a new mindset. We have a new social consciousness."Insider spoke with Schwab about his new mindset and how leaders plan to embrace the ESG movement. Our interview has been edited for length and clarity.There's more and more recognition that a viable economy not only relies on treating people well but treating the climate well. Do you think CEOs have fully adopted this mindset that treating the climate well is good for shareholders?So the executives who have a longer-term thinking have clearly adopted this mindset. And if you look, there are two reasons - they are very obvious. So there's first an economic reason. I think what we have learned from the coronavirus is that prevention - the cost of prevention is much lesser compared to the cost of responding afterward to the damage. So we have a situation where you have a kind of free ride because you don't have to integrate all your external costs into your business model, but someone will have to pay for it. And it will be down the road.And my fear is that we may end up like tobacco companies, which means, we will be in a situation where, down the line, you will have class action. Already today, investors recognize this danger, this risk. There are investors who hesitate to provide capital to companies who really are damaging the environment.But there's also a moral reason. I'm thinking of my grandchildren. I don't want to have them facing a crisis that may be much worse compared to what we are seeing today with the COVID-19 pandemic.Do you believe that investors are recognizing the risk? I said investors who are thinking long term. Of course, if you want to make a fast buck, it's a different matter.But in the end, I think companies will recognize they will be better off economically if they take care of nature, because young people - I mean, at least my employees - they don't want to work anymore for a company or for an organization that is damaging nature.And I think clients and customers do not want to buy the products of such a company. So I think it's in the direct, commercial business interest of companies to take care of the planet.Here in the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission just created an ESG task force to promote the disclosure and transparency of ESG criteria. And a report showed that over 300 ESG proxies are headed to a vote this spring. How do you feel about the surge and attention to ESG reporting?I think it's a great evolution. Some people would say even a revolution. But we should not forget that the ESG metrics - so measuring responsibility - are only part of a total integrated system.It starts with defining your strategies, where you have to take into account the present and maybe even future expectations of your stakeholders. So it's a strategy formulation. It's the responsibility of the board. Then it is of course execution, not only inside the company itself but also in the supplying network. And at the end, you have some measurement system, the ESG metrics.So we should not look at ESG metrics just as some kind of a formal, additional reporting system. I think to do ESG performance in the right way, you have to look at it as an ecosystem, which integrates a company as a whole.There are those who are still against certain ESG metrics, for example, the billionaire investor Warren Buffett recently urged shareholders to reject proposals for more transparency of climate-related risks and diversity and inclusion efforts. What would you say to Buffett and others who reject more transparency?I would like to have a discussion with him.I would tell him: "Look, I can understand that on the level of Berkshire Hathaway, which is a kind of conglomerate, you will have difficulties measuring the ESG responsibility of each of your companies where you have a shareholding in. So, here, I would understand."But as far as his companies are concerned, where he has invested in, I would tell him: "Look, particularly because you are very heavily exposed to the insurance business, why don't you engage actively into more ESG of responsibility? Because it may backfire on you one day, in your insurance business. You may be caught by not having an integrated policy where you pursue profitability but also take care of people and the planet."President Joe Biden <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/03/31/biden-infrastructure-climate-plan/">is asking Congress</a> to approve hundreds of billions of dollars to remake transit infrastructure in the US in a plan that the White House says will fight climate change. What do you think of this kind of package?It's not enough to hold only corporations responsible. I think we have a common responsibility, all stakeholders of global society, which means corporations have to absolve a lot of their responsibilities in this respect, but it's also us individual consumers, and it's the government.And the government has to contribute to fighting climate change by creating the necessary incentives and also disincentives. I think there are still too many governments around the world that provide subsidies for activities that actually are damaging the climate. And I think we need the government to step in to build the necessary infrastructures.What we need is an integrated approach. We cannot fight climate change by doing here a little bit, there a little bit. We need to have an integrated ecosystem approach. And I think here the government has a major role to play, to provide the kind of integrated vision for the future.Going back to the corporate world for a minute: Doesn't the case of Danone and the recent ousting of its CEO show that focusing on ESG metrics can lead to a nonconfidence vote of shareholders? Yes, so we have the famous case of Danone. The CEO was ousted and the criticism was that he has been devoting his time and his attention much too much to the ESG dimension, and not necessarily giving sufficient attention to his shareholders. But I think