26.11.2012 Views

Report & accounts 2002 in full - Unilever

Report & accounts 2002 in full - Unilever

Report & accounts 2002 in full - Unilever

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

17 Pensions and similar obligations cont<strong>in</strong>ued<br />

<strong>Unilever</strong> Annual <strong>Report</strong> & Accounts and Form 20-F <strong>2002</strong><br />

Notes to the consolidated <strong>accounts</strong> 93<br />

<strong>Unilever</strong> Group<br />

% % % % % %<br />

Other post Other post Other post<br />

Key Key Key retirement retirement retirement<br />

Pension plans Pension plans Pension plans benefit plans benefit plans benefit plans<br />

<strong>2002</strong> 2001 2000 <strong>2002</strong> 2001 2000<br />

Weighted-average assumptions as at<br />

31 December<br />

Discount rate 5.70 6.00 6.25 6.50 7.25 7.50<br />

Expected return on plan assets 6.90 7.75 7.25 n/a n/a n/a<br />

Salary <strong>in</strong>creases 3.60 3.75 3.75 4.30 4.50 4.50<br />

Pension <strong>in</strong>creases 2.20 2.50 2.50 n/a n/a n/a<br />

The valuations of other benefit plans typically assume that medical cost <strong>in</strong>flation will fall from its current level (assumed to be approximately<br />

10% <strong>in</strong> 2003) over the next few years and reach a constant level of 4.9% (2001: 5%; 2000: 5%) with<strong>in</strong> five years.<br />

€ million € million € million € million € million € million<br />

Other post Other post Other post<br />

Key Key Key retirement retirement retirement<br />

Pension plans Pension plans Pension plans benefit plans benefit plans benefit plans<br />

<strong>2002</strong> 2001 2000 <strong>2002</strong> 2001 2000<br />

Components of net periodic benefit cost<br />

Service cost (gross) 324 253 231 20 20 16<br />

Interest cost 864 737 698 78 83 64<br />

Expected return on plan assets (1 189) (1 007) (932) – – –<br />

Expected employee contributions (9) (1) – – – –<br />

Amortisation of prior service cost 33 24 26 – – –<br />

Amortisation of transition (asset) (63) (63) (66) – – –<br />

Amortisation of actuarial loss/(ga<strong>in</strong>) (45) (81) (58) (6) (2) (2)<br />

Total before SFAS 88 events (85) (138) (101) 92 101 78<br />

Adjustments for SFAS 88 events (118) 43 19 (23) (2) (1)<br />

Net periodic benefit cost (203) (95) (82) 69 99 77<br />

The projected benefit obligation, accumulated benefit obligation, and fair value of plan assets for the pension plans with accumulated<br />

benefit obligations <strong>in</strong> excess of plan assets were €11 015 million, €10 188 million, and €7 334 million respectively, as of 31 December<br />

<strong>2002</strong> and €2 171 million, €2 035 million, and €1 308 million respectively, as of 31 December 2001.<br />

The Group also ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s a number of smaller def<strong>in</strong>ed benefit plans. Approximately €1 129 million (2001: €1 685 million) is provided for<br />

on their behalf <strong>in</strong> the Group balance sheet. In <strong>2002</strong>, €158 million (2001: €202 million; 2000: €151 million) was charged <strong>in</strong> the <strong>accounts</strong>.<br />

These amounts would not have been materially different under SFAS 87.<br />

In addition to the special term<strong>in</strong>ation benefits <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the table above, dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>2002</strong>, the Group also charged €96 million<br />

(2001: €49 million; 2000: €56 million) <strong>in</strong> respect of pension or similar obligations aris<strong>in</strong>g on term<strong>in</strong>ations of employment.<br />

Expected return on plan assets<br />

Beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g 1 January <strong>2002</strong> the Group changed its method for determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the expected return on plan assets under US GAAP by chang<strong>in</strong>g<br />

the value placed on the plan assets. The value now used is the fair value at the balance sheet date <strong>in</strong>stead of a market related value<br />

calculated by smooth<strong>in</strong>g asset ga<strong>in</strong>s and losses over a five year period. Management believe that us<strong>in</strong>g the actual fair value at the balance<br />

sheet date provides a better representation of the f<strong>in</strong>ancial position of the Group. The impact of this change <strong>in</strong> methodology on reported<br />

results is given on pages 114 and 121.<br />

Post-retirement health care benefits<br />

Assumed health care cost trend rates have a significant effect on the amounts reported for the health care plans. A one-percentage-po<strong>in</strong>t<br />

change <strong>in</strong> assumed health care cost trend rates would have the follow<strong>in</strong>g effects:<br />

€ million € million<br />

1% po<strong>in</strong>t 1% po<strong>in</strong>t<br />

<strong>in</strong>crease decrease<br />

Effect on total of service and <strong>in</strong>terest cost components 7 (6)<br />

Effect on post-retirement benefit obligations 68 (62)<br />

F<strong>in</strong>ancial Statements

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!