My name is Niels Anderson, and I'm the Chairman of the Board As you may be aware, the Dutch emergency legislation allowing virtual meetings was extended last month, and we announced on 3rd September 2020 to hold a fully virtual meeting because we do not want to take any risks with the health of our staff, partners, and you, our shareholders. I'm pleased you've taken the time to join us, and I sincerely hope the pandemic will be under control soon. I now formally declare that this meeting was probably convened by publishing the required notice and documents on our websites on August 10, 2020. Please allow me first to introduce the following directors of the company who have joined in today's meeting: Alan Jope, our Chief Executive Officer and Ms. Irma Crone, the independent civil law notary who supervises the voting process, and Guido Poche, Civil Law Notary of Linklater LLP, who will execute the notarial deed of amendment to our articles of association.
Welcome, everybody. If such an agreement is approved in this meeting, The minutes of this meeting will be drawn up in notarial form and will be made available on the website of Unilever. All topics on this meeting relate to the proposal to Unilever. As explained in the notice, agenda item 2 require your separate vote in our class meeting of holders of ordinary shares. Your vote cast in respect of the proposal to approve unification will apply in both the AGM and the meeting of holders of ordinary shares.
In a moment, Alan will provide you with some further information in relation to unification. This will be followed by a question and answer session in respect of all agenda items. We'll respond to the questions that were sent to us before the deadline of 18 September 2020 at 10 a. M. Shareholders who have submitted questions before that deadline will have received login details to the Lumi AGM portal.
On this portal, you'll be able to watch the webcast and ask your follow-up questions. Our moderator will read out the follow-up questions when we arrive at the Q and A session. Following the Q and A session, we'll give you the voting results. If the resolution under Item 1 is carried, we'll briefly suspend the EGM to implement the amendment to our articles of association. Only proxy votes submitted prior to 5 30 pm on 16 September 2020 have been taken into account to calculate the voting rights.
Voting during the EGM is not possible and the numbers we'll give you at the end of the meeting are final. I would like to personally thank you for taking the time to engage with us on our proposal to Unilever's dual headed structure under a single UK parent company. The Board conducted a comprehensive review before announcing our unification plans in June this year, and we firmly believe this proposal is in the long term interest of Unilever and our many stakeholders. Modernizing our complex legal structure, which was established 90 years ago, will bring significant benefits such as greater strategic flexibility to grow shareholder value, providing the potential for accelerated portfolio change. The proposed changes will not impact the underlying economic interest of any shareholder.
And for the first time, all shareholders will share exactly the same legal ownership, dividend, governance and capital distribution rights in a single parent company. The proposal does not change the operating business of the board strategy or the board strategy to drive long term growth across the 3 divisions of Unilever, it will complement these efforts. The Board strongly believes this proposal will help create a simpler, stronger company that will better be able to deliver long term value for all our stakeholders. I'll now give the floor to Alan to provide you with some more information on unification. Over to you, Alan.
Thank you very much, Niels, and again, good morning, everybody. I would like to extend my thanks for the level of stakeholder engagement that we've enjoyed over recent months on these proposals. Having listened carefully, I believe more strongly than ever that unifying the 2 separate legal entities is in the long term interests of Unilever and our stakeholders. This is the customary Safe Harbor statement that we show anytime we're making forward looking statements about the business. The benefits of unifying Unilever are, I believe, widely recognized.
In order to drive long term growth across our 3 divisions, we want and need to be able to accelerate portfolio change. Unifying our legal parent structure will give us greater strategic flexibility to do this should we choose through equity based acquisitions or demergers. This would simply put us on a level playing field with our global competitors. And this link between a simpler legal structure and greater strategic flexibility was underlined strongly following a full scale portfolio review, which began last year, of all of our brands and categories. The recent strategic review of our tea business assessed a full range of options, including a demerger as one route to separation.
