Welcome back to The Deep Dive, the place where
we take the vast stack of sources you share with
us and distill the most critical knowledge into
actionable insight. And today we are peering
deep into a company whose presence in your life
is almost impossible to overstate. It really
is. Its products, well, they're in every single
room of your house, the bathroom, the kitchen,
the laundry room. And definitely the pet corner.
Exactly. We are talking about the American multinational
giant Colgate -Palmolive. It is the definition
of corporate ubiquity. I mean, for so many consumers,
it just represents fundamental trust and hygiene.
Right. You hear the name and you immediately
picture that specific tube of toothpaste. But
what we're really discussing is an enterprise
headquartered right in midtown Manhattan that
spans so far beyond oral care. We're talking
household goods. personal care and that critically
important, really high -permission veterinary
segment. So our mission today is to unpack a
history that spans, what, two centuries. We want
to get from William Colgate's simple 19th century
New York soap and candle factory to the massive
global corporation it is today. And we really
need to examine the mechanisms and the decisions
that allowed this company to become a, what is
it now, a $20 .1 billion global consumer goods
leader. And crucially... how that massive scale
has inevitably brought it under some really intense
scrutiny for everything from market competition
to, you know, ethical sourcing and its environmental
stewardship. To truly appreciate the weight of
that legacy and the scrutiny, we have to first
establish the sheer gravity of this entity. I
mean, Colgate -Baumolove trains publicly on the
NYSE, and it's a component of both the S &P 100
and the S &P 500. OK, let's pause right there.
For our listeners who may not be tracking market
indices every day, what does... Being an S &P
500 and even more selectively an S &P 100 component
actually signify in practical terms. Well, it's
a huge signifier of stability and investor confidence.
So inclusion in the S &P 500 means it's one of
the largest, most stable companies in the U .S.
It's widely seen as a bellwether for the whole
economy. And the S &P 100. That means it's considered
among the elite of the elite, the largest and
most established companies that often define
entire investment portfolios. So this isn't a
niche company. It's an institution. An institution.
Yeah. And for 2024, they reported U .S. $20 .1
billion in revenue and, get this, U .S. $4 .27
billion in operating income. Wow. And they managed
this whole global empire with approximately 34
,000 employees. That operational footprint is
just immense. That sets the states perfectly.
Let's jump back in time now to Section 1, the
foundations of hygiene. We're looking at a history
of innovation and devotion covering the company's
genesis from 1806 up to the eve of that great
merger in 1928. The story begins with William
Colgate. He was an English immigrant who came
to the United States and was known as a really
devout Baptist. And his face wasn't just a footnote,
was it? Not at all. It was foundational to his
entire business ethic. So in 1806, he starts
William Colgate and Company on Dutch Street in
New York City. And the original product line.
Yeah. It sounds so antiquated now. It does. It
was simply starch, soap. And candles. I mean,
the absolute most basic household necessities
of that era. What's remarkable to me is how quickly
an early enterprise like that could be disrupted
by just personal health. The sources detail this
major setback in 1833. Yeah. Williams suffered
a severe heart attack, which was so debilitating
that he was actually forced to stop all sales
activity, temporarily at least. And that really
speaks volumes about the early American business
landscape, doesn't it? Oh, absolutely. Back then,
the entire operation was intrinsically linked
to the health and the life of the founder. So
if the founder went down, the business just ground
to a halt. But he recovered. He did. After his
convalescence, he just picked up right where
he left off, that early resilience. You know,
it's truly part of the brand's DNA. But William
Colgate didn't just focus on survival. I was
focused on quality standardization in an era
that was defined by inconsistency. Right. Sometime
in the 1840s, the company initiated a really
key process, selling individual cakes of soap
in uniform, specific weights. And that's a point
of huge strategic significance that probably
gets overlooked in a lot of historical summaries.
It absolutely does. Before this, you know, soap
was often just sold by the slice or cut from
a larger block. So that led to... varying quality,
varying size. You never knew what you were getting.
