An informal Golden Rule: ignore organisation changes claiming to accelerate growth One of our informal staples'' Golden Rules (it should probably be a formal one) is to ignore any organisation structure changes that claim to accelerate organic sales growth (as typically much is promised and little delivered). Unilever''s history is a case in point Unilever''s history provides ample evidence to substantiate the view outlined above. In this report, we reflect upon the many organisation changes that Unilever has taken over the past couple of decades. While most of the organisation changes have promised much with respect to accelerating organic sales growth, actual delivery has been quite a different matter. Could Unilever''s new organisation be the exception to the rule? Unilever has made a convincing case that its new organisation structure should help to accelerate growth. Notably, we can see some key benefits: i) we can understand it (unlike Unilever''s previous structure) and ii) it should radically reduce matrix tensions (finally). Notwithstanding history, we give Unilever the benefit of the doubt. Mr Schumacher: if Unilever does not perform now - it needs to split Coupling the new organisation structure with the material portfolio reshuffling that Unilever has undertaken over recent years (we estimate portfolio churn approaching c.20% of sales), if Unilever is not now capable of sustaining MSD organic sales growth (we would suggest the current +3-5% target reflects a poverty of ambition for a business with c.60% of sales in developing markets), we believe no more organisation tinkering should be undertaken; Unilever''s new CEO, Hein Schumacher, should pursue a split. Do we have an idea for how this could be undertaken? You bet...