As we found when we came to dispose of our spreads business in 2018, a demerger would be significantly more challenging under the current legal structure than under a single parent structure. Unification will also further strengthen Unilever's corporate governance. It will simplify the capital structure, as Neil said, with 1 market capitalization and distributable reserve for dividends and share buybacks, 1 global pool of liquidity and 1 class of shares with identical rights. Our proposal to establish a single U. K.
Parent company, Unilever Plc, is the best practical option to achieve unification. As you know, in 2018, we withdrew a proposal to unify under a Dutch parent company because of concern from a significant minority of shareholders about the impact it would have had on FTSE Index inclusion. As a result, unifying our under a Dutch parent company is not an option. But we're very proud of our Anglo Dutch heritage, and we have significantly strengthened our presence in the Netherlands in recent years. This proposal will have no impact on our commitment to the Netherlands or to our operations in the country.
The number of people we employ, our investment in the Dutch economy, which is currently worth around €1,000,000,000 a year, our factories in Elendorf and Arvada and our significant R and D capabilities, none of that will change as a result of unification. Furthermore, our foods and refreshment division, which makes up 40% of Unilever with brands like Knorr, Hellmann's, Magnum, Unox and the Vegetarian Butcher, will remain firmly based in Rotterdam under these plans. Indeed, as part of our unification proposal and subject to its successful implementation, we have agreed with the Dutch government to work together to create an even stronger and more dynamic foods and refreshment division in the Netherlands. One important platform for this will be our new Global Foods Innovation Center at Wageningen University, which we were very proud to open last December following an €85,000,000 investment. We have high ambitions that our work at Wageningen will help to transform the food industry in areas such as plant based ingredients and sustainable food packaging.
As in the Netherlands, there will be no significant changes to Unilever's Beauty and Personal Care divisions will continue to be headquartered in the U. K. This slide shows a simple explanation of the legal change. As part of a cross border merger, Unilever NB will be merged into Unilever PLC and NB shareholders will become shareholders in PLC. Unilever NV shareholders will receive 1 new PLC share in exchange for each Unilever NV share held.
As Niels mentioned, shareholders will share exactly the same legal ownership, dividend, governance and capital distribution rights in a single parent company. All of the assets, liabilities and legal relationships of NV, including subsidiaries, will be acquired by PLC by operation of law. NV will cease to exist and all of its shares will be canceled. PLC will become the sole parent company of the Unilever Group. There will be one market capitalization, one global pool of liquidity, one class of share.
But there's a lot that will not change. Let me emphasize that unification will not result in any change to Unilever's multi stakeholder approach to business. This will remain at the heart of everything we do. We are embedding sustainability into every determined to show that sustainable business drives superior financial performance and creates long term value for all our stakeholders. The most recent example of this commitment came 2 weeks ago with the launch of our new home care strategy called Clean Future.
By replacing 100 percent of the carbon derived from fossil fuels in our cleaning and laundry products with renewable or recycled carbon by 2,000 30, that's less than 10 years away, we intend not only to transform our own business, but to help shift the whole industry. And this commitment came on top of similarly ambitious proposals I announced in the last 6 to 12 months in the areas of climate and nature and plastic packaging. Unilever is recognized as the global leader in sustainable business, and this will not be diminished in any way as a result of the changes we're proposing. We also intend to continue on maintaining the highest standards of corporate governance. Hence, Unilever will continue to apply its existing corporate governance principles following unification, including applying the U.
K. Corporate governance code. Unilever shares will be listed and traded on the Amsterdam, London and New York Stock Exchanges. Unilever Plc will continue to have a premium listing on the London Stock Exchange, and we expect to continue to be included in the FTSE UK Index series. We've spoken with Euronext, and they have confirmed our expectations around Unilever Plc Shares, replacing NB shares in the AEX Index.
We also expect Unilever Plc shares to be included in the STOXX Europe 600 Index and other relevant pan European indices. Finally, we will continue to report our earnings and clear dividends in euros, with those dividends being paid in euros, pounds sterling or U. S. Dollars. And there will be no change to our policy of seeking to pay an attractive, growing and sustainable dividend.
