Hi everyone
Can anyone hav information on procter & gamble v/s unilever corporate espionage case?????
I'll b very grateful if some1 can forward it to my email id at the earliest
Pls help
Thanks
Tweeps
From India, Mumbai
Can anyone hav information on procter & gamble v/s unilever corporate espionage case?????
I'll b very grateful if some1 can forward it to my email id at the earliest
Pls help
Thanks
Tweeps
From India, Mumbai
Hello Tweeps,
PROCTER & GAMBLE VS. UNILEVER LTD.
“Everyone does competitive intelligence work, but we are shocked at the levels to which they (P&G) went” -Unilever Spokesperson, September 20013 “None of the information that was gathered during this (spying) operation was ever used by P&G or will ever be used. It was an unfortunate situation. We certainly regret that it occurred. We have acted responsibly & promptly to protect Unilever’s interests” -P&G Spokesperson, September 20014 “Yes, P&G took the right position in approaching Unilever about this (espionage) activity. But to say the P&G-Unilever event should never happened is overly simplistic” -Leonard Fuld, President, Fuld & Co. (Investigation firm), September 20015
These quotes give a fair idea of where are we getting at in the due course of this case. In September of 2001 the Chairman of P&G Group, Mr. John Pepper, found himself in a soup when he was alleged to have deployed spies into the offices of its FMCG competitor, Unilever ltd. P&G was accused to have their competitive intelligence operatives misrepresent themselves as market analysts, journos & students to Unilever employees so as to gather some important information. However, these accusations were outright denied by Mr. Pepper & P&G top notches.
3
"Shampoo Giants Tell Spies to Wash and Go," Common Dreams | News & Views, September 01, 2001. 4 "P&G Comes Clean on Spying Operation," Fortune, August 30, 2001. 5 "Competitive Intelligence Guru Fuld: Media Confuses Dumpster Diving With Competitive Intelligence," Business Wire, September, 06, 2001.
This was an easy rub-off for the P&G group; however the matter didn’t end there. Once this matter was dead & buried another issue cropped up when Mr. Pepper discovered that Mr. Jerry Vaughan (name changed) & Ms. Rita Skeeter (name changed), top managers in P&G’s competitive analysis department engaged in corporate spying practices at its rival corporation, Unilever Ltd. The internal spying operation gathered about eighty documents detailing Unilever’s plans for the U.S. hair care business over the next three years, including critical information such as launch-plans, prices & margins. The entire event came as a rude shock to Mr. Pepper, who had not commissioned (rather claimed not to) such an operation. The modus-operandi of this entire fiasco was conceptualized by Mr. Vaughan & Ms. Skeeter in close alliance with Mr. Thomas Ellison (name changed), head of a Cincinnati based organization ‘The Ranch’. The spies deployed engaged in an activity called ‘Dumpster Diving’ or ‘Rubbish archeology’ which in common parlance means to ‘scanning through someone’s rubbish or dump’. This included rummaging through dumpsters on Unilever’s property in search of any unshredded document containing key strategic plans. Although, during those times it was ridiculed as a spying technique amongst the peer group, the method held rich dividence in this case. The top bosses at P&G were perfectly aware of the fact that their snooping did not put them to the wrong side of the law; however, Mr. Pepper maintained that these activities did not comply with the company’s internal guidelines for business practices. Following which the chairman found himself in a situation where his subordinates hadn’t violated the law but did get involved in an illicit practice according to his company policies. Also, in highly competitive industry, he was exposed to trade secrets of his closest competitors which could go a long way in helping him outshine Unilever. What would Pepper do?
Mr. John Pepper announced it in public about the illicit activity that his subordinates were involved in, & assured Unilever about his stand on the whole issue. What followed was the dismissal of the managers from the organization.
Ref: <link outdated-removed>
Some more from FORTUNE.COM
While P&G says the company broke no laws, a company spokeswoman says that activities undertaken by operatives hired by P&G "violated our strict guidelines regarding our business policies."
Sources say that at least one so-called "competitive intelligence" company engaged in dumpster diving in an attempt to glean information on Unilever's hair care business; P&G confirms instances of dumpster diving. A source also says these competitive intelligence operatives misrepresented themselves to Unilever employees - by suggesting they were market analysts - in attempts to gather information. P&G denies the misrepresentation.
Negotiations to settle the dispute between Unilever and Procter & Gamble, which have been ongoing since April when P&G first informed Unilever about these transgressions, have reached a critical stage. A close-of-business Friday deadline has been imposed, at which point Unilever will either accept P&G's settlement terms - which could include a payment of tens of millions of dollars - or possibly take P&G to court.