Exactly. By introducing uniform weights, William
Colgate was establishing one of the earliest
forms of modern mass market branding and consumer
trust. The customer knew precisely what they
were getting every single time. This set the
standard for that predictable, reliable quality
that you and I just expect from consumer brands
today. So William passes away in 1857 and the
leadership transitions to his son, Samuel Colgate.
The company is reorganized as Colgate & Company.
Yes, and the sources reveal that Samuel initially
resisted taking over the business. Really? Yeah.
The narrative suggests it wasn't a straightforward
financial succession. Samuel, just like his father,
was a devout Baptist, and he felt this moral,
almost a fiduciary obligation to continue the
family enterprise. So it was a philosophy rooted
not just in profit, but in stewardship and, I
guess, the provision of... necessary goods. Precisely.
And under Samuel, they began this crucial shift,
moving away from just basic necessities and towards
personal care. So in 1872, they introduced cashmere
bouquet. A perfume soap. This was a move into
the realm of, you could say, affordable luxury.
It signaled their expansion beyond the laundry
room and into the personal hygiene cabinet. And
that move set the stage for the true game changer.
Dental hygiene. It did. In 1873, they introduced
their first Colgate toothpaste. It was an aromatic
paste and it was sold in these little glass jars.
But that jar format, while it was an innovation,
was really just a transitional step. Because
the format change that defined the entire industry
happened in 1896. Exactly. This is when Colgate
began selling the first toothpaste in a flexible
tube. They branded it Colgate Wibben Bental Cream.
But they didn't invent the tube itself, did they?
No. Credit for inventing the actual toothpaste
tube package belongs to a dentist, Washington
Sheffield. But Colgate. Yeah. Colgate recognized
the format as the future and they commercialized
it masterfully. So that shift from, you know,
an unsanitary kind of messy jar to a clean, convenient,
collapsible tube, that fundamentally changed
how people approach their daily oral care. It
elevated the product experience overnight. It
made it modern. And that same pivotal year, 1896,
also saw a commitment to science that, frankly,
few of their competitors matched. Yes. They established
one of the very first applied research labs directed
by a man named Martin Itner. And that decision
was crucial. Absolutely. It meant they weren't
just marketers of commodities anymore. They were
becoming developers of science -backed hygiene
solutions. This R &D foundation is what allowed
them to later navigate all the complex challenges
of ingredients. And it paid off quickly. It did.
They initiated mass sales of the toothpaste in
tubes by 1908, securing an early and really dominant
position in the dental market. But, as you pointed
out, the name is Colgate -Palmolive. Where does
that second half of the name come from? So that's
the parallel story, and it originates in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, with the B .J. Johnson Company. Okay.
In 1898, they formulated a highly successful
soap that was derived specifically from palm
oil and olive oil. Palm olive. Palm olive. The
name was both descriptive and just incredibly
effective. And that product's popularity was
so immense that it led the company to fully rename
itself. Palmolive in 1917, right? They just shed
the founder's name entirely. Correct. The Palmolive
brand was a sensation. I mean, by the start of
the 20th century, Palmolive was officially the
world's best -selling soap. Wow. So as we're
approaching the 1920s, you have the traditional
science -backed Colgate on one side, the consumer
sensation Palmolive on the other, and a third
major player in the field, the Peet Brothers
Soap Company. The time was ripe for consolidation.
Absolutely. Which brings us directly to section
two. consolidation and the birth of a consumer
giant. This covers the period from that merger
in 1928 right through the 1980s. And this isn't
just a merger. This is the creation of a I mean,
a near -monopoly player in the hygiene space.
It was a tremendous corporate maneuver. It happened
in June 1928. The deal combined Colgate, Palmolive,
and the Peet Brothers Soap Company. And the latter
had actually already merged into Palmolive two
years earlier. So this consolidation instantly
created the largest soap and perfumery company
in the entire United States. Yes. It linked that
established tradition with massive market penetration.