Let me conclude. These are challenging and uncertain times in the world, but that merely underscores the need for Unilever to have greater strategic flexibility. We've consulted widely and listened carefully, and we're confident we've come forward with the most shareholder friendly route to unify our legal structure. Above all, we strongly believe this proposal will help to create a future fit Unilever, which is stronger, better positioned for success, and more able to deliver long term value for all of our stakeholders. Back to you, Niels.
Thank you very much, Alan. We will now answer the questions that were submitted ahead of the meeting, Whether shareholders ask similar questions, I've decided to combine or cluster these questions. And I'll start with reading the first set of questions and state the name of the shareholder or stakeholder representative that asks any such question. Alan, Graham or I will respond to these questions. The first set of questions come from European Investors, VEB and REITs as follows.
The unification proposal follows the withdrawal in October 2018 of the previous attempt to simplify the dual headed structure under a new single Dutch holding company. Several shareholders have criticized Unilever for not properly engaging with respect to the 2018 simplification proposal. How has this experience changed Unilever's engagement efforts concerning the current proposed unification? Also, Unilever now seeks shareholder approval for the exact opposite option of unifying the dual headed structure, I. E, by implementing a PLC structure, which negative implications will this second best option have for shareholders?
Finally, why hasn't Unilever opted for maintaining the NV legal structure with, at the same time, a primary listing in the London Stock Exchange as well as the UK head office? Let me address these questions. 1st, Unilever received widespread support for the principle of unification in 2018. We proposed then to unify our business under a Dutch parent company with listings in London and in Amsterdam. We withdrew our proposal because of concern from a significant minority of shareholders about the impact it would had on the FTSE index inclusion.
Unifying under Dutch parent company, while maintaining listings in London and the Netherlands is therefore no longer an option. We consulted extensively with shareholders after the Board decided to withdraw the proposal and we continue to do so ever since. It was appropriate that the Board took some time to review and reflect around these arrangement and ensure it arrived at the best decision for Unilever, its shareholders and other stakeholders as a whole. What we're proposing now is in no means the opposite of our option opposite option of our proposal from 2018, but just a different way of achieving unification. Both the UK and the Netherlands are excellent legal jurisdictions, but having carefully considered a wide range of options, the Board believes that incorporating in the UK is the best practical option to achieve unification.
VB also asked the following. In the shareholder circular dated 10th August 2020, Unilever states that if the proposed bill by Dutch opposition Party, GreenLinx, resulting in an exit tax would be enacted in its present form, the unification will not be in the best interest of Unilever and its stakeholders and Unilever will not proceed with the unification. Does this imply that the only option available in this adverse scenario is that Unilever will maintain its current dual headed structure with both NV and PLC shares? And if not, what other options does Unilever have? Also, should the proposed bill be enacted in its present form, what will be the implications for Unilever in terms of future investments in the Netherlands.
Unilever also states continue the question Unilever also states that based on legal advice received, it considers the proposal to be contrary to international law. Could Unilever elaborate on the aspect of the deal it considers to be contrary to international law? Alan, would you answer these questions, please?
Sure. Thank you, Niels. Well, look, the Board remains absolutely committed to unifying the group's legal structure as proposed for all the reasons that we've given. And we do remain confident in our plans as we believe that they're in the best interests of the company, its shareholders and other stakeholders as a whole. This bill is at a very early stage.
It may be subject to amendment during the parliamentary process. And actually, it's not clear when or if indeed at all the bill may be enacted or in what form. Accordingly, the ultimate effect of the bill on proposed unification is not clear at present. And beyond that, we really are not going to speculate. The legal advice that we've received from multiple sources is that the bill would breach fundamental principles of EU law on freedom of establishment and on free movement of capital.
It would also, for example, contravene the Netherlands U. K. Tax treaty. So with that, back to you, Niels.
Thank you. Thank you, Alan. VB also asked the following. Unilever expect the PLC shares will, in addition to inclusion in the FUTS 300 Index, be included in the AEX Index and continue to be included in the Stoxx Europe 600 Index and other relevant pan European indexes. Could Unilever provide an update on the status of its communication with the index providers?
