MBA Assignment

MBA /assignment- Amity University Definition VRIO framework is the tool used to analyze firm’s internal resources and capabilities to find out if they can be a source of sustained competitive advantage.

Understanding the tool In order to understand the sources of competitive advantage firms are using many tools to analyze their external (Porter’s 5 Forces, PEST analysis) and internal (Value Chain analysis, BCG Matrix) environments. One of such tools that analyze firm’s internal resources is VRIO analysis. The tool was originally developed by Barney, J. B. (1991) in his work ‘Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage’, where the author identified four attributes that firm’s resources must possess in order to become a source of sustained competitive advantage. According to him, the resources must be valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and nonsubstitutable. His original framework was called VRIN. In 1995, in his later work ‘Looking Inside for Competitive Advantage’ Barney has introduced VRIO framework, which was the improvement of VRIN model. VRIO analysis stands for four questions that ask if a resource is: valuable? rare? costly to imitate? And is a firm organized to capture the value of the resources? A resource or capability that meets all four requirements can bring sustained competitive advantage for the company.

Adopted from Rothaermel’s (2013) ‘Strategic Management’, p.91 Valuable The first question of the framework asks if a resource adds value by enabling a firm to exploit opportunities or defend against threats. If the answer is yes, then a resource is considered valuable. Resources are also valuable if they help organizations to increase the perceived customer value. This is done by increasing differentiation or/and decreasing the price

of the product. The resources that cannot meet this condition, lead to competitive disadvantage. It is important to continually review the value of the resources because constantly changing internal or external conditions can make them less valuable or useless at all. Rare Resources that can only be acquired by one or very few companies are considered rare. Rare and valuable resources grant temporary competitive advantage. On the other hand, the situation when more than few companies have the same resource or uses the capability in the similar way, leads to competitive parity. This is because firms can use identical resources to implement the same strategies and no organization can achieve superior performance. Even though competitive parity is not the desired position, a firm should not neglect the resources that are valuable but common. Losing valuable resources and capabilities would hurt an organization because they are essential for staying in the market. Costly to Imitate A resource is costly to imitate if other organizations that doesn’t have it can’t imitate, buy or substitute it at a reasonable price. Imitation can occur in two ways: by directly imitating (duplicating) the resource or providing the comparable product/service (substituting). A firm that has valuable, rare and costly to imitate resources can (but not necessarily will) achieve sustained competitive advantage. Barney has identified three reasons why resources can be hard to imitate:  Historical conditions. Resources that were developed due to historical events or over a long period usually are costly to imitate.  Causal ambiguity. Companies can’t identify the particular resources that are the cause of competitive advantage.  Social Complexity. The resources and capabilities that are based on company’s culture or interpersonal relationships. Organized to Capture Value The resources itself do not confer any advantage for a company if it’s not organized to capture the value from them. A firm must organize its management systems, processes, policies, organizational structure and culture to be able to fully realize the potential of its valuable, rare and costly

to imitate resources and capabilities. Only then the companies can achieve sustained competitive advantage.

Using the tool Step 1. Identify valuable, rare and costly to imitate resources There are two types of resources: tangible and intangible. Tangible assets are physical things like land, buildings and machinery. Companies can easily by them in the market so tangible assets are rarely the source of competitive advantage. On the other hand, intangible assets, such as brand reputation, trademarks, intellectual property, unique training system or unique way of performing tasks, can’t be acquired so easily and offer the benefits of sustained competitive advantage. Therefore, to find valuable, rare and costly to imitate resources, you should first look at company’s intangible assets. Finding valuable resources: An easy way to identify such resources is to look at the value chain and SWOT analyses. Value chain analysis identifies the most valuable activities, which are the source of cost or differentiation advantage. By looking into the analysis, you can easily find the valuable resources or capabilities. In addition, SWOT analysis recognizes the strengths of the company that are used to exploit opportunities or defend against threats (which is exactly what a valuable resource does). If you still struggle finding valuable resources, you can identify them by asking the following questions:  Which activities lower the cost of production without decreasing perceived customer value?  Which activities increase product or service differentiation and perceived customer value?  Have your company won an award or been recognized as the best in something? (most innovative, best employer, highest customer retention or best exporter)  Do you have an access to scarce raw materials or hard to get in distribution channels?

 Do you have special relationship with your suppliers? Such as tightly integrated order and distribution system powered by unique software?  Do you have employees with unique skills and capabilities?  Do you have brand reputation for quality, innovation, customer service?  Do you do perform any tasks better than your competitors do? (Benchmarking is useful here)  Does your company hold any other strengths compared to rivals? Finding rare resources:  How many other companies own a resource or can perform capability in the same way in your industry?  Can a resource be easily bought in the market by rivals?  Can competitors obtain the resource or capability in the near future? Finding costly to imitate resources:  Do other companies can easily duplicate a resource?  Can competitors easily develop a substitute resource?  Do patents protect it?  Is a resource or capability socially complex?  Is it hard to identify the particular processes, tasks, or other factors that form the resource? Step 2. Find out if your company is organized to exploit these resources Following questions might be helpful:  Does your company has an effective strategic management process in organization?

 Are there effective motivation and reward systems in place?  Does your company’s culture reward innovative ideas?  Is an organizational structure designed to use a resource?  Are there excellent management and control systems? Step 3. Protect the resources When you identified a resource or capability that has all 4 VRIO attributes, you should protect it using all possible means. After all, it is the source of your sustained competitive advantage. The first thing you should do is to make the top management aware of such resource and suggest how it can be used to lower the costs or to differentiate the products and services. Then you should think of ideas how to make it more costly to imitate. If other companies won’t be able to imitate a resource at reasonable prices, it will stay rare for much longer. Step 4. Constantly review VRIO resources and capabilities The value of the resources changes over time and they must be reviewed constantly to find out if they are as valuable as they once were. Competitors are also keen to achieve the same competitive advantages so they’ll be keen to replicate the resources, which means that they will no longer be rare. Often, new VRIO resources or capabilities are developed inside an organization and by identifying them you can protect you sources of competitive advantage more easily.

VRIO example Google’s capability evaluated using VRIO framework

Google's VRIO capability

Excellent employee management

Valuable?

Yes

Rare?

Yes

Costly to Imitate?

Yes

Is a company organized to exploit it?

Yes

Result: sustained competitive advantage

Google’s ability to manage their people effectively is a source of both differentiation and cost advantages. Unlike other companies, which rely on trust and relationship in people management, Google uses data about its employees to manage them. This capability allows making correct (data based) decisions about which people to hire and the best way to use their skills. As a result, Google is able to hire innovative employees that are also very productive ($1 million in revenue per employee). Besides being valuable, it is also a rare capability because no other company uses data based employee management so extensively. Is it costly to imitate? It is costly to imitate, at least, in the near future. First, companies should build the highly sophisticated software, which is both costly and hard to do. Second, HR managers should be trained to make data based decisions and forget their old management methods. Is Google organized to capture value from this capability? Certainly, it has trained HR managers that know how to use the data and manage people accordingly. It also has the needed IT skills to collect and manage the data about its employees.

What Is the Difference Between Conglomerate & Concentric Diversity? If a business sells only one kind of product, then its success or failure depends entirely on demand for that single product. A business with a wide selection of offerings, by contrast, is more insulated from shifts in demand. This is why companies value diversification. It helps them increase sales and gain access to new markets while reducing their risk. The difference between conglomerate and concentric diversity demonstrates the breadth of diversification strategies available.

Conglomerate In business, a conglomerate is a company involved in multiple lines of business that have little relationship to one another. One well-known example is Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, which owns companies as varied as utilities, newspapers, food processors and furniture stores. Conglomerate diversity, then, refers to diversification by entering entirely new and unrelated lines of business. If you owned, say, a hardware store and then bought a car wash, you'd be engaged in conglomerate diversification. Typically, companies achieve conglomerate diversity through acquisitions -- buying existing businesses -- rather than starting new operations from scratch.

Concentric Concentric diversification involves adding new products or services that are related to your current offerings -- either because they appeal to the same market or because they can be offered without much investment in new resources (or both.) If you own a bakery, for example, you might add a deli counter and start serving sandwiches. If you produce table linens, you might start making curtains. If you clean carpets for commercial customers, you might add services for the residential market. You can achieve concentric diversity with acquisitions, but often it's a natural outgrowth of what you're already doing.