that's a wrong dichotomy.We shouldn't make an artificial polarization between profitability on the one hand and people and the planet on the other hand. I think the art of good management today is to create the right balance and not to be too much just keeping in mind stakeholders or shareholders. I'll give you a practical example - if we compare Danone with Unilever.Unilever is certainly recognized worldwide as a company that is at the forefront of ESG thinking, but at the same time the share price of Unilever has doubled more or less in the past 10 years. The share price of Danone has quite had some difficulties, especially over the past year. Shareholders are also stakeholders. Unilever is an example that you can give [attention] to your shareholders as well as your other stakeholders.What company stands out to you as doing especially well when it comes to tackling climate change? I'm looking at the hardest-hit companies, hardest in terms of those being confronted with a major need for transformation. Here - if I look at the oil industry - I take as an example Total, the French oil company. Total is one of the 70 companies that the World Economic Forum brought together to commit to report on the ESG metrics we have developed with the International Business Council, under the guidance of Bank of America's CEO, Brian Moynihan, together with the Big Four audit companies.If we're talking about persons, I would say Bill Gates. I just read his newest book ["How to Avoid a Climate Disaster"]. I think he has a very great contribution to offer us. Because he says, "Look, we need a systemic approach to fight climate change. Even if we take all of our goodwill, it will not be enough. What we need is innovation."He talks about how in order to decarbonize the world or to make it carbon-neutral by 2050, a lot of new technological progress has to be achieved. Our present technology does not suffice to get to the target in 2050. So I see here a great opportunity because we can move into an age of green innovation.Many people have a tendency to see our fight against climate change as a cost, as something that is negative. Yes, it may be to a certain extent, but it's also a great opportunity.If I look at the young generations - the World Economic Forum has a community of 10,000 young leaders - if I talk to them, they have a different mindset. They have a different picture of the world.It's not only the material dimension, income, or GDP. It's well-being. And climate change is interconnected with pollution. It's interconnected with life expectancy. It's interconnected with a lot of health issues. So if we want to invest in our well-being, then we have to invest in fighting climate change.Recently, a number of major corporations such as GM and Apple have made pledges to go carbon-neutral - GM by 2040, and Apple by 2030. Do you think these timelines are realistic? And are they fast enough?We speak about a carbon-free world by 2050. That's the objective of the Paris Agreement. Most countries have subscribed to this objective. And many, many companies have now also issued statements that they would achieve carbon neutrality.Now, we have to be aware that the situation is not the same for each company. We have the energy companies - the Exxons, the Chevrons, and so on - that will have much more challenges to reach this objective of carbon neutrality in 2050, compared to Google, or even a car manufacturer that understands the technology to make this transformation to the electric car.So it's good if companies that have fewer challenges, such as the high-tech companies, provide an example by setting very ambitious objectives. But again, I come back to this: Setting objectives is not enough. Being measured in the execution is important, and here the ESGs come in again.Do you think the energy-sector companies such as Chevron and Exxon have fully bought into the stakeholder-capitalism model? Have they bought into addressing climate change?I would answer that in the following way: If they haven't bought in yet, into the stakeholder concept, they are on the wrong side of history, because I'm deeply convinced that we are now really at an inflection point where society as a whole does not tolerate any more companies that are damaging nature or that are not upholding diversity and social justice.I think we have a completely new social consciousness. We now also have a world where every deficiency can be reported very fast, and that can create a negative reaction. So if I were Exxon or a company that's really challenged - we should not forget, these companies need a complete transformation of their business models - I would commit to the stakeholder concept, but would also try to create understanding in the public. For me, being in the energy sector, it may be much more difficult compared to a company that's already producing products that do not necessarily damage the environment. So it's a communications effort.How are you feeling about the corporate fight to tackle climate change? What, if anything, are you excited about?I'm really excited because, as I just mentioned, we have a new mindset. We have a new social consciousness. People like Greta Thunberg got very aware that something is wrong here in our lifestyles - that either we will have to suffer down the road or our children will have to suffer.So we are now in a situation where climate change, or the attention given to climate change, provides a higher sensitivity for other deficiencies that we have.I mentioned already a lack of inclusion, a lack of social justice, a system that is not necessarily fair in providing everybody with the necessary opportunities. And I think the pandemic has contributed to this new alertness, to this new sensitivity. Some people may say this is inconvenient because we pinpoint weaknesses in our society, but it's a wake-up call to adapt and to make sure that we have better lives. That's what we're fighting for.