Also, what gives Unilever the confidence that the PLC shares will be included in all the aforementioned indexes? Graeme, could you answer the questions by VEB, please?
Certainly, Niels. Thank you. Let me start with Euronext, who we spoke to last week. Euronext will not formally conclude until we've taken the necessary steps to apply for the listing of Unilever PLC shares on Euronext Amsterdam, but they have confirmed their expectations that the Plc shares will replace the NV shares in the AEX index. We engaged with the FTSE Russell Group and they will formally confirm whether PLC shares will be eligible for the U.
K. Series when they issue their index treatment notices. This will only be once the necessary steps for unification have been completed, including shareholder and regulatory approvals, and there is full clarity on the timetable for the share exchange. FTSE Russell have noted that on the basis of the information that we provided in the unification announcement in June, specifically a U. K.
Incorporation and a U. K. Premium listing that their index nationality rules indicate that the combined entity would be eligible for inclusion in the FTSE UK Index series and we expect that that will be confirmed in due course. And finally, the stocks indices would only normally comment ahead of shareholder vote if there was significant interest from shareholders. We expect PLC shares will continue to be included in the Stocks Europe 600 Index.
With that, back to Niels.
Thank you, Graeme. A further VB questions read as follows. With the PLC legal structure, Unilever will only be subject to U. K. Corporate law and governance code as well as the U.
K. Takeover code. Directors' duties and responsibilities are different under the U. K. Regime compared to the Dutch regime.
Some Unilever shareholders have already voiced concerns that the focus with the stakeholder model may switch more towards shareholders following this change. In the shareholder circular, Unilever nevertheless states that its multi stakeholder approach will not change. So how does Unilever reconcile its different requirements under UK laws and regulations and his statement that the multi stakeholder approach will remain unchanged? And could Unilever give some examples of circumstances under which the company will be obliged by law to make a different decision being a purely UK company compared to the current situation. In other words, with both the NV and PLC legal structure.
Also, does Unilever agree that it might be forced to act differently in case of, for example, a hostile public offer for Unilever with Unilever being the target company. Alan, would you answer these questions, please?
Yes. Thanks, Niels. I think these are important questions. Unilever has operated effectively for many years under both the U. K.
And Dutch corporate governments governance regimes. And over a decade ago, we set out our vision to become the world leader in sustainable business. Frankly, the location of legal incorporation of either parent company in Unilever's dual headed structure has had no influence on our vision of doing business in a way which delivers growth by serving society and the planet. As to legal regimes, while there is a difference in emphasis between the U. K.
And the Dutch government's governance regimes, both regimes place an emphasis on long term value creation, and directors must consider the interests of stakeholders. In the UK, the Board has a duty to promote the success of the company for the benefits of its shareholders, and in doing so, directors must have proper regard for the interests of other stakeholders, the long term consequences of the decisions, and the impact on community and environment, and this will be applicable in any public bid context. Back, Junios?
Thank you, Alan. And the final question from VB is as follows. In case the unification will not be implemented, will Unilever then be confronted by a durable competitive disadvantage because of a lack of flexibility. Will this, for example, permanently close down certain M and A options for Unilever. I think this question is mostly suited for Graham.
Would you address this question, please?
Sure. Thank you, Niels. Our current dual headed structure has been in place for 90 years now and it has not prevented us from doing mergers and acquisitions. However, we do want to accelerate the pace of portfolio change in Unilever from structurally lower growth to higher growth categories. And unifying our legal parent structure gives us greater flexibility to achieve that, including through equity based acquisitions and demergers.
We believe that this will become even more important as we anticipate the increasingly dynamic business environment that the COVID-nineteen pandemic creates. But ultimately, this is about creating the right strategic optionality for Unilever over the long term. Unification will put us on a level playing field with other companies and ensure that we are best positioned for future success. Back to you, Niels.
Niels, I think you may be muted.