Advantages Concentric diversity aims for synergy -- using your experience and strengths in one area to gain a foothold in another area. You use what you know about your bakery customers to sell them sandwiches, or you use the same equipment to make both napkins and curtains, or you take your commercial carpet cleaning experience and apply it to homes. Concentric diversification can also provide a gainful use for excess capacity. With conglomerate diversification, the advantage is the diversification itself -- spreading the market risk across more sectors. If the hardware store business falls into a funk, the car wash business may be able to carry the company. This kind of advantage applies to concentric diversity, too.

Disadvantages Although diversification is supposed to reduce market risk, it carries dangers of its own. With conglomerate diversity, there's no guarantee that the businesses will be a good fit. A hardware store owner can buy a car wash, but if you don't know anything about how to run one, you'll have problems. And even if you hire someone to run it, you may not be able to tell with confidence if it's being run well. Dangers of concentric diversity include line overextension -- diluting the value of your brand by trying to do too much. If your new products or services don't measure up to the quality of your current offerings, that could hurt your existing sales as customers lose faith. And with both types, there is always the possibility that the diversification will just be a poor investment -- you'll misread the market and end up offering something that customers don't want (at least from you.) Central to any successful marketing strategy is an understanding of customers and their needs at first. Cite some relevant Customer centric Marketing Industry.?

Driving Innovation And Value Creation Through A Customer-Centric Culture ‘Customer centric culture’ is something that has been talked about in the pharma industry for some time, but very few pharma companies actually deliver it to the same degree as their ‘non-pharma’ counterparts. Yet it is more important than ever as changing market models mean that consistently providing real customer value and positive customer ‘experience’ is ever more critical. Achieving sustainable, long-term organic profit growth requires a combination of several elements: a clear, relevant customer promise that is valued; delivering on that promise consistently; continuously improving on it; periodically innovating beyond the familiar; and supporting all this with an organisation that’s open to new ideas and market feedback. And yet if we are honest, the words ‘customer centric’ are used but this kind of culture is not widespread either in pharma. So what is a ‘customer centric culture’? Simply put, it is all about understanding your brand value and delivering it consistently to customers. This doesn't mean meeting every customer’s need, nor satisfying every customer. It means focusing on the things they value most that link to your overall business strategy and brand promise. The essence of marketing strategy… The world’s most valuable brands make significant investments to ensure that they can deliver on their customer promises day after day. Although the business operations of companies such as Google, Apple, UPS, Gillette and Amazon vary greatly, they all recognise satisfied customers as one of the pillars of long-term success. It is no surprise that all of these companies are also recognised as leading innovators. Customer satisfaction builds trust, a key component of a valuable brand, which in turn supports innovation. In fact, every successful innovation strengthens the brand, while a strong brand encourages customers to try the company’s new offerings and even makes them a little more forgiving if these don’t immediately deliver as promised. Companies underestimate this link between customer satisfaction, innovation and growth at their peril. So immediately we hit some challenges. ‘Brand’ marketing is about the whole customer interaction, yet too often in pharma we just focus on the tangible product or the ‘brand’ as a name and a visual expression of its

essence. A truly strong and successful ‘brand’ has a number of different components, which together build the customer experience of that ‘brand’ as a whole. Every valuable brand has two shared attributes: customer awareness (within the relevant market) and trust. Awareness can be achieved through market presence and communications, but trust must be earned by delivering on the brand promise and building familiarity over time. Great brands are based on great customer experience, and then reinforced with excellent communications — not the other way round. Positive customer experience has been central to the success of Apple for many years. In addition to capturing headlines with its bold product innovations, Apple develops the infrastructure and support required to ensure that its products live up to customer expectations. Innovation in the molecular sense is a challenge. We all know that the timelines, complexity and regulatory hurdles within pharmaceutical development make major, rapid product innovation a challenge. So perhaps we need to look elsewhere and think differently about innovation. It’s important for any innovative company to strike the right balance; overemphasis on trying to identify breakthrough projects can distract from seeing customers’ immediate needs. We all know from our own experience that customers can’t reliably identify their latent needs, nor can they tell you whether they would buy such a product if they could. But that’s not the point. It is better to change our perspective from ‘completely new, never been seen before’ to ’beyond the familiar.’ The latter builds on what customers already know, rather than asking customers to gamble on something completely different that the company may or may not be able to deliver profitably. Again, Apple is a good example of this. Well known for systematically rethinking existing product categories from the user’s perspective, it learns from the technology pioneers and from its own early mistakes, and relentlessly improves functionality and ease of use (building on what is already familiar and intuitive to customers) - while still ensuring high reliability and stunningly attractive design. Its brand promise is based on making technology accessible and attractive to the wider market, not on breakthrough functionality that only geeks will find useful. Though seen as an innovator, Apple is not a technology pioneer. The early Mac wasn’t the first personal computer with a graphical user interface. Likewise, MP3 players were common before the iPod, and iTunes wasn’t the first online music store. Yet it is Apple

that dominates portable music players and, more recently, smart phones with the iPhone. In each case, Apple’s customers really don’t care whether the technologies are radical or incremental or whether Apple was first. Their main concern is that the products meet real needs and that they are attractive, easy to use, reliable and offer ‘value’. So what could a truly ‘customer centric’ approach be for the pharmaceutical industry? First up, LISTEN. Understanding what truly satisfies customers and even more importantly what causes dissatisfaction is key. Really knowing what is important to them is critical (i.e. being relevant). This helps us understand the aspects of the brand ‘promise’ that we need to consistently deliver on. For example, we cannot ignore the fact that physicians want to understand the brand works in the real world as opposed to the clinical trial setting; nor that payers want to understand the true value it brings to healthcare delivery rather than the theoretical value. Next it is all about creating TRUST with the customer. This comes from the customers’ whole experience of the ‘brand’. The underlying product needs to deliver consistently on its ‘promise’, one part of which is to meet or exceed performance expectations. We can help that by ensuring the product is used in the right patients. When it comes to INNOVATION, it is as much about the customer experience of using the brand as it is about an entirely new molecule. For some brands this can mean innovating the delivery mechanism. For others perhaps, it is about providing a stream of evidence that fits neatly with where the physicians are heading in their treatment thinking. Relevance and value are central to any good customer experience. Too often we do not offer the optimum level of either. Comment on the Relaunches as a result of Turn around Strategies adopted by Company ?

From relaunching brands to strengthening its product portfolio, Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has done a whole host of things over the last few years. The company’s performance over the last eight quarters seems to suggest its strategy is working. Harish Manwani, HUL’s chairman and COO, Unilever, calls it the “and-and” strategy, which is delivering product innovation, cost efficiency and profitable growth — both in the short term and long term — simultaneously.

At the start of the financial year, few believed HUL would be able to deliver growth in the face of growing competition, soaring costs and slowing economic growth. But consistent performance through the year shows its strategic focus has yielded the requisite results. For starters, the decision to treble its rural reach last year has helped HUL post double-digit growth quarter after quarter. Today, both rural and urban markets have an equal share in the company’s total sales. And, rural markets are growing at a faster clip than urban India. This explains the company’s revenue growth of 18 per cent in FY12, with nine per cent underlying volume growth. HUL says this growth is not only broad-based but also ahead of the market. In the fourth quarter, the company’s domestic business grew by 20 per cent while net profit grew by 21 per cent. Though the cost push has not abated entirely, HUL has expanded margins by 170 basis points in Q4. In the third quarter, the assumption was that HUL would not be able to sustain 21 per cent growth levels in the soaps and detergents segment, but the category has grown by a stellar 28 per cent in Q4, way ahead of the industry. The company claims after the relaunch of key brands, double-digit growth has sustained. The management believes that while the category will continue to grow, some of it may come off this year as a lot of the growth is due to pricing. Compared to the 14 per cent growth clocked in Q3, personal care has grown at 17 per cent in Q4, and is entirely volume-led. This category is keenly watched as the margin leverage is higher in this segment unlike the low value-add business of soaps and detergents. The food business has grown at a much slower pace at 7.7 per cent and this could be a cause of concern going forward, as food was growing in high double digits compared to the 13 per cent growth the segment clocked in Q3. Nitin Paranjpe, CEO and MD of HUL, said company is trying to figure out what led to the sudden slowdown in the Knorr range. As a category, beverages has grown by eight per cent, while packaged foods has grown at 10 per cent, buoyed by Kissan and Kwality Walls.

“In the next five years, the market is going to be 2-2.5 times its present size,” Vittal said. Right now, his key concern is to ensure that HUL will be nimble enough to keep pace with the rapid evolution of the market. We are as passionate, as determined about doing a Rs10 crore opportunity as we are about Rs2,000 crore,” says Vittal. Rivals recognize the efforts made by the company. The company wants to tap growth at both ends of the pyramid. The large categories at the bottom, such as detergents and soaps, are growing well, while at the top, growth is explosive, Vittal said. As the economy continues to boom—India boasts of the second fastest pace of growth globally—greater prosperity will put more disposable income in the hands of a larger number of consumers, all with newly awakened aspirations. Or so the argument runs. This is already happening in the rural areas, helped along by some of the government’s social welfare programmes such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, better infrastructure and increased job opportunities. Meanwhile, in urban India, consumers are looking for more choice and better products. “Companies have to decide between high volumes and high-value growth. This is a tactical decision,” said Sunil Duggal, chief executive officer of Dabur India Ltd, which makes personal and Ayurvedic products such as Vatika and Uveda. That won’t be an easy call to make considering HUL’s size and reach and the scope of its ambition.

The country's largest consumer goods company, Hindustan Unilever, reported a weak set of numbers for the December quarter. In a media interaction, Sanjiv Mehta, managing director and chief executive officer, says they'll continue to focus on volume growth as price growth remains muted. Edited excerpts: Volume growth for HUL has improved from 4.5-5 per cent last year to six per cent. Do you see this getting better?

If you see overall market growth over the past two years, value growth of five per cent has come down to about 4.5 per cent. Volume growth, on the other hand, virtually nil two years ago, is now 2.5-3 per cent. We are ahead of the market in this and our focus on this metric will stay. The previous time there was a commodity price deflation, in 2009, we

did not focus enough on volume growth. The result was a fall in both price and volume. We were clear we would not repeat this mistake and began taking measures early on, to ensure volume growth stayed intact. What have you done to improve volume growth? We have stayed on course in investing behind brands goes. Our advertising & sales promotion expenditure has increased and we will keep it that way. Our innovation pipeline remains intact, apart from the price cuts we are taking, keeping the price-value equation in mind. A combination of these has helped us sustain volume growth at six per cent for the past three quarters. Will you reduce your dependence on soaps & detergents, a mature category and which contributed to the price de-growth you saw this quarter? It is our core category and we will not take our eyes off it. But, to answer your question, the sales mix will change over time as emerging categories evolve. Segments of the future today contribute 20 per cent of our turnover. This number will go up as these categories get bigger. You have a cash balance of Rs 5,000 crore on your books. Since you have gone back to making acquisitions with Indulekha (the hair care brand it recently acquired), will you deploy this money into acquiring brands and businesses? We have always maintained we're open to acquisitions if the fit is right. Indulekha fitted the bill both in terms of our strategic intent and price. If anything else matches our priorities and intent, we will consider it. The December quarter saw the e-commerce launch of Ayush (their brand of ayurvedic products). Will you take it offline? Right now, the focus is online. The e-commerce platform is an evolving channel of distribution and something we believe will work for Ayush, which is positioned on the ayurvedic and naturals platform. We will take

it offline later. Did Unilever, your parent and largest shareholder, influence your decision to transfer the entire balance of Rs 2,187 crore in general reserves to the profit & loss account ? The decision was the result of an option that was available thanks to the new Companies Act, which does not make transfer of profits to general reserves mandatory. We felt instead of keeping the amount in general reserve, we could give it back to the shareholders. We have sufficient cash balance on our books and the amount in general reserve was in excess of our needs. We will decide how to disburse it once necessary approval from the high court to our scheme is received. That should take about six months. After a dismal 2009, Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL), India’s largest consumer company by revenue, has seen volume growth return to double digits in three successive quarters this calendar year. This comes after volume either fell or grew marginally in the corresponding year-ago quarters. It also broke a run of 40 quarters during which volume didn’t expand by more than single digits. A year ago, the maker of Lux, Wheel, Dove and Knorr seemed to be floundering, caught in a spiral of price cuts and shrinking margins. The comeback has taken place amid a pitched battle with Procter and Gamble Home Products Ltd (P&G), which also spilled over from the retail shelves into the courts as they fought over claims made in advertisements. That fight is reminiscent of its campaign in the 1980s to tackle Nirma, which was making inroads at the lower end of the market, by launching Wheel, now India’s largest detergent brand with 18% market share. It also brings to mind the 2004-05 laundry war with P&G, during which both the companies took a hit on their margins, but eventually HUL emerged stronger. Keeping pace: Consumer products on display at a supermarket in Delhi. Close to 90% of HUL’s portfolio is fresh—either a new product or one that’s been relaunched over the last 12 to 18 months. The Indian arm of the Anglo-Dutch Unilever Plc, which has been present in the country since 1933, did several things that seem to be working for it. The company completely revamped the product range, cut prices to keep the competition on its toes, tweaked advertising to better position the offerings, reduced its inventory levels and reached even further into rural India, opening up new markets for branded goods.