The founder of the World Economic Forum explains why 'a new mindset' is giving him hope for climate action, and shares which companies are getting it right

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image">AccentureBrian Whipple, head of Accenture Interactive</div></div></div>Management consulting firm Accenture announced it had acquired UK <keyword id="35666" type="COMPANY" weightage="100" keywordseo="advertising">advertising</keyword> agency Karmarama on Tuesday.Speaking to Business Insider, David Whipple, who heads the Accenture Interactive unit - <a href="https://www.accenture.com/us-en/accenture-interactive-named-worlds-biggest-fastest-growing">which was named by AdAge as the world's biggest and fastest growing digital agency network in 2016</a> - said Karmarama will help set it apart from competitors like IBM, Deloitte, and the services offered by advertising holding companies. Now Accenture can help design customer experiences, build them, run them, and have an agency to lead on creative.Karmarama works with clients including the BBC, Honda, and Unilever and is one of the UK's biggest independent creative agencies.Jon Wilkins, who is Karmarama's executive chairman and will take on an additional leadership role within Accenture Interactive following the acquisition, told Business Insider he never wanted to sell the business to a classic advertising holding company where all the benefits of its independence could be stifled. By contrast, he described Accenture Interactive as one of the most "entrepreneurially minded businesses" he had come across.This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.Business Insider's Lara O'Reilly: What was the appeal of Karmarama to Accenture?Brian Whipple (Accenture): We are laser-focused on helping clients create the best customer experiences on the planet.While we are in that today, having Jon's team as part of the family vastly increase our ability to do that in the bleeding edge and I look forward to tapping the team across a network of opportunities.[Karamarama is a] media agnostic, technology agnostic, experience-first philosophy agency concept. Technology, commerce, content management, and advertising are all about enabling the new customer experience not leading with [a specific media].O'Reilly: Management consulting firms tend to be client focused, whereas creative agencies - arguably - have more of a focus on the consumer. Will this acquisition help you on that front too?Whipple: Accenture Interactive is specifically focused on the interaction between the client and the end consumer, and not on clients per se. So that may be different from your consulting firm description. Accenture is in no part a consulting firm - our parent entity is, but that is not what the Accenture Interactive business model or culture is.We are focused on bringing brand promise to life through the customer experience.Jon Wilkins (Karmarama): An interesting find for us that we have detected from consumer point of view and the CMO point of view is the desire to create one connected experience. If you look at the way CMOs' careers are evolving, the ones that have reached the pinnacle are those that have created a system to connect tech and digital experience with the brand and we think that is the battlegroundFrom a consumer perspective, it's the current weak link. A project Karmarama has been doing, <a href="http://www.project-reconnect.com/">Project Reconnect, which is championed WFA (World Federation of Advertisers)</a>, looks at the long term trends of brand awareness, engagement, and trust. All those metrics show a decline in brands' ability to truly connect. The number one issue is a lack of connection in digital experience and brandWe see bleeding edge demands being placed on the CMO by consumers who are now voting with ad blockers and other avoidance techniques to demand more from brands and CMOsO'Reilly: Independent creative agencies are usually favored by clients for exactly that: their independence. When independent agencies get bought, they can sometimes lose some of the magic and some of the risk-taking they were afforded by being independents. Is that received wisdom true? How are you going to prevent that from happening?Wilkins (Karmarama): I think it can be true - definitely if we had gone into a classic marketing services holding company, there are two things that tend to happen.One: Management have selfish endeavors around their earn-out that forces them to become, maybe, greedy. And also they tend to work in silos and that can lead to a lack of entrepreneurialism.These are things we didn't want to happen to our brand.Within Accenture, we are very much agnostic, as Brian said. I think we can challenge ourselves to continually strive to bring new exciting ways to communicate with customers on behalf of CMOs.I don't think I've ever come across a more entrepreneurially-minded business than Accenture Interactive. When it comes to identifying business growth opportunities, they are different to the classic holding company.Whipple (Accenture): Our bread and butter business is less about responding to client RFPs (requests for proposals) or AOR (agency of record) pitches. I'm not saying we don't do that but the real play for us is bringing new business models entirely, new revenue streams entirely to our Fortune 2,000 clients.It's less about will they go with us versus agency X or Y and more about will they partner with us to create this new business.Wilkins (Karmarama): Accenture Interactive is very entrepreneurial and we found this very exciting.As an independent you can't do, however ambitious you are, you don't have logistics, scale, and breadth of business to go to these companies and help them grow their business.We think we are going to be more entrepreneurial with Accenture Interactive. We are not just batting for ourselves: it's a bigger market opportunity.O'Reilly: Accenture Interactive acquired design agency Fjord in 2013, which seems like a similar deal in terms of bringing on board new creative expertise. How has the integration gone and how to you bring Fjord to the table when you are speaking to clients?Whipple (Accenture): The Fjord deal has been amongst the most visible and most successful in Accenture Interactive's history. We are fortunate to have a strong track record amongst most or all of our acquisitions and Fjord is at the top of that. Fjord is top of mind for our executives across the globe, and it has opened up major service design capabilities in Sao Paulo, Sydney Australia, and all major markets in Western Europe and North America.Adding Karmarama from creative