Thank you, Alan. Thank you, Graham, first of all. The next question come from Stichteng Institute GAC and reads as follows. Is Unilever prepared also on behalf of its subsidiaries to guarantee towards its Dutch employees that employment in the Netherlands will be maintained at the current level unless changes in circumstances in the relevant sector justify adjustments in accordance with what is happening in that sector. Further, is Unilever prepared also on behalf of its subsidiaries to guarantee towards its Dutch employees that the employment conditions for its Dutch employees, including all social schemes, including pension schemes, will be maintained at least on the current level, unless changes in circumstances in the relevant sector justify an adjustment in accordance with what is happening in that sector.
Finally, is Unilever prepared also on behalf of its subsidiaries to guarantee towards all Dutch employees that its Dutch employees will maintain at least in an equal manner as currently their consultation rights at the highest corporate level in the company? Alan, I would like you to answer these questions.
Thanks. As I've said, there's no change to the operations, locations, activities or staffing levels in the Netherlands nor in the UK for that matter as a result of this unification proposal. So it means that the employment conditions of our people in the Netherlands will not change as a result of unification. Now currently, there is no Works Council established at Unilever NV's level. However, there's a full employee consultation at the level of the Dutch holding company, Unilever Nederland Holdings BB.
We are happy to confirm that the role of the Works Council and employee representation in the Netherlands will not change because of unification. In the context of the change of the legal structure, Unilever has committed to an enhanced level of engagement with the Dutch Central Works Council. For example, we formalized an annual meeting with the CEO. We have a very good relationship with the Works Council, and I welcome and thoroughly enjoy our ongoing engagement.
Thank you, Alan. We also received a contribution, which was submitted by Maarten Koining for MN Services, the asset manager for among other pension funds Mittal in Technik, pension fund Mittallectro, pension fund Kurbwerdie. And this contribution is also on behalf of APG, PTGM, Achmea Investment Management, Robeco and Kempen. This will be read out in full by our Group Secretary, Ritva Sautomar, together with the two questions. Over to you, Ritva.
Thank you, Niels. The statement and questions read as follows. Mr. Chairman, we have taken note of the unification proposal with interest. We thank Mr.
Joop and others for taking the time to explain the proposal to us and discuss the pros and cons with us. Our substantive weighting is that we understand and follow Unilever's strategic rationale for unification. Although the limitations of the dual structure should not be exaggerated, the unification has the advantage of more strategic flexibility for portfolio evolution and a simpler structure. At the same time, there are also concerns. Unilever is rooted in this dual structure and is shaped by this history.
The Dutch Incorporation is part of Unilever's history and is also visible in the way Unilever operates. Unilever's mission, making sustainable living commonplace, fits the sustainable character of the company by integrating it in Unilever's articles of association. Today, we make the ultimate plea for this. Now would be the time to make clear to the outside world and shareholders that Unilever opts for a sustainable long term focus and wants to take the interests of all stakeholders into account even after relocation. As Dutch investors, we do not like to see Unilever leave, but the most important thing is the importance that we see as long term investors, a company that takes into account the social and physical context in which the company operates and makes sustainable choices in line with the interests of the company.
We hope that this continues to characterize Unilever after unification. As long term investors, we are therefore committed to the company even after unification, and we hope to continue the dialogue with Unilever. This leads to the following questions for your Board. First, in discussions, Unilever indicated that establishing the sustainable character of Unilever in the articles of association during the merger process would be too complex. Would you agree to include this in the articles of association at the next opportunity and to put it as a separate item on the agenda no later than the 2021 AGM.
Secondly, you have indicated that you will not go forward with unification if the bill that has been submitted in the Dutch parliament for an exit tax were to be passed. Nevertheless, we are already voting on the unification today and the unification may have already been implemented when the Parliament takes a decision on the draft bill. Are you sure you can stop the unification after the PLC court meeting? What is your plan if a possible decision on the private members' bill takes place after that date? Back to you, Niels.
