Simon van den Bergh (October 26, 1819 in Geffen – April 6, 1907 in Rotterdam) was a Dutch businessperson who founded a margarine factory in the Netherlands in 1872.[1]
In 1888, the same year his son Samuel joined the company, he opened another factory in Kleve, the Van den Bergh Margarine Works. By announcing it was for the industrial manufacture of margarine, he was able to circumvent the high tariffs of the German Reich on butter and margarine. The factory introduced the Sanella brand in 1904, made from almond milk.
In the summer of 1929 (after the death of Simon van den Bergh) the Jurgens & Prince Margarine Works in Goch and Van den Bergh in Kleve merged to become Margarine Unie. The newly merged company then combined with English soap manufacturer Lever Brothers to create the modern company Unilever.
ユニリーバ（Unilever plc）は、イギリス・ロンドンに本拠を置く世界有数の一般消費財メーカー。食品・洗剤・ヘアケア・トイレタリーなどの家庭用品を製造・販売する多国籍企業。戦後から世界進出に積極的であり、現在世界180ヵ国以上に支店網を擁する。
イギリスの石鹸会社「リーバ・ブラザーズ（Lever Brothers）」と、オランダのマーガリン会社「マーガリン・ユニ（Margarine Unie）」が、1930年「ユニリーバ」として経営統合した[1]。
リーバ・ブラザーズとマーガリン・ユニは世界恐慌に直面して結局はユニリーバという大同団結を果し[注 1]、恐慌対策委員会を立ち上げてがんばるのだが、溝は埋まらなかった。慢性的に英蘭各法人の収益割合が1対2であった。そこで1937年、イギリス法人のクーパー（D'Arcy Cooper）が、オランダ法人へリーバー・ブラザーズUSなどの海外資産を売却のうえ企業再編を実現した。[2]
1939年、国際決済銀行総裁ヨハン・バイエン（Johan Beyen）がユニリーバの重役となった[3]。同年4月、ドイツ・ユニリーバの社長としてBIS・ライヒスバンク勤務暦のあるカール・ブレッシング（Karl Blessing）が招かれている[4]。実際、ユニリーバはドイツに多くの大工場をもちナチス・ドイツの経済に対応していた。
1941年7月、クーパーは準男爵（Cooper Baronetcy of Singleton in the County of Sussex）となった。
日本語Wikiにはない肝心のもん
Environmental record
Mercury contamination
In 2001, a mercury thermometer factory operated by the Indian subsidiary of Unilever in the South Indian hilltown of Kodaikanal was shut down by state regulators after the company was caught dumping toxic mercury wastes in a densely populated part of town.[132] By the company's own admissions, more than 2 tonnes of mercury were discharged into Kodaikanal's environment. A 2011 Government of India study on workers' health concluded that many workers suffered from illnesses caused by workplace exposure to mercury.[133] The scandal opened up a series of issues in India such as corporate liability, corporate accountability and corporate negligence.[133]
In March 2016, Unilever reached an out of court settlement (for an undisclosed amount) with 591 ex-workers of the unit who had sued the company for knowingly exposing them to the toxic element.[134]
Palm oil
In 2014, Unilever was criticised by Greenpeace for causing deforestation.[135] In 2008, Greenpeace UK[136] criticised the company for buying palm oil from suppliers that were damaging Indonesia's rainforests.[137] By 2008, Indonesia was losing 2% of its remaining rainforest each year, having the fastest deforestation rate of any country. The United Nations Environmental Programme stated that palm oil plantations are the leading cause of deforestation in Indonesia.[137]
Furthermore, Indonesia was the 14th[138] largest emitter of greenhouse gases, largely due to the destruction of rainforests for the palm oil industry, which contributed to 4% of global green house gas emissions.[139] According to Greenpeace, palm oil expansion was taking place with little oversight from central or local government as procedures for environmental impact assessment, land-use planning and ensuring a proper process for development of concessions were neglected.[139] Plantations that were off-limits, by law, for palm oil plantations were being established as well as the illegal use of fire to clear forest areas was commonplace.[139]
Unilever, as a founding member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), responded by publicising its plan to obtain all of its palm oil from sources that are certified as sustainable by 2015.[140] It claims to have met this goal in 2012 and is encouraging the rest of the industry to become 100% sustainable by 2020.[141]
In Côte d'Ivoire, one of Unilever's palm oil suppliers was accused of clearing forest for plantations, an activity that threatened a primate species, Miss Waldron's red colobus. Unilever intervened to halt the clearances pending the results of an environmental assessment.[142]
According to an Amnesty International report published in 2016, Unilever's palm oil supplier Wilmar International profited from child labour and forced labour. Some workers were extorted, threatened or not paid for work. Some workers suffered severe injuries from banned chemicals. In 2016 Singapore-based Wilmar International was the world's biggest palm oil grower.[143]
Plastic pollution
In 2019, Unilever was cited by BreakFreeFromPlastic as one of the top ten global plastic polluters.[144] Unilever produces 6.4 billion unrecyclable plastic sachets per year.[145][146]
Nevertheless, in 2019, Unilever announced that it plans to halve its non-recycled plastic packaging by 2025.[147][148] In 2020, Unilever joined 13 EU member states and more than 60 companies to sign a pact to use recycled plastic for all plastic packaging and single-use plastic products by 2025.[149]
In June 2022, a Reuters report revealed that Unilever had lobbied the governments of India and the Philippines to stop legislation which would ban the sale of cosmetics in single-use plastic sachets, despite vowing in 2020 to stop using them.[150] The design of these sachets had been called 'evil' by Hanneke Faber, Unilever's president for Global Food and Refreshments, 'because you cannot recycle it'. The bans were then dropped by lawmakers. In Sri Lanka, the company pressed the government to reconsider a proposed ban on sachets, and then tried to manoeuvre around the ban after regulations were implemented.[150]
Rainforest Alliance
Unilever certifies its tea products by the Rainforest Alliance scheme. The company has stated that at least 50% of the tea in its products originates from certified farms, compared to the Alliance's 30% minimum entry point. Unilever decided on the scheme over Fairtrade, because according to the company's analysis, Fairtrade might "lack the scale and the organizational flexibility to certify industrial tea estates".[151]
The Rainforest Alliance certification scheme has been criticised for not offering producers minimum or guaranteed price,[152] therefore, leaving them vulnerable to market price variations. The alternative certificate, Fairtrade, has received similar criticism. The Rainforest Alliance certification has furthermore been criticised for allowing the use of the seal on products that contain only a minimum of 30% of certified content, which according to some endangers the integrity of the certification.[153]
Salmonella contamination
In July 2016, rumours about salmonella contamination in cereals spread among Israeli consumers.[154] Initially, Unilever did not provide public information about the subject and queries on the matter were rebuffed by the company as a non-story and nonsense. On 26 July 2016, Unilever had stopped transferring cornflakes to retailer chains.[155] On 28 July, Yedioth Ahronoth reported tens of thousands of boxes of breakfast cereal had been destroyed.[156] By 28 July, despite the company's assurances that nothing contaminated was released for consumption, many customers stopped buying Unilever products and started to throw away all cornflakes made by Unilever.[157] The company withheld information about the affected production dates.[158] Unilever had published more information about Telma cereals handled on the packaging line in which the contamination was discovered and that a Telma announcement had been made: "We again stress that all Telma products in the stores and in your homes are safe to eat. According to our company's strict procedures, every production batch is checked and put on hold. These products are not marketed until test results for this product series are returned, confirming that all is well. If any flaw is discovered, the batch is not marketed to stores, as was the case."[159] In the following days the Health Minister, Yakov Litzman, threatened to pull Unilever's licence in Israel. He accused Unilever of lying to his ministry regarding salmonella-infected breakfast cereals.[160]
On 7 August 2016, Globes reported that contamination may be sourced in pigeon faeces, the Health Ministry said that there might be other sources for the contamination and pigeon faeces are not the only possible source. Globes also said that the production line is automatic ("without human hands") and the possibility that the source is human is a very slim chance.[161] On 8 August 2016, the Israeli Health minister suspended a manufacturing license until Unilever carry out several corrections; the action came after an inspection of the Arad plant, stating "This was a series of negligent mistakes and not an incident with malicious intent by the firm's management and quality control procedures."[162] An investigation led by Prof. Itamr Grutto and Eli Gordon concluded that the event was caused by negligence.[163] Reportedly the cereals produced between the 18th and 20th at the Arad plant had traces of salmonella.[164]