standpoint will only bolster that, and sit side by side from a service design perspective.We have an Accenture Interactive team that has deep tentacles reaching into the technology capabilities of Accenture to shepherd creative talent and that's critical.We are not just another player in this ecosystem. We didn't buy Karmarama to take their earnings and distribute them to shareholders - it's about creating synergy for clients. Conceptually, this is the same play [as Fjord.]O'Reilly: From the outside looking in, there now seems to be lots of entities offering a similar type of service. There's Accenture Interactive, <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/ibm-quietly-built-the-worlds-largest-digital-agency-heres-how-it-got-there-2016-3">IBM's huge iX digital agency</a>, and Deloitte Digital and its acquisition of creative agency Heat. Then on the holding company side, you have <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/interview-with-maurice-lvy-at-ad-week-europe-2015-3">Publicis Groupe acquiring Sapient and reorganizing to offer clients "digital transformation" services</a> and WPP reorganizing its businesses around a concept called "horizontality," where clients can take a mixture of digital, data and creative services. What makes you different?Whipple (Accenture): It's a fair question and I would propose to you that they are very dissimilar things.For starters, a number of the companies you mentioned, which are all well run, strong organizations are essentially a collection of different agencies. Yes, there are press releases about grouping them together, but they are a founder-based culture, so their go to market strategy is different.I have one global management team and we go to market as Accenture Interactive. It may be that Fjord offers service design and Karmarama is in a similar brand space, but the Accenture Interactive team all has 100% aligned incentives, without separate founder incentives at all.What's also completely different is that while we are about designing customer experiences, we are also equal parts about running, enabling, and managing these customer experiences for clients.It's not just abut building it and turning it over to them, it's often about running the assets and technology, where we would have a relationship with clients that would probably be 10-20x in size of what a traditional player would have. It's a multi-year, retention-based relationship partner model.O'Reilly: But isn't that what iX and Deloitte offer?Whipple (Accenture): I don't comment on competitors usually.iX is largely a piece of front-end design born through the web sphere of tech. Deloitte is also a strong firm but does not have nearly the global reach of Accenture Interactive, nor specifically the footprint that Accenture Interactive has in the share of mind with CEOs, and CIOs, and now CMOs.I'll give you an example. When you get in the client room and they say: We have to come up with a campaign and we have to do that in an innovative way that attracts new customers and creates profitable relationships in lasting way and a new revenue stream for us.When that happens, a number of providers all raise their hand and say: "We can do that for you, here are five ideas."Then the client says: "We need that done and implemented in this particular commerce tech, across the Adobe marketing stack, and executing with our back-end campaign systems." Then 15 or so arms in air go down to three very quickly.Then the client says: "And we need to version this in 20 languages, across 50 different countries."Most of the arms go down.Then the client says: "We need you to manage it for us because it's impossible for us to manage content and version content with software releases, government regulations, and privacy and permission restrictions."That, pretty much, is our business model.We lead with definition of customer experience but by the time you have multi-national complex management pursuits it takes world class organization like Accenture to pull that off for the clientO'Reilly: Jon, have you been shopping Karmarama around for a while and were there other suitors?Wilkins (Karamara): Amazingly, we haven't been shopping around for a while. But because we are quite big and independent, there has been a lot of independent interest.There was never any desire amongst management to sell the business. We are a pretty soft company with some really good values. The term management used is to "steer the ship in the best waters for future."It's another exciting journey for everyone involved. We told everyone today and people ar really excited and happy about the company.We would have never sold to a classic marketing services group. That had zero appeal amongst management and leadership here. This was an opportunity to really challenge the model. The whole agency model needs shaking up and this is it.O'Reilly: What do you mean by a "soft company"?Wilkins (Karmarama): This business has never been about commercial pursuit. A lot of my former colleagues and peers set up agencies with sole aim of exiting and making money.The thing that brought us together with Accenture Interactive was our cultural fit as over time we realized we share a lot of values: the way we treat staff, customers, the mark we want to leave on society. We have always had loftier maybe stranger pursuits.Visit Markets Insider for constantly updated market quotes for individual stocks, ETFs, indices, commodities and currencies traded around the world. <a href="http://markets.businessinsider.com/">Go Now!</a> <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/income-state-top-one-percent-salary-map-2016-11">Here's how much you need to make to be in the top 1% of every state</a></h3> <div> <div> <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="V0cW9zNzE6SM2p7WbrsEo0VKlNzdMDjq" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div> </div> </div> </div>

You Searched For "unilever shareholder vote" and got 5 results

The CEO of Unilever won't get a pay increase for 2 years after a backlash from shareholders

Pete Syme

Unilever - maker of Dove soap and Ben & Jerry's ice cream - scraps plan to move HQ to Netherlands after UK shareholder revolt

Trista Kelley

Consumer goods giant Unilever to leave FTSE 100 after relocating to the Netherlands

Michael Selby-Green,Michael S…

The founder of the World Economic Forum explains why 'a new mindset' is giving him hope for climate action, and shares which companies are getting it right

Marguerite Ward

Accenture explains why it just bought ad agency Karmarama

Lara O'Reilly

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides