UNILEVER IN INDIA 43 Lever to that in Unilever was 2.38 per cent, but the share of profit it was contributing was 9.92 per cent. The share of the work-force has gone up marginally to 3.01 per cent in 1981, but the share of profit has gone up significantly to 18.27 per cent. So, the benefit clearly goes in favour of Unilevar. Salaries, wages and other workers' benefits as a percentage of the value added is a good indicator to show the distributional aspect of the income of the company. Here also we make a comparison between Unilever and Hindustan Lever. Normally, the greatest share of the value added goes to the salaries, wages etc. component. That at least is the picture for Unilever. Over the last decade an average of 67 per cent of the value added of Unilever went towards salaries, wages etc. For Hindustan Lever one finds, however, a declining trend in the share of salaries, wages etc. in the value added throughout the last decade. In 1970, the share of value added going to salaries, wages etc. of Hindustan Lever was 60 per cent; this share has gone down to as low as 35 per cent in the year 1981. It is noteworthy also that the share of value added going to the government in the form of taxes is almost stagnant at a level of around 32.5 per cent for the last decade. This implies that the share of value added going to profits has been rising throughout the last decade. Thus, while Hindustan Lever's contribution to its parents in terms of capital employed, sales, employment etc. may be very low, between 1 per cent and 3 per cent, its contribution to Unilever's profit is between 9 per cent and 18 per cent. Of Unilever's business in all underdeveloped countries Hindustan Lever is found to take the foremost position. One assumes that it wants to maintain that position, and that, if the need arises, it may even be prepared to make some concession to the host country concerned. (Th3 author is grateful to Kf'istoffel Lieten, of the Indo-Dutch Project on Dutch Multinationals in India, jor going through the paper and making valuable suggestions. Thanks are also due to his other colleagues for their help in prepafing this paper). \ See D. K. Fieldhousc, Unilever, London, 1978, chapter on Ind-a and Pakistan. 2 For licens'ng capacity expansion Hindustan Lever had made nine applications between 1958 and 1973, out of which seven were granted, whereas for Swastik only five out of 13 applications were granted during 1952-1973 and for Tomco only three out of 15 applications. 3 According to the industr.al poLcy announcement of the government in 1973, foreign companies were allowed to invest only in the so-called "core industries"* set forth in Appendix I of the announcement. This excluded soaps, vanaspat-', tooth-paste etc. and included industries like metallurgical, clectj ical equipments, synthetic detergents, fine chemicals etc. 4 inc dentally, Chindwnra happens to be the constituency of an influential Congress (1) M P, Kamalnath. EarLer, HL had made an application for opening a detergent factory in Medak (A P) which happens to be the Parliamentary constituency of 1 r'dira Gandhi. It appears that a part of Hindustan Lever's Etah factory ;s also going to be shifted to Amethi, which is the Parliamentary constituency of Rajiv Gandh'. 5 Sec Honiara, Jamsan -Febmary 1981, p 27.