Two class actions were filed in Israel, one for a sum of 1.2 million NIS (~$329K USD) against Unilever for hiding the contamination and misleading the public,[165] and another for a sum of 76 million NIS (~$23m USD) against Unilever after a 15-year-old teen had been hospitalised for Salmonellosis after allegedly contracting it from Unilever products.[166]
On 31 August 2016, Unilever stated that the Tehina products produced by RJM had been contaminated by salmonella.[167]
Controversies
Price-fixing
In April 2011, Unilever was fined €104 million by the European Commission for establishing a price-fixing cartel for washing powder in Europe, along with Procter & Gamble and Henkel.[168][169]
In 2016, Unilever and Procter & Gamble were both fined by Autorité de la concurrence in France for price-fixing on personal hygiene products.[170][171]
Hampton Creek lawsuit
In November 2014, Unilever filed a lawsuit against rival Hampton Creek.[172] In the suit,[173] Unilever claimed that Hampton Creek was "seizing market share" and the losses were causing Unilever "irreparable harm". Unilever used standard of identity regulations in claiming that Hampton Creek's Just Mayo products are falsely advertised because they don't contain eggs.[174] The Washington Post[175] headline on the suit read "Big Food's Weird War Over The Meaning of Mayonnaise." The Los Angeles Times[176] began its story with "Big Tobacco, Big Oil, now Big Mayo?" A Wall Street Journal writer described that "Giant corporation generates huge quantities of free advertising and brand equity for tiny rival by suing it."[177] In December 2014, Unilever dropped the claim.[178]
Pressuring media to promote skin whiteners
Kinita Shenoy, an editor of the Sri Lanka edition of Cosmopolitan, refused to promote skin whiteners for a brand of Unilever. Unilever put pressure on Shenoy and asked Cosmopolitan to fire her.[179][180]
Violence against striking workers
In 2019, security forces hired by Unilever attacked workers that were peacefully picketing at a Unilever facility in Durban in South Africa. Workers were shot at with rubber bullets and paint balls and pepper sprayed while attempting to walk to their cars parked on the premises. Four workers were seriously injured.[181]
Trade in the occupied Palestinian Territories
In July 2021, Ben & Jerry's announced plans to end sales in "Occupied Palestinian Territory", within which Israeli settlements are considered illegal under international law, while continuing sales in other parts of Israel.[182] Prior to the release of the statement, Unilever had clashed with Ben & Jerry's independent board of directors, which had not wanted to comment on the continuation of sales in other parts of Israel, as this required board approval.[183] Board chair Anuradha Mittalttal said the board had resolved to end sales in Israeli settlements in July 2020, but the CEO, Matthew McCarthy, appointed by Unilever in 2018, "never operationalized" the resolution.[183]
In June 2022, Unilever announced that it had sold its Ben & Jerry's division in Israel to American Quality Products, the company that has the exclusive license to sell Ben & Jerry's products in Israel and the Palestinian territories.[184] The sale of the division to American Quality Products allows it to continue to sell Ben & Jerry's products in Israel and the Palestinian territories.[184] Later that day, Ben & Jerry's tweeted that it disagreed with its parent company's decision and that the "arrangement means Ben & Jerry's in Israel will be owned and operated by AQP. [...] We continue to believe it is inconsistent with Ben & Jerry's values for our ice cream to be sold in the Occupied Palestinian Territory."[185][186]
Trade in Russia amid the Russo-Ukrainian War
Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, many Western companies curtailed their operations in Russia.[187] Unilever have temporarily suspended all imports and exports to Russia, but its Russian wing continues to trade there.[188] Between 2021 and 2022 profits in Russia doubled to 9.2 billion rubles (€108 million) and the business paid 3.2 billion rubles (€38 million) in taxes; giving rise to criticism that the company is directly helping to fund Russia's war effort in Ukraine.[189]
In response to this, and claims that the company had broken previous promises to only sell essential items, and to cut all advertising spending in Russia, Unilever's CEO Alan Jope said: "We still believe that staying is the best option, both to prevent our company from falling directly or indirectly into Russian hands and to protect our people."[190]