Thank you very much, Ritva. At this point, I would like to note that the Stigting Institute, GAK, has also submitted a similar question relating to Unilever's articles of association. So we'll be clustering it here to be answered simultaneously. Let me take the question relating to the articles of association, And then Alan, if you could take the question related to the unification process and related timings. As we discussed, our focus is on implementing unification successfully.
We agreed that after we had implemented unification, we would consider your suggestion, recognizing that this is a very complex issue. It's also one where we should consider the views of a broad range of stakeholders and shareholders, not just our own. Own. We'll take the time we need to properly consider your suggestion and to consider the views of others. And for that reason, we're not in a position to commit to next year's AGM.
I would also like to echo Alan's earlier comment, unification will not result in any change to Unilever's multi stakeholder approach, which we're determined to show that sustainable business drives sustainable financial and superior financial performance and creates long term value for our shareholders. And now, Alain, over to you for the second question, please.
On this question, we've been very clear, I think, in our public disclosure. The boards could decide not to proceed with unification at any time up to the high court approval hearing. So as far as the period between the court hearing and the effective date is concerned, we're subject to the court's discretion and therefore can't predict what the court may permit. As to the second part of your question, we're not going to speculate what might happen. Having said that, we've been very clear in the shareholder documents that the boards will proceed with unification if in the Board's view it remains in the best interest of Unilever, its shareholders and other stakeholders.
At Juniors.
Thank you, Alan. The last questions we received was submitted by Mr. Rings asking whether Unilever is prepared post unification to organize an annual event for Dutch shareholders in Rotterdam to present Unilever's results. Let me answer this one. We intend to continue to have a close relationship with our Dutch retail shareholders.
As long as there's interest, we'll organize an event around the 2021 AGM to accommodate for that And we think that's a good way to stay in touch. During this AGM, we received some follow-up questions as was expected and hoped for. And Ritva, can you please read out the first follow-up question in the name of the shareholder or shareholder representative who asked such question. Over to you, Ritva.
Yes. Thank you, Niels. And we do have a follow-up question. We have a question from Mr. Koynig in M and S Services, and the question reads as follows.
Last week, the exit tax proposal in Dutch parliament was updated. The update makes clear that the tax liability for the exit tax lies with the shareholders of NV. What is your reaction to this update? Do you agree that it would make it hard for Unilever to proceed with the CBM exchanging NV shares for PLC shares because in that case, the then former NV shareholders who have a tax liability would be untraceable. What is the plan of Unilever going forward with this proposal pending?
Would Unilever feel a need to differentiate shares between former NB and regular shares as A shares and B shares? And Niels, we note that Mr. Di Tomic from VB asked a similar question. And so could you please provide an answer to Mr. Koining and Mr.
Tomik?
You. Yes. Thank you for the questions for Mr. Koining and Mr. Tomic.
We have seen the amendments and do not believe that they have any new impact on unification. It's not clear from the general statements made now how legally or practically these proposals will work. We'll study any detailed proposals published in due course and assess the impact, if any, it could have on unification. One of the objectives of unification is to simplify our governance and capital structure. Maintaining 2 classes of shares would give rise to additional legal and structural complexity.
The board intends to proceed with their proposal provided that unification in the board's view remains in the best interest of Unilever, its shareholders and other stakeholders as a whole. Thank you. Back to you, Ritva. Do we have more questions?
It appears now that we do not have any other follow-up questions, Nils. There is actually let's see. There is actually there are no currently no further questions. Thank you, Niels.
Thank you, Ridva. And that means that we come to the end of the Q and A session. And I would like to thank all of you who have submitted questions today or prior to today. We hope that we have answered them to your satisfaction. Anyone who have any questions after the meeting, please feel free to submit these in writing and we'll endeavor to answer them to extent to the extent we are able.
We will now move on to the approval of the resolutions. The full explanation of all proposed resolutions are set out in the formal notice to the AGM and any documents referenced therein. We'll show the results of voting based on proxy shares that were submitted before the extended deadline at 5:30 p. M. On 16 September 2020.
