Erosion risks

• Brand damage from safety and quality incidents or recalls
• Fast-changing beauty trends (indie and niche brands, social-driven discovery)
• Premiumization and private label improving perceived quality

Leading indicators

• Category market share in hair and personal care
• Organic sales growth vs category growth
• Pricing vs volume and mix balance (elasticity)

Counterarguments

• Switching costs are low in many beauty categories; consumers can trial competitors easily
• Online channels lower barriers for new brands and accelerate share shifts

Erosion risks

• Retail consolidation increases buyer power and margin pressure
• E-commerce and search-driven shopping reduces shelf-space advantage
• Hard discounters and private label expansion

Leading indicators

• Customer concentration (top customer percent of sales)
• Shelf-space allocation and share of display (where measurable)
• E-commerce share of category sales

Counterarguments

• Retailers can reallocate shelf space quickly if competitors fund promotions or offer better terms
• Large retailers may use private label to pressure branded suppliers

Erosion risks

• Commodity and input inflation outpaces achievable pricing
• Supply chain disruptions (single-site or sole supplier dependencies)
• Competitors match scale in certain regions and categories

Leading indicators

• Gross margin trend and productivity savings
• On-shelf availability and service levels
• Commodity exposure vs hedging and pass-through speed

Counterarguments

• Scale benefits can be competed away as rivals also optimize sourcing and manufacturing
• Retailers may capture much of the cost advantage via tougher trade terms

Erosion risks

• Shift toward electric grooming and longer replacement cycles for blades
• Low-cost disposable razors and private label alternatives
• DTC subscription and online price transparency compressing premium

Leading indicators

• Blade refill volume vs handle sales mix
• Online and DTC penetration in shaving
• Price premium vs value competitors

Counterarguments

• Switching costs are limited; consumers can buy a competitor handle cheaply
• Subscription and store-brand refills can reduce refill loyalty over time

Erosion risks

• Brand relevance erosion (perceived innovation slowdown)
• Reputation shocks amplified by social media

Leading indicators

• Share in blades and razors and grooming
• Net price realization vs volume trend
• Repeat purchase rates and loyalty metrics (where available)

Counterarguments

• Competitors can match functional performance; promotions can drive switching
• E-commerce makes comparison shopping easier and weakens premium brand advantage

Erosion risks

• Efficacy parity claims and commoditization in oral care
• Regulatory and ingredient scrutiny impacting product perception
• Private label and value brand expansion in mass retail

Leading indicators

• Oral care category share (Crest and Oral-B)
• Price and mix vs volume (elasticity)
• Regulatory actions or recalls

Counterarguments

• Consumers can switch toothpaste and toothbrush brands with minimal friction
• Competitors (for example, Colgate) have similarly strong brands and distribution

Erosion risks

• Retail and pharmacy consolidation and trade-term pressure
• Online channels increasing competitive entry and price transparency

Leading indicators

• Trade spend as percent of sales
• Share of shelf and planogram wins
• Channel shift to online and subscription

Counterarguments

• Retailers can promote store brands and reduce branded shelf space
• Digital-first brands can reach consumers without traditional retail gatekeepers

Erosion risks

• Private label quality improvements in laundry and home care
• Environmental concerns (plastics and ingredients) affecting brand perception
• Promotional wars reducing perceived differentiation

Leading indicators

• Laundry and home care market share (regional)
• Price vs volume trends by quarter
• Customer satisfaction and repeat purchase

Counterarguments

• Category outcomes are testable; if performance parity emerges, price becomes decisive
• Competitors with similar scale (Unilever, Henkel) can match marketing and distribution

Erosion risks

• Energy, transport, and commodity shocks causing margin compression
• Supply chain disruptions and sole-site dependencies
• Regional competitors with local cost advantages

Leading indicators

• Gross margin and productivity savings
• Freight and commodity indices vs pricing realization lag
• Service levels (fill rates)

Counterarguments

• Scale does not guarantee low cost if input inflation is broad and persistent
• Retailers can force some cost savings to be passed through via trade terms

Erosion risks

• Retailer concentration and bargaining power
• Hard discounters shifting mix toward private label

Leading indicators

• Top customer concentration
• Shelf-space allocation changes
• E-commerce penetration in household essentials

Counterarguments

• Retailers can shift space to private label quickly in value-focused periods
• Direct-to-consumer distribution can bypass traditional advantages

Erosion risks

• Value trade-down to private label in diapers and tissue
• Ingredient and material concerns and reputational events
• Demographic headwinds (lower birth rates in some regions)

Leading indicators

• Diapers and feminine care share (regional)
• Churn and retention in loyalty programs (where present)
• Price gaps vs private label

Counterarguments

• Parents can switch diaper brands quickly if price and value changes
• Strong competitors (Kimberly-Clark, Unicharm) have comparable distribution and innovation

Erosion risks

• Retailer consolidation and trade-term pressure
• Club and value channels increasing private label penetration

Leading indicators

• Top customer percent of sales
• Shelf-space and in-stock rates
• Trade spend intensity

Counterarguments

• Retailers can force margin give-backs and delist SKUs
• E-commerce reduces reliance on physical shelf space

Erosion risks

• Pulp and resin inflation and supply tightness
• Competitors cost reductions and automation narrowing unit-cost gaps

Leading indicators

• Input cost indices (pulp and resin) vs realized pricing
• Gross margin in Baby, Feminine, Family Care
• Manufacturing productivity savings

Counterarguments

• In value-focused periods, private label can be good enough and win on price
• Scale does not prevent share loss if innovation or marketing underperforms