A source told FORTUNE that the spying against Unilever and other competitors began last fall and continued into the spring. The operation was halted earlier this year only after senior P&G officials, including P&G chairman John Pepper, found out about it. Procter & Gamble confirms that it fired three employees "who were directly involved in the project." Susan Steinhardt, formerly P&G's head of corporate competitive analysis, acknowledges that she recently left the company, but declined to say whether she was one of the three. After Pepper and senior managers discovered what the company is calling a "rogue operation," P&G executives wrote a letter to Unilever outlining the situation. Pepper personally called Unilever chairman Niall Fitzgerald in an effort to settle the matter.
Sources say that P&G hired corporate spies through a contractor, and at least some of them worked out of a private "safe house," nicknamed "The Ranch." Sources say one of the companies that was employed by P&G was The Phoenix Consulting Group of Huntsville, Alabama. Phoenix was founded and is staffed by former government intelligence officers, including its president, John A. Nolan III, who served in the Phoenix Program, a covert operation in Vietnam. Nolan declined comment.
While corporate spying is not unusual, informing the target of the spying is, and by telling Unilever that it had engaged in this activity, P&G was apparently hoping that Unilever would not respond so harshly. "We told on ourselves," says a P&G spokesperson. P&G invited Unilever officials to interview P&G managers as well as the operatives themselves. But one source says that Unilever has been unhappy about the level of P&G's cooperation, and that is why the negotiations have dragged on so long. The source adds that P&G first provided Unilever with two documents, and then, after further prodding by Unilever, came up with more than 50 additional documents.
Unilever spent months investigating the matter and completed its review only within the last few days. On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, a source says. P&G chairman John Pepper flew to London with an offer to settle the matter. At that point the Friday deadline was set.
Through its spying operation, P&G learned myriad details of Unilever's hair care business, which includes brands such as Salon Selectives, Finesse, and Thermasilk, in an effort to bolster P&G's brands, which include Pantene, Head and Shoulders, and Pert. Unilever is said to be looking not only for financial restitution, but other remedies such as the transfer of key personnel out of P&G's hair care business and into other areas within that company.
"None of the information that was gathered in this operation was ever used by P&G or will ever be used," a P&G spokeswoman said. "It was an unfortunate situation. We certainly regret that it occurred. We have acted responsibly and promptly to protect Unilever's interest."
Hope this this might help you in some way though may not sole the entire problem.
Regards and good luck
Kishore Chelluri
From India, Hyderabad
2PROCTER & GAMBLE VS. UNILEVER LTD.
“Everyone does competitive intelligence work, but we are shocked at the levels to which they (P&G) went” -Unilever Spokesperson, September 20013 “None of the information that was gathered during this (spying) operation was ever used by P&G or will ever be used. It was an unfortunate situation. We certainly regret that it occurred. We have acted responsibly & promptly to protect Unilever’s interests” -P&G Spokesperson, September 20014 “Yes, P&G took the right position in approaching Unilever about this (espionage) activity. But to say the P&G-Unilever event should never happened is overly simplistic” -Leonard Fuld, President, Fuld & Co. (Investigation firm), September 20015
These quotes give a fair idea of where are we getting at in the due course of this case. In September of 2001 the Chairman of P&G Group, Mr. John Pepper, found himself in a soup when he was alleged to have deployed spies into the offices of its FMCG competitor, Unilever ltd. P&G was accused to have their competitive intelligence operatives misrepresent themselves as market analysts, journos & students to Unilever employees so as to gather some important information. However, these accusations were outright denied by Mr. Pepper & P&G top notches.
3
"Shampoo Giants Tell Spies to Wash and Go," Common Dreams | News & Views, September 01, 2001. 4 "P&G Comes Clean on Spying Operation," Fortune, August 30, 2001. 5 "Competitive Intelligence Guru Fuld: Media Confuses Dumpster Diving With Competitive Intelligence," Business Wire, September, 06, 2001.