Our Group Secretary, Ritva Sautomer, who you already met, will now give you an overview on how many votes have been cast. Over to you, Ritve.
Thank you, Niels. The shares represented today have a total nominal value of 150,000,000, €520,596 which is good for €940,000,000 753,722 votes, representing 64.1% of our share capital. At this meeting, 64.4% of the votes been cast by holders of ordinary shares in the capital of the company. Because at least 50% of the issued capital is represented, all resolutions in this meeting require a simple majority of the votes cast. And with this, back to you, Nils.
Niels, could you unmute?
Thank you very much, Ritva. I'll now walk through the resolutions and tell you if they've been carried, and they will come up on the screen. Slide, well, in a minute apparently. You'll now see the number of votes for, against and withheld with respect to agenda item 1, to amend Unilever's N. V.
Articles of association. Ladies and gentlemen, the proposal under Agenda Item 1 to amend the articles of association of the company is carried. To implement such amendment, I'll now suspend the EGM for a couple of minutes to have the notarial deed of amendment executed. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm pleased to confirm that the notarial deed of amendment has been executed effectively immediately. We will continue with agenda item 2, the proposal to approve unification.
This proposal includes the demerge of certain assets and liabilities of the company, the authorization of the board to repurchase the so called special shares and the cross border merger between the company and the Unilever PLC. We'll now see the votes, the number of votes for, against and withheld with respect to agenda item 2. The resolution is carried. And this means that the proposal to unify Unilever's dual headed structure has been approved. We'll now move on to agenda number 3 to discharge executive directors.
You'll now see the votes for, against and withheld with respect to this agenda item tree. This resolution is carried. And finally, we move on to agenda item 4 to discharge non executive directors. You'll now see the numbers of votes for, against and withheld with respect to agenda item 4. And this resolution is also carried.
I confirm that these results are final, and they will be announced shortly following this EGM on Euronext Amsterdam and displayed on your website. As mentioned previously, the Board strongly believes this proposal will help create a simpler, stronger company that is better able to deliver long term value for all our stakeholders. The board and I are fully committed to Unilever's multi stakeholder approach and purpose led future fit strategy. Unilever has been at the forefront of sustainable business for many years and has a strong record of looking after people and planet. In the past few months, Unilever contributed €100,000,000 to help fight COVID-nineteen and protect the lives and livelihoods of its multiple stakeholders.
In August, the Globescan Sustainability Survey recognized Unilever as the number one corporate sustainability leader for the 10th year in a row. We're proud of your achievements, but we know we still have a lot of work to do. Our mission is to deliver value to all our stakeholders socially, environmentally and economically. This is consistent with our vision to be leaders in sustainable business globally. And I would like before we close down to take one follow-up question that came in after Ritva closed the Q and A session.
And Ritva, will you read it to us?
Yes, Nils. And the question is from Mr. Koining in MN Services. And the question reads as follows. Are you fully sure you can stop the unification after the PLC court meeting?
Is it entirely within your influence to stop unification after the court meeting? Back to you, Niels.
Thank you, Alain or thank you, Ritva. And I think we should let Alain answer this question because you already touched upon it in his presentation. So Alan, would you ask it please or answer please?
Sure. Thanks. Look, Mark, as per my previous response, the Board could decide not to proceed with unification any time up to the High Court approval hearing. So long as the as far as the period is concerned between the court hearing and the effective date of unification, we would be subject to the court's discretion, though we would expect the court to listen to any changes requested by the Board in the interests of shareholders. So we can't predict exactly what the court may permit, but we would have the opportunity between the court hearing and the effective date to potentially make any further changes?
Thank you.
Thank you, Alan, and thank you also for this question. I apologize that it was answered a bit late during the session. But want to repeat that we're grateful for all questions And we are open and we invite you to submit further questions in writing to us after the end of this EGM and we will endeavor to answer them to our best of to the best of our knowledge and our abilities. So that concludes our meeting today. I'd like to thank you again for your attendance.
Wish you a good day. Goodbye, everybody. Thank you for joining.