What changed at HUL that allowed to it to succeed this time around? Gopal Vittal, executive director of the company’s home and personal care (HPC) division, which accounts for 70% of revenue, characterizes it as an internal transformation. The Comeback “The company has now become comfortable in a schizophrenic culture,” he said. He was referring to the new attitude of the company—more aggressive, flexible and nimble enough to take up both large and small opportunities that are sharply different in scope. The gain has not come without its share of pain. For instance, HUL was forced to reduce the price of Rin detergent and bars by close to 30% following the launch of Tide Naturals, a 30% cheaper variant of the P&G flagship brand Tide. Then came a round of increases in content and pack sizes. The aggressive price cuts have resulted in a decrease of overall sector profit, meaning all companies need to work that much harder and sell that much more merely to stay in place, leave alone getting profit growth to hasten. This battle between the two global consumer giants was inevitable, given that growth is tapering in the developed markets. Cincinnati-based P&G, which made a serious push into India only in 2009, although it has been present in the country since 1989, wants to expand as fast as possible in emerging markets. HUL has a year-to-date market share of 34.5% in detergents and 45.9% in shampoo versus P&G’s 9.6% and 23%, respectively. While the rivalry has exacted its toll, it has seen both companies benefiting from the expansion in the market. “Despite risks associated with the tactics in laundry, P&G seems confident in its strategy and has expressed a desire to continue competing with Unilever and other companies in contested areas,” Dibadj said in his report. While P&G has been seeking to make up for lost time, HUL, on the other hand, has singlemindedly sought to “unblinkingly defend (its) market leadership,” as Harish Manwani, president, Asia Africa, Unilever executive and non-executive chairman of HUL, put it at a press briefing on 28 July. That has meant a vigorous churning of the product range with as many as 41 launches during the year. Close to 90% of HUL’s portfolio is fresh—either a new product or one that’s been relaunched over the last 12 to 18 months. The relaunches include the companies so-called local jewels—Breeze, Liril, Moti, Pears and Hamam—aimed at taking on homegrown rivals such as Godrej Consumer Products Ltd (GCPL), which makes Godrej No. 1 and Cinthol, and Wipro Ltd’s Wipro Consumer Care and Lighting division, which has brands such as Santoor. HUL also reintroduced what it calls power brands—Lifebuoy and Clinic Plus. It also launched premium products such as anti-ageing formulas and hair conditioners under existing brands such as Ponds, Dove and Lakme. Earlier strategies had centred around big categories and big brands. In 2000, it sought to focus on 30 power brands. In 2005-06, the Masstige(Mass Prestige) strategy sought to make premium brands available to the masses through appropriate pricing.

That focus on size has widened to accommodate smaller segments. “We are as passionate, as determined about doing a Rs10 crore opportunity as we are about Rs2,000 crore,” says Vittal. Rivals recognize the efforts made by the company. The company wants to tap growth at both ends of the pyramid. The large categories at the bottom, such as detergents and soaps, are growing well, while at the top, growth is explosive, Vittal said. As the economy continues to boom—India boasts of the second fastest pace of growth globally—greater prosperity will put more disposable income in the hands of a larger number of consumers, all with newly awakened aspirations. Or so the argument runs. This is already happening in the rural areas, helped along by some of the government’s social welfare programmes such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, better infrastructure and increased job opportunities. Meanwhile, in urban India, consumers are looking for more choice and better products. “Companies have to decide between high volumes and high-value growth. This is a tactical decision,” said Sunil Duggal, chief executive officer of Dabur India Ltd, which makes personal and Ayurvedic products such as Vatika and Uveda. That won’t be an easy call to make considering HUL’s size and reach and the scope of its ambition. “In the next five years, the market is going to be 2-2.5 times its present size,” Vittal said. Right now, his key concern is to ensure that HUL will be nimble enough to keep pace with the rapid evolution of the market.