And if we look at the financial weight before
the merger. The scale is just astonishing for
the time. Yeah. Pre -emerger sales in 1927 exceeded
$100 million. Right. And in today's valuation,
we are talking about well over $1 .83 billion
in revenue in 2024 dollars. That is a behemoth
being created. It was. The combined entity was
christened the Colgate Palmolive Peat Company.
And it was designed to be international from
day one. It was operating seven U .S. manufacturing
facilities and already had factories established
in 14 foreign countries. They streamlined the
name in 1953, officially becoming the Colgate
-Palmolive Company, the name we all know today.
But what immediately followed that consolidation
was an intense, perpetual battle for market dominance
against another giant. Indeed. The longstanding
competition with Procter & Gamble, the P &G rivalry,
is arguably the defining operational factor for
Colgate -Palmolive throughout the entire 20th
century. P &G, as the world's largest soap and
detergent maker, just constantly drove competitive
innovation. And the first major challenge came
right after World War II, and it fundamentally
changed the laundry aisle forever. It was a technological
revolution, to put it mildly. P &G introduced
Tide laundry detergent. This was one of the first
synthetic heavy duty detergents. And unlike traditional
soap products. Right, which were less effective
in hard water, Tide performed brilliantly. This
single innovation caused thousands of consumers
to abandon Colgate's traditional soap based laundry
products. It resulted in a significant, really
sudden loss of market share for Colgate in that
crucial category. The war then moved into oral
care, threatening Colgate's established dominance
with its flagship toothpaste. This was the toothpaste
war. And Colgate lost its long held number one
sales position globally when P &G began adding
fluoride, a substance proven effective in fighting
cavities to their competing brands, Crest and
Gleam. So that forced Colgate to play catch up
for years. For years. And while Colgate has since
successfully reclaimed that number one global
sales position, that setback was a painful lesson
in the power of scientifically proven ingredient
innovation. And the rivalry was so defining.
that it extended directly into early mass media.
We're talking the era of the soap opera. P &G
essentially invented the sponsorship model for
daytime serials. They funded them entirely just
to reach that domestic audience. So Colgate -Palmolive
had to compete aggressively in this space just
to ensure their brands were advertised. And they
famously sponsored two major shows. Right. The
Doctors on NBC, which they backed for the show's
entire 19 year run from 1963 to 1982. 19 years.
And One Life to Live on ABC, which they sponsored
from 1968 to 1974. But there was a strategic
loss. In that sponsorship battle, right? Yeah.
It shows just how cutthroat that media landscape
was. Oh, yes. They attempted a major expansion.
Colgate -Palmolive tried to retain its sponsorship
of One Life to Live while also attempting to
gain the crucial sponsorship slot for Agnes Nixon's
newer, highly popular soap opera, All My Children.
And ABC denied them? ABC denied them that dual
opportunity. It was a move that really consolidated
ABC's own control over their daytime programming
block. And the era eventually came to an end.
After The Doctors was canceled in 1982, Colgate
-Palmolive just had a pet. They exited the soap
opera sponsorship game entirely. They did. And
P &G, showing its deep, continued commitment
to the format, kept sponsoring shows until its
last remaining serial, As the World Turns, was
canceled in 2010. Wow. So the shift away from
network level sponsorship coincides with this
major internal transformation the company underwent.
George Henry Lesh, who was president, CEO and
chairman during the 60s and 70s, is widely credited
with restructuring the whole firm. So his work
took what was essentially a legacy soap and candle
business. And transformed it into a modern international.
focused diversified consumer products corporation.
That restructuring was absolutely essential preparation
for the more competitive globalized market of
the late 20th century. That sets the stage perfectly
for Section 3, strategic portfolio shifts and
global reach in recent years. So that less transformation,
it enabled the company to make these difficult
choices needed to maximize margins. And that
started with selling off low performing brands.
