Unilever
Unilever manages 400+ brands across 190 countries - an empire built on complementarity and modularity.
Unilever manages 400+ brands across 190 countries - an empire built on complementarity and modularity. Formed in 1929 from the merger of Lever Brothers (soap) and Margarine Unie (margarine), the company radiated into personal care (Dove, Axe), home care (Omo, Cif), and food (Hellmann's, Ben & Jerry's). Each brand occupies a distinct market niche defined by customer demographics, price point, and geography. When European soap demand stagnates, African food demand grows. When premium beauty suffers in recession, value-tier home care gains share. From 2000-2023, revenue grew every year except three, with declines under 3%.
But this complexity nearly destroyed Unilever in the 1990s. The company implemented matrix management with three competing hierarchies: Geographic (Regional Presidents), Product (Global Category Heads), and Functional (Finance, Supply Chain, R&D). Every country manager reported to three bosses simultaneously, creating circular dominance where no one clearly outranked anyone. The measurable cost: decision velocity collapsed (11 months instead of 3), meeting overhead exploded (73 meetings per major project versus 15 pre-matrix), revenue growth dropped from 9% to 2%, and operating margin fell from 14% to 8.5%. The 1996-1997 restructuring imposed linear clarity by making Product hierarchy dominant, resulting in 4× faster revenue growth and margin recovery.
The lesson: biodiversity requires structure. Complementary portfolios create resilience, but only if you can actually make decisions. Unilever's dual modularity - brand and geographic - creates natural diversification. But modularity without hierarchy creates paralysis. You need both: a portfolio that spreads risk and a structure that enables action.
Key Leaders at Unilever
Niall FitzGerald
Co-CEO (1996-2004)
Imposed linear clarity by abolishing matrix structure
Antony Burgmans
Co-CEO (1999-2005)
Co-led restructuring that made product hierarchy dominant
Cautionary Notes on Unilever
- Matrix structure created $2B annual efficiency losses
- 73 meetings required per major decision at matrix peak
- Attempt to be 'democratic' and 'balanced' backfired
Unilever Appears in 5 Chapters
Unilever demonstrates adaptive radiation through brand diversification - €60B revenue across 400+ brands, each occupying distinct niche within related product categories.
See brand portfolio radiation →Portfolio of 400+ brands across 190 countries demonstrates geographic and category complementarity - revenue grew every year 2000-2023 except three.
See portfolio resilience →Dual modularity (brand and geographic) across 400+ brands and 190+ countries requires complex matrix structure where brand teams intersect with regional divisions.
See dual modular architecture →1990s matrix management created non-transitive hierarchy - decision velocity collapsed (11 months vs 3), revenue growth fell from 9% to 2% until restructuring.
See hierarchy failure →With ~$55B revenue, Unilever competes with P&G through geographic refugia and category specialization, maintaining viable position through portfolio balance.
See competitive positioning →