This was an easy rub-off for the P&G group; however the matter didn’t end there. Once this matter was dead & buried another issue cropped up when Mr. Pepper discovered that Mr. Jerry Vaughan (name changed) & Ms. Rita Skeeter (name changed), top managers in P&G’s competitive analysis department engaged in corporate spying practices at its rival corporation, Unilever Ltd. The internal spying operation gathered about eighty documents detailing Unilever’s plans for the U.S. hair care business over the next three years, including critical information such as launch-plans, prices & margins. The entire event came as a rude shock to Mr. Pepper, who had not commissioned (rather claimed not to) such an operation. The modus-operandi of this entire fiasco was conceptualized by Mr. Vaughan & Ms. Skeeter in close alliance with Mr. Thomas Ellison (name changed), head of a Cincinnati based organization ‘The Ranch’. The spies deployed engaged in an activity called ‘Dumpster Diving’ or ‘Rubbish archeology’ which in common parlance means to ‘scanning through someone’s rubbish or dump’. This included rummaging through dumpsters on Unilever’s property in search of any unshredded document containing key strategic plans. Although, during those times it was ridiculed as a spying technique amongst the peer group, the method held rich dividence in this case. The top bosses at P&G were perfectly aware of the fact that their snooping did not put them to the wrong side of the law; however, Mr. Pepper maintained that these activities did not comply with the company’s internal guidelines for business practices. Following which the chairman found himself in a situation where his subordinates hadn’t violated the law but did get involved in an illicit practice according to his company policies. Also, in highly competitive industry, he was exposed to trade secrets of his closest competitors which could go a long way in helping him outshine Unilever. What would Pepper do?
Mr. John Pepper announced it in public about the illicit activity that his subordinates were involved in, & assured Unilever about his stand on the whole issue. What followed was the dismissal of the managers from the organization.
Ref: <link outdated-removed>
Some more from FORTUNE.COM
While P&G says the company broke no laws, a company spokeswoman says that activities undertaken by operatives hired by P&G "violated our strict guidelines regarding our business policies."
Sources say that at least one so-called "competitive intelligence" company engaged in dumpster diving in an attempt to glean information on Unilever's hair care business; P&G confirms instances of dumpster diving. A source also says these competitive intelligence operatives misrepresented themselves to Unilever employees - by suggesting they were market analysts - in attempts to gather information. P&G denies the misrepresentation.
Negotiations to settle the dispute between Unilever and Procter & Gamble, which have been ongoing since April when P&G first informed Unilever about these transgressions, have reached a critical stage. A close-of-business Friday deadline has been imposed, at which point Unilever will either accept P&G's settlement terms - which could include a payment of tens of millions of dollars - or possibly take P&G to court.
A source told FORTUNE that the spying against Unilever and other competitors began last fall and continued into the spring. The operation was halted earlier this year only after senior P&G officials, including P&G chairman John Pepper, found out about it. Procter & Gamble confirms that it fired three employees "who were directly involved in the project." Susan Steinhardt, formerly P&G's head of corporate competitive analysis, acknowledges that she recently left the company, but declined to say whether she was one of the three. After Pepper and senior managers discovered what the company is calling a "rogue operation," P&G executives wrote a letter to Unilever outlining the situation. Pepper personally called Unilever chairman Niall Fitzgerald in an effort to settle the matter.
Sources say that P&G hired corporate spies through a contractor, and at least some of them worked out of a private "safe house," nicknamed "The Ranch." Sources say one of the companies that was employed by P&G was The Phoenix Consulting Group of Huntsville, Alabama. Phoenix was founded and is staffed by former government intelligence officers, including its president, John A. Nolan III, who served in the Phoenix Program, a covert operation in Vietnam. Nolan declined comment.
While corporate spying is not unusual, informing the target of the spying is, and by telling Unilever that it had engaged in this activity, P&G was apparently hoping that Unilever would not respond so harshly. "We told on ourselves," says a P&G spokesperson. P&G invited Unilever officials to interview P&G managers as well as the operatives themselves. But one source says that Unilever has been unhappy about the level of P&G's cooperation, and that is why the negotiations have dragged on so long. The source adds that P&G first provided Unilever with two documents, and then, after further prodding by Unilever, came up with more than 50 additional documents.
Unilever spent months investigating the matter and completed its review only within the last few days. On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, a source says. P&G chairman John Pepper flew to London with an offer to settle the matter. At that point the Friday deadline was set.
Through its spying operation, P&G learned myriad details of Unilever's hair care business, which includes brands such as Salon Selectives, Finesse, and Thermasilk, in an effort to bolster P&G's brands, which include Pantene, Head and Shoulders, and Pert. Unilever is said to be looking not only for financial restitution, but other remedies such as the transfer of key personnel out of P&G's hair care business and into other areas within that company.
"None of the information that was gathered in this operation was ever used by P&G or will ever be used," a P&G spokeswoman said. "It was an unfortunate situation. We certainly regret that it occurred. We have acted responsibly and promptly to protect Unilever's interest."
Hope this this might help you in some way though may not sole the entire problem.
Regards and good luck
Kishore Chelluri
From India, Hyderabad
Dear Tweeps Season Greetings Kindly find here the attachment for he said subject.
From India, Nagpur
From India, Nagpur
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Case Study on Promotion.pdf
Case study.doc