Yes. The defining theme of the early 21st century
for Colgate -Palmolive was focus. I mean, their
biggest move was the 2005 laundry divestiture.
This was a conscious decision to exit low margin,
high competition segments where P &G just maintained
dominance. They sold off underperforming laundry
brands like Fab, Dynamo, Arctic Power. And they
also sold the license for Ajax laundry detergent
in the U .S., Canada and Puerto Rico to a company
called Phoenix Brands. So they were signaling
a really clear strategic pivot. Concentrating
resources and R &D on the higher margin, premium
segments, oral care, personal care, and pet care.
Exactly. And this was a phased withdrawal from
the laundry segment globally. It wasn't all at
once. They later divested their detergent business
in Colombia to Unilever and then sold some Asian
laundry assets to P &G. And then most recently,
in 2015, they completed the exit from major laundry
markets. Right. By selling their Australian and
New Zealand brands to Henkel for US $245 million.
This systematic clean out of the laundry portfolio
was a very calculated move to boost the overall
profitability profile of the entire corporation.
So if they were divesting low margin products,
they were simultaneously doubling down on the
extremely high margin areas, oral care and critically.
pet nutrition. Their acquisition strategy demonstrates,
well, acute financial intelligence. For instance,
the pet nutrition segment, anchored by Hill's
Pet Nutrition and Science Diet, often carries
substantially higher margins than commodity soaps
or even toothpaste. So there's a deliberate counterbalance
to the razor -thin margins in the household goods
sector. It is. And in oral care, they move strategically
into the premium and natural space because they
recognize that consumer preferences were changing.
Right. Their 2006 acquisition of Tom's of Maine.
Brilliant move. They got an 84 % stake for U
.S. $100 million. Tom's was already this established,
respected natural toothpaste maker since 1970.
This gave Colgate instant, credible entry into
the rapidly growing natural hygiene market without
having to spend years building that trust from
the ground up. And they reinforced that same
strategy in 2020 by acquiring Hello Products
LLC. Which was noted as one of the fastest growing
premium oral care brands in the US. So what's
the common thread in these acquisitions? It seems
pretty clear. They're buying growth and premium
positioning. They leverage the scale of their
global distribution network, you know, the 34
,000 employees, the 200 countries, and they just
inject these niche, high growth, high margin
brands directly into it. It's significantly more
efficient than organic internal development.
Absolutely. And the focus on efficiency is also
reflected in their internal restructuring. Like
that 2012. plan to cut 2 ,310 workers, which
was about 6 % of the workforce, just to drive
efficiency by 2016. And despite this continuous
optimization, the market still views them as
a corporate pillar. They ranked 184th on the
Fortune 500 list in 2018. And perhaps more relevant
to their consumer model, they rank 15th on the
most trusted brands list by Morning Consult in
2021. That combination of massive financial scale
and deep consumer trust is central to their current
operational paradox. It is. They have subsidiary
organizations spanning 200 countries, making
them truly global. Yet they're only publicly
listed in three nations, the United States, India
and Pakistan. Which shows you where their key
financial and emerging market focus lies. Precisely.
but this immense global footprint and this deep
consumer trust. That's exactly why our next section
on corporate responsibility is so contentious.
Let's pivot now to section four, the paradox
of corporate responsibility, ethics and environmental
footprint. We should probably start with a positive
legacy, the community goodwill they've accumulated
over two centuries. Absolutely. The historical
legacy is strong. I mean, the most prominent
example is Colgate University. Madison University
was renamed in 1890 specifically to honor the
Colgate family for their decades of sustained
financial support and commitment to the institution.
And their community engagement is tangible and
active today. They sponsor the Colgate Women's
Games. Which is noted as the nation's largest
amateur track series, open to girls from elementary
school right through college. And this isn't
just advertising. It's providing direct opportunities,
including trophies and educational grants and
aid. That's significant. It is. Furthermore,
they've supported the Starlight Children Foundation
for over 20 years, focusing on using entertainment
and family activities to help seriously ill children
cope. And their online presence is also dedicated
to education. I've seen the toothbrushing songs
and the animated videos with their old mascot,
Dr. Rabbit. Right. Building those positive educational
brand associations from a very early age. But
that immense scale and that global profit come
with some immense ethical tradeoffs. Let's delve
into the areas where they face really serious
criticism. And we have to start with the very
nuanced issue. animal testing this is a classic
example of corporate compromise driven by market
access so in 2011 PETA recognized Colgate -Palmolive
under a specific very conditional category working
for regulatory change okay what does that actually
mean it's a classification given to companies
that commit to only testing on animals when it's
explicitly mandated by government regulations
while at the same time actively funding and seeking
alternatives wait a minute How can PETA recognize
them as working for change if their decision
to stay in the profitable Chinese market mandates
continued animal testing for certain cosmetic
products? I mean, doesn't that recognition serve
as a kind of tacit approval for that compromise?
That is precisely the core conflict. The recognition
is, well, technically accurate. They are seeking
alternatives. But their choice to remain in the
massive lucrative Chinese market means they are,
by extension, funding and participating in mandated
testing. And the source material highlights that
other international corporations have chosen
to decline entry to the Chinese market entirely
to maintain a 100 % cruelty -free commitment.
Right. So Colgate -Palmolive chose the path that
balances profits against an ethical ideal. And
it's a choice that draws continuous criticism
from animal rights groups. Shifting to product
formulation, let's discuss the controversy around
triclosan, the antibacterial agent. In 2011,
the company made a pretty critical choice regarding
its use. They did. They chose to retain triclosan
in their market -leading Colgate Total toothpaste
range, even while they were withdrawing it from
several other product lines. This was a highly
contentious decision. Why? What was the issue
with triclosan? At that time, health and environmental
concerns were really mounting rapidly. Triclosan
had been linked to potential issues like endocrine
disruption in humans, and it was known to be
highly persistent in the environment, polluting
waterways, and impacting aquatic life. And competitors
were phasing it out. Voluntarily, yes. Colgate
-Palmolive's defense for keeping it in total
was crucial. They had extensive clinical data
showing that triclosan, when combined with a
specific copolymer in total toothpaste, provided
superior efficacy against gingivitis and plaque
compared to non -triclosan formulas. And the
FDA. The FDA ultimately reviewed the data and
allowed total to remain on the market. But the
decision to stick with a controversial chemical
purely for competitive efficacy generated significant
public pushback. So beyond product components,
the largest liability for a company of this scale
has to be its global supply chain. And the human
rights record is particularly poor, according
to watchdog groups. Yes. The Ethical Consumer
website, which provides these comprehensive ratings
for corporate behavior, gave Colgate -Palmolive
a worst rating for human rights in January 2024.
That's a severe indictment. It stems from what?
A lack of transparency. A profound lack of transparency
and proactive management across their global
sourcing network. What were the specific organizational
gaps that led to that worst rating? There were
three main deficiencies cited. First, a lack
of publicly available clear standards for working
hours and wages across their supplier base, meaning
they don't ensure a living wage or reasonable
hours. OK. Second, they provided no outcome information
from any supply chain audits they claim to conduct.
So if you audit. but you don't disclose the findings
or what you did about them, the audit is effectively
meaningless to external watchdogs. And the third.
There was no clear anonymous mechanism for workers
in their supply chain to make confidential complaints
or raise serious issues without fear of reprisal.
This triad of non -transparency suggests a failure
to prioritize human welfare in these complex
sourcing regions. Let's transition now to the
environmental deep dive, starting with the legacy
issue of hazardous waste in New Jersey. This
takes us back to the chem... Sol Federal Superfund
site in Piscataway, New Jersey. In 2017, as a
successor to the Menin Company, which Colgate
-Palmolive acquired, they were implicated alongside
roughly 300 other companies as potentially responsible
parties for historic contamination. And what
toxic materials were involved in this cleanup?