In July 2023, the Ukrainian National Agency on Corruption Prevention included Unilever in the list of “war sponsors” for not ceasing operations in Russia, but continuing to profit from this market.[191] It was reported that the company paid €331 million in taxes in Russia in 2022, with a spokesperson for the Ukraine Solidarity Project saying: "Unilever is contributing hundreds of millions in tax revenues to a state which is killing civilians and funding a mercenary group about to be designated a terrorist organisation in the UK. It risks its staff and resources being mobilised into Putin’s machine. Some of the world’s biggest companies have already left Russia. It’s possible – after 16 months of war – that the time for excuses has passed."[192] In a letter to B4Ukraine, Unilever said it paid 3.8bn roubles (£33m) in tax in 2022, similar to the previous year.[193]
In July 2023, it was reported that Unilever would allow 3,000 of its Russian employees to be conscripted into the Russian army fighting in Ukraine.[194][193]
On 25 July 2023, the new CEO of Unilever, Hein Schumacher, appointed that month, told reporters that the company had considered leaving Russia or selling the business. The first option, according to him, was abandoned, fearing the nationalization of the company, as was the second, because they could not find a worthy buyer. As a result, the continuation of a limited presence in Russia was considered the lesser evil. "None of the options are actually good, but the final option of operating our business in a constrained manner is the least bad and that is where we are," he said.[195]
John Benjamin Sainsbury (1871 – 23 May 1956) was the eldest son of John James Sainsbury, the founder of the Sainsbury's supermarket chain, and his wife, Mary Ann Sainsbury.
Early and private life[edit]
John Benjamin Sainsbury was the second child of John James and Mary Ann Sainsbury and was born in 1871 above the Drury Lane shop and from an early age was trained to take over from his father at the head of the firm.[1]
John Benjamin Sainsbury married Mabel Van den Bergh, an heiress from a Dutch Jewish family whose fortune was made in margarine.[2] They had two sons, Alan Sainsbury and Robert Sainsbury. Alan Sainsbury joined the family firm in the same year as his youngest uncle (John Benjamin Sainsbury's youngest brother, Paul Sainsbury), who was almost 20 years younger than John Benjamin Sainsbury. Both Alan Sainsbury and Paul Sainsbury joined Sainsbury's in 1921. John Benjamin Sainsbury's sons, Alan and Robert, built the reputation of the business for quality and innovation. Having inherited both Victorian and Jewish traditions of philanthropy, they also set the tone of the family's prevailing left-liberal social conscience.
2023年11月26日日曜日
Store Highlight: 173 Drury Lane | Stories
https://www.sainsburyarchive.org.uk › story › store-hi...
This was Sainsbury's first shop opened by John James and Mary Ann Sainsbury. The shop continued to trade until 1958. The people on the photograph have been ...
London: Drury Lane (173); 1869-1958
Sainsbury Archive
https://www.sainsburyarchive.org.uk › branch › ref
Photograph showing the exterior of the Sainsbury's branch at 173 Drury Lane in Holborn, London. This was Sainsbury's first shop opened by John James...
Alan Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Alan_Sainsbury,_Bar...
When the original shop at 173 Drury Lane later closed, the manager, Mr Pawsey, handed Alan Sainsbury the key, saying, 'Your grandfather opened this shop, and I ...➡１７３➡７３１
Educated at Haileybury College, Alan joined Sainsbury's in 1921 aged 17, the same year his youngest uncle, Paul Sainsbury, joined the family firm. He began his career working alongside his uncles as a buyer. He became a director of the Company, then known as J. Sainsbury Ltd., in 1933 and became joint managing director of Sainsbury's with his brother Robert Sainsbury in 1938 after his father, John Benjamin Sainsbury (the eldest son of Sainsbury's founder John James Sainsbury), had a minor heart attack. He was always known to the Sainsbury's workforce as 'Mr Alan'.[4]
https://jyado.blogspot.com/2023/11/173drury-lanenorodeath.html
2024年3月29日金曜日
https://jyado.blogspot.com/2024/03/confession.html
、、、（爆ｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗｗ
ついでにオレンジ公と書いてみる（ｗ
返信削除やっぱりオレンジでつねw
削除https://www.holland.com/global/tourism
ユニ、ですからねw
返信削除リーバ、はカンゾウだったりしてw
ラーマ奥様インタビュー 爆
わるい人達ですね～
返信削除1373イザナミw
返信削除あら、オレンジ色のセインズベリーさんwww
返信削除