We're talking serious stuff, I assume. Oh, very.
The issue involved significant contamination,
specifically of an estimated 18 ,500 cubic yards
of soil. And it was contaminated with highly
toxic substances, including volatile organic
compounds, or VOCs, PCBs, and lead. So what was
the resolution? It was a proposed $23 million
agreement with the government and New Jersey
state authorities. It required Colgate -Palmolive
and the other involved companies to fund the
extensive cleanup of both the contaminated soil
and the underlying groundwater. It just highlights
that historical environmental negligence comes
with a massive, multi -decade financial cost.
It certainly does. Turning to more modern concerns,
plastic pollution is arguably the most visible
environmental footprint for any consumer goods
company. And in 2019, Colgate -Palmolive was
cited by the Break Free from Plastic organization
as one of the world's top 10 plastic polluters.
So how do they respond to that? This is where
we need to clearly define the nuance in their
corporate response. The company committed to
achieving 100 percent recyclability of plastics
and packaging across all categories by 2025.
Which sounds like an excellent. goal it sounds
great right however the sources note that they
made no corresponding public commitment to reducing
the use of virgin plastic and that is a critical
distinction why does focusing only on recyclability
but not reducing virgin plastic, still pose a
massive environmental problem. Because the goal
of 100 % recyclability focuses on the end -of
-life solution for the product, not the upstream
impact of its creation. The continued massive
production of virgin plastic requires fossil
fuels, energy -intensive processes, extraction.
So if they simply use massive amounts of new
plastic but ensure it can be recycled, they are
passing the responsibility for actual pollution
reduction onto you, the consumer, and the recycling.
infrastructure. While still contributing heavily
to fossil fuel demand and raw resource depletion.
Critics often view it as a classic greenwashing
tactic. And the raw material sourcing for the
soap and personal care segments. That brings
us back to palm oil and its devastating link
to deforestation and social abuses. This is one
of the darkest areas of scrutiny for them. Global
Witness reported in 2021 and 2022 that Colgate
Palmolive used palm oil suppliers that were linked
to documented cases of bribery, the brutalization
of local villagers and even child labor in their
operations in Papua New Guinea. That is severe
and immediate ethical failure at the supply chain
level. How did watchdog groups respond to that?
The Rainforest Action Network, or RAN, gave Colgate
-Palmolive an F score, a failing grade on their
2021 scorecard. This tracks corporate responsibility
regarding deforestation and human rights abuses
in supply chains. A failing grade. That said,
subsequent actions have resulted in some incremental
improvement. They did manage to raise that score
to a D in November 2023. What action did they
take to warrant that slight improvement? One
key positive step happened in 2021. Colgate Palmolive
publicly disclosed the specific forest impact
of its palm oil supply chain in a notoriously
sensitive region, North Sumatra, Indonesia. So
disclosure and transparency, even when the data
is bad, are always the necessary first steps.
Always. You can't manage what you don't measure
and report. Now, perhaps the most strategically
damaging criticism in the modern era concerns
their climate action commitments and their emissions
failure. This ties directly back to their overall
corporate viability. It absolutely does. A detailed
June 2023 report from Planet Tracker was damning.
It stated that Colgate -Palmolive is on a path
to missing its approved science -based targets
emissions by a factor of seven. A factor of seven.
That is not a minor deviation. That is a catastrophic
failure to meet your own targets. It is. And
this massive failure rate occurs even when we
exclude a certain category of emissions. OK,
we need to be clear for the listener. What are
these so -called? Optional Indirect Use Emissions,
known as Scope 3, and why does excluding them
make the missed target seven times worse? This
is a critical technical point in modern corporate
sustainability. Emissions are typically broken
into three scopes. Scope one is direct emissions
from your own sources, like running their factories.
Scope two is indirect emissions from the energy
you purchase, like the electricity they buy.
And scope three? Scope three encompasses all
other indirect emissions that occur throughout
the company's entire value chain. This includes
things like the extraction and processing of
raw materials, like that palm oil or plastic
resin. the transportation of goods, the use of
products by consumers, and the disposal of waste.
So Scope 3 is basically everything that happens
before the product gets to the factory floor
and after it leaves the shelf. Precisely. And
for a consumer goods company, Scope 3 activities
often account for 80 % to 90 % of their total
climate footprint. So it's the biggest piece
of the pie. By far. And Planet Trekker's analysis
noted that Colgate -Palmolive provides no clear
strategy to mitigate its main source of emissions,
which is overwhelmingly these upstream scope
three activities. So if you exclude that massive
piece of the pie and they still miss their targets
by a factor of seven, it suggests their current
operational model is fundamentally misaligned
with their stated climate goals. And what are
the implications of this misalignment, not just
ethically, but financially? Sustainability Beat
highlighted this in August 2023. They warned
that this failure jeopardizes future profits.
A failure to manage massive scope three emissions
exposes the company to regulatory risk, carbon
taxes, supply chain disruptions due to climate
change, and most pressingly, reputational risk.
Which puts them in dangerous territory of being
accused of greenwashing. Exactly. If the most
trusted brands list relies on consumers believing
your stated goals, failing them by a factor of
seven is a major. threat to your long -term value.
So let's synthesize this paradox. If we look
at the comprehensive 2024 rating from Ethical
Consumer, what is the final ethical scorecard
for Colgate Palmolive? The report is starkly
mixed. They received the worst possible rating
for three key high -impact categories, climate
change, plastic use, and palm oil deforestation.
But on the positive side? On the positive side,
they did receive their best rating, the highest
possible, for avoiding toxic chemicals in their
products. That's a reflection of their historical
commitment to R &D and safety, stemming all the
way back to those early research labs. So the
lesson here is that corporate responsibility
is never a uniform success or failure. It's a
dynamic struggle across multiple fronts. It is.
A very complicated picture. It is. Let's shift
gears for our final segment, Section 5, the operational
network and brand legacy. Despite all this controversy,
the sheer infrastructure that moves those billions
of products daily is immense and highly specialized.
It truly is a marvel of logistical engineering.
I mean, within the US alone, the company operates
approximately 60 properties and you can see the
historical evolution in their manufacturing.
For instance, major facilities were relocated
from Morristown, New Jersey, the old Menin headquarters,
to new, more efficient hubs in places like Hodges,
South Carolina, Morristown, Tennessee, and Cambridge,
Ohio. And where is the intelligence and innovation
concentrated? Where's the R &D? The primary R
&D hub for oral, personal, and home care products
is centralized in Piscataway, New Jersey. This
is where the core product formulas like Colgate
Total are developed and refined. And for the
pet food? Separately, the R &D for their highly
lucrative pet nutrition segment, Hills, is housed
in Topeka, Kansas. That reflects the very specialized
scientific demands of veterinary health. But
there's one particular manufacturing site that
holds an enormous amount of global critical importance.
That would be the chief manufacturing plant located
in Burlington Township, New Jersey. This facility
has been designated as the global fragrance and
flavor hub. It produces all of the fragrance
and flavor oils used across all of the company's
worldwide facilities. All of them. All of them.
Think about that centralization. Every scent
in every bottle of Irish spring or soft soap
and every flavor in every tube of Colgate. originates
in that one New Jersey location. That's amazing.
But how does that centralization affect their
vulnerability to supply chain disruption? I mean
if anything happened at Burlington Township it
would cripple their global production overnight.
It creates a tremendous single point of failure,
certainly, but it also allows for unparalleled
control over their proprietary formulas and ensures
a consistency of quality across all 70 plus countries
where they operate their own factories. Right.
And overseas, they have approximately 280 properties.
Yeah, 80 of which are owned, including major
facilities in critical emerging markets like
Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Poland and Vietnam.
Let's run through the full brand portfolio now
because the breadth is truly surprising and it
really illustrates. that strategic shift toward
high -margin segments. Sure. We can categorize
their current mix. In the cleaning segment, you
have household staples like Ajax Cleanser, Fabuloso,
and Murphy Oil Soap. Then the personal care category
includes legacy names like Iris Spring, Speedstick,
Menin, Palmolive, and the acquired natural brands
like Tom's of Maine and Soft Soap. And the core
of the business remains oral care. Featuring
the flagship Colgate, the highly specialized
European brand Elmex, and that premium acquired
brand, Hello Products. And we cannot overstate
the importance of the veterinary segment, Hill's
Pet Nutrition and Science Diet. These premium
vet -recommended foods carry the high margins
that stabilize the entire conglomerate against
the low -cost competition in the soap market.
And for those of us who appreciate a little nostalgia,
let's remember some of the discontinued brands
that connect Colgate -Palmolive to consumer history.
Oh, there are many, and they reflect their divestment
strategy. We mentioned the perfumed soap cashmere
bouquet and the original Colgate ribbon dental
cream in its early format. They also had fluoride
toothpaste like Brisk and Q that just failed
to gain traction against Crest. And of course,
the U .S. laundry brands they sold off like Dynamo
and Fab. Yes, but I'm sure many listeners will
remember Soaky. The children's bubble bath sold
in those plastic character bottles. Right. It
represents that deep cultural penetration that
only a handful of CPG companies ever really achieve.
It's a great reminder that these companies sell
more than just product. They sell memory and
utility. And speaking of utility, here's one
final fun anecdote. It's related to the millions
of bottles of palmolive dish soap sold annually.
The iconic image of the hand on the label. Yeah.
It belongs to a real person. A hand model named
Elizabeth Barber, illustrated from a photograph
taken way back in 1985 when the image was last
updated. That detail really brings that ubiquitous
label to life. Finally, let's acknowledge their
operational response to recent geopolitical events.
What was their stance following? the 2022 Russian
invasion of Ukraine. Colgate Palmolive announced
a really clear operational split. They suspended
all imports and sales within Russia, limiting
their continued operations only to essential
health and hygiene products. And crucially. Critically,
they also halted all capital investments, media,
advertising, and promotional activities within
the country. It's a modern, very measured corporate
response aimed at minimizing commercial activity
while attempting to fulfill basic humanitarian
needs for hygiene. So what does this all mean
when we put the two centuries of history on the
table? We've traced Colgate -Palmola from a small
Baptist -founded soap and candle maker. Right.
We celebrated its innovations like the toothpaste
tube that redefined hygiene. And analyzed its
defining market battles with P &G. And we've
also had to confront the inescapable reality
of its 21st century position. It's a massive
trusted conglomerate that is simultaneously facing
intense ethical pressure, a worst rating for
human rights transparency and profound environmental
scrutiny. It's cited as a top plastic polluter.
It's linked to deforestation through palm oil
sourcing. And most critically, it's facing analysis
that suggests its current operational trajectory
will cause it to miss its climate emissions goals
by a factor of. Which leaves us with a final
provocative thought to chew on as we wrap up
this deep dive. Colgate -Palmolive is a company
that has simultaneously celebrated ranking consistently
among the most trusted brands about consumers
globally and profoundly criticized for the ethical
cost of its environmental footprint. This friction
raises the fundamental and unavoidable question
for every modern learner and consumer. How much
ethical compromise in terms of deforestation,
plastic use, supply chain transparency, or climate
failure are we collectively willing to accept
in exchange for low -cost, convenient, and truly
essential global hygiene products? The complexity
of that answer defines consumer capitalism today.
That's a deep dive that requires far more than
soap and water to clean up. Thank you for joining
us on The Deep Dive